Subject: Correct The Record Tuesday January 27, 2015 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:44:12 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

Correct The Record Tuesday January 27, 2015 Afternoon Roundup:

 

Tweets:

 

Correct The Record @CorrectRecord:.@HillaryClinton launched 11 EcoPartnerships with China #HRC365http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-protecting-the-environment/ … [1/27/15, 1:00 p.m. EST]

 

Correct The Record @CorrectRecord:.@HillaryClinton fought to protect consumers' data #HRC365https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/3713 …[1/26/15, 6:51 p.m. EST]

 

 

Headlines:

 

FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters for America: “Congressman Blows A Hole In Attkisson's Benghazi Documents ‘Bombshell’”

“The implication that documents were withheld as Maxwell claimed -- which the State Department told Attkisson was ‘totally without merit’ -- never really added up. […] Now, new evidence calls the story further into question.”

Washington Post column: Eugene Robinson: “Hillary stands alone”

“You have to admit, Clinton has handled this whole pre-campaign period quite well. Her silence, so far, has been golden.”

 

New York Times: “As in 2012, Romney Can Do No Right in Murdoch’s Eyes”

“Meanwhile, about a half-dozen mainstream Republican candidates are angling for Mr. Murdoch’s blessing, not to mention Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has developed her own growing rapport with him.”

 

New York Times: Times Insider: “Hillary Clinton and Her Detractors: Reporter’s Notebook”

“All this is a good way to rally Republicans, but it remains to be seen how much impact it would have on Mrs. Clinton’s presumptive campaign.”

 

The Hill: “Benghazi panel looking for a 'unicorn,' Dem says”

“Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), who is part of the special select committee probing the 2012 attacks in Libya, said she is increasingly convinced that GOP lawmakers are looking for a ‘mythical creature, this unicorn’ that she described as a ‘nefarious conspiracy that does not in fact exist.’”

 

Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Scott Walker forms committee in preparation for 2016 presidential bid”

“Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who's speech to activists in Iowa last weekend drew strong reviews, has taken the first formal step toward a presidential candidacy in 2016, establishing a committee that will help spread his message and underwrite his activities as he seeks to build his political and fundraising networks in the months ahead.”

 

 

Articles:

FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters for America: “Congressman Blows A Hole In Attkisson's Benghazi Documents ‘Bombshell’”

By Matt Gertz

January 27, 2015

The House Select Committee on Benghazi has been unable to corroborate Sharyl Attkisson's latest "bombshell" Benghazi exclusive, which claimed that "Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to 'separate' damaging documents" about the 2012 attacks before they were turned over to investigators. According to the committee's ranking Democrat, a "second witness" allegedly undermined the report.

In September, Attkisson reported for the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal that former State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell alleged he had witnessed an "after hours session" at State Department headquarters at which he was told that employees had been ordered to "pull out anything that might put anybody" in the department's leadership "in a bad light" before documents were handed over to the Accountability Review Board, which was investigating the attacks. Maxwell claimed the actions were "unethical." Fox News quickly trumpeted the story as "a smoking gun of a potential cover-up," claiming that it showed State had been "scrubbing the documents" which were "destroyed" on Clinton's behalf.

The implication that documents were withheld as Maxwell claimed -- which the State Department told Attkisson was "totally without merit" -- never really added up. Maxwell, one of four State employees to be disciplined for their role in the Benghazi attacks, had testified before two House committees and given multiple interviews in the 18 months before the Attkisson piece. But he reportedly never mentioned the alleged "after hours session" in those previous statements, instead focusing on how he was supposedly scapegoated to protect higher-ups at State from accountability. Slate's David Weigel called the discrepancy "baffling," writing of the account, "Holy ... what the ... why not mention that sooner? Previously, this was a story of a guy who was railroaded in order to protect the Clintons. It could have been a story about a guy who witnessed Clinton allies hiding evidence. ... Why hold off on the 'scrubbing' until now?"

Now, new evidence calls the story further into question. In a November 2014 letter just published by Mother Jones on the eve of the Benghazi Select Committee's third hearing, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings writes to committee chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC), stating that Maxwell had identified to the committee's Republican staff a "second witness that he claimed was present during this document review" who could "corroborate his allegations," but that the "second witness" denied Maxwell's claims when interviewed by Republican staff. Cummings further alleges that Republican staff deliberately hid this information from Democratic staff.

