Subject: H4A News Clips 7.20.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:15:19 -0400
List-Id: <HRCRapid.hillaryclinton.com>

*H4A News Clips*

*July 20, 2015*

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

Hillary Clinton's fair growth gambit // LA Times // Doyle McManus – July
19, 2015.................. 5

Hillary Clinton Draws Scrappy Determination From a Tough, Combative Father
// NYT // Amy Chozick – July 19,
2015.................................................................................................................................
6

Hillary Clinton Lambastes Republicans in Arkansas Homecoming // NYT // Amy
Chozick – July 19, 2015 11

*HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE............................................................................
**12*

Hillary Clinton's political director brings key lessons from her own
(losing) campaign // WaPo // Evan Halper – July 19,
2015......................................................................................................................
12

Clinton to Push Revamp of Capital-Gains Tax Rates // WSJ // Laura Meckler
and John D. McKinnon – July 20,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
15

GOP Peddles Hard the 'Hillary Can't Be Trusted' Line // HuffPo // Earl
Ofari Hutchinson – July 19, 2015 18

Same-Sex Couple Featured In Hillary Clinton Video Get Married // CBS //
Dana Kozlov – July 19, 2015     19

Ghost of Hillary Clinton Haunts Liberal Convention // TIME // Sam Frizell –
July 19, 2015...... 20

Jeb and Hillary: Flawed front-runners generating little excitement // Fox
News // Howard Kurtz - July 20,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
22

6 Facts About Hillary Clinton & Her Dad That Totally Gave Us
#FatherDaughterGoals // Bustle // Tonya Riley – July 19,
2015......................................................................................................................
24

Clinton insider faced IG probe for informal diplomacy // Washington
Examiner // Sarah Westwood – July 19,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
25

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE................................................. **26*

*DECLARED..................................................................................................
**27*

*O’MALLEY...............................................................................................
**27*

O'Malley sorry for saying 'all lives matter' // CNN // Chris Moody – July
19, 2015.................... 27

Martin O’Malley’s Presidential Strategy: Try, Try, Try Again // Buzzfeed //
Ruby Cramer – July 19, 2015   27

*SANDERS................................................................................................
**30*

Liberal activists see Bernie Sanders as champion for causes failed by Obama
// WaPo // David Weigel - July 20,
2015...............................................................................................................................
30

Bernie Sanders’ newest fan? Jesse Ventura. // WaPo // Hunter Schwarz – July
19, 2015.......... 32

How the NRA helped put Bernie Sanders in Congress // WaPo // David A.
Fahrenthold – July 19, 2015     33

Sanders campaign claims highest turnout yet for Netroots Nation speech
//Politico // Daniel Strauss – July 19,
2015....................................................................................................................................
38

Bernie Sanders Continues to Draw the Biggest Crowds of Any 2016 Candidate
// Bloomberg // Ali Elkin – July 19,
2015................................................................................................................................
39

Can Bernie Sanders win black voters? // CNN // Nia-Malika Henderson and
Chris Moody – July 19, 2015  39

#BlackTwitter Turns On Bernie Sanders // The Daily Beast // Asawin
Suebsaeng – July 19, 2015 44

Bernie Sanders draws largest crowds yet in Phoenix // MSNBC // Nisha
Chittal – Jully 19, 2015 45

Sanders vaults from fringe to the heart of the fray // Boston Globe //
Annie Linskey – July 19, 2015             47

Bernie Sanders voices concerns about police brutality in Dallas campaign
stop // Trailblazers Blog // Ryan J. Rusak – July 19,
2015............................................................................................................
51

‘Police must be held accountable': Bernie Sanders rips bad cops who attack
young black men // RawStory // Tom Boggioni – July 19,
2015................................................................................................
52

Twitter users debate Bernie Sanders’ civil rights credibility with
#BernieSoBlack hashtag // RawStory // David Ferguson – July 19,
2015.......................................................................................................
52

*UNDECLARED............................................................................................
**53*

*BIDEN......................................................................................................
**53*

Report: Joe Biden may still enter 2016 presidential race // MSNBC // Adam
Howard – July 19, 2015          53

*OTHER....................................................................................................
**54*

How Clinton, Sanders, O’Malley answer union’s questions about education //
WaPo // Valerie Strauss – July 19,
2015................................................................................................................................
54

What the First Democratic Cattle Call Reveals About the State of the
Presidential Race // Bloomberg // Arit John – July 19,
2015..............................................................................................................
91

Democrats lose control of presidential event // CNN // Chris Moody – July
19, 2015................ 94

O'Malley, Sanders heckled by protestors during presidential forum // USA
Today // Dan Nowicki – July 19,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
96

Hall Of Fame Wrap Up: Who Stood Out, Who Missed Out // Iowa Starting Line
// Pay Rynard and Angela Ufheil – July 19,
2015...........................................................................................................
98

*GOP...............................................................................................................
**106*

*DECLARED................................................................................................
**106*

*BUSH.....................................................................................................
**106*

Poll: Bush has edge over Rubio among Miami Cuban voters // Politico // Marc
Caputo – July 19, 2015        106

How Jeb Tackled the Cocaine Cartels // The Daily Beast // Betsy Woodruff
and Alexa Corse – July 19,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
108

Jeb Bush Wants to Share // Real Clear Politics // Debra Saunders – July 19,
2015.................. 112

Jeb Bush consultant critiques Republican digital culture // Yahoo News //
Jon Ward – July 19, 2015         113

Ralston Reports: Jeb Bush pandering to nativist wing // Reno
Gazette-Journal // Jon Ralston – July 19,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
115

Leaner, meaner: Jeb Bush starts his climb // Washington Times // Jennifer
Harper – July 19, 2015            117

*RUBIO....................................................................................................
**118*

Marco Rubio: Trump insulted McCain and 'all POWs' // Politico // Kevin
Robillard – July 19, 2015              118

Rubio: Trump's McCain attack a 'disqualifier' // CNN // Eric Bradner – July
19, 2015............. 120

Marco Rubio says Iran deal breaks 'anytime, anywhere' inspection promise by
Barack Obama // PolitiFact // Louis Jacobson – July 19,
2015.............................................................................................
121

Rubio: Clinton’s Uber Criticisms Show Someone ‘Trapped In The Past’ // Free
Beacon // Andrew Kugle – July 19,
2015..............................................................................................................................
125

*PAUL......................................................................................................
**125*

*CRUZ......................................................................................................
**126*

Ted Cruz drops off D.C. bestseller list // WaPo // Ron Charles – July 19,
2015........................ 126

Ted Cruz Looks for His Iowa Moment // Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – July 19,
2015................. 126

*CHRISTIE..............................................................................................
**128*

'I Wouldn't Let This Guy Buy a Car For Me': Chris Christie Slams Obama on
Iran Deal // Vice // Gillian Mohney – July 19,
2015....................................................................................................................
129

Chris Christie tries to trump Donald on immigration // NJ // Paul Mulshine
– July 19, 2015... 130

*PERRY...................................................................................................
**132*

Rick Perry: Boy Scouts 'better off' without gay leaders // CNN // Eric
Bradner – July 19, 2015. 132

Rick Perry Slams GOP Rival: 'We're Seeing the Real Donald Trump Now' // NBC
// Dan Cooney – July 19,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
133

Perry Still Opposes Gay Scout Leaders, While Walker Backtracks // TIME //
Justin Worland – July 19,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
134

*GRAHAM...............................................................................................
**134*

Lindsey Graham Defends John McCain: 'Being Captured Doesn't Mean You're A
Loser' // HuffPo // Samantha-Jo Roth – July 19,
2015........................................................................................................
134

*CARSON.................................................................................................
**135*

Ben Carson: Walking away from paid speaking commitments would be
'unethical' // Washington Examiner // Ryan Lovelace – July 19,
2015..............................................................................................
135

*FIORINA................................................................................................
**136*

Carly Fiorina on the bubble // Politico // Eli Stokols – July 19,
2015...................................... 136

Reynolds: Carly Fiorina, the other woman // USA Today // Glenn Harlan
Reynolds – July 19, 2015              138

*JINDAL..................................................................................................
**140*

Bobby Jindal calls for federal religious freedom order, draws big applause
lines at Family Leadership Summit // NOLA // Kevin Litten – July 19,
2015...............................................................................
140

*TRUMP...................................................................................................
**142*

Trump Refuses to Apologize for Comments on McCain’s Service // NYT //
Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin – July 19,
2015.........................................................................................................
142

Bombast Trumps Organization for One Republican Candidate // NYT //Maggie
Haberman and Michael Barbaro – July 19,
2015.......................................................................................................
144

Donald Trump didn’t apologize to John McCain. Because, of course not. //
WaPo // Chris Cillizza – July 19,
2015...................................................................................................................................
147

Trump’s attack on McCain marks a turning point for him — and the GOP //
WaPo // Dan Balz – July 19,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
148

How to handle a bully like Trump // WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – July 19,
2015......................... 151

Donald Trump Not Sorry for Comments, Not Dropping Out // WSJ // Louise
Radnofsky and Sarah Portlock – July 19,
2015.......................................................................................................................
153

Trump Refuses to Back Down on McCain Criticism // WSJ // Reid J. Epstein –
July 19, 2015.. 154

What Donald Trump Has Said — About McCain, Obama, Immigrants, His Hair //
WSJ – July 19, 2015      156

Trump and His Apologists // WSJ – July 19,
2015................................................................. 157

Donald Trump: No apology to McCain, vows to stay the course // Politico //
Kevin Robillard – July 19,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
159

Donald Trump evades specifics on his draft deferment // Politico // David
Rogers – July 19, 2015                160

Donald Trump Digs in as More Pile On // Bloomberg // Ari Elkin – July 19,
2015................... 162

Trump Awakens Kerry’s Vietnam Anger With Slam On McCain // The Daily Beast
// Mike Barnicle – July 19,
2015...................................................................................................................................
164

Trump offers no apologizes for McCain war record attack // MSNBC // Adam
Howard – July 19, 2015          165

Donald Trump Says He Does Not Owe John McCain Apology // ABC // Benjamin
Bell and Emily Shapiro – July 19,
2015.......................................................................................................................
167

John Kerry, who knows something about having his war record attacked,
savages Donald Trump // Business Insider // Brett Logiurato – July 19,
2015.............................................................................
168

Trump: I don't need to be lectured // USA Today // Donald Trump – July 19,
2015................ 169

Donald Trump Says He Doesn’t Owe John McCain An Apology // TIME // Justin
Worland – July 19,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
171

John McCain slam seen as new low for Donald Trump // Boston Herald //
Lindsay Kalter – July 19, 2015 171

Has America gone nuts? Could Republican frontrunner Donald Trump really
become president? // The Guardian // Tom McCarthy – July 19,
2015...........................................................................
172

Beat Trump, don't ban him from the debates // Washington Examiner // W.
James Antle III – July 19,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
176

*WALKER................................................................................................
**177*

Scott Walker on whether being gay is a choice: ‘I don’t know the answer to
that question’ // WaPo // Jenna Johnson – July 19,
2015.......................................................................................................
177

Scott Walker tells undocumented worker that immigrants must follow the law
// WaPo // Jenna Johnson – July 19,
2015.......................................................................................................................
178

Scott Walker Goes All In on Iowa // WSJ // Reid J. Epstein – July 19,
2015............................ 181

Scott Walker on the Boy Scouts' Ban on Gay Leaders // AP – July 19,
2015............................. 182

Scott Walker in Iowa: Relentlessly on message // Politico // Katie Glueck –
July 19, 2015....... 183

Scott Walker: 'I don't know' if being gay a choice // CNN // Dana Bash –
July 19, 2015........... 184

Walker talks everything but Trump // Boston Herald // Chris Villani – July
19, 2015............. 186

Republican Scott Walker brushes up on U.S. foreign policy // Reuters //
Steve Holland – July 19, 2015      187

Scott Walker calls for more militaristic America: US needs to ‘put steel in
the face of our enemies’ // Reuters – July 19,
2015.......................................................................................................................
190

Scott Walker Steers Clear Of Nuance On Foreign Policy // Reuters // Steve
Holland – July 19, 2015             192

Walker says he supported path to citizenship, but not amnesty // Washington
Examiner // Philip Klein – July 19,
2015..............................................................................................................................
194

*UNDECLARED...........................................................................................
**195*

*KASICH..................................................................................................
**195*

John Kasich Group's Video All But Declares Him a 2016 Presidential
Candidate // Bloomberg // Steven Yaccino – July 19,
2015........................................................................................................
195

How John Kasich could win in 2016 // Cincinnati Enquirer // Chrissie
Thompson – July 19, 2015 196

Kasich prepared for long run in presidential bid // Columbus Dispatch //
Darrel Rowland and Jessica Wehrman – July 19,
2015....................................................................................................
200

*OTHER..................................................................................................
**203*

Walker, Kasich and the GOP’s Midwest bracket // WaPo // E. J. Dionne Jr. –
July 19, 2015.... 204

GOP field chases Iowa evangelicals // Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July
19, 2015................ 205

GOP Candidates' Rosy 4 Percent Growth Goal // RealClearPolitics // Rebecca
Berg - July 20, 2015               208

*OTHER 2016
NEWS........................................................................................
**211*

Some surprising winners and losers in the 2016 fundraising race // WaPo //
Chris Cillizza – July 19, 2015 211

The Iowa Crisis the Candidates Aren’t Talking About // Politico // Clay
Masters – July 19, 2015 213

'Too big to fail' a flashpoint in 2016 race // The Hill // Kevin Cirilli –
July 19, 2015.................. 216

The Snapchat Elections Begin With Bernie, Hillary and Jeb // Recode // Mark
Bergen – July 19, 2015       217

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS....................................................................
**217*

What US leaders have never understood about Iran // NY Post // Amir Taheri
–July 19, 2015 218

Deal with the devil // The News-Gazette – July 19,
2015....................................................... 221

*TOP
NEWS.....................................................................................................
**223*

*DOMESTIC................................................................................................
**223*

For G.O.P., Pope Francis’s Visit to Congress Comes With Tensions // NYT //
Jennifer Steinhauer – July 19,
2015...................................................................................................................................
223

Inflation’s Steady Tick Poses Headaches in Congress // WSJ // Josh Zumbrun
– July 19, 2015 226

Same-Sex Couple Featured In Hillary Clinton Video Get Married // CBS
Chicago // Dana Kozlov – July 19,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
228

*INTERNATIONAL.....................................................................................
**229*

U.N. Vote on Iran Nuclear Deal Irks Congress // NYT // Michael R. Gordon
and David E. Sanger – July 19,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
229

War Crimes and Rwandan Realities // NYT // Stephen W. Smith – July 19,
2015.................... 231

U.S. Seeks to Allay Concerns of Allies on Iran Nuclear Deal // WSJ // Carol
E. Lee and Gordon Lubold – July 19,
2015..............................................................................................................................
233

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES*

*Hillary Clinton's fair growth gambit
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0719-mcmanus-hillary-clinton-economics-20150719-column.html>
// LA Times // Doyle McManus – July 19, 2015*

For most of a generation, Democrats have divided into two broad camps on
economic policy. There are "growth Democrats," who argue that a rising tide
will lift all boats; that was the reigning view during the Bill Clinton
administration under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence H.
Summers. And there are "fairness Democrats," who argue that the central
problem is inequality. That's the view of the party's progressive wing, led
today by Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sen. Bernie Sanders of
Vermont.

As she began spelling out her views for the 2016 presidential campaign,
Hillary Rodham Clinton faced a choice: Which Democrat was she going to be?

Her answer: She wants to be both. "I believe we have to build a growth and
fairness economy," she said last week. "You can't have one without the
other."

Politically, that put Clinton exactly where she wants to be: to the left of
her husband's long-ago administration, which progressives think was too
solicitous toward Wall Street, but to the right of Sanders, who's running
as the scourge of the billionaire class.

So her economic policy speech included a dose of the pro-worker Hillary,
calling for stronger union bargaining power and demanding equal pay for
equal work, but also the pro-business Hillary, extolling entrepreneurs and
promising to be "the small-business president."

There was recycled Obama administration policy too: a higher minimum wage,
an infrastructure bank, investment in education and renewable energy. In
economic policy a Hillary Clinton presidency would look more like a third
Obama term than a third Bill Clinton term.

But she offered some intriguing new elements as well — policies that could
not only help her bridge the gaps between her party's wings but also make
her pitch more than just a warmed-over version of the last eight years.

She promised proposals to promote long-term investment by businesses
instead of a chase for quarterly results — a problem she called
"short-termism." (It may be the first time any presidential candidate has
ever used that word.)

"Too many pressures in our economy push us toward short-termism," Clinton
said. "Everything is focused on the next earnings report or the short-term
share price, and the result is too little attention to the sources of
long-term growth: research and development, physical capital and talent."

She promised proposals for "making sure stock buybacks aren't used only for
an immediate boost in share prices," a practice economists fear is soaking
up funds that might go to more productive investments. And she said she
wants to make sure stock markets "work for everyday investors, not just
high-frequency traders."

Clinton hasn't spelled out any details yet. But it sounded as though she
may propose changing Securities and Exchange Commission rules to make it
harder for companies to buy back their own stock, an idea Warren and other
progressives have championed.

Aides said Clinton also plans to propose changes in the tax treatment of
capital gains — income from investments — to reward long-term investors.
Laurence Fink, chairman of the investment firm BlackRock, has proposed
lengthening the holding period for long-term capital gains (which benefit
from a low tax rate) from one year to three years, and perhaps making all
gains tax-free after 10 years.

"U.S. tax policy, as it stands, incentivizes short-term behavior," Fink
wrote. "Tax reform that promotes long-term investment will benefit both the
companies who rely on capital markets and the hundreds of millions of
people saving for retirement."

Finally, Clinton called for a broader shift in the way American businesses
behave. "We need to get businesses back looking after their employees and
their customers and their communities and our country, not just their
executives and their shareholders," she said in New Hampshire on Thursday.

In effect, she was arguing for abandoning a principle many U.S. firms have
followed since the 1970s: the idea that the sole duty of a corporation is
to maximize shareholder value.

"There's increasing debate in the business community over a fundamental
question: What's the purpose of a corporation?" Judith Samuelson, director
of the Aspen Institute's Business and Society Program, told me. "We've been
in thrall to a very simplistic idea — that the purpose is to maximize
shareholder value. But that's not the only purpose, and it doesn't need to
be."

Some of these ideas, intriguingly, appeal not only to Democratic business
leaders but to some Republicans. too. Conservative writer James Pethokoukis
of the American Enterprise Institute warned: "Arguing against short-termism
should be a natural fit for Republicans…. Hillary Clinton just stole a
potentially powerful theme right from under them."

The details will be important, of course. But Clinton has managed not only
to find a sensible starting point in the middle of the Democratic Party;
she's introduced some useful new ideas to the campaign and launched a
debate that will force rivals in both parties to respond.

*Hillary Clinton Draws Scrappy Determination From a Tough, Combative Father
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-draws-scrappy-determination-from-a-tough-combative-father.html?_r=0>
// NYT // Amy Chozick – July 19, 2015*

As a little girl, if Hillary Rodham forgot to screw the cap back on the
toothpaste, her father would toss the tube out the bathroom window. She’d
scurry around in the snow-covered evergreen bushes outside their suburban
Chicago home to find it and return inside to brush her teeth, reminded,
once again, of one of Hugh E. Rodham’s many rules.

When she lagged behind in Miss Metzger’s fourth-grade math class, Mr.
Rodham would wake his daughter at dawn to grill her on multiplication
tables. When she brought home an A, he would sneer: “You must go to a
pretty easy school.”

Mrs. Clinton has made the struggles of her mother, Dorothy Rodham, a
central part of her 2016 campaign’s message, and has repeatedly described
Mrs. Rodham’s life story to crowds around the country. But her father, whom
Mrs. Clinton rarely talks about publicly, exerted an equally powerful, if
sometimes bruising, influence on the woman who wants to become the first
female president.

The brusque son of an English immigrant and a coal miner’s daughter in
Scranton, Pa., Mr. Rodham, for most of his life, harbored prejudices
against blacks, Catholics and anyone else not like him. He hurled biting
sarcasm at his wife and only daughter and spanked, at times excessively,
his three children to keep them in line, according to interviews with
friends and a review of documents, Mrs. Clinton’s writings and former
President Bill Clinton’s memoir.

“By all accounts he was kind of a tough customer,” said Lissa Muscatine, a
longtime friend and adviser to Mrs. Clinton. “Hard working, believed in no
free rides, believed you had to earn what you’re going to get, believed his
kids could always do better.”

Presidential candidates often turn to hard-knocks family stories to help
them connect to voters, but for years, Mrs. Clinton refrained from sharing
a detailed portrait of her childhood. In her 2016 campaign, she has shown
an increased willingness to talk about her mother, a warm and devoted
parent who had been abandoned by her own parents and who worked as a
housekeeper as a teenager before she met and married Mr. Rodham.

But Mrs. Clinton refers in only oblique ways to her father.

At a house party in Iowa this month, a supporter gave Mrs. Clinton garlic
pills to help her fend off illness on the campaign trail. The unexpected
gift brought about an olfactory, and impromptu, memory. “My late father was
a huge believer in garlic,” and not the odorless kind, Mrs. Clinton said.
“I couldn’t believe it when I saw him eating a garlic and peanut butter and
jelly sandwich.”

Even her Father’s Day message this year, posted on Twitter, was,
essentially, an ode to her mother.

“I wish she could have seen the America we are going to build together,”
she wrote of Mrs. Rodham, who died in 2011. “An America,” Mrs. Clinton
continued, “where a father can tell his daughter: Yes, you can be anything
you want to be. Even President of the United States.”

It is unclear what Mr. Rodham, an ardent conservative, would have thought
about his only daughter’s trying (again) to capture the Democratic
nomination.

He died of a stroke at age 82 in 1993, not long after he watched his
daughter hold the Bible as his son-in-law was sworn into office, but long
before she began her own political career.

When Mr. Clinton eulogized Mr. Rodham, he described him as “tough and
gruff” and said he “thought Democrats were one step short of Communism —
but that I might be O.K.”

If Mrs. Rodham, a homemaker who never attended college but who raised her
daughter to be confident and caring, is forming the emotional core of Mrs.
Clinton’s 2016 campaign, invoked as the inspiration behind her decades of
public service, then Mrs. Clinton’s father quietly represents the
candidate’s combative, determined and scrappy side. The inspiration,
friends said, that toughened his daughter up to not just withstand but
embrace yet another political battle.

“He was such a force in the family, and there’s a lot of him in Hillary,”
said Lisa Caputo, a friend and former White House press aide who knew Mr.
Rodham. “The discipline, the tenacity, the work ethic, a lot of that’s from
him.”

When Mrs. Clinton does invoke her father on the campaign trail, she talks
about him as a small-business owner who “just believed that you had to work
hard to make your way and do whatever you had to do to be successful and
provided a good living for our family.” (Mr. Rodham shut his drapery
business in 1965.)

Or, Mrs. Clinton reminds people that her father was a Republican, an aside
to show she can work with the other side. She did highlight her father’s
geographic roots in her 2008 campaign, when she tried to win white
working-class voters in the Democratic primaries against Barack Obama. Mr.
Rodham was born to strict Methodists in working-class eastern Pennsylvania.

His father, Hugh Simpson Rodham, toiled in a Scranton lace mill, and his
mother, Hannah Jones Rodham, came from a long line of coal miners. When she
was a girl, Hillary and her two brothers spent summers at a cabin in the
Pocono Mountains that had no indoor bath.

Mrs. Clinton tries to visit her father’s grave, in the Rodham plot at the
Washburn Street Cemetery in Scranton, when she passes through. She will
return to Scranton on July 29 to raise money, her first trip back since she
began her 2016 campaign.

“My grandfather, like so many of his generation, came to this country as a
young child, as an immigrant, went to work at age 11 in the lace mills in
Scranton,” she says. “So when my dad was born in Scranton, he was born with
that American dream.”

But unlike her mother’s struggles, the darker parts of her father’s
biography rarely come up when Mrs. Clinton speaks.

Depression ran in the family. Mrs. Clinton’s father found his brother
Russell hanging but alive in the attic of his parents’ home and had to cut
him down. Russell came to live with the Rodhams in their one-bedroom
Lincoln Park apartment in Chicago. (In 1950, when Hillary was a toddler,
the family moved to a two-story brick house in the affluent suburb of Park
Ridge, Ill. Russell rented an apartment nearby, but he died in 1962 when he
left a cigarette burning, setting his home afire.)

Mr. Rodham, who was 230 pounds and 6-foot-2, with thick black hair and
furrowed eyebrows, had played football at Pennsylvania State University and
worked as a fitness instructor in the Navy during World War II.

He would hurl criticism at his wife around the kitchen table at 235 Wisner
Street. When she encouraged Hillary to learn for learning’s sake, Mr.
Rodham, who drove a Cadillac, would quip: “Learn for earning’s sake.” If
his children asked for an allowance for their many household chores, he
would reply bluntly: “I feed you, don’t I?”

The family was isolated from its neighbors because of Mr. Rodham’s sour,
demeaning nature and his misanthropic tendencies, said Carl Bernstein, who
wrote a 2007 biography of Hillary Clinton, “A Woman in Charge.”

“It was anything but ‘Father Knows Best,’” Mr. Bernstein said in an
interview.

Mrs. Rodham was on blood thinners and unable to travel to see her daughter
deliver the 1969 commencement speech at Wellesley. Hillary was devastated
that her mother could not make it. Mr. Rodham attended instead.

Her relationship with her father had deteriorated as she drifted away from
the party of Barry Goldwater and got swept up in the liberalism of the late
1960s. “In typical Hugh Rodham fashion, he flew to Boston late the night
before, stayed out by the airport, took the MTA to campus, attended
graduation” and, after lunch with some of Hillary’s classmates, went right
back to Chicago, Mrs. Clinton wrote in her 2003 memoir, “Living History.”

But their relationship was not without warmth.

Mrs. Clinton and her father shared the same distinct laugh, a “big, rolling
guffaw that can turn heads in a restaurant and send cats running from the
room,” as she described it in “Living History.” They played heated games of
pinochle (though Mr. Rodham was known to flip the table if he lost).

Mr. Rodham taught his only daughter that she could play sports and do
anything the boys did. When she was racked with self-doubt at Wellesley and
Yale, her father wrote her tough but tender letters telling her to buck up.
“Even when he erupted at me, he admired my independence and
accomplishments,” she later wrote.

At his daughter’s wedding in 1975, Mr. Rodham was hesitant to give the
bride away to Mr. Clinton, a penniless Southern Baptist Democrat. “You can
step back now, Mr. Rodham,” the minister finally said.

In 1987, after Mr. Rodham had quadruple-bypass surgery, he and Dorothy
moved to Little Rock, Ark., to be closer to their daughter and
granddaughter, Chelsea. Mrs. Clinton arranged for them to live in a
condominium in the city’s leafy Hillcrest district. Chelsea Clinton called
her grandfather Pop Pop. The Rodhams attended her softball games, cheering
her on and taking her and her friends out for frozen yogurt afterward.

“Her father at that point was beginning to decline, so I think it was to be
close to family, and obviously Hillary was close to her family, especially
to her mom,” said Skip Rutherford, a longtime friend in Little Rock.

After President Clinton’s 1993 inauguration, when friends and family
toasted the Clintons’ arrival in Washington at a party, Mr. Rodham was
spotted stewing in a corner and nursing a drink. “My daughter is a real
special girl,” he told a friend from Scranton, Manny Gelb, who relayed the
story to The Associated Press.

When her father had a stroke in 1993, Mrs. Clinton, who was having
difficulty adjusting to life in the White House, was deeply shaken.

After his life-support machines had been removed and Mr. Rodham lay in a
coma at St. Vincent Infirmary in Little Rock, a scrum of news cameras and
reporters waiting outside for any updates, Mrs. Clinton traveled to Austin,
Tex., to deliver a speech she felt obligated to give.

It became one of the more unusual addresses ever delivered by a first lady.
Ms. Caputo, who accompanied Mrs. Clinton on the trip, described the
stream-of-consciousness speech — about the meaning of life, death and the
need to remake civil society, delivered without a script — as “cathartic.”

“When does life start? When does life end? Who makes those decisions? How
do we dare to impinge upon these areas of such delicate, difficult
questions?” Mrs. Clinton asked the crowd.

She never mentioned her father, but quoted Lee Atwater, the Republican
strategist who wrote that America was suffering from a “spiritual vacuum,”
caught up in its “ruthless ambitions and moral decay,” before he died of
cancer at age 40 in 1991.

“You can acquire all you want and still feel empty,” Mrs. Clinton said.
“What power wouldn’t I trade for a little more time with my family?”

Hugh Rodham died the next day.

*Hillary Clinton Lambastes Republicans in Arkansas Homecoming
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/19/hillary-clinton-lambastes-republicans-in-arkansas-homecoming/?ribbon-ad-idx=2&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article>
// NYT // Amy Chozick – July 19, 2015*

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A Democrat is not likely to win this state in the 2016
presidential election, not even one with the last name Clinton.

But on Saturday, Hillary Rodham Clinton returned to Arkansas where she and
her husband began their political ascent, delivering a fiery critique of
Republican policies and a pep talk of sorts for Democrats who suffered
dramatic losses in the midterm elections.

Mrs. Clinton lambasted Republicans as “the party of the past” and tried to
portray the extreme comments of one candidate, the businessman and reality
TV star, Donald Trump, as representative of the entire party.

“There’s nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and their
families,” Mrs. Clinton said of Mr. Trump who addressed Arkansas
Republicans in Hot Springs, Ark. on Friday. But, she added, of the other
Republican candidates, “The sad truth is if you look at many of their
policies, it can be hard to tell the difference.”

Mrs. Clinton denounced comments made by Mr. Trump (who she referred to as
the “Republican frontrunner”) about Senator John McCain’s war record and
she said it was “shameful” how long it has taken other Republican
candidates “to start standing up to him.”

(The night before, Mr. Trump, speaking at an Arkansas Republican Party
convention said the Clintons had “deserted” the state.)

The visit to Arkansas whose six electoral votes will not likely up for
grabs in 2016 was brief; Mrs. Clinton flew in from Iowa in the early
afternoon and departed back to New York that night. But it was nevertheless
a homecoming of sorts.

It was Mrs. Clinton first visit back to the place where Bill Clinton served
as governor and she as first lady, since she made her 2016 campaign
official. Earlier in the afternoon, Mrs. Clinton had stopped by the red
brick home where she and Mr. Clinton lived and the apartment the Clintons
stay at on the top floor of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center
here. Before the Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner, which drew
around 2,500 people paying as much as $200 a plate for a buffet dinner,
Mrs. Clinton greeted donors and old friends at a backstage reception.

Her visit comes in the midst of an existential crisis for Arkansas
Democrats. The place that bred such centrist “yellow dog Democrats” as Mr.
Clinton, and former governors Dale Bumpers, David Pryor and Mark Beebe,
turned deep red in the midterm elections. The audience was sprinkled with
prominent Democrats who lost their midterm races, including former Rep.
Mike Ross who got his start as Mr. Clinton’s driver and who lost his race
for governor to Republican Asa Hutchinson.

For many Arkansans, no matter how many times Mrs. Clinton visits, the
prospects of a Democrat winning the state in 2016 seemed slim, but having
her name on the ticket could help lift down-ballot Democrats in local
races. “There’s no doubt she helps to energize the Arkansas Democratic
base,” said Will Bond, a former chairman of the state’s Democratic Party
who is running for state senate.

Mr. Beebe, the popular Democratic governor who left office last year due to
term limits, called the 2014 midterm elections “a huge sea change” and said
Mrs. Clinton’s speech “revitalizes a lot of folks.”

Despite the turn away from Democratic candidates in Arkansas, voters here
have embraced some of the party’s policies including a minimum wage
increase and a private-option health insurance program.

“I am well aware that here in Arkansas last year was a hard one for
Democrats,” Mrs. Clinton said. “But don’t forget, voters did come out and
pass an increase in the minimum wage, Arkansas voters know pay checks need
to grow.”

She said she hoped the 2016 election could also help lift Democratic
candidates “on school boards and county offices and, yes, the state
legislator and hold onto the White House.”

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*Hillary Clinton's political director brings key lessons from her own
(losing) campaign
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-clinton-political-director-20150719-story.html#page=1>
// WaPo // Evan Halper – July 19, 2015*

The most prized credential of Hillary Rodham Clinton's political director
may not be her connections on Capitol Hill, her experience courting the
crucial Latino vote or the diversity she brings as the child of a Mexican
immigrant, but her run for office — which she lost.

Last year, Amanda Renteria returned home to California's Central Valley to
run for Congress and got crushed. The race in the heavily Latino district
exposed blind spots in Democratic strategy with Latino voters, who largely
stayed home. The message for Clinton in her 2016 presidential run was
clear: The gains Democrats had been making among Latinos could stall
anytime.

Now, as Clinton's political director, Renteria is putting the campaign's
vast resources to work avenging the 2014 midterms, when Democrats were
unable to mobilize the coalition of minority voters that had helped elect
President Obama twice.

"It is really time for Latinos to understand who is with them and who is
not," Renteria said during a break from the National Council of La Raza
conference in Kansas City, where she was working the hallways before
Clinton addressed a packed ballroom. "One of the real opportunities in a
presidential election is to truly have a message that can break through,
even in the little towns where I grew up."

Clinton's massive Latino outreach machine is unprecedented for this stage
in a primary. Most Latinos don't even know the name of Clinton's closest
challenger for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders,
according a new Univision poll.

Yet about 500 days before the general election, the outreach effort
overseen by Renteria is running on all cylinders. Some of it is clearly
visible, with the candidate's aggressive positioning on immigration, her
much-talked-about Nevada round table with "Dreamers" — immigrants brought
to the country illegally as children — and an economic agenda targeted at
empowering minorities.

But in an election in which the Latino vote is likely to be decisive, it's
the on-the-ground work that could pay the biggest dividends.

"You can't take it for granted," Clarissa Martinez de Castro, a deputy vice
president at La Raza, warned attendees of a session at the conference.
"Some people are like, 'Hey, I'm good, so they will vote for me even if I
don't do anything.' No. You've got to get out there."

Renteria, who grew up in the hardscrabble town of Woodlake, near Visalia,
went on to become the first chief of staff of Latino descent for a U.S.
senator, when she worked for Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow. Under
Renteria's direction, Clinton organizers are showing up in Latino and other
minority communities in a variety of ways.

Often it's not even to talk much politics. Renteria, 40, recalls a recent
networking event at a bar in Philadelphia where the millennials who showed
up wanted to discuss career strategies, how to go about paying off student
loans and what her family thinks of what she is doing with her life. So
they did.

"It is not just about come vote for me, but … how can I help?" said
Renteria, who disarms with a rare mix of a candidate's charm and an
operative's urgency. "We have the resources in this election to talk about
it."

Renteria talks without the pretension common in the inner circle of
presidential campaigns. She can carry on a conversation with the
apolitical. Many in Washington can't.

Clinton's campaign is burning through an eye-popping $230,000 per day in
this stage of the campaign, and much of it is going toward making contact
with voters more aggressively than is the norm so early on, whether it be
through hiring field organizers with community ties, investing in the
newest microtargeting technology or holding events like the one in
Philadelphia.

The Clinton team is scouting for consultants in every state with a large
Latino presence to develop localized strategies for boosting turnout.
Buzz-stirring events like the Dreamers gathering Clinton held in Nevada in
early May are conceived with input from local activists.

They are all the campaigning tasks Renteria was unable to do when she ran
for Congress.

"With the hand she was dealt, she did the best she could," said Mark
Salavaggio, a Central Valley political analyst. "It did shock people that
she lost by so much."

Her opponent, Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford), relentlessly pounded
Renteria, then a staffer on Capitol Hill, as a carpetbagging Washingtonian.
"She is not one of us," several of his mailers shouted.

Valadao, who was concluding his first term in Congress, benefited from a
Latino-sounding last name, despite his Portuguese ancestry, which made his
accusations that Renteria was the interloper in a district heavy with
migrant farmworkers sting all the more to her.

She recalls how her family would sometimes not get served at Denny's until
after the white customers, how she sat in a chair for hours at a Border
Patrol station as agents grilled her parents, how she proudly danced as a
child in the traveling Ballet Folklorico.

"It means a lot to us in the Latino community to have someone like Amanda
at the table making decisions … and making sure the community is at the
table," Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.) said.

Rep. Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles, also a Democrat, said Clinton's
appointments of Renteria to one the campaign's most senior jobs and of
Lorella Praeli, a Dreamer, to be the director of Latino outreach, resonated
deeply among Latino leaders. "Those are the decisions that make you feel
like [Clinton] is one of us," he said.

GOP strategists say Renteria's race in California was not a fluke, but a
reflection of a wall Democrats are about to hit nationally with Latino
voters.

"The idea that if you just bring out more Latinos to the polls you will win
is a big mistake, and one I hope Democrats continue to make," said Mike
Madrid, a Republican consultant in California. "Amanda Renteria was running
in an area where Latinos tend to be very conservative. They are similar to
what the Latino voters will look like in Colorado, New Mexico, rural
Virginia and a lot of battleground states."

Republicans are hopeful that 2016 will be the year they achieve what they
last did in 2000, when George W. Bush, a Texan with a knack for Spanglish
and a firm grasp of border culture, was able to slow the surge of Latino
support toward Democrats. He also attracted strong Latino support in his
2004 reelection.

This year, Bush's brother Jeb, a former Florida governor, speaks even
better Spanish and his wife is a native of Mexico. Another Floridian
seeking the GOP nomination, Sen. Marco Rubio, is the child of Cuban
immigrants.

Even so, the Univision poll and others show neither of those contenders is
gaining the kind of traction among Latinos that George W. Bush did when he
ran against Al Gore, whose patrician demeanor did not play well.

Hard as Republicans try to cast Clinton in the same mold, it is proving a
tougher sell. When Clinton last ran for president, in 2008, two Latinos
voted for her for every one who voted for Barack Obama in the Democratic
primaries.

"Everyone has the abuela who ran the show when it came to dinner, giving
you a hard time about school, or how you treated your parents," Renteria
said, using the Spanish word for grandmother. "That strong woman you look
up to in the Latino community.... There is a lot in the community we see in
her."

*Clinton to Push Revamp of Capital-Gains Tax Rates
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-to-push-revamp-of-capital-gains-tax-rates-1437365173>
// WSJ // Laura Meckler and John D. McKinnon – July 20, 2015*

WASHINGTON—Hillary Clinton will propose a revamp of capital-gains taxes
that would hit some short-term investors with higher rates, part of a
package of measures designed to prod companies to put more emphasis on
long-term growth, a campaign official said.

The proposal, to be laid out in a speech later this week, is one of a
number of ideas designed to tackle what Mrs. Clinton, some economists and
some on Wall Street consider the overly short-term focus of corporate
strategy. Other topics will include the risks and benefits of shareholder
activism and the role of executive compensation.

At the center is Mrs. Clinton’s proposal to change capital-gains tax rates,
the details of which are being finalized. The Democratic presidential
candidate’s plan would create a sliding scale with at least three new rates
that change depending on how long an investment is held, the official said.

Investments held for less than a year would continue to be taxed at regular
income-tax rates, which can top out at 39.6% or more for the highest
earners. For those held just a little longer—likely two or three years—the
current capital-gains tax rate of 23.8% for top earners would rise. The
Clinton rate, which hasn’t been finalized, would be higher than the 28%
President Barack Obama proposed earlier this year for the highest earners.
The Clinton campaign hasn’t ruled out taxing such investments at the
regular income-tax rate.

The plan would include additional rates tied to the length that an
investment is held, with the lowest rates for investments held the longest.

Under current law, the capital-gains rate for investments held for at least
a year is 15% for middle-income investors, and people with the lowest
incomes pay no tax on capital gains.

The former senator and secretary of state is diving into an area of
significant debate about which policy steps could or should be taken to
discourage what Mrs. Clinton calls “quarterly capitalism,” meaning overly
focused on the next earnings report.

Some economists and many Republicans argue there is little the government
can do to change corporate behavior. GOP presidential contenders by and
large want to go in the opposite direction by eliminating taxes on
investment income or at least reducing them.

Activist investors, who generally take positions in stocks and then push
for changes they believe would boost share prices, have in the past few
years gained more influence and won more battles with larger companies.
These investors, such as Nelson Peltz at Trian Fund Management LP and
William Ackman at Pershing Square Capital Management LP, say they hold weak
corporate managers accountable and help lift share prices for all holders.

Detractors, including Laurence Fink, chief executive at money manager
BlackRock Inc., and Martin Lipton, a leading corporate-defense lawyer, say
the typical activist wish list, including share buybacks, dividends and
corporate breakups, diverts cash from long-term investments in plants or
people to appease investors who want to sell out quickly.

Mrs. Clinton’s speech represents part of her effort to distinguish herself
on economic policy from GOP candidates, who focus largely on growth, and
her Democratic primary challengers who focus on income inequality and are
pushing ideas that are popular with the liberal base, such as breaking up
large banks. Wall Street regulation and inequality are topics Mrs. Clinton
plans to address separately in coming weeks.

Foreshadowing this week’s announcement, Mrs. Clinton last week promised to
propose “reforms to help CEOs and shareholders alike to focus on the next
decade rather than just the next day.” This week, Mrs. Clinton will expand
on that theme, arguing that companies that invest in their workers and
focus on long-term growth are better positioned to succeed, the campaign
official said.

Mrs. Clinton also plans to discuss the pros and cons of shareholder
activism and call for steps to address “hit-and-run” activists she argues
contribute to short-term planning. Still, the campaign official said, she
believes that some activism is good in that in holds managers accountable.

Mrs. Clinton will also discuss the dramatic increase in companies’
repurchasing their shares, as well as ways to promote long-term
considerations in setting executive compensations.

The campaign didn’t estimate how much in additional taxes the proposal
would raise. The official said the primary goal is to change behavior, not
increase revenue.

U.S. companies in the S&P 500 index spent a median 36% of operating cash
flow in 2013 on their buybacks and dividends, moves designed to deliver
gains to current shareholders, compared with 18% in 2003. Over that same
period, those companies cut spending on plants and equipment to 29% of
operating cash flow, from 33% in 2003, according to S&P Capital IQ. When
the companies have an activist shareholder, the changes are even sharper,
the data show.

Those who back the kinds of changes Mrs. Clinton will propose say current
tax rules for investment income are a little-noticed part of the problem.
Low tax rates on capital gains and dividends, along with a relatively short
one-year holding period to qualify for capital-gains treatment, encourage
companies to return more profits to shareholders as opposed to investing in
long-term growth.

In a recent paper, Clinton adviser Neera Tanden wrote that activist
investors are hurting some companies’ capital investments. Company spending
on buybacks and dividends surges in the five years after shareholders start
putting pressure on a company, and capital investments fall, she wrote in a
paper for the Center for American Progress, where she is president, along
with Blair Effron of Centerview Partners.

Ms. Tanden suggested a sliding scale for capital-gains tax rates, where the
longer an investor holds the asset, the lower the rate. Mr. Fink of
BlackRock has suggested a similar scale, with a three-year holding period
for basic capital-gains treatment, among other changes. Mrs. Clinton
appears to be adopting a version of their idea.

It is a matter of debate whether such changes would make much difference to
how companies operate. In practice, many corporate shares are held by
tax-exempt entities such as pension funds that are largely indifferent to
tax changes.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican economist, noted in an interview the tax
code already requires investments to be held for a year and is skeptical
increasing the time period would make much difference. Managers are more
swayed by changes to taxes and regulations relating to their core business,
not the tax rate paid by investors.

“My gut instinct is this is going to sound good but it’s not going to
change very much. It’s just not that powerful,” he said.

U.S. tax law has had multiple holding periods and rates for capital gains
in the past. President Bill Clinton signed a law in 1997 that would have
created a special low rate for assets held at least five years. That system
was eliminated as part of the tax breaks adopted under his successor,
President George W. Bush.

Many Republicans running for president want to reduce or eliminate taxes
held on investments. Among the arguments: They are a form of double
taxation, where the income is taxed first at the company level and then
again when it is returned to shareholders.

*GOP Peddles Hard the 'Hillary Can't Be Trusted' Line
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/gop-peddles-hard-the-hillary-cant-be-trusted-line_b_7824898.html>
// HuffPo // Earl Ofari Hutchinson – July 19, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is the runaway pick among
voters when asked who among the presidential candidates is the most
credible, honest and trustworthy, and even the most compassionate. Her rank
on the voter trustworthy meter is far higher than that of Barack Obama and
easily tops that of all other GOP presidential contenders. The problem with
this is the AP-Ipsos poll that gave Hillary high marks on trustworthiness
was taken in March, 2007.

The two big questions are: What happened in the eight years since that that
poll was taken and today to change voter's attitudes on the trust issue
toward Clinton? The other even bigger one is: Does this pose a real problem
for Clinton's campaign?

The trust issue and Hillary has been the sole fixation of the pollsters and
they seem to crank out a new poll monthly hitting that theme. If one
believes the barrage of polls, one comes away with the notion that voters,
especially Democrats, simply don't trust Hillary.

Playing up Clinton's supposed free fall in integrity has been the one
constant in the run-up to the 2016 presidential campaign. The Republican
National Committee early on put Hillary dead in its hit sights to do
everything possible to render her candidacy stillborn even before it
officially became a candidacy. It not so subtly recycled the old trumped up
scandals of the past from Whitewater to the Lewinsky scandal. It then
cranked out a sneering "poor Hillary" video that touted Hillary's quip that
she and Bill were "dead broke" when they left the White House. It then
intimated that she shook down poor cash strapped universities for her
alleged outrageous speaking fees.

There was little doubt that the first chance the GOP got it would seize on
a real or manufactured Obama foreign policy flub and make Clinton their
hard target. The Benghazi debacle seemed to be just the right flub. In
August 2013, the Republican National Committee rammed the attack home with
a half-minute clip of her Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony
earlier that year on the Benghazi attack.

The aim as always was to embarrass and discredit her not because of her
alleged missteps as Secretary of State, but as a 2016 presidential
candidate. Republicans got what they wanted when their phony accusations
against her of cover-up and incompetence got tons of media chatter and
focus and raised the first shadow of public doubt. The GOP then tirelessly
searched for something else that could ramp up more public doubt about
Clinton's honesty. It didn't take long to find.

This time it got two for the price of one. Congressional Republicans
jubilantly waved a fresh batch of Clinton emails to the media, claiming
that it proved that she deliberately mislead Congressional investigators,
and the public, on what she knew and how she handled or allegedly
mishandled the Benghazi debacle. This ties in with the GOP's and the
media's incessant flailing of Clinton for supposedly hiding, deleting or
misusing her private emails for some sinister and nefarious reason during
her stint as Secretary of State. There will be more to come on this rest
assured.

Meanwhile, the GOP mockingly ridicules Clinton's attempt to reimage her
campaign and herself as a hands, on in the trenches with the people,
caring, feeling candidate as just more of the Clinton con, and an
ineffectual one to boot. The supposed proof of that is to finger point her
plunging favorability numbers in the polls. Of course, what's conveniently
omitted from the Hillary smear is that every one of her GOP rivals is doing
an even lousier job trying to convince voters that they are any more
"trustworthy" than Clinton. In the case of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Chris
Christie, and especially Jeb Bush, their integrity meter score with the
public fall somewhere between Watergate Richard Nixon and that of a used
car salesman.

There's more. A USA Poll and an ABC-Washington Post poll found that not
only does Clinton have solid numbers in terms of approval with voters, but
bags big time general favorability numbers from Democrats. This is even
more impressive given the spirited, and populist issues run that Vermont
Senator Bernie Sanders is making at Hillary.

It's certainly true that voters do want a president that they can trust to
say and do the right thing both on the issues and in their dealing with the
public. But they also want a president who is experienced, well-versed,
thoughtful, and firm on dealing with the inevitable crises that will
confront the country, here and abroad. There's absolutely no hint in the
polls or anywhere else that the general public has shut down on Clinton in
this vital area of public policy. But this won't stop the GOP and those in
the media obsessed with depicting Hillary as two-faced from peddling that
line.

*Same-Sex Couple Featured In Hillary Clinton Video Get Married
<http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/07/19/same-sex-couple-featured-in-hillary-clinton-video-get-married/>
// CBS // Dana Kozlov – July 19, 2015*

CHICAGO (CBS) — A few months after a Chicago couple that was in Hillary
Clinton’s campaign launch video invited the candidate to their wedding,
they got married without her, reports CBS 2’s Dana Kozlov.

Jared Milrad and Nathan Johnson appeared in Hillary Clinton’s campaign
launch video. They represented her support of gay marriage. On Sunday, they
actually tied the knot.

They were surrounded by family and friends at Montrose Harbor this
afternoon. Absent, though, was the presidential candidate. They sent her a
Twitter invitation to their wedding today right after they publically
appeared in her campaign announcement video. They say they were honored to
be included in that and wanted to include her in their wedding day.

The couple says Clinton’s staff immediately got back to them with a sort of
‘we’ll see.’ In the end, she didn’t make it.

“She rightfully pointed out that if she came to the wedding, it might
distract from our special day so we understand she supports us,” said
Milrad.

Clinton did send them a congratulatory note.

Milrad and Johnson have been together for several years.

Being that they got married in a public space, Clinton’s attendance would
have likely caused quite a security nightmare on an already really busy
beach day.

*Ghost of Hillary Clinton Haunts Liberal Convention
<http://time.com/3963825/hillary-clinton-netroots-nation/> // TIME // Sam
Frizell – July 19, 2015*

The raucous Democratic base is skeptical of Hillary Clinton

For an eclectic snapshot of the Democratic left, look no further than a
squat civic building in downtown Phoenix on Friday night. A loud punk band
was packing up, men in uniforms were clearing away vats of orange-and-mint
flavored ice water, and stragglers were tucking away thin cucumber slices
topped with cheese and bacon bits. The last of the elaborately tattooed
young folks were mixed in with the suits, as the party, hosted by a food
workers union, wound to a close.

“I’m a long, longtime admirer of Secretary Clinton,” Greg Stanton, the
mayor of Phoenix was saying. He wore a jacket, sipped a can of Pabst Blue
Ribbon beer and mingled. “I’m probably in the minority here, but mayors
across the country are big Hillary fans.”

Surrounded by union organizers and progressive activists, Stanton was
definitely the exception. Hillary Clinton may safely be the frontrunner for
the Democratic nomination, but at the largest gathering of the liberal
grassroots in the country, enthusiasm for her campaign was as mushy as
day-old oatmeal. The Netroots Nation conference was much more excited about
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist and populist
firebrand.

“It’s a pragmatist versus idealist race,” said Krissi Jimroglou,
communications director for Working America, explaining the enthusiasm for
Sanders as the union-hosted party cleared out. “This is a very idealist
crowd.”

It didn’t help that Clinton was nowhere to be found. In fact, she was in
Iowa and heading to Arkansas, even while her rivals for the Democratic
nomination—Sanders and Martin O’Malley—were en route to Phoenix and
preparing to court the progressives. The bloggers, unions, teachers,
techies, activists, organizers, laborers, musicians and non-profit founders
who come to Netroots are the vocal base of the Democratic Party. They’re
key for Democrats seeking to winning national elections.

Clinton has sought to attract progressives like these her campaign, many of
whom believe that she is too closely connected to Wall Street and corporate
interests, and too similar to her centrist husband, President Bill Clinton.
The folks at Netroots may well ultimately vote for her in a general
election, but for now they’re not enthusiastic about the prospect.

Clinton has talked like a populist and laid out a liberal vision for the
country, centering her economic policy around solving income inequality
instead of some “arbitrary growth figure” like gross domestic product. She
has already called for raising the minimum wage, requiring paid family
leave, reducing the cost of college and reining in Wall Street, and she has
a host of other progressive policies lined up for the coming months. And
she is leading in the polls by large margins, with polls showing her
favorability ratings on solid ground.

But the the Netroots attendees are thirsty for specifics. “She’s done a
great job explaining the problem: that we have economy that works really
well for the top 1% and not everyone else, and we need to fix it,” said
Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, the
grassroots organization founded by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. “Now
she needs to detail the policy behind it that puts meat on the bone.”

And even then, they may not be sated. A lot of attendees spoke of a general
feeling—a sort of populist touch—which they say they’re not sure Clinton
has. Sanders, they say, has it. There was also a widely shared resentment
at Netroots that Clinton hadn’t come to kiss the ring. “There’s something
people have been looking for that they haven’t been seeing,” said a woman
at the Phoenix Convention Center on Friday named Hillary Keyes. She was
wearing a button that said “I’m a Hillary for Bernie.” Clinton not coming,
Keyes said means for “the people here she loses credibility.”

“We’re disappointed the Democratic frontrunner could miss such a great
opportunity,” said Arshad Hasan, chair of the board of directors of
Netroots Nation. “The silence from her side makes Bernie shine all the
brighter.”

With Clinton gone, the Sanders crowd had full rein. The morning he
addressed the crowd, a group dressed as robber barons replete with top hats
and bow-ties chanted ironically, “Capitalists for Bernie!” while holding
signs saying “Long live the oligarchs!” Others carried huge cutouts of
Sanders’ head with a Robin Hood hat.

Clinton’s campaign said their candidate could not attend because of
scheduling conflicts—though the organizers set the date for the conference
a year in advance. Netroots would have been an unwieldy and raucous stage
for Clinton, who tends to favor controlled spaces. And this year was less
controlled than usual, as Black Lives Matters protesters derailed the
presidential town hall meetings featuring O’Malley and Sanders.

Despite her absence, Clinton’s ghost defined much of the proceedings here.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts progressive who is beloved among
the Netroots crowd, said in a speech on Friday that all the presidential
candidates should move to stop the revolving door between Wall Street and
the Cabinet, an applause line that was largely seen as aimed at Clinton.
Many of the activists spoke about “moving Hillary to the left,” a common
refrain among Democrats.

And activists said at Netroots they could build a huge progressive network
to support Clinton in her left-leaning positions. “It is up to everyone in
this hall to actually draft a progressive agenda,” said AFL-CIO executive
vice president Tefere Gebre in an interview. “And give Hillary Clinton a
backbone, or give Bernie Sanders a backbone, or give anyone else a
background to govern on that agenda.”

For Clinton, who is establishing her progressive credentials but has not
yet managed to capture the imagination of the Netroots demographic, the key
will be driving them out in heavy numbers to vote for in a general
election. Sanders may know how to rile up the base. But if Netroots is a
barometric reading of devotion, then Clinton may have some work to do.

“It’s a degree-of-enthusiasm question,” said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder
of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “Democratic activists here
will probably go out and vote for her. But will they go out to canvass for
her, mobilize for her and make calls for her? It really depends on her.”

Meanwhile, on Saturday night, Sanders gave a speech in Phoenix’s convention
center, the final big event of the weekend. It was the largest rally of
Sanders’ campaign, and 11,300 people streamed through the sand-colored
streets of Phoenix and down two long escalators into a cavernous auditorium
with the feel of an ocean trench.

Sanders took the stage and delivered his blistering attack on billionaires
and the multinational corporations. But first, some context. “When we were
coming to Arizona, somebody said Arizona is a conservative state,”
thundered Sanders. “What were they talking about?!”

*Jeb and Hillary: Flawed front-runners generating little excitement
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/jeb-and-hillary-flawed-front-runners-generating-little-excitement/>
// Fox News // Howard Kurtz - July 20, 2015*

America may well get another Bush-Clinton race once this whole presidential
thing shakes out, with predictable groans about royal families and
political retreads.

But in looking at the coverage this past week, I was struck by this
thought: This is one weak pair of front-runners.

Jeb is losing to a guy who’s never run for public office and is in hot
water over comments about Mexican immigrants. In short, he’s been Trumped.
(Though maybe The Donald has trumped himself by making light of John
McCain’s Vietnam captivity, not that the media were in love with him
before.)

Hillary is way ahead in her race, but a socialist senator is generating
most of the excitement. A majority of voters have doubts about her honesty.
And she’s long been at odds with the press.

As the New York Times has noted, Hillary may have raised $47.5 million, but
less than one-fifth has come in contributions of $200 or less. That means
big-money donors, many of whom have maxed out at $2,700, are powering her
campaign. Bernie Sanders, by contrast, has gotten four-fifths of his $15
million in small donations. (Hillary has also spent a chunk of her haul,
stirring concerns about another bloated, consultant-heavy campaign.)

Equally worrisome, the latest Fox News poll confirms the findings of
several other surveys that Hillary has a trust problem. Some 58 percent of
respondents say Clinton’s natural instincts lean more toward “hiding the
truth” than “telling the truth.”

It’s hardly shocking that Hillary isn’t firing up the grass roots. She’s
been in public life for a quarter century, as first lady, senator,
presidential candidate, secretary of State and global celebrity. She’s a
Democrat running to succeed another Democrat. And the lack of a major
opponent is draining much of the drama from her race. That’s why Elizabeth
Warren, not HRC, is on the cover of Time.

At the same time, even Hillary’s team is said to be concerned that Sanders,
a 73-year-old who isn’t even a Democrat and who’s been a bit player in the
Senate, could knock her off in Iowa. Or worse.

Yet in a New York Times Magazine piece that’s in part about the press staff
micromanaging Mark Leibovich (no tweeting from her headquarters!), campaign
manager Robby Mook said: “I take issue with the excitement question.”’

Jeb has problems that go beyond Donald Trump. He’s at odds with
conservative Republican voters over illegal immigration and Common Core
education standards. He’s raised $114 million, but he’s had to talk
repeatedly about his brother and why his last name isn’t a liability.

And while Bush has been solid and substantive in his campaign, aside from
his initial Iraq stumble, he has not been a dominating presence. He
regularly talks to the press, in stark contrast to Hillary, but makes
little news.

And Trump is looming as an obstacle for Bush, particularly with the Fox
debate coming up next month.

“During one recent phone call with a political ally,” Politico says, “Bush
pointedly asked about the surging real estate mogul. What, the friend
recalled the former governor wondering out loud, was behind Trump’s antics,
and what was he trying to accomplish?”

Jeb is trying to be the grownup in the room. He told the Los Angeles Times:
"I think candidates ought to lay out proposals to solve problems rather
than basically prey on legitimate fears and concerns.”

The Donald, meanwhile, speaks of Jeb with open disdain. “He raises 100
million, so what does 100 million mean?” Trump asked. “100 million means
he's doing favors for so many people, it means lobbyists, it means special
interests, it means donors," said Trump. "Who knows it better than me?”

The eventual nominees often seem lackluster during the preseason. I
remember lots of political and media grumbling over Mitt Romney, John
McCain, John Kerry and Al Gore, whereas the likes of Howard Dean and Newt
Gingrich generated more excitement. Those who win their party’s nod have to
be acceptable to a broad coalition, which usually means they can’t be
fire-breathing insurgents.

Maybe even Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush aren’t immune from premature
boredom.

*6 Facts About Hillary Clinton & Her Dad That Totally Gave Us
#FatherDaughterGoals
<http://www.bustle.com/articles/98259-6-facts-about-hillary-clinton-her-dad-that-totally-gave-us-fatherdaughtergoals>
// Bustle // Tonya Riley – July 19, 2015*

Even as a first lady, the now-presidential candidate refused to be defined
by the man in her life. But as the New York Times reported Sunday, Hillary
Clinton’s father, Hugh Rodham, had a substantial influence on the woman she
is today. Clinton spoke candidly about the strength of her mother in her
speech announcing her campaign, but she rarely speaks about her father, who
passed away in 1993, in public. Clinton, who veered away from her father’s
conservative political values in college, had a tumultuous relationship
with him in her early years. Clinton’s former advisor Lissa Muscatine told
The New York Times, “By all accounts he was kind of a tough customer …
believed in no free rides, believed you had to earn what you’re going to
get, believed his kids could always do better.”

Despite his sometimes tough personality, Rodham had a huge impact on his
daughter, who would go on to be both a senator and Secretary of State. He
gets several mentions in her 2003 biography Living History, in which she
describes him as a hardworking, “hardheaded and often gruff” business owner
descended “from a line of black-haired Welsh coal miners.” And though he
died long before he could have ever seen his daughter transition from first
lady to possible president,

Here’s what we know about their relationship.

Clinton’s Father Was Stern, But Cared About Her Education

One of the reasons you may have heard so little about Clinton’s father is
that he wasn’t always the nicest guy, according to The New York Times.
Rodham was a strict man and depression ran in his family. The Times, who
spoke with Clinton biographer Carl Berstein, wrote:

He would hurl criticism at his wife around the kitchen table at 235 Wisner
Street. When she encouraged Hillary to learn for learning’s sake, Mr.
Rodham, who drove a Cadillac, would quip: “Learn for earning’s sake.” If
his children asked for an allowance for their many household chores, he
would reply bluntly: “I feed you, don’t I?”

When Clinton was in fourth grade, her father woke her up at dawn every day
to help her catch up on the multiplication tables she was falling behind
on. Rodham never sugar-coated things for Clinton, so it’s no wonder she can
now tough it out with the hardest of politicians domestically and abroad.

Hillary Learned How To Play Tough From Her Father

Clinton’s father always encouraged her to play sports and taught her that
she was equal to any man. According to the Associated Press, one spring he
practiced with her every day until she was able to hit a curveball.
According to her biography Living History, he also taught her how to shoot
a gun.

Her Father Encouraged Her Throughout Her Early 20s

Later when Clinton attended Wellesley and Yale, her father sent her letters
to encourage her to persevere through tough times. Clinton once wrote about
her father that “Even when he erupted at me, he admired my independence and
accomplishments.”

Hillary’s Conservative Father Loved Her — Even After She Married (& Became)
A Democrat

Clinton’s father was a Goldwater Republican, but even after she became a
Democrat herself and married a man who would go on to be a Democratic
governor and president, he expressed pride in her. In 1993 right before his
death, Rodham told a friend “My daughter is a real special girl.”

They Shared The Same Great Laugh

Clinton wrote in her 2003 autobiography Living History, “I inherited his
laugh, the same big rolling guffaw that can turn heads in a restaurant and
send cats running from the room.”

He Was A Great Grandpa

While Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, both of Hillary’s parents
moved to Little Rock to be closer to her. They always went to games to
watch their granddaughter Chelsea play softball and would take the team out
for frozen yogurt after the game, according to the New York Times.

*Clinton insider faced IG probe for informal diplomacy
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-insider-blumenthal-faced-ig-probe-for-informal-diplomacy/article/2568516>
// Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – July 19, 2015*

A longtime Clinton ally who was once under investigation for a possible
violation of the Logan Act may have helped Sidney Blumenthal prepare
intelligence memos for Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of
state.

Cody Shearer was the subject of a State Department inspector general probe
in 1998 after he allegedly conducted rogue negotiations that "caused
temporary diplomatic damage in Bosnia," according to documents obtained by
Citizens United through the Freedom of Information Act.

The inspector general found that Shearer, whose ties to the Clintons
stretch back to the 1992 election, "may have represented himself as
speaking on behalf of the U.S. Department of State" in private
conversations about the proposed partitioning of Bosnia — a policy the U.S.
publicly opposed.

More than a decade later, Shearer is entangled in another instance of
back-channel information peddling at the State Department.

Shearer assisted Blumenthal and Tyler Drumheller, a former CIA operative,
in preparing a series of informal intelligence memos for Clinton as she
waded deeper into the Libyan conflict, according to Pro Publica.

The edited tranche of emails published by the State Department in May and
June suggest she relied almost exclusively on their guidance to inform her
decision-making in the country.

Shearer's sister Brooke first grew close to Clinton during the 1992
presidential election, when she traveled with the former first lady on the
campaign trail.

Shearer's brother-in-law, Strobe Talbott, has been close to the Clintons
for decades.

After rising through the ranks of the State Department to become deputy
secretary of state, Talbott accepted a position as head of the Brookings
Institution.

But it appears he, too, maintained influence at the agency through his
connection to Clinton.

When she went looking for a new assistant in June 2009, Clinton turned to
Talbott for suggestions on who to hire.

Clinton's emails suggest she and Talbott were in frequent contact and even
had "catch-up calls" to provide each other with diplomatic updates.

Talbott's name surfaced in the inspector general documents as having
written a letter to his brother-in-law that warned Shearer to "be careful
in his actions" in Bosnia during Bill Clinton's presidency.

The records suggest the FBI participated in the probe of Shearer's
independent diplomacy.

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*DECLARED*

*O’MALLEY*

*O'Malley sorry for saying 'all lives matter'
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/martin-omalley-all-lives-matter/>
// CNN // Chris Moody – July 19, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley apologized on Saturday
for saying "All lives matter" while discussing police violence against
African-Americans with liberal demonstrators.

Several dozen demonstrators interrupted the former Maryland governor while
he was speaking here at the Netroots Nation conference, a gathering of
liberal activists, demanding that he address criminal justice and police
brutality. When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of
protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the
hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter.
White lives matter. All lives matter."

