Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday December 3, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:01:25 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday December 3, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Bloomberg: “Hillary Clinton's Historic 2016 Primary Advantage in Two
Charts”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-03/hillary-clintons-historic-2016-primary-advantage-in-two-charts>*

“The press wants a race, and the left wants a race, but the Democratic
electorate isn't sure that it needs one.”

*Politico: “Delay of game”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/hillary-clinton-2016-elections-113285.html>*

“Despite a commanding lead among Democrats and the widespread expectation
that she’ll run, Clinton is still uncertain about whether to launch a
second run for president, according to several people familiar with her
thinking in recent weeks.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Elizabeth Warren Still a
Longshot in Possible 2016 Matchup”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/02/elizabeth-warren-still-a-longshot-in-possible-2016-matchup/>*

“Mrs. Clinton is in a more dominant position than was the case eight years
ago, when she was also seen as the inevitable nominee (only to lose the
nomination to then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois).”

*Washington Post blog: The Switch: “Can political groups raise money for
the mere idea of a woman president?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/12/02/can-political-groups-raise-money-for-the-mere-idea-of-a-female-president/>*

“ActBlue, the Democratic online fundraising powerhouse group, is asking
federal election officials whether it can set up a system for allowing
fundraising on behalf of a female presidential candidate before knowing
who, exactly, the money would go to.”

*Dallas Morning News: “Cruz links Hillary Clinton to Obama as he blasts
U.S. foreign policy”
<http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20141202-cruz-links-hillary-clinton-to-obama-as-he-blasts-u.s.-foreign-policy.ece>*

“In the jockeying ahead of the 2016 presidential race, Sen. Ted Cruz
blasted the ‘Obama-Clinton foreign policy’ on Tuesday — taking aim at the
current president and the Democrats’ leading contender to replace him.”

*Wall Street Journal: “Sen. Rand Paul Says Foreign Policy Stance Puts Him
in Mainstream”
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/sen-rand-paul-says-foreign-policy-stance-puts-him-in-mainstream-1417555241>*

“Mr. Paul didn’t mention potential Republican competitors for president but
he did take a shot at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , who is
weighing another bid for the Democratic nomination. Mr. Paul called Libya
‘Hillary’s war,’ referring to Mrs. Clinton’s support for the 2011 bombing
campaign aimed at eradicating the Gadhafi regime.”

*New York Post column: John Podhoretz: “Why Hillary’s walk to the
Democratic nation is a sign of the party’s weakness”
<http://nypost.com/2014/12/02/why-hillarys-walk-to-the-democratic-nation-is-a-sign-of-the-partys-weakness/>*

"Mrs. Clinton will be the best-known person to run for the presidency since
Dwight David Eisenhower decided to go for it in 1952."

*Articles:*

*Bloomberg: “Hillary Clinton's Historic 2016 Primary Advantage in Two
Charts”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-03/hillary-clintons-historic-2016-primary-advantage-in-two-charts>*

By David Weigel

December 3, 2014, 9:14 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The Democratic frontrunner is running twice as strong as she
did at this point in the 2008 cycle.

There are oodles of silly tropes in politics, but in the winter of 2014,
this might be the silliest: “Hillary Clinton seems inevitable now, but
wasn't she inevitable last time?” It's a blinkered way of viewing
presidential politics, and the latest CNN/ORC International poll
demonstrates why.

First, the numbers. CNN's poll, conducted right before Thanksgiving with a
sample of “1,045 adult Americans,” finds the former secretary of state far
ahead of the Democratic field in a national ballot test. Clinton's at 65
percent support among Democrats, followed by Senator Elizabeth Warren at 10
percent, Vice President Joe Biden at 9 percent, Senator Bernie Sanders at 5
percent, Governor Andrew Cuomo, Governor Deval Patrick and (the only
candidate so far exploring a bid) former Senator James Webb at 1 percent,
and Governor Martin O'Malley with support too low to calculate.

