Subject: ​Correct The Record Thursday February 19, 2015 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:12:59 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

​Correct The Record Thursday February 19, 2015 Afternoon Roundup:

 

Tweets:

 

Correct The Record @CorrectRecord: Wow, a year of #HRC365! #tbt to the first one: https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/435836422423973889 … [2/19/15, 1:16 p.m. EST]

 

Correct The Record @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton elevated the cause of women’s rights to new heights #HRC365http://correctrecord.org/11-things-you-should-know-about-hillary/ … [2/19/15, 12:31 p.m. EST]

 

Correct The Record @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton advocated to get cleaner vehicles on the road #HRC365 http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-smart-energy-innovation/ … [2/18/15, 6:01 p.m. EST]

 

Correct The Record @CorrectRecord: STOP Rand Paul's sexist attacks! Speak out here: http://correctrecord.org/stop-sexist-attacks/ … [2/18/15, 4:55 p.m. EST]

 

 

Headlines:

 

FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters For America: “Media Recycle Old News To Attack Hillary Clinton Over Foundation Donors”

“Media are recycling old news that The Clinton Foundation accepts foreign donations when neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton hold political office to fearmonger over ‘ethical concerns’ surrounding the donations, ignoring the fact that it is not unusual for foundations to receive foreign donations and that Clinton's record as Secretary of State makes clear that she was not politically influenced by previous donations to the Foundation.”

 

Public Policy Polling: “Walker, Bush lead the field in SC”

“On the Democratic side the numbers are about what they are everywhere- Hillary Clinton leads with 59% to 18% for Joe Biden, 10% for Elizabeth Warren, 3% for Martin O'Malley, and 1% each for Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb. Clinton is polling over 50% with liberals, moderates, men, women, whites, African Americans, and voters in every age group. Notably after the difficulties she had in South Carolina in 2008, she has 60% support from black voters. All of the potential Republican candidates lead Clinton for the general election, although some of the margins are pretty close for South Carolina.”

 

Bloomberg: “Biden Heading to Another Key Primary State, New Hampshire”

“Vice President Joe Biden will head to New Hampshire on Feb. 25, completing a string of official trips through the early presidential nominating states.”

 

The Atlantic: “Hillary's Hawkishness Could Cost Her the Presidency”

"In 2016, Hillary Clinton will be a formidable candidate, and experience is once again her biggest asset. Voters are warily eyeing ISIS, Vladimir Putin, Al Qaeda, and Iran. And she has added a stint as Secretary of State to her impressive resume."

 

 

Articles:

 

FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters For America: “Media Recycle Old News To Attack Hillary Clinton Over Foundation Donors”

By Craig Harrington, Olivia Kittel, and Lis Power

February 19, 2015

Media are recycling old news that The Clinton Foundation accepts foreign donations when neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton hold political office to fearmonger over "ethical concerns" surrounding the donations, ignoring the fact that it is not unusual for foundations to receive foreign donations and that Clinton's record as Secretary of State makes clear that she was not politically influenced by previous donations to the Foundation.

WSJ Recycles Old News To Hype "Ethical Concerns" Over Foreign Donations To Clinton Foundation 

WSJ: "Donations Raise Ethical Questions As Hillary Clinton Ramps Up Expected 2016 Bid." The Wall Street Journal reported on February 17 that the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea ClintonFoundation "dropped its self-imposed ban" on donations from foreign governments, claiming the move raises "ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency." The Journal noted that the Clinton Foundation did not accept any new foreign donations during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State (2009-2013).  [The Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]

Media Promote WSJ Report In Attempt To Scandalize Donations

Fox's John Roberts Suggests Foreign Countries Donating To Clinton Foundation Could Receive "Special Treatment" From Clinton White House. On the February 18 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, correspondent John Roberts claimed that foreign donations to The Clinton Foundation "raise ethical questions" and wondered if "governments that contributed to the Clinton Foundation [might] have a special in at the White House" if Clinton were to become president in 2016. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 2/18/15]

Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin: Foreign Donations Are "Unseemly In The Extreme." In a February 18 post on The Washington Post's Right Turn blog, Jennifer Rubin hyped WSJ's report on the Clinton Foundation donations and stated "[w]e cannot give her a pass simply because her entity is a 'foundation' not a PAC or campaign entity." Rubin went on to assert that accepting the money is "unseemly in the extreme" and that "her egregious judgment and untrammeled greed raise real questions about her priorities and ethics." [The Washington Post, Right Turn blog, 2/18/15] 