The demonstrators, who were mostly black, responded by booing him and
shouting him down.

Later that day, O'Malley apologized for using the phrase in that context if
it was perceived that he was minimizing the importance of blacks killed by
police.

"I meant no disrespect," O'Malley said in an interview on This Week in
Blackness, a digital show. "That was a mistake on my part and I meant no
disrespect. I did not mean to be insensitive in any way or communicate that
I did not understand the tremendous passion, commitment and feeling and
depth of feeling that all of us should be attaching to this issue."

Judith Butler, a philosopher at the University of California, Berkeley,
recently explained why some find it offensive to respond to the "Black
Lives Matter" movement with the "all lives matter."

"When some people rejoin with 'All Lives Matter' they misunderstand the
problem, but not because their message is untrue. It is true that all lives
matter, but it is equally true that not all lives are understood to matter,
which is precisely why it is most important to name the lives that have not
mattered, and are struggling to matter in the way they deserve," Butler
said in an interview with The New York Times. "If we jump too quickly to
the universal formulation, 'all lives matter,' then we miss the fact that
black people have not yet been included in the idea of 'all lives.'"

O'Malley isn't the first Democrat to come under fire for the remark.
Hillary Clinton was criticized in June for doing the same thing.

*Martin O’Malley’s Presidential Strategy: Try, Try, Try Again
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/martin-omalleys-presidential-strategy-try-try-try-again#.heBnMngYE>
// Buzzfeed // Ruby Cramer – July 19, 2015*

The southwest corner of 1st Avenue and 3rd Street was Martin O’Malley
territory.

This — for much of the hot and humid Friday afternoon in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
— was not in dispute. A few dozen O’Malley people, each wearing an O’Malley
t-shirt, stood chanting near a line of cars, each taped with an O’Malley
sign. “O-Mall-ee! O-Mall-ee!”

Then came the Hillary Clinton people — twice as many, with more signs and
louder cheers — an army of “H” arrows. They moved in on the corner, singing
the refrain from “Land of 1000 Dances”: Naaa, na-na-na-naaa, na-na-na-naaa,
na-na-naaa-na-na-NA.

But even as the Hillary group took over, engulfing the smaller contingent
almost entirely, the O’Malley fans stayed put until the main event: a state
party dinner. Across the street was the convention center where, for the
first time, from the same stage, O’Malley would face Hillary Clinton and
Bernie Sanders — the competition he’s been trying to overtake with as much
persistence and as little success as his t-shirted cheer-squad.

The great sign wars of 1st Avenue kicked off a weekend that, in effect,
served as the start of the Democratic contest — and put on display the
distinctions in approach between the three candidates as the first caucuses
and primaries draw closer. Inside the convention hall, Clinton and Sanders
each fell into what is, by now, their own familiar rhythms.

He made his call for a “political revolution” to close the gap between rich
and poor — and she for a unified front against the other party. Clinton,
who leads the field in fundraising and among early voters in key states
like Iowa, didn’t acknowledge her primary opponents. “I’m already having a
great debate with Republicans,” Clinton told the crowd. The next day, she
skipped the annual progressive conference, Netroots Nation, held this year
in Phoenix, to headline a state party dinner in Arkansas — the
Republican-leaning state where her campaign could hope to compete next year
in the general election.

At every point this weekend — as Clinton and Sanders held to their
carefully hewn strategies — O’Malley telegraphed, with trademark
persistence, that no matter how bad the polls look, he is the candidate who
simply won’t go away: who will work harder and mingle longer, who will
shake more hands, answer more questions, propose more policy, be the most
progressive and most aggressive — the candidate who will always engage.

He has, now 50 days into his campaign, taken almost every opportunity.

While Clinton draws headlines about her “strained relations” with the
press, O’Malley’s staff rarely turns a reporter away. (On Friday night, his
super PAC invited members of the media to an afterparty with the
sign-carrying field organizers. “It’s open-press and we promise no
rope-lines,” an official said in an email, adding a smiling emoticon. The
Clinton cheer-squad, meanwhile, said they weren’t allowed to talk to
reporters.)

And while other Democrats in the race, including Sanders, don’t often go
after Clinton, O’Malley makes a habit of it — indirectly, at least. (In his
Iowa speech, he stressed his support for a $15 minimum wage, days after
Clinton declined to endorse it, and suggested she was slow to oppose “bad
trade deals” like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.)

But there was no greater show of the O’Malley method than inside the
Phoenix Convention Center on Saturday morning — when activists aligned with
Black Lives Matter, a social justice group, upended a presidential forum at
Netroots Nation.

O’Malley and Sanders spoke separately. The protesters asked each candidate
to address questions about violence against blacks involving law
enforcement. Both “responded poorly” at the time, as the co-founder of
Black Lives Matter, Patrisse Cullors, put it later.

But after the forum — a jarring event that drew attention in and far
outside the Netroots gathering — Sanders canceled his afternoon line-up of
small meetings, including one with Black Lives Matters backers, according
to participants. O’Malley, as his aides were quick to note, added events
and sought to apologize for his reaction to the protest.

O’Malley was only through about two questions from Jose Antonio Vargas — a
journalist and activist who moderated the forum — before the activists
started up their chorus: “What side are you on, my people,” they yelled
through the hall. “What side are you on?”

At first, O’Malley tapped his knee along with the chant. But the protesters
continued on, bringing the event to a stand-still. O’Malley leaned back and
sighed. Vargas didn’t know what to do. When one of the activists mounted
the stage, he handed her the microphone.

O’Malley stood off to the side, waiting.

Cullors, the Black Lives Matter co-founder, joined her colleague on stage.
“We don’t like shutting shit down.” But we have to, she told the crowd. “We
are in a stage of emergency.”

Given the chance to respond, O’Malley fumbled.

When he promised to roll out a “criminal justice reform package,” an
activist shouted back, “Don’t generalize that shit.” And when he mentioned
his push as governor of Maryland to repeal the state death penalty —
telling the protesters that “black lives matter, white lives matter, all
lives matter” — the group boomed back in anger. “We already know white
lives matter,” one man yelled. “We don’t want to hear that shit!”

Then Vargas cut the event off. “Oh, man,” O’Malley said. “We just started.”
He walked off, quietly chanting along with the crowd. “Black. Lives.
Matter… Black. Lives. Matter.”

Sanders was waiting backstage — and apparently ready to deliver his same
call for “political revolution,” a stump speech that is almost exclusively
centered on the economy and has drawn crowds of thousands from the
progressive and labor communities.

As he took his seat next to Vargas, there were regular cheers from the
crowd — “we love you, Bernie!” — but the activists still dominated,
chanting over the candidate. “Whoa, whoa,” Sanders said. “Let me talk about
what I want to talk about for a moment.”

“Say her name, say her name, say her name,” the group yelled back,
referring to Sandra Bland, a black woman found dead of an apparent suicide
in a Texas jail cell.

“Should I continue or leave?” Sanders asked Vargas. “It’s okay with me.”

Sanders tried shouting his speech over the protesters. “Of course black
lives matter,” he finally told them. Sanders looked to the moderator. “What
are we doing here?”

“Hold on one second, sir,” said Vargas.

Sanders stared back. “OK. Are you in charge?”

*SANDERS*

*Liberal activists see Bernie Sanders as champion for causes failed by
Obama
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/liberal-activists-see-bernie-sanders-as-champion-for-causes-failed-by-obama/2015/07/19/8b5fc752-2e09-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html>
// WaPo // David Weigel - July 20, 2015*

PHOENIX — First came the People for Bernie reception, held by Occupy Wall
Street veterans, at a club modeled after a Venetian estate. One night later
came the We Want Bernie party, hosted by Progressive Democrats of America
in a low-key tacqueria.

On the third day of Netroots Nation, an annual meeting of liberal activists
that wrapped up over the weekend, Bernie Sanders himself appeared — and
named what many of the activists gathered here consider the original sin of
the Obama presidency.

“Today, the largest six financial institutions in this country have assets
of some $10 trillion, equivalent to 60 percent of the GDP of America,” the
senator from Vermont told a crowd of 11,000 people on Saturday night.
“After we bailed them out, because they were ‘too big to fail,’ most of
them are now a lot bigger than they were before.”

The surge of Sanders’s presidential campaign has been widely viewed as a
gambit, by liberals, to force Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham
Clinton to the left. The netroots activists see no downside to that.

To them, it was the Democrats’ failure to prosecute Wall Street after the
2008 crash enabled the tea party movement and the Republican Party’s
comeback in Congress. It was the kludged, mandate-driven design of the
Affordable Care Act that prevented it from being a boon to Democrats, as
Medicare for all might have been.

These activists are not just supporting Sanders’s agenda, or asking Clinton
to embrace free college tuition or vast new infrastructure spending.
They’re telling an alternate history of modern liberalism.

And Sanders has been telling it with them. In a February speech, he
bemoaned how President Obama had “missed the opportunity, politically, of
doing what [Franklin] Roosevelt did when he was elected and making it clear
to the American people what is happening and why.” In an interview last
year with Bloomberg News, he said that “the key mistake of the Obama
administration, starting from the day after he was elected, was to more or
less disband the grass-roots network that he had put together to get
elected.”

Sanders’s campaign, and its allies, are pledging never to repeat that. In
late June, the grassroots group Ready for Warren gave up on drafting Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to run for president and rebranded as the
pro-Sanders Ready to Fight. It joined Progressive Democrats for America —
whose founder, Tim Carpenter, died in 2014 — after beseeching Sanders to
run, and the Occupy-colored People for Bernie. Some of the loudest applause
at the meeting came when Warren recounted how progressives had campaigned
against some Obama administration appointees. Some of the best-attended
Netroots Nation panels dealt with how activists could bypass the mainstream
media, and make a bad bill, or bad law, or bad police tactic too infamous
to continue.

“As soon as [Obama] got elected, they should not have held back their
pressure,” said Netroots Nation participant Felipe Andres Coronel, a rapper
best known by his stage name Immortal Technique. “We should have put the
pressure on and made it even harder. There were people who made their
presence known. Wall Street made its presence known.”

When the doors opened here for Sanders’s speech on Saturday morning, people
who had been waiting in line sprinted to get as close as possible to the
stage.

“[Sanders] and Elizabeth Warren are saying the sorts of things — like Jon
Stewart is saying the sorts of things — we wish we heard everywhere,” said
Connie Aglione, 67, an Arizona activist.

Athena Soules, 36, an artist who designed banners for the Occupy Wall
Street movement, said Sanders’s success is possible in part because of the
energy generated by the 2011 protests that began in Lower Manhattan. She
unfurled a new banner — “Feel the Bern,” it read — surrounded by fellow
activists.

“We learned the hard way from Obama,” Soules said.

Said Katherine Brezler, 33, the national digital organizer for People for
Bernie: “We elected Barack Obama on the idea that we were going to get a
universal health-care system. We have 35 million people uninsured in this
country.”

Outside of Netroots Nation, among the Democrats who had followed the Obama
strategy, these critiques sounded part cruel and all wrong.

“Look, I wish this country were further left than it is, but I live in
reality,” former congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who worked with the
White House to overhaul Wall Street regulations, said in a phone interview.
“These people watch MSNBC, and they talk to each other on the Internet — in
some ways, they’re like the tea party. They’re in this parallel universe.”

David Axelrod, the Obama campaign strategist who was a senior White House
adviser during the crisis years, said Sanders-style criticism ignored the
reality of the economic crash.

*Bernie Sanders’ newest fan? Jesse Ventura.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/19/bernie-sanders-newest-fan-jesse-ventura/>
// WaPo // Hunter Schwarz – July 19, 2015*

Jesse Ventura feels the "Bern."

The professional wrestler turned former Minnesota governor wrote on Off The
Grid that he would help Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
anyway he could and hopes he's successful in his longshot presidential
primary challenge to Hillary Clinton. It's just short of an endorsement,
but not by much.

"I think what Bernie Sanders is doing is extremely healthy," he wrote. "I
love the idea of somebody throwing a fly in the ointment. I'm sick and
tired of the handpicked two candidates."

Ventura, who ran and won a third party bid in 1998, doesn't go for the
conventional political picks; in 2012, he endorsed Ron Paul in part because
of the Texas Republican's anti-war and pro-audit-the-Fed views. Paul and
Sanders might have their disagreements and run as candidates for opposing
parties' nominations, but for Ventura to go from
libertarian-turned-Republican Paul in 2012 to Socialist-turned-Democrat
Sanders isn't that big of a stretch.

Both tap into a growing frustration with voters over the two-party system,
the influence of money in politics, and the prospect of another dynasty
election. They also each claim grassroots support with small-dollar donors.
About three-quarters of Sanders' campaign donations were $200 or less in
the first three months of his campaign; 45 percent of Paul's 2012 campaign
donations were $200 of less.

The relative success of Paul and Sanders is a product of a time when
identifying as politically independent is more popular than ever. A January
Gallup poll found 43 percent of Americans described themselves as
independent, a record.

There's frustration with the system, and voters are showing it with who
they're supporting for president and how they identify themselves. But does
that mean we're going to soon see Socialists, libertarians, or third-party
candidates in the White House? Not exactly.

Sanders and Paul both might have avid fanbases, but Paul fell far short of
the nomination, and Sanders still trails Hillary Clinton by a significant
margin. And despite both of their third-party pasts, both Sanders and Paul
ran as candidates for major party nominations.

That move by Sanders is something Ventura believes was a savvy move. "By
jumping in and going for the Democratic nomination, he'll have to be
included in all the Democratic debates and that'll put him on TV, that'll
get his face out there, so in a way, it's kind of a brilliant tactical
move," he said.

It's not just a matter of getting on TV, though. For as much as voters say
they're independent, a 2012 Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll
found 63 percent of independents actually act like "disguised" Democrats or
Republicans. Americans increasingly want to change the status quo, but a
lot of it's just lip service. That means a lot of hype and support for
candidates like Sanders early in the race, but it doesn't bode well for
them come Election Day.

*How the NRA helped put Bernie Sanders in Congress
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html>
// WaPo // David A. Fahrenthold – July 19, 2015*

BURLINGTON, Vt. — A few days before Election Day in 1990, the National
Rifle Association sent a letter to its 12,000 members in Vermont, with an
urgent message about the race for the state’s single House seat.

Vote for the socialist, the gun rights group said. It’s important.

“Bernie Sanders is a more honorable choice for Vermont sportsmen than Peter
Smith,” wrote Wayne LaPierre, who was — and still is — a top official at
the national NRA, backing Sanders over the Republican incumbent.

That was odd. Sanders was the ex-hippie ex-mayor of Burlington, running as
an independent because the Democrats weren’t far enough left. He had never
even owned a gun.

But that year, he was the enemy of the NRA’s enemy.

Smith had changed his mind about a ban on assault weapons. The NRA and its
allies wanted him beaten. They didn’t much care who beat him.

“It is not about Peter Smith vs. Bernie Sanders,” LaPierre wrote, according
to news coverage from the time. “It is about integrity in politics.”

Today, Sanders is a senator and a candidate for the Democratic presidential
nomination, drawing huge crowds with his calls to break up big banks,
increase taxes on the rich and make college free. The election of 1990
launched him. When Sanders won, he became the first socialist in Congress
since the 1950s.

That campaign also marked the beginning of Sanders’s complicated
relationship with the issue of gun rights — the one area where Sanders’s
Democratic presidential rivals have been able to attack him from the left.

As a candidate in 1990, Sanders won over gun rights groups by promising to
oppose one bill they hated — a measure that would establish a waiting
period for handgun sales. In Congress, he kept that promise. The dynamic
served as an early demonstration that, despite his pure-leftist persona,
Sanders was at his core a pragmatic politician, calculating that he
couldn’t win in rural Vermont without doing something for gun owners.

“The gun vote brought us down,” said Judy Shailor, Smith’s 1990 campaign
manager. She said she had warned gun groups that, in the long run, Sanders
would prove too liberal for them.

“The gun groups would say to me, ‘We are going to put him in office for one
term and teach Peter Smith a lesson. Then we’re going to vote [Sanders]
out,’ ” Shailor said. “I said, ‘You won’t get him out.’ . . . He’s one of
the best master politicians I’ve ever come across.”

At the time of the 1990 election, Sanders was 49, a guy who’d had a big
break and was looking for a bigger one.

Trying to break through

He didn’t look like a politician. With his wild hair and rumpled clothes,
Sanders carried himself like a man recently startled out of a nap. But he
had a sharp, relentless political mind. It had taken him from a small
leftist party — where the other leftists called him “the silver tongue” —
to Burlington City Hall, where Sanders had been elected mayor by a 10-vote
margin. He served four terms.

But he couldn’t take the next step. In six runs for statewide office,
Sanders lost six times — including in 1988, when he lost to Smith in a
close race for Vermont’s House seat.

Then, down in Washington, Smith made a disastrous, rookie mistake.

He went to a hearing. And he started to think.

The hearing was not supposed to be about guns at all. The witnesses were
students who had graduated from low-performing D.C. high schools and gone
on to college. Smith asked one woman what she wished she’d had more of in
high school. “Courage,” the woman said. She meant courage to confront the
armed bullies who taunted her on the way to school.

“It personalized something for me that had always been at arm’s length,”
Smith recalled this week. “Which is that this woman lived in a culture of
fear, and she faced danger and threat because of guns every day of her
life.”

Just a few months before, as a candidate, Smith had promised to oppose new
forms of gun control. That’s why the NRA had supported him. And the NRA
support was a major reason why he had won in Vermont, where guns are
associated with hunting moose and deer and not committing crimes.

But to the freshman congressman, all that didn’t seem to matter as much now.

“I’ll never forget, [the next day] brushing my teeth, looking in the mirror
in my bathroom and realizing, as clear as day, ‘I’m going to have to look
at this face for the rest of my life in the mirror, and I want to be proud
of the person I see,’ ” Smith said. “I went back and looked up the gun
bills.”

Smith found a bill to ban the sale of some assault weapons. He signed on as
co-sponsor.

That was April 1989. Almost immediately, Smith’s office was flooded with
angry cards, petitions, faxes and letters.

“I will do all I can to see that Mr Smith does not go to Washington much
longer,” Pamela K. Walters of Middlesex, Vt., wrote in May, one of the many
such letters that are now preserved in Smith’s papers at the University of
Vermont. Someone in Smith’s House office — perhaps worn down by the vitriol
and certain that the letter would never be seen again — scrawled an
expletive in capital letters over Walters’s note before filing it.

Local gun groups passed out bumper stickers: “Smith and Wesson, Yes. Smith
and Congress, No.” There were pictures of Smith as Pinocchio, with the
caption “The Big Lie.”

“Let’s get even,” Ed Cutler, the current president of Gun Owners of
Vermont, remembered thinking then.

The NRA made Smith the only incumbent that it actively opposed in 1990. The
group eventually spent between $18,000 and $20,000 on advertising and
direct mail in Vermont, according to an estimate from the time.

The beneficiary was Sanders, who was Smith’s main opponent in the 1990
House race. The Democrat in the race turned out to be so far left —
suggesting the legalization of heroin — she made the socialist look
moderate.

The unlikely alliance

The NRA-Sanders bond was an imperfect love affair.

Sanders was with the gun group on one major issue: he opposed a mandatory
waiting period for handguns, saying that was best left to states. But, on
assault weapons, his position was the same as the one for which Smith was
getting hammered.

“It’s an issue I do not feel comfortable about,” Sanders said after one
debate, according to a memoir about the race by a former aide, Steven
Rosenfeld.

Sanders couldn’t very well rail against Smith for his views on assault
weapons when they were the same as his own. Instead, the aide said, Sanders
wanted to let others “do our dirty work for us.”

Instead of talking about guns, then, Sanders talked about honesty.

“Unlike some people, I won’t change my views on the subject,” he told one
pro-gun group.

It worked.

“Bernie Sanders was upfront with us,” an NRA official wrote to one of
Smith’s constituents after the race. The letter ended up in another
official collection of Smith’s papers. “He was viewed as the lesser of two
evils.”

As the election approached, the socialist’s good luck kept getting better.

Smith, the incumbent, invited his own party’s president, George H.W. Bush,
to a breakfast fundraiser in Burlington. Then, Smith criticized the
president to his face, calling for Bush to do more to tax the rich. “Like
all Vermonters, Peter’s a man of independent mind,” the baffled president
said when it was his turn to speak.

On Election Day, it wasn’t close. Sanders beat Smith, 56 percent to 40
percent.

Today, Sanders’s allies insist that gun control wasn’t a major reason for
his victory. “A couple of percentage points, in an election that we won by
16 points,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’s longtime aide and his current
campaign manager.

Republicans insist gun control was the most important factor in the race.
“The reason Bernie Sanders got elected to Congress, beat Peter Smith, was
he sided with the NRA,” said Stephan Morse, a former Republican speaker of
the Vermont House and a close friend of Smith. Smith himself declined to
talk about the race in an interview this week.

The correct analysis could be somewhere in between.

One poll after the election showed that about 35 percent of Sanders voters
said the gun issue was a major factor in their decision.

“The NRA did not elect Bernie. But they provided much of the margin,” said
Garrison Nelson, a longtime political observer at the University of Vermont.

Either way, Nelson said, the 1990 race was another step in the evolution of
Sanders, who had risen from the leftist fringe by embracing allies and
tactics that the fringe would not. In Burlington, he had made allies out of
the police and worked out an uneasy relationship with big business. Later,
in Congress, he would join the Democratic caucus, attaching himself to the
party’s seniority system, after decades of railing against the Democratic
Party’s politics as weak-kneed.

In the 1990 race, he made a tacit ally out of the NRA, a powerful
Washington lobby that has become a chief nemesis of the left and a fierce
obstacle to gun control efforts in Congress and state capitals across the
country. The alliance allowed the group to bash an opponent whose positions
were almost identical to Sanders’s own.

‘Bernie wants to win’

“Most socialists don’t want to win. Most socialists want to lose, because
they can blame it on the system” and justify their decision to remain
outside it, Nelson said. “But Bernie wants to win.”

After he was elected, Sanders stuck to the assurances he had given gun
rights groups. In 1991, he voted against a measure that would have required
a seven-day waiting period to buy a gun. In 1993, Sanders voted against a
broader version of the bill — named for James Brady, the White House press
secretary who was shot in the 1981 attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s
life — that became law.

That bill set up the national background check system in place today. But
Sanders objected because it also included a provision for temporary waiting
period, said Weaver, his longtime aide.

“He had been explicit with people that he would not support a federal
mandatory waiting period,” Weaver said. “And he kept his word.”

Since then, Sanders has had a mixed record on guns. He supported an
NRA-backed bill to shield gun manufacturers from liability lawsuits. But in
2013, in the aftermath of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Connecticut, he backed a provision that would have tightened gun laws.

Amid his surprising rise in the presidential race, Sanders has been
attacked for that record by a super PAC that backs a Democratic rival,
former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley. “The NRA even paid for ads
attacking a Sanders opponent?” the video ad says. “Bernie Sanders is no
progressive when it comes to guns.”

Sanders declined to comment for this article, as did LaPierre, the NRA
executive who wrote the 1990 endorsement letter.

The senator has defended himself by saying that he’s uniquely qualified to
lead a national dialogue on guns, since he can see the issue from both an
urban and a rural perspective. And besides, he said, the NRA has given him
little support.

Except once.

“In every single race that I have run, with the exception of one, the NRA
and the gun lobbies and the people who are most interested in guns
supported my opponent,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos this year.

Among Vermont gun groups, there is some ambivalence about that long-ago
election.

“In some ways, I’m happy that it happened. And in some ways I seriously
regret it,” said Cutler, of the Gun Owners of Vermont. “I’m happy I did it,
because it sent a message around the state that the gun vote really does
count around here.”

But now, Cutler said, when he calls Sanders’s office to ask for a meeting,
he never gets one. “I regret that it happened,” he said, “because,
realistically, we have no input with him.”

*Sanders campaign claims highest turnout yet for Netroots Nation speech
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/sanders-campaign-claims-highest-turnout-yet-for-netroots-nation-speech-120322.html#ixzz3gOGESncM>
//Politico // Daniel Strauss – July 19, 2015*

PHOENIX — Bernie Sanders’ campaign claimed its highest turnout yet for a
speech the Vermont senator and 2016 presidential candidate gave here on
Saturday night on the third day of the liberal Netroots Nation convention.

Sanders’ campaign, citing Phoenix Convention Center officials, said more
than 11,000 people showed up for the wide-ranging speech. Some 10,000
people heard Sanders speak in Madison, Wisconsin, a little more than two
weeks earlier.

Sanders hit his favorite notes on economic inequality and raising the
minimum wage but also pushed for 12 weeks of paid family leave, the need to
aggressively tackle climate change, and pass “a Medicare for all
single-payer program.”

Sanders, unlike most other 2016 presidential candidates, did not weigh in
on Donald Trump’s comments that Sen. John McCain is not a war hero as he
was captured in Vietnam. He did, however, ding former Florida governor Jeb
Bush for saying Americans need to work longer hours.

“We all heard a few weeks ago that Jeb Bush thinks the American people need
to work a little bit harder,” Sanders said, provoking the crowd to boo.
“Well he obviously didn’t hear the sad reality that the American people
already work the longest hours of any major country on earth.”

The rest of the field wasn’t name-checked but Sanders contrasted his party
with Republicans, who he said were divisive.

“Our job is not to divide, our job is to bring people together,” Sanders
said to cheers from the crowd.

Earlier in the day, Sanders seemed flummoxed when Black Lives Matter
protesters stormed the stage at a Netroots Nation candidate forum,
demanding Sanders and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley address
police brutality.

On Saturday night, Sanders said “when a police officer breaks the law, that
officer must be held accountable.”

“Let us be clear, while we have overcome a lot of racism, we still have a
long way to go,” he also said.

*Bernie Sanders Continues to Draw the Biggest Crowds of Any 2016 Candidate
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-19/bernie-sanders-continues-to-draw-the-biggest-crowds-of-any-2016-candidate>
// Bloomberg // Ali Elkin – July 19, 2015*

Size matters.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is still drawing the some
of largest crowds on the campaign trail, as evidenced by the 11,000 people
who turned up to hear the Vermont senator and self-described independent
socialist speak at the Phoenix Convention Center on Saturday, according to
reports. He had appeared there earlier that day as part of the progressive
Netroots Nation convention. The turnout broke Sanders's previous record,
some 10,000 at an rally in Madison earlier this month, which was heralded
as the largest crowd any 2016 candidate had attracted yet.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke at the very same venue
on Saturday, and drew roughly half as many attendees as Sanders did.

Now, it's possible Sanders is drawing the most attendees because his chief
rival, Hillary Clinton, is taking a distinctly different approach,
preferring to meet with small groups of people at house parties and
intimate sit-downs. That said, Clinton did have some empty space leftover
at her official campaign launch event in New York City in June. About 5,500
people showed up, the New York Times reported, citing Clinton's campaign,
but the space on Roosevelt Island's Four Freedoms Park could have held
more. The Times reported that the area set up for overflow crowd was nearly
empty.

The other Sanders-level crowd of the cycle so far went to Ted Cruz, for his
campaign launch, which drew some 11,000 attendees, but there was a catch.
Cruz launched his campaign at Liberty University, a Christian school in
Virginia. He was the weekly convocation speaker, and attendance was
mandatory for students, under penalty of a fine.

*Can Bernie Sanders win black voters?
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/19/politics/bernie-sanders-african-americans-2016-netroots/index.html>
// CNN // Nia-Malika Henderson and Chris Moody – July 19, 2015*

(CNN)In his bid to ride a progressive wave to the White House, Bernie
Sanders is failing to connect with a key Democratic constituency:
African-Americans.

Democrats are pinning their electoral fortunes on African-American and
Latino voters. But the Sanders revolution looks a lot like Vermont, the
second whitest state in the country. To mount a competitive challenge
against Hillary Clinton, Sanders must do something he has never had to
do—reach beyond the kind of post-racial political message he honed in his
home state and connect with voters who don't look like him.

And so far, he's coming up short.

"I haven't seen him engaging the black community. Nor am I hearing any
chatter about him," said Rick Wade, Obama for America's African-American
vote director. "Black voters don't know him."

A June CNN/ORC poll showed just 2% of black Democrats supporting Sanders, a
figure that has remained unchanged since February. Among non-white voters
overall, Sanders polls at 9% compared to Hillary Clinton's 61%.

The challenge was on full display at this weekend's Netroots Nation
conference, a gathering of thousands of left-leaning Democrats. With his
populist, soak-the-rich rhetoric, this was supposed to be prime Sanders
territory.

Shaky response

A group of protestors crashed his speech, forcing Sanders to go off script
while they chanted "black lives matter," a phrase that has become the
rallying cry for a new civil rights movement.

His initial response was shaky and some activists found Sanders dismissive.

"Black lives, of course, matter. I spent 50 years of my life fighting for
civil rights and for dignity," Sanders said. "But if you don't want me to
be here, that's OK. I don't want to out-scream people."

After the protests, Sanders retreated from public view for several hours.
He canceled a small group meeting that included Elon White, a host of a
show about black issues, and he was a no-show at an event hosted by the
Arizona Democratic Party. Meanwhile, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley,
who is also mounting a liberal challenge to Clinton, participated in panels
at the conference and took question from on the online interview show,
"This Week in Blackness."

Sanders re-emerged later that evening for a short speech at a private
fundraiser for the Latino Victory Project, an advocacy group led by major
Democratic donors that focuses on Latino outreach, where he, again, took
questions about race.

But instead of adopting the defensive stance from that morning, Sanders'
tone changed. He appeared humble, and asked questions of the activists
gathered about how he could better pursue and talk about policies to combat
racial injustice.

"I want some help on this. I'm being very honest," Sanders said. "I want
some ideas, as somebody who was arrested 50 years ago fighting for Civil
Rights trying to desegregate schools in Chicago, who spent his whole life
fighting against racism, I want your ideas. What do you think we can do?
What can we do?"

Sanders took on questions about what activists called "institutional
racism" in education, housing, and criminal justice, and called for changes
in leadership and an end to mass incarceration. He listened to ideas from
the small group, and he even brought those who questioned him to stand next
time while he spoke. He said that stories of minorities being shot by
police was "horrendous" and "unacceptable," but touted progress that had
been made since he began first started protesting for civil rights as a
young radical in the 1960s.

'Impatient'

"I wish I could tell you I had a magical formula for how to end racism.
It's gone on in this country for before it was America," Sanders said. "Let
me just say this, because I'm older than you: You're impatient, and you
should be impatient. But if we were standing here 30 years ago and somebody
said, 'You know, I think in 2008, the United States of America will elect
an African-American president,' you know what people in this room would've
said? They would've said, 'You are crazy. That will never happen because
America has too much racist baggage.' But it happened. So, I guess you're
right to be impatient, but we have made progress in this country. Not
enough."

Sanders and his aides have long insisted that his central message of fixing
income inequality, providing universal health care and raising the minimum
wage will help all Americans -- Latinos and African-Americans most of all.

In his campaign announcement and in subsequent speeches, he bashes
oligarchs and vows to take on the "billionaire class."

But in most of his speeches, he is largely silent on immigration, racial
inequality, police brutality and criminal justice reform, all front-bunner
issues for the sizeable African-American voting bloc.

Sanders, who has narrowed Clinton's lead in states like Iowa and New
Hampshire, is trying to broaden his reach, but his stumble at Netroots
suggests that, for Sanders, expanding beyond class to matters of race will
be a challenge.

"He is not a rainbow coalition guy or at least he hasn't been," said Greg
Guma, author of "The People's Republic: Vermont and the Sanders
Revolution," who has known Sanders since the 1970s. "He feels like he knows
what the problem is and it's monopoly capitalism. Anything that takes him
away from that message is a distraction."

He has opportunities to connect more deeply with African-Americans in the
days ahead. He is slated to speak Saturday at the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference in Baton Rouge and at the end of the month he is set
to address the National Urban League in Fort Lauderdale. A campaign aide
said that Sanders will talk about race, touching on malnutrition in the
inner city and youth unemployment among other topics in upcoming speeches.

Last week Sanders, 73, spoke at the National Council of La Raza, where he
touted his immigrant roots and vowed to push for a pathway to citizenship.

'Energize minorities'

And he recently tweeted: "We must energize minorities all across the
country to engage in the Democratic process and thwart efforts to
disenfranchise minority voters."

"It's important for him to make sure the core constituencies know who he
is," said Tad Devine, a senior campaign adviser. "We have a story to tell
about him and we are going to campaign actively in different communities."

Campaign trips to Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina are planned for
August—all three states have significant black populations.

Spotlighting Sanders' early activism will be key to connecting with
African-American voters, Devine said.

His campaign biography now includes a reference to his participation in the
March on Washington. His aides often mention his endorsement of Jesse
Jackson in the 1988 Democratic primary, a move that helped the civil rights
leader win Vermont. Sanders also joined the Congress of Racial Equality
(CORE), as a student at the University of Chicago.

In an ironic twist, Sanders' civil rights activism stretches further back
than Clinton. While she was a "Goldwater girl," Sanders was paying a $25
fine for leading a protest march against school segregation in Chicago.

But, to some, Sanders' civil rights credentials seem dated.

"I'm happy to know that he was rallying in the 1960s. That tells me he was
on the path when I was a child, but not too many people are thinking about
the 60s" said Mary Brown-Guillory, president of the Vermont chapter of the
NAACP. "What is he doing today about police brutality and the right to vote
and equality? He has to be more than just Vermont."

Sanders' home state is 95% white. The NAACP held its first-ever state
chapter meeting earlier this month.

Though Sanders' run and his ability to draw huge crowds has brought
comparisons to Obama's 2008 bid, the more apt comparison is to Howard Dean,
who also struggled to gain traction outside of Vermont in 2004.

But aides suggest that Sanders has a better story to tell, with his past
activism and current political resume as a key selling point.

He has a solid 100% in the most recent NAACP scorecard. As a candidate for
mayor of Burlington in 1981, Sanders campaigned against a plan to convert
Burlington's Lake Champlain waterfront into an enclave for the rich. He
announced his bid for the White House on the shores of Lake Champlain,
highlighting his fight for the underdog and a class battle that he managed
to win.

But absent from his announcement were people like Curtiss Reed, the
executive director for Vermont Partnership for Fairness and Diversity, who
skipped the event because of Sanders' one-note emphasis on class.

'Remarkably consistent'

"His message is remarkably consistent in that it is devoid of any
conversation around race. He is colorblind to an extent that it seems that
race is something that is uncomfortable for him to talk about. He is like a
lot of Vermonters," Reed said. "It's easy to rattle off statistics, but
that's not engaging people of color."

Clinton, whose weakness among black voters in 2008 cost her the nomination,
has made a concerted effort to try to lock-up the Obama coalition. She gave
a race speech after the Charleston massacre, called for an end to mass
incarceration in her first policy speech and has made two campaign stops in
South Carolina. She met with the Congressional Black Caucus last week as
well as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, mindful that there are delegates
to be had among party leaders.

But even Clinton, who saw the intersection of race and class up close in
Arkansas, has struggled to keep up with the rhetoric of young, progressive
blacks. In a June speech at a black church near Ferguson, Missouri, she
said "all lives matter," rather than "black lives matter." Grassroots
activists, who see such generalizations as a way to sidestep specific
race-based remedies, were outraged.

Donna Brazile, a CNN contributor and longtime Clinton friend and supporter,
pointed out on Twitter that Clinton has said black lives matter in the past.

Yet those are the kind of ties and connections that Sanders lacks. Several
grassroots activists in Vermont complained that he didn't reach out as he
ramped up his national campaign. And when they look at his campaign team,
they see the Vermont problem.

"If he is going to have a serious national campaign, he is going to have to
better reflect the changing demographics with his team. Diversity is a
strength," said Hal Colston, a black Sanders supporter who runs Partnership
for Change, a non-profit education group in Vermont. "Bernie gets it and he
does listen. He's always been the champion for the person left behind. He
knows he has to update his rhetoric and he is already showing signs of
expanding the conversation."

Updating the conversation will mean responding to a rapid social media
driven movement that is now trying to bring attention the the case of
Sandra Bland, a Texas woman who died in police custody. Campaign aides said
that in the coming months, they will bring on more staff, including people
of color steeped in policy issues. For her part, Clinton has scooped up
black policy advisers as part of her core team, putting Sanders at somewhat
of a disadvantage.

"It will take some time because we are not the frontrunner, but it's a
priority," Devine said. "We want a campaign that looks like a Democratic
party campaign and not a Republican party convention."

*#BlackTwitter Turns On Bernie Sanders
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/19/blacktwitter-turns-on-bernie-sanders.html>
// The Daily Beast // Asawin Suebsaeng – July 19, 2015*

Black Twitter has a bone to pick with Bernie Sanders.

The 2016 lefty darling’s seeming unwillingness to talk about race on the
campaign trail is not sitting well with some black activists and observers,
and a tense moment turned #BernieSoBlack into a dominant trending topic
over the weekend.

Confronted Saturday by protesters at the Netroots Nation conference in
Phoenix chanting “Black lives matter!” and “What side are you on?” Sanders
was clearly annoyed. “Black lives, of course, matter,” the populist and
self-described socialist senator said. “I spent 50 years of my life
fighting for civil rights and for dignity…If you don’t want me to be here,
that’s OK. I don’t want to outscream people.”

As a senator from Vermont, which is roughly 95 percent white, Sanders has
had scant direct experience connecting with black constituents and voters,
and he prefers to focus his speeches on income inequality. His campaign
events are overwhelmingly white, and his own advisers have conceded—and he
himself has acknowledged—that he is still a virtual unknown among
African-American voters.

“Basically, the Bernie Sanders campaign has a lot of groundwork to do with
regards to building the relationship with black voters,” Terrell Starr, a
senior editor at Alternet, told The Daily Beast. “There is still privilege
with how white progressives view progressive politics with regards to
racial discrimination…And what we saw [Saturday] was an example of that
disconnect.”

Black Twitter went after the senator after his Netroots appearance:

(It’s true: Sanders marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963 and was
also arrested for protesting in favor of desegregating public schools in
Chicago.)

That @AngryBlackLady tweet, sent out to her 35,000 followers, inspired
Roderick Morrow—who runs the “Black Guy Who Tips” comedy podcast with his
wife, Karen—to launch the mocking hashtag #BernieSoBlack:

#BernieSoBlack quickly began trending on Twitter:

Morrow, who goes by @rodimusprime on Twitter and has more than 11,000
followers, said he was surprised his impromptu hashtag suddenly took off.
“I just thought it was a funny joke!” he told The Daily Beast. But he added
that his lighthearted jab was rooted in a serious concern about Sanders’s
candidacy.

“Every time race is brought up, he pivots to the economy, which obviously a
lot of racial disparity comes via economic means, but some of it is just
flat out racism and discrimination,” Morrow said. Sanders’s view that “if
we had more jobs in Ferguson, this wouldn’t have happened, I’m not sure
that is valid. I mean, Mike Brown was on his way to college. It’s not just
a jobs thing.”

The Sanders backlash could indicate friction and dissonance between two
critical components of the Democratic base: white liberals and
African-Americans. Many younger black activists are skeptical not just of
Sanders but of the current Democratic field, who they believe have taken
the solidly blue African-American vote for granted.

“Not to disrespect what he did with Martin Luther King,” Morrow said. “But
if you want to connect with black voters, they need to know what you are
going to do now and going forward, not what you’ve done in the past.”

Still, Morrow said he thinks the backlash this weekend—on Black Twitter,
and otherwise—has already done some good.

On Sunday, the official Bernie Sanders Twitter account addressed
#BlackLivesMatter directly.

Morrow said he hopes those tweets are a signal the senator will discuss
race more frequently during the long campaign. “Well, he’s listening and
paying attention,” Morrow said. “The last thing I want for any candidate is
for them to give up on the black vote, because that would be the most
destructive. Criticism is just part of the job.”

*Bernie Sanders draws largest crowds yet in Phoenix
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-draws-largest-crowds-yet-phoenix> //
MSNBC // Nisha Chittal – Jully 19, 2015*

PHOENIX, Arizona – Bernie Sanders had his largest rally yet of his nascent
campaign on Saturday night in Phoenix, Arizona.

“We’ve had big turnouts in Wisconsin, in Iowa … but this is the biggest
turnout yet!” Sanders said as he took the stage to begin his speech. “And
some people say Arizona is a conservative state!” he said, receiving wild
applause and cheers from the crowd.

A campaign spokesperson confirmed that over 11,000 people attended the
rally at Phoenix Convention Center, which the largest attendance number yet
for a Sanders rally.

While the event was timed to coincide with the Netroots Nation conference
that brought many progressive activists to Phoenix for the weekend, the
attendees at the Saturday night rally appeared to be primarily local area
supporters, with some Netroots attendees mixed in.

Sanders spoke for nearly an hour, and his speech initially focused on the
economic themes that Sanders has continually emphasized throughout his
campaign: income inequality, job creation, raising the minimum wage, and
debt-free college.

Sanders also went after GOP candidate Jeb Bush for his recent comments
suggesting that Americans should work more. “Jeb Bush thinks the American
people need to work harder,” Sanders said, as the audience booed. “Our
people do not need to work longer hours, they need better wages!”

But his speech also broadened beyond his usual comfort zone of economic
issues and touched on a broad range of social issues, including LGBT
rights, women’s reproductive rights, racial justice, and the gender wage
gap.

“What our Republicans colleagues talk about is ‘family values.’ And this is
what they mean by family values: they mean that a woman should not be able
to have the right to control her own body. They believe that women, if you
can believe this, should not be able to purchase the contraceptives they
want. And they believe that our gay brothers and sisters should not have
the right to marry.”

“Those are their ‘family values,’” Sanders continued, referring to
Republicans. “Those are not OUR family values.”

Sanders also addressed wage inequality, saying: “It is unacceptable that
women today make 78 cents to the man’s dollar. Brothers, we need to stand
with our sisters and fight for pay equity.”

Earlier on Saturday, Sanders spoke at a presidential town hall moderated by
journalist and immigration rights activist Jose Antonio Vargas. However,
Sanders was only able to speak for a few brief minutes before the event was
abruptly cut short due to protesters interrupting the event. During the
first portion of the town hall, Vargas interviewed Democratic candidate
Martin O’Malley, but the former Maryland governor was interrupted a few
questions in by protesters chanting “black lives matter” and “say her name”
to draw attention to the recent deaths of black women at the hands of
police, including Sandra Bland, who died while in police custody earlier
this week, sparking a Twitter movement under the hashtag
#IfIDieInPoliceCustody.

At Saturday evening’s event, Sanders made a point of addressing the issues
of racial justice and policing tactics that were bought up at the earlier
town hall. On race, Sanders said: “While we have come a long way, we still
have a long way to go.”

“It is not acceptable to me,” he added, “that we have seen young black men
walk down street in this country, be beaten, and be killed unjustly, that
is not acceptable.”

As supporters applauded and began to cheer “black lives matter,” Sanders
continued: “When a police officer breaks the law, that officer must be held
accountable.”

But as the event came to a close, Sanders pivoted back to his comfort zone
of economic issues.

“We need to stand up and say, enough is enough, the billionaires are not
gonna have it all, it’s our country!” he closed, to thunderous applause and
cheers from the crowd.

*Sanders vaults from fringe to the heart of the fray
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/07/18/summer-sanders-fall-sanders/FWFu6n73iroD98e4og2baM/story.html>
// Boston Globe // Annie Linskey – July 19, 2015*

SOMEWHERE OVER THE AMERICAN WEST — It’s 7:20 a.m. and Bernie Sanders looks
irritated. He’s already buckled into his economy seat on Delta Flight 4516
and an attendant just announced that the flight would sit on the runway for
30 minutes before taking off.

“Planes,” grumbled the Vermont senator. “Don’t get me started about
airplanes.” Then he added, in a tone that sounded only half-joking, “This
is when you want a private jet.”

Sanders’ insurgent campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination
doesn’t spring for charters like his top competitor — at least not yet. On
this day he isn’t even flying nonstop, as he heads from Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
to Phoenix via Minneapolis. If all goes well, he’ll just be a few minutes
late to a forum at Netroots Nation, an annual gathering of liberals.

The weekend events — another rally is planned in Houston Sunday — is
capping off Sanders’ best week so far in his increasingly credible quest
for the nomination. Federal reports made public last week show he has
raised more than $15 million for his campaign, beating every other
presidential candidate from either party save Hillary Rodham Clinton (she
hauled in about $46 million). He has gathered the money from an army of
small donors that is larger than that of any other presidential candidate.

And, as he pulled his roller bag out of the air-conditioned terminal into
the blast of Phoenix heat Saturday morning, he was preparing to speak that
evening before his largest crowd yet.

Through some combination of political skill, fortuitous timing, well-tuned
messaging, and sheer luck this has become the Summer of Sanders — in which
an unkempt 73-year-old man who isn’t even a member of the Democratic Party
is mounting the strongest challenge to the Democratic establishment. He’s
gone from being dismissed as a fringe candidate to having a huge early
impact on the primary.

The self-described Democratic socialist flying coach is suddenly a star.
Clinton aides have acknowledged concern about losing ground in Iowa and New
Hampshire, or both, to Sanders. One poll has shown him within 19 percentage
points of Clinton in the Hawkeye State and another has him within eight
points of her in New Hampshire.

But, will it last? Or, as one of his strategists put it, could the next few
months bring the fall of Sanders?

Already the Sanders campaign infrastructure is creaking under the weight of
the unexpected interest in his candidacy. Tens of thousands of bumper
stickers were on back order. Venues for rallies need to be changed multiple
times as the RSVPs pile high, and crowds swell. And most importantly, to
survive, he’ll need to expand his support beyond the liberal wing of the
Democratic Party — and persuade the party that he should be the standard
bearer.

Sanders contends that the national caricature of him as a hippy-dippy
socialist from the People’s Republic of Burlington, where he was mayor from
1981 to 1989, is largely inaccurate. He jokes about it — saying that he
doesn’t own a pair of Birkenstocks and never would “in a million years.” He
says that his message resonates most loudly with blue-collar workers, not
the tie-dye set.

On Friday night in a vast hall in Cedar Rapids before 1,300 people, that
appeal was on full display. Sanders shared the stage for the first time
with the other four Democratic candidates who took turns speaking to the
audience. He won multiple standing ovations for a thundering rant against
the inordinate power of the super-rich. He called for a “political
revolution” and predicted that without it, the country was heading toward
an oligarchy.

“Nothing will get done unless millions of people stand up and roundly
proclaim enough is enough,” Sanders said, gripping the lectern with both
hands. “This country belongs to all of us, and not a handful of
billionaires.”

It was a classic display of Sanders’ freewheeling approach, the aura of
blunt authenticity that makes him seem a refreshing change from Clinton’s
poll-tested messages and reluctance to offer detailed positions on issues
of the day.

“He really connected,” said Steve Hultman, a 65-year-old retired teacher
from Council Bluffs, Iowa. “Hillary has to go to work. She has to get the
facts and framing to excite the Democratic side of the party.”

Some part of Sanders’ popularity flows directly from the Elizabeth Warren
wing of the Democratic Party. He only began to rise in polls of probable
voters when the Massachusetts senator’s name was dropped from their surveys
after it became clear that she wouldn’t run. For him as for her, not having
to worry much about moderate support is liberating; Clinton has no such
luxury. And it doesn’t really tell against Sanders at this early stage that
a liberal message like his may not play well, or at all, in some states a
candidate must win to gain nomination or election.

But there’s more to Sanders than the Warren echo. Unlike others in the
current field, he has been quietly building a national grass-roots network
for years. His 2012 Senate campaign finance report looks remarkably similar
to his presidential one last week, with most contributions coming from
small donors across the country. He raised $7.2 million for that election,
swamping his Republican opponent, who took in about $135,000.

While he was being written off in 2014 by the news media and other
candidates focused on Warren instead, Sanders road-tested his message. In
Los Angeles, he recalled, there were standing-room-only crowds this year
well before announcing his candidacy. In Texas, so many people came to hear
him that a traffic jam of supporters headed for the venue made it difficult
for him to get to the event himself.

Still, those around Sanders weren’t sure he was going to run even weeks
before his April 30 announcement. “As late as late April, if Bernie had
called and said ‘we’re not doing this’ I would not have been shocked,” said
Tad Devine, a longtime Sanders ally and a political consultant.

There’s a limit to the revolution Sanders is pushing: The senator won’t
mount an independent bid for president. No matter how the crowds swell.
“We’re doing this within the party system,” he said again Saturday on the
Minneapolis leg of his trip.

Keeping it simple

Sanders’ plane landed in Minneapolis with about 30 minutes to get his
connecting flight. One passenger positioned himself near the end of the jet
bridge to get a photo of him getting off the plane. He paused for selfies
with several others as they all waited for luggage checked at the gate.

Unlike Clinton’s container-ship-sized campaign organization with more than
300 on staff, Sanders has a much smaller operation. On Saturday he traveled
with only his campaign manager, his communications director, a
videographer, and his wife. He figured out most of the logistics himself —
securing boarding passes for the group and leading everyone through the
Minneapolis airport from one terminal to the other.

The campaign pays 25 full-time staff members in Iowa and rents offices in
10 different towns. Sanders has just 10 full-time staffers in Vermont, 5 in
Washington, and 4 in New Hampshire, plus 11 paid interns in Vermont and New
Hampshire.

He revels in this relative lack of professional help. To make his point, he
briefly commandeered an interview with a reporter last week in Washington.

“Ask me who my campaign finance director is,” he said over coffee in a
Senate cafeteria.

“We don’t have one. Ask me who my pollster is,” he said. “We don’t have
one.” He said he writes his own direct mail.

That’s not to say Sanders has a consultant-free campaign. He’s soaked up
some talent from President Obama’s team. The names include Scott Goodstein,
an online director for Obama’s first presidential race, and Arun Chaudhary,
another veteran of the 2008 Obama campaign team who was Obama’s first
videographer.

Teamwork pays off

Should this team’s work pay off and Sanders becomes even more viable, the
target on his candidacy will grow. On June 25 a super PAC linked to former
Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, another declared Democratic candidate,
spent about $10,000 on online ads critical of Sanders’ record on gun
control, which is, for a Democrat, notably friendly to gun owners.

Sanders’ team fought back, using the same rhetoric that Warren so
effectively employs against her many critics: Frame the attack as an
assault on the progressive movement and raise buckets of cash off of it.

The day after the ads began, Sanders’ campaign blasted an e-mail to
supporters requesting help. Within 48 hours they’d raised more than
$800,000, according to a source familiar with his fund-raising.

But by far the most talked about aspect of Sanders’ candidacy is the size
of the crowds — it comes as a shock even to the candidate.

“You walk into an arena and find 10,000 people looking at you . . . ” he
said in an interview, trailing off. Then he turned to Michael Briggs, his
charmingly beleaguered press aide.

“How many RSVPs do we have now in Phoenix?” he asked. “10,000?”

The swell forced the campaign to move the event twice. The same thing
happened in Portland, Maine, where he ended up speaking to more than 7,500.
And in Madison, Wis., where he spoke to a crowd about 10,000. And in
Denver, where he spoke to about 5,000.

Putting this many supporters in a room takes work. The campaign e-mails
supporters who live near events, and they ask an enthusiastic Reddit
community to spread the word.

There’s a practical reason for holding these events. Sanders hasn’t spent
much time building the relationships within the Democratic Party leaders at
the state level that can help propel a national candidacy.

“We need to build organization, particularly in relatively early states,”
Devine said.

On Saturday — when Sanders finally arrived at Netroots — the work that he
needs to do to appeal to the broader Democratic coalition was clear. A
group of mostly African-American demonstrators protesting police brutality
had heckled O’Malley, disrupting his speech.

Sanders knew he was walking into a difficult situation. “It’s this
afternoon’s talk I’m worried about,” he said before walking on the stage —
and faced some of the same angry chants, competing with the cheers.

*Bernie Sanders voices concerns about police brutality in Dallas campaign
stop
<http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/07/bernie-sanders-voices-concerns-about-police-brutality-in-dallas-campaign-stop.html/>
// Trailblazers Blog // Ryan J. Rusak – July 19, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, sought Sunday during a
Dallas visit to calm complaints about his response to concerns about police
brutality at a progressive activists gathering this weekend.

“We want a nation where a young black man or woman can walk down the street
without worrying about being falsely arrested, beaten or killed,” Sanders
told more than 8,000 people who packed a Sheraton Hotel ballroom to hear
him.

Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, has been drawing huge crowds
in his long-shot bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Though
he’s unlikely to wrest the nomination from Hillary Clinton, liberal voters
concerned about issues such as income inequality and the power of big banks
have responded with enthusiasm to the self-described socialist.

But on Saturday, Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, got a
less-than-friendly reception at Netroots Nation. Attendees chanting “black
lives matter” interrupted the pair, and Sanders at one point threatened to
leave. By Sunday afternoon, #berniesoblack was trending on Twitter, as
users both mocked Sanders’ response and hailed his progressive agenda.

Sanders’ appearance in Dallas, though, drew no protests. The crowd hailed
his standard lines on topics from abortion and civil rights to Social
Security and corporations.

Sanders, who supports the transition to sustainable energy and away from
fossil fuels, criticized the oil and gas energy industry but he said he
“understands speaking here in Texas, a fossil fuel state, that people are
concerned of losing their jobs.”

“We’ve got to break up these banks. If they’re too big to fail they’re too
big to exist,” Sanders said. “Paying more in this election cycle than
either major political party does not sound like democracy to me.”

Supporters were greeted with revolution-themed song like “Uprising” by
Muse, and attendees could be heard laughing as the music changed to
“Rocking in the Free World” by Neil Young—a jab at Republican presidential
candidate Donald Trump.

Supporters of all ages held signs and wore T-shirts with phrases like “Feel
the Bern.”

Dallas is the state’s largest reliably Democratic county, but Sanders could
struggle here to gain traction against Clinton, who is popular among Texas
Democrats. The state’s primary, slated for March 1, could be a key moment
in the parties’ nominating contests, as it’s the first big state to vote
after the smaller areas that traditionally lead off the process.

Sanders later headed to Houston for a rally.

*‘Police must be held accountable': Bernie Sanders rips bad cops who attack
young black men
<http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/police-must-be-held-accountable-bernie-sanders-rips-bad-cops-who-attack-young-black-men/>
// RawStory // Tom Boggioni – July 19, 2015*

Following his townhall-style appearance at Netroots Nation that could have
gone better, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders told a packed
house in Phoenix that, although the country has made great strides is race
relations, “we still have a long way to go.”

Before a fervent crowd that Sanders’ campaign spokesperson estimated at
over 11,000 took time to switch gears from his message of economic populism
to address the concerns of #BlackLivesMatters protesters who disrupted his
talk earlier.

“It is not acceptable that an African-American male baby born today, if we
do not change things, stands a 1 in 4 chance of being in prison during his
life,” the Vermont independent told the crowd.

He continued, “It is not acceptable to me that we have seen young black men
walk down streets in this country be beaten and be killed unjustly — that
is not acceptable. Most police officers — and I was a mayor for eight years
— and I worked with police officers, it’s a tough job but most cops do it
well. But when a police officer breaks the law, that officer must be held
accountable.”

*Twitter users debate Bernie Sanders’ civil rights credibility with
#BernieSoBlack hashtag
<http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/twitter-users-debate-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-credibility-with-berniesoblack-hashtag/>
// RawStory // David Ferguson – July 19, 2015*

After a group of #BlackLivesMatter protesters disrupted Democratic
candidates Gov. Martin O’Malley (MD) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) at
Netroots Nation 2015 on Saturday, some activists took to Twitter to express
their dissatisfaction with Sanders’ response.

By Sunday afternoon, the hashtag #BernieSoBlack was trending, with
progressives trading barbs on Twitter and accusing each other of racism,
character assassination, censorship, “whitesplaining” and more.

It began as a way of mocking the candidate while trading cultural
signifiers.

But then some progressives began to point out some of the real work Sanders
has done for racial progress in this country.

And then the usual tears and recriminations followed.

The #BernieSoBlack hashtag is proof that #BlackLivesMatter is not organized
and has no vision about how to engage to get real change

— YeaYouRite (@YeaYouRite) July 19, 2015

While others just had fun with it.

#BernieSoBlack his wife passed Precious the bucket of fried chicken at M &
G Diner in Harlem. pic.twitter.com/2F9jASsiiH

— eri (@eri_cyrus) July 19, 2015

*UNDECLARED*

*BIDEN*

*Report: Joe Biden may still enter 2016 presidential race
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/report-joe-biden-may-still-enter-2016-presidential-race>
// MSNBC // Adam Howard – July 19, 2015*

Vice President Joe Biden still hasn’t ruled out a 2016 run for the
presidency, according to a report from The Huffington Post.

Sources reportedly close to the 72-year-old told the website that he’s
expected to make a final decision by September.

“He has said he would announce his decision at the end of the summer,” Ted
Kaufman, a longtime Biden aide who briefly filled his Senate seat when he
was elected vice president, told Huffington Post. On the other hand,
Biden’s  Kendra A. Barkoff, appeared to throw cold water on the 2016 buzz.
“The Biden family is going through a difficult time right now,” said
Barkoff. “Any speculation about the views of the vice president or his
family about his political future is premature and inappropriate.”

Biden has been in mourning the death of his son Beau Biden, who succumbed
to a long battle with brain cancer on May 30th. Beau Biden, who had
political aspirations of his own, reportedly encouraged his father to seek
the White House next year.

There has been speculation about BIden entering the campaign for months. “I
think there’s concern about this being his last act and him losing a
primary by 40 or 50 points,” Bloomberg reporter Phil Mattingly said on a
July 2 episode of msnbc’s “Morning Joe.” “In the wake of what he’s done as
vice president and the legacy that he’s left, I do think there is a very,
very real push inside his family and inside his team to get in.”

“He’s as good a politician as anybody in the world, he’s not going to hop
in something if he doesn’t see a window, or a pathway forward. And I don’t
know that they’ve seen Hillary’s team falter to a point where the window is
very clear right now,” Mattingly continued.

Current polls show Biden trailing behind frontrunner HIllary Clinton and
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders among Democratic primary voters. However, a CNN
poll from earlier this month showed Biden moving into second place if he
were to enter the race.

William Pierce, a military veteran the leader of a “Draft Biden” Super PAC,
told msnbc’s Lawrence O’Donnell earlier this month that staff in the early
primary voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire are working to generate
enthusiasm for a potential Biden run. “We haven’t seen no bat signal from
the vice president telling us not to do what we’re doing,” Pierce said.
“What we have seen though are a lot of supporters from around the entire
country who have supported him in the past or who are now current, new
supporters – they’re coming out and they’re supporting him.”

However, veteran pollster Charlie Cook argued that Biden’s age – he’ll be
74 by next November – completely derails any chance he would have at being
the Democratic 2016 nominee. “It’s not gonna happen,” he told O’Donnell.

*OTHER*

*How Clinton, Sanders, O’Malley answer union’s questions about education
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/19/how-clinton-sanders-omalley-answer-unions-questions-about-education/>
// WaPo // Valerie Strauss – July 19, 2015*

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-largest teachers union in
the country, became the first major union to endorse a candidate, when it
picked Hillary Clinton earlier this month.

The July 11 endorsement by the AFT’s executive council has sparked backlash
from some union members, who support Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and/or
wanted the AFT to wait longer while the political process played out. But
the endorsement was never in doubt, given AFT President Randi Weingarten’s
longtime association with Clinton.

Putting the politics of the endorsement aside for the moment, here is how
Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland governor Martin
O’Malley answered AFT questions in questionnaires submitted before the
endorsement and before both the House and Senate had passed their own
versions of a rewritten No Child Left Behind bill. (They were the only
three to answer the AFT’s questions).

The questions involve issues including education, health care and the
economy. You can decide for yourself who directly answered questions and
who dodged them.  Here are the questionnaires with the answers:

Hillary Rodham Clinton

AFT: Today, almost 50 million students attend our nation’s public schools.
Along with their parents, communities, teachers, paraprofessionals and
other school employees, these students have been forced to live under
test-and-punish policies that include sanctions and school closings,
high-stakes assessments, and federalized teacher evaluations that are
counterproductive and have taken the joy out of teaching and learning.

Q. What is your view of the current version of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (also known as the No Child Left Behind Act)? What changes,
if any, would you make to the law, and why? Please include positions on:

The federal government’s role in ensuring equity and access to resources
for all children;

The role of standards, assessments and accountability in public education;

Ensuring that all students have access to a broad curriculum that includes
art and music, as well as science, technology, engineering and mathematics
(STEM);

Professional development for school staff; and Community schools.

HRC: I have been working to improve and support our public schools for
decades. Throughout my career I have worked to ensure that every child
reaches his or her full potential, and I know a quality education is
essential to reach that goal. When I was First Lady of Arkansas, I chaired
the Arkansas Educational Standards Commission where I worked to raise
standards for Arkansas’ schools, increase teacher salaries, and lower class
size. I continued in this effort as First Lady of the United States and as
a Senator, working throughout my career to provide dedicated resources and
support to teachers and to recruit, support, and retain more outstanding
teachers. We need to attract a whole new generation to teaching because it
is critical that our students have well-prepared and well-supported
teachers.

When the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted, I viewed it as a historic
promise between the federal government and educators. I hoped that it would
lead to a greater sense of shared responsibility for our schools’ success.
Unfortunately, that promise was largely broken because schools struggled to
meet the mandates imposed by the law and the implementation at the federal
level was problematic.

I applaud Senator Patty Murray and Senator Lamar Alexander for coming
together in a bipartisan fashion to unanimously pass the Every Child
Achieves Act of 2015 out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions committee to reauthorize NCLB. I believe this bill addresses some
of the real challenges with NCLB while retaining our commitment to high
academic standards, and to assessments that give parents and teachers the
information they need to know how students are performing and if and where
they need help to improve. I believe that this bill will correct for some
of the real challenges that schools and communities experienced in
implementing the law and will ensure that principals, educators and local
communities are lifted up as full partners and innovators in improving
public education. I also applaud the forward-looking investments in
education contained in the bill, including a new commitment to improving
early learning.

One of the issues that I am most concerned about is testing. Tests are
intended to provide parents and educators with an understanding of how well
kids are learning. Having that understanding is crucial. And it is
important to remember that testing provides communities with full
information about how our low-income students and students of color are
doing in comparison to other groups so that we can continue to improve our
educational system for all students.

But I understand the frustration many parents and educators feel about
tests. Teachers and parents alike are concerned about the amount of time
being spent on test preparation, and worry that children are missing out on
the most valuable experience in the classroom– a teacher sparking a
student’s curiosity and love for learning.

So I am mindful that we need to find the right balance — and that starts
with bringing parents and educators back into this conversation about how
we ensure a robust and engaging curriculum that engages students in the
love of learning rather than narrowing our schools to focus primarily on
test preparation.

I do think that Senators Murray and Alexander struck the right balance in
the Every Child Achieves Act by continuing to maintain the federal
requirement for annual statewide testing in grades 3-8, but ensuring that
accountability for improving schools will be based on multiple measures of
performance. And I think it will be critical for states and communities to
continue to strike the right balance and not layer test upon test. There
must be room for invigorating teaching and learning in the classroom.

Q. Do you support any of the current reauthorization proposals under
consideration in the 114th Congress?

HRC: I applaud Senator Patty Murray and Senator Lamar Alexander for coming
together in a bipartisan fashion to unanimously pass the Every Child
Achieves Act of 2015 out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions committee to reauthorize NCLB.

Q. What role do you think the federal government can play in providing
access to early childhood education? What specific policy proposals would
your administration pursue?

HRC: I believe we need to improve access to quality child care and early
learning opportunities for all children. Every child, regardless of
parental income, deserves access to high-quality pre-K. I think any
discussion of improving our public schools must include universal access to
pre-kindergarten. I believe we can start to close the achievement gap by
investing in programs that increase children’s school readiness and
academic preparation while making it easier for parents to balance their
responsibilities at work with their responsibilities to their children. We
know children’s brains develop more rapidly at this time in their lives
than at any other and that high quality interventions make a real
difference in the outcomes of children from low-income families. In the
months ahead, I look forward to laying out a significant agenda to improve
early learning in our country.

I have been highlighting the importance of early childhood education for
more than forty years. As First Lady of Arkansas, I helped bring the Home
Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters Program (HIPPY) to
Arkansas. As First Lady, I hosted the first White House conference on early
learning and the brain, championed the program “Prescription for Reading,”
in which pediatricians provided free books for new mothers to read to their
infants as their brains were rapidly developing, and supported the
Administration’s work to create Early Head Start, which reaches children
from birth to age three throughout country. As Senator, I co-sponsored the
Education Begins at Home Act, which expands the Parents as Teachers program
and other quality programs of early childhood home visitation. As a leader
at the Clinton Foundation, I led a national initiative called “Too Small to
Fail” aimed at supporting parents to improve vocabulary and brain
development in the early years to close the “word gap” and better prepare
children for school. As President, I will continue my lifelong work to
expand early childhood and parent education programs.