[GRAPH]

There is no National Primary. There's an Iowa caucus, where Clinton's 3rd
place 2008 showing started the Obama wave, in large part by convincing
black voters that the Illinois senator could win. But about the national
poll—it shows a Clinton lead that has not diminished in what, the
punditocracy decided, was a rotten year for her. Her book was outsold by
Ben Carson's! Most of the candidates she stumped for lost! (They include
the Democratic gubernatorial nominees in Warren's and O'Malley's states.)
In November 2013, The New Republic's great Noam Scheiber published a cover
story that pronounced Warren to be “Hillary's nightmare.” The November 2013
CNN poll found Clinton at 63 percent and Warren at 7 percent. After 13
months of hype, Democratic voters have remain unmoved: A supermajority of
them favors Clinton.

How does this compare to the “inevitability” of 2008? Good question! In
late November 2006, CNN polled “1,025 adult Americans” and came back with a
ballot test. Clinton led with 33 percent; three other candidates were above
10 percent, stronger than Warren now.

[GRAPH]

It's just a national test, but the story's identical in the states—Clinton
with swollen leads in New Hampshire and Iowa. In Iowa her numbers are
better than twice as high as they were at this point in that cycle, when a
war-skeptical Democratic electorate was desperate for another choice. You
see why the discussion among the chin-strokers is about whether Clinton can
remain so aloof from voters and still win the nomination. The press wants a
race, and the left wants a race, but the Democratic electorate isn't sure
that it needs one.

*Politico: “Delay of game”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/hillary-clinton-2016-elections-113285.html>*

By Maggie Haberman and James Hohmann

December 3, 2014, 5:34 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Clinton’s speech schedule indicates 2016 announcement may be
months away.

The would-be 2016 presidential candidates are increasingly seeing the
benefits to waiting longer before declaring their intentions — including
the dominant person in the race, Hillary Clinton, who shows few signs of
making a decision before next year.

Despite a commanding lead among Democrats and the widespread expectation
that she’ll run, Clinton is still uncertain about whether to launch a
second run for president, according to several people familiar with her
thinking in recent weeks.

While some advisers suggested she should form an exploratory committee this
year to send a signal to donors, her allies who argued otherwise have won
the debate — with no committee expected until well after January 1, the
sources said.

“She should take her time,” said one adviser who believes that the
high-profile Clinton would only give license to her critics by becoming a
declared candidate too early.

Last time, Clinton felt pushed into the race earlier than she’d wanted to
be by Barack Obama’s January 2007 announcement of an exploratory committee.
Now she appears comfortable moving at a slower pace. She is still
scheduling paid speeches, as POLITICO first reported, as late as February
24 – suggesting she’s unlikely to be a declared candidate until after that
date. What’s more, the man she is expected to tap for a major role in her
campaign, current White House adviser John Podesta, has raised the
possibility of remaining in his job until after the State of the Union
address in late January.

Clinton could, in January, make clear she’s running but delay an
announcement. And if she doesn’t intend to run, she would be criticized for
harming the party’s chances of holding the White House if she waits much
beyond mid-January, several Democratic insiders said.

Clinton is by no means the only candidate waiting until next year. Other
than Jim Webb, the long-shot former Virginia senator who recently launched
an exploratory committee, the people likeliest to announce intentions now
are those who aren’t running.

That was apparent early Tuesday morning, when Ohio Sen. Rob Portman told a
local newspaper that he planned to seek reelection to the Senate instead of
launching a national campaign.

Portman’s decision will have little bearing on what other Republicans
decide to do in a field of up to 20 potential candidates. But at a moment
when national politics seems relatively quiet, it provided clarity that the
invisible primary is taking shape behind the scenes. Anyone considering
running is assessing their chances, talking to supporters and debating when
to make a move.

For the 2008 election, the last time there was an open White House seat,
candidates started announcing exploratory committees as early as December
2006, looking for an edge in a crowded field. In the 2012 race, with an
incumbent President Obama, most Republicans waited until well into 2011
before declaring their intentions.

