Subject: ​Correct The Record Friday January 30, 2015 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:14:31 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Friday January 30, 2015 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*The State opinion: Nick Sottile, College Democrats of South Carolina
president: "Making college affordable should be nonpartisan,
non-controversial"
<http://www.thestate.com/2015/01/29/3955376/sottile-making-college-affordable.html>*

“The next president needs to be an advocate that students can count on,
someone with a record of working to expand access to higher education. I
believe Hillary Clinton can be that president.”

*Sun-Sentinel opinion: Rep. Alcee L. Hastings: “Run, Hillary, run”
<http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/sfl-run-hillary-run-20150129-story.html>*

“Hillary’s steadfast dedication to supporting the civil rights of all
individuals, and her commitment to providing a voice to the
disenfranchised, are both admirable and inspiring.”

*Politico: “Elizabeth Warren backers fund poll stoking Hillary Clinton
doubts”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/elizabeth-warren-poll-hillary-clinton-2016-election-114754.html>*

“Correct the Record, a project of the Brock-founded super PAC American
Bridge that attempts to diffuse political attacks against Clinton includes
a lengthy defense of Clinton’s efforts to expand college affordability.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton
‘probably not’ bold enough for 2016”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/29/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-probably-not-bold-enough-for-2016/>*

“Pro-Clinton group Correct the Record pushed back on the former secretary
of state's economic record. ‘Hillary Clinton has fought all her life to
ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to succeed – championing
equal pay for equal work, advocating for middle-class tax cuts, and pushing
for a raise in the minimum wage,’ said spokesperson Adrienne Watson.”

*FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters For America: “How Bloomberg
Is Helping The GOP Smear Hillary Clinton”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/29/how-bloomberg-is-helping-the-gop-smear-hillary/202341>*

“Bloomberg News is helping a Republican operative push out a dishonest
smear of Hillary Clinton, hyping the aggregate cost of Clinton's air travel
while she was serving as a U.S. Senator as something that could be
scandalous.”

*Politico: “Exclusive: Hillary Clinton may delay campaign”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-may-delay-campaign-114714.html>*

“Hillary Clinton, expecting no major challenge for the Democratic
nomination, is strongly considering delaying the formal launch of her
presidential campaign until July, three months later than originally
planned, top Democrats tell POLITICO.”

*BuzzFeed: “Top Democrat On Benghazi Committee: Gowdy Knew Hillary Clinton
Would Testify Months Ago”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobfischler/top-democrat-on-benghazi-committee-gowdy-knew-hillary-clinto#.wybVVkjy0>*

“According to Cummings, she agreed to come to Capitol Hill as early as
December 2014, and he said he told Gowdy that in October.”

*CNN: “Hillary Clinton is beating Mitt Romney at Twitter”
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/29/politics/2016-twitter-clinton-romney/>*

“As probably expected, Clinton has the most followers, followed by former
2012 Presidential candidate and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. What is
surprising however is how Jeb Bush compares. He has the lowest followers of
just about everyone in the pack.”

*Bloomberg: “Bernie Sanders Says Wall Street is His Target, Not Hillary
Clinton”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-29/bernie-sanders-says-wall-street-is-his-target-not-hillary-clinton>*

“‘It's something that I would like to do, but I can't do it—won't do
it—unless we do it well,’ he said. ‘All I know is if I run, I'm not running
against Hillary Clinton. I'm running against wall street and their greed
that has helped destroy this economy. I am running against 'Citizens
United.' I am running against those people who deny climate change.’”

*Politico: “Rand Paul ‘secret tape’ dings Jeb on dynasty”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/rand-paul-secret-tape-114739.html?hp=l2_4>*

“Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the 2016 field’s most prolific adopter of social
media, has posted what aides wryly call a ‘secret tape’ of a fake phone
call between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.”

*The Daily Beast: “Who Will Win the 2016 Matt Drudge Primary?”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/29/who-will-win-the-2016-matt-drudge-primary.html?via=desktop&source=twitter>*

“‘One big difference between 2016 and 2008 is that there are so many new
platforms curating that type of content,’ said Phil Singer, a spokesman for
Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign. ‘He really came of age in the pre-Twitter,
pre-Facebook era—he’s sort of like a landline.’”

*National Journal: “Democrats Facing 2016 Debate Dilemma”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/democrats-facing-2016-debate-dilemma-20150129>*

[Subtitle:] “The party is starting discussions about 2016 primary debates,
but it's challenging to do without knowing what Hillary Clinton's
opposition will look like.”

*Politico: “Shut-out Dems longing for Hillary - and Bill”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/house-democrats-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-114746.html>*

“Hillary Clinton’s all-but-certain 2016 bid has perked up Democrats, as
they once again dream of invites to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, rowdy
late-night dinners, overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom and, not least,
consultation on policy and politics.”

*Politico Magazine: "Jeb 'Put Me Through Hell'"
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/jeb-bush-terri-schiavo-114730_Page6.html#.VMuGw2TF-nM>*

Subtitle: Michael Schiavo knows as well as anyone what Jeb Bush can do with
executive power. He thinks you ought to know too.

*NPR: Former Democratic Sen. Jim Webb Explores Presidential Bid
<http://www.npr.org/2015/01/30/382588001/former-sen-jim-webb-d-va-explores-presidential-bid>*

"In considering whether to launch a presidential campaign, former Senator
Jim Webb of Virginia tells Steve Inskeep his big challenge would be raising
money to promote his ideas."

*Articles:*

*The State opinion: Nick Sottile, College Democrats of South Carolina
president: Making college affordable should be nonpartisan,
non-controversial
<http://www.thestate.com/2015/01/29/3955376/sottile-making-college-affordable.html>*

By Nick Sottile

January 29, 2015

COLUMBIA, SC — President Obama has proposed making two years of community
college free for those who work hard for it. The idea that costs should not
keep a student from pursuing a college education isn’t (or wasn’t)
controversial.

But while I’m hopeful that the president’s plan will be met with wide
support, I fear that it will be met with the knee-jerk opposition that has
been the Republican response to so many good ideas.

Republicans in Congress have stood against meaningful student loan relief;
they’ve stood against low interest rates for federal student loans; and
they’ve stood against education funding, even in the form of Pell Grants.

Today’s GOP is quick to shoot down ideas without proposing anything
substantive as an alternative.

Support for education used to be bipartisan. But we live in a polarized
era, where policy takes a backseat to political pandering, and working with
the other side is tantamount to treason. Earning the title of RINO
(Republican In Name Only)is a sure-fire way to lose a GOP primary.

With the 2016 race gearing up, expect Republican presidential candidates to
run as far away from this issue as they can.

That’s not what America needs. The next president needs to be an advocate
that students can count on, someone with a record of working to expand
access to higher education. I believe Hillary Clinton can be that president.

As a senator, Clinton pushed a Student Borrower Bill of Rights, noting that
student loan debt “can put people in economic handcuffs.” She understands
the crisis that many students and former students face.

She has worked to make students aware of their options in the form of
financial aid and student loans. She has worked to make it easier to pay
off those loans. She has worked to expand Pell Grants, which play an
important role in making college affordable to middle and lower income
students.

Simply put, Clinton is right on the issues and has the record to show for
it. No one is more qualified than her to be a voice for students.

As the cost of college keeps rising, we could use her leadership.

*Sun-Sentinel opinion: Rep. Alcee L. Hastings: “Run, Hillary, run”
<http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/sfl-run-hillary-run-20150129-story.html>*

By Rep. Alcee L. Hastings

January 29, 2015, 4:25 p.m. EST

In recent weeks much speculation and anticipation has surrounded former
first lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s possible
presidential run. While Clinton and those close to her have remained mum,
if she runs in 2016, I will support her.

In November of 2013, I wrote to Hillary to express how proud I was to be
one of the first members from Florida to support her presidential campaign
in 2008. Over a year later, I feel even more strongly that she is the right
woman for America.

I have known Hillary for decades, dating back to her time with the
Children’s Defense Fund. In this capacity, I came to know her as a smart
and driven advocate, whose thoughtfulness and deliberation helped to
advance justice and the rule of law in a time when African Americans and
women struggled daily to attain the freedom and equality enshrined in our
constitution.

Hillary’s steadfast dedication to supporting the civil rights of all
individuals, and her commitment to providing a voice to the
disenfranchised, are both admirable and inspiring.

The consummate diplomat, Hillary has traveled nearly a million miles,
attending hundreds of meetings with foreign leaders in 112 countries. Her
poise and competence has served to strengthen American alliances, while her
compassion and drive to promote equality for all has ushered in a more
inclusive world vision.

In this regard, her legacy lives on in the State Department’s comprehensive
human rights agenda, which directs the department to use its full range of
diplomatic and development tools to work to eliminate violence and
discrimination against LGBT individuals across the globe.

But her devotion to improving the lives of others is not limited to her
extensive work abroad. Throughout her career, Hillary has fought to improve
the lives of hardworking Americans.

In the Senate, she repeatedly supported legislation aimed at raising the
minimum wage and implementing middle-class tax cuts, including tax credits
for student loan recipients. She has also worked tirelessly, often
collaborating with leaders across the aisle, to increase unemployment
benefits for out of work Americans.

While we have undoubtedly seen a great restoration of our national economy
over the past year, the effects of this restoration have not been equally
distributed to those most in need. Hillary’s history of, and devotion to,
promoting the economic security of working families make her not only
qualified for the job of president, but make her the right choice.

Our next President must be one with not only a strong vision, but also a
strong record of getting results. Hillary is that candidate. I was proud to
endorse her in 2008 and will do all I can to support her candidacy should
she run for President in 2016.

