podesta_email_00302.txt

podesta-emails 117,565 words email

D6 P17 P19 P23 V11

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *H4A News Clips* *June 8, 2015* *LAST NIGHT’S EVENING NEWS* ABC reported on Hillary Clinton’s CNN interview, specifically her comments about Donald Trump's recent remarks about Mexican immigrants. NBC had a segment about the PGA canceling a golf tournament that was to be held at one of Trump's courses in response to his immigration comments. Trump officials claimed that contractors require documentation from workers. Serta, Macy’s, Farouk, NBC, ESPN, PGA, Televisa, Univision, and NASCAR have withdrawn from Trump’s business. Trump remains confident that these companies and industries pulling from him will not affect his businesses. CBS reported on Hillary Clinton's trip to Iowa, and stated that Bernie Sanders is closing in on Hillary Clinton, by doubling his support in Iowa since May. Sanders claims that he is surprised by how many supporters he is getting and has raised $15 million, but not nearly as much as Hillary Clinton. *LAST NIGHT’S EVENING NEWS........................................................................ **1* *TODAY’S KEY STORIES..................................................................................... **7* Hillary Clinton Courts Bigger Crowds in Return to Iowa // NYT // Amy Chozick – July 7, 2015.... 7 Clinton steps up attacks on GOP presidential candidates in Iowa — but steers clear of knocking her Democratic rivals // WaPo // Jose Del Real – July 7, 2015.......................................................................... 9 Hillary Clinton: On immigration, the GOP is just like Donald Trump // Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti – July 7, 2015.................................................................................................................................. 11 *SOCIAL MEDIA................................................................................................ **13* Zeke Miller (7/7/15, 4:53 pm) - Inbox: Tomorrow in NH, @MartinOMalley will unveil his plan to make college debt-free for every student in America................................................................................... 13 Philip Rucker (7/7/15, 5:25 pm) - Very good @brikeilarcnn interview of Hillary. Tough questions, serious issues. But also served up dessert like woman on $10 bill and SNL......................................... 13 David Drucker (7/7/15, 5:25 pm) - .@HillaryClinton survives @CNN intvw unscathed; looks at ease. But there's plenty there to mine that HRC still hasn't put to rest................................................... 13 *HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE............................................................................ **13* Hillary Clinton Opens a Previously Guarded Door // NYT // Maggie Haberman – July 7, 2015.. 13 Hillary Clinton relied heavily on white voters in 2008. In 2016, it’s reversed. // WaPo // Philip Bump – July 7, 2015..................................................................................................................................... 14 Hillary Clinton: Republican candidates ‘on a spectrum of hostility’ toward immigrants // WaPo // Ed O’Keefe – July 7, 2015....................................................................................................................... 15 Hillary Clinton Blames ‘Constant Barrage of Attacks’ by GOP for Polls Questioning Her Honesty // WSJ // Laura Meckler – July 7, 2015................................................................................................. 17 The making of a Hillary Clinton echo chamber // WaPo // Philip Rucker – July 7, 2015............ 18 Lawmakers: Feds Should Have Deported Undocumented Immigrant Before SF Pier Shooting // AP – July 7, 2015..................................................................................................................................... 21 Hillary Clinton Hands Jeb Bush A Present On Immigration // HuffPo // Igor Bobic – July 7, 2015 23 Hillary Clinton Piles On San Francisco Officials, Putting Sanctuary Cities Under Even More Heat // HuffPo // Elise Foley – July 7, 2015...................................................................................................... 24 Clinton says GOP field ranges from 'grudgingly welcome' to 'hostile' toward immigrants // AP // Catherine Lucey & Ken Thomas – July 7, 2015....................................................................................... 26 Hillary confronts the enemy // Politico // Annie Karni & Gabrielle Debenedetti – July 7, 2015. 28 Hillary Clinton plans meeting with black lawmakers // Politico // Lauren French – July 7, 2015 30 Hillary Clinton not amused by fax machine mockery // Politico // Adam Lerner – July 7, 2015 30 A defensive Clinton promises 'more press' // Politico // Dylan Byers – July 7, 2015.................. 31 Clinton says Puerto Rico should have access to U.S. bankruptcy laws // Reuters // Amanda Becker – June 30, 2015..................................................................................................................................... 32 Meme says Hillary Clinton's top donors are banks and corporations, Bernie Sanders' are labor unions // Politifact // Louis Jacobson – July 7, 2015............................................................................. 34 Clinton vows to make ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform cornerstone issue // Radio Iowa // Kay Henderson – July 7, 2015....................................................................................................................... 36 Clinton emails may revive environmental group's lawsuit // The Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................... 37 Hillary On San Francisco Illegal Immigrant Murder: ‘The City Made A Mistake’ // The Daily Caller // Al Weaver – July 7, 2015........................................................................................................... 38 Three questions for Hillary Clinton // The Washington Examiner // Byron York – July 7, 2015. 39 Committed, undecided line up to see Clinton in Iowa City // The Gazette // James Lynch – July 7, 2015 39 Hillary Clinton rips GOP on immigration: She says their problem is much bigger than Trump // Salon // Sophia Tesfaye – July 7, 2015................................................................................................ 41 Hillary Clinton: GOP on 'Spectrum of Hostility' Towards Immigrants // NBC News // Carrie Dann – July 7, 2015..................................................................................................................................... 42 Hillary Clinton on Her 'Last Rodeo' // The National Journal // Emma Roller – July 7, 2015...... 43 Clinton backs 'pathway to citizenship,' criticizes GOP // USA Today // David Jackson – July 7, 2015 46 Clinton says 'very disappointed' in Trump's immigration comments // Reuters – July 7, 2015. 47 Hillary Clinton slams Trump, Bush on immigration // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 7, 2015 47 Hillary Clinton just used Donald Trump to attack the entire GOP field // Business Insider // Colin Campbell – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................... 48 Hillary Clinton Says She Is "Very Disappointed" in Donald Trump // Mother Jones // Inae Oh – July 7, 2015............................................................................................................................................ 49 Hillary Clinton Ties Jeb Bush to GOP Field on Immigration // TIME // Sam Frizell – July 7, 2015 49 Hillary Clinton: Jeb Bush 'doesn't believe in a path to citizenship' // Miami Herald // Patricia Mezzai – July 7, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 50 Hillary: All GOP candidates on a ‘spectrum of hostility’ toward immigrants // Breitbart // Pam Key – July 7, 2015..................................................................................................................................... 51 Hillary Clinton 'very disappointed' in Trump, GOP on immigration // The Hill // Niall Stanage & Jonathan Easley – July 7, 2015............................................................................................................ 52 Hillary to meet with black lawmakers // The Hill // Christina Marcos – July 7, 2015................ 53 The Clinton Campaign Corralled Reporters, But Don't Expect Them To Skip The Next Parade // HuffPo // Michael Calderone – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................... 55 Hillary Clinton: ‘People Should and Do Trust Me’ // CNN // Eric Bradner – July 7, 2015........... 56 Top 8 takeaways from Hillary Clinton's first big interview // CNN // Eric Bradner - July 7, 2015 59 Hillary Clinton Tweets & Deletes This Photo Of Her Shaking Hands With A White Man With A "White" Tattoo // Bustle // Melissah Yang – July 8, 2015.............................................................................. 62 Hillary Clinton Thinks Email Scandal Is Annoying, Says Everything She Did Was Legal, So Back Off // Bustle // Chris Tognotti – July 7, 2015............................................................................................. 64 Hillary Clinton on Bernie Sanders: It’s going to be ‘competitive’ // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 7, 2015............................................................................................................................................ 66 Grassley Probing Clinton Aide’s Dual Role at State, Clinton Foundation // Free Beacon // Alana Goodman – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................... 67 Dem Millenials In Iowa Not Ready To Fully Support Clinton // CBS – July 7, 2015................... 68 Hillary Clinton Deletes Photo Of Herself And Man With “White” Tattoo // Buzzfeed // Claudia Koerner – July 7, 2015................................................................................................................................. 69 Hillary Clinton's guide to throwing a house party // Political Party Time // Nicko Margolies – July 7, 2015........................................................................................................................................... 70 Hillary Clinton: hacking problem not limited to China // Reuters – July 7, 2015...................... 71 Hillary Clinton: Cyber Legislation in Congress Is 'Not Enough' to Stop Foreign Hackers // National Journal // Dustin Volz – July 7, 2015..................................................................................................... 71 Hillary Clinton calls for bankruptcy law change so Puerto Rico can tackle debt // Reuters – July 7, 2015 72 Clinton Blames 'The Right' For Trust Attacks // NPR // Jessica Taylor – July 7, 2015............... 74 Hillary Blames GOP for Negative Press, Insists People ‘Can and Do’ Trust Her // NY Mag // Margaret Hartmann – July 7, 2015....................................................................................................... 76 Hillary Clinton blames trust issues on GOP // Boston Herald // Hillary Chabot – July 8, 2015. 78 'People should and do trust me,' says Hillary Clinton // The Hill // Nial Stanage & Jonathan Easley – July 7, 2015..................................................................................................................................... 79 Clinton voices support for deported Iowa immigrant // The Des Moines Register // Tony Leys – July 7, 2015............................................................................................................................................ 81 Clinton campaign adds 20 paid Iowa staffers // The Des Moines Reigister // Jennifer Jacobs – July 7, 2015........................................................................................................................................... 83 The Clintons’ headache is back: First brother Roger was paid $100,000 to influence Bill and ex-president bought him house despite IRS demand for his property // The Daily Mail // Francesca Chambers – July 7, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 84 Hillary Clinton to pay 'summer fellows' after reports of interns working for free // The Guardian // Ben Jacobs – July 7, 2015....................................................................................................................... 87 Clinton Still Far Outpaces Her Democratic Rivals // Rasmussen Reports – July 7, 2015........... 88 Hillary Clinton: People who dis the government are ‘dissing our democracy’ // The Washington Times // Jessica Chasmar – July 7, 2015............................................................................................. 89 Clinton hits on local issues in Iowa City campaign stop // KCRG // Mark Carlson – July 7, 2015 89 Will Hillary Clinton swear off fossil-fuel money? Bernie Sanders already has // Grist // John Light – July 7, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 89 Judicial Watch: Federal Judge Orders State Department to Release Documents Regarding Hillary Clinton’s iPhone and iPad Use // Judicial Watch – July 7, 2015............................................................. 91 Hillary Clinton to visit Michigan July 21 // The Detroit News // David Shepardson – July 7, 2015 92 *OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE................................................. **93* *DECLARED................................................................................................. **93* *O’MALLEY............................................................................................... **93* O’Malley expresses distaste for super PACs after one backing him attacks Sanders // WaPo // John Wagner – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................... 93 Martin O’Malley racked up $339,200 in loans putting two kids through college. He wants to lighten the load for others. // WaPo // John Wagner – July 7, 2015................................................................. 94 O'Malley to Lay Out Plan for Debt-Free College // AP // July 8, 2015...................................... 97 Martin O’Malley Has the Right Solution for Puerto Rico’s Debt Crisis // The Nation // John Nichols – July 7, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 98 Martin O’Malley: A Strong Foreign Policy Starts With a Global Middle Class // TIME // Martin O’Malley – July 7, 2015............................................................................................................................... 100 O'Malley Denounces Super PACs As One Supporting Him Goes After Sanders // NHPR // Rachael Brindley – July 7, 2015........................................................................................................................ 101 *SANDERS............................................................................................... **102* Can Bernie Sanders Beat Hillary Clinton? Reporter’s Notebook // NYT // Pat Leary – July 7, 2015 102 Why we shouldn’t just call Bernie Sanders a ‘liberal’ // WaPo // Hunter Schwartz – July 7, 2015 103 The issue on which Bernie Sanders aims for ‘the middle’ // MSNBC // Steve Benen – July 7, 2015 105 Bernie Sanders is no Ron Paul: What the press gets all wrong about the Vermont senator...... 106 He'll always be an underdog, but Sanders is a more viable candidate than even the left-wing media will acknowledge // Salon // Zaid Jilani – July 8, 2015................................................................ 106 Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Make Solar Power More Accessible // Think Progress // Ari Phillips – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 107 Jimmy Carter: Bernie Sanders Is A 'Surprising' Democratic Competitor // HuffPo // Paige Lavender – July 7, 2015................................................................................................................................... 109 The Clinton Campaign Is Afraid of Bernie Sanders // The Atlantic // Peter Beinart – July 7, 2015 109 This Could Be Bernie Sanders' Biggest General Election Challenge // NBC News // Mark Murray – July 7, 2015........................................................................................................................................... 111 Rep. Barbara Lee: Bernie Sanders’ Message “Resonating,” “Galvanizing Progressives” // Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 7, 2015...................................................................................................... 112 Bernie Sanders Hits a Triumphant Note As His Crowds Grow // TIME // Sam Frizell – July 7, 2015 112 As Labor Grapples With Candidate Endorsements, Transit Union Head Applauds Bernie Sanders // IB Times // Cole Stangler –July 7, 2015.............................................................................................. 114 Coons: "Not Confident" In Bernie Sanders' Qualifications // Bloomberg // Kendall Breitman – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 116 Fox News’ big Bernie Sanders lie: The right’s laughably lame effort to link Donald Trump and Sanders // Salon // Sean Illing – July 7, 2015................................................................................................. 117 *UNDECLARED........................................................................................... **119* *OTHER................................................................................................... **119* How durable is the Democratic advantage among Latinos? // WaPo // Greg Sargent – July 7, 2015 119 Here's what Clinton, O'Malley and Sanders told America's biggest teachers union // The Washington Examiner // Jason Russell – July 7, 2015............................................................................. 121 *GOP................................................................................................................ **121* *DECLARED................................................................................................ **121* *BUSH...................................................................................................... **122* Florida’s Economic Leap Under Jeb Bush Helped By Housing Bubble, Economists Say // WSJ // Bob Davis – July 7, 2015........................................................................................................................ 122 Did Jeb Bush cut taxes each year as Florida governor? // Politifact – July 7, 2015.................. 123 Jeb Bush's Aggressive July Fundraising Schedule // Bloomberg // Michael Bender – July 7, 2015 124 Jeb Bush: No Leniency for Edward Snowden // CBS News // Rebecca Kaplan – July 7, 2015... 124 Jeb Bush plans first Sioux City campaign stop // Sioux City Journal // Bret Hayworth – July 7, 2015 125 Jeb Bush: 'No leniency' toward Snowden // The Washington Examiner // Elizabeth Potter – July 7, 2015 126 *RUBIO.................................................................................................... **127* Marco Rubio’s Education Plans Echo Some Obama Ideas // NYT // Alan Rappeport – July 7, 2015 127 Marco Rubio Attacks Higher Education ‘Cartel’ and Jabs Rivals // NYT // Jeremy Peters – July 7, 2015 128 Five takeaways from Marco Rubio’s speech on the innovation economy // WaPo // Steven Overly – July 7, 2015................................................................................................................................... 129 Marco Rubio Outlines Economic Initiatives // WSJ // Patrick O’Connor – July 7, 2015............ 131 Rubio rips GOP, Clinton // AP // Steve Peoples – July 8, 2015............................................... 133 Marco Rubio Economy: ‘The old ways no longer work’ // AP // Steve Peoples – July 7, 2015.... 134 Marco Rubio slams Hillary Clinton, higher ed ‘cartel’ in policy speech // Politico // Eli Stokols – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 136 Marco Rubio is about to give a major economic speech that he hopes will kick-start his campaign // Reuters // James Oliphant – July 7, 2015............................................................................................. 138 Rubio: College 'cartels' need busting in new economy // CNN // Tom LoBianco – July 7, 2015 139 Marco Rubio's 'New' Plan For Creating Jobs Is Actually Old And Borrowed // HuffPo // Igor Bobic – July 7, 2015................................................................................................................................... 139 Rubio: Don't expect a Romney endorsement soon // The Hill // Jesse Byrnes – July 7, 2015.. 141 Marco Rubio 2016 Campaign: Nonprofit Backing GOP Candidate Rubio Raises Almost $16 Million // Latin Post // Andre Puglie – July 7, 2015.............................................................................................. 142 Nonprofit with secret donors, linked to Rubio super PAC, raises millions // CBS News // Stephanie Condon – July 7, 2015........................................................................................................................ 143 Marco Rubio: “We need a new president for a new age” // CBS News // Sopan Deb – July 7, 2015 144 Marco Rubio’s Economic Plan Calls For Students To Sell Themselves To Private Investors // Think Progress // Alice Ollstein – July 7, 2015................................................................................................. 146 Marco Rubio Outlines Domestic Policy Agenda, Jabs Clinton // NBC News // Alex Jaffe – July 7, 2015 147 *PAUL...................................................................................................... **149* Rand Paul, dorm room philosopher: Why his “slavery” nonsense is so outrageous // Salon // Simon Maloy – July 7, 2015........................................................................................................................ 149 *CRUZ...................................................................................................... **150* Blogging Federal Judge Says Ted Cruz ‘Not Fit to be President’ // WSJ // Jacob Gershman – July 7, 2015 150 Blogging judge calls political candidate “unfit” for office // WSJ // Orin Kerr – July 7, 2015.... 152 Ted Cruz's angry allies // Politico // Katie Glueck – July 7, 2015............................................ 154 Ted Cruz partners with donor’s 'psychographic' firm // Politico // Kenneth Vogel & Tarini Parti – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 157 Ted Cruz To Chris Christie: Your “Oppo Research Guys” Got The Facts Wrong When You Attacked Me // Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 7, 2015....................................................................... 160 Ted Cruz’s 2016 campaign says its raised $14.2M since launch // Bell Jar – July 8, 2015......... 161 Ted Cruz’s unique spin on the 11th Commandment // CBS News // Steven Benen – July 7, 2015 161 Top GOP lawyer absolutely scorches Ted Cruz: “Most graduates of Harvard Law School know” better // Salon // Sophia Tesfaye – July 7, 2015.............................................................................................. 163 *CHRISTIE.............................................................................................. **164* NJ Voters Tepid on Chris Christie’s Handling of State Pension System // WSJ // Heather Haddon – July 7, 2015................................................................................................................................... 164 New Jersey Democrats troll Chris Christie // Politico // Daniel Strauss – July 7, 2015............. 165 N.J. Dems Prod a Defiant Chris Christie to Resign // NBC News // Kelly O’Donnell – July 7, 2015 166 Webb: The real deal about Chris Christie // The Hill // David Webb – July 7, 2015................ 166 Chris Christie Administration Whistleblower To Justice Department: Bridgegate Prosecutor May Be Compromised // IB Times // David Sirota & Andrew Perez – July 7, 2015.............................. 168 Governor Chris Christie: Media Should Apologize to Me for Bridgegate // Newsbusters // Randy hall – July 7, 2015................................................................................................................................... 170 Why Chris Christie may have an edge in GOP race // CNBC // Mark Macias – July 7, 2015...... 172 *GRAHAM................................................................................................ **174* Lindsey Graham Protests 'Brad Pitt' Debate // Bloomberg // Ben Brody – July 7, 2015.......... 174 Lindsey Graham On Trump: GOP “Must Speak Up,” He’s “Not Part Of The Party I Want To Have” // Buzzfeed // Andrew Jaczynski – July 7, 2015...................................................................................... 174 Graham Questions Obama’s Commitment to Removing Assad From Power // Free Beacon // Blake Seitz – July 7, 2015................................................................................................................................ 175 Lindsey Graham campaign joins Fiorina in attacking Clinton’s CNN Interview: Clinton has ‘selective hearing and memory’ // Breitbart // Alex Swoyer – July 7, 2015........................................................ 176 *HUCKABEE............................................................................................ **176* Huckabee blasts Obama, ‘Still in denial about the threats we face’ // Breitbart // Alex Swoyer – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 176 *CARSON.................................................................................................. **177* Ben Carson's godly riches // Politico // Tarini Parti – July 7, 2015.......................................... 177 A Movie Was Once Made About Ben Carson (And It May Be Helping Him) // The Daily Caller // Alex Pappas – July 8, 2015........................................................................................................................ 179 Ben Carson signs ‘no new tax’ pledge, visits New Hampshire // The Washington Times // Seth McLaughlin – July 7, 2015........................................................................................................................ 181 Ben Carson Has Sold More Copies Of His Book Than Every Other 2016 Republican Combined — By A Lot // Buzzfeed // McKay Coppins – July 7, 2015........................................................................... 183 Ben Carson calls for banning sanctuary cities // Boston Herald // Chris Cassidy – July 7, 2015 184 *FIORINA................................................................................................ **185* Carly Fiorina Condemns Donald Trump for Comments on Mexicans // TIME // Sam Frizell – July 7, 2015 185 Fiorina Responds: I’ve Done 24 TIMES As Many National TV Interviews As Hillary // The Daily Caller // Al Weaver – July 7, 2015......................................................................................................... 186 'Rope line' jokes aplenty as Fiorina knocks Clinton // The Union Leader // Dan Tuohy – July 7, 2015 187 *JINDAL.................................................................................................. **188* Bobby Jindal mocked for posing with gun at campaign stop // The Economic Times – July 8, 2015 188 Bobby Jindal: Sanders and Clinton Would Both Turn Us Into Greece // TIME // Bobby Jindal – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 189 Jindal back to Iowa, will fundraise with Grassley // Des Moines Register // Linh Ta – July 7, 2015 190 Bobby Jindal super PAC drops $700k on Iowa commercials, website reports // Bayoubuzz – July 7, 2015 191 Jindal: No break for Puerto Rico in debt crisis // The Union Leader // Dave Solomon – July 7, 2015 191 *TRUMP................................................................................................... **193* P.G.A. Moves Event From Donald Trump Golf Course // NYT // Brendan Prunty – July 7, 2015 193 GOP donors call for sidelining Donald Trump // Politico // Nick Gass – July 7, 2015............... 195 Workers Building Trump Hotel Present Different Immigrant Image // NBC News // Suzanne Gamboa – July 7, 2015................................................................................................................................... 196 Take on Trump? GOP senators opt against it // The Hill // Alexander Bolton – July 8, 2015... 198 Donald Trump Employees’ 401(k) Plans Come With a Huge Catch // TIME // Susie Poppick – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 201 These GOP Candidates Are Standing Behind Donald Trump // Mother Jones // Allie Gross – July 7, 2015 201 Donald Trump Taking Message To Hollywood For GOP Event Friday // Deadline // Liosa de Morales – July 7, 2015................................................................................................................................... 202 How much money will running for president cost Donald Trump? // CNN // MJ Lee – July 7, 2015 203 Donald Trump defiant on business fallout amid fresh salvos on immigration // The Guardian // Ben Jacobs – July 7, 2015........................................................................................................................ 205 Obama’s housing chief calls Trump ‘de facto face’ of GOP // The Boston Globe // Jim O’Sullivan – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 205 *UNDECLARED.......................................................................................... **206* *WALKER............................................................................................... **207* Nearing launch, Walker team sees Bush, Rubio as 2016 competition // WaPo // Dan Balz – July 7, 2015 207 Tea partiers and liberals tell Gov. Scott Walker: ‘No more games on Common Core’ // WaPo // Valerie Strauss – July 7, 2015..................................................................................................................... 209 Scott Walker hoping new bundlers help vault him over fundraising hurdles // CNN // Sara Murray – July 7, 2015................................................................................................................................... 211 Scott Walker plans post-announcement blitz, NH stops // Union Leader // Dan Tuohy – July 7, 2015 212 Scott Walker's Home Crowd Disadvantage // US News // Jamie Stiehm – July 7, 2015........... 213 The magical, disappearing Scott Walker conversation // MSNBC // Steve Benen – July 7, 2015 214 Busted!: Walker Admits Role in Failed Government Secrecy Rule // TPM // Tierney Sneed – July 7, 2015 215 *KASICH.................................................................................................. **216* Kasich: Obama administration ‘in love’ with Iran deal // Fox News – July 7, 2015.................. 216 John Kasich Tries To Gin Up Interest In Presidential Bid // The Daily Caller // Alex Pappas – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 217 *OTHER................................................................................................... **219* Candidates Start Showing Their Cards // Bloomberg // Joshua Gallu - July 8, 2015................ 219 Inside the GOP’s Effort to Close the Campaign-Science Gap With Democrats // Bloomberg // Sasha Issenberg - July 8, 2015........................................................................................................................ 220 Republicans have won the battle over money in politics. Should anyone celebrate? // WaPo // Paul Waldman – July 7, 2015..................................................................................................................... 229 *OTHER 2016 NEWS........................................................................................ **231* ‘Super PACs’ Take On New Role, Organizing Voters // NYT // Trip Gabriel – July 7, 2015........ 231 Puerto Rican debt crisis forces its way onto presidential political agenda // WaPo // Steven Mufson - July 8, 2015................................................................................................................................... 234 Christie, Paul and Perry Court the Black Vote // WSJ // Jason Riley – July 7, 2015................ 238 2016ers tiptoe around Puerto Rico's debt bomb // Politico // Daniel Strauss – July 7, 2015.... 240 Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton to share stage in Fort Lauderdale // Tampa Bay Times // Alex Leary – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 242 Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton support bankruptcy rights for Puerto Rico // CNN – July 7, 2015 242 *OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS................................................................... **244* The non-Clinton alternative for Democrats // WaPo // Eugene Robinson – July 7, 2015......... 244 How Politico became a GOP stooge: Republicans want to destroy Hillary Clinton—and the media is helping them out // Salon // Heather Digby Parton – July 7, 2015..................................................... 245 Stop the bed-wetting: Hillary Clinton's doing fine // CNN // Dan Pfeiffer – July 7, 2015......... 249 Donald Trump's Latino comments are just GOP orthodoxy in a cruder shell // The Guardian // Jeb Lund – July 7, 2015........................................................................................................................ 251 Why Hillary Clinton Is Revising Expectations Downward // Commentary Magazine // Noah Rothman – July 7, 2015................................................................................................................................... 254 *TOP NEWS..................................................................................................... **255* *DOMESTIC................................................................................................ **255* ‘Complicated’ Support for Confederate Flag in White South // NYT // Richard Fausset – July 7, 2015 256 Air Force jet collides with Cessna over South Carolina, killing two people // WaPo // Mark Berman – July 7, 2015................................................................................................................................... 259 *INTERNATIONAL..................................................................................... **260* Afghans and Taliban end peace talks with plans to meet again // WaPo // Sudarsan Raghavan & Tim Craig – July 7, 2015........................................................................................................................ 260 Eurozone Sets Sunday Deadline for Greece Financing Deal // WSJ // Gabriele Steinhauser And Matthew Dalton – July 7, 2015.......................................................................................................... 263 *TODAY’S KEY STORIES* *Hillary Clinton Courts Bigger Crowds in Return to Iowa <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/07/clinton-returns-to-iowa-as-she-courts-bigger-crowds/> // NYT // Amy Chozick – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Rodham Clinton returned to one of the most liberal pockets of the state that shunned her in 2008, to speak at a public library packed with Iowans who ranged from those curious to see the former first lady to those committed to caucusing for her in next February’s contest. “I want people’s lives to be better when I finish as your president than when I started,” Mrs. Clinton told a crowd of roughly 350 people in remarks that ranged from foreign policy and economic issues to the drug epidemic and mental health. The event marked the start of another phase in Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign in which she intends to speak to larger crowds and take more questions from voters in the early nominating states of Iowa and New Hampshire. On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton also sat down for an interview with CNN, her first with a national television outlet since she announced her candidacy official in April. This liberal college town, home to the University of Iowa, that overwhelmingly favored Barack Obama and John Edwards in 2008 (she came in third statewide) could serve as a test of whether Mrs. Clinton’s message resonates with the Democratic Party’s base. Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist who is also seeking the party’s nomination, drew a crowd of 300 people at an event here in May. In her speech, an animated Mrs. Clinton seemed to try to hit all the liberal notes, including combating climate change, giving women access to reproductive health care and celebrating the Supreme Court’s recent decisions to legalize same sex marriage nationwide and uphold a key provision of Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul. “If a Republican is elected president, that will be the end of the Affordable Care Act,” Mrs. Clinton said. Her calls to make college more affordable played well in the almost all-white and largely female crowd. “How many of you had loans to go to higher education? I did, I did, so did Bill,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I had like two jobs. He had like five. We were just working around the clock.” Despite pleas from liberal groups, Mrs. Clinton has not gone as far as Mr. Sanders, who said he would eliminate tuition at public colleges to reduce student debt. Mrs. Clinton pushed for greater gun control measures, which contrasts her to Mr. Sanders, who has been one of the Democratic Party’s most ardent defenders of Second Amendment rights. “Let’s not be afraid of the gun lobby, which does not even really represent the majority of gun owners,” she said. After the event, Mrs. Clinton took questions from reporters. She called the collapse of the Greek economy a “tragedy” and called on European leaders to reach an agreement. And she declined to comment on a controversial provision of a nuclear agreement with Iran that would require the nation to disclose its previous nuclear experimentation, an issue that has divided the Obama Administration. When asked about Mr. Sanders’s surge in the polls, Mrs. Clinton said she always expected the race to be competitive. “It should be competitive. It’s only the presidency of the United States we’re talking about, so the more the better,” she said. After Iowa City, Mrs. Clinton headed to Ottumwa, Iowa, where she would talk to Iowans at a grassroots-organizing event. The campaign said it has already directly reached 16,000 Iowans and recruited at least one committed caucusgoer in each of the state’s 1,682 precincts. But Mrs. Clinton still has much to do in this state where voters expect to personally meet their candidates before participating in the famous caucuses, which take place Feb 1, 2016. Her lead over Mr. Sanders has narrowed in a recent poll — she still leads by double digits — and Iowans are clearly checking their options. “I think I’m here out of curiosity more than anything else at this point,” said Ashley Heffernen, 22, a recent graduate who waited in line with her boyfriend to hear Mrs. Clinton and hopefully ask a question about immigration. “I want t see all the candidates,” Ms. Heffernen said. Colleen Russo also waited in line outside the library. She supported Mr. Obama in 2008, but said she wanted to show her five-year-old granddaughter Viviana, who wore a pink dress and purple tiara, that a woman could be president. “She couldn’t be more experienced,” Ms. Russo said of Mrs. Clinton. Jorge Guerra, 26, who stood next to the Ms. Russo and her grandchild, interjected: “Well, I’m glad you didn’t bring her to see Michele Bachmann.” Mr. Guerra said part of what is holding him back from being all-in for Mrs. Clinton was her relationship to Wall Street and corporations. “It unnerves me,” he said. “I want her to be as honest about and be as open as possible about a lot of these questions.” Ms. Russo agreed and said there were still things about Mrs. Clinton that gave her pause, but said Mrs. Clinton was most likely to win a general election. “I think she needs to be more exposed and talk to bigger groups, like Bernie does,” she said, referring to Mr. Sanders. Mr. Guerra nodded. “She can’t hide. Not someone like her.” Mrs. Clinton seemed acutely aware of how tough things may be for her in Iowa. After her remarks, she took questions from the audience. Dozens of hands went up. “I’m gonna let you pick,” she told the crowd. “Because I don’t want to lose any potential caucusgoers.” *Clinton steps up attacks on GOP presidential candidates in Iowa — but steers clear of knocking her Democratic rivals <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/07/clinton-steps-up-attacks-on-gop-presidential-candidates-in-iowa-but-steers-clear-of-knocking-her-democratic-rivals/> // WaPo // Jose Del Real – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Rodham Clinton escalated her criticism of her GOP presidential rivals during a campaign stop here in Iowa City on Tuesday, knocking the field of candidates on immigration reform, health care and LGBT issues while steering clear of directly attacking her Democratic primary rivals. "How many people running on the Republican side try to demean immigrants, insult immigrants, cast aspersions on immigrants? They know as well as we know, we are not going to deport 11 or 12 million people living here,” she told a crowd of about 250 attendees in a packed room at the Iowa City Public Library. "I hear the Republican candidates — and it's not even the most vitriolic — none of them any longer support a path to citizenship. All of them would basically consign immigrants to second-class status." Clinton echoed those sentiments in an interview with CNN after the campaign event, in which she said the Republican field is on "a spectrum of hostility." During that interview she denounced controversial comments by GOP presidential candidate and real estate mogul Donald Trump about Mexican immigrants. She specifically criticized former Florida governor Jeb Bush for not supporting an immigration reform plan that would give immigrants a path to citizenship, a position he once said he favored. The former secretary of state paired those comments with warnings that a Republican president in 2016 would roll back the Affordable Care Act and would continue fighting for same-sex marriage bans, which the Supreme Court recently ruled were unconstitutional. She told supporters at the event that those issues highlight why she believes the country needs a Democrat in the White House after President Obama leaves office. “The Republicans want to turn the clock back. They are going to look for every way they can,” she said. “Instead of saying marriage equality is the law of the land and now let’s move on to the next part of the agenda, which is ending discrimination against LGBT folks, they are going to try to fight a rearguard action.” But even while she spoke critically and aggressively about the GOP presidential hopefuls, the presumed Democratic frontrunner avoided making swipes at her primary challengers — mostly pointedly, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has received outsize attention from the left flank of the party and is drawing crowds at campaign events that reach into the thousands. "This is going to be competitive. It should be competitive — it's only the presidency of the United States we're talking about," she joked during a question-and-answer session with reporters after the campaign event. She did not, however, directly answer the question: what she thought about Sanders's recent surge on the left. Meanwhile, the campaign's months-long ramp-up in the four early voting states hit a new peak Tuesday when 20 additional field organizers joined the Clinton campaign's Iowa operation, where the campaign has already invested a large amount of resources in hopes of capturing a decisive win in the first-in-the-nation caucuses. That addition, as the Des Moines Register first reported and the Washington Post confirmed, means her team now includes an imposing 47 paid organizers — in Iowa alone. “This continues from our assumption that this is a competitive caucus that needs a significant organization to earn every vote,” said Clinton spokesperson Jesse Ferguson. “[W]e’ll have to work for every vote.” *Hillary Clinton: On immigration, the GOP is just like Donald Trump <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-last-rodeo-campaign-stop-iowa-2016-119810.html#ixzz3fIDR7BDz> // Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti – July 7, 2015* IOWA CITY, Iowa — Hillary Clinton believes Donald Trump should be thrown in the doghouse for his comments on immigration. And that the rest of the Republican party should be tossed in there with him. In her first national TV interview since she launched her campaign, the Democratic front-runner seized on the real estate mogul’s controversial comments on immigration (calling many Mexican immigrants “rapists” and “criminals”) to shame the rest of the Republican presidential field. “I’m very disappointed in those comments and I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying, enough, stop it,” Clinton said to CNN after headlining an organizing meeting in a local public library. “But they are all in the — you know, in the same general area on immigration. They don’t want to provide a path to citizenship. They range across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile toward immigrants.” Clinton has already publicly bashed Trump for his comments, through not by name, after having previously accepted campaign contributions from him and even attending one of his weddings. But on Tuesday, she played into fears the Republican establishment has about Trump dragging down the rest of the party with his inflammatory comments. She also took aim at former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who has been more supportive of immigration reform than his rivals. “He doesn’t believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time, he no longer does,” Clinton said. “And so pretty much they’re — as I said, they’re on a spectrum of, you know, hostility, which I think is really regrettable in a nation of immigrants like ours.” Clinton touched on the email controversy that has bogged down the early days of her campaign, as well, saying she did not violate any rules by using a private email server while serving as secretary of state. “Let’s take a deep breath here. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation,” she said. And, she added, there’s an upshot — the public now gets a glimpse into her daily life, from telling aide John Podesta to wear socks, to her struggles with operating a fax machine. “Now I think it’s kind of fun. People get a real-time behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about and what I was communicating about,” she said. The interview, with Brianna Keilar, touched on a broad range of topics — from Clinton’s doppelganger on “Saturday Night Live” to her plans for an economic policy speech in Kansas City on Monday to Democratic rival and surging candidate Bernie Sanders (“I always thought this would be a competitive race.”) Clinton also answered a question about the brouhaha around a woman possibly bumping Alexander Hamilton off the $10 bill. Clinton’s not crazy about a compromise in which a woman might share the bill with Hamilton. “That sounds pretty second class to me. So I think a woman should have her own bill,” she said. The airing of the interview followed a full day in Iowa, during which the front-runner appeared looser-than-usual on the campaign trail. Nearly three months into what could be the political fight of her life, Clinton noted on Tuesday that her time to ride off into the sunset is not all that far away. “This is my last rodeo,” Clinton said during a campaign stop in the first-in-the-nation voting state on Tuesday afternoon before taking questions from reporters. Clinton said she wants to play a role in setting the country on the right path before hanging up her hat — but hopefully, she said, not until 2025, after eight years in the Oval Office. “I believe that we can leave not just the country in good shape for the future, but we can get a deep bench of young people to decide they want to go into politics to continue the fights that we’re going to be waging,” she said. The rodeo characterization may have been more apt than she intended. Her campaign has been criticized in recent days for using a rope to corral reporters who were following Clinton during a parade over the July 4th weekend. Greeting reporters after an organizing meeting at the Iowa City Public Library, Clinton nodded to the minicontroversy, looking at the barrier between her and the press and asking if it was the equivalent of a rope holding them back. “I think it should come down,” she deadpanned. She also glanced upon a range of issues in the news. “Let’s not be afraid of the gun lobby, which does not even really represent the majority of gun owners in America,” Clinton told the crowd of more than 350 locals. While she refused to take the bait and attack Sanders when prompted, she has recently been speaking more about gun control — an issue on which she differs from Sanders, who hails from gun-friendly Vermont. Clinton also focused on the dangers of climate change more than she usually does, calling it “one of the most existential threats to our country and our world.” And she again said that “if a Republican is elected president, that will be the end of the Affordable Care Act.” Hillary Clinton 'disappointed' in Donald Trump At times musing on her career as secretary of state, Clinton at one point said that she jokes with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger about the difficulties of conducting diplomacy in the modern era. But she refused to weigh in forcefully on the ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, telling reporters, “I don’t think it’s useful for me to publicly comment right now on what the negotiations are attempting to resolve. “There needs to be full transparency, disclosure and verifiable inspections going forward, and certainly any part of the Iranian nuclear or military establishment that has anything to do with the program past, present and future needs to be subject to that,” she added. Nonetheless, the former top diplomat did call the economic situation in Greece a “tragedy,” insisting that it is important “that we can see an outcome here that will actually help Greece recover and keep them in the eurozone, and keep Europe united.” *SOCIAL MEDIA* *Zeke Miller (7/7/15, 4:53 pm)* <https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/618523312272977920>* - Inbox: Tomorrow in NH, @MartinOMalley will unveil his plan to make college debt-free for every student in America.* *Philip Rucker (7/7/15, 5:25 pm)* <https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/618531335456600065>* - Very good @brikeilarcnn interview of Hillary. Tough questions, serious issues. But also served up dessert like woman on $10 bill and SNL.* *David Drucker (7/7/15, 5:25 pm)* <https://twitter.com/DavidMDrucker/status/618531401105805312>* - .@HillaryClinton survives @CNN intvw unscathed; looks at ease. But there's plenty there to mine that HRC still hasn't put to rest.* *HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE* *Hillary Clinton Opens a Previously Guarded Door <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/07/today-in-politics-hillary-clinton-opens-a-previously-guarded-door/> // NYT // Maggie Haberman – July 7, 2015 * Mrs. Clinton is about to give her first national close-up in her second presidential campaign. She has been a candidate for almost three months. In that time, she’s done a few news conferences and a smattering of local interviews in early states, but no national sit-downs. But this afternoon, she will sit with the CNN reporter Brianna Keilar in Iowa. The interview comes as Mrs. Clinton has faced increasing criticism for avoiding questions on policy (the trade deal supported by President Obama but opposed by many Democrats) and on personal issues (her use of a private email account at the State Department and the fund-raising practices of her family’s foundation). Mrs. Clinton’s aides said that her early focus was on interacting with as many voters as possible in small settings and that this national interview would be the first of several. Much of the early campaign was about allowing Mrs. Clinton to exist in a safe political space, bringing one of the world’s most famous political faces back down to earth from her days as secretary of state so that voters could forge a bond with her. But over the weekend, a half-dozen protesters created an unpredictable environment for Mrs. Clinton as she marched in a parade in northern New Hampshire. At the same time, her aides sought to give her a buffer so that voters could see her, separating journalists with a rope, creating a series of viral photos that ricocheted through Twitter. The challenges that the Clinton campaign, and the candidate, face are unique. But while her political problems may be complex, the solution that her team seems to have settled on, at this point, is fairly simple: Open the doors to the news media a bit wider. *Hillary Clinton relied heavily on white voters in 2008. In 2016, it’s reversed. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/07/hillary-clinton-relied-heavily-on-white-voters-in-2008-in-2016-its-reversed/> // WaPo // Philip Bump – July 7, 2015 * There are a lot of reasons that Hillary Clinton lost in 2008. One of the most prominent was that she was running against one of the most dynamic candidates in recent memory at a time when people were eager for something new. Another was that the dynamic candidate she was running against was black. The latter became more of a problem over the long term, as Obama racked up primary victories in states with large black populations in the Deep South and cut into Clinton's dominance elsewhere. In Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the whitest states in the union, it played less of a role. But now, weirdly, the whiteness of those early states might be something of a problem for her. And she's actually doing better among non-whites. The CNN/ORC poll released last week reinforced that Clinton is doing much better in 2016 than any of her opponents -- especially among non-white voters. She leads among white voters, too, of course -- and handily. But her lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) among white voters is 34 points and appears to be narrowing. Among non-white voters -- which we will emphasize also includes Latinos -- it's 52 points. If Sanders keeps closing the gap with white voters, that could be a problem in Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton's big lead among non-white voters won't be much of an advantage until South Carolina -- which, incidentally, she lost by a wide margin in 2008. One question mark: What becomes of the support for Joe Biden if he finally decides not to run? In CNN's polling, Biden ate up one-fifth of the non-white support. If that support goes to Clinton, the dynamic above becomes even more stark. Remember, there is no reason at this point to think that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee. There is not much of a reason to think that she will lose Iowa, and there's only a speculative idea that she might lose New Hampshire. But those two states might end up being much closer than we might once have expected in part because they are awfully white -- a fact that might have been one reason Clinton won New Hampshire in 2008 and was able to stay in the race. *Hillary Clinton: Republican candidates ‘on a spectrum of hostility’ toward immigrants <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/07/hillary-clinton-republican-candidates-on-a-spectrum-of-hostility-toward-immigrants/> // WaPo // Ed O’Keefe – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton says that Republican presidential candidates "range across a spectrum of hostility" when it comes to immigration and that her campaign will advocate for comprehensive reforms. Sitting on Tuesday for her first national television interview as a declared presidential candidate, the Democratic frontrunner lumped together all GOP candidates when asked by CNN about Donald Trump's recent comments about Mexican immigrants. Interviewer Briana Keilar asked Clinton what she made of Trump's comments, noting that he had been a donor to some of her previous campaigns. "I’m very disappointed in those comments and I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying 'Enough, stop it,' " she said. "But they are all in the same general area on immigration. They don’t want to provide a path to citizenship. They range across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile toward immigrants. And I’m going to talk about comprehensive immigration reform. I’m going to talk about all the good, law-abiding, productive members of the immigrant community that I personally know, that I’ve met over the course of my life. That I would like to see have a path to citizenship." Clinton added that no Republican candidate supports establishing a system that would allow eligible illegal immigrants to eventually apply for citizenship. But Keilar noted that Bush has previously supported such a system. Clinton shot back: "He doesn’t believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time, he no longer does." She added that Republicans are "on a spectrum of hostility, which I think is really regrettable in a nation of immigrants like ours. All the way to kind of grudging acceptance but refusal to go with a pathway to citizenship. I think that's a mistake." In his 2013 book "Immigration Wars," Bush laid out a specific set of criteria that illegal immigrants — adults and children — would need to meet to apply for legal status and in limited circumstances, perhaps citizenship. He has more recently suggested that citizenship could be extended only as part of a bipartisan agreement that included changes in U.S.-Mexico border security, a reduction in immigrants allowed to enter the country due to family ties and an increase in the number allowed to enter the United States for economic purposes. Bush's campaign responded to Clinton's comments just moments after they aired, noting that she voted for amendments that stopped immigration reform when she was a senator and that she said last year that unaccompanied minors crossing the U.S.