Subject: ​Correct The Record Friday February 20, 2015 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:39:00 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Friday February 20, 2015 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: NEW RECORD ANALYSIS - @HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton>: Making Human Rights a Reality
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-making-human-rights-a-reality/ …
<http://t.co/z32TeUtC21> [2/20/15, 1:11 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/568835340854800384>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> "changed...the lives of so many
children" when she brought the HIPPY program to Arkansas
http://thecabin.net/interact/opinion/columns/2015-02-19/dove-hillary-clinton-gets-job-done#.VOdSl_nF98E
…
<http://t.co/jLQsMRj3nw> [2/20/15, 11:16 a.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/568806329445453824>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: We’re excited to start sharing the
next iteration of #HRC365 -- retweet if you’re excited too! [2/20/15,9:57
a.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/568786417679093760>]

*Headlines:*

*Log Cabin Democrat opinion: Annette Dove: “Hillary Clinton gets the job
done”
<http://thecabin.net/interact/opinion/columns/2015-02-19/dove-hillary-clinton-gets-job-done#.VOdSl_nF98E>*

“Regardless of what her future holds for Hillary Clinton, I know that she
will continue to turn her ideas into action and get the job done, no matter
how big or small. And I know we will all be better off because of her.”

*FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters for America: “The Clinton
Foundation Is A Global Charity -- Why Does The Press Treat It Like A
Political Death Star?”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/20/the-clinton-foundation-is-a-global-charity-why/202587>*

“For many in the D.C. press, what really matters about the Clinton
Foundation isn't the good work it provides, it's that journalists be
comfortable with Foundation's optics as they relate to (often petty)
domestic politics.”

*CNN: “Hillary Clinton's Nixonian strategy of laying low”
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/20/politics/clinton-nixon-strategy/index.html>*

“Few White House hopefuls would ever want to be compared to former
President Richard Nixon, but some of Hillary Clinton's pre-campaign moves
-- or lack thereof -- are reminiscent of the 37th president.”

*The Atlantic: “Ready for Warren's Ideas”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/ready-for-warrens-ideas/382773/>*

“As the groundswell of popular support for Warren continues, Clinton will
likely be compelled to embrace more of Warren's economic populism.”

*National Journal: “Jeb Bush Just Made a Big Move Against Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/jeb-bush-just-made-a-big-move-against-hillary-clinton-20150220>*

[Subtitle:] “America Rising’s Tim Miller is an opposition-research bulldog.”

*MSNBC: “Jeb Bush snags opposition research star Tim Miller for 2016”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-snags-opposition-research-star-tim-miller-2016>*

“Jeb Bush made a hiring splash on Friday as his PAC tapped opposition
research guru Tim Miller for what will likely be a top position in his
potential 2016 presidential campaign. “

*Articles:*

*Log Cabin Democrat opinion: Annette Dove: “Hillary Clinton gets the job
done”
<http://thecabin.net/interact/opinion/columns/2015-02-19/dove-hillary-clinton-gets-job-done#.VOdSl_nF98E>*

By Annette Dove

February 19, 2015 3:47 p.m. EST

Last fall I had the pleasure of participating in a symposium with Hillary
and Chelsea Clinton about their initiative, No Ceilings: The Full
Participation Project. “Full participation” means ensuring every woman in
the world has the same rights and opportunities as men. Hillary Clinton has
been behind this goal from its inception at the 1995 UN Conference in
Beijing, where she declared that “human rights are women’s rights and
women’s rights are human rights.”

Even though women have come a long way since 1995, we still haven’t
achieved the ideal of equal rights and opportunities. Hillary calls this
“the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which is why she
started No Ceilings to figure out how to get the job done. That is what
Hillary Clinton is all about – getting the job done.

The symposium was titled “Community Based Solutions: A No Ceilings
Conversation” and its purpose was to learn what people are doing to advance
women and girls right here in our own backyard. I was honored to share the
work I’m doing here in Pine Bluff, especially standing next to the woman
whose actions inspired my own.

In her book, It Takes A Village, Hillary wrote about how we can make a real
difference in the lives of children by working together as a community.
Long before she wrote that book, she was putting her words into action.

During a trip to Miami in 1985 as First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary stumbled
upon a newspaper article about a program called HIPPY – Home Instruction
for Parents and Preschool Youngsters. HIPPY sends instructors into
low-income homes to provide parents – typically mothers – with the tools
they need to prepare their children for school. Founded in Israel in 1969
by Dr. Avima Lombard, HIPPY’s innovative approach captivated Hillary
Clinton. So she tracked down Dr. Lombard and asked her to help bring the
program to Arkansas. The next year, Little Rock became home to one of the
first HIPPY programs in the United States.