*Politico: “Elizabeth Warren backers fund poll stoking Hillary Clinton
doubts”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/elizabeth-warren-poll-hillary-clinton-2016-election-114754.html>*

By Kenneth P. Vogel and Mike Elk

January 30, 2015, 5:41 a.m. EST

A group of major liberal donors who want Elizabeth Warren to run for
president have paid for a poll intended to show that Hillary Clinton does
not excite the Democratic base and would be vulnerable in a 2016 general
election.

The automated poll of nearly 900 registered voters, conducted last week by
Public Policy Polling, found that 48 percent of respondents had an
unfavorable opinion of Clinton, compared to 43 percent who viewed the
former secretary of State favorably.

While Clinton — the prospective favorite for the Democratic presidential
nomination should she enter the race — holds leads over every major GOP
candidate tested in the poll, she doesn’t break 50 percent against any, and
some are well within striking distance. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker comes
closest, with Clinton leading him by a margin of 45 percent to 42 percent
(with 14 percent not sure who they’d vote for) – within the survey’s margin
of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.

The poll was provided to POLITICO by one of the donors who funded it, who
asked to remain anonymous. It does not directly ask respondents to rate
Warren’s favorability or to choose between the Massachusetts Senator and
Clinton, nor does it pit Warren against any of the prospective GOP
candidates. But it appears to be part of a broader effort by liberal
Democratic donors and activists to make the case that Warren, who has
repeatedly insisted she has no interest in running for president, could
defeat Clinton for the Democratic nomination and also would be a more
viable general election candidate.

A group of major liberal donors who want Elizabeth Warren to run for
president have paid for a poll intended to show that Hillary Clinton does
not excite the Democratic base and would be vulnerable in a 2016 general
election.

The automated poll of nearly 900 registered voters, conducted last week by
Public Policy Polling, found that 48 percent of respondents had an
unfavorable opinion of Clinton, compared to 43 percent who viewed the
former secretary of State favorably.

While Clinton — the prospective favorite for the Democratic presidential
nomination should she enter the race — holds leads over every major GOP
candidate tested in the poll, she doesn’t break 50 percent against any, and
some are well within striking distance. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker comes
closest, with Clinton leading him by a margin of 45 percent to 42 percent
(with 14 percent not sure who they’d vote for) – within the survey’s margin
of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.

The poll was provided to POLITICO by one of the donors who funded it, who
asked to remain anonymous. It does not directly ask respondents to rate
Warren’s favorability or to choose between the Massachusetts Senator and
Clinton, nor does it pit Warren against any of the prospective GOP
candidates. But it appears to be part of a broader effort by liberal
Democratic donors and activists to make the case that Warren, who has
repeatedly insisted she has no interest in running for president, could
defeat Clinton for the Democratic nomination and also would be a more
viable general election candidate.

Clinton ally David Brock noted that Clinton has called for greater
oversight of derivatives and other complex financial products, and he
called the survey “classic push poll garbage” that’s “designed to reach a
precooked conclusion.”

Brock challenged the accuracy of other characterizations of Clinton’s
stances in the poll, including its assertion that she “has remained silent”
on the issue of reducing student loan rates – one of Warren’s top issues.

As a senator from New York in 2006, Clinton sponsored a bill called the
called the Student Borrower Bill of Rights to base monthly loan payments on
income.

Correct the Record, a project of the Brock-founded super PAC American
Bridge that attempts to diffuse political attacks against Clinton includes
a lengthy defense of Clinton’s efforts to expand college affordability.

Brock called the PPP poll “a series of false representations of Hillary
Clinton’s record masquerading as opinion research.”

But PPP director Tom Jensen defended the poll as an earnest effort to
assess Clinton’s weaknesses, asserting she likely “will be testing a lot of
this stuff in her own polling.”

The results show she “has some vulnerability – and Warren a lot of appeal –
when it comes to their records on the financial crisis and related economic
issues,” Jensen said. “If Clinton does end up running, she will need to
take a tougher approach toward the financial industry or risk having the
issue give her a lot of trouble with voters across the party spectrum,” he
said.

The poll showed that, among respondents who identified as Democrats,
Clinton had higher favorability ratings and wider leads over prospective
GOP rivals than she did among respondents who said they were Republicans.
But Democrats and Republicans both responded negatively to questions
linking Clinton to Wall Street.

It would defy establishment Republican sensibilities for the GOP nominee to
attack Clinton for being beholden to Wall Street, but Jensen predicted
“Republicans will use any line of attack – no matter how disingenuous it
might be – if they think it could help them win.”

The poll was conducted on January 20 and 21, and collected 80 percent of
its responses by phone and 20 percent online.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton
‘probably not’ bold enough for 2016”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/29/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-probably-not-bold-enough-for-2016/>*

By Sean Sullivan

January 29, 2015, 12:02 p.m. EST

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a potential candidate for president, on
Thursday expressed little faith that Hillary Clinton would be an acceptable
standard-bearer in the 2016 presidential election.

"Based on her history, do I think she is going to be as bold as needs to be
in addressing the major crises that we face? Probably not. I may be
surprised," Sanders said in an interview with The Washington Post.

Sanders, a self-described "socialist," is considering running for president
as either Democrat or an independent. Asked repeatedly about Clinton's
record, he mostly declined to weigh in on specifics.

"I have no assessment," he said.

But it was clear that Sanders is not convinced Clinton, the presumed
Democratic frontrunner for president, has made a forceful enough argument
about how to combat income inequality, a central focus of the Vermont
senator.

"Not much," responded Sanders when asked about what he has heard from
Clinton on income inequality and related issues.

Pro-Clinton group Correct the Record pushed back on the former secretary of
state's economic record. “Hillary Clinton has fought all her life to ensure
that all Americans have the opportunity to succeed – championing equal pay
for equal work, advocating for middle-class tax cuts, and pushing for a
raise in the minimum wage," said spokesperson Adrienne Watson.

Sanders focused deep concern on the gap between rich and poor, an issue
both Democrats and Republicans are speaking about with more frequency, and
sharply criticized the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, whose vast
political network said this week it was prepared to spend nearly $1 billion
in advance of the 2016 election.

"You're looking at the undermining of American democracy," said Sanders.

A Kochs spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

As he weighs a bid, Sanders has been traveling to the early nominating
states. He is headed to New Hampshire again this weekend and will return to
Iowa in the coming weeks.

He said he will not run unless he thinks he "can do it well," so he does
not undermine the issues he cares about.

"'Can you bring people out on the streets? Can you mobilize people? Can you
tap the anger that's out there?'" said Sanders of the questions facing him
as he weighs a potential presidential bid. "And the answer is, you know
what, at this moment, I don't exactly know that you can."

Sanders said he plans to decide "reasonably soon" whether to run, likely
before the summer.

"You can't wait indefinitely, that's for sure," he added.

*FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters For America: “How Bloomberg
Is Helping The GOP Smear Hillary Clinton”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/29/how-bloomberg-is-helping-the-gop-smear-hillary/202341>*

By Thomas Bishop

January 29, 2015, 10:10 p.m. EST

Bloomberg News is helping a Republican operative push out a dishonest smear
of Hillary Clinton, hyping the aggregate cost of Clinton's air travel while
she was serving as a U.S. Senator as something that could be scandalous.
But the article's dubious premise is undermined by facts contained in the
article, notably that Clinton's travel history was routine and completely
within Senate rules.

"Hillary Clinton took more than 200 privately chartered flights at taxpayer
expense during her eight years in the U.S. Senate," Bloomberg reported,
"sometimes using the jets of corporations and major campaign donors as she
racked up $225,756 in flight costs."

The article warned that Clinton's travel record could feed into Republican
attacks that she is "out of touch."

But Bloomberg undermined the entire premise of its article, reporting that
"the flights fell within congressional rules and were not out of the
ordinary for senators at the time":

“There is no evidence her Senate trips, which ranged in cost from less than
$200 to upwards of $3,000 per flight, ran afoul of Senate rules, which were
tightened by a 2007 ethics law. Before the law was changed, senators were
required to pay the cost of a first-class ticket to ride aboard a private
jet -- or, in some cases, even less. In Clinton's final two years in the
Senate, lawmakers who flew on private or chartered planes had to pay their
proportional share of the cost of the flight based on the number of
passengers.”

Bloomberg's complicity in pushing a GOP smear campaign that it concedes is
without merit is a troubling development given the relentless and deceptive
conservative attacks on Clinton.

*Politico: “Exclusive: Hillary Clinton may delay campaign”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-may-delay-campaign-114714.html>*

By Mike Allen

January 29, 2015 6:43 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Top Democrats give a new date for the campaign’s likely start.

Hillary Clinton, expecting no major challenge for the Democratic
nomination, is strongly considering delaying the formal launch of her
presidential campaign until July, three months later than originally
planned, top Democrats tell POLITICO.

The delay from the original April target will give her more time to develop
her message, policy and organization, without the chaos and spotlight of a
public campaign.

A Democrat familiar with Clinton’s thinking said: “She doesn’t feel under
any pressure, and they see no primary challenge on the horizon. If you have
the luxury of time, you take it.”

Advisers said the biggest reason for the delay is simple: She feels no rush.

 “She doesn’t want to feel pressured by the press to do something before
she’s ready,” one adviser said. “She’s better off as a non-candidate. Why
not wait?”