-Mexico border "should be sent back." "She is now running further to the left on immigration policy than even President Obama’s White House believes is legally feasible," Bush spokeswoman Emily Benavides said in a statement. "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected and her numerous flip-flops on immigration prove it." Benavides added that as he wrote in his book, Bush "believes in a conservative legislative solution to fix our broken immigration system that includes earned legal status for those currently in the country after they pay fines and taxes, learn English, and commit no substantial crimes while securing our border." In the CNN interview, Clinton sounded similar to Bush when expressing general views on immigration — that the United States will never be able to deport the 11 million to 12 million people believed to be in the country illegally, and that a revamped immigration system would spur economic growth and increase tax revenues. "We know we're not going to deport 11 or 12 million people. We shouldn't be breaking up families," she said. "We shouldn’t be stopping people from having the opportunity to be fully integrated legally within our country. It’s good for us, it’s good economically, it’s good for the taxes that will be legally collected. It’s good for the children so that they can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. So I am 100 percent behind comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship." Another GOP presidential candidate, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), co-authored the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate in 2013, and remains an advocate for allowing eligible immigrants to apply for citizenship. Clinton made similar charges against GOP candidates to a wider group of reporters just before taping the CNN interview in Iowa City. "How many people running on the Republican side try to demean immigrants, insult immigrants, cast aspersions on immigrants? They know as well as we know, we are not going to deport 11 or 12 million people living here," she told reporters. "I hear the Republican candidates — and it's not even the most vitriolic — none of them any longer support a path to citizenship. All of them would basically consign immigrants to second-class status." Keilar also asked Clinton about the possibility that she might face Bush in the general election. "Well, we'll see, that’s up to first the Republicans on his side and the Democrats on my side," she said. "What’s great about America is anyone can run for president. That’s literally true. And you have to go out and do what everybody else does … you have to work really hard. So whoever is nominated by their respective parties will be the nominee, and then we'll see who’s on the other side." *Hillary Clinton Blames ‘Constant Barrage of Attacks’ by GOP for Polls Questioning Her Honesty <http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-blames-constant-barrage-of-attacks-by-gop-for-polls-questioning-her-honesty-1436312049> // WSJ // Laura Meckler – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton on Tuesday blamed voter perceptions that she is untrustworthy on a “constant barrage of attacks” by Republicans over many years, and said she’s confident she will overcome them during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign. Some of those attacks have focused on her exclusive use of a private email account for official business as secretary of state. In an interview with CNN, Clinton repeated her assertion that she had complied with rules in place at the time. Mrs. Clinton added that said she went “above and beyond” those standards by submitting her emails to the State Department, though rules in place did require her to preserve the records. In her first national television interview, and before that in a brief news conference with reporters in Iowa, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination hedged as much as she revealed. She declined to say whether she supports raising taxes on the wealthy, said it was best for her to withhold comment on the Iran nuclear negotiations, and dodged a question about which woman’s image should be on the $10 bill. She also declined to discuss the rise of the long-shot campaign of rival Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. She said she is “very disappointed” by the disparaging remarks Republican candidate and entrepreneur Donald Trump uttered last month about Mexican immigrants, calling them “rapists,” and denounced the GOP presidential field for opposing a path to citizenship for people in the U.S. illegally. “They are all in the same general area on immigration,” she said. “They don’t want to provide a path to citizenship. They range across the spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile toward immigrants.” Mrs. Clinton also criticized the city of San Francisco for failing to facilitate the deportation of a repeat felon who had been kicked out of the U.S. five times before and who earlier this month killed a woman walking on a city pier. “The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government thought should be deported,” she said. Some recent polls have found a drop in the number of voters who see Mrs. Clinton as honest and trustworthy. Asked about that by CNN, Mrs. Clinton said that was to be expected “when you are subjected to the kind of constant barrage of attacks that are largely fomented by and coming from the right.” “This has been a theme that has been used against me and my husband for many, many years,” she said. She said that entire books were filled with “unsubstantiated allegations” so “of course that’s going to raise questions in people’s minds.” A recent book suggested conflicts of interest between foreign donations to the Clinton family foundation and her work as secretary of state, though it failed to reveal evidence of a quid pro quo. “I have every confidence during the course of this campaign people are going to know who will fight for them and be there for them,” she said. “At the end of the day, I think voters sort it out.” On the question of her email practices, she said that everything she did was permitted by law in place at the time. “There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate,” she said. She dismissed concerns expressed by Republicans about her decision to delete emails that she and her aides determined to be unrelated to government work. “I turned over everything I was obligated to turn over and then I moved on,” she said. “People delete on a regular basis.” She said that her decision to turn over the government-related emails to the State Department, which requested them last year, was “above and beyond” what was required. In fact, in 2009, the National Archives and Records Administration issued regulations that said agencies allowing employees to do official business on unofficial email accounts had to ensure that any records sent on private email systems are preserved “in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.” *The making of a Hillary Clinton echo chamber <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-making-of-a-hillary-clinton-echo-chamber/2015/07/07/01625c5e-24ae-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html> // WaPo // Philip Rucker – July 7, 2015 * One day in May, operatives from a Washington-based super PAC gathered New Hampshire mayors, state representatives and local politicos at St. Anselm College for a day of training. They rehearsed their personal tales of how they met Hillary Rodham Clinton and why they support her for president. They sharpened their defenses of her record as secretary of state. They scripted their arguments for why the Democratic front-runner has been “a lifetime champion of income opportunity.” And they polished their on-camera presentations in a series of mock interviews. The objective of the sessions: to nurture a seemingly grass roots echo chamber of Clinton supporters reading from the same script across the communities that dot New Hampshire, a critical state that hosts the nation’s first presidential primary. The super PAC, called Correct the Record, convened similar talking-point tutorials and media-training classes in May and June in three other early voting states — Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada — as well as sessions earlier this spring in California. Presidential campaigns have for decades fed talking points to surrogates who appear on national television or introduce candidates on the stump. But the effort to script and train local supporters is unusually ambitious and illustrates the extent to which the Clinton campaign and its web of sanctioned, allied super PACs are leaving nothing to chance. When, say, a Londonderry Times reporter calls a Rockingham County Democratic Committee member for comment on Clinton, he or she will parrot Correct the Record’s talking points about Clinton having been a fighter for the middle class — from improving rural health care as first lady of Arkansas to raising the minimum wage as a senator from New York. “We are holding sessions with top communicators across the country where we talk about the best ways to discuss Secretary Clinton’s strong record of accomplishments, how to articulate Secretary Clinton’s positions most effectively and how to correct Republican operatives’ distortions of the facts,” said Adrienne Watson, communications director at Correct the Record. But asking local supporters to use talking points could undermine the organic nature of grass-roots political interactions. No longer can a journalist call up a state representative in Iowa and expect to hear his or her personal, unvarnished take on Clinton — nor can a Rotary Club member watch a fellow small-business owner talk about Clinton at their monthly luncheon — without suspecting he or she is reading from a script. The super PAC’s effort also comes as Clinton struggles on the campaign trail to appear accessible and genuine. Some Democrats have long believed Clinton sounds too scripted on the stump, especially compared to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), her insurgent primary rival whose authenticity and liberal message are drawing thousands of Democrats to his rallies. New Hampshire state Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, a local elected official for decades and a longtime Clinton supporter, said he did not attend Correct the Record’s session, which was held May 18 at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm. “I’ve known Hillary for a long time,” D’Allesandro said. “I’ve known her husband for a long time. She’s been at our home. I’ve visited her in Washington. I believe that I can articulate where she is on issues and I really don’t need anybody to tell me what to say. I believe that you stand for people because you believe what they stand for and you articulate it.” Correct the Record — one of several super PACs run by Clinton ally David Brock — coordinates some of its activities with Clinton’s campaign, but officials said the campaign played no role in the training sessions. The Clinton campaign has its own surrogate operation that distributes talking points to supporters to ensure that their messages in local and national media are consistent. The super PAC’s on-camera media training was conducted by the Franklin Forum and led by the group’s president, John Neffinger, a Democratic strategist who specializes in coaching people for television interviews. Correct the Record held a series of similar media sessions in the spring of 2014 to prepare Clinton backers for interviews surrounding her national book tour for “Hard Choices,” the memoir from her State Department years. Watson said the super PAC plans to hold additional campaign-oriented training sessions later this year. To supporters like Eleni Kounalakis, who served as ambassador to Hungary in Clinton’s State Department, the program is welcome news. In March, she participated along with about 20 other supporters in a Correct the Record session in San Francisco and said she thought it helped her and other Clinton fans refine the case they make for Clinton’s candidacy in public. “Many people who are very vocal in supporting Secretary Clinton are very comfortable taking about why among their friends and in small groups — but when it comes to talking to the media, that can be very intimidating,” Kounalakis said. “Some people feel like, I know Hillary has been there for the working person in her life, in her career, but I want someone to help me prepare those arguments so that I have that confidence to speak in a broader context.” Nick Sottile, 21, president of the College Democrats of South Carolina, said he felt “lucky” to attend a May 7 Correct the Record session in Columbia, S.C. “It got right to the heart of things — how to cut through the noise and talk about Secretary Clinton’s record,” Sottile said. “And not just what to say, but how to talk about her as a young person in South Carolina. It was good training in how to be an effective talker.” *Lawmakers: Feds Should Have Deported Undocumented Immigrant Before SF Pier Shooting <http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Lawmakers-Feds-Deported-Francisco-Sanchez-Steinle-Pier-14-312193501.html> // AP – July 7, 2015 * Lawmakers and politicians are criticizing the failure to deport an immigrant with multiple felony convictions and an outstanding drug warrant who allegedly went on to murder a woman in San Francisco. Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, in an interview with CNN, said that the City of San Francisco's law enforcement officials were wrong to release from jail Mexican national Francisco Sanchez, who is now at the center of a national immigration controversy. "The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported,'' Clinton said. "So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.'' The Sheriff's Department ignored "strong evidence" that Sanchez should have been turned over to immigration officials and deported, according to Clinton. In a similar vein, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) issued a statement Tuesday saying that she has personally been investigating the circumstances surrounding Kathryn Steinle's fatal shooting July 1. “I strongly believe that an undocumented individual, convicted of multiple felonies and with a detainer request from ICE, should not have been released," she said. "We should focus on deporting convicted criminals, not setting them loose on our streets." Feinstein also wrote to San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee to express her "deep concern" about Sanchez's release, adding that it "led to last week’s tragic death." Her letter "urged" Lee to "prevent such a tragedy" from reoccurring by joining the Department of Homeland Security's Priority Enforcement Program, which would enable local law enforcement agencies to "provide notice to ICE before releasing aliens with long criminal records." The San Francisco mayor's office said it has reached out to Department of Homeland Security officials to determine if there's a way to cooperate with federal immigration officials while still maintaining the sanctuary policy. "Mayor Lee shares the senator's concerns surrounding the nature of Mr. Sanchez' transfer to San Francisco and release,'' said Christine Falvey, a spokeswoman for the mayor. "As the mayor has stated, we need to gather all of the facts as we develop potential solutions.'' Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, also from Northern California, said she asked Gov. Jerry Brown if state law was followed in the release of Sanchez. "For decades, I have supported deporting violent criminals, and I have always believed that sanctuary should not be given to felons,'' Boxer said. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis) echoed the same sentiment. "He had a criminal warrant but was released into the general society to commit a murder. Does that make any sense to you?'' Johnson, who chairs the Senate's homeland security committee, demanded to know at a hearing. "Because I'll tell you it doesn't make any sense to the American public.'' Philip Miller, an official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, blamed San Francisco, saying officials there did not honor a federal request, known as a "detainer," to keep Francisco Sanchez in custody. Sanchez, who is from Mexico and is in the United States illegally, allegedly shot and killed 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle last week as she was sightseeing with her father along a popular local pier. "In that particular case our detainer was not honored,'' Miller said. "San Francisco sheriff's department did not honor our detainer.'' San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi has defended his office's decision, saying ICE should have issued an arrest warrant earlier. Miller declined after the hearing to comment on that assertion. But Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for ICE told NBC Bay Area this week that "obtaining judicial warrants is not only unnecessary, it would place an immense burden on both ICE and the federal courts." She added that last year, ICE deported more than 177,000 immigrants with criminal convictions. Steinle's death has offered ammunition to GOP critics of Obama administration policies, including presidential candidate Donald Trump, who's cited it to justify his claims that many immigrants are criminals. Sanchez has a long criminal history, but mostly for drug use, dating back to the 1990s, federal records show. At the same time it plays into a larger, politically charged immigration debate between federal authorities and local jurisdictions. Hundreds of local jurisdictions have refused to participate in a disputed federal program, Secure Communities, that allows local authorities to turn over information on immigrants they pick up to the federal government. San Francisco takes it farther than many, even boasting of itself as a ``sanctuary city'' that protects immigrants. President Barack Obama announced last fall he was ending the Secure Communities program and replacing it with a new approach meant to address concerns about immigrants being targeted. But that has sparked more criticism from Republicans who embraced Secure Communities as an effective law enforcement tool and oppose Obama's attempts to change immigration law through executive actions without Congress' consent. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., announced Tuesday he would bring Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson before his committee next week to answer questions on the matter. "Just recently, we were reminded that the Obama administration's reckless actions, such as permitting sanctuary city policies, lead to tragic and deadly consequences,'' Goodlatte said. *Hillary Clinton Hands Jeb Bush A Present On Immigration <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/07/hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-immigration_n_7747652.html?1436306696> // HuffPo // Igor Bobic – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton denounced Donald Trump's controversial comments about immigrants in her first national interview as a 2016 presidential candidate. But in the process, she inadvertently handed Republican rival Jeb Bush a present on a silver platter. The Democratic front-runner told CNN's Brianna Keilar Tuesday that she was "very disappointed" with the celebrity hotelier for calling some Mexican migrants rapists and criminals. She criticized the rest of the 2016 Republican presidential candidates for not moving quickly enough to distance themselves from Trump and noted their opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. "He doesn't believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time, he no longer does," she said of Bush, the former governor of Florida. The broadside could hurt Bush among Hispanic voters if Clinton succeeds in portraying him as opposed to immigration reform. It's a smart, long-term play against a well-funded Republican with a decent chance of winning the nomination. For the moment, however, Bush faces more immediate challenges as he traverses early primary states. Chief among them is his effort to win over conservatives who believe that he supports granting undocumented immigrants "amnesty." In fact, Bush says that undocumented workers should be able to earn legal status, “not necessarily citizenship.” Clinton, however, says that anything short of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is "code for second-class status." Immigration remains one of the most divisive topics among Republicans in the early caucus state of Iowa, but there are still far more who oppose a path to citizenship than support it. According to a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday, 46 percent of likely Republican caucus goers in Iowa said undocumented immigrants should be required to leave the country, while 34 percent said they should be allowed to stay with some sort of path to citizenship. Any reminder that Bush opposes "amnesty" is good news in Iowa -- regardless of whether it comes from the candidate or his potential Democratic rival. *Hillary Clinton Piles On San Francisco Officials, Putting Sanctuary Cities Under Even More Heat <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/07/sanctuary-cities_n_7749406.html> // HuffPo // Elise Foley – July 7, 2015 * After a deadly shooting in San Francisco, allegedly by a man who had been deported five times, lawmakers are calling on the county to drop its policy against cooperating with immigration enforcement. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton became the most high-profile Democrat to wade into the debate on Tuesday, telling CNN that San Francisco should have worked with agents at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported," she said in an interview. "So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on." Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), meanwhile, sent a letter on Tuesday to San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee urging him to cooperate with ICE, implying the county's failure to do so allowed for the shooting of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle, allegedly at the hands of a previously deported undocumented immigrant named Francisco Sanchez. GOP lawmakers, who are more prone to support a greater federal thumbprint on detention policy, have decried San Francisco leaders for acting irresponsibly. One of them, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), said he plans to introduce a bill penalizing cities that do not cooperate with ICE. With the debate around immigration already red hot due to the charged rhetoric of the 2016 campaign, the incident in San Francisco could end up prompting a shift in recent trends in detention policy. For years, local communities have been limiting their collaboration with immigration enforcement officials, with more than 300 cities and counties adopting policies against fully complying with ICE's requests. Some, like San Francisco, barely deal with the agency at all, while others limit interactions except in cases of more serious crimes. The widespread resistance led the Obama administration to announce in November that it would drop the Secure Communities program, which asked police to hold individuals for ICE so they could be picked up for deportation purposes. The immediate fallout from the shooting in San Francisco appears to be a change in those particular political winds. But the debate remains a sensitive one, with activists and even local officials warning that a greater federal role could harm other law enforcement activities, drain resources and spark court challenges. At issue is whether local law enforcement, at the request of ICE, should -- or even legally could -- hold individuals who it otherwise would have released. Immigration advocates have warned that doing so creates fear in the undocumented community and sweeps up people for deportation because of low-level crimes or arrests they are never convicted for. To accommodate those concerns, the administration is pushing a new policy called the Priority Enforcement Program, which was announced last November. Under PEP, according to the administration, ICE would target individuals at higher priority for deportation, such as convicted criminals. The program also will ask local law enforcement to notify the agency when it plans to release a suspected deportable immigrant, rather than for holds. That program hasn't been rolled out nationwide, and an ICE official said their appeals to San Francisco officials to work with them haven't gone anywhere. But critics are charging that had ICE implemented PEP in San Francisco sooner, Sanchez, who said he shot Steinle last Wednesday before saying on Tuesday that he was not guilty, would not have been released into the community. Prior to the shooting, Sanchez had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions, according to authorities. Twice, ICE put in detainer requests for him. The first was with the Bureau of Prisons, where he was serving a sentence for the federal crime of illegally re-entering the U.S. as a felon. Sanchez was transferred by the Bureau of Prisons to the San Francisco sheriff's office because he had an arrest warrant for a 20-year-old marijuana case. ICE then put in a request to the sheriff's office to detain him. After the district attorney declined to prosecute that charge, he was released in April. Officials at the San Francisco County Sheriff's Office and ICE have since blamed each other for that release, with the local authorities saying ICE should have gotten a judicial warrant if they wanted Sanchez to be held, and ICE claiming it was never notified that the man was about to be let go. With the debate expanding beyond the particulars of what happened and into the realm of public policy, critics of Secure Communities worry the tragedy in San Francisco will be used as a cudgel against cities that have tried to move their police departments out of the immigration enforcement business. They warn there are not just humanitarian and budget constraints to consider, but constitutional complications as well. "I've seen this happen over and over again where anti-immigrant groups try to use these types of horrible cases to change policies but there are constitutional protections, and people cannot be held for immigration without a judge signing a warrant," said Angela Chan, a policy director at the Asian Law Caucus. Police chiefs could be an ally in pushing back against greater federal involvement in local immigration matters. Many have contended that they need to strike a balance between acting as enforcement agents and performing their duties to protect the public. Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, also the president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, said doing too much of the former risks hurting the relationship law enforcement has with the broader community. Montgomery County officials announced last year that immigrants would no longer be held for ICE without demonstration that the individual likely committed a crime. Manger approves of PEP and said his office notifies ICE when individuals are being released upon request. But the fact that individuals are released and go on to commit crime is a risk in all law enforcement, he insisted, and not just specific to immigration. "I've been a cop for 38 years," he said. "And for longer than I've been a cop, [criminals] have been getting out of jail and doing bad things again. The fact is that the law allows you to hold someone for a certain amount of time and when the law says you've got to release them, you've got to release them. *Clinton says GOP field ranges from 'grudgingly welcome' to 'hostile' toward immigrants <http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/07/07/clinton-in-iowa-warns-about-gop-control-of-white-house> // AP // Catherine Lucey & Ken Thomas – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Rodham Clinton said a Republican in the White House would mark a "big U-turn" for the nation and assailed the GOP presidential field's stance on an immigration overhaul. Asked about Jeb Bush, the Democratic presidential candidate said: "He doesn't believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time, he no longer does." In an interview Tuesday with CNN, Clinton said the Republican presidential contenders range "across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile toward immigrants." Campaigning in one of the most liberal pockets of Iowa, Clinton offered herself up as a Democratic standard-bearer at a time when her main Democratic rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has generated big crowds and stoked interest among progressives. Clinton also addressed criticism that she has avoided scrutiny, taking questions from reporters and then sitting down for her first national television interview since starting her campaign. Clinton cited her husband's eight years in office as a time of strong economic growth that helped not only the wealthy but the poor as well. She said Republicans afterward left President Barack Obama to tend to an economic crisis. "Right now our country deserves to keep moving forward, not to do a big U-turn going back to where we came from," Clinton said at the Iowa City Public Library. "That didn't work before. It won't work again." She told CNN she planned to outline some of her economic policies Monday. Clinton has said any immigration legislation needs to include a path to "full and equal citizenship." She has defended Obama's use of executive actions to shield millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally from deportation. In the interview, Clinton said she was "disappointed" in Republican candidate Donald Trump for his disparaging comments about Mexican immigrants along "with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying, 'Enough, stop it.'" Clinton demurred in discussing the possibility of another Bush-Clinton campaign — Bill Clinton defeated President George H.W. Bush in 1992 — but lumped former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in with other Republicans who have opposed immigration overhauls in Congress. Bush, in his 2013 book "Immigration Wars," called for a process that would allow people living in the U.S. illegally to remain, as long as they take a series of steps. He wrote that withholding citizenship is a suitable penalty for those who have broken the law. Bush's co-author, Clint Bolick, said the former Florida governor would probably bend to support citizenship, if that was necessary to strike a deal on immigration. Bush spokeswoman Emily Benavides said in a statement that Bush "believes in a conservative legislative solution to fix our broken immigration system that includes earned legal status for those currently in the country after they pay fines and taxes, learn English and commit no substantial crimes while securing our border." During the CNN interview, Clinton defended her decision to delete some of her emails as secretary of state from her private email server, saying, "Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation." She said she used one device for email, although an email message obtained by The Associated Press earlier this year showed Clinton used an iPad for email, in addition to her BlackBerry, while she was secretary of state. Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, responded Tuesday, saying "the committee does not know why or when she chose to wipe clean her personal server, but we do know her way of doing things provided an incomplete public record." The committee sought Clinton's emails as part of its investigation into the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya. At her Iowa event, Clinton made no mention of Sanders but drew an implicit contrast with his record on gun control. Sanders, a favorite of liberal Democrats, has opposed some gun control measures in the Senate and drew criticism from some Democrats for voting in 2005 to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits filed by victims of gun violence. Clinton said she would speak out "about the uncontrollable use of guns in our country" and believes most Americans and gun owners support universal background checks. "Let's not be afraid of the gun lobby, which does not even really represent the majority of gun owners in America," she said. Sanders says most gun owners in the country obey the law, and he makes a distinction on the gun-control question between rural states like Vermont, where hunting is common and gun-ownership traditions go deep, and big cities. "I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides," he told CNN on Sunday. "I think I can bring us to the middle." Asked about Sanders, Clinton said she welcomed a contested race. "This is going to be competitive — it should be competitive," Clinton said. *Hillary confronts the enemy <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-confronts-the-enemy-119826.html> // Politico // Annie Karni & Gabrielle Debenedetti – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton’s campaign, unlike those of her rivals, has provided the media with information about the fundraisers attended by the former secretary of state, down to the names of the donors who hosted and the head count for each event. Its communications shop has so far maintained a constructive working relationship with the press corps — senior staffers last month mingled with reporters over beers after a background briefing at the Brooklyn campaign headquarters. That new spirit of openness may have neutralized the famously toxic relationship between the press and the Clinton operation, but with Bernie Sanders turning out huge crowds and the Republicans about to steal the spotlight next month with their first debate, Clinton operatives have realized it’s time to cross the final, harrowing frontier: providing access to the candidate herself. For the first three months of her campaign, Clinton remained virtually off-limits to the national press. She did not sit down for a national television interview (her most recent occurred during her book tour for “Hard Choices” in 2014), nor did she grant any interviews to national newspapers or websites. With questions surrounding her use of private email during her years at the State Department, and surrounding the Clinton Foundation, the candidate herself remained as distant from the national media as ever — and it shows in the press coverage of her second presidential bid. On Tuesday, after a campaign stop in New Hampshire, the campaign sought to enter a new phase of its relations with the press — Clinton sat with CNN’s Brianna Keilar (notably a beat reporter, not one of the network’s anchors who are household names) for her first nationally broadcast interview. More interviews will follow, communications director Jennifer Palmieri has promised. Clinton insiders said July makes sense for Hillary’s moment to finally embrace national television — enough time has passed since the height of the controversies surrounding the Clinton Foundation and her use of a private email address at the State Department that she will have space to talk about her own campaign message. But the campaign doesn’t have the luxury of waiting much longer: In August, Clinton is scheduled to go on vacation, and then the crowded Republican field will be chewing up news cycles with the first debate — possibly defining Clinton on a national stage. “Now is a good time for the campaign to take back control of the story of who Hillary Clinton is,” said longtime donor Jay Jacobs. “She can now use [national television] to accomplish that.” In terms of the controversies she will have to respond to, he said, “The tide has been turned.” Beginning Monday, Clinton will also start rolling out more detailed policy proposals to discuss. Until now, Clinton has favored the confines of local media outlets. Since her Roosevelt Island rally in early June, she has participated in interviews only in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. For a candidate with effectively 100 percent name recognition in the country, national media interviews have been low on the priority list. During the “ramp-up” period of her campaign, which lasted two months, Clinton answered only a handful of questions from reporters, mostly yelled at her from a large gaggle. Instead, she spent time asking the questions at roundtable events in the early voting states. Some of that is par for the course in a primary. “It’s important to do some national press, but your time should be heavily weighed towards the places where people vote first,” said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama campaign spokesman. But even the favored local press has begun to note — and chafe at — the lack of access. “High-horse Hillary corrals a wimpy news media,” blared the headline of a front-page editorial in Manchester, New Hampshire’s influential Union-Leader newspaper, after reporters were corralled with a rope during a July 4 parade in Gorham, New Hampshire. Ironically, it was the “high-horse” image that the campaign has tried to avoid by steering clear of the national news networks and focusing instead on “everyday Americans.” But on Sunday, Palmieri conceded to Fox News’ Howard Kurtz that “we’re paying a price” for not participating in sit-down interviews on national television and that the inevitable pivot to more engagement would start now. The tipping point may have come over the weekend in New Hampshire, where the awkwardness of the situation came to a head. Clinton answered four questions from a group of pool reporters while waiting for a scoop at the Daily Twirl ice cream stand. The following day, reporters were awkwardly corralled away from Clinton by a rope line as she marched in a small July 4 parade in Gorham. Afterward, while speaking to locals at a diner, she refused to answer any questions, even a softball about Donald Trump. “You know, I’m gonna sit down and have some pie,” she smiled, before the gaggle of press was ushered out, leaving the rope-line incident to take on greater significance because there was no other news to report on. The next phase of the campaign’s media strategy, as unveiled Tuesday, seems designed to avoid a similar situation. “The more media interviews you do,” Palmieri explained to Kurtz, “the less any one interaction matters.” Yet judging from Clinton’s CNN interview, it’s not quite clear the candidate has bought in — while she sat down for questions, she didn’t really open up. Asked by CNN why she decided to sit for an interview, and whether anything has changed when it comes to her approach to the media, the famously press-averse candidate had a ready answer. “Well, nothing’s really changed,” she said. “I just have a different rhythm to my campaign. I’m not running my campaign for the press. I’m running it for voters. I totally respect the press and what the press has to do. But I wanted and was determined to have the time that I needed to actually meet and listen to people.” *Hillary Clinton plans meeting with black lawmakers <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-meet-lawmakers-congressional-black-caucus-2016-119811.html> // Politico // Lauren French – July 7, 2015* Hillary Clinton will meet with members of the Congressional Black Caucus next week. The 2016 front-runner for the Democratic nomination will travel to Capitol Hill to hold a members-only meeting Tuesday with the nearly 50 lawmakers in the black caucus. The meeting is expected to focus on policy issues, according to sources familiar with the agenda. “Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are invited to a policy meeting with Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The meeting will be an overview on pressing foreign and domestic policy issues impacting the African American Community,” according to an email sent by the Clinton campaign. The black vote will be critical for Clinton in 2016. Democrats will need strong support from African-Americans to push their party over the finish line in key congressional races and during the general election. Meanwhile, the GOP is also actively courting black voters. The Tuesday meeting will be one of the first that Clinton has held with the CBC since declaring her candidacy earlier this year. Earlier, top officials with the former secretary of state’s campaign traveled to D.C. shortly after she announced her presidential bid as a way to introduce Clinton’s campaign team to Democrats on the Hill. *Hillary Clinton not amused by fax machine mockery <file:///C:\Hillary%20Clinton%20not%20amused%20by%20fax%20machine%20mockery%20%20Read%20more\%20http\::www.politico.com:story:2015:07:hillary-clinton-fax-machine-mockery-not-amused-119819.html#ixzz3fGq4zq3O> // Politico // Adam Lerner – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton may not be the world’s most “technically capable person,” she admitted in an interview with CNN that aired Tuesday. But she won’t stand for media mockery suggesting she can’t work a simple fax machine. In the interview, CNN’s Brianna Keilar mentioned that recently released emails show that Clinton’s longtime aide Huma Abedin had to instruct her boss on how to work her fax machine. “Can you hang up the fax line, they will call again and try fax,” Abedin wrote in one widely shared email exchange. “I thought it was supposed to be off hook to work?” Clinton responded. Abedin told her: “Just pick up phone and hang it up. And leave it hung up.” “I’ve done it twice now,” Clinton responded, before giving up. “Still nothing.” In Tuesday’s interview, Clinton interrupted Keilar before she could formulate a question. “Yes, a secure fax machine, which is harder to work than the regular,” the Democratic 2016 front-runner said. She then went on to say that the issue of her email server “is being blown up with no basis in law or in fact. That’s fine. I get it. This is being, in effect, used by the Republicans in the Congress, OK.” “But I want people to understand what the truth is,” she continued. “And the truth is everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what anybody could have expected in making sure that if the State Department didn’t capture something, I made a real effort to get it to them. And I had no obligation to do any of that.” The interview touched on another subject relevant to the political theater surrounding the nascent 2016 presidential campaign: Saturday Night Live impressions. Asked whether Kate McKinnon or Amy Poehler did a better impression of her, Clinton gave the political answer. “Amy’s a friend of mine. And Kate’s doing a great job. You’re not going to get me to pick one or the other,” she said, adding, “I think I’m the best Hillary Clinton, to be honest.” *A defensive Clinton promises 'more press' <http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/a-defensive-clinton-promises-more-press-210089.html> // Politico // Dylan Byers – July 7, 2015 * The first national interview of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign did not go well. She dodged questions about Bernie Sanders' appeal, refused to say whether she would seek to raise taxes, dismissed data showing that the majority of Americans' don't trust her, and was repeatedly forced to defend her lack of transparency at both the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. And yet, toward the interview's conclusion, the long-evasive Democratic front-runner pledged to do more uncomfortable sit-downs like the one she had just, painstakingly, endured. "Obviously 'll be doing a lot more press," Clinton told CNN's Brianna Keilar. The only reason Clinton hadn't been doing national interviews, she said, was because she had been busy listening to American voters. "I just have a different rhythm to my campaign. I'm not running my campaign for the press, I'm running it for the voters," she explained. "I totally respect the press and what the press has to do. I wanted and was determined to have the time that I needed to actually meet and listen to people. I had not been involved in domestic politics while I was Secretary of State, and I just wanted to get my own feel, my own time, face to face with people." "Everything has its own time and I'm on my own rhythm," she said. While that may be true, avoiding the press had become a dominant theme of Clinton's early days on the campaign trail. Clinton said she'd always planned "to spend the first 90 days... getting my feel of what was going on in the country," but her refusal to answer questions from reporters on the trail was so frequent that it made headlines. As Clinton told Keiler, "it'll be 90 days [since the launch of her campaign] on Sunday," and the time to open up to the media has come. But if Americans are expecting more transparency from Clinton, they may be sorely disappointed. "I didn't hear a more open or transparent Hillary Clinton," Keilar said after her interview. "I heard her not engaging on the issue of Bernie Sanders. He's a self-described Democratic socialist. I asked her why is he garnering this support, this enthusiasm, that you don't seem to among Democrats. She wouldn't engage on that. Even on this concern of if she were to face off against Jeb Bush, and there would be this dynastic race between a Bush and a Clinton... she wouldn't engage on that. She was very quick to move on." Keilar bears some responsibility for that, of course. She hardly pressed Clinton to answer the questions she was dodging and rushed from topic to topic. If an interviewer is hoping to pin Clinton down on anything, she or he will probably have to take a more Terry Gross-like approach. More likely, however, is that Clinton herself will decide to be more transparent. There are almost 500 days left till election day; if she is serious about "doing a lot more press," she'll need to come up with a better strategy than "dodge and defend." *Clinton says Puerto Rico should have access to U.S. bankruptcy laws <http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/07/us-usa-election-clinton-puertorico-idUSKCN0PH11920150707> // Reuters // Amanda Becker – June 30, 2015 * U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that Puerto Rico's public entities should be able to use U.S. bankruptcy laws to restructure some $72 billion in debt. Like U.S. states, Puerto Rico, a commonwealth, cannot file for bankruptcy protection. Unlike U.S. states, Puerto Rico's public entities, including municipalities, are not covered by U.S. Chapter 9 bankruptcy laws. Puerto Rico's non-voting delegate in the U.S. Congress has called for legislation that would allow Puerto Rico to access the same bankruptcy laws available to other municipalities, as has Puerto Rico's Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit late Monday affirmed a lower court decision to strike down Puerto Rican legislation aimed at granting local municipalities the right to enter bankruptcy, but said excluding the U.S. territory's public entities from federal bankruptcy law was unconstitutional. "Congress and the Obama administration need to partner with Puerto Rico by providing real support and tools so that Puerto Rico can do the hard work it will take to get on a path toward stability and prosperity," Clinton said in a statement provided to Reuters. "As a first step, Congress should provide Puerto Rico the same authority that states already have to enable severely distressed government entities, including municipalities and public corporations, to restructure their debts under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code," Clinton added. The White House said last week that there is "no one in the administration" that is "contemplating a federal bailout of Puerto Rico" but that the U.S. Congress should "take a look at" whether Puerto Rico's government-owned corporations should be able to access Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection. Congressional Republicans largely oppose such a step. Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said in April that he thinks Puerto Rico's public agencies should have the ability to use U.S. bankruptcy laws. "We're not talking about a bailout, we're talking about a fair shot at success," Clinton said Tuesday. Clinton said in the statement that the "inconsistent and incoherent" application of U.S. federal law to Puerto Rico contributed to its economic situation, noting high utility rates and unemployment have led to an economy that has shrunk for eight of the last nine years. "One troubling example of this treatment is the lack of equity in federal funding for Puerto Rico under Medicaid and Medicare," Clinton said of health insurance programs sponsored by the U.S. government. Clinton, also a former first lady, is the front runner for the Democratic nomination ahead of the general election in November 2016. *Meme says Hillary Clinton's top donors are banks and corporations, Bernie Sanders' are labor unions <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/> // Politifact // Louis Jacobson – July 7, 2015 * As Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders gains ground on Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, the two candidates’ supporters have been sparring, including over campaign donations. Recently, a reader sent us a social media meme that paints Clinton’s list of donors as dominated by corporate interests, whereas Sanders’ top 10 donors come largely from labor unions -- a dichotomy that, to Democratic primary voters, puts Sanders in a more favorable light. "Hillary: Top ten donor list. Representing banks, corporations and media," the meme reads, providing a top-10 list with dollar amounts. "Bernie: Top ten donor list. Representing people." The meme is topped by each candidate’s presidential campaign logo. (See the meme below.) We can’t tell who produced this meme, but we thought it was worth a closer look. We’ll start by noting that reasonable people can disagree about whether labor unions represent "people," as the meme says, as opposed to just unionized workers, who are a relatively small subset of the entire population. We’ll also note that while this meme may appeal to union supporters and critics of Wall Street and big corporations, it also could be used as evidence that Sanders is just as reliant on one type of donor -- labor unions -- as Clinton is on big corporations. We found that the data cited in the meme refers to cumulative donations over the course of each candidate’s political career as calculated by the Center for Responsive Politics, not just fundraising from the current presidential cycle. (Clinton and Sanders have announced their fundraising hauls for the second quarter of 2015, but have not yet released the full data that is due at the Federal Election Commission by July 15; a more complete analysis of the data will be compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics after that.) For Clinton, we found a high degree of similarity with the meme when we checked the database on July 6. Clinton’s top 10 cumulative donors between between 1999 and 2016 were, in descending order, Citigroup ($782,327), Goldman Sachs ($711,490), DLA Piper ($628,030), JPMorgan Chase ($620,919), EMILY’s List ($605,174) Morgan Stanley ($543,065), Time Warner ($411,296), Skadden Arps ($406,640), Lehman Brothers ($362,853) and Cablevision Systems ($336,288). That list is quite close to what the meme says. It includes five financial-services companies, two law firms that do a lot of corporate work, two media conglomerates and one group, EMILY’s list, that supports abortion-rights Democratic candidates. It’s worth noting that Clinton was a senator from New York, meaning that some of the donors on her list were not simply Wall Street and corporate behemoths, but also constituents, based in New York. The database results for Sanders are also quite close to what’s in the meme. The data for Sanders goes back to 1989. His top 10 are, in descending order, Machinists/Aerospace Workers union ($105,000), Teamsters union ($93,700), National Education Association ($84,350), United Auto Workers ($79,650), United Food & Commercial Workers union ($72,500), Communications Workers of America ($68,000), Laborers Union ($64,000), Carpenters & Joiners Union ($62,000), National Association of Letter Carriers ($61,000), and the American Association for Justice ($60,500). In the meme, the letter carriers’ union makes the list, but the Center for Responsive Politics has the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees cracking the top 10 instead. Either way, nine of the 10 are unions, and the tenth is the national association representing plaintiffs’ attorneys. During his career, Sanders has received strong support from progressive Democrats, so this pattern of financial backing is not surprising. So the meme is pretty accurate for both candidates. However, we see a few things worth pointing out. As we noted, this data refers to their entire political careers back to the 1990s. Once the full presidential data is released, those figures may show different patterns. "That is not made clear" in the meme, said Anthony J. Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College. "Most people would assume that this is money raised so far in the 2016 presidential campaign." Also, the "donors" listed are not the ones who gave the money, since that would be against the law. Rather, it was their PACs, employees and those employees’ families. In fact, due to how the forms are filled out, the data is less likely to capture individual donations from union members than from employers of companies. Most individual donations are listed by employer, and if, say, a union carpenter lists his affiliation as his company, the fact that he’s a union member wouldn’t be recorded. Finally, lists such as this ignore that both candidates are collecting many small donations, too. According to the Clinton campaign, she raised roughly $50 million in contributions under $200 during her '08 campaign. Data for the 2016 cycle is not available yet. All told, it’s possible to look at the top donors on the two lists and say both candidates are captive to a particular set of interest groups, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. However, he added, "labor is a Democratic constituency whose beliefs generally line up with Democratic policies, and we’re talking about a Democratic primary here. So all things being equal, Sanders’ donor list probably looks better, politically, than Clinton’s." Kondik added that, as the meme indicates, Clinton has a much larger reservoir of money than Sanders has. "The value of having a large financial advantage over your competitors in a primary setting seems to be worth occasional questions about how the financial advantage was built," he said. Our ruling Social media memes say that Clinton’s top 10 donors are mainly "banks, corporations and media," while Bernie Sanders’ top 10 donors are labor unions. This contention fits quite closely with campaign data from the Center for Responsive Politics. However, it’s worth noting that this data refers to cumulative donations as far back as the 1980s, rather than just donations to their current presidential bids. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True. *Clinton vows to make ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform cornerstone issue <http://www.radioiowa.com/2015/07/07/clinton-vows-to-make-comprehensive-immigration-reform-cornerstone-issue/> // Radio Iowa // Kay Henderson – July 7, 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke to a packed room in the Iowa City Public Library this afternoon, accusing Republicans of proposing a “U-turn” for the country and promising as president she would push for “comprehensive” immigration reform. “A lot of our people who are working hard here are people who have earned the right to stay and we have to change our system to take advantage of their contributions,” Clinton said. Clinton said there’s no way to deport up to 12 million undocumented immigrants and Clinton used the word “sad” to describe how Republican presidential candidates are addressing the issue. “We’ve always prided ourselves on being a nation of immigrants…and then I hear, you know, the Republican candidates — and it’s not only, you know, the ones that are most vitriolic — none of them support a path to citizenship,” Clinton said. “All of them would basically consign immigrants to second-class status.” Clinton did not directly mention Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s remarks about Mexicans which have caused controversy, but Clinton, in general, accused Republicans of engaging in a “destructive” debate on immigration. “And let’s face the fact we need comprehensive immigration reform,” Clinton said. “I don’t care how many people running for president on the Republican side try to demean immigrants, insult immigrants, cast aspersions on immigrants.” During her speech to the crowd, Clinton mentioned the case of a popular Iowa City pastor who was recently deported and someone in the crowd asked her about the case, too. Clinton pledged as president she would deport criminals, but she’d urge prosecutors to use discretion in similar cases. About 350 people made it into the library to see and hear Clinton, while about 100 more gathered on the sidewalk outside waiting for the chance to shake Clinton’s hand as she left. Clinton held a news conference inside the library after the event, joking with her staff that they should remove the “rope” behind which reporters and photographers were assembled. It was a reference to the image of Clinton’s press team using a rope to corral reporters following Clinton in a New Hampshire parade. Clinton’s staff removed the barrier and the questioning began. *Clinton emails may revive environmental group's lawsuit <http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-emails-may-revive-environmental-groups-lawsuit/article/2567701> // The Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – July 7, 2015 * An environmental group whose request for records related to the Keystone Pipeline was reportedly hampered while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state is considering taking the case to court for the second time. Ben Schreiber, climate and energy program director at Friends of the Earth, said his group has weighed the option of relitigation in the weeks since learning that Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, had interfered in the agency's handling of Freedom of Information Act requests for Keystone documents. While Schreiber said Friends of the Earth received a number of emails involving Clinton's top aides when the original case settled during Clinton's tenure, he noted the State Department did not then have any of the secretary's emails to produce. "For us, this is very much a good governance thing," Schreiber said. "It's pretty clear that at the highest levels of the State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the agency did everything in their power to undermine the integrity of the Freedom of Information Act, and that for us is troubling." The discovery that Clinton has now submitted thousands of emails to the agency that could prove responsive to Friends of the Earth's 2010 request means the group could potentially force a different outcome if it sued the State Department a second time. The request sought any communications between State Department staff and Paul Elliott, a lobbyist for TransCanada and former Clinton campaign aide. TransCanada is the company that would build the Keystone Pipeline if the project received the necessary government approval. Schreiber pointed to a Wall Street Journal article published in May that suggested Mills began screening documents set for release under FOIA after Friends of the Earth obtained an email that illustrated the cozy relationship between Elliott and State staffers. "The Keystone documents Ms. Mills objected to were all either held back or redacted," the Journal report said. "After Ms. Mills began scrutinizing documents, the State Department's disclosure of records related to Keystone fell off sharply, documents that include a court filing show." Friends of the Earth did obtain hundreds of emails sent between top State Department officials and Elliott in 2011 through the lawsuit, however. Those emails reveal Clinton's staff was indeed concerned about how the agency responded to FOIA requests. For example Alexander Yuan, a State Department official, forwarded a news article to staff that reported the agency's decision to comply with the Friends of the Earth FOIA request for records concerning Elliott. "Interesting how we at State learn about these decisions," Yuan wrote of the Feb. 18, 2011 article. Yuan also suggested sending a state official to speak with the FOIA office in person. The exchange suggests State Department staff may have felt they had sway over how the agency responded to FOIA requests. In another email exchange from May 2011, a different State official raised concerns that the agency had received more inquiries about "the Secretary's relationship with TransCanada lobbyist Paul Elliott and the FOIA." Aides circulated "press guidance" about how to deal with questions about Elliott's ties to Clinton and the high-profile project he was advocating. Schreiber noted the decision to revisit the lawsuit was still a matter of discussion, citing the cost of litigation as a concern, but said the new information about Mills' meddling with FOIA requests prompted Friends of the Earth to begin considering reopening the case. *Hillary On San Francisco Illegal Immigrant Murder: ‘The City Made A Mistake’ <http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/07/hillary-on-san-francisco-illegal-immigrant-murder-the-city-made-a-mistake-video/> // The Daily Caller // Al Weaver – July 7, 2015 * In her first national television interview, Hillary Clinton said that San Francisco “made a mistake” by not deporting Francisco Sanchez, the illegal immigrant that murdered Kate Steinle last week and had been deported five times. Clinton told CNN’s Brianna Keilar that she has “absolutely no support for a city” that does not act when they disregard evidence “that should be acted upon,” though she did not respond to Keilar’s point that she supported sanctuary cities during her initial presidential run in 2008. BRIANNA KEILAR: Last week an undocumented immigrant who had been deported five times killed a 32-year-old, Kate Steinle, in San Francisco — a sanctuary city where local law enforcement does not enforce federal immigration laws. When you last ran for president, you supported sanctuary cities. In light of this terrible incident, does that change anything about your view on this? HILLARY CLINTON: Well, what should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it, urged them to deport this man again after he got out of prison another time. Here’s a case where we’ve deported, we’ve deported, we’ve deported, he ends back up in our country, and I think the city made a mistake. The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on. However, there are — if it were the first time traffic citation many, if it were something minor — a misdemeanor, that’s entirely different. This man had already been deported five times, and he should have been deported at the request of the federal government. *Three questions for Hillary Clinton <http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/three-questions-for-hillary-clinton/article/2567712> // The Washington Examiner // Byron York – July 7, 2015 * After months of refusing to answer questions, avoiding situations in which she might be questioned, and literally roping off the press, Hillary Clinton has granted an interview to a news organization. CNN's Brianna Keilar, who will do the interview, has asked for suggestions on what she might ask. Here are three questions for the former secretary of state: 1) In March, you said, 'I … provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related' to the State Department. Now, State says there are some emails you didn't turn over. Did you tell the truth in March? 2) After turning over some of your emails to the State Department, you destroyed everything: all emails, all backups. Why? 3) On Aug. 16, 2012, Ambassador Chris Stevens warned State of dangerous security problems in Benghazi, Libya, saying U.S. facilities there could not survive a 'coordinated attack.' Top administration officials Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey testified that they knew about the Stevens warning. You said you were too busy to see it. Why? *Committed, undecided line up to see Clinton in Iowa City <http://thegazette.com/subject/news/politics/election/road-to-the-white-house/committed-undecided-line-up-to-see-clinton-in-iowa-city-20150707?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter> // The Gazette // James Lynch – July 7, 2015 * She’s a former first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state and now a formidable candidate for president. But Hillary Clinton’s visit to the Iowa City Public Library was news to many people hurrying to work or simply taking a walk through the downtown Ped Mall Tuesday morning. “What are all these people doing?” Joe Daringer of Iowa City asked, pointing to a line of people waiting to get into the library nearly two hours before what the Clinton campaign described as a “organizing event,” “Here?” Daringer said when told the people — a couple of hundred strong at that point — were waiting to see the leading candidate for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president. “At the library? Of all places. How are they going to get them in there?” The Clinton campaign squeezed about 250 of her supporters into the library’s meeting rooms and with more in an overflow area. Daringer, who said he leans toward Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, wasn’t impressed. “When Obama was here he was over on the Pentacrest, and there were thousands of people,” he said. The Koepnick family of Iowa City wasn’t concerned about the size of the venue. Tina Koepnick said she backed Clinton eight years ago and she’s committed to backing her this time. “I’m looking for someone who is smart, articulate and a good leader — and that’s Hillary,” Tina Koepnick said as she waited in line with her husband Keven, and their daughter, Emily, around the corner from the library. “I’ve been ready to vote for Hillary for a while,” Kevin added. Emily, a University of Iowa student, is eager to cast her first vote in a presidential election for Clinton, who she has admired for a long time. “She’s a strong female who’s done great things for the country,” Emily Koepnick said. Clinton has a “great track record” and “talks about the right things in the right way,” added Sue Zaleski of Solon who could see the library from her spot in the line that wound down the Ped Mall. Change could reduce time Iowa patients wait for prescriptions Iowa labor leaders call for unions to endorse Sanders However, first-time voter Bruce James, who was just in front of Zaleski, wasn’t so sure. “I’m keeping my ears open,” James said. That includes listening to Sanders. He likes what Sanders has to say about the economy and taxing the rich. “I need to hear her speak,” he said about Clinton, “and then I’ll make up my mind.” Loretta Ross drove in from Topeka because she has “great respect” for Clinton, but like James, she’s listening to Sanders, too. “I’m weighing the established foundation Hillary brings — her experience and the breadth of her experience — with Sanders’ very clear goals in areas that are important to me,” Ross said. At the moment, Ross added, she thinks Clinton has more general election appeal. *Hillary Clinton rips GOP on immigration: She says their problem is much bigger than Trump <http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/hillary_clinton_rips_gop_on_immigration_she_says_their_problem_is_much_bigger_than_trump/> // Salon // Sophia Tesfaye – July 7, 2015 * During her first nationally televised interview of her 2016 campaign, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said the possibility of another a Bush v. Clinton election a quarter century after her husband’s first presidential election is a coincidence in an America in which “anybody can run for president.” CNN’s Brianna Keilar also asked Clinton about Republican candidate Donald Trump’s recent comments equating Mexican immigrants to “rapists.” Keilar noted that Trump had previously donated to the Clinton Foundation but that didn’t stop Clinton from railing against Trump, saying “I’m very disappointed in those comments and I feel very bad and very disappointed with him.” But Clinton was quick to pivot from Trump to the entire Republican field, telling Keilar that she was also disappointed “with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying enough, stop it. But they are all in the, you know, in the same general area on immigration,” she said. “They range across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile towards immigrants.” Clinton singled out Jeb Bush specifically, noting, “He doesn’t believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time, he no longer does.” And distinguishing herself from the GOP field, Clinton said, ““I am 100% behind comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship.” But not all Republican candidates oppose comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a long shot hopeful, was quick to remind CNN’s Maeve Reston that he, in fact, has been a long time supporter of a pathway to citizenship. And as for those pesky emails? Clinton dismissed the affair as the latest in a long saga of Republican investigations into the Clintons. “This is being blown up with no basis in law or in fact. That’s fine, I get it — this is being, in effect, used by the Republicans in the Congress. OK,” Clinton said. “But I want people to understand what the truth is, and the truth is, everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what was expected.” Keilar delved into other areas of controversy for Clinton, asking if she would consider shutting down the Clinton Foundation if she were to win the White House. Clinton defended the nonprofit’s work as “critical,” saying, “I have no plans to say or do anything about the Clinton foundation other than to say I am proud of it and I think for the good of the world, its work should continue.” Clinton surmised much of the foundation’s success stemmed from the work of her husband, saying, “maybe it’s because it’s because my husband knows so many people in the world and he is so creative and he is so smart but he was able to put together solutions to problems wether it was HIV/AIDS or childhood obesity in our country or expanding farm productivity in Africa that was hard for other to do.” And Clinton, who supported so-called “sanctuary cities” during her last presidential run, was forceful in her criticism of San Francisco for ignoring immigration detention requests from the federal government. An undocumented immigrant who had been deported multiple times was arrested in the recent killing of a young woman, and Donald Trump has used the murder to bolster his argument that Mexican immigrants are criminals. “The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government thought should be deported … I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on,” Clinton said, but she made clear that such scrutiny would not be required for minor or misdemeanor charges. Clinton also weighed in on the debate over adding a woman to the 10 dollar bill, saying “it may be more appropriate to look at the 20 than the 10.” *Hillary Clinton: GOP on 'Spectrum of Hostility' Towards Immigrants <http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-gop-spectrum-hostility-towards-immigrants-n388236> // NBC News // Carrie Dann – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton on Tuesday said that the GOP 2016 field is on "a spectrum of hostility" towards immigrants, accusing Republicans of failing to condemn Donald Trump immediately for his controversial comments about Mexicans. Clinton told CNN in an interview that she is "very disappointed" in Trump's remarks, adding that the Republicans seeking the White House are "all in the same general area on immigration." "They range across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile towards immigrants," she said, adding that none - including Jeb Bush - back a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented population. "If he did at one time, he no longer does," she said of the former Florida governor's stance on creating such a pathway. The 2016 Democratic frontrunner emphasized that she is "100% behind comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship." "I think that we know we're not going to deport 11 or 12 million people," she added. "We shouldn't be breaking up families. We shouldn't be stopping people from having the opportunity to be fully integrated legally within our country." The interview was Clinton's first sit-down with a national television network since declaring her candidacy. More of the interview is slated to air this afternoon on CNN. *Hillary Clinton on Her 'Last Rodeo' <http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-on-her-last-rodeo-20150707> // The National Journal // Emma Roller – July 7, 2015 * Before Hillary Clinton spoke to a crowd of roughly 250 supporters in the Iowa City Public Library on Tuesday, a young female campaign staffer had a few requests for the attendees. First, she asked those in attendance to pull out their smartphones and "like" Clinton's local Facebook page for Iowa and Johnson County. Then, she rattled off a phone number for the supporters to text in exchange for "updates" (aka donation pleas) from the campaign, which announced that it added 20 field organizers to its already large Iowa staff Tuesday. But the actual content of Clinton's speech was refreshingly free of campaign artifice. Yes, she began with her routine spiel about income inequality, health care, and her excitement at becoming a grandmother, but her remarks felt more off-the-cuff than usual. Perhaps in an attempt to embrace her inner nerd, Clinton recalled spending hours in her local library during summer vacations while growing up. One anecdote from her career as secretary of State in particular stood out as something new not only to the attendees, but to the reporters who obsessively cover the Clinton campaign as well. She told a story about the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. Clinton and President Obama were trying to negotiate terms with India and China—two of the fastest-developing countries in the world—for a climate change agreement. The problem: China and India's leaders were nowhere to be found. Clinton said she and Obama "sent out scouts," who found that the leaders were meeting in a clandestine conference room. Clinton and Obama marched to the room, she said, and pushed past Chinese security guards to confront the heads of state. As a result, the assembled countries signed an accord outlining emissions pledges and other goals for energy use, though much of the text was nonbinding. "We would not be in as strong a position if the president had not pursued everything from auto emissions to utility controls," Clinton added on Tuesday. Aside from climate change, Clinton gradually began filling in some of the details of her economic and social agenda. And she opened up a little more on Democratic politics and her own future. The economy and immigration: Clinton blamed Republican presidents for the recent economic crises in the U.S., and said that trickle-down economics needs to be "buried six feet under." "There seems to be a pattern here, and we cannot afford to go back to the failed economic policies of the past," she said. "We have to be committed to electing a Democrat who will build on what works with actual evidence ... so that we build shared prosperity that everybody benefits from." On income inequality and immigration reform, there is a yawning chasm between Republicans and Democrats, especially in Iowa. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that 70 percent of likely Republican caucus voters say the government should not pursue policies to reduce income inequality, while 91 percent of their Democratic counterparts said the government should pursue such policies. The same poll found that 46 percent of Iowa Republicans say undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. should be required to leave, while 83 percent of Democrats said the immigrants should be given a path to citizenship. Clinton called the Republican discourse on immigration a "very stale, destructive debate." "I don't care how many people running for president on the Republican side try to demean immigrants, insult immigrants, cast aspersions on immigrants," Clinton said. "We are not going to deport 11 or 12 million people." After calling out her Republican opponents for opposing a path to citizenship—some of them in fits and starts—Clinton said some illegal immigrants "have earned the right to stay." She mentioned one such immigrant by name: Max Villatoro, an Iowa pastor who was deported in March. Clinton said that, if elected president, she would start by returning to the bipartisan immigration bill that passed the Senate in 2010 but stalled out in the House. "That would be my starting point. You voted for it once. Let's vote for it again." Education: Clinton stressed public education, especially the need to improve the government's Head Start early childhood program and to implement universal pre-kindergarten. "If we do not have early childhood education, we will never get the results for the vast majority of our children as we could," she said. "If we don't tackle 0 to 5, we're going to lose out." Health care: She asked the crowd if they were "thrilled" about the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act, but warned that the liberal success could easily unravel come 2017. "If a Republican is elected president, that will be the end of the Affordable Care Act," she said. "We have to succeed President Obama with a Democrat, to protect, defend, and fix the Affordable Care Act." Contraception: "If we provide family planning services, more young women have a chance to finish their education before they become parents," she said. Abortion: "I will always defend a woman's right to choose," she said. "That is something that should no longer be debatable." Campaign finance: Clinton called the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision "one of the worst ever made," adding, "we've got to get dark, unaccountable money out of politics once and for all." Gun control: "I think it's pretty clear that a majority of Americans and a majority of gun owners agree with universal background checks" to keep guns away from domestic abusers, the mentally unstable, "and even terrorists," Clinton said. "Let's not be afraid of the gun lobby, which does not represent the real majority of gun owners in America," she added. On Democratic losses in the 2014 midterm elections, and what she hopes to leave behind: Republicans, Clinton said, have shown an advantage during midterm elections that Democrats need to reckon with. "They know the importance of midterm elections because they show up, and we don't," she said. Clinton stressed that she wants more young people getting involved in government. "This is my last rodeo. And I believe that we can leave not just the country in good shape for the future, but we can get a deep bench of young people to decide they want to go into politics to continue the fights that we're going to be waging," she said, later adding, "when I ride off into the sunset" in 2025, if she manages to win in 2016 and then an eventual second term, she hopes to leave "a very strong, committed group" behind in Iowa and the country at large. *Clinton backs 'pathway to citizenship,' criticizes GOP <http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/07/07/clinton-backs-pathway-to-citizenship-bashes-gop/> // USA Today // David Jackson – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton stressed Tuesday that she backs a “pathway to citizenship” for immigrants who are currently in the United States illegally, and she criticized potential Republican opponents over the immigration issue. “We know we’re not going to deport 11, 12 million people,” Clinton told CNN in an interview, and providing a pathway that includes stiff requirements for new citizenship is the “right thing to do.” The long list of Republican presidential candidates oppose such a pathway, Clinton said, and exhibit “a spectrum” of attitudes toward immigrants that ranges from “hostility” to grudging acceptance. Immigration and the rising Hispanic vote figure to be major factors in the 2016, and Clinton served notice that she will be highlighting them. In terms of specific candidates, Clinton criticized businessman Donald Trump for saying that most immigrants from Mexico are criminals, telling CNN she was “very disappointed” and that other Republicans should have criticized Trump sooner. Trump said he was describing illegal immigration and that he is the only candidate willing to tackle the issue. Clinton also challenged Jeb Bush’s immigration credentials, saying that if he backed a pathway to citizenship at one time, “he no longer does.” Bush spokeswoman Emily Benavides disputed Clinton’s analysis, saying that the former Florida governor “believes in a conservative legislative solution to fix our broken immigration system that includes earned legal status for those currently in the country after they pay fines and taxes, learn English, and commit no substantial crimes while securing our border.” In her CNN interview, Clinton declined to speculate on the prospect of another Clinton-Bush presidential race, more than two decades after Bill Clinton defeated President George H.W. Bush. It depends on who the parties nominate, she said, noting that the Republicans have “a big crew” running in addition to Bush. “What’s great about America is that anybody can run for president,” Clinton told CNN. *Clinton says 'very disappointed' in Trump's immigration comments <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3152746/Clinton-says-disappointed-Trumps-immigration-comments.html#ixzz3fFmBF9w8> // Reuters – July 7, 2015 * Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday she was "very disappointed" in Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump for his comments that described immigrants from Mexico as drug-runners and rapists. "I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying: 'Enough. Stop it,'" Clinton said in an interview with CNN. Trump's remarks, delivered during a speech on June 16 in which he announced his plans to seek the Republican nomination for president, have sparked a backlash that has soured a number of his business relationships. In the latest fallout, Trump's organization said earlier on Tuesday the Republican candidate and PGA of America had agreed to move a professional golfing event that had been scheduled for October at a Trump course. Clinton told CNN her disappointment extended to the entire Republican field for not being open to a path toward U.S. citizenship for Mexicans in the United States illegally. "They're on a spectrum of hostility ... all the way to grudging acceptance but refusal to go with a pathway to citizenship. I think that's a mistake," she said. *Hillary Clinton slams Trump, Bush on immigration <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-slams-trump-bush-immigration> // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton bashed her potential Republican rivals on immigration reform Tuesday in the first national television interview of her second presidential campaign. “They range across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile towards immigrants,” she told CNN of the vast – and still growing – field of 2016 GOP presidential candidates during a break between campaign events in Iowa. But Clinton spoke in more specific detail about Donald Trump, whose incendiary recent comments on Mexican immigrants have led to almost a dozen companies to cut ties to the businessman. “I’m very disappointed in those comments and I feel very bad and very disappointed with him,” said Clinton of Trump, who has donated to her past campaigns. And in 2005, Clinton even attended Trump’s wedding to his current wife Melania Knauss. Clinton added that she was disappointed “with the Republican Party for not responding immediately [to Trump] and saying enough, stop it. But they are all in the, you know, in the same general area on immigration,” she said. Trump has been ranking in the top tier of recent polls of the 2016 Republican presidential field and is poised to potentially make the cutoff for the party’s first debates later this summer. She wasn’t much kinder towards former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the GOP frontrunner who has been more amendable to immigration in the past. “He doesn’t believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time he no longer does,” she said. Bush’s campaign spokesperson Emily Benavides responded to Clinton’s criticism in a statement released on Tuesday. ”Hillary Clinton has once again changed her position on an issue for politically expedient purposes,” Benavides said before faulting her in part for failing to pass immigration reform as a senator. “Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected and her numerous flip-flops on immigration prove it,” she added. As for herself, Clinton reiterated: “I am 100% behind comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship.” *Hillary Clinton just used Donald Trump to attack the entire GOP field <http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-comments-immigration-2015-7> // Business Insider // Colin Campbell – July 7, 2015 * Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is trying to connect all of her potential GOP rivals to real-estate developer Donald Trump. Clinton responded to the ongoing Trump controversy in a Tuesday appearance on CNN, her first national media interview since launching her campaign in April. The Democratic front-runner said she was "very disappointed" by Trump's heated remarks about illegal immigration. And she added that the entire Republican Party should have rushed to condemn them. "I've very disappointed in those comments. And I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying, 'Enough. Stop it,'" she said. Clinton was referring to Trump's controversial campaign launch in June, when he slammed the Mexican government for supposedly sending "rapists" and drug runners to the US. A number of companies have since severed ties with Trump, indicating they found his comments offensive. Clinton sought to group together all of the Republican candidates, including Trump, because they aren't supporters of comprehensive immigration reform like she is. That included former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who she pointed out does not support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the US. "But they are all in the same general area on immigration," she said. "They don't want to provide a path to citizenship. They range across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile towards immigrants. And I'm going to talk about comprehensive immigration reform. I'm going to talk about all of the good, law-abiding, productive members of the immigrant community that I personally know." Although most Republicans did not "immediately" slam Trump, as Clinton said, many of the GOP candidates have described his immigration remarks as inappropriate — including Bush, former New York Gov. George Pataki (R), former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), and businesswoman Carly Fiorina. Other contenders like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson have dismissed the controversy as political correctness run amok. *Hillary Clinton Says She Is "Very Disappointed" in Donald Trump <http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/07/hillary-clinton-says-she-very-disappointed-donald-trump> // Mother Jones // Inae Oh – July 7, 2015 * In a new interview with CNN, Hillary Clinton weighed in on the continuing controversy over Donald Trump's presidential announcement speech in which he characterized Mexican immigrants crossing the border as criminals and "rapists." "I am very disappointed in those comments," Clinton said. "I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and the Republican party for not responding immediately and saying 'enough stop it.'" Trump's remarks have sparked national outrage over their racist descriptions, even prompting several businesses and television networks long associated with the real estate mogul to sever business ties with him. While most of the GOP presidential field have distanced themselves from Trump's comments, some including Sen. Ted Cruz have applauded him "on the need to address illegal immigration." Trump has donated to Clinton's past campaigns on a number of occasions. He also contributed at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. *Hillary Clinton Ties Jeb Bush to GOP Field on Immigration <http://time.com/3948813/hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-immigration/> // TIME // Sam Frizell – July 7, 2015 * Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton attempted to link her Republican counterpart, Jeb Bush, with other GOP presidential candidates who have staked out positions against immigration reform. In her first sit-down television interview since as a candidate, Clinton told CNN that the 2016 Republican field ranges “across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile toward immigrants.” She also took aim at Bush, arguing that the former Florida governor’s position on immigration is “regrettable.” “He doesn’t believe in a path to citizenship,” she said. “If he did at one time, he no longer does.” Bush has walked a fine line on immigration. In a 2013 book he called for allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain permanent residency but not citizenship, though he later supported a bipartisan Senate bill that included a path to citizenship. In recent remarks, he’s backed a legal status short of citizenship. Clinton, meantime, has made immigration reform a central part of her platform, saying that she supports a full path to citizenship for undocumented workers and that she would go farther than President Obama in using executive actions to protect illegal immigrants from deportation. Bush spokeswoman Emily Benavides criticized Clinton for the comments, noting that as a U.S. Senator in 2007 she voted for a so-called “poison pill” amendment that helped derail immigration reform under President George W. Bush. “Hillary Clinton has once again changed her position on an issue for politically expedient purposes. After voting for the poison pill amendment that stopped immigration reform in its tracks as a Senator and saying she believed the unaccompanied minors ‘should be sent back’ to their home countries last year, she is now running further to the left on immigration policy than even President Obama’s White House believes is legally feasible,” she said in a statement. During the interview, Clinton also denounced GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has faced fire since he called Mexican immigrants “rapists” and “criminals” during his campaign launch last month. She said she was “very disappointed” with the business mogul, who previously donated to her Senate campaign and the Clinton Foundation. But Clinton turned just as much fire on the Republican field overall, arguing it was not welcoming enough toward immigrants. In the CNN interview, Clinton also denounced Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s comments about Mexican immigrants, whom the real estate mogul last month called “rapists” and “criminals.” Clinton said she was “very disappointed” with Trump, who donated to her Senate campaign and the Clinton Foundation. “I think that’s a mistake,” she said. “I think that we know we’re not going to deport 11 million or 12 million people. We shouldn’t be breaking up families. We shouldn’t be stopping people from having the opportunity to be fully integrated legally within our country.” *Hillary Clinton: Jeb Bush 'doesn't believe in a path to citizenship' <http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-doesnt-believe-in-a-path-to-citizenship.html> // Miami Herald // Patricia Mezzai – July 7, 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared herself "very disappointed" at Donald Trump -- a past supporter of her U.S. Senate campaign -- over his now-infamous remarks in which he claimed Mexican immigrants who cross the U.S. border are often criminals and rapists. "I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying, 'Enough. Stop it,'" Clinton told CNN in an interview Tuesday. "But they are all in the same general area on immigration: They don't want to provide a path to citizenship. They range across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile toward immigrants." Pressed about Republican Jeb Bush, who has called parents bringing children illegally into the U.S. an "act of love," Clinton maintained that the former Florida governor doesn't want to give people already in the country full-fledged legal status. "He doesn't believe in a path to citizenship -- if he did at one time, he no longer does," she said. "As I said, they're on a spectrum of hostility which I think is really regrettable in a nation of immigrants like ours." Bush has favored citizenship in the past. But in his book Immigration Wars, and recently on the campaign trail, he has instead backed legal status without citizenship, suggesting that might be a more achievable goal given contentious immigration politics. Bush's camp countered by pointing to "flip-flops" by Clinton on immigration. "Hillary Clinton has once again changed her position on an issue for politically expedient purposes. After voting for the poison pill amendment that stopped immigration reform in its tracks as a Senator and saying she believed the unaccompanied minors 'should be sent back' to their home countries last year, she is now running further to the left on immigration policy than even President Obama's White House believes is legally feasible," Bush spokeswoman Emily Benavides said in a statement. "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected and her numerous flip-flops on immigration prove it." Though Clinton didn't mention him, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is one of the GOP contenders who says he's open to granting citizenship to many of the people in the country illegally. Bush, Rubio and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who shares a similar view, have all been criticized by some conservatives over their immigration support. *Hillary: All GOP candidates on a ‘spectrum of hostility’ toward immigrants <http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/07/07/hillary-all-gop-candidates-on-a-spectrum-of-hostility-towards-immigrants/> // Breitbart // Pam Key – July 7, 2015 * Tuesday on CNN’s “The Lead With Jake Tapper,” during a preview clip of their exclusive interview, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accused everyone in the Republican presidential field of being on a “spectrum of hostility,” towards immigrants. When asked about Donald Trump’s recent controversial comments on immigrants Clinton said, “I’m very disappointed in those comments. I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican party for not responding immediately and saying enough, stop it. But they are all in the same general area on immigration. You know, they don’t want to provide a path to citizenship. They range across a spectrum of being begrudgingly welcoming or hostile toward immigrants. I’m going to talk about comprehensive immigration reform. I’m going to talk about the good law abiding, productive members of the immigrant community that I personally know. That I’ve met over the course of my life. That I would like to see have a path to citizenship.” When asked about Jeb Bush, Clinton said, “He doesn’t believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time he no longer does. Pretty much as I said, they’re on a spectrum of hostility, which I think is regrettable in a nation of immigrants like ours, all the way to grudging acceptance, but refusal to go with a pathway to citizenship. I think that’s a mistake. We know we’re not going to deport 11 or 12 million people. We shouldn’t be breaking up families, we shouldn’t be stopping people from having the opportunity to be fully integrated legally within our country. It’s good for us. It’s good economically, It’s good for the taxes that will be legally collected. It’s good for the children. So that they can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. So I am 100 percent behind comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship citizenship.” *Hillary Clinton 'very disappointed' in Trump, GOP on immigration <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/247099-hillary-clinton-slams-trump-in-first-interview> // The Hill // Niall Stanage & Jonathan Easley – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton slammed Donald Trump for his comments on Mexican immigrants in the first national interview of her presidential campaign. “I'm very disappointed in those comments, and I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying, 'Enough, stop," Clinton said in the interview with CNN's Brianna Keilar. Clinton was referring to Trump's comments attributing rampant crime to illegal immigrants from Mexico, which sparked a firestorm. Clinton sought to link Trump, a GOP White House hopeful, to the Republican Party as a whole on immigration, saying "They are all in the same general area on immigration." At a public event attended by several hundred supporters at the Iowa City Public Library earlier in the day, Clinton blasted Republicans for opposing a pathway to citizenship for those in the country illegally. "I don't care how many people running for president on the Republican side try to demean immigrants, insult immigrants, cast aspersions on immigrants," Clinton said. “We are not going to deport 11 or 12 million people. ... The Republican candidates, and it’s not just the ones who are most vitriolic, none of them support a path to citizenship. All of them would basically resign them to a life as second-class citizens.” Clinton said that if elected president, she would return to the immigration bill passed by the Senate in 2010 that died in the House. “That would be my starting point,” Clinton said. “You voted for it once. Let's vote for it again." In her CNN interview, Clinton was asked about former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a leading candidate for the GOP nomination. "He doesn't believe in a path to citizenship," she responded. "If he did at one time, he no longer does." Clinton also pushed back on suggestions, backed by polling, that a significant segment of the public distrusts her. She described such attacks as "a theme that has been used against me, and my husband, for many, many years." She added that she trusted the electorate to make up its own mind. Clinton took a question about the rise of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) in stride, saying she “always thought this would be a competitive race.” Sanders has been pulling crowds of thousands of supporters and has cut into Clinton’s previously huge leads in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. On Monday, Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri called Sanders “a serious force” her team is worried about. But on Tuesday, Clinton touted the strength of her organization in Iowa, where she continues to lead Sanders by more than 20 points, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls. “I feel very good about where we are in Iowa we are signing up thousands of volunteers, people committed to caucus for us, a committed supporter in every one of the 1,600 precincts, and one of lessons I learned last time is organize, organize, organize,” Clinton said. “You’ve got to get people committed and then you bring more people. So I feel very good about where my campaign is." *Hillary to meet with black lawmakers <http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/247102-hillary-to-meet-with-black-lawmakers> // The Hill // Christina Marcos – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton will take a break from the presidential campaign trail July 14 to meet with lawmakers, including the Congressional Black Caucus, on Capitol Hill. According to a Clinton official, the Democratic presidential front-runner will also meet with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. The meetings with each of the caucuses come as Clinton seeks to rebuild the diverse coalition that propelled President Obama into the White House. Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) spokeswoman Candace Randle said lawmakers and the Democratic presidential front-runner will "discuss the CBC’s agenda and policy issues impacting the African-American community." Clinton’s closed-press meetings with lawmakers will be her first visit to Capitol Hill since formally announcing her presidential campaign in April. However, her campaign team has been in contact with members of each of the caucuses since the start of her candidacy. The 46-member CBC is made up almost entirely of House Democrats, with the exceptions of Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah). Two nonvoting delegates, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) and Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), are also part of the caucus. A total of 106 Democrats have already endorsed Clinton for president, including many members of the CBC. CBC members who have declared support for Clinton include Booker and Reps. Karen Bass (Calif.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas), Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.), Danny Davis (Ill.), Alcee Hastings (Fla.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Hank Johnson (Ga.), John Lewis (Ga.), Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), Charles Rangel (N.Y.), Cedric Richmond (La.), David Scott (Ga.), Terri Sewell (Ala.), Marc Veasey (Texas) and Frederica Wilson (Fla.). Clinton has frequently waded into national discussions about race in recent months, including an April speech where she called for criminal justice reform and blasted racially charged police shootings. “From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable,” Clinton said. The former secretary of State said last month at a black church outside of St. Louis — not far from where the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., unfolded last summer — that the recent shooting in Charleston, S.C., shows the nation has more work to do in addressing race relations. “I know it’s tempting to dismiss this tragedy as an isolated incident, to believe in today’s America that bigotry is largely behind us, that institutional racism no longer exists,” Clinton said. “But despite our best efforts and highest hopes, America’s long struggle with race is far from finished.” Clinton has further sought to highlight her position on immigration reform compared to the GOP field. She told CNN in her first nationally televised interview on Tuesday that she was "very disappointed" with Donald Trump for his controversial comments about Mexicans, as well as with the rest of the Republican field for not thoroughly condemning them. *The Clinton Campaign Corralled Reporters, But Don't Expect Them To Skip The Next Parade <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/07/hillary-clinton-reporters-parade_n_7746106.html> // HuffPo // Michael Calderone – July 7, 2015 * When a top-tier presidential candidate strides down Main Street, smiling and waving at parade-goers, political reporters and photographers are sure to follow. And follow they did on Saturday in Gorham, New Hampshire. But run-of-the-mill campaigning quickly turned into media outrage as aides to Hillary Clinton reined in journalists with rope. The literal corralling spurred heaps of criticism, both of Clinton's campaign for being too controlling and the press corps for being too subservient. The incident also prompted a larger question for newsrooms grappling with so many candidates to cover and so much information to sift through this election cycle: Is sending a reporter to a typical Fourth of July parade worth the hassle? Daily Beast executive editor Noah Shachtman, who criticized the Clinton campaign’s heavy-handed tactics, said the incident affirmed his site’s tactical approach to the crowded field. "We have a small staff, so we’re not going to cover every burp and gaffe of all 900 people running for president," said Shachtman, who did not send a reporter to the parade. He suggested reporters' time is better spent digging through documents and speaking to people impacted by political leaders' decisions, rather than flocking to stage-managed events. “We don’t want to do chock-a-block commodity news," he added, "and so, frankly, these events like parades are most of the time so newsless they’re not even worth covering.” But it's the possibility of news being made that helps other editors justify dispatching reporters to the front lines of flag-strewn parade routes or meet-and-greets at the local diner. A candidate sticking to talking points at one event may open up at the next to a voter, or critic, thus offering a unique glimpse into his or her candidacy. “We travel with candidates to see them in action, to see them interact with voters, to see who (and how many people) turn out for their events and to gather voters' impressions,” Carolyn Ryan, Washington bureau chief for The New York Times, said in an email. “All these moments are revealing, in their own way: You never know when a college student is going to press Jeb Bush about Iraq or when Martin O'Malley is going to have to talk directly to people upset about the violence in Baltimore,” said Ryan. She also singled out Okie Howe, a 98-year-old Army veteran quoted in the paper’s round-up of July 4 campaign events around New Hampshire, who spoke about being a Democrat who was "sick of Hillary Clinton" but would likely vote for her anyway. The goal, in essence, is to ensure that you're present when a non-manufactured campaign event takes place, even if it means suffering the occasional humiliation of a human corralling. BuzzFeed political editor Katherine Miller said that while covering 2016 candidates, especially Clinton, “you don’t have a lot of unpredictable moments or situations where you see them interact with a lot of unknowns.” Clinton, she noted, was only at the July 4 parade “for 20 minutes and a ton of stuff happened.” The resulting dispatch, from reporter Ruby Cramer, “showed what it looks like in a controlled environment when Clinton is speaking versus a very uncontrolled environment and what it says about her, what it says about the campaign," Miller said. That report doesn't focus on policy. But for the past three months, much of the story surrounding Clinton has been process-themed -- from her handling of emails while secretary of State and the company she keeps to the combustible relationship she has with the press corps. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner long before she officially jumped in the race in April, essentially has a mini-White House press corps along for the ride. Candidates trying to bolster their name recognition would kill for such attention, but the Clinton team, managing the movements of one of the most famous people in the world, is more likely to bristle at reporters’ desire for increased access to the candidate. But so far, disputes over access haven’t led news organizations to stop covering Clinton's every move. And neither The New York Times nor BuzzFeed, part of a 14-member traveling press pool covering Clinton, is altering their game plan for dispatching reporters in light of Saturday’s debacle. “I think the rope line was bad optics but a bit overblown on Twitter,” Ryan said. “I do wish Mrs. Clinton had taken some time to answer more reporters' questions before or after the parade.” *Hillary Clinton: ‘People Should and Do Trust Me’ <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/hillary-clinton-iowa-first-interview/> // CNN // Eric Bradner – July 7, 2015* In Hillary Clinton's first national interview of the 2016 race, she attacked her Republican rivals on immigration and dismissed the suggestion that the American people have a problem trusting her. "People should and do trust me," she told CNN's Brianna Keilar. She blamed the "barrage of attacks that are largely fomented by and coming from the right" for fueling a perception that trust is an area of vulnerability for her. Clinton displayed little hesitation about attacking Republicans herself, saying that she is "very disappointed" in Donald Trump for his comments about immigrants and in the Republican Party for not condemning his remarks more quickly. She then pivoted to skewering the entire GOP field for their immigration stance, saying, "They're on a spectrum of hostility, which I think is really regrettable in a nation of immigrants like ours." The interview foreshadowed the Clinton that will hit the campaign trail in the coming months as election season heats up. She was occasionally defensive, especially when pressed on whether she has any responsibility for the public's mistrust in her. But she had no problem with going on the offense against her Republican challengers. Clinton took direct aim at GOP rival Jeb Bush. "He doesn't believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time, he no longer does," she said. The Bush campaign rebuffed Clinton's criticism and instead accused her of flip-flopping on immigration. "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected and her numerous flip-flops on immigration prove it," said Emily Benavides, a Bush campaign spokeswoman, in a statement. "As he outlined in his book on this issue, Gov. Bush believes in a conservative legislative solution to fix our broken immigration system that includes earned legal status for those currently in the country after they pay fines and taxes, learn English and commit no substantial crimes while securing our border," she said. Clinton also blamed the city of San Francisco for mishandling the case of an undocumented immigrant who had been deported five times before killing a woman there -- in a sanctuary city where local law enforcement do not enforce federal immigration laws. "The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported," she said. "I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on." The full interview aired Tuesday on "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" and will re-air at 8 p.m. on "Anderson Cooper 360." Pressed on why the public has a hard time trusting her, Clinton maintained she faced "the same kind of onslaught" in her two New York Senate campaigns and her confirmation as secretary of state, and said Republicans have sought to turn controversies like her use of a private email address and the Clinton Foundation's actions against her. And that, Clinton said, is why national polls and swing-state surveys have found that a majority of voters say they don't see her as honest and trustworthy. A Quinnipiac University Swing State poll found that by margins of 8 to 14 percentage points voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are skeptical of Clinton's trustworthiness. In Florida, 51% of voters hold the negative view of Clinton, compared to 43% who feel she is trustworthy. In Ohio, 53% of voters find Clinton not trustworthy, compared to 40% who do. And in Pennsylvania, 54% of voters don't find her honest, while 40% do. "I think it's understandable that when questions are raised, people maybe are thinking about them and wondering about them," Clinton said. "But I have every confidence that during the course of this campaign, people are going to know who will fight for them, who will be there when they need them, and that's the kind of person I am and that's what I will do, not only in a campaign but as president," she said. Asked whether she played a role in the sentiment reflected in polls that she's not trustworthy, Clinton said: "This has been a theme that has been used against me and my husband for many, many years. And at the end of the day, I think voters sort it all out." She similarly dismissed questions about her use of a personal email address on a private server while serving as secretary of state. Clinton said she turned over all the emails -- including some which show her using a secured fax machine, or asking for iced tea during meetings -- that had anything to do with public business, and that she broke no laws in sticking with one device because she's not technically savvy. "This is being blown up with no basis in law or in fact. That's fine, I get it -- this is being, in effect, used by the Republicans in the Congress. OK," Clinton said. "But I want people to understand what the truth is, and the truth is, everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what was expected." If elected president, Clinton said she doesn't have any plans to push for the closure of the Clinton Foundation -- which has faced criticism for accepting foreign contributions during her tenure as America's top diplomat -- if she's elected president. "I have no plans to say or do anything about the Clinton foundation other than to say I am proud of it and I think for the good of the world, its work should continue," she said. The interview spanned a broad range of topics -- among them a discussion of adding a woman to the $10 bill. Clinton declined to select a favorite woman for the honor, but suggested a woman should instead go on a $20. "I don't like the idea that as a compromise you would basically have two people on the same bill. One would be a woman. That sounds pretty second class to me," Clinton said. "So I think a woman should have her own bill." Nor would she pick which Saturday Night Live actress, Amy Poehler or Kate McKinnon, plays the best Hillary Clinton. "Amy's a friend of mine and Kate's doing a great job. You're not going to get me to pick one or the other," she said. "I think I'm the best Hillary Clinton." *Top 8 takeaways from Hillary Clinton's first big interview <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/hillary-clinton-cnn-interview/> // CNN // Eric Bradner - July 7, 2015* Iowa City, Iowa - Hillary Clinton was keenly aware of how long she'd gone as a presidential candidate without sitting down for a nationally televised interview. "Ninety days on Sunday," she told CNN's Brianna Keilar on Tuesday in the first of what will be a series of national interviews. As Bernie Sanders rises in the polls among liberals and Republicans continue to make Clinton the subject of a barrage of attacks, her answers offered some insight into the Democratic frontrunner's thinking at this stage of the campaign. Here are eight of Clinton's key statements -- and why they matter for 2016: 1. "This has been a theme that has been used against me and my husband for many, many years." Three decades in the limelight have meant both Bill and Hillary Clinton have weathered intense scrutiny and criticism. Clinton acknowledged that polls show a majority of Americans don't view her as honest and trustworthy -- but true to her long-standing posture declined to take any responsibility for the sentiment. The latest round of public incredulity focuses on her use of a private email address while serving as secretary of state, and her family foundation's acceptance of foreign contributions during that tenure. Clinton sees those as the latest in a long line of unfair attacks from Republicans, rather than legitimate lines of inquiry. And she claims she's not sweating the "trust" problem. "At the end of the day, I think voters sort it all out," Clinton said. 2. "They're on a spectrum of hostility, which I think it's really regrettable in a nation of immigrants like ours." It was a direct assault on the entire Republican presidential field -- and Jeb Bush, in particular. Clinton used a question about Donald Trump's controversial remarks about Mexican immigrants to hammer her GOP opponents, saying that they don't support providing undocumented immigrants with pathways to gaining U.S. citizenship. By painting Bush, Trump and the rest of the Republican field with the same brush, Clinton hopes to hurt the entire party in a general election with Latino voters. "I'm very disappointed in those comments and I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying, 'Enough, stop it,'" Clinton said. Bush -- and other Republicans -- eventually criticized Trump's comments, but only after several days had passed. 