Subject: Correct The Record Thursday August 28, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:01:29 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Thursday August 28, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

"Rand Paul's extremist views abroad and at home are dangerous.  His belief
in extreme isolation as a global neighbor and his extreme opposition to
raising the minimum wage and to giving a hand up to hard-working Americans
are wrong for our country, our people and our place in the world. Secretary
Clinton's work for American families at home and abroad speaks for itself.
Her vision and focus on our future is what Americans want." - Adrienne
Elrod

*Headlines:*

*CNN: “Labor's Trumka: Hillary Clinton is ‘very, very qualified to be
president’”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/28/labors-trumka-hillary-clinton-is-very-very-qualified-to-be-president/>*

“‘I think that Hillary did an excellent job as secretary of state. I think
she is very, very qualified to be president,’ [AFL-CIO President Richard]
Trumka said at a breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor.”

*Bloomberg Businessweek: “Clinton Would Benefit From Primary, AFL-CIO’s
Trumka Says”
<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-08-28/clinton-would-benefit-from-primary-afl-cio-s-trumka-says>*

“A ‘coronation’ of Hillary Clinton’s potential presidential campaign by
Democrats would hurt her chances of winning a race for the White House,
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said.”

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton allies lay groundwork in Iowa”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-allies-lay-groundwork-iowa-ready-for-hillary>*

“Clinton has no on-the-ground organization and only a skeleton staff of
fewer than a dozen people, so the super PAC Ready for Hillary is stepping
in to try to make Clinton’s return to the first caucus state a success.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Paul Ryan, interrupted”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/08/28/paul-ryan-interrupted/>*

“Ryan’s signings have differed from those of another potential 2016
candidate keen to raise her profile. Last week, Hillary Clinton managed to
sign around 800 copies of ‘Hard Choices’ in two hours at the Bunch of
Grapes bookstore in Vineyard Haven, Mass… Unlike Ryan, no critics turned up
to raise their concerns.”

*Time: “Women Find GOP ‘Intolerant,’ Report Says”
<http://time.com/3206821/republican-party-gop-women/>*

“The gender gap will be more troublesome [for the GOP] in the 2016
presidential election, especially if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic
nominee.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Rand Paul Targets Hillary
Clinton in Hawk Criticism”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/08/28/rand-paul-targets-hillary-clinton-in-hawk-criticism/>*

“Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.),stepping up his criticism of U.S. policy in
response to the rise of Islamic militants, Tuesday criticized Hillary
Clinton for suggesting that a more aggressive U.S. policy supporting rebels
in Syria might have impeded the militants’ rise.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton ‘eager to
shoot first in Syria’”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/08/28/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-eager-to-shoot-first-in-syria/>*

“Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is voicing sharp criticism of former secretary of
state Hillary Clinton's foreign policy in a new op-ed, writing that the
U.S. is ‘lucky’ Clinton's push to arm Syrian rebels didn't happen.”

*Politico: “Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton’s ‘shoot first’ policy”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/rand-paul-hillary-clintons-shoot-first-policy-110410.html?hp=l3>*

“Sen. Rand Paul is taking aim at Hillary Clinton on Syria, saying her
aggressive stance on arming the opposition as secretary of state could have
put the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in power.”

*The Hill: “Paul hits Clinton on 'shoot first' Syria policy”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/216146-paul-hits-clinton-on-shoot-first-syria-policy>*

“Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) criticized potential 2016 opponent Hillary
Clinton's Syria policy in an op-ed Wednesday, saying her stance was to
‘shoot first.’”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “The most important word in Rand Paul’s
attack on Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/28/rand-paul-just-went-after-hillary-clinton-for-being-too-hawkish-and-one-word-stands-out/>*

“The use of the i-word – ‘interventionist’ -- is what struck us most.”