In the letter, after highlighting anOctober 17 Fox News interview in which Gowdy said he planned to investigate Maxwell's claims, Cummings writes:

“In fact, several weeks before you made those public statements, your staff had already interviewed Mr. Maxwell, but they did not include, invite, or even notify Democratic Members or staff. Mr. Maxwell apparently identified for your staff a second witness that he claimed was present during this document review at the State Department. Mr. Maxwell identified this person as someone who could corroborate his allegations and someone he believes is credible.

“Then, on October 16 -- one day before you appeared on Fox News -- your staff interviewed this second witness, again without including Democrats. However, this second witness did not substantiate Mr. Maxwell's claims. To the contrary, he did not recall having been in the document review session Mr. Maxwell described, and he said he was never instructed to flag information in documents that might be unfavorable to the Department. He further reported that he never engaged or was aware of any destruction of documents.

“I did not discover any of this information from you or your staff but from the witnesses themselves. When my staff inquired with your staff about what they learned from the witness identified by Mr. Maxwell, your staff stated that he had worked at the State Department during the relevant time period. Beyond that, however, they reported: ‘we learned nothing else of note in our discussion, so we don't plan to conduct any additional follow-up.’

“I am sure you understand -- as a former prosecutor -- that evaluating the credibility of witnesses and their allegations depends on whether the information they provide can be corroborated. Although your staff stated 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.”

Gowdy has not directly addressed Cummings' claims about Maxwell's story, either in a staff statement or in a letter to the committee's Democrats released after Cummings' letter was published by Mother Jones. He instead warned that Cummings' "characterization of witness testimony... not only risks an adverse effect on the investigation but could also negatively impact the witness' careers."

 

Washington Post column: Eugene Robinson: “Hillary stands alone”

By Eugene Robinson

January 26, 2015, 7:37 p.m. EST

And now for a look at the Democratic presidential field for 2016 — hey, hold on, where’d everybody go?

All right, at the moment there’s little suspense. Make that no suspense. If Hillary Clinton wants the nomination — and there’s no indication to the contrary — she can have it. Winning the general election is another story, but the Republican Party seems willing to be more of an aid than an impediment.

I’ve been in the minority that believed Clinton had made no final decision about running, but I’m switching to the majority view. If she were going to step aside, party loyalty would dictate she should have done so by now so that other Democratic contenders could begin to assemble campaign teams, court donors and introduce themselves to the nation. Instead, Clinton continues to draw away all the political oxygen.

In the primaries, she faces just one significant — and familiar — opponent: her own inevitability. This year, however, already differs from the 2008 cycle in important ways.

The last time Clinton was expected to cruise to the nomination, it was clear at this point that a charismatic young challenger was days away from announcing an insurgent candidacy. It did not seem terribly likely that Barack Obama, then a first-term U.S. senator, could defeat the Clinton machine. But it did not seem impossible.

This time, the only plausible figure who could fill the Obama role — Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — firmly denies she is running. More to the point, she has done nothing to put together a campaign apparatus. If Clinton somehow falters, one must assume all bets are off. For now, however, Warren seems content to use her standing with the party’s progressive wing to muscle Clinton toward more populist positions on economic issues.

As for other challengers, well, let’s be real. Vice President Biden says he might run, but he’s no Obama. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is not going to win the nomination, and neither is former senator Jim Webb of Virginia. Realistically, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley’s candidacy is more about putting himself in the running for vice president.

And remember how Obama won — not just with soaring rhetoric but also with a smart, well-executed strategy for ambushing the Clinton campaign, especially in caucus states, and building an insurmountable lead in convention delegates. If this is allowed to happen again, Clinton doesn’t deserve to be president.

Would a dearth of competition in the primaries leave Clinton untested and untempered for battle against a Republican opponent who presumably will be in midseason form? I’d like to meet the politician who would rather endure a hard-fought campaign against a dangerous foe than cruise to nomination virtually unopposed. And Clinton, after a life in politics, is nothing if not experienced. She knows how to do this.