Washington Free Beacon: "These Donations Could Be Viewed As Another Way In To Clinton's Potential Campaign." In a February 18 post, The Washington Free Beacon promoted news of donations to The Clinton Foundation, arguing, "While it is illegal for foreign governments to donate money directly to a political campaign, these donations could be viewed as another way in to Clinton's potential campaign." [The Washington Free Beacon, 2/18/15] 

Vox: Foreign Donations Aren't Unethical, But Are Still A Problem For Possible Clinton Campaign. A February 18 Vox article argued that since neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton currently hold any political office, and Hillary Clinton hasn't announced that she's running for president in 2016 yet, The Clinton Foundation accepting foreign donations isn't illegal or unethical. However, Vox went on to argue that "having a husband who runs a non-profit foundation that's soaking up foreign cash does not help her win." [Vox, 2/18/15]

National Journal's Ron Fournier: "Stupid And Sleazy" That Clinton Foundation Receives Foreign Donations. On February 18, The National Journal's Ron Fournier called The ClintonFoundation's acceptance of foreign donations "stupid and sleazy." Fournier suggested that Clinton, as president, would face and cave to "pressure" to "return financial favors" to foreign countries that donated to the Foundation. [The National Journal, 2/18/15] 

But A Foundation Receiving Money From Foreign Donors Is Not News  

Donations To Presidential Foundations, Including The Clinton Foundation, Are Nothing New. The New York Times reported as far back as 2007 on some of the foreign donations being received by the Clinton Foundation. [The New York Times, 12/20/07] 

Wash. Post: Experts Say Clinton Foundation Has Long Exceeded Transparency Levels Of Most Philanthropies. The Washington Post reported on February 18 that The Clinton Foundation has a record for being transparent in posting donor data. According to the Post, " In posting its donor data, [T]he [F]oundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies." [The Washington Post, 2/18/15] 

USA Today: George Bush Presidential Library Received Donations Of Over $1 Million From Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, And Other Foreign Nations. As USA Today reported in November 1997, the George H. W. Bush presidential library received large foreign donations:

Gratitude for Bush's leadership in the Persian Gulf War helped with the library fund-raising. Listed among donors of $ 1million or more are the citizens of Kuwait, the State of Kuwait, the Bandar Bin Sultan family of Saudi Arabia, the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science, the Sultanate of Oman, Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahayan and the People of the United Arab Emirates. [USA Today, 11/4/97, via Nexis]

Previous Donations To Foundation Did Not Stop Clinton From Criticizing Those Countries

The Guardian: Hillary Clinton Backed Saudi Arabian Women's Right-To-Drive Campaign. Despite The Clinton Foundation having previously received money from Saudi Arabia prior to her role as secretary of state, while holding the cabinet position Hillary Clinton supported women who were protesting against the Saudis' ban on female drivers, saying, "What these women are doing is brave and what they are seeking is right." [The Guardian, 6/21/11] 

New York Times: Clinton Delivered Scalding Critique Of Arab Leaders On Corruption, Repression, Lack of Rights For Women. Despite applauding Qatar for "signs of progress," as secretary of state, Clinton was unafraid to deliver "a scalding critique of Arab leaders" while visiting the country. While speaking to Arab leaders, Clinton "recited a litany of ills: corruption, repression and a lack of rights for women and religious minorities." [The New York Times, 1/14/11]

Think Progress: LGBT Activists In The UAE Cited Hillary Clinton Speech In Fight Against Ex-Gay Therapy. Using a speech made by Hillary Clinton before a United Nations assembly filled with, among others, leaders from United Arab Emirates,  LGBT activists in the UAE used Clinton's historic 2011 speech to buttress their calls to end repressive anti-gay policies in the country. [Think Progress, 1/31/12]

 

 

Public Policy Polling: “Walker, Bush lead the field in SC”

[No Writer Mentioned]

February 19, 2015

PPP's first poll of South Carolina Republicans for 2016 finds Jeb Bush and Scott Walker at the top of the heap- and GOP voters very cool toward the prospect of a Lindsey Graham candidacy.

Bush leads with 19% to 18% for Walker with Graham and Ben Carson tied for 3rd at 13% and Mike Huckabee also in double digits at 12%. Chris Christie at 7%, Rand Paul at 5%, and Ted Cruz and Rick Perry at 3% round out the field.

