Subject: Correct The Record Tuesday January 6, 2015 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 08:43:35 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

Correct The Record Tuesday January 6, 2015 Morning Roundup:

 

Headlines:

 

Nashua Telegraph editorial: “Hillary, measured against the field”

“If Democrats want to take advantage of the disarray and divisions plaguing the Republican Party, they would be smart to unite behind their strongest candidate early and, just like four years ago, let the GOP beat itself to a pulp.”

 

Winnipeg Free Press: “Tickets to see Clinton selling fast”

“Tickets to see former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton speak at the RBC Convention Centre WinnipegJan. 21 are more than 90 per cent sold out.”

 

Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Will Voters Choose the Nixon Candidate in 2016?”

“My friend made this prediction with Hillary Clinton in mind, and for all the differences between her and Nixon the comparison is revealing.”

 MSNBC: “Defining ‘dynasties’ down”

“There’s a qualitative difference between Bush and Clinton is this area and it’s probably best not to lump them together too quickly.”

New York Times opinion: Keith Boykin, Clinton White House aide: “Not All Political Dynasties Are Equal”

“Of course, I will gladly support a dynasty that adds diversity to the White House and advances my political agenda, but our democracy will be better off with new names on the ticket.”

New York Times opinion: Dewey Square Group’s Mary Anne Marsh: “There Are Some Advantages to a Political Dynasty”

“Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton know their name is no guarantee of success. They have both lost elections before. If the 2016 election is Bush versus Clinton one of them will know what it is like to lose again -- and that makes a dynasty no different than any other candidate.”

 

New York Times opinion: Doug Wead, senior advisor to Ron Paul: “Political Dynasties Are an Affront to American Tradition”

“No Republican will attack the Democrats for allowing the Clinton family dynasty because that would anger the Bush family in their own party. If public figures in the Democrat Party decry the dangers of the Bush dynasty they risk alienating the Clintons, whose support they must have to be successful. Thus both the Clintons and the Bushes escape criticism because of the other.”

 

New York Times editorial: “Gov. Cuomo’s Expanded Horizons”

“Now he is reportedly planning to attend the annual gathering of financial and political bigwigs in Davos, Switzerland, later this month. And he has scheduled five international trade missions — China, Mexico, Canada, Israel and Italy. Those trips could help New York’s economy. They could also help fill a gap in the résumé of an ambitious politician who needs foreign policy experience.”

 

Politico blog: Dylan Byers on Media: “Van Susteren's Martin O'Malley conflict”

“Fox News host Greta Van Susteren appeared on ABC's ‘This Week’ on Sunday and touted Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley as ‘the big sleeper candidate’ of the 2016 presidential race. What Van Susteren did not say is that her husband is a longtime O'Malley friend and a donor to the Democratic governor's political efforts.” 

 

Articles:

 

Nashua Telegraph editorial: “Hillary, measured against the field”

By the Telegraph Editorial Board

January 6, 2015

Now that it’s 2015, it’s time to get serious about 2016, and for most Democrats that means saying a prayer that Hillary Clinton announces her presidential candidacy sooner rather than later.

Why? Because, considering the alternatives, she offers the party its best chance of retaining control of the White House until at least 2020. A quick scan of the alternatives proves that point.

By default, Vice President Joe Biden tops the list of possible Clinton challengers. No one is smarter, more knowledgeable or more experienced than Biden. But his “loose lips sink ships” reputation is a serious liability. There are people whose temperament suggests their talents are best served as a second banana or a foil to others. Biden is that kind of guy. While he has served President Barack Obama well, Biden has also had to apologize a time or two for off-the-cuff comments that embarrassed the administration. These blunders have undermined public confidence that he should be entrusted with being the most powerful and important leader in the world.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is emerging as the moral equivalent of George McGovern. She’s become the darling of liberal Democratic activists, particularly because of her hardline populist positions against Wall Street excesses. Warren preaches the political and financial systems are rigged against lower and middle class Americans and points to the ever-widening gap between the nation’s rich and poor as proof. Where she comes up short is on foreign policy experience, which, as we have seen over the past six years, is an important requirement to serving as president. Add to that the simple fact that she’s just too liberal for the country as a whole, and it’s clear she’s not someone Democrats want leading the ticket.

