Subject: ​Correct The Record Tuesday January 27, 2015 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:29:39 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Tuesday January 27, 2015 Morning Roundup:*

*Articles:*

*MSNBC: “In Iowa, GOP women take aim at Hillary”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/iowa-gop-women-carly-fiorina-sarah-palin-take-aim-hillary>*

“For their part, Clinton allies say the attacks are a sign Republicans may
feel threatened. ‘Republicans are rattled by the energy and excitement
shown by Americans across the country for Hillary Clinton’s potential
candidacy and her vision for our future,’ communications director Adrienne
Elrod of Correct The Record said in statement. ‘It is clear Republicans
have nothing of substance to say and that they’d like nothing more than to
distract from the GOP’s disunity.’”

*The Hill: “Pelosi: With Hillary Clinton, Democrats can win the House”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/house/230812-pelosi-with-hillary-dems-can-win-the-house>*

“Rep. Nancy Pelosi says Democrats can recapture control of the House in
2016 by riding Hillary Clinton’s coattails.”

*Politico: “Democrats criticize GOP handling of Benghazi committee”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/benghazi-committee-democrats-114618.html>*

“The issue is expected to come to a head on Tuesday during a hearing
reviewing the committee’s outstanding document requests where Neal Higgins,
the CIA’s director of congressional affairs, and Joel Rubin, deputy
assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, will testify.”

*Mother Jones: “Democrats Accuse Republicans of a Benghazi Cover-Up”
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/dems-accuse-republicans-benghazi-cover-up>*

[Subtitle:] “And they say GOPers on the Benghazi committee are holding
secret meetings with witnesses.”

*Politico: IT'S ON! Hillary Clinton rival ramps up in Iowa
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/martin-omalley-2016-iowa-114608.html>*

"And Jake Oeth, who until recently served as political director to former
Rep. Bruce Braley’s failed Iowa Senate campaign, was brought on board as a
consultant to O’Malley’s O’Say Can You See PAC after the November midterm
elections."

*New York Times: “Koch Brothers’ Budget of $889 Million for 2016 Is on Par
With Both Parties’ Spending”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html>*

“Allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who appears to be preparing for a likely
presidential campaign in 2016, expect that she will need to bring in more
money than President Obama, the most successful fund-raiser in presidential
history, and a ‘super PAC’ supporting her is seeking to raise as much as
$300 million in the coming months.”

*Los Angeles Times column: Robin Abcarian: “Hey, GOP: Using Carly Fiorina
to attack Hillary Clinton could backfire”
<http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-using-fiorina-to-attack-clinton-20150126-column.html>*

“If Fiorina plans to use her business record to bash Clinton, let alone as
a rationale for a presidential campaign, expect to hear more about her
stormy tenure at Hewlett-Packard.”

*The Hill: “Sanders heading to Iowa, NH”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/230785-bernie-sanders-heading-to-iowa-new-hampshire>*

“Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is heading to a pair of key early-primary
states as he ramps up consideration of a potential presidential run.”

*Articles:*

*MSNBC: “In Iowa, GOP women take aim at Hillary”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/iowa-gop-women-carly-fiorina-sarah-palin-take-aim-hillary>*

By Anna Brand

January 26, 2015, 12:10 p.m. EST

At Saturday’s Iowa Freedom Summit, the men in the ever-widening pool of
potential 2016 GOP presidential candidates used their speeches to call for
the best ways to crush Obamacare and immigration reform. But the women
focused on one target: the likely 2016 Democratic standard bearer, Hillary
Clinton.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, though relatively unknown in a
field of thunderous voices, is actively exploring a 2016 run – and in Iowa
she made it clear she’d be running as the anti-Hillary.

“Like Hillary Clinton, I too, have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles
around the globe,” Fiorina said of the former secretary of state, drawing
cheers. “But unlike her, I have actually accomplished something. Mrs.
Clinton, flying is an activity not an accomplishment.”

Only six of 24 speakers at the event were women – and none of them have
made waves as big as their male counterparts like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. (Missing from the event were notable
2016ers former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former presidential candidate Mitt
Romney.)

Fiorina lost the only political campaign she’s run so far when she
challenged Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California in 2010. But she
made headlines last summer when she launched a Super PAC, Unlocking
Potential Project, aimed at teaching her male Republican counterparts how
best to speak to women.

But in her speech at Iowa’s crowded Hoyt Sherman Place, it wasn’t about
raising women, it was about tearing one woman down.

Sneaking Benghazi into her address (another topic glazed over by the male
candidates who took the stage) Fiorina said: “Unlike Hillary Clinton, I
know what difference it makes that our ambassador to Libya and three other
brave Americans were killed in a deliberate terrorist attack on the
anniversary of 9/11.”