A huge advantage to waiting is that Clinton postpones the time when she
goes before the public as a politician rather than as a former secretary of
state. Polling by both Democrats and Republicans shows that one of her
biggest vulnerabilities is looking political.

So the Clinton camp has enjoyed watching her recede from the headlines in
recent weeks as Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney have amped up their potential
candidacies.

One option being considered would be to announce an exploratory committee
earlier – perhaps in April, at the beginning of a new fundraising quarter,
in the timeframe when insiders originally expected her to launch her
campaign.

Then the actual kickoff would be in July, near the start of the next
quarter. By launching at the beginning of a quarter, supporters have the
maximum amount of time to generate a blockbuster total for their first
report.

The delay would pose complications for the infrastructure that has been
built in anticipation of her candidacy. Ready for Hillary, a super PAC that
expects to go out of business once the campaign begins, now may have to
fund its data-gathering and grassroots activities longer than expected.

The danger – and a reason the plan could be scrapped – is that the
comparatively leisurely rollout could fuel complaints that Clinton sees the
nomination fight as a coronation. Already, her allies are contemplating the
possibility that she might not have to debate before the general election.

*BuzzFeed: “Top Democrat On Benghazi Committee: Gowdy Knew Hillary Clinton
Would Testify Months Ago”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobfischler/top-democrat-on-benghazi-committee-gowdy-knew-hillary-clinto#.wybVVkjy0>*

By Jacob Fischler

January 29, 2015, 12:15 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON — The top ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on
Benghazi says the Republican chairman has known for months that Hillary
Clinton is willing to testify, but chose not to have her do so.

In a letter to chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings said
that after receiving thousands of letters from the Stop Hiillary PAC, Gowdy
personally asked him to call Clinton and ask her to give public testimony
to the select committee.

According to Cummings, she agreed to come to Capitol Hill as early as
December 2014, and he said he told Gowdy that in October.

In a statement to Politico this week, a spokeswoman for Gowdy said he was
“not aware of any formal notice that she would [testify].”

Cummings also writes there was a phone call on Nov. 12, 2014 involving
Republican and Democratic staff members, where Clinton’s attorney
“confirmed the Secretary’s willingness to testify.”

Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential candidate who was secretary of
state when the U.S. embassy in Benghazi was attacked, answered questions in
front of Congress once before in 2013.

Cummings said that after learning Clinton was willing to testify, Gowdy
said he wanted to obtain “additional documents” before setting a date for
her to testify.

“This was a new standard you had not expressed before obtaining the
secretary’s agreement to testify, and this standard has not been applied to
the other witnesses before the Committee,” he wrote.

*CNN: “Hillary Clinton is beating Mitt Romney at Twitter”
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/29/politics/2016-twitter-clinton-romney/>*

By Ashley Codianni

January 29, 2015, 2:53 p.m. EST

With the 2016 presidential campaign well underway, it's worth examining how
each of the possible 2016 candidates stack up against each other on Twitter.

There are more than 284 million monthly active users on Twitter and 500
million tweets sent per day, making it an integral platform for engaging
conversation with potential voters.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had a belated arrival to the
platform in June 2013, amassed 100,000 followers almost instantly.

While her tweets more recently have been to promote book events and
speaking engagements, she did use the platform to condemn republicans and
weigh in on financial reform:

*Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton* @HillaryClinton: Attacking financial reform
is risky and wrong. Better for Congress to focus on jobs and wages for
middle class families. [1/16/15, 1:57 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/556163273738166272>]

Others are using the platform to exchange snarky jabs and troll followers
on the potential for a 2016 run:

*Sen. Rand Paul* @SenRandPaul: Of course, everyone has to be themselves,
and I have my own style.  I think this will be a popular item this year
[1/23/14, 10:09 a.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/547408690039775232>]

But overall, where do they all stand?

As probably expected, Clinton has the most followers, followed by former
2012 Presidential candidate and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. What is
surprising however is how Jeb Bush compares. He has the lowest followers of
just about everyone in the pack.

As for Twitter conversation and mentions, who's winning in conversation and
engagement? CNN requested data from Twitter to measure engagement rates,
using numbers from the start of Clinton's book tour in June 2014.

Clinton again is the clear Twitter front-runner with a 74% increase in
followers since June. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, while significantly fewer
followers than Clinton and Romney, has seen a 50% increase in combined
followers for both twitter handles @Elizabethforma and @Senwarren. Bush,
while comparatively stands with the least amount of followers, has seen a
significant increase in followers since June 2014, 31%. Romney, who has the
second highest following next to Clinton has seen only a 4% increase in
followers despite recent talk of a third presidential run.

Facebook on the other hand is a different kind of animal. Clinton doesn't
yet have an official Facebook page and Romney is leading both presence and
engagement on the platform.

How about Instagram? I don't think we're there yet.

*Bloomberg: “Bernie Sanders Says Wall Street is His Target, Not Hillary
Clinton”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-29/bernie-sanders-says-wall-street-is-his-target-not-hillary-clinton>*

By Richard Rubin

January 29, 2015, 4:26 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The Vermont senator has decidedly mixed feelings about making a
White House run.

Bernie Sanders says he wants to run for president. He really does. But that
doesn't mean he will.

"My God, if you run for president, you're going to need a gazillion
dollars," he said Thursday at a taping of C-SPAN's Newsmakers, airing this
weekend. "You're taking on the Koch brothers, who have an endless sum of
money."

Those obstacles—along with Hillary Clinton, a dozen Republicans and the
American public's wariness of a self-described socialist—are in the way of
the independent senator's bid to become the 45th commander in chief.

Like any good senator, Sanders' description of an ideal presidential
candidate sounds just like himself.

"We're going to need bold leadership," said the Vermonter, first elected to
the House in 1990 and the Senate in 2006. "We're going to need people
prepared to take on, frankly, the billionaire class, to prevent this
country moving in the direction of oligarchy."

Sanders said he'll be in New Hampshire this weekend and then Iowa in a few
weeks, trying to figure out if he can build a coalition to make climate
change a priority, slap a financial transactions tax on Wall Street.

"It's something that I would like to do, but I can't do it—won't do
it—unless we do it well," he said. "All I know is if I run, I'm not running
against Hillary Clinton. I'm running against wall street and their greed
that has helped destroy this economy. I am running against 'Citizens
United.' I am running against those people who deny climate change."

*Politico: “Rand Paul ‘secret tape’ dings Jeb on dynasty”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/rand-paul-secret-tape-114739.html?hp=l2_4>*

By Mike Allen

January 29, 2015, 4:21 p.m. EST

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the 2016 field’s most prolific adopter of social
media, has posted what aides wryly call a “secret tape” of a fake phone
call between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.

RAND PAC, Paul’s political organization, used actors to portray the
conversation, which hits both rivals on the dynasty issue.

“Bush” tells her he’s thinking about running for president: “I just wanted
to call and give you a heads-up in hopes we could work something out.”

“Clinton” says: “We both agree on so many issues: bigger government, Common
Core, and amnesty for illegal immigrants.”

Paul, who this week gave an interview to CNN via Snapchat, plans to
distribute the audio via Twitter and other social platforms.

Here’s a transcript of the fake conversation (or click here to listen):

BUSH: “Hey, Hill. It’s Jeb.”

CLINTON: “Hey, Jeb. To what do I owe this pleasure?”

BUSH: “Well, it’s true — I’m thinking about running for president.”

CLINTON: “Well, Jeb, so am I.”

BUSH: “I just wanted to call and give you a heads-up in hopes we could work
something out.”

CLINTON: “What do you mean, Jeb? It’s clearly my turn: Bush, Clinton, Bush.
Now, Clinton.”

BUSH: “Well, Hillary, there hasn’t been a Republican White House without a
Bush since 1977, and we’re ready to be back.”

CLINTON: “Let me shoot straight with you, Jeb, OK? Bill and I are dead
broke and need a place to stay. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is calling me home
— I’ve still got the back door key. Being president offers a lot more job
security than writing another memoir.”

BUSH: “Well, the Bushes have weathered attacks before. And READ MY LIPS,
Hillary: We’re not backing down this time.”

CLINTON: “Well, you’re right — maybe we can work something out. We both
agree on so many issues: bigger government, Common Core, and amnesty for
illegal immigrants.”

BUSH: “Well, we’ve both got problems. You’ve got problems with the grass
roots, and I’ve got all those damn conservatives. What say, we make a deal?”

[Call beeps in.]

BUSH: “Sorry, Hillary, but I have to go. Mitt keeps calling.”

CLINTON: “Oh, for crying out loud.”

*The Daily Beast: “Who Will Win the 2016 Matt Drudge Primary?”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/29/who-will-win-the-2016-matt-drudge-primary.html?via=desktop&source=twitter>*

By David Freedlander

January 29, 2015

[Subtitle:] In the battle to win positive headlines, past favorites Romney
and Clinton would seem to have an advantage—but they’re being eclipsed by
new faces.

SEATTLE TO FINE RESIDENTS… FOR THROWING AWAY FOOD!

ISIS TO OBAMA: WE’LL BEHEAD YOU!

APPLE REPORTS LARGEST PROFIT IN HISTORY OF MANKIND

On Wednesday afternoon, those were the stories leading the Drudge Report.
And just below such lurid fodder were three headlines on Wisconsin Gov.
Scott Walker nudging closer to a presidential run (“I don’t think it’s ever
good to bet against me,” one proclaimed), another on Mitt Romney, and two
more on Rand Paul (PAUL: “I’D SHOOT A DRONE OUT OF THE SKY”).