Speaking of being liberal, the next most recognizable name on the potential candidates list is Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The professed socialist is officially an independent, but he has said he might run for president as a Democrat. He hits on many of the same points as Warren but is viewed by most political observers as someone who seeks to influence the debate, rather than as a serious challenger for the nomination. If elected president, Sanders wouldn’t take office until he was 75 years old.

The next big name on the list is New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who just won reelection. He is the son of former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, whose decision not to run for president is viewed as helping thrust a then-little-known Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton into the spotlight. Cuomo can point to a Democratic friendly record on marriage equality, gun control and hydraulic fracturing, but he’s also could face ethics problems because of his interference in a commission assigned to investigation corruption in his administration.

After that, there is an ever-changing list of virtual unknowns or has-beens whom Republicans would cheer if they were chosen to be the Democrats’ standard bearer. Among that horde are outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Illinois U.S. Rep. Luis Gutiérrez, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

We could go on, but the point is clear. If Democrats want to take advantage of the disarray and divisions plaguing the Republican Party, they would be smart to unite behind their strongest candidate early and, just like four years ago, let the GOP beat itself to a pulp.

 

 

Winnipeg Free Press: “Tickets to see Clinton selling fast”

By Geoff Kirbyson

January 6, 2015, 3:00 a.m.

You’re running out of chances to see the woman who could be the most powerful person in the world in a couple of years.

Tickets to see former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton speak at the RBC Convention Centre WinnipegJan. 21 are more than 90 per cent sold out.

"Ticket sales have been great," said Christian Darbyshire, partner at Tinepublic, a Calgary-based events and communications company that's running the Clinton luncheon.

"We've just put some additional tickets out there."

This won't be your typical rubber-chicken meal, if for no other reason than a single seat costs $299.25, including taxes, and a table of 10 will set you back $2,992.50, also including taxes.

Clinton's 90-minute speech will be part of the Global Perspectives series, which is sponsored by CIBC.

Her schedule hasn't been finalized for her visit yet, but Darbyshire said he wasn't able to comment on when she gets in, where she'll be staying, who she'll be visiting or when she'll be leaving.

He also wasn't at liberty to discuss whether there would be members of the U.S. Secret Service on security detail while she's here, but it's entirely possible there will be more sunglasses-wearing men in dark suits talking into their shoulders than Winnipeg has ever seen.

Clinton is seen as a contender for the 2016 U.S. presidential race.

This won't be the first time Winnipeg has hosted a high-powered U.S. politician. Clinton's husband, former U.S. president Bill Clinton, spoke at a $1,100-per-plate dinner here in 2003 as well as another event at the Centennial Concert Hall.

 

 

Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Will Voters Choose the Nixon Candidate in 2016?”

By Stephen Sestanovich

January 5, 2015, 1:52 p.m. EST

With Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee about to enter the 2016 presidential race, I’m reminded of a friend’s joking prediction that next time around the American people may be looking for Richard Nixon. He meant that after a fling with more interesting leaders, the voters could decide on someone seasoned, predictable, and reliable–even someone they don’t feel too good about. That was Nixon in 1968–a political figure long out of office, associated with a distant administration, his career seemingly over but able to make a comeback in hard times.

My friend made this prediction with Hillary Clinton in mind, and for all the differences between her and Nixon the comparison is revealing. The former senator and secretary of state has got a lot of baggage, and many people dread her return to politics, but no one can say she’s unqualified. Clearly this same thought is tempting others to join the race. How else to explain the Mitt Romney boomlet of a few months back? Jeb Bush has many virtues, but he’s basically a Nixonian candidate too. Just when you thought we’d gotten the Bushes out of our system, they’re back. Remember the way people joked about Nixon’s re-emergence in 1968? “Tanned, rested, and ready.” That will, implicitly or not, be the Bush bumper sticker of 2016.