Sarah Palin joined Fiorina in the Hillary-hating. The 2008 Republican vice
presidential candidate, who recently said that she’s “seriously interested”
in running for president in 2016, delivered a bizarre and often incoherent
speech, but one aspect was clear: she’s got her sights on Hillary.

“I’m ready for Hillary, are you? Are you coming?” Palin said, raising a
Time magazine from last year with a headline “Can Anyone Stop Hillary.”

Palin said she doesn’t feel there’s a rush to make a decision about 2016.
Fiorina might have an opinion about whether Palin runs too, whether they
compete for the party’s 2016 nomination or not. Back in 2008 as one of John
McCain’s economic advisers, Fiorina said that Palin, McCain’s VP pick,
would not be qualified to be CEO of a corporation like Hewlett-Packard. She
tried to salvage her comments on msnbc.

Longtime Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway also dug into Hillary Clinton
at the Freedom Summit. “Don’t worry about being called mean. Let’s talk
about Hillary Clinton,” she said. “Hillary Clinton is the second most
influential person in her own household. I would say Hillary Clinton has
the wrong vision for America, but I don’t know what it is.”

Tennessee GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn also jumped on the bandwagon, mocking
several TV networks for their coverage of Clinton. “ABC: All About Clinton
network; NBC: Nothing But Clinton; CNN: Clinton News Network; CBS - - just
think about it!” Translation: Clinton b.s.,” she said.

For their part, Clinton allies say the attacks are a sign Republicans may
feel threatened. “Republicans are rattled by the energy and excitement
shown by Americans across the country for Hillary Clinton’s potential
candidacy and her vision for our future,” communications director Adrienne
Elrod of Correct The Record said in statement. ”It is clear Republicans
have nothing of substance to say and that they’d like nothing more than to
distract from the GOP’s disunity.”

*The Hill: “Pelosi: With Hillary Clinton, Democrats can win the House”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/house/230812-pelosi-with-hillary-dems-can-win-the-house>*

By Mike Lillis

January 27, 2015, 6:00 a.m. EST

Rep. Nancy Pelosi says Democrats can recapture control of the House in 2016
by riding Hillary Clinton’s coattails.

“Yes, we can win the House,” the California Democrat said during a sit-down
interview in her Capitol office.

“If she runs, she will win the nomination. And if she’s our nominee, she
clearly — I mean, the campaign, the joint effort — would be one that could
not only take her into office but would [pull Democrats to victory],”
Pelosi said.

“There’s opportunity, all kinds of statistics now about if the Democrats
have a presidential candidate who … wins by 52 percent — that’s over 20
[House] seats,” Pelosi added. “And so 53 [percent] is a victory [for House
Democrats].”

The minority leader acknowledged the headwinds facing House Democrats, who
would need to pick up a whopping 30 seats to win the chamber, and she
emphasized that the party’s presidential nominee is a long way from being
decided.

Bold predictions are nothing new for Pelosi, who, among many other duties,
has a responsibility to appear unwavering about the party’s election odds
in order not to dissuade donors.

In 2010, Pelosi predicted the Democrats would keep the House, only to see
the Republicans pick up 63 seats and seize the chamber. She also made rosy
forecasts in 2012 and 2014 that proved inaccurate — a dynamic that hasn’t
been overlooked by GOP operatives, who are scoffing at Pelosi’s latest
prophesies.

“Needless to say, we get the distinct feeling that Nancy Pelosi literally
has no idea what it actually takes to win back the House and is living in
Fantasyland,” Ian Prior, spokesman for the National Republican
Congressional Committee, said Monday in an email.

Pelosi pointed out that Democratic turnout tends to spike in presidential
years and has repeatedly said the GOP’s refusal to pass a comprehensive
immigration reform bill will doom its chances of winning the White House
next year and beyond.

The 2016 posturing arrives just a few days before the Democrats will huddle
in Philadelphia for their annual issues retreat, where the party’s
messaging strategy — and its failure to excite voters in recent cycles —
will surely be discussed in depth.

Pelosi is in the middle of that storm.

The San Francisco liberal has led House Democrats since 2003, the longest
run since Sam Rayburn’s tenure more than 50 years ago. After Republicans
picked up 13 seats in the 2014 midterm election cycle, there was open
grumbling within the caucus that it might be time for some new faces atop
the leadership ranks.

“This party has to look internally as to where the hell it’s going,” Rep.
Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said in the aftermath of the elections.

Since then, however, Pelosi has attracted praise from her colleagues for
taking on both Republicans and President Obama in her staunch opposition to
December’s government spending package. She’s been hailed for launching
several new Democratic panels designed to get the party’s message to
voters. And she’s been buoyed by the struggles of Speaker John Boehner
(R-Ohio) and Republicans, whose start to the 114th Congress has been
plagued by highly public infighting on issues like deportations, abortion
and border security — issues that have largely united the Democrats.