A recent Washington Post poll showed Clinton with a commanding advantage over a number of potential Republican opponents. She leads New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 53 percent to 40 percent; former Florida governor Jeb Bush by 54 percent to 41 percent; Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) by 54 percent to 41 percent; 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney by 55 percent to 40 percent; and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee by a yawning 56 percent to 39 percent.

Of course, those are just five of the many potential candidates for the GOP nomination. Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) seems relevant again, or at least not irrelevant. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is still generating lots of buzz. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a political novice, is actually putting together a campaign. Former Texas governor Rick Perry is asking for another chance, while Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is straining to be heard. Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) has formed an exploratory committee. And does anybody doubt that Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) is planning some sort of grand entrance, perhaps via golden chariot?

At this rate, they’ll have to hold the Republican primary debates in shifts.

The Democratic Party’s message — which Clinton is free to choose and hone — should be clear and focused, pretty much from the day she makes her candidacy official. The GOP message, on the other hand, will be in flux. Will it include Huckabee’s anti-Beyoncé stance? Bush’s views on education? Paul’s skepticism about the use of U.S. military power? Graham’s eager hawkishness? On immigration, does Romney still believe in “self-deportation”? Does Rubio still support his own reform bill?

You have to admit, Clinton has handled this whole pre-campaign period quite well. Her silence, so far, has been golden.

 

 

New York Times: “As in 2012, Romney Can Do No Right in Murdoch’s Eyes”

By Amy Chozick and Michael Barbaro

January 27, 2015

The usually grim-faced media mogul practically swooned in his seat. Moments after Jeb Bush delivered what many in the audience described as an unremarkable talk at a conference in Washington, Rupert Murdoch turned to his seatmate, Valerie Jarrett, the White House adviser, to gush over its content and tone.

Mr. Murdoch was pleased that Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida, had listed the economic benefits of overhauling the nation’s immigration system, confiding in Ms. Jarrett that Mr. Bush, a likely Republican presidential candidate, had said all the right things on the fraught issue, according to three people with firsthand knowledge of the conversation.

It was the kind of warm embrace, from the powerful and widely courted owner of The Wall Street Journal and Fox News Channel, that Mr. Murdoch denied Mitt Romney during his 2012 bid for the White House — and one that Mr. Murdoch is already signaling he will deprive Mr. Romney of if he runs in 2016.

In the delicate and unseen campaign underway for Mr. Murdoch’s affections in the next presidential campaign, this much is clear: Mr. Romney is out of the running, a reality that has pained and angered his allies.

Presidential politics is rife with grudges and grievances, but it is hard to recall a display of animus as unsubtle as that which Mr. Murdoch and corners of his media empire have unleashed on Mr. Romney in the past few weeks as he has tried to build support for a third presidential run.

Mr. Murdoch’s most prominent American newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, has called Mr. Romney’s last run a “calamity.” Mr. Murdoch has dismissed Mr. Romney as a “terrible candidate.” And, in a final indignity, Mr. Murdoch has heaped praise on Mr. Romney’s potential rivals, no matter how long a shot they have at the Republican nomination. (“Watch Ben Carson,” Mr. Murdoch wrote on Twitter a few days ago, labeling Mr. Carson, a conservative physician and political neophyte, a “principled brave achiever.”)

The disfavor that Mr. Murdoch has showered upon Mr. Romney could have a genuine impact on the early stages of the Republican primary, as Mr. Romney, the party’s nominee in 2012, weighs whether or not to push ahead with a campaign, a decision he is expected to make in the next few weeks.

For Mr. Romney and those around him, the memory of Mr. Murdoch’s aversion in 2012, and its expression in forums like The Journal, still stings.

“It was a concern during the campaign, one that had to be actively managed,” said Kevin Madden, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney’s campaign in 2012.

He acknowledged that The Journal’s editorial page, a battering ram against Mr. Romney then and now, “does have an impact in shaping opinions of many within the party.”

A few of Mr. Romney’s closest friends have lost their patience with Mr. Murdoch. Ron Kaufman, a longtime confidant and adviser, said that Mr. Murdoch “has proven tone deaf” when it comes to politics and bemoaned what he said were the media executive’s ill-informed outbursts.

Continue reading the main story

“It’s like trying to make sense of what Trump does sometimes,” Mr. Kaufman said.