Both parties, of course, have a host of anti-Nixonian alternatives to choose from—candidates who can say to the electorate, Why go with someone tired and familiar when I offer you novelty and purpose? In addition to Mr. Huckabee, this group includes Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Elizabeth Warren, and Al Franken. All of them surely rail at the idea of letting a pair of resume-heavy baby-boomer has-beens fight it out for the presidency.

Yes, there are similarities between today’s national mood and the one that made Richard Nixon president in 1968. In 2016, the voters may again go for a candidate with whom they aren’t really happy. Yet the anti-Nixonians should not despair. For more than half a century the American people have picked their presidents differently. They spurn the time-tested, qualified candidate, gambling on someone they know relatively little about–someone fresh, different, even inspiring. That’s how Barack Obama became president. You could say the same of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and John Kennedy. We picked Nixon once. We don’t do it often.

 

 

MSNBC: “Defining ‘dynasties’ down”

By Steve Benen

January 5, 2015, 4:09 p.m. EST

Frank Bruni asked over the weekend whether “two dynasties” compromise our political “destiny,” and given the way next year’s presidential race may shape up, the New York Times columnist is hardly the only one asking.

“Jeb and Hillary. Hillary and Jeb. It’s getting to the point where a mention of one yields a reference to the other, where they’re semantically inseparable, presidentially conjoined. […]

“We’re a country of self-invention (that’s the myth, at least) in thrall to legacies and in the grip of dynasties, riveted by the mightiest surname in modern Democratic politics and its Republican analogue, imagining not just a clash of the titans but a scrum of the successors.”

The premise is a little shaky. For example, I’m not sure if the former Florida governor and former Secretary of State are so inextricably linked – the former left public office nearly a decade ago, and during that time, the latter has served as a respected U.S. senator and the nation’s top diplomat, with a very competitive national candidacy in between.

They don’t enjoy similar status in their respective parties, either. In 2016 polling, Hillary Clinton enjoys overwhelming Democratic support, while Jeb Bush, who hasn’t run a successful campaign in over 12 years, has underwhelming GOP backing, trailing Mitt Romney in every national poll that includes both of their names.

But more important is this notion of “dynasties.” Obviously, the prospect of a Bush and/or a Clinton seeking the presidency is going to lead to chatter about their familiar last names, but I’m not sure the parallels line up as neatly as many pundits want to believe.

Consider:

Jeb Bush is the grandson of a senator, the son of a president, and the brother of another president.

Hillary Clinton is the wife of a president.

Sure, one can argue that Clinton benefits from the association, but the whole point of a political “dynasty” is the inheritance – some are born into powerful families, and they parlay that status to advance their public-service ambitions.

That’s not a criticism – I’m not making a value judgment about dynasties – but neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton inherited much of anything in the way of political power and influence from their families. Jeb, on the other hand, has a very different background.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and there have been some important familial political dynasties in American history, which have contributed a great deal to the country. But there’s a qualitative difference between Bush and Clinton is this area and it’s probably best not to lump them together too quickly.

Postscript: George P. Bush, Jeb’s son, recently became Texas’ land commissioner. He’s the beneficiary of a legacy in ways with no modern parallel.

New York Times opinion: Keith Boykin, Clinton White House aide: “Not All Political Dynasties Are Equal”

By Keith Boykin

January 5, 2015

I was fresh out of law school in 1992 when I put a new job on hold and drove my old car from San Francisco to Little Rock to work on Bill Clinton's presidential campaign. It was an exciting generational conflict, pitting a charming 46-year-old governor against a 68-year-old president.

A 2016 rematch of these two marquee names would provide none of the generational tension, as a 63-year-old Jeb Bush faces a 69-year-old Hillary Clinton, but it would provide an exciting gender option.

Political dynasties are inevitable. A few names have prominently shaped American presidential politics: Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush and Clinton. Where you stand on these political dynasties often depends on where you stand politically. As a child, I swooned over Ted Kennedy's liberal challenge to Jimmy Carter in 1980, and today I'm ready for Hillary in 2016, but I had no enthusiasm for George W. Bush's 2000 campaign and have none for his brother Jeb's impending challenge either.