Such tallying is not merely academic; it is precisely the kind of reading
of the entrails that Republican political operatives are enduring as the
presidential campaign season gets under way. Because just as there are the
real primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, whose voting is nearly a year
away but whose voters candidates are already courting, and just as there is
the so-called Money Primary, which involves the seeking out of the money
people who can bankroll such a venture, there is the “The Drudge
Primary”—the battle to curry favor with the Internet’s most notorious
aggregator.

Back in 2008, Matt Drudge was widely seen to be firmly in Mitt Romney’s
camp, and oddly, for someone who burst on to the national scene with his
reporting during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, pushing Hillary Clinton, as
well. Although the website has not nearly the sway on the left that it does
on the right, it was the place where the photo of Barack Obama dressed as a
Somali elder first surfaced, while Clinton received such anodyne headlines
as “Hillary Clinton Says Shared Prosperity Should Replace ‘On Your Own’
Society.”

In the cases of both Romney and Clinton, the favorable treatment was due in
part to the relationships the campaigns developed with the reclusive
blogger, with each deputizing designated Drudge-whisperers to feed the site
opposition about their rivals.

In 2012, it was widely assumed that the Drudge Report was in Romney’s
corner again—not so much because Drudge seemed like a fan of the former
Massachusetts governor but because the site was savage about the rest of
the field. “Report: Stress-Related Condition Incapacitates Bachmann;
Heavy-Pill Use Alleged” read one headline; “Jon Huntsman Losing in SC—to
Stephen Colbert” read another. Former Newt Gingrich aides recall with
dismay that every time their candidate was on the site, he seemed to be
pictured shirtless, or holding multiple plates of food.

Not that they hold any grudges.

“You do not pick a fight with Matt Drudge,” said Rick Tyler, a Gingrich
campaign spokesman in 2012, who said that all of his entreaties to the
blogger went unanswered. “You will lose. There is no point.”

And so which way will Drudge go in 2016, with both Clinton and Romney as
potential candidates? True to form, the answer for the enigmatic Drudge
appears to be neither. In the most recent series of headlines, Clinton
comes off as an old, possibly brain-damaged money-grubber. Republican
operatives say the coverage of Romney has been decidedly neutral. If
anything, they say, new figures like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and especially
Scott Walker seem to be getting the most favorable treatment on the site.
It appears as if Drudge is more lukewarm, the entrails readers say, about
figures like Chris Christie and Rand Paul. He still swoons for Sarah Palin
but has never been a fan of social conservatives like Mike Huckabee and
Rick Santorum.

Some Republican operatives wonder if it will even much matter, if the era
of Drudge has at last past. Today, when more and more people curate their
own news through their social-media feeds and news sites spring up
seemingly daily, the Drudge Report might look like a dinosaur.

“One big difference between 2016 and 2008 is that there are so many new
platforms curating that type of content,” said Phil Singer, a spokesman for
Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign. “He really came of age in the pre-Twitter,
pre-Facebook era—he’s sort of like a landline.”

But if Drudge is a dinosaur—and that’s a far from certain if—he’s a rather
large one. His massive traffic regularly hits around three-quarters of a
billion monthly page views, and he can be a key Internet traffic driver to
more mainstream news sites. Opposition researchers say Drudge is best at
surfacing stories on blogs and in the local press that would not get much
coverage otherwise, and that in some ways a Drudge link can be better than
getting something on the evening news, as it will have a longer shelf life
on social media.

Drudge today may lack some of the ability to sway the national conversation
the way he did when Mark Halperin and John Harris swooned “Matt Drudge
rules our world.” Still, he remains important among his core audience of
older, conservative voters who are likely to vote in primaries and donate
to campaigns. Although Drudge may matter a lot less to what one Republican
operative called “New York media elites,” he is still believed to be the
bookmarked URL of choice for talk-radio producers and a large portion of
the Beltway press.

“You can draw a straight line from a Drudge link to what gets covered on
cable that night,” said Kellyanne Conway, a pollster with experience in
multiple presidential campaigns, including Gingrich’s 2012 bid.
“Republicans are used to complaining about mainstream media coverage. When
Drudge comes after you, it stings in a different kind of way.”

*National Journal: “Democrats Facing 2016 Debate Dilemma”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/democrats-facing-2016-debate-dilemma-20150129>*

By Emily Schultheis

January 29, 2015

[Subtitle:] The party is starting discussions about 2016 primary debates,
but it's challenging to do without knowing what Hillary Clinton's
opposition will look like.

Democrats are facing a growing logistical dilemma as their planning for the
next presidential election gets underway: They need to start organizing a
process for presidential primary debates, but there aren't any candidates
to invite. And with Hillary Clinton likely to clear the field of serious
competition, she may want to avoid debating her opposition altogether.

National Democrats have begun the process of planning for primary debates,
but they stress that everything is in the very early stages. Top Democratic
National Committee aides are in touch with interested TV networks and
potential cosponsoring groups to discuss dates and formats, as well as with
representatives of all prospective 2016 Democratic candidates.

But how many debates, where and when they're held, and what they look like
depend entirely on which Democrats end up getting into the race—and if
Clinton faces second-tier opposition, there's a chance there won't be any
debates. Unlike with Republicans, who have long known the likelihood of a
big field and could plan their debates accordingly, the Democrats' process
has always been more uncertain.

Initial conversations about the next year's debate schedule have taken
place, but party officials acknowledge the details won't be ironed out
until it's clear who's running and who isn't.

"We've met with [the DNC], I know others have as well—but they just don't
know what the field is going to look like," said one TV network source.
"There's a scenario where Hillary is the only kind of serious credible
candidate, in which case they might want zero debates or very, very few."

A few things are certain: There will be fewer Democratic debates than in
2008 and they'll start considerably later in the cycle. Obama and Clinton
debated 27 times during the 2008 primary, a staggering number that party
officials have no desire to repeat. And instead of a spring start for those
debates—the first one of the 2008 cycle was held in late April
2007—networks and the DNC anticipate the earliest a debate could start is
the fall.

But if the field is small and Clinton is far ahead in polling, insiders
expect her to have a lot of sway over the debate process and schedule—which
may mean a much trimmer debate schedule than in years past.

"In a prospective Clinton candidacy … there's a very strong chance she'll
start off with a very strong lead," said veteran Democratic strategist
Chris Lehane. "That would give her a little bit of a stronger hand to play
in terms of both determining how many debates are actually proposed and
which ones she actually agrees to."

Hillary Clinton's candidacy looks to be a near-certainty at this point, but
what's less clear is which of her potential opponents will actually decide
to run. Vice President Joe Biden, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, former
Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont have all
expressed interest in the race; progressive supporters of Elizabeth Warren
are hoping to pull the first-term senator from Massachusetts into the race
as well, but thus far she's shown no interest.

Republicans announced a tentative debate schedule earlier this month for
the 2016 primary, beginning with an August event in Ohio.

Depending on how the field shapes up, Clinton could be in a tough spot
either way when it comes to debates. On one hand, if she faces a field with
minimal opposition—with only one lesser-known candidate, such as Sanders or
Webb—her campaign, and the TV networks, might be less interested in
organizing that face-off than they would with a bigger field.

Observers likened 2016 to the race between Al Gore and former Sen. Bill
Bradley in the 2000 Democratic primary: Gore, as the sitting vice
president, was the favorite for the nomination, but Bradley put up a
legitimate challenge and even outraised Gore at points along the way. The
two faced off in a total of nine debates between October 1999 and March
2000.

But Lehane, who worked for Gore that year, said that Clinton, in 2016,
could have the option not to debate if she didn't want to—a luxury neither
Gore nor Bradley had in 2000. That primary "wasn't a situation where Al
Gore was at 80 percent [in the polls] and Bill Bradley was in single digits
and Gore could just ignore debates," he said.

Still, many Democrats feel that not debating could be just as dangerous.
The challenging debates between Obama and Clinton in 2007 and 2008 made
them both better candidates, according to several top Democratic officials.
Many Democrats feel that Clinton, whose presidential bid began eight years
ago, could use the practice to sharpen her skills ahead of the general
election. Holding no debates would be a public relations challenge for the
Democratic Party, too. They're media events, and they help bring visibility
to the party's eventual nominee. Without debates, Republicans would get all
the highly publicized, televised face-offs to themselves.

"Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (as well as Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill
Richardson, John Edwards, and more) had at least two dozen debates in 2008.
From that clash, Barack Obama emerged stronger, tougher, smarter— and the
Democratic Party quickly united around him," longtime Democratic strategist
and Clinton ally Paul Begala said in an e-mail.

"So while I am for Hillary, big-time … I think some good, challenging
debates would be good for her and good for the party," he said.

*Politico: “Shut-out Dems longing for Hillary - and Bill”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/house-democrats-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-114746.html>*

By Anna Palmer and Lauren French

January 29, 2015, 6:38 p.m. EST

Congressional Democrats for the past six years have lamented their chilly
relationship with President Barack Obama. He doesn’t schmooze enough, they
say. He is missing the glad-handing gene that makes politics fun. He just
doesn’t get it.

But they are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel: the prospect
of a Clinton back in the White House.

Hillary Clinton’s all-but-certain 2016 bid has perked up Democrats, as they
once again dream of invites to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, rowdy late-night
dinners, overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom and, not least, consultation on
policy and politics.

While Hillary is certainly different than her husband, former President
Bill Clinton, Democrats have seen her in action on the Hill, where she was
adept at developing relationships. And more recently, she’s shown she isn’t
afraid to tangle with Congress on Benghazi.