There is little interest among Republican primary voters in Graham making a run for the White House. Just 25% think he should launch a candidacy to 61% who believe he should sit it out. Graham's approval numbers among GOP voters are ok- 54% approve and 29% disapprove- numbers that are consistent with his performance in the Republican Senate primary last year. But it doesn't translate to much support for President.

Bush and Walker are drawing their support from distinctly different ideological groups. Among voters identifying themselves as 'very conservative' Walker leads Bush 27/12. But among those identifying themselves as moderate, Bush has a 36/6 advantage over Walker.

Republican primary voters in South Carolina are exceedingly conservative on a host of issues. Only 31% believe in global warming, just 34% believe in evolution, and 62% support establishing Christianity as the national religion.

There's a big divide in who voters support based on their opinions about global warming. Among voters who don't believe in it, Walker leads Bush 29/14. But among voters who do believe in global warming, Bush leads Walker 27/3. Those splits mirror the divide based on whether voters consider themselves Tea Partiers or not- those who do support Walker over Bush 32/11, while those who don't favor Bush over Walker 22/16.

Other quick hits from the Republican numbers:

-Walker is near the lead for the GOP nod despite having the lowest name recognition, with only 51% of voters expressing an opinion about him.

-Showing the extent to which conservatives have become distrustful of him, Bush has a negative favorability rating with Tea Party voters at 38/40.

-Huckabee has easily the best net favorability rating among Republicans in the state at +51, with 65% of voters seeing him favorably to just 14% with an unfavorable opinion. Being the best liked hasn't necessarily translated to having the most support though.

-South Carolina makes another state where Ben Carson is getting a lot more traction on the right than Ted Cruz. Carson is second to Walker among Tea Party voters at 19%, while Cruz is in just 5th place with them at 8%. Carson's +34 net favorability at 45/11 is 18 points better than Cruz's +16 at 39/23.

-Rand Paul and Rick Perry have done consistently poorly in PPP's Republican primary polling across the country so far in 2015. Paul polled at 4% nationally, 7% in Pennsylvania, and 6% in North Carolina in addition to his 5% showing here. Perry polled at 2% nationally and has polled at 3% in both North and South Carolina. These guys are really struggling right now.

-Republican voters aren't just supporting candidates besides Chris Christie to be their candidate in 2016- they actively dislike Christie. Only 28% have a favorable opinion of him to 46% with a negative one. That puts his net favorability 34 points worse than the next worst Republican.

On the Democratic side the numbers are about what they are everywhere- Hillary Clinton leads with 59% to 18% for Joe Biden, 10% for Elizabeth Warren, 3% for Martin O'Malley, and 1% each for Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb. Clinton is polling over 50% with liberals, moderates, men, women, whites, African Americans, and voters in every age group. Notably after the difficulties she had in South Carolina in 2008, she has 60% support from black voters.

All of the potential Republican candidates lead Clinton for the general election, although some of the margins are pretty close for South Carolina. The strongest GOP hopefuls are Mike Huckabee who leads 49/41, Ben Carson who leads 48/41, and Jeb Bush who leads 49/42. The Republicans doing the weakest against Clinton- leading by only 2- are Chris Christie at 43/41, and Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham both at 45/43. In the middle are Ted Cruz who leads by 3 at 46/43, Scott Walker who leads by 4 at 46/42, and Rick Perry who leads by 5 at 48/43.

 

  

Bloomberg: “Biden Heading to Another Key Primary State, New Hampshire”

By Ben Brody

February 19, 2015, 12:25 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] He's already hit Iowa and South Carolina this month.

Vice President Joe Biden will head to New Hampshire on Feb. 25, completing a string of official trips through the early presidential nominating states.

Biden will speak about economic policy in Concord, N.H., and take part in a community college roundtable in Manchester, N.H., the White House said Thursday.

Biden visited Iowa and South Carolina earlier this month. He said in January there was “a chance” he'd make a third run for the Democratic nomination in 2016, and said he saw that race as “wide open” despite former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's vast polling advantage.

The Atlantic: “Hillary's Hawkishness Could Cost Her the Presidency”

By Conor Friedersdorf

February 19, 2015, 12:16 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Her support for regime change in Iraq enabled terrorists–and lost her the election in 2008. Years later, she championed an ill-fated regime change in Libya. Will it hurt her in 2016?

Hillary Clinton's Iraq War vote cost her the election in 2008. During that campaign, she touted her experience and judgment to distinguish herself from Democratic rivals. "It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep," her most famous ad said. "But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will determine who answers that call–whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world...Who do you want answering the phone?"