Q. What are your views on private school vouchers, tuition tax credits, and
charter school accountability and transparency?

HRC: I strongly oppose voucher schemes because they divert precious
resources away from financially strapped public schools to private schools
that are not subject to the same accountability standards or teacher
quality standards. It would be harmful to our democracy if we dismantled
our public school system through vouchers, and there is no evidence that
doing so would improve outcomes for children.

Charters should be held to the same standards, and to the same level of
accountability and transparency to which traditional public schools are
held. This includes the requirements of civil rights laws. They can
innovate and help improve educational practices. But I also believe that we
must go back to the original purpose of charter schools. Where charters are
succeeding, we should be doing more to ensure that their innovations can be
widely disseminated throughout our traditional public school system. Where
they are failing, they should be closed.

AFT: Access to an affordable and high-quality system of public higher
education is critical to the health of the nation — both to ensure that
students reach their fullest potential, and to enable the United States to
continue to develop as a just society, a vibrant democracy and a land of
economic opportunity.

Q. Escalating tuition and fees are leading to a growing number of students
leaving college with overwhelming debt from student loans. This burden of
rising costs and rising debt makes access to higher education increasingly
difficult for many students and their families. What is the role of the
federal government in ensuring that higher education is affordable and
accessible?

HRC: First, too many young people are struggling under the burden of
student debt and too many families are struggling to pay the rising cost of
college. Second, too many students are starting but never completing
college, which means they leave with debt but no degree. I will be offering
my own ideas for how to make college more affordable, how to make sure no
one graduates with crushing debt, and how to hold colleges accountable to
help more students graduate. Among other things, we have to do more to link
student loan repayments to income and to help people refinance their loans.
And we have to think about both four-year colleges and community colleges.
I support President Obama’s free community college proposal. I will be
talking about ways to reduce the burdens on those entering four-year
colleges too, as well as those who are out in the world trying to start a
business or a family. I intend to introduce significant proposals on these
subjects in the weeks and months ahead.

Q. There has been a nationwide pattern of disinvestment in public higher
education such that per-student funding dropped 26.1 percent between 1990
and 2010. What would your administration do to remedy this?

HRC: State budget cuts are a primary cause of tuition increases at public
universities and reversing this trend is key to making college more
affordable. That’s why I will make incentivizing increased state funding of
higher education a priority, and explore ways to make sure that the federal
government is actively partnering and working with states to address the
problem of college affordability.

Q. Career and technical education programs help ensure that postsecondary
credentials and skills are accessible to all — a necessity in today’s
economy. In your view, what is the role of the federal government in
supporting high-quality CTE programs?

HRC: In the months ahead, I will lay out my ideas for a comprehensive
proposal to train millions more workers over the next decade. I am
exploring a number of options to incentivize GTE programs and help provide
grants to train workers for the 21st century economy.

Q. What is the federal government’s role in requiring appropriate
transparency and accountability of for-profit institutions?

HRC: We have to do a lot more to protect students and families from
unscrupulous institutions and abusive debt servicers. There are a lot of
non-traditional students who want to go back to school to improve their
lives, but don’t have access to much information or support to figure out
how best to do that. Money and time are both tight, with a lot of them
trying to juggle family, jobs, and school all at the same time. So they’re
particularly vulnerable to exploitation and deception.

All students need more guidance in making decisions about where to go to
school. We should protect them from institutions that will almost certainly
not serve them well. The government should stop funding colleges where
almost no one graduates and where most students accumulate a lot of debt
but can’t get the jobs that would allow them to repay their loans. In the
months ahead, I will be laying out specific ideas and proposals on how to
increase accountability in the for-profit sector.

AFT: Having a high-quality healthcare system in the United States is a
moral imperative, an economic necessity and a fundamental right for all.
Underpinning this right is a healthcare system that reflects the needs of
the patients, providers and community.

Q. What are your views of the Affordable Care Act? What changes would you
make, if any, to the ACA, including the excise tax on high-cost plans and
the provisions on shared responsibility for employers?

HRC: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, more than 16 million Americans have
gained new coverage. The reduction in the uninsured rate across the country
has been staggering, down to roughly 12% for adults.

These statistics translate into real change in people’s lives. Families who
no longer have to face the threat of bankruptcy because of catastrophic
health care costs. Parents who now have health care when only their
children were covered before. Women can no longer be charged higher rates
solely because of their gender. People with preexisting conditions can no
longer be denied coverage. Americans can make the leap of changing jobs or
starting a business without worrying about whether they’ll still be able to
buy insurance — because now they know they can purchase it on the
marketplace. So this is a real accomplishment we should be proud of

As with any piece of major legislation, it’s not perfect and would benefit
from updates and fixes. One area of the ACA that I am examining is the
so-called “Cadillac” tax. As currently structured, I worry that it may
create an incentive to substantially lower the value of the benefits
package and shift more and more costs to consumers. As President, I would
work to ensure that our tax code appropriately advances the health care
interests of lower-income and middle-class families.

We also need to take steps beyond the ACA. We should crack down on the drug
companies that charge too much and the insurance companies that offer too
little. And we need to tackling rising out-of-pocket health care costs for
consumers across the board.

Q. Do you support initiatives designed to move health insurance coverage
away from an employer-based model? If so, what would you propose as an
alternative to the current system for covering working adults?

HRC: I’ve long believed that progress on health care is only possible if
there is a principle of shared responsibility among every major actor in
our health care system. Employers have always played a critical role in
ensuring working families have access to coverage — in fact more than 96%
of firms with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance.

Q. Many licensed healthcare professionals, particularly RNs, are leaving
hospital service because of difficult working conditions, including
excessive and unsafe workloads, understaffing and mandatory overtime. What
would you do to address these problems and to improve recruitment and
retention of nurses and other healthcare professionals?

HRC: I know that we must address the nursing shortage in this country and
give nurses the training, education, and support they need to provide the
care patients deserve. We need appropriate nurse-to-patient ratios in order
to improve patient care and working conditions for nurses.

I have a history of working for America’s nurses. As Senator, I was proud
to champion provisions in the Nurse Reinvestment Act that provided
significant resources to recruit and train nurses, and I introduced the
Nursing Education and Quality of Health Care Act. I believe it is important
that all American employees are safe and protected where they work In
particular, I believe that we need to consider the effects of ergonomic
hazards in order to quickly and effectively address musculoskeletal
disorders in the workplace. I know that this is a problem for nurses, who
often suffer from back-related injuries as a result of having to move and
lift patients.

Q. Merger and acquisition activity continues to consolidate the U.S.
healthcare system into the hands of a few corporations, many of which are
for-profit. What would you do to ensure competition in the healthcare
industry is fair and protects the American consumer?

HRC: The federal government plays a critical role in evaluating and
enforcing health care mergers to ensure that they do not stymie
competition, burdening consumers with fewer choices and higher prices.
Anti-competitive and costly market consolidation in health care or other
markets should not be permitted. While the Affordable Care Act created
incentives for providers to better coordinate care and pass those savings
onto consumers, we need to make sure that acquisitions and integration of
health care stakeholders will ultimately lower cost growth and increase
quality of care. To that end, in addition to providing necessary guidance
to health care providers about appropriate and beneficial ways to better
integrate their services, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should be
funded and directed to be ever-vigilant in halting anti-competitive health
care arrangements through robust enforcement.

Q. What would you do to ensure that communities have access to public
health services?

HRC: I believe we must take full advantage of the movement from volume to
value purchasing of health care to encourage much more of a focus on the
value of prevention and the imperative of population health. My record
shows my dedication to this issue. As Senator, I led a bipartisan coalition
to fight for legislation to combat childhood obesity, helped pass
legislation to provide extra funding for flu vaccine and proposed
legislation that would raise public awareness and speed up production of
the vaccine, and proposed legislation to combat diabetes, asthma and
HIV/AIDS. As the chairperson of the Superfund and Environmental Health
Subcommittee of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, I held the
first-ever congressional hearing on environmental justice, bringing
much-needed attention to the fact that certain environmental conditions
cause health problems, which is often the case in low-income or underserved
communities. Following the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, providers
are being more appropriately rewarded on their success in ensuring wellness
and good health and not on unnecessary, wasteful, expensive and,
all-too-frequently, dangerous health care interventions. By focusing on
prevention and the necessity of population health, we have a real
opportunity to finally make long-overdue inroads in the public’s health.

AFT: An administration’s economic policy has far-reaching implications for
the United States and the world. It also says a great deal about a
president’s priorities and general philosophy about the federal
government’s responsibility to its citizens.

Q. What are your priorities for revitalizing the economy, strengthening the
middle class, creating jobs and ensuring fair taxation? How would your plan
help restore funding for education, healthcare, transportation, public
safety and many other services provided to our citizens?

HRC: I want to make being middle-class mean something again. I’m going to
take on four big fights in this campaign: (1) building an economy for
tomorrow, instead of yesterday; (2) strengthening our families and
communities; (3) fixing our broken political system; (4) protecting our
country from threats.

I will lay out a number of new ideas over the course of the campaign,
including helping small businesses create jobs, making college more
affordable, raising workers’ wages and reducing cost pressures on families,
balancing work and family, helping workers get the skills they need to get
ahead in a changing economy, and making sure all our kids have the chance
to live up to their God-given potential.

Q. The United States has a $3.2 trillion infrastructure deficit according
to the American Society of Civil Engineers — and that’s just for repairs.
What are the mechanisms (e.g., public, private, infrastructure bank)
through which we can fund the rebuilding of this country, including the
necessary renovation and modernization of our public schools, hospitals and
public buildings?

HRC: Ordinary Americans can’t afford failing to invest in our
infrastructure. If we don’t repair our roads and bridges, and upgrade our
infrastructure for the 21st Century, it’s harder for Americans to get to
work, and for our businesses to grow and compete. It’s time for us to
invest in America. That means Congress must make the investments we need in
our roads and highways and that means leveraging investment by the private
sector as well. I will be laying out my own proposals on how to leverage
both public and private sources of funding and creative financing
mechanisms to address America’s infrastructure needs.

Q. What would your administration do to build and strengthen retirement
security for all working men and women, including protecting employees’
pensions? What is your plan for sustaining and strengthening Social
Security and Medicare?

HRC: Let me start by saying I’ve fought to defend Social Security for
years, including when the Bush Administration tried to privatize it. We
need to keep defending it from attacks and enhance it to meet new
realities. I’m especially focused on the fact that we need to improve how
Social Security works for women. I also want to enhance benefits for our
most vulnerable seniors. We need to reject years of Republican myth-making
that claims we cannot afford it and that the only solution must therefore
be to cut benefits.

I will continue to oppose Republican efforts that seek to privatize or gut
Medicare.

We need a broader strategy to help Americans with their retirement
security. I will have ideas on that.

Q. What are your views on the privatization and contracting out of public
services, including school services and state and local government services?

HRC: I do not believe that we should be contracting, outsourcing, or
privatizing work that is inherently governmental in nature, including
school services and state and local government services. In the Senate, I
helped secure a measure that became law that blocked the Bush
administration from downsizing the Federal Protective Service. I
co-sponsored legislation to protect city and rural letter carriers from
having their work contracted out by the U.S. Postal Service to private
firms and individuals. Lastly, I was an original co-sponsor of the Honest
Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act.

AFT: Labor unions give workers a collective voice in the workplace and are
integral to the social and economic health of our country. AFT members are
interested in knowing your views on the role of labor unions.

Q. Current federal laws and policies encourage and promote collective
bargaining through the National Labor Relations Act. What are your views on
collective bargaining for the private and public sectors? What is your view
regarding agency fee and so-called right-to-work laws?

HRC: The right to organize is one of our most fundamental human rights. I
believe that unions are critical to a strong American middle class.
Throughout my career, I have stood with all workers as they exercise their
right to organize and bargain collectively and was an original co-sponsor
of the Employee Free Choice Act. I’m talking to a lot of labor leaders and
labor economists about what the next president can do to support 21st
century organizing and collective bargaining.

Q. As president, what would you do to: (a) prevent employers from
intimidating and harassing workers who support union representation, (b)
ensure that workers are free to organize and bargain in the workplace, and
(c) protect the rights of American workers?

HRC: Throughout my career, I have stood with all workers as they exercise
their right to organize and bargain collectively and am an original
co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. I actively opposed
anti-collective bargaining provisions contained in the Department of
Defense’s proposed National Security Personnel System and have voted in
favor of collective bargaining rights for TSA screeners. It is also vital
that we modernize basic labor standards. Worker protections and basic labor
standards have failed to keep pace with changes over the past half century.
We need to raise wages and reduce poverty among working families, including
raising the minimum wage, eradicating wage theft, promoting collective
bargaining, updating overtime protections, ensuring that employers do not
misclassify, true employees as “independent contractors” to skirt their
obligations, and leveling the playing field for women and people of color.

Q. The federal government has direct responsibility for setting labor
standards. There has been a growing call for changes to those standards,
including paid sick days, paid family leave and higher minimum wages. What
changes, if any, would you prioritize?

HRC: Experience shows that policies that are good for middle-class families
are good for everyone — including businesses. These policies are
pro-growth, and pro-family, and that’s a pretty good twofer.

It is long past time for the U.S. to join every other nation in the
developed world in having paid leave, which is critical to ensuring that
workers do not have to choose between caring for their family and keeping a
job. I’m not under any illusions that this will be easy. We had to fight
for years to pass the unpaid Family and Medical Leave Act, and the day my
husband signed that law was a day I’ll never forget. I look forward to
talking about how we move forward on this.

I have fought to raise the minimum wage for many years, and I strongly
support the fast food workers and others who are out there asking for a
living wage and a fair shot at success. A higher minimum wage doesn’t just
help those at the bottom of the pay scale, it has a ripple effect across
the economy and helps millions of American workers and middle class
families. As we work to raise the federal minimum wage, we should also
support state and local efforts to go above the federal floor where it
makes sense to do so.

Q. More than 8 million public employees in 25 states currently have no OSHA
protection or entitlement to a safe and healthful workplace. Do you support
universal OSHA coverage for all public employees?

HRC: I believe it is important that American employees are safe and
protected where they work. In the decades since OSHA has been enacted,
we’ve made great strides in strengthening the safety of work environments
for our workers. But there are improvements that need to be made. In
particular, too few workers are protected by OSHA. That’s why in the Senate
I was an original co-sponsor of the Protecting America’s Workers Act, which
would extend OSHA protections to all federal, state, and local public
employees.

AFT: The AFT and our members are champions of fairness; democracy; economic
opportunity; and high-quality public education, healthcare and public
services for our students, their families and our communities. We are
committed to advancing these principles through community engagement. Our
members are interested in knowing your views on the following important
community issues:

Q. What policies would your administration pursue to ensure that all
people— regardless of who they are, where they live or where they come from
— are able to climb the ladder of opportunity and participate fully in our
economy and democracy?

HRC: Today, there are nearly 6 million young people in America who are out
of school and out of work. The unemployment rate for this rising generation
is double what it is for the rest of the population. It wasn’t like that in
2000. Young people were getting jobs, they were climbing the ladder of
opportunity. Millions more of our young people are underemployed because
the jobs that are available just aren’t sufficient. They don’t offer the
kind of income and growth potential that should be more broadly accessible.
For young people of color things are even harder. And if you don’t have a
college degree or didn’t graduate from high school, most doors just aren’t
open, no matter how hard you knock.

That is why education at all levels — from birth through higher education —
is so important to helping all people climb that ladder of opportunity. I
have worked hard throughout my career to make sure that every child gets a
chance to develop his or her mental capacity by developing their brain from
the very earliest age, because if your vocabulary is so far behind by the
time you’re five years old, through no fault of your own but because the
adults in your life are so busy, so stressed or don’t know how you build
brain cells, by talking and singing and reading to babies, then you enter
kindergarten having heard 30 million less words than a child from one of
our families. And that’s very hard to overcome. It’s not that when you’re
18 you’re not trying, it’s when you’re five you were already left behind.

Q. In your opinion, what are the elements of comprehensive immigration
reform? How would your administration’s stance on immigration reform fight
back against inequality, promote economic justice and increase wages for
all workers?

HRC: I support comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) and a path to
citizenship not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it
strengthens families, strengthens our economy, and strengthens our country.
I was a strong supporter of CIR as a Senator, co-sponsoring Senator Ted
Kennedy’s 2004 bill and supporting the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act
in 2006 and 2007. In 2003, 2005 and 2007, I co-sponsored the Dream Act in
the Senate. I also support President Obama’s DACA/DAPA executive actions.
And if Congress continues to refuse to act, as President I would do
everything possible under the law to go even further.

Q. What are your views on campaign finance reform? Do you support a
constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United
decision?

HRC: We have to reduce the influence of big money in politics. As I said
recently, I support a constitutional amendment to get unaccountable money
out of politics.

Q. What would your administration do to ensure that voting in elections is
free, fair and available to all Americans? Do you oppose policies that
restrict access to voting and voter registration?

HRC: As I said recently, the assault on voting rights threatens to block
millions of Americans from fully participating in our democracy. We need to
fix the holes opened up by the Supreme Court’s ruling. Congress should pass
legislation to replace those portions of the act that the Court struck
down, and as President I would work to ensure that all citizens have the
information and access they need to fully participate in our democracy.

Conclusion

Q. What do you think this nation’s priorities should be during the next
decade? How would your presidency advance those priorities?

HRC: I am committed to being a champion for everyday Americans and American
families. That’s what I’ve been devoted to my entire adult life, starting
with my first job out of law school when I went to work for the Children’s
Defense Fund, all the way through to the work that I did as Secretary of
State promoting women’s rights, promoting the rights of people who would
otherwise be marginalized or left on the sidelines. And I know that
although we have begun to move forward again, it is still hard to imagine
exactly how we’re going to get to the point where people are not just
getting by but getting ahead again and staying ahead. Because the deck is
still stacked in favor of those at the top.

We have to be focused on how we’re going to bring about the changes that
will ignite opportunity for everybody willing to work hard for it again. We
have to build an economy that’s innovative, sustainable, and producing good
jobs with rising wages. We need to actually reward workers with increases
in their paychecks for the increases in productivity and profitability.

It’s also imperative that we give people the tools through education and
job training, so that they can make the most out of their own lives. And
for me that starts at the very beginning. I have been a child advocate and
a child development proponent for my entire adult life, because it’s what I
really care about and believe in. Then we have to make sure that we are
doing all we can to empower our educators, to make sure that they have the
support of parents so that they can do the job they have been trained to do
to help prepare our kids. And then we’ve got to make sure that college is
affordable.

One of the biggest stresses in anybody’s life is healthcare. I’m going to
support and defend the Affordable Care Act, and I will work to fix those
parts of it that need fixing. But, we have made a great step forward as a
nation to provide a mechanism for people to get access to healthcare, some
for the first time.

We also have to address the unaccountable dark money in politics. I think
the Supreme Court made a grave error with its Citizens United decision. And
I will do everything I can do to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will
protect the right to vote and not the right of billionaires to buy
elections.

Finally, we have challenges around the world. But we have to be confident
and strong in understanding that there are many ways to approach the
problems that America will be confronting in the world, and we must do so
in cooperation with our friends, our allies, our fellow democracies around
the world. I am convinced that the 21st century can once again be a century
in which the United States leads and helps to set the values and standards.

—

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Today, almost 50 million students attend our nation’s public schools. Along
with their parents, communities, teachers, paraprofessionals and other
school employees, these students have been forced to live under
test-and-punish policies that include sanctions and school closings,
high-stakes assessments, and federalized teacher evaluations that are
counterproductive and have taken the joy out of teaching and learning.

Q. What is your view of the current version of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (also known as the No Child Left Behind Act)? What changes,
if any, would you make to the law, and why? Please include positions on:

• The federal government’s role in ensuring equity and access to resources
for all children;

• The role of standards, assessments and accountability in public education;

• Ensuring that all students have access to a broad curriculum that
includes art and music,

as well as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM);

• Professional development for school staff; and

• Community schools.

BS: I voted against No Child Left Behind in 2001, and continue to oppose
the bill’s reliance on high-stakes standardized testing to direct draconian
interventions. In my view, No Child Left Behind ignores several important
factors in a student’s academic performance, specifically the impact of
poverty, access to adequate health care, mental health, nutrition, and a
wide variety of supports that children in poverty should have access to. By
placing so much emphasis on standardized testing, No Child Left Behind
ignores many of the skills and qualities that are vitally important in our
21st century economy, like problem solving, critical thinking, and
teamwork, in favor of test preparation that provides no benefit to students
after they leave school.In my home state of Vermont, almost every school is
identified as “failing” under the requirements of No Child Left Behind,
despite the fact that we have one of the highest graduation rates in the
country, and students from Vermont continually score among the highest in
the country on annual NAEP assessments.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions, I have worked to reform No Child Left Behind. My top priorities
during the most recent iteration of the bill have been:

• Reducing the high-stakes nature of standardized tests by basing
accountability on multiple measures of a school’s effectiveness.

• Including a pilot program that allows states to implement innovative
systems of assessment that do not rely on standardized tests. Instead, new
innovative assessments will empower educators by providing actionable
information during the school year that can inform instructional practice.

• Maintaining federal support for afterschool programs provided through the
21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.

• The inclusion of wrap-around support services like health, mental health,
nutrition and family supports.

I believe guaranteeing resource equity is a core tenet of the federal
government’s role in education policy, and if elected, I will work reduce
the resource disparities that currently exist between schools in wealthy
and low-income areas.

In addition, I strongly support increased emphasis on a well-rounded
curriculum. No Child Left Behind’s narrow focus on math and literacy has
deprived children, especially low-income children, from critical
opportunities in the arts, music, physical education, civics and STEM
fields.

I also believe that not enough emphasis has been placed on effective
professional development for educators and school leaders. Districts and
schools must provide more time and support for educators to pursue highly
effective professional development. We should be encouraging innovation in
professional development, and ensuring that teachers will be able to
incorporate professional development into their classroom practice.
Finally, we must provide the resources necessary to provide effective
professional development for all teachers, and have consistently supported
efforts to increase Title II funding.

Q: Do you support any of the current reauthorization proposals under
consideration in the 114thCongress?

BS: I believe the Alexander-Murray compromise on No Child Left Behind
reauthorization represents a step in the right direction, and voted for the
bill in Committee. While this legislation could go much further to provide
adequate resources to our lowest-income students, I believe it is an
important step forward. I strongly oppose the Student Success Act because
it would gut the core provisions of federal law that direct education
funding toward the low-income students who need it most.

Q: What role do you think the federal government can play in providing
access to early childhood education? What specific policy proposals would
your administration pursue?

BS: Every child in the United States should have access to high quality
early childhood education programs, and that the federal government has a
critical role to play. If elected, I would pursue a federal program to
guarantee access for every child, and ensure early-childhood educators
receive compensation that is commensurate with elementary school teachers.

Q: What are your views on private school vouchers, tuition tax credits, and
charter school accountability and transparency?

BS: I am strongly opposed to any voucher system that would re-direct public
education dollars to private schools, including through the use of tax
credits. In addition, I believe charter schools should be held to the same
standards of transparency as public schools, and that these standards
should also apply to the non-profit and for-profit entities that organize
charter schools.

Q: Escalating tuition and fees are leading to a growing number of students
leaving college with overwhelming debt from student loans. This burden of
rising costs and rising debt makes access to higher education increasingly
difficult for many students and their families. What is the role of the
federal government in ensuring that higher education is affordable and
accessible?

BS: Skyrocketing college tuition has left college out of reach for hundreds
of thousands of students, and left millions more deeply in debt. In an
increasingly global economy, I believe it is unfair and bad economic policy
to force our young people to compete with workers from other countries who
can pursue a higher education at little or no cost. This is why I
introduced the College for All Act which would create a federal-state
partnership to eliminate undergraduate tuition at public colleges and
universities. In addition, this legislation would slash student loan
interest rates, and allow borrowers to refinance their loans. If elected, I
would continue my work to eliminate tuition at public colleges and to
alleviate the burden of student debt.

Q: There has been a nationwide pattern of disinvestment in public higher
education such that per-student funding dropped 26.1 percent between 1990
and 2010. What would your administration do to remedy this?

BS: State disinvestment has unquestionably been a prime driver of
skyrocketing tuition costs. I strongly support the creation of a
federal-state partnership that will incentivize states to re-invest in
their public higher education systems.

Q: Career and technical education programs help ensure that postsecondary
credentials and skills are accessible to all — a necessity in today’s
economy. In your view, what is the role of the federal government in
supporting high-quality CTE programs?

BS: Career and Technical Education programs are vital pathways to
middle-class, family-supporting jobs. I believe it is in our national and
economic interest to ensure quality CTE programs are available to every
American, and effectively aligned with the needs of the 21st century
workforce. Accordingly, I strongly support fully-funding the Perkins CTE
program. In addition, if elected, I would work to revolutionize our
nation’s approach to workforce development and technical education to build
effective, attainable pathways for young people to pursue middle-class
careers.

Q: What is the federal government’s role in requiring appropriate
transparency and accountability of for-profit institutions?

BS: In my view, for-profit colleges and career programs have perpetrated a
massive fraud at the expense of American taxpayers, and hundreds of
thousands of students who are now saddled with worthless degrees and
massive amounts of student debt. As the gatekeeper to financial aid
programs, the federal government must be far more vigilant, and do a much
more effective job in protecting students and taxpayers from low-quality
and fraudulent programs. I support efforts to implement gainful employment
regulations, and regulations requiring that no institution receives more
than 85% of its revenue from federal sources. In addition, I support
efforts to increase transparency in the sector, so students and
policymakers have a clearer understanding of institutions’ activities and
quality.

Q: What are your views of the Affordable Care Act? What changes would you
make, if any, to the ACA, including the excise tax on high-cost plans and
the provisions on shared responsibility for employers?

BS: I start my approach to healthcare from a very basic point: healthcare
should be a right and not a privilege. Our healthcare system is broken, and
the Affordable Care Act was an important first step. It has done a lot of
good things that have improved the health and economic security of millions
of Americans, including closing the prescription drug “donut hole” for
seniors, allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health insurance
plans, and preventing insurance companies from discriminating based on
pre-existing conditions. But the ACA was not perfect, and there are some
improvements we can make. Although millions more Americans have insurance
now, the ACA will still leave some 30 million Americans without health
coverage. Families will still face plans that have high deductibles and
copays, or do not cover the medications or doctors they need.

Beyond those larger improvements, any specific changes to the ACA must be
done thoughtfully and with a few key principles in mind — namely, the
impact any changes will have on the rest of the healthcare system. Changes
to the employer shared responsibility provision should not be done in a way
that leads to higher premiums for employees or reduced revenues for the
government. As for the excise tax on high-cost health plans, it is
important to preserve the savings Congress intended from that provision,
but I want to be certain that workers who have traded lower wages for
better benefits over the years are not penalized.

Q: Do you support initiatives designed to move health insurance coverage
away from an employer-based model? If so, what would you propose as an
alternative to the current system for covering working adults?

BS: As I said above, the Affordable Care Act was a good first step towards
fixing our broken healthcare system — but it also heavily relies on
continuing the employer-based model of health coverage. There is no reason
employers should be in the insurance business, unless they actually happen
to run an insurance company! I believe the best strategy is to move to
universal coverage under a Medicare-for-all single payer system. Your
health coverage and your level of benefits should not depend on your
employer.

Q: Many licensed healthcare professionals, particularly RNs, are leaving
hospital service because of difficult working conditions, including
excessive and unsafe workloads, understaffing and mandatory overtime. What
would you do to address these problems and to improve recruitment and
retention of nurses and other healthcare professionals?

BS: I believe that health care is a right, not a privilege and every
American should have access to the health care services they need,
regardless of their income. I also believe improved access to primary care
will keep people healthier and reduce reliance on emergency rooms as a
first site of care. These changes in our health care system will improve
the lives of patients but also of health care providers, including RNs
working in hospitals, who are often the ones who bear the brunt of our
flawed system. Until these types of changes can be made, we need to protect
this critical workforce by ensuring they have the equipment and resources
they need to provide world class health care without risking personal
injury. I have long supported programs and policies, including the National
Health Service Corps, designed to encourage caring and dedicated
individuals to go into the health care field and serve in areas of greatest
need.

Q: Merger and acquisition activity continues to consolidate the U.S.
healthcare system into the hands of a few corporations, many of which are
for-profit. What would you do to ensure competition in the healthcare
industry is fair and protects the American consumer?

BS: Consolidation and concentration of power is occurring throughout every
sector of our economy and it must stop. We must not allow a few companies
and a few families to control every industry in this country. This is a
problem in the health care industry where only a select number companies
control the system and focus more on their shareholders’ profits than the
health of their customers. For example, prescription medications in this
country are not only made by a limited number of companies but are
distributed by only a few companies with the ability to set prices however
they want and can limit the supply however they choose. America desperately
needs a reinvigorated anti-trust system aimed at dismantling the growing
concentration in many sectors of our economy.

Q: What would you do to ensure that communities have access to public
health services?

BS: Access to public health services has been a substantial focus of my
time in Congress. As Chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee in the
Senate I worked tirelessly to make sure that every eligible veteran in this
country had access to high-quality, timely care through the VA. And as
Chairman of the Health Education Labor and Pension’s subcommittee on
Primary Health and Aging I led the efforts to reauthorize the Older
Americans Act, which helps guarantee access to critical health programs for
seniors throughout the country and fought hard to extend funding for three
key public service programs: Federally Qualified Health Centers, Teaching
Health Center Graduate Medical Education, and the National Health Service
Corps. I am a huge supporter of community health centers as I believe they
help all Americans, regardless of income, access the preventive care that
keeps them healthy and well. I would like to expand these centers, making
sure even more Americans can benefit. I have also fought hard to include
dental care in more public health programs so more Americans aren’t forced
to ignore dangerous, even life-threatening oral health problems because
they don’t have coverage.

Q: What are your priorities for revitalizing the economy, strengthening the
middle class, creating jobs and ensuring fair taxation? How would your plan
help restore funding for education, healthcare, transportation, public
safety and many other services provided to our citizens?

BS: Creating Millions of jobs. If we are truly serious about reversing the
decline of the middle class and putting millions of people back to work, we
need a major federal jobs program. The most effective way to do that is to
rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. That’s why I’ve introduced
legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our
country’s physical infrastructure. My bill would create and maintain at
least 13 million good-paying jobs, while making our country more
productive, efficient and safe.

Raising Wages and Benefits. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an
hour is a starvation wage. The minimum wage must become a living wage —
which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years. My goal is
to ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. We must also bring
about pay equity. It’s unconscionable for women to earn 78 cents on the
dollar compared to men who perform the same work. Overtime protections must
be strengthened for millions of workers. It is absurd that “supervisors”
earning $25,000 a year — and who may in fact supervise no one — are
currently forced to work 50 or 60 hours a week with no overtime pay. We
also need paid sick leave and vacation time for all.

Progressive Taxation. In order to reverse the massive transfer of wealth
and income from the middle class to the very rich we’ve seen in recent
years, we need real tax reform which makes wealthy individuals and
profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes. It is
fiscally irresponsible for the U.S. Treasury to lose about $100 billion a
year because corporations and the rich stash their profits in the Cayman
Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens. I have introduced legislation which
would end this legalized tax fraud.

College for All. The United States must join Germany and many other
countries in understanding that investing in our young people’s education
is investing in the future of our nation. I have introduced legislation to
make tuition in public colleges and universities free, as well as
substantially lower interest rates on student loans.

Tax on Wall Street Speculation. At a time of massive income and wealth
inequality, at a time when trillions of dollars in wealth have left the
pockets of the middle class and have gone to the top one-tenth of one
percent, at a time when the wealthiest people in this country have made
huge amounts of money from risky derivative transactions and the soaring
value of the stock market, I would impose a speculation fee on Wall Street
investment houses and hedge funds.

Medicare for All. The United States remains the only major country on earth
that does not guarantee health care for all as a right. Despite the modest
gains of the Affordable Care Act, 35 million Americans continue to lack
health insurance and many more are under-insured. Yet, we continue paying
far more per capita for health care than any other nation. The United
States must move toward a Medicare-for-All single-payer system.

Q: The United States has a $3.2 trillion infrastructure deficit according
to the American Society of Civil Engineers — and that’s just for repairs.
What are the mechanisms (e.g., public, private, infrastructure bank)
through which we can fund the rebuilding of this country, including the
necessary renovation and modernization of our public schools, hospitals and
public buildings?

BS:. For years, we have significantly underfunded the maintenance and
improvement of the physical infrastructure on which our economy depends.
That has to change, and that is why I have introduced the Rebuild America
Act, which would invest $1 trillion over five years to modernize our
infrastructure. I introduced a similar, but scaled down $476 billion
measure as a floor amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution. Both efforts
would be paid for by closing tax loopholes that allow profitable American
corporations to stash their profits in tax haven countries like the Cayman
Islands.

The Rebuild America would go a long way toward closing the national
infrastructure deficit identified by the American Society of Civil
Engineers. In fact, I worked closely with ASCE in drafting the Rebuild
America, and I am proud they endorsed the bill and participated in its
rollout.

The Rebuild America Act would invest in roads, bridges and transit;
intercity passenger and freight rail; airports; seaports and inland
waterways; drinking water and waste water plants; dams and levees; electric
transmission and distribution; and broadband.

Importantly, at a time when the real unemployment is more than 11%, the
Rebuild America Act would create 13 million jobs that can’t be outsources
or off-shored.

In terms of 21′ century infrastructure technology, the Rebuild America Act
would make a $25 billion investment in broadband technology over five
years. There is no question this investment is needed: the U.S. ranks 16th
in the world in terms of broadband access (OECD) and 12th in the world for
broadband speed (Akamai). It simply isn’t acceptable that businesses,
schools and families in Bucharest, Romania have access to much faster
internet than most of the United States.

Q: What would your administration do to build and strengthen retirement
security for all working men and women, including protecting employees’
pensions? What is your plan for sustaining and strengthening Social
Security and Medicare?

BS: Expand Social Security. Today, we have a retirement crisis in this
country. Only one in five American workers have a defined benefit pension
plan that guarantees income in retirement. Over half of the American people
have less than $10,000 in savings and have no idea how they will ever be
able to retire in dignity. More than one-third of senior citizens depend on
Social Security for virtually all of their income. And, twenty percent of
the elderly are trying to live on an average income of just $7,600 a year.

Given this reality, our job is not to cut Social Security, our job is to
expand Social Security.

In the Senate, I have proposed legislation to increase Social Security
benefits by an average of $65 a month; expand cost-of-living-adjustments so
that seniors can afford the increased prices of prescription drugs and
other healthcare expenses; and lift millions of seniors out of poverty by
expanding the minimum Social Security benefits that seniors receive in
retirement.

This legislation would be paid for by eliminating the cap on taxable income
subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Right now, a Wall Street CEO
making $20 million a year pays the same amount of money into the Social
Security system as someone making $118,500. That is unfair. My legislation
would change that.

If we scrapped the cap, and applied the Social Security payroll tax on all
income above $250,000, not only would we be able to expand benefits, we
would also ensure that Social Security can pay every benefit owed to every
eligible American for the next 50 years.

Stop Pension Cuts. I would reverse the provision included in last year’s
appropriations bill that allows the pensions of millions of workers and
retirees in multi-employer pension plans to be slashed.

Expand Unions. The most important thing we can do to both preserve and
expand defined benefit pension plans is to make it easier for workers to
join unions. One of the most significant reasons for the decline in defined
benefit pension plans is that the rights of workers to join together and
bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions have been
severely undermined.

Today, corporate executives are routinely negotiating obscenely high
compensation packages for themselves, but then they deny their own
employees the ability to bargain for a better life. That is wrong. We have
got to turn this around.

That’s why I support allowing workers to join unions when a majority sign
valid authorization cards stating that they want a union as their
bargaining representative.

Today, about 68 percent of union workers have a guaranteed pension through
a defined benefit plan; while less than 14 percent of nonunion workers do.
Expanding union membership in this country would be the best way to protect
and expand defined benefit pensions.

Q: What are your views on the privatization and contracting out of public
services, including school services and state and local government services?

BS: I am strongly opposed to the outsourcing and privatization of public
services. The reality is that many private contractors provide jobs with
low pay and no benefits with little or no training. It is not a surprise
that initially these private contractors out-bid their government
competitors because the federal government provides better pay, health
care, pension benefits and quality training to their employees. But, in the
long-term, in most instances, privatization leads to poor service, high
turnover, and an overall increase in taxpayer dollars.

For example, on the state government level, the State of New Jersey thought
they were going to save taxpayer dollars by privatizing their vehicle
inspection program. What happened? According to a 2002 report, this program
turned into a “mammoth boondoggle” that ended up costing taxpayers $247
million more than it would have cost if it were run by the state.

As President, I would do everything I could to reverse the privatization of
public services and support the creation of more good-paying public sector
jobs.

Q: Current federal laws and policies encourage and promote collective
bargaining through the National Labor Relations Act. What are your views on
collective bargaining for the private and public sectors? What is your view
regarding agency fee and so-called right-to-work laws?

BS: I am strongly supportive of collective bargaining for private and
public sector workers. I am strongly opposed to agency fee and
right-to-work laws.

I will fight to make sure that workers are allowed to join unions when a
majority sign valid authorization cards stating that they want a union as
their bargaining representative. This is not a radical idea. Card check
recognition was the law of the land from 1941-1966.

Today, we have more wealth and income inequality in our country than at any
time since 1928. There are lots of reasons for this.

The failure to raise the minimum wage is an obvious example. Unfettered
free trade that forces American workers to compete against desperate
workers in China, Mexico, and Vietnam is another.

But perhaps one of the most significant reasons for the decline in the
middle class is that the rights of workers to join together and bargain
collectively for better wages, benefits, and working conditions have been
severely undermined. That will change under my Administration.

Q: As president, what would you do to: (a) prevent employers from
intimidating and harassing workers who support union representation, (b)
ensure that workers are free to organize and bargain in the workplace, and
(c) protect the rights of American workers?

BS: I would strongly penalize employers that illegally fire or discriminate
against workers for their union activity during an organizing or first
contract drive.

Perhaps most importantly, we have got to make it easier for workers who win
union elections to negotiate a first contract.

We also need to address the overtime scandal in this country in which
millions of Americans are working 50 or 60 hours a week but fail to get
time-and-a-half for their efforts. Four decades ago, more than 65 percent
of the workforce qualified for time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked
over 40 hours a week. Today, that figure is down to just 11 percent. The
threshold for overtime pay is now so low that it fails to cover middle
class employees. Only workers who earn $23,660 a year currently qualify for
overtime, which is below the poverty line for a family of four.

I would make sure that all workers who make up to $1,090 a week are allowed
to receive time-and-a-half pay for working overtime. This would increase
the take-home pay of millions of workers who are now making less than
$57,000 a year.

Further, we need pay equity in this country so that women do not make 78
cents on the dollar compared to what a man makes for doing the same work. I
am a proud co-sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act that would close the pay
gap by empowering women to negotiate for equal pay, eliminate loopholes
courts have created in the law, and create strong incentives for employers
to obey the laws.

Q: The federal government has direct responsibility for setting labor
standards. There has been a growing call for changes to those standards,
including paid sick days, paid family leave and higher minimum wages. What
changes, if any, would you prioritize?

BS: I would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour over a period of years
and index it to inflation. I would fight for paid sick leave, paid family
leave, and paid sick days.

It is unacceptable that the out of 185 countries, the U.S. is one of only
three that does not grant paid maternity leave.

It is unacceptable that the U.S. is one out of only 13 countries in the
entire world that does not guarantee paid vacation.

That would change if I was elected President.

Q: More than 8 million public employees in 25 states currently have no OSHA
protection or entitlement to a safe and healthful workplace. Do you support
universal OSHA coverage for all public employees?

BS: Of course, I support universal OSHA coverage for all public employees.
Every workers should have the right to a safe and healthy work environment.
It is a disgrace that millions of public sector employees do not have these
fundamental rights in 25 states.

Q: What policies would your administration pursue to ensure that all people
— regardless of who they are, where they live or where they come from — are
able to climb the ladder of opportunity and participate fully in our
economy and democracy?

BS: We need to make a 4-year education at every public college and
university in this country free. If Germany, Sweden and Denmark can afford
to do this, then so can we.

We need to make health care a basic right in our society, and we need to
move beyond the rhetoric about growth and prosperity and recommit to the
principles of the Full Employment Act of 1946.

If we are going to rely on an economy that requires people to work in order
to survive, then we must make certain that work is available to every
American who needs a job. By guaranteeing the right to employment, we can
ensure a minimum level of economic security to all.

This is an ambitious program that would lift millions of families out of
poverty and provide a pathway to greater economic security for all
Americans. Free college, free health care and a guaranteed right to
employment. It will not heal all wounds or relieve all tensions, but it
would go beyond anything we have tried before, and it would send a clear
signal that the lives of all Americans matter.

Q: In your opinion, what are the elements of comprehensive immigration
reform? How would your administration’s stance on immigration reform fight
back against inequality, promote economic justice and increase wages for
all workers?

BS: Our immigration system is broken, and it is long past time to fit it.
Comprehensive immigration reform must begin with implementing a responsible
path to citizenship for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants
living in the U.S. They should be given the opportunity to come out of the
shadows, have the full protection of the law — including workplace safety
and wage and hours protections — pay into Social Security and Medicare, and
contribute to the American economy.

Comprehensive immigration must hold unscrupulous employers accountable that
exploit immigrant workers. Immigration reform must not be structured such
that an employer has the effective power to have a person’s legal status
revoked. This has the potential to lead to too many abuses.

At a time when the real unemployment rate exceeds 11%, it makes little
sense to increase temporary work visas in high skill fields like science,
technology, engineering and math. More often than not, these visas are used
to lower wages and cover the fact that we are doing too little to education
and retrain workers — both native born and immigrant alike — who already
here.

We must pass the DREAM Act. If young people who were brought to the U.S. as
children are willing serve in our armed forces, earn a U.S. high school
diploma or attend college, and if they do not have a criminal record, I
believe they should be eligible for permanent residency.

Instead of demonizing unaccompanied minors from Central America, we must
make sure these children are humanely cared for while in U.S. custody. And,
we must address the root causes of the crisis, including the fact that
these children are fleeing economic despair, criminal violence, and false
rumors of amnesty spread by the very people who profit by trafficking
children.

We must provide adequate federal support for schools and communities that
have large immigrant populations, by significantly increasing funding for
Title III language instruction for limited English proficient and immigrant
students. And we must reward and support communities that have agreed to
resettle refugees, by significantly increasing funding for the HHS’ Office
of Refugee Resettlement grant programs.

Comprehensive immigration reform will be very complex, and yes, it will
have to address border security. But my top priorities will be focusing on
reducing income inequality by increasing wages and legal protections for
all workers.

Q: What are your views on campaign finance reform? Do you support a
constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United
decision?

BS: In my view, Citizens United is one of the worst decisions in Supreme
Court history, and I have introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn
it. We need to fix our broken campaign finance system by placing limits on
contributions and expenditures, requiring more stringent disclosure, and
eventually instituting a system of public financing. We cannot allow
billionaires and millionaires to buy our elections.

Q: What would your administration do to ensure that voting in elections is
free, fair and available to all Americans? Do you oppose policies that
restrict access to voting and voter registration?

BS: We must be doing everything we can to make it easier, not harder, for
people to vote. Instead, what is happening now is that Republican governors
and Republican legislators are going out of their way to put up barriers to
voting. They are using unfounded scare tactics and unproven cases of voter
fraud to keep people from the polls. Over two years ago, I asked the
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) to look into voter fraud
and the effects of voter ID laws. The GAO found that while there were very
few, if any, cases of voter fraud, the ID laws were working to suppress
legitimate voters. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court turned back the clock on
equality when it struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark
civil rights law. But the Court also challenged Congress to act, and even
though this law was reauthorized unanimously only nine years ago, we still
have not managed to fix this incredibly important law.

Last March, I, with many others, traveled to Selma to mark the 50th
anniversary of the historic march that lead to the Voting Rights Act. Those
incredibly brave men and women literally put their lives on the line and
stood up for what they believed in, that all Americans, regardless of
color, should have the right to vote. We must honor their legacy and
continue their fight.

I have introduced legislation to make Election Day a national holiday.
Although this is not a cure-all, it is a first step to show that
participating in elections is an important part of Americans society. At a
time when less than 40 percent of eligible voters turned out to the polls
in November 2014, we must do everything we can to emphasize the importance
of participating in democracy.

Conclusion

Q: What do you think this nation’s priorities should be during the next
decade? How would your presidency advance those priorities?

BS: 1. Reversing Income and Wealth Inequality

The great moral, economic and political issue of our time is the growing
level of income and wealth inequality in our nation. It goes against
everything this country is supposed to stand for when the top one-tenth of
1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and when 95
percent of all new income generated since the Wall Street crash goes to the
top 1 percent. Addressing income and wealth inequality would be my top
priority, and would include:

• Ending corporate tax loopholes that allow profitable corporations and the
wealthy to stash their profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens.

• Demanding that the wealthy and special interests begin paying their fair
share of taxes. It is a disgrace that the top 25 hedge managers last year
not only made more than the nation’s 158,000 kindergarten teachers
combined, but also that they generally pay a lower effective tax rate than
most of those teachers.

• Improving and investing in early childhood education as well as K-12, by
hiring more teachers and giving them the resources they need to succeed.

• Addressing the crisis of college affordability by expanding Pell grants,
allowing high school juniors and seniors to take college-level classes and
earn credit, letting college graduates refinance their loans, capping
student loan payments, and making community colleges free.

• Rejecting austerity policies that hurt the elderly, children, the poor
and working families.

• Strengthening Social Security and Medicare: When the average Social
Security benefit is $1,328 a month, and more than one-third of our senior
citizens rely on Social Security for virtually all of their income, our job
is to expand benefits, not cut them

• Raising the minimum wage to $15 to put more money into the pockets of
workers in underpaid jobs and strengthen the economy.

• Creating 13 million new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure
(roads, bridges, water systems, wastewater plants, rail, airports, and
schools), by investing $1 trillion over five years.

• Supporting working women and families by expanding affordable childcare
and promoting pay equity.

• Developing a new policy on trade, rather than continue with the free
trade agreements that have been unrelentingly bad for American workers and
are a major reason why 60,000 American factories have closed and 4.7
million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2001.

These are some, but certainly not all of the components of a comprehensive
approach to addressing income and wealth inequality.

2. Overturning Citizens United, campaign finance reform and reviving
democracy

Another priority would be campaign finance reform. If we don’t do this, we
will have no hope at implementing any of the items I just listed above.

In particular, we must reverse two disastrous Supreme Court decisions that
have opened the floodgates of almost unrestricted campaign spending: the
2010 Citizens United decision and the more recent McCutcheon decision.
These decisions hinge on the absurd notion that giving large sums of money
to a politician in exchange for influence and access does not constitute
corruption.

These decisions undermine the democratic foundations of our country and
have shifted political power to huge corporations and the wealthiest people
in the United States. According to recent reports, the billionaire Koch
brothers plan to spend $889 million in the 2016 elections, twice what their
network spent in 2012, and nearly the amount spent by Obama and Romney.
When one family can raise and spend as much as a major party candidate for
president, the system is broken. That is oligarchy, not democracy.

We must overturn these Supreme Court decisions, to make it clear that the
ability to make campaign contributions and expenditures – just like the
right to vote – belongs only to real people. We must also move toward
publicly funded elections.

I recently had the honor of joining Rep. John Lewis and other civil rights
leaders on the 50th anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” civil rights march
in Selma. While that historic march led to the Voting Rights Act — which
for decades protected voters from discrimination — the Supreme Court two
years ago invalidated a key portion of the landmark law. We must undo that
misguided court decision. What happened on that bridge that day was a huge
step forward for democracy in America. But what is happening right now —
not just in the South but all over this country — are voter suppression
efforts by Republican governors and Republican legislatures to make it
harder for African-Americans, for low-income people and for senior citizens
to vote.

Lastly, we must do everything possible to make it easier for people to
participate in the political process, including making Election Day a
national holiday so that everyone has the time and opportunity to vote.
While this would not be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment
to create a more vibrant democracy.

In last November’s election, turnout was only 37 percent, and turnout was
even lower among minorities and young people. Voters 18- to 29-years-old
made up only 13 percent of those who went to the polls, according to exit
polls. The same survey found that only 8 percent of Tuesday’s voters were
Latinos, far less than the Latino share of the population.

3. Dealing with Climate Change

Climate change is perhaps the single greatest threat facing our planet. We
are already seeing its effects, including more super storms, severe
droughts, forest fires, flooding, and rising sea levels. Virtually the
entire scientific community agrees that human activity is a significant
driver of global warming, and that if we don’t drastically reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, it will get much worse by mid-century — including
crop failures, increasing hunger and illness, and more extreme weather.

We need a bold vision to address climate change, and that begins with
dramatically reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. That is why in last
Congress, I introduced the Climate Protection Act, which would have taxed
carbon and methane emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas production,
and used the revenue to make historic investments in energy efficiency and
sustainable energy. It would have also tripled funding for advanced energy
research, and made huge investments in wind, solar, geothermal, biomass,
plug-in electric vehicles and other clean technologies.

There are many other steps we must take right now to curb greenhouse gas
emissions, including using existing authority under the Clean Air Act to
significantly improve fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, and
reducing harmful pollution from power plants and industrial facilities.

As we accelerate investments in energy efficiency and make the transition
to clean energy, I believe we can create millions of decent paying jobs. I
was one of the authors of the Green Jobs Act, which created a green jobs
workforce training program through the economic stimulus bill. Moreover,
the Climate Protection Act alone would weatherize one million homes every
year, reducing family energy bills and creating millions of good-paying
jobs. Replacing old power plants with new solar, wind and other sustainable
energy facilities will also create hundreds of thousands of “green” jobs.

Unless we take bold action to reverse climate change, our children and
grandchildren are going to look back on this period in history and ask:
“Where were they? Why didn’t they listen to the scientists when they had a
chance? Why did they allow this planet to become so damaged?” We have a
short window of opportunity. We must act now. —–

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley

AFT: Today, almost 50 million students attend our nation’s public schools.
Along with their parents, communities, teachers, paraprofessionals and
other school employees, these students have been forced to live under
test—and-punish policies that include sanctions and school closings,
high-stakes assessments, and federalized teacher evaluations that are
counterproductive and have taken the joy out of teaching and learning.

Q. What is your view of the current version of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (also known as the No Child Left Behind Act)? What changes,
if any, would you make to the law, and why? Please include positions on:

• The federal government’s role in ensuring equity and access to resources
for all children;

• The role of standards, assessments and accountability in public education;

• Ensuring that all students have access to a broad curriculum that
includes art and music,

as well as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM);

• Professional development for school staff; and

• Community schools.

MO’M: I support the reauthorization of the ESEA. The Senate HELP Committee
has preserved the integrity of the bill while avoiding the most extreme
Republican amendment attempts. I urge the House to maintain that integrity
and to reject any changes that would radically undermine our nation’s
public education system.

Though I support the reauthorization of ESEA, there are a number of areas
where the law needs improvements — most notably, a requirement for turning
around our lowest-performing schools. This legislation must acknowledge
that equitable allocation of resources for our most vulnerable kids is not
the same as equal allocation of resources. As a nation, we must commit to
concentrating federal dollars where the need is greatest, including in the
communities with the most underperforming schools and students. As our
well-performing suburban schools find new and innovative ways to connect a
child’s learning experience with their real-world environment, our
lower-income urban schools can’t be left behind.

Our children, regardless of their circumstances, deserve a well-rounded
education, including training in the arts, that will prepare them for the
needs of the modern workforce and economy. During my time as Governor, we
increased the number of students enrolled in STEM or related CTE programs
by nearly 400%.

While the federal government plays an important role in education, that
role does not include the determination of standards or curriculum in the
classroom. However, in order to grow a strong workforce for tomorrow, we
need an accurate way of evaluating how we’re building students’ potential
today. I support performance-based assessments, which allow students the
flexibility to show their learning in ways that meet their strengths and
interests — and allow professional teachers to adjust in real-time so
student achievement accelerates.

Test score data should not be used as a hammer at the end of a teacher’s
evaluation, it should be used from the start to begin an instructional
improvement process. To shift test scores from a punitive measure into a
supportive one, we must make additional investments in professional
development for our teachers. We also need to offer adequate training for
new initiatives, and engage the educator community in virtually all
systemic decision-making in our schools. I’m all for modernizing and
improving education for all kids, but we should be doing so in partnership
with our educators, not at their expense.

Q. Do you support any of the current reauthorization proposals under
consideration in the 114th Congress?

MO’M: I support the ESEA reauthorization currently on its way to the Senate
floor, but would encourage the improvements noted above.

Q. What role do you think the federal government can play in providing
access to early childhood education? What specific policy proposals would
your administration pursue?

MO’M: The federal government plays a fundamental role providing access to
early childhood education. This is one of the strengths of the current ESEA
reauthorization. I support and applaud Senator Murray’s amendment creating
grants to help states boost quality and access in early learning. Further,
I support using federal funds, in partnership with states, to make pre-K
universal.

Q. What are your views on private school vouchers, tuition tax credits, and
charter school accountability and transparency?

MO’M: I support the strengthening of our public education system, not only
as a way for all children to prepare themselves for economic success, but
as a way to stronger neighborhoods, healthier communities, and a more
engaged citizenry and informed electorate. I oppose vouchers for private
schools, and the expanded use of tax credits to support private school
tuition. I am concerned about the rapid proliferation of unaccountable
charter schools. Providing excellent and innovative education should be the
goal of charter schools — not expansion for the sake of profit. We need
strong standards, oversight, and transparency to ensure that charters are
acting in the best interest of our kids — and are serving the goals of our
education system as a whole.

Q. Escalating tuition and fees are leading to a growing number of students
leaving college with overwhelming debt from student loans. This burden of
rising costs and rising debt makes access to higher education increasingly
difficult for many students and their families. What is the role of the
federal government in ensuring that higher education is affordable and
accessible?

MO’M: The federal government plays an essential role in making higher
education affordable and accessible. While states like Maryland have worked
hard to hold the line on the cost of college tuition, we cannot make
college truly affordable for families unless the federal government
provides leadership. This is especially true when it comes to student debt:
Congress helped create the student debt crisis by setting high, fixed
interest rates on student loans. My administration would fight to win
student borrowers the right to refinance their loans, and would make
income- based repayment the default for all borrowers. The ultimate goal
must be to make college debt-free for all students.

Q. There has been a nationwide pattern of disinvestment in public higher
education such that per-student funding dropped 26.1 percent between 1990
and 2010. What would your administration do to remedy this?

MO’M: My administration would restore investments in higher education.
First, I would provide additional aid to states to cover the cost of
tuition at public and community college and universities, tied to states
also investing more. Second, I would tie the receipt of federal aid to
states and schools taking steps to reduce the underlying costs of college.
This includes increasing AP and dual-enrollment courses, easing the
transfer of credits from community colleges, expanding quality online
learning, and making sure that aid is reaching the students who need it
most.

Q. Career and technical education programs help ensure that postsecondary
credentials and skills are accessible to all – necessary in today’s
economy. In your view, what is the role of the federal government in
supporting high-quality CTE programs?

MO’M: As Governor, my administration increased the number of students
enrolled in STEM or related CTE programs in Maryland by nearly 400%.
However, while the federal government plays a critical role supporting
these efforts, the taken modest steps we have taken as a country to expand
STEM or related CTE education are far from sufficient.

My administration would launch a new, comprehensive national program for
CTE, starting in high schools, and in partnership with community colleges
and employers. This builds on successful efforts launched by the Obama
Administration, where

schools partner with employers — who also provide financial support — to
train students and workers for the positions they need to fill now. Our
program will require greater federal investment, but we will see far
greater returns — in good jobs created and filled, and in reduced spending
on higher education. CTE training is an equal alternative to a four-year
college degree, and we must treat it as such.

Q. What is the federal government’s role in requiring appropriate
transparency and accountability of for-profit institutions?

MO’M: I support the Protections And Regulations For Our Students Act and
its efforts to protect students from the predatory practices that are too
prevalent in the for-profit college sector. The federal government should
not only play a strong role in cracking down on such fraudulent behavior,
it should proactively seek out these bad players and cancel the federal
debt incurred by students who were sold a bad deal.

Q. What are your views of the Affordable Care Act? What changes would you
make, if any, to the ACA, including the excise tax on high-cost plans and
the provisions on shared responsibility for employers?

MO’M: I agree that a high quality healthcare system is a “moral imperative,
an economic necessity, and a fundamental right for all.” The Affordable
Care Act is an important step in realizing that goal. My administration
would build on the successes of the Affordable Care Act while being ready,
as always, to support smart changes that can better provide high quality
coverage and control costs. Our guiding principle would always be the
triple aim: better patient experience, lower costs, and improved outcomes.

For example, to promote creative solutions to healthcare challenges around
the country, I support flexibility for states to pursue innovations in
health care delivery and payment with the potential for shared savings,
such as through the State Innovation Model program at the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services. One underappreciated aspect of the Affordable
Care Act is its support for innovative models of health care delivery in
payment. In Maryland, we adopted a creative approach with our unique
hospital rate setting commission: We obtained approval to put our hospitals
on global budgets covering all payers, creating a strong incentive to
reduce preventable admissions and keep patients and communities healthy.

Q. Do you support initiatives designed to move health insurance coverage
away from an employer-based model? If so, what would you propose as an
alternative to the current system for covering working adults?

MO’M: I support a public option, which should have been included in the
Affordable Care Act.

Q. Many licensed healthcare professionals, particularly RNs, are leaving
hospital service because of difficult working conditions, including
excessive and unsafe workloads, understaffing, and mandatory overtime. What
would you do to address these problems and to improve recruitment and
retention of nurses and other healthcare professionals?

MO’M: Maryland has long prohibited mandatory overtime for nurses, with some
exceptions, and I support such bans.

More broadly, my administration would make securing reforms to our nation’s
overtime rules a priority — including raising the overtime salary threshold
to 1,000 a week, limiting exemptions, and enforcing the law. Wage law
violations are unacceptable and far too prevalent in the healthcare
industry. My administration would invest the resources necessary to hold
all employers accountable for wage theft, overtime violations, and other
failures to comply with labor laws.

My administration would also vocally support efforts to organize healthcare
professionals, including in hospitals and among home healthcare workers.
Expanding and protecting collective bargaining rights is a critical step to
securing better working conditions in the healthcare industry. I applaud
AFT’s efforts to organize nurses and other healthcare professionals,
winning these workers a greater role in shaping the U.S. healthcare system
to better meet the needs of the people they serve.

Finally, my administration would proactively invest in our healthcare
workforce. As we continue to transform our healthcare system and the
settings and methods used to deliver care continue to evolve, it is
critical that our healthcare workforce is trained and prepared for the
transitions ahead. At the same time, the reforms we’re making within the
healthcare system will align to help improve working conditions for
healthcare professionals. Offering greater rewards for prevention and fewer
avoidable admissions, for example, can reduce the burnout that results from
a system that historically rewarded volume rather than value.

Q. Merger and acquisition activity continues to consolidate the U.S.
healthcare system into the hands of a few corporations, many of which are
for-profit. What would you do to ensure competition in the healthcare
industry is fair and protects the American consumer?

MO’M: My administration’s strategy would be two-fold. First, I would
continue to embrace proven strategies for coordinating care. In Maryland we
not only put hospitals on global budgets, we established a statewide
information system for patients that allows doctors and nurses to securely
access patients’ health data from every hospital across the state. Even
before the ACA took full effect, we used this big data approach to
providing smarter health care to reduce avoidable hospital admissions by
10% in a single year.

While this greater coordination is critical to providing more targeted and
thus less costly care, I am concerned about consolidation that does not
further these aims. Far too often, mergers and acquisitions within the
health care industry are used not to achieve savings through reduced
fragmentation, but to drive up prices for patients and consumers – at the
cost of providing better care. That is why my administration would
aggressively enforce our nation’s antitrust laws, and why I will continue
to champion the need to restore competition to the U.S. economy throughout
my campaign.

Q. What would you do to ensure that communities have access to public
health services?

MO’M: My administration would look to the innovative steps we took in
Maryland to expand access to public health services. For instance, we used
the statewide health information system described above to pinpoint
clusters of patients and diagnose public health concerns. We then used this
information to charge community-level care managers with improving wellness
at a neighborhood-level. We did this most importantly through the Health
Enterprise Zones we stood up to improve health care access and quality, and
reduce health disparities, in underserved communities. We also encouraged
the development of more comprehensive women’s health centers, to provide
screenings and referrals for Medicaid eligibility, WIC nutrition, substance
abuse and mental health treatment alongside reproductive health care.

Beyond these important steps, my administration would protect and build on
the Affordable Care Act’s efforts to promote good health and prevent
chronic disease. I would protect the mandatory funding stream the ACA
obligated for these efforts, which has wrongly been reallocated for other
purposes, and develop better metrics for measuring the effectiveness of
prevention-related efforts.

Q. What are your priorities for revitalizing the economy, strengthening the
middle class, creating jobs, and ensuring fair taxation? How would your
plan help restore funding for education, healthcare, transportation, public
safety, and many other services provided to our citizens?

MO’M: My administration would focus first and foremost on raising wages: by
increasing the minimum wage and the salary threshold for overtime pay;
restoring and strengthening collective bargaining power; and supporting
families by expanding access to paid leave and safe and affordable
childcare. My administration would also restore investments in the common
good and future of our nation, including in infrastructure and innovation,
and most of all in education. We cannot revitalize our economy without
creating an education system that empowers each and every child to reach
their full potential, starting with pre-k and all the way through college.

We can restore funding for these better choices and investments by
rebalancing our tax system so that the wealthiest Americans – not just
middle class families – pay their fair share. This includes setting higher
marginal rates, taxing capital gains and income at the same rate, corporate
tax reform, and other long-overdue reforms. We must also restore
accountability to our financial markets, to reverse the failed policies of
deregulation and wealth accumulation that gutted funding for key priorities
while costing millions of Americans their jobs, homes, and retirements.
That’s why I have called for real structural and accountability reforms,
including reinstating Glass-Steagall, charging regulators with holding
law-breakers accountable, and breaking up big banks before they break us.
These steps must be an explicit part of any agenda to revitalize the
economy and make it work for all families.

Q. The United States has a $3.2 trillion infrastructure deficit according
to the American Society of Civil Engineers  and that’s just for repairs.
What are the mechanisms (e.g., public, private, infrastructure bank)
through which we can fund the rebuilding of this country, including
necessary renovation and modernization of our public schools, hospitals,
and public buildings?

MO’M: Repairing, upgrading, and modernizing our nation’s infrastructure
will require an historic investment — one that can only be made using both
public programs and other financing tools. My administration would restore
the Highway Trust Fund, while redoubling successful competitive grant
programs. But I would also look to credit and loan guarantee programs; to
bonding programs, for both transportation infrastructure and building
construction and retrofits; and to other programs that support
public-private partnerships, including an infrastructure bank. However,
whenever we leverage private dollars to build public projects, I would make
protecting high-road labor standards a priority, as we did in Maryland. We
cannot look for cost efficiencies on the backs of American workers.

Q. What would your administration do to build and strengthen retirement
security for all working men and women, including protecting employees’
pensions? What is your plan for sustaining and strengthening Social
Security and Medicare?

MO’M: My administration would expand Social Security benefits, not cut
them. We are the most prosperous country the world has ever seen. In an
economy that is increasingly out of balance towards the most privileged,
expanding Social Security so seniors can retire with dignity—not cutting
benefits, not privatization, not raising the retirement age, not means
testing, not eating into their economic security — should be a top
priority, and an achievable one.

I would expand Social Security benefits by lifting the payroll tax cap for
the highest earners, starting at 250,000. Right now, millionaires are
essentially done paying into Social Security by mid-February. Those in that
upper income range can afford to contribute more to expand one of our most
cherished programs. I would also modify the formula that determines the
level of benefits that seniors receive, including so that increased
benefits are targeted towards lower and middle-income beneficiaries.

These are critical steps, because we know for a fact that 401(k)s won’t
leave enough for many seniors to live on in retirement. The recession took
its toll on families’ ability to save and plan adequately, and further
weakened state pension systems, including the one I inherited in Maryland.
As a result, we had to implement balanced reforms that brought the pension
system back on the path to fiscal health, while protecting the collective
bargaining rights and retirement security of state employees. This was
tremendously difficult, but we got it done not by demonizing teachers and
state workers, as other states have, but by bringing them to the table. I
have always fought to ensure the rights and benefits of Maryland workers,
and my administration would do the same for all public employees.