“Bless their hearts, they act upon their beliefs,” Pelosi tells reporters,
almost weekly.

The Hill’s interview touched on a wide range of topics. Other highlights
include:

Gay marriage

Pelosi said she is “very confident” the Supreme Court will uphold the
constitutionality of state laws allowing same-sex couples to wed. The court
may lean to the right, she acknowledged, but its 2013 decision striking
down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act foreshadows a similar
ruling this summer on state-passed gay marriage laws.

“Why would they take this up? In order to reverse the decisions in the
states and stop … that progress toward equality?” she asked. “I don’t see
that happening.”

Trade

Pelosi downplayed long-standing Democratic divisions over whether to grant
the administration “fast-track” authority to approve trade pacts, as Obama
has requested. She emphasized that liberals’ concerns about food safety,
currency manipulation and worker protections must be addressed, but said
those hurdles are not insurmountable.

“I’m trying to say to the members, ‘Let’s turn a page on trade; let’s try
to find a path to yes,’ ” she said.

Pelosi said she was recently asked if 50 Democrats would support Obama on
trade and responded it could be as high as 150 — if handled the right and
“transparent” way.

The debt limit

In the wake of large Republican gains in the Senate and House, Pelosi is
once again pushing for a “clean” hike to the debt ceiling later this year.
In 2014, only 28 House Republicans voted for such a measure.

Immigration

Pelosi hammered Republicans for including “juvenile” language undoing
Obama’s executive actions halting deportations as part of legislation
funding the Homeland Security Department. But she also suggested GOP
leaders, having made a statement to their base, would cave before the
department is threatened with a shutdown.

“The Speaker probably figured, ‘Let them do their stuff; the Senate’s going
to reject it; and then we’ll come to some place that the president will
sign,’ ” Pelosi said.

The 74-year-old is notoriously evasive about her future. But she did open
up a bit to suggest that the number of retiring liberal Californians —
including former Reps. George Miller and Henry Waxman, who retired this
year, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, who won’t run for reelection in 2016 — have
made it more important that she stay.

“When George was leaving and Henry was leaving, people were saying, ‘Oh,
now you’re going to leave.’ But actually, their supporters and our
supporters for the agendas that we care about were saying, ‘Now you can’t
leave,’ ” Pelosi said, laughing at the thought. “And now with Barbara
Boxer, and our community is like, ‘Oh my gosh, Barbara Boxer.’ ”

The congresswoman, who is serving her 15th term, says she comes to work
with as much energy as ever. As Speaker, she said she slept about four
hours a night. Now, it’s more like five-and-a-half hours, but no more than
that.

“I don’t know how my family or staff would cope if I ever got eight hours,”
Pelosi said with a laugh.

Pelosi stopped short of committing to another term if Clinton were to win
the White House in 2016, saying she takes life “one day at a time.” But the
first female Speaker didn’t disguise her marvel at the thought of serving
in Congress alongside the nation’s first female president.

“It would be a wonderful thing,” she said.

*Politico: “Democrats criticize GOP handling of Benghazi committee”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/benghazi-committee-democrats-114618.html>*

By Lauren French

January 26, 2015, 8:09 p.m. EST

Democrats on the House committee tasked with investigating the 2012
terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, are harshly criticizing the panel’s
chairman, South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, accusing the GOP
lawmaker of locking them out of interviews with witnesses.

The discord is unusual for the select committee. Gowdy and Maryland Rep.
Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the panel, have enjoyed a cordial
relationship since the committee was created last May, with the two often
meeting off the House floor to discuss the investigation.

The issue is expected to come to a head on Tuesday during a hearing
reviewing the committee’s outstanding document requests where Neal Higgins,
the CIA’s director of congressional affairs, and Joel Rubin, deputy
assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, will testify.

Ahead of the hearing, Cummings released three letters complaining about
Gowdy’s handling of the committee, including a December letter signed by
all five Democrats investigating the attacks. The lawmakers are charging
that Republicans have interviewed at least five witnesses without a
Democrat in attendance, including Ray Maxwell, a former State Department
deputy who alleged he was told to scrub documents relating to the 2012
attacks.

“You have had different standards for Republicans and Democrats
participating in this investigation, secret meetings with witnesses, and —
perhaps most importantly — withheld or downplayed information when it
undermines the allegations we are investigating,” Cummings wrote.

Gowdy’s office dismissed the Democrats’ concern in a statement late Monday
as an attempt to politicize the investigation. Select Committee on Benghazi
Communications Director Jamal Ware said Democrats are allowed to interview
witnesses without Republican staffers present.