*New Haven Register (Conn.): “Bill Clinton heads to New Haven Tuesday for
Democratic fundraiser to help Malloy”
<http://www.nhregister.com/government-and-politics/20140828/bill-clinton-heads-to-new-haven-monday-for-democratic-fundraiser-to-help-malloy>*

“Bill Clinton will be in New Haven at noon Tuesday at the Omni New Haven
Hotel at Yale to raise money for the state Democratic Party to help the
candidacy of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy who is in a tough race with Republican
Greenwich businessman Tom Foley.”

*Articles:*

*CNN: “Labor's Trumka: Hillary Clinton is ‘very, very qualified to be
president’”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/28/labors-trumka-hillary-clinton-is-very-very-qualified-to-be-president/>*

By Dan Merica

August 28th, 2014 10:57 a.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) - Richard Trumka is not ready to endorse Hillary Clinton
for president in 2016. But that may be because, as he says, "there is no
there, there."

At a breakfast with journalists on Thursday, the labor icon and president
of the AFL-CIO spoke highly of Clinton, the former secretary of state and
favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, but he did
raise some questions that he hopes Clinton will answer if she runs.

"I think that Hillary did an excellent job as secretary of state. I think
she is very, very qualified to be president," Trumka said at a breakfast
hosted by The Christian Science Monitor. "We watch every single day. And my
thoughts are it is too early to say. There is no there, there yet."

 Despite being laudatory, Trumka's comments should not be seen as an early
endorsement of Clinton.

"Would I say she is the favorite now? Yes," he said. "But I think anytime
anybody believes there is going to be a coronation, that is dangerous for
the candidate."

The AFL-CIO recently came to an agreement with all its member unions that
"no one will endorse [in 2016] until we say all of us are going to
endorse," Trumka said. Before doing that, the group wants to know where
candidates stand on raising the minimum wage, tax code reform and trade
issues.

Trumka said his group will be questioning all presidential candidates in
order to make their endorsement and will be looking in particular at the
candidates’ economic advisers.

"One of our biggest concerns is who the candidates economic team is," he
said. "If you get the same economic team, you are going to get the same
results and the same results aren't good enough for working people."

Support for The North American Free Trade Agreement, an agreement signed by
former President Bill Clinton in 1993, was among the top issues Trumka said
his group would look at as a negative.

Also on that list were support for "tax codes that favor sending jobs
oversees" and "people who think Wall Street are the be-all and end-all."

The AFL-CIO did not endorse Clinton when she ran for president in 2008, but
the group waited until the primary was nearly over to back her Democratic
challenger, then-Sen. Barack Obama. Other unions were split between the
candidates during the contentious primary.

Earlier this month, AFL-CIO Political Director Mike Podhorzer told
reporters that the group was withholding judgment on Clinton for now,
according to The Hill.

Clinton was not the only possible 2016 contender that Trumka spoke highly
of, however. The labor leader also said Sen. Elizabeth Warren was one of
the labor's most supportive friends in the Senate.

*Bloomberg Businessweek: “Clinton Would Benefit From Primary, AFL-CIO’s
Trumka Says”
<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-08-28/clinton-would-benefit-from-primary-afl-cio-s-trumka-says>*

By Michael C. Bender

August 28, 2014

A “coronation” of Hillary Clinton’s potential presidential campaign by
Democrats would hurt her chances of winning a race for the White House,
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said.

“Anytime anybody believes there’s going to be a coronation, that’s
dangerous for the candidate,” Trumka told reporters during a breakfast in
Washington hosted today by the Christian Science Monitor. “That’s not good
for the candidate. Because the candidate needs to be developing a
grassroots system and support around the country.”

Clinton, 66, has said she is considering a second presidential campaign,
and polls consistently show she’d be the favorite to win the Democratic
Party nomination. A primary fight would help her build a campaign network
across the U.S. before the 2016 election, said Trumka, head of the nation’s
largest labor federation.

“The deeper you go, the better off that candidate is,” he said. “And I
think, quite frankly, that’s precisely what she’s doing.”