By taking this action, Hillary literally changed my life and the lives of
so many children and families in not only the state but around the country.
My experience with HIPPY began at the Arkansas River Education Service
Cooperative, which runs the HIPPY programs in 8 school districts throughout
Arkansas, Grant, and Jefferson counties. I served as the group’s Director
for 11 years.

During that time, I realized what Hillary saw in the program –it actually
works. At the beginning of the school year, teachers would ask us which of
their students were in HIPPY, because they knew that those students would
be prepared. There have been numerous studies comparing HIPPY students to
those who had no preschool education, and all the data shows the same
positive results: children in the HIPPY program were more prepared and
achieved at much higher rates.

After seeing the positive impact HIPPY had on young girls in my community,
I wanted to continue where HIPPY left off. So I formed TOPPS, Inc., which
started as a mentor program for girls ages 8-17. I then started DREAMS –
Dreams Require Educating And Motivating Students –to help get these girls
into college and into fields they never would have imagined. It’s what
Hillary and Chelsea refer to as the “imagination gap” and until we close
the gap, women will not reach their full potential.

The DREAMS program is in its third year, and all of our girls are currently
attending college – except one, who joined the Air Force and is an Honor
Guard in Washington, DC. She is 3rd in her class and studying to become a
doctor. She’s also one out of 17 children in her family.

Regardless of what her future holds for Hillary Clinton, I know that she
will continue to turn her ideas into action and get the job done, no matter
how big or small. And I know we will all be better off because of her.

*FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters for America: “The Clinton
Foundation Is A Global Charity -- Why Does The Press Treat It Like A
Political Death Star?”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/20/the-clinton-foundation-is-a-global-charity-why/202587>*

By Eric Boehlert

February 20, 2015

The Clinton Foundation returned to the headlines this week and once again
the topic was promoted with lots of media hand-wringing. The problem is,
it's not always clear journalists understand what the foundation does. At
least it's not clear based on the media coverage.

The news this week came from a Wall Street Journal article reporting that
once Hillary Clinton left her job as secretary of state, the Clinton
Foundation lifted its ban on donations from foreign governments. The ban
was reportedly first put in place at the request of the Obama
administration, which wanted to alleviate any possible conflicts of
interest with its new secretary of state. When Clinton became a private
citizen again in 2013, the foundation once again accepted money from
foreign governments.

"A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation said the charity has a need to
raise money for its many projects," the Journal reported.

The Journal article stressed that some ethics experts thought it was bad
form for the foundation to accept foreign donations because Hillary Clinton
is expected to run for president. The following day, Republican partisans
piled on, insisting Hillary herself had accepted "truckloads of cash from
other countries." (She had not; the foundation had.) The Beltway press
largely echoed the Republican spin and lampooned the foundation's move.

Did the original Journal article raise an interesting question? It did. If
and when Hillary formally announces her candidacy, will the foundation have
to revisit its position on accepting foreign government donations? It
likely will. But the only way the story really worked as advertised this
week was to casually conflate the Clinton Foundation, a remarkably
successful global charity organization, with Hillary's looming campaign
coffers, and to suggest everyone who's giving to the foundation is really
giving to her presidential campaign.

In order to make that allegation stick, Jennifer Rubin at the Washington
Post simply suggested there's no difference between a global charity and "a
PAC or campaign entity." (That kind of changes everything.)

The only way the story gained traction, and this has been true of Clinton
foundation coverage for years, was for journalists to pretend the
foundation isn't actually a ground-breaking charity,  in order to make
vague suggestions that it's one big Clinton slush fund where money gets
"funneled." ("Money, Money, Money, Money, MONEY!" was the headline for
Maureen Dowd's scathing New York Times attack column about the foundation
in 2013.)

Which brings us to Ron Fournier. The news of the donation policy shift at
the foundation this week infuriated the National Journal columnist who
slammed the move as "sleazy and stupid." But again, I'm not sure he
understands the Foundation's purpose, because in his column Fournier argued
that the acceptance of foreign donations "is stupid because it plays into a
decades-old knock on the Clintons: They'll cut any corner for campaign
cash." Huh? Obviously, charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation
aren't synonymous with "campaign cash" for Hillary. (If they are and
Fournier has proof, he's sitting on a Pulitzer-winning scoop.)