But even Clinton and Bush loyalists, if they're being as honest as Barbara Bush was last year, have to admit the concentration of power in so few hands is not good for democracy.

The Clinton dynasty, however, comes with an important advantage over the Bush dynasty. The economy created 21 million private sector jobs when Hillary's husband was in the White House, which compares well to the 462,000 private sector jobs lost when Jeb's brother George was president.

Today Clinton's biggest appeal may be her gender. After eight years with the nation's first black president, many Americans are eager to elect another history-making candidate and won't be as excited about another old white guy (sorry Joe Biden).

Of course, I will gladly support a dynasty that adds diversity to the White House and advances my political agenda, but our democracy will be better off with new names on the ticket.

 

New York Times opinion: Dewey Square Group’s Mary Anne Marsh: “There Are Some Advantages to a Political Dynasty”

By Mary Anne Marsh

January 5, 2015

Political dynasties are as old as America. The Adams, Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes and Clintons all have served in many offices including president.

While a famous name may get people’s attention, open eyes, doors and wallets, it isn’t a guarantee of success. Ultimately, every election is about trust. And you have to earn it. Voters want you to stand on your own two feet and make your case to earn their trust and their vote. The 2016 election is no different in this respect.

But it is in others. Voters may have the chance to choose between two dynasties. If Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton run for president, and win the nomination of their respective parties, voters will have a choice of individuals who know well what it is like to be president without ever holding the job.

That alone could be an advantage in this election. With the trust of institutions at an all-time low in public opinion, voting for someone who knows the job well may be an advantage in 2016. Voters won’t focus on the dynastic aspect of their candidacies, but rather on the direction they want for the country and whom they trust to get the job done. Just like any other election.

Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton know their name is no guarantee of success. They have both lost elections before. If the 2016 election is Bush versus Clinton one of them will know what it is like to lose again -- and that makes a dynasty no different than any other candidate. 

 

New York Times opinion: Doug Wead, senior advisor to Ron Paul: “Political Dynasties Are an Affront to American Tradition”

By Doug Wead

January 5, 2015

Political dynasties are a threat to democracy, corrupting the political marketplace and compromising the free exchange of ideas. The founding fathers warned against them and shunned all trappings of royalty.

One reason America has seen a rise in political family dynasties is that they have appeared in both political parties simultaneously, negating the natural political checks and balances.

No Republican will attack the Democrats for allowing the Clinton family dynasty because that would anger the Bush family in their own party. If public figures in the Democrat Party decry the dangers of the Bush dynasty they risk alienating the Clintons, whose support they must have to be successful. Thus both the Clintons and the Bushes escape criticism because of the other.

The national media, driven by profit, stay quiet in the face of dynastic claims because famous names sell.

But when Robert Todd Lincoln, son of the 16th president, was being promoted for the White House, Joseph Pulitzer opposed the idea vehemently in his New York World. “True democracy recognizes no claims of birth or name,” Pulitzer wrote. “The merits of the man, not the accident of his ancestry, should be the passport to positions of public trust under a republican government.” Pulitzer called the idea behind the promotion of Lincoln as “rotten Republicanism.”

The growing danger to our national security in Iraq and the exponential growth of Islamic terrorism can be seen as an unintended consequence of a president who was finishing family business with Saddam Hussein.

In the Middle Ages, a son would pick up his father's spear on the battlefield and finish the fight. But today’s spears have nuclear tips.

  

New York Times editorial: “Gov. Cuomo’s Expanded Horizons”

By The Editorial Board

January 5, 2015

Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York gave a politically important speech last week that got lost in the news that his father, former Gov. Mario Cuomo, had died that same afternoon. The speech — his second inaugural address — touched on some of the high points of his first term while laying out an ambitious agenda for his next four years.

Mr. Cuomo asserted that he had tamed a dysfunctional state capital in his first four years in office. “We made the government work,” he said, adding that the “we” included both “Republicans and Democrats who put New York first and political parties second, even in this age of hyperpartisanship.”