“Chairman Gowdy will talk to Benghazi sources with or without the Democrats
present just as they are welcome to talk to sources with or without
Republicans present,” Ware said. “[N]o congressional select committee has
ever had a requirement that sources meet with both sides at the same time,
and the Benghazi Committee is no exception.”

Ware added, “[T]he Democrats have released correspondence that attempts to
politically characterize sources’ private discussions with the committee
without proper context goes to the exact heart of why the chairman will not
require sources to talk to both sides.”

When he was tapped to lead the probe, however, Gowdy repeatedly stressed
that the bulk of the committee’s work would be done privately, as he
questioned the effectiveness of public hearings on controversial topics.

Cummings first wrote to Gowdy in November, with another letter sent earlier
this month, but the private correspondence between the two lawmakers was
first released Monday.

In the letters, Cummings accuses Gowdy’s staff of barring Democrats from
key interviews with witnesses and deemphasizing information that disproved
some of the lingering theories on Benghazi, including the allegation that
the State Department purposefully destroyed documents to protect
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Maxwell, according to Cummings’ letters, repeated the claims about State
Department documents during interviews with Republican staff and offered up
a second witnesses to corroborate his allegation. But that unnamed witness
refuted Maxwell’s story, Cummings wrote. Democrats were left out of both
interviews, despite willingness ny Maxwell and the second source to be
interviewed by representatives from both parties, according to Cummings.

“In some of our conversations in the past, you have suggested that
whistleblowers might be willing to come forward to provide information only
to you. That was simply not the case here,” Cummings wrote. “When my staff
spoke with Mr. Maxwell and the additional witness he identified, both were
willing to talk to Democrats, but your staff excluded them nonetheless.”

The criticism is notable as Gowdy and Cummings have worked hard to be
respectful of one another in public. Cummings gave Gowdy high praise late
last year for running a thorough investigation, and Gowdy even help
convinced Democrats to participate in the committee after taking the
Maryland Democrat to dinner shortly after the committee was first announced.

But that relationship has soured in the months since, with Democrats
accusing Republicans of not agreeing to subpoena rules that would allow for
a public vote if there is disagreement.

“We have spent months trying to resolve these problems privately, but
they’ve exhausted our patience and we can no longer remain silent,” said
California Rep. Linda Sanchez. “This isn’t the fact-based or fair
investigation that Gowdy promised it would be and that the American people
deserve.”

Now Democrats are complaining that the investigation has devolved into a
partisan fight reminiscent of how Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) probed the
terrorist attacks when he was chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

The five Democrats on the committee are also complaining that despite a
multimillion budget, the panel is moving slowly, with only a handful of
public hearings.

Staff for the South Carolina Republican said earlier this month that the
committee has met with officials from the State and Justice departments on
embassy security and document production.

*Mother Jones: “Democrats Accuse Republicans of a Benghazi Cover-Up”
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/dems-accuse-republicans-benghazi-cover-up>*

By David Corn

January 26, 2015, 8:02 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] And they say GOPers on the Benghazi committee are holding
secret meetings with witnesses.

It's back. Actually, it never left. Benghazi. That is, the GOP's
never-ending Benghazi crusade. Last year, after Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)
was tapped by House Speaker John Boehner to lead yet another Benghazi
probe, he promised to helm an inquiry that would "transcend politics." But
now, eight months into this latest investigation, Democrats on the House
Select Committee on Benghazi have hit Gowdy with a sharp charge: that he
and his Republican investigators have conducted secret meetings with
witnesses without informing their Democratic colleagues on the committee.
And they say that some of these interviews have yielded information that
undercuts anti-Obama Benghazi allegations promoted by conservatives. In
other words, the Democrats are suggesting that Gowdy has been mounting a
Benghazi cover-up of his own.

In November, Rep. Elijah Cummings, the senior Democrat on the Benghazi
committee, sent Gowdy a private letter noting that though Gowdy had assured
him that the committee's work would be conducted in a bipartisan manner,
the five Democratic members of the panel and their staffer had been
excluded from at least five witness interviews. Moreover, Cummings said
these interviews had produced testimony that failed to corroborate key
allegations.

Cummings' letter pointed out that in September conservative media outlets
had promoted the supposed revelation that Hillary Clinton loyalists at the
State Department had vetted documents to prevent material damaging to
senior State Department officials from being handed to an independent
investigation of the Benghazi tragedy. According to Cummings, Gowdy's
Republican staff interviewed the source of this allegation, a former State
Department official named Raymond Maxwell, without notifying the Democrats
on the committee or inviting them to be part of the interview, and Maxwell
identified a person who could confirm his account. In Cummings' telling,
Gowdy's GOP gumshoes interviewed this person, again without telling the
Dems, and this supposed witness did not back up Maxwell's story. This
second witness said he was not aware of an effort to hide or destroy
Benghazi-related documents. "I did not discover any of this information
from you or your staff but from the witnesses themselves," Cummings wrote
Gowdy.