“There was a very close connection between House Democrats and the Clinton
presidency,” California Rep. Zoe Lofgren said. “Usually I would be over at
the White House at least once a week doing something, and I thought that
built a lot of goodwill. I think if [Hillary] does run, she will become
president, and there is a lot of excitement on that. He was a very
collegial person, and she is her own person but she knows her way around.”

Of course, Bill and Hillary Clinton come with baggage. Bill had a sexual
tryst in the Oval Office, was impeached by the Republican House and Hillary
faced an endless barrage of questions about her own business dealings.

Those memories are faint.

Philadelphia Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah, who was elected in 1994,
described Bill Clinton’s relationships on the Hill as “extraordinary.”

“I don’t think this is just looking at it through rose-colored glasses,”
Fattah said, noting that when Clinton came to Philadelphia, he would meet
the president at the airport, ride in the limo and take him to play golf.
After one of Fattah’s first legislative victories for an educational
program called Gear Up, Clinton traveled to a middle school in Pennsylvania
and credited him for getting the bill signed into law.

“There was a lot of personalized interaction and they were engaged in this
political effort, but it was also substantive,” Fattah said.

Clinton, who served from 1993 until 2001, led House Democrats into the
minority for the first time in 40 years. Still, what lawmakers focus on
aren’t his stumbles but differences between his and the Obama
administration’s interactions with Capitol Hill.

“He did something that this president doesn’t do at all. Every time the 747
lifted off the ground, it was filled with members of Congress, Republicans
and Democrats. I went to India with him, I went to South America with him,
I went to Asia … and I went to Africa,” said Rep. Jim McDermott. “He was
inclusive.”

The Clintons were so close to the Washington state lawmaker that Bill
Clinton helped raise money for him when the House Ethics Committee
investigated him over leaking a recorded telephone conversation during the
1997 investigation of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich.

When asked to compare Clinton and Obama’s Hill interactions, Rep. Jerry
Nadler said there was a big difference.

“There is much less contact, no question about it,” Nadler responded.

The New York Democrat said that even though he was a freshman when Clinton
arrived at the White House, there was a dialogue with his congressional
liaisons on major issues like free trade. Clinton spent time with members
at the annual picnics and other social events, he said.

“You got the feeling he knew you,” Nadler said, remembering how Clinton
stopped him in a receiving line soon after his election to chat about his
six-way primary contest after his predecessor unexpectedly died.

“How the hell did he know?” Nadler said. “I’ll never forget the Marine
guards were saying ‘move on, move on,’ and he wanted to talk to me.”

Other lawmakers agreed that despite serving one term as an Illinois
senator, Obama hasn’t worked to make allies on Capitol Hill.

“He can connect, but many times he doesn’t give himself the time,” said New
Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell, who was elected in 1997 during Clinton’s
second term. “I don’t know whether it’s inborn or it’s learned. It’s not
schmultz. It’s not glad handing, or massaging and patting on the back. It
has a lot more to do with your empathy toward other human beings. That’s
natural to some people and others it’s forced.”

It’s not just lawmakers who have been impacted by the Obama
administration’s aversion to personal politicking. Democratic lobbyists
have griped privately for years, and some have even complained publicly
over Obama’s disdain for their profession.

That wasn’t the case during the Clinton administration, according to
several lobbyists.

“The Clinton administration had a different view of lobbyists from the
Obama administration,” said Tony Podesta, a veteran Washington powerbroker.
“More important to being invited to parties, friends of the president,
friends of the administration were frequently called upon to provide
thoughts, advice, suggestions and be an echo chamber for what the White
House was trying to do.”

“It was not only effective, but it was so much fun too,” said veteran
lobbyist Tom Quinn. “The social events at the White House were fun. He
would have a DNC event followed up with a state dinner.”

Quinn, who was special observer to Ireland during the Clinton
administration, said that personal relationships go a long way in
persuading lawmakers to support legislation.

Of course, building personal relationships with the executive branch is not
important to everyone.

“I’ve got plenty of things I need to do other than be schmoozed,” said Rick
Larsen (D-Wash.). “It doesn’t get me votes and gives me more unwanted
attention than I need. It takes me off message.”

Still, several Democrats said they look forward to working with a potential
Hillary Clinton administration and believe better cooperation between the
White House and Congress would benefit the party.

“I think people always feel better when they feel they are included in the
team and that their views are valued, and I think that’s smart politics
too,” said REp. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.).

And Democrats say Hillary Clinton is no stranger to her former Capitol Hill
colleagues.

“We had good contact. Now, it was one state with 29 members in those days,
but you knew her. You knew her staff well,” Nadler said.

And, if Clinton’s time as first lady and as a New York senator illustrates
how she’ll operate, several Democrats said it would be a good thing.

“I talked with and worked with Mrs. Clinton a lot when she was putting
together her health care plan because I had 95 votes in the caucus for
single payer and she needed some votes,” said McDermott, who remembered her
coming to his office two or three times a month to discuss the issue.
“Since I know her, I expect I would have some opportunity to be involved.”

*Politico Magazine: "Jeb 'Put Me Through Hell'"
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/jeb-bush-terri-schiavo-114730_Page6.html#.VMuGw2TF-nM>*

Subtitle: Michael Schiavo knows as well as anyone what Jeb Bush can do with
executive power. He thinks you ought to know too.

By Michael Kruse
January 29, 2015

CLEARWATER, Fla.—Sitting recently on his brick back patio here, Michael
Schiavo called Jeb Bush a vindictive, untrustworthy coward.

For years, the self-described “average Joe” felt harassed, targeted and
tormented by the most important person in the state.

“It was a living hell,” he said, “and I blame him.”

Michael Schiavo was the husband of Terri Schiavo, the brain-dead woman from
the Tampa Bay area who ended up at the center of one of the most
contentious, drawn-out conflicts in the history of America’s culture wars.
The fight over her death lasted almost a decade. It started as a private
legal back-and-forth between her husband and her parents. Before it ended,
it moved from circuit courts to district courts to state courts to federal
courts, to the U.S. Supreme Court, from the state legislature in
Tallahassee to Congress in Washington. The president got involved. So did
the pope.

But it never would have become what it became if not for the dogged
intervention of the governor of Florida at the time, the second son of the
41st president, the younger brother of the 43rd, the man who sits near the
top of the extended early list of likely 2016 Republican presidential
candidates. On sustained, concentrated display, seen in thousands of pages
of court records and hundreds of emails he sent, was Jeb the converted
Catholic, Jeb the pro-life conservative, Jeb the hands-on workaholic, Jeb
the all-hours emailer—confident, competitive, powerful, obstinate Jeb.
Longtime watchers of John Ellis Bush say what he did throughout the Terri
Schiavo case demonstrates how he would operate in the Oval Office. They say
it’s the Jebbest thing Jeb’s ever done.

The case showed he “will pursue whatever he thinks is right, virtually
forever,” said Aubrey Jewett, a political science professor at the
University of Central Florida. “It’s a theme of Jeb’s governorship: He
really pushed executive power to the limits.”

“If you want to understand Jeb Bush, he’s guided by principle over
convenience,” said Dennis Baxley, a Republican member of the Florida House
of Representatives during Bush’s governorship and still. “He may be wrong
about something, but he knows what he believes.”

And what he believed in this case, and what he did, said Miami's Dan
Gelber, a Democratic member of the state House during Bush’s governorship,
“probably was more defining than I suspect Jeb would like.”

For Michael Schiavo, though, the importance of the episode—Bush’s
involvement from 2003 to 2005, and what it might mean now for his almost
certain candidacy—is even more viscerally obvious.

“He should be ashamed,” he said. “And I think people really need to know
what type of person he is. To bring as much pain as he did, to me and my
family, that should be an issue.”

***

November 10, 1984, is when they got married; February 25, 1990, is when she
collapsed, early in the morning, in their apartment in St. Petersburg, for
reasons that never were determined with specificity but had something to do
with a potassium imbalance probably caused by aggressive dieting. Michael
Schiavo woke up when he heard her fall. She was facedown, feet in the
bathroom, head in the hall. He called 911. Police noted in their report “no
signs of trauma to her head or face.” The ambulance raced to the closest
hospital, but her heart had stopped, robbing her brain of oxygen, and the
damage was catastrophic. A court named her husband her guardian that June.
Her parents didn’t object. All of this was before Bush was elected. And
after years of rehabilitation, of waiting for any sign of improvement and
seeing none, Michael Schiavo decided to remove the feeding tube that kept
his wife alive, saying she had told him and others she never would’ve
wanted to be this way.

To this, Terri Schiavo’s parents objected. Bob and Mary Schindler,
Catholics, argued that their daughter, also Catholic, would want to live,
even so debilitated.

She had left no will. No written instructions. She was 26. To try to
determine what she would have wanted, there was a trial, in the Pinellas
County courtroom of circuit judge George Greer, in which Michael Schiavo
relayed what she had told him in passing about what her wishes would be in
this sort of scenario. Others did, too. She also had next to no chance of
recovery, according to doctors’ testimony. Greer cited “overwhelming
credible evidence” that Terri Schiavo was “totally unresponsive” with
“severe structural brain damage” and that “to a large extent her brain has
been replaced by spinal fluid.” His judgment was that she would not have
wanted to live in her “persistent vegetative state” and that Michael
Schiavo, her husband and her legal guardian, was allowed to remove her
feeding tube.

“DONE AND ORDERED,” he wrote on February 11, 2000.

The St. Petersburg Times had covered the trial. Bush, a year and a month
into his first term, started hearing about it almost immediately. Staffers
replied at first with a variety of form responses.