The 2016 campaign is poised to look more like 2012 than 2008, with the
majority of the major candidates waiting at least until January to make an
announcement – and some saying they’ll put off a decision until summer. The
debates this cycle are unlikely to start until August, and the Iowa
caucuses may happen in February 2016, instead of January, giving candidates
an additional cushion.

“The benefits of starting early aren’t what they were eight years ago,”
said Republican strategist Chip Saltsman, who managed Mike Huckabee’s
dark-horse campaign in 2008. “For some of the bigger names out there,
they’re a known quantity and they don’t feel like they need to get out of
the box early.”

In 2012, former Minessota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was harmed by his early entry
into the presidential race, in March 2011. He faltered and ultimately
cratered at the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa over the summer. By contrast, Rick
Perry, the outgoing Texas governor, entered the race in August – giving him
no time to recover from serious blunders.

“I don’t think you’re going to see anybody go out before the end of the
year, and I’m not so sure you’re going to see anyone officially get in
until maybe late first quarter,” said Saltsman, adding that big money super
PACs alleviate the fundraising imperative and thus provide potential
candidates more time to weigh their options. “And I think the bulk of
people will get in during the second quarter.”

There is little question, in interviews with more than a dozen operatives
and donors, that Clinton is the dominant figure in both primaries. Some
Republican may see a window in early 2015, if she still hasn’t declared, to
try to position themselves as the strongest “anti-Hillary,” several
operatives said.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the libertarian favorite who has attracted
attention for his attempts to broaden the party’s reach among
African-American voters, announced Tuesday he will run for reelection. But
Paul’s decision is not just about looking like he wants to defend a seat –
if he runs for president, the time he spends raising money for his seat can
also work for a national race down the road.

On a conference call with reporters Tuesday, senior advisor Doug Stafford
said Paul, who has been the most transparent about his national ambitions,
is “still months away” from an official announcement on a White House run.

“He’ll make that decision in the early spring,” said Stafford. “We don’t
have an exact hard cut off on that.”

One issue for Paul is that legally he cannot be on the ballot for president
and Senate at the same time, but his team has satisfied itself that there
are ways around this.

Jeb Bush appears genuinely torn whether to give it a go. At a Wall Street
Journal event on Monday, he said he would decide “in short order, not that
far out into the future.” Bush learned earlier this year the dangers of
being perceived as a candidate too early: after he described illegal
immigration as an “act of love” by families, he was promptly eviscerated by
conservatives. He lowered his profile shortly after.

If Bush bows out, he’s expected to say so fairly soon; no word from him
would indicate that he’s learning toward running. But he doesn’t have the
luxury of waiting until, say, May, given the work involved in launching a
campaign operation and soothing Republican donors who are waiting to see
what he does before committing to a candidate.

Another formidable potential candidate, Republican Scott Walker, seems
poised to wait as long as possible before announcing. The Wisconsin
governor has kept on a host of aides from his successful reelection
campaign for a likely bid, but he said in a recent interview that a formal
announcement would not come until after a spring legislative session, and
possibly as late as midsummer.

His team feels no need to rush because Walker built relationships with the
donor class during his successful campaign to beat back an effort to recall
him from office.

“Rick Perry got in too late” in the 2012 election cycle, a senior Walker
adviser said recently. “Tim Pawlenty got in too early. So it’s all about
figuring out what’s just right.”

Many Republicans have expected that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would
make a decision shortly after the midterms. But he recently said he plans
to wait until after the first of the year.

Some donors believe Christie will move to form a committee sooner rather
than later to be the “first ask” with donors from whom he and Jeb Bush
would both seek support.

The GOP field has a key advantage this time around that no one other than
Mitt Romney had last time – existing donor networks. Former Romney adviser
Kevin Madden said the candidates eying a run seem to be moving at a “a more
measured pace” in hiring staff and lining up fundraising commitments.