Her campaign thought that message would be effective against Barack Obama, a first-term Illinois senator. What geopolitical judgment could he credibly claim? "We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton declared in a campaign speech. "We cannot let that happen again."

But the next night, during a debate in Cleveland, Obama offered an effective counter. "Senator Clinton equates experience with longevity in Washington," he said. "I don't think the American people do, and I don't think that if you look at the judgments that we've made over the last several years that that's the accurate measure. On the most important foreign policy decision that we faced in a generation, whether or not to go into Iraq, I was very clear as to why we should not: that it would fan the flames of anti-American sentiment; that it would distract us from Afghanistan; that it would cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and would not make us more safe. And I do not believe it has made us more safe."

What could she say? He was right.

* * *

In 2016, Hillary Clinton will be a formidable candidate, and experience is once again her biggest asset. Voters are warily eyeing ISIS, Vladimir Putin, Al Qaeda, and Iran. And she has added a stint as Secretary of State to her impressive resume.

But her claim to possess sound judgment for tough decision-making is once again vulnerable to attack. I don't mean her Iraq vote, though it could certainly come up again (especially if she ultimately meets Rand Paul, the one Republican who could exploit it). When Obama showed that he didn't really believe the Iraq War to be a decisive judgment test by elevating Iraq hawks to numerous, prominent national security positions throughout his administration, he all but guaranteed that Democratic Iraq hawks would be embraced rather than discredited going forward. (Even erstwhile anti-war candidate Howard Dean has joined the bandwagon.)

On Libya, however, I strongly suspect that Clinton will be attacked by Democrats in the primary and most Republican opponents in a general election (if she makes it that far). Her rivals can hardly resist.

A woman whose primary appeal is ostensibly judgment-born-of-experience urged a U.S. intervention in a country that subsequently descended into bloody anarchy. And this is the second time she has done so.

How bad is Libya? In the summer of 2012, it was clear that Western intervention helped to destabilize Mali. Last year, The New York Times reported this about Libya itself:

“The country is coming undone.

“Relentless factional fighting in Tripoli and in the eastern city of Benghazi has left dozens of people dead. Well-known political activists have been killed, diplomats have been kidnapped, and ordinary citizens fear bandits on the roads. Water and electricity shutdowns have become more frequent than at any time since the chaos after Colonel Qaddafi’s fall, and fuel has disappeared from Tripoli’s gas stations.”

Now the power vacuum is attracting ISIS fighters, per a Wall Street Journal report:

“Two rival governments in Libya have fought an increasingly bloody civil war since last summer, as the world paid little attention. While they battled for control of the country’s oil wealth, a third force—Islamic State—took advantage of the chaos to grow stronger. The beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians by Islamic State followers has finally drawn the global spotlight to the group’s rising clout in Libya, which not long ago was touted as a successful example of Western intervention. The killings prompted Egyptian airstrikes on Islamic State strongholds in Libya and spurred calls for more active international involvement in what is fast becoming a failed state on Europe’s doorstep.

“The Libyan affiliate of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq has, in fact, been spreading its sway for months. First it established an area of control in and around the eastern city of Derna, a historical center of Libyan jihadists. Recently, it also took over parts of former dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s hometown of Sirte, on the central coast, setting up a radio station and sending Islamic morality patrols onto the streets... All the while, the two rival governments of Libya focused on combatting one another... Both preferred to largely ignore the influx of foreign jihadists forming new alliances with local extremists—and their unification under Islamic State’s banner.”

With all that in mind, the Libya intervention will be extremely hard to defend, especially given that the Obama Administration ordered it without Congressional permission and in violation of the War Powers Resolution. Clinton will have no good answer for a Democratic rival who says, "I'd forgive your Iraq vote if you'd learned your lesson. But with that debacle fresh in mind, you urged the overthrow another dictator without any idea what would happen afterward. Once again, that empowered Islamist terrorists who now thrive in that country."

Against a Republican, she's more likely to be in a strong position, as so many White House aspirants in the GOP are reflexive hawks. Senator Marco Rubio can hardly complain that Clinton urged regime change in Libya. He favored the same  fraught course. Then again, Senator Paul is already referring to the conflict as "Hillary's war."

Eight years after her hawkishness cost her the presidency, Clinton must be looking at events in Libya and thinking, "Uh oh, staff, how am I going to address this?" Perhaps she'll do her utmost to bully Democrats who opposed the Libya intervention out of the Democratic primary and hope the GOP nominates a hawk. Then voters can choose among two candidates with a history of urging failed wars.