“The Florida Constitution prohibits the Governor’s intervention in matters
that should be resolved through the court system,” read one. But here’s
what else it said: “As a concerned citizen, you have the opportunity to
influence legislation pertaining to guardianship matters in cases similar
to Terri’s. By contacting your local legislative delegation, such as your
senator or representative, new legislation can be introduced. If such a
bill ever comes before the Governor for signature, he will certainly
remember your views.”

Bush couldn’t do anything. Laws didn’t let him. But that didn’t mean he
didn’t want to. He did.

He heard from Terri Schiavo’s father in April 2001. “Allow me to introduce
myself,” Bob Schindler wrote in an email. He told the governor his daughter
had been “falsely depicted” as a “hopeless vegetable.” He told the governor
she was indeed “responsive to family and friends.” “I desperately need your
help,” he said, adding that “Terri’s case may be beyond your realm of
authority”—Schindler knew it, too—“but I sincerely believe you could be
helpful.”

Staffers didn’t respond to Bob Schiavo’s email. The governor did.

Mr. Schindler, thank you for writing. I am asking that Charles Canady look
into your daughter’s case.

Jeb Bush

Canady had been a Republican member of the United States House of
Representatives. He later would be an appellate judge in Florida. He is now
a state Supreme Court judge. At the time, though, he was Bush’s top staff
attorney.

Meanwhile, the Schindlers appealed, asking for new trials, asking for
delays, asking for Greer to recuse himself, asking to remove Michael
Schiavo as her guardian based on unproven allegations of abuse and neglect
and because he now was living with another woman with whom he had children,
asking for new doctors who might make new diagnoses—and they were
sufficiently successful to stretch the case into the summer of 2003. Media
coverage had intensified, especially on conservative talk radio and
websites, and activists convinced the Schindlers to violate a court order
and post on the Internet snippets of videos of their daughter appearing to
respond to what was going on around her. They also continued their zealous
email campaign to attempt to prevent what they saw as imminent
court-dictated murder. The top target of their efforts? Bush.

“I’m really limited on what I can do,” the governor reiterated to the
conservative online publication World Net Daily in August. A judge had made
a decision. Other judges had upheld the decision.

The emails flooded the governor’s inbox.

Bush responded by sending a letter to Greer. He acknowledged it was out of
the ordinary. “I normally would not address a letter to the judge in a
pending legal proceeding,” Bush wrote. “However, my office has received
over 27,000 emails reflecting understandable concern for the well-being of
Terri Schiavo.”

Greer said he respected the governor’s position. Then he put the letter
with everything else in the already massive file.

“This isn’t his concern,” Michael Schiavo told reporters, “and he should
stay out of it.”

He didn’t. Bush filed a federal court brief on October 7 supporting the
Schindlers’ efforts. A judge said his court lacked the jurisdiction to do
anything.

The feeding tube was to come out on October 15.

Bush met with the Schindlers. He told them his staff attorneys were
conferring with experts on the Florida Constitution to see if he could
intervene. “He does not have the authority to overrule a court order,” his
spokesman told reporters.

The emails didn’t stop.

They came from all over the country. They begged him. They used capital
letters. They used exclamation points. They told him to talk to God. They
told him there were laws higher than man’s laws and that he, as a Catholic
like Terri Schiavo, like her parents, should know that and should act on it
and that he had to. “DO NOT LET HER DIE!!!” said a man from Michigan.
“Let’s see what kind of compassionate conservative you really are,” said a
man from Jacksonville. “If you have any aspirations for a higher office,”
said a man from California, “don’t let this be the rallying cry for those
who would oppose you.”

To most of them, he didn’t respond—to many, though, he did.

“It is very sad,” he wrote.

“I cannot issue an executive order when there is a court order upheld at
every level in the judiciary. ... I wish I could but I have no legal
authority to do so,” he wrote.

“I am sickened by this situation and pray for her family. We have looked at
every angle, every legal possibility, and will continue to do so,” he wrote.

The emails kept coming.

***

“I hope George W. Bush is president some day,” former Republican Party
chairman Rich Bond told the late Marjorie Williams, writing for Talk
magazine in September 2000. “I know Jeb will be.”

“I want to be able to look my father in the eye and say, ‘I continued the
legacy,’” he told the Miami Herald in 1994.

That year, he ran for governor of Florida—as an ultra-conservative, a
“head-banging conservative,” as he put it—and lost. In 1998, he ran again,
sanding those hard-right edges—and won.

But one constant from the first campaign to the next and beyond: what Bush
said he believed was the right role of government. “Government needs to be
constrained,” he said in speeches in 1994. “We should be finding practical
solutions where we provide incentives for people to take care of
themselves.” “Our lack of self-governance is the single biggest reason
we’ve seen the growth of government,” he said in 1995. “Good government,”
he wrote that year in his book Profiles in Character, “is grounded in its
limitations.”

In 1999, in his first inaugural address, he said, “let state government
give families and individuals greater freedom”—also, though, “let state
government touch the spiritual face of Florida.” In the speech, he
mentioned “our Creator” and “the Divine Giver” and said “state government
can draw much from these reservoirs of faith.” He was raised as an
Episcopalian but became a Catholic because that’s how his Mexican wife grew
up. It also suited his disposition. He wrote in Profiles in Character that
he believed in the need for a “renewal of virtue” and “passing moral
judgments.” He once said “the conservative side” of an issue is “the
correct one” because “it just is.”

Bush, 6-foot-4 and stout, quickly established himself as the most powerful
governor in Florida history, according to University of North Florida
political science professor Matthew Corrigan and others. His ascension
coincided with both houses of the state legislature being Republican
majorities for the first time since Reconstruction. Voters also opted to
alter the state constitution to shrink the size of the cabinet, leaving the
governor, the position itself, with more executive power. Bush did a lot
with it. He was reelected in 2002, easily, winning 61 of the state’s 67
counties. By this time, of course, his brother was the president.

“He didn’t get told no very often,” Corrigan said.

“My gift, perhaps,” Bush would say toward the end of his two-term tenure,
in an interview with the Tampa Tribune, “is that with this office now,
we’ve shown that governors can be activist …”

So on October 15, 2003, Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube came out. Judge’s
orders. She would die within two weeks. This stage of the case looks in
retrospect like the start of a test. Just how much power did Jeb Bush have?

HB 35E was filed after 8 at night on October 20. Many lawmakers already
were gone for the day. Gelber, the state representative from Miami, put his
suit back on at his apartment in Tallahassee and hustled back to the
Capitol. Fellow Democrats gathered around as the attorney and former
prosecutor began to read the bill one of Bush’s staff attorneys had helped
to write.

“Authority for the Governor to Issue a One-time Stay …”

Gelber looked up.

“I don’t have to read anymore,” he said. “It’s clearly unconstitutional.”

“The governor can’t just change an order of the court,” Gelber explained
this month. “It’s one of the most elemental concepts of democracy: The
governor is not a king.”

The rest of the language described a situation involving a patient with no
written will, in a persistent vegetative state, with a family conflict,
whose feeding tube had been removed. Terri Schiavo. It gave the governor a
15-day window to step in.

“The courts have listened to sworn testimony and they have determined,
court after court, one way,” said state Senator Alex Villalobos, a
Republican from Miami.

But it passed in the House, and it passed in the Senate.

Bush signed it, and Chapter No. 2003-418, “Terri’s Law,” as it came to be
known, was official less than 22 hours after it had been introduced. He
then issued Executive Order 03-201. “The Florida Department of Law
Enforcement shall serve a copy of this Executive Order upon the medical
facility currently providing care for Theresa Schiavo,” it stated. A
police-escorted ambulance whisked her from her hospice in Pinellas Park to
a nearby hospital to have her feeding tube put back in.

“The citizens of Florida should be alarmed by what is happening,” George
Felos, one of Michael Schiavo’s attorneys, told reporters. “This is not the
former Soviet Bloc, where you don’t have the liberty to control your own
body.”

Even one of the law’s architects up in Tallahassee expressed unease.

“I hope, I really do hope, we’ve done the right thing,” Republican state
Senate president Jim King said. “I keep thinking, ‘What if Terri Schiavo
really didn’t want this at all?’ May God have mercy on us all.”

Bush had no such qualms.

“I honestly believe we did the right thing,” the governor wrote to one
emailer.

The emails poured in. Some chided him. More praised him.

One arrived with the subject line “Oh Great One!!” Another woman wondered:
“How does it feel to be not only a child of God’s, but to actually feel His
Hand guiding you and using you as an instrument to do His work on earth?” A
husband and wife wrote to him from near Philadelphia: “I wish we lived in
Florida and could support you directly—maybe you’ll run for President one
day??”

***

“Yes,” said President George W. Bush, in late October, at a news conference
in the Rose Garden, “I believe my brother made the right decision.”

“Terri’s Law” had mandated the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and Jay
Wolfson, a respected lawyer and professor of public health at the Stetson
University College of Law and the University of South Florida, issued his
report in December. Wolfson had spent a month reading the court records,
observing Terri Schiavo, meeting with Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers
and their attorneys, and also the governor, who struck him as “a very
intense, highly committed, very informed, faith-driven person who believed
in doing the right thing, and doing so through the governor’s office.”

None of this was “easy stuff,” Wolfson noted in his report, “and should not
be.” Nonetheless, he wrote, Terri Schiavo was in “a persistent vegetative
state with no likelihood of improvement” and “cannot take oral nutrition or
hydration and cannot consciously interact with her environment.” He wrote
that the practically unprecedented amount of litigation consisted of
“competent, well-documented information” and was “firmly grounded within
Florida statutory and case law.”