Trumka said Clinton, a former U.S. senator representing New York, did “an
excellent job” as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state, a position
she held from 2009 to 2013, and that she’s “very, very qualified to be
president.”

He added that before the labor group makes an endorsement, he’d want to see
who Clinton picks for her economic team.

“If you get the same economic team, you’re going to get the same results,
and the same results aren’t good enough for working people,” he said.

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton allies lay groundwork in Iowa”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-allies-lay-groundwork-iowa-ready-for-hillary>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

August 28, 2014, 9:54 a.m. EDT

Ahead of Hillary Clinton’s first visit to Iowa since her failed 2008
presidential run, a pro-Clinton super PAC is doing everything it can to
boost the potential 2016 candidate in the key state.

In September, Hillary and Bill Clinton are headlining the annual Steak Fry,
hosted by retiring Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin. It’s a key fundraising and
party organizing event in a state where Clinton struggled during her last
bid.

Clinton has no on-the-ground organization and only a skeleton staff of
fewer than a dozen people, so the super PAC Ready for Hillary is stepping
in to try to make Clinton’s return to the first caucus state a success.

Earlier this week, volunteer phone bankers based in both Iowa and
Washington, D.C. started calling into Iowa to encourage supporters to
purchase tickets to the Steak Fry, according to the group.

And Wednesday night, former Iowa attorney general and gubernatorial
candidate Bonnie Campbell emailed Ready for Hillary supporters in the state
with a similar ask. Calling the event “Iowa’s most iconic political event,
and the unofficial kickoff to election season,” Campbell encouraged
supports purchase tickets in order to “honor Tom’s legacy, welcome the
Clintons to Iowa, and enjoy some great food while you’re at it.”

The super PAC’s campaign-style bus will also be at the event.

Tickets start at $30 for individuals ($15 for students) and go up to $500
for a “sponsor” level. Proceeds are divided between Harkin’s leadership PAC
and the Iowa Democratic Party.

Clinton came in third in Iowa in 2008 – that loss gave then-Sen. Barack
Obama the credibility he needed to challenge Clinton head-on during the
rest of the primary season. It’s a scenario supporters of Clinton hope to
avoid, should the former secretary of state decide to run again.

Ready for Hillary communications director Seth Bringman said the group will
also be getting increasingly involved in 2014 midterm races as Clinton
herself does. That will involve asking their supporters directly to get
involved with state coordinated campaigns, as well asking them to help
specific candidates whom Clinton endorses.

Iowa has several competitive 2014 midterm races, including for the Senate,
governor, and a few house seats. “She’s getting busier, which means we’re
getting busier,” Bringman said.

Clinton is also headlining at least three political events next month,
including one Democratic National Committee event with President Obama.
Another, held at Clinton’s Washington, D.C. home, benefits the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee. The third, to be held in San Francisco with
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi benefits the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Paul Ryan, interrupted”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/08/28/paul-ryan-interrupted/>*

By Sebastian Payne

August 28, 2014, 9:16 a.m. EDT

On Friday evening, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) wraps up his national book tour
at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. The $75
tickets for the dinner, lecture and book signing have already sold out, but
protesters will be waiting for him inside the library, and outside, too.

The former Republican candidate for vice president has been crisscrossing
the country throughout August to promote “The Way Forward,” his volume
examining the 2012 election and the future of the GOP. Ryan’s book has sold
just over 6,000 copies in its first week, according to Nielsen Bookscan,
behind two other new releases from conservative authors: “America” by
Dinesh D’Souza and “One Nation” by Ben Carson.

Book tours have long been a means of raising a politician's profile,
especially in advance of presidential elections. But the Ryan tour has also
offered some insights into what’s on the mind of Ryan’s critics and how the
congressman deals with their questions. Thanks to smartphones and YouTube,
it has been easy for a critic to turn up to a Ryan book signing and post
the results online.