Fournier also stressed that the foundation had "secretly lifted" its ban on
accepting money from foreign governments. But it turns out the maneuver was
so "secret" that Wall Street Journal reporters uncovered the foreign
donations in plain sight on the Clinton Foundation's online database, where
they had been posted for anyone to see. ("In posting its donor data, the
foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency
level exceeds that of most philanthropies," the Washington Post reported.)

Still, the skewed view persists. Note that in a Fox News report yesterday
regarding the foundation's "fundraising misstep," John Roberts never once
explained that the foundation is, in fact, a charity. It's easier to cast
aspersions on the organization if you leave out the fact it helps AIDS/HIV
suffers around the world get cheaper, better  medicine. Or that the
foundation battles global health, economic inequality, childhood obesity,
climate change, or health and wellness. All of that gets flushed down the
memory hole.

I've noted in the past the disconnect between the foundation's goals and
deeds, and how it's portrayed in the press:

“The foundation isn't a greedy $400-an-hour law firm. It's not a shady real
estate conglomerate or a me-first hedge fund. It's a hugely successful
charity that sponsors good deeds around the world. Yet within the Beltway
press, the charity is now often depicted as some sort of Death Star -- or
black ops -- operation; a web of ethical conflicts around which all kinds
of nefarious deals unfold and hush money is transferred.”

I certainly can't think of another charity with a long track record of
helping poor people that's been portrayed as a political target of
suspicion the way the Clinton Foundation has by the Beltway press over the
years. And as a news consumer, I rarely see coverage of the foundation
except when it's covered through the prism of Clinton politics.

Why does the disconnect persist? Because journalists sense the Clintons are
cutting dirty deals behind the scenes. Though Fournier writes he is willing
to give Clinton the "benefit of the doubt," he nonetheless asks, "What do
these foreign countries expect in exchange for their donations? What
pressure would Clinton face as president to return financial favors?"

Back in late 2008, a Slate writer actually suggested the thriving Clinton
Foundation "close shop" in order to placate the conflict-of-interest media
police who populate the Beltway. Forget the hunger work the foundation
does, the AIDS/HIV work, the climate work, or the drug access for the poor.
For many in the D.C. press, what really matters about the Clinton
Foundation isn't the good work it provides, it's that journalists be
comfortable with Foundation's optics as they relate to (often petty)
domestic politics.

*CNN: “Hillary Clinton's Nixonian strategy of laying low”
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/20/politics/clinton-nixon-strategy/index.html>*

By Dan Merica

February 20, 2015

Few White House hopefuls would ever want to be compared to former President
Richard Nixon, but some of Hillary Clinton's pre-campaign moves -- or lack
thereof -- are reminiscent of the 37th president.

As Clinton eyes another run at the presidency in 2016, some close to her --
especially those who are cheering reports she may wait until summer to
officially announce a bid -- point to Nixon's successful 1968 presidential
bid as a positive sign, particularly how Nixon's public operation went dark
for about six months before entering the race.

Despite being the presumed Democratic front-runner since Obama was
reelected in 2012, Clinton has been largely absent from the public
spotlight since the midterms wrapped in November 2014. And with the
exception of the occasional paid speech and non-profit event, she could
lay-low through the spring, a months-long hiatus similar to one Nixon took
more than fifty years ago before winning the presidency for the first time.

In "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create the
New Majority," author and longtime Nixon aide Patrick Buchanan retells the
debate and intrigue around Nixon deciding to take a six-month hiatus from
presidential politics ahead of the 1968 election.

The comparisons to Clinton, while not perfect -- she is the same young
lawyer who worked as an aide on the Nixon impeachment trial of the former
president -- are obvious.

Clinton is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination in 2016 and has
already had to deal with attacks about her not being a "fresh face." A
CNN/ORC poll out Wednesday found that Clinton leads the field with a
whopping 61%. Both candidates have unsuccessfully sought the presidential
nomination before and held high profile West Wing positions elevating their
status and name recognition.

Nixon, who had then served a vice president for eight years but lost in the
1960 presidential election and the 1962 California gubernatorial race, was
seen as the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican nomination in 1968.
There was strong competition -- notably from then Michigan Gov. George
Romney -- but none had the support Nixon had.

That is why, according to Buchanan, it was shocking when Nixon told an
interviewer that after the 1966 midterm elections he was "going to take a
holiday from politics for at least six months."