“Many like Christie, Paul and Bush,” Madden said, already “have existing
core teams or a strong national fundraising base.”

There are a handful of other candidates who appear certain to run. Perry is
convening donors and seems likely to launch a campaign early next year,
given the work he needs to do to restore credibility after his disastrous
2012 run. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said in a statement that he’ll decide
“in the first half of next year.” Rick Santorum won the 2012 Iowa caucuses
and has made no secret that he’s running again, but the former Pennsylvania
senator is never going to raise huge money, so there’s little pressure to
enter the race early.

Huckabee, the 2008 caucus winner, would likely draw from Santorum’s support
if he ran. The former Arkansas governor has been speaking with donors and
is looking at a possible announcement in April or May if he runs.

As for establishment figures, Rep. Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin congressman and
2012 vice presidential nominee, has said he will wait until 2015 to decide.
People close to him believe he is giving it a close look, but would only
run if there is a clear path to the nomination.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has a book coming out on January 13, which will be
followed by a national book tour that’s expected to take him into the early
presidential nominating states. A formal announcement wouldn’t likely come
until after the tour ends.

Rubio is also up for reelection to the Senate in 2016 and has said he won’t
run for both offices. If Bush runs, Rubio’s fundraising and path to the
nomination would become much more difficult, potentially dissuading him
from a White House bid.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich is the only potential candidate who would appear to
benefit from Portman’s decision this week, giving him easier access to the
Buckeye State’s conservative donor network. Among those said to have spoken
favorably of Kasich privately is Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire News
Corporation and Fox News owner. A News Corporation official declined
comment.

Kasich, who briefly sought the presidential nomination in 2000 and just
skated to reelection, is about to launch a national tour to lobby other
states to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. He has
trips planned to states including Idaho, Utah and Wyoming.

“Right now the governor is preparing for a second term in office, he’s
writing the next budget for the state of Ohio, and he’s engineering Ohio
State’s national championship win,” said Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols.
“Needless to say, he has a lot on his plate.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Elizabeth Warren Still a
Longshot in Possible 2016 Matchup”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/02/elizabeth-warren-still-a-longshot-in-possible-2016-matchup/>*

By Peter Nicholas

December 2, 2014, 1:13 p.m. EST

No other prospective Democratic candidate comes close to threatening a
Hillary Clinton bid for the party’s presidential nomination, a new poll
shows.

A CNN/ORC survey shows that Mrs. Clinton commands 65% support from
Democrats and independents who lean Democratic. Far behind was Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), whose support stood at 10%. Ms. Warren is a
favorite of the Democrats’ liberal wing. Only 9% backed Vice President Joe
Biden.

The poll underscores the hard reality of 2016 Democratic presidential
politics: Though the party has a long history of contested nominations, no
one at this stage seems positioned to mount a serious challenge to Mrs.
Clinton.

Ms. Warren, for her part, has said she won’t jump in the race. Mr. Biden
has said he is considering a run.

Mrs. Clinton said she will announce her plans in the new year, though she
is widely expected to enter the race.

Democrats who seem more inclined to run trail Mrs. Clinton by even wider
margins. Former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat, announced last
month he was setting up a presidential exploratory committee. Mr. Webb
notched only 1% in the CNN/ORC poll. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who has
made repeated trips to Iowa and New Hampshire and is also mulling a
presidential bid, is actually losing ground, the poll shows. He had 2%
support in three different polls over the past year, but wound up with less
than 1% in the latest survey.

Should Mrs. Clinton decide not to run, Mr. Biden stands the most to gain.
The poll showed that if Mrs. Clinton were to bow out, 41% of Democrats and
those who lean that way would favor Mr. Biden. By contrast, 20% would
support Ms. Warren, the survey shows.

Mrs. Clinton is in a more dominant position than was the case eight years
ago, when she was also  seen as the inevitable nominee (only to lose the
nomination to then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois).

In the summer of 2006, a Gallup survey of Democrats showed Mrs. Clinton
with 36% support.  Ranking second was former Vice President Al Gore, at 16%.