Once upon a time, candidates, armed with just a spin doctor, only had to
deal with a reporter’s pen. Now, the threat of being caught out is far
greater, so candidates like Ryan are more cautious about what they say.
Gaffes can be posted online minutes after they happen, ready for
consumption by the national media. In effect, holding candidates to account
has been crowdsourced.

During Ryan's stops in Florida, several incidents were videoed and posted
online. In particular, Ryan’s vote against amnesty for the children of
illegal immigrants has riled United We Dream, a network of young immigrants
who live illegally in the United States. Their activists, who campaigned
for the DREAM Act granting them amnesty, went to a book singing in Florida
to quiz Ryan directly.

Denying amnesty “would put me and my sister up for deportation," said one
critic at a signing in Kissimmee, Fla. "We just have one question: Do you
want to deport my sister?”

Ryan dismissed the question and told the Dreamer to “read my book” before
he was shuffled off by security personnel. Another critic asked the
congressman, “Do you want to deport my brother?” Again, Ryan responded, “I
want you to read my book.”

A more bizarre incident took place in Pensacola, Fla. A senior citizen
tried to ask Ryan about Medicaid, but Ryan insisted on having his picture
taken with the woman. While the photograph was taken, she was berating him
for giving a “tax break of $5 trillion to millionaires and corporates
[sic]”. Ryan again did not answer the question, and the woman was
shepherded along after the photo.

At another Ryan book signing, an attendee asked, “I’m 61. Are you planning
any cuts to Medicare?”

“No, if you’re in or near retirement, nothing will change,” said Ryan.

As chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan was responsible for
creating spending plan that will cut $4.6 trillion of federal spending, of
which $2.7 trillion would come from reforming Medicaid and the Affordable
Care Act. But those above the age of 55 will not be affected, allowing Ryan
to say there are no cuts for senior citizens. Further proposed changes to
retirement programs for federal employees have also been controversial.

Blake Williams, the deputy communications director for Americans United for
Change, says Ryan is being targeted because of his support for the
“perennial GOP plan to replace guaranteed Medicare benefits with vouchers.”

“As we've seen from the video encounters with voters during the book tour,
Ryan is choosing to handle questions about his unpopular budget, which
rewards millionaires while punishing seniors by either blowing them off or
telling lies that he plans no benefit cuts,” he said.

Americans United for Change has confirmed that representatives from the
Service Employees International Union, Mi Familia Vota and Coalition for
Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles will attend Ryan’s lecture and book
signing at the Reagan libraryon Friday.

Ryan’s signings have differed from those of another potential 2016
candidate keen to raise her profile. Last week, Hillary Clinton managed to
sign around 800 copies of “Hard Choices” in two hours at the Bunch of
Grapes bookstore in Vineyard Haven, Mass. Although Clinton fans were
rapidly moved on in line, the former secretary of state briefly passed the
time of day with her fans. Unlike Ryan, no critics turned up to raise their
concerns.

Ben Carson, whose “One Nation” book is outselling “The Way Forward,” has
also been on book tour in August. In Concord, N.C, hundreds of fans turned
up to meet the former neurosurgeon and conservative grass-roots favorite.
Carson said he has been “overwhelmed” by the response on the tour.

A spokesman for Ryan declined to comment on the protesters who have dogged
the events but said he was pleased with how the tour had gone.

*Time: “Women Find GOP ‘Intolerant,’ Report Says”
<http://time.com/3206821/republican-party-gop-women/>*

By Maya Rhodan

August 28, 2014, 11:05 a.m. EDT

Female voters have sharply negative views of the Republican Party,
according to a new report of internal polling done by major GOP groups, the
latest sign of the gender gap facing the party as it tries to recapture the
White House in 2016.

Politico, which obtained a copy of the Republican polling, reports it found
that many women consider the GOP “intolerant” and “stuck in the past.” The
Republican groups that commissioned the polling, the Karl Rove-led
Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network, hosted eight focus groups
over the summer and survey about 800 registered women voters. Pollsters
found that 49% of women have an unfavorable view of Republicans, while just
39% feel the same about Democrats, Politico reports. The
establishment-friendly GOP groups are warning that Republican elected
officials “fail to speak to women in the different circumstances in which
they live” They’re advising officials to champion equal pay policies, and
suggesting Republicans change the way they handle the issue of abortion:
“Deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, then move to other
issues,” the report says.