Cummings accused Gowdy and his staff of essentially smothering information
that undermined an allegation aimed at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:

“Although your staff stated [to the Democrats] that they learned nothing
‘of note,’ in fact they learned that this claim was not substantiated by a
key witness. If our goal is the truth and not a preconceived political
narrative, these interviews should have been conducted jointly, with both
Democrats and Republicans present.”

In his letter to Gowdy, Cummings contended this Republican effort to keep
the Dems in the dark was part of a pattern. He noted that when he shared
his concerns with Gowdy, the chairman informed him that he had spoken to at
least three other witnesses without the participation of Democrats and that
two of them had provided information that helped debunk other allegations
of Benghazi wrongdoing. As a remedy, Cummings proposed in his letter that
the committee adopt rules ensuring that all members of the panel are
allowed to participate in witness meetings and interviews.

According to a subsequent letter all five Democratic members on the
Benghazi committee sent Gowdy in December, Gowdy rejected Cummings' demand
for Democratic participation in all witness interviews and meetings. In
that missive, the Democrats also dissed the committee's work, noting that
it was proceeding at a snail's pace and was plowing over much of the same
territory previously examined by other congressional committees.

Last week, Cummings sent Gowdy another letter reiterating his complaints:
"Democrats have repeatedly been excluded from core components of the
investigation, and we have been proceeding with no rules to prevent this
from occurring in the future. You have…withheld or downplayed information
when it undermines the allegations we are investigating." And Cummings
provided another example: The GOP staff interviewed a witness who confirmed
there was no illegal transfer of weapons from Libya to Syria (one of the
many Benghazi conspiracy theories). Cummings wrote, "Instead of crediting
her testimony to help put this previously investigated and debunked
allegation to rest, you followed up your private, Republican-only interview
of this witness by requesting a broad set of documents from the State
Department on this debunked allegation. In addition, your staff has now
informed us that they do not intend to use this individual as a factual
witness in the Committee's investigation."

A spokesman for the Benghazi committee did not respond to a request for
comment.

When Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) was overseeing the main Benghazi
investigation in the House as chair of the House government oversight
committee, his inquiry became as politicized as it could be, with Issa
often acting unilaterally and frequently making claims and charges
unsupported by the information the committee had gathered. Meanwhile, other
House committees led by Republicans conducted and completed serious
investigations—without any internal partisan discord—and discredited the
wild theories of the right. But to undo the damage done by Issa and to
placate the party's conservative base, Boehner set up a special committee
on Benghazi and appointed Gowdy, a more temperate fellow, to take another
stab at it. Yet the newest Benghazi inquiry now appears to be heading down
a similar path, as the GOP appears no closer to giving the right's Benghazi
truthers what they seek: proof that Obama or Clinton can be blamed for the
horrible murders that happened that night.

UPDATE: After Republicans on the committee learned that reporters had
obtained copies of the letters sent by Cummings and the Democrats to Gowdy,
Gowdy on Monday evening released a statement noting he was "disappointed by
the minority's decision to release their letters." His statement also noted:

“Chairman Gowdy will talk to Benghazi sources with or without the Democrats
present just as they are welcome to talk to sources with or without
Republicans present…Further, that the Democrats have released
correspondence that attempts to politically characterize sources’ private
discussions with the committee without proper context goes to the exact
heart of why the Chairman will not require sources to talk to both sides.

“Chairman Gowdy has operated the Benghazi Committee in a more-than-fair and
fact-based manner, going so far as to allow Democrats absent due to
personal matters to participate in Committee hearings via conference call
and allowing the minority to claim time not utilized by their absent
Members.

“The Chairman has worked over the last several months to accommodate the
minority with regard to their concerns, including offering a rules package
that is much more generous than current standing committee rules and that
of rules adopted by previous select committees.”

After Gowdy's statement was issued, a Democratic staffer on the committee
countered:

“[Gowdy’s] response confirms that he has in the past and will continue to
exclude Democrats from discussions with material witnesses.

“We have never asked the Chairman to ‘require’ witnesses to meet with
Democrats.  Our request was that when witnesses are willing to meet with
Democrats that the Republicans include us. They have not done that—even
with witnesses who were willing all along to speak with Democrats.

“Chairman Gowdy claims that our letters ‘politically characterize sources
private discussions with the Committee without proper context.’ This is
incorrect. Democratic members tried to resolve these issues privately for
months before we were forced to go public. None of the witnesses told us
that they wanted their information to be confidential or private, and we
only released the portions of their statements that were necessary to
explain our concerns…..