“Vacuous” is how Mr. Murdoch has privately described Mr. Romney, said a person close to the executive who, wanting to preserve his relationship with him, would not discuss private conversations for attribution. That remark is a blunter version of those Mr. Murdoch has made in public in the past month or so.

Mr. Murdoch takes special umbrage at Mr. Romney’s handling of immigration in 2012, when the candidate, as an alternative to forced deportation, called for “self-deportation,” in which people in the United States illegally would voluntarily go back to their home countries and apply to emigrate legally.

During a closed-door meeting at the Union League Club in Manhattan that year, Mr. Murdoch called the position foolhardy and asked Mr. Romney to back away from it. Mr. Romney, according to two attendees, replied that he had already softened his language on immigration and that if he abandoned his position he would look like a flip-flopper, a label he loathed. Mr. Murdoch was baffled and dismayed, the attendees said.

A spokesman for Mr. Romney declined to comment.

Asked two weeks ago what he thought of Mr. Romney’s consideration of another candidacy, Mr. Murdoch responded: “He had his chance. He mishandled it, you know?”

The rejection has a personal dimension for Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor whose relationship with The Journal dates back decades. The newspaper assiduously chronicled the career of his father, George Romney, a prominent automobile executive. And Mr. Romney is a devoted Journal reader who has repeatedly sought to reach its readers through his own opinion articles.

Those close to Mr. Romney said he had all but given up on trying to win over Mr. Murdoch. Several of them spoke of the situation as frustrating and inexplicable for him. Mr. Romney, they point out, has nothing negative to say about Mr. Murdoch. “He doesn’t hold it against him,” Mr. Kaufman said.

But these people insist that Mr. Murdoch’s harsh assessment is neither an obstacle nor a deterrent as Mr. Romney decides whether to pursue another White House campaign.

Meanwhile, about a half-dozen mainstream Republican candidates are angling for Mr. Murdoch’s blessing, not to mention Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has developed her own growing rapport with him.

Mr. Murdoch seems eager to play a role in the political process. “I am deeply interested in the future of our country, and I enjoy meeting with potential candidates of both parties,” Mr. Murdoch said by email, responding to an inquiry about his political activity. “I am keen to hear their views, whether it’s on tax reform, immigration or defense and foreign policy.”

Mr. Murdoch remains fond of Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who played his own role in the billionaire’s plans to foil Mr. Romney. In 2011, Mr. Murdoch joined a group of wealthy and influential Republican leaders who encouraged Mr. Christie to enter the presidential race, convinced he was a more exciting alternative to Mr. Romney, and with broader appeal.

Last May, Mr. Murdoch expressed doubts about the New Jersey governor, saying he expected more damaging stories to emerge about Mr. Christie’s aides in the aftermath of the closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge. Still, the two men remain in contact, speaking by phone about once every month or two, according to advisers close to both.

Mr. Murdoch remains intrigued by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, privately extolling his appeal to younger voters and his plans for a flat tax. The two meet often in New York and Washington. But Mr. Murdoch worries that Mr. Paul may face an uphill battle in a general election, said a person who has spoken with Mr. Murdoch.

Then there is Mr. Bush, who calls The Journal his “paper of record.” The fact that he sat between Mr. Murdoch and Ms. Jarrett at the conference hosted by The Journal in Washington was no accident: Mr. Murdoch requested it. Their ties have deepened over the years. Mr. Bush has collaborated frequently on education issues with Mr. Murdoch’s close friend and adviser Joel I. Klein, the former New York City schools chancellor who now leads Mr. Murdoch’s education business, Amplify.

Mr. Murdoch, 83, is executive chairman of News Corporation, which owns The Journal, The New York Post and HarperCollins, among other assets, and is chief executive of 21st Century Fox, the parent company of film and television assets including Fox News and the Fox broadcasting network.

With his characteristic candor and deep, Australian-accented mumble, Mr. Murdoch is making known his high regard for Mr. Bush these days.

“I like Jeb Bush very much,” Mr. Murdoch said in New York two weeks ago. “He’s moving very cleverly, very well,” he added.

 

 

New York Times: Times Insider: “Hillary Clinton and Her Detractors: Reporter’s Notebook”

By Amy Chozick

January 27, 2015, 9:00 a.m. EST

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presumed 2016 presidential campaign is already drawing a lot of criticism. That may not be a surprise. But Amy Chozick, a political reporter, is finding that the attacks against Mrs. Clinton have a new angle. She describes the challenge of reporting fairly on this subtle shift and what it may mean.