"Is it really wise to cede the field to Romney and lock ourselves into a
six-month moratorium with no flexibility," Buchanan recalls asking Nixon.

Nixon pointedly responded: "Let 'em chew on him for a little while."

"That is what he expected the press to do to George. Romney, and that is
what the press did," Buchanan writes. "The new year would prove an annus
horribilis for the governor of Michigan."

Buchanan adds: Nixon knew "if he started out on a presidential campaign in
1967, even as an unannounced candidate... the press and public would tire
of him and begin looking about for the 'fresh face.' Thus he would back
away and not appear center stage as a candidate until more than a year
later. ... It was a risky strategy and, judging by the results, a brilliant
one."

Nixon would go on to narrowly win the 1968 election over Democrat Hubert
Humphrey, but more importantly, he emerged from the Republican nomination
process as the clear winner, trouncing Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan
and Romney.

Buchanan, who ran for president three times, said he does see some of
Nixon's strategy in Clinton.

"I see her more looking at the scene, asking, 'Why move now,'" he said. "I
think that whole idea is absence makes the heart grow fonder."

He added that he wasn't surprised Clinton, despite her work to impeach
Nixon, has mixing his strategy.

"What dictates the strategy is more the circumstance and the individual,"
he said. "This was not just a lark, this was thought though."

By ducking from public events -- Clinton had only two public events in
January and has only one slated for February -- the frontrunner is clearly
trying to lay low. Clinton has four events planned for March, but that
number is nothing compared to how many events she headlined in 2014.

Reports have surfaced that she may wait until summer to officially kick off
a campaign, but Clinton confidants have told CNN that they expect some sort
of campaign move to happen in April.

The Nixon comparison favored by some close to Clinton -- but also causing
some in Clinton-land to grimace -- have some . There are two obvious holes:
The first being even if Clinton decides to lay low, today's media landscape
doesn't have to abide by her wishes.

Leaks about who she is hiring, where she may put her campaign headquarters
and the problems she will face on the trail are rampant and the media is
still as focused on her -- if not more -- than they were months ago.

Secondly, unlike Nixon, Clinton's crowded field of realistic challengers
isn't in the primary.

On her Democratic side, Vice President Joe Biden, Democratic Maryland Gov.
Martin O'Malley, Sen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont and former Virginia Sen.
Jim Webb haven't really made much a splash in polling, and one of her
closest liberal competitors has repeatedly said she's not running. While
Clinton finds herself with over 60% support, her next closest competitor,
Biden, has gained six points since December and stands at 14%. Warren
follows at 10%.

Instead, the real crowded field facing Clinton comes mostly from
Republicans, who have roughly two dozen possible hopefuls who might compete
for the presidential nomination. While the media spotlight has burned a few
contenders, it's unclear if those missteps on the GOP side will translate
to Clinton's benefit once she finally decides to officially hop into the
race.

Quite simply, Clinton doesn't have a George Romney for the media to "chew"
on.

*The Atlantic: “Ready for Warren's Ideas”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/ready-for-warrens-ideas/382773/>*

By David Ludwig

February 20, 2015, 9:10 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The groundswell of support for the Massachusetts senator is as
much about advancing her agenda as it is about promoting her potential
candidacy.

Elizabeth Warren has made it very clear that she's not planning to run for
president in 2016. "I am not running for President," she repeatedly told
NPR in an interview in December. "You want me to put an exclamation point
at the end?"

These consistent denials contrast with the enthusiasm of her supporters who
continue to trumpet the Massachusetts senator's message of reversing
growing income inequality even as Warren remains on the sidelines. Although
it's unclear whether or not their advocacy has done anything to move the
needle on Warren's thinking, pro-Warren groups are still having a major
impact on the 2016 debate. Leading the charge are "Ready for Warren" and
"Run Warren Run," two groups that have rallied around the Senator's fiery
brand of economic populism perhaps as much as they have the candidate
herself.

"People feel like the system is rigged against them," then Senate candidate
Elizabeth Warren told a cheering crowd at the Democratic National
Convention in 2012. "And here's the painful part: They're right. The system
is rigged."

For liberals looking to shed light on income inequality, Warren is in many
ways the ideal spokeswoman. The former Harvard economics professor first
rose to national prominence as the chief architect of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a government agency created in the
aftermath of the economic crash to increase transparency between consumers
and the financial industry. During her time in the Senate, Warren has
championed progressive causes. She sponsored a bill to allow students to
refinance their college debt, advocated for increased regulation of the
financial industry, and publicly admonished Citigroup for its close ties to
government. During the 2014 midterms, the Oklahoma native spoke
enthusiastically (and frequently) about the disappearance of the middle
class and the need to change a system that values big business and Wall
Street over American workers and their families.