As strong as Mrs. Clinton now appears, some  Clinton loyalists worry that
her public image is more blemished now than was the case when she served as
secretary of state.

A Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll from September, for example, showed
that her favorability rating had fallen 16 percentage points over the past
five years.

“It’s all well and good to be the front-runner, but that pales in
comparison to being the front-runner on election day,” said Doug Schoen, a
former pollster for ex-President Bill Clinton. “And right now her numbers
are not going in the right direction.”

The CNN/ORC poll interviewed a total of 457 Democrats and had a margin of
error of +/- 4.5 points. The survey was conducted Nov. 21-23.

*Washington Post blog: The Switch: “Can political groups raise money for
the mere idea of a woman president?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/12/02/can-political-groups-raise-money-for-the-mere-idea-of-a-female-president/>*

By Nancy Scola

December 2, 2014, 2:02 p.m. EST

ActBlue, the Democratic online fundraising powerhouse group, is asking
federal election officials whether it can set up a system for allowing
fundraising on behalf of a female presidential candidate before knowing
who, exactly, the money would go to.

This is how it would work: Democrats would chip in $5, $10, $50, $100 for a
generic, to-be-named female candidate. If, say, Hillary Clinton or U.S.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren got the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, she
would get whatever money had piled up.

But if, say, former senator Jim Webb was the Democrats' nominee instead,
the accumulated money would revert elsewhere -- perhaps to a group like
EMILY's List.

That cash could give a female candidate a little more incentive to run --
and the Democratic establishment a little extra motivation to rally behind
a female candidate. That's ActBlue's hope, anyway.

"If someone has a strong preference for a woman, but not for one candidate
over the other," says Steven Gold, ActBlue's general counsel, "this is a
way they could express that preference." ActBlue executive director Erin
Hill describes it as letting small-dollar donors shape the "marketplace"
for candidates.

The nonprofit ActBlue has received FEC approval for other unusual
fundraising strategies. The group was the first to establish "draft
campaigns" to raise money for candidates who had not announced they were
running. Warren, for example, had more than $100,000 in ActBlue --
collected donations waiting for her from one "Draft Warren" fund alone --
when she got into the 2012 race for the Senate.

Of course, gender can be a tricky thing. ActBlue told the FEC in its
application that it "looks forward to the day when a transgender candidate
mounts a viable presidential campaign, but for purposes of this opinion, we
respectfully request that the Commission treat gender as though it is
easily determined."

Founded in 2004, ActBlue has figured out how to use the Internet to extract
vast sums of money from Democratic donors. Donations can be as small as a
dollar, and the mean donation last election cycle was just $45, but ActBlue
has managed to raise more than $680 million in its decade of existence. The
platform's first great innovation was making it trivially easy for
campaigns of any size to tap into state-of-the-art online fundraising
technology and a networked base of ready donors. It's been pushing the
boundaries of what's possible with small-dollar, digital donations ever
since.

Republicans have tried to set up ActBlue equivalents over the years, but
none have stuck.

The FEC declined to comment on ActBlue's application as the request is
still pending.

*Dallas Morning News: “Cruz links Hillary Clinton to Obama as he blasts
U.S. foreign policy”
<http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20141202-cruz-links-hillary-clinton-to-obama-as-he-blasts-u.s.-foreign-policy.ece>*

By Todd J. Gillman

December 2, 2014, 10:11 p.m.

WASHINGTON — In the jockeying ahead of the 2016 presidential race, Sen. Ted
Cruz blasted the “Obama-Clinton foreign policy” on Tuesday — taking aim at
the current president and the Democrats’ leading contender to replace him.

“I guess Antarctica is doing OK,” Cruz joked. In a scathing critique, he
asserted that the rest of the world suffers from a lack of American
leadership — a vacuum that he said Russia, Iran, China and the Islamic
State terror group are eager to exploit.