While he acknowledged that more remained to be done to address education, ethical failure and other state problems, much of the speech seemed pitched to a wider audience. In tones and cadence that reminded many of his father, whose oratory made him a national political figure, Mr. Cuomo said that it is important to look beyond New York because “the most severe problems we face go beyond the borders of our state.”

These problems include economic inequality, which calls into question “the American promise itself”, as well as racial discrimination in education and in the administration of justice. He described “two education systems”, one for the rich, one for the poor, adding that public education had become “the great discriminator” in some communities. He warned that the American justice system needs review and reform, not just in New York City or even in Ferguson, Mo., but nationwide. At risk, he suggested, “are the primary democratic institutions of this country.”

Perhaps inevitably, the breadth of the speech raised questions about Mr. Cuomo’s longer-term ambitions. In his first term, the governor did not seek national attention. He stayed mostly inside the state until last year when he went to Israel, Afghanistan and Puerto Rico. He has publicly dismissed talk of presidential aspirations and said that if Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks the Democratic nomination, he would not.

But now he is reportedly planning to attend the annual gathering of financial and political bigwigs in Davos, Switzerland, later this month. And he has scheduled five international trade missions — China, Mexico, Canada, Israel and Italy. Those trips could help New York’s economy. They could also help fill a gap in the résumé of an ambitious politician who needs foreign policy experience.

 

 

Politico blog: Dylan Byers on Media: “Van Susteren's Martin O'Malley conflict”

By Dylan Byers

January 5, 2015, 3:42 p.m. EST

Fox News host Greta Van Susteren appeared on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday and touted Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley as "the big sleeper candidate" of the 2016 presidential race.

What Van Susteren did not say is that her husband is a longtime O'Malley friend and a donor to the Democratic governor's political efforts. John P. Coale, a trial lawyer, has given $21,715 to O'Malley's "O’Say Can You See" PAC, which is dedicated to promoting O'Malley's record.

On Sunday's program, "This Week" host Martha Raddatz asked Van Susteren if there would be any suprises in the 2016 race.

"I actually think the big surprise is going to be the Democratic side of the ledger, whether or not former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton runs," Van Susteren said. "I'm actually not convinced -- I'm not convinced she's going to run and I think the big sleeper candidate is actually going to be Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland. I realize that the governorship was lost and that the Republicans in Maryland this last run that -- last run."

O'Malley has "been [to Iowa] a number of times. He's a knock-on-the-door type candidate.... So I think that he may be a sleeper," Van Susteren said.

As our colleague Ken Vogel recently reported, O'Malley's "O’Say Can You See" PAC paid $45,000 in the third quarter to a firm called Revolution Messaging "that created slick movie-trailer-style videos touting O’Malley’s record" and $32,000 "on a pair of finance consultants who specialize in part on high-dollar fundraising." Coale's $21,715 mostly in-kind contributions went to transportation.

UPDATE (6:14 p.m.): Van Susteren responds on her blog, in part:

First, all I said was that I thought he is a sleeper candidate.  I did not endorse him or say he was a good or bad candidate — just that I thought he might be running.   Second, most know my husband is friends with O’Malley and has contributed to him in the past. My husband is from Baltimore, Maryland (where Gov O’Malley was Mayor) and has known O’Malley for years.  My husband’s relationship with O’Malley goes way back and it (and his contributions) have been in the media many times.  By the way, my husband has also contributed to the Clintons over the years….and to Republicans, including Senator John McCain.   I don’t know what other contributions since frankly I don’t go through my husband’s checkbook and I also know all political donations are PUBLIC.  I am sure he has made other donations but the public nature of political contributions means you can’t be sneaky.

Third, it is MY husband, and not me.   I am not divorcing because of the way he spends his money. :)

 

 

Calendar:

 

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

·  January 6 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton attends fmr. Gov. Mario Cuomo’s memorial service (CNN)

·  January 21 – Saskatchewan, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce’s “Global Perspectives” series (MarketWired)

·  January 21 – Winnipeg, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Global Perspectives series (Winnipeg Free Press)

·  February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire)

·  March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes  American Camp Association conference (PR Newswire)

 

Sent from my iPhone