Q. What are your views on the privatization and contracting out of public
services, including school services and state and local government services?

MO’M: We should not privatize or contract out school services. Teachers are
our partners in educating our students. We should invest more, not less, to
train and equip teachers — not engage in a race to the bottom.

Q. Current federal laws and policies encourage and promote collective
bargaining through the National Labor Relations Act. What are your views on
collective bargaining for the private and public sectors? What is your view
regarding agency fee and so-called right-to-work laws?

MO’M: I believe that we must make it easier, not harder, for workers to
organize – by tearing down barriers to collective bargaining, while
embracing new and expanded organizing models, and reversing the nearly
unprecedented consolidation of corporate power. As Governor, I expanded
public sector collective bargaining rights to thousands of additional state
workers, and to home health aides and child care workers whose pay is
subsidized by the state. I signed a Fair Share Act so that unions can do
their job representing the voices of their members. And I created a Public
School Labor Relations Board, as well as legislation requiring prevailing
wages to be paid on public school projects.

There is no question that the decline of unionization over the last 30
years has fueled growing inequality and stagnating wages, and that the
steps states are taking to wipe out unions — especially those attacking
teachers’ unions — are failed choices. I reject right-to-work laws that
weaken the bargaining power of workers and drive down wages, as well as
misguided efforts to roll back public sector bargaining rights. Chasing
cheaper labor will not grow our economy or more it more competitive.

Q. As president, what would you do to: (a) prevent employers from
intimidating and harassing workers who support union representation, (b)
ensure that workers are free to organize and bargain the workplace, and (c)
protect the rights of American workers?

MO’M: My administration would do everything in its power to protect and
strengthen the rights of American workers. I would support efforts to make
it easier to join a union by streamlining the process and reducing
employers’ ability to interfere with elections. This includes the rule NLRB
has moved forward to speed up union elections, which I believe is an
important first step. I also support the board’s efforts to hold companies
jointly responsible when their franchisees violate labor laws. We’ve
allowed large corporations to largely shed their responsibilities for
managing their employees and to consolidate power over markets, and we’ve
seen poorer working conditions and stagnating wages as a result. I would
aggressively enforce our nation’s anti-trust laws to reverse this
concentration of corporate power and give workers a louder voice. Finally,
I would strongly support efforts to expand collective bargaining rights to
more people, including home care workers, as we did in Maryland — and to
continue upgrading these jobs by fighting for higher wages and better
working conditions. I applaud labor’s efforts continue organizing and
engaging new and existing members even in light of what I agree was a bad
decision in Harris v. Quinn. We have to use every tool at our disposal to
continue making progress.

Q. The federal government has direct responsibility for setting labor
standards. There has been a growing call for changes to those standards,
including paid sick days, paid family leave, and higher minimum wages. What
changes, if any, would you prioritize?

MO’M: I would make changing these labor standards my first priority as
president. I would call for a 15 federal minimum wage, and — if DOL does
not first complete its rule — would use executive authority to raise the
threshold for overtime pay to 1,000 a week. I would fight for laws that
guarantee all workers access to paid maternity leave and paternity leave,
and expand access to safe and affordable childcare. I have helped lead the
call for these higher standards, including in Maryland, and will continue
to make these issues a central issue in my campaign.

Q. More than 8 million public employees in 25 states currently have no OSHA
protection or entitlement to a safe and healthful workplace. Do you support
universal OSHA coverage for all public employees?

MO’M: Yes, and more. The gaps in the enforcement of our labor laws should
be unacceptable to everyone. Beyond health and safety, millions of people,
including some of our most vulnerable workers, are victims of wage theft
every year. Our enforcement agencies must be able to hold employers
accountable, and to prevent these blatant violations in the first place. My
administration would dedicate the energy and resources necessary to fully
enforce the law.

Q. What policies would your administration pursue to ensure that all people
— regardless of who they are, where they live, or where they come from —
are able to climb the ladder of opportunity and participate fully in our
economy and democracy?

MO’M: My administration would be committed to ensuring that Americans,
regardless of their background and status, would have the opportunity to
succeed by investing in education, raising wages, supporting families,
securing immigration reform, expanding health care, and protecting the
dignity of retirement. These are the better choices our national interest
demands. I have also called for a new agenda for opportunity and justice in
America’s cities and communities, built on investments to connect poverty
to opportunity: guaranteeing every family access to affordable housing near
good schools and jobs, building and upgrading infrastructure to connect
poverty to opportunity, committing to reduce poverty and eradicate child
hunger, and — most importantly — creating new jobs and equipping students
and workers with the skills needed to secure them.

Q. In your opinion, what are the elements of comprehensive immigration
reform? How would your administration’s stance on immigration reform fight
back against inequality, promote economic justice, and increase wages for
all workers?

MO’M: As Governor I urged Congress to pass comprehensive immigration
reform, and I would forcefully do the same as president. Bringing
undocumented immigrants out of the shadows will grow the economy, create
new jobs, and expand our tax base – benefiting the country as a whole. It
will help all our workers, especially our most vulnerable workers, by
lifting wages, and helping to drive improved labor standards. I know this
from personal experience, from what we’ve done in Maryland, even without
federal action — passing the DREAM Act, expanding access to drivers’
licenses, launching the New Americans Commission, and providing refuge for
more migrant children per capita than any other state.

That’s why, while we continue to advocate for and will achieve
comprehensive reform, we can’t wait for Congress to act. My administration
would also use executive action to the fullest extent of our authority: to
expand deferred arrival programs to more people, including the parents of
Dreamers; to end detention, especially for families and children; and to
make prosecutorial discretion meaningful, by individually examining cases
to assess whether people are eligible to remain in the U.S. and contribute
to their family and community.

Q. What are your views on campaign finance reform? Do you support a
constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United
decision?

MO’M: I support a constitutional amendment to overturning Citizens United.
But I also recognize that we can’t afford to wish and wait for a
Constitutional amendment to restore our democracy. We can bring greater
transparency to our elections: by updating the rules governing disclosure
to ensure that big special interest spending is reported, and charging and
empowering federal regulators to block unlawful outside spending. Even more
important, we must return to a government where all voters’ voices are
heard. Runaway election spending forces candidates to listen to big money
donors over the voters they claim to represent. We should embrace
citizen-funded elections, giving candidates the opportunity to raise a
larger number of smaller contributions from people back home.

Q. What would your administration do to ensure that voting in elections is
free, fair, and available to all Americans? Do you oppose policies that
restrict access to voting and voter registration?

MO’M: Our democracy depends on greater participation, yet in recent years
we have sharply limited access to our most fundamental right. My
administration would push to restore the Voting Rights Act and tear down
barriers to voting, like ID requirements. And we would work to modernize
voting and voter registration to make it easier for more people to vote. We
did this in Maryland, establishing on-site early voting and same-day
registration, as well as online voter registration. We also restored voting
rights to more than 50,000 people with criminal records, and made it easier
for young people to vote.

Conclusion

Q. What do you think this nation’s priorities should be during the next
decade? How would your presidency advance those priorities?

MO’M: The most important thing that we as a people need to get done is to
restore the truth of the American dream: that when people work hard, they
should be able to get ahead. That dream is in danger of becoming a lie for
the vast majority of Americans who see their families slipping further
behind. Making it true again will require us to return to the better
choices we long made as a country – and to fundamentally rebalance our
economy so that it works for everyone, not just the wealthy few. My
administration would focus first and foremost on raising wages, not only by
increasing the minimum wage, but by strengthening collective bargaining and
securing comprehensive immigration reform. At the same time, my
administration would hold Wall Street accountable, ending the decades of
deregulation that wrecked our economy and accumulated wealth at the top
like almost never before. By asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their
fair share, I would restore investments in the future of our country — most
especially in our students, teachers, and schools.

These choices require better leadership and the ability to get things done.
I have 15 years of executive experience, and I have never backed down from
a fight. I fought to make these better choices in Maryland, where we put
the goal of a stronger middle class at the center of every decision we
made. And as a result, we made Maryland one of the top states for upward
mobility for families, with the highest median income in the nation, and –
since the depths of the recession – a faster rate of job creation than our
neighbors in Virginia or Maryland who were mostly trying to cut their way
to prosperity. These are the goals we should be setting for our nation, and
I believe that with will and leadership we can achieve them.

*What the First Democratic Cattle Call Reveals About the State of the
Presidential Race
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-19/what-the-first-democratic-cattle-call-reveals-about-the-state-of-the-presidential-race?cmpid=yhoo>
// Bloomberg // Arit John – July 19, 2015*

Hours before the first face-off of the Democratic presidential campaign,
former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley stood in the far left corner of
the White Star Ale House, a sleek bar in downtown Cedar Rapids, greeting a
line of voters, some committed, others not so much.

“Well, thanks for coming just the same,” O’Malley, who has been outspoken
in his support for stricter gun control, said to man in a Second Amendment
tee shirt. “You can’t agree with everybody on everything.” The reception
was better from Jean Schultz, a 71-year-old retired teacher. She told
O’Malley she’d seen him on TV a few times,  liked what he’d said, and that
he seemed reasonable. “You make me feel like I should keep going,” he told
her.

On Friday, all five of the declared Democratic presidential candidates
descended on Cedar Rapids Convention Center for the first cattle call of
their nominating contest, the Democratic Party Hall of Fame dinner. But
even before the events, some of the candidates dominated much of downtown
Cedar Rapids: during the afternoon former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, O’Malley and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders held two rallies, a
meet-and-greet, and a press conference, respectively, in different venues
less than a mile of the convention center. It was a chance for Iowa voters
to compare the candidates side by side, but also for the presidential
hopefuls to demonstrate the strength of their support in the
first-in-the-nation caucus state.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee,
neither of whom held any events in Cedar Rapids the day of the dinner, may
need to ask themselves if they’re taking the same basic steps to promote
themselves as their competitors.

O'Malley, who is polling in the low single digits in Iowa, used his
meet-and-greet to try and rectify that situation one voter at a time.

Senator Bernie Sanders, gave a substantive, if not professorial press
conference on the state of veterans affairs and his past work as chairman
of that committee. But while Sanders’ it's-about-the-issues-not-me approach
plays well for the thousands of supporters who have filled stadiums to hear
him, it doesn’t have the same affect on the media, or other Democrats.
During the question-and-answer session after his veterans press conference,
for example, he was asked almost exclusively about Clinton.

And some candidates are already thinking past the primary race. In a new
pizza parlor right down the street from the White Star Ale House,
Clinton—who is leading her Democratic challengers by an average of 34
points in the polls—offered encouragement and advice at two large events, a
new pizza place and the basement of the Veterans Memorial building. They
were “organizing with purpose, so I can campaign with purpose, we we can
win with purpose and govern with purpose” she told about 130 volunteers and
staffers at Need Pizza, a new business in downtown Cedar Rapids.
“Impressed” by what they’ve accomplished so far, she talked about how
important it was for them to be part of politics.

“I am thrilled you have chosen to come and work for me, but also that
you’ve chosen to be part of this process,” Clinton told the audience of
about 140 volunteers and staffers, waxing nostalgic about her own days as a
campaign volunteer in 1972, when she worked for Democratic presidential
nominee George McGovern. “It was just so much fun but it was also really
meaningful,” Clinton said.

As the candidates held their pre-dinner events, Clinton supporters, along
with supporters of the O’Malley campaign and members of Generation Forward,
a pro-O’Malley super-PAC, gathered outside the convention center with
signs, chanting their candidates names and trying to drown out the other
camp. (Sanders supporters were conspicuously absent because, according to
one of his Iowa staffers, he held a meet-and-greet in the lobby of his
hotel with his top volunteers.)

“We were excited to be here because so many candidates were out here and
this is the start and the kick off of the real campaign,” Erica Reardon, a
field organizer for Generation Forward, O’Malley’s super-PAC.

Inside the convention center, the rivalry between the candidates shown by
the cheer-off outside was still on display. Supporters were banned from
bringing in signs (and, in once case, a large quilt with a Clinton logo),
and volunteers for all but Chafee’s campaign manned booths with pamphlets
and sign-up sheets.

About 1,200 guests filled the convention hall, many sitting at tables
puchased by the campaigns. In the evening, when the candidates spoke, it
was easy to discern the pockets of support were—Sanders supporters sat
stage left, while the O’Malley and Clinton supporters sat at tables in the
center and stage right.

Clinton, who probably had the most support in the room, received loud
cheers for lines about how she was “never going to let the Republicans rip
away the progress we have made” or a joke about how trickle-down economics
was one of the worst ideas of the 1980s, along with “new Coke, shoulder
pads and big hair.” O’Malley started off slow, asking people to raise their
hands if they believed kids would have a better life than they had enjoyed
(less than a dozen people did). By the time he got around to talking about
his record, and a not-so-subtle dig at Clinton (“And we didn’t just talk
about it, we actually got it done”), the crowd response picked up.

The loudest, if not the rowdiest, response in the room, went to Sanders. As
the senator gave his stump speech, his supporters banged on tables and
clinked their silverware on glasses. The other side of the room, where
“Hil-lar-ry” and “O-Mal-ley” had come from a moment earlier, varied from
applause for his hope that young black men would be able to walk down the
street without fear of police brutality, to a smattering of polite claps
when Sanders described the extent of income inequality today.

But the night was also about honoring Democrats (including the seven
inductees into the Hall of Fame) and the liberal policies the party has
championed over the years. Every candidate received loud applause for
listing their support for and action to implement Democratic agendas.
Everyone who criticized the state’s Republican governor, Terry Branstad,
earned a cheer. Every candidate had at least one big applause line, whether
it was O’Malley proposing making it easier to join unions and collectively
bargain, Sanders outlining the extent of income inequality in America (to
which one man shouted “Preach!”), Chafee praising President Barack Obama's
Iran nuclear deal deal, Webb calling for a candidate willing to achieve
bipartisan reform, or Clinton promising to continue talking about women’s
issues.

“Now I know that when I talk about this some people think, I can see it in
their eyes, ‘There she goes again, with the women’s issues,’” Clinton said.
“Well I’m not going to stop so get ready for a long campaign.”

Even some attendees who’ve already settled on a candidate had something
nice to say about some of the competition. Graham Carl, a 26-year-old
attorney from Cedar Rapids, walked out of the convention center with an
O’Malley sticker, but thought Sanders “had the most specific goals or
specific plans of action of any of the speeches.” Nicholas Johnson, a,
80-year-old retired law professor from Iowa City, said Sanders “so totally
stole the show” but said Chafee was “probably the highest quality maybe of
the five,” based on his résumé.

Libby Coyte, a 67-year-old physician’s assistant from Red Field, Iowa is a
Clinton supporter—she sat at Clinton’s table at the event—but said all of
the candidates impressed her. “If you took all of their speeches together
it was a very complete program … and each one has a different strength,”
Coyte said. “I’m a trueblooded Democrat, so I couldn’t find anyone that I
didn’t like.”

Instead of boos there was polite golf clapping, silence, or—in Jim Webb’s
case—people who couldn’t be bothered to stay for the full night. The
candidates spoke in alphabetical order, and several audience members
streamed out of the convention center after Sanders spoke. All things
considered, Webb took it well.

“Bernie, you always fire me up,” Webb quipped. “I’m here to turn the lights
out, folks.”

*Democrats lose control of presidential event
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/bernie-sanders-netroots-nation-black-lives-matter/>
// CNN // Chris Moody – July 19, 2015*

PHOENIX (CNN) —A town hall for liberal activists featuring two Democratic
presidential candidates was interrupted by dozens of demonstrators on
Saturday who shouted down the contenders and demanded they address criminal
justice issues and police brutality.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
planned to attend a public sit-down interview with journalist Jose Antonio
Vargas in front of a left-leaning crowd here at the annual Netroots Nation
conference, a gathering of progressives, when the tone of the program
shifted just a few minutes into the event.

O'Malley was answering questions from Vargas on stage when dozens of
boisterous conference attendees flooded through a side door and shouted
down the White House contender.

"What side are you on my people?" they sang in unison as they approached.

Tia Oso of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, who represented the
demonstrators, climbed onto the stage, secured a microphone, and delivered
a speech while O'Malley looked on.

"We are going to hold this space. We are going to acknowledge the names of
black women who have died in police custody. And Governor O'Malley, we do
have questions for you ... As the leader of this nation, will you advance a
racial justice agenda that will dismantle -- not reform, not make progress
-- but will begin to dismantle structural racism in the United States?"

"Yes," O'Malley replied, but before he could say more, the demonstrators in
front of the stage shouted over him by reciting names of black women who
have died in police custody. While they shouted, O'Malley stood in silence.
At one point he turned to Oso on stage: "My people came here as immigrants
from Ireland."

Below, dozens shouted several chants in unison.

"Black lives matter! Black lives matter!" they shouted toward O'Malley, and
began a call-and-repeat rallying cry that activists have been using in the
wake of the death of 28-year-old Sandra Bland, who died in police custody
last week. "If I die in police in custody!" one of the chants went, "Burn
everything down! That's the only way mother******* like you listen!"

Conference organizers begged them to allow O'Malley to respond.

"I think all of us as Americans have a responsibility to recognize the pain
and the grief throughout our country from all of the lives that have been
lost to violence, whether that's violence at the hands at the police or
whether that's violence at the hands of civilians," O'Malley said, before
being interrupted again.

"Don't generalize this s***!" one person shouted back.

O'Malley said he wanted to require police departments to report all
police-involved shootings and brutality complaints and he called on
departments to implement civilian review boards. He vowed to release a
wide-ranging plan on criminal justice reform.

The demonstrators started shouting and booing again when O'Malley said:
"Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

O'Malley later apologized for the remarks, telling This Week in Blackness,
a digital news site, that he "meant no disrespect" to the black community.

"That was a mistake on my part and I meant no disrespect," O'Malley told
the outlet. "I did not understand the tremendous passion, commitment and
feeling and depth of feeling that all of us should be attaching to this
issue."

And when he stepped off stage, he chanted, "Black lives matter! Black lives
matter!"

When Sanders approached the stage a moment later, the demonstrators
continued. The candidate, a favorite of Netroots Nation, threatened to
leave if they continued to interrupt him.

"Black lives, of course, matter. I spent 50 years of my life fighting for
civil rights and for dignity," he said. "But if you don't want me to be
here, that's OK. I don't want to outscream people."

Sanders proceeded to deliver his usual presidential stump speech over
sporadic shouting from below.

After talking over one another, Sanders eventually ditched pre-planned
remarks and tried to address questions from demonstrators.

"Black people are dying in this country because we have a criminal justice
system which is out of control, a system in which over 50% of young
African-American kids are unemployed," Sanders said. "It is estimated that
a black baby born today has a one in four chance of ending up in the
criminal justice system."

When Sanders cited the Affordable Care Act as a law he supported that
helped people of color by making health insurance more accessible, one man
shouted, "we can't afford that!"

Before Sanders finished speaking, many of the protesters walked out on him
toward exit doors in the back.

The spectacle was a far cry from what was expected of the forum. Sanders,
who is running as a more liberal alternative to Democratic presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton, was one of the most highly anticipated speakers
at the gathering. Hours before the event, excited supporters lined up to
hear him speak, and some ran to secure seats close to the stage when
organizers opened the doors.

Attendees who were not part of the rally said they supported the
protesters' message, but debated how it was carried out.

Conference organizers issued a statement following the townhall.

"Our aim was to give presidential candidates a chance to respond to the
issues facing the many diverse communities represented here," Netroots
Nation spokeswoman Mary Rickles said. "Although we wish the candidates had
more time to respond to the issues, what happened today is reflective of an
urgent moment that America is facing today."

*O'Malley, Sanders heckled by protestors during presidential forum
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/07/19/black-lives-matter-demonstrators-disrupt-heckle-presidential-forum-netroots/30377141/>
// USA Today // Dan Nowicki – July 19, 2015*

Civil-rights protesters gave Democratic presidential contenders Bernie
Sanders and Martin O'Malley a raucous and tense reception Saturday in
downtown Phoenix, disrupting and commandeering a forum that was billed as a
conversation with the two progressive candidates.

Sanders, a left-leaning independent U.S. senator from Vermont, was visibly
irritated at times during his shorter-than-expected appearance at the
Netroots Nation gathering. He, in turn, angered the "Black Lives Matter"
protesters by not immediately responding to them.

The hashtag #BlackLivesMatter is widely used on social media by activists
and their allies.

"Black lives, of course, matter," Sanders said at one point. "... But if
you don't want me to be here, that's O.K."

O'Malley, a former Maryland governor and Baltimore mayor whose record has
come under fire in the wake of the civil unrest in the city, spoke first.
He stood by silently on stage as the demonstrators took control of the
proceedings.

"What side are you on, my people," the several dozen protesters chanted as
they filed between tables to the front of the Phoenix Convention Center
hall, where O'Malley and moderator Jose Antonio Vargas were talking.

During the event, O'Malley defended his Baltimore law-enforcement legacy.

"Far from bringing forward the mass arrest/mass incarceration policing that
you talked about it, I actually made policing more responsive," O'Malley
said. "We did a hundred reverse-integrity stings a year."

But O'Malley was later booed when he said: "Every life matters ... Black
lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

The comments make it clear that Democratic candidates have work to do in
understanding and addressing the movement for Black lives, according to
Anna Galland, executive director of the liberal group MoveOn.org Civil
Action.

"Saying that 'all lives matter' or 'white lives matter' immediately after
saying 'Black lives matter' minimizes and draws attention away from the
specific, distinct ways in which Black lives have been devalued by our
society and in which Black people have been subject to state and other
violence," Galland said.

O'Malley later apologized for the remarks during an interview with This
Week in Blackness, a digital show.

"I meant no disrespect," O'Malley said. "…I did not mean to be insensitive
in anyway or communicate that I did not understand the tremendous passion
commitment, and feeling and depth of feeling that all of us should be
attaching to this issue."

"Senator Sanders told us to wait. ... That's what marginalized people have
been told to do and nothing's happened," Bradley said after the event.

Tia Oso, a Phoenix resident with the Black Alliance for Just Immigration,
said she helped organize the protest because Black-rights issues were not
represented at the annual national gathering of political progressives this
year. While events for Latino immigrants were integrated into the
convention, black immigrants were ignored, she said.

"We had to do this," she said. "This is the most important progressive
gathering."

In a black shirt with white letting that said "Black love," Oso climbed on
stage with O'Malley to talk about racial inequality and law enforcement
treatment of the Black population and to chide Netroots Nation's
programming for not addressing Black immigration issues, such as the Black
refugees in Arizona who had to seek asylum because of U.S. foreign policy.

"I feel like his response is very rooted in what he believed his track
record was," she said of O'Malley. "He's very tone deaf to our community."

While on-stage, Oso also hammered the Republican-controlled Arizona
Legislature and recalled former GOP Gov. Evan Mecham's controversial repeal
of the state's Martin Luther King holiday in the 1980s.

In a written statement, Netroots Nation said it "stands in solidarity with
all people seeking human rights."

"Although we wish the candidates had more time to respond to the issues,
what happened today is reflective of an urgent moment that America is
facing today," the statement said. "In 2016, we're heading to St. Louis. We
plan to work with activists there just as we did in Phoenix with local
leaders, including the #BlackLivesMatter movement, to amplify issues like
racial profiling and police brutality in a major way."

In the chaotic atmosphere, Sanders, who had many fans in the Netroots
Nation audience, struggled to make his points about income inequality, the
minimum wage and his other top issues.

For his part, O'Malley was kept on the defensive about police issues for
most of his appearance. He said his criminal-justice plan will be
forthcoming from his campaign.

"Specifically, I believe every police department in America should have to
report, in an open and transparent and timely way all police-involved
shootings, all discourtesy complaints and all brutality complaints,"
O'Malley said when the Q&A resumed after the interruption. "I believe that
all departments should have civilian review boards. We implemented one, and
it works. But they have to be staffed."

*Hall Of Fame Wrap Up: Who Stood Out, Who Missed Out
<http://iowastartingline.com/2015/07/19/hall-of-fame-wrap-up-who-stood-out-who-missed-out-2/>
// Iowa Starting Line // Pay Rynard and Angela Ufheil – July 19, 2015*

No need to bury the lede here: Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Iowa Caucus
with just one speech, but she came damn well close on Friday night. Her
feisty, passionate barrage of policy issues, one-liners and hits on
Republican candidates stood out amongst the crowd on an exciting night full
of great moments. Clinton didn’t only give one of the best speeches she’s
ever delivered, but one of the best Iowa Caucus speeches Starting Line has
seen, rivaling (though not overtaking) John Kerry’s 2003 Jefferson-Jackson
Dinner speech and Barack Obama’s one at that same event in 2007.

That’s certainly not to say the other Democrats didn’t turn in great
performances as well. Martin O’Malley helped himself more than any other
candidate Friday night with some powerful oratory of his own, positioning
him as the progressive alternative with executive experience. Bernie
Sanders demonstrated once again that he commands the most enthusiastic
supporters of the field, and gave a classic stem-winder that brought many
to their feet. Even Jim Webb, with a much lower-key approach, still
improved upon his niche in the party.

Iowa Democrats were treated to an outstanding show from their candidates
and Iowa leaders, gathered in Cedar Rapids at the annual Hall of Fame event
to honor a number of activists and elected officials. This gathering was
particularly informing on where Iowa caucus-goers feel about their 2016
candidates. It’s still early enough in the cycle that many remain undecided
and very few labor unions have endorsed, so the crowd’s reactions weren’t
skewed by one or two campaigns bringing in swarms of supporters. Each
campaign was given ten tables, all of which obviously cheered on their
candidates loudly, but the rest of the room was fairly neutral.

Your Starting Line team roamed the pre- and post-events, talked with
attendees, and sat back in press row to bring you all the angles of big
night. Here’s our analysis and summaries of the day’s important moments:

The Pre-Events: Clinton Rally and Sign Wars

Clinton held a pre-rally a few blocks away from the convention center
before the main event started, and a thank-you session with a smaller group
of staff and volunteers at a pizza place earlier in the day. About 250 came
out to the pre-rally, some of which hadn’t been able to get tickets to the
Hall of Fame Dinner. That turnout seemed a bit low, and is something to
keep an eye on. Although, if people attended some of these pre-events
around 3:00 and then the dinner, they would have been committing a full
seven hours of a day.

After what Iowa Starting Line has officially dubbed “The Great Sign Wars of
2007” (and 2003), we had high expectations for each candidate’s cheering
section outside this year’s Hall of Fame dinner. Unfortunately, high
expectations led to disappointment, as they so often do. Hillary Clinton’s
group numbered around 50 for most of the time, not exactly like the
massive, intimidating presence the campaigns had in 2007.

A group of Martin O’Malley supporters got reinforced by members of the
O’Malley Super PAC, Generation Forward, which is working to hire its own
campaign team in Iowa. The Generation Forward volunteers stood across the
street from O’Malley’s volunteers, sometimes joining in the same chants.
Which raises the humorous question – does joint chanting constitute
coordination?

The most unexpected moment of the sign wars was not a moment at all, but an
absence. Bernie Sanders’ supporters have a reputation for rowdiness, but
were nowhere to be seen outside the DoubleTree Convention Complex. A
meet-and-greet with Sanders nearby pulled them away, apparently replacing a
planned outside rally they had. We have to assume that they were not too
upset at the opportunity to meet their candidate in an air-conditioned
facility. Temperatures approached 100°F, and all Democrats participating in
the sign wars ran a risk of melting. Perhaps, then, all can be forgiven for
“The Great Sign Wars Let-Down of 2015.”

The Convention Center

The Secret Service caused long lines for attendees, as they had to pass
through metal detectors, but the event otherwise ran quite smoothly. The
NextGen Climate team was the most visible presence in the hall of booths,
with about 40 staff and volunteers by the entrance. With nearly every
important Democratic activist and leader in town, the hall was filled with
glad-handing Iowa candidates. Senate hopefuls Rob Hogg, Tom Fiegen and Bob
Krause all had booths, as did announced 1st District candidates Monica
Vernon and Gary Kroeger. Sadly, there were only two small bars in the event
and no cocktail tables – Starting Line heard a number of attendees lament
the long lines, saying, “We’re a bunch of Democrats, we love to drink!”

The Room

Each campaign could fill up to ten tables with supporters, and seating
arrangements had an impact on the energy in the room. Face the stage and
look right to find Bernie’s supporters; turn left to see Hillary
volunteers. Watching each side of the room get fired up for their
respective candidate was fun, but most interesting was the O’Malley table
placements. The candidate trailing behind Hillary and Bernie had his
volunteers at tables near the press, making them sound a lot louder to the
journalists. Good strategy.

Finally, there was no missing the NextGen Climate folks, and not just
because they showed up in bright orange t-shirts. NextGen had a cluster of
tables near the center, and were perfectly willing to give any candidate
who mentioned climate change a standing ovation.

The Iowa Speeches and Honorees

While the presidential candidates spoke later in the evening, the real
reason for the dinner is to honor important Democratic activists and
elected officials. The honorees this year were Pam Jochum, Kay Halloran,
Bev Hannon, Penny Rosfjord, Melinda Jones, Kurt Meyer and Morgan Miller.
Jochum spoke on her own behalf, though we wish everyone got to get up and
say something (of course it would need to be strictly time-limited). While
these are all well-known Democrats to the activist/insider crowd, there’s
still tons of attendees who haven’t seen these folks before.

The night began with IDP Chair Andy McGuire bringing all five presidentials
up on stage, with chants of “Bernie! Bernie!” already coming from the
audience. McGuire gave a solid and well-received rally speech to get the
Democrats fired up, with that day being the six-month anniversary of her
election as party chair (we interviewed her about that here).

Both Dave Loebsack’s and Jochum’s speeches ran a little long, but the
overall event only ran a mere 30 minutes past schedule. Democrats should be
thankful. Starting Line has attended several Republican cattle call forums
this year that have seriously lasted from six to eight hours.

The Presidential Candidate Speeches (in order of appearance)

Lincoln Chafee

Speech: Speaking before a crowd of 1,300 key Iowa Caucus activists, Chafee
kept his speech to a simple six minutes of the fifteen allowed. He mostly
touted his record of liberal votes, on addressing climate change, women’s
choice, LGBT rights, immigration reform, public education support and
infrastructure funding. At times he seemed impressed at the applause he did
get, smiling and looking around when the crowd clapped politely at some of
his lines.

“We have a choice in 2016: prosperity through peace or endless war,” Chafee
said, thanking President Obama for the recent Iran deal. He stayed on the
topic of foreign policy for a while, promoting diplomatic cooperation, and
highlighted his resume on international affairs.

Analysis: Chafee missed a big opportunity here with a dull and short
speech. About 99.5% of the Democrats in the room have never seen him in
person before, and he didn’t present either a memorable biography of
himself or a vision for the country. If you’re going to be an extreme
long-shot running for President, one would figure you’re running because
you have something to say. Chafee didn’t say much at all. And oddly, his
constant recounting of liberal policies he’s supported in the past seemed
like a defense of his former Republican Party allegiance, but many people
there probably weren’t even aware of that. He was elected to the Senate and
the Governor’s office in Rhode Island, so he clearly has some political
skills. They weren’t on display Friday night. I mean, come on man, prepare
a real speech next time.

Hillary Clinton

Speech: Clinton’s speech targeted Republicans early and often, but she also
added in near the beginning a story of speaking with her late mother, who
struggled early in life. Clinton recounted how her mother instilled in her
the passion for public service, a useful explanation that could help with
those who doubt her motivation.

When Clinton brought up her section about paid family medical leave and
jobs, she jokingly noted, “I know that when I talk about this, some people
think, ‘There she goes again, with the women’s issues.’ Well I’m not going
to stop, so get ready for a long campaign.” She went on to list off issues
like paid sick leave, childcare help, the minimum wage, adding, “These are
not women’s issues, these are family issues and they are economic issues.”

In one of the most well-received lines of the night of any candidate,
Clinton ripped into Terry Branstad for the vetoes on the mental health
facilities and education funding. “So tonight I’m adding my voice to yours:
Governor Branstad, put down your veto pen,” she said, bringing a
long-lasting standing ovation to the room.

Most of the final six minutes of her speech was a rapid-fire, non-stop
applause line bonanza, bringing the crowd to their feet a number of times.

“We’re not going back to denying climate change – if you ask most of these
Republican candidates about that they’ll say, ‘Sorry, I’m not a
scientist,'” Clinton shouted near the end. “Well then why don’t they start
listening to those that are scientists? Look, I’m not a scientist either,
I’m just a grandmother with two eyes and a brain, and I’m not going to let
them take us backwards!”

She finished with a forceful crescendo, saying, “I am running for anyone
who’s ever been knocked down, but refused to be knocked out, I’m running
for you, we’re going to build an America where we don’t leave anyone out or
anyone behind!”

Analysis: For whatever reason, at past major multi-candidate gatherings in
2007/2008, Clinton often struck the wrong tone of what Iowa caucus-goers
were looking for. These types of events have been a real weakness for
Clinton before. Not Friday night. Gone were the too-cutesy lines that often
fell flat outside the most ardent supporters, the touchy-feely cadence
meant to “humanize” her that just comes off weird, and the tone-deaf jokes
like “I’m baaack!”

Instead Clinton was energized, punchy and a little bit chippy. She cracked
a few jokes, but quickly turned serious again in the next sentence. She
sounded strong and confident. Most of all, she looked and sounded
authentic. It seemed like she was finally enjoying herself while
campaigning.

A number of news outlets labeled the Hall of Fame room a “Hillary crowd,”
probably thinking a fundraiser had more “establishment” Democrats that
would be predispositioned to her. But that simply wasn’t the case. If you
watched the crowd closely, when Clinton was introduced she got her big
cheers from her section of tables, but the rest of the room gave typical,
polite applause (much as happened for every candidate). It wasn’t until
really the last six minutes of her speech that the room erupted in
excitement and sustained standing ovations, and it was most definitely
earned, not already present.

Reaction:

“She was very moving – everything she said made me want to get shit done,”
said Tiffany Hach, who still noted she’s currently supporting Sanders. “She
was very good at striking a chord, hitting the heart strings.”

“I love her passion and her tenacity – she’s so inspiring, she knows how to
get you fired up,” said Cassie Yost. “What resonated with me was talking
about the wage gap. I work forty plus hours at three jobs trying to pay my
rent and my bills. I’m already in student debt as a nontraditional student,
trying to earn my degree to get a better job. So having someone who can
fight for us and has been fighting to get into this office for years, I
love that. That determination to keep fighting for America, even though you
get knocked down, you get back up again. She’s phenomenal.”

Martin O’Malley

Speech: Hillary Clinton’s speech brought down the house, and Martin
O’Malley had a tough act to follow. But O’Malley was impressive in his own
right. He highlighted his executive experience as the governor of Maryland,
where his administration raised the minimum wage, froze college tuition for
four years, and expanded family leave.

O’Malley also highlighted his advocacy in Maryland for driver’s licenses
for new American immigrants, marriage equality, and a ban on assault
weapons. “And we didn’t just talk about it, we actually got it done,”
O’Malley said to audience applause.

O’Malley also got big applause for his criticism of Wall Street executives’
role in the 2008 recession. “What have we come to as a nation that you can
get pulled over for a broken taillight, but if you break the nation’s
economy, you’re untouchable?” O’Malley said.

The middle class makes the economy strong, he noted, and many in the crowd
were impressed by his desire to fight for the working class. They were
especially excited when he condemned Branstad’s recent education veto, a
move that shows how well O’Malley knew his audience.

Also impressive is O’Malley’s extensive energy platform, which certainly
gave NextGen something to cheer for. “I am the first candidate, but let’s
hope I am not the last, to call for moving America forward by 2050 to a 100
percent clean-powered electric grid,” O’Malley said.

Analysis:

For those wary of Clinton and concerned about Sanders’ electability,
O’Malley made himself their candidate on Friday night. His speech started
out slow, but became very forceful and eloquent near the end, eliciting
some of the most widely participated in standing ovations of the night.
O’Malley does very well at these major speaking events, a gifted speaker
armed with well-structured speeches. He certainly gained the most of anyone
at this event, and should pick up a number of new activists and endorsers
with his performance. Most importantly, his appeal seemed to reach broadly
across the room and didn’t appear to turn anyone off. He’s positioned
himself as part of the top three candidates, a legitimate option that
should begin to pick up steam.

Reaction:

“I like his executive background, that he’s actually been a governor and a
mayor, and I think that’s really important in a president,” said Margaret
Appleby. “I think he did a wonderful job.”

“He has a record of being able to work with Republicans, and enact
legislation, really good legislation that works for working class
families,” said Sharon Holle. “I thought he gave a really good speech. He
touched on all the major issues.”

Bernie’s Speech

Speech: “Preach!” shouted a Bernie-backer in the Sanders corner of the
room, and boy, did he ever.

The “Bernie” chants started the moment O’Malley wrapped up his speech,
before the Vermont senator was even announced. The craziness didn’t stop
there. In typical “Feel the Bern” fashion, Bernie supporters whooped and
hollered during the speech; a few even pounded on tables in support of
Sanders.

Sanders, like the candidates before him, was game to criticize the
Republican party and their emphasis on family values. “Their family values
say that a woman does not have a right to control her body. I disagree,”
Sanders said to applause. “They say women should not be able to get the
contraceptives she needs. I disagree. They say that our brothers and
sisters who are gay should not be able to enjoy the same marriage rights as
heterosexual couples enjoy. We disagree.”

Democratic family values are based on love and compassion, not hatred,
Sanders said. “Our family values say that when a woman has a baby, she
should get twelve weeks of family and medical aid,” Sanders said.

Bernie also launched his usual attacks on the billionaires who have in his
eyes bought elections with Super PACs. He condemned the Koch brothers for
spending more money on elections than the Democratic Party and the
Republican Party. He further pledged to only nominate Supreme Court
justices that would vote to overturn Citizens United, the Supreme Court
decision that he said is “moving this country towards and oligarchic form
of society.”

Bernie ended his speech with a declaration that stirred the passions of
everyone in the room, not just his devotees. “Think big,” Sanders said as
the crowd rose in a standing ovation. “Think about a future where our kids
get the best education in the world, where women’s rights are protected.
That is the America we can become if we stand together.”

Analysis: It’s not like it needed confirmation, but Friday night
demonstrated loud and clear that Bernie Sanders has the most enthusiastic
supporters of anyone in the Democratic Party. Overall, Bernie followed his
usual script. While both Hillary and O’Malley seemed to tailor their speech
for the Hall of Fame event, Bernie stuck to his usual call for a political
revolution, albeit in a voice slightly more hoarse than usual (he’s been
speaking a lot lately). People like his “Bernie persona,” and it’s gotten
him far to this point, so straying from it would have been risky.

But Sanders may need to consider what his best approach is for the
nomination. His attack on the TPP trade deal didn’t get the overwhelming
reaction from the entire room that it does at his own events. His corner of
the room cheered wildly, but again, if you watched the crowd very closely,
it wasn’t like the response to Clinton and O’Malley. He got considerable
applause from the full room, but not the same type of standing ovations.
Sanders gave a very dramatic and, at times, angry speech – it appealed to
people already with him, but it may not have picked up many new supporters.

Reaction:

“I like how progressive he is,” Payton Kears said. “He’s got a long record
of that. I remember reading about him in the 70s, supporting marriage
equality.”

“I think that Bernie is the candidate that everyone always says they want
to vote for,” said Adam Schantz, who noted that Sanders has had to increase
space in a Texas venue because so many people want to hear him speak. “It’s
very interesting to see the overwhelming response that he’s getting, and it
will be very interesting to see if people can actually follow through.”

Jim Webb

Speech: Webb began his turn at the lectern highlighting his past work on
veterans issues, and asked the veterans in the room to stand up to be
recognized. His speech was policy-heavy, but he still subtly dropped in
some fun personality references that warmed the crowd to him, noting he’s
likely the only former Virginia elected official “with a union card, two
Purple Hearts and three tattoos.”

“We see so much demonizing of organized labor these days,” Webb said in a
very well-received line, one of the few non-foreign policy topics he hit
upon. “Organized labor is not the enemy – it is the friend of working
people.”

The most notable policy difference Webb mentioned was that he doesn’t
support the new Iran deal. “I would never accept directly or indirectly
Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons,” Webb said, getting mostly silence
from the crowd for breaking with the Democratic president. It probably,
however, helped his authenticity to tell such a liberal crowd something
they didn’t want to hear.

Analysis: Some will likely think Webb failed to impress at the Hall of Fame
Dinner with the lower-key speech, but that may not actually be the case.
There really is a set of activists who like Webb’s approach. Not everyone
gets swept up in the fancy rhetoric and applause lines. Many listen for
specific policies – and on that front, Webb did deliver.

So Webb certainly did help himself with his speech. It wasn’t one that’s
going to see him gain much in the polls, but it should help recruit a base
of support, even if it’s a small one. That’s still important and needed for
Webb to remain in any real conversations. And that’s still much better than
Chafee, who likely didn’t pick up anything.

However, like Chafee, he alluded to potential foreign policy criticisms of
Clinton, but didn’t specifically mention her and failed to land a solid
hit. If these folks really want to have that debate, they need to do it,
not make vague critiques that don’t have a more forceful impact.

Reaction:

“He’s really, really good on policy,” offered Joe Stutler. “Probably not
the most enthusiastic speech, but then it’s hard to follow Bernie. But,
Webb’s on message. And being a veteran myself, props to anybody who’s got a
Purple Heart.”

“You can tell the conventionally top runners have maybe been out on the
stump a little more,” commented Linda Santi. “Having said that, Jim Webb
had substance and he too did a great job. A little less fire in his belly,
and he seemed to have the legislative perspective.”

“I thought he did a good job,” said Carol Dillard. “I felt like his was a
male point of view, a military point of view, and that’s not my point of
view.”

*GOP*

*DECLARED*

*BUSH*

*Poll: Bush has edge over Rubio among Miami Cuban voters
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/poll-jeb-bush-has-edge-over-marco-rubio-in-cuban-americans-120344.html#ixzz3gOFZLmVl>
// Politico // Marc Caputo – July 19, 2015*

In their home county in Florida, Jeb Bush is beating Marco Rubio by double
digits among GOP voters and even among those who are most like the freshman
senator: Cuban-American Republicans, a new poll shows.

Bush’s “shocking” 43-31 percent lead among Cuban-American Republicans is
“real serious problem” for Rubio because it indicates the son of Cuban
immigrants will have broader problems in Florida in the March 15 GOP
primary, pollster Fernand Amandi with Bendixen & Amandi, told POLITICO. His
firm conducted the Miami-Dade poll for The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald.

“Jeb is an honorary Cuban but Marco Rubio would be the first actual
Cuban-American president. So how is the Cuban community not supporting him
en masse?” Amandi asked, before answering his question: “Marco Rubio hasn’t
made a persuasive case to his own community that he can win. And if he
can’t make that case here, he can’t win Florida if the trend holds.”

Bush’s 12-percentage point lead among Cuban-American Republicans is driving
his overall 10 percentage-point lead (35-25 percent) among Miami-Dade
County’s GOP over Rubio, where 73 percent of the party’s registered voters
are Hispanic, nearly all of them of Cuban-American descent.

Miami-Dade, the only county in America to produce two top-tier Republican
presidential candidates, is crucial to winning Florida. Of the state’s 67
counties, Miami-Dade is the most populous and has more Republicans than any
other in the state, which has a closed primary where Democrats and
independents can’t vote. In 2012, Miami-Dade accounted for more
presidential-preference primary votes than any other in the state, 7
percent.

Bush in the early 1980s helped turn Miami-Dade’s Republican Party into a
regional powerhouse and then helped do the same for the state GOP as
governor from 1999 to 2007. The bilingual Bush’s efforts — and his support
for the Cuban embargo and Cuban-exile politics — made him a favored local
political figure for decades. Only Rubio rivaled Bush’s status as a favored
local son as he climbed the political rungs of power to become Florida
House speaker in 2007-2008 and, in 2010, a sitting U.S. senator.

To make sure Rubio didn’t eclipse him at home, Bush made sure his
announcement for president in June had a local, Latino flavor that played
far more to the Cuban-American base in the county than Rubio’s
announcement. Bush also has a larger stable of longtime community figures
backing him, such as Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart.

Diaz-Balart’s brother, former Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart is a longtime figure
in Cuban-exile politics and supports Bush as does Mel Martinez, Florida’s
first Cuban-American senator.

The poll by Bendixen & Amandi, which often surveys for Democrats, is the
first publicly released survey to test the two men on the same GOP ballot.
Because the race is early and because the sample size is relatively small,
250 registered Republicans, the survey is an early window into the race,
not the final or most exhaustive poll that has or will be done. Of all the
other candidates in the GOP race, Cuban-American Ted Cruz, from Texas, came
in a distant third, earning 7 percent of the vote along with undecided. The
margin of error is plus/minus 7 points.

While some have said support for Rubio and Bush in Florida and Miami-Dade
reflects a generational divide, even young Cuban-Americans Republicans back
Bush. Diana Arteaga, a 30-year-old voter and member of the county’s Young
Republicans club said Bush’s support can be summed up in a word:
“Gratitude.”

“Dade Republicans and Cuban Americans have known Jeb for a very long time.
He has been embraced by our community and genuinely cares about issues that
are important to us,” Arteaga said in an email to POLITICO. “He has been
our advocate both in and out of office. Jeb is familia.”

And some older establishment Republicans also support Rubio, including the
three brothers of the Diaz de la Portilla family. One is a state senator,
the other used to hold that seat, and a third is a former school board
member.

Former state Sen. Alex Diaz de la Portilla told POLITICO that he doesn’t
consider Bush “an honorary Cuban” and added: “The days of a candidate
yelling Viva Cuba Libre and then not doing anything about it are long gone.”

Diaz de la Potilla said he could see some members of the community
supporting Bush over Rubio because some might think “Marco is too young and
will have another chance.” But he added, “I don’t think people should vote
for someone because it’s their last chance, and they feel sorry for him.
They should vote based on who would make the best nominee and have the best
shot at beating Clinton, and Marco is clearly that choice. He brings us the
future and not the past.”

Rubio backers say the poll results are not unexpected and say it’s just a
clarion call for Rubio to make the case that he’s the best choice for the
party. But older Cuban-Americans, the base of the Republican Party in the
county, seem to deeply appreciate Bush.

“He’s the only one who’s going to be strong, who’s going to calm things
down a bit, because there’s a lot of crime in this country,” Dora Lorenzo,
81, told The Miami Herald. Of Rubio, she said, “of course, I like him too.
But I think he’s too much of a youngster.”

In looking at the numbers, Amandi said Rubio’s big task is to take a page
from Barack Obama’s successful 2008 campaign in which, at the beginning, he
wasn’t even backed by many African-American figures because they didn’t
think he could win.

“This is Miami-Dade’s version of Obama v. Hillary,” Amandi said. “The
question we all are asking is: Will the result be the same?”

*How Jeb Tackled the Cocaine Cartels
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/19/how-jeb-tackled-the-cocaine-cartels.html>
// The Daily Beast // Betsy Woodruff and Alexa Corse – July 19, 2015*

It was an October day in Miami, 1985, and Leonel Martinez didn’t want to
die.

Margarita Escobar—a Colombian woman known as La Doctora and rumored to be a
distant relative of Pablo Escobar—had paid Martinez, a construction
magnate, a hefty sum to move 12 duffel bags of cocaine from The Bahamas to
Miami on his luxury yacht. The load got intercepted en route, though, and
La Doctora wanted her money back. But Martinez didn’t have it.

So she called him up and said she would be visiting his office. Martinez
did the natural thing: He bought a Cadillac limousine, sent it to pick up
her and her bodyguard at the airport—in an effort to project wealth he
didn’t quite have—and welcomed her to his office.

She demanded he produce the cash. He didn’t have it, and he offered her 10
condominiums instead. But that wasn’t good enough. Give her the money, she
said, or she’d kill him.

“You can kill me, or you can wait,” he replied.

She decided to wait, and she flew back to Colombia. Then Martinez got to
work rustling up the thousands he owed her.

Overlooking that conversation was a wall plastered with pictures of
Martinez glad-handing some of South Florida’s most powerful political
luminaries. That’s because the drug trafficker—according to a retired DEA
agent and a retired Metro Dade police officer who worked to hunt him
down—had a knack for creating the illusion of intimacy with elected
officials.

A few of those officials had the last name Bush.

But those donations didn’t get him much.

In fact, as governor, Jeb Bush became a favorite of drug warriors.  He
mirrored his father’s tough-on-drugs tactics in Florida, won the loyalty of
cops and DEA agents, and showed the limits of money in politics.

When Jeb arrived in South Florida after the 1980 presidential campaign, it
was a crazy time.

The use of drug money in politics was commonplace.

In fact, his dad’s presidential campaign and the Jeb-helmed Dade County
Republican Party both took contributions from Martinez, and faced minimal
political repercussions when Martinez’s true career was revealed.

Eduardo Gamarra, a professor in Florida International University’s
department of politics and international relations, said at that time
Southern Florida was so saturated with cocaine-tainted cash that it would
have been odd if none of it could get traced to Jeb.

“That’s just the way things were in the 1980s,” he said.

Gamarra added that grip-and-grin photos with drug dealers didn’t
immediately mean the politician was in league with them. Even then-state
attorney Janet Reno appeared in a photo with Martinez when he was being
investigated for bribery.

Martinez moved from Cuba to Miami when Castro rose to power, and he
proceeded to build a successful construction business—with a lucrative
marijuana- and cocaine-trafficking business on the side.

He also made a number of contributions to the Dade County Republican Party
when young Jeb Bush chaired it, as Jack Colhoun detailed in an essay in the
anthology Covert Action: The Roots of Terrorism. Martinez won respect in
Republican circles and, according to his former defense attorney Ron
Dresnick, even managed to snag a photo with Jeb. It was never released.

This came at a time when Jeb was laying some of the groundwork for the
GOP’s eventual and total takeover of state-level politics there. In 1984,
Politico wrote, 4,000 Democrats became Republicans and 74 percent of
Hispanics to join the voter rolls that year registered with the GOP.

That success ballooned, and Bush carried Miami-Dade in both of his
successful gubernatorial campaigns. His impact in the Sunshine State is
hard to overstate.

And a tiny little statistically insignificant sliver of it was thanks to
coke money.

By 1989, Martinez was unmasked as a narcotrafficker. The Miami Herald
reported that he had promised to give a covert Drug Enforcement
Administration informant a dump truck worth $80,000 and five lots worth
$120,000 in exchange for 300 kilograms of cocaine. The Herald also noted
that, in a government affidavit, between 1981 and 1989 Martinez and his
team endeavored to move hundreds of pounds of marijuana and “multi-hundred
kilogram shipments of cocaine” into Southern Florida. As one does.

The Martinez case was representative of a South Florida cocaine problem of
cartoonish proportions—a culture where Jeb’s political ambitions first
began to flourish.

“It was a nuthouse,” recalled Tom Raffanello, a former Special Agent in
Charge of the DEA’s Miami Field Division, who had that position for three
years of Jeb’s governorship there. “We averaged two drug-related shootings
a month for almost two years. Everybody had a gun. Everybody was pissed off
all the time.”

Tony Kost, a retired Metro-Dade Police Department detective who worked to
apprehend Martinez, Dominic Albanese (a retired DEA agent who worked on the
investigation), and Raffanello all praised Jeb’s work to continue the
prosecution of the Drug War that started when his father, George H.W. Bush,
was vice president for Ronald Reagan.

It’s an interesting story of the failure of money in politics; though
Martinez managed to donate his way into the good graces of South Florida
Republicans, some of his favorite politicians ended up being the most
dogged foes of his industry.

Albanese said that Jeb Bush’s support of the War on Drugs—despite
inadvertently appearing in a photo with a powerful drug trafficker—speaks
to his integrity.

“I can’t say enough good things about what the Bushes did for the anti-drug
department, I’m telling you now,” he added. “I know where we would have
been if it wasn’t for them. We’d be in deep kimchi right now, I’m telling
you, with the drug problems.”

Jeb Bush appointed the state’s first drug czar, Jim McDonough, just a month
after he assumed office. McDonough’s responsibilities included coordinating
statewide efforts to curtail the import and distribution of narcotics. Bush
prioritized streamlining the communications between different agencies and
governments—local, state, and federal—to make anti-drug efforts more
efficient.

Gamarra, a Democrat, also said taking Martinez’s cocaine cash shouldn’t
taint the Bush family’s anti-drug legacy.

“It’s kind of popular to go around saying we’ve lost the drug war,” he
said, “but South Florida really demonstrates how they built up the correct
kind of legislation—financial controls and so on.”

“You’re not going to find an airplane flying into the Everglades dumping
cocaine,” he added. “Miami has drug problems today but this is not the
1980s by any stretch of the imagination.”

Gamarra described Bush and his team as “the best drug warriors in town.”

“Just like today everybody has to be a badass when it comes to fighting
terrorists, the ’80s and ’90s were really the same,” he continued. “You had
to demonstrate that you were a drug warrior, that you were in favor of all
the extreme kind of measures to stop drugs coming into the United States.”

Data from the U.S. Department of Justice indicates that total violent crime
grew at a slower rate than Florida’s overall population during Bush’s
governorship.

While the population grew steadily, from 15.1 million people in 1999 to
18.3 million in 2007, the number of violent crimes committed in the state
ebbed and flowed. In 1999, there were 129,044 total violent offenses. That
number dipped to a low of 123,754 in 2004. And it grew to 129,602 in 2006,
his last full year as governor.

That violent crime didn’t grow at the same rate as the population seems to
corroborate the anecdotal evidence from South Florida’s top drug
warriors—that, with time, the state became less bloody.

Raffanello said Bush’s efforts to improve communication between local
sheriffs, the DEA, and other law enforcement arms were particularly
fruitful.

As governor, he and his wife, Columba, participated in yearly Tallahassee
summits that brought together the state’s drug warriors for networking,
planning, and coordination. Raffanello said the impact of those
meetings—and the impact of the governor’s involvement with them—made
statewide enforcement efforts more organized and effective.

“I thought he really gave a shit,” Raffanello said. “It’s refreshing to see
a politician care about an issue.”

So his efforts seem to have made Florida less violent and crazy, but
Gamarra said the overall outcome was mixed. While drug-related violence
went down, there weren’t great results as far as overall drug use.

“The objective of all of this stuff was to stop the flow of drugs into the
United States,” he said. “And we have just as many drugs coming into the
United States today as we did in 1985. And the price is cheaper and quality
of the drugs is better.”

Still, Raffanello said Jeb’s greatest impact was the shift of drug violence
from the Sunshine State to the U.S.-Mexico border, saying the violence in
Florida decreased “exponentially.”

“We probably had three of the most successful years we had in the last two
decades,” he said.

*Jeb Bush Wants to Share
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/19/jeb_bush_wants_to_share_127434.html>
// Real Clear Politics // Debra Saunders – July 19, 2015*

The most recent time I had seen Jeb Bush speak in San Francisco was in
January, he addressed the National Automobile Dealers Association. It is
hard to imagine a group more invested in the old-school economy. It was a
friendly crowd. The former Florida governor seemed comfortable -- and
boring. I left feeling as if I'd spent an hour listening to a human
BarcaLounger.

The Jeb Bush I saw Thursday morning was a different candidate. He had shed
some 30 pounds on the Paleo Diet. His campaign had pulled the dynasty name
from the campaign logo and added an exclamation point. Now he's "Jeb!" In
this trip to San Fran, Bush ventured away from the stolid GOP base to
address the young workforce of Thumbtack, a 6-year-old digital service that
links consumers to painters, DJs, dog walkers and other contractors. Bush
arrived in a Toyota Camry ordered via Uber -- the ride-hailing company that
runs roughshod over the single-occupant vehicle model dear to car dealers.

It's hard to think of a clearer contrast to Hillary Clinton. In 2014, she
told NADA, "The last time I actually drove a car myself was 1996." The
former first lady, who has Secret Service protection for life, has no
reason to use Uber.

In a recent speech, the former secretary of state took Uber to task --
without, and this is so Clinton-like, naming Uber. She said: "Many
Americans are making extra money renting out a spare room, designing
websites, selling products they design themselves at home or even driving
their own car. This on-demand, or so-called gig, economy is creating
exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation. But it's also raising
hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look
like in the future."

According to The New York Times, Team Hillary "diplomatically contacted top
officials at Uber to let them know about the passage in her speech that
would draw attention to the service, according to people told of the
conversations." That passage probably was: "I'll crack down on bosses who
exploit employees by misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their
wages."

Clinton clearly is on the side of politicians who want to cripple
ride-hailing startups that allow individuals to drive their cars at their
own discretion. These outfits truly reflect market demand. If consumers
don't like a service, they won't use it. If drivers don't like the terms,
they will stop offering rides. Competition improves the outcome -- but
Clinton wants to impose more regulation.

In contrast, the son and brother of former presidents embraced the benefits
of "disrupting the old order." Bush started the day extolling businesses
such as Thumbtack on a LinkedIn post. "I love learning about these kinds of
companies precisely because before they existed, their market didn't exist
either," he wrote. Startups, he added, "cause mental dissonance for people
who think they can plan the future of the economy from Washington D.C. --
people like Hillary Clinton."

"He's got a good grasp of the way tech is changing the workforce,"
Thumbtack economist Jon Lieber told me after the talk.

2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney extolled "creative destruction" as an
essential element of free enterprise. He was right, but those words mean
nothing to kids used to summoning wheels with their phones. They just know
what they want. Perhaps 2016 will be the year capitalism finally clicks for
millennial voters.

If so, Bush is ready. When a reporter asked him about Uber, Bush talked
about a college student he met who graduated without crippling debt --
because he drove for Uber. A Thumbtacker asked Bush about Obamacare. He
turned "repealing Obamacare" into an act of disruption that would free
consumers to "opt out of these old models."

When a Thumbtack worker asked Bush what he thinks of new FCC net neutrality
regulation dear to the South of Market crowd, Bush did not pander. He
answered, "The unintended consequence of these top-down proven rules is
always negative."

Unlike the man I saw in January, I think, I maybe could vote for this Jeb
Bush. CEO Marco Zappacosta, 30, seemed to be enjoying Thumbtack's first
presidential hopeful meet-and-greet, so I asked him: Would you vote for
Bush? Zappacosta answered, "I don't know."

It's not clear at all that feeling the love for the sharing economy can win
Bush young voters. During the Thumbtack town hall, no one asked Bush about
Uber or Clinton or niggling regulations. Other than the net neutrality
query, Thumbtackers asked about equal pay for women, about gun control,
whether Bush supports state laws to protect gays from discrimination in
housing and the workplace -- social issues where, as with net neutrality,
young voters like government regulation. And really, they're not all that
impressed when a Republican uses Uber.

*Jeb Bush consultant critiques Republican digital culture
<https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-bush-consultant-critiques-republican-digital-124448872556.html>
// Yahoo News // Jon Ward – July 19, 2015*

SAN FRANCISCO – A top digital consultant to Jeb Bush’s presidential
campaign had harsh words for Republican technologists on Saturday, saying
that many of them are “impostors” and that the GOP has until recently been
an “atrociously bad” place for tech-savvy people wanting to get involved in
politics.

The Republican Party “was a terrible place for a smart technologist to come
work,” Andy Barkett, a former Facebook engineer, said at a conference on
technology and politics hosted by Lincoln Labs, a conservative nonprofit
group.

Barkett, who was hired by the Republican National Committee as its chief
technology officer two years ago, made reference to his time at the RNC,
which did not go smoothly.

“I mean, it was a terrible place for me when I started. It was horrible. It
was, like, the worst experience of my life,” Barkett said of his entry into
Republican politics after spending more than a decade at Silicon Valley
companies, where he moved into angel investing on the side. “It was just,
like, atrociously bad.”

Barkett was brought in after the RNC conducted an “autopsy” on the 2012
election that concluded they lagged far behind the Democrats in using
technology to target voters for persuasion and turnout.

But Barkett said that Republican digital culture “is getting better, and
now for the first time since I’ve been involved in it over the last few
years, you can take a smart person and plug them in and they can be really
effective and make a difference.”

And yet, Barkett, 34, said that too many people in Republican politics, and
political culture in general, still are too ignorant of basic technology.

“There’s a whole bunch of people in politics who say a lot of words, all
the buzzwords that we talked about, and they say, ‘I want more analytics.’
None of them have any idea what any of those things mean,” he said, seated
on a stage during a panel discussion alongside digital operatives working
for the presidential campaigns of Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Wisconsin
Gov. Scott Walker.

“They have no idea what the difference is between building an
infrastructure of servers that know how to send e-mails to having an e-mail
list or the difference between the records in the voter file and the
analytics that you do in addition to those,” he said.

Barkett urged people in politics doing tech-related work to “get over the
impostor syndrome and learn what the ef you are talking about.”

“Be honest with yourself — you’re probably a political person, and you
probably don’t know what the ef you’re taking about. And the first thing
you should do is probably dig in and learn. In the short run it will hurt
you, because you will be exposed as a fraud,” he said. “You people will
learn that you don’t know these things yet. And in the long run it will
help you, because you will then be one of the 1 percent of people in
politics who do know what they’re talking about.”

“I wouldn’t say all 200 of them are complete phonies. I would say that a
lot of them are good at one thing or another. So a lot of them may be very
good at online fundraising, which is a thing, which is important, or they
may be very good at online advertising in a political context, which is a
thing that’s important,” Barkett said. “There’s not a lot of people who are
genuinely well-rounded technology leaders. It’s a pretty small percentage
of that number.”

*Ralston Reports: Jeb Bush pandering to nativist wing
<http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/19/ralston-reports-jeb-bush-pandering-nativist-wing/30329535/>
// Reno Gazette-Journal // Jon Ralston – July 19, 2015*

As he strives to become Bush 45, Jeb brought his "I'm the grown-up"
campaign to Carson City on Friday, leaving behind an exclamation point on
why being an infantile Trumpian is so much easier.

Bush spent an hour at a town hall amid 200 or so attendees at the Silver
State Charter School in the capital, looking relaxed and facing nary a
hostile query after a boilerplate presentation. He checked off all the
boxes, with hoary anti-D.C. and anti-Obama rhetoric, albeit wrapped in
kindler and gentler language Bush 41 would have appreciated, while also
showing a facility and depth on issues not often seen at such events. And
he went after the administration's Iran deal with a bellicosity that Bush
43 would have smiled about, carefully adding he does not question the
president's motives.

But even as he projected an amiable seriousness and subtly emphasized he's
not like the other guys, he couldn't help but reveal himself as man with a
difficult needle to thread to get to the nomination: Pose as the adult in
the room but occasionally be willing to be a child in the sandbox.

Nowhere was that duality more evident than on the issue of illegal
immigration, where Bush clearly has switched his position on a path to
citizenship and only because he is now running in a Republican primary for
president.

Just two years ago, Bush told Charlie Rose he supported illegal immigrants
becoming citizens: "You have to deal with this issue. You can't ignore it,
and so either a path to citizenship, which I would support — and that does
put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives — or... a
path... to residency of some kind."

But this year, he has taken that off the table now that he is competing
against Ted Cruz and The Donald and others pandering to the nativist wing.
Why?

Give Bush credit for honesty when he explained why 10 days ago: "It has
changed because the climate has changed, and this is the consensus view
that allows conservatives to get in the game," he told Fox News.

I came (to run). I saw (the political landscape). I conquered (my
consistency.)

I pressed Bush on the issue after his town hall, in which he talked
thoughtfully and deliberately about the issue, disdaining harsh rhetoric
("Self-deportation is not a plan; it's a sentiment") but stopping short of
supporting citizenship, leaving it at "legal status" after paying a fine,
going to the back of the line and learning English.

He almost seemed peremptory during our exchange, reminding me, for some
reason, of former Democratic Rep. Jim Santini in 1986, suddenly
uncomfortable in his skin as a Republican-of-convenience running
(unsuccessfully) for the U.S. Senate.

"Legal status: That's my consistent view," Bush told me. Well…

What about a path to citizenship, which he backed just two years ago?

"Given the environment we're in now, given the need to build consensus on
how we craft an immigration policy that allows us to grow is the right
one," Bush replied.

Really? THAT's the reason to change your view? The political environment?
Speak softly but pander with a loud voice?

Wouldn't that kind of policy include citizenship?

"No! Legal status!" Bush all but snapped and then turned away.

Will that be enough to cut into what a recent Univision poll showed was a
42-point gap between Bush and Hillary Clinton in Nevada, and enough to help
him win Florida and Colorado, for instance? If he is relegating illegal
immigrants to non-citizen status, is he then not agreeing with those
"angrier voices" (hello, Trump) he decried, almost in sotto voce?

Maybe.

"There are people that are preying on people's legitimate fears and anger,"
Bush lamented at one point. "What I don't get is why people aspiring to the
greatest office in the land are preying on their fears, preying on their
anger. That I don't understand."