“Chairman Gowdy’s rules package does not fix the problems we have
identified with excluding Democrats from witness interviews. He has also
refused to permit a Committee vote on any rules unless Democrats agree to
vote for his language – thereby denying Democrats a public debate and vote
on the issue.”

This bitter and partisan back-and-forth suggests that this committee could
go the full Issa.

*Politico: IT'S ON! Hillary Clinton rival ramps up in Iowa*
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/martin-omalley-2016-iowa-114608.html>

By Ben Schreckinger
January 27, 2015, 5:39 AM EST

The first rustlings of a Martin O’Malley presidential campaign can be heard
faintly in Iowa.

Surrogates for the former Maryland governor, who is publicly mulling a
presidential run, have begun talking up O’Malley and scheduling meetings
with officials and activists, according to several Iowa Democrats. And Jake
Oeth, who until recently served as political director to former Rep. Bruce
Braley’s failed Iowa Senate campaign, was brought on board as a consultant
to O’Malley’s O’Say Can You See PAC after the November midterm elections.
He is doing political outreach for the former governor in the state,
according to the PAC’s spokeswoman, Lis Smith.

“Obviously [Braley’s] wasn’t a successful campaign, but they’re people
who’ve been traveling around the state for two years,” said one Iowa state
Democratic official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, adding that
multiple former Braley campaign staffers were maneuvering on O’Malley’s
behalf.

“They are doing some organizing and contacting,” said Jack Hatch, the 2014
Democratic nominee for governor. “I will be meeting with them [this] week.
It’s all under the radar.”

O’Malley is considered one of the most credible potential opponents to
former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the presumed frontrunner for the
2016 Democratic nomination. But the low-key tone of early efforts on his
behalf marks a contrast with previous presidential cycles, when numerous
Iowa Democrats said there was significantly more activity a year out from
the Iowa caucuses.

Ready for Hillary, the super PAC laying the groundwork for a Clinton run,
has two staffers in Iowa and says it has begun organizing in every county.
The liberal group MoveOn.org, has hired five staffers in Iowa and is
planning to open an office in Des Moines as part of its campaign to draft
Sen. Elizabeth Warren to enter the race, though Warren has said repeatedly
that she is not running.

Last year, O’Malley devoted significant resources to the campaigns of Iowa
Democrats and visited the state several times. His PAC sent Hatch’s
unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign $10,000 and three staffers. O’Malley
campaigned for Braley last year in the former congressman’s failed bid for
Iowa’s open Senate seat, and his PAC gave Braley’s campaign $7,500.

O’Malley also attended more than 20 fundraisers and political events in the
state in 2014, according to information provided by his PAC, which sent a
total of 14 staffers to aid Iowa Democrats during the midterms.

O’Malley left office Jan. 21 and said recently that he would spend the next
couple months resettling his family in Baltimore as he contemplates a
presidential run, making any announcement of a run before early spring
unlikely.

In November, the Washington Post reported that O’Malley’s PAC had hired
Sarah Miller, a veteran of Clinton’s 2008 campaign, as policy director, and
Megan Adams, formerly of the Center for American Progress, as a
communications staffer. The PAC also hired Bill DeBlasio’s campaign manager
Bill Hyers late last year. Many observers believe O’Malley is hoping to use
a presidential run to raise his profile and secure a spot as Clinton’s
running mate or a cabinet secretary.

“He’s seriously considering running for president, and that’s his only
focus,” said Smith.

The former governor currently has no plans to travel to Iowa, according to
Smith, who said he will appear March 7 at a Democratic event in Topeka,
Kanasas. She said no one is working on his behalf in New Hampshire.

*New York Times: “Koch Brothers’ Budget of $889 Million for 2016 Is on Par
With Both Parties’ Spending”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html>*

By Nicholas Confessore

January 26, 2015

The political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G.
and David H. Koch plans to spend close to $900 million on the 2016
campaign, an unparalleled effort by coordinated outside groups to shape a
presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in
history.

The spending goal, revealed Monday at the Kochs’ annual winter donor
retreat near Palm Springs, Calif., would allow their political organization
to operate at the same financial scale as the Democratic and Republican
Parties. It would require a significant financial commitment from the Kochs
and roughly 300 other donors they have recruited over the years, and covers
both the presidential and congressional races. In the last presidential
election, the Republican National Committee and the party’s two
congressional campaign committees spent a total of $657 million.

Hundreds of conservative donors recruited by the Kochs gathered over the
weekend for three days of issue seminars, strategy sessions and mingling
with rising elected officials. These donors represent the largest
concentration of political money outside the party establishment, one that
has achieved enormous power in Republican circles in recent years.