“The failures of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy are manifest,” he said.
“If Saturday Night Live were parodying a hapless, ineffective president,
they couldn’t make things up worse. Just a few months ago, Jimmy Carter
criticized this president for being weak on foreign policy. Holy cow.”

Cruz was delivering the keynote speech at a lunch hosted by Concerned
Veterans for America, a conservative group, and the conservative magazine
The Weekly Standard at a hotel a block from the White House. Cruz has given
several such addresses and will deliver another next week at the Heritage
Foundation, a conservative think tank, as he burnishes his credentials for
a presidential run.

Tuesday’s speech included numerous references to Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Obama’s first secretary of state and the presumed Democratic front-runner
for 2016.

The Texas freshman, like Obama before he leapt from the Senate to the White
House, lacks executive and military experience. He offered a vision of a
far more muscular foreign policy. When the U.S. uses military force, he
said, there should be a clear objective, overwhelming force and a quick
exit.

“It is not the job of our military to produce democratic utopias around the
world. … Hunt down our enemies and kill them before they kill us,” Cruz
said. “That is a focus that sadly has been lacking the last six years.”

He asserted that Obama had allowed a “KBG thug,” Vladimir Putin, to flex
Russia’s muscles virtually unchecked. When Russia menaced Ukraine and
invaded Crimea, Cruz said, he would have hit back by expanding U.S. energy
exports to undermine Russia’s leverage over its neighbors.

When it comes to the Islamic State, Cruz accused Obama of pursuing a “photo
op campaign” against the terror group rather than a “serious, concerted,
real bombing campaign.” If he were in charge, he said, “We would be using
the boots on the ground or the peshmerga to hunt down and kill the
leadership of ISIS.”

Cruz blasted Obama for failing to speak out with “a clarion voice for
freedom,” especially religious freedom. He cited, as he often does, the
cases of Saeed Abedini, a Christian pastor imprisoned in Iran since 2012,
and others.

Amid reports that Obama will pick Ashton Carter as his next defense
secretary, Cruz asserted that the administration has treated Pentagon
chiefs “as subservient to political lackeys in the White House.”

“It is my hope that Mr. Carter will not give in to that,” he said.

Carter would be Obama’s fourth defense secretary. The turnover reflects “a
failure of leadership at a time when the world is on fire,” Cruz said. “We
shouldn’t see more turnover at the Defense Department than one has at the
typical Burger King.”

*Wall Street Journal: “Sen. Rand Paul Says Foreign Policy Stance Puts Him
in Mainstream”
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/sen-rand-paul-says-foreign-policy-stance-puts-him-in-mainstream-1417555241>*

By Beth Reinhard

December 2, 2014, 7:33 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Possible Republican Presidential Contender Speaks at Wall
Street Journal CEO Council Meeting

WASHINGTON—Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul , who is positioning himself for a bid
for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, sought Tuesday to present
a fine-tuned approach to foreign policy that he said puts him in the
mainstream of the country and his party.

Mr. Paul said he sees war as a “last resort,” seeking a middle ground
between his party’s traditional defense arm and a libertarian wing
skeptical of foreign entanglements. Congress needs to be consulted on
military actions and should approve defense budgets that don’t compromise
national security or increase the deficit, he said.

“I’m not going to apologize for this. If I’m ever commander-in-chief, I
will not want to take the country to war,” he told The Wall Street Journal
CEO Council’s annual meeting.

Mr. Paul’s support in September for airstrikes against the Islamic State
terrorist group in Iraq and Syria marked the first time since his 2010
election that he sided with President Barack Obama ’s use of military
force. His caution is a potential political liability in a party that
typically nominates candidates with a more muscular approach to foreign
policy.

To critics who call him an isolationist and could seek to block his path to
the nomination, Mr. Paul said, “That’s a caricature and I will have to
fight that.” He added, “I’m right there with most of the country and most
of the party.”