But isn't Bush responding to those same fears and exploiting them by
suddenly taking a path to citizenship off the table? Is it less damaging
than Trump's manifest idiocy or Cruz's inflammatory statements?

There's a pretty simple algorithm for presidential candidate visits to key
states: They don't want to make news unless they have decided to make news,
and then only the news they want to make.

Bush generally met that test, making sure he took oblique shots at Trump
and Scott Walker, who repeated in a Las Vegas stop last week that he would
reverse the Iran agreement on Day One. Bush tried to finesse that one too,
albeit taking a serpentine path.

Bush said he wouldn't have talked to Iran, hated the deal but hadn't read
it and would not simply abolish it without consulting allies and his
national security apparatus. "If you're running for president, it's
important to be mature and thoughtful about this," Bush said.

Or at least be mature and thoughtful after you've immediately attacked the
president.

To his credit, Bush showed spine in criticizing Cliven Bundy ("He is
breaking the law… and the law ought to be enforced.") and standing up for
Common Core even though he wouldn't call it Common Core ("I'm for higher
standards… it should be a national priority, not a federal program.")

And Bush clearly is frustrated, even exasperated with the Trump phenomenon,
cutting off a CNN reporter who started to ask about something the Mouth
that Boored said and exclaimed, "Oh my God!" He speaks for many.

The question remains whether all of Bush's money can buy him enough love in
a GOP primary to defeat those who are speaking with much more strident
voices on immigration, Iran and pretty much everything else, so long as he
projects gravitas while subtly pandering, too.

Sometimes, even in a room full of adults, the child wailing the loudest
gets the most affection.

*Leaner, meaner: Jeb Bush starts his climb
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/19/inside-the-beltway-jeb-bush-evolving-on-campaign-t/?page=2>
// Washington Times // Jennifer Harper – July 19, 2015*

Monday marks the first in a series of speeches by Jeb Bush “that will
outline what his priorities will be as president, beginning with taking on
Mount Washington and reforming the way D.C. works” — this according to his
campaign. The inaugural speech itself is titled “Taking on Mount
Washington,” in fact.

While it is an interesting metaphor, the tone and tenor of it also could
mark a change in demeanor for Mr. Bush which could help him fend off
critics who frame his campaign as inconsequential or tepid. Indeed, the
candidate appears to be evolving on the campaign trail. The leaner Mr. Bush
has dropped 30 pounds, raised more money than his rivals, and ramped up his
public presence; he was in four states last week, with more of same in the
near future.

He’s recently shown his compassionate conservative style and big tent
thinking: “Rhetoric of divisiveness is wrong. A Republican will never win
by striking fear into people’s hearts. I campaign with my arms open. I
campaign embracing diversity. Come join us, come join the team that is
creating hope and opportunity,” a cheerful and energetic Mr. Bush recently
told an audience in Iowa.

But he now appears ready to rumble, and ready to release his inner Bush, or
words to that effect. His “Mount Washington” speech, to be delivered at
Florida State University in Tallahassee at 10 a.m. Monday, could prove a
clear challenge to big government and stifling regulations — always popular
with a wide swath of voters. And yes, C-SPAN will be there, often an
indicator that some substance is expected.

“Is Trump’s campaign effectively over?” asks Townhall political reporter
Daniel Doherty. “Trump campaign implodes,” declares a New York Post
headline. Some wish it was true, perhaps; at least seven of Donald Trump’s
fellow Republican hopefuls strongly disagree with the billionaire’s recent
comment that Sen. John McCain was “only a hero because he was captured”
during his deployment to Vietnam in 1967. Those critics included Sens.
Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, Govs. Scott Walker and Bobby
Jindal, former Govs. Rick Perry and Jeb Bush, former Sen. Rick Santorum and
businesswoman Carly Fiorina.

So. Is Mr. Trump’s campaign over? “Depends on who you talk to,” Mr. Doherty
advises.

It also depends on the shelf life of the comment; even controversial
remarks can lose their edge in the welter of incessant, incoming news
coverage. Mr. Trump also appears to have moved on, telling ABC News on
Sunday that he owes Mr. McCain no apology. But tenacious rivals may not be
ready to let it go just yet, particularly since Mr. Trump has led multiple
voter polls in recent days.

“Republicans begin to surround Trump before moving in for the kill,” writes
Tim Hain, an analyst for Real Clear Politics.

Well, maybe. But Republican National Committee spokesman Sean Spicer has
released a statement: “Senator McCain is an American hero because he served
his country and sacrificed more than most can imagine. Period. There is no
place in our party or our country for comments that disparage those who
have served honorably.”

*RUBIO*

*Marco Rubio: Trump insulted McCain and 'all POWs'
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/marco-rubio-donald-trump-insulted-john-mccain-pows-120328.html#ixzz3gOFuRnSi>
// Politico // Kevin Robillard – July 19, 2015*

Republicans continued to gang up on Donald Trump on Sunday for his comments
disparaging Sen. John McCain’s military service.

“I do,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said on CNN’s “State of the Union” when
asked if he believed Trump’s comments disqualified the bombastic
billionaire real estate developer and entertainer from serving as commander
in chief. “This is an insult to all POWs, all men and women who have served
us in uniform and have been captured.”

Rubio also defended Republicans from charges they should have spoken out
more forcefully when Trump insulted Mexican immigrants. (Rubio was among
the GOP presidential rivals who did speak out early against Trump’s
comments.)

“This is a man who spent his whole life saying outrageous things,” Rubio
said. “So, early in this campaign when he said something outrageous, people
kind of said ‘Just ignore it and move on. This is what he does.’ But I
think now as things have gone forward and he’s become more of a covered
candidate and people have paid more attention to him, it requires people to
be more forceful about some of these offensive things that he is saying.”

Trump ignited the firestorm on Saturday at a gathering of GOP presidential
candidates in Iowa, declaring of the Republican senator from Arizona was
“not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people
who weren’t captured.”

The comments were immediately and widely condemned by many GOP presidential
candidates, including former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who almost immediately
called for Trump to drop out of the race. The Republican National
Committee, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and
former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush also were quick to join the condemnations. The
only GOP presidential candidates who did not directly criticize Trump’s
comments were former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz
and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet The Press” Sunday, Perry said he would leave it up
to debate organizers to decide whether Trump should be eligible to join the
other candidates on stage at the first forum Aug. 6.

“I’m real comfortable being on the stage with him and confronting him on a
host of issues that he’s just wrong on,” Perry said.

But pressed by host Chuck Todd on whether the GOP should have embraced
Trump with such a fervor four years ago when he campaigned with Mitt Romney
and was still regularly falsely saying President Barack Obama was born
outside the United States, Perry demurred and said the problem with Trump
was his failure to reach out to minorities or offer solutions.

“I haven’t heard any solutions coming from Donald Trump,” Perry said.

On the “Meet The Press” roundtable, the American Enterprise Institute’s
Danielle Pletka was decidedly more blunt in assessing Trump.

“He’s an idiot,” she said. “He’s in this for himself.”

McCain and Trump have spent the past week feuding after McCain said Trump
had fired up the “crazies” during an appearance last weekend in Phoenix.

Democrats have also joined the fray.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic
presidential nomination, dismissed Trump’s comments as “shameful” on the
campaign trail Saturday. And Secretary of State John Kerry, whose own war
record was questioned during the 2004 presidential race, defended McCain.

“One thing I know is beyond debate is that John McCain is a hero, a man of
grit and guts and character personified,” Kerry said. “He served and bled
and endured unspeakable acts of torture. His captors broke his bones, but
they couldn’t break his spirit, which is why he refused early release when
he had the chance. That’s heroism, pure and simple, and it is
unimpeachable.”

“If anyone doesn’t know that John McCain is a war hero,” he declared, “it
only proves they know nothing about war and even less about heroism.”

*Rubio: Trump's McCain attack a 'disqualifier'
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/19/politics/marco-rubio-donald-trump-john-mccain-disqualifier/>
// CNN // Eric Bradner – July 19, 2015*

"It's not just absurd, it's offensive. It's ridiculous. And I do think it's
a disqualifier as commander-in-chief," Rubio said in an interview Sunday
with CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."

The Florida senator was the latest Republican White House contender to hit
Trump after the real estate mogul said Saturday that McCain "is not a war
hero" because he was captured and held prisoner in Vietnam.

"He is a war hero because he was captured," Trump said. "I like people that
weren't captured, OK?"

He walked back those comments on Twitter later, saying that "captured or
not, all our soldiers are heroes!" But opponents who'd been looking for
openings to criticize Trump were already piling on.

Rubio defended Republicans who were slow to criticize Trump over his
controversial comments about undocumented Mexican immigrants a week ago,
too, saying that it's been Trump's rise in the polls that has "required
people to be more forceful on some of these offensive things he is saying."

"I spoke out against what Donald Trump said," Rubio said. "But we have to
remember, this is a man who spent his whole life saying outrageous things."

Trump defended himself Sunday, issuing a statement touting his financial
contributions to veterans' causes and criticizing Veterans Affairs
hospitals with long waits for military veterans to receive medical care.

He also explained his attack on McCain, saying his anger is because
"politicians like John McCain have totally failed" at tackling illegal
immigration.

He pointed to McCain's reaction to a Trump event in the Arizona senator's
home state.

"Last week in Phoenix, I held a record breaking rally with thousands of
people. They are devastated by what is happening with illegal immigration.
This group was totally united -- the silent majority became alive," Trump
said.

"These were fabulous people and great Americans but John McCain called them
'crazies,'" Trump said. "Everyone was very insulted by his disgusting and
unfair characterization. A nation without borders is not a nation at all
but John McCain has not been able to figure that out."

*Marco Rubio says Iran deal breaks 'anytime, anywhere' inspection promise
by Barack Obama
<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/19/marco-rubio/rubio-iran-deal-breaks-anytime-anywhere-inspection/>
// PolitiFact // Louis Jacobson – July 19, 2015*

The agreement reached with Iran over nuclear weapons remained a top issue
on the Sunday July 19 news shows, with critics of the deal urging that it
be scuttled by Congress.

On CNN’s State of the Union, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told host Jake
Tapper that "this deal violates promises the president made to the American
people on multiple fronts. It is not an anytime, anywhere inspection
process."

This issue also came up on the same day on CBS’s Face the Nation, when
Secretary of State John Kerry said of anytime, anywhere inspections, "This
is a term that, honestly, I never heard in the four years that we were
negotiating. It was not on the table. There's no such thing in arms control
as ‘anytime, anywhere.’ There isn't any nation in the world, none that has
an anytime, anywhere. We always were negotiating was an end to the
interminable delays that people had previously. "

On Rubio’s claim, we see two questions. First, does the Iran deal fall
short of an "anytime, anywhere inspection process"? And second, did Obama
promise that it would include an inspection regime that strict?

Does the Iran deal fall short of an ‘anytime, anywhere inspection process’?

We addressed this question in the course of checking a recent claim by Rep.
Don Beyer, D-Va., that "thanks to the Obama administration’s negotiations,
Iran’s nuclear program will be under lock, key and camera 24 hours a day,
365 days a year."

We found that it’s correct that certain specific Iranian assets that will
be under 24/7 monitoring by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy
Agency, or IAEA.

According to the agreement, "for 15 years, Iran will permit the IAEA to
implement continuous monitoring, including through containment and
surveillance measures, as necessary, to verify that stored centrifuges and
infrastructure remain in storage, and are only used to replace failed or
damaged centrifuges."

This round-the-clock monitoring will explicitly include "electronic seals
which communicate their status within nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors, as
well as other IAEA approved and certified modern technologies," according
to the agreement.

For instance, at an Iranian facility like Natanz, where more than 5,000
centrifuges will be operating, the IAEA will have cameras that provide
24-hour monitoring, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at the Harvard
Kennedy School. In addition, the agreement says, "Iran will permit the IAEA
regular access, including daily access as requested by the IAEA, to
relevant buildings at (the Iranian nuclear facility at) Natanz ... for 15
years."

However, this sort of 24/7 surveillance will not be the rule everywhere in
the Iranian nuclear archipelago.

"At most locations, inspections will be every once in a while, on a
schedule the inspectors judge to be sufficient based on the sensitivity of
the activities at that location, how long it would take for Iran to do
something there that would make a difference, and so on," Bunn said.

In fact, even if Iran ultimately agrees to a contentious inspection, the
wait could be as long as 24 days.

The agreement spells out that if the IAEA and Iran can’t work out their
differences over suspicions about undeclared nuclear materials or
activities within 14 days, a joint commission empowered by the agreement
would try to resolve the situation for another seven days. Once the
commission decides what to do, Iran would have three more days to follow
through.

In other words, when looking at Iran’s nuclear complex as a whole, "the
IAEA can’t just drive up with no warning — it’s not ‘anytime, anywhere,’ "
Bunn said

So on this point, Rubio is justified in suggesting that the deal doesn’t
include "anytime, anywhere" inspections.

Did Obama promise that the agreement with Iran would include an ‘anytime,
anywhere’ inspection regime?

This question is a bit more complicated.

We located at least one, and possibly two, instances in which Ben Rhodes --
an assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for
strategic communications and speechwriting -- said the deal would include
"anytime, anywhere" inspections.

One of Rhodes’ comments came in an interview with Tapper on April 6, 2015.
Tapper asked Rhodes, "So the Israelis have put out this list of things that
they think should be in the final deal with Iran, including allowing
inspectors to go anywhere, anytime. That seems perfectly reasonable, no?"

Rhodes responded, "Well, Jake, first of all, under this deal, you will have
anywhere, anytime 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that
Iran has."

The second of Rhodes’ comments came on the same day, in an interview with
Israel's Channel 10, April 6, 2015. After objecting to the paraphrases used
in a widely cited Times of Israel article about the interview, the White
House sent us a transcript of the exchange.

Rhodes was asked, "Will the IAEA have the ability to visit anywhere,
anytime?"

Rhodes responded, "Yes, if we see something we want to inspect. So in the
first case we will have ‘anytime anywhere’ access to all of the nuclear
facilities. We’ll have the ability to look across all of their supply
chain, their uranium mines and mills, their centrifuge production and
storage facilities. But I think what you're mainly referring to is if
there's a suspicious site, for instance, on a military base in Iran, and we
want to seek access to that we will be able to go to the IAEA, and get that
inspection because of the additional protocol of the IAEA that Iran will be
joining, and some of the additional transparency and inspection measures
that are in the deal."

Much of the coverage has focused on Rhodes’ agreement with the
interviewer’s words that the IAEA will "have the ability to visit anywhere,
anytime." The White House notes, however, that Rhodes’ full comments are
more nuanced, spelling out the more complicated -- and not instantaneous --
process of inspecting suspicious sites not already cited in the agreement.

So we see one pretty clear statement, plus one somewhat less clear
statement, made by the Obama administration that backs up Rubio’s claim.

"The answer given by Ben Rhodes is consistent with the messaging that the
Obama administration has been providing since the nuclear talks with Iran
began," said Rick Brennan Jr., a senior political scientist with Rand Corp.
"In fact, in 2012 President Obama declared that the final deal with Iran
would ensure ‘the end to their nuclear program,’ which we now understand is
not accurate."

That said, though, Rhodes' comments are something of an outlier to the
words other White House officials have said. In general, the message from
senior White House officials has been that the inspections regime in the
deal would be strong by historical standards -- and strong enough to
achieve its goals --  but not allowing "anytime, anywhere" inspections.

Critics like Rubio "are trying to imply that the Obama administration
promised that international inspectors bust into any undeclared Iranian
site, whenever they felt like doing so, and without cause," said Daryl
Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. However, that
was not the administration’s goal, because "no sovereign state would agree
to such an arrangement; no such access is necessary to verify compliance;
and any such arrangement would waste the inspectors' resources. Iran is a
large country and the inspectors should and will focus on particular
areas/sites of concern."

A good example of the White House's usual wording is the briefing held by
Press Secretary Josh Earnest on March 9, 2015. Here are some of the phrases
Earnest used to describe the extent of the inspection regime:

• "We're going to insist that the Iranians agree to intrusive inspection
measures that will resolve the broader international community’s concerns."

• "What we are seeking from Iran are a whole set of commitments from them …
to comply with an intrusive set of inspections to verify their compliance
with the agreement."

• "They’re going to have to agree to a set of very intrusive inspections."

• "Any sort of agreement that is reached will require serious commitments
on the part of Iran to an intrusive inspections program that allows
international inspectors not just into their nuclear facilities, but also
into the manufacturing facilities that are manufacturing parts and
equipment for their nuclear facilities that would require inspections at
uranium mines in Iran."

• "We would insist … that Iran commit to comply with a historically
intrusive set of inspections."

• The deal would "impose an intrusive set of inspections that would verify
Iran’s compliance with the agreement."

Such language has been echoed numerous other times by White House
officials, including Obama.

In a Rose Garden address on April 2, 2015, four days before Rhodes’
televised comments, Obama said: "Iran will face strict limitations on its
program, and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive
inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program
in history. … International inspectors will have unprecedented access not
only to Iranian nuclear facilities, but to the entire supply chain that
supports Iran’s nuclear program -- from uranium mills that provide the raw
materials, to the centrifuge production and storage facilities that support
the program."

Obama repeated the sentiment in his weekly address on April 4, 2015, and
the message was echoed by others -- including Rhodes himself. At a press
briefing at Camp David May 14, 2015, Rhodes said, "Under this agreement
that we're pursuing with the Iranians, (the nuclear) program will be rolled
back and face significant limitations that it doesn’t currently face, and
there will be the most intrusive inspections regime of any arms control
agreement that we've ever had."

Rhodes also backtracked on the "anywhere, anytime" phrasing in an interview
with CNN’s Erin Burnett on July 14, 2015.

"We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called ‘anytime,
anywhere’ where you can basically go anywhere in the country, look at
whatever you wanted to do, even if it had nothing to do with the nuclear
program. What we did seek is beyond this comprehensive verification of the
nuclear sites. If we have a suspicion about a site, we have the ability to
go to the IAEA, the organization that conducts inspections, and to say, we
need to inspect that site."

So Rubio’s not wrong to say that the Obama administration promised
"anywhere, anytime" inspections. However, it’s also reasonable to point out
that most of the administration’s statements on this point have not used
that specific language.

Our ruling

Rubio said that the Iran nuclear deal "violates promises the president made
to the American people" because it "is not an anytime, anywhere inspection
process."

Rubio has a point that a senior administration national-security official
did, in at least one case and possibly two cases, say on television that
the deal would include "anytime, anywhere" inspection provisions. However,
focusing on these two comments is a bit of cherry-picking, since most of
the White House’s statements on this issue have avoided that term in favor
of ones that can be more plausibly used to describe the provisions of the
agreement that were ultimately reached.

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we
rate it Half True.

*Rubio: Clinton’s Uber Criticisms Show Someone ‘Trapped In The Past’
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/rubio-clintons-uber-criticisms-show-someone-trapped-in-the-past/>
// Free Beacon // Andrew Kugle – July 19, 2015*

During an interview on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday, Sen. Marco Rubio
(R., Fla.), said that Hillary Clinton is trapped in the past.

Clinton outlined some of her economic platform in which she complained that
new companies like Uber should treat their drivers as employees and not
contractors so they can provide certain benefits to them.

“She’s trying to apply 20th century constricts to a 21st century innovative
industry,” Rubio said. “We’re trying to regulate internet development the
way we regulated telephony, you know, telephone systems 20 years ago. You
cannot regulate 21st century industries with 20th century ideas.”

Rubio also stated that Clinton was trapped in the past.

“And her take on Airbnb, Lyft, Uber, these sorts of things, is a perfect
example of someone who’s trapped in the past, and cannot understand how
much the world is changing, and how much it’s going to change in the years
to come economically,” Rubio said.

*PAUL*

*CRUZ*

*Ted Cruz drops off D.C. bestseller list
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/07/19/ted-cruz-drops-off-d-c-bestseller-list/>
// WaPo // Ron Charles – July 19, 2015*

You win some, you lose some.

Even as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) convinced the New York Times that his memoir
is a genuine bestseller, his book fell off The Washington Post’s bestseller
list.

Such are the vicissitudes of publishing and various book-buying markets
around the country.

Let’s back up to the beginning of July.

The presidential candidate’s book, “A Time for Truth,” sold almost 12,000
copies nationwide its first week, but the Times refused to list it,
reportedly because the editors suspected that someone was gaming the system
by buying up copies in bulk. (Such books are routinely omitted.)

Meanwhile, “A Time for Truth” came in at No. 4 on The Washington Post list
for the week ending July 5. The Post relies on Nielsen BookScan for data on
sales in the greater Washington area.

After Cruz campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler accused the Times of “obvious
partisan bias,” the paper relented. The Times now lists Cruz’s book at No.
7 for the period ending July 11. (That’s the list readers will see in the
Times’s Book Review next Sunday, on July 26.)

But here in Washington, sales of  “A Time for Truth” appear to be falling
quickly. Cruz’s book dropped off The Post’s top 10 list this week. (If our
list extended beyond 10, you’d see “A Time For Truth” at No. 15.)

That’s at odds with the trend nationwide. Publishers Weekly lists his book
at No. 7, with almost 19,000 copies sold at the end of its second week.

It’s possible, of course, that Cruz’s spat with the Times will boost his
book’s sales here in the Washington area. There is, after all, no bad
publicity in publishing.

*Ted Cruz Looks for His Iowa Moment
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-19/ted-cruz-looks-for-his-iowa-moment>
// Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – July 19, 2015*

While Republican firebrand Donald Trump has seized control of news
headlines over the past few weeks, it's Texas Senator Ted Cruz who may be
poised for a breakout moment on the campaign trail, particularly after
impressing conservatives over the weekend in the key state of Iowa.

Cruz led the presidential pack in fundraising during the latest quarter of
the campaign, hauling in a remarkable $14.3 million in addition to $38
million raised by super PACs supporting him. He's enjoying greater
publicity with the release of his book A Time for Truth, over which he
battled with the New York Times about a spot on its coveted bestseller
list. And he's raising fresh hackles in the Senate by threatening to block
all of President Barack Obama's nominees to the State Department unless
Congress gets to review the Iran nuclear deal prior to a United Nations
vote.

Cruz's hopes of competing for the big prize likely hinge on Iowa, the first
nominating contest which, unlike other early states, plays to his
strengths, with an outsize crop of evangelical and hard-right Republicans.
Judging from his reception in Iowa over the weekend, Cruz has some reason
for optimism.

'A great shot'

"Senator Cruz has a great shot," said Bob Vander Plaats, a social
conservative activist in Iowa who endorsed Mike Huckabee in 2008 and Rick
Santorum in 2012—both went on to win the state caucuses. "He's definitely a
movement conservative, who has $51 million behind him. Quite frankly, we've
been hoping for a movement conservative to be well resourced."

At a Saturday gathering of religious conservatives here in Ames, Iowa
hosted by Vander Plaats's group The Family Leader, Cruz turned a ho-hum
question-and-answer session into a parade of cheers with his distinctive
right-wing edge and wit.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz, adorned in his trademark American
flag-themed sneakers as he interviewed Cruz, tried to throw the Texan off
his game by pointing out that the 2013 government shutdown that he led had
failed in its goal of defunding Obamacare. Cruz spun it into a tale of him
"standing and fighting" against Washington. The crowd ate it up. Next,
Luntz asked the crowd if they'd like to have a governor or a senator become
president—overwhelmingly the answer was a governor.

Cruz interrupted: "Actually Frank, let me jump in and ask: how many of you
would like to have a conservative as your next president?"

Deafening applause. Luntz was flustered. Cruz had taken over.

A festival of red meat

It's a pattern that would continue through the half-hour session, which was
littered with applause lines and featured two spontaneous standing
ovations—one when Cruz called for defunding and prosecuting Planned
Parenthood over a recent video he called "gruesome and disgusting," which
featured one of its officials discussing donating fetal organs; another
when he vowed, if elected, to revoke "every single unconstitutional,
illegal executive action" Obama has taken. He also attacked against the
Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, accusing
his fellow Republicans who don't want to amend the constitution of spouting
Obama talking points, and trashed the new Iran nuclear accord.

It was a festival of red meat for a crowd that lapped it all up. In a
classic Cruzian act, he himself stood up with the crowd to applaud several
of his own lines.

"You're a powerful speaker," Luntz deadpanned.

Of course, it was a Cruz-friendly crowd, but the same reception was not
enjoyed by other social conservatives like Scott Walker, the Wisconsin
governor currently leading the field in Iowa polls, or Huckabee, who is
running for president again.

"And thank you for being a fighter," said one attendee who asked Cruz a
question about "Commiecare," devising a new jeering term for the Affordable
Care Act.

Obstacles ahead

Now the unsettling part for Cruz: The Family Leadership Summit was a
reminder that anything less than an impressive showing in Iowa could doom
Cruz's chances. He's not a natural fit for any other of the early
states—New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada—and after those contests
are decided, the field is expected to narrow significantly. And so far,
Cruz has yet to show polling strength in the Hawkeye State. He was tied for
fourth place in a Quinnipiac University poll of Iowa Republican voters
released July 1. A prior Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa poll
late May placed him in the middle of the pack. Potential was there—primary
voters viewed him favorably—but they preferred others.

As Trump sucked up most of the oxygen Saturday with an inflammatory remark
deriding Arizona Senator John McCain's war record, Cruz stood apart from
most candidates in refusing to disavow the brash real estate mogul's
remarks. That seems risky given the intense backlash, but it may be a
calculated strategy that involves playing nice with Trump in the hope that
he flames out and his supporters flock to Cruz. It's a lot of supporters,
too: Trump has led the Republican field in several national polls lately.

Cruz's other problem is the massive field of candidates competing for the
conservative vote, including Walker, Huckabee, Santorum and Louisiana
Governor Bobby Jindal.

The question is whether Cruz's book publicity and tour through Iowa can
translate into the polling boost he needs. If not now, when?

"People like [Cruz] because of his bold and courageous spirit," Vander
Plaats said. "He's not only willing to take on Democrats but he's willing
to take out the Republicans who wear our jerseys but score for the other
team."

*CHRISTIE*

*'I Wouldn't Let This Guy Buy a Car For Me': Chris Christie Slams Obama on
Iran Deal
<https://news.vice.com/article/i-wouldnt-let-this-guy-buy-a-car-for-me-chris-christie-slams-obama-on-iran-deal>
// Vice // Gillian Mohney – July 19, 2015*

New Jersey governor and presidential hopeful Chris Christie once again
didn't mince his words while discussing President Barack Obama, this time
as he slammed the recent Iran nuclear deal.

Speaking to a crowd at a campaign stop in Franklin, New Hampshire late last
week, Christie criticized the deal, saying oversight of Iran's nuclear
problem would be compromised by an arbitration process.

"I wouldn't let this guy buy a car for me, let alone negotiate an arms deal
with Iran," Christie said of Obama.

While nuclear negotiations regarding Iran's proposed program have been
going on for a decade, the recent deal was announced on Tuesday after a
marathon 18 day session, when Iran and a group of countries known as the
P5+1 — the US, Russia, Britain, China and France, plus Germany — came to an
agreement that is intended to limit Tehran's nuclear ambitions in exchange
for relief from crippling international sanctions.

Christie told the crowd in Franklin that Obama had mis-characterized the
situation to the public, describing the deal as "not built on trust, it is
built on verification." Christie said that if United Nations investigators
want to go to a uranium enrichment site, they have to request access from
the government.

"If they object, it then goes to an arbitration panel, and the Iranians
have a vote on the arbitration panel, as do the Russians and Chinese,"
Christie said, adding that the panel will then have another 24 days to make
a decision. He compared the potential situation to asking for a search
warrant and then having to wait 24 days to gather evidence.

"I got to tell you the truth, if you were engaged in that crime, I got a
feeling when I came back 24 days later that evidence would be gone," said
Christie.

The governor was just the latest to join in among Republican presidential
candidates who have criticized the president for agreeing to the deal.
Immediately after it was announced, Mike Huckabee called the deal "evil" on
Twitter, and wrote that if needed he would consider using the military to
topple the "terrorist Iranian regime."

Rand Paul, who previously said he would have an open mind about the deal,
said he is against the agreement for multiple reasons.

"While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I
would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a
bad deal," he said on Facebook earlier this week.

Jeb Bush was not as defiant as his peers, and according to CNN he told a
crowd that if elected president he would not destroy the current deal as
soon as he's sworn in.

"One thing I won't do is just say as a candidate: 'I'm just going to tear
up the agreement on the first day.' That sounds great, but maybe you ought
to check in with your allies first. Maybe you ought to appoint a secretary
of state, maybe a secretary of defense," he said. "You might want to have
your team in place before you take an act like that."

Bush, however, is far from supporting the deal, which he said left him
"deeply worried," according to CNN. He also said "every aspect of this
deal, I think, is headed south."

Across the globe in Iran, the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei came just short of endorsing the deal and framed it as a win for
Iran.

"After 12 years of struggling with the Islamic republic, the result is that
they have to bear the turning of thousands of centrifuges in the country,"
Khamenei said according to the New York Times. While Khamenei's statements
may make the deal more likely to be approved in that country, it could
cause problems in the US, if his statements are seized by the deal's
opponents.

The US Congress has 60 days to review the deal before sanctions can be
lifted, and could potentially hold up its progress up even longer.

*Chris Christie tries to trump Donald on immigration
<http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/chris_christie_tries_to_trump_donald_on_immigratio.html>
// NJ // Paul Mulshine – July 19, 2015*

He was going along good for a while there.

On Thursday, Chris Christie visited Camden to outline his views on
criminal-justice reform. Those views were quite innovative. But then he
decided to try for a sound bite on the issue of immigration.

It bit back.

As recently as last April, the governor was positioning himself as a
moderate on immigration.

"There are not enough law enforcement officers in all the country if all
they were doing is rounding up and deporting people," he told a crowd in
New Hampshire.

But on Thursday, he turned into a tough guy. He brought up the case of that
unfortunate young woman who was killed by a stray bullet when walking with
her father at a popular tourist spot in San Francisco. Police later traced
the bullet to the gun of an undocumented immigrant with a long criminal
record. San Francisco authorities had released him from jail in keeping
with their policy of running a sanctuary city.

"Sanctuary cities have to stop protecting felons in the midst of
law-abiding people," Christie said. "That has to end and if I'm elected
president it will end in a Christie administration."

That San Francisco shooting has been in the news largely because of Donald
Trump. Trump has risen to the top of the polls the race for the 2016
Republican presidential nomination largely because of his pounding on the
immigration issue.

Meanwhile Christie's been relegated to the ranks of the 2 percenters, the
candidates who are fighting to make the cut for the Aug. 6 Fox News debate.
So you can see the reason he wants to sound tough on sanctuary cities.

But if you happen to be a certain former mayor of Morristown, you've got to
have a good laugh upon hearing those words from Christie.

"It's hypocritical for him to say he's not going to have sanctuary cities
when he had the entire state of New Jersey as a sanctuary state," said Don
Cresitello.

Back in 2007 when Christie was the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey he had a
highly publicized confrontation with Cresitello over the immigration
enforcement. Cresitello had applied with the federal government for 287(g)
status for his town. Local police would have been trained and authorized to
enforce federal immigration laws.

Though Cresitello is a Democrat, he faced opposition from the entire
Republican establishment that runs the county as well as the U.S. Attorney,
he said.

At the height of the controversy Christie visited a local church with a
largely Latino congregation and told the crowd that "Being in this country
without proper documentation is not a crime."

That quote got him denounced by TV commentator Lou Dobbs as "out of his
mind. Dobbs went on to report that that he could find only 13 instances
between 2002 and 2007 in which Christie's office prosecuted immigration
violations compared with 597 prosecutions by the U.S. attorney for Kansas
during the same period.

But it was what happened next that offers a direct parallel to the San
Francisco situation. After four college students were gunned down in a
Newark schoolyard by members of a Latino gang, it was revealed that the
ringleader was an undocumented immigrant who'd been released on bail by
Essex County officials after being arrested for assault.

"There's the same situation. Newark was a sanctuary city," said Cresitello.
"Those murders never would have happened if the law was enforced. Christie
never did anything about it."

Actually, he did. After he was elected governor, Christie chose as his
attorney general Paula Dow. Dow was the same county prosecutor who had
failed to notify federal officials that the county was holding the
undocumented alien who later led the gang involved in the schoolyard
shooting.

But if Christie now wants to get tough on illegal immigration, there's
nothing stopping him, said Cresitello, who is no longer mayor.

"You don't need a federal law to prosecute a contractor for hiring
illegals," he said.  "The governor has the authority under current state
labor law to do whatever he wants to stop the hiring of illegals."

A muster zone for the hiring of day workers that was the subject of the
2007 debate is still in operation. It's about a mile from the place in
Morristown where Christie is setting up his national campaign headquarters.
That should make for some nice video if the national media come calling.

Perhaps the governor should do something about it. And maybe she will. Most
days of the week, that's Kim Guadagno. Back when she was sheriff of
Monmouth County, Guadagno also applied for 287(g) status for her officers.

So at least one member of the administration can claim to be tough on
immigration enforcement.

But it sure isn't Christie.

*PERRY*

*Rick Perry: Boy Scouts 'better off' without gay leaders
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/19/politics/rick-perry-gay-boy-scouts-scott-walker/>
// CNN // Eric Bradner – July 19, 2015*

Rick Perry opposes openly gay leaders in the Boy Scouts of America, he said
Sunday, even after that organization dropped its ban on such scoutmasters.

"I believe that scouting would be better off if they didn't have openly gay
scoutmasters," the former Texas governor and 2016 GOP presidential
candidate said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The Boy Scouts dropped its policy banning gay scouts in 2013. And earlier
this month, the organization also dropped its ban on gay scoutmasters after
a push by the group's national president, former Defense Secretary Bob
Gates.

His comments come as Republicans court socially conservative voters in the
wake of the Supreme Court's June decision legalizing same-sex marriage
everywhere in the United States.

Conservatives have responded by pushing state-level measures to protect
businesses from having to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies in
the name of religious freedom. Republican presidential candidates have also
said they disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash that
aired Sunday that he doesn't know if being gay is a choice. And he said he
supported the Boy Scouts of America's old ban on openly gay scoutmasters.

"I thought the policy was just fine. I'm saying when I was in scouts, it
was fine. You're asking what should the policy be going forward. It should
be left up to the leaders of the scouts," Walker said.

*Rick Perry Slams GOP Rival: 'We're Seeing the Real Donald Trump Now'
<http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/rick-perry-were-seeing-real-donald-trump-now-n394696>
// NBC // Dan Cooney – July 19, 2015*

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry on Sunday responded to Donald
Trump's controversial comments about Sen. John McCain's military service,
saying that "we're seeing the real Donald Trump now."

"We're seeing an individual who's more interested in throwing invectives
and this hyperbolic rhetoric out there, rather than laying out solutions,"
the former Texas governor told Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Trump, who in the past has referred to McCain as a "dummy," was asked to
defend those comments Saturday at the conservative Family Leadership Summit
in Ames, Iowa.

"Is that appropriate in running for president?" asked the summit's host,
Frank Luntz. Lutz, a prominent pollster, later said, "He's a war hero."

Trump apparently disagreed. "He's not a war hero," he responded. "He's a
war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured."

Perry on Sunday slammed Trump's comments.

"It matters that we have a commander in chief that respects what those
individuals have done," Perry said, referring to veterans. "I still stand
by my statement. Until Mr. Trump apologizes directly to John McCain, and
also to the veterans of this country, I don't think he has the character or
the temperament to hold the highest position in this country."

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., also appearing on "Meet the Press," said he
disagreed with Trump's comments on McCain and said the fellow senator is "a
great American."

"I would recommend that he apologize and retract them, and then get back to
the campaign that he's been running on," Cotton said.

Trump, when asked Sunday morning on ABC's "This Week" if he would apologize
to McCain, said, "No, not at all." He later said, "When I left the room, it
was a total standing ovation. It was wonderful to see. Nobody was insulted."

McCain has yet to publicly address the comments.

Perry on Sunday also discussed the possibility of facing Trump in the
upcoming Republican presidential debates. When asked if he would advocate
for Trump getting kicked off the debate stage, he said he would let the
debate organizers decide that.

"I'm real comfortable being on the stage with him and confronting him on a
host of issues that he's just wrong on. I mean, there's one thing to just
spew invectives and spew rhetoric out there. But America's looking for
somebody that's got some solutions," Perry said. "And I'll be real honest
with you, I haven't heard any solutions coming from Donald Trump. Just
rhetoric."

*Perry Still Opposes Gay Scout Leaders, While Walker Backtracks
<http://time.com/3963749/rick-perry-gay-scout-leaders/> // TIME // Justin
Worland – July 19, 2015*

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry said Sunday that he still opposes openly
gay leaders in the Boy Scouts of America, even as the organization has
moved to change a policy that banned such leaders.

“I believe that Scouting would be better off if they didn’t have openly gay
Scoutmasters,” the GOP presidential candidate said on Meet the Press Sunday.

The Boy Scouts changed a policy banning gay scouts in 2013. After taking
the helm of the organization last year, former Defense Secretary Robert
Gates called for the organization to drop the ban on gay leaders as well.
Earlier this month, the Boy Scouts executive committee voted to do just
that.

Perry, who wrote a book about the Boy Scouts last year, isn’t the only GOP
presidential candidate to support the ban. In a statement earlier in the
week, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said the BSA should keep the ban on
openly gay leaders, but in an interview with CNN he backtracked.

“I thought the policy was just fine. I’m saying when I was in Scouts, it
was fine. You’re asking what should the policy be going forward. It should
be left up to the leaders of the Scouts,” he said.

Both Walker and Perry are Eagle Scouts and cite their achievement in
campaign materials.

*GRAHAM*

*Lindsey Graham Defends John McCain: 'Being Captured Doesn't Mean You're A
Loser'
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lindsey-graham-mccain-trump_55abb25be4b065dfe89e93de>
// HuffPo // Samantha-Jo Roth – July 19, 2015*

South Carolina senator and Republican presidential candidate Lindsey Graham
rose to defend Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Saturday, after Donald Trump
attacked McCain's record as a war hero.

"I think he crossed a line with a lot of people, not just me. John is my
best friend in politics and one of my best friends in life," Graham told
The Huffington Post at a campaign stop in Iowa on Saturday. "This will work
out. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina Republicans are conservative, but
they aren't going to put up with this. This will work itself out. I'm not
calling for him to get out of the race, I'm calling for people of Iowa, New
Hampshire, South Carolina to tell him he's fired."

"If you want to be commander in chief, you need to understand how the
military works. Being captured doesn't mean you're a loser, it means you
put yourself at great risk and you probably are young to go through hell
while you're in captivity. It just shows a lack of understanding of the
military, lack of respect for those who have served," he added.

McCain spent five and a half years in a North Vietnam prison where he was
tortured after his bomber plane was shot down in 1967. Trump has refused to
apologize for his remarks, despite near unanimous denouncements from his
Republican rivals for the White House.

Graham said Trump's latest antics were the last straw.

"I can understand being frustrated about immigration, but there's no
justification to slander a bunch of people that are hardworking folks," he
said. "This is a line that is crossed. I think the American people, the
caucusgoers, the primary voters are going to fix this. To the other
candidates, this is your chance to do the right thing and disassociate
yourself from somebody who has basically shown a lack of judgment to be
commander in chief and to be president of us all."

*CARSON*

*Ben Carson: Walking away from paid speaking commitments would be
'unethical'
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ben-carson-walking-away-from-paid-speaking-commitments-would-be-unethical/article/2568549?custom_click=rss>
// Washington Examiner // Ryan Lovelace – July 19, 2015*

AMES, Iowa — Ben Carson has run an unconventional presidential campaign and
benefited handsomely. The retired neurosurgeon has never held elected
office, but enjoys the support of many Iowans in attendance at the Family
Leadership Summit on Saturday.

His most recent book's sales quadrupled in the immediate weeks after
launching his presidential campaign, and his personal financial disclosure
shows he made more than $4 million from delivering speeches across the
country.

Carson continues to give speeches for cash while on the campaign trail, and
explained his reasoning for doing so while in Ames, Iowa, this weekend. He
said he used to do about 100 or so paid speaking events per year, but only
has two or three remaining this year.

"[I] tried to get rid of all of them, but there are a few straggling
events," Carson said in response to a question from the Washington
Examiner. "Some people have said to me, 'Well, why don't you just cancel
those?' Well, what they don't recognize is these people have spent enormous
amounts of money, time, and energy getting sponsors, setting tables;
frequently this is their annual budget that we're talking about. And for me
to just to walk out on them is unethical."

Other presidential candidates have stayed on the paid-speaking circuit
while running for president. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee collected
payment for his speeches during his failed 2008 presidential bid. He wound
up with a television show on Fox News after his campaign faltered.

Carson is polling among the top five GOP presidential candidates
nationally, and appears poised to appear in the first televised primary
debate next month. Carson told reporters the biggest lesson he has learned
during the first couple of months on the campaign trail is to avoid making
inflammatory statements littered with buzz words.

But Carson also appeared to gain unwanted attention when he declined to say
whether Sen. John McCain was a "war hero," in light of Donald Trump's
earlier assertion that Trump was a war hero because he was held in
captivity. Carson said whether McCain was a war hero "depends on your
definition of a war hero," and chose not to provide any explanation. He did
say he thought McCain had done some wonderful things.

Carson appears intent on making sure his message does not get lost in the
shuffle of comments that others perceive to be controversial, but it
appears that he still has some work to do before he takes the debate stage
next month.

*FIORINA*

*Carly Fiorina on the bubble
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/carly-fiorina-on-the-bubble-120324.html>
// Politico // Eli Stokols – July 19, 2015*

LAS VEGAS — When Carly Fiorina took the stage here Saturday night, she
bathed in warm applause from the 200 or so attendees of the annual
Mavericks PAC conference and relished her status as the only woman seeking
the GOP presidential nomination.

“Go ahead, admit it,” she said to the 20- and 30-something conservatives
seated in the ballroom as the cheering quieted down. “You want to see me
debate Hillary Clinton in the general election.”

But there was no getting around the glaring subtext of that opening line:
The woman hoping to capitalize on her unique ability to nullify the likely
Democratic nominee’s gender advantage in a debate next year might not even
make the first Republican primary debate in less than three weeks.

Fox News Channel, which is hosting the Aug. 6 forum in Cleveland, is taking
the top 10 candidates based on an average of national polls. Fiorina, for
the moment, is polling 14th out of 15 officially declared candidates.

“Everybody’s sort of fixated on this first debate and I’ve been honest, I’d
love to be on that first debate stage and I’m working really hard to get
there. I think I will be,” Fiorina said in an interview following her 45
minutes on stage. “If I’m not, it’s not the end of the world, it’s not the
end of the campaign.”

Despite her low standing nationally, Fiorina has shown an ability to
connect in New Hampshire, where she’s fifth in the most recent poll of the
Republican field on the strength of a commitment to retail politics in the
state.

Early state polls, however, don’t figure into the criteria for
participation in the first debate; and in a race dominated by national
figures and personalities like Donald Trump, whose bull in a China shop
routine has left almost no media oxygen for other candidates in recent
weeks. Fiorina’s methodical approach — however warmly she’s been received
in New Hampshire — may not be enough for her to break through.

At this point, she says, there’s still time — more than six months, in
fact, until primary voting begins.

“I think it will work itself out,” she said. “I think people, given enough
time and enough information, kind of sort it out. So now we need to make
sure they have enough time and enough information.”

Fiorina said voters got important information about Trump on Saturday, when
he disparaged Sen. John McCain by questioning whether the Vietnam veteran
who spent six years in a North Vietnamese prison was truly a war hero — and
drew the loudest, more unrestrained chorus of criticism from his Republican
rivals to date.

“GOP voters deserve better than outrageous statements & personal attacks,”
Fiorina tweeted earlier Saturday. Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham, both
military veterans (and also on the debate bubble), went even harder at
Trump, calling for the bombastic billionaire to quit the race.

Trump’s sudden, unexpected surge has become an issue for the GOP field from
top to bottom and for a Republican Party hoping to broaden its appeal. It’s
undeniable that his personal celebrity and name ID is unmatched, and that
there is a deep disaffection among some conservatives to whom his combative
criticism — of immigrants, President Barack Obama, other more measured
Republicans — is viscerally satisfying and resonant.

Fiorina, on the other hand, has no national profile and no real fundraising
network to speak of. Unwilling to go practice Trump’s politics of
grievance, Fiorina is left with little choice but to keep plodding away and
hoping that this moment, Trump’s, gives way to her own.

“In New Hampshire, when we started, May 4, less than 4 percent of New
Hampshire voters had ever heard my name — less than four percent — and
we’re now tied for number four in the polls,” she said. “It takes enormous
effort to get out there and go everywhere possible so that the message gets
out.”

“I’m pleased with the progress we’re making in terms of getting out and
getting known. I’m pleased with the progress we’re making in terms of
building donor files and email lists, but we’re going to build it more
slowly than others. As I’ve said all along, I’m not going to raise as much
money as everybody else, not at first, but on the other hand, the election
isn’t tomorrow.”

When she concluded her time on stage Saturday night, she asked the young
conservatives in the room, who heard from Jeb Bush on Friday night, not to
be swayed by her long-shot status but to help her overcome it.

“As a candidate who is not a professional politician, I need more help and
more support than lots of others,” she told them. “I don’t have years of
email lists; I don’t have years of donor lists, so I would really
appreciate your consideration to help me and to support me. I think our
nation is at a critical time and I think we do need someone different now.

“I think we need someone different to win in 2016 and we must win.”

Fiorina did not receive quite the same hero’s welcome that Mav PAC
attendees lavished on Bush, whose two sons helped found the group to
maintain their network of young donors after his brother’s 2004
presidential campaign. But Jay Ziedman, a Mav PAC co-chairman from Houston,
feels strongly that serious candidates like Fiorina who make the effort to
speak to groups like his, should have a place on the debate stage.

“Trump’s running a reality show and, unfortunately, that’s going to get him
on the stage, whereas she should be up there instead of him,” Ziedman said.

“He’s making a mockery and a joke of running for the presidency of the
United States, when there’s people like Carly Fiorina putting in the time,
building their own donor base, building their own list, and really
networking. Trump’s not raising money, he’s not building support from
grassroots conservatives — he’s just out there running his mouth. It’s
disgusting.”

*Reynolds: Carly Fiorina, the other woman
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/19/five-questions-carly-fiorina-column/30379421/>
// USA Today // Glenn Harlan Reynolds – July 19, 2015*

Hillary Clinton is fond of saying that if she’s elected, she’ll be the
first woman president.  But there’s someone else who can say that as well.
Her name is Carly Fiorina, and she’s running for the Republican
presidential nomination. With her history as a high-powered CEO (at
Hewlett-Packard) and with cheeky videos (at BuzzFeed), Fiorina is in it to
win it, just like Clinton. But because she’s not as well known as Clinton,
I asked her a few questions:

1.  Hillary is talking about the middle class. What's the difference
between your program and hers?

CF: "We help the middle class when we unburden them from the very policies
that Hillary Clinton would double down on. She champions Big Government,
which we know enables crony capitalism and exacerbates inequality. If you
are wealthy, powerful and well-connected, you can handle Big Government. If
you are small and powerless, you are getting crushed by things like our
colossal, 70,000-page tax code. I have advocated for rolling back
regulations, simplifying the tax code and moving to zero-based budgeting —
policies that will support small businesses and raise up the middle class."

2.  You said last week that Donald Trump has tapped into a general anger at
the establishment.  Why are people angry, and what's your answer?

CF: "People are angry that things as common sense as securing the border
and eliminating sanctuary cities are being framed as extreme views. They
are tired of empty rhetoric without action, and they are hungry for a
leader from outside the professional political class.  I think we need a
real plan, which is why I have offered a much more specific approach to
securing the border, fixing the legal immigration system and addressing
illegal immigration."

3.  Like Hillary, you're a female candidate. Like Trump, you're coming from
a private sector background.  What distinguishes you from each of them?

CF: "I come from a world where accountability and accomplishments matter,
and where titles and rhetoric take a back seat to results. Those in the
professional political class come from a world of bickering and posturing,
where they spend more time worrying about protecting their position and
power than doing the work of the American people. If Americans want the
status quo to change, it is time to reach outside of the industry intent on
preserving it."

4.  What would you do about the threats of Iran and the terrorist
organization Islamic State?

CF: "As CEO of Hewlett-Packard, chair of the CIA’s External Advisory Board
and adviser to several secretaries of Defense, I have negotiated many
deals. So I know that President Obama broke all of the rules of good
negotiating and, as a consequence, he achieved none of his stated goals. As
president, I would roll back the deal with Iran and restore our trusted
friendship with Israel.

"Our allies in the Middle East know that the Islamic State is their fight —
and they have asked for very specific things to help push back against
ISIL. The Egyptians have asked for intelligence and the Jordanians for
bombs and materiel. We must give our allies the help they need to confront
and defeat this evil."

5.  What's the most important issue that's not being talked about so far in
this campaign?

CF: "People are tired of the status quo. You see that in various movements
in and out of our party, but most candidates are offering hollow rhetoric,
not specific solutions.  We must first do two very specific things: We must
simplify our 70,000-page tax code, and we must move to zero-based
budgeting. We have runaway spending because we view smaller funding
increases as budget cuts. Zero-based budgeting would fix that, forcing
every agency to justify every dollar. When Hillary Clinton talks about
adding more restrictions and complexity to our financial system, as she did
in her economic policy speech, it shows how clueless she is about how the
economy actually works."

Voters looking for a female president will have a stark choice between
Hillary Clinton, a Democrats’ Democrat with a history of public-sector
involvement, and Carly Fiorina, a Silicon Valley Republican. And voters
willing to entertain a broader range of choices will still find the
contrast between them instructive.  Expect to hear more from Carly — and,
of course, Hillary — in the weeks and months to come.

*JINDAL*

*Bobby Jindal calls for federal religious freedom order, draws big applause
lines at Family Leadership Summit
<http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/bobby_jindal_family_leadership.html>
// NOLA // Kevin Litten – July 19, 2015*

Gov. Bobby Jindal on Saturday told Iowa voters that the next president of
the United States should issue a religious freedom order similar to the one
he issued in Louisiana.

Jindal's comments were in response to a question at the Family Leadership
Summit, where moderator Frank Luntz asked Jindal whether the next president
should ignore the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage.

"The next president should do what we did in Louisiana: Issue an executive
order immediately saying the federal government will not discriminate or
take action against any individual or business that has a traditional view
of marriage," Jindal said. "We're not going to threaten their tax rights,
not going to fire them."

Luntz said that he interpreted Jindal's answer as indicating that Jindal
wouldn't follow court rulings. Earlier in the appearance, Jindal said it
was bad precedent for Republicans to ignore the constitution or laws they
didn't like.

"I just want to be clear that you're saying that even if the Supreme Court
says, 'this is the law of the land,' you're prepared -- you think the next
president should say to the Supreme Court, 'I'm sorry, you're wrong,'"
Luntz said. "That's significant."

Jindal responded by saying, "clearly, the Supreme Court is wrong."

"They can't change what God has created and instituted," Jindal said. "The
government should not be able to fire me, should not be able to take away
my tax status, and the government should not be able to discriminate
against me for being a Christian and wanting to live my life according to
my beliefs. That's what's happening today."

When Luntz pressed Jindal further, asking if he was for the "whole
constitution," Jindal said he was.

The Family Leadership Summit featured 10 of the presidential candidates,
each taking the stage separately for about 22 minutes. According to
Politico's Playbook, the candidates did not know questions in advance. They
also took questions from the audience.

Luntz also asked Jindal about his ethnicity, making the case that Jindal
had faced discrimination in the past when he ran for office and lost. There
were elected offices Jindal deserved to win but did not, Luntz said,
because he is Indian-American.

"I've never believed I've been discriminated against," Jindal said. "I am
not a victim. ... We've got too many victims in this country. This
president is trying to turn us all into victims. ... I'm going to win (the
presidential race) not based on the color of my skin, I'm going to win
based on my ideas."

Jindal also returned to a familiar refrain from his stump speech about
"hyphenated Americans."

A question about the media drew perhaps the largest response in the entire
interview.

"I am critical when the mainstream media -- they don't apply the same
standards to this president that they apply to the rest of us," Jindal
said, drawing applause that was so prolonged, Luntz had to quiet the crowd.
"If we nominate a Republican who wants to be liked by the media, wants to
be liked by the establishment, wants to go to the cool cocktail parties, we
are done."

Another applause line from a questioner who thanked Jindal for
investigating Planned Parenthood indicated Jindal's series of announcements
last week about a probe into the nation's largest abortion provider is
resonating in Iowa. Jindal did not address the investigation during the
event because no one asked him a question about it.

Luntz also asked Jindal to name three issues he thought he could convince
Democrats to work with him on if he was elected president.

"In Louisiana, we did school choice reform where the dollar followed the
child instead of the child following the dollar," Jindal said. "A lot of
children that are in the worst schools today are in the poorest zip codes.
That's not right."

Jindal also said he thought there are Democrats who would join him in
stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons and "stand with Israel."

The third issue Jindal cited was growing the private sector economy, saying
"there are Democrats who will work with me or the next president to bring
good-paying jobs back to America by reining in the EPA, cutting and
lowering taxes."

"The last time we had successful tax reform -- lower and flatter taxes --
was actually back in Reagan, in the late 80s," Jindal said. "Both parties
have to give up their carve-outs and special interests -- that means
Republicans and Democrats."

The appearance seemed to work well for Jindal: Aside from the big applause
lines, Luntz could be heard telling Jindal off-microphone, "I never knew
you were that good."

*TRUMP*

*Trump Refuses to Apologize for Comments on McCain’s Service
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/us/politics/trump-refuses-to-apologize-for-comments-on-mccains-service.html?ref=politics>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin – July 19, 2015*

Donald J. Trump refused to apologize on Sunday for ridiculing Senator John
McCain’s war record in Vietnam and accused Mr. McCain of stoking outrage,
even as Mr. Trump’s comments continued to draw anger and calls from some
Republicans for him to quit the 2016 presidential race.

“I always believe in apologizing if you’ve done something wrong, but if you
read my statement, you’ll see I said nothing wrong,” Mr. Trump said in an
interview, referring to his comments at a candidates forum in Iowa on
Saturday, which he insists were taken out of context.

Responding to a question about Mr. McCain’s military service Mr. Trump said
of the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, who was a prisoner of war in
Vietnam: “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I
like people who weren’t captured.”

On Sunday, Mr. Trump also accused Mr. McCain of “working the phones real
hard” and then “saying we have no comment.”

“He’s played this game for a long time,” Mr. Trump said. And while pointing
out that he had also called Mr. McCain “a hero” on Saturday, Mr. Trump
questioned the Arizona senator’s integrity, noting his involvement in the
1980s savings and loan scandal.

“He had the Keating Five, a tremendous scandal,” said Mr. Trump, who has
been targeting Mr. McCain since the senator said Mr. Trump had “fired up
the crazies” at a rally in Phoenix last week.

In a separate, if just as discursive, interview Sunday on ABC’s “This
Week,” Mr. Trump faulted some of his rivals for creating the tempest,
attacked Mr. McCain for not doing more to help veterans, and claimed that
the service of American military veterans who were not prisoners of war was
not recognized.

“People that fought hard and weren’t captured and went through a lot, they
get no credit,” Mr. Trump said on the network. “Nobody even talks about
them. They’re, like, forgotten.”

Asked if he would withdraw from the race, Mr. Trump said, “I’m certainly
not pulling out.”

He has commanded vast media attention for weeks thanks largely to an early
episode of bombast, in which he portrayed Mexican immigrants as rapists.
Yet many leading Republicans — because they feared offending his
supporters, did not want to encourage him to run as an independent, or
merely hoped that ignoring the publicity-hungry celebrity would diminish
his profile — were restrained in their response to those comments.

But Mr. Trump’s inflammatory comments about Mr. McCain, whose refusal of
early release from a Hanoi prison camp vaulted him to fame long before he
entered politics, has left Republican officials exasperated about the
developer’s disruptive presence in the campaign.

“Early in his campaign, when he said something outrageous, people kind of
said just ignore it and move on, it will go away,” Senator Marco Rubio of
Florida said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. “This is what he does
for a living. I think now, as this has gone forward and he’s become a more
covered candidate and people pay more attention to him, it’s required
people to be more forceful on some of these offensive things that he’s
saying.”

Mr. Rubio said Mr. Trump had insulted the entire P.O.W. community.

“This somehow makes the assumption or he’s saying that somehow if you’re
captured in battle, you’re less worthy of honors than someone who isn’t,”
he said. “It’s not just absurd, it’s offensive. It’s ridiculous. And I do
think it is a disqualifier as commander in chief.”

Democrats, already relishing Mr. Trump’s long shadow in the Republican
race, also seized on his comments about Mr. McCain, attempting to tar the
entire Republican field with Mr. Trump’s provocations.

“It’s shameful, and so is the fact that it took so long for most of his
fellow Republican candidates to start standing up to him,” Hillary Rodham
Clinton said at a Democratic fund-raising dinner in Arkansas on Saturday
night.

The criticism of Mr. Trump was not just confined to political leaders,
though. John W. Stroud, head of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, denounced Mr.
Trump’s comments. “For someone who never served a day in uniform to
criticize the service and sacrifice of a combat-wounded veteran is
despicable,” Mr. Stroud said.

As for why Mr. Trump, 69, did not serve in the military during Vietnam, he
said on Sunday that he had student deferments and a medical deferment. He
said that while he was “not a fan of the Vietnam War,” he would have
“proudly served.” Mr. Trump, the son of a wealthy New York real estate
developer, received four student deferments while studying at Fordham
University and the University of Pennsylvania, according to The Smoking
Gun, which obtained his draft records in 2011.

When he graduated from Pennsylvania in 1968, Mr. Trump’s status was
reclassified to 1-A, or ready for unrestricted service. But that changed in
the fall of the same year. After a September medical exam, Mr. Trump was
labeled 1-Y the following month — the category for those individuals with
limiting but not disabling medical conditions. Under this category, Mr.
Trump would have only had to serve in a national emergency.

“I had a minor medical deferment for feet, for a bone spur of the foot,
which was minor,” he said on Sunday.

*Bombast Trumps Organization for One Republican Candidate
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/us/politics/trump-refuses-to-apologize-for-comments-on-mccains-service.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news>
// NYT //Maggie Haberman and Michael Barbaro – July 19, 2015*

In what passes for normal inside Donald J. Trump’s unorthodox campaign for
president, he flew from Arkansas to Iowa on his Trump-emblazoned jet on
Friday, arrived the next morning at a candidate forum without any prepared
remarks and, wearing a bright red tie that evoked his days on “The
Apprentice,” told the world exactly what he thought about Senator John
McCain’s reputation as a war hero.

It was an improvised fit of pique, roundly and vigorously denounced by his
rivals all weekend, that exposed the biggest vulnerability of Mr. Trump’s
campaign for president: It is built entirely around the instincts and
grievances of its unpredictable candidate  — and does not rely on a
conventional political operation that protects presidential hopefuls from
themselves.

In a reaction that highlighted the problem, Mr. Trump refused on Sunday to
apologize for declaring that Mr. McCain is “not a war hero” because he was
captured and instead boasted in an interview that his talk in Iowa had
aroused “the biggest standing ovation” of the day.

The remarks about Mr. McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee,
ended any qualms party officials had about criticizing Mr. Trump for fear
of alienating his supporters and might normally have led to days of
backpedaling and extended explanations. Even as Mr. Trump insisted that no
one was troubled by his comments, his small group of aides emailed one
another about how to respond to the growing criticism.

But the word “sorry” is not in Mr. Trump’s lexicon, and apologizing was not
an option that was discussed, people privy to the internal debate said.

In a sign of the seat-of-the-pants nature of his campaign, it sent out a
series of dissonant messages, some trying to tamp down the controversy (by
showing support from veterans) and others going on the attack (especially
of the media).

It remains to be seen whether Mr. Trump’s standing in public opinion
surveys will suffer from the episode with Mr. McCain. But recent national
and early-primary state polls put Mr. Trump in the top tier of candidates.

If nothing else, the weekend reaffirmed that Mr. Trump is running a
presidential campaign on his own unique terms.

Never mind that his top rivals for the Republican nomination treat
campaigning like a full-time job. For Mr. Trump, the task of seeking the
White House occupies half his time, he estimated in an interview. (“It’s
probably 50-50,” he said.)

The rest of the Republican field’s top tier has cast a wide net to find
experienced political aides. But Mr. Trump has plucked much of his team
from inside his own corporate empire. (The résumé of his Iowa
co-chairwoman: She was a contestant on “The Apprentice.”)

While his competitors may be busy working through thick stacks of books on
world affairs to prove their qualifications, Mr. Trump says he has little
use for such. (“One of the problems with foreign policy,” he explained, “is
that it changes on a daily basis.” As a busy man, he added, he prefers
newspapers.)

There is no real policy shop churning out position papers, or for that
matter a well-staffed central headquarters plotting his long-term message,
or speechwriters drafting — or modulating — his words. And there is a
circular, interoffice quality to what the campaign does with its money.

But the dangers of Mr. Trump’s approach are now being laid bare. Bare-bones
improvisation, which seemed sufficient to fuel his ascent in the polls, is
starting to backfire.

Mr. Trump faces a moment of real reckoning. Is the man known for the
catchphrase “You’re fired!” willing to soften his caustic language? Will he
slog through the grueling rituals of a long campaign? And, above all, will
his message keep resonating — or will his own outlandishness undermine his
candidacy, turning it into his latest exercise in brand-building?

So far, tellingly, he is continuing to criticize Mr. McCain, and has shown
little interest in building a conventional campaign.

“I’m not trying to arm the country,” he said in a lengthy interview last
week, emphasizing that he does have staffs in the first three states in the
nominating process: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The reality is that Mr. Trump is pulling off something that, for now,
requires little planning, spending or organization: He is giving voice to a
profound rage in the Republican electorate — over economic displacement,
illegal immigration and America’s diminished place in the world.

“I have a pulse to the ground,” he added. “I think I know what’s wrong with
the country, and I think I’ve been able to portray that in a way that
people agree with.”

Unlike in the past when he mused about the presidency, Mr. Trump is putting
a team on the ground as well. He has hired at least four workers in New
Hampshire, for example, and has visited Iowa nearly a dozen times. He hired
a campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, a New Hampshire resident who
previously worked for Americans for Prosperity, a political action
committee financed by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers.

Over all, he has spent $1.4 million on his campaign, most of it out of his
own pocket, and less than half of what Jeb Bush and Senator Marco Rubio
have spent.

Exasperated aides, who said they were tired of making the case to skeptical
reporters that Mr. Trump was really running, called those moves evidence
enough that a legitimate campaign was taking shape.

“Nobody’s asking Jeb Bush if he’s serious about running,” Mr. Lewandowski
said last week, adding that his candidate’s place in recent polling spoke
for itself. “I don’t know what to do. I don’t know which metric you want to
measure it by.”

The unorthodox tenor of Mr. Trump’s campaign may flow from its unusual
origins. He has, of course, flirted with running for office before, as
early as 2000 as an independent presidential candidate (he did not do it)
and then 2011, when he talked about mounting a bid for the White House.
(Again, he did not.) In 2013, he floated the idea of running for governor
of New York. (He decided not to.)

This time he declared a candidacy. And despite questions about his
sincerity, his commitment seemed to grow as his business deals became
imperiled by the remarks he made about Mexican immigrants during his
announcement speech last month. In that speech — an hourlong riff,
delivered without a teleprompter — he said Mexico sent the United States
criminals and “rapists.”

Those close to him said he was surprised that, in the uproar that followed,
NBC severed ties with him, ending his long run on “The Apprentice,” the
show that made him a television star, not just a developer. Soon, Macy’s,
the P.G.A. and a prominent chef who was developing a restaurant inside a
new Trump hotel in Washington followed suit.

Without his hit show as an option, Mr. Trump has little left to lose by
staying in the race and conducting an increasingly provocative campaign. In
fact, he may have something to reclaim — a brand that firmly identifies
with the working Americans who are flocking to his events.

Hank Sheinkopf, a longtime political operative who has watched Mr. Trump
for decades, said that every time a business cancels a contract with Mr.
Trump, his supporters view him as the victim of entrenched, powerful
institutions that do not have the interests of regular people in mind.

In any case, Mr. Sheinkopf said, Mr. Trump will benefit even if he never
makes it to Election Day, by appealing to working-class white voters (and
potential consumers of his corporate brand) who feel dispossessed by
contemporary politics. “His real business is giving out his name as a
franchise,” he added. “His business is being Donald Trump.”

But his staying power in the campaign remains highly uncertain. He has
never committed to remaining in the race even through its first contest,
the Iowa caucuses, early next year, although he has left open the option of
running a third-party race.