3. "The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported." Clinton still senses some danger on the issue of illegal immigration, criticizing San Francisco for failing to deport a man who'd been sent back to Mexico five times before -- and has admitted killing a woman after returning again. The man was released from police custody in April after drug charges were dropped, and he wasn't deported because San Francisco is a "sanctuary city" for undocumented immigrants, despite the Department of Homeland Security weighing in. She's said she supports going further than President Barack Obama has on undocumented immigrants -- but only for those who obey the law. "I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on," she said. 4. "I am happy to have a chance to get out and run my campaign as I see fit and let other candidates do exactly the same." In other words: I'm not going to talk about Bernie Sanders. Recent polls show Sanders climbing closer to Clinton in New Hampshire and Iowa, two key early voting states. But Clinton isn't yet ready to directly engage Sanders, training her fire instead on Republicans. That's in part because her campaign wants to see whether Sanders has staying power, and in part because by attacking him, she risks elevating his already growing stature. 5. "One of the things I learned last time is organize, organize, organize." Clinton is trying to atone for the sins of her 2008 campaign among Iowa Democratic caucus voters by taking the process seriously. It's why she was in Iowa City -- in the heart of eastern Iowa, which went heavily for Barack Obama in the 2008 caucuses. Clinton has shown she's able to learn from her mistakes: Those who followed her 2008 Iowa campaign say they see a looser, more comfortable candidate; and she's ejected many of the most divisive figures from that previous bid. Now, she's touting having signed up a volunteer to work the caucus process for her in all of Iowa's more than 1,600 precincts. "You've got to get people committed, and then they will bring more people through," Clinton said. 6. "I'm not running my campaign for the press. I'm running it for the voters." Throughout her nascent campaign, Clinton has been criticized for rarely taking questions from the press. That criticism was thrust to the forefront again over the Fourth of July holiday when photos of reporters being held back by a moving rope line at a parade were published. Instead, Clinton said she's preferred small group events that have allowed her to reconnect with average Americans after more than six years out of domestic politics. She's also been a tireless fundraiser, attending house party after house party to raise $45 million in the campaign's first three months. Still, Clinton said she's ready to shift gears: The CNN interview, she said, was the first of what will be a number of sit-downs with national outlets. 7. "A secure fax machine, which is harder to work than the regular." A tense exchange about Clinton's use of a personal email address on a private server while at the State Department turned light, when Clinton cracked jokes and once again sought to send the message: Nothing to see here, let's move along. "Now, I didn't have to turn over anything," Clinton said. "I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system." Then, she added: "Now I think it's kind of fun. People get to see a real-time, behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about and what I was communicating about." Keilar highlighted the emails that showed Clinton messaging now-top aide John Podesta about wearing socks to bed, and an exchange depicting an epic struggle by Clinton to operate a fax machine. On the latter, Clinton couldn't help but offer a defense. "Yes, a secure fax machine, which is harder to work than the regular," she said. 8. "I think I'm the best Hillary Clinton." Asked by Keilar which "Saturday Night Live" actress best satirizes her on the NBC program, Clinton demurred, but offered praise for both Amy Poehler, who impersonated her in 2008, and Kate McKinnon, who has done the job so far in this campaign cycle. "Amy's a friend of mine and Kate's doing a great job. You're not going to get me to pick one or the other," she said. "I think I'm the best Hillary Clinton, to be honest." *Hillary Clinton Tweets & Deletes This Photo Of Her Shaking Hands With A White Man With A "White" Tattoo <http://www.bustle.com/articles/95687-hillary-clinton-tweets-deletes-this-photo-of-her-shaking-hands-with-a-white-man-with> // Bustle // Melissah Yang – July 8, 2015* Hillary Clinton is making the rounds in every corner of the good ol’ U.S. of A., and one of her most recent stops was at Lebanon, New Hampshire, where she encountered all sorts of characters during her campaign trip. One unidentified fellow stirred up some deep rumblings online after her official Twitter account on Tuesday tweeted and then deleted a photo of Clinton shaking hands with a white man whose forearm sported a very visible “white” tattoo. Now, we don’t necessarily know what the “white” tattoo actually stands for, but I mean, I’m pretty sure the guy’s tat doesn’t have to do with his undying love for Breaking Bad’s Walter White. The now deleted photo was captioned with, “I think we are a nation that really believes in a helping hand, in the generosity of connecting with friends, neighbors, and strangers to give them chance they might not otherwise have.” The Hillary quote came from a speech Clinton gave at Dartmouth College over the Fourth of July weekend, during which the presidential candidate detailed her mother’s struggles growing up. But let’s not take the photo at face value. Clinton was shaking lots of hands that day, and this unfortunately became the snapshot her campaign chose to represent the “every American” candidate meeting with normal folks outside a Dairy Twirl. According to BuzzFeed, the Clinton camp said the tweet and photo were “removed out of caution after people pointed out the tattoo.” OK, so let’s acknowledge that Clinton’s Twitter isn’t solo-managed by her. She obviously has a team of people running the Twitter machine on her behalf. But that’s what makes the mistake that much more ridiculous. You can bet someone got fired for this. Or at least, a fierce tongue lashing. Once again hawk-eyed Twittizens, thank you for capturing and saving every “oops” moment coming out of this election circuit circus. How Hillary Clinton’s campaign fakes grassroots love // NY Post // Philip Rucker - July 8, 2015 One day in May, operatives from a Washington-based super PAC gathered New Hampshire mayors, state representatives and local politicos at St. Anselm College for a day of training. They rehearsed their personal tales of how they met Hillary Rodham Clinton and why they support her for president. They sharpened their defenses of her record as secretary of state. They scripted their arguments for why the Democratic front-runner has been “a lifetime champion of income opportunity.” And they polished their on-camera presentations in a series of mock interviews. The objective of the sessions: To nurture a seemingly grass-roots echo chamber of Clinton supporters reading from the same script in communities across New Hampshire, a critical state that hosts the nation’s first presidential primary. The super PAC, called Correct the Record, convened similar talking-point tutorials and media-training classes in May and June in three other early voting states — Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada — as well as sessions earlier this spring in California. Presidential campaigns have for decades fed talking points to surrogates who appear on national TV or introduce candidates on the stump. But the effort to script and train local supporters is unusually ambitious and illustrates the extent to which the Clinton campaign and its web of sanctioned, allied super PACs are leaving nothing to chance. When, say, a Londonderry Times reporter calls a Rockingham County Democratic Committee member for comment on Clinton, he or she will parrot Correct the Record’s talking points about Clinton having been a fighter for the middle class — from improving rural health care as first lady of Arkansas to raising the minimum wage as a New York senator. “We are holding sessions with top communicators across the country where we talk about the best ways to discuss Secretary Clinton’s strong record of accomplishments, how to articulate Secretary Clinton’s positions most effectively and how to correct Republican operatives’ distortions of the facts,” said Adrienne Watson, communications director at Correct the Record. Correct the Record — one of several super PACs run by Clinton ally David Brock — coordinates some of its activities with Clinton’s campaign, but officials said the campaign played no role in the training sessions. Clinton’s campaign has its own surrogate operation that distributes talking points to supporters to ensure their messages in local and national media are consistent. The super PAC’s on-camera media training was conducted by the Franklin Forum and led by the group’s president, John Neffinger, a Democratic strategist who specializes in coaching people for television interviews. Correct the Record held a series of similar media sessions in the spring of 2014 to prepare Clinton backers for interviews surrounding her national book tour for “Hard Choices,” the memoir from her State Department years. To supporters like Eleni Kounalakis, who served as ambassador to Hungary in Clinton’s State Department, the program is welcome news. In March, she participated with about 20 other supporters in a Correct the Record session in San Francisco and said it helped her and other Clinton fans refine the case they make for Clinton’s candidacy in public. “Many people who are very vocal in supporting Secretary Clinton are very comfortable talking about why among their friends and in small groups — but when it comes to talking to the media, that can be very intimidating,” Kounalakis said. “Some people feel like, I know Hillary has been there for the working person in her life, in her career, but I want someone to help me prepare those arguments so that I have that confidence to speak in a broader context.” Nick Sottile, 21, president of the College Democrats of South Carolina, said he felt “lucky” to attend a May 7 Correct the Record session in Columbia, SC. “It got right to the heart of things — how to cut through the noise and talk about Secretary Clinton’s record,” Sottile said. “And not just what to say, but how to talk about her as a young person in South Carolina. It was good training in how to be an effective talker.” *Hillary Clinton Thinks Email Scandal Is Annoying, Says Everything She Did Was Legal, So Back Off <http://www.bustle.com/articles/95454-hillary-clinton-thinks-email-scandal-is-annoying-says-everything-she-did-was-legal-so-back-off> // Bustle // Chris Tognotti – July 7, 2015 * Tuesday was a huge day for Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, owing to the occasion of her first major press interview — she sat down to speak with CNN’s Briana Keilar, and the pair covered a number of topics. Including one area of conversation that’s been dogging her for months now, one which she hasn’t offered much comment on since a press conference in March — that’s right, I’m talking about that private email controversy. Hillary Clinton talked about the emails in her CNN interview, and her response was that everything was legal and proper. While the email story had somewhat faded from the headlines since March, it was stirred up again last week when the State Department released a selection of 3,000 messages sent from her private email account — that she had a private account at all has raised criticism, thanks to the ever-present threat of hacking and cyber-warfare in this day and age. It probably shouldn’t come as much surprise that Clinton didn’t dive into the issue with so much scrutiny as to reinflame any criticism — from her perch as the frontrunner in the Democratic field, outpacing the still-distant second-place challenger Bernie Sanders of Vermont, it could be a conscious political strategy to not dive into certain sensitive topics when she can avoid it. But to Keilar’s credit, the issue was raised in the high-profile interview, giving us all a chance to see how Clinton responded in an on-the-record setting. As Keilar asked her to explain her mindset in deleting tens of thousands of emails from her private server after her tenure as Secretary of State, Clinton made her disdain for the issue obvious. Everything i did was permitted. There was no law, there was no regulation, there was nothing that did not give me full authority to decide how to communicate. Previous Secretaries of State have said they did the same thing, and people across the government knew that I used one device. Maybe it was because I’m not the most technically capable person, and wanted to make it as simple as possible. Keilar didn’t let the issue lie, however — she pressed further, invoking a subpoena over Clinton’s emails, something the former Secretary disputed immediately. You’re starting with so many assumptions, I’ve never had a subpoena. Let’s take a deep breath here. Everything i did was permitted by law and regulation. … I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me, because i knew everything that was official was already in the state department system. Obviously, this was but one small, isolated part of a far rangier interview, and to be fair to Clinton, the email criticism has always been less about her qualifications and viability as a candidate and a potential president than her transparency. But considering how the full scope of the interview, transparency issues seem like they could get pretty crucial for her. Keilar also questioned Clinton about her flagging trustworthiness ratings, asking whether she bore any responsibility for the situation, and Clinton didn’t cede much ground — she instead blamed Republican narratives and attacks. Clinton has drawn some fire over the last week for her campaign’s treatment of the press, and while it’s still too early to say whether the more controlled, reserved approach will help or hurt her, this much seems clear: she’s trying not to extend herself unnecessarily, unless a real threat were to emerge from the Democratic field. The more you have to duke it out in the primaries, laying out concrete policy positions (Sanders will surely challenge Clinton from the left), the harder it can be to recalibrate your image for a general election’s national audience. And all candidates do attempt that kind of recalibration, even if they never say it. That was essentially what Romney campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom meant with his infamous “etch-a-sketch” remark in 2012, which brought a lot of derision and criticism on the campaign. This could potentially be a risky strategy, sure, although there aren’t any Senator Barack Obamas out there anymore. Whatever you think of Bernie Sanders, who’s well-loved by many in the party’s left-wing, he’s not quite the charismatic rhetorical force that Obama was in 2008. But obviously, Clinton has to submit to questions from the press every now and then, and Keilar was first-up to secure that opportunity. Clinton’s explanation on the email controversy will surely not be enough for her critics, and maybe even some of her supporters, but it remains to be seen whether this is something that voters will truly care about when the early primaries roll around. *Hillary Clinton on Bernie Sanders: It’s going to be ‘competitive’ <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-its-going-be-competitive> // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that she was not surprised by Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders’ recent surge in polls, adding that running for president should not easy. “This is going to be competitive. It should be competitive,” she told reporters in Iowa ahead of the first national television interview of her second presidential campaign. “The more the better.” Sanders, a senator from Vermont, has been attracting large crowds as he travels to early voting states and liberal cities across the country. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has so far declined to engage directly with her challenger, saying she’ll leave it up to the voters. Clinton spoke at the Iowa City Public Library in Iowa City, a Democratic stronghold that she hopes to win in the state’s critical caucuses in February 2016. She also took questions from the audience after facing criticism in recent days for limiting public and press access to her. After facing criticism for keeping reporters behind a rope line during a July 4 parade, Clinton cracked a joke about the incident. “Is that the equivalent of a rope we have up there? I think it should come down. I don’t want anybody to stress,” she said, instructing an aide to take down the barrier between her and the press. Getting a bit reflective, Clinton called the 2016 campaign “my last rodeo” and vowed to work to build the Democratic Party in Washington and across the country to outlive her time in public office. Clinton marveled when she realized that, if her presidential run were successful and she won re-election, she would not retire until 2025. “Golly,” she said as she worked the math out in her head. Clinton seemed to acknowledge that Democrats lack a deep pool of national talent, a fact some have blamed on her freezing out competition in the Democratic primary. “I believe that we can leave the country in good shape for the future and we can get a deep bench,” she said. And she vowed to whip Democrats into shape for midterm elections, which tend to favor the GOP thanks to higher Republican voter turnout. “They know the importance of midterm elections because they show up, and we don’t,” she said of Democrats. During her remarks, Clinton took the opportunity to discuss immigration reform, an issue that she has so far discussed mainly in front of Latino audiences. “I’m going to make this a big issue in the campaign. I’m going to talk about it like I talked about it here, and I’ll talk about it everywhere, because I want people who vote for me to know they’re voting for comprehensive immigration reform,” she said. Many of Clinton’s Republican opponents, she continued, are trying to “demean immigrants, insult immigrants, cast aspersion on immigrants.” And their plans for immigration reform would relegate migrants to “second-class status,” Clinton added. Clinton also weighed in on the debt crisis in Greece, calling the issue “a tragedy.” Clinton said she hoped for a resolution that “keeps Greece in the eurozone and keeps Europe united.” She declined to take a stance on the marathon negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, however, saying it would be inappropriate to comment while the talks continue. She reiterated that any deal “needs to be full transparency, disclosure and verifiable inspections going forward.” Clinton also warned that the fight over Obamacare is not over, despite the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding a key pillar of the law. “If a Republican is elected president, that will be the end of the Affordable Care Act,” she said. *Grassley Probing Clinton Aide’s Dual Role at State, Clinton Foundation <http://freebeacon.com/issues/grassley-probing-clinton-aides-dual-role-at-state-clinton-foundation/> // Free Beacon // Alana Goodman – July 7, 2015 * Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) called on the State Department to turn over documents related to Hillary Clinton’s top aide Cheryl Mills’ special employment status at the agency in a letter to Secretary John Kerry on Monday. Grassley also demanded to know why the State Department omitted Mills from a list of “special government employees,” or “SGEs,” for 2009 that it turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. The State Department told the Washington Free Beacon last month that Mills was an “SGE” in 2009, which freed her from some ethics rules restrictions and allowed her to hold outside employment and serve on the Clinton Foundation board. Grassley said this disclosure “directly contradicts the information that the State Department provided to this Committee.” Grassley’s letter was prompted by a Free Beacon article last month that reported long-time Clinton aide Cheryl Mills had simultaneously worked as State Department chief of staff and as New York University’s general counsel from January to May 2009. Mills also continued to serve on the board of the Clinton Foundation for over a month after joining the State Department. During this time she was involved in discussions about vetting Bill Clinton’s paid speeches for potential conflicts of interest, according to internal agency emails. Grassley said in the letter that Mills’ “simultaneous relationship with the State Department, Clinton Foundation and her actions on behalf of President Clinton’s paid speaking engagements raise important questions.” He also noted that “federal law prohibits SGEs and full time employees from participating personally and substantially in matters that have a direct and predictable effect on their financial interests or financial interests of others with whom they have certain relationships.” Grassley called on Kerry to explain why Mills’ special employment status was not disclosed to the committee, whether any steps were taken to prevent ethics law violations, and whether she was recused from any matters while working as an SGE. The senator also asked why she was designated as an SGE, whether it had an impact on her security clearance, and whether she disclosed her relationship with the Clinton Foundation to the State Department. He called on Kerry to respond by July 20. Grassley has also made inquiries into Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s prior SGE status at the State Department. *Dem Millenials In Iowa Not Ready To Fully Support Clinton <http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/07/07/dem-millenials-in-iowa-not-ready-to-fully-support-clinton/> // CBS – July 7, 2015 * Democratic millenials in Iowa aren’t ready to fully throw their support behind Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. CBS News spoke to several young Democrats for their take on the former secretary of state. “I talk to some of my friends and they’re already on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and they’re going to do whatever it takes to make sure she’s elected and then I have some other friends who maybe aren’t quite as excited or maybe really just want to hear more about what people have to say about the issues before they make their decision,” Nathan Erickson told CBS News. “I think that Democrats and the American public as a whole would benefit from a good, strong primary on both sides and then a good general election.” Erickson added that he’s interested in hearing more from two other candidates: former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. Ryan Crane, who caucused for John Edwards in 2008, says he’s kicking the tires on all the Democratic candidates. “Hillary Clinton of course has a certain air of inevitability… but you know she didn’t do great in Iowa, as we all remember in 2008, so it is beneficial to keep an open mind and look at all the candidates,” Crane explained to CBS News. Democratic political consultant Sam Roecker tells CBS News that Clinton needs to spend time in the state to win Iowans over. “There’s a lot of support for Hillary in Iowa but Iowans do take the caucuses very seriously; they know that this isn’t a coronation of any candidate, they know that they will take the time to meet with these candidates, go to events with them, listen to what they have to say, listen to their vision for the country, and then make a decision. This isn’t something where they have their minds set from the start,” he said. Clinton plans to give CNN her first one-on-one national television interview since launching her 2016 presidential campaign. The network said on Monday the Clinton interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar will air Tuesday at 5 p.m. and again at 8 p.m. EDT. CNN said Clinton will be interviewed during a campaign stop in Iowa City, Iowa. The Democratic presidential front-runner has conducted local interviews in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada but has yet to sit for a one-on-one interview with national media.Clinton has emphasized smaller events and house parties since launching her campaign. Clinton has a solid lead in polls but Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her main Democratic challenger, has recently drawn large crowds. *Hillary Clinton Deletes Photo Of Herself And Man With “White” Tattoo <http://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/hillary-clinton-deletes-photo-of-her-and-man-with-white-tatt?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#.qtdpmw75R> // Buzzfeed // Claudia Koerner – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton’s campaign removed a photo Tuesday showing Clinton shaking hands with a man with a tattoo that said “white” on his arm. The tweet was removed from Clinton’s account, but not before it had been retweeted by others. The photo was taken outside Dairy Twirl in Lebanon, New Hampshire, where Clinton stopped on July 3. The town is in New Hampshire’s White Mountains region, where Clinton spent the Independence Day weekend walking in a parade and speaking with voters. Clinton shook many hands over the weekend. The identity of the man — or the significance of his tattoo — was not immediately clear. According to Clinton’s campaign, she was meeting people along the street when the man came up to her and asked to shake her hand. The tweet and photo were removed out of caution after people pointed out the tattoo, the campaign said. *Hillary Clinton's guide to throwing a house party <http://politicalpartytime.org/blog/2015/07/07/hillary-clintons-guide-to-throwing-a-house-party/> // Political Party Time // Nicko Margolies – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton may be raising more than half a million dollars a day, but in a guide written by her campaign intended for grassroots event hosts the emphasis is on the collection of data about attendees. The document, obtained by the Sunlight Foundation's Political Party Time and embedded below, tells hosts that sharing the sign-up data of the guests is "the single most important thing you can do for the campaign and for Hillary." The "House Party Host Guide" runs through the logistical process, legal hurdles and effective tactics for an event to transform potential voters into active campaign participants and donors. There is extensive sample language for every correspondence and design templates, like the invitation seen above to the right, to ensure grassroots communications match the tone of the general campaign. The campaign encourages hosts in the guide to "Enter your information in at www.hilllaryclinton.com/data." That link goes to a form to enter attendees and offers an alternative if that is too burdensome: "Remember, if you don't want to enter folks 1 by 1, you can email your guest list to [email protected]." While the guide does tell hosts, "If it makes sense for your party, feel free to ask for donations," the downplay of money is markedly different than the dozens of large donor fundraising invitations collected by Political Party Time. An invitation to a series of "Conversations with Hillary" events in early June includes the dollar amount to attend (up to $2,700) and an event on July 2 requires a donation and RSVP to get the address. Read the entire guide below, and help us follow the 2016 money by anonymously uploading any invitation you receive here. *Hillary Clinton: hacking problem not limited to China <http://www.businessinsider.com/r-hillary-clinton-hacking-problem-not-limited-to-china-2015-7> // Reuters – July 7, 2015 * Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton on Tuesday said hacking is a broad threat to U.S. security and business that often comes from other countries such as China and Iran, and the federal government has not done enough to protect U.S. information. "It's not only the Chinese. We know that other governments - Russia, North Korea, Iran - have either directly or indirectly sponsored hacking," said the former Secretary of State during a campaign stop in Iowa, a key state in deciding Democrats' nominee for the 2016 presidential election. "And we worry about terrorist organizations getting access to the capacity." *Hillary Clinton: Cyber Legislation in Congress Is 'Not Enough' to Stop Foreign Hackers <http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/hillary-clinton-cyber-legislation-in-congress-is-not-enough-to-stop-foreign-hackers-20150707> // National Journal // Dustin Volz – July 7, 2015 * Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday said that stalled cybersecurity legislation in Congress "doesn't go far enough" to protect the U.S. from debilitating hacks sponsored by a cadre of foreign countries. During a brief question-and-answer session with the press in Iowa, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination expanded to four the list of countries she has publicly charged with waging cyberwarfare that represents a serious commercial and national security threat "It's not only the Chinese. We know that other governments—Russia, North Korea, Iran—have either directly or indirectly sponsored hacking," the former secretary of State said. "And we worry about terrorist organizations getting access to the capacity." Clinton—who grabbed headlines over the weekend by assailing China for "trying to hack into everything that doesn't move"—added that legislation to expand the sharing of "cyberthreat data" alone between the government and private sector is not enough to thwart malicious activity. "We've been trying to get a good plan going forward; we're making a little bit of progress on that in the Congress. It is, for me, not enough," Clinton said. "It doesn't go far enough to try to have better coordination between the public and private sector." Clinton listed "cumbersome procurement and bureaucratic obstacles within the federal government" as other obstacles inhibiting cybersecurity, referencing the rocky roll-out of HealthCare.gov in 2013 as evidence that government is in need of a technological overhaul that includes a more streamlined process for working with IT contractors. Clinton did not clarify which specific info-sharing legislation she was referring to, however—or whether it alone would be a useful step forward. Two similar info-sharing bills easily passed the House earlier this year, and a Senate version, known as the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, has stalled after clearing the Senate Intelligence Committee on a 14-1 vote. A plan by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to attach CISA as an amendment to a defensive authorization bill backfired last month because Democrats refused to support it due to procedural concerns. Privacy advocates and many computer experts have warned that expanding information-sharing would not do much to prevent or minimize cyberattacks, and that such legislation could actually embolden government surveillance by handing more data over to the National Security Agency. Government officials have privately pointed to China as the culprit behind a massive data breach of personnel files at the Office of Personnel Management, a hack that has affected millions of current and former federal employees. Some lawmakers have also said China is to blame, although the Obama administration continues to resist accusing Beijing publicly. Clinton's comments are her most detailed about cybersecurity since officially declaring her White House bid nearly three months ago. She said Tuesday that her concerns about foreign nations hacking the U.S. date back to her tenure as secretary of State. "It started with the grave concerns that a lot of American businesses had, that their most confidential information was being vacuumed up through intrusive hacking," Clinton said. "It's a serious threat to our commercial interests, to our intelligence interests, to our strategic interests." *Hillary Clinton calls for bankruptcy law change so Puerto Rico can tackle debt <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/07/hillary-clinton-puerto-rico-bankruptcy-law-change-debt> // Reuters – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton has joined calls for changes in US bankruptcy laws that would enable Puerto Rico’s public entities to restructure some $72bn in debt. Puerto Rico's 'unpayable' debt: is this the Greece of the western hemisphere? In Washington, two Democratic senators hope to move forward within weeks with legislation in Congress that would allow the US territory to restructure debts in bankruptcy court, instead of risking chaos. Governor Alejandro García Padilla of Puerto Rico dropped a bombshell on debt holders a week ago by saying he wanted to restructure debt and postpone bond payments. He urged changes to US bankruptcy laws that currently exclude Puerto Rico. Like US states, Puerto Rico cannot file for bankruptcy protection. But Puerto Rico’s public entities do not have the ability of US municipalities to enlist Chapter 9 of the US bankruptcy code to restructure their debt. “As a first step, Congress should provide Puerto Rico the same authority that states already have to enable severely distressed government entities, including municipalities and public corporations, to restructure their debts under Chapter 9,” Clinton said in a statement given to Reuters. Puerto Rico has been in a recession for nearly a decade and has an unemployment rate of more than 12% while some 40% of the population lives below the US poverty line, according to government data. Clinton, a former secretary of state, US senator and first lady, is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in the November 2016 presidential election. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, both Clinton rivals for the Democratic nomination, have also endorsed easing the bankruptcy laws also for Puerto Rico. Analysis Colony, state or independence: Puerto Rico's status anxiety adds to debt crisis The island’s classification as a US territory complicates something as simple as bankruptcy filings, prompting many to wonder if statehood is the best option Residents of Puerto Rico are not entitled to electoral votes for president, but Puerto Ricans make up the second-largest Hispanic origin group in the United States after Mexicans. A bill proposed by Puerto Rico’s non-voting representative in Congress to allow access to Chapter 9 bankruptcy laws stalled in the Republican-run House of Representatives after a hearing in February. Now Democratic senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Chuck Schumer of New York are readying a similar bill. “It’s much broader than just Puerto Rico’s problem because the bondholders and creditors are on the American mainland and perhaps even throughout the world,” Blumenthal told Reuters in an interview. “A lot of Americans hold these bonds … they are entitled to an orderly and rational process so that they receive the most possible payment as quickly as possible,” he said. A significant number of American mom and pop investors have exposure to Puerto Rico. About 52% of muni open-ended funds are invested in Puerto Rico bonds according to data from Morningstar. The White House said last week that it did not contemplate a federal bailout but that Congress should examine whether Puerto Rico’s government-owned corporations should be able to access Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection. Blumenthal and Schumer are searching for Republican co-sponsors in the Senate, which like the House has a Republican majority. But some key Republicans seem unimpressed. “Bankruptcy alone isn’t going to solve all of the financial problems Puerto Rico has gotten itself into,” said Beth Levine, a spokeswoman for the Senate judiciary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican. Some creditors are opposed to Chapter 9, fearful that it will weaken their negotiating position and reduce their chances of recovering their money. Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said in April that he thinks Puerto Rico’s public agencies should have the ability to use US bankruptcy laws. Clinton said “inconsistent and incoherent” application of US federal law had contributed to Puerto Rico’s economic situation, and its economy had shrunk in eight of the last nine years. “One troubling example of this treatment is the lack of equity in federal funding for Puerto Rico under Medicaid and Medicare,” Clinton said of the US government healthcare programs. *Clinton Blames 'The Right' For Trust Attacks <http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/07/420963695/clinton-blames-the-right-for-trust-attacks> // NPR // Jessica Taylor – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton worked to paint herself as honest and trustworthy in her first national television interview of the 2016 campaign, blaming Republicans for damaging questions about her time at the State Department and her family's charitable foundation. "This has been a theme that has been used against me and my husband for many, many years," the Democratic presidential hopeful told CNN's Brianna Keilar in Iowa, noting that she's been "subjected to the kind of constant barrage of attacks that are largely fomented by and coming from the right." She added, "[A]t the end of the day, I think voters sort it all out. I have great confidence. I trust the American voter. So I trust the American voter 100 percent, because I think the American voter will weigh these kinds of accusations." Clinton's honest and trustworthy ratings have taken a hit in recent months. In the most recent CNN poll, nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they didn't believe she was honest and trustworthy. Democrats still maintain a positive view of her, but Republicans believe it will weaken her in a general election. Some of that skepticism has been fueled by her use of a private email server while at the State Department. Clinton defended that decision, saying she has been transparent in calling for over thousands of emails to be released, the first of which came out last week. "Let's take a deep breath here," Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, said in the interview. "Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system. Now, I didn't have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages, because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system." That echoed much of what Clinton said earlier this year before she got into the presidential campaign. "This is being blown up with no basis in law or in fact," Clinton continued. "That's fine. I get it. This is being, in effect, used by the Republicans in the Congress." Clinton also defended the Clinton foundation, which has faced questions about foreign donations accepted while she was secretary of state. Clinton said the work of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and daughter, Chelsea, should keep going if she wins the presidency. "I have no plans to say or do anything about the Clinton foundation," she said, "other than to say how proud I am of it and that I think for the good of the world, its work should continue." Of her chief rival, Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton downplayed concern about his rising position in the polls and the record crowds he's been drawing. On Monday, her communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, acknowledged that the campaign was somewhat "worried" about Sanders. "First of all, I always thought this would be a competitive race," Clinton said. "So I am happy to have a chance to get out and run my campaign as I see fit and let other candidates do exactly the same." For those who see shades of her 2008 collapse, Clinton said she's learned a thing or two from that campaign. "I feel very good about where we are in Iowa," she said of the state where she placed a disappointing third in 2008. "And one of the things that I learned last time is, it's, 'Organize, organize, organize.' And you've got to get people committed. And then they will follow through and then you bring more people." Clinton also declined to answer whether her economic plan would raise taxes, like Sanders has proposed. "I'm going to put out my policies, and I'll let other people speak to their policies," she said, "because I think we have to both grow the economy faster and fairer so we have to do what will actually work in the short term, the medium term and the long term. I will be making a speech about my economic proposals on Monday. And then I look forward to the debate about them." Of her potential Republican rivals — and the possibility of another Bush versus Clinton contest — Clinton demurred, emphasizing that the field is wide open. "Well, we'll see," she said when asked about running against former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. "That's up to, first, the Republicans on his side, the Democrats on my side. What's great about America is anybody can run for president. That is literally true. And you have to go out and you have to do what everybody else does. You have to make your case. You have to have your agenda. You have to raise the money. You have to work really hard." She did take a swipe at Bush over immigration, even though he has been hit within the GOP over his openness to reform. "Well, he doesn't believe in a path to citizenship," Clinton noted. "If he did at one time, he no longer does. And so pretty much they're — as I said, they're on a spectrum of, you know, hostility, which I think is really regrettable in a nation of immigrants like ours, all the way to kind of grudging acceptance but refusal to go with a pathway to citizenship." And of businessman Donald Trump — who has gotten considerable blowback for his derogatory comments about Mexicans — Clinton criticized her onetime donor. "I'm very disappointed in those comments," Clinton said, "and I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying, 'Enough. Stop it.' " She continued, trying to paint the GOP with a broad brush against immigrants. "They are all in the same general area on immigration," Clinton charged. "They don't want to provide a path to citizenship. They range across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile toward immigrants. And I'm going to talk about comprehensive immigration reform. I'm going to talk about all of the good, law-abiding, productive members of the immigrant community that I personally know, that I've met over the course of my life, that I would like to see have a path to citizenship." Of her own dust-up with the press this weekend after her campaign roped off reporters trying to cover her in a July 4 parade, Clinton defended the decision. "I just have a different rhythm to my campaign," Clinton said. "I'm not running my campaign for the press. I'm running it for voters. I totally respect the press and what the press has to do. But I wanted — and was determined — to have the time that I needed to actually meet and listen to people." *Hillary Blames GOP for Negative Press, Insists People ‘Can and Do’ Trust Her <http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/07/hillary-blames-gop-insists-people-trust-her.html> // NY Mag // Margaret Hartmann – July 7, 2015 * Since launching her campaign in April, Hillary Clinton has mostly ignored the national press, and her campaign's decision to keep reporters in a rope pen last weekend did not improve their historically dicey relationship. On Tuesday night she tried to smooth things over in her first televised interview as a 2016 candidate. As New York's Annie Lowrey explained when Emailgate first broke, the controversy is likely the result of Clinton trying to avoid bad press: "You loathe the idea of your personal correspondence getting out to a press you consider pathological, so you jury-rig a private email account and end up in the midst of a massive media cluster anyway." But in her interview with CNN's Brianna Keilar, Clinton tried to shift the blame from the media (and herself), pointing instead to her old foe "the vast right-wing conspiracy." When asked to clarify why she decided to conduct State Department business using her private emails, and delete the emails her staff deemed personal, Clinton said she actually "went above and beyond what anybody could have expected" by turning over more than 55,000 pages to the State Department. "Everything I did was permitted, there was no law, there was no regulation, there was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate," Clinton said. She also alluded to her previous claim that she only wanted to carry one device, saying, "Maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as simple as possible." Clinton also defended her family's charity, while claiming she played "only a small role" during the "year and a half" she was there (though the name was changed to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation). "It produced results," Clinton said. "I have no plans to say or do anything about the Clinton foundation other than to say how proud I am of it. I think for the good of the world its work should continue." It's true, as Clinton noted, that congressional Republicans are running with the scandal accusations, but she painted questions about her trustworthiness as a total fabrication by the right. "I think when you are subjected to the kind of constant barrage of attacks that are largely fomented by and coming from the right … I think it's understandable that when questions are raised, people maybe are thinking about them and wondering about them," Clinton said. "This has been a theme that has been used against me and my husband for many, many years." Throughout the interview she was careful to point out that while questions about her credibility are "unfounded," she knows journalists are just doing their job. Recent polls have shown that a majority of Americans do not consider Clinton trustworthy, but when pressed on the issue she said, "Well, people should and do trust me and I have every confidence that that will be the outcome of this election." Clinton dodged on a question about Senator Bernie Sanders' rising popularity among Democrats. "First of all, I always thought this would be a competitive race," Clinton said. "So I am happy to have a chance to get out and run my campaign as I see fit and let other candidates do exactly the same." However, she was willing to call out some of her potential GOP rivals. She said she was "very disappointed" by Donald Trump's remarks on Mexican immigrants, adding, "I feel very bad and very disappointed with him — and with the Republican party for not responding immediately and saying, 'Enough, stop it.'" Then she pivoted to attacking the entire GOP field on immigration reform, saying, "They're on a spectrum of hostility, which I think is really regrettable in a nation of immigrants like ours." When asked about Jeb Bush specifically, she said, "He doesn't believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time, he no longer does." "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected and her numerous flip-flops on immigration prove it," Bush campaign spokeswoman Emily Benavides responded. "As he outlined in his book on this issue, Gov. Bush believes in a conservative legislative solution to fix our broken immigration system that includes earned legal status for those currently in the country after they pay fines and taxes, learn English and commit no substantial crimes while securing our border." But as the Miami Herald explains, "citizenship" and "earned legal status" are not the same thing: Bush has favored citizenship in the past. But in his book Immigration Wars, and recently on the campaign trail, he has instead backed legal status without citizenship, suggesting that might be a more achievable goal given contentious immigration politics. So Clinton was actually correct, despite what the Bush camp says. Obviously, the GOP isn't solely responsible for persistent questions about the Clintons' ethics, but Hillary does have a point. *Hillary Clinton blames trust issues on GOP <http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/07/hillary_clinton_blames_trust_issues_on_gop> // Boston Herald // Hillary Chabot – July 8, 2015 * Hillary Clinton blamed Republicans last night for the trustworthiness problem plaguing her, blasting the GOP’s “constant barrage of attacks” for negative poll numbers and sidestepping questions about underdog U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ growing popularity. “This has been a theme that has been used against me and my husband for many, many years,” Clinton said on CNN during her first national interview, adding that the attacks are “largely fomented and coming from the right.” Clinton, who was asked about polling showing Americans question her honesty, said she followed the rules when it came to using a private Internet server at her home during her time as secretary of state. “Everything I did was permitted,” she said, pointing again to the fact that she handed over 55,000 pages of emails. Clinton wiped her server clean, however, and even Democrats have voiced concern about the lax cyber security. “This is being blown up with no basis in law or in fact,” she said, adding, “people should and do trust me.” The veteran pol also brushed aside the surprise success of Democratic rival Sanders, who has been attracting huge crowds while fellow Democrats have attacked Clinton’s “excitement problem.” “I always thought this would be a competitive race,” was all Clinton would say about Sanders’ unexpected popularity. She ducked questions about whether she would raise taxes, saying she plans to release an economic plan on Monday. Clinton did pounce on recent comments from GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump that illegal immigrants from Mexico are “rapists.” “I’m very disappointed in those comments and I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying, ‘Enough, stop it,’ ” she said, adding that Republican candidates Jeb Bush and others are “in the same general area on immigration.” Bush immediately struck back. “Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected and her numerous flip-flops on immigration prove it,” said Bush spokeswoman Emily Benavides. Clinton also brushed off recent concerns that she has kept the media — and the public — at arm’s length. Her comments come after she kept reporters trying to cover her in New Hampshire in a roped-off pen. “I’m not running my campaign for the press. I’m running it for the voters,” she said. “I spent the first 90 days getting my feel for what was going on in the country … obviously I’ll be doing a lot more press.” *'People should and do trust me,' says Hillary Clinton <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/247144-clinton-people-should-and-do-trust-me> // The Hill // Nial Stanage & Jonathan Easley – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton slammed the GOP field on immigration, defended her use of a private email server while secretary of State and pushed back at suggestions she is distrusted by large portions of the public in her inaugural national TV interview as a 2016 presidential candidate. Clinton moved back and forth from offense to defense during the approximately 20-minute interview, saving her strongest comments for GOP candidate Donald Trump, whose assertions that illegal immigrants from Mexico were “rapists” bringing drugs and crime to the U.S. have created a political firestorm. “I’m very disappointed in those comments, and I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying, ‘Enough, stop it,’ ” the Democratic front-runner told CNN’s Brianna Keilar, who scored the interview. Clinton also criticized former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s approach to immigration, linking him and the rest of the GOP field to Trump. “Well, he doesn’t believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time, he no longer does. And so pretty much they’re … on a spectrum of, you know, hostility … all the way to kind of grudging acceptance but refusal to go with a pathway to citizenship.” The remarks were clearly a play for the support of Hispanic voters, with whom the Democratic Party has enjoyed a considerable advantage in recent presidential elections. The most tense moments of the interview — and Clinton’s most defensive tone — came when Keilar asked her about her use of a private email server during her time at the State Department. Clinton insisted that that “everything I did was permitted” and that “I didn’t have to turn over anything.” Under further challenge from Keilar, Clinton shot back: “You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions. … Again, let’s take a deep breath here. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.” On the broader issue of her trustworthiness, Clinton sought to dismiss recent polls that show a large number of voters saying she’s dishonest. She blamed the “constant barrage of attacks,” which she said had “largely been fomented by, and coming from, the right,” for dragging her numbers down. “I have every confidence that during the course of this campaign, people will know who will fight for them when they need them, and that’s the person who I am and what I will do if I am president,” she said. At another point she insisted starkly: “People should and do trust me.” Clinton repeatedly alluded to “unfounded” attacks against her, but didn’t specify which attacks she believed were unfair. She did appear to allude at one point to the book Clinton Cash, which alleges her family’s foundation took millions of dollars from foreign entities that could have benefited from decisions she made at the State Department. “People write books filled with these kinds of unsubstantiated attacks and even admit they have no evidence, but of course it’s your job to cover it so of course it’s going to raise questions in people’s minds,” Clinton said to Keilar. “But during the course of this campaign, just as in my two prior campaigns, I have a lot of confidence that the American people can sort it all out.” Clinton fiercely defended the Clinton Foundation but sought to diminish the time she spent there, saying she played a “very small role” over the course of about “a year and a half.” “It produced results,” Clinton said. “I have no plans to say or do anything about the Clinton Foundation other than to say how proud I am of it and that I think for the good of the world its work should continue.” Clinton took a question about the rise of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) in stride, saying she “always thought this would be a competitive race.” Sanders, her closest rival for the Democratic nomination, has been attracting huge crowds to his events and eroding Clinton’s massive leads in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. On Monday, Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri called Sanders “a serious force” that her team is worried about. But on Tuesday, Clinton touted the strength of her organization in Iowa, where she continues to lead Sanders by more than 20 points, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls. “I feel very good about where we are in Iowa. We are signing up thousands of volunteers, people committed to caucus for us. We have a committed supporter in every one of the 1,600 precincts, and one of things that I learned last time is … organize, organize, organize,” Clinton said. “You’ve got to get people committed and then you bring more people. So I feel very good about where my campaign is.” Clinton’s 2008 bid for the presidency went into a tailspin from which it never really recovered after she finished third in the Iowa caucuses behind then-rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards. *Clinton voices support for deported Iowa immigrant <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/07/07/hillary-clinton-iowa-immigrant-max-villatoro/29830169/> // The Des Moines Register // Tony Leys – July 7, 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday took up the cause of an Iowa City immigrant who was deported over a 16-year-old misdemeanor conviction. During a campaign stop here, Clinton referred to the controversial case of Max Villatoro, a Mennonite pastor-in-training who was arrested at his home on March 3 and wound up being deported to his native Honduras. The case has gained widespread attention from immigration-reform advocates, who say Villatoro, 41, was an upstanding member of the community unjustly ripped away from his family. Clinton agreed with a Villatoro supporter, who said federal authorities should have used their discretion not to deport him. She noted that the deportation was based on a misdemeanor charge from the 1990s. "He was from all accounts, everything I've read and heard, a contributing member of the community. And for the life of me, I don't understand why he was deported," she said. "And I would think we would have to take a hard look at cases like that and exercise more discretion." She credited the Obama administration with making progress on the issue, but said she would push for more movement toward reforming the country's broken immigration system. "I still think we should deport dangerous people, dangerous criminals — they should be gone," she said. "But for people who have maybe one small blemish on their record, and they've proven over the years since that they are contributing citizens, I think we should show them understanding and permit them and their families to stay together." Federal authorities have defended Villatoro's deportation, saying it was a legitimate part of a sweep of unauthorized immigrants who'd committed crimes. His lawyer has said the charge stemmed from an attempt to gain a driver's license. Clinton's remarks on the case came in response to a question from Aliese Gingerich, 22, of Iowa City. Gingerich said afterward that she has been working on immigration advocacy in Iowa and when she went to college in Pennsylvania. She was glad to hear Clinton address the issue. "I think it's heartening that she is saying that she wants to pass comprehensive immigration reform and work hard with bipartisan efforts that she cited, and things she's done in the past. I would really like to hear a little bit more specifically what she wants to pass exactly." The Iowa City stop was one of two Clinton scheduled in Iowa Tuesday on her fourth trip to the state since she announced her candidacy in April. It was only the second event so far that was open to the general public, and it was the first one at which she took questions from unscreened voters. The audience questions focused on issues such as the use of military force, how to expand and protect the Affordable Care Act and how to improve education. On the education question, Clinton stressed that she wants the country to get away from over-reliance on standardized tests and uniform instruction methods. "We have a broad range of kids. We can't teach them all the same way," she said. More than 350 people got into Clinton's event Tuesday at the Iowa City public library, but scores more failed to get in because of a lack of space. Iowa City is known as the most liberal spot in Iowa. That could make it prime territory for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a populist who is mounting a surprisingly strong Democratic challenge on Clinton's left flank. He has been rising in the polls and drawing crowds in the thousands in Iowa and other states. Clinton told reporters after her event Tuesday that she was not surprised to see Sanders have some success. "This is going to be competitive, and it should be competitive," she said. "It's only the presidency of the United States we're talking about. So, you know, the more the better. Let's get everybody out there, let's get everybody working hard, running their own campaigns and then we'll leave it up to Iowa to decide what happens." Several voters who came to Clinton's Iowa City event said they like what Sanders says, especially on the issue of income inequality. But they also are skeptical of his ability to win the general election. "In a perfect world, yes, I would support him, but I'm not going to throw my vote away," said Tom Braverman, 51, of Iowa City, who is a special-education teacher. He said that if Democrats nominated Sanders, they would be making the same kind of mistake Republicans will make if they nominate a far-right candidate. The library meeting room the campaign chose for the event only held a few hundred people. Far more than that came to the library Tuesday morning, hoping to see Clinton. At one point, the line outside stretched more than two blocks. Undecided voter Shawn Harmsen, 42, of Iowa City, said he had hoped to ask Clinton a question in person. He stood about two hours in line, but was more than a third of the way back. "For the people who get in, it'll be great," he said of the relatively small venue. "But for those who don't get in — will they come back next time?" Peg Voelker, 53, of Iowa City, stood about two-thirds of the way back in line. About a half hour before the event started, she said she realized she probably wouldn't get in to see Clinton. "But we're glad to stand in line to show our support," she said. Even if she didn't get in this time, she said, she would be back for future Clinton events and would volunteer for the candidate. Voelker, who is self-employed, said she supported Democratic rival John Edwards when Clinton ran for the nomination in 2008. She was afraid then that Clinton would be unable to withstand relentless personal attacks by opponents. But she now believes the attacks have allowed Clinton to show her true colors. "She has a proven track record of standing up and being productive no matter what they throw at her," said Voelker. After the Iowa City event, Clinton headed to Ottumwa for a private "house party" with supporters. *Clinton campaign adds 20 paid Iowa staffers <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/07/07/clinton-adds-paid-iowa-staffers/29814329/> // The Des Moines Reigister // Jennifer Jacobs – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton has hired 20 more field organizers to campaign for her in Iowa, and they started work Tuesday, a spokeswoman told the Des Moines Register. "A top flight organizing staff is critical to winning the caucus and we're excited to add to the team that has been on the ground for nearly three months," Clinton's Iowa director, Matt Paul, told the Register in a statement. Clinton, a former U.S. secretary of state, is in Iowa Tuesday for her fourth visit to the first-in-the-nation voting state since she formally announced her candidacy April 12. She was scheduled to do events in Iowa City and Ottumwa. Lily Adams, the campaign's Iowa spokeswoman, declined to reveal the total number of Iowa staff, which includes a team of strategists based in Des Moines, but said the 20 hires join the existing team of 21 field organizers and six regional organizing directors on the ground since April. All 47 are paid, Adams said. The field staffers are focused on organizing down to the precinct level, doing one-on-one meetings with activists, county chairs and Iowans who have never caucused before, as well as organize house parties and attend local Democratic events. They use commitment cards to secure pledges to caucus for Clinton on Feb. 1. The Clinton campaign also has more than 100 unpaid "organizing fellows." Aides said they got more than 1,000 applications for the summertime Iowa Organizing Fellowship program, meant to teach the full-time volunteers organizing strategies and help Clinton bring voters into the fold. Late last month, a woman chosen to be a fellow in the state of Nevada publicly criticized Clinton for not paying her interns. "Forget arguments about raising the minimum wage. I can't even get a wage," Carolyn Osorio wrote in an opinion piece published by USA Today. "Finding out that Hillary perpetuates the exploitation known as unpaid internships was like discovering that Santa wasn't real," Osorio wrote. In response, the Clinton team said campaigns in both parties have used volunteer interns in the past. Eight of the 20 additional Iowa hires already had unpaid jobs with the campaign, Adams said Tuesday. The Clinton team has been completing the process of hiring the 20 organizers since early June, Adams said. Their first day on the job was Tuesday, when they began two days of training in Des Moines. They will then be deployed across Iowa this weekend, she said. Paul said the the campaign has been preparing for competition in the Iowa caucuses since Clinton announced her candidacy in April. "As we've said from the beginning," Paul said, "we are taking nothing for granted in the caucus and these organizers will increase our campaign's ability to work with supporters in every neighborhood and precinct to get the word out about Hillary Clinton's campaign to fight for everyday Americans." *The Clintons’ headache is back: First brother Roger was paid $100,000 to influence Bill and ex-president bought him house despite IRS demand for his property <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3152624/The-Clintons-headache-brother-Roger-paid-100-000-influence-Bill.html#ixzz3fGr3RiOz> // The Daily Mail // Francesca Chambers – July 7, 2015 * Bill Clinton's half brother Roger, nicknamed 'headache' by the Secret Service during Clinton's presidency, has tried to keep a low-profile as his sister-in-law Hillary positions her family to move back into the White House. But now it is revealed today that he used his brother-in-law's name to win a $100,000 consulting contract with a company looking to build houses in Haiti. And it is also disclosed that he is living in a home that was partly - if not fully - paid for by Bill through a limited liability company registered to the Clintons' family home in Chappaqua, New York. The use of such a device was described as having the potential to 'raise eyebrows' with the IRS. It was never disclosed by Hillary during her time in office that address was linked to the limited liability company. Now it is revealed today that Roger, pictured here in 2013, used his brother-in-law's name to win a $100,000 consulting contract with a company looking to build houses in Haiti Roger Clinton's antics in the '90s were a constant source of embarrassment for the first family, culminating in a 2001 congressional investigation over his attempts to 'cash in' on his connections to the White House. The wannabee rock star, who went to prison in 1985 for cocaine abuse and for a time played in a band called Politics, was found to have engaged in 'serious and reckless misconduct' the review panel. He has resurfaced just as Hillary tries to put a troubled start to her campaign for presidency behind her with her first television interview of her candidacy. Roger currently lives in Los Angeles, California, on an $857,000 property he told the New York Times that he co-owns '50-50' with Bill, whom he calls 'Big Brother.'Roger 'I put 50 percent of the money into it,' Roger, 58, told the publication during an interview, conducted at his home. As the Times points out, if true, that could prove legally problematic for the younger Clinton because he owed the California and federal governments more than $100,000 in unpaid taxes and the IRS was to acquire any 'property now owned or later acquired' by him. The house was purchased in 2009. It says the liens were removed in 2010 and 2011. If Roger did help purchase the property, that would constitute tax evasion. 'If I was still working at the I.R.S. and someone came to me with this, it would raise eyebrows and trigger me to dig further to find out what exactly was going on,' David Holtz, a former IRS litigator who lives in Los Angeles, told the Times. A source familiar with the situation told the publication, however, that Bill Clinton purchased the property through a LLC so that his brother and his teenage nephew would have a place to live but he would not be personally responsible for the home as he would not be living in it. It's possible that Roger Clinton could have contributed to the purchase of the home but it is not clear how he would have done that given that the Times found no sustained record of income for him since, other than the $5,000-a-month deal with Living Modular, the company seeking to build low-cost homes in Haiti. That deal itself raised questions as the man behind it suggested Roger Clinton promised to deliver a contract with his brother's foundation. 'I paid Roger $100,000,' businessman Wayne Coleman said. 'Basically, he promised to get us a contract through the Clinton Foundation for a project over there. What he was really trying to do was sell the influence of his brother.' Roger was successful in getting the companies' model included in an expo that Bill Clinton attended on behalf of The Clinton Foundation. His brother did not choose to invest in the company's product, though - a decision Roger talked up to 'lawyers and advisers' rather than his brother, whom he said 'loved' the effort. 'You had all this government grant money, and all this money Bill was raising from around the world for reconstruction,' he told the Times. 'But we just couldn’t make it happen. It’s like, come on, man, can’t you just throw me a bone?' Roger Clinton said that 'seven out of 10 times' being related to Bill and Hillary worked against him when trying to win major contracts because it would be interpreted as nepotism. 'I don’t have a choice of being first brother,' Clinton lamented. 'It’s not like I’ve been given the option of doing it and I could turn it down. There are times when it’s hard.' Sources who spoke to the Times said that Roger and his family have long benefited from his big brother's monetary success in other ways, though. Bill Clinton reportedly paid for Roger's grown-up daughter to attend cosmetology school. And, after leaving the White House, when he worked at investment firm Yucaipa, Bill Clinton is said by a former employee to have regularly written his brother checks. On another occasion, Roger's lawyer floated paying out a settlement over a domestic dispute involving two women on Clinton's property with Bill's money. Bill and Hillary Clinton's siblings have been accused on numerous occasions of trying to profit off of their relationships with the political power couple, and usually inappropriately. Hillary's older brother Hugh pocketed $400,000 from a Democratic Party donor - that he was later forced to give back - after he successfully lobbied Bill to commute the federal prison sentence of the donor's drug-dealing son. Her younger brother, Tony Rodham, also convinced Bill to grant a presidential pardon that he said he wasn't paid to lobby for but a congressional investigation later found that he was. He's continued to ride the coattails of his brother-in-law, using The Clinton Foundation as a means to an ends of his own contracts in Haiti. *Hillary Clinton to pay 'summer fellows' after reports of interns working for free <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/07/hillary-clinton-unpaid-interns-full-time-staff> // The Guardian // Ben Jacobs – July 7, 2015* Hillary Clinton has hired eight “summer fellows” as full-time paid staffers, just weeks after the Guardian revealed that the presidential frontrunner’s campaign was using experienced political operatives as unpaid interns. The Clinton campaign is adding 20 full-time field organizers in Iowa, seeking to increase her presence and rally Democrats in the crucial caucus state, which she visited on Tuesday as her team acknowledged fears of a better-than-expected showing from the independent challenger Bernie Sanders. As first reported by the Des Moines Register, eight of those new hires had previously served as full-time “organizing fellows”. In that capacity, fellows performed almost identical duties to field organizers, who do the most basic work on a campaign: recruiting volunteers and endorsements, going door-to-door and calling voters, often outside the confines of a 9-to-5 day job. Now, those people will be paid, the Clinton campaign confirmed to the Guardian on Tuesday. Clinton already had a sizeable footprint on the ground in Iowa and launched her campaign with roughly 40 staffers in the state, but the new wave of hires represents a decisive step by Clinton to build up her organizing efforts in the state. The former secretary of state returned to Iowa on Tuesday for the first time since the opening week of her campaign, speaking to supporters and organizers in Iowa City ahead of her first sit-down interview since announcing her second run for the White House. The push to woo ardent Iowa Democrats comes amid a surge of progressive appeal from Sanders, the Vermont senator who has been surging in recent polls and more than doubled his support among Democrats in the state between May and June, according to a Quinnipiac University’s survey. “We are worried about him,” the Clinton communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, said of Sanders on MSNBC on Monday. “He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don’t think that will diminish.” The Iowa hires, however, represent the continuation of a trend in Clintonland that new staffers – no matter how much political experience they may bring from previous campaigns – initially must work for free before getting on the Clinton payroll. Many high-ranking staffers worked for free as “volunteers” on the Clinton campaign in the weeks before she formally launched her campaign in early April. Political watchers told the Guardian last month it represented an attempt to wiggle around federal campaign-finance rules that ban an undeclared campaign from paying staff. When Federal Election Commission reports are released next week, Clinton’s donations are expected to far exceed any other Democratic candidate. Clinton’s competitors have already taken jabs at her use of the unpaid fellows: Lis Smith, the deputy campaign manager for former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, tweeted over the Independence Day weekend that “we all know she doesn’t pay young staff”. Still, Clinton has been polling well above 50% in the state where she finished third in the 2008 Democratic caucus. *Clinton Still Far Outpaces Her Democratic Rivals <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/clinton_still_far_outpaces_her_democratic_rivals> // Rasmussen Reports – July 7, 2015 * Despite the increasing media coverage going to some of her rivals for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton remains hugely ahead as far as the party’s voters are concerned. Ninety-three percent (93%) of Likely Democratic Voters believe Clinton is likely to end up being their party’s nominee next year, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That includes 60% who say it is Very Likely. Just five percent (5%) disagree, with only one percent (1%) who think a Clinton nomination is Not At All Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.) (Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook. The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 2 and 5, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. *Hillary Clinton: People who dis the government are ‘dissing our democracy’ <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/7/hillary-clinton-people-who-dis-the-government-are-/> // The Washington Times // Jessica Chasmar – July 7, 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that while skepticism of government is “part of our DNA” as Americans, people who openly “dis” the government are effectively “dissing our democracy.” “When people dis the government — we’re really dissing ourselves and dissing our democracy,” she told supporters in Iowa City, The Hill reported. “This is my last rodeo, and I believe that we can leave not just the country in good shape for the future, but we can get a deep bench of young people to decide that they want to go into politics.” Mrs. Clinton explained, however, that it’s “perfectly fine” to be skeptical of the government, and that it’s “part of our DNA,” The Hill reported. “I want people’s lives to be better when I finish as your president than when I started,” she added. *Clinton hits on local issues in Iowa City campaign stop <http://www.kcrg.com/subject/news/clinton-hits-on-local-issues-in-iowa-city-campaign-stop-20150707> // KCRG // Mark Carlson – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton made a campaign stop at the Iowa City Public Library Tuesday afternoon in which she touched on meth use in Iowa, the Coral Ridge Mall shooting and several other local issues. Clinton brought up the recent shooting at the mall before making brief comments on gun control. She also brought up meth use and the recent closing of the Mount Pleasant Mental Health Institute while discussing her concerns about mental health and drug use in America. Clinton said she is fully invested in her run for President. “I’ve been called many things,” Clinton said. “Quitter is not one of them. I will not quit on you, I will fight for you.” A couple hundred people packed into a library meeting room to hear from the former Secretary of State and First Lady. The crowd included both special invitees and members of the general public. Among the crowd was Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, County Attorney Janet Lyness, Iowa City Mayor Matt Hayek and several state and local lawmakers. *Will Hillary Clinton swear off fossil-fuel money? Bernie Sanders already has <http://grist.org/news/will-hillary-clinton-swear-off-fossil-fuel-money-bernie-sanders-already-has/> // Grist // John Light – July 7, 2015 * The Nation magazine and 350 Action are challenging presidential candidates to “neither solicit nor accept campaign contributions” from fossil fuel companies — and that’s putting the heat on Hillary Clinton in particular. “Back in the 1990s, politicians on both sides of the aisle swore off campaign contributions from big tobacco because the industry lied to the American people about the damage it was causing to public health,” writes 350 Action spokesperson Jamie Henn in an email. Oil, coal, and gas companies, Henn continues, “have consistently misled the public about the dangers associated with their product, and this time it’s the whole planet that’s at stake. You can’t be serious about addressing climate change and still accept checks from ExxonMobil.” Fossil fuel companies, of course, exercise quite a bit of influence over politics through their ability to lob money into campaigns. Though coal companies’ profits have been suffering, oil companies are going strong, and both still put a lot of money into politics. The oil and gas industry poured $76 million into federal campaigns in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Of the amount that was donated to individual candidates’ campaigns, 89 percent went to Republicans and 11 percent to Democrats. The coal mining industry gave another $15 million in 2012, and most of the candidates it supported were Republicans too. So The Nation’s editors issued a challenge to candidates in an editorial yesterday: To break the carbon barons’ grip over America’s response to this crisis, The Nation calls upon all 2016 presidential and congressional candidates to make and honor the following pledge: In the name of protecting our country and the world from the growing dangers of climate change, I will neither solicit nor accept campaign contributions from any oil, gas, or coal company. It’s an interesting experiment, and how candidates choose to respond to it says a lot about their priorities. “Some candidates for president are already signing up,” writes Henn, “and we expect more to do so as campaigns like divestment continue to stigmatize the fossil fuel industry.” Democrat Bernie Sanders and the Green Party’s Jill Stein have said they’re in — they’ll take the pledge. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley and former Rhode Island governor and U.S. senator Lincoln Chafee — also both running as Democrats — “said they supported strong climate action but would not sign the pledge,” write the magazine’s editors in the editorial. [UPDATE, 7/7/15: O’Malley now tells The Nation that he will take the pledge.] Nation Executive Editor Richard Kim told Grist that they’re reaching out to Jim Webb, former senator from Virginia, who jumped into the race as a Democrat last week. On the other side, not one of the 14 Republican candidates The Nation contacted has responded to the challenge. All but one of the Republicans deny that human-made climate change is a real threat that should be taken seriously by our next president. The one outlier, Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), has said he’s in favor of addressing “climate change [and] CO2 emissions in a business-friendly way,” but he’s a long-shot candidate. And, well, it honestly doesn’t seem too likely that Republicans, whose party has embraced the “money is speech”-type decisions from the Supreme Court that paved the way for the current explosion in campaign spending, would say no on principle to money from a big industry — especially when the donor industry in question so clearly favors Republicans over their Democratic opponents. That puts the pressure from The Nation and 350 Action’s challenge on Hillary Clinton. Clinton, who has yet to respond to the challenge, has acknowledged that climate change is a potent threat. Were she to win, she’d be following another Democratic president who, at least on the demand side of things, has pushed to green America’s energy economy, and who has worked internationally to encourage other large polluting countries to do the same. Climate change is an issue she’ll have to engage with continually through the election cycle, and oil and coal companies’ objectives are, presumably, at odds with those of a candidate who has called for “decisive” action to “head off the most catastrophic consequences” of climate change. So will Clinton heed this latest effort to push her to the left? Her campaign has started to see Sanders as a real threat, and it’s attempting to emulate his campaign by courting small donors. Choosing to turn down money from companies with a vested interest in stopping climate action is one easy way Clinton could show her commitment to the liberal base. The Nation and 350 Action plan to keep up the pressure, on Clinton and the other candidates who haven’t pledged yet. “After all, candidates can change their minds,” the Nation editors write, “especially when enough public pressure is brought to bear.” *Judicial Watch: Federal Judge Orders State Department to Release Documents Regarding Hillary Clinton’s iPhone and iPad Use <http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-federal-judge-orders-state-department-to-release-documents-regarding-hillary-clintons-iphone-and-ipad-use/> // Judicial Watch – July 7, 2015 * Judicial Watch announced today that a federal judge has ordered the State Department to begin releasing documents by August 2015 regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s requests for use of an iPad and iPhone. The order comes in response to a Judicial Watch lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00646)) seeking documents related to Clinton’s use of an iPhone and iPad to conduct official business while secretary of state. In her ruling, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly required the State Department to produce the first round of relevant documents by August 20, 2015, and held that Judicial Watch and the State Department will be responsible for filing a joint status report by September 1, 2015, “…proposing a schedule for further productions and indicating the volume and scope of responsive documents.” Beginning August 20, the State Department will also be required to release new documents every six weeks. Though the State Department did not object to producing records beginning in August, Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied the State Department’s request to set January 2016 as the final document production date, holding: The Court will not set a final deadline for all productions until after it has had an opportunity to consider that Joint Status Report—in order to leave open the possibility that the production of documents can be completed more expeditiously than the January 2016 deadline proposed by the Defendant. In the most recent report to the court, Judicial Watch opposed the State Department’s request to extend final production through January 2016. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the Department of State failed to comply with Judicial Watch’s March 10, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking release of the following: Any and all records of requests by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or her staff to the State Department Office Security Technology seeking approval for the use of an iPad or iPhone for official government business; and Any and all communications within or between the Office of the Secretary of State, the Executive Secretariat, and the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Security Technology concerning, regarding, or related to the use of unauthorized electronic devices for official government business. On March 31, 2015, The Associated Press reported that Clinton, while secretary of state, had used an iPad to email members of her staff, contradicting her statements that she had used a secret email account so that she could conveniently conduct official business on one electronic device alone. Reports of Clinton’s use of both a secret email server based at her residence and of an iPad to conduct government business have also raised concerns about the security of Clinton’s communications. “The federal courts are doing a significant service to the American people by ordering the State Department to release documents regarding Mrs. Clinton’s iPhone and iPad use,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Rather than admitting that it unlawfully, obstructed the public’s right to know for years and start producing records, the Obama administration has stonewalled and fought Judicial Watch in court. Can there be any other explanation for these violations of transparency and other laws, some which may include criminal liability, than Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration don’t want the American people to learn embarrassing truths?” *Hillary Clinton to visit Michigan July 21 <http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/07/hillary-clinton-visit-michigan/29822385/> // The Detroit News // David Shepardson – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton is making her first trip to Michigan since announcing she is running for president. The former secretary of state and first lady will headline a fundraiser July 21 at the Grosse Pointe home of David Katz and Jill Alper, according to a copy of the invitation obtained by The Detroit News on Tuesday. The fundraiser will cost $2,700. To be an "event co-host," a person must raise $27,000 — "includes host reception with Hillary and membership in Hillstarters program." To be an event host, a person must raise $50,000 and that "includes host reception with Hillary and membership in Hillraisers program." Last month, a group of women in Michigan met to tout Clinton's candidacy. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, Rep. Brenda Lawrence, D-Southfield, and Janet Blanchard, a former associate director of presidential personnel under President Bill Clinton and the wife of former Michigan Gov. Jim Blanchard, are behind "Michigan Women for Hillary." Clinton's last visited Michigan last fall to campaign for Gary Peters and other Democrats. Many announced and expected Republican presidential candidates have made repeated visits to Michigan this year, including Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, John Kasich and Ted Cruz. *OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE* *DECLARED* *O’MALLEY* *O’Malley expresses distaste for super PACs after one backing him attacks Sanders <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/07/omalley-expresses-distaste-for-super-pacs-after-one-backing-him-attacks-sanders/> // WaPo // John Wagner – July 7, 2015 * Democratic presidential hopeful Martin O’Malley said that he would prefer there were no super PACs when asked in a radio interview Tuesday about one backing him that recently produced Web ads attacking rival Bernie Sanders. “Once you’re a candidate, you’re in a bit of a straight jacket,” O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, said during an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio’s Morning Edition. "I would hope that we would keep this debate a debate about the issues, and I would prefer, not that I'm able to tell a super PAC what to do, I would prefer that we didn't have any super PACs, frankly.” The ads in question, produced by the group Generation Forward, attacked Sanders, a Vermont senator, for his mixed record on gun control, asserting that he is “no progressive” on that issue. The ads were targeted to Web viewers in Iowa, the nation’s first presidential caucus state. Generation Forward is run by allies of O’Malley, including a family friend and a former press aide. Federal law limits coordination between declared candidates and independent groups set up to work for their election. Super PACs, which can take unlimited contributions, have flourished in the wake of the 2010 Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United. Sanders has urged his allies not to form a super PAC and is one of the few 2016 presidential candidates without one. In recent weeks, Sanders has jumped in the polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire, emerging as the leading alternative to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton, while O’Malley’s campaign has remained stalled in the low single digits. During the radio interview that aired Tuesday, O’Malley also elaborated on his characterization of Sanders last week as a “protest candidate” in an interview with The Washington Post. “History has shown usually the candidates that are surging in the summer are not the candidates who are surging in the primary,” O’Malley said. He made his comments in advance of a planned trip Wednesday and Thursday to New Hampshire, the nation’s first presidential primary state. O’Malley has appearances scheduled in Manchester, Derry, Concord and Wolfeboro. *Martin O’Malley racked up $339,200 in loans putting two kids through college. He wants to lighten the load for others. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/08/martin-omalley-racked-up-339200-in-loans-putting-two-kids-through-college-he-wants-to-lighten-the-load-for-others/> // WaPo // John Wagner – July 7, 2015 * Democratic presidential hopeful Martin O’Malley plans Wednesday to put forward an ambitious five-year goal of allowing students to graduate debt-free from public colleges and universities across the country. The proposition is deeply personal for O’Malley: Aides say he and his wife have already incurred $339,200 in loans to put the two eldest of their four children through private universities. And college affordability was a leading priority for O’Malley during his tenure as Maryland’s governor. The issue is one being talked about a lot these days by Democrats, including the party’s other White House candidates, as more and more students enter the workforce with hefty debt loads. O’Malley, who plans to detail his plan during a morning event in New Hampshire, will call on states to freeze tuition rates at public colleges and universities -- as Maryland did for four years -- and propose other measures that would help those carrying debt. Under O’Malley’s plan, a copy of which was shared with The Washington Post, students and parents would be able to refinance their debt at lower interest rates. And O’Malley would base the repayment terms for student borrowers on their income upon graduation. For the long term, O’Malley says he would set a goal of limiting college tuition to 10 percent of a state’s median income at four-year institutions and 5 percent at two-year institutions. Federal matching grants would help states that participate in reaching the goal. Under his plan, O’Malley would also increase Pell Grants and revamp federal work-study programs to help cover non-tuition costs, such as room and board. Aides declined to spell out the cost of O’Malley’s initiatives but suggested they could be paid for by measures such as closing corporate tax loopholes and taxing capital gains at the same rate as earned income. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who’s emerged as the leading alternative for the Democratic nomination to Hillary Rodham Clinton, has proposed a grander idea: making four-year public colleges and universities free. His plan, which he estimates would cost $70 billion a year, would be paid for in part by a tax on Wall Street transactions by investments houses, hedge funds and other speculators. Clinton is also expected to detail college affordability plans in coming months. In recent years, O’Malley’s daughter Grace, 24, graduated from Georgetown University, and another daughter, Tara, 23, graduated from College of Charleston. Aides said O’Malley and his wife, a district court judge in Baltimore, have taken out nine loans totaling $339,200 to help pay for the education of their oldest two children. The interest rates range from just over 6 percent to 8.5 percent, an aide said. While some provisions in O’Malley’s plan would not affect private universities, O’Malley aides said those schools would have an incentive to keep costs down as public colleges and universities become more affordable. In an e-mail sent to O’Malley supporters on Tuesday, Grace O’Malley, now a public school teacher in Baltimore, relayed her college-tuition story and urged others to do so on a Web page set up by her father’s campaign. “I had to make a tough choice: do I go to the college we can afford or do I take out loans to go to the college of my dreams?” she wrote. “At the age of 18, I made the decision to follow my dreams. My family and I now face years of debt -- and we know we're not the only ones.” *Martin O'Malley Calls For Debt-Free College Within 5 Years* <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/07/omalley-debt-free-college_n_7748504.html>* // HuffPo // Tyler Kingkade – July 7, 2015* Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley on Wednesday will lay out a plan providing debt-free access to a college degree for all students within five years. The former Maryland governor also will propose income-based repayment options for borrowers who have private student loans. O'Malley will unveil his higher education plans during an event Wednesday morning in Manchester, New Hampshire. He will seek to cut tuition "to no more than 10 percent of state median income at four-year public universities," and encourage "competency-based education strategies" that allow students to graduate quicker, according to campaign briefing documents. To cut non-tuition costs, O'Malley will propose expanding Pell grants and tripling the work-study program so that at least 2 million students can participate. Debt-free college has already become a major issue in the Democratic presidential race, with endorsements of the idea from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The issue has snowballed, thanks in part to a push by progressive activists, as student debt tops $1.2 trillion. The idea was outlined in a white paper by the left-leaning think tank Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and has steadily gained steam among Democrats. Debt-free college "should be one of the top issues talked about on the campaign trail, in debates, in TV ads, and at the doors with voters of all ages," said Adam Green, Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder, insisting that such a plan would be a boon for the economy. O'Malley's plan builds on his previous statements and follows Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) framework for debt-free college. O'Malley's daughter, Grace O'Malley, sent an email to campaign supporters Tuesday mentioning that her family chose to take out student loans to finance college. O'Malley's family has $339,200 worth of Parent Plus loans for their two daughters' college educations, campaign aides said. New Hampshire has consistently ranked near the top for states with the most student debt. To address current debt, O'Malley will propose allowing borrowers with private student loans to enroll in income-based repayment plans. Details aren't yet being released, but aides said borrowers would enroll in a program that would essentially have them paying the government rather than banks. The Obama administration has rolled out programs for federal student loans that tie payments to borrowers' income. But no similar benefit exists for private loans. As a result, private student loan borrowers' monthly paymentscan top $1,000, and there's no loan forgiveness programs. Private student loans make up about one-eighth of all national education debt. O'Malley will call on states to freeze tuition at state colleges and universities and to restore funding to higher education, which has been slashed for decades. He wants to encourage higher education funding with federal grants in a process still being worked out. "The cost would vary depending on states' levels of funding, but we have to take the burden off students and their families and go back to historical levels of investment in our public institutions of higher ed," campaign spokesman Sean Savett said Tuesday. "Governor O'Malley is considering a number of possible ways to cover the cost including closing the trust fund and carried interest loopholes, taxing capital gains at the same rate as earned income, and closing tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs overseas." *O'Malley to Lay Out Plan for Debt-Free College <http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/07/08/us/politics/ap-us-dem-2016-omalley.html> // AP // July 8, 2015* CONCORD, N.H. — Democrat Martin O'Malley is calling the high cost of college a "crisis" as he lays out a goal of debt-free tuition for all students at public colleges and universities within five years if elected president. O'Malley, a former governor of Maryland, will outline his plan Wednesday at an event in the early-voting state of New Hampshire. O'Malley is struggling to catch fire with Democratic voters who are preoccupied with rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Focusing on college costs could help him make inroads with younger voters in New Hampshire, where the average student loan debt burden is the highest in the nation. But he's not alone in addressing the problem. Sanders is calling for free college tuition and has introduced legislation in the Senate to tax financial transactions to pay for it. Clinton has emphasized the need to lower college costs but has yet to be specific on policy. Roughly a dozen voters will share their struggles with student debt in a discussion with O'Malley before he outlines his debt-free college plan. O'Malley's plan relies in part on using federal matching dollars to encourage states to pursue some of his more ambitious goals, such as freezing tuition rates and eventually reducing tuition at four-year public schools to 10 percent of states' median incomes. The plan calls on states to invest more money in higher education and maintain those levels even as tuition goes down. New Hampshire invests minimally in its public colleges and universities, and state aid for higher education is often on the chopping block in tight state budgets. O'Malley's plan includes familiar policy ideas, such as allowing students to refinance their loans and automatically enrolling people in income-based repayment plans. He is also proposing an increase in Pell Grants and a tripling of the number of work-study jobs to help students cover college costs beyond tuition, such as room and board. *Martin O’Malley Has the Right Solution for Puerto Rico’s Debt Crisis <http://www.thenation.com/article/martin-omalley-has-the-right-solution-for-puerto-ricos-debt-crisis/> // The Nation // John Nichols – July 7, 2015 * Puerto Rico is not Greece. But the United States commonwealth is confronted with a debt crisis. It faces the threat of a brutal round of austerity cuts, which could make a bad circumstance dramatically worse. If ever there was a moment that called for enlightened leadership that recognizes both the economic and social challenges facing the Puerto Rico, this is it. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley heard that call as the crisis began to come into focus last month and declared, “As a nation we must help our fellow US citizens not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because our region’s economic stability depends on it.” Urging the Obama administration and Congress to act “to avoid Puerto Rico’s economic collapse,” O’Malley said: First, Puerto Rico should be able to negotiate with its creditors just as states can under the U.S. Bankruptcy code. Congress should approve Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi’s legislation that would allow for this to happen. Second, as I’ve stated before, the Department of Health and Human Services must end the inequitable treatment of Puerto Rico under Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. High costs and low reimbursement rates are a huge burden to Puerto Rico’s budget and millions of U.S. citizens are at risk of losing care. These are two steps we can take today, but I urge the Administration and Congress to work with Puerto Rico on a path forward that both provides immediate relief, and builds a foundation for sustainable, long-term economic stability. Republican Jeb Bush, a longtime advocate for Puerto Rican statehood, has spoken out for some time about the need to provide the commonwealth with greater flexibility. Give Bush credit for that, especially as it is likely to put him at odds with many in his own party. What distinguishes O’Malley’s early and steady focus on Puerto Rico—and more broadly on the Caribbean—has been the precision he has brought to it as a former mayor and governor. That’s earned him significant attention from Puerto Rican media and media in the United States that bothered to pay attention to the crisis. “As a nation we must help our fellow U.S. citizens not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because our region’s economic stability depends on it.” — Martin O’Malley Now, the crisis is back in the news. After lawyers for Puerto Rico failed on Tuesday to get the US Court of Appeals in Boston to reinstate a local law to help the commonwealth restructure a crushing $72 billion debt burden, other candidates picked up on the call, and they deserve credit for this. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “The people of Puerto Rico are hurting right now under a weak economy that has been struggling for years.” Clinton, who had expressed concern about Puerto Rico’s circumstance earlier, provided more details, saying, “As a first step, Congress should provide Puerto Rico the same authority that states already have to enable severely distressed government entities, including municipalities and public corporations, to restructure their debts under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code.” Later in the day, Senator Bernie Sanders said, “I strongly believe Puerto Rico should be afforded the same bankruptcy protections that exist for municipalities across the United States. We need to do everything we can to allow Puerto Rico to restructure its debt in a rational way that does not harm its people, ordinary investors or pension funds in the United States. Chapter 9 protections would be a good first step.” Sanders added that “we also should recognize that the reason Puerto Rico has such unsustainable debt has everything to do with the policies of austerity and the greed of large financial institutions. Puerto Rico has been in a severe recession for almost a decade. Today, more than 45 percent of the people in Puerto Rico are living in poverty, the childhood poverty rate is greater than 56 percent and real unemployment is much too high. Our goal must be not only to give Puerto Rico the flexibility it needs to restructure its debt, but to make sure that it can rebuild its economy, create good-paying jobs and expand its tax base.” The right things are being said now. The volume is being amplified. When the call for a reasonable response was faint, however, O’Malley was the one who stepped up. And he framed a message that was humane and responsible. This is worth noting, because Puerto Rico’s challenge is both fiscal and political. Political players in Washington have to be pushed to pay more attention to the island that is part of the United States but not a state. As a commonwealth, Puerto Rico has a unique relationship with the United States that creates both benefits and challenges. This has been especially evident as Puerto Rican officials have looked for options to restructure a debt-repayment burden so overwhelming that it threatens to empty the commonwealth’s treasury, to cause profound hardship for island residents, and to leave officials with few options for renewing a battered economy. While states and mainland cities have the varying degrees of flexibility to restructure debt burdens of the sort that Puerto Rico is facing, the island lacks them. At virtually every turn, Puerto Rican officials are prevented from taking steps that have the potential to stabilize its fiscal affairs while maintaining basic services—the only rational and humane response to the crisis caused by its inability to cover payments to bondholders who delighted in speculating on financial instruments issued by the commonwealth because the bonds had “triple-tax-free” status that exempted them from federal, state, and local income taxes. There will be much resistance in Washington to doing right by Puerto Rico. It is going to take consistent leadership to get the attention and the action that is necessary to get an equitable restructuring of debts. This political pressure is going to require both economic common sense and a sense of morality that recognizes that helping our fellow citizens is “the right thing to do.” O’Malley has been out front on this one, applying the pressure. He deserves credit for that, and encouragement to keep it up. *Martin O’Malley: A Strong Foreign Policy Starts With a Global Middle Class <http://time.com/3947720/martin-omalley-foreign-policy-middle-class/> // TIME // Martin O’Malley – July 7, 2015 * I believe America’s role in the world is to advance the cause of a global middle class. After more than 12 years on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, and after a global financial crisis that decimated our middle class, it is understandable that many Americans would like to disengage from the world. But our country’s security and prosperity demand that we be more engaged in the world, not less. The first and foremost responsibility of the next Commander in Chief will be to keep America safe from 21st-century threats: violent extremism; nuclear proliferation; pandemics; cyberattacks; rising inequality; failed states; the mega-droughts, famines and floods caused by climate change; and more refugees than at any time since World War II. We may have the most sophisticated military in history, but we do not have a silver bullet for these problems. So we must pursue a more collaborative, proactive, and farsighted foreign policy. We need new international partnerships to confront climate change and regional challenges, from the South China Sea to the sea lanes of the Middle East. We must create a new National Security Act to develop a broader framework for our national-security strategy. We must continue to adapt our military’s force structure and spending to meet today’s threats. And we must establish a cybersecurity unit in every state’s National Guard to better protect Americans’ personal data and critical infrastructure. My vision for U.S. foreign policy focuses on the rise of a global middle class, which is a moral, economic, and national-security imperative. Eliminating the scourge of extreme poverty is a reflection of our most deeply held values. Supporting economic development will help us build the next generation of American political and economic partnerships. And protecting the dignity of human lives in fragile states will reduce the threat of being drawn into costly future conflicts. We must also understand that comprehensive immigration reform is an economic and national-security interest. And we must forge a New Alliance for Progress based on shared interests in our own hemisphere, which we have neglected for too long. An early task should be to address the root causes of violence and instability in places like El Salvador and Honduras, heading off growing crises before they reach our borders. We must listen to U.S. military leaders who have long recognized that climate change is a national security threat. Tackling the climate challenge will provide our nation the greatest business opportunity in 100 years. I strongly support an American Green Jobs Agenda. If we can put a man on the moon in a decade, we can power America with 100% renewable energy by 2050. It’s not the technology that’s lacking. It’s the political will. All of this is within our reach. But it will require new leadership. Twitter and Facebook are no substitute for personal relationships and human intelligence. We must recruit a new generation of Americans to exercise our global economic, diplomatic, military, and healing power in ways consistent with our values. And we must give them the tools to engage a new generation of leaders abroad, often in hostile environments where we lack historic ties. The cornerstone of American strength in the world is economic strength at home. Maintaining our security in the long run will require an economy that works for all Americans. No fighter jet or troop battalion will protect us as much as a vibrant economy. A stronger middle class is the first garrison against any threat we might face. The greatest power we possess as Americans is not military might, but the power of our own example. We must lead the world by strengthening the American middle class and supporting the rise of a global middle class — free from want, and free from fear. That will make us more prosperous and secure. That will give our children a better future with more opportunity. And that will make our planet healthier, more peaceful, and more just. These are the foreign policy and national security goals worthy of a truly great people. *O'Malley Denounces Super PACs As One Supporting Him Goes After Sanders <http://nhpr.org/post/omalley-denounces-super-pacs-one-supporting-him-goes-after-sanders> // NHPR // Rachael Brindley – July 7, 2015 * Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley says he'd prefer there were no super PACs, but stopped short of calling on one supporting him to stop airing negative attack ads against Democratic rival Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. "I would hope that we would keep this debate a debate about the issues and I would prefer, not that I'm able to tell a super PAC what to do, I would prefer that we didn't have any super PACs, frankly," he said. In an interview with NHPR's Morning Edition, O'Malley was responding to attack ads being aired by the Generation Forward PAC, which has been critical of Sanders for not being progressive enough when it comes to gun control. O'Malley didn't say whether he supported or denounced the ads, only that he disagreed with the Citizens United decision, saying that once you're a candidate, "you're in a bit of a straight jacket. There are all sorts of rules and limitations, but super PACs have none." O'Malley is scheduled to return to New Hampshire this week, as polls show he's got a lot of ground to make up to catch Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A recent poll showed O'Malley with just 2 percent of support among Democratic voters. O'Malley has acknowledged Sanders' recent surge in the polls, but attributes that to him being a "protest candidate." When asked what he meant by that, O'Malley said," History has shown usually the candidates that are surging in the summer are not the candidates who are surging in the primary." "I'm running for President of the United States, and I have 15 years of executive experience, getting things done," he said. "I have to offer progressive values as well as an ability to actually deliver on the goals set, whether it's affordable college, reducing violent crime, increasing job creation, or defending the highest median income in the country through a recession." *SANDERS* *Can Bernie Sanders Beat Hillary Clinton? Reporter’s Notebook <http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/07/can-bernie-sanders-beat-hillary-clinton-reporters-notebook/> // NYT // Pat Leary – July 7, 2015 * Deep down, does Bernie Sanders actually believe he can beat Hillary Rodham Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination? After watching and interviewing him over the last several weeks, it’s clear that the Vermont senator thinks he could win, yet also knows that it will take the political equivalent of lightning in a bottle. “It’s one thing for people to say that the country is going in the wrong direction, that we need to change directions,” Mr. Sanders told me recently. “But is there the energy to get seriously involved in the campaign? Can the thousands of people coming to our events be turned into a real political organization? Will the people showing up this summer also show up to vote for our message next winter in the primaries?” People may be surprised to learn that Mr. Sanders isn’t some starry-eyed political fantasist, despite his socialist leanings and visions of moving America closer to a welfare-state system like those of Denmark and Sweden, which he praises as models of fair-minded government on the campaign trail. After more than 30 years as an elected official, he is shrewd enough to know that the huge crowds he is drawing (including 7,000 people in Portland, Me., on Monday night) won’t mean much if they don’t support his candidacy in the way that matters, by rallying support from friends and acquaintances, and, of course, voting for him when the time comes. One of the problems for Mr. Sanders is that his political organization is still relatively tiny (a few dozen paid staff members at this point, compared to hundreds for Mrs. Clinton) and can only grow so fast. And it is not growing as fast as the crowds showing up at his campaign events. Why does that matter? Like another presidential candidate from Vermont, Howard Dean, in 2003, Mr. Sanders is using the summer before the primaries to build political momentum by holding events in reliably liberal enclaves where thousands of voters are flocking to his message, and the news media is spotlighting the big turnout. But Mr. Sanders doesn’t have big teams of campaign staff on the ground in Portland, Madison, Wis., Minneapolis and elsewhere who can perform labor-intensive follow-up with virtually every voter who attended his rallies. That kind of outreach is a specialty of Mrs. Clinton’s army of organizers and