In parts, too, Wolfson was prescient: “The Governor’s involvement has added
a new and unexpected dimension to the litigation. It is reasonable to
expect that the exquisite lawyering will continue, and the greatly enhanced
public visibility of the case may increase the probability of more
litigation, more parties entering as interveners, and efforts to expand the
case into federal jurisdiction.”

Soon after that, the pope weighed in.

Without using the name Terri Schiavo, but clearly referring to her, John
Paul II said “the administration of water and food, even when provided by
artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not
a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered in principle,
ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory …”

Back in Florida, though, the courts were focused not so much on what was
“morally obligatory” but more on what was legally mandatory.

A circuit judge ruled Bush’s “Terri’s Law” unconstitutional.

“The court must assume that this extraordinary legislation was enacted with
the best intentions and prompted by sincere motives,” W. Douglas Baird
wrote in his ruling. He then quoted Daniel Webster, a lawyer and senator,
who died in 1852: “It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was
made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are
men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They
promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

The Schindlers’ attorneys appealed. The Florida Supreme Court was up next.

Bob Destro, an attorney and professor at the law school at the Catholic
University of America in Washington, joined Bush’s legal team and emerged
from meetings with the governor thinking “this was something he felt very
deeply about … that this was a decision that he made, personally, and that
he saw this as a question of an injustice being done.”

The state supreme court judges listened to arguments the last day of August.

After the hearing was over, outside the courthouse in Tallahassee, Michael
Schiavo angrily asked reporters about the whereabouts of Bush.

“If this was so important to the governor, where is he?” he said. He then
got personal, referring to Bush’s daughter, Noelle, who had been arrested
in 2002 after trying to buy Xanax with a forged prescription and then
relapsed in rehab. “I can remember you sitting here in front of every one
of these reporters with tears in your eyes when your daughter had
problems,” he raged, “and you asked for privacy and you got it. Why aren’t
you giving me my privacy and Terri her privacy?”

The seven state supreme court judges took less than a month to dismiss
unanimously “Terri’s Law.”

“If the Legislature with the assent of the Governor can do what was
attempted here,” chief justice Barbara Pariente wrote in her ruling, “the
judicial branch would be subordinated to the final directive of the other
branches. Also subordinated would be the rights of individuals, including
the well-established privacy right to self-determination. No court judgment
could ever be considered truly final and no constitutional right truly
secure, because the precedent of this case would hold to the contrary.
Vested rights could be stripped away based on popular clamor. The essential
core of what the Founding Fathers sought to change from their experience
with English rule would be lost …”

Bush told reporters he was “disappointed, not for any political reasons,
but for the moral reasons.” He said he didn’t think it had been “a full
hearing.” Legal analysts disagreed. They called the ruling a categorical
rebuke of what Bush had done.

The governor responded by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
decision.

The words at the top of the docket of the country’s highest court were
black-and-white blunt about what this had become: JEB BUSH, Governor of the
State of Florida, v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO, Guardian: Theresa Schiavo.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review it.

“It means that the governor’s interference in this case has ended,” said
Felos, Michael Schiavo’s attorney.

“This matter is now at an end for the governor,” said Ken Connor, another
one of Bush’s attorneys.

It did not. It was not.

That week, Connor, the Bush attorney, sent an email to two of Bush’s staff
attorneys. “Here is an op-ed I drafted for Dan Webster,” Connor wrote.
Connor was active in social conservative causes and organizations. Webster
was a Florida state senator, and this Dan Webster, not the lawyer and
senator from the 1800s, had beliefs that couldn’t have been more different
than those of his namesake.

The op-ed Connor had written ran under Webster’s name on Page 10A of USA
Today on January 27, 2005. “By any definition, Terri Schiavo is alive,” the
op-ed said. “She has now been issued a death sentence by the courts.”
Serial killers, like Ted Bundy, it said, had more rights on death row than
Terri Schiavo did at her hospice.

Connor talked on the phone with Dave Weldon, a Republican Congressman from
Florida who also was a doctor. Weldon says Connor called him; Connor says
it was the other way around—either way, it led to Weldon meeting with the
Schindlers in Washington.

“They showed me some videos of them walking into her room and calling her
name and her face lit up and she smiled,” Weldon, no longer in Congress,
said this month. “They said, ‘She does that all the time, she’s not a
vegetable,’ and they said a bunch of stuff about the husband and were very
critical of him, that he had a new girlfriend or something like that. And I
felt very compelled.” That, he said, is when he “got Mel Martinez involved.”

Martinez, then a Republican from Florida in the U.S. Senate, talked with
Bush. “He’s been saying, ‘I’m not sure we can get it done here in
Florida,’” Martinez told the Palm Beach Post. Martinez told Bush he and
Bill Frist, at the time the Senate majority leader, were ready to do what
they could in Washington but that it wouldn’t be easy.

On March 14, a woman from Clearwater named Pamela Hennessy, who had helped
stoke the email onslaught that spurred “Terri’s Law,” emailed Bush, too.
She attached a letter she had addressed to the hospice saying she intended
to “file formal complaints” to the state Department of Children and
Families. The hope was that the agency charged with protecting mainly kids
and the elderly might intervene in this case.

Bush wrote back: “thank you Pamela.”

On March 18, in Pinellas Park, Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed
again.

***

“If she dies, I will kill Michael Schiavo and the judge,” a woman in
California wrote on an AOL message board. “This is real!” She was arrested.

On a different message board, at blogsforterri.com, an anonymous poster
called The Coming Conflict declared, “FL gun owners, it’s in your hands.”

Michael Schiavo and the mother of his two kids got letters addressed to
their “Illegitimate Bastard Children” talking about how sometimes kids
disappear.

Up in Washington, Congress debated the case of Terri Schiavo, searching for
possible methods of federal intervention—with Frist and Speaker of the
House Dennis Hastert, both of whom now say they don’t want to talk about
it, vowing to work together through the weekend of Palm Sunday if
necessary. A memo that came from Martinez’s office called it “a great
political issue” for Republicans. Frist, a surgeon from Tennessee, said on
the Senate floor that Schiavo didn’t seem to him to be in a vegetative
state, based on his viewing of the Schindlers’ video snippets. Senator Rick
Santorum from Pennsylvania called the removal of the feeding tube “a
sentence that would not be placed on the worst criminal.” Majority Leader
Tom DeLay led the way in the House. Santorum and Frist did in the Senate.
Few members of Congress spoke against it. South Florida Congresswoman
Debbie Wasserman Schultz was one. “There is no room for the federal
government in this most personal of private angst-ridden family members,”
she said. Republican John Warner from Virginia was the only senator to
speak against it. Hillary Clinton from New York didn’t. Neither did Barack
Obama from Illinois. A bill emerged from the Senate after midnight on March
21 that would let the Schindlers ask the federal courts to take another
look at the decision made by the state courts.

President Bush flew on Air Force One from vacation in Crawford, Texas, back
to Washington to sign it into law just after 1 in the morning.

“Our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of
life,” he said in a statement.

His brother issued a statement of his own: “I thank the Congress for its
swift action allowing Terri’s parents to seek a federal review of the
case.” He echoed the op-ed that had run in USA Today. “Certainly, an
incapacitated person deserves at least the same protection afforded
criminals sentenced to death.”

Michael Schiavo called the federal legislation “outrageous.” If politicians
are allowed to meddle with him like this, he said, “they’ll do it to every
person in this country.”

A federal judge in Tampa heard attorneys’ arguments for the justification
of the relitigation of a case that had been up and down the judicial ladder
for the better part of a decade. He said no. The federal legislation had
failed. The feeding tube stayed out, and Terri Schiavo neared death.

Bush’s last-ditch effort involved the Department of Children and Families.
Attorneys for the state agency made motions to intervene based on thousands
of anonymous allegations of abuse against Terri Schiavo. Bush ordered the
mobilization of officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement—in
essence his own police force—and they readied to seize Terri Schiavo if a
court order allowed it. “I requested that FDLE in concert with the
Department of Children and Families be prepared to enter,” Bush told
reporters, “if that was going to be the option available to us”—which it
wasn’t, because judges said no. “We were ready to go,” a Bush spokesman
told the Miami Herald. “We didn’t want to break the law.”

“I cannot violate a court order,” Bush told CNN on March 27.

People in his email inbox continued to plead with him to do exactly that.

“I do not have the authority that you suggest I have,” Bush responded to
one of them. “Under your thesis of executive authority, should I shut down
abortion clinics since I abhor abortion?”

On March 30, meanwhile, Bush called a woman in Tampa named Dawn Armstrong,
whose husband, Staff Sgt. Robert Armstrong, had died of a heart attack two
days before in Camp Shelby, Mississippi, while readying for deployment to
Afghanistan. She emailed him later that night, thanking him for “the time
you took out of your busy day to express your sorrow for the loss of my
husband.”

On March 31, at 6:29 a.m., Bush responded. “Bless you Dawn,” he wrote.
“Please let me know if I can be of assistance to you.”

Two and a half hours later, across the bay from Tampa, at the hospice in
Pinellas Park, Terri Schiavo died.

Shortly after 12:30, Bush got another email from Dawn Armstrong. “I will be
deriving strength from many sources—one source of strength is from you,
Governor,” she wrote. “We have witnessed your steadfastness in the face of
many challenges for a very long time now …” She continued: “May God grant
us all the peace we so long for, in His perfect timing. Take care. I’ll be
praying for you and your administration.”