And his many businesses still beckon. Last week, in keeping with his
“50-50” time commitment to running for president, he took a break from the
campaign to attend a ribbon-cutting at a Trump-owned winery in
Charlottesville, Va. Those looking for Mr. Trump’s views on policy were
treated to a sales pitch for what he called the largest winery on the East
Coast.

“More important than the size,” Mr. Trump told the crowd, “we make the
finest wines.”

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Trump showed no sign of changing his style.

He checked off the names of those attacking him over his remarks about Mr.
McCain, insulting Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and former Gov. Rick Perry
of Texas in the process.

“Jindal, who has nothing,” he said. “Rick Perry — I mean Rick Perry, give
me a break here.”

*Donald Trump didn’t apologize to John McCain. Because, of course not.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/19/donald-trump-didnt-apologize-to-john-mccain-because-of-course-not/>
// WaPo // Chris Cillizza – July 19, 2015*

"No, not at all."

That was reality TV star Donald Trump's response to ABC's Martha Raddatz
Sunday morning when she asked him whether he owed John McCain an apology
for suggesting that the Arizona Senator wasn't a war hero because he had
been captured during the Vietnam War.

If you were expecting anything else from Trump, you haven't been paying
much attention to his presidential campaign. Or his life. Trump's appeal in
the 2016 race appears to be built on saying things and acting in ways that
other politicians would never dream of doing.  Trump, to his credit,
appears to grasp that fact.

"I will say what I want to say, and maybe that’s why I’m leading in the
polls because people are tired of hearing politicians and pollsters telling
the politicians exactly what to say," Trump told Raddatz.

The fact is that apologizing after a comment judged as ill-advised (at
best) by most politicians is exact opposite of the Trump brand.  The sort
of people who misspeak and then try to clean up their messes are the very
people that Trump derides -- and that he believes the public can't stand
either.

Even as Trump was refusing to apologize, former Maryland Gov. Martin
O'Malley was in the midst of the misspeak-apology cycle.  In response to
demonstrators at a liberal gathering in Phoenix demanding that O'Malley
address police brutality and chanting "black lives matter, O'Malley said
"Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."   He later
apologized; "That was a mistake on my part and I meant no disrespect," he
said. "I did not mean to be insensitive in any way or communicate that I
did not understand the tremendous passion, commitment and feeling and depth
of feeling that all of us should be attaching to this issue."

Now, simply because Trump won't pull the full O'Malley doesn't mean that he
isn't trying to revise history a bit. In the Raddatz interview, he blames
the media for not picking up the entirety of his remarks, robbing them of
the context in which he described McCain as a "hero."  And, he insists that
what he was really saying was that those who are not captured during war
time deserve as much credit and attention as those, like McCain, who have
been captured.  Which is absolutely fine. But is also not really what Trump
said.

Regardless, when impugning a recognized war hero, most politicians would
have apologized totally and completely seconds after they stepped off the
stage. And, it's possible that a comment like the one Trump made about
McCain might end -- or at least badly cripple -- a more traditional
presidential bid.

And, who knows -- it might wind up doing so for Trump too. But, if past is
prologue for Trump and what people like about him, the McCain comments seem
unlikely to be the end of the line. Remember that Trump's appeal is rooted
in a sort of "we're Americans, we don't apologize" mentality. He presents
himself and by extension the country as the sort of person who says what he
thinks -- consequences be damned. Trump speaks, dares you to be offended
and then shrugs it off when/if you are.

So, no, we shouldn't expect Donald Trump to apologize for what he said
about McCain. Or, really, ever. Don't like it? Tough.

*Trump’s attack on McCain marks a turning point for him — and the GOP
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/> // WaPo // Dan Balz – July 19,
2015*

It was only a matter of time before Donald Trump crossed the kind of line
he did on Saturday, when he questioned the heroism of Sen. John McCain, a
Vietnam War POW. The question now is whether Candidate Trump is immune from
the laws of political gravity or soon will be isolated and regarded as an
object of scorn or curiosity rather than of presidential seriousness.

Since announcing his candidacy last month, Trump has enjoyed a swift rise,
vaulting into the lead in some national and state polls in the crowded
contest for the Republican nomination. His sharp attacks on illegal
immigrants from Mexico and his flamboyant style struck a nerve with voters
who are angry with Washington and with political double talk.

Trump has dominated coverage of the race with nonstop interviews and
over-the-top comments. He has proved to be a skilled showman — a talent
honed on reality TV — who is able to command attention with his combative
verbal style.

But there is more to becoming president than what Trump has displayed so
far, and many Republicans said Sunday that they believe his attack on
McCain (R-Ariz.) marks a turning point for Trump the politician.

Few would offer their views for the record, owing to their positions
working for other candidates or a desire not to put themselves into direct
conflict with Trump. One described Trump’s attack on McCain as “lethal.”
Another said he expects “a complete cratering” of Trump’s support. Still
another predicted that Trump would become “a niche candidate” and a
sideshow to the main event.

But others are less confident that Trump’s candidacy will take a nose dive,
highlighting the combination of hope, fear and uncertainty that has gripped
the party since Trump decided to run.

Phil Musser, a GOP strategist unaffiliated with a campaign, said anyone
with claims to know what the next turn is for Trump is only guessing. “This
guy has tapped into a very virulent strain of the anti-establishment wing
of the Republican Party,” he said, while adding that he finds Trump’s
comments personally offensive. “If he’s got a message that works for 15
percent of the people in the first five states,” Musser said, “he’s a
factor, and he’s a factor with delegates.”

Trump has benefited from being cast as a not-quite-serious presidential
candidate, which has allowed him to carry on as he has. His Republican
rivals have been tentative in attacking him for describing illegal
immigrants from Mexico as “rapists” and drug dealers, hoping he will
collapse under his own weight and not wanting to get into a head-to-head
scrap. The media, for all the coverage and often critical commentary given
to Trump, have not subjected him to the kind of scrutiny that often goes
with being atop the polls.

But every candidate who becomes a serious contender for the presidency
eventually has to cross a threshold of acceptability with the voters. That
is measured not only in where candidates stand on issues or how authentic
they seem, but whether voters conclude they have the temperament, character
and judgment to sit in the Oval Office.

That day of reckoning was always coming for Trump if he remained in the
thick of the nomination contest, but his remarks on Saturday may have
accelerated it. “The fact that he has no filter is what some voters find
appealing, but it’s that lack of a filter that could doom his presidential
campaign,” said GOP pollster Neil Newhouse, who is working for the super
PAC affiliated with former Florida governor Jeb Bush but offered his
comments only on behalf of himself.

Trump’s candidacy for the GOP nomination is a knot of contradictions. He
disparages the Affordable Care Act but has called for a universal national
health-care program. He calls himself pro-life after earlier saying he was
pro-choice. He wants to expand Social Security benefits. He has repeatedly
mocked his opponents in the most personal ways. Could someone like that
unite the Republican Party or the country?

Such questions have been avoided, along with those of temperament and
judgment. What happened Saturday could give license to his rivals and his
critics to subject his candidacy — what he says and how he says it, where
he stands vs. where he once stood — to the kind of scrutiny he has largely
escaped.

Trump gave no indication Sunday that he had been chastened by the latest
controversy or that he was ready to tone it down, as Republican National
Committee Chairman Reince Priebus asked him to do.

On ABC’s “This Week,” correspondent Martha Raddatz asked Trump whether he
owed McCain an apology. “No, not at all,” he replied. He repeatedly accused
McCain — who still bears the physical scars from the torture he was
subjected to during more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp
— of having “done nothing” for veterans.

When Raddatz confronted him with statements of condemnations by leaders of
veterans groups, Trump said, “Well, maybe they don’t speak to the same vets
that I speak to.” He filibustered throughout in the face of persistent
questioning.

Raddatz asked whether, as president, Trump would continue to label an
opponent as a “loser” or “dummy,” as he has done as a candidate. “Look,
when people attack me, I let them have it back,” he said. “You say physical
appearance. You know . . . people are constantly attacking my hair. I don’t
see you coming to my defense.” Then he again called McCain “a dummy.”

If Republicans — many privately and some publicly — agreed that Trump has
entered a new and more challenging phase of his candidacy, they differed on
what the right strategy should be for those who feel he is a threat to the
party’s hopes of winning the 2016 election.

Steve Schmidt, who was senior adviser to McCain in the 2008 presidential
campaign, says Trump’s GOP rivals and others in the party must step up and
confront him. “What he represents has to be taken seriously. It has to be
confronted seriously,” he said in a telephone interview. “It’s not just a
cancer on the Republican Party and the conservative movement. It’s a cancer
on our politics as a whole. . . . My personal view is that it ought to
trigger a fight for the soul and heart of the Republican Party and the
conservative movement.”

Another prominent GOP strategist, who to speak candidly declined to be
identified by name, counseled a more nuanced approach. Candidates should
prosecute the case against Trump, this strategist said. “But they have to
do that with a certain amount of respect, with disappointment in their
voice, and not go over the top.”

Trump’s harshest critic among his fellow Republican candidates has been
former Texas governor Rick Perry. Even before Saturday’s controversy, Perry
had aggressively criticized Trump for his comments on immigration. Now,
after the attack on McCain, he says the businessman should get out of the
race.

That’s unlikely right now, and it still would leave Trump free to mount an
independent candidacy next year. Perry’s motivation may spring in part from
his desire to raise his own profile in the hope of qualifying for the first
GOP debate, which will take place Aug. 6 in Cleveland.

That debate promises to be dominated by the issue of Trump, and every
candidate on that stage will have to weigh the political consequences of
challenging him directly. Whether Trump will begin to weigh the
consequences of his actions is another question. So far, there’s no
indication of a change of heart. But for the candidate, the stakes have
gotten noticeably higher after what he did Saturday.

*How to handle a bully like Trump
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/19/how-to-handle-a-bully-like-trump/>
// WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – July 19, 2015*

As the candidates who will qualify for the presidential debate in August
begin their preparations, they are going to want to bone up on a range of
policy issues and make sure they have coherent answers to hard questions.
(Now that Syria is a mess what do we do about it? If a Supreme Court
vacancy opens on Day One, who is at the top of your replacement list? Has
the president pardoned too few or too many people?) Equally important will
be a game plan for neutralizing Donald Trump.

Even before Trump self-destructed on Saturday, we saw candidates like Sens.
Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as well as former Texas
governor Rick Perry, call out Trump for talking nonsense and for racist
language. At the other end of the spectrum, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has been
obsequious, slobbering over Trump with praise and refusing to rebuke his
racist characterization of immigrants.

Now that Trump has attacked war hero Sen. JohnMcCain (R-Ariz.) and other
POWs, those who shrank from criticizing him when he went after Hispanics
are revealed to be near-sighted and, in fact, hypocritical. Once you excuse
or ignore hatred against one group, you’ve lost the moral authority to
knock him when he goes a step too far. Those who defended Trump — or were
silent — need to demonstrate they get this. A contender like Perry, who
called out Trump from the start — and now calls for him to get out of the
race as unfit to be commander in chief — looks principled and a good judge
of character (or lack thereof). Likewise, Jeb Bush — who called Trump out
for racism — was well positioned to slam Trump again. (He tweeted
yesterday, “Enough with the slanderous attacks. @SenJohnMcCain and all our
veterans — particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration.”)

The Trump problem is acute for the non-Bush candidates, especially those
who have been meek about calling him out. As we predicted, Trump is
overshadowing all of them at the moment. “He seems to be taking support
from the most conservative and anti-Washington rivals in the field,
particularly Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul,” the Wall
Street Journal reports. “Mr. Bush’s rise in the polls, coming in tandem
with Mr. Trump’s growing strength, may be a sign that so-called
establishment Republicans are closing ranks around Mr. Bush, possibly as a
result of Mr. Trump consolidating his own support. Marco Rubio may be
feeling some of that shift with his sinking numbers. The numbers suggest
there may be very different approaches among the candidates to dealing with
Mr. Trump, who has the media’s attention right now.”

Here is the dilemma on a debate stage, provided Trump is still in the race
then. No candidate wants to further elevate Trump nor appear to be obsessed
with fighting another contender when the target is obviously President
Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. The key is an effective
counterpunch — or even a gesture.

One is reminded of the 2000 presidential debate in which Al Gore circled
around George W. Bush, trying to intimidate him. Bush tersely nodded in his
direction and kept going. An alternative style was demonstrated by Ronald
Reagan in the New Hampshire debate in 1980:”I am paying for this microphone
Mr. Green!” In both cases what was needed was presence of mind, confidence
and an appreciation for the visual impact. What made Reagan effective was
not simply his words, but his gesture in literally standing up to the
offending party.

In the case of Trump, he may interrupt, say outrageous things, fling
insults or directly challenge opponents. The object of his aggression has
to be willing to respond without seeming peevish or defensive, but neither
can he simply ignore the bait. One of the things voters are looking for is
a sense of command. Who is going to stand up to Minority House Leader Nancy
Pelosi or to the liberal attack dogs at a news conference? If a candidate
can’t handle a buffoon like Trump, he will be overwhelmed by far more
sophisticated adversaries. So here’s some unsolicited advice.

Don’t let Trump interrupt you. Tell him to pipe down and wait his turn.

Don’t let Trump trash your record or insult you. Tell him he doesn’t know
what he’s talking about and then succinctly respond.

Don’t let Trump say something racist or offensive about a group or
individual. Put him in his place and tell him that sort of talk is not what
America and the GOP are all about.

Don’t let him appear serious. It is perfectly appropriate to laugh when he
suggests sending Mexico a $100,000 tab for each illegal immigrant. It is
effective to make a joke at Trump’s expense pointing out his billionaire
cluelessness, his lack of experience in relevant areas or his obnoxious
personality. (New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was right to point out you
cannot say “You’re fired!” to Congress.)

Don’t obsess about him. If he is just doing his “I’ll make everyone rich!”
routine, there is no reason to comment. Instead, if you have a record and
have done things it is fine (irrespective of Trump) to observe that talk is
cheap and you can’t fake action or results.

Don’t leave yourself open to attack by making excuses. Don’t complain about
being thwarted by Democrats in Congress or facing economic headwinds if you
are a governor. Trump is likely to pounce and say he never lets anyone or
anything get in his way.

Trump is a sideshow, but is also a test for other contenders. He was a test
of character, which some but certainly not all candidates passed with
flying colors. In a debate the challenge will about defending themselves
against heckling, lies and insults.

*Donald Trump Not Sorry for Comments, Not Dropping Out
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/19/donald-trump-not-sorry-for-comments-not-dropping-out/>
// WSJ // Louise Radnofsky and Sarah Portlock – July 19, 2015*

Mr. Trump drew fire after he said Saturday that Mr. McCain, the party’s
2008 presidential standard-bearer who spent five years as a prisoner of war
in Vietnam, was “not a war hero.” Mr. Trump explained his dislike of seeing
Mr. McCain was described that way by saying that Mr. McCain was “a war hero
because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

The New York developer and entertainer drew broad condemnation from GOP
competitors for his comments. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called on Mr. Trump to
end “slanderous attacks,” and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry called for Mr.
Trump to drop out of the race.

“I’m certainly not pulling out,” Mr. Trump told ABC’s This Week on Sunday
morning.

Mr. Trump said he wasn’t apologizing, “not at all” and said it was
disgruntled rivals who had stirred up a controversy over his remarks. “This
whole thing was brought up by a lot of the people that are competing
against me currently that aren’t even registering in the polls because
people are tired of them.”

“I’m certainly not pulling out; I’m leading and I’m leading in many
states,” he said.

Asked to explain his remarks, Mr. Trump said that he was angry that not
enough had been done to improve medical care for veterans, and that he
believed veterans who were not prisoners of wars got ignored.

On Sunday, GOP presidential candidate and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio joined
the chorus of GOP rivals and calling for Mr. Trump to drop out of the race
on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday.

Mr. Rubio said Mr. Trump’s “insult” to prisoners of war disqualified him to
be commander-in-chief.

Mr. Trump has seldom backed off controversial comments. In a live phone
interview with “Fox and Friends” on Sunday morning, Mr. Trump said the
uproar over his comments was “total nonsense” and taken out of context of
his full remarks.

“I’m saying McCain isn’t fighting for the veterans,” Mr. Trump said.

He compared this episode to his comments several  weeks ago about illegal
immigration when he ignited a firestorm after labeling the group “drug
dealers” and “rapists.”

“I brought illegal immigration to the forefront.  I believe now I’m
bringing the plight of the veterans to the forefront which is great. If
that is what happens, I’ll be very proud because the veterans are treated
very, very badly and John McCain – like all politicians – has been all talk
and no action.”

*Trump Refuses to Back Down on McCain Criticism
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-refuses-to-back-down-on-mccain-criticism-1437349020>
// WSJ // Reid J. Epstein – July 19, 2015*

DES MOINES, Iowa—Presidential candidate Donald Trump refused Sunday to
apologize for criticizing Sen. John McCain’s war record, a politically
risky stance in keeping with his long record of standing behind provocative
remarks and brushing off guidance from aides.

Mr. Trump operates as his own chief strategist and political consultant—the
“chief theoretician of Trumpism,” according to one person who works with
him. He’s not known to submit himself to policy briefings or do the
homework typical of successful politicians, according to another person who
has worked for Mr. Trump on previous political efforts.

The result is a Republican presidential campaign of freewheeling,
off-the-cuff commentary that always carries the potential to run off the
rails.

On Sunday, Mr. Trump didn’t back down from remarks he made a day earlier at
the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, where he said that Mr. McCain,
who spent five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, was “not a war hero.”
He added that Mr. McCain was considered “a war hero because he was
captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

Mr. Trump, who also said Sunday he was ignoring calls to drop out of the
presidential race, has been fuming about Mr. McCain since the senator
referred to the crowd at Mr. Trump’s rally in Phoenix last week as
“crazies,” which Mr. Trump took as a personal insult.

Mr. McCain himself has a controversial reputation within the party for whom
he served as the presidential standard-bearer in 2008, after previously
going through a tough race for its nomination in 2000. He angered some
fellow Republicans with his proposals for an immigration overhaul and
tighter campaign-finance restrictions.

Even among critics, however, his war record has been considered off limits,
and over the weekend, Mr. Trump’s 2016 competitors rushed to Mr. McCain’s
defense. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and South
Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham described the remark as one that should
disqualify Mr. Trump from serving as commander-in-chief. Others, including
former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also condemned
the comments. A Republican National Committee spokesman said the remarks
had “no place in our party or our country.”

Mr. Trump has declined to rule out a bid as an independent, a move that
could potentially siphon voters away from the eventual GOP nominee.

A spokesman for Mr. McCain declined to comment Sunday.

Mr. Trump said on ABC and in a phone interview with Fox News that his
rivals’ criticisms were self-serving, that veterans who weren’t prisoners
of war had been ignored, and singled out Mr. McCain as a lawmaker who had
done too little to improve their medical care.

“This whole thing was brought up by a lot of the people that are competing
against me currently that aren’t even registering in the polls because
people are tired of them,” he said on ABC. “I’m certainly not pulling out.”

Mr. Trump said in a press conference after his remarks Saturday that he
didn’t serve in Vietnam because he received student deferments and a
medical deferment related to a bone spur in a foot.

Mr. Trump’s standing in national polling—he is neck and neck with Mr. Bush
at the head of the crowded field—leaves him certain to qualify for the
first RNC-sanctioned debate on Aug. 6 in Cleveland. His team believes
sparring with Mr. McCain will only increase his popularity among the sort
of anti-establishment GOP voters who have cheered Mr. Trump’s caustic
comments about Mexican immigrants.

“He’s in first place,” Corey Lewandowski, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager,
said Sunday. “Why would anything change?

Mr. Lewandowski declined to discuss internal discussions of the Trump
campaign or whether anyone has challenged Mr. Trump internally about his
comments about Mr. McCain or earlier comments about Mexican immigrants.

Mr. Trump’s top strategic advisers include longtime political aide Roger
Stone, who ran his 2000 presidential exploratory campaign, and a team of
relative political neophytes. Nobody besides Mr. Stone in the Trump inner
circle has been involved in presidential campaign at a national level
before, though Mr. Trump’s Iowa director, Chuck Laudner, served in a
similar role for Rick Santorum in 2012.

In the past, Mr. Trump’s aides haven’t been able to rein in Mr. Trump’s
comments, the person who formerly worked with him said. “People try to
steer him and he rebuffs them, meanders in his conversations and it never
gets around to, ‘Mr. Trump, you can’t say this, you can’t do this,’” said
the former aide.

The Trump campaign plans campaign stops this week in South Carolina, the
first opportunity to see if Mr. Trump’s remarks about Mr. McCain reduce the
interest in his candidacy. So far he has drawn overflow crowds at events
across the country.

“Sometimes maybe he talks a little bit before he thinks, but he covers the
issues well,” said Jeff Frank, a corn-and-soybean farmer from Auburn, Iowa,
after hearing Mr. Trump’s remarks at the Ames event Saturday.

Lou Gargiulo, the chairman of the Trump campaign in Rockingham County,
N.H., said Sunday that he doesn’t expect Mr. Trump’s remarks about Mr.
McCain to damage him among the people who have propelled him atop national
polling.

“There are a lot of establishment Republicans who are fearful of Mr. Trump
and recognize that he is resonating with a lot of people,” Mr. Gargiulo
said. “There’s a high level of frustration and people are looking for
someone who is going to talk plainly. The only person in the race who is
going to talk plainly about issues of trade and immigration is Trump.”

*What Donald Trump Has Said — About McCain, Obama, Immigrants, His Hair
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/19/what-donald-trump-said-about-mccain-obama-immigrants-his-hair/>
// WSJ – July 19, 2015*

Businessman and now presidential candidate Donald Trump has made a series
of controversial comments over the years, including remarks questioning
President Barack Obama’s birthplace and whether Arizona Sen. John McCain is
a war hero. Here’s a roundup.

* * *

On whether President Barack Obama was born in the U.S.:

“I am embracing the issue, and I’m proud of the issue. I think somebody has
to embrace it because, frankly, the people that are – and I don’t like the
name ‘birther,’ because I think it’s very unfair and I think it’s very
derogatory to a lot of very good people that happen to think that there’s a
possibility that this man was not born in this country, and by the way, if
that were true, you know it’s very interesting, if that were true, it’d be
the greatest scam in the history of this country. So I feel that there is
certainly a chance that he was not born in this country. Now, if he were
not born in this country, that means he can’t be president — it’s very
simple!” [MSNBC Daily Rundown March 31, 2011]

  On Iraqi oil fields:

“We go into Iraq. We have spent thus far, $1.5 trillion. We could have
rebuilt half of the United States. $1.5 trillion. And we’re going to then
leave. So, in the old days, you know when you had a war, to the victor
belong the spoils. You go in. You win the war and you take it…. You’re not
stealing anything. You’re taking- we’re reimbursing ourselves- at least, at
a minimum, and I say more. We’re taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse
ourselves.” [To ABC April 18, 2011]

On his 2012 presidential campaign:

“I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to
win the primary and ultimately, the general election…. Ultimately, however,
business is my greatest passion.” [To advertisers at an NBC TV event May
16, 2011]

On whether American aid worker Dr. Kent Brantly should receive treatment
for Ebola in the U.S.

“The U.S. cannot allow EBOLA infected people back. People that go to far
away places to help out are great-but must suffer the consequences!” [On
Twitter, 1 Aug 2014]

On his plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border:

“I love the Mexican people. I do business with the Mexican people, but you
have people coming through the border that are from all over. And they’re
bad. They’re really bad. You have people coming in, and I’m not just saying
Mexicans — I’m talking about people that are from all over that are killers
and rapists, and they’re coming into this country.” [To CNN, June 28, 2015]

On whether Sen. John McCain is a war hero:

“I supported him for president, I raised a million dollars for him, that’s
a lot of money, I supported him, he lost, he let us down. But you know, he
lost, so I’ve never liked him as much after that, because I don’t like
losers… He’s not a war hero…. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I
like people that weren’t captured, ok, I hate to tell you. He’s a war hero
because he was captured, ok and I believe, perhaps he’s a war hero, but
right now he’s said some very bad things about a lot of people.” [Ames,
Iowa, July 18, 2015]

On language and name calling that might be seen as un-presidential,
including comments about physical appearance:

“Oh, I don’t think — look, when people attack me, I let them have it back.
You say physical appearance. You know, it’s my hair but people are
constantly attacking my hair. I don’t see you coming to my defense. I’m —
my hair is just fine, but I don’t see you coming to my defense. But if I
say something about somebody else. Yesterday, I mentioned somebody was
saying, McCain’s a smart man. I said, really? He graduated last in his
class at Annapolis, OK. So people laughed when I said it, but a lot of
people don’t know that.” [ABC's This Week, July 19, 2015]

*Trump and His Apologists
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-his-apologists-1437345060> // WSJ –
July 19, 2015*

It came slightly ahead of schedule, but Donald Trump’s inevitable
self-immolation arrived on the weekend when he assailed John McCain’s war
record. The question now is how long his political and media apologists on
the right will keep pretending he’s a serious candidate.

Speaking at a forum in Iowa, Mr. Trump declared that Senator McCain was
“not a war hero,” adding that “he’s a war hero because he was captured. I
like people who weren’t captured.”

Mr. McCain spent more than five years in a Vietnamese prison camp, was
tortured to the point of lifelong disability, and yet refused an offer to
be released before all of his fellow prisoners. Mr. Trump had a more
relaxed war due to military deferments. The Trump dump drew immediate
condemnations from most GOP candidates and others, but the political
apprentice refused to apologize.

His campaign instead released a statement that compounded the felony. “I am
not a fan [sic] John McCain because he has done so little for our
Veterans,” the statement said. “He is yet another all talk, no action
politician who spends too much time on television and not enough time doing
his job and helping the Vets. He is also allowing our military to decrease
substantially in size and strength, something which should never be allowed
to happen.”

Coming from a reality TV star, this too-much-time-on-television line is
hilarious. Mr. McCain doesn’t need our defense on Mr. Trump’s other
insults, but they are notable because anyone with a cursory knowledge of
politics knows they’re false. They show that Mr. Trump has barely a passing
acquaintance with America’s current policy debates.

The summer Trump polling spurt has nonetheless been instructive in exposing
a growing problem on the political right. All too many conservatives,
including some magazine editors, have been willing to overlook his
hucksterism as he’s risen in the polls. They pretend that he deserves
respect because he’s giving voice to some deep disquiet or anger in the
American electorate.

But America has rarely lacked for demagogues willing to exploit public
discontents. William Jennings Bryan won three Democratic presidential
nominations running against eastern elites. In 1948 Henry Wallace ran as a
Soviet sympathizer while Strom Thurmond won 39 electoral votes running as a
segregationist. Either one would have been a disaster as President.

As a standard-bearer for conservative ideas, Mr. Trump would likewise be a
catastrophe. His only discernible principle is the promotion of his
personal brand. His main message seems to be that because he’s rich and
doesn’t care what anyone thinks, he can afford to tell everyone to go to
hell. Some Americans may find it satisfying 16 months from Election Day to
tell pollsters they’d vote for him, but that doesn’t mean conservative
elites should validate this nonsense.

So full credit to Rick Perry, the former Texas Governor, who led the pack
in saying even before the weekend that Mr. Trump lacks the temperament to
be Commander in Chief. Several other candidates have now said the same.

But note the silence of Ted Cruz, who declined to criticize Mr. Trump
because he said the media enjoy such intra-Republican fights. Mr. Cruz has
recently released a book whose main theme is an attack on other
Republicans. It’s central to his campaign strategy. The Texas Senator must
be hoping to inherit Trump voters once the casino magnate flames out, but
he’s revealing his own lack of political character.

As for conservative media elites, too many have adopted the view that there
can be no adversary to their right. This was mainly a left-wing affliction
in the last century as many liberals refused to condemn Communists. But
today many on the right seem willing to indulge any populist outburst no
matter how divorced from reality or insulting to most Americans. If Donald
Trump becomes the voice of conservatives, conservatism will implode along
with him.

*Donald Trump: No apology to McCain, vows to stay the course
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-no-apology-to-mccain-vows-to-stay-the-course-120329.html#ixzz3gOXtQNHv>
// Politico // Kevin Robillard – July 19, 2015*

Trump, who has stood by past statements questioning President Barack
Obama’s birthplace and asserting many Mexican undocumented immigrants were
“rapists,” is doing the same with his comments disparaging Ariz. Sen. John
McCain’s military service because McCain was shot down and captured during
the Vietnam War.

“No, not at all,” Trump said during a phone interview Sunday on ABC’s “This
Week” when asked if he owed the Arizona Republican an apology.

Trump, who made his remark — “He was a war hero because he was captured. I
like people who weren’t captured” — on Saturday at a gathering of
Republican presidential at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, also
insisted the crowd was delighted by his attack on McCain.

“I got a standing ovation, the biggest ovation they had all weekend, by
far,” Trump said. “When I left the room, it was a total standing ovation.
It was wonderful to see. Nobody was insulted.”

He said the the GOP presidential candidates who were quick to condemn his
remarks were motivated by jealousy.

“Later on, the Republican candidates, some of whom are registering 1
percent and zero, and they’re very upset that I’m leading the polls by
actually a nice margin, they’re extremely upset,” Trump said Sunday,
adding: “They started attacking me.”

He also said he wouldn’t drop out of the race, as former Texas Gov. Rick
Perry called for him to do.

“Of course, they’d love to have me do that because I’m leading the pack,”
Trump said, naming Nevada and North Carolina as two states where polls show
him in the lead. “I’m certainly not pulling out; I’m leading, and I’m
leading in many states.”

Trump said it was actually McCain, who still cannot lift his arms above his
head because of torture he experienced while a prisoner of war in Vietnam,
who needed to apologize — to the citizens who showed up at a Trump rally in
Phoenix recently. McCain said Trump “fired up the crazies” at the rally,
sparking their now weeklong feud.

The people in Phoenix were “devastated by illegal immigration, something
I’m very proud to have brought to the forefront,” Trump said. “We had
thousands of people, and he said they’re all crazies. He called them
crazies. And frankly, I think he owes them an apology.”

Trump also continued to attack McCain for not doing enough to help veterans.

“I’m very disappointed in John McCain because the vets are horribly treated
in this country,” Trump said. “I’m going to fight for the vets. I’ve done a
lot for the vets. And the vets — I’ve been going around to the campaign
trail. They’re treated like third-class citizens. He’s done nothing to help
the vets. And I will tell you, they are living in hell.”

The billionaire real estate developer and entertainer said his experience
helping to build the Vietnam Memorial in downtown Manhattan showed he could
help veterans more than McCain could.

“He’s on television all the time, talking, talking,” Trump said of McCain.
“Nothing gets done. You look at what’s happening to our veterans — they’re
being decimated, OK. So, I will do far more for veterans than anybody. I’ll
be able to build them new hospitals, I’ll be able to build them care
centers. I’ll be able to help the veterans.”

And Trump vowed to keep a key part of his persona — responding to critics
by calling people “dummy,” among other things, and insulting the physical
appearance of others — even if he were elected president.

“When people attack me, I let them have it back,” Trump said. “You say
physical appearance, you know, it’s my hair but people are constantly
attacking my hair. I don’t see you coming to my defense.”

*Donald Trump evades specifics on his draft deferment
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-evades-specifics-on-his-draft-deferment-120330.html#ixzz3gOF7rO6g>
// Politico // David Rogers – July 19, 2015*

Who’d have guessed it, but the Vietnam War draft could become a political
issue again given the pattern of evasive answers by Republican presidential
candidate Donald Trump.

The New York billionaire, who was a genuine student-athlete in his youth,
came away with a medical deferment in 1968 owing to bone spurs in both
heels, according to his latest explanation. But in seeking to downplay that
exemption as “minor” and “short-term,” Trump’s campaign raises more
questions than it answers as to how he sidestepped military service during
the war.

This is not a new controversy for the wealthy New Yorker. But this weekend,
Trump made himself more of a target with his attacks on Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.), a Navy veteran who spent years as a POW in Hanoi. And much as
Trump insists that the decisive factor was his high number in the December
1969 draft lottery, the real question is how he stayed out of the draft for
the nearly 18 months before.

Like politics itself, timing was everything in that crucial period of 1968
and 1969, when the Army was running out of volunteer replacements and more
and more draftees were needed to man infantry units in Vietnam. Draftees
represented an ever larger percentage of those Americans killed in action
in 1968 and 1969, and college graduates born, like Trump, in 1946 or 1947
became a target for draft boards across the country.

Having enjoyed four years of student deferments, the name of the game for
many was to find a new way to stay out of the war. National Guard slots
were coveted as a safer alternative to Vietnam. Others got married, had
children or found jobs, such as teaching, that might keep the draft board
at bay.

Most important, when the new-styled lottery was announced in 1969, it
changed the rules so a young man’s birth year meant less in the order of
the draft. Everything now rested instead on what day he was born. A high
number for that day became the “home free” ticket for those 1946-47 babies
who had avoided being drafted until then.

In this same period, Bill Clinton famously posed as a future ROTC officer
candidate at the University of Arkansas, until his high number came in and
he was off the hook. George W. Bush and Dan Quayle opted not to wait and
found places in their states’ National Guard.

Trump’s medical deferment for bone spurs was just as timely. The process
may have been perfectly in order, but he continues to act embarrassed by
the fact and is murky about the details.

Indeed, for many years, Trump — who was born June 14, 1946 — never
mentioned his medical deferment, and Saturday’s explanation from his
campaign again downplayed its import.

“While attending the University of Pennsylvania’s prestigious Wharton
School of Finance, Mr. Trump received a minor medical deferment for bone
spurs on both heels of his feet,” the statement reads. “The medical
deferment was expected to be short-term and he was therefore entered in the
military draft lottery where he received an extremely high number, 356 out
of 365.

“When the draft occurred, they never got near his number and he was
therefore exempt from serving in the military,” the statement continues.
“Although he was not a fan of the Vietnam War, yet another disaster for our
country, had his draft number been selected he would have proudly served
and he is tremendously grateful to all those who did.”

In fact, a summary of Trump’s draft record — from the National Archives and
Records Administration in Missouri and first published by the The Smoking
Gun website in 2011 — tells a different story.

Trump’s medical deferment is listed for October 1968, months after he had
left Wharton. And despite the campaign’s statement that it was “expected to
be short-term,” there is no evidence in the records of it being dropped
before the draft lottery in 1969.

The dates suggest the deferment stemmed from a Sept. 17, 1968, draft
physical at the Armed Forces Center in New York described in a 1992 book on
the businessman by veteran journalist Wayne Barrett. “The
baseball-tennis-squash star qualified for a medical deferment,” Barrett
writes, but no explanation is given of the cause.

Various news accounts in 2011 also stopped short, and the first mention of
bone spurs appears to have come from Trump this past weekend.

The fact that Trump was called for a physical within months after
graduating indicates that there was a very real threat of him being drafted
— long before the December 1969 lottery. Any deferment was more than
“minor” then. And one big question is whether Trump actively sought the
deferment by bringing a letter from his own doctor to the physical citing
the bone spur problem.

Young men with access to friendly family physicians had this advantage at
the time in dealing with draft physicals. Lower-income individuals, with no
doctor but health issues bigger than bone spurs, could find themselves
approved for military service.

POLITICO asked a Trump spokesperson Saturday about such a letter but the
only response as of Sunday afternoon was the more general campaign
statement.

“Many years later, Mr. Trump was responsible for the building of the
beautiful Vietnam War Memorial in lower Manhattan, for which he contributed
a tremendous sum of money,” that statement concludes. “He was also
responsible for bringing back the New York City Memorial Day parade in
1995, after our military was embarrassed by the previous year’s parade
where almost nobody showed up. Mr. Trump’s parade was one of the largest
parades ever held. Today, he remains committed to helping and honoring all
of our Veterans.”

*Donald Trump Digs in as More Pile On
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-19/donald-trump-digs-in-as-more-pile-on>
// Bloomberg // Ari Elkin – July 19, 2015*

Donald Trump on Sunday stuck to his guns after igniting criticism over the
weekend when he questioned Arizona Senator John McCain's status as war
hero, and said the Republicans attacking him are irked by his recent
polling success.

"What happened is, later on, the Republican candidates, some of whom are
registering 1 percent and zero, and they’re very upset that I’m leading the
polls by actually a nice margin," Trump said on ABC's This Week. "They’re
extremely upset."

Trump has been at or near the top of several national polls recently,
including a Fox News Poll out last week, which had Trump leading among
Republicans with 18 percent.

Trump's ABC appearance  came one day after he ignited a firestorm of
criticism after he said at the Iowa Family Leadership Summit  that McCain,
a former Navy pilot who was held for more than five years in Vietnam after
his plane was shot down in 1967, qualifies as a war hero only "because he
was captured."

Most of the Republican presidential candidates and the Republican National
Committee swiftly condemned the comments, with the notable exception of
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. So did press magnate Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox
News network will be hosting the first presidential debate next month and
will be deciding which of the 16 major Republican candidates get the
coveted 10 seats on the stage.

A number of leading Democrats also spoke out against Trump, including the
party's presidential front-runner, Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of State
John Kerry. A former Senate colleague of McCain's and a fellow Vietnam War
veteran, Kerry took the unusual step of issuing a statement hailing
McCain's endurance in the face of "unspeakable acts of torture." Said
Kerry, who as the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, got an assist from
McCain when some Republicans questioned Kerry's Vietnam war record:

"If anyone doesn't know that John McCain is a war hero, it only proves they
know nothing about war and even less about heroism."

On ABC, Trump said he did not serve in Vietnam because of  student
deferments and then a medical deferment for a bone spur in one of his feet.
He called himself "fortunate" because "I was not a believer in the Vietnam
war."

Trump insisted he will do a better job than McCain in advancing veterans'
issues. In a statement issued by his campaign after the ABC appearance,
Trump cited his contributions to the New York City Vietnam Veteran's
memorial and to a 1995 Veteran's Day parade.

During the TV appearance, he complained that he's being treated more
harshly than other candidates.  When ABC reporter Martha Raddatz mentioned
that Trump will sometimes lampoon other peoples' physical appearances,
Trump pointed out that he is not immune to such attacks.

"You say physical appearance," Trump said, according to the transcript.
"You know, it’s my hair but people are constantly attacking my hair.  I
don’t see you coming to my defense.  I’m -- my hair is just fine, but I
don’t see you coming to my defense."

On Sunday, Florida Senator Marco Rubio said on CNN's State of the Union
that he agrees with fellow Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, an
Air Force veteran who said Saturday that Trump's comments make him unfit to
serve as commander-in-chief.

"This is not just an insult to John McCain, who clearly is a war hero and a
great man, but it's an insult to all POWs, to all men and women who have
served us in uniform, who have been captured in battle," Rubio said. "And
this somehow makes the assumption that somehow, if you are captured in
battle you're less worthy of honors than someone who isn't. It's not just
absurd. It's offensive. It's ridiculous, and I do think it is a
disqualifier as commander-in-chief."

*Trump Awakens Kerry’s Vietnam Anger With Slam On McCain
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/19/trump-awakens-kerry-s-vietnam-anger-with-slam-on-mccain.html>
// The Daily Beast // Mike Barnicle – July 19, 2015*

John Kerry was angry.

“Listen to this. Listen to what Trump just said about John McCain,” Kerry
was saying over the phone. “ ‘He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because
he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.’ ”

“That’s unbelievable,” Kerry said. “That’s beyond outrageous.”

“John and I have some serious differences on a lot of things but he is
nothing other than a hero and a good man. Where was Trump when John got
shot down over North Vietnam? In school? At a party? Where was he?”

For many months now, years even, Kerry has been point man in Barack Obama’s
attempt to restrict Iran’s plan to develop a nuclear bomb. He has been a
walking high wire act, traveling a region that is nothing less than a
geographical bonfire filled with the debris of failed nations, countries
that have collapsed into chaos and terror largely because of the contrived
plans of men like Dick Cheney who dreamed of the day when Saddam Hussein
could be toppled. The conservative ideologues got their wish while the
United States got a larger, longer war and the Middle East became an even
bigger source of horror and death.

Trump’s assault on McCain evoked immediate anger in Kerry because it
resurrected feelings within him that are always there, certainly beneath a
surface calm but always, always there: A long gone war called Vietnam.

“All of us sat for weeks and months around a table trying to get this deal
done,” Kerry was saying. “The Russians, the Chinese, the French, the
British, the Germans, all of us. and every once in awhile I thought about
that other table, that other time and that was nearly a half century ago.”

He was talking about the Paris Peace Talks that began in 1970 and concluded
with an agreement signed on January 23, 1973. Henry Kissinger, represented
another president, Richard Nixon. John McCain was in Hanoi, in captivity.
John Kerry had returned from Vietnam to help organize Vietnam Veterans
Against The War. Donald Trump was somewhere else.

As talks in Paris dragged on, more than half of the 58,195 names carved
into the wall of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington were killed. Thousands
more were wounded and carry those wounds still, today.

Both Kerry and Obama are firm believers that conversation is a better
starter-kit than combat when it comes to dealing with a country like Iran.
Neither man is naive about that nation’s aspiration to dominate the region.

“But the Iranians are not suicidal,” Kerry pointed out.

Clearly, the Iranians are well aware that Teheran would be turned into a
field of glass and sand if they ever stepped toward open war with Israel or
Saudi Arabia. And every nation around that table in Vienna knew that the
sanctions that crippled the Iranian economy and caused Iran to accept a
deal would soon collapse under the weight of countries like France, Russia
and China that were eager to begin doing business in Teheran, the dollar
emerging as the strongest weapon of all.

So as he shuttled back and forth between Washington and Vienna, his leg
broken, his spirit determined, Kerry found himself thinking about that
other time and those other talks. He is a student of history and in his
mind’s eye he saw another president, Lyndon Johnson, broken by a long war
that still lingers in the American psyche. He thought about the Ivy League
sophisticates that surrounded John F. Kennedy and then Johnson, men named
Bundy, Rostow, McNamara and others who spent the lives of so many younger
men pursuing their old men’s dreams of defeating communism in the lethal
laboratory of Vietnam.

In a trick of history and irony communism collapsed on a death bed that
Ronald Reagan helped make up by…talking; talking to Mikhail Gorbachev. A
wall fell. One continent, Europe, changed forever. Two nations, Russia and
the United States, altered their behavior toward each another because of a
handshake and a conversation.

Last week, John Kerry returned to the United States. After months of
discussion, Germany, China, France, the United Kingdom and Putin’s Russia
along with the U.S. had a deal with Iran. Now it goes to a congress more
than half full of politicians who place a higher priority in defeating
anything Barack Obama supports than educating the country and the world
with an honest debate about a deal structured to insert more than a
decade’s worth of roadblocks in Iran’s drive to develop a nuclear weapon.

And as John Kerry came home, his mind filled with facts, the ups, the
downs, the potential and the politics of getting an accord with Iran
through the Congress, he was brought back to his own war five decades ago.
A war that won’t go away. A war that awoke him one more time because of a
libelous slur uttered by a real estate man against a friend of Kerry’s who
will line up against him on the treaty with Iran. But hat didn’t matter
because brothers in arms form a bond far stronger than politics.

*Trump offers no apologizes for McCain war record attack
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-offers-no-apologizes-mccain-war-record-attack>
// MSNBC // Adam Howard – July 19, 2015*

In his first interview since making remarks critical of Sen. John McCain’s
Vietnam war record, Donald Trump on Sunday did not back down, saying he
doesn’t owe the Arizona Republican an apology and that the former GOP
presidential nominee “has done nothing to help the veterans except talk.”

During a Q&A session Saturday at the conservative Family Leadership Summit,
the Republican presidential candidate said of McCain: “He’s a war hero
because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, okay?” McCain
is one of the many prominent Republicans to come out in opposition to
Trump’s candidacy and his controversial rhetoric regarding undocumented
immigrants. Trump’s comments on McCain have since drawn widespread
condemnation across the political spectrum.

And some of his fellow Republican 2016 candidates are even going so far as
to call for Trump to drop out of the race. “His attack on veterans makes
him unfit to be Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, and he should
immediately withdraw from the race for president,” Rick Perry said in a
statement Saturday. During a Sunday appearance on CNN’s “State of the
Nation,” Sen. Marco Rubio echoed Perry’s sentiments, calling Trump’s
comments “absurd and offensive.”

“It’s ridiculous,” Rubio told host Dana Bash. “And I do think it is a
dis-qualifier as Commander-in-Chief.”

In a Sunday televised phone interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Trump was
defiant about his comments the previous day. “I’m very disappointed in John
McCain because the vets are horribly treated in this country. I’m fighting
for the vets, I’ve done a lot for the vets,” Trump told host Martha
Raddatz. “They’re treated like third class citizens. He’s done nothing to
help the vets. And I will tell you they are living in hell.”

Trump claimed that “nobody was insulted” at the Family Leader Summit by his
comments and that subsequent uproar was being generated by his 2016 GOP
rivals “some of whom are registering 1% and 0” in the polls.

He went on to blame McCain for instigating their public squabble because
the Arizona senator had described some of his supporters as “crazies.” “And
frankly, I think he owes them an apology,” Trump said.

Trump’s attacks on McCain have resurrected criticism of his own history of
military service, or lack thereof. When asked about a series of deferments
he received during the Vietnam War, Trump said, “I had student deferments,
like many other people had, during the war or around the time of the war. I
had a minor medical deferment for feet, for a bone spur of the foot, which
was minor. I was then entered into the draft because if I would have gotten
a different number, I could have been drafted.”

“I was fortunate, in a sense, because I was not a believer in the Vietnam
War. That was another war that was a disaster for this country. Lives and
money and it’s disgraceful what happened with the Vietnam War. I was not a
fan of the Vietnam War,” he continued.

The real estate mogul also defended his tendency to launch personal attacks
on his critics. “You know, it’s my hair but people are constantly attacking
my hair. I don’t see you coming to my defense,” he said. He then went on to
mock McCain’s academic record at Annapolis. And yet, Trump admitted to
having raised $1 million for McCain’s failed 2008 presidential campaign.

Although he conceded that in the past he has said things “on occasion” he
regrets, Trump didn’t offer an example when pressed. He instead boasted
about topping recent polls in early primary states like Nevada and North
Carolina. He also insisted he has no plans to withdraw from the campaign.

“John McCain has failed. Because all you have to do is take a look – what
you report on all the time, take a look at the scandal at the Veterans’
Administration and the disastrous conditions under which our veterans have
to live,” Trump told Raddatz. “And believe me, I built, with a small group,
the Vietnam Memorial in downtown Manhattan. I know what it is to help
people and I know what it is to help veterans.”

*Donald Trump Says He Does Not Owe John McCain Apology
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-owe-mccain-apology/story?id=32547286>
// ABC // Benjamin Bell and Emily Shapiro – July 19, 2015*

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he does not owe John
McCain an apology for saying the Arizona senator is only a war hero
“because he was captured.”

Trump told Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week" that he won't be pulling out
of the presidential race over his comments, which he made Saturday during a
campaign event in Iowa. Trump said he left to a "standing ovation" after
speaking at the Family Leadership Council summit.

"When I left the room, it was a total standing ovation," said Trump. "It
was wonderful to see. Nobody was insulted."

When speaking about McCain on Saturday, Trump said he likes "people who
weren't captured." He didn't back down when asked about the comment.

"People that fought hard and weren't captured and went through a lot, they
get no credit," he said. "Nobody even talks about them. They're like
forgotten, and I think that's a shame, if you want to know the truth."

Before Trump's comments Saturday, McCain had said the real estate mogul was
firing up "crazies." Trump had already found himself embroiled in
controversy over comments he made last month regarding Mexican immigrants.

Raddatz asked Trump if McCain's capture in Vietnam -- where he spent five
years as a prisoner of war and was beaten and tortured by the North
Vietnamese -- described a war hero. He reiterated what his campaign said
following his comments Saturday -- that he was disappointed in the Arizona
senator because of how veterans are treated in the U.S.

"I'm very disappointed in John McCain because the vets are horribly treated
in this country," said Trump. "I'm fighting for the vets. I've done a lot
for the vets."

Trump said veterans were treated like "third-class citizens," adding that
McCain has "done nothing to help the vets."

Trump didn't serve in the Vietnam War after receiving four student
deferments and an additional medical deferment after graduating from the
University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School in 1968. He said he would have
"proudly served" but wasn't drafted because of his high lottery number.

"If I would have gotten a low number, I would have been drafted. I would
have proudly served," he said. "But I got a number, I think it was 356.
That’s right at the very end. And they didn't get -- I don’t believe --
past even 300, so I was -- I was not chosen because of the fact that I had
a very high lottery number."

Asked if he would continue his pattern of "name-calling, using terms like
'dummy,' 'loser,' 'total losers' on Twitter and elsewhere" when he's
"criticized or attacked" if he was elected president, Trump told Raddatz he
only gives it back to people who attack him.

"When people attack me, I let them have it back," he said. "People are
constantly attacking my hair. I don’t see you coming to my defense."

Trump has come under criticism from numerous fellow 2016 candidates on both
sides of aisle. Hillary Clinton called the attack on McCain "shameful."
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the comments by Trump made him unfit to
be president and said the reality TV star should withdraw from the race.

*John Kerry, who knows something about having his war record attacked,
savages Donald Trump
<http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kerry-donald-trump-john-mccain-2015-7#ixzz3gOoksRiT>
// Business Insider // Brett Logiurato – July 19, 2015*

Secretary of State John Kerry came to the defense late Saturday night of
Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), whose combat record had come under fire
earlier in the day from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Kerry served in the US Senate with McCain for nearly 30 years before
replacing Hillary Clinton as secretary of state near the start of President
Barack Obama's second term.

"I have known John McCain for more than 30 years. We've had our share of
disagreements and still do today. But one thing I know is beyond debate is
that John McCain is a hero, a man of grit and guts and character
personified," Kerry said in the statement.

"He served and bled and endured unspeakable acts of torture. His captors
broke his bones, but they couldn't break his spirit, which is why he
refused early release when he had the chance. That's heroism, pure and
simple, and it is unimpeachable."

Kerry went on to blast Trump without mentioning his name.

"If anyone doesn't know that John McCain is a war hero, it only proves they
know nothing about war and even less about heroism," Kerry said.

Earlier in the day during a forum in Iowa, the real-estate magnate Trump
had questioned McCain's status as a "war hero." Trump, who has been in a
war of words with McCain for much of the past week over his views on
immigration, disparaged McCain for being "captured" during the Vietnam War.

"He's not a war hero," Trump said. "He's a war hero because he was
captured. I like people that weren't captured."

"Perhaps he's a war hero, but right now, he's said bad things about a lot
of people," Trump later added.

McCain's plane was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967. He spent five
years in a prisoner-of-war camp, where he was tortured. He has been an
outspoken advocate for fair treatment of prisoners of war, breaking with
many of his Republican colleagues on whether to close the detention
facility at Guantanamo Bay and clashing with the Bush administration over
its use of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Republican rivals quickly moved to condemn Trump's remarks, as many have
for his assertion that the Mexican government has sent "rapists" and drug
runners across the border to the US. McCain took issue with a speech Trump
gave last week in Phoenix, where McCain said Trump had fired up "the
crazies" in the Republican Party.

For his part, Trump has said he doesn't plan to apologize, even saying that
McCain should offer an apology to those he called "crazies."

Kerry has also endured a highly public scrutiny of his war record. During
the 2004 presidential election, when Kerry, the Democratic nominee, ran
against then incumbent Republican president George W. Bush, a group known
as the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" disparaged Kerry's service and
attacked the awarding of some combat medals to him.

The group's allegations were widely discredited, but not before they became
a key theme of the 2004 campaign.

*Trump: I don't need to be lectured
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/19/donald-trump-republican-party-presidential-candidate-editorials-debates/30389993/>
// USA Today // Donald Trump – July 19, 2015*

John McCain has called his own constituents who want a secure border
“crazies.”  No one in the news media or the establishment, including the
Republican National Committee, criticized the senator for those comments.

Now, as respected reporter Sharyl Attkisson has proved point by point, the
news media are also distorting my words. But that is not my point. McCain
the politician has failed the state of Arizona and the country.

During my entire business career, I have always made supporting veterans a
top priority because our heroes deserve the very best for defending our
freedom. Our Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals are outdated dumps. I
will build the finest and most modern veterans hospitals in the world. The
current medical assistance to our veterans is a disaster. A Trump
administration will provide the finest universal access health care for our
veterans. They will be able to get the best care anytime and anywhere.

Thanks to McCain and his Senate colleague Bernie Sanders, their legislation
to cover up the VA scandal, in which 1,000+ veterans died waiting for
medical care, made sure no one has been punished, charged, jailed, fined or
held responsible. McCain has abandoned our veterans. I will fight for them.

The reality is that John McCain the politician has made America less safe,
sent our brave soldiers into wrong-headed foreign adventures, covered up
for President Obama with the VA scandal and has spent most of his time in
the Senate pushing amnesty. He would rather protect the Iraqi border than
Arizona’s. He even voted for the Iran Nuclear Review Act of 2015, which
allows Obama, who McCain lost to in a record defeat, to push his dangerous
Iran nuclear agreement through the Senate without a supermajority of votes.

A number of my competitors for the Republican nomination have no business
running for president. I do not need to be lectured by any of them. Many
are failed politicians or people who would be unable to succeed in the
private sector. Some, however, I have great respect for.

My record of veteran support is well-documented. I served as co-chairman of
the New York Vietnam Veterans Memorial Commission and was responsible, with
a small group, for getting it built. Toward this end, I contributed over $1
million so our warriors can be honored in New York City with a proper
memorial. I also helped finance and served as the grand marshal of the 1995
Nation’s Day Parade, which honored over 25,000 veterans.  It was one of the
biggest parades in the history of New York City, and I was very proud to
have made it possible.

I will continue to fight to secure our border and take care of our veterans
because these steps are vital to make America great again!

Donald Trump is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in
2016.

*Donald Trump Says He Doesn’t Owe John McCain An Apology
<http://time.com/3963767/donald-trump-john-mccain-apology/> // TIME //
Justin Worland – July 19, 2015*

Billionaire GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said Sunday he won’t
apologize to John McCain for saying he is only a war hero “because he was
captured.”

“No, not at all,” Trump told ABC’s This Week when asked whether he owed
Trump an apology. “I’m very disappointed in John McCain because the vets
are treated horribly in this country.”

At a forum for GOP candidates on Saturday, Trump questioned McCain’s status
as a war hero and said that the Arizona senator had failed veterans. His
comments were met with widespread condemnation from both sides of the
aisle, including national GOP officials and nearly all of his presidential
rivals.

Trump, who is currently leading several polls of GOP presidential
contenders, said on Sunday that he would “do far more for veterans than
anybody” and suggested that controversy over the comments was the result of
less popular candidates “attacking me.”

In the interview, ABC’s Martha Raddatz noted that Trump has a pattern of
blaming others when he’s been criticized for controversial remarks and
asked whether he has ever regretted anything he has said. Trump said that
he had but “surprisingly not that often.”

*John McCain slam seen as new low for Donald Trump
<http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/07/john_mccain_slam_seen_as_new_low_for_donald_trump>
// Boston Herald // Lindsay Kalter – July 19, 2015*

Donald Trump’s brash rhetoric reached new heights yesterday when he took at
shot at John McCain’s status as a prisoner of war — a move analysts say
could alienate key supporters and threatens to derail the business
magnate’s campaign.

“The Republican Party really understands itself as more aligned with the
military than Democrats,” said Erin O’Brien, associate professor of
political science at University of Massachusetts Boston. “He is angering
folks in the Republican Party that he doesn’t want to anger.”

The Republican presidential candidate slammed McCain’s military record at a
conservative forum yesterday, saying he was a “war hero because he was
captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

His remarks drew boos from the audience.

Earlier this week, McCain criticized Trump for his controversial remarks on
immigration, saying they had “fired up the crazies” at a rally in Phoenix.

Earlier in the week, Trump called McCain “a dummy” who graduated at the
bottom of his U.S. Naval Academy class.

He then took the jibe to another level.

“He’s not a war hero,” Trump said. “He is a war hero because he was
captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

McCain, whose experience in the Vietnam War was a linchpin of his 2008
presidential bid, was held for more than five years

after his plane was shot down.

“No matter what side you’re on, you can’t say that being a prisoner of war
for that many years is not heroic,” O’Brien said. “He really overstepped
here. He overplayed his hands in the Republican Party.”

Trump’s comments were particularly careless in the wake of the Chattanooga
shooting Thursday that killed five service members, said GOP national
pundit Ford O’Connell.

“Trump doesn’t like to apologize, but he’s probably going to have to walk
back some of those comments,” said O’Connell, who is a former McCain
adviser. “This is one of those things where you only get so many of them
before you’re kaput as a candidate.”

Trump has, indeed, shown some signs of backtracking.

“If a person is captured, they’re a hero as far as I’m concerned. ... But
you have to do other things also,” Trump said at a news conference after
the summit yesterday.

Trump’s comments weren’t just offensive — they show his weakness as a
presidential candidate, said Fergus Cullen, former GOP New Hampshire
chairman.

“Voters want someone who’s serious to be president of the United States,”
Cullen said. “They want someone who’s responsible and measured in their
rhetoric.”

He added, “I think this will probably just accelerate the inevitable
unraveling of Donald Trump.”

*Has America gone nuts? Could Republican frontrunner Donald Trump really
become president?
<http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/has-america-gone-nuts-could-republican-frontrunner-donald-trump-really-become-president/>
// The Guardian // Tom McCarthy – July 19, 2015*

For two serene months after Donald Trump announced in March that he was
forming a presidential exploratory committee, he failed to register in
national political polls. People basically thought he was kidding.

Then something funny happened. Trump, the developer and reality TV star,
began hiring staffers in early voting states. He travelled to political
rallies. He held a campaign launch event. And his poll numbers began to
climb.

Now Trump has climbed all the way to the top. In three of the last four
major national political surveys, Trump is the leader in the race for the
2016 Republican presidential nomination. A Fox News survey this week had
Trump ahead of the Wisconsin governor, Scott Walker, 18-15, with Jeb Bush
third. Thousands of enthusiastic citizens have been flocking to Trump
rallies, from Arizona to New Hampshire.

The effect of Trump’s controversial weekend attack on 2008 presidential
candidate John McCain , over his time in captivity in Vietnam, remains to
be seen. But should Trump ride out the storm – as he has flourished in the
squalls stirred up so far – the question will have to be asked.

Has American politics collapsed? Has the Republican party lost its
collective mind? Is the Trump “surge” for real?

Veteran observers of US politics counsel calm, predicting that Trump will
dazzle for a bit and then fade. With 16 months to go until election day and
many voters doing everything they can to avoid political news, it’s too
early, analysts say, for polling numbers to mean much. In the turbulent
2012 Republican nominating race, they point out, the so-called “lead” was
passed among at least four non-competitive candidates before settling on
eventual victor Mitt Romney.

Rick Wilson, a veteran Republican political consultant, said Trump was
experiencing “a celebrity political bubble”.

He is a clown in a fancy hat, strutting the stage for a few minutes, and
then the serious actors will come on the stage Rick Wilson

“This is a guy who obviously, on every axis, is not a serious candidate,
but who has touched a combination of factors – he’s got a lot of built-in
name ID and celebrity from being on television for 20-plus years, and being
a known public quantity for 20-plus years,” Wilson told the Guardian. “He’s
struck a few chords with the immigration stuff, and he’s managed to capture
the most valuable asset in a campaign, which is the attention of the press.

“He is an entertainer. He is a showman. He is a clown in a fancy hat,
strutting the stage for a few minutes, and then the serious actors will
come on the stage in a little while.”

While Trump may not have a chance of winning the Republican nomination,
however, party leaders have warned that he could disrupt the Republican
selection process. The potential problem, for the GOP, is that Trump has
gained in the polls by saying divisive things, particularly on the topic of
immigration .

“[Mexico] are sending people that have lots of problems, and they are
bringing those problems to us,” Trump said at his launch event. “They’re
bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists … They’re sending
us the worst people”.

The rhetorical bomb-throwing has activated a hard-right faction in the
party who are excited to hear their anti-immigration views broadcast and
who would embrace an intra-Republican war over immigration and other
issues. That war could threaten the GOP bid to make inroads with Hispanic
and Latino voters, and with other centrist voters. And such a failure could
make the road to the White House an uphill climb.

In an apparent attempt at damage control, the Republican national committee
chairman, Reince Priebus, called Trump last week to tell the candidate to
“tone it down”, NBC News reported. Trump denied the report on Twitter.

“Totally false reporting on my call with @Reince Priebus,” Trump wrote .
“He called me, 10 minutes, said I hit a ‘nerve’, doing well, end!”

But other Republican leaders and candidates are joining the call for Trump
to zip it. McCain, who faces re-election next year, told the New Yorker
this week that a large rally Trump held in Phoenix, in which the candidate
appeared onstage with the father of a man who was killed by an undocumented
migrant, was “very hurtful to me”.

“Because what he did was he fired up the crazies,” McCain said.

Even before his remarks on Saturday, Trump responded characteristically.

“The thousands of people that showed up for me in Phoenix were amazing
Americans. @SenJohnMcCain called them “crazies” – must apologize!” Trump
tweeted . “ @SenJohnMcCain should be defeated in the primaries. Graduated
last in his class at Annapolis – dummy!”

The former Texas governor and current White House hopeful Rick Perry, who
is lagging in the polls and could use some publicity, also squared off with
Trump.

“I have a message for my fellow Republicans and the independents who will
be voting in the primary process: what Mr Trump is offering is not
conservatism, it is Trump-ism – a toxic mix of demagoguery and nonsense,”
Perry said .

Trump fired back: “[Perry] doesn’t understand what the word demagoguery
means … He should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to
enter the GOP debate.”

On Saturday, Perry released a strongly worded statement in answer to
Trump’s attack on McCain, saying he should withdraw from the race
immediately.

Erstwhile frontrunner Jeb Bush has weighed in, too. “I have a big
disagreement with Mr Trump about his tone and what he’s saying because it’s
not accurate,” Bush said on Thursday.

Trump, in turn, has lustily criticized the Bush political machine. “Why do
people listen to clown @KarlRove on @FoxNews ?” Trump tweeted Wednesday.
“Spent $430M & lost all races — a Bushy!”

Senator Lindsey Graham, another weak-polling presidential candidate, has
said Trump’s candidacy is a “defining moment” for the party and called on
Priebus to declare Trump persona non grata.

“I think he’s riding a wave of outlandish behaviour,” Graham said of Trump
on NBC . “He’s a wrecking ball when it comes to policy, and the way he’s
engaging the public is hurting the Republican party.”

Not every competing 2016 candidate is going after Trump, however. Ted Cruz,
the Texas senator, told NBC News he was “a big fan of Donald Trump” and
planned to meet with him.

“Ted Cruz called me,” Trump said in his version . “And I don’t know why I’m
meeting him, to be honest, but I do have respect for him.”

Cruz followed the same course on Saturday, decrying “Republican on
Republican violence” .

The entire drama appears headed for a very public denouement in early
August, when Trump is likely to appear onstage with the other candidates at
the first Republican primary debate. Trump cinched his right to appear in
the debates by hitting a campaign finance filing deadline on Wednesday with
the Federal Election Commission.

Trump’s financial disclosure showed that he had raised $1.9m since entering
the race a month ago. That included a $1.8m loan from himself – but Trump
also had about 60 individual donors.

In a statement in advance of his filing, Trump claimed he was worth TEN
BILLION DOLLARS, spelling the sum out in capital letters, and his team
complained that the financial disclosure document was “not designed for a
man of Mr Trump’s massive wealth”.

“This is a carnival seal,” said Wilson. “It balances a ball on its nose,
and it’s very clever at doing that. It’s very clever at saying, ‘I’m so
rich! I’m so rich! My fortune is huuuuge’ – and doing the whole Donald
Trump act. At playing Donald Trump.

“At some point voters are going to say, is this a man whose finger I want
on the button, is this a man who is actually going to go out and negotiate
with countries that don’t like us on consequential things?

“This isn’t about badgering someone down on cost-per-square-foot. This is
about real, consequential, life-and-death, existential challenges to our
nation and others.

“And at the end of the day, Donald Trump is not a person who is a serious
choice.”

*Beat Trump, don't ban him from the debates
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/beat-trump-dont-ban-him-from-the-debates/article/2568555>
// Washington Examiner // W. James Antle III – July 19, 2015*

After weeks of pent up Republican criticism of Donald Trump, the dam
finally burst Saturday. Once Trump's rivals started condemning him for
insulting a party elder and, less directly, any American captured or killed
in combat, it began to feel safer to attack him on a wide variety of fronts.

That's all to the good. But some Republicans are taking things a step
further and hoping Trump will be excluded from the debates unless he
apologizes, which he rarely does. If, as the Republican National Committee
says, there "is no place in our party or our country" for Trump's comments,
how can there be any place for Trump on the debate stage?