"There’s a hunger out there and I think that people are just waiting for
someone with a spine to stand up and tell truths," said Katie
Albright-Hanna, who worked for the Obama campaign in the spring of 2007 and
now serves as the Deputy Campaign Manager of Ready For Warren.

After the midterm elections, many progressives blamed the Democrats'
historic drubbing on this inability to "stand up and tell truths." Instead
of embracing progressive causes, they said, Democratic candidates in tough
re-election fights sanitized their message in an effort to win the center.
Now, with Hillary Clinton emerging as the most intimidating presidential
frontrunner in recent history, liberal activists are worried that the
moderate Democrat will similarly shirk the base to appeal to the middle.

“There are a lot of people who didn’t vote in 2014 because Democrats
weren’t talking about big, bold ideas," said Adam Green, co-founder of the
Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which led a Draft Warren for
Senate effort in 2011. "Republicans, Democrats and Independent voters are
crying out for someone to fight for the little guy against the big guy ...
The midterms were one of the lowest turnout elections and that’s because
people don’t even understand what the point is anymore," he added.

Adding fuel to the pro-Warren fire is the liberal base's long-time
skepticism of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Many progressives worry that
they are too cozy with Wall Street and too entrenched in the Washington
political class to truly shake things up. Reports of the Clintons' six
figure speaking fees have done little to bolster their populist credentials.

"President Obama got into office and hired a bunch of people who were in
the Clinton administration," said Albright-Hanna. "You had all the
followers of Rubin and the architects of what ultimately became an economic
crash."

The problem for activists like Green and Albright-Hanna is that, in the
event that Warren doesn't run, Democrats will likely be left without a
viable progressive standard-bearer. While Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
has expressed interest in the race, the Democratic Socialist will struggle
to gain traction with the party's mainstream or be taken seriously as a
candidate. Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb announced the creation of an
exploratory committee in anticipation of a run for the White House, but
should he run, Webb would likely be competing for the same
inside-the-beltway fundraisers that Clinton has already locked up. And
former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who has signaled that he plans to
run, has struggled to break out of the low single digits in polls.

So as Clinton waits in the wings for her coronation and Warren distances
herself from a presidential bid, liberal activists are moving to their next
best option: waging a campaign of ideas around the absent Warren. And while
Warren seems as definitive as ever about not running, her supporters have
been remarkably successful in getting the Democratic establishment to pay
attention to their ideas. In November, Congressional Democrats announced
that Warren would join their four-person leadership circle as a liaison to
the progressive wing of the party. On Tuesday, CNN reported that Democratic
frontrunner Hillary Clinton has reached out to Warren "several times" over
the past six months, including a private meeting at Secretary Clinton's
Washington D.C. home in December. With the former Secretary of State—or at
least her advisors—listening, it's unlikely that pro-Warren activists will
let up anytime soon.

"We will be organizing in states like New Hampshire to make sure that all
candidates that are running for President including Hillary Clinton will be
forced to say if they agree on key economic populist issues" Green said.
"We’re urging Hillary Clinton and other Democrats thinking of running to
embrace Elizabeth Warren’s economic populist agenda both as a primary
strategy and as a general election strategy," he added.

In many ways, Warren would be the perfect candidate to challenge Clinton in
2016. While it's unlikely that a credible candidate could run against
Clinton from the right, there remains a block of progressive voters looking
for an alternative, or at the very least someone who can ignite a robust
and spirited primary debate. Warren's greatest strengths are also Hillary
Clinton's biggest weaknesses. Warren's authenticity, outsider status, and
clear message resonate with the Democratic base in a way that Clinton's
technocratic approach simply does not. Perhaps Warren's strongest asset is
her ability to neutralize Clinton's 2016 calling card, her position as a
potential first woman president. And, while Clinton holds massive leads
against all potential Democratic challengers, one need look no further than
the 2007 Democratic primary for evidence that an underdog can come from
behind to defeat Hillary Clinton (although admittedly Clinton's leads are
significantly larger this time around).

As the groundswell of popular support for Warren continues, Clinton will
likely be compelled to embrace more of Warren's economic populism. Getting
Warren's ideas on the ballot, even if the populist firebrand remains on the
sidelines, may be the best hope liberals have.