Now the Kochs’ network will embark on its largest drive ever to influence
legislation and campaigns across the country, leveraging Republican control
of Congress and the party’s dominance of state capitols to push for
deregulation, tax cuts and smaller government. In 2012, the Kochs’ network
spent just under $400 million, an astonishing sum at the time. The $889
million spending goal for 2016 would put it on track to spend nearly as
much as the campaigns of each party’s presidential nominee.

The Kochs’ efforts will put enormous fund-raising pressure on Democrats and
liberal outside groups. Allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who appears to be
preparing for a likely presidential campaign in 2016, expect that she will
need to bring in more money than President Obama, the most successful
fund-raiser in presidential history, and a “super PAC” supporting her is
seeking to raise as much as $300 million in the coming months.

“It’s no wonder the candidates show up when the Koch brothers call,” said
David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to Mr. Obama. “That’s exponentially
more money than any party organization will spend. In many ways, they have
superseded the party.”

The group’s budget, disclosed by a conference attendee, reflects the rising
ambition and expanded reach of the Koch operation, which has sought to
distinguish itself from other outside groups by emphasizing the role of
donors over consultants and political operatives.

While the Koch’s expansive network houses groups with discretely political
functions — a data and analytics firm, a state-focused issue-advocacy group
and affinity groups aimed at young voters and Hispanics — it also includes
groups like Freedom Partners, a trade organization overseen by Koch
advisers that plans the retreat and helps corral contributions; Americans
for Prosperity, a national grass-roots group; and Concerned Veterans for
America, which organizes conservative veterans

While almost no Republican Party leaders were invited to the Koch event, it
has become a coveted invitation for the party’s rising stars, for whom the
gathered billionaires and multimillionaires are a potential source of
financing for campaigns and super PACs. Officials said this year’s
conference was the largest ever.

At least five potential presidential candidates were invited this year, and
four attended, including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. On Sunday evening,
three of them — Senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and
Ted Cruz of Texas — took part in a candidate forum on economic issues.

The Kochs are longtime opponents of campaign disclosure laws. Unlike the
parties, their network is constructed chiefly of nonprofit groups that are
not required to reveal donors. That makes it almost impossible to tell how
much of the money is provided by the Kochs — among the wealthiest men in
the country — and how much by other donors.

The two brothers and their aides have begun to take steps to relax the
strict secrecy that has long surrounded much of their political efforts.
After spending the 2012 campaign as the Democrats’ favored punching bags,
Charles and David Koch have each granted a series of interviews to explain
their views and philosophy. Their privately held firm, Koch Industries, has
mounted a soft-focus advertising campaign called “We Are Koch,” featuring
the company’s employees.

Last summer, Freedom Partners established the network’s first super PAC,
allowing it to run more openly political advertising in the run-up to the
2014 midterm election. The move also required disclosing some of the
network’s other donors. Trusts controlled by the Kochs provided about $4
million of the super PAC’s $25 million budget.

This year, Koch aides also provided — for the first time — limited access
to the winter conference events and allowed reporters to view live video of
the candidate forum on Sunday night.

As the three senators addressed the audience of rich donors — effectively
an audition for the 2016 primary — they dismissed a question about whether
the wealthy had too much influence in politics. At times they seemed to be
addressing an audience of two: the Kochs themselves, now among the
country’s most influential conservative power brokers.

Mr. Cruz gave an impassioned defense of his hosts as job creators and the
victims of unfair attacks by Democrats, while Mr. Rubio suggested that only
liberals supported campaign finance restrictions, so as to empower what he
said were their allies in Hollywood and the news media.

*Los Angeles Times column: Robin Abcarian: “Hey, GOP: Using Carly Fiorina
to attack Hillary Clinton could backfire”
<http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-using-fiorina-to-attack-clinton-20150126-column.html>*

By Robin Abcarian

January 26, 2015, 5:57 p.m. EST

After watching some of the speeches delivered by would-be Republican
presidential contenders over the weekend at Iowa Rep. Steve King’s
conservative confab in Des Moines, I got to wondering how long it will take
Republicans to field a female presidential candidate who actually has a
shot at winning.

Women seem to be tokens in the GOP presidential stakes, serving the party's
strategic needs more than anything else. For 2016, it’s become an article
of faith that the GOP needs a woman to immunize the party against charges
that attacks on presumed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton are sexist.
(“The most effective way to criticize a woman is to have another woman do
it,” a California GOP strategist told Time’s Jay Newton-Small in November.)

So who can help?

Not Sarah Palin.