Yes, Trump's presence on that stage has the potential to tarnish the entire
GOP brand. He will be seen among the top ten of the Republican field,
including the eventual nominee. He is sure to be featured in ads attacking
Republican candidates in the fall of 2016.

Barring Trump from the debates would still do more harm than good. First,
it would appear to validate the narrative he is pushing to conservatives so
disaffected with the party leadership that they are backing a Hillary
Clinton donor who favored single-payer healthcare: the fix is in, the
Republican establishment will pick the nominee rather than grassroots
conservatives. Such speculation is already rife.

Fueling Trump's martyrdom complex is dangerous enough. When the base
already feels disrespected, bolstering the perception that the party bosses
are more important than the rank-and-file voters is playing with fire. And
they would have a point: What legitimacy would the debate criteria have
when candidates who meet them and are polling near the top of the field can
be denied their spot?

Where would disenchanted voters go in 2016? Kicking Trump out of the
debates would increase the chances that he runs as an independent or
third-party candidate. This would mitigate his impact on the Republican
brand, but also siphon potentially millions of votes away from the party's
presidential nominee and make it that much more difficult to beat Hillary
Clinton.

Gary Johnson wasn't even polling well enough to qualify for most of the
debates in 2012, yet keeping him out still had the effect of pushing the
former two-term governor of New Mexico into the Libertarian Party. Johnson
won more than 1 million votes that November and he is nowhere nearly as
famous as Trump.

Ross Perot wasn't as famous Trump either, until he launched his 1992
presidential campaign. Like Trump, he had the resources to compete without
the party system. Perot also dropped out of the race, making outlandish
charges about President Bush planning to disrupt his daughter's wedding. He
still won nearly 19 percent of the vote when he re-entered the campaign
that fall.

Finally, the benefit of Trump-free debates to the party's image can be
overstated. People justifiably ask why Trump has only crossed the line now
and not with any of his other numerous crass and controversial statements.
Why didn't his comments about Mexicans or his never-recanted birtherism
disqualify him? The implication will be that Republicans are fine with
racism and bizarre conspiracy theories, or at least unwilling to alienate
voters who are.

A counterargument to most of the above is that Trump won't matter if
Republicans nominate a real conservative, especially if the nominee is an
otherwise attractive and capable candidate. Perhaps. Third-party campaigns
are as likely to fizzle as effect the outcome of the election.

Yet this objection suggests that the best solution to Trump isn't changing
the debate rules at the last minute, but trusting the voters to do the
right thing. Steve Deace, the Iowa conservative radio talk show host who
was among the first to predict the Trump boom, has already detected that
the billionaire went too far for conservative activists.

Maybe now there can be a real discussion about Trump's record, a past that
includes donations to Democratic candidates and a slew of liberal policy
positions. Won't the sight of a united Republican field, from Jeb Bush to
Ben Carson and Rand Paul to Lindsey Graham, holding Trump accountable also
say something about the party's brand identity? It's an argument
conservative candidates ought to feel confident about winning, either in
the media or on the debate stage.

*WALKER*

*Scott Walker on whether being gay is a choice: ‘I don’t know the answer to
that question’
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/19/scott-walker-on-whether-being-gay-is-a-choice-i-dont-know-the-answer-to-that-question/>
// WaPo // Jenna Johnson – July 19, 2015*

WATERLOO, Iowa. — Republican presidential hopeful Scott Walker is
continuing to struggle over questions about gay rights, telling CNN this
weekend that he does not know whether being gay is a choice.

"I don't have an opinion on every single issue out there," Walker told CNN
in an interview aboard the Winnebago that is transporting him around Iowa,
where he is focusing much of his time and campaign resources. "I mean, to
me, that's, I don't know. I don't know the answer to that question."

As the general public has quickly become more accepting of LGBT rights and
gay marriage, Walker has opposed same-sex marriage more forcefully than
many of his fellow Republican candidates — and he has, at times, struggled
to explain his views on other LGBT issues. After the Supreme Court's
landmark decision to allow gay marriage in all 50 states, he called for a
constitutional amendment that would allow states to ban same-sex marriage.
Walker's two college-age sons have said that they support gay marriage.
Tonette Walker, Walker's wife, has said that she's emotionally torn on the
issue, as a close relative is gay and recently married her partner, but
that she stands with her husband on the issue.

Although his stance could help Scott Walker win the Iowa caucuses, which
are often dominated by social conservatives, some of his donors and
supporters worry that it could hurt him in later primaries or the general
election.

Early last week, Walker told the Independent Journal Review, an online news
outlet aimed at young conservatives, that the Boy Scouts of America should
keep its ban on gay leaders because it "protected children and advanced
Scout values.” That immediately ignited a backlash, with gay rights
activists saying he needed to apologize for implying that young boys must
be protected from gay leaders. Walker later said that he wants to protect
Boy Scouts from a "political and media discussion." He has since said that
it is up to the Boy Scouts, not him, to decide whether the policy should be
changed.

"I'm not talking about personal protection," Walker said in the CNN
interview. "I'm talking about, for me, the reason why I didn't have a
problem with it is I just think it pulls scouting into a whole larger
political and cultural debate as opposed to just saying scouting is about
camping and citizenship and merit badges and service awards instead of
pulling all these other issues out there. And I was just hoping that they
could stay focused on that, that's all."

When CNN asked whether being gay is a choice, Walker said it is "not even
an issue for me to be involved in."

"The bottom line is I'm going to stand up and work hard for every American,
without regard of who they are, no matter where they come from, no matter
what their background. I'm going to fight for people, whether they vote for
me or not," he responded.

Former Texas governor Rick Perry (R) wrote in his 2008 book about the Boy
Scouts — titled "On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are
Worth Fighting for" — that openly gay leaders would present a problem:
"[G]ay activism is central to their lives.  It would unavoidably be a topic
of conversation within a scout troop.  This would distract from the mission
of scouting, character building, not sex education."

Perry said in an interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Saturday that
he stands by that statement and opposes the Boy Scouts changing its policy.

"I do," said Perry, who is also making an aggressive play for voters in
Iowa. "I believe that scouting would be better off if they didn't have
openly gay scoutmasters."

*Scott Walker tells undocumented worker that immigrants must follow the law
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/19/scott-walker-tells-undocumented-worker-that-immigrants-must-follow-the-law/>
// WaPo // Jenna Johnson – July 19, 2015*

PLAINFIELD, Iowa — As presidential hopeful Scott Walker toured a farm in
this tiny town where he lived as a child, he was confronted by an
undocumented worker from Mexico who is living in Wisconsin and demanded to
know why Walker does not support President Obama's plan to give temporary
status to some undocumented workers, including parents of children who were
born in the United States.

"We're a nation of laws," Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin,
repeatedly told Jose Flores, 38, who was joined by two of his four
children, Luis, 7, and Leslie, 13, who had tears rolling down her cheeks
throughout the exchange. Flores, who lives in Waukesha and works for a
medical supply factory, said he and his wife live in fear of being deported
and separated from their children, who he said were all born in the United
States.

"My point," Walker said, "is that you have to follow the law, follow the
process."

Immigration has been a weak area for Walker, who announced his presidential
campaign last week in the same town where the Flores family lives. Although
he used to support granting amnesty to some of the 11 million immigrants
who are in the country illegally, Walker now says his position has changed.
He said that those living here need to leave and reenter legally, prompting
some critics to accuse him of flip-flopping. Walker also has suggested
curtailing legal immigration during difficult economic times.

Even though immigration has often dominated this presidential contest,
Walker did not mention it in his announcement speech or his first couple of
campaign stops, including a breakfast at a Harley-Davidson dealership in
North Charleston, S.C. Afterward, Walker was confronted by a man who
shouted, "What about the border?" At the next campaign stop, a barbecue
joint in Lexington, Walker added immigration to his stump speech and
continued to talk about the issue — nearly always receiving loud,
supportive cheers.

The campaign stop in Plainfield was a joyful homecoming for Walker, who
lived in this town of about 400 for seven years as a child in the 1970s.
Residents brought lawn chairs to a large machine shed to meet the local boy
who is now running for president. The hosts were Janice and Charlie Dietz,
who decades ago interviewed Walker's father for the pastor position at
their church and then became close family friends. Walker's parents and
third-grade teacher were in attendance, too. Walker spoke fondly of buying
circus peanut candy at the corner store, swimming in a neighbor's pool and
collecting money for a state flag for the city hall. He posed for photos
with corn and cows and gushed about Midwestern values.

It was a childhood quite different from that of Leslie and Luis Flores, who
said they worry about their parents being deported. Leslie Flores, who is
in middle school, said her mother was unable to travel to Mexico to see her
father before he recently died. The teenager said that she has seen "so
many families" torn apart by deportation.

The Flores family stood out in the white crowd, a reminder that Iowa towns
such as this one and others where Walker has campaigned are not always
fully representative of the nation's diversity. At first, Walker told the
family that he did not have time to talk to them, as he had an interview
with Fox News Channel. But the Flores family waited by his campaign bus and
approached him again, an exchange that was captured by reporters and three
immigration activists, one of whom drove the family to Iowa.

It was an opportunity for Walker to demonstrate how he calmly fights back
against challenges from activists. He was forceful as he told the Flores
family that immigrants must follow the rules, but he added, "I completely
sympathize with the situation you're all in and others are in."

One of the activists, Sam Freeman of Wisconsin's Voces de la Frontera, cut
the governor off and shouted, "So that's why you want to separate their
family?"

Walker curtly said that he wanted to talk only with the family and that
their plight is the reason the United States must go forward with "putting
in place a logical system." To address illegal immigration , Walker said,
the nation needs to secure the border and enforce its laws before it can
focus on other issues. An immigration system cannot come at the cost of
American workers and their wages, he added.

"The president had years to deal with this throughout the legitimate
legislative process," Walker said. "He had his own party in charge for the
first two years … he was in office."

Flores listened intently to Walker and then said, "Now it's my turn."

In November, Obama announced that he would use his executive authority to
shield 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation and allow them to
legally work in this country. This become known as Deferred Action for
Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. Twenty-six
states, including Wisconsin, sued, calling the executive action
unconstitutional. Such legal action has halted the program.

Flores repeatedly asked Walker why he tried to block DAPA. Walker told him
that he is a governor and not part of the federal government or the legal
system. Flores said thousands of Wisconsin families could have benefited.

"When are you guys going to fix the immigration system?" Flores said. "When
are you guys going to take the time to fix immigration reform? So we've got
to be deported?"

Walker stayed on message, listing his immigration talking points and
criticizing Obama for not fixing the system. He also said that he supported
the lawsuit Wisconsin filed to stop Obama's executive action.

"No man or woman is above the law in this country," Walker said. "That's
the beauty of America."

Then Luis Flores jumped in: "Do you want me, like, to come home … come from
school and my dad get deported?"

"No, that's not what I'm talking about," Walker said. "You mentioned
Waukesha. I've got two nieces who go to school there as well. … I
appreciate kids like you and kids like them, so that's not what my point
is. My point is that in America, nobody is above the law."

*Scott Walker Goes All In on Iowa
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/scott-walker-goes-all-in-on-iowa-1437349420?mod=wsj_streaming_election-2016>
// WSJ // Reid J. Epstein – July 19, 2015*

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa—Scott Walker’s aides say his path to winning the 2016
Republican presidential nomination goes through Iowa, a course that hasn’t
worked for any other candidate for 15 years.

Only twice since 1976 has the Iowa caucus winner ultimately become the
Republican nominee for president after a competitive primary—and not at all
since George W. Bush in 2000. That spotty history, combined with Mr.
Walker’s decision to adopt more conservative positions to please the
state’s electorate, makes Mr. Walker’s game plan an uncertain one.

In a crowded ballroom here Sunday, the Wisconsin governor played up his
local ties and said his unostentatious style shouldn’t mask his
conservative record. “In the Midwest, we just take care of problems,” Mr.
Walker said. “We don’t make a lot of fuss, we just get the job done and we
go back to work.”

Ed Berry, a retired postal clerk from Dike, said he admires Mr. Walker’s
political victories in Wisconsin, where he beat back a recall election
supported by labor unions. “I was impressed by his struggle with
progressives, and then he convinced voters to vote him back in,” Mr. Berry
said.

Mr. Walker’s Iowa focus reflects a challenge for the crowded GOP field:
winning an early state to cement a place in the top tier among the 16 major
candidates. Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and John Kasich of Ohio, who
is announcing his candidacy Tuesday, are among those focused entirely on
New Hampshire, which holds the first primary. Sen. Lindsey Graham says his
campaign is predicated on winning his home state of South Carolina. Florida
will become the most coveted prize for two home-state candidates, Sen.
Marco Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush.

Mr. Walker’s stop here, at a fundraiser for a state lawmaker who is a
grandson of Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, was the ninth of 11 weekend
appearances in the state; he has vowed to tour all 99 counties before the
February caucuses. His staff here dwarfs those in other states. He has
taken harder stands against gay marriage and immigration to appeal to the
social conservatives who attend the state’s Republican caucuses—a move some
strategists warn could backfire in a general election.

The optimal endgame for Mr. Walker is to become conservative activists’
favored alternative to Mr. Bush, a fundraising behemoth who, with his super
PAC, threatens to swamp the rest of the GOP field in TV advertising.

Mr. Walker is seeking to remain in the top tier of candidates by the time
11 states hold primaries next March 1. A week later comes Michigan, a large
Midwestern state where the Wisconsin governor can stress his regional bona
fides to Republican voters who already know his story.

“We think we play well in every state,” Mr. Walker said during an airport
interview Friday in Moline, Ill. “We’re going to play to win, I think we do
first, second or third. We place in any of those first four [early states],
it puts us in great shape.”

Complicating matters for Mr. Walker is the fickle nature of Iowa’s
Republicans, who, like voters elsewhere, have propelled Donald Trump to the
top tier of candidates after his caustic comments about Mexican immigrants.

Before Saturday, Mr. Walker had dodged questions about Mr. Trump. When the
New York developer declared John McCain, the party’s 2008 presidential
nominee who spent five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, “not a war
hero,” Mr. Walker finally engaged.

“I unequivocally denounce him,” Mr. Walker said at a campaign stop Saturday
in Sioux City.

On his tour here, he offered himself as a candidate running against
Washington. “I’ve been here plenty,” he reminded a Friday crowd at a
minor-league ballpark in Davenport. “I actually lived here even for a few
years.”

Walker’s pitch is also a resuscitation of his political victories in
Wisconsin intermixed with a call to take on Islamic State militants and cut
off illegal immigration. It is a different political argument than the
optimistic immigrant story offered by Mr. Rubio or the rock-ribbed
conservatism from Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

Former Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who introduced Mr. Walker at his
campaign stop last week in New Hampshire but hasn’t endorsed a candidate,
said the contrast between Mr. Walker and Mr. Rubio presents a stark choice
for voters there.

Mr. Rubio, Mr. Brown said, is “appealing to a more hopeful, uplifting
American dream, kind of not looking back and looking forward, and Scott
Walker is looking at,‘Here’s what we’ve done in Wisconsin and here’s what
we can do nationally with your help.”

*Scott Walker on the Boy Scouts' Ban on Gay Leaders
<http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/07/19/us/ap-us-gop-2016-walker.html>
// AP – July 19, 2015*

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential contender Scott Walker is struggling
with the issue of gay Boy Scout leaders.

The Boy Scouts of America has taken steps to end the blanket ban on gay
adult leaders and let Scout units set their own policy.

That prompted Wisconsin's governor to express support for the ban. The
governor told the Independent Journal Review website the ban "protected
children and advanced Scout values."

Afterward, he tried to clarify the statement, saying he did not mean
physical protection from gay leaders but protection of boys from the public
debate.

Now, though, he's no longer saying the ban should remain. He says that's
for the scouting organization to decide.

Speaking on CNN's "State of the Union," Walker also said he doesn't know
whether being gay is a choice.

*Scott Walker in Iowa: Relentlessly on message
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/scott-walker-in-iowa-relentlessly-on-message-120342.html?hp=t3_r>
// Politico // Katie Glueck – July 19, 2015*

SIOUX CITY, Iowa — The outfits were nearly identical, the speeches repeated
almost verbatim and even the intonations rarely varied. Over the course of
Scott Walker’s three-day Winnebago trip across Iowa, the Wisconsin governor
stumped with the precision of a Swiss watchmaker, exhibiting the kind of
discipline that most candidates can only dream of.

In his first days as a presidential candidate in the state where he’s
leading in the polls, Walker showed the consistency and attention to detail
that propelled him to 12 victories back home — including three statewide
wins. He sported the same campaign trail uniform (a blue-and-white checked,
collared shirt, jeans and belt), and used the same prop (a rumpled dollar
bill pulled from his pocket). He told the same anecdote about his
thriftiness that’s become his signature (his shopping habits at retailer
Kohl’s) and quoted whole paragraphs of his announcement speech from last
Monday, almost word for word.

“I’m for high standards,” he said of his education stance at several stops,
sweeping his arm upwards to accentuate his point. But standards should be
set at the local level, he would follow up, theatrically lowering his arm
for emphasis.

Even by presidential campaign trail standards, where the intense media
scrutiny pushes candidates to adopt a more buttoned-up approach and White
House hopefuls strive to hew closely to message, Walker stands out. On
several occasions, when he used a slightly different word at one stop than
he had at the previous appearance, he paused and then corrected himself.

In Cedar Rapids, when a voter asked him Friday during a town hall about
what he would do to keep jobs in Iowa, Walker took that as an opportunity
to dive into his five-point economic plan, making a few connections between
Obamacare and her question, but generally sticking to a script that he used
everywhere else.

“He had a lot of things he wanted to say,” said Mary Howard, 57, who asked
the question. “It was more like he was still doing his speech than a direct
answer.”

The mechanical nature of Walker’s appearances is especially well-suited for
the grind of a presidential primary season where the first votes won’t be
cast for another six months. It will help the two-term governor steer clear
of gaffes and keep the focus on his message — that he’s a battle-tested
fighter for conservative values.

Yet as one of the most rigorously on-message — and cautious — candidates in
the GOP field, he could also eventually undercut the plain-spoken,
authentic image he seeks to cultivate and fuel critics who insist it’s a
protective shield for a candidate who’s not ready for the national stage.
The scripted nature of Walker’s stump speech has already captured the
attention of late-night comedians like Jimmy Fallon, who has mocked the
Kohl’s anecdote Walker rolled out — nearly verbatim — in at least a
half-dozen stops.

Walker, however, is seeking to turn it to his advantage, revealing to
audiences that he can laugh at himself.

“Tonette and I —and some of you might have heard this — we like to his shop
at a place called Kohl’s,” the Wisconsin governor said Saturday here in
Sioux City. “In fact, I’ve told this story so much that even my friend
Jimmy Fallon had a little fun with it the other night.”

With his regional accent, humor and a message he delivers with energy, if
not spontaneity, Walker nevertheless managed to connect with his large and
enthusiastic Iowa audiences. Portraying himself as a typical Midwestern
father, he frequently referenced his two college-aged sons who were in tow
over the weekend.

But off the stage was where Walker shined, always ready with a handshake
and a sports joke (even if it was a practiced one — anyone wearing Iowa
State University gear would hear the lament, “You messed up my bracket!”).
He chatted up voters more easily than many of his rivals, never appearing
stiff or ill at ease, showcasing the one-on-one, retail politicking skills
that even his Wisconsin opponents concede are formidable.

During his first stop Friday morning, in the eastern city of Davenport,
Walker was approached by an emotional man who described himself as a
homeless Vietnam veteran. When the man began to cry as he described losing
his family, Walker embraced him and promised that he “won’t let you down.”

Walker’s formula has so far paid dividends. It guided him to victory in
three tough, blue state gubernatorial elections over a period of four
years, including in 2012 when he survived withering attacks and a harsh
national spotlight in a recall election. And it’s currently got him in sole
possession of first place in Iowa, with 18 percent, according to the latest
Quinnipiac University poll.

“He’s a good speaker, I like his policies,” said Danny Schleisman, 78, of
Carroll, Iowa, who saw Walker at a Saturday stop. “And he didn’t have
notes! Totally off the cuff!”

*Scott Walker: 'I don't know' if being gay a choice
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/19/politics/scott-walker-gay-choice-2016/index.html>
// CNN // Dana Bash – July 19, 2015*

(CNN)In a weekend interview with Republican presidential candidate Scott
Walker about whether the Boy Scouts should allow gay troop leaders, CNN's
Dana Bash asked Walker, "Do you think being gay is a choice?"

"I don't have an opinion on every single issue out there. To me, that's, I
don't know," Walker answered. "I don't know the answer to that question."

The Wisconsin governor said he supports the current ban that keeps openly
gay leaders out of the organization but that he believes the Boy Scouts,
not government, should ultimately be able to decide that kind of policy.

Bash and Walker spoke aboard Walker's RV, traveling through Iowa. Earlier
in the week Walker told reporters that the Boy Scouts should keep the ban
on gay leaders because the policy "protected children."

His campaign later released a statement saying he meant protecting Scouts
from the media debate.

"I'm not talking about personal protection. I'm talking about, for me, the
reason why I didn't have a problem with it is I just think it pulls
Scouting into a whole larger political and cultural debate, as opposed to
just saying Scouting is about camping and citizenship and merit badges and
service awards, instead of pulling all these other issues out there. And I
was just hoping that they could stay focused on that, that's all," said
Walker, who is an Eagle Scout.

When pressed about whether that means he is for or against the ban, at
first the governor said that's "up to the people who run the places."

Reminded that presidents of the United States are actually honorary
presidents of Boy Scouts of America, Walker responded that he would have
"plenty much more significant issues to deal with as president."

"From a domestic and foreign policy and national security standpoint, the
one thing people find unique, I guess, whether you like it or not, is that
I actually answer questions people ask me," Walker added.

With that opening, pressed again, Walker suggested he believes the ban on
gay scout leaders is the right policy.

"I thought the policy was just fine. I'm saying when I was in Scouts, it
was fine. You're asking what should the policy be going forward. It should
be left up to the leaders of the Scouts," said Walker.

On whether being gay is a choice or not, Walker said that's "not even an
issue for me to be involved in."

"The bottom line is I'm going to stand up and work hard for every American,
without regard of who they are, no matter where they come from, no matter
what their background, I'm going to fight for people, whether they vote for
me or not," said Walker.

Contrary to popular belief, Walker said, his wife does not disagree with
him on same-sex marriage.

In a recent interview with The Washington Post, Tonette Walker talked about
how disappointed their two sons were that her husband called last month's
Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage a "grave mistake."

That story left the impression that Tonette Walker agreed with her sons and
disagreed with her husband.

The GOP presidential candidate told CNN that is not the case.

"My wife doesn't disagree with me on my position on marriage. She said she
was torn because we have some family members who have some very different
views on that. She was torn just because the emotion on the family and
because all of the media attention on that. Not because she was torn with
me on the position," Walker said.

Tonette Walker's cousin, Shelly, married another woman last month. Alex
Walker, Scott and Tonette Walker's youngest son, was a groomsman.

Wisconsin's first lady confirmed to CNN separately that she does, in fact,
oppose same-sex marriage, as her husband does.

Last week, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum went after the Walkers,
saying if she is for same-sex marriage it could have an impact on her
husband's policies and positions because "spouses matter."

"He's just wrong," Walker said.

*Walker talks everything but Trump
<http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/2015/07/villiani_walker_talks_everything_but_trump>
// Boston Herald // Chris Villani – July 19, 2015*

When it comes to Donald Trump, Scott Walker seems content to let the issues
and his poll numbers do all the talking.

During a campaign swing through New Hampshire this past week, the Wisconsin
governor took questions of any sort, offering replies on immigration,
social issues, how much time he plans on spending in New Hampshire, and
even his own question-answering.

“The unique thing about me is that I answer questions,” he said Thursday.
He even made sure to answer questions from local reporters rather than the
same faces from the national outlets he’s apt to see after most events.

When asked whether Trump is hurting the GOP brand, Walker took a pass.

“Donald Trump can speak for himself, I am not going to put words in the
mouth of any candidate,” he said. “I think people are tired of candidates
lashing out at other candidates.”

He went on to pivot to what he is “for” — reform, growth and safety.

It’s unlikely Walker is going to go after Trump since he’s essentially
working from the same playbook. He says he’s against amnesty for illegal
immigrants. He touts reforms in Wisconsin that he says put more money in
the hands of local governments and gutted funding for Planned Parenthood.
He strongly disagrees with President Obama that climate change presents a
greater threat to coming generations than radical Islamic terrorism.

In many ways, Scott Walker is Donald Trump with toned-down rhetoric and a
more manageable, if less full, head of hair.

And his messages sell to the Republican base. The standing room only crowd
cheered when he brought up his tough stance on illegal immigration and
sharply criticized the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign
policy decisions.

Another reason for Walker not to punch Trump — he’d be punching himself, in
a roundabout way.

When Lindsey Graham or Rick Perry take shots at The Donald, they’re doing
so with polling numbers that have them outside of the top-10 tier. Walker
is within the margin of Trump and beating Jeb Bush in the latest Fox News
poll. He’s managed to make it a three-headed race and has only a fraction
of the name recognition of his top rivals. Not to mention the fact that
Walker only joined the race, officially, on Monday.

So while the newcomer to the 2016 field may not be taking shots at Trump,
he may have the ability to take him out at the ballot box.

*Republican Scott Walker brushes up on U.S. foreign policy
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/19/us-usa-election-walker-idUSKCN0PT0CO20150719>
// Reuters // Steve Holland – July 19, 2015*

Scott Walker had a steep learning curve on U.S. foreign policy after some
early miscues in his race for the Republican presidential nomination. Now
an eager student of global affairs, he is staking out positions that, while
perhaps short on nuance, play well to conservatives.

The governor of Wisconsin, Walker is best known for his victory over unions
in his state. Republicans generally do not put him in the category of a
strategic foreign policy thinker.

But he has been brushing up.

This was evident on a campaign bus tour across Iowa this weekend and on
earlier stops in South Carolina.

Walker, 47, last week became the 15th candidate to seek the 2016 Republican
presidential nomination. He, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and U.S.
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida are among the early front-runners in polling
for the November 2016 election.

   Walker saw no need for diplomatic niceties in response to the Iran
nuclear deal that President Barack Obama announced last week with Tehran:
He would terminate it as soon as possible and persuade U.S. allies to join
Washington in imposing more crippling economic sanctions on Tehran.

    "This is not a country we should be doing business with," he said in
Davenport, Iowa, reminding the crowd of Iran's holding of 52 American
hostages in 1979. "This is one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism."

    Walker would also be more confrontational with both Russia over its
aggression against Ukraine and against China, for the territorial pressures
Beijing is putting on U.S. allies in the South China Sea.

    He would dramatically increase U.S. military spending after budget cuts
that have drawn complaints from military officials.

"The United States needs a foreign policy that puts steel in the face of
our enemies," Walker says.

LEADER IN KEY STATE OF IOWA

His hawkish views are welcome among conservatives who dominate the
Republican Party in Iowa and who may award him with a victory in the Iowa
caucuses on Feb. 1, the first nominating contest on the road to the
election.

Walker leads in Iowa and needs a win to gain momentum in the contests that
follow, like Feb. 9 in New Hampshire, where his standing is not as strong.

"What he said is exactly what we need to do," said Judy Jamison of
Bettendorf, Iowa, after hearing Walker speak in Davenport. "He's shown in
Wisconsin that he's not going to be intimidated."

    One of Walker's most prominent early missteps was a statement that his
fight against the unions in Wisconsin had girded him for the battle against
Islamic State.

He also said the biggest national security decision by 1980s President
Ronald Reagan - who is credited with adopting policies that helped win the
Cold War - was his move to fire air traffic controllers at U.S. airports.

    All of this raised eyebrows among the Republican foreign policy
professional class in Washington. Walker took steps to beef up his foreign
policy knowledge.

    He now gets daily briefings about what is going on abroad. His national
security adviser is Mike Gallagher, a Middle East expert who had worked for
Republican U.S. Senator Bob Corker, one of the leading voices in the party
on national security. Former U.S. Senator Jim Talent is also an adviser on
international relations.

    OPEN TO CRITICISM

Aides said Walker has enjoyed learning more about world hot spots. But his
remarks on the Iran nuclear deal opened him up to criticism.

Bush took issue with Walker's position that he would immediately jettison
the deal, suggesting it lacked maturity. He did not mention Walker by name
but his intention was clear.

    "One thing I won't do is just say as a candidate: 'I'm just going to
tear up the agreement on the first day.' That sounds great, but maybe you
ought to check in with your allies first," Bush told reporters in Carson
City, Nevada, on Friday.

    He said a secretary of state and a secretary of defense should be put
in place first. "You might want to have your team in place before you take
an act like that," Bush said.

    Such talk prompted a rare response from the Walker team to Bush, a
possible prelude to a clash over the issue when the candidates have their
first debate on Aug. 6 in Cleveland.

    The Walker campaign blasted out a statement from foreign policy adviser
Robert C. O'Brien that rejected Bush's view without mentioning him by name.

    "We don’t need more information, we don’t need to wait to confirm the
next secretary of state, we need decisive leadership and we need it now.
This won’t be easy, but when America leads, and has a strong president with
clear priorities who believes in American strength, the rest of the world
will follow," O'Brien said.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz, after listening to Walker at a town hall
event in Cedar Rapids, placed Walker's views on national security in the
middle of conservative thinking among presidential candidates. He said
Walker is between U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who would limit U.S.
engagement overseas, and U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who
favors more U.S. intervention.

    "He's dead center," Luntz told Reuters. "That's what the public is
thinking right now. That’s what Republicans are thinking. There is a
general fear among Americans that we are weaker today than we were five
years ago, and we’re going to be weaker still."

*Scott Walker calls for more militaristic America: US needs to ‘put steel
in the face of our enemies’
<https://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/scott-walker-calls-for-more-militaristic-america-us-needs-to-put-steel-in-the-face-of-our-enemies/>
// Reuters – July 19, 2015*

Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker had a steep learning curve
on foreign policy after some early off-key statements. Now an eager student
of global affairs, is staking out positions that play well to conservatives
but lack a lot of nuance.

This was clear from a weekend bus tour the Wisconsin governor took across
Iowa and earlier stops in South Carolina as part of the campaign swing he
took in the week after becoming the 15th candidate to seek the 2016
Republican presidential nomination.

He saw no need for diplomatic niceties in response to the Iran nuclear deal
that President Barack Obama negotiated with Tehran: He would terminate it
as soon as possible and persuade U.S. allies to join Washington in imposing
more crippling economic sanctions on Tehran.

“This is not a country we should be doing business with,” he said in
Davenport, Iowa, reminding the crowd of Iran’s holding of 52 American
hostages in 1979. “This is one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism.”

Walker would also be more confrontational with both Russia over its
aggression against Ukraine and against China, for the territorial pressures
Beijing is putting on U.S. allies in the South China Sea.

He would dramatically increase U.S. military spending after budget cuts
that military officials have complained about.

“The United States needs a foreign policy that puts steel in the face of
our enemies,” Walker says.

This kind of talk is welcome to conservatives who dominate the Republican
Party in Iowa and who may award him with a victory in the Iowa caucuses on
Feb. 1, the first nominating contest on the road to the November 2016
election.

Walker leads in Iowa and needs a win to gain momentum in the contests that
follow like Feb. 9 in New Hampshire, where his standing is not as strong.

“What he said is exactly what we need to do,” said Judy Jamison of
Bettendorf, after hearing Walker speak in Davenport. “He’s shown in
Wisconsin that he’s not going to be intimidated.”

Walker’s position on Iran is a rejection of the White House view that it is
better to take the deal available now because the sanctions regime will
crumble anyway as many governments want to allow companies to resume
business deals with Tehran.

One of Walker’s rivals, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, criticized the
Wisconsin governor’s position that he would immediately jettison the deal,
suggesting it lacked maturity. He did not mention Walker by name but his
intention was clear.

“One thing I won’t do is just say as a candidate: ‘I’m just going to tear
up the agreement on the first day.’ That sounds great, but maybe you ought
to check in with your allies first,” Bush told reporters in Carson City,
Nevada, on Friday.

He said a secretary of state and a secretary of defense should be put in
place first. “You might want to have your team in place before you take an
act like that,” said Bush.

Such talk prompted a rare response from the Walker team to Bush, a possible
prelude to a clash over the issue when the candidates have their first
debate on Aug. 6 in Cleveland.

The Walker campaign blasted out a statement from foreign policy adviser
Robert C. O’Brien that rejected Bush’s view without mentioning him by name.

“We don’t need more information, we don’t need to wait to confirm the next
Secretary of State, we need decisive leadership and we need it now. This
won’t be easy, but when America leads, and has a strong president with
clear priorities who believes in American strength, the rest of the world
will follow,” O’Brien said.

Walker, along with Bush and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, are among the
front-runners for the nomination.

When Republicans think of Walker, they generally refer to his victory over
unions as governor of Wisconsin. They do not put him in the category of a
strategic foreign policy thinker.

Walker’s foreign policy miscues included a statement earlier this year that
his fight against the unions in Wisconsin had girded him for the battle
against Islamic State. He also said the biggest national security decision
by 1980s President Ronald Reagan – who is credited with adopting policies
that helped win the Cold War – was his move to fire air traffic controllers
at U.S. airports.

All this raised eyebrows among the Republican foreign policy professional
class in Washington. Walker, 47, took steps to beef up his foreign policy
knowledge.

He now gets daily briefings about what is going on abroad. His national
security adviser is Mike Gallagher, a Middle East expert who had worked for
Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker, who is one of the leading voices
in the party on national security. Former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri is
also an adviser on international relations.

Aides said Walker has enjoyed the process of learning more about world hot
spots.

He has adopted some of the more hawkish views in the Republican Party.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz, after listening to Walker at a town hall
event in Cedar Rapids, placed Walker’s views on national security in the
middle of conservative thinking among presidential candidates. He said
Walker is between Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who would limit U.S.
engagement overseas, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who
favors more U.S. intervention.

“He’s dead center,” Luntz told Reuters. “That’s what the public is thinking
right now. That’s what Republicans are thinking. There is a general fear
among Americans that we are weaker today than we were five years ago, and
we’re going to be weaker still.”

*Scott Walker Steers Clear Of Nuance On Foreign Policy
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-walker-foreign-policy_55abd414e4b0d2ded39f3fd7>
// Reuters // Steve Holland – July 19, 2015*

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa, July 19 (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate
Scott Walker had a steep learning curve on foreign policy after some early
off-key statements. Now an eager student of global affairs, is staking out
positions that play well to conservatives but lack a lot of nuance.

This was clear from a weekend bus tour the Wisconsin governor took across
Iowa and earlier stops in South Carolina as part of the campaign swing he
took in the week after becoming the 15th candidate to seek the 2016
Republican presidential nomination.

He saw no need for diplomatic niceties in response to the Iran nuclear deal
that President Barack Obama negotiated with Tehran: He would terminate it
as soon as possible and persuade U.S. allies to join Washington in imposing
more crippling economic sanctions on Tehran.

"This is not a country we should be doing business with," he said in
Davenport, Iowa, reminding the crowd of Iran's holding of 52 American
hostages in 1979. "This is one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism."

Walker would also be more confrontational with both Russia over its
aggression against Ukraine and against China, for the territorial pressures
Beijing is putting on U.S. allies in the South China Sea.

He would dramatically increase U.S. military spending after budget cuts
that military officials have complained about.

"The United States needs a foreign policy that puts steel in the face of
our enemies," Walker says.

This kind of talk is welcome to conservatives who dominate the Republican
Party in Iowa and who may award him with a victory in the Iowa caucuses on
Feb. 1, the first nominating contest on the road to the November 2016
election.

Walker leads in Iowa and needs a win to gain momentum in the contests that
follow like Feb. 9 in New Hampshire, where his standing is not as strong.

"What he said is exactly what we need to do," said Judy Jamison of
Bettendorf, after hearing Walker speak in Davenport. "He's shown in
Wisconsin that he's not going to be intimidated."

Walker's position on Iran is a rejection of the White House view that it is
better to take the deal available now because the sanctions regime will
crumble anyway as many governments want to allow companies to resume
business deals with Tehran.

One of Walker's rivals, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, criticized the
Wisconsin governor's position that he would immediately jettison the deal,
suggesting it lacked maturity. He did not mention Walker by name but his
intention was clear.

"One thing I won't do is just say as a candidate: 'I'm just going to tear
up the agreement on the first day.' That sounds great, but maybe you ought
to check in with your allies first," Bush told reporters in Carson City,
Nevada, on Friday.

He said a secretary of state and a secretary of defense should be put in
place first. "You might want to have your team in place before you take an
act like that," said Bush.

Such talk prompted a rare response from the Walker team to Bush, a possible
prelude to a clash over the issue when the candidates have their first
debate on Aug. 6 in Cleveland.

The Walker campaign blasted out a statement from foreign policy adviser
Robert C. O'Brien that rejected Bush's view without mentioning him by name.

"We don't need more information, we don't need to wait to confirm the next
Secretary of State, we need decisive leadership and we need it now. This
won't be easy, but when America leads, and has a strong president with
clear priorities who believes in American strength, the rest of the world
will follow," O'Brien said.

Walker, along with Bush and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, are among the
front-runners for the nomination.

When Republicans think of Walker, they generally refer to his victory over
unions as governor of Wisconsin. They do not put him in the category of a
strategic foreign policy thinker.

Walker's foreign policy miscues included a statement earlier this year that
his fight against the unions in Wisconsin had girded him for the battle
against Islamic State. He also said the biggest national security decision
by 1980s President Ronald Reagan - who is credited with adopting policies
that helped win the Cold War - was his move to fire air traffic controllers
at U.S. airports.

All this raised eyebrows among the Republican foreign policy professional
class in Washington. Walker, 47, took steps to beef up his foreign policy
knowledge.

He now gets daily briefings about what is going on abroad. His national
security adviser is Mike Gallagher, a Middle East expert who had worked for
Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker, who is one of the leading voices
in the party on national security. Former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri is
also an adviser on international relations.

Aides said Walker has enjoyed the process of learning more about world hot
spots.

He has adopted some of the more hawkish views in the Republican Party.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz, after listening to Walker at a town hall
event in Cedar Rapids, placed Walker's views on national security in the
middle of conservative thinking among presidential candidates. He said
Walker is between Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who would limit U.S.
engagement overseas, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who
favors more U.S. intervention.

"He's dead center," Luntz told Reuters. "That's what the public is thinking
right now. That's what Republicans are thinking. There is a general fear
among Americans that we are weaker today than we were five years ago, and
we're going to be weaker still."

*Walker says he supported path to citizenship, but not amnesty
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/walker-says-he-supported-path-to-citizenship-but-not-amnesty/article/2568559>
// Washington Examiner // Philip Klein – July 19, 2015*

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker acknowledged in a CNN interview that in the
past he had expressed support for a pathway to citizenship for illegal
immigrants, but said that he wasn't talking about amnesty at the time.

In an interview aboard his campaign trailer that aired Sunday on CNN's
"State of the Union," Dana Bash pressed Walker about his shift from
somebody who once said a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants "made
sense" to a presidential candidate talking about restrictions on legal
immigration. She asked whether such shifts undermined his pitch to voters
that he's somebody who stands up for his principles.

"The only issue where I've clearly said I had a position before — and even
on that, as governor, I didn't have a role to play in immigration. I said
there should be a path, years ago, when I talked about going forward with
legal immigration", he said. "I didn't talk about amnesty. In fact, I said
in that specific interview, I opposed the 'Gang of 5,' the measure that
Marco Rubio proposed. So I specifically even then said, 'I'm not supporting
that.' But I said flat out in the beginning of the year, that's a position
I have changed on."

In the 2013 interview with the Wausau Daily Herald editorial board that has
gotten a second life during his presidential run, Walker was asked about
the millions of individuals who immigrated to the United States illegally,
and whether he could see them gaining citizenship with the right mix of
penalties and waiting periods. "Sure, yeah," he responded. "I mean, I think
it makes sense."

The meaning of the term "amnesty" is itself a hotly debated one in
politics, and to many conservatives, any path to citizenship to those who
entered the country illegally — even with penalties — would be considered
amnesty.

Bash also asked Walker about comments he's made about legal immigration.

"What I've specifically said is I think priority under legal immigration
should be given to the impact on American working families on their wages
in a way that would improve the American economy," Walker said. "That not
only means people like me who were born here, that means people like the
woman I just met in Cedar Rapids, for example, who moved here many years
ago, was a political refugee of the Congo, and who went through the process
to be a legal citizen. She's working here. And I believe for her, and for
others who were born here, there needs to be priority given, to say, we're
going to need to make sure we put priority [on] American working families
and their wages. Doesn't mean there won't ever be legal immigration, it
just means that's what our priorities should be."

*UNDECLARED*

*KASICH*

*John Kasich Group's Video All But Declares Him a 2016 Presidential
Candidate
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-19/john-kasich-group-s-video-all-but-declares-him-a-2016-presidential-candidate>
// Bloomberg // Steven Yaccino – July 19, 2015*

New Day for America, a group supporting John Kasich’s bid for the White
House, released a five-minute video Sunday about their soon-to-be
candidate, highlighting his life story, record in Congress, and executive
experience in a must-win swing state.

When Kasich first comes on the screen, the words “Conservative Governor of
Ohio” appear beneath his name. By the end, that titled had changed to
“PRESIDENT 2016.”

An extended version of an ad buy that New Day is running on New Hampshire
and Boston-area television, the video is the farthest Kasich's team has
gone to declare publicly that he is running for president. He is expected
to announce his candidacy at Ohio State University in Columbus on Tuesday
morning, followed by stops in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa and
Michigan this week.

“Who is it that has the experience to balance the federal budget, which is
very hard to do?” Kasich asks in the video, which begins by flipping
through the pictures of every other Republican and Democratic candidate in
the presidential race. “Who is it that’s had the experience in turning a
major state with huge deficits and high unemployment to prosperity? Who is
it that spent time, actual time, working on the national security issues.
You know, of all those people running, there’s not one that has experience
in all those critical three areas.”

Kasich has been struggling to gain traction on the national stage,
consistently getting around 2 percent in national polls.  The video
addresses head on what may be Kasich's biggest challenge: convincing voters
that an unprecedented field of 15 GOP candidates needs one more member. And
it signals exactly how Kasich will try to stand out in the coming months.

“You know, I was one of the chief architects of balancing the budget,”
Kasich said after the camera panned over framed photos from time in
Congress, where he was the chairman of the U.S. House Budget Committee and
a member of U.S. House Armed Services Committee. “First time we did it
since man walked on the moon. We haven’t done it since.”

The spot, which is part of the digital component of a seven-figure media
buy New Day recently launched, also includes footage of Kasich's time as a
Fox News host and touches on the fiscal challenges of his time as governor
of Ohio, where he won re-election by a 2-to-1 margin last year.

*How John Kasich could win in 2016
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/07/19/john-kasich-2016-campaign/30200943/>
// Cincinnati Enquirer // Chrissie Thompson – July 19, 2015*

COLUMBUS, Ohio — John Kasich has two problems.

You may have already noticed the first. Kasich is going to run for
president, in a campaign scheduled to launch Tuesday.

But do you know who he is?

Here's the second: Kasich is the popular second-term governor of Ohio and
an 18-year veteran of Congress. But the same Ohio voters who have never
handed him a loss, whose swing-state endorsement is crucial to his White
House résumé, question whether he really could be president. To some, it's
almost like he'll always be the boy next door.

Much of the country doesn't know him. The people who do, know him too well.

Then there's a third group: believers.

Kasich's experience, candor and moderate views are winning him a growing
number of fans in New Hampshire and Iowa and among politicos elsewhere.

He could outshine presumed frontrunner Jeb Bush, they say. His experience
level would challenge Marco Rubio. And if Republican voters can coalesce
around a moderate like Kasich, he might even pose a threat to Hillary
Clinton.

CAMPAIGNING LIKE HE MEANS IT

Maybe the doubters don't realize what a big deal it is to be the governor
of Ohio.

Every time Kasich addresses a group of Republicans, he talks about his
landslide re-election in 2014. Almost without fail, several people say:
"Wow." Once, in Georgia, someone gasped.

One thing is clear: Many Republican primary voters feel a responsibility to
raise up a candidate who can win back the White House. And no Republican
has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio.

For Kasich, the journey to presidential candidacy is rooted in his
re-election. Touting income-tax cuts and economic growth, he rolled over
scandal-ruined Democrat Ed FitzGerald, 64% to 33%. Kasich won 86 of Ohio's
88 counties – even the one containing Democratic stronghold Cleveland.

A month after the election, he launched a national tour to promote a
federal balanced-budget amendment. Then he began campaigning in
early-primary states.

"It was sort of amazing, right?" he said after his first trip to New
Hampshire, in March. "You come to something like this and see how people
react, and it's pretty positive. It really does have an impact on the way
you think."

But to run for president requires more than positive vibes. Recently,
Kasich, 63, seemed to flip a switch, from entitled elder statesman to
earnest campaigner.

It's a role he hasn't filled since 2010, when he eked out a two-point
victory over incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland to become Ohio's governor.

That election marked Kasich's third-straight defeat of a Democratic
incumbent. He knocked the first one off in 1978, becoming a state senator
at age 26. He kicked off his nine terms in Congress in 1982, becoming the
only Republican in the country to defeat an incumbent that year.

Kasich's only failed election? The last time he ran for president, in 1999.
Kasich had helped lead a charge in the 1990s to balance the federal budget
and sought to convert a growing national profile into a White House bid.
(Even now, most conservatives who recognize Kasich on the campaign trail
cite his balanced-budget experience in Congress.)

Enthusiasm and financial support for George W. Bush forced Kasich to end
his 1999 presidential campaign in July. The loss kicked off a decade
outside of public office: working for Lehman Brothers out of a two-person
office in Ohio, hosting a show on Fox News, writing books.

Kasich says he didn't prepare for his first presidential bid. This time, he
says, "I can see sort of the pathway as to how I can be president. I can
see what the trek is like to the top of Mount Everest."

LESSONS LEARNED

Something else has changed for Kasich. He’s intentionally less of a jerk.

Take this exchange, from a campaign stop in Georgia. When a reporter asked
about an executive order he'd issued, taking away union rights for some
home-health-care workers, he cut off the question,  answered brusquely and
walked away. He later, out of nowhere, apologized and took time to answer
the question. It was a deferential, even courteous, gesture not always seen
from Kasich with reporters.

He's almost assumed an "aw shucks" demeanor when he thanks voters on the
campaign trail, making jokes about how few people came to see him when he
ran in 1999. "Aw shucks" is definitely not natural Kasich.

"Most people don't know me very well. People make judgments," he explained.

"I'm a McKees Rocks boy," he said, referencing his Western Pennsylvania
childhood hometown. "We're rough and tumble there. We're direct and blunt
and all that kind of stuff."

To be fair, he is still quite sure of his own rightness.

As he said last month, "The doubters are not experts."

Are the believers experts?

"Uh, yeah, pretty much," he said.

And he is still unapologetic. Nearly every campaign stop, he answers a
question the way the conservative questioner doesn't like. But most of the
time, people seem OK with it. It's refreshing, they say.

"There's a Midwestern bluntness, but without a Northeastern edge," said
John Watson, who served as chief of staff for former Georgia governor Sonny
Perdue and who has introduced Kasich to Atlanta donors.

Republican political junkies are often familiar with Kasich's support for
Common Core educational standards or for Medicaid expansion under President
Obama's health care law.

But how about this?

In Iowa, a woman asked about officials' misbehavior, calling out Lois
Lerner, formerly of the IRS, and Clinton.

"I'm more worried about what we're going to do to fix America than I am
about Hillary's (email) server," Kasich said, almost chastising the woman.

Yet she told the Columbus Dispatch after the event that she was "fine" with
his answer, and Kasich "appears to be presidential."

"You have to look at the totality of the candidate on all the issues and
whether they hold to their belief," said Robb Thomson, a Republican
activist whose father served as governor of New Hampshire. "Are they trying
to pander to me? I don't think Governor Kasich does a lot of pandering."

HOW TO MAKE FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE

Teresa Fedor wasn't prepared for the result of her first meeting with
Kasich.

The Democratic state representative walked out during Kasich's first State
of the State address, joining a protest in the Statehouse rotunda over his
plan to limit the collective bargaining rights of public employees. During
hearings for the anti-union bill, state troopers closed the Statehouse to
the public, citing overcrowding concerns. Fedor defied them, dramatically
opening the doors to crowds outside and then joining a lawsuit over
Statehouse access.

The bill passed, but Ohio voters overwhelmingly voted to repeal the
legislation a year after electing Kasich governor.

A few months later, Fedor asked to meet with Kasich. His advisers told him
to decline. He didn't take their advice.

It turned out Fedor had been trying to pass comprehensive anti-human
trafficking legislation.

Early into her pitch, Kasich signed on. "Why don't we pass your bill?" the
governor said.

She stared at him. "Do you really mean it?" Fedor said.

Kasich has since signed two massive bills and an executive order,
stiffening penalties for traffickers and johns and providing services to
victims. Fedor still opposed Kasich's re-election bid in 2014, but
newspapers have run photos of the two hugging at bill signings. "No one was
more surprised than me" at the partnership, Fedor says.

Kasich credits his faith in God with his interest in stopping human
trafficking. It's also one of the motivators for his signature
gubernatorial accomplishment: expanding Medicaid under Obamacare, a move
which angered conservatives and required heavy Democratic support.

"For me, faith is the do's, not the don'ts," Kasich said in May to a group
of about 250 Georgians, who mostly responded in thoughtful silence.

Kasich says his faith has grown consistently since the late 1980s, after
his parents died in a car crash with a drunken driver.

"I'm just trying to figure out how my life can have meaning in the world,"
Kasich told me. "My life is not going to be, 'I'm waiting for a voice' or
'I'm waiting for an email.' I don't know if God really emails or not."

Kasich routinely polls at 1 to 2% nationally in the crowded GOP field– and
in Iowa, and in New Hampshire. Aides believe his candor will stand out in a
debate. But he's polling so poorly he risks missing the cut for the first
one, Aug. 6 in Cleveland.

So Kasich goes back to his roots: what he did while running for state
Senate or Congress. Calling supporters. Visiting homes. And that means New
Hampshire, whose population of 1.3 million is about double that of a
congressional district.

"You don't have to meet the whole country," Kasich told me. "You build your
own army. ... I've never met anybody who I didn't think I could get to vote
for me if I could talk to them."

For what it's worth, Kasich also has a strategy for taking on Clinton, whom
he's leading in Ohio polls.

"I don't believe you beat Hillary by talking about Benghazi or emails or
anything like that," said Kasich, who has repeatedly declined to criticize
the former first lady and secretary of State. "The person that's going to
get elected is someone that can give people confidence that they can renew
the American spirit."

Is Kasich – the incumbent-defeating state senator and congressman and
governor – out of his league?

Not a bit, said Dick Wright, an elderly Navy veteran from Charleston, S.C.
"I think he's electable," he said.

After all, said Wright's stepson, Russell Guerard: "Somebody's got to be
president."

*Kasich prepared for long run in presidential bid
<http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/19/kasich-prepared-for-long-run.html>
// Columbus Dispatch // Darrel Rowland and Jessica Wehrman – July 19, 2015*

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — John Kasich is ready to compete in every primary and
every caucus in America for the presidential nomination, his top campaign
strategist says.

Kasich is willing to pursue that long-shot quest clear through the
Republican National Convention a year from now in Cleveland.

And “when” the Ohio governor wins the nomination, he will put likely
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on the defensive “from Day One” in a
campaign that may cost $2 billion overall.

That is John Weaver’s sweeping overview of how Kasich can become the next
president of the United States. Weaver, who also advised the GOP
presidential campaigns of Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Utah Gov. Jon
Huntsman, spoke during Kasich’s campaign swing through New Hampshire last
week.

Although Kasich will become the 16th major GOP candidate when he officially
declares his presidential intentions on Tuesday at the Ohio Union on the
Ohio State University campus, his campaign team regards only two or three
of the others — whom they wouldn’t identify — as serious contenders, Weaver
said.

The campaign will continue to push the Kasich resume trifecta: experience
as governor during Ohio’s recovery; 18 years as a congressman who helped
balance the federal budget and reform defense spending; and almost a decade
in private business. However, Weaver said, part of Kasich’s status as “the
best candidate in the field” is “having the most interesting personality
and interesting charisma.”

Is the veteran political consultant worried about a possible cringe moment
along the grueling campaign trail from the governor who once chastised the
“idiot cop” for giving him a ticket and warned opponents to “get on the bus
or get run over by it”?

“I worked for people like (former Texas Sen.) Phil Gramm and John McCain,
so when people warned me that John Kasich could be prickly — perhaps my
prickly meter is worn out, because I haven’t see that side of him. Look,
he’s direct. Only in politics could somebody who answers a question
honestly, directly, is that considered something that makes people
nervous,” Weaver said.

“I find it refreshing, and I think the voters will reward him for being
direct” in an era of blow-dried, focus-group-tested candidates. “He is who
he is. We’re not going to change him.”

The University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato, one of the nation’s
most-respected political scientists, doesn’t disagree with Weaver’s take on
Kasich, but he says time is growing short and the governor needs both luck
and money.

“He has a good case to make and a good story to tell, but he’s going to
have to make that case aggressively and tell the story quickly because the
train’s leaving the station because of the debates ... and right now he’s
nowhere man,” Sabato said.

The first GOP presidential debate is Aug. 6 in Cleveland and the second on
Sept. 16 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. Sponsors
of both are limiting their prime-time matchups to the top 10 contenders
based on national polls, although secondary events are scheduled for the
also-rans. Kasich is 12th in RealClear Politics’ national polls’ average,
but only half a percentage point out of 10th.

“He’s got to get in the debates, he’s got to distinguish himself quickly,
he’s got to help Republicans understand why the governor of super swing
state Ohio is a strong nominee,” Sabato said.

Candidates “always overestimate how well-known they are,” he said. “Outside
Ohio, he’s really not really well-known. He is prominent compared to 99.99
percent of Americans, but he’s behind the group of presidential candidates,
and that’s all that matters.”

The 2016 Republican race has often been described as one with a limited
number of lanes: one for the Christian conservative candidate, one for the
Main Street business type, and so on. And, as Weaver put it, “There are
more swimmers than there are lanes.”

Right now, Sabato said, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is blocking Kasich’s
lane to the nomination.

“Essentially, Jeb Bush and his enormous family machine have taken up that
entire lane,” Sabato said. “They bought the lane. They bought it. How is he
going to compete with now $118 million (raised on behalf of Bush)?”

However, Sabato added, “If Jeb Bush dissolves for some reason, collapses,
then Kasich is in a good position to move into the Jeb Bush lane.”

Weaver’s not sure he’s buying the whole lanes analogy.

“You can swim in multiple lanes. You have to have some broad appeal,” he
said. “You can’t have a winning coalition in just one lane.”

Weaver said Kasich will not fall into the trap that’s hurt previous
presidential candidates of failing to qualify for a state primary or
caucus. In 2012, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was Mitt Romney’s
main challenger but wasn’t even on the ballot in some Ohio congressional
districts.

“We’ll be on the ballot everywhere,” Weaver said.

That includes Iowa, whose caucuses represent the nation’s first
presidential contest — one that some wondered whether Kasich would skip.
The governor is stopping in Iowa on his five-day announcement tour this
week, and future visits are scheduled, Weaver said.

“Every campaign has their own path to the nomination. ... We’ll have a path
that’s unique to us, but it will include Iowa in some form,” he said.

Although Kasich will make occasional forays elsewhere, his emphasis will
remain on early voting states. Those include Michigan, which could turn
into a showdown for Midwestern supremacy with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

The Kasich team has game-planned numerous possibilities for how the GOP
contest may take shape.

“We’re prepared for this to be over early — which I don’t anticipate — and
we’re prepared for this to be over at the convention, and anywhere in
between,” Weaver said.

The new dynamic for 2016 is that even candidates who perform poorly can
stay in the race with just one or two mega-donors.

“We’re prepared for any of that,” Weaver acknowledged. “I expect the race
to go deep into the (election) calendar.”

Kasich also is prepared for the loosely regulated campaign-finance world of
modern elections. Once he formally becomes a candidate, his official
campaign is limited to individual contributions of $2,700 per cycle. And it
cannot legally coordinate with the two “independent” campaign committees
that Kasich has been using to fund the bulk of his activity to date.

However, leaders of the independent committees — which can continue raising
money in unlimited amounts — already are privy to Kasich’s long-term
campaign strategy (which, of course, may change as a race takes shape). His
official campaign committee is managed by Beth Hansen, his gubernatorial
chief of staff who ran his 2010 campaign for governor. The outside
committees are headed by Matt Carle, the governor’s legislative lobbyist
who ran his 2014 re-election effort.

Fred Davis, the Hollywood ad-maker whose team recorded virtually every
Kasich move last week in New Hampshire, will remain with the separate
committees. That means the latest material shot will go to the independent
groups for possible future ads.

Once Kasich declares, Weaver said, the outside groups will be on their own,
but “they’ll keep doing their thing. Hopefully, they’ll be doing it
effectively and efficiently, and I have faith that they will ... Hopefully
the combination of those things being done together is successful."

The key to Kasich’s success “is how he can translate what he’s achieved in
the past into a vision that is understandable by average Americans where he
wants to lead the country moving forward,” Weaver said.

“I am very confident that within relative short order that the governor
will be considered ... in the top tier, and the race takes a different set
of contours.”

*OTHER*

*Walker, Kasich and the GOP’s Midwest bracket
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/walker-kasich-and-the-midwest-bracket/2015/07/19/cf4b5244-2cbd-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html>
// WaPo // E. J. Dionne Jr. – July 19, 2015*

Republicans won’t win the presidency in 2016 without making inroads in the
Midwest. Happily for the GOP, two Midwestern governors are running for
their party’s nomination.

Both won reelection in 2014. The one from the state with more electoral
votes won with 64 percent of the vote with wide appeal to Democrats and
independents. The one from the smaller state got just 52 percent of the
vote after a divisive campaign.

The former fought to have his state accept the Affordable Care Act’s
Medicaid expansion. He made his case on moral grounds, arguing that at
heaven’s door, Saint Peter is “probably not going to ask you much about
what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you
what you did for the poor.”

The latter adamantly opposed expanding Medicaid under the ACA, and his
speeches are compendiums of every right-wing bromide party activists
demand. “We need a president who — on the first day in office — will call
on Congress to pass a full repeal of Obamacare,” this hopeful declared when
he announced his candidacy last week. “Next, we need to rein in the federal
government’s out-of-control regulations that are like a wet blanket on the
economy.” And on he went.

Now: Guess which one is seen as a top contender, and which is dismissed as
the darkest of dark horses? Which one was running third behind only Jeb
Bush and Donald Trump in the Real Clear Politics poll average as of Sunday,
and which one was in 12th place with all of 1.5 percent?

You have no doubt figured out that I’m talking about John Kasich of Ohio,
who is expected to announce his candidacy on Tuesday, and Scott Walker of
Wisconsin. It’s telling about the contemporary Republican party: Kasich
would probably be the better bet in the general election but barely
registers in the surveys, while Walker has the better chance of winning the
nomination.

It’s preposterous to see Kasich as anything but a conservative. He was a
drill sergeant for Newt Gingrich’s Republican Revolution in the 1990s. When
Kasich was chairman of the House Budget Committee, “60 Minutes” produced a
segment about him titled “The Axman Cometh.” As governor, Kasich pushed big
tax cuts that included repealing the estate tax. (The Republican obsession
with protecting large fortunes is beyond me.) He also took on the unions
with what was known as Senate Bill 5 to end collective bargaining for
public employees.

And it’s on the labor question that the Kasich and Walker stories diverge,
in large part because of the accident of state election laws. In Ohio, the
unions could put Bill 5 directly to the voters, and they repealed it in
2011 by a 61-percent-to-39-percent landslide. A chastened Kasich
recalibrated.

Walker is best known for a very similar attack on public employee unions,
but Wisconsin had no provision for a comparable referendum. The unions felt
they had no choice but to organize a recall of Walker. Voters typically
don’t take well to recalls that aren’t a reaction to outright skullduggery
and corruption. Walker prevailed, and he’s been bragging about busting
unions and surviving ever since. Conservatives love him for it.

Kasich, by contrast, reached out to his previous enemies. When he was
endorsed by the Carpenters Union last year, Kasich said: “For too long,
there’s been a disconnect between people like me and organized labor.”
Walker is as likely to say something like this as he is to sing a rousing
chorus of “Solidarity Forever.”

When Kasich talks about his time as governor, as he did to my Post
colleague Michael Gerson last year, the things he brags about include his
work on autism, mental illness and drug addiction. He notes — the Almighty
again — that all his constituents “are made in the image of God.”

You can tell Kasich knows he will have to run a rebel’s campaign because he
has hired rebellious Republican consultants, including John Weaver, John
McCain’s campaign strategist who feuded famously with Karl Rove, and Fred
Davis, who specializes in offbeat (and sometimes controversial) political
commercials.

Kasich’s poll standing might well exclude him from one or more of the early
debates. That would be a shame. Perhaps there should be a Midwest debate
bracket. A Kasich-Walker confrontation would be especially enlightening.

“I have a little bit of a different message here,” Kasich said at a
Republican Governors Association meeting last year. Indeed he does. It’s
probably why he can’t win. It’s also why his party needs to listen.

*GOP field chases Iowa evangelicals
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/gop-field-chases-iowa-evangelicals-2016-republicans-120323.html?hp=t2_r>
// Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 19, 2015*

AMES, Iowa — After nine hours and 10 presidential candidates, evangelicals
were no closer to settling on a standard-bearer to support in the Iowa
caucuses by the end of the Family Leadership Summit on Saturday.

In the 2008 and 2012 Republican caucuses, Iowa’s Christian conservatives
played kingmakers by rallying decisively around alternatives to the party’s
establishment-backed candidate. But rather than helping them zero in on a
single candidate, the summit displayed the breadth of motivating issues —
from gay marriage to Benghazi to Common Core — and large number of
attractive candidates that are making it difficult for the bloc to
consolidate its influence.

“My hope is that the field will winnow down by caucus time, but there’s
really no reason to believe it will,” said Robert Cramer, who serves on the
board of the Family Leader, a group that promotes social conservatism and
the sponsor of Saturday’s event. “There might not be any clear consensus
candidate.”

In Iowa politics, where the group’s endorsement carries significant weight,
Family Leader President Bob Vander Plaats said he was not ready to declare
that progress had been made. “The summit was exceptionally insightful and
informative,” he told POLITICO. “We will see if it serves to begin
winnowing the field.”

In May, national evangelical leaders met in McLean, Virginia, to try to
settle on a single presidential candidate, even as they privately expressed
skepticism that it could be done.

Saturday’s summit demonstrated just how difficult it will be.

Conservative leaders singled out Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Arkansas
Gov. Mike Huckabee, the 2008 Iowa caucus winner, as the current
frontrunners among the state’s conservative Christian activists. But
despite the doubts social conservatives have expressed about Wisconsin Gov.
Scott Walker — he’s attended the reception for a lesbian wedding and a
questioner on Saturday challenged him for hiring pro-choice staffers — he
continues to lead in Iowa, including among white, born-again evangelical
Christians.

In a Quinnipiac poll conducted in late June, Walker had 18 percent support
among that group, followed by Cruz with 11 percent and neurosurgeon Ben
Carson with 9 percent.

It was Cruz and Carson, though, who had the most visible contingent of
supporters inside the Stephens Auditorium on the campus of Iowa State
University.

Cruz received a more enthusiastic reception than either Walker, Carson or
Huckabee when he sat down with the event’s emcee, Republican messaging guru
Frank Luntz — including a rousing standing ovation when he called for
investigating, prosecuting and de-funding Planned Parenthood after a video
was released this week showing an executive of the organization discussing
fetal tissue harvesting.

But Cruz is currently polling in eighth place in Iowa, according to the
RealClearPolitics average of recent surveys, behind all three of those
rivals.

And it was Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, currently polling 13th in Iowa, who
generated the most enthusiasm, receiving three standing ovations to Cruz’s
two. He received one for calling for a constitutional amendment to protect
religious freedom, but it was a line accusing the New York Times of going
soft on President Obama that brought down the house.

“I am critical when the mainstream media, when they don’t apply the same
standards to this president they apply to the rest of us,” said Jindal,
after he had said, “The next president has to be ready to fight the New
York Times, the ACLU, the Washington Post” and Luntz had pointed out a
Times reporter in the auditorium.

The warm receptions weren’t reserved for social conservative favorites.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham — a defense and foreign policy-oriented
candidate who has urged the Republican party to accept the Supreme Court’s
recent ruling legalizing gay marriage — brought the crowd to its feet by
attacking Hillary Clinton for her handling of the 2012 attack on the U.S.
diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Even the thrice-married, often profane Donald Trump, who invited Clinton to
his most recent wedding, found favor with attendees. Trump was booed by
some for saying that Arizona Sen. John McCain was “not a war hero” — a
comment that prompted a much larger firestorm outside of the summit — and
he struggled through a question about whether he had had ever asked God for
forgiveness.