volunteers. Give us time, say Sanders advisers, who are at this point focusing manpower and money on the two early-voting states, Iowa and New Hampshire. “We have an incredibly great message, and a messenger that people are excited about,” said Pete D’Alessandro, who is overseeing the Sanders campaign in Iowa. “But the key is the extent to which we can turn a grass-roots campaign into a winning campaign.” For Mr. Sanders to win the Iowa caucuses, which some Clinton allies and advisers now see as a real possibility, his organization and the savvy, experienced operatives running it will have to scale up substantially. In the end, of course, there remains the threshold question: Do Americans hunger for radical change intensely enough, and in big enough numbers, to defeat a popular, well-financed Democrat who is widely considered more mainstream and electable than Mr. Sanders? *Why we shouldn’t just call Bernie Sanders a ‘liberal’ <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/07/why-we-shouldnt-call-bernie-sanders-a-liberal/> // WaPo // Hunter Schwartz – July 7, 2015* Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is some progressives' great hope to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016. But to say he's a down-the-line liberal would be to misread a political career the includes plenty of nuance. Over the weekend, Sanders spoke on gun control and the tax-exempt status of churches, and if you were hearing him for the first time, you might think he was a Republican. He defended gun owners on CNN's "State of the Union," saying 99.9 percent of them obey the law and that gun manufacturers shouldn't be held responsible for murderers "any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer." On removing the tax-exempt status for churches that don't recognize same-sex marriage, he said he didn't know that he'd "go there" and that he respected "people who have different points of view." Of course, neither of these positions necessarily run counter to the Democratic Party's principles -- Hillary Clinton isn't going after law-abiding gun owners, and Martin O'Malley isn't campaigning on taking away churches' tax-exempt status -- and Sanders's comments came in the context of his liberal bona fides, which he also mentioned. For example, he has voted to ban semiautomatic assault weapons and create instant background checks, and he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law in 1996 by Democratic President Bill Clinton. But there are certain things that might complicate Sanders for those on the left -- and it wasn't just this weekend, either. In 1993, as a member of the House, he voted against the Brady bill, which required federal background checks for most gun purchases. He also voted to allow people to transport guns on Amtrak, and he previously said he didn't think stricter gun control would end mass shootings. (Sanders's home state of Vermont, while generally quite liberal, is also very pro-gun rights.) His history with immigration reform is similar, with a mixed record of supporting things like the Dream Act and the 2013 bill, but in 2007 helping to kill that comprehensive immigration reform deal by teaming with conservative Republican Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa) on so-called "poison pill" amendments. Other Democrats opposed the final bill, as Sanders did, but almost all who did so came from the more moderate wing of the party. Sanders might just become some GOP-leaning voters' favorite 2016 Democrat -- and not just because he's giving Hillary Clinton a tough time. It's not hard to see some of his positions appealing to more libertarian voters like former Ron Paul fans who prefer Sanders over Rand Paul. His arguments for a middle ground on some of our most controversial social issues also could appeal to voters frustrated by hyper-partisan politics. He has surprised even himself with the turnout he's getting at some early campaign events. The more than 2,500 people who showed up to a Friday rally in Iowa were part of the largest crowd for any candidate in Iowa this cycle. But he's not just spending all his time in Iowa or New Hampshire. Sanders has had rallies in Colorado and Wisconsin, and he told The Nation that he believes candidates should have a 50-state campaign strategy, rattling off red states he thinks Democrats, as "the party of working people," should campaign in, including Mississippi, South Carolina and Alabama. On Monday, he drew 7,500 people closer to home in Portland, Maine. Sanders is a socialist who championed progressive issues before they became more mainstream, but it's also clear that he's an independent and not a Democrat for a reason. He's beloved by liberal Democrats who feel Clinton is too moderate, but as his vision for a 50-state campaign and gun and tax-exempt comments show, he's making a play for people who might not describe themselves as "very liberal." *The issue on which Bernie Sanders aims for ‘the middle’ <http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-issue-which-bernie-sanders-aims-the-middle> // MSNBC // Steve Benen – July 7, 2015 * One of the biggest political stories of the summer is the reception Sen. Bernie Sanders is receiving on the presidential campaign trail. In a 2016 field filled with high-profile candidates, it’s the Vermont Independent who’s drawing the largest crowds. This was evident yesterday in Maine, which came on the heels of similarly successful events in Iowa and Wisconsin last week. As Rachel noted on the show last night, Sanders is “having way more retail success on the campaign trail than anyone else in either party – anyone.” Sanders’ early success seems baffling to much of the political world, but let this be a lesson to observers: there are plenty of unapologetic liberals out there who are eager to celebrate Sanders and his vision. But just away from the spotlight, there’s still just one potential trouble area for the Vermonter. A few readers flagged this Facebook item yesterday from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which wasn’t pleased with comments Sanders made in an interview on Sunday with CNN’s Jake Tapper: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders’ characterization here of the National Rifle Association-drafted “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” that he voted for in 2005 is an utter fabrication. The bill has nothing to do with protecting upstanding gun manufacturers and dealers. Instead, it gives NEGLIGENT manufacturers and dealers blanket immunity from civil lawsuits. This law is THE REASON why two parents who lost their daughter in the Aurora shooting had their suit thrown out and are now being ordered to pay more than $200,000 in legal fees to gun companies that armed James Holmes. It is an immoral law that denies victims and survivors their day in court – a fundamental democratic right – and Sanders’ position is totally unacceptable. A big thanks to Jake Tapper for holding him accountable. Sanders hasn’t taken much heat from the left since launching his campaign, so it’s worth pausing to appreciate what this is all about. In the CNN interview, Tapper asked Sanders, “Earlier this year, the parents of one of the 12 innocent people killed during the Aurora movie theater shooting, they saw their lawsuit to hold ammunition sellers liable for the attack, they saw that dismissed. And one of the reasons was a law that you voted for which protects manufacturers of firearms and ammunition from being sued. Why did you vote that way?” Sanders stressed that the NRA is not a fan of his – he’s voted, for example, to close the gun-show loophole and in support of instant background checks – before explaining: “Now, the issues that you’re talking about is, if somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer, and that murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not anymore than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beat somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about. “And this is part, by the way, I may say, of – you know, folks who do not like guns is fine, but we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country; 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real serious debate and action on guns. But it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle.” It was this response that did not go over well with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. The litigation strategy against gun manufacturers is an important idea for many gun-safety advocates, and Sanders seemed to dismiss the idea as ridiculous. Overall, I’m generally skeptical that gun policy represents a real threat to Sanders’ support from the left. The senator’s platform largely focuses on economics, not social issues, and my hunch is that if someone were to tell the thousands of voters showing up for Sanders’ events that he’s a moderate on guns, the vast majority wouldn’t care. But it’s nevertheless a rare instance in which Sanders breaks with progressive orthodoxy, and it’s an issue on which Hillary Clinton is squarely to the senator’s left – a detail that Democratic voters may be hearing more about in the coming months. * Update: In the statement from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the group notes that two parents who lost their daughter in the Aurora shooting “are now being ordered to pay more than $200,000 in legal fees to gun companies.” A colleague reminds me, however, that this is not entirely correct – the parents have been ordered to pay “reasonable” damages, and the $200,000 figure is the one the company has requested. The judge, however, has not yet set the actual amount, and as of now, the parents in the case haven’t been ordered to pay anything. *Bernie Sanders is no Ron Paul: What the press gets all wrong about the Vermont senator <http://www.salon.com/2015/07/08/bernie_sanders_is_no_ron_paul_what_even_the_left_gets_wrong_about_the_vermont_senator_partner/>* *He'll always be an underdog, but Sanders is a more viable candidate than even the left-wing media will acknowledge* <http://www.salon.com/2015/07/08/bernie_sanders_is_no_ron_paul_what_even_the_left_gets_wrong_about_the_vermont_senator_partner/>* // Salon // Zaid Jilani – July 8, 2015* AlterNet Monday night, Bernie Sanders drew 7,500 people in the town of Portland, Maine, a locale that only has a population of 66,000. The Portland rally was the latest in a series of high turnouts, as Sanders is drawing more Americans to his events than any other candidate in either party. In response to the high turnouts at Sanders’s events, many in the media have sought to downplay his momentum by comparing him to former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, who also inspired an enthusiastic following: The message these outlets are promoting is that Sanders, like Paul, will be able to get an enthusiastic base but will ultimately fail in his quest for the presidency and will only make only a minor impact on the debate. The implication seems to be that Sanders’ views are on the fringe, like Ron Paul’s. But are they? Or is it just that he is the only one articulating the need to address extreme inequality and expanding social security, which millions of Americans support? The media message seems to rely on the idea that the two men are similar because they spark genuine enthusiasm among their supporters – which is perhaps a sad commentary on American politics that there are so few candidates who can do this that when they do they are instantly compared. But the analogy doesn’t really hold beyond that. In 2008, when Paul first ran for the presidency, he had 130,000 donors through the fourth quarter (January 2008). Recall that this was a campaign that began very early, with Paul entering the race on an official basis in March 2007 after forming his presidential exploration committee in January of that year. Sanders, on the other hand, has already collected 250,000 donors after around two months of campaigning. This means that the Vermont Senator is collecting donors at nearly 8 times the rate that Paul did in his first run for the presidency. The biggest difference between the two is the ceiling of support they were able to hit. Paul, despite his enthusiastic and genuinely creative volunteer and donor base, has advocated ideas like completely eliminating Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Even among the GOP base, these ideas are extremely unpopular. Sanders, on the other hand, has since his time as Burlington, Vermont’s mayor, promoted ideas that are mainstream and popular. Even in the House of Representatives between 1994 and 2006, one of the most right-wing legislative bodies in American history, it was Sanders who passed the most amendments of any member of Congress. There is no doubt that he’s an underdog, but Sanders’s ideas are popular and he is gaining traction at a far quicker rate than Ron Paul did. It’s true that both Paul and Sanders were insurgent candidates who drew enthusiastic supporters. The similarities end there. *Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Make Solar Power More Accessible <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/07/3677745/bernie-sanders-introduces-solar-legislation/> // Think Progress // Ari Phillips – July 7, 2015* On Tuesday, Vermont Senator and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders introduced legislation aimed at making it easier for low-income families to take advantage of solar power. The bill, called the “Low Income Solar Act,” came the same day that the Obama Administration announced a similar program aimed at installing 300 megawatts of renewable energy in federally subsidized housing by 2020. The Sanders bill would aid in this effort by providing $200 million in Department of Energy loans and grants to help offset the upfront costs associated with installing solar panels on community facilities, public housing and low-income family homes, according to a press release. The projects would also have to prioritize loans for female- and minority-owned businesses, as well as target specific regions including Appalachia, Indian tribal lands, and Alaskan native communities. “The scientific community tells us very clearly if we’re going to reverse climate change and the great dangers it poses for the planet we must move aggressively to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to sustainable energy,” Sanders said in a statement. “We can achieve this goal, save families money and protect the planet for future generations.” According to the bill summary, homeowners with suitable roofs would receive grants to help them afford solar panel installation while renters or others without appropriate siting options would get connected through alternative means such as community solar gardens. Solar gardens are designed for those without rooftop access as a way to connect to a shared solar system that guarantees their electricity comes from solar power. Usually these community solar gardens are one or two megawatts in size and operated by third-party solar providers and local utilities. Environmentalists are pleased that Sanders is running for president, as he is one of the climate change action leaders in the Senate. Environmental activist and founder of 350.org Bill McKibben recently praised Sanders as “the ultimate what-you-see-is-what-you-get politician.” “Bernie’s been in the forefront of all the crucial environmental fights of recent years, always willing to knuckle down and do the hard work of fighting the big corporations,” McKibben told the Burlington Free Press. As ThinkProgress previously reported, after the 2014 election that put the GOP in charge of the Senate, Sanders pushed the chamber to go on the record as to whether climate change is happening, caused by human activity, and resulting in “devastating problems in the United States and around the world.” In 2015 he attended the People’s Climate March in New York City and told Democracy Now! that climate change is “a huge issue. It’s a planetary crisis. We’ve got to act, and we have to act boldly.” He has also consistently opposed the Keystone XL pipeline and has talked publicly about the potentially disastrous environmental effects. While Sanders entered the race an extreme long shot, his popularity has swelled in the early days of the campaign. On a recent visit to Iowa, one of the early caucus states, Sanders drew big crowds as well as the attention of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Sanders is gaining major traction in Iowa polling, and has surpassed Clinton among very liberal voters. *Jimmy Carter: Bernie Sanders Is A 'Surprising' Democratic Competitor <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/07/jimmy-carter-bernie-sanders_n_7745548.html> // HuffPo // Paige Lavender – July 7, 2015 * Former President Jimmy Carter spoke with HuffPost Live about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and his chances in the Democratic presidential primary, saying Sanders is a "surprising" contender. While Carter said he thinks it's "almost inevitable" former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, he thinks Sanders' success has probably been a shock to her campaign. Carter said he thinks Sanders may be getting support from those who are seeking something different than a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. "I would presume there's kind of an aversion to inheritance of the mantel of the presidency," Carter said. HuffPost Pollster shows Clinton leading the Democratic presidential primary, with Sanders in a faraway second: *The Clinton Campaign Is Afraid of Bernie Sanders <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-threat/397286/> // The Atlantic // Peter Beinart – July 7, 2015 * Obscured by the recent avalanche of momentous news is this intriguing development from the campaign trail: The Hillary Clinton campaign now considers Bernie Sanders threatening enough to attack. Fresh off news that Sanders is now virtually tied with Hillary in New Hampshire, Claire McCaskill went on Morning Joe on June 25 to declare that “the media is giving Bernie a pass … they’re not giving the same scrutiny to Bernie that they’re certainly giving to Hillary.” The irony here is thick. In 2006, McCaskill said on Meet the Press that while Bill Clinton was a great president, “I don’t want my daughter near him.” Upon hearing the news, according to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s book Game Change, Hillary exclaimed, “Fuck her,” and cancelled a fundraiser for the Missouri senator. McCaskill later apologized to Bill Clinton, and was wooed intensely by Hillary during the 2008 primaries. But she infuriated the Clintons again by endorsing Barack Obama. In their book HRC, Aimee Parnes and Jonathan Allen write that, “‘Hate’ is too weak a word to describe the feelings that Hillary’s core loyalists still have for McCaskill.” McCaskill, in other words, is a great surrogate: someone eager enough to regain the Clintons’ affection that she’ll not only praise Hillary, but also slam their opponents. On Morning Joe, she had two talking points. First, journalists are giving Sanders a pass. Second, Sanders is a socialist, and thus can’t win. Asked about Sanders’ large crowds, McCaskill compared him to Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, other candidates who sparked enthusiasm among their supporters but couldn’t win a general election because of their “extreme message.” On point number one, McCaskill is undeniably correct: Media coverage of Sanders has been fawning, partly because many journalists harbor sympathy for his anti-corporate message but mostly because they’re desperate for a contested primary. Given Sanders’s strong poll numbers, the media would eventually have gotten around to tearing down the man they pumped up. But Team Clinton clearly wants to accelerate this process before Sanders gets any more momentum. More intriguing is point number two. Sanders probably would be a problematic general-election candidate. But the liberals flocking to his side don’t much care. Nor are the Clintonites likely to scare off many liberals by reminding them that Sanders is a socialist. Most of them already know. And far from hiding it, Sanders is quite effective when challenged on this point. Right after he jumped in the race, George Stephanopoulos gave Sanders exactly the treatment McCaskill is calling for now. First, he reminded Sanders he was a socialist. Then, when Sanders pointed to Scandinavia as his socialist model, Stephanopoulos snarked that, “I can hear the Republican attack ad right now: He wants America to be look more like Scandinavia.” But Sanders was not cowed. “That’s right. That’s right,” he replied. “And what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong when you have more income and wealth equality? What’s wrong when they have a stronger middle class in many ways than we do?” It was the kind of performance more likely to leave liberals inspired than alienated. McCaskill grew even less effective when Mark Halperin did something TV interviewers too rarely do: He demanded substance. Give “three specific positions” of Sanders that “are too far left,” he insisted. “I am not here to be critical of my colleague Senator Sanders,” McCaskill responded, absurdly. But Halperin caught her, noting that, “With all due respect, you already were: You said he was socialist and not electable.” Then things got interesting. The specifics McCaskill offered were that Sanders “would like to see Medicare for all in this country, have everybody have a government-insurance policy,” that “he would like to see expansion of entitlement,” and that “he is someone who is frankly against trade.” If Hillary actually goes after Sanders on these specifics, the Democratic race will get very interesting very fast. A debate about Obamacare versus single-payer health insurance, about expanding Social Security versus restraining its growth, and about the merits of free trade would be fascinating. But I doubt it’s a debate Hillary wants to have. She is, after all, running a campaign based on generating enthusiasm among the party’s liberal core. By taking bold, left-leaning positions on immigration, criminal justice, and campaign-finance reform, she’s trying (and so far succeeding) to erase her reputation from 2008 as a timid triangulator unwilling to offer big change. Yet the more Hillary emphasizes her opposition to single-payer health care, her opposition to expanding Social Security, and her support for free trade, the more she undermines her own strategy. By taking on Sanders on these issues, Hillary also implicitly takes on Elizabeth Warren, who has made expanding Social Security and opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership two of her recent crusades. The irony is that in 2008, when Hillary was trying to distinguish herself from her party’s left base in order to appeal to general-election moderates, an opponent like Bernie Sanders might have seemed like a blessing. In 2016, by contrast, when Hillary is running to the left, attacking him as too far left is dangerous. No wonder McCaskill wants journalists to bury the curmudgeonly Vermonter. The Hillary campaign knows how tricky it will be to bury him themselves. *This Could Be Bernie Sanders' Biggest General Election Challenge <http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/could-be-bernie-sanders-biggest-general-election-challenge-n388071> // NBC News // Mark Murray – July 7, 2015 * It's been the Summer of Bernie Sanders. Thousands are turning out at his campaign events, his poll numbers are skyrocketing and the New York Times is now raising the question: What if Bernie Sanders wins Iowa? But here's a different question: Can he win a general election? While no national poll has yet to test Sanders in a trial heat against the Republican field, a June 2015 Gallup poll found that being a self-described socialist -- as Sanders is -- is more unpopular for a presidential candidate than being an evangelical Christian, Muslim or atheist. According to the poll, 50 percent said they wouldn't vote for a socialist, compared with 40 percent who wouldn't vote for an atheist, 38 percent for a Muslim and 25 percent for an evangelical Christian. "Bernie is too liberal to gather enough votes in this country to become president," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said last month on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." When CNN asked Sanders about McCaskill's remarks, he responded that what voters truly care about are the issues. "I think people are coming out to our meetings because they want to hear some straight talk. They want to hear some truth about what's going on in America today." There is one other factor to consider: Iowa Democratic caucus-goers have been much more pragmatic than their GOP counterparts have been in recent years. While the last two Republican winners in Iowa (Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum) ultimately didn't win the GOP presidential nomination, the last three Democratic winners of Iowa (Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama) did win their party's nomination. *Rep. Barbara Lee: Bernie Sanders’ Message “Resonating,” “Galvanizing Progressives” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/democratic-congresswoman-bernie-sanders-message-resonating-g?utm_term=.ypQad2ngd#.etObzra9Y> // Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 7, 2015 * California Rep. Barbara Lee, a key leader of progressive House Democrats, says she believes Bernie Sanders’ candidacy is “galvanizing progressives” and the progressive agenda. “I know Bernie first as a colleague and as a friend. I did serve with him on the then-Banking Committee and we actually came up with, initially, with the National Housing Trust Fund, worked together on that, and so I’ve worked with him on many, many issues and he’s a friend,” Lee said on the Jeff Santos Show. “And I think what he is doing really is galvanizing progressives to really develop a strong progressive agenda that deals with all of the issues, that the majority of Americans want to deal with,” she added. “And I think by the turnout and by what the response of the people around the country, we see that his message is resonating and so I think it’s a good thing that he’s out there,” she said. Last week Sanders supporters filled the 10,000 seat Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Madison, Wisconsin. “I’m supporting the progressive agenda, Mayor DeBlasio, myself, and probably 8 to 10 members of Congress signed on to a progressive agenda that we are putting forward, that addresses many of the issues that Senator Clinton and Bernie Sanders are raising—excuse me Secretary of State Clinton and Senator Sanders are raising.” “And so income inequality, when you look at a living wage, when you look at climate change, there are many, many issues on that that progressive agenda that both Mrs. Clinton and Senator Bernie are really addressing and I think it’s a very exciting time that he is doing this.” *Bernie Sanders Hits a Triumphant Note As His Crowds Grow <http://time.com/3947693/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-crowds/> // TIME // Sam Frizell – July 7, 2015 * Bernie Sanders, tan and slightly hoarse after six weeks of campaigning for president, began a stump speech on Monday night with a humble brag of epic proportions. “Sometimes, media people ask me, ‘Well, Bernie, why are so many people coming out to your events?’” Sanders said to a crowd of 7,500 people in Portland, Maine. “Well the answer is, I think, pretty obvious,” Sanders continued, flashing a grin to cheers before getting stern again. “From Maine to California—we have friends in Alaska and Hawaii as well—the American people understand that establishment politics and establishment economics is not working for the middle class!” The audiences are growing, he says, mostly because things in America are so bad. It’s a note of encouragement in the midst of Sanders’ famously jaundiced speeches, a nod to the tide of hope and discontent that his campaign is riding. “All over America, people are becoming involved in this campaign because they want change,” Sanders said. “Real change! And that is what this campaign is about.” In a campaign by numbers, Sanders has taken a surprisingly strong grasp of the Democratic base. He drew crowds of thousands at several rallies in the last week, a notable feat 16 months before a general election. His poll numbers in the key early states of Iowa and New Hampshire show he is just a few paces behind Hillary Clinton, climbing within ten points of the presumptive Democratic nominee in one recent poll. And more than 250,000 people have donated to his campaign. They are surprising metrics of success for a politician who for decades has seen himself as an outsider. Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist, has done it armed with the promise of revolution. “The only way that change takes place is when we develop that strong grassroots movement, make that political revolution, stand together,” Sanders said on Monday. “And then we bring about change.” Sanders had originally planned his Monday night rally in this seaside city of 66,000 people at a small venue on the water, but after thousands of RSVPs came back online, he was forced to reschedule the speech in a large arena usually reserved for big musical acts and hockey games. Nearly 8,000 people showed up, flooding the standing room with Mainers touting an eclectic mix of tribal tattoos, floral prints, polo shirts and New Balance sneakers. Sanders’ supporters found in Portland a candidate invigorated by the last months of success. With his left hand gripping the podium and his right hand dancing in the air as if holding a marionette, Sanders framed the recent liberal groundswell as part of a long legacy of activism. He pointed to the labor movement of the early 20th century, the women’s suffrage activists and the civil rights movement as models for changing the country. He called for equal pay, paid family leave, a higher minimum wage, breaking up the big banks, and a massive infrastructure rebuilding program, a la the New Deal. “There is nothing, nothing, nothing that we cannot accomplish!” said Sanders. The crowds have taken note of Bernie’s sanguine outlook and call to action. “He’s telling us that the people’s movements—the grassroots movements—have succeeded when people got off their asses and they went out and marched,” said James Murdoch, a self-employed designer and builder who attended the rally. “We’re now getting to the point where people are getting involved and getting active again.” Portland was just one leg on Sanders’ packed schedule: after a Madison, Wisconsin rally on Wednesday that drew some 9,500 people, Sanders spent three days in western Iowa corn country, where in Council Bluffs, 2,500 people attended a rally, according to the campaign—more than any other Iowa rally so far. (In Iowa he is trailing Clinton by 52-33.) He flew back to Burlington, and then drove with his wife and an aide the 250-odd miles to Portland. Despite some of the change in tone, Sanders’ speeches are still largely jeremiads on the perennial problems. Wall Street and the greed of the 1% are destroying America, Sanders says, climate change is wreaking drought and deadly heat waves, and misguided trade agreements are sending millions of jobs overseas to countries like China. There’s only a short window of opportunity to stop global warming, and the middle class is in grave danger. Among his fans, there’s a new hint of faith that the gravity of the campaign may have jolted something awake. People in the audience said afterward that Sanders had struck a chord, particularly for those disappointed by the Obama years and cautious of the hope brand that dominated the 2008 campaign. “He’s saying the things that need to be said,” said Fran Falcone, a mental health counselor, of Sanders. “We need to start really looking at what’s going in our country that’s turned it into a place a lot of us don’t recognize.” After the speech, Sanders dined at a Spanish-inspired restaurant a few blocks away on Portland’s Congress Street. Word got around town he was there, and a small crowd gathered to seem him before he went to bed and made for Washington D.C. the next day for Senate duties. Meanwhile, two buddies drank beers on the upstairs terrace of an Irish pub one block from the rally arena. They discussed the reality-check-and-momentum phenomenon. “Campaigns have cycles,” said Portland resident Doug Hall about Sanders, speaking over the house music. “This is the wake-the-f***-up cycle.” Paul Drinan, who runs a non-profit and also lives in town, agreed. “At this point in the game that’s the appeal: there’s no fluff in the message. He’s telling it like it is,” said Drinan. “Bernie’s riding the wave.” *As Labor Grapples With Candidate Endorsements, Transit Union Head Applauds Bernie Sanders <http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-labor-grapples-candidate-endorsements-transit-union-head-applauds-1996900> // IB Times // Cole Stangler –July 7, 2015 * Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., says he wants to fight the “billionaire class," the signature phrase of a presidential campaign that's thrived by pitting beleaguered American workers against the rich and powerful. And as the self-described socialist continues his steady rise in the polls against Democratic primary opponent and presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, he’s winning support from the American underdogs par excellence: trade unionists. No major unions have made White House endorsements, and the national AFL-CIO has yet to formally back a candidate. Still, a couple of state labor federations have passed resolutions backing Sanders’ bid (even though they were rebuked in an AFL-CIO memo for breaching the federation’s endorsement process); thousands of rank-and-file union members have signed up with the grassroots Labor for Bernie network; and last week, the recently retired head of one of the nation’s largest unions joined Bernie’s campaign team as a volunteer. In a recent interview with International Business Times -- before the AFL-CIO fired off its warning memo last week -- the head of the nation’s largest transit union cheered Sanders’ “willingness to get outside the bubble.” The Amalgamated Transit Union’s Larry Hanley did not endorse the senator, and the union, which represents some 200,000 people, hasn’t decided whom to back yet. But the ATU's Hanley credited Sanders for raising the sorts of problems, beyond bread-and-butter labor ones, that he says hurt American workers: things like unnecessary military spending, environmental degradation and prohibitively costly college tuition. Hanley becomes the first president of a major union to weigh in publicly -- and candidly -- about the Democratic primary matchup. “This model doesn’t work,” said the outspoken labor leader in a wide-ranging conversation about national politics and the 2016 campaign. “It’s not working for our unions, it’s not working for our members, it’s not working for our people and we have to change the model. It’s not enough for us to just put our logo up on some candidate who’s gonna stand up for the status quo.” “We are at a critical point in our history because our economy is inevitably going to be crippled by this ridiculous war spending, and our environment is teetering on the brink of disaster every day, and these are issues that have been neglected or made worse by the policies of the neocons, which obviously, includes people on both sides of the political aisle.” In particular, Hanley praised Sanders’ support for free education at four-year public universities -- a plan that Clinton has not endorsed. “Everybody running for president should just check that box; it shouldn’t be a hard one, but I’m waiting to see if they will,” he said. “Certainly anybody who’s running in the party that claims to represent average working people ought to be saying, ‘Yeah, you know what? There’s no reason why we have to burden our kids with debt, why we have to make them come out of college with something comparable to a mortgage to pay before they get a job.’ I mean, come on, this stuff is obvious.” “We live in a bubble of false discussion, and both sides, Democrats and Republicans, refuse to break out of that bubble,” Hanley continued. “I think Bernie has shown more of a willingness to get outside the bubble, outside the box and have those discussions. As a consequence of that, I think he’s a very good addition to the race. I think hopefully that he will encourage people in the Democratic Party to remember where they came from and remember their roots.” At the same time, Hanley offered some praise for Clinton. A former bus driver from the New York City borough of Staten Island, Hanley rose through the ranks of the transit union before his election to the top office in 2010. As he was serving as president of his New York City local, in 2000, he supported the then-first lady’s successful Senate campaign. “I have a long history of fond affection for Hillary Clinton -- she has stood up and done many things in her lifetime of a historic nature,” he said. Nevertheless, Hanley added -- with a flair of ambiguity -- “the truth as I know it is much more frequently expressed by Bernie, and even more than Bernie, by Elizabeth Warren.” But unions are in a pickle: Is it worth getting behind the underdog or does it make more sense to accept conventional wisdom and plan accordingly? After all, “if the election’s between Hillary and just about any one of the Republicans that have come forward,” Hanley said, “it’s gonna look like heaven and hell.” “I’m going to confess to being conflicted, and I think as a matter of fact, the whole labor movement is conflicted over this,” Hanley said. “While we see Bernie being a champion for many of our issues, we’re anguished waiting on Hillary to take the lead on that, too.” In the ATU at least, Hanley said, leaders are expressing more frustration with the general political climate than during the last open Democratic presidential primary. (Exasperation, in general, jibes more with Sanders’ calls for “political revolution” than Clinton’s mild-mannered liberalism.) In 2007, a few years before Hanley took over the reins, the union endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, eventually spending more than $70,000 on her failed primary campaign. “People are united in the notion that we can’t accept the status quo, that the Democratic Party no longer is the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it’s more like the party of Nelson Rockefeller and the Republicans are more like the party of the Ku Klux Klan. That’s kinda the way America’s shifted,” he said. “There is a boil going on right under the surface in America and the advantage Bernie has, by being willing to talk about this kind of stuff, is that he may just make that pot boil over.” *Coons: "Not Confident" In Bernie Sanders' Qualifications <https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-07/coons-not-confident-in-bernie-sanders-qualifications> // Bloomberg // Kendall Breitman – July 7, 2015 * Senator Chris Coons is "not confident" that his colleague Senator Bernie Sanders is presidential material. "I am not confident that he's got all the qualifications that the American public will look for in its next commander-in-chief," Coons said Tuesday on Bloomberg Politics' "With All Due Respect," adding that the ultimate judgment will be left up to the electorate. Coons comments came after the Democrat was pressed on previous remarks from Senator Claire McCaskill - a Clinton ally - who on June 25 told MSNBC that Sanders is a "socialist" who "is too liberal to gather enough votes in this country to become president." "I, quite frankly, am hoping for someone with more seasoning." Coons, who has a close relationship with his fellow Delaware politician and potential 2016 candidate Vice President Joe Biden, has yet to endorse any specific candidate so far. Although he said believes Sanders has a "terrific record" on advocating for issues involving veterans, middle class economics and social and economic justice, Coons made it plain that the independent from Vermont, who caucuses with Senate Democrats, is not a contender for his nod. "I, quite frankly, am hoping for someone with more seasoning, more experience, who served both in the executive branch and the legislative branch," Coons said. "I do think that the sort of experience that I think we will see in the likely Democratic nominee - whether that ends up being Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton - would span both the congressional and executive branches and I think that's the sort of experience we should look for in our commander in chief." *Fox News’ big Bernie Sanders lie: The right’s laughably lame effort to link Donald Trump and Sanders <http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/fox_news_big_bernie_sanders_lie_the_rights_laughably_lame_effort_to_link_donald_trump_and_sanders/> // Salon // Sean Illing – July 7, 2015 * The media cannot help comparing Donald Trump to Bernie Sanders. And the comparison is not altogether wrong. Both candidates appeal to their respective bases. Both are challenging their party’s establishment choices. And both are drawing massive crowds while surging in national polls. The left (understandably) cringes at such comparisons. Bernie Sanders, whatever you think of him, is a serious person with real ideas. He’s been a public servant since 1981, when he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont. He’s now the longest-serving independent in the history of Congress. And his bid for the presidency, while a long shot, is clearly earnest. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a clown – a pompous, spray-tanned clown. More important, he’s not actually running for president. His candidacy is a piece of performance art, a self-promoting circus. No one paying attention believes he wants to be president – I suspect he wouldn’t run at all if this were a real possibility. Trump is campaigning because he can, because it bolsters his brand, and because people are dumb enough to listen to him talk about things he doesn’t understand. If anything, Trump’s campaign, much like Sarah Palin’s, is a reminder of just how broken and stupid our political system has become. However wrong it feels, Democrats ought to embrace the juxtaposition of Trump and Sanders for at least two reasons. First, it’s accurate. Both candidates are indeed authentic representations of their party’s base. Trump is a near-perfect distillation of the modern American right: The bravado, the bigotry, the raging idiocy, the false confidence, and the lack of ideas – it’s all there in one gloriously manicured body. It’s not simply that Trump has bad ideas; it’s that he doesn’t have any ideas at all. And he’s quite explicit about this. His announcement speech was essentially a stream-of-consciousness rant, totally bereft of anything resembling a policy proposal. His entire platform consists of him telling you a) how rich and smart he is and b) how stupid and broke everyone else is. That’s it. If Trump were laughed out of conservative town halls, that’d be one thing. But he’s not. He’s embraced. According to this recent CNN poll, Trump is second only to Jeb Bush among national conservatives. This means Trump’s fevered ramblings are resonating with the Republican base, even if Trump himself doesn’t actually believe anything he says. Bernie Sanders may well represent the “extreme” left of the Democratic Party, but he has real ideas; arguments can be made against them, of course, but the point is that he offers something substantive against which to argue. Unlike Trump, he has an actual platform, spelling out what he wants to do and how he intends to do it. From infrastructural decay to climate change to tax reform to higher education, Sanders is proposing solutions. Conservatives may not like those solutions, but they at least have to be reckoned with. This is a fundamental distinction between Trump and Sanders, one the GOP would prefer to ignore. Which leads me to the second reason why liberals should embrace Trump-Sanders comparisons. To the extent that Trump and Sanders reflect the views of the right and left wings of their parties, they vividly clarify just how different the two parties are. It says something significant about the Republican Party that there’s space for someone like Trump or Sarah Palin or even Herman Cain in it. These people aren’t credible candidates; they’re product-pushing brands looking to capitalize on conservative credulity. I don’t believe the same can be said of Democratic candidates, no matter how wrong-headed you find their policy ideas. Republican operatives know all of this to be true, which is why they’ll do everything they can to equate Sanders and Trump. But they’ll spin a false narrative. They’ll argue, as John Gibson on FoxNews.com does, that Democrats should be “embarrassed” by Sanders for the same reasons Republicans should be embarrassed by Trump. Nobody, especially Democrats, should fall for this. There are crucial differences between Trump and Sanders, some of which are cited above. But the most important difference here is between the two parties. Trump’s circus act isn’t possible in the Democratic Party. There are no celebrity candidates on the left – and certainly none capable of polling at the level Trump does. Democrats have had their share of bad candidates over the years, but they’re bad for different (and less offensive) reasons than GOP candidates. They’re bad for reasons related to their ideas or campaign platform or something politically relevant. Only in the Republican Party do unserious candidates emerge as contenders. Only in the Republican Party are half-baked celebrities allowed to hijack the process to promote their private careers. Only among conservative Republicans are hucksters like Trump embraced. Democrats can’t point these truths out enough. The Republican Party created the Frankenstein that is Donald Trump. They’ve cultivated the idiocy he represents in their ranks for years. If Trump appeals to their base – and he obviously does – that tells you everything you need to know about who they are and what they stand for. It also tells you how little respect the GOP has for the political process. There ought to be no place for Trump at this level of politics – in either party. But there is, and it’s telling that it’s permitted only in one party. *UNDECLARED* *OTHER* *How durable is the Democratic advantage among Latinos? <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/07/how-durable-is-the-democratic-advantage-among-latinos/> // WaPo // Greg Sargent – July 7, 2015 * Is the overwhelming advantage that Democrats appear to be building among Latinos durable? Or could it prove far more ephemeral than it appears? Put another way, can Democrats count on the 2016 GOP presidential ticket re-running Mitt Romney’s historically bad performance among Latino voters? Or could a Jeb Bush (or, less likely in my view, Marco Rubio) general election candidacy whittle away at the Dem edge among those voters and reverse gains that had seemed to be hardening? Folks with long memories will recall that George W. Bush successfully pulled that reversal off in 2000. Couldn’t that happen again? This is one of the big questions of 2016, and its answer could be key to the campaign’s outcome. Right now, there are plenty of reasons for Democrats to be optimistic about it. But it’s worth entertaining the alternate scenario. The case for Dem optimism has been fortified by Donald Trump, who in recent days has been spraying inflammatory quotes about immigrants around like a garden sprinkler. It’s true that a number of GOP candidates have condemned his remarks. But as Michael Gerson details, Republicans still appear locked in a debate over the fundamental underlying question of whether their route to the White House lies in pumping up the white vote in the Rust Belt (a strategy perhaps foreshadowed by Scott Walker’s move to the right on immigration) or in broadening their appeal beyond their demographic comfort zone (a strategy that Jeb Bush has urged on the party). An additional reason for Dem optimism: Some Republicans are reportedly skeptical that the party should bother focusing its energy on nominating a candidate who might appeal to Latinos, on the grounds that those voters agree with Democrats on many issues, so being pro-immigration reform (as Jeb is) won’t be enough anyway. But some Democrats think their party should devote more time to worrying about the possibility that someone like Bush could win over enough Latino voters to make a decisive difference. Simon Rosenberg, the president of the NDN think tank, floats the possibility of a GOP ticket that includes Bush and Nevada governor Brian Sandoval as vice president. Sandoval won a third of the Latino vote in his 2010 race, despite striking a hard-ish line on immigration, from which he has since backed off. Sandoval is relatively young. A Bush-Sandoval ticket would be led by a man with a Mexican wife and Latino-American children, and backed up by a man of Mexican descent — representing a bet that the GOP can contest Florida and western states with large Latino populations by improving its cultural appeal among those voters. Remember, Republicans only need to marginally reduce their historically large 2012 deficit among Latinos to improve their chances in such states. So Rosenberg thinks Dems should invest more now in using the Trump outbursts to do more damage to the GOP brand among Latinos, as a kind of insurance policy against outcomes such as a Bush-Sandoval ticket. Rosenberg emails me: “While the Democratic advantage today is significant, what we don’t know is what happens with an historically Hispanic and Spanish friendly GOP ticket of, let’s say, Bush and Sandoval. One Bush already used a smart Hispanic strategy to get to the White House. Given that, Democrats should be anything but confident and complacent right now. They need to be doing more, now, to make it harder for any GOP ticket to dig out of the hole Trump and others have dug for the GOP.” To be sure, there are big differences between the current moment and the run-up to the 2000 election. Dems are far more united behind immigration reform today than in the late 1990s, reflecting a changing Democratic Party increasingly reliant on Latinos. Buzzfeed reports that the Hillary Clinton campaign is developing a very comprehensive and aggressive plan for national Latino outreach. She has already pledged to go farther than Obama did on his executive actions on deportations. And today she renewed her support for comprehensive reform and attacked the GOP as backward on the issue. All of these things are signs of Clinton’s commitment to the party’s new demographic realities. Meanwhile, House Republicans have steadily moved rightward on immigration, passing on a historic chance to act on the Senate reform bill and voting repeatedly to roll back Obama’s deportation actions. That has many Dems confident — to a point. “The damage may be too great to the GOP brand,” one senior aide to a prominent Latino House Democrat says. “It may take more than Bush-Sandoval to rehabilitate this huge mistake Republicans have been making. But we don’t know that. Personality, charisma, language, and the individual candidates mean a lot.” So, yes, perhaps Republicans have moved so far to the right on immigration that the party can’t conceivably re-run the 2000 Bush immigration strategy, or perhaps even reconstituting that strategy wouldn’t be enough to reverse GOP losses among Latinos at this point. But Democrats can’t count on those outcomes. *Here's what Clinton, O'Malley and Sanders told America's biggest teachers union <http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-dems-court-americas-biggest-teachers-union/article/2567749> // The Washington Examiner // Jason Russell – July 7, 2015 * Democratic candidates for president didn't miss their chance to address over 7,000 members of the National Education Association, which will be a powerful player in the Democratic primary process. Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders all sent video messages to the teachers, who were gathered at the NEA's Representative Assembly. In her address, Clinton used a theme of teachers unlocking potential in students. She talked about how teachers had encouraged her and her mother at a young age. "Every semester, in schools across the country, you multiply my mother's story by millions," Clinton told the teachers. "When we invest in our children, we do invest in our country's future, and we need to do more of that." Clinton promised high quality preschool, a doubling of spending on the federal Head Start program, and making college affordable for every single person. Sanders struck a more ideological tone. "We need some fundamental changes in our national priorities," Sanders said. "Instead of giving tax breaks to billionaires, maybe we invest in our children, maybe we invest in education." He promised to make progress on fixing No Child Left Behind, on universal pre-K and on free college tuition. He also called teachers the real heroes and heroines of the country. O'Malley tried to strike an optimistic note. "I believe, like you, that America's best days can still be in front of us," O'Malley said. He didn't make any specific promises about what he would do as president, but O'Malley touted the pro-union reforms he implemented in Maryland while serving as governor. For example, spending more on public education and making college more affordable. "This is what we do as Americans, to do more in every generation, to give our children a future with more opportunity, rather than less." NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia was glad the three candidates took the time to address the union's members. "Recommending a candidate for president of the United States is a civic responsibility that educators take very seriously," said Eskelsen Garcia. "Going through the process to pick the right candidate that represents our values and sets the right priorities is critically important." Eskelsen Garcia has met privately with Clinton, O'Malley and Sanders as part of the NEA's endorsement process for the 2016 presidential election. The NEA is the nation's largest teachers union, with 3 million members. *GOP* *DECLARED* *BUSH* *Florida’s Economic Leap Under Jeb Bush Helped By Housing Bubble, Economists Say <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/07/floridas-economic-leap-under-jeb-bush-helped-by-housing-bubble-economists-say/> // WSJ // Bob Davis – July 7, 2015 * Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says he can deliver 4% annual economic growth as president – about twice as fast as the U.S. has been growing recently. Why is he so confident? During his 1999-2007 tenure as governor, Florida grew 4.4%, his campaign boasts. Today it even unveiled a cute graphic illustrating the claim. The trouble is, say some economists, Gov. Bush’s Florida growth record was based in large part on a housing bubble – national in scope but particularly frothy in Florida — that exploded the year he left office in 2007. Wells Fargo economist Mark Vitner, who has studied the Florida economy since the 1980s, estimates that the housing bubble accounted for about one-fourth of Florida’s growth during Mr. Bush’s tenure. Subtract that out and you are left with 3.3% annual growth, somewhat faster than the 3% at which the U.S. economy grew annually during that period. (To be sure, the U.S. growth record overall back then was also affected by the housing bubble, though not as severely as Florida was.) Mr. Vitner said that Mr. Bush deserves credit as governor for trying to diversify the state’s economy, particularly by luring biotech companies to the state. He also says the U.S. could grow faster and maybe even at the 4% level that Mr. Bush has set as his target. But his Florida growth record isn’t proof of that. “Four percent growth was helped along by the housing boom,” he said. A spokeswoman for Mr. Bush said that 18% of Florida’s job growth during Gov. Bush’s two terms was in the housing or construction fields. “His overall economic record is impressive,” spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said in an emailed response. That record includes balancing the state’s budget, cutting taxes and fast job growth, she said. Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, a housing expert, says Florida’s economy in the early 2000s isn’t a model for U.S. growth over the coming years. “The growth in Florida wasn’t sustainable,” he said. “It was something temporary” due to the housing bubble. Moreover, Florida isn’t representative of the U.S., he said, because its population grows more rapidly than the U.S. as a whole, giving it an expanding pool of workers. That in itself can add to growth. “Florida isn’t a useful analogy because of its unique demographic situation,” he said. “It’s important for leaders to be aggressive [on the economy] and set a higher bar,” Mr. Zandi said. “But 4% is a stretch.” In an article in the Wall Street Journal last month, Mr. Bush’s top economic advisers, Columbia University Business School Dean Glenn Hubbard and former Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh, argued that 4% growth was attainable with the right set of policies. “Setting a goal of 4% growth invites meaningful policy contributions from those who would be our leaders,” they wrote. *Did Jeb Bush cut taxes each year as Florida governor? <http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/6/25/politifact_did_jeb_b.html> // Politifact – July 7, 2015 * On the campaign trail, a recurring theme among Republican candidates is how they have cut taxes and reduced the size of government. For former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, that message is a core part of his presentation. On June 2 at Gov. Rick Scott's Economic Growth Summit in Orlando, Bush noted how he cut taxes for Floridians. Bush said the following: "In Florida, for eight years we cut taxes every year, totaling $19 billion." PolitiFact Florida looked into Bush's record to see if his claim was accurate and reporter Joshua Gillin says Bush gets a HALF TRUE rating. Gillin says there are tax cuts that Bush can take credit for and others where he cannot. "We took the detailed analysis provided by his campaign and showed it to several economists," Gillin said. "They responded that the methodology that they used to get to the $19 billion figure was pretty clear. We do have to point out that the $19 billion is in 2007, and it has been adjusted up to cover the time he was in office. The $19 billion includes tax cuts, but that's not the only thing in there. Adjustments to fees are in there, as well, as well as appropriations and the way that things were appropriated." Gillin said, though, that some things included in the analysis were items that Bush had no control over. "There were two big items in Bush's list," Gillin said. "One was the intangibles tax. This is the amount that you pay on investments and stocks. The other was the federal estate tax. This one is the amount that your estate pays in taxes to the government when you die. In both of those cases, Bush didn't have any control over those, so our experts questioned whether or not he could take credit for those." Because Bush provided the detailed analysis to back up his claim, it gave PolitiFact a good overview of his claim. However, the analysis showed that there were things included that were outside of Bush's control while he was Florida governor, earning this claim a HALF TRUE. *Jeb Bush's Aggressive July Fundraising Schedule <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-07/bush-s-aggressive-july-fundraising-schedule> // Bloomberg // Michael Bender – July 7, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who says he's never taken more than a week of vacation at a time, is going to be hitting a couple of resorts next week. But it's not about fun. It's about funds. The two-day event for top donors at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, on Thursday and Friday, followed by a luncheon on Saturday at Martha's Vineyard, are part of the aggressive fundraising effort that's been a hallmark of the former Florida governor's campaign so far. He held 14 fundraisers in the first 18 days after kicking off his campaign. Another dozen are on tap for the rest of July, according to a schedule obtained by Bloomberg. Next week, Bush heads west next week for four fundraisers in California: July 14: Los Angeles. July 15: breakfast Pasadena, followed by lunch in Santa Barbara. July 16: event in Silicon Valley. Bush then returns to the East Coast to raise money in the backyard of rival Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, New Jersey's governor. Bush will headline two fundraisers on July 23 in New Jersey (Middleton and Short Hills) and an evening event on July 25 in East Hampton, New York. The final two finance events right now on Bush's July schedule: a July 26 reception in Philadelphia and a July 31 fundraiser in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The fundraising push for his presidential campaign comes after Bush spent the first six months tapping the family's donor network and his own in Florida to raise money for the Right to Rise super PAC. Bush's team was aiming to raise $100 million in the first three months of the year. Bush has sought to spread some cash around to fellow Republicans, and told donors that he'd raised record-breaking amounts of early money. Top Bush ally Mike Murphy told super PAC donors that fundraising totals were going to give opponents "heart attacks," according to a BuzzFeed report. The group's fundraising total will be public for the first time on July 30. *Jeb Bush: No Leniency for Edward Snowden <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeb-bush-no-leniency-for-edward-snowden/> // CBS News // Rebecca Kaplan – July 7, 2015 * If Jeb Bush becomes president, his administration will not be making any deals that allows Edward Snowden to avoid punishment for leaking classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) in 2013. Snowden broke the law, recklessly endangered nat'l security, & fled to China/Russia. He should be given no leniency https://t.co/9RHNGsHZnx — Jeb Bush (@JebBush) July 7, 2015 Bush was responding to an interview with Yahoo News in which Eric Holder, the former Attorney General who retired earlier this year, suggested a deal was possible. Holder told Yahoo that Snowden's actions "spurred a necessary debate" about the bulk collection of phone records and that the U.S. was "in a different place" as a result. As to whether that meant it was possible Snowden might return to the U.S. from Russia, where he was granted asylum after fleeing the U.S., Holder said, "I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with. I think the possibility exists." So far that's not the position of new Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Her spokesman Melanie Newman told Yahoo that the Justice Department wasn't changing its position on Snowden. "This is an ongoing case so I am not going to get into specific details but I can say our position regarding bringing Edward Snowden back to the United States to face charges has not changed," she said in an email. Snowden faces three felony charges if he returns to the U.S. His asylum in Russia has been a source of tension in U.S.-Russia relations, with President Obama canceling a planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 Summit in 2013 after Russia agreed to harbor Snowden. *Jeb Bush plans first Sioux City campaign stop <http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/jeb-bush-plans-first-sioux-city-campaign-stop/article_ca8852c5-a823-5857-89e2-18f900f82bff.html> // Sioux City Journal // Bret Hayworth – July 7, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush will hold his first Sioux City event since officially joining the broad field of 2016 candidates. A former Florida governor, Bush has set the event for 2:45 p.m. Monday in UPS Auditorium at Morningside College, 3627 Peters Ave. The event is open to the public, but those who want to attend should obtain a ticket by visiting the Eventbrite web site. Bush is a brother and son of two former presidents, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush. Jeb Bush won two gubernatorial terms, in 1998 and 2002, serving eight years as Florida's chief executive. Bush hired campaign staff in Iowa earlier this year but did not officially become a candidate until June 15. In his campaign launch announcement from Miami-Dade (Florida) College last month, Bush said he should win because of his own experience, not because his family ties. "I will take nothing and no one for granted -- I will run with heart, and I will run to win," he said. Bush campaigned in Iowa in June but did not visit Sioux City. The Morningside auditorium venue has been used by other Republican presidential candidates this year, including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina. There are more than a dozen Republicans running for president, so most are polling with single-digit percentage totals. In a July 1 Quinnipiac University Poll of likely Iowa Republican caucus participants, Bush placed sixth, with 8 percent support. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker continues to lead in recent Iowa polls, topping the Quinnipiac poll at 18 percent. In a prior Quinnipiac poll in May, Bush had 5 percent. Bush also will speak on Tuesday in Council Bluffs. The Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses are the first event in the presidential nominee-selection process. *Jeb Bush: 'No leniency' toward Snowden <http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jeb-bush-no-leniency-toward-snowden/article/2567743> // The Washington Examiner // Elizabeth Potter – July 7, 2015 * Republican presidential nominee Jeb Bush says he's outraged at the idea of Edward Snowden receiving a plea deal and being allowed back into the United States. Bush tweeted that Snowden "should be given no leniency" for his actions. Snowden has been charged with three felonies under the Espionage Act for distributing tens of thousands of government documents to the press. Those leaks, however, made Snowden a hero to many because they revealed the vast surveillance program involving the collection of bulk phone data, which Congress scaled back just weeks ago. Former Attorney General Eric Holder said on Monday that the U.S. may have benefitted from Snowden stealing approximately 1.7 million documents from the National Security Agency Net and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communication System. "We are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures," Holder said. "His actions spurred a necessary debate. I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with — I think the possibility exists." However, some, such as former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden, oppose the idea of a plea deal. Snowden's act "was the greatest hemorrhaging of legitimate American secrets in the history of the republic, no question about it," Hayden said, according to the Free Beacon. "I'm quite stunned that we would be considering any return of Snowden to this country other than to meet a jury of his peers, period." Snowden's attorney, Ben Wizner, said Holder's comments were the closest things to acknowledging that Snowden's actions may have had a positive impact on the U.S., Yahoo Politics reported. "The former attorney general's recognition that Snowden's actions led to meaningful changes is welcome," said Wizner. "This is significant ... I don't think we've seen this kind of respect from anybody at a Cabinet level before." *RUBIO* *Marco Rubio’s Education Plans Echo Some Obama Ideas <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/07/marco-rubios-education-plans-echo-some-obama-ideas/> // NYT // Alan Rappeport – July 7, 2015 * Senator Marco Rubio’s economic speech in Chicago on Tuesday criticized the failed Democratic policies of the past and called for the need to unleash American innovation. But when it came to education policy, some of presidential candidate’s proposals had a familiar ring to them. Mr. Rubio, the Republican from Florida, called for overhauling the college accreditation system, creating a pay scale for student loan repayment and expanding investment in vocational training. Many of the details from those ideas sounded strikingly similar to policies that President Obama has called for during his time in office. Mr. Rubio called for creating “a new accreditation process that welcomes low-cost, innovative providers” that would allow new competitors into the education marketplace. In 2013, Mr. Obama proposed establishing “a new, alternative system of accreditation that would provide pathways for higher education models and colleges to receive federal student aid based on performance and results.” On Tuesday, Mr. Rubio proposed a progressive scale for student loan repayments to ease burdens on people who take lower wage jobs when they graduate. “The more they make, the faster they pay back their loans; and the less they make, the less strain their loans cause,” he said. Last summer, Mr. Obama made a similar appeal, devising a “pay as you earn” plan that give Americans who were repaying loans the chance to cap those payments at 10 percent of their incomes. The senator also said that if he is elected president he would expand apprenticeship programs and make vocational training more easily accessible. While the idea came without specifics of how this would be achieved, it did echo a proposal that Mr. Obama put forward at the end of his first term that to ramp up spending on vocational training at the high school and college level. While Mr. Rubio has worked with Democrats on education legislation in the past, not all of his ideas are popular with the opposing party. Critics argue that his plan to create “student investment plans” could make college more expensive for some people, and the suggestion that he might eliminate the Department of Education is likely a non-starter with liberals. Holly Shulman, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, also noted that Mr. Rubio blocked a bill that would allow students to refinance their student loans, and opposed the president’s plan to make community college debt-free to anyone who works. “Marco Rubio has yet to articulate any new ideas,” Ms. Shulman said. *Marco Rubio Attacks Higher Education ‘Cartel’ and Jabs Rivals <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/07/marco-rubio-attacks-higher-education-cartel-and-jabs-rivals/> // NYT // Jeremy Peters – July 7, 2015 * Senator Marco Rubio, laying out an economic blueprint that will be central to his campaign for president, called Tuesday for dismantling the “cartel of existing colleges and universities” that he said left too many students without viable career paths and burdened by tens of thousands of dollars in debt. In a speech that was part history lesson, part policy prescription, and punctuated with barbs at Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Rubio spoke to a crowd of several dozen people at a technology center and put forward his vision for the American economy if it is to thrive into the next century. He also took veiled swipes at the Bush family. Mr. Rubio, a Florida Republican, dismissed the idea of a minimum-wage increase as “thinking small.” He said that big government had rigged taxes and regulations in favor of powerful interests. And he proposed an overhaul of higher education that would change the way colleges are accredited and student loans are repaid. “We do not need timid tweaks to the old system; we need a holistic overhaul,” Mr. Rubio said. “We need to change how we provide degrees, how those degrees are accessed, how much that access costs, how those costs are paid and even how those payments are determined.” As part of his higher education plan, Mr. Rubio has proposed two innovations that are aimed at making student loans more affordable. First, he said, he would put in effect an income-based payment system to allow graduates earning lower salaries to repay creditors on a timetable that he said would cause “less strain.” Those who earn more would have to repay their loans at a faster rate. A form of income-based repayment plans for student loans already exists. Mr. Rubio would also allow students to partner with investors who would cover the students’ tuition in exchange for a percentage of their earnings for a few years after graduation. The speech mostly contained ideas that he had put forward before. But it was a return to the campaign trail after almost two full months in which he was on a coast-to-coast fund-raising tour. He used his time in Chicago to take swipes at his opponents, some overt and others more subtle. He referred three times to Mrs. Clinton, who is running her second campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. “The race for the future will never be won by going backward,” he said. “It will never be won by hopping in Hillary Clinton’s time machine to yesterday.” Other slights appeared aimed just as much at some of Mr. Rubio’s Republican opponents, like former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida. Mr. Rubio said the ideas offered by Mrs. Clinton “and other outdated leaders are narrow and shortsighted.” “We have learned, painfully, that the old ways no longer work,” he said, “that Washington cannot pretend the world is the same as it was in the ’80s, it cannot raise taxes like it did in the ’90s, and it cannot grow government like it did in the 2000s.” Those last two references — to raising taxes in the 1990s and expanding government in the 2000s — were not coincidental. Mr. Bush’s father, President George Bush, famously approved a tax increase in 1990 after promising to block any. And his older brother, President George W. Bush, oversaw a significant expansion of the federal government after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. *Five takeaways from Marco Rubio’s speech on the innovation economy <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/07/five-takeaways-from-marco-rubios-speech-on-the-innovation-economy/> // WaPo // Steven Overly – July 7, 2015 * Marco Rubio is pushing a series of changes to the nation’s tax, immigration and education systems that the Republican presidential candidate contends will better prepare Americans for an economy driven by rapid technological innovation. The ideas outlined by the Florida senator in a speech on Tuesday, which was delivered at a co-working space for tech start-ups in Chicago, come as other presidential candidates are also trying to court the tech community’s vote. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have all met with technology executives and enthusiasts in Silicon Valley in recent months, hoping to mine the wealthy sector for potential donors and voices of support. With that audience in mind, Rubio’s speech focused largely on policy issues that are front of mind in tech circles, such as finding ways to get more highly skilled immigrants into the country and overhauling the tax code. “Today’s Technological Revolution carries extraordinary opportunities – even more, I believe, than the Industrial Revolution ever did. But we have not yet seized these opportunities, nor is it guaranteed that we will,” Rubio said. “Whether we do or do not will depend on the actions we take, the leaders we choose, and the reforms we adopt.” What follows are five takeaways from the policy pitch Rubio delivered on Tuesday. Immigration Rubio did not outline a comprehensive plan to address existing undocumented immigrants, but said the system should prioritize those immigrants who possess the skills and education that many American employers desire. “This requires reforming our legal immigration system to make it skill- and merit-based rather than family-based, which will protect American workers and attract more talent to grow our economy and create jobs,” Rubio said. That position should be well received among technology companies, which have long pushed for visas to be made more readily available to immigrants with science, technology, engineering and math degrees. Companies contend there aren’t enough American workers who possess those skills, and existing laws make it expensive and difficult to recruit talent from overseas. Education Rubio also set his political sights on the U.S. higher education system, which he said is “controlled by what amounts to a cartel of existing colleges and universities, which use their power over the accreditation process to block innovative, low-cost competitors from entering the market.” He vowed to establish a new accreditation process within his first 100 days in office that would be more welcoming to new players. Rubio also reiterated support for the “Student Right to Know Before You Go Act,” which would inform students how much money they can expect to earn from a given degree prior taking out student loans. Student Loans The cloud of debt that follows many students after college prevents many from pursuing a higher education, Rubio told the audience. That’s especially true for low-income individuals and single parents, who most stand to benefit from a degree. Rubio said he plans to implement income-based repayment of student loans, meaning those who earn more money are expected to repay their loans faster. He also called for the creation of Student Investment Plans that would allow wealthy individuals to invest in a young person’s education in exchange for a cut of their future salary. Finally, he called for an expansion of vocational training and apprenticeship programs so that students who don’t pursue a college education at least graduate from high school with certifications for technical jobs, such as as mechanics, electricians or welders. Taxes Rubio criticized the country’s current tax system for being unfavorable to large corporations and small businesses alike, a factor that he said contributes to companies shifting their employees and headquarters overseas. He pledged, if elected president, to make the corporate tax rate “competitive” with the 25 percent average found in other developed countries. He also proposed eliminating tax rules that allow the United States to levy taxes on money that companies earned overseas. “We have a tax code that punishes American companies for competing in the global economy, and a regulatory system that prevents small businesses – the primary engines of innovation and job creation – from competing against established players,” he said. Hillary Clinton Rubio’s speech wasn’t devoid of politics. Amid the policy proposals were several jabs at Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, whom Rubio repeatedly referred to as a sort of political relic who is too entrenched in the old ways of Washington. “The race for the future will never be won by going backward. It will never be won by hopping in Hillary Clinton’s time machine to yesterday,” Rubio said. “She seems to believe pumping more of today’s money into yesterday’s programs will bring prosperity tomorrow. It will not.” *Marco Rubio Outlines Economic Initiatives <http://www.wsj.com/articles/marco-rubio-outlines-economic-initiatives-1436289833> // WSJ // Patrick O’Connor – July 7, 2015 * Florida Sen. Marco Rubio cast himself Tuesday as “a new president for a new age,” laying out a series of economic initiatives to boost growth and give lower- and middle-income Americans access to the training and education needed to gain a foothold in the 21st-century economy. The Republican candidate outlined the proposals in an economic speech in which he urged policy makers to help workers overcome challenges presented by globalization, the technology revolution that spawned the Internet, and the automation displacing workers in all segments of the economy. “The path to the middle class is narrower today than it has been for generations, and the American dream so many achieved in the last century is in peril,” Mr. Rubio said, at a technology hub in Chicago’s Merchandise Mart where entrepreneurs congregate to work on new ventures. “It is not the result of a cyclical economic downturn that will naturally correct itself. It is borne of a fundamental transformation.” Mr. Rubio and several of his GOP rivals have made the economy, particularly wage stagnation and the sense that working-class Americans are falling behind, a central theme of their campaigns. Mr. Rubio is using his background as the son of a bartender and hotel maid to align himself with people who haven’t enjoyed the benefits of the economic recovery. Some candidates and their advisers believe the eventual nominee will be the candidate who offers the best recipe to address these concerns. Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for politics, policy and national security news. Most of the remedies Mr. Rubio proposed are staples of his economic-policy platform, including plans to reduce corporate tax rates to 25%, curb federal regulations by putting a cap on how much they cost, and allow companies to bring overseas revenue back to the U.S. without an additional tax hit. He also would cut taxes on business investments and give the public more access to the digital spectrum controlled by the federal government. Mr. Rubio, who authored a tax plan with Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah), would leave the top individual tax rate at 35%, unlike some of his GOP rivals. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s top tax rate would be 28%. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has called for scrapping the current tax code and replacing it with a 14.5% flat tax on all income, regardless of how much money a person makes. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, meanwhile, has pledged to abolish the Internal Revenue Service entirely. Many candidates haven't yet offered detailed plans, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the clear favorite for the Democratic nomination. A number of prominent conservatives have criticized Mr. Rubio’s tax proposals, saying they would add to the deficit unless they were paired with other policy changes to cut federal spending. Others disagree with his calls to expand the child-tax credit, expressing doubt about whether his $2,500 credit would spur economic growth. One cornerstone of the speech—and Mr. Rubio’s campaign—was his vow to revamp the higher-education system by expanding access to trade schools and for-profit colleges and making it easier for students to secure federally protected loans. On Tuesday, he promised to “bust” the higher-education “cartel” dominated by “existing colleges and universities.” The Florida senator also wants to let companies pay for employees’ education, invest more in vocational training starting in high school, and require schools to tell prospective students how much they can expect to earn after graduation, depending on the degrees they pursue. Mr. Rubio took shots at Mrs. Clinton and made veiled swipes at Mr. Bush’s father and brother. The government shouldn’t raise taxes as it did under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, he said, or “grow government” like it did under Jeb Bush’s brother, President George W. Bush. “The race for the future will never be won by going backward,” Mr. Rubio said. On Tuesday, Jeb Bush’s campaign unveiled a new video calling him an executive who made “tough decisions” that spurred job growth and balanced the state’s budget—a not-too-subtle contrast with Mr. Rubio and other current and former senators in the race. *Rubio rips GOP, Clinton <http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/jul/08/rubio-rips-gop-clinton-20150708/> // AP // Steve Peoples – July 8, 2015* The country’s future can’t thrive “by hopping in Hillary Clinton’s time machine to yesterday,” Sen. Marco Rubio said Tuesday in Chicago. CHICAGO -- Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican presidential candidate, called for lower corporate tax rates, looser Internet regulation and broader college accreditation in an economic policy speech Tuesday. Rubio jabbed at fellow Republicans, primarily for letting government grow so much in the 2000s, and Democrats, for policies that he said stifle job growth and "snuff out innovation" -- namely, their push for a higher minimum wage and for tax increases on the wealthy. "We need in this country a new president for a new age," the Florida senator said from the downtown Chicago offices of a digital startup. The nation would be better served, Rubio said, by embracing the "technological revolution." The forward-looking theme of Rubio's address mirrors his campaign, which aims to distinguish him from leading competitors in both parties -- including Republican Jeb Bush and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose families have been mainstays in American politics for decades. He repeatedly criticized Clinton, the former secretary of state who is seeking the Democratic nomination. "The race for the future will never be won by going backward," Rubio said. "It will never be won by hopping in Hillary Clinton's time machine to yesterday." And while not naming Bush, a former Florida governor, Rubio lashed out at the policies enacted when Bush's father and brother served in the White House. "We have learned, painfully, that the old ways no longer work -- that Washington cannot pretend the world is the same as it was in the 1980s, it cannot raise taxes like it did in the '90s, and it cannot grow government like it did in the 2000s," he said. While his campaign billed the Chicago speech as a major address, most of the "innovation agenda" he outlined represents policies he has proposed previously. Rubio called for changes to the tax code that would lower the corporate tax rate, establish a "territorial tax system" and allow "immediate, 100 percent expensing," which would permit businesses to take deductions on capital investments all at once. He previously released a detailed tax plan that would reduce all corporate taxes to 25 percent and cut taxes on business investment. Rubio also promoted a plan to modernize the national laboratory system in line with a proposal he introduced with Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., earlier in the year. And he reiterated his opposition to so-called Net neutrality, which aims to prevent Internet service providers from setting different download speeds for different types of content. And as he often does, Rubio said an immigration overhaul is necessary "to protect American workers and attract more talent to grow our economy and create jobs." On higher education, Rubio vowed to "bust the cartel" of existing colleges and universities by creating a new accreditation process. His campaign said Rubio would allow lower-cost alternative education providers, such as online academies, to earn accreditation. Democratic National Committee spokesman Holly Shulman said Rubio "continues to peddle the same failed Republican policies that cripple the economy and squeeze the middle class." Rubio, 44, is among more than a dozen candidates seeking the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. He is also one of the youngest candidates in the race. He appeared in Chicago hours before he was to begin his first extended campaign swing through an early voting state. He was scheduled to campaign in Iowa, the first-in-the-nation caucus state, through Thursday. *Marco Rubio Economy: ‘The old ways no longer work’ <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/129f5e07bbef4b1db8d0bbc3bf895837/rubio-economy-old-ways-no-longer-work> // AP // Steve Peoples – July 7, 2015 * With an eye on the future, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is laying out his plans for an "innovative economy" and "revolutionized higher education system" in his first major domestic policy speech as a presidential candidate. The Republican White House hopeful will outline his policies at a Tuesday morning speech in Chicago before an extended campaign swing through Iowa. "We need a new president for a new age — one with original ideas to unlock the two great doors to the future: the doors of innovation and education," Rubio says in prepared remarks. "I come before you today to discuss my ideas to spur American innovation onward, to ensure the rise of the machines will not be the fall of the worker, and to create a new American Century." The forward-looking theme of Rubio's address mirrors that of his entire campaign, which helps distinguish himself from leading competitors in both parties whose families have been mainstays in American politics for decades. The 44-year-old Rubio does not name Republican former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush or Democrat Hillary Clinton in excerpts of his remarks released to The Associated Press, yet he cites the years that the Bushes and Clintons governed. "We have learned, painfully, that the old ways no longer work — that Washington cannot pretend the world is the same as it was in the '80s, it cannot raise taxes like it did in the '90s, and it cannot grow government like it did in the 2000s," Rubio says. While he has yet to release specifics, an aide said Rubio would detail an "innovation agenda" focused on tax reform that includes a lower corporate tax rate, the establishment of a "territorial tax system" and allowing "immediate 100 percent expensing for businesses," which allows businesses to take deductions for capital investments all at once. He will also promote a plan to modernize the national lab system. The aide spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to publicly pre-empt Rubio's address. Rubio will also address his opposition to so-called "net neutrality," which would prevent Internet service providers from setting different download speeds for different types of content. On higher education, the aide said Rubio would call for an overhaul of the accreditation process, among other reforms. "Today's Technological Revolution carries extraordinary opportunities - even more, I believe, than the Industrial Revolution ever did," Rubio says. "The race for the future will never be won by going backward." *Marco Rubio slams Hillary Clinton, higher ed ‘cartel’ in policy speech <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/marco-rubio-economic-plan-policy-speech-119808.html#ixzz3fGrmtKys> // Politico // Eli Stokols – July 7, 2015 * Picking up on the generational themes of his announcement speech three months ago, Marco Rubio laid out an economic plan Tuesday that sought to distinguish himself as “a new president for a new age.” Promising to usher in a “new American century” — his campaign’s forward-looking slogan — Rubio painted a picture of himself as a candidate in step with a new era and a fast-changing economy, promising to reform the Tax Code and modernize higher education to better align with how the 21st-century economy now works. The much-publicized policy speech, before an audience of more than 200 local entrepreneurs, included direct attacks on Hillary Clinton as an “outdated” representative and implicitly dismissed one of his main GOP rivals, Jeb Bush, as a candidate of the past. “New opportunities cannot be seized by old ideas, and the future must be embraced with enthusiasm and vision,” Rubio said. By framing himself as the more youthful, future-oriented candidate against the 60-somethings, the first-term Florida senator sought to define Clinton and Bush as his main rivals while laying out his case against them — that, at 44 years old, he’s the one armed with new ideas and a deeper understanding of the challenges of modern college students and young entrepreneurs. “For the first 15 ½ years of this century, Washington has looked to the past,” Rubio said. “Our economy has changed, but our economic policies have not. And we have learned, painfully, that the old ways no longer work.” Balancing a gloomy characterization of an uncertain future with his own optimistic promise to help lay “the cornerstone for a new American century,” Rubio packaged a modest mix of policy proposals in lofty, sometimes forceful rhetoric. But the ideas outlined in the speech weren’t new for Rubio, who has already laid out some of the proposals outlined Tuesday, including a proposal to dramatically lower the U.S. tax on companies’ foreign earnings. Rubio used the speech as an opportunity to criticize Clinton’s economic policies, offering to bust regulations that “are the result of an alliance between Big Business and Big Government” in order to jump-start the economy. “Hillary Clinton argues the economy is rigged in favor of wealthy interests — but what she won’t tell you is that Big Government is doing the rigging,” Rubio said. “A massive regulatory apparatus inevitably becomes the instrument of those with the lawyers and lobbyists necessary to influence it.” At almost every point in his speech, Rubio sought to contrast his vision against Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee. “The race for the future will never be won by going backward,” he said. “It will never be won by hopping in Hillary Clinton’s time machine to yesterday. She seems to believe pumping more of today’s money into yesterday’s programs will bring prosperity tomorrow. It will not. Nor will thinking small. Hiking the minimum wage by a few dollars will not save the American Dream; it will accelerate automation and outsourcing. Increasing taxes and regulations will not promote fairness or opportunity; it will snuff out innovation and crush small business.” When he turned to higher education, Rubio again slammed Clinton and her ideas as “outdated” and “shortsighted,” and he called for breaking up the higher ed “cartel” — he promised a “holistic overhaul” of how colleges and universities control tuition and financial aid, offer instruction and provide degrees. “Our higher education system is controlled by what amounts to a cartel of existing colleges and universities, which use their power over the accreditation process to block innovative, low-cost competitors from entering the market,” Rubio said. “Within my first 100 days, I will bust this cartel by establishing a new accreditation process that welcomes low-cost, innovative providers. This would expose higher education to the market forces of choice and competition, which would prompt a revolution driven by the needs of students — just as the needs of consumers drive the progress of every other industry in our economy.” Rubio, however, has come under fire for supporting a segment of the higher education system that some see as predatory — for-profit colleges. Last year, Rubio asked the Department of Education to show leniency to Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit college company that was forced to close down its campuses after the Obama administration accused it of lying about job placement rates. In a question and answer session following the speech, which took place at 1871, a digital startup incubator inside the city’s old Merchandise Mart, Rubio explained that the old measures of economic stability such as the unemployment rate are no longer as indicative of the true state of the workforce because so many people are underemployed and others who have jobs continue to struggle with the skyrocketing cost of child care. He also lamented that so many young people have graduated from college with student loan debt only to find that their degrees are misaligned with the kinds of jobs a rapidly changing economy is creating. “All the things we once told people they needed to do to succeed no longer work,” Rubio said. “No one has explained why the old ways no longer work and what the new ways should be.” *Marco Rubio is about to give a major economic speech that he hopes will kick-start his campaign <http://www.businessinsider.com/r-republican-white-house-contender-rubio-to-deliver-economic-speech-2015-7#ixzz3fGu6OY65> // Reuters // James Oliphant – July 7, 2015 * Presidential candidate Marco Rubio will deliver an economic speech in Chicago on Tuesday with the goal of separating himself from the packed field of Republican candidates and kick-starting his campaign into a more active, visible phase. Rubio, a senator from Florida, has spent much of the last several weeks either bogged down in a U.S. Senate preoccupied with a Pacific Rim trade deal or out of the public eye raising money. But after his Chicago speech, Rubio will visit Iowa and then Nevada, both of which hold key nominating contests early next year. His campaign says to expect further travel, likely to New Hampshire. With his Cuban-American background, youth and compelling biography, Rubio, 44, has long been viewed by campaign analysts as one candidate in the ever-growing field of 14 who could break out from the pack. As yet, however, there is little sign of that. State polls in early primary states, save for his home state of Florida, have typically shown Rubio struggling to crack double-digits. A Reuters Ipsos poll showed Rubio drawing support from 9.6 percent of likely Republican primary voters nationally - behind former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the nominal front-runner, and reality show star Donald Trump. Rubio is expected to use his speech in Chicago to defend his tax-reform plan, which has been criticized in conservative circles, and touch upon themes that some economists say sound unusual coming from a Republican presidential hopeful. Rubio has used previous campaign events to discuss the plight of working mothers, middle-class families and college students, wading into topics that Democrats often emphasize. He has questioned whether a traditional college education provides a good bargain for some students who he says would benefit more from skills-based training. “Only through an innovative economy can we translate new technologies into new middle-class jobs,” Rubio will say Tuesday, according to excerpts of his speech released ahead of time, “and only through a revolutionized higher education system can we equip all our people to fill those jobs.” James Pethokoukis, a scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said Rubio deserved credit for trying to develop an agenda that goes beyond criticizing President Barack Obama and the leading Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton. But Pethokoukis, like several conservatives, was critical of Rubio’s tax plan, which would simplify the federal tax code and offer new tax credits to families with children. Unlike some plans floated by Rubio's rivals, his plan would not significantly lower the top-tier income tax rates, though it would cut the corporate tax rate. *Rubio: College 'cartels' need busting in new economy <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/rubio-higher-education-overhaul/> // CNN // Tom LoBianco – July 7, 2015 * Sen. Marco Rubio says that Americans need to train for a new economy with new skills and that one of the first steps on that path requires busting the university "cartel" that trains students for outdated jobs. "Our higher education system is controlled by what amounts to a cartel of existing colleges and universities, which use their power over the accreditation process to block innovative, low-cost competitors from entering the market," Rubio said. He made his conservative populist pitch to technology leaders in Chicago on Tuesday morning, shortly before he heads off to Iowa for a three-day campaign swing. The Florida Republican has crafted an image as a younger alternative to Hillary Clinton -- which he continued Tuesday with jabs at "Clinton's time machine to yesterday" -- but also implicitly contrasts himself with another frontrunner, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Rubio promised that he would change student-lending rules to allow private investors to pay for individual students to attend college and overhaul how colleges are accredited. The concept of having individual donors fund students is being pushed by former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Daniels was appointed Purdue University president in 2012 by his appointees to the college's board of trustees, following an eight-year run in office. Since then he has lobbied for sweeping conservative changes in higher education. Daniels told Congress in March that students would have to repay the private loan through a portion of their income, but said that federal legislation would be needed. Rubio co-sponsored the measure earlier this year which would establish the framework for the private donor concept and referenced it again Tuesday during his 20-minute speech. Candidates from both parties have been highlighting student debt (and college costs) as a major problem, but have very different ideas for tackling the problem. Rubio has had his own struggles with student debt, detailed at length in a New York Times investigation of his finances. Rubio started his political career, after graduating law school, with $150,000 in student loan debt, though he's since wiped that out. *Marco Rubio's 'New' Plan For Creating Jobs Is Actually Old And Borrowed <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/07/marco-rubio-jobs_n_7744742.html> // HuffPo // Igor Bobic – July 7, 2015* Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is casting himself as the youthful, forward-thinking presidential candidate of the future, a bold reformer awash with new ideas on how best to usher in a new American century. The message is an overt criticism of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who Rubio says offers nothing more than a "time machine to yesterday" with a vision he calls "narrow and shortsighted." Yet many of the Florida Republican's own proposals, outlined in a speech he delivered in Chicago on Tuesday, include ideas that Rubio and others have put forth before. That's not to say that the senator isn't bringing anything new to the table, but he is also touting his old proposals to draw a contrast with Clinton and, more implicitly, Republican rival Jeb Bush, another member of a political dynasty. Right off the bat, Rubio proposed to "cut our corporate tax rate to be competitive with the average of 25 percent for developed nations." He promised to "establish a territorial tax system," and to "allow immediate, 100 percent expensing for businesses." And he said he would "put a ceiling on the amount U.S. regulations" cost the economy through regulatory reform. The proposals are standard fare among lawmakers who have been calling for tax reform for years. In 2012, GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both supported the expensing of business capital. However, Rubio's tax plan, which he introduced with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) earlier this year, ran into opposition from an unexpected quarter -- other Republicans. As New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait wrote in April, the tax cut Rubio proposed is "so gargantuan that nobody in the party actually believes it." The senator also promised to reallocate more of the government's wireless spectrum for commercial use by forcing federal agencies to sell their frequencies to the highest bidder. He introduced a bill to do this in the Senate last year, attracting some bipartisan support. Congress has debated how to make more of the spectrum more widely available through incentives, but Rubio does appear to be one of the only lawmakers who supports doing so forcibly. Meanwhile, Rubio said he would reform the nation's legal immigration system "to make it skill- and merit-based rather than family-based." Immigration activists worry such a focus would break up immigrant families. But the idea has roots in the sweeping, bipartisan immigration reform bill passed by the Senate that Rubio helped draft in 2013 -- and later renounced after taking heat from conservatives who opposed the bill's proposed path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The legislation would have created a merit-based visa program that would score each applicant on criteria such as employment status, geographic location and family considerations. It would have also increased the number of merit-based visas and green cards issued to keep the highest-skilled workers in the U.S. The second half of Rubio's speech on job creation centered on ways to reform the country's education system. But most of the proposals rehashed his 2014 plan for higher education. The senator promised to bust the higher education "cartel" within his first 100 days in office by introducing "choice and competition" into the accreditation process. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), a former Republican vice presidential nominee, proposed a similar overhaul in 2014. Like President Barack Obama, Rubio is also in favor of allowing students to get credentials outside of traditional universities and colleges. Rubio said he would "make student loans more manageable by making Income-Based Repayment automatic for all graduates, so the more they make, the faster they pay back their loans; and the less they make, the less strain their loans cause." Former Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) advocated the idea of automatic income-based loan repayment as far back as 1983. The Florida senator also said he would expand apprenticeship programs to "provide on-the-job training and help standardize skills by allowing students to learn methods from experienced workers and spread them throughout the industry." Rubio already spoke about expanding apprentice programs last year, and Hillary Clinton called for a tax credit to benefit companies that hire people as apprentices last month. In his State of the Union address last year, Obama called for similar incentives to expand apprenticeship programs, and there is currently a bipartisan effort in Congress to do so. Similarly, Rubio's proposal to require lending institutions to "tell students how much they can expect to earn with a given degree before they take out the loans to pay for it" already made headlines when he introduced a bill to do so alongside Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in 2013. Ditto for Rubio's "Student Investment Plan," which he unveiled last year and which would allow students to partner with corporate investors for tuition relief. The new sheen fooled some news outlets, generating a wave of positive coverage for the candidate on Tuesday. "Marco Rubio has a wild plan to have investors pay for college and make money off students' future earnings," read a headline on Business Insider. Such a tactic, if it continues to be rewarded, may be just what the candidate needs in order to distinguish himself among a very crowded -- and more experienced -- Republican presidential field. *Rubio: Don't expect a Romney endorsement soon <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/247076-rubio-dont-expect-a-romney-endorsement-soon> // The Hill // Jesse Byrnes – July 7, 2015 * While Mitt Romney may have become the de facto standard bearer of the Republican Party following his 2012 White House nomination, an endorsement for any 2016 candidate is not on the horizon, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Tuesday. “No, I don't think that's fair to say," Rubio said in interview Tuesday on Fox Business Network when pressed whether Romney could be expected to endorse him. "I don't suspect Governor Romney will endorse anyone in this race. He's someone I admire. He's someone that I like very much," Rubio added. Host Neil Cavuto questioned Rubio about staying, along with his family, at Romney's New Hampshire home over the weekend. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another 2016 GOP candidate, also stayed there with his family. When Romney ended a brief public flirtation with his own 2016 bid early this year, he suggested that "one of our next generation of Republican leaders" would become the nominee, which many interpreted to be an implicit nod toward Rubio, now 44, the youngest candidate in the crowded GOP field led by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, 62. Romney and Bush reportedly met for lunch Monday with several members of their families in Maine, though Romney said last month he would likely not endorse a 2016 candidate until the Republican nominee is selected. Rubio described conversations at the weekend sleepover as "pretty much non-political" Tuesday, saying of Romney's clan, "I wouldn't read too much into it. They're meeting with other people, and they've been very gracious with others as well." Romney, after helping many Republicans secure midterm victories last year, has lately turned his attention to helping his party prepare for the lengthy 2016 presidential primary process and eventual general election. During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" last month, Romney mentioned Rubio, Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich by name, saying about a half-dozen candidates could be president. Walker and Kasich have not entered the race officially yet, but both are expected to do so soon. Romney also hosted Rubio, Walker and Kasich at a retreat in Park City, Utah, in June. *Marco Rubio 2016 Campaign: Nonprofit Backing GOP Candidate Rubio Raises Almost $16 Million <http://www.latinpost.com/articles/64620/20150707/marco-rubio-2016-campaign-nonprofit-backing-gop-candidate-raises-16.htm> // Latin Post // Andre Puglie – July 7, 2015 * A nonprofit backing Marco Rubio has raised almost $16 million, parts of which the group plans to invest in television advertisements for the Republican Florida senator's 2016 White House bid, According to Politico, The Conservative Solutions Project, which operates separately from Rubio's political-action committee, disclosed that it was on track to reaching its overall fundraising goal of $25 million. "With more than $15.8 million raised already, Conservative Solutions Project is nearly two-thirds of the way to our overall fundraising goal," the nonprofit's president, Pat Shortridge, said in a statement. He added, "These funds will allow us to continue the fight to restore our military and our nation's role in the world, and given the recent news about the nation's stagnant economy, advocate for conservative solutions to an inefficient tax code and education reform so all Americans have a chance to pursue their dreams." Conservative Solutions, which has already spent $1 million on television commercials, said on Monday it would boost its advertising campaign to a total of $3.3 million, according to CNN. Some of the group's early spots, the advertisements focused on Rubio's attacks on the Obama administration's proposed nuclear deal with Iran, an issue The New York Times called "critical" for some of the most generous GOP donors. The group's announcement reveals that Rubio is "the biggest beneficiary so far of a new and largely untested means for moving unlimited cash into presidential primary campaigns," The New York Times noted. Meanwhile, the Conservative Solutions Project is taking care of many activities typically carried out by a formal presidential campaign, and that includes what the paper called "extensive research on the Republican primary electorate." Supporters of other contenders in the increasingly crowded field for the Republican nomination -- including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- have set up similar groups and used them as "de facto campaigns prior to their kickoff events," CNN noted. *Nonprofit with secret donors, linked to Rubio super PAC, raises millions <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nonprofit-with-secret-donors-linked-to-rubio-super-pac-raises-millions/> // CBS News // Stephanie Condon – July 7, 2015 * A relatively new nonprofit -- with the same name as a pro-Marco Rubio super PAC -- has raised nearly $16 million to spend on issue-related ads in the 2016 election, the New York Times reports. The robust fundraising haul illustrates how 2016 presidential candidates like Rubio may benefit from the new crop of secretive nonprofits that are playing a growing role in elections, thanks to a series of relatively recent court rulings. The organization Conservative Solutions Project has already spent $3.3 million on television and radio advertising, the Times reports, focusing on Rubio's attacks of the Obama administration's Iran nuclear negotiations. However, the group told the Times that it's not devoted to any particular candidate. As a tax-exempt "social welfare" organization -- in the 501(c)(4) category -- the group is allowed to spend unlimited sums of money on politics as long as politics isn't its main focus. That's why its advertising will be largely "issue based." In most cases, these "social welfare" nonprofits aren't required to name their donors. A spokesman for Conservative Solutions Project told the Times it is unlikely to publicly name its donors. The secretive nature of these groups has created the potential for corruption, several public advocacy groups and politicians have argued. While Congress hasn't done much about the rise of these "dark money" groups, leaders at the state level -- both Democrats and Republicans -- are trying to rein them in. *Marco Rubio: “We need a new president for a new age” <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marco-rubio-we-need-a-new-president-for-a-new-age/> // CBS News // Sopan Deb – July 7, 2015 * Florida Sen. Marco Rubio pitched himself as the presidential candidate of the future in a speech Tuesday, arguing he's better equipped than his rivals to govern a rapidly transforming and innovating America. Rubio's choice of venue for the speech - his first major domestic policy address since he announced his presidential campaign - was no accident. He spoke at 1871, an incubator for digital start-ups in Chicago. 