The former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate trekked to
King's inaugural Freedom Summit to deliver a disjointed speech that focused
mainly on settling scores with people who have attacked her for, among
other things, letting her son step on his service dog. Her rambling remarks
were entertaining -- she is always that -- but hardly presidential. (Even
her longtime fans were turned off. One conservative columnist called her
speech “barely coherent.”)

It seems that the job is falling to Carly Fiorina, who gave a well-received
speech noteworthy mainly for its broadsides against Clinton.

Fiorina has never held political office, but the former Hewlett-Packard
chief has been toiling away in Republican political trenches ever since she
lost the U.S. Senate campaign against Barbara Boxer in 2010. Despite
Fiorina’s lack of name recognition, Iowa conservatives liked what she had
to say.

“She came across as a highly intelligent woman and a strong leader,” one
GOP party official told the Washington Times. “She did herself the most
good.”

Her biggest applause lines were the whacks she took at Clinton.

“Like Hillary Clinton,” she said, “I too have traveled hundreds of
thousands of miles around the globe. But unlike her, I have actually
accomplished something…. Having done business in over 80 countries and
having served as the chairman of the external advisory board at the CIA for
several years, I know that China and Russia are state sponsors of
cyberwarfare and have a strategy to steal our intellectual property. I know
Bibi Netanyahu and know that when he warns us that Iran is a danger to this
nation as well as his own, that we must listen.”

Leaving aside the issue of what Clinton accomplished as secretary of state
in the first Obama term, the problem for Fiorina, should she become a
serious candidate, or even a high-profile surrogate, is the business record
she accumulated while visiting all those countries.

Her six-year tenure at Hewlett-Packard was marred by extensive domestic
layoffs. She insisted that sending jobs to other countries was not
offshoring but what she dubbed “right shoring.”  (“There is no job that is
America’s God-given right anymore,” she once told a congressional
committee.)

Also, she was forced to defend charges that Hewlett-Packard violated the
spirit of a trade embargo against Iran on her watch.

In 2010, I wrote about Fiorina’s business record during her campaign
against Boxer.

She was rightfully heralded as a pioneer when she became the first woman to
lead a Fortune 20 company in 1999. But a couple of years after she took the
reins at HP, she engineered a controversial merger with Compaq Computer
Corp. that sparked a corrosive fight with the families of HP’s founders,
who accused her of ruining Hewlett-Packard’s famously collegial culture.

“To be fair to Carly,” David Woodley Packard told me in 2010, “the HP board
should have known better when it hired her. If you have a pet bunny and get
a pet ferret, you can’t really blame the ferret for eating the bunny.
That’s what ferrets do.”

Fiorina has insisted that she created more jobs than she eliminated while
running HP, a claim that is almost impossible to verify as the company
merged with Compaq, acquired many smaller firms but laid off tens of
thousands of workers.

“I would say she has created a lot of jobs,” a Hewlett-Packard engineer
named Dan Dove told me in 2010. “But they are not in the United States.”

As for the trade embargo, Fiorina was accused during her Senate race of
allowing Hewlett-Packard to sell hundreds of millions of dollars in
printers to Iran at a time when American companies were forbidden to engage
in such trade. Fiorina said the company did nothing illegal, which was
technically true, as the sales were made by a Dutch subsidiary of the
company, which HP owned but did not control.

Trade experts said that HP did not break the law, but rather circumvented
it using a loophole that other companies also exploited. Two years after
Fiorina was fired by HP’s board of directors, however, the company amended
its policy and announced it would prohibit its distributors from selling
products in Iran.

"Having recently examined the situation," the company announced, "we
believe it's important to go beyond the letter of the law."

If Fiorina plans to use her business record to bash Clinton, let alone as a
rationale for a presidential campaign, expect to hear more about her stormy
tenure at Hewlett-Packard.

*The Hill: “Sanders heading to Iowa, NH”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/230785-bernie-sanders-heading-to-iowa-new-hampshire>*

By Cameron Joseph

January 26, 2015, 6:17 p.m. EST

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is heading to a pair of key early-primary
states as he ramps up consideration of a potential presidential run.

Sanders is heading to New Hampshire on Saturday for a house party, and has
a three-day swing planned through Iowa in late February.

He's also heading to Pennsylvania to keynote a local progressive event and
meet with liberal activists in the state.

Sanders has said he's giving a serious look to running for president as a
Democrat and could emerge as the liberal alternative to challenge Hillary
Clinton, though Clinton would start out as a heavy favorite against any of
the candidates considering a run against her.

*Calendar:*

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

·  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>
)

·  March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton
Foundation (WSJ
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/>
)

·  March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes  American Camp
Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>)

·  March 23 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton to keynote award ceremony for
the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting (Syracuse
<http://newhouse.syr.edu/news-events/news/former-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-newhouse-school-s>
)