Republicans are expected to easily keep their majority in the House and may
even recapture the majority in the Senate during the coming midterm
elections. But the gender gap will be more troublesome in the 2016
presidential election, especially if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic
nominee.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Rand Paul Targets Hillary
Clinton in Hawk Criticism”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/08/28/rand-paul-targets-hillary-clinton-in-hawk-criticism/>*

By Janet Hook

August 28, 2014, 11:01 a.m. EDT

Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.),stepping up his criticism of U.S. policy in
response to the rise of Islamic militants, Tuesday criticized Hillary
Clinton for suggesting that a more aggressive U.S. policy supporting rebels
in Syria might have impeded the militants’ rise.

“To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we
would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for
the Islamic State,’’ said Mr. Paul in an op-ed article in The Wall Street
Journal, referring to the militant group sweeping through Syria and
northern Iraq that is also known as ISIS. “We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn’t
get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change
in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS.”

Mr. Paul, who like Mrs. Clinton is likely to run for president in 2016,
also criticizes military hawks who dominate his own party.

Mrs. Clinton’s more-interventionist views have also under fire from liberal
Democrats. The emerging debate points to the prospect that 2016
presidential nomination will open foreign policy divisions within both
parties.

Mr. Paul alluded to that prospect in a Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the
Press when he called Mrs. Clinton a “war hawk.”

“I think that’s what scares the Democrats the most, is that in a general
election, were I to run, there’s going to be a lot of independents and even
some Democrats who say, ‘You know what? We are tired of war,’” Mr. Paul
said.

Mr. Paul maintained a low profile on the situation in Iraq in the aftermath
of  President Barack Obama’ recent decision to launch air strikes in
northern Iraq to protect U.S. interests and to aid a religious minority
under siege by ISIS forces. Mr. Paul’s first comments were noncommital,
saying that he believed Congress should have to vote for or against
airstrikes but that ”I have an open mind as to exactly what we do.

But in his interview Sunday and his article Thursday, Mr. Paul offered a
more full-throated denunciation of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.

“Shooting first and asking questions later has never been a good foreign
policy,” Mr. Paul said. “The past year has been a perfect example.”

He criticized the Obama administration for considering aid to rebels and
air strikes against Syria last year in order to undercut Syrian President
Bashar Assad, warning that regime change in Syria could have bolstered
rebels allied with ISIS.

“The interventionists are calling for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and
for the same Islamic rebels to lose in Iraq, Mr. Paul said. “Our Middle
Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next,
with little thought to the consequences. This is not a foreign policy.”

Mr. Paul’s anti-interventionist foreign policy views are seen as a
potential stumbling block in his effort to win the nomination of a party
long dominated by military hawks.

In his article, Mr. Paul took a swipe at “hawkish members of my own party.”

“Some said it would be “catastrophic” if we failed to strike Syria. What
they were advocating for then—striking down Assad’s regime—would have made
our current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only
regional counterweight to the ISIS threat.”

But his criticism of Mrs. Clinton’s view on arming Syrian rebels comes just
as she has been touting that policy as an example of her differences with
the Obama administration, which did not heed her advice when as Secretary
of State she argued for doing more to support moderate rebel factions.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton ‘eager to
shoot first in Syria’”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/08/28/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-eager-to-shoot-first-in-syria/>*

By Sean Sullivan

August 28, 2014, 9:25 a.m. EDT

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is voicing sharp criticism of former secretary of
state Hillary Clinton's foreign policy in a new op-ed, writing that the
U.S. is "lucky" Clinton's push to arm Syrian rebels didn't happen.

Paul wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Thursday that arming the rebels
could have put extremist Islamist militants in power in Syria.