187s is a hub of "digital innovation," Rubio said -- an organization at the forefront of what the senator referred to as today's "technological revolution." Among the apps that have sprung from 1871: Spot Hero - an app that helps you find parking right away and Options Away, which allows passengers to hold a flight at a certain price without actually booking it. One of Rubio's GOP primary rivals, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, spoke at the organization in the spring. In his speech, Rubio, the second-youngest candidate in the GOP field at 43 years old, framed himself as the human embodiment of 1871 -- the only presidential candidate in the field with the perspective needed to lead the country in the 21st century. Even the title of the speech -- "Jobs For A New American Century" -- hinted at Rubio's forward-looking message. "For the first fifteen and a half years of this century, Washington has looked to the past," Rubio said. "Our economy has changed, but our economic policies have not. And we have learned, painfully, that the old ways no longer work - that Washington cannot pretend the world is the same as it was in the '80s, it cannot raise taxes like it did in the '90s, and it cannot grow government like it did in the 2000s." "We need a new president for a new age," he added. "One with original ideas to unlock the two great doors to the future: the doors of innovation and education." Much of the speech laid out his platform on the economy and education. Rubio proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to make the U.S. "competitive with the average of 25 percent for developed nations." He called for establishing a "territorial tax system," which he said would bring money back to the economy held overseas by companies not wanting to be taxed on foreign income. Critics allege that territorial taxing would encourage companies to increase capital abroad, which would then lower wages back home. Rubio cited several specific technologies on the horizon - self-driving cars, virtual reality, robotics - but said that we have "quite nearly the exact opposite" of a business-friendly economy. He noted that U.S. corporate taxes are the highest in the developed world -- a claim that fact-checking organization Politifact has rated mostly true. The U.S. has the highest statutory tax rate and the second highest effective rate, among advanced industrialized nations. At one point, Rubio managed to get a laugh from the 100 or so attendees in the audience (some sporting Marco Rubio t-shirts) by joking that self-driving cars would be great for him, considering recent news reports. It was a clear nod to a recent New York Times piece that explored his family's checkered driving history. In his single reference to immigration policy, Rubio called for a shift to a system based on merit - designed to attract the world's best and brightest workers - rather than a system based on familial relations. He did not mention his past support for a comprehensive immigration bill that includes a path to citizenship -- a stance that has earned plaudits from immigrant and Latino groups but one that has put him at odds with most of the rest of the Republican primary field. On the subject of education, Rubio proposed tackling the growing problem of higher education debt by making income-based repayment automatic for all graduates. He wasn't clear on whether this would include only federal loans. He also raised the idea of Student Investment Plans, which would allow investors to pay the cost of tuition for students and then take a cut of the students' salary after college. He didn't target any of his Republican primary opponents by name, but focused his criticism on Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. "The race for the future will never be won by going backward," Rubio said. "It will never be won by hopping in Hillary Clinton's time machine to yesterday. She seems to believe pumping more of today's money into yesterday's programs will bring prosperity tomorrow." Rubio called for expanding access to vocational schools as early as high school -- a proposal on which he and Clinton might be able to find common ground. Last year, at Arizona State University, Clinton called for the country to "get back to really respecting vocational and technical work." The Senator raced off to Iowa after the speech for a busy couple days of campaigning. The trip marks Rubio's third visit to Iowa, site of the nation's first presidential nominating contest, in 2015. Of his previous two trips, one occurred after he announced his candidacy and one came in February on a book tour. Rubio's first event in Iowa this time will occur in Des Moines at the Exile Brewing Company. He'll hold a happy hour with the Bull Moose Club, a forum for Iowa Republicans under the age of 40, and he's hoping he'll find a receptive audience for his message about the generational divide. Of the GOP's 2016 candidates, only retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum have addressed the group thus far this cycle. *Marco Rubio’s Economic Plan Calls For Students To Sell Themselves To Private Investors <http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/07/07/3677543/marco-rubios-economic-plan-calls-students-sell-private-investors/> // Think Progress // Alice Ollstein – July 7, 2015 * Florida Senator and Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio described his economic platform in a speech Tuesday in Chicago, touching on well-worn GOP priorities including slashing corporate taxes from 35 to 25 percent, further deregulating the private sector, restricting family immigration, and resisting calls to raise the minimum wage. Taking several specific shots at Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, Rubio said his plan would avoid “pumping more of today’s money into yesterday’s programs,” and bring the U.S. into the future. In the speech, Rubio also called for a “revolutionized” higher education system. If elected president, he promised to “bust…the cartel of existing colleges and universities” by loosening the rules for accreditation so that “innovative, low-cost competitors” can court students. But critics say the government accreditation process is already far too loose, allowing predatory for-profit chains like Corinthian Colleges to win federal approval and funding even as they mislead students into paying for essentially worthless degrees. He also touted the “Student Right to Know Before You Go Act” he co-sponsored with Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden — a plan extremely similar to one President Obama pushed for last year that ranks colleges by how much their tuition costs and how much money their graduates make. Lamenting the “shadow of debt hovering over millions of graduates,” Rubio then proposed a model already suggested by his rival Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ): allowing rich individuals or hedge funds to pay a students tuition and collect their investment back post-graduation. “It may result in a profit for the investor or it may not – but unlike with loans, none of the risk lies with the student,” Rubio said. He expanded on this idea in a speech last year: Let’s say you are a student who needs $10,000 to pay for your last year of school. Instead of taking this money out in the form of a loan, you could apply for a “Student Investment Plan” from an approved and certified private investment group. In short, these investors would pay your $10,000 tuition in return for a percentage of your income for a set period of time after graduation – let’s say, for example, 4% a year for 10 years. This group would look at factors such as your major, the institution you’re attending, your record in school – and use this to make a determination about the likelihood of you finding a good job and paying them back. Unlike with loans, you would be under no legal obligation to pay back that entire $10,000. Your only obligation would be to pay that 4% of your income per year for 10 years, regardless of whether that ends up amounting to more or less than $10,000. But these “Student Investment Plans,” which also have the Orwellian name “human capital contracts,” raise many serious concerns. For one, investors may refuse to cover entire fields of students not likely to bring in the big bucks after graduation, or would charge them a staggeringly high percentage of their income. For those backing this plan, such as the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), this poses no problem. “Isn’t this ‘unfair’ to those wanting to be librarians, teachers, social workers, etc., since they would have to forego more of their incomes to satisfy the human capital contract? Not really,” writes AEI Adjunct Scholar Richard Vedder. “Society puts a relatively low value on those jobs.” Additionally, following Rubio’s math of 4 percent over 10 years, a graduate would have to earn an extremely low salary for the investor not to make a profit. Vedder and other advocates of the plan are less cautious, and have voiced support for plans that take as high as 25 percent of a graduates salary for multiple decades after they enter the workforce. The National College Access Network and other groups have warned that such a plan could cost students even more than high-interest federal loan programs, diverting away money those graduates could have used to save for retirement or buy a house. Rubio’s proposal is similar to the “Pay It Forward, Pay It Back” model currently being explored by the state of Oregon — with one crucial difference. In Oregon’s plan, the investor is the democratically-elected state government, so when graduates repay their loans that money can go back into public education. Under Rubio’s version, the money would go into the pockets of investors. *Marco Rubio Outlines Domestic Policy Agenda, Jabs Clinton <http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/marco-rubio-outlines-domestic-policy-agenda-jabs-clinton-n387996> // NBC News // Alex Jaffe – July 7, 2015 * In his first domestic policy-focused speech since announcing his bid for president, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio on Tuesday outlined his vision for tax and higher education reform to usher in a "New American Century" marked by innovation and prosperity. The GOP presidential candidate told the audience at a digital startup co-working space in Chicago that while the future may look bleak today, his proposals would ensure America remains competitive globally. And he took direct aim at Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, framing her as a backward-looking foil to his forward-focused agenda. "The race for the future will never be won by going backward. It will never be won by hopping in Hillary Clinton's time machine to yesterday," Rubio told the crowd. "She seems to believe pumping more of today's money into yesterday's programs will bring prosperity tomorrow." The Florida senator said technological innovation and globalization has created a situation in which "the path to the middle class is narrower today than it has been for generations, and the American Dream so many achieved in the last century is in peril." Higher-education "cartels" are a key inhibitor of upward mobility, he said, pledging to overhaul the system in the first 100 days of his presidency by "establishing a new accreditation process that welcomes low-cost, innovative providers." A President Rubio would also require schools to tell students how much they can expect to earn from their degrees, and expand access to career and vocational schools as well as apprenticeship programs for training on the job. In his remarks, he outlined a broad array of domestic reforms, from an overhaul of the business tax code to reforming the legal immigration system to bring in more high-skilled workers. He argued in particular against raising the minimum wage, which he said "will accelerate automation and outsourcing" rather than improve the quality of life for Americans. Instead, Rubio proposes cutting the corporate tax rate to be competitive with the average 25 percent rate for developed countries, creating a "territorial tax system" to prevent businesses from being taxed twice on profits, and allowing businesses to take deductions on 100 percent of the funds they invest back into business development and employee wages. He also called for "reforming our legal immigration system to make it skill- and merit-based rather than family-based, which will protect American workers and attract more talent to grow our economy and create jobs." The speech marked Rubio's reemergence on the campaign trail after weeks spent bogged down in Senate business on Capitol Hill and fundraising jaunts across the nation. Rubio's campaign has yet to announce how much the aggressive fundraising schedule earned his campaign, although a key outside group backing him announced Monday that it has raised $15.8 million to date. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 14 percent of Republican primary voters identified him as their first choice for the nomination, placing him behind rivals Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. But the speech, along with his campaign swing through Iowa and Nevada in the coming days, is meant to catapult him back into the race and again highlight what Rubio's aides and allies see as his greatest asset -- his youthful appeal and unique personal narrative, in a field of older GOP candidates. *PAUL* *Rand Paul, dorm room philosopher: Why his “slavery” nonsense is so outrageous <http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/rand_paul_dorm_room_philosopher_why_his_slavery_nonsense_is_so_outrageous/> // Salon // Simon Maloy – July 7, 2015* Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul has a tax plan he’d like to sell you on. The plan, which would put in place a 14.5 percent flat tax, was crafted with the input of some of the wrongest people in the conservative economic policy world, and it would redistribute wealth up the economic ladder while tossing a bone or two to the people at the bottom. But Rand is proud of it nonetheless, mainly because he thinks it’s less slavery-like than your average tax scheme. Here’s what Paul said last week about taxation and “freedom,” as reported by BuzzFeed: “Now you can have some government, we all need government,” the Kentucky senator said while discussing Thomas Paine and the role of government at the local public library. “Thomas Paine said that government is a necessary evil. What did he mean by that?” Paul said he believes that “you have to give up some of your liberty to have government,” saying he was “for some government.” “I’m for paying some taxes,” continued Paul. “But if we tax you at 100% then you’ve got zero percent liberty. If we tax you at 50% you are half slave, half free. I frankly would like to see you a little freer and a little more money remaining in your communities so you can create jobs. It’s a debate we need to have.” That was his big pitch – The Rand Paul tax plan: Only 14.5 percent slavery! This is a dumb argument. And it’s upsetting to hear this dumb argument coming from someone who is trying to be president, but will go back to writing and approving legislation if/when that doesn’t work out. Taxation is not tantamount to slavery. The only thing that’s comparable to slavery is actual slavery. You might not like it that a portion of your paycheck is sent to the feds and your state government, and you may disagree with how your tax dollars are spent, but that is in no way comparable to being kept in bondage and having the fruits of your labor stolen from you. Any way you look at this argument, it’s bad. When you’ve staked out the position that your effective tax rate is how you measure one’s slave status, then you’re arguing that a progressive tax structure means rich people are less free than the lucky poor folks who would see a smaller percentage of their income go to the government. By this reading, a hedge fund billionaire who moves his assets offshore to avoid paying taxes is basically Frederick Douglass. And when you refer to something as slavery, how can you then make the case that there is an acceptable threshold for it? Why should 14.5 percent slavery be any more tolerable than 100 percent slavery? It gets even worse when you remember that Rand Paul is trying to make inroads with black voters and repair his party’s abysmally bad reputation with African-Americans. Rand obviously understands at a certain level that slavery was a uniquely horrific crime, the memory of which still haunts our politics. After the shootings in Charleston last month, Paul called for the Confederate flag to be removed from grounds of the South Carolina Capitol because “to every African-American in the country it’s a symbolism of slavery to them and now it’s a symbol of murder to this young man.” Here we are, just a couple of weeks later, and he’s comparing the grotesque human rights violations represented by that flag to the banal act of filing your annual tax return. And this isn’t Rand Paul’s first foray into comparing policies he disagrees with to slavery. In 2011, during a Senate hearing, he said that a “right to healthcare” would, in effect, make slaves out of doctors such as himself: With regard to the idea whether or not you have a right to health care you have to realize what that implies. I am a physician. You have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. You are going to enslave not only me but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants, the nurses. … You are basically saying you believe in slavery. On the flip side of the “slavery” argument, Paul argued earlier this year that the vaccination of children was “an issue of freedom,” essentially saying that parents should be free to have their kids be vectors for the communication of dangerous disease. (Before he was elected to the Senate, Paul went on Alex Jones’ radio show and warned that mandatory vaccinations were a precursor to martial law.) Rand’s been espousing this strain of dorm-room libertarianism for quite some time, reducing complex policy issues to black-and-white questions of “freedom” and “slavery.” He and others like him who carp on the slavery of taxes and the tyranny of public health promotion are an obvious source of frustration to other libertarians who would very much prefer that the public faces of the “Libertarian Moment” stop making asses of themselves by cheapening the horror of America’s slave past. *CRUZ* *Blogging Federal Judge Says Ted Cruz ‘Not Fit to be President’ <http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/07/07/blogging-federal-judge-says-ted-cruz-not-fit-to-be-president/> // WSJ // Jacob Gershman – July 7, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz raised eyebrows with his idea of giving voters the power to oust Supreme Court justices from the bench. One federal judge says he’s so offended by the Texas senator’s proposal that he thinks it should disqualify him from the White House. That’s the opinion of U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Nebraska, a part-time blogger who has attracted his own share of controversy. “Mr. Cruz seeks to sacrifice the Supreme Court upon the altar of an extreme right-wing ideology. That makes him unsuited to become President,” wrote Judge Kopf on his personal blog, “Hercules and the Umpire.” He titled his post, “Senator Ted Cruz is not fit to be President.” He was responding to Mr. Cruz’s proposal for a constitutional amendment that would end life tenure for Supreme Court justices and force the justices to face periodic judicial-retention elections to keep their jobs. The Harvard-educated Texas senator, who once clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, said the court’s recent rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage rulings were examples of lawless judicial activism that retention elections would help to cure. Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Mr. Cruz’s campaign, took issue with Judge Kopf’s characterization of the senator’s ideology. In a statement emailed to Law Blog on Tuesday, he said: Senator Cruz cares deeply about The Supreme Court…He respects and admires many of the Justices, some are his friends. He did not come to his conclusion about retention elections lightly. Quite the opposite. He wrote a thoughtful essay on why he believed it was necessary. He understands and respects why some would disagree. But what evidence does the judge offer to back up his assertion of “extreme right-wing ideology”? Or is he accustomed to render his verdicts without substantiation. Over at Volokh Conspiracy, attorney and law professor Orin Kerr wonders whether Judge Kopf crossed a line: Whatever one thinks of the substance of Kopf’s argument — both as to the proposal and the candidate — I’m more interested in the ethical questions it raises. Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges states: A judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office[.] Does calling a candidate for public office “unfit” and “demonstrably unsuited” for that office amount to “oppos[ing] a candidate for public office”? Judge Kopf responded to Mr. Kerr, saying he had a legal right to express that opinion: For me, it is enough to state that I did not label Senator Cruz unfit to serve in order to oppose his candidacy for political or partisan purposes but rather to demolish and protect us all from his intemperate legal attacks on the Supreme Court. I remind you that I am not registered to vote, and I have not been registered to vote since I became a judge in 1987. My comment on his legal fitness was inextricably intertwined with my right to speak publicy on legal matters and the administration of justice. That said you are correct that I skated close to thin ice. *Blogging judge calls political candidate “unfit” for office <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/07/blogging-judge-calls-political-candidate-unfit-for-office/> // WSJ // Orin Kerr – July 7, 2015 * U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf is no stranger to controversy. At his personal blog, Hercules and the Umpire, Judge Kopf has over time shared his somewhat intemperate criticism of the Supreme Court, other judges, Congress, and lawyers practicing before him. His posts have generated no shortage of national press attention. In a recent post, Kopf may have added another controversial notch to his blogging belt by proclaiming a political candidate “not fit” for office. In response to recent Supreme Court decisions, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has proposed a constitutional amendment that would require Supreme Court justices to face periodic retention elections. Judge Kopf argues that Cruz’s attack on lifetime tenure reveals Cruz as “a right-wing ideologue” who “is demonstrably unfit to become President.” In Kopf’s view, it’s obvious that lifetime tenure for federal judges is better than a system of retention elections. To argue otherwise would “sacrifice the Supreme Court upon the altar of an extreme right-wing ideology.” “[A]s a federal judge,” Kopf writes, that gives him “the right . . . and dare I say the duty, to respond to the proposal.” Cruz’s proposal is so bad, Kopf reasons, that it makes Cruz “unsuited to become President.” Whatever one thinks of the substance of Kopf’s argument — both as to the proposal and the candidate — I’m more interested in the ethical questions it raises. Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges states: A judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office[.] Does calling a candidate for public office “unfit” and “demonstrably unsuited” for that office amount to “oppos[ing] a candidate for public office”? In response to commenter who raises this concern, Judge Kopf argues that he did not violate Canon 5 because he was merely exercising his right to comment on public matters: For me, it is enough to state that I did not label Senator Cruz unfit to serve in order to oppose his candidacy for political or partisan purposes but rather to demolish and protect us all from his intemperate legal attacks on the Supreme Court. I remind you that I am not registered to vote, and I have not been registered to vote since I became a judge in 1987. My comment on his legal fitness was inextricably intertwined with my right to speak publicy on legal matters and the administration of justice. That said you are correct that I skated close to thin ice. He adds: If Senator’s Cruz’s legal proposition was beyond the pale, and I have the right under the Code of Conduct to write on legal subjects, why is that I am prohibited from concluding that his legal assertions disqualify him from public office? It seems to me that the two things are inextricably linked. I find it impossible to honestly separate the speaker from the speech in this instance. And further: I might add that I stand by views after serving six years on the Judicial Conference’s Codes of Conduct Committee. That hardly makes me right, but it does reflect a serious study of the Code of the Conduct for United States Judges. Has Kopf skated close to thin ice, as he says, or has he skated over it and fallen through? Kopf was of course free to comment on the merits of Cruz’s proposal. (For what it’s worth, I agree that Cruz’s proposal is a bad idea; I personally favor 18-year terms for Justices.) But I would think that the ethical line is actually pretty clear. The ethics canons allow judges to publicly oppose a reform proposal but do not allow them to publicly oppose a candidate for public office. The two may be related from the perspective of voters, as presumably they would want to vote against a candidate with bad ideas. Or at least they would weigh a bad idea against a candidate when they decide who among the candidates in the race they should support. But I don’t think the two are intertwined for the judges who have to follow the ethics canons. Or so it seems to me. I’d be interested to know whether others agree or disagree. UPDATE: Judge Kopf elaborates a bit on his position in the comment thread to his post: [W]hen a man of Senator Cruz’s education and experience calls for a radical and fundamental attack on the Supreme Court he is not acting in political terms. If he is really serious about the amendment he is a threat to the judiciary that I love and respect and have devoted much of my life to serving. Therefore, his unfitness is a function of his threat to our Constitutional form of government–it is in that sense that he is acting in an extra-political manner and that extra-political action entitles me to take the public position that I have taken about his unfitness. This reads like an explanation of why it’s worth it to violate Canon 5 rather than why it’s not a violation in the first place. ANOTHER UPDATE: In a new comment thread, Judge Kopf argues that he did not violate Canon 5 at all. He writes, with emphasis in the original: I neither publicly endorsed nor publicly opposed Mr. Cruz for a public office. Rather, I wrote that Senator Cruz “was unfit.” “Oppose” is a verb. “Unfit” is an adjective. While the words are similar, they are not in any sense the same. I appreciate the response, but I don’t get this as an argument. First, I don’t think it takes a specific verb to oppose someone. Second, when you say someone is “unfit for public office,” I have always understood that to mean “should not be in public office.” I don’t see how you can say someone should not be in public office without opposing them for that office. Third, in defending his position Kopf also wrote: If Senator’s Cruz’s legal proposition was beyond the pale, and I have the right under the Code of Conduct to write on legal subjects, why is that I am prohibited from concluding that his legal assertions disqualify him from public office? It seems to me that the two things are inextricably linked. I find it impossible to honestly separate the speaker from the speech in this instance. I read that as Judge Kopf saying that Cruz’s views “disqualify him from public office.” I don’t see how you can argue that a politician’s views “disqualify him from public office” without also opposing that politician’s bid to the office. *Ted Cruz's angry allies <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruzs-angry-allies-119827.html> // Politico // Katie Glueck – July 7, 2015 * Ted Cruz has methodically built a roster of state leaders to help him fire up social conservatives in the South. He may have gotten more than he bargained for. In the last month alone, three of his state co-chairs have drawn fire over comments related to everything from Sharia law to the victims of the African-American church shooting in Charleston, S.C. That dynamic was thrown into sharp relief in recent weeks, as the debate in South Carolina unfolded over whether to take down the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds. One state co-chair said the victims of the Charleston shooting “waited their turn to be shot.” Another has emerged as the voice of the opposition to removing the rebel flag from the statehouse, likening that effort to a “Stalinist purge.” Separately, in Tennessee, his state chairman had once accused a Muslim state appointee of being a “Shariah compliant finance expert,” a comment that sparked outrage in some corners when he was tapped for the position with Cruz in early June. When asked about his surrogates’ inflammatory comments, the Cruz campaign had their backs. Pro-confederate flag demonstrators Alice Horky (R) wears confederate flag cowboy boots as she protests atop the South Carolina State House steps in Columbia, South Carolina, June 27, 2015. There has been a growing clamor for the flag — branded 'a reminder of systemic oppression and racist subjugation' by President Barack Obama on Friday — to be removed from the grounds of the state house in Columbia. Once flown by the rebel army of the slave-owning South, the confederate flag is seen by some as a symbol of regional heritage, but by many more as an ugly reminder of racism's cruel legacy. “They are respected in their states, they are terrific organizers, they are working hard to help win the nomination and we have every confidence they have the ability to do that,” said Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler. Their ability to hold their tongues is more in doubt. On Monday, South Carolina state Sen. Lee Bright, the co-chair who is a leading opponent of taking down the flag, generated headlines and raised eyebrows in South Carolina and beyond when he gave a vehement floor speech opposing the flag removal. In the address, he warned that “the devil is taking control of this land” and went on an anti-gay rights tangent, calling the pro-gay rainbow symbol the “abomination colors.” (Cruz’s campaign has said he believes the flag is a state issue.) “I don’t know how that helps,” said Chip Felkel, a prominent longtime Republican operative who lives in Bright’s district, of the implications of the state senator’s remarks for Cruz. “It’s guilt by association.” Despite Bright’s efforts, the Senate voted this week, 36-3, to take the flag down. The state House of Representatives takes the bill up next. State Rep. Bill Chumley, another Cruz co-chair who will be voting in the House, has also indicated opposition to removing the flag. He was the one to comment on the Charleston victims, a remark for which he has since apologized. “These gentlemen — a term I’d use loosely at this point — maybe they feel they represent their constituents, but the train has left the station, it’s time to turn the page and they are not doing themselves or Sen. Cruz any favors,” continued Felkel, who worked for George W. Bush but is currently unaffiliated in the presidential race. “The longer this is drawn out, the uglier it gets, [with] national implications. Every one of these guys are looking at who’s on their team, who their supporters are and that’s going to carry over to other states. I think it cannot be a positive based on how this is playing out in the media.” The backlash was made more clear this week in the early-voting state of Iowa. On Monday, GOP Chairman Jeff Kaufmann told Radio Iowa, while speaking about a local incident involving the flag, that he “will not tolerate” having it connected to the GOP. “There are 17,000 young Iowa men that are laying in graves that fought against that very flag and everything it stood for,” Kaufmann said. “There’s really not a lot of conversation to have about that.” But Cruz’s spokesman said that “of course” the campaign stands behind Chumley and Bright, in addition to Kevin Kookogey, the Tennessee state chair. Regarding Bright, Tyler said, “He’s an elected official, a state senator, you have to garner a certain amount of support to be an elected state senator…he has agreed to do this on behalf of the senator and we are grateful for it.” Bright, who represents the conservative Upstate region, mounted an unsuccessful primary challenge to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) last cycle. In 2012, he was former Rep. Michele Bachmann’s South Carolina chair (Chumley also worked for her), and then switched his allegiances to Ron Paul after she dropped out. “I would encourage presidential candidates to let us deal with this,” Bright said of the flag issue in an interview with POLITICO last month. “It’s deeply rooted history for a lot of us. I’m not going to stand by and let our ancestors’ memories be besmirched. It’s one thing to just take down the flag. They want us to concede that the soldiers that fell for the Confederacy were a bunch of racists, and I’m not going to concede that.” When South Carolina’s Republican leadership first called for the flag to come down late last month, following the Charleston shooting, Cruz’s campaign said the senator would leave the flag issue to the state. His campaign maintained that position Tuesday following the Senate vote. That position stands out in a GOP field where many other presidential contenders lauded the state officials’ efforts to take it down. “It’s a state issue, let them resolve it,” Tyler said. Bright “is a South Carolinian…it’s completely appropriate he argues the point of view he has. I don’t think it prevailed, but he argued it.” Cruz is used to being out of step with the Republican establishment — his 2013 spearheading of a government shutdown, and his support for a group that primaried GOP incumbents in 2014, cemented that dynamic. And his position on the Confederate flag in South Carolina, along with his alliance with Bright, ensures that he’s at odds with the GOP leadership of South Carolina, too, note some Palmetto State operatives. “A lot of people Cruz has associated himself with are extraordinarily wrong on the flag,” said a senior South Carolina Republican official. “…There’s no depth he won’t stoop to to pander. He’s not well-liked by the Republican establishment, and this is more confirmation of that.” Of course, Cruz isn’t trying to win over the establishment. Plenty of his deeply conservative supporters are energized by people, like Cruz’s Tennessee chair, who promise to take on Sharia law. And in South Carolina, there remains a pocket of Republican voters who do not want to see the Confederate flag come down, though it’s not clear how large that group is. Other Republican presidential candidates, who supported Gov. Nikki Haley in her call for the flag to come down, may have alienated those voters — but Cruz hasn’t. “From his standpoint, it’s not bad politics,” said someone working for a rival campaign. “…If you look at, how do you distinguish yourself in a crowded field, in a state as important as South Carolina, that would be one way of doing it. As a long-term strategy, it may be short-sighted, but they are playing the short game.” It’s not just the establishment calling for the flag to come down, though. Prominent Christian conservatives, including leading Southern Baptists, have also taken that position. Glenn McCall, South Carolina’s Republican National Committeeman and a supporter of bringing the flag down, said he thinks that at on the national stage, the flag issue may blow over by the time of the primary. But at least at a state level, he said, those who don’t back bringing down the flag are losing a chance to embrace Christian unity. “Those supporting him will support him, those supporting other folks are not going to change their opinion one way or another,” he said of Cruz. But at a state level, among those who oppose taking the flag down, “I just hate that they’re missing an opportunity — they’re all missing an opportunity — to stand with their brothers and sisters in the faith.” *Ted Cruz partners with donor’s 'psychographic' firm <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-donor-for-data-119813.html> // Politico // Kenneth Vogel & Tarini Parti – July 7, 2015 * Ted Cruz’s presidential effort is working closely with a little-known company owned by one of his biggest donors that uses non-traditional “psychographic” analyses of voters to try to win them over with narrowly targeted micro-messages, POLITICO has learned. The company, Cambridge Analytica, has sent staff to Cruz’s campaign headquarters in Houston to help set up an intensive data analysis operation. Cambridge Analytica is connected to a British firm called SCL Group that provides governments, political groups and companies around the world with services ranging from military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting. So far, SCL’s political work has been mostly in the developing world – where it has boasted of its ability to help foment coups. Cambridge Analytica only entered the competitive U.S. political data market last year. Cambridge Analytica is owned at least in part by the family of the press shy New York hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, multiple sources confirmed to POLITICO. The Mercers this year provided the lion’s share of the $37 million raised by a quartet of unlimited money super PACs supporting Cruz’s campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. Cruz’s presidential campaign has contracted with Cambridge Analytica to provide data services, and the company has had talks with at least one of those super PACs, according to sources. It’s not uncommon for political campaigns, parties and PACs to pay huge contracts for data and other services to companies affiliated with their consultants. But it’s less common for such contracts to go to firms affiliated with the donors funding the whole enterprise. Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler said the campaign’s Director of Research and Analytics Chris Wilson is using Cambridge Analytica to build models that identify and sort persuadable voters in early primary states by six-key personality types, which will be used to target the campaign’s outreach. “I’ve seen their product and its better than anything I’ve ever seen,” said Tyler. “We know what a Cruz supporter looks like demographically … and this allows us to go into Iowa and match those traits with likely caucus goers.” The group of super PACs supporting Cruz, Keep the Promise, did not respond to questions about their arrangements with Cambridge Analytica. The company did not respond to interview requests, while a spokesman for the Mercer family declined to comment. In recent years, the Mercer family – Robert Mercer, his wife Diana Mercer and their daughter Rebekah Mercer – have emerged as among the leading financiers of conservative causes and candidates. Their quiet involvement in Cambridge Analytica – which is known in elite conservative finance circles but has yet to be reported – seems to mark a transition from purely financing political campaigns to running their own political operation. It’s a model that’s been pursued to varying degrees by billionaires ranging from the liberal hedge funder Tom Steyer to the conservative industrialists Charles and David Koch. It was made possible partly by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that opened new avenues for unlimited political spending. With their investment in Cambridge Analytica – and the Cruz campaign’s embrace of their product – the Mercers also have become competitors in an increasingly cut-throat conservative political data race. Some of the right’s most influential and well-funded players — including the Koch brothers’ operation and the Republican National Committee — are jockeying for market share and 2016 prospects in a political sub-industry expected to consume a huge portion of the billions spent in the campaign. The result of the competition could go a long way towards determining the winner of the White House and the Republican Party’s direction after the election. So far, most of Cambridge Analytica’s work appears to have come from campaigns and committees funded in large part by the Mercers. And sources familiar with the Mercer’s political efforts said that Rebekah Mercer, who has steered the family’s political expansion, has made introductions between Cambridge Analytica and the political committees the family supports. Federal Election Commission filings show that nearly 93 percent of the $2.6 million Cambridge Analytica has received in traceable federal payments have come from committees to which the Mercers donated generously. The payments – which all came last year and were for polling, micro-targeting, advertising and other services – came from Cruz’s leadership PAC and a handful of GOP-aligned big-money organizations, including Ending Spending Action Fund, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton’s super PAC and a pop-up super PAC created to boost 2014 Republican Senate candidates. Other Cambridge Analytica clients included the campaigns of GOP Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, as well as unsuccessful GOP House candidate Art Robinson of Oregon. The Mercers combined to donate nearly $3.3 million to those groups in 2014, according to FEC filings. Representatives from most of the groups and campaigns did not respond to questions about whether there was any connection between their support from the Mercers and their payments to Cambridge Analytica. Garrett Marquis, a spokesman for Bolton’s super PAC, said the $340,000 his group paid to Cambridge Analytica in 2014 was money well spent. “It’s something that no one has done in politics. Period,” said Marquis. “It was the most cost-effective, efficient way to reach voters. We were very pleased.” Marquis said the firm created five categories of potential voters, including “soccer mom” and “working dads,” by layering responses to surveys atop voter data, and then targeted voters based on which category they fell in. The firm’s “core offering,” according to its website, “combines advanced data analytics and the creation of a psychographic framework to help you gain increased insight into your target voter groups.” Bolton’s super PAC spent $5 million on digital ads in 2014 on key Senate races, and Cambridge Analytica boasts on its website that the online and Direct TV ad campaign it ran for Bolton’s super PAC appealed “directly to the personality traits, priority issues and demographics of specific groups” that “had a real impact in sending Thom Tillis to the US Senate.” It’s not clear precisely which services Cruz’s campaign or its supportive super PACs will purchase from Cambridge Analytica, or how much the work will cost. Those committees won’t be required to publicly detail their finances until later this month. Some of Cambridge Analytica’s employees already appear to be have been dispatched to work on Cruz’s campaign. One described himself on a social media page as a systems administrator for SCL Elections who was working in Houston “Providing Infrastructure Administration for The Honourable Republican Senator Ted Cruz in the 2016 Presidential Campaign.” SCL Group’s director, a Brit named Alexander Nix, has worked to expand Cambridge Analytica’s market share in the deep-pocketed world of Washington-based conservative outside groups, offering a data service that targets individual voters based on a “psychographic score” of personality traits. “It sounds ridiculous and it probably is,” said one GOP operative who has worked closely with organizations using the service. The company is one of 10 startups set to participate this month in the Reboot Conference – a major political technology event – in San Francisco. Conference organizers included Cambridge Analytica among participants they consider “up and coming companies with technology not to be missed”. *Ted Cruz To Chris Christie: Your “Oppo Research Guys” Got The Facts Wrong When You Attacked Me <http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ted-cruz-to-chris-christie-your-oppo-research-guys-got-the-f#.iuKrOMZRK> // Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 7, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said Tuesday that fellow candidate Chris Christie’s “oppo research guys” got their facts wrong when the New Jersey governor attacked Cruz during a Fox News appearance. Christie, addressing comments Cruz made about not believing in “Republican-on Republican violence,” said on Fox News Monday that he didn’t “need to be lectured by Ted Cruz.” Cruz made those comments when asked to comment on Donald Trump’s controversial remarks on Mexican immigrants. “I find it ironic that Ted Cruz is giving lectures on Republican-on-Republican violence,” the New Jersey governor said on Fox News Monday. “The guy who put together a group that was sponsoring primary ads against Sen. Lamar Alexander is giving us – the rest of us lectures on Republican on Republican violence. With all due respect, I don’t need to be lectured by Ted Cruz.” Cruz hit back at Christie Tuesday, saying his comments were factually wrong and adding that he “disagreed” with Christie’s choice to attack other Republicans. “Well listen, I like Chris Christie, I have repeatedly praised Chris Christie — indeed, I’ve repeatedly and vocally defended Chris Christie from what I think are unfair and ridiculous attacks and charges on the whole Bridgegate thing, which I’ve said is water under the bridge,” Cruz said on the Mike Gallagher Radio. “You know, he can choose to say what he wants to say, you know — I do appreciate his kind efforts to highlight that I have consistently worked hard to elect conservatives to Congress,” said Cruz. “It is interesting his oppo research guys got the facts wrong, because I did not actually get involved in Lamar Alexander’s race.” Christie was citing Cruz’s connections to the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), a group known for supporting primary challenges to Republican incumbent senator when he made the comments. SCF never actually endorsed Alexander’s primary opponent and Cruz did not endorse in the race. “But, you know, at the end of the day, if he or anyone else wants to attack their opponents, they can choose to do that,” concluded Cruz. “I disagree with that choice. I am going to sing Chris Christie’s praises, I’m gonna sing Donald Trump’s praises, and I’m going to focus on the issues that matter, which is turning this country around, which is fighting to restore the Constitution, to defend our liberties, to bring back jobs, and growth, and opportunity, and to restore America’s leadership in the world. That’s what the American people want, not a bunch of self-centered politicians bickering like children in Washington.” *Ted Cruz’s 2016 campaign says its raised $14.2M since launch <http://www.belljarnews.com/ted-cruz-s-2016-campaign-says-its-raised-14-2m-since-launch/8519825/> // Bell Jar – July 8, 2015 * Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and groups supporting his presidential campaign have raised more than $51 million since launching his bid for the White House three months ago. The campaign brought in more than $14.2 million from 175,000 contributions with an average donation of $81, according to the statement. Ben Carson, the only other presidential candidate to unveil his numbers, has said his campaign raised $8.3 million in the second quarter. Cruz has “one of the strongest war chests among those running for president”, the release said, boasting a $51 million fundraising total since March that includes campaign and super PAC fundraising hauls. Cruz’s campaign has until July 15 to file its second-quarter report, which will includes the names of and amounts given by donors. Cruz, the firebrand first-term senator from Texas, has 4 percent support in an average of polls on realclearpolitcs.com. “Millions of courageous conservatives here in Georgia, all across the Southeast, all across the country are waking up and saying this doesn’t make any sense”. But Cruz’s campaign made the totals public Sunday, shortly after Cruz shared them in an interview that aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press“. “We’re reassembling the Reagan coalition – from conservatives to libertarians to people of Faith – and with the help of so many supporters, we will be able to deliver our optimistic message all across the country”. Huckabee and Cruz, along with Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum, have been the most vocal in opposing the Supreme Court’s opinion, with Cruz going as far as calling for retention elections of judges. The Texas senator noted that his father was a legal immigrant from Cuba. Cruz praised Trump for drawing attention to illegal immigration and said he refuses to commit “Republican-on-Republican violence”. “I’ve said very clearly that Donald Trump doesn’t represent the Republican Party”, Perry said on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. *Ted Cruz’s unique spin on the 11th Commandment <http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ted-cruzs-unique-spin-the-11th-commandment> // CBS News // Steven Benen – July 7, 2015 * Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has been one of Donald Trump’s most vocal defenders in recent weeks, at least among the Republican presidential candidates, but of particular interest is how the Texas senator has made his argument. Consider, for example, what Cruz told NBC’s Chuck Todd the other day on “Meet the Press.” “I like Donald Trump. He’s bold, he’s brash. And I get it that it seems the favorite sport of the Washington media is to encourage some Republicans to attack other Republicans. I’m not going to do it. I’m not interested in Republican-on-Republican violence. […] “He has a colorful way of speaking. It is not the way I speak. But I’m not going to engage in the media game of throwing rocks and attacking other Republicans. I’m just not going to do it.” During a Fox News interview yesterday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) made clear how unimpressed he was with Cruz’s rhetoric. “I find it ironic that Ted Cruz is giving lectures on Republican-on-Republican violence,” the governor said. “The guy who put together a group that was sponsoring primary ads against Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is giving us – the rest of us lectures on Republican on Republican violence. With all due respect, I don’t need to be lectured by Ted Cruz.” He added, “Let’s just not be hypocritical. Don’t lecture as to Donald Trump but then attack Lamar Alexander. All I want is a little consistency.” Christie raises a fair point. The Senate Conservatives Fund, which Cruz has supported, is committed to electing the most far-right candidates possible to the Senate, and in some cases, that’s meant backing primary challenges to incumbent GOP senators. In fact, Christie’s comments cast an important light on Cruz’s posture. If the Texas Republican simply had a blanket, no-exceptions policy against criticizing all Republicans in all instances – deferring to Reagan’s “11th Commandment” – his reluctance to criticize Trump’s anti-Mexican rhetoric would at least hold true to some kind of principle. But Cruz’s aversion to “Republican-on-Republican violence” is surprisingly selective. Cruz, for example, has been willing to criticize Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on more than one occasion. What’s more, literally just last week, we learned that Cruz has written a new book in which he blasts Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the rest of his own party’s leadership on Capitol Hill in a direct and unapologetic way. What we have, in other words, is a GOP presidential candidate who’s more than happy to make use of “Republican-on-Republican violence,” so long as it suits his purposes. And criticizing Donald Trump’s racially charged rhetoric does not, evidently, suit Cruz’s purposes. If there’s a pattern to Cruz’s decision making, it seems to be in the ideological direction – he will criticize Republicans for not being conservative enough, but he won’t criticize Republicans for being too conservative. Those he finds to his left deserve his scorn, but he’ll refuse to “throw rocks” at those he finds to his right. * Update: I heard this afternoon from the Senate Conservatives Fund, which took issue with some of Christie’s specific claims. The governor said Cruz “put together” the SCF, which isn’t true – the group existed before Cruz was elected – though Cruz has offered support to the group. The Senate Conservatives Fund also disputes Christie’s assertion that the group “attacked” Lamar Alexander during his primary. Rather, the SCF claims, it ran ads about Alexander and the Affordable Care Act that the senator probably didn’t like, and which happened to coincide with the senator’s primary. Good to know. *Top GOP lawyer absolutely scorches Ted Cruz: “Most graduates of Harvard Law School know” better <http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/top_gop_lawyer_absolutely_scorches_ted_cruz_most_graduates_of_harvard_law_school_know_better/> // Salon // Sophia Tesfaye – July 7, 2015 * Conservative attorney and prominent gay rights activist Ted Olson took a swipe Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz , saying the freshman senator had abandoned a fundamental understanding of the constitution when he suggested a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality. Immediately following the Court’s decision, Cruz promised to keep the issue “front and center” in his campaign. ”That is very much front and center something I intend to campaign on,” he said. “And marriage and religious liberty are going to be integral, I believe, to motivating the American people to come out and vote for what’s, ultimately, restoring our constitutional system.” Cruz subsequently proposed altering the Constitution to require Supreme Court justices to face judicial retention elections. Olson, a former United States Solicitor General under George W. Bush, ridiculed Cruz’s plan as politically unachievable: “A constitutional amendment to change Article III of the Constitution in this fashion has virtually no chance of succeeding … I would think that most graduates of the Harvard Law School know that,” he said in an email to the Washington Post. After arguing against him in Bush v. Gore, Olson famously joined progressive David Boies in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case affirming the overturning of California’s ban on same-sex marriage. For his part, Cruz, who as Olson points out is a graduate of Harvard Law School, served as a law clerk for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist from 1996 to 1997 before eventually going on to become solicitor general of Texas. Despite his Ivy League education, the freshmen senator also revealed a basic lack of understanding of world religions when he recently predicted that the Supreme Court ruling would result in the Justice Department targeting “Jewish churches” that refuse to perform same-sex marriages. *CHRISTIE* *NJ Voters Tepid on Chris Christie’s Handling of State Pension System <http://www.wsj.com/articles/nj-voters-tepid-on-chris-christies-handling-of-state-pension-system-1436292431> // WSJ // Heather Haddon – July 7, 2015 * Nearly half of New Jersey voters have an unfavorable view of one of Gov. Chris Christie’s signature policy achievements, the overhaul of the state’s underfunded pension system, a new poll shows. The survey by the Monmouth University Polling Institute found 47% of the 503 New Jersey residents polled didn’t believe the governor had made a meaningful fix to the pension system. Of those polled, 11% viewed his handling of the issue as a major success and 31% found it minor. The poll, conducted June 30 and July 1 and released Tuesday, also found growing support for the Affordable Care Act, one of President Barack Obama’s biggest policy initiatives. Forty-nine percent had a favorable opinion of the health-insurance law, the highest level in nearly two years. Support split along party lines. “The past couple of weeks have been good for the president, and that is reflected both in his job approval rating and an uptick in support for his signature health-care policy,” said Patrick Murray, the institute’s director. Majority of N.J. Voters Think Chris Christie Should Step Down: Pol l (July 2, 2015) The survey is one of the first to gauge public opinion on pensions since the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in June that Mr. Christie’s moves to trim contributions to the retirement system for state workers were legally valid. Forty-two percent of those polled disapproved of Mr. Christie’s decision to scale back on a scheduled payment into the system, while 12% approved. Nearly half had no opinion. Mr. Christie has spoken about his administration’s 2011 pension overhaul in political events leading up to his declaration last week that he is running for president. He began cutting scheduled payments into the pension system due to a budget shortfall last year. When asked, Mr. Christie has said he would put more money into the pension system if New Jersey could afford to do so. The Republican has refused to raise taxes in the state, arguing that would stymie job creation. The governor has called for unions to return to the bargaining table to negotiate additional cuts to make the pension system sustainable. Talks have progressed little, people involved in the negotiations said. The administration did score a victory on Monday in a vote by a state health panel that will enable savings on health benefits to workers. The state expects about $100 million in savings. The survey also weighed opinions on New Jersey’s state senators. Thirty-seven percent of those surveyed said they approved of the work of U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez and 36% disapproved, a dip from earlier surveys before the Democrat was indicted on corruption charges in April. He has pleaded not guilty. Meanwhile, 44% approved of fellow Democrat U.S. Sen. Cory Booker’s work, while 22% disapproved, down from a 51% approval rating in a May survey. The telephone poll of registered voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points. *New Jersey Democrats troll Chris Christie <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/chris-christie-new-jersey-democrats-resign-119802.html> // Politico // Daniel Strauss – July 7, 2015 * New Jersey Democrats are planning to throw a monkey wrench into New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s plans to run for president. A pair of Democratic lawmakers, state Sens. Raymond Lesniak and Loretta Weinberg, are likely to cosponsor legislation that would require Christie and future New Jersey governors to resign from office if they want to run for president, according to NJ.com. “He’s not doing the state any good by spending the bulk of his time out of state,” Lesniak said. “And even when he’s in-state, he’s focusing on what he has to do to get elected president — which often runs contrary to what he ought to do for the state.” The plan comes in the wake of a Monmouth University poll released a week ago that said that 76 percent of New Jersey voters think Christie is more focused on his political future than he is on New Jersey. The poll also found that 57 percent want him to resign since he’s decided to run for president. Still, the proposal isn’t likely to become law. It would need to be signed by Christie or have the support of enough Republicans in the Legislature to join with Democrats in overriding a veto by the governor. Lesniak acknowledged that a major step is getting Republicans on board. “We could do this in July,” Lesniak said. “But the bigger problem is getting the handful of GOP senators that we’d probably need to override him, although I think it would send a good statement regardless. And who knows? Maybe some Republicans would vote for it.” If Christie were to resign, Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno would replace him and there