The cottage industry of attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton is not new, but I noticed over the past several months that the attacks that landed in my inbox struck a very different tone than those that Republicans used when she was first lady and later when she ran for president in 2008.

Remember when she was portrayed as the embodiment of bra-burning feminism? Then, in 2008, there were a lot of attacks that seemed based on gender, like an anti-Hillary website that called her a witch.

But ahead of the 2016 presidential campaign, the groups trying to stop Mrs. Clinton instead focus on her paid speeches, her response to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, and her comments last summer that her family was “dead broke” when leaving the White House. Instead of being the 1960s radical, she is portrayed as an elitist who is overly centrist.

The tricky thing in reporting this type of story is that you don’t want to dismiss legitimate questions about her record as partisan “hating.” Every political candidate faces attacks and should be thoroughly vetted if they’re running for president. George W. Bush and other Republicans have certainly faced intense partisan attacks from the left.

But for some reason, Mrs. Clinton has always sparked a different level of ire. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters largely believe the level of ire she sparks has to do with her being the first woman with a real chance to become president. Others point to how polarizing she is; polls show the country is almost equally divided in opinions about her.

Whatever the reason, I can’t think of another candidate who has prompted an entire industry of kitschy items — like a “Hillary nutcracker,” “No way in Hellary” aprons, and “Even Bill Doesn’t Want Hillary” bumper stickers.

All this is a good way to rally Republicans, but it remains to be seen how much impact it would have on Mrs. Clinton’s presumptive campaign.

 

 

The Hill: “Benghazi panel looking for a 'unicorn,' Dem says”

By Martin Matishak

January 27, 2015, 12:23 p.m. EST

A House Democrat on Tuesday mocked the special committee investigating the Benghazi terrorist attacks, suggesting they are looking for a “conspiracy” that doesn’t exist.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), who is part of the special select committee probing the 2012 attacks in Libya, said she is increasingly convinced that GOP lawmakers are looking for a "mythical creature, this unicorn" that she described as a "nefarious conspiracy that does not in fact exist."

Sanchez said that she was "skeptical" about the scope of the select committee before she joined it but put her concerns aside in hopes the investigation would be nonpartisan.

"Boy, it really looks like I was wrong with that one," she said at a hearing of the panel.

Democrats and Republicans sparred Tuesday over the work of the special panel's investigation, with Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) pushing back on allegations that the investigation launched last year is moving at a “glacial pace.”

Gowdy accused the Obama administration of acting slowly on requests for documents and interviews with witnesses, saying he has “zero interest” in dragging out the investigation.

“We’re going to pick up the pace,” he said.

The House created the select committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks last May, over the objections of Democrats who have accused the GOP of launching a “witch hunt” aimed at attacking Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of the State at the time of the deadly assault.

Republicans say there are still unanswered questions about the incident, the administration's response and warnings about the security situation in Libya that deserve a thorough examination.

The infighting on the panel spilled into the open late Monday after Democrats accused Republicans of conducting witness interviews in secret and withholding information. They also complained Gowdy has not approved rules for the committee that would allow them greater participation.

As the partisan sniping continued into Tuesday’s open hearing, Sanchez apologized to the witnesses on hand.

“Tensions that have been boiling over for some time,” she said.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) tried to lower the temperature, urging panel members to find a way to issue a final bipartisan report on the attacks.

If the final report isn't backed by both sides, he said, the panel "will have been a complete failure, a meaningless failure" and a "complete waste of time."

 

 

Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Scott Walker forms committee in preparation for 2016 presidential bid”

By Dan Balz

January 27, 2015, 12:05 p.m. EST

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who's speech to activists in Iowa last weekend drew strong reviews, has taken the first formal step toward a presidential candidacy in 2016, establishing a committee that will help spread his message and underwrite his activities as he seeks to build his political and fundraising networks in the months ahead.

Walker filed papers to set up the committee, called "Our American Revival," and a new Web site for the organization was scheduled to go live later Tuesday. The steps come after a busy weekend of pre-presidential events that included his address at the Iowa Freedom Summit, a later appearance at a gathering in California hosted by the billionaire Koch brothers and a stopover in Denver for additional fundraising.