"Those who say we should have done more to arm the Syrian rebel groups have
it backward. Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before
asking some important questions. Her successor John Kerry was no better,
calling the failure to strike Syria a 'Munich moment,'" he wrote.

The clash between Paul and Clinton offers a glimpse of a debate over
national security and foreign that could play out on the national stage in
the 2016 campaign, as both seriously consider a run for president.

As secretary of state, Clinton supported arming Syrian rebels in their
fight against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In a recent
interview with the Atlantic, Clinton said, “The failure to help build up a
credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the
protests against [Bashar al-Assad] — there were Islamists, there were
secularists, there was everything in the middle — the failure to do that
left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”

Paul argued that arming the rebels would have created a sanctuary for the
same extremists the United States is trying to defeat in Iraq.

"To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we
would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for
the Islamic State," he writes. "We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her
way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in
Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS."

*Politico: “Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton’s ‘shoot first’ policy”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/rand-paul-hillary-clintons-shoot-first-policy-110410.html?hp=l3>*

By Jonathan Topaz

August 28, 2014, 7:14 a.m. EDT

Sen. Rand Paul is taking aim at Hillary Clinton on Syria, saying her
aggressive stance on arming the opposition as secretary of state could have
put the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in power.

“To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we
would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for
the Islamic State,” Paul wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on
Thursday evening. “We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn’t get her way and the
Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new
regime might well be [ISIL].”

Paul, a potential 2016 presidential candidate who has distinguished himself
from the more hawkish foreign policy thinkers in his party, said such a
shift indicates that those who aggressively advocated regime change in
Syria last year lack “a reasonable degree of foresight.” Clinton, he added,
“was also eager to shoot first in Syria before asking some important
questions.”

In an interview with The Atlantic earlier this month, Clinton — who led the
State Department during Obama’s first term — said just the opposite,
arguing that failure to arm the Syrian opposition sooner “left a big
vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” The administration last
summer considered airstrikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s
regime, but with the recent rise of ISIL in that country, the White House
is now contemplating strikes against ISIL militants in Syria.

The Kentucky Republican criticized Clinton and the Obama administration’s
foreign policy as reckless, shortsighted and ineffective. “Our Middle
Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next,
with little thought to the consequences,” he wrote. “This is not a foreign
policy.”

*The Hill: “Paul hits Clinton on 'shoot first' Syria policy”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/216146-paul-hits-clinton-on-shoot-first-syria-policy>*

By Peter Sullivan

August 28, 2014, 10:18 a.m. EDT

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) criticized potential 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton's
Syria policy in an op-ed Wednesday, saying her stance was to "shoot first."

Paul argued in the Wall Street Journal op-ed that arming the Syrian rebels,
as Clinton advocated when she was secretary of state, would have
strengthened the militant group ISIS.

"To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we
would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for
the Islamic State," Paul wrote. "We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her
way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in
Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS."

He went on to say that "Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria
before asking some important questions."

The criticism continues an attack Paul has been making against Clinton.
Paul called Clinton a "war hawk" on "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

Paul also cautioned about the dangers of President Bashar Assad leaving
power, an outcome that President Obama has called for. Obama has also
ordered air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and is considering them against
the group in Syria. Paul previously said he has "mixed feelings" about the
Iraq strikes.

"This is not to say the U.S. should ally with Assad," Paul wrote. "But we
should recognize how regime change in Syria could have helped and
emboldened the Islamic State, and recognize that those now calling for war
against ISIS are still calling for arms to factions allied with ISIS in the
Syrian civil war. We should realize that the interventionists are calling
for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and for the same Islamic rebels to lose
in Iraq."

Paul has caused some worries in the Republican establishment about his more
restrained foreign policy. He used the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial
page is often a voice of that establishment, to argue for a foreign policy
more focused only on U.S. interests.

"A more realistic foreign policy would recognize that there are evil people
and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police
or solve every problem across the globe," Paul wrote. "Only after
recognizing the practical limits of our foreign policy can we pursue
policies that are in the best interest of the U.S."