Support for U.S. intervention in foreign conflicts declined in the wake of
protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but public opinion started to
shift amid the rising threat of Islamic State and videos of the group
beheading civilians. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in September found
almost two-thirds of respondents believed it is in the nation’s interest to
confront the group, also known as ISIS.

Mr. Paul touted his recent request for a congressional declaration of war
against ISIS—a move that demonstrated his willingness to go to war while
reassuring his libertarian base that he would pursue limits on
executive-branch powers.

Mr. Paul accused a “docile” Congress of abdicating its responsibility and
said he introduced the war resolution “to shake them up a bit and say, ‘Hey
guys, this is our responsibility.’” Asked if the president needs to seek
congressional approval for every military action, Mr. Paul demurred,
saying, “I don’t think anyone can give a blanket answer to every possible
instance.”

He also declined to be pinned down on a percentage of the gross domestic
product that should be devoted to the military. During his first year in
the Senate, Mr. Paul proposed cutting military spending by 10%. He now
favors increasing the defense budget over spending limits set in the 2013
deal reached by Congress and the White House to avert a government shutdown.

“I’ll spend more money [on defense], as much as I can get out of Congress
if I were president,” he said. “However, I won’t do it and run up another
$10 trillion in the deficit. So it has to be done by cutting other parts of
government.”

Mr. Paul said he doesn’t favor increasing sanctions on Iran as the U.S.
continues diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the Iranian nuclear weapons
program, saying, “I think it would be a mistake to push them away from the
table.”

Mr. Paul’s position puts him at odds with at least one potential 2016
rival, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio , who wants to boost sanctions and has
tried to position himself as one of the biggest hawks in the nascent GOP
field.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), incoming House Ways and Means Committee chairman
and another possible GOP candidate, separately told the CEO Council he will
pursue an overhaul of the tax code next year focused on business rates.

Mr. Ryan also said Republicans would spend the next two years working to
build a GOP platform to sell to voters in the 2016 election and would
pursue broader changes to a variety of programs, including welfare, if they
win the White House.

Mr. Paul didn’t mention potential Republican competitors for president but
he did take a shot at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , who is
weighing another bid for the Democratic nomination. Mr. Paul called Libya
“Hillary’s war,” referring to Mrs. Clinton’s support for the 2011 bombing
campaign aimed at eradicating the Gadhafi regime. In a sign of the
continued instability in Libya, the U.S. had to evacuate its embassy there
this summer, Mr. Paul noted.

“Every time that we have toppled a secular dictator, it’s been replaced by
chaos and the rise of radical Islam,” he said.

Mr. Paul’s speech came just hours after he announced he will seek
re-election to the Senate, triggering a broadside from national Democrats.
Kentucky law forbids a candidate from running for two offices at once, but
Mr. Paul’s allies are exploring options to allow him to do so.

*New York Post column: John Podhoretz: “Why Hillary’s walk to the
Democratic nation is a sign of the party’s weakness”
<http://nypost.com/2014/12/02/why-hillarys-walk-to-the-democratic-nation-is-a-sign-of-the-partys-weakness/>*

By John Podhoretz

December 2, 2014, 7:12 p.m. EST

You’d have to be crazy, right now, to run for the Democratic nomination
against Hillary Clinton — but it would say something terrible about the
condition of the American polity if she doesn’t face a serious challenge
going into 2016 from within her party.

You’d have to be crazy because, according to the latest CNN poll, Hillary
is 55 points ahead — yes, I said 55 points ahead — of her closest rival.
She gets 65 percent to Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s 10 percent.

We’ve never seen numbers like this for any putative presidential candidate
before.

Even when Hillary herself seemed like a prohibitive front-runner for the
2008 nomination, she only led Barack Obama 33 percent to 15 percent in a
comparably early CNN poll (taken in the third week of November 2006).

What’s striking about 2016 is that Hillary’s service in the Obama
administration allowed her effectively to steal away the veep slot from Joe
Biden, who’s only five years older than she.

In the CNN poll, he gets only 9 percent, a vertigo-inducing 56-point margin
for Hillary.