“Our American Revival encompasses the shared values that make our country great; limiting the powers of the federal government to those defined in the Constitution while creating a leaner, more efficient, more effective and more accountable government to the American people,” Walker said in a statement in the release announcing the committee.

Walker’s steps come at a time when other prospective candidates are making similar moves in what has quickly become the largest prospective field of Republican candidates and the most wide open nomination contest in the modern history of the party.

The governor’s Iowa speech helped establish him more firmly in a presidential field that includes bigger names like former Florida governor Jeb Bush and possibly Mitt Romney, the party’s 2012 nominee, as well as bigger personalities like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, veterans of past presidential campaigns and newcomers with specific appeal to the parts of the GOP’s conservative base.

The second-term governor has made no secret of his interesting in becoming a candidate for the Republican nomination, and he has recently made key additions to his political team, including the hiring of Rick Wiley, a former Republican National Committee political director, to lead the organizing effort. Wiley will serve as executive director of Our American Revival.

The formation of the new committee represents Walker’s most significant step to date in a process that is expected to result in a declaration of candidacy later this year, once he and the legislature have gone through the budget process in his state.

Walker has had a stormy tenure as governor, but one in which he has repeatedly emerged victorious over his opponents. His decision to take on public employee unions in Wisconsin in early 2009 created huge protests around the state capitol building in Madison and left the state deeply polarized around his leadership.

That anger resulted in a recall election in 2012, which Walker survived. He went to win his reelection campaign last November by a comfortable margin, and his three victories in four years have made him a hero among many conservatives.

He now uses those battles as a badge of honor when he speaks at party gatherings. Last Saturday in Des Moines, he spoke of the death threats he and his family received during the height of the protests in Wisconsin and thanked those in the audience and elsewhere who had prayed for his family during those times. Along with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Walker won the biggest ovations of the day from the conservative audience.

His message to Republicans is not one of compromise or conciliation with the Democrats. In Iowa he called for a “big and bold” conservative agenda and predicted, based on his own experience in Wisconsin and that voters will respond positively to that type of leadership, even if they disagree with some of the particulars.

“If you’re not afraid to go big and go bold, you can actually get results,” he said in Iowa. “And if you get the job done the voters will actually stand up with you.”

There is considerable interest in Walker’s likely candidacy, but there are many questions about him as a prospective presidential candidate as well, including whether he can scale up his political operation for a national race. He lacks foreign policy experience, though, he is not alone in the GOP field on that issue.

His low-key personality has raised doubts about his capacity to generate excitement and energy among the party’s base, but his performance in Iowa on Saturday may have helped answer some of those questions.

Walker’s hope is to find some support in the establishment wing of the party, and as a second-term governor he will seek to appeal to those Republicans who believe their best hope of winning in 2016 is with a governor who has executive experience outside of Washington. He also has stressed the importance of new leaders and fresh faces in a party whose presidential field includes a group of prospective candidates who have been out of office for some years.

His battles with the unions and others in the Democratic left and his reform agenda in Wisconsin give him entrée to tea party wing of the GOP, and as the son of a Baptist minister he will try to appeal to religious conservatives as well.

A Walker candidate faces obstacles in such a crowded field. Although he raised tens of millions of dollars for his recall election, he will have to prove that he can do so under the rules for presidential campaigns. He has gotten considerable scrutiny as governor, including revelations from legal action questioning whether his campaign engaged in illegal coordination. The legal investigations have resulted in no action against him and he has maintained that he is not a target. But he will face even more scrutiny across the board as a presidential candidate.

Walker’s committee is different than some other created by aspiring presidential candidates. It is not a so-called leadership Pac, but rather is a “527,” so labeled for the portion of the federal tax code that provides for its tax exempt status.

A Walker adviser, who declined to be identified in order to share internal discussions, said the governor decided to go that route because leadership Pacs technically are designed in part to be vehicles to give money to other politicians. Many who create them use them principally for their own political activity. The committee can advocate for policies the governor has championed.

Regulations allow Walker to raise money for the committee in unlimited amounts but will require him to reveal periodically contributions and expenditures, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s Web site.