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “The most important word in Rand Paul’s
attack on Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/28/rand-paul-just-went-after-hillary-clinton-for-being-too-hawkish-and-one-word-stands-out/>*

By Aaron Blake

August 28, 2014, 11:42 a.m. EDT

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is really good at making news, and he did it again
Wednesday night with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that, in part,
attacked Hillary Clinton for being too hawkish on Syria.

“To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we
would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for
the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the
Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new
regime might well be ISIS.

“This is not to say the U.S. should ally with [Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad]. But we should recognize how regime change in Syria could have
helped and emboldened the Islamic State, and recognize that those now
calling for war against ISIS are still calling for arms to factions allied
with ISIS in the Syrian civil war. We should realize that the
interventionists are calling for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and for the
same Islamic rebels to lose in Iraq. While no one in the West supports
Assad, replacing him with ISIS would be a disaster.

“Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act
against next, with little thought to the consequences. This is not a
foreign policy.

“Those who say we should have done more to arm the Syrian rebel groups have
it backward. Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before
asking some important questions. Her successor John Kerry was no better,
calling the failure to strike Syria a ‘Munich moment.’”

A few things here:

1) The use of the i-word -- "interventionist" -- is what struck us most.
This is a pretty clear indication that Paul intends to run in 2016,
especially in a potential matchup with Clinton, on a more actively dovish
foreign policy platform. It's also a pretty clear effort to differentiate
her approach from his, which is often labeled "non-interventionist."

"Interventionist" is also used in the title of the column, and it doesn't
strike us as having particularly positive connotations. Indeed, we're not
aware of too many foreign policy hawks who use that word to describe
themselves.

This might seem much ado about nothing, given that Paul is known to be less
hawkish. He has also been critical of Rick Perry and Chris Christie on that
count. But Paul has also long toed the line between the kind of
non-interventionism championed by his father, Ron Paul, and a more
middle-ground approach to foreign policy. And straying too far down the
non-interventionist road risks folks invoking another i-word:
"isolationism." It's a constant balancing act for Paul.

Bringing the word "interventionist" into the mix suggests that he is primed
for this debate and is trying to set the terms -- or at least the
terminology.

2) The turnabout here is striking. It's no surprise that Paul is a
different kind of Republican on foreign policy, but check out the
Democratic National Committee's response to his op-ed:

“Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Paul. Last week he criticized
American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil. This
week he's blaming the Obama Administration for another nation's civil war.
That type of ‘blame America’ rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a
conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in
the world. In fact, Paul's proposals would make America less safe and less
secure.

“Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be -- The
Rand Paul Doctrine: Blame America. Retreat from the World.”

MSNBC's Benjy Sarlin nailed it with this tweet:

“This DNC statement on Rand Paul could have been written word for word by
the RNC about John Kerry in 2004”

That's basically true. And in fact, Republicans did use that same verbiage
against Democrats who questioned the Iraq war during the 2004 campaign. In
the space of one Associated Press story, in fact, three different
high-ranking GOP campaign operatives used the "blame America" phrasing. And
Republicans back then regularly used the word "retreat" to define
Democrats' alternative approach to the war on terror.

It's still likely we'll never see a Clinton vs. Paul general election
matchup in 2016. But the foreign policy dynamics of that race (which Paul
can also use to differentiate himself in the GOP primary) would be
absolutely fascinating.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “The most important word in Rand Paul’s
attack on Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/28/rand-paul-just-went-after-hillary-clinton-for-being-too-hawkish-and-one-word-stands-out/>*

By Aaron Blake

August 28, 2014, 11:42 a.m. EDT

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is really good at making news, and he did it again
Wednesday night with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that, in part,
attacked Hillary Clinton for being too hawkish on Syria.

“To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we
would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for
the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the
Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new
regime might well be ISIS.