Later that night, just before 9, Bush wrote back.

you are making me cry. Maybe it is the day with Terri’s death. I don’t know
but the fact that you would write what you did given your loss, makes me
thank God Almighty that there are people like yourself. I am nothing.

Let me know how I can ever be of help to you and your family.

Jeb

***

Terri Schiavo’s death did not spell the end of the governor’s intervention
in her case.

One email suggested the firing of Greer.

“I will look into this,” the governor responded.

In an email to one of his staff attorneys, less than 48 hours after the
death, Bush asked about her autopsy. “We need to get the details of the
autopsy,” he wrote, “meaning what was done if possible.”

The staff attorney responded: “I got an update this morning from FDLE. Six
board certified examiners participated. They were attuned to the issues
involved. Are working on their reports.” She added: “Santorum’s office
called me yesterday …”

In early May, Bush gave a speech in Savannah, Georgia, at the state’s
Republican convention, in which he stressed that the party had to be
uncompromising in what he saw as “a time of moral ambivalence.”

“There is such a thing as right and wrong,” he said. “Republicans cannot
continue to win unless we talk with compassion and passion about absolute
truth.”

Saxby Chambliss, then a senator from Georgia, followed by telling the crowd
he wanted this Bush to be the next Bush in the White House. He asked the
people what they thought. They hollered their approval.

In June, the medical examiner released Terri Schiavo’s autopsy, which
confirmed what the judges had ruled for years based on the testimony from
doctors concerning her prognosis. Her limbs had atrophied, and her hands
had clenched into claws, and her brain had started to disappear. It weighed
barely more than a pound and a third, less than half the size it would have
been under normal circumstances. “No remaining discernible neurons,” the
autopsy said. She couldn’t see. She couldn’t feel, not even pain. Forty-one
years after her birth, 15 years after her collapse, Terri Schiavo was
literally a shell of who she had been.

Bush read the autopsy—then wrote a letter to the top prosecutor in Pinellas
County. He raised questions about Michael Schiavo’s involvement in her
collapse and about the quickness of his response calling 911. “I urge you,”
the governor wrote to Bernie McCabe, “to take a fresh look at this case
without any preconceptions as to the outcome.”

McCabe, a Republican, responded less than two weeks later, saying he and
his staff “have attempted to follow this sound advice”—without any
preconceptions—“unlike some pundits, some ‘experts,’ some email and
Web-based correspondents, and even some institutions of government that
have, in my view, reached conclusions regarding the controversy …” McCabe’s
assessment: “all available records” were “not indicative of criminal
activity.”

Bush relented. “I will follow your recommendation,” he wrote to McCabe,
“that the inquiry by the state be closed.”

Michael Schiavo buried the ashes of his wife in a cemetery not far from his
house.

***

Today, looking back, what makes Felos, the attorney for Michael Schiavo,
angriest about the case is Bush’s letter to McCabe. Even after 18 months of
legal wrangling, even after her death, even after the autopsy—after all
that—the governor asked a prosecutor to initiate a retroactive criminal
investigation of his client. It struck Felos as “odd,” “bizarre”—“personal.”

“It was such an abuse of authority,” Felos said. “I think that really
raises red flags about his character and his fitness to be president. Jeb
didn’t get his way in the Schiavo case. I think he tried to take it out on
Michael.”

That, Michael Schiavo said this month, is what makes Jeb Bush “vindictive.”
“Knowing that he had no standing in this, he made it worse for everybody,”
he said. “He made life, for a lot of people—the nursing home people, the
local police, lawyers—he made everybody miserable.”

What makes him “untrustworthy,” he said, is that he fought the courts as
long as he did just because he didn’t like the decisions they kept making.
“I wouldn’t trust him in any type of political office,” he said.

But for the now former governor of Florida, the second son of the 41st
president, the younger brother of the 43rd, the man who sits near the top
of the extended early list of likely 2016 Republican presidential
candidates — what makes him a “coward,” Michael Schiavo said, sitting on
his brick back patio, is that they’ve still never talked.

Bush has never said he’s sorry. He wasn’t. What he was sorry about is how
it turned out. “I wish I could have done more,” he told reporters the day
of the death.

Other politicians have said they’re sorry, though, Michael Schiavo said.
“I’ve had politicians come to my home and apologize to me for what they did
to me.” Names? “No names.” But he mentioned Barack Obama and something he
said during a debate in Cleveland with Hillary Clinton during the
Democratic presidential primaries in early 2008. The question was about
what he’d like to have back.

“Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year,” Obama
said, “we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we
adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to
interject itself into that decision-making process of the families.

“It wasn’t something I was comfortable with, but it was not something I
stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think
the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional
law professor, I knew better.”

Did Obama apologize to Michael Schiavo? In a call? At his house? “I can’t
comment on that,” Schiavo said with a smile.

“But I never heard from Jeb,” he said.

What would Jeb Bush say to Michael Schiavo now? Nothing. He didn’t want to
talk about the Schiavo case for this story.

What would Michael Schiavo, though, say to Jeb Bush?

“Bring it on,” he said. “Come visit me. I’m asking you. Almost 10 years
later and I still haven’t heard from you.

“Was he afraid to meet with me? To see me? Why? That’s what burns me. You
got so much to say—but where are you? You lost against this little ordinary
man from Philadelphia. You lost. And then to continue on? Unspeakable.

“Why? Give me an answer. Why? Why? What was Terri Schiavo to you? Why? Tell
me why. Why do you think you had the right to be involved? Why would you
put me and my family through hell? And what did you gain from that? And
after you lost, why did you pursue it? What did you gain from that?”

The emails didn’t stop.

“Please do not run for President of the United States,” a man from Goshen,
Connecticut, wrote. “If you cannot protect the life of an innocent woman in
Florida, how can I expect you to protect the United States of America as
Commander in Chief?”

The governor also heard from people like Rick Warren. “On behalf of
everyone who truly understood the issues, thank you for doing all you could
for Terri Schiavo,” the evangelical megachurch pastor and author of the
bestselling book The Purpose Driven Life wrote to Bush in an email. “It’s a
sad ending but you lead the right side with courage and conviction. I’m
proud to call you my friend.”

“Thank you so much,” Bush responded. “You have lifted my spirits.”

Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo’s brother, emailed to say that “in time
everyone in my family will understand your situation and that you were
doing your best …” “I think he probably did as much as possible within his
jurisdiction at the time,” he added this month.

“I found him to be a person of principles, and I hold his actions in the
Schiavo case in esteem,” said David Gibbs III, one of the Schindlers’
attorneys. Gibbs said that as “a devout Catholic,” Bush was “very
personally bothered” by the case and that the governor felt what he did
“was the right thing to do.”

Polls showed majorities of people in Florida and around the country
disagreed. They objected to his intervention as well as the ensuing flurry
of federal involvement. Some of the most fervent believers in what he had
done turned on him because of what he had not. They said he “blinked.” “He
failed us miserably with Terri Schiavo,” Troy Newman, president of the
anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, said this month. “If Jeb had acted,
Terri Schiavo would be alive today.”

Still, said Connor, the Bush attorney, “I never, ever heard Jeb Bush waver
in the midst of the political fallout. He was steadfast.”

That’s what bothers his critics.

“He doesn’t accept loss. He doesn’t accept that the answer is no. He
couldn’t possibly consider that he may be wrong,” Wasserman Schultz said
this month. “If he had the chance to be president, he’ll do what he’s
always done—he’ll do everything he can to implement his very rigid,
ideological view of how the world should be. Voters are going to have to
ask: Do you want a president who thinks the executive, the president, is
supreme, above all else? It’s frightening to think about what he could do
with that kind of power as president.”

“Trying to write laws that clearly are outside the constitutionality of his
state, trying to override the entire judicial system, that’s very, very
dangerous,” said Arthur Caplan, a New York University bioethicist who
edited a book about the Schiavo case. “When you’re willing to do that,
you’re willing to break the back of the country.”

“It was appalling,” said Jon Eisenberg, one of Michael Schiavo’s attorneys
and the author of The Right vs. the Right to Die. “And I think it’s
important for people to understand what Jeb Bush is willing to do. It’s
important for people to know who Jeb Bush is, and the Terri Schiavo case
tells us a great deal about who Jeb Bush is.”

The Jebbest thing Jeb’s ever done hasn’t been an issue so far in Bush’s
pre-campaign because it won’t help his potential opponents in the
primaries. They’re trying to paint him as a moderate. This demonstrates the
opposite.

“People who agree he’s a conservative point to the Schiavo case,” Florida
International University political science professor Dario Moreno said this
month.

So most of the talk has touched on his more measured stances on immigration
and Common Core. He’s been portrayed as a cerebral policy wonk in contrast
to his father, the solicitous writer of thank you notes, and his brother,
the clownin’-around worker of rooms. This bloodless depiction, though,
ignores the intensity, the vehemence, the practically gladiatorial
certitude with which he pursued what he wanted in the Schiavo case, and
more generally the fervid way in which he believes in what he believes—that
“absolute truth” he talked about in his speech in Savannah, two months
after the death of Terri Schiavo, and one month before he asked the
prosecutor to investigate her husband.

*NPR: Former Democratic Sen. Jim Webb Explores Presidential Bid
<http://www.npr.org/2015/01/30/382588001/former-sen-jim-webb-d-va-explores-presidential-bid>*

January 30, 2015

[Listen to the story]

In considering whether to launch a presidential campaign, former Senator
Jim Webb of Virginia tells Steve Inskeep his big challenge would be raising
money to promote his ideas.

*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>
)