*National Journal: “Jeb Bush Just Made a Big Move Against Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/jeb-bush-just-made-a-big-move-against-hillary-clinton-20150220>*

By Emma Roller

February 20, 2015

[Subtitle:] America Rising’s Tim Miller is an opposition-research bulldog.

Jeb Bush's burgeoning 2016 campaign team just adopted a new guard dog.

On Friday, Politico broke the news that Bush's camp was hiring Tim Miller,
the executive director of America Rising, as his top communications aide.
America Rising is a conservative opposition-research firm that has been
lasering in on Hillary Clinton over the past two years.

Miller has quickly become a formidable peddler of oppo research, both
through his group and on his Twitter feed. Last June, America Rising
published a 112-page e-book essentially outlining the conservative playbook
against Hillary Clinton in 2016. America Rising's website is rife with
clicky headlines and slick in-house graphics detailing Clinton's
peccadilloes, most recently her Clinton Foundation flap. They even sell
anti-Clinton merch, like this T-shirt that reads, "I wish I was as broke as
the Clintons".

Compare that with other potential Republican candidates' attempted attacks
on Clinton. Sen. Rand Paul's political operation created a fake Pinterest
account for Clinton. Pinterest quickly removed the account, saying it
violated the company's terms of use. In 2016, Republicans are going to have
to do better to troll Clinton, the presumed Democratic frontrunner, and
Miller has shown he knows just how to do that.

Miller worked for Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential bid and Jon
Huntsman's 2012 campaign. He has also served as spokesman of the Republican
National Committee. Miller is openly gay.

"Some told me to be prepared for it to be an issue in past political
campaigns, but it never has," Miller told National Journal last year. "A
big takeaway for me as I've encountered political operatives who are
worried that being open might have a negative impact on their career is
that you don't need to hide to be successful, and it wouldn't be worth it,
regardless."

America Rising, which launched in 2013, was founded by two veteran
Republican operatives: Matt Rhoades, who managed Mitt Romney's 2012
campaign, and Joe Pounder, a former research director for the RNC. It has
grown into an $8 million operation, with 27 full-time trackers on the
ground following high-profile Democrats' every move.

"In the vast majority of cases, we tell our trackers we want them to be a
fly on the wall," Miller told National Journal in September. "We want them
to go stand in the back of the room, not be a problem, and get as much
video as possible. This is not like the old days where you'd jump somebody
out from behind a bush and try to create a news story. That's not our
objective."

Another asset to Miller, and by extension Bush's nascent campaign, is
Miller's friendly, often jokey rapport with political reporters inside the
Beltway.

"Congrats to @TimODC on the new gig. I still hate Jeb though," conservative
reporter Conn Carroll tweeted on Friday. Miller replied with a sad
emoticon, to which Carroll said, "I look forward to you trying to change my
mind ;)"

"Drafting a memo now!" Miller joked.

*MSNBC: “Jeb Bush snags opposition research star Tim Miller for 2016”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-snags-opposition-research-star-tim-miller-2016>*

By Benjy Sarlin

February 20, 2015, 12:20 p.m. EST

Jeb Bush made a hiring splash on Friday as his PAC tapped opposition
research guru Tim Miller for what will likely be a top position in his
potential 2016 presidential campaign.

Miller served as Jon Huntsman’s press secretary in his failed 2012
presidential bid, then made a name for himself in the 2014 cycle as
executive director of America Rising PAC, a big money GOP firm dedicated to
digging up dirt on Democratic candidates and promoting it in the press.
Miller, whose hire was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, will
serve as a senior adviser to Bush’s Right to Rise PAC and is pegged as the
presumptive communications director for Bush’s 2016 campaign should the
former Florida governor enter the race.

“Tim is one of the most respected communicators in the nation,” Kristy
Campbell, a spokeswoman for Bush’s Right to Rise PAC, told msnbc. “His
counsel will be critical to Governor Bush as the Right to Rise PAC works to
support conservative candidates and conservative causes across the nation
in the coming months.”

America Rising was a breakout star in the 2014 cycle, where it dispatched
trackers to follow Democratic candidates around the country and helped sink
Senate hopefuls like Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley, who was hurt early by a
video released by the group in which he derided Senator Chuck Grassley as
“a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.” The firm is also known
for its social media presence – rather than operate as an invisible force,
it tries to disseminate damaging information about Democrats with memes and
gifs.

More recently, America Rising has been focused on undercutting Democratic
frontrunner Hillary Clinton, a skill set that should prove handy should
Bush win the Republican nomination and face off against the former
Secretary of State.