But Trump had the crowd laughing and cheering at several points. Luntz
called out the mogul for his language when Trump questioned whether federal
bureaucrats “give a damn about education,” asking him, “Do you really want
to use that word in this forum?”

“I do … We’re so politically correct that we can’t do anything anymore,”
said Trump to loud cheers.

The willingness to entertain a range of candidates and the fractious effect
of a broad range of pressing issues speaks to the diffuse disaffection of
religious conservatives six and a half years into Obama’s presidency. It
follows a string of recent developments — from the Supreme Court rulings on
Obamacare and gay marriage in June, to this week’s nuclear deal with Iran
and release of the Planned Parenthood video — which the group considers
setbacks and all of which came up repeatedly on Saturday.

“They see more failures than successes,” Luntz told POLITICO in between
interviewing candidates and struggling to keep them from using language
that turned the tax-exempt summit into a campaign event (by the time Walker
concluded the day by telling the audience, “I ask for your vote,” he had
given up).

As a result of this palpable sense of discouragement, Luntz, who has been
conducting polls and focus groups among religious conservatives, said they
have less of an appetite for electoral politicking. “There is a greater
rejection of politics than I would’ve expected and a much greater embrace
of a philosophical approach.”

That mood could make settling on a pragmatic consensus candidate all the
more difficult.

If the current dynamics of the race in Iowa hold, the immediate beneficiary
of a splintered evangelical bloc could be Scott Walker, who is currently
ahead in the state and palatable to many evangelicals, even if he is not
the favorite among the most conservative activists. But the ultimate
beneficiary could be Jeb Bush, if he remains the national favorite of
moderate Republicans and the party establishment, and no clear alternative
emerges from Iowa with evangelical backing.

That would be just one more in a long series of disappointments for a group
looking for any shred of encouragement. “They want to win,” said Luntz.
“They desperately want to win, and I don’t mean politically.”

*GOP Candidates' Rosy 4 Percent Growth Goal
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/20/gop_candidates_rosy_4_percent_growth_goal.html>
// RealClearPolitics // Rebecca Berg - July 20, 2015*

Jeb Bush and other Republican presidential candidates have recently
introduced a lofty goal into their campaign platforms: 4 percent growth in
the country’s economy — or, in some cases, even more.

Most economists agree the number is arbitrary and implausible; many have
called it downright impossible. Now, Bush and others face the daunting
prospect of explaining their math, much of which hinges on policy proposals
that, at this early stage, are sketchy at best.

Bush tripped up for the first time last week when he said the 4 percent
objective would demand that Americans “be a lot more productive.”

“Workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows,” Bush
said during a meeting with the New Hampshire Union-Leader editorial board.
“Means that people need to work longer hours and through their productivity
gain more income for their families.”

Democrats immediately seized on the remark. In a major speech on the
economy this week, Hillary Clinton said Bush “must not have met very many
American workers.”

“Let him tell that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day or the
teacher who is in that classroom, or the trucker who drives all night,”
Clinton said. “Let him tell that to the fast-food workers marching in the
streets for better pay. They don’t need a lecture. They need a raise.”

Bush explained later that he was referring to workers whose hours have been
cut, and the Union-Leader backed up his logic. “Bush was exactly right,”
the paper’s editorial board wrote.

But the incident illustrated the policy contortions that will be required
of candidates pushing for 4 percent GDP growth or higher.

Pivotal to Bush’s argument is his record in Florida, where the state’s
economy grew at 4.4 percent while he was governor. But that pace likely
owed much to the housing bubble, which collapsed on itself in 2008 after
Bush left office.

“There is not a reason in the world why we cannot grow at a rate of 4
percent a year,” Bush said last month when he announced his candidacy. “And
that will be my goal as president.”

Other Republicans have echoed Bush’s economic optimism, many of them
latching on to the same number, 4 percent — a pleasantly rounded,
big-sounding number.

In May, Chris Christie unveiled his “Five-Point Plan to take America to 4
percent growth.”

In March, Ted Cruz told Fox News: “If we can get back to historic levels of
growth — 3, 4, 5 percent — suddenly, the federal budget picture transforms.”

Scott Walker followed suit last month. “I think we could go from the
stagnant growth we have today anywhere to upwards to 4.5 percent if with
did dramatic growth, pro-growth policies that are not just about reining in
taxes,” Walker told Fox News.

In economic terms, such a growth objective is rather shock-and-awe. Since
the economy began to rebound in 2009, growth has averaged just 2.2 percent.

“Let’s face it, 4 percent sustained economic growth would be out of range
of what we have had for most of American economic history,” said Allen
Sinai, co-founder of Decision Economics, where he is CEO and chief global
economist.

But if the threshold is something of a pipe dream in reality, it has often
been paid lip service in presidential politics by candidates who recognize
the persuasive power of a positive economic message.

During the 2011 presidential election, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty reached
for an even higher number than Bush: “Let’s grow the economy by 5 percent,
instead of an anemic 2 percent,” he wrote in a Chicago Tribune op-ed.

“It's been done before,” Pawlenty noted. “Between 1983 and 1987, the Reagan
recovery grew at 4.9 percent annually. Between 1996 and 1999, under
President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress, the economy grew at
around 4.7 percent annually.

That benchmark is not solely the creation of Republican candidates. The
Democratic Party and its candidate, John F. Kennedy, used the same number
to rally voters during the 1960 presidential election.

“We Democrats believe that our economy can and must grow at an average rate
of 5 percent annually,” the party platform read that year — setting a goal
of nearly double the average growth rate from the preceding seven years.

A 5 percent marker, and even 4 percent, has always been ambitious. But many
economists argue that it is even more so now in a changed economic
landscape.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that the economic
growth will average 3 percent in 2015 and 2016, with a dip in 2017 to 2.5
percent. Later, the outlook dims: Between 2020 and 2025, the CBO estimates
GDP growth at 2.2 percent, with labor growth stifled as baby boomers retire.

Economists who argue sustained growth at 4 percent is possible have pointed
to Reagan’s presidency, when the economy grew at nearly 5 percent. But
women at that time were entering the workforce in historically large
numbers, expanding the country’s productivity.

Underpinning the political argument for 4 percent GDP growth is not just
optimism alone, however, but a push for substantial changes to tax policy,
welfare, trade and spending, among other areas.

In the Wall Street Journal recently, Kevin Marsh and Glenn Hubbard, an
economist who has advised Jeb Bush, wrote that “setting a goal of 4 percent
growth invites meaningful policy contributions from those who would be our
leaders.”

“Many leading economic thinkers judge the economy’s underperformance as
unrelated to the policies adopted in the last several years. Instead, their
thinking goes, the economy is no longer capable of performing as in
previous recoveries,” Hubbard and Marsh wrote. “... We strongly disagree. A
more vigorous recovery from the financial crisis was an opportunity
squandered. Even today, the economy can grow at significantly higher rates
than the prevailing pessimism.”

But there is profound disagreement even over the magnitude to which policy
changes can grow the economy.

Last month, the International Monetary Fund presented findings that
reforming spending and revenue policies could grow advanced economies by ¾
of a percent. But Doug Elmendorf, a former director of the CBO and incoming
dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, cautioned in a response to
the IMF’s paper that such effects are often exaggerated.

“Economists should be careful not to overstate the potency of positive
policy changes, because subsequent disappointments can undermine people’s
confidence in economic analysis,” Elmendorf said.

To hedge expectations, perhaps, Republicans have so far sought to present
the 4 percent growth marker less as a promise than as something to aspire
to. But aiming for such nuance can be politically risky.

“If a candidate says, ‘I’d like to see 4 percent growth,’ it’s going to be
seen as a campaign promise,” said one Republican who has advised
presidential candidates on policy.

And each candidate will need to back up his promise with concrete
proposals, which will be subject to the full scrutiny of the electorate.

Some economists have practically dared them.

Gene Sperling, the diminutive former head of the National Economic Council
under President Obama, recently told the New York Times: “My personal goal
is to be six feet tall and have a six-pack stomach, but I don’t think most
people would think either Gov. Bush or myself have a very viable plan for
reaching our targets.”

*OTHER 2016 NEWS*

*Some surprising winners and losers in the 2016 fundraising race
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/winners-and-losers-in-2016-fundraising-race/2015/07/19/c7171316-2e1f-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html>
// WaPo // Chris Cillizza – July 19, 2015*

The results of the first major test of the 2016 presidential race were
announced this past week: the initial six months of fundraising numbers for
the slew of candidates running to be their party’s nominee next year and
for aligned super PACs.

As with any test, some people passed with flying colors. Others, well,
didn’t. Here are the winners and the losers of the cash dash for those
contests and other races.

WINNERS

● Jeb Bush

Sure, we all knew the former Florida governor was going to raise scads of
money, largely through his Right to Rise super PAC. But meeting such lofty
expectations is a lot harder than it might seem. The Republican’s $103
million raised through the super PAC is a stunning number and almost
certainly ensures that he will enjoy a considerable financial advantage
throughout the primary season. Money isn’t determinative for Bush or anyone
else, but his cash stash will allow him to overcome a slip-up in one of the
early states.

● Ted Cruz

Bush’s number is the biggest, but the senator’s haul may be the most
important. The Texas Republican’s $52 million raised puts him behind only
Bush — a spot that must thrill his team. Cruz is something we haven’t seen
in recent presidential contests: He’s the favorite of the base of his party
and has the money to stay within shouting distance of the
more-establishment candidates.

● Hillary Clinton

As with Bush, we knew the Democrat was going to have a massive quarter. And
she did it the hard way. She raised her $46 million through a federal
campaign committee, meaning that she collected it all in $2,700 chunks
rather than the unlimited donations that super PACs can accept. That is
pretty impressive. Yes, she does have some of the same problems with small
donors that afflicted her in the 2008 race against Barack Obama, but
there’s no President Obama in the 2016 race — at least fundraising-wise.

● Bernie Sanders

Guess who raised the second-largest amount of money through his campaign
committee of any 2016 candidate over the second quarter? Yup! The Bern. The
socialist senator from Vermont, who is running for the Democratic
nomination, has collected $15.2 million over the past three months. The
independent’s strength among small-dollar donors was a stirring contrast to
Clinton’s top-heavy, big-dollar donor base. Can he possibly keep it up?

●Todd Young

The Republican congressman from Indiana just launched his Senate campaign,
and he did so with a splash, pulling in $1 million in the second quarter
despite not being an official candidate yet. The even better news for
Young? Former state GOP chairman Eric Holcomb, the top party opponent and
erstwhile favorite, raised just $200,000.

● Michael Bennet

The vulnerable Democratic senator from Colorado pulled in more than $2
million in the second quarter — a very good off-year sum — and has $4.3
million cash on hand in his reelection bid. Perhaps more important, he
raised that as Republicans struggle to find a candidate.

●Russ Feingold

The Democratic former senator outraised Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), $2.2
million to $2 million, for a rematch of their 2010 race. Johnson
self-funded heavily last time but has said he won’t do so again. Given
that, the fact that Feingold ($2 million cash on hand) is already
approaching Johnson in total cash on hand ($2.75 million) means even more.

LOSERS

● Mike Huckabee

Every time people ask us about the top tier of candidates and we don’t
mention the former Arkansas governor, they inevitably say: What about
Huckabee? Well, here’s what about Huckabee: As someone who is near the top
of the pack in most national polling in the race, he raised $2 million,
with $6 million more coming in from his super PAC. Not so good. The
Republican has never been a good and/or committed fundraiser. Not much
appears to have changed this time around.

● Rand Paul

One of the arguments in the Republican’s favor has long been that he has a
deep and almost-exclusive fundraising base among the libertarian-minded
crowd that gave his father’s 2008 and 2012 presidential bids tens of
millions of dollars. The senator from Kentucky brought in $7 million for
his presidential campaign committee during the quarter, however, which is
not close to what some expected of him. (By way of comparison, Republican
contender Ben Carson raised $8.5 million through his campaign committee in
the same period.)

● Rick Santorum

This guy won Iowa in 2012! He won 11 states in the GOP nomination fight
against Mitt Romney! And yet in his first quarter of active fundraising for
2016, the former senator from Pennsylvania brought in only $608,000 and had
a meager $232,000 left in the bank. Ouch. Gut punch.

● Lincoln Chafee

The former Rhode Island governor and U.S. senator, who is seeking the
Democratic nomination, raised less than $30,000 from people not named
“Lincoln Chafee” in the second quarter. Um, what? Chafee’s meager — and
that’s being nice — fundraising total raises the question: If no one other
than you wants to invest in your candidacy, why are you running?

●Ohio Democrats

Anytime you see this headline — “Ted Strickland is far behind in the
fundraising goals advisers proposed” — it’s probably bad news. That was
written before the former governor, who is seeking his party’s nomination
to take on Sen. Rob Portman (R), announced a seven-figure quarter last
week. But he was still outraised by Portman, $2.9 million to $1 million.
And as a former governor, Strickland should really be able to tap into cash
more quickly. The other Democrat in the race, Cincinnati City Council
member P.G. Sittenfeld, saw a dip in fundraising, to $270,000, which
suggests that his campaign is in pretty rough shape.

*The Iowa Crisis the Candidates Aren’t Talking About
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/the-iowa-crisis-candidates-arent-talking-about-120337.html#ixzz3gODAxObj>
// Politico // Clay Masters – July 19, 2015*

As a parade of presidential hopefuls visits Iowa ahead of its
first-in-the-nation caucuses, the candidates are promising to fight for the
issues that matter most to Iowans. “What this election needs to be about is
making sure that America is once again a nation where people out here in
the heartland of this country are not forgotten,” Mike Huckabee told a
crowd at in Urbandale back in May. “This campaign isn’t going to be about
me, it’s going to be about Iowans and people across our country who are
ready for a better future,” Hillary Clinton wrote in a Des Moines Register
op-ed in April. “America at its best is when people pursue their dreams as
they see fit,” Jeb Bush said in Pella last month. “A farmer in Iowa sees
the massive regulation in their lives overwhelming them, making it harder
to make ends meet.”

Yet for all their love for everyday Iowans, none of the candidates is
getting anywhere near the biggest crisis to hit the state in years—one of
the worst animal health emergencies in U.S. history. That would be avian
flu, which since April has wiped out more than 30 million chickens and
turkeys in this top egg-producing state. There have been no new cases
reported for about a month, but egg prices have shot up and poultry farmers
have had to dispose of entire flocks, incinerate the dead animals and
rebuild their farms. Last month, Gov. Terry Branstad requested a
presidential disaster declaration for the four counties hit the hardest in
northwest Iowa, appealing to Barack Obama himself for federal aid. FEMA
denied the request and wrote the damage was “not of such severity and
magnitude that it could not be handled by the state”—leaving Iowans on
their own to make up for losses projected to exceed $1 billion.

You wouldn’t know any of this from campaign stump speeches. At the peak of
the outbreak in early June, a fundraiser for freshman Sen. Joni Ernst
(R-Iowa) drew a handful of candidates to Boone, in Iowa farm country.
Surrounded by corn fields, the speakers—Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, Marco
Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry and Ben Carson—went with
their usual speeches about smaller government, immigration and foreign
policy, but not the outbreak. This weekend, Democratic and Republican
candidates held court at two big multi-candidate events in the state, but
at neither was there a mention of avian flu or that the state’s denied
presidential disaster declaration.

Of course, there are other topics that come first for 2016 candidates on
the trail—the economy, immigration, Iran. But in Iowa, it’s not uncommon to
hear presidential hopefuls talk about issues that matter to farmers
here—wind energy or ethanol subsidies, for instance. Whether they think
bird flu has fewer national implications or that the rural counties most
affected by the crisis (and less frequented by presidential candidates)
aren’t as crucial electorally, it’s clear the candidates are leaving this
issue unaddressed—to some Iowans’ chagrin.

The candidates’ apparent indifference “reflects a general lack of
understanding and appreciation of where our food comes from for most of the
general public,” says Randy Olson, the executive director of the Iowa
Poultry Association and Iowa Egg Council.

Former Republican Party chairman Matt Strawn, a GOP strategist who hasn’t
committed to a candidate this cycle, suspects more political motives. He’s
surprised that, other than a well-funded and aggressive effort to highlight
the Renewable Fuel Standard (a federal program that regulates how much
ethanol to blend into gasoline), the candidates have given little attention
to the agricultural economy in Iowa in general, especially at a time of
“dark clouds on the ag economy,” including falling commodity and land
prices. Still, Strawn says, “Generally, when you’re dealing with hyperlocal
public policy or political issues, there is very little upside for a
national candidate to weigh into something that may well not have clearly
defined ideological lines.”

Still, this is a crisis that affects more than just Iowans. The federal
government has stepped in, for one thing. Although the outbreak was
initially blamed on migrating water fowl, officials now suspect that humans
broke biosecurity measures somewhere along the line and even that the virus
has been transmitted by the wind. In response, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture has assigned more than 2,300 staff to respond to the outbreak
and assisted poultry farms financially with the process of incinerating and
euthanizing affected birds. As of late June, all the commercial laying and
pullet facilities affected by the outbreak have been depopulated. The
agriculture department will also cover some of the catastrophic costs of
the crisis with a fixed price per animal lost. Iowa Senators Charles
Grassley and Ernst, both Republicans, held a congressional hearing days
before the Obama administration denied the presidential disaster
declaration, though there is no bailout legislation for Iowa pending in
Congress.

Then, there’s the economic impact. Surrounding states, like Minnesota and
Nebraska also experienced an avian outbreak and nationally, egg prices have
gone up. Even in Europe, prices are starting to soar because of the
increase in demand from the United States.

In Iowa alone, the $1 billion in expected losses assumes an annualized loss
of 34 percent of poultry production, says Iowa State University economist
David Swenson. Still, he cautions against over-attributing statewide losses
to localized tragedy; the more important figure, he says, is the loss of
GDP, which is still expected to be $327 million in the state. Although
Swenson says the economy should grow back to the level it was before the
outbreak once production resumes, more than 2,800 workers are expected to
have lost jobs in the meantime. The egg and poultry industry remains on
high alert, “bracing for the worst-case scenario across the country in the
fall where we might have it spread further east,” Olson says.

With that much money and that many jobs on the line, many farmers in the
midst of cleaning up their flocks don’t have their minds on politics. “I
haven’t paid any attention,” says Buena Vista County poultry farmer Dan
Ehlers, who lost 52,000 turkeys in his flock. “I’ve been too busy taking
care of my own affairs to pay attention to politics.”

Ehlers was one of dozens who attended a recent prayer supper in Buena
Vista, one of the counties hit hardest by avian flu. The crowd feasted on
pulled pork sandwiches and various salads as they listened to speeches from
local pastors, as well as Iowa Secretary of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship Bill Northey, who struck a comforting, if resigned, tone.

“Put your arms around the folks that went through this,” Northey said. “Let
them know there’s not a lot that you can do for them other than to let them
know you care.”

Turkey farmer Mark Herrig, who lost more than 40,000 birds, was listening
in the crowd. He says if there was anything he could tell those running for
president, it would be a plea for more open trade. Many countries have
placed partial or, in the case of places like China and Mexico, total bans
on U.S. poultry and egg imports—which Northey says is an overreaction.

“We need to find answers,” Herrig says. “If we can’t, we need to go to a
vaccination program, then we need our trade partners to work with us on
accepting our products that are vaccinated. … We all need to be able to
keep our own bird populations safe. We can do it in a way that doesn’t
destroy each other’s industry or trade relationships.”

True, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio have been talking
about trade while in Iowa—specifically, the proposed international trade
deals on the table. But when it comes to the trade issue that matters most
to Iowans now—the crisis that the candidates’ beloved everyday farmers are
dealing with every day—there’s been nary a peep on the campaign trail.

*'Too big to fail' a flashpoint in 2016 race
<http://thehill.com/policy/finance/248417-too-big-to-fail-a-flashpoint-in-2016-race>
// The Hill // Kevin Cirilli – July 19, 2015*

Too big to fail has emerged as a flashpoint in the presidential race, five
years after President Obama signed sweeping financial regulations into law.

Candidates on both sides of the aisle are vowing to end the massive
taxpayer bailouts that angered the nation after the 2008 economic collapse,
though they differ on their policy prescriptions.

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton vowed to “appoint and
empower regulators who understand that too big to fail is still too big a
problem” during an economic speech in Manhattan on Monday.

Jeb Bush said last month the “systematic risk is perhaps greater now than
it was when the law was signed” while talking to reporters in Berlin.

Clinton's Democratic challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Friday
that “if an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist” while
endorsing a policy from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that'd aims to
break up big banks.

And Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of
Hewlett Packard, told Breitbart in May that the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform law "=”has taken ten banks too big to fail and turned them into five
banks too big to fail.”

The rhetoric underscores how candidates are looking to tap into voters'
deep-rooted frustration and angst that's still prevalent seven years after
the financial crisis, said Jason O'Donnell, chief information officer at
Bluestone Financial Institutions Fund.

“The candidates are playing on the emotion of the public,” O'Donnell said,
noting that the slow pace of the economic recovery has left voters angry.

“They may want different solutions to 'too big to fail,' but they both hate
it,” said Michael Norbert, a financial services research fellow at the
conservative Heritage Foundation.

On policy, liberals have argued that Dodd-Frank didn't go far enough to
prevent more taxpayer bailouts. Conservatives argue that Dodd-Frank went
too far and ended up codifying too big to fail.

“It's very popular because on both the left and the right it plays into
many cases the extremist narrative that drive that smaller percentage of
people who turn out in presidential primaries,"”said Richard Farley, author
of Wall Street Wars: The Epic Battles with Washington that Created the
Modern Financial System.

Farley argued that politicians aren't capturing the whole truth of the 'too
big to fail' debate, noting the big banks are "generally safer" than
smaller financial institutions.

"But it's easier, I guess, for politicians to attack the fat cats on Wall
Street," Farley said.

*The Snapchat Elections Begin With Bernie, Hillary and Jeb
<http://recode.net/2015/07/19/the-snapchat-elections-begin-with-bernie-hillary-and-jeb/>
// Recode // Mark Bergen – July 19, 2015 *

In 2008, it was the Google election. 2012 was Twitter’s turn as the
campaign centerpiece. Facebook populism rang in the ’14 midterms.

And now, as 2016 approaches, prepare for the presidential politics of
Snapchat.

Enter Bernie Sanders, the lefty, 73-year-old Democratic contender chasing
Hillary Clinton in the polls. On Friday, the honorable Independent senator
from Vermont made his debut on the mobile app (though judging from his
expression, he doesn’t look entirely comfortable with the medium yet).

Politicians since time immemorial have done their glad-handing where the
voters are. And the young voters are on Snapchat. Sanders is following
behind Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, both of whom have made cameos in
Snapchat’s “2016” curated stories since announcing their elections.

Sanders’ press team told Re/code a Snapchat representative in Cedar Rapids
met with Sanders, took the picture and added it to Snapchat’s public story
for the election. Sanders team is considering whether they want to create a
Snapchat account for the Senator’s social media strategy. According to
Snapchat, neither Clinton nor Bush has created their own accounts yet so
their pictures and video were submitted by their staffers or users on the
campaign trail. Scott Walker, on the other hand, does have his own account.

The platforms, for their part, are game to help the pols out, particularly
when the ample campaign advertiser dollars are at play. In May, Snapchat
poached Rob Saliterman, a four-year veteran of Google’s political ad sales
and former George W. Bush operative, to leads its own GOP efforts. A month
later Snapchat ran its first ever political ad — a 10-second spot, paid for
by a nonprofit affiliated with House Republicans.

Of course, money also flows the other way. But, sorry Bernie. So far,
Silicon Valley’s campaign cash is mostly going to Clinton.

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS*

*What US leaders have never understood about Iran
<http://nypost.com/2015/07/19/what-us-leaders-have-never-understood-about-iran/>
// NY Post // Amir Taheri –July 19, 2015*

“American rulers have always dreamed of forcing us to change our behavior,
and failed,” Iran’s “Supreme Guide,” Ali Khamenei, said Saturday. “Five US
administrations took that dream to their graves. The present one shall have
the same fate.”

Khamenei’s analysis is not far off the mark. Successive American presidents
have worked hard to persuade the Khomeinist regime in Tehran to modify
aspects of its foreign policy, so far with no success.

The reason may be the inability or unwillingness of successive US
presidents, and a good part of the American political and cultural elite,
to properly understand the nature of the Khomeinist regime.

Jimmy Carter believed the Khomeinist seizure of power represented the
return of religion to the center of public life.

His administration described Khomeini as “a holy man” and “the Gandhi of
Islam.” Carter wrote letters to Khomeini “as a man of faith to a man of
faith.” He even ordered the resumption of arms supplies to Tehran.

We all know what that did to Carter.

President Ronald Reagan, who had visited Iran just a year before the
revolution, thought he knew Iranians better. He described them as “carpet
merchants and dealmakers.” Accordingly, he smuggled arms that the mullahs
needed to stop the Iraqi army from advancing farther into Iran. He also
sent a huge heart-shaped cake and a personally autographed copy of the
Bible to the ayatollah.

One result was the Iran-Contra scandal that rocked Reagan’s presidency.

Dealing with the aftershocks of that crisis, President George H.W. Bush
developed no policy on Iran beyond a number of secret talks that led
nowhere but reassured Tehran that the American “Great Satan” had been
neutralized.

President Bill Clinton saw the Khomeinist regime as “progressist,” a view
shared by many American liberals who think anti-Americanism is the surest
sign of progressive beliefs.

Here is what Clinton said at a meeting on the margins of the World Economic
Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in 2005: “Iran today is, in a sense, the only
country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that
the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”

And here is what Clinton had to say in an interview a bit later with
Charlie Rose:

“Iran is the only country in the world, the only one with elections,
including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where
the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the
vote in six elections: two for president; two for the Parliament, the
Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I
identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other
country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.”

Clinton and his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, apologized to the
mullahs for unspecified “crimes” committed “by my civilization” and removed
a raft of sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic after the seizure of
the US hostages in Tehran.

But what crimes?

Clinton summed them thus: “It’s a sad story that really began in the 1950s
when the United States deposed Mr. Mossadegh, who was an elected
parliamentary democrat, and brought the Shah back and then he was
overturned by the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving us into the arms of one
Saddam Hussein. We got rid of the parliamentary democracy [there] back in
the ’50s; at least, that is my belief.”

Clinton did not know that in the Islamic Republic that he so admired,
Mossadegh, far from being regarded as a national hero, is an object of
intense vilification. One of the first acts of the mullahs after seizing
power was to take the name of Mossadegh off a street in Tehran.

Apologizing to the mullahs for a wrong supposedly done to Mossadegh is like
begging Josef Stalin’s pardon for a discourtesy toward Alexander Kerensky.

Too busy with Afghanistan and Iraq, President George W. Bush paid little
attention to Iran. Nevertheless, in his second term he, too, tried to
persuade the mullahs to modify their behavior. His secretary of state,
Condoleezza Rice, sent an invitation, not to say a begging note, to the
mullahs for “constructive dialogue.” They responded by stepping up the
killing of US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq by local surrogates.

Needless to say, he did no better.

President Obama has gone further than any of his predecessors in trying to
curry favor with the mullahs. Even in 2009, when the regime’s paramilitary
units were massacring people in the streets of Iranian cities during a
nationwide pro-democracy uprising, Obama decided to side with the mullahs.

Earlier this month, Obama officially recognized the Islamic Republic as a
threshold nuclear state in exchange for dubious concessions by Tehran that
have not yet even been endorsed by Khamenei, who has every intention of
ignoring them at the first opportunity.

One key reason for misunderstanding the nature of the present regime in
Tehran is the failure to acknowledge that, for the past four decades, Iran
has suffered from a Jekyll-and-Hyde split personality.

As a people and a culture, Iran is immensely attractive.

Valerie Jarett, reputed to be Obama’s closest adviser, remembers Shiraz,
the Iranian cultural capital and the Florence of the East, where she was
born and grew up. Before the revolution, Shiraz, with its breathtakingly
beautiful architecture, was a city of gardens, wine and music with an
annual international art festival. How could one not love Iran through it?

Today, however, Shiraz, where John Kerry’s sister worked for years, is a
scene of public hangings and floggings, with its prisons filled with
political and religious dissidents.

The film star Sean Penn, acting as a part-time reporter, visited Iran and
wrote laudatory pieces. He saw Isfahan, the great former capital of Iran,
as something of a paradise on earth. Like Clinton he was impressed by
“incredibly progressive” people he met. What he ignored was that the
Islamic Republic has been top of the list in the world for the number of
executions and political prisoners.

Another movie star, George Clooney, praises Iranian cinema as “the only
original one” in the world. But he ignores the fact that the films he
admires, seen in festivals in the West, are never shown inside Iran itself
and that many Iranian cineastes are in jail or in exile.

The pop star Madonna sings the ghazals of Persian Sufi poet Rumi and
admires Iran. She ignores the fact that under the Khomeinist regime, Sufis
are assassinated or in jail or forced into silence.

Secretary of State John Kerry admires Iran because he knows it through his
Iranian son-in-law, who hails from a pre-revolution middle-class family. He
doesn’t know it is precisely such families that suffer most from Khomeinist
terror and repression; this is why many fled into exile.

As a nation-state, Iran has no problems with anybody. As a vehicle for the
Khomeinist ideology it has problems with everybody, starting with the
Iranian people. The Khomeinist regime makes no secret of its intense hatred
for Iranian culture, which it claims has roots in “the age of ignorance”
(jahiliyyah).

To admire this regime because of Iranian culture is like admiring Hitler
for Goethe and Beethoven and praising Stalin for Pushkin and Tchaikovsky.

This regime has executed tens of thousands of Iranians, driven almost 6
million into exile, and deprived the nation of its basic freedoms. It has
also killed more Americans, often through surrogates, than al Qaeda did on
9/11. Not a single day has passed without this regime holding some American
hostages.

Iran as a nation is a solid friend of America. Iran as a vehicle for the
Khomeinist revolution is an eternal enemy of “The Great Satan.”

The only realistic strategy for the United States would be to help it stop
being the Islamic Republic and become Iran again.

President Obama’s policy, however, points in the opposite direction. He has
made it harder for the Iranian people to regain their human rights.

Tehran getting missiles

If Iran does violate its nuclear agreement, it will be harder for the US to
stop it militarily.

Iran is buying five Russian S-300 long-range surface-to-air missile
systems, which can shoot down aircraft and intercept ballistic missiles.

The UN Security Council still needs to vote Monday on a resolution that
would endorse Iran’s nuclear deal but Russia — one of the council’s
permanent members — has already agreed to sell it the missile systems.

The deal was first inked in 2007 but then delayed by Russia after pressure
by the West and Israel when UN sanctions were imposed in 2010.

It’s unknown exactly which model of S-300 Iran will get (the original 2007
deal was for missile systems developed two decades ago), but the S-300 is
one of the most complex defense systems available.

Russia tried to claim in April that other countries should not fear Iran
arming itself.

“The S-300 is exclusively a defensive weapon, which can’t serve offensive
purposes and will not jeopardize the security of any country, including, of
course, Israel,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

But a S-300 can down aircraft flying at 90,000 feet, can track aerial
targets 150 miles away, and has a range of 93 miles, putting neighboring
countries at possible risk.

“It is proof that the economic momentum in Iran that will come after the
lifting of the sanctions will be exploited for arming and not for the
welfare of the Iranian people,” Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval
Steinitz said.

*Deal with the devil
<http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2015-07-19/deal-devil.html>
// The News-Gazette – July 19, 2015*

Whether one supports or opposes President Obama's nuclear agreement with
Iran, the simple, undeniable political fact is that it's going to be
implemented and the world is going to have to live with it.

How can that be when Congress has not yet begun its review of an agreement
that has most Republicans and many Democrats expressing reservations?

It's simple math. Even if Congress rejects the plan, President Obama can
veto that rejection. All Obama needs to sustain his veto is one-third plus
one vote of either the House or Senate. Given the hard-core cadre of party
loyalists Obama enjoys in both bodies, it's hard to imagine that his
inevitable veto will not be sustained.

Here's something else to chew on. Even before Congress begins its review,
Obama will take his case to the United Nations, where that body will repeal
its previous resolutions that impose bans and sanctions on Iran's nuclear
program.

Think of the international economic sanctions that crippled the Iranian
economy and brought it to the negotiating table as a modern-day Humpty
Dumpty. Once they come crashing down, they will be virtually impossible to
restore.

So given the leverage the U.S. has forfeited, the question then becomes
what does the U.S. gets out of this agreement? President Obama insists that
it will block Iran from gaining nuclear weapons for at least 10 years,
prevent a sure war between the U.S. and Iran and lay the groundwork for a
rapprochement between our two countries.

That's theoretically possible, but it assumes the Iranians intend to
strictly abide by the agreement's terms.

The U.S. has played this game before, trading tangible benefits for
promises of good behavior vis a vis other countries' nuclear programs.

President Bill Clinton reached a similar deal with North Korea during the
1990s.

"This is a good deal for the United States. North Korea will freeze and
then dismantle its nuclear program. The entire world will be safer as we
slow the spread of nuclear weapons. The United States and international
inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its
commitment," Clinton said when he announced the settlement of nuclear talks
with the Hermit Kingdom.

Americas know now, of course, that North Korea, which is led by an
unstable, ruthless regime, has nuclear weapons that it regularly threatens
to use.

In other words, North Korea viewed its accord as a mere scrap of paper that
opened a gateway to political subterfuge.

What assurance does the international community have that Iran will be any
different? Obama touts planned inspections, but the agreement establishes
all kinds of hurdles that must be cleared before inspectors can take a
look-see.

Why, if Iran is bent on compliance, is it so resistant to inspections? One
need not be unduly suspicious to conclude that it has no intention of
following the rules.

This is tough stuff. Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons for many years,
even as it relies on more tried and true techniques — terrorism and direct
military intervention — to influence the affairs of Iraq and Syria. But
it's also bragged that it will annihilate Israel one day while threatening
Saudi Arabia.

Israel already has nuclear weapons while the Saudis say they intend to
acquire them to re-establish a military balance with the nuclear Iran they
see in their future.

So rather than helping to stabilize a region of the world already in
turmoil, Obama's agreement appears to be unleashing an arms race.

Where this will go, no one can say. The Israelis view a nuclear Iran as an
existential threat and see this agreement as guaranteeing that Iran will
become a nuclear power — sooner rather than later.

President Obama considers it as a path to permanent peace, one that
reinforces his legacy of trying to turn enemies like Cuba, Russia and Iran
into friends.

That assumes that this country's enemies actually want to be friends.
Obama's proposed reset with Russia has failed, his passivity encouraging
Soviet leader Vladimir Putin to invade his neighbors in an effort to
restore the old Soviet empire.

Tiny Cuba no longer matters any more, its geographic significance lost in
the aftermath of the end of the Cold War.

As for Iran, its leaders routinely chant "Death to America," not exactly a
harbinger of glad tidings, while crowing that they got everything they
wanted in their nuclear deal with Obama.

A New York Times headline characterized this agreement as reflective of
"Obama's leap of faith." That it surely is. But he's taking this country
and the entire world along for the ride, and it looks like it's going to be
a very bumpy trip.

*TOP NEWS*

*DOMESTIC*

*For G.O.P., Pope Francis’s Visit to Congress Comes With Tensions
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/us/politics/for-gop-pope-franciss-visit-to-congress-comes-with-tensions.html?ref=us>
// NYT // Jennifer Steinhauer – July 19, 2015*

WASHINGTON — In the Reading, Ohio, neighborhood where Speaker John A.
Boehner grew up, nearly every house had two things on the wall: a crucifix
and a photo of the pope. “You never ever expected to meet the pope,” said
Jerry Vanden Eynden, a lifelong friend of Mr. Boehner’s. “In all of our
minds, the pope was the closest thing to meeting God in person here on
earth.”

When Pope Francis comes to Capitol Hill in September, he will be the first
pontiff to address a joint meeting of Congress, where more than 30 percent
of the members are Catholic. The visit will fulfill a long-held dream of
Mr. Boehner, who says only his working-class roots as a bar owner’s son are
more essential to his core than his Catholic upbringing. He has extended
offers to popes for the last 20 years, and Francis, after taking nearly a
year to consider, was the first to accept.

The pope’s visit comes with inherent tension for many Republicans,
including those who are Catholic. While he has made no changes in church
doctrine, Francis has forcefully staked out ideological ground opposite
that of Mr. Boehner and his party. He has excoriated the excesses of
capitalism as the “dung of the devil,” pleaded for action to stop global
warming and enthusiastically supported the new nuclear accord with Iran.

For Republicans, fiscal issues are more immediate and problematic. They are
pushing for spending cuts, including ones that would reduce funding for the
poor, setting up a fight with Democrats that could lead to a government
shutdown around the time of the pope’s remarks, which will be broadcast
live from the West Front of the Capitol.

Many Republican leaders have been quietly discussing their fears of a
spending fight or government shutdown during his visit. “That would be
awful,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and a Catholic. “My
hope is that we will all be infused with the spirit of St. Francis,” she
added, suggesting that Congress would perhaps be moved to agree on some
appropriation bills to avoid embarrassment.

For all the potential tension, Mr. Boehner remains thrilled, shelving
ideological differences to honor Francis, who might sound to most Americans
more like Bernie Sanders than Ronald Reagan.

“Well, listen, there’s one thing we know about this pope,” Mr. Boehner
said. “He’s not afraid to take on the status quo or not afraid to say what
he really thinks. And I can tell you this: I’m not about to get myself into
an argument with the pope. So I’m sure the pope will have things to say
that people will find interesting, and I’m looking forward to his visit.”

The pope’s speech to Congress — one of the most significant events of his
visit to the United States — will afford him a rare opportunity to deliver
a message at the seat of American political power, with a vast audience
around the nation. Before him will be 535 House members and senators who
dare not show even a whiff of disrespect during the speech, whether he is
imploring action on climate change or wading into the issue of abortion.

For their part, House Democrats, including their leader, Representative
Nancy Pelosi of California, who is also Catholic, have their own
disagreements with the pope, who opposes abortion and same-sex marriage.

More than half a century since John F. Kennedy told voters that he would
not be taking orders from the pope, Catholic politicians have had to
reconcile tenets of their faith with the imperatives of their politics.

On his recent trip through Latin America, Francis denounced aspects of
capitalism and human-caused climate change, echoing his encyclical, which
environmental activists praised. The pope has not been directly
confrontational with host countries, preferring to speak broadly about
political priorities, but his words are instantly scrutinized for signals.

While Catholic groups certainly insert themselves into the political
process — the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops labored to
prevent employers from being compelled to offer contraception as part of
standard health insurance, but supported Democrat’s ideas for immigration
reform — the Vatican’s views do not comport with the American left-right
political framework.

“There is a common perception that he is really shaking things up,” said
Mark A. Smith, who is a professor of politics and expert on comparative
religion at the University of Washington in Seattle. “But I read him as
really reiterating themes that have been part of Catholic doctrine for a
long time. At the end of the 19th century, the pope wrote an encyclical
that had a lot of themes about needing to take care of the poor and not let
business take over the world. He has put it back on the agenda.”

Mr. Smith added: “When he said about gays, ‘Who am I to judge,’ that looks
like it is certainly a new tone. But if you read deeper, for a long time
there has been this sense in the church that we are not going to condemn
people for their desires, only their behavior.”

For Mr. Boehner, a visit from the pope is the culmination of a religious
honor that he would never have expected, in the context of a job he could
never have dreamed about as a child.

Mr. Vanden Eynden, the speaker’s childhood friend, recalled daily Mass
during the school week: “There were the little old ladies and us.” The two
boys rolled up papers together at 2 a.m. for their Sunday paper route, and
then zipped off for 5:30 a.m. Mass before delivering them.

“We would sit up in the balcony because we were not dressed for church,”
Mr. Vanden Eynden said.

School papers during their years in Catholic high school were initialed
with J.M.J. (Jesus Mary Joseph), and prayers were said along the sideline
during football games with their intensely religious coach, who also made
players do the rosary on the way to practice in the car. “We still say Hail
Marys when we get together on the golf course,” Mr. Vanden Eynden said. Mr.
Boehner, who came from a working-class home with 12 children, also went on
Saturdays with his father to Cincinnati to distribute charity to the poor.

“John has been exposed to that from an early age on, that you help your
fellow man,” Mr. Vanden Eynden said. The message of the church of their
upbringing emphasized charity, but did not demonize wealth, either, he said.

“There is nothing wrong with being successful at all with Catholics,” he
said. “I am not sure this pope is saying that. If you go over to Europe,
the Catholic Church is pretty successful with what they own.”

*Inflation’s Steady Tick Poses Headaches in Congress
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/inflations-steady-tick-poses-headaches-in-congress-1437332395>
// WSJ // Josh Zumbrun – July 19, 2015*

The U.S. government has an inflation challenge.

Many familiar programs, from Social Security to income-tax thresholds, are
indexed to inflation and rise accordingly. Many dozens more aren’t, a
simple fact now causing heartburn among policy makers and politicians in
Washington.

Take three issues in the news: the federal gasoline tax, the minimum wage
and overtime pay. All are affected by the slow but steady tick of
inflation, prompting fights over whether it is time for Congress to adjust
them.

Federal statutes and the tax code are littered with dozens of examples of
thresholds and figures put in place decades ago. Left unchanged, they cause
an array of unforeseen consequences, including depleted funding for
infrastructure, less-generous pay for employees and higher taxes on Social
Security benefits.

Currently up for debate in Congress are measures to shore up the Highway
Trust Fund, which pays for much of the nation’s highway and mass-transit
projects and maintenance. The fund has been depleted because the federal
tax of 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline hasn’t changed since 1993, while
inflation has cut the real value of the tax by nearly 40% since then.

Each year the fund’s resources dwindle and the expense for Congress to keep
them on track increases. The House passed a measure last week that would
temporarily maintain the fund through December. Some senators, who will
debate the issue this week, favor a two-year extension that would be much
more expensive.

Both the minimum wage and overtime threshold—battlegrounds in the Obama
administration’s campaign to boost the middle class and reduce income
inequality—are set in fixed dollar terms.

In 2009, the minimum wage was raised to $7.25 an hour. Back then, that
amount went as far as $8 goes today. Even that is a cut from the 1960s; the
minimum wage then was the equivalent of about $9.50 today.

The overtime threshold has fallen ever further. In 1970, anyone earning
under $200 a week was eligible for overtime pay. That is the equivalent of
about $1,090 a week today, more than double the current threshold of $455 a
week.

The Labor Department has proposed that anyone earning less than $970 a week
should be eligible. That would be a huge jump that could suddenly require
many employers to pay overtime, or to retool their workforce to stop their
employees from working more than 40 hours a week. But it still wouldn’t be
as generous as the policy of the late 1970s.

The policy was established with the understanding that officials “will
raise the threshold to accommodate changes in the economy, or inflation, or
whatever,” said Ross Eisenbrey, a vice president at the Economic Policy
Institute, a liberal think tank that supports boosting the minimum wage and
overtime threshold. “And they’ve just stopped doing that.”

Democrats argue the overtime and minimum-wage measures will give workers a
much-needed pay boost, while Republicans warn that a big jump in either
measure could hinder employers’ ability to hire.

Even in an era of generally low inflation, thresholds in laws end up
changing drastically if left unchecked for years or decades. Most Americans
are acutely aware of this erosion. The median household earned $51,939 in
2013, according to the Census Bureau. In nominal terms, that is a record,
but adjusted for inflation, families earn $5,000 less than they did in 1999.

Inflation’s slow but inexorable creep tripped up Congress for years with
the alternative minimum tax, a levy designed to ensure wealthy people
weren’t avoiding taxes. Only about 20,000 people owed the AMT in 1970,
according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Because of inflation,
however, the tax began to apply to more households. By 2010, the AMT would
have hit 27 million families, barring new legislation. Congress applied
temporary patches nearly a dozen times before indexing the thresholds to
inflation in 2013.

Many important federal tax provisions are indexed, including income- and
estate-tax thresholds, the standard tax deduction and the earned income tax
credit. So are some spending programs: federal employee retirement programs
and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food
stamps.

But other provisions haven’t been adjusted in years. Mr. Eisenbrey, a
former commissioner of the Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission, cites the penalty a company can be charged for knowingly
putting an employee at risk of death, which was set at $70,000 in 1990 and
hasn’t been changed since. Thanks to inflation, that penalty is only half
as onerous today.

Social Security checks rise with the consumer-price index, but the
threshold for taxing those benefits was set in 1984. An unmarried Social
Security recipient has to pay tax if he or she earns more than $25,000 in
benefits and other income. In 1984, that threshold was the equivalent of
$54,000 in today’s dollars—what was once a tax that hit relatively well off
people now falls on seniors with much more modest incomes. Every year that
Social Security checks increase, a growing share is swept away by the
never-adjusted tax.

Inflation even helped ensnare former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. He was
indicted this year after federal officials caught him avoiding a $10,000
threshold for transferring funds. When the Bank Secrecy Act’s threshold was
established, in 1970, the figure was equivalent to more than $50,000 today.
Indexed for inflation, the transfers by Mr. Hastert might not have been
high enough to raise eyebrows.

“There’s a broader issue here of what you want to index to,” said Donald
Marron, director of economic policy initiatives at the Urban Institute and
a former member of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. For the
gas tax, “you might want something reflective of miles driven plus
inflation,” he said. But for income tax “you might want to index in
measures of income growth, not just inflation.”

A host of additional tax thresholds are fixed, including the brackets for
corporate profits. As inflation rises over time, more profits go to tax.
More recently, the Affordable Care Act imposed an additional tax on the
investment income of people earning $200,000 or more a year. For now, that
is a high income, but if left unadjusted for decades, it would sweep up
more middle-class households.

Even with low inflation, these aren’t easy decisions for lawmakers. The
issue hits home for Congress eventually, however. Congressional salaries
aren’t automatically adjusted for inflation either. Every year they erode a
little bit. After adjusting for inflation, today’s salaries for
congressional lawmakers are at a 25-year low.

*Same-Sex Couple Featured In Hillary Clinton Video Get Married
<http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/07/19/same-sex-couple-featured-in-hillary-clinton-video-get-married/>
// CBS Chicago // Dana Kozlov – July 19, 2015 *

A few months after a Chicago couple that was in Hillary Clinton’s campaign
launch video invited the candidate to their wedding, they got married
without her, reports CBS 2’s Dana Kozlov.

Jared Milrad and Nathan Johnson appeared in Hillary Clinton’s campaign
launch video. They represented her support of gay marriage. On Sunday, they
actually tied the knot.

They were surrounded by family and friends at Montrose Harbor this
afternoon. Absent, though, was the presidential candidate. They sent her a
Twitter invitation to their wedding today right after they publically
appeared in her campaign announcement video. They say they were honored to
be included in that and wanted to include her in their wedding day.

The couple says Clinton’s staff immediately got back to them with a sort of
‘we’ll see.’ In the end, she didn’t make it.

“She rightfully pointed out that if she came to the wedding, it might
distract from our special day so we understand she supports us,” said
Milrad.

Clinton did send them a congratulatory note.

Milrad and Johnson have been together for several years.

Being that they got married in a public space, Clinton’s attendance would
have likely caused quite a security nightmare on an already really busy
beach day.

*INTERNATIONAL*

*U.N. Vote on Iran Nuclear Deal Irks Congress
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/world/middleeast/un-vote-on-iran-nuclear-deal-irks-congress.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news>
// NYT // Michael R. Gordon and David E. Sanger – July 19, 2015*

WASHINGTON — During the closed-door talks in Vienna on limiting Iran’s
nuclear program, Secretary of State John Kerry argued that the United
Nations Security Council should not vote on lifting sanctions on Iran until
Congress had a chance to review the deal.

But he ran into a wall of opposition from Iran, Russia and even the United
States’ closest European allies, who argued successfully that Security
Council action should come first, according to Western officials.

On Sunday, as the Obama administration submitted the Iran nuclear agreement
to Congress for what promises to be a raucous 60-day debate, Mr. Kerry and
President Obama began grappling with the fallout of that decision, which
has complicated their efforts to secure much needed support within their
own party.

At least two senior Democrats have joined the Republican leadership in
complaining that the Security Council action, expected Monday morning,
would pre-empt the congressional debate. Their concern is that it would
signal the international community’s intention to dismantle the sanctions —
if Iran meets the nuclear terms of the accord — before American lawmakers
have had time to vote on it.

Asked if she thought Democratic lawmakers would support the deal, Senator
Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that
“the jury is out.”

Mr. Kerry expressed little sympathy on Sunday for congressional demands
that the Security Council delay its vote, insisting that lawmakers will
still have ample opportunity to carry out their review.

A provision inserted into the agreement at the behest of American
negotiators, he said, stipulates that the deal will not take effect until
90 days after the Security Council formally endorses the accord — giving
Congress time for action.

Mr. Kerry, a former senator from Massachusetts, scolded some of his
erstwhile colleagues. “It’s presumptuous of some people to suspect that
France, Russia, China, Germany, Britain ought to do what the Congress tells
them to do,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

“They have a right to have a vote” at the United Nations, Mr. Kerry added,
referring to his negotiating partners, who include the four other permanent
members of the Security Council, plus Germany. “But we prevailed on them to
delay the implementation of that vote out of respect for our Congress, so
we wouldn’t be jamming them.”

The congressional review, which formally begins on Monday, will focus on an
array of contentious issues, including the duration of the agreement, the
strength of inspection provisions and the procedures for reimposing
sanctions if the Iranians violate the agreement. Critics have also
complained that the lifting of sanctions and the eventual end of an arms
embargo will empower Iran to act against American interests around the
world.

In response, the White House has stepped up its campaign to argue that a
congressional rebuff would bring about the very outcome lawmakers want to
avoid: the collapse of sanctions and an Iran on the threshold of having a
nuclear weapon.

“If Congress says ‘no’ to this deal, then there will be no restraints on
Iran,” Mr. Kerry told “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “There will be no
sanctions left. Our friends in this effort will desert us.”

So far that argument has failed to impress Republicans, who have long
pressed for tough sanctions and have viewed the idea of the Security
Council voting first as an affront to the United States’ role as the
ultimate check on Iran.

But some Democrats have also voiced concern that the administration may be
trying to box them in by agreeing to swiftly proceed with a Council vote
that will reduce the international pressure on Tehran.

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, who chairs the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, and Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland,
the panel’s ranking Democrat, sent a joint letter to Mr. Obama last week
urging him to postpone the Council vote until after Congress has voted on
the accord.

Some legal experts, including those who have worked for Republican
administrations, say congressional fears that Security Council action would
tie the hands of the United States are misplaced.

The adoption of a new Security Council resolution that lays out the terms
for lifting United Nations sanctions, and which is already circulating in
draft form, would not legally require the United States to lifts its
sanctions on Iran, said John B. Bellinger III, who served as the legal
adviser for the State Department and the National Security Council during
the administration of George W. Bush.

“The draft resolution appears to have been carefully crafted by
administration lawyers to avoid imposing binding legal obligations on the
United States before Congress considers the JCPOA,” he wrote on the Lawfare
blog, using the abbreviation for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as
the Iran agreement is formally known.

The Obama administration had hoped to sidestep this highly charged
political debate by persuading its negotiating partners in Vienna to let
Congress vote first. But the Iranians wanted to ensure a Security Council
vote as soon as possible to get the international community behind a road
map for sanctions relief.

The Russians also wanted speedy action at the United Nations, if only to
underscore the authority of the Council and their own influence. For some
of the Europeans, Council action was seen as a way to reinforce the
multilateral character of the negotiations.

When the congressional review period doubled to 60 days after a July 9
deadline was missed, Mr. Kerry’s hopes of persuading the United States’
negotiating partners to delay going to the United Nations dimmed further.

The compromise American diplomats engineered — stipulating that the
“adoption date” of the agreement would come 90 days after the Security
Council endorsement — was intended as a way to provide time for Congress to
complete its review while accepting the allies’ argument that the adoption
of the Council resolution should be a significant step and not an
afterthought.

Even after an endorsement, United Nations sanctions would not be lifted
until the Iranians take the required steps under the deal.

As strenuously as administration officials have pressed their case, many in
Congress do not yet appear to be persuaded. On Friday, Representative Steny
H. Hoyer of Maryland, a senior Democrat in the House, joined House Speaker
John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, in urging that the United Nations vote
be delayed.

“I believe that waiting to go to the United Nations until such time as
Congress has acted would be consistent with the intent and substance of the
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act,” said Mr. Hoyer, the House minority
whip, referring to the legislation Mr. Obama reluctantly signed in May that
will give Congress 60 days this summer to debate the Iran agreement.

*War Crimes and Rwandan Realities
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/opinion/war-crimes-and-rwandan-realities.html?_r=0>
// NYT // Stephen W. Smith – July 19, 2015*

Gen. Emmanuel Karenzi Karake, the head of the Rwandan intelligence services
who is now free on bail in London pending an extradition hearing in
October, is an exemplar of the tightly knit group of diaspora Tutsis that
ousted Rwanda’s Hutu-dominated government and rose to power during the 1994
genocide. Once a victim of human rights abuses, he now stands accused as a
perpetrator. He is also a hostage — not of any justice system, but of an
increasingly lone and erratic dictator, President Paul Kagame, who uses and
abuses his inner circle as he grows more desperate to stay in power.

General Karake was arrested on June 20 at Heathrow airport on charges
brought by a Spanish investigative judge, who accuses him of crimes against
humanity and war crimes committed between 1990 and 2002 in Rwanda and the
Democratic Republic of Congo. In particular, he is suspected of ordering
the killing, in 1997, of three Spanish nationals working for the relief
organization Medicos del mundo.

The fact that General Karake was arrested in Britain, a country he has
visited with impunity for years, and hitherto one of post-genocide Rwanda’s
staunchest allies, suggests that Mr. Kagame himself is no longer beyond the
reach of international justice. It also shows that the fate of the two men,
so close for many years, is inextricably linked. General Karake has nothing
to gain from a break with Mr. Kagame, beyond a stiff sentence from a
foreign tribunal. But the reverse is equally true. Both men can only be
free and powerful in Rwanda.

The arrest was only the latest twist in the wandering life of Mr. Kagame’s
spy chief. Both men were raised in Uganda, where their parents sought
refuge after a revolution in 1959 led to the creation of a Rwandan “Hutu
Republic.” The young Mr. Karake earned degrees in business and
international studies from universities in Uganda and Kenya, and an M.B.A.
from the University of London before joining the Rwandan Patriotic Front,
fighting to reclaim power in Kigali. The civil war, started in 1990 by the
RPF, culminated in the massacre by Hutu extremists in 1994 of an estimated
800,000 civilians — mainly Tutsis but also Hutus who opposed the killing.

After the rebels took Kigali, Mr. Karake became a member of Mr. Kagame’s
inner circle — mostly English-speaking Tutsi returnees from Uganda — that
now rules Rwanda. But even as the new government won the favor of a Western
leadership riddled with guilt for failing to halt the genocide, Mr. Kagame
and his men orchestrated revenge killings. During the second half of 1994,
at least 40,000 Hutus were killed inside Rwanda. Between October 1996 and
May 1997, another 200,000 perished as they fled across Zaire, now the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Many died of hunger or disease or at the
hands of RPF fighters and their Congolese rebel allies, whom a U.N.
investigation accuses of crimes against humanity and possibly “acts of
genocide.”

In 2007, General Karake was appointed deputy commander of the African Union
peacekeeping force in the Sudanese province of Darfur. Though he was
promoted deputy commander of the larger U.N. mission in Darfur in January
2008, the United Nations was embarrassed by allegations by Human Rights
Watch that forces under his command had massacred Congolese civilians in
the battle for Kisangani in 2000.

Nevertheless, the U.N. extended the general’s tenure beyond its expiry in
October 2008 after Mr. Kagame threatened to pull the Rwandan contingent out
of Darfur. Both the United States and Britain, which have praised Mr.
Kagame for his efforts to lift Rwanda out of atavistic poverty, also
exerted pressure on the United Nations.Since then, in the face of an
increasingly vindictive and megalomaniac leader, the phalanx controlling
Rwanda has broken up. Many of Mr. Kagame’s closest supporters have opposed
the president’s iron-fisted methods on the grounds that they jeopardize not
only their own future but the future of the minority Rwandan community.
Rebuked and punished by Mr. Kagame, several of his former associates have
fled into exile. Some have been assassinated, including one of General
Karake’s predecessors, Col. Patrick Karegeya, who was murdered in a
Johannesburg hotel room on Jan. 1, 2014. General Karake fell from grace in
April 2010 when he was arrested for “immoral conduct.” Like many
colleagues, he was cashiered and detained, but eventually rehabilitated
after he was made to understand that his destiny is entangled with that of
his boss.

Mr. Kagame can’t leave office without risking arraignment by the
International Criminal Court, a threat from which even a trusted successor
could not shield him — and Mr. Kagame no longer trusts anyone. Ignoring
constitutional limits, he is orchestrating a “popular” movement to seek
another term in 2017. Another election “victory” lies ahead, unless justice
catches up with him. Thus the president is defending General Karake as if
he himself were being forced to remain in London. He has denounced his spy
chief’s arrest as a continuation of “colonialism” and accused the British
of “arrogance and contempt” for complying with what is in fact a legal
obligation.

Mr. Kagame has also called on his foreign allies for support. Cherie Booth,
former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s wife, leads the Karake defense team. Two
of the Rwandan leader’s most steadfast supporters have been Mr. Blair and
Bill Clinton, who has said that one of his greatest regrets as president
was not intervening to stop the genocide in 1994.

The post-genocide regime in Rwanda has many friends around the world for
understandable — and in most cases, honorable — reasons. Horrified as we
were by the bloodbath in 1994, and ashamed by our inability to prevent or
stop it, who would want to believe that the good face Mr. Kagame has put on
Rwanda — creating an image as a prospering and healing nation — is in fact
a lie? Today, opposition voices in Rwanda have been completely silenced.

Yet, it is precisely the outside world’s need for a soothing moral tale —
for a Manichean narrative to believe in — that betrays the reality in
post-genocide Rwanda and renders us complicit, yet again, in more
bloodshed. In a place where the absence of democracy and gross violations
of human rights have already led to the ultimate collective crime, we
simply cannot afford to continue to avert our gaze from Mr. Kagame’s
violent and arbitrary rule.

General Karake’s case is a searing reminder of the need to hold Mr. Kagame
accountable. He too belongs in the dock, standing trial before the
International Criminal Court in the Hague.

*U.S. Seeks to Allay Concerns of Allies on Iran Nuclear Deal
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-seeks-to-allay-concerns-of-alllies-on-iran-nuclear-deal-1437348465>
// WSJ // Carol E. Lee and Gordon Lubold – July 19, 2015*

The Obama administration has launched an aggressive campaign to try to
allay the fears of allies in the Middle East over the Iran nuclear deal.

Senior administration officials are making the strongest overtures to
Israel and Saudi Arabia. There have been repeated offers recently to
increase the $3 billion U.S. military aid package to Israel.

The U.S. is specifically looking at ways to expedite arms transfers to Arab
states in the Persian Gulf and is accelerating plans for them to develop an
integrated regional ballistic missile defense capability, a senior
administration official said.

One of the administration’s top challenges is to counter backlash over a
provision in the nuclear pact that would lift United Nations embargoes on
arms and ballistic missile technologies to Iran, in five and eight years
respectively.

The White House is seeking to ease Saudi Arabia’s anxiety over the Iran
deal to keep the oil-rich kingdom from trying to match Tehran’s nuclear
capabilities. President Barack Obama wants to assure that Israel doesn’t
launch a military strike on Iranian nuclear sites. The Israelis also exert
political influence in Congress, which can vote to approve or disapprove
the deal.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter was to arrive in Israel late Sunday for a
two-day visit—the first cabinet member to do so since the Iran deal was
reached last Tuesday. He will also visit Saudi Arabia later this week to
discuss security issues.

Both sides were braced for possible friction. Some Pentagon officials said
Israeli leaders could use Mr. Carter’s trip to further chastise the Obama
administration. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared on U.S. Sunday
morning news programs to lambaste the deal and defense officials held out
the possibility that Mr. Carter could personally bear the brunt of the
Israeli leader’s unhappiness.

“I think he would be unwise to do that with us,” said one senior defense
official. “But if the secretary has to defend the deal, he will.”

In Israel, top officials are expected to remain unwavering.

“Israel will not be timid in stating its views about this agreement,
because it affects the national security of the country,” said Dore Gold, a
former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations who recently became foreign
ministry director general.

A former senior Israeli security official said that Israel can’t afford to
look like it is accepting any form of compromise with the administration.

Secretary of State John Kerry will follow Mr. Carter’s visit to the region,
meeting early next month with his counterparts from the six-nation Gulf
Cooperation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman
and the United Arab Emirates.

The high-level talks are designed to set the agenda for a series of
meetings Mr. Obama is expected to hold with Middle East leaders, including
Mr. Netanyahu, in September around the annual United Nations General
Assembly, senior administration officials said.

Israeli officials are refusing to discuss with the White House additional
American military assistance at least until after Congress completes its
review of the Iran deal in September. Instead, Israeli leaders are training
their focus on pressing lawmakers to reject the deal and view entertaining
any new offers of military assistance as condoning the agreement.

“We have repeatedly offered to the Israeli leadership to hold these
consultations, including the president to the prime minister on their last
few calls, but they have made clear privately and publicly that they do not
want to engage in this conversation at this juncture,” a senior U.S.
official said. “Our offer still stands.”

U.S. officials said they don’t expect any serious discussions on new
military assistance for Israel during Mr. Carter’s visit. Mr. Carter also
will not be there to try to persuade Mr. Netanyahu to support the
agreement. Mr. Netanyahu has disparaged the deal as a “historic mistake.”

“We have a first-order difference of opinion whether this deal makes them
and us more safe; we believe it does, he believes it doesn’t,” a senior
defense official said.

By refusing to stand down, however, Israel could be forgoing hardware
prized by its military—a trade-off that might spur opposition to Mr.
Netanyahu’s tactics within Israel’s top brass. It also might mean missing
the opportunity to collaborate more closely with U.S. on implementation of
the agreement or influence the U.S. draft of an expected U.N. Security
Council Resolution codifying the deal.

“These are the dilemmas,’’ Mr. Gold acknowledged. “Right now, it’s too
premature to say what the Israeli policy will be in the coming period.’’

Mr. Carter, who has visited Israel numerous times in previous jobs, will
use his personal ties to Israel to provide assurances that the U.S. will
maintain its security commitments, officials said.

In addition to meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Carter will meet his Israeli
counterpart, Moshe Ya’alon. Mr. Ya’alon will host Mr. Carter at a military
facility in the north, along Israel’s border with Lebanon, to discuss the
security threat posed by Iranian-backed Hezbollah. The two are expected to
discuss ways to defend against the Shiite militant group and the readiness
of the Israel Defense Forces in the region, but not Mr. Obama’s offer of
new aid.

Mr. Obama spoke with Mr. Netanyahu on Tuesday after the Iran deal was
announced. He has also spoken with the leaders of Arab states and met last
Friday at the White House with Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister.

U.S. officials have been working with the Gulf states on a host of new
security guarantees and military cooperation following Mr. Obama’s meeting
with officials from Gulf nations at Camp David in May. They met last month
on new measures involving maritime and cyberthreats, and U.S. officials are
studying the GCC’s existing ballistic missile defense capabilities to
develop a plan for an integrated system.

Another senior U.S. official said the U.S. and GCC nations have implemented
some of the measures agreed to at Camp David. The U.S. also plans to hold a
meeting with GCC officials in coming months to discuss expedited arms
transfers, longer-range military planning and how they can procure other
needed military capabilities.

Mr. Carter’s visit to Saudi Arabia isn't expected to include announcements
of new weapons deals. The Pentagon chief also will travel to Jordan this
week to discuss the fight against Islamic State.

The Republican-led Congress has 60 days to review and could vote on the
deal. Mr. Obama has said he would veto any resolution rejecting it.
Lawmakers then would need significant majorities in both chambers to
override the president’s veto.

In Tehran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday that Iran
will uphold its anti-American policies and continue to support regional
allies.

“Our policy regarding the arrogant U.S. government will not change,” Mr.
Khamenei said in a televised address to mark Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim feast
day at the end of the holy month of Ramadan. “We don’t have any
negotiations or deal with the U.S. on different issues in the world or the
region.”

His comments are being closely watched because he has final say in most
matters of state and could scuttle the agreement. He didn’t explicitly
reject its provisions, nor did he fully embrace the deal, an ambiguity that
appeared to both play to his hard-line base and appeal to Iranians who
support the negotiations.