Democrats aren’t stupid; they may be amused by Biden or even admire his
passion, but they know he’d likely embarrass them as their nominee.

They admire Hillary, not least because she is so roundly disliked by the
very people they dislike so much.

More important, her vote for the Iraq war, which gave Barack Obama the
opening he needed against her in 2007, will have been 14 years past by the
time 2016 rolls around.

What accounts for her colossal lead? Two decades as one of the world’s most
famous people, for one thing. Mrs. Clinton will be the best-known person to
run for the presidency since Dwight David Eisenhower decided to go for it
in 1952.

At the time, Ike was the most revered figure in American public life after
commanding the Allied forces in Europe in the Second World War and leading
the West to its victory over Nazi Germany.

Hillary is no Eisenhower, to put it mildly. Her tenure as secretary of
state featured no signature accomplishments and was marred (by her own
admission) by the security failures that contributed to the slaughter of
four Americans at the Benghazi consulate in 2012.

No matter, to Democrats at least.

In contrast to 2008, when she consciously chose not to trumpet her position
as the first serious female candidate for the nation’s highest office,
Hillary and her people are making it clear that her 2016 candidacy will
provide Democrats with a second historic opportunity to cast votes
representing social change, comparable to their votes for an
African-American in 2008.

So she’s golden.

And yet there’s something undeniably discomfiting about the ease with which
she’s sliding straight into the nomination without any evident friction.

Even Eisenhower faced a competitive field that included the governors of
California (Earl Warren) and Minnesota (Harold Stassen). Ike was never
assured of the nomination, and was challenged all the way to the national
convention in Chicago by Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio.

The presidency was up for grabs in 1952, since Harry Truman had chosen not
to run for re-election.

There have been five such open elections since. In all save the 2008 race,
vice presidents were in the running.

If one considers her the equivalent to Obama’s vice president, that too
should make her supporters confident: Her four “veep” predecessors all
secured their party’s nomination.

But they faced challenges.

Richard Nixon faced down Henry Cabot Lodge in 1960. Hubert Humphrey was
nearly toppled by Eugene McCarthy and might have been taken by Robert F.
Kennedy had RFK not been assassinated in June 1968. George H.W. Bush had
seven rivals in 1988 and lost Iowa and several more states to Bob Dole.

Only Al Gore skated into the nomination in 2000 after facing what turned
out to be a lifeless challenge from Bill Bradley.

Right now, Hillary’s token challenger is James Webb, a fascinating gadfly
with no known constituency in the Democratic Party. She might have another
in Sen. Bernie Sanders — who isn’t even a Democrat, but a Socialist.
Neither is a remotely serious rival.

This is disturbing because Hillary Clinton has no natural claim to her
party’s nomination.

She’s not even an especially gifted politician. Aside from the spectacular
incompetence of her 2008 campaign, she is as gaffe-prone as Dan Quayle and
as awkward as Bob Dole.

It doesn’t speak well of the health of the Democratic Party that she and
its voters seem to think she does have that claim. Rather, it’s a mark of
lifelessness, of a hardening of the party’s arteries.

*Calendar:*

*Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official
schedule.*

·  December 3 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton helps launch the “Security
Through Inclusive Leadership” event at Georgetown (International Peace and
Conflict
<http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/forum/topics/call-for-note-takers-security-through-inclusive-leadership-event>
)

·  December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts
Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)

·  December 5 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Saban Forum (CNN
<https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/539475682183880705>)

·  December 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton honored by Robert F. Kennedy
Center for Justice and Human Rights (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-ripple-of-hope-award-112478.html>
)

·  January 21 – Saskatchewan, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce’s “Global Perspectives” series (MarketWired
<http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/former-us-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-address-saskatoon-1972651.htm>
)

·  January 21 – Winnipeg, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Global
Perspectives series (Winnipeg Free Press
<http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Clinton-coming-to-Winnipeg--284282491.html>
)

·  February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at
Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire
<http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html>
)