“This is not to say the U.S. should ally with [Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad]. But we should recognize how regime change in Syria could have
helped and emboldened the Islamic State, and recognize that those now
calling for war against ISIS are still calling for arms to factions allied
with ISIS in the Syrian civil war. We should realize that the
interventionists are calling for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and for the
same Islamic rebels to lose in Iraq. While no one in the West supports
Assad, replacing him with ISIS would be a disaster.

“Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act
against next, with little thought to the consequences. This is not a
foreign policy.

“Those who say we should have done more to arm the Syrian rebel groups have
it backward. Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before
asking some important questions. Her successor John Kerry was no better,
calling the failure to strike Syria a ‘Munich moment.’”

A few things here:

1) The use of the i-word -- "interventionist" -- is what struck us most.
This is a pretty clear indication that Paul intends to run in 2016,
especially in a potential matchup with Clinton, on a more actively dovish
foreign policy platform. It's also a pretty clear effort to differentiate
her approach from his, which is often labeled "non-interventionist."

"Interventionist" is also used in the title of the column, and it doesn't
strike us as having particularly positive connotations. Indeed, we're not
aware of too many foreign policy hawks who use that word to describe
themselves.

This might seem much ado about nothing, given that Paul is known to be less
hawkish. He has also been critical of Rick Perry and Chris Christie on that
count. But Paul has also long toed the line between the kind of
non-interventionism championed by his father, Ron Paul, and a more
middle-ground approach to foreign policy. And straying too far down the
non-interventionist road risks folks invoking another i-word:
"isolationism." It's a constant balancing act for Paul.

Bringing the word "interventionist" into the mix suggests that he is primed
for this debate and is trying to set the terms -- or at least the
terminology.

2) The turnabout here is striking. It's no surprise that Paul is a
different kind of Republican on foreign policy, but check out the
Democratic National Committee's response to his op-ed:

“Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Paul. Last week he criticized
American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil. This
week he's blaming the Obama Administration for another nation's civil war.
That type of ‘blame America’ rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a
conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in
the world. In fact, Paul's proposals would make America less safe and less
secure.

“Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be -- The
Rand Paul Doctrine: Blame America. Retreat from the World.”

MSNBC's Benjy Sarlin nailed it with this tweet:

“This DNC statement on Rand Paul could have been written word for word by
the RNC about John Kerry in 2004”

That's basically true. And in fact, Republicans did use that same verbiage
against Democrats who questioned the Iraq war during the 2004 campaign. In
the space of one Associated Press story, in fact, three different
high-ranking GOP campaign operatives used the "blame America" phrasing. And
Republicans back then regularly used the word "retreat" to define
Democrats' alternative approach to the war on terror.

It's still likely we'll never see a Clinton vs. Paul general election
matchup in 2016. But the foreign policy dynamics of that race (which Paul
can also use to differentiate himself in the GOP primary) would be
absolutely fascinating.

*New Haven Register (Conn.): “Bill Clinton heads to New Haven Tuesday for
Democratic fundraiser to help Malloy”
<http://www.nhregister.com/government-and-politics/20140828/bill-clinton-heads-to-new-haven-monday-for-democratic-fundraiser-to-help-malloy>*

By Mary E. O’Leary

August 28, 2014, 12:01 p.m. EDT

One party brought in a neighboring governor to boost their coffers, but the
Democrats have booked a former U.S. president.

Bill Clinton will be in New Haven at noon Tuesday at the Omni New Haven
Hotel at Yale to raise money for the state Democratic Party to help the
candidacy of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy who is in a tough race with Republican
Greenwich businessman Tom Foley.

The fundraiser, according to local sources, is expected to be closed to the
press, as were the fundraisers New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie recently held
in Greenwich to help the state Republican Party and Foley.

Christie supported Foley four years ago in his gubernatorial match up with
Malloy, a race he lost by less than 1 percent to Malloy.

The top donation Tuesday is expected to be $10,000.

The Democratic Governors Association, as well as the Republican Governors
Association have put money into the campaigns, with the governor
associations funding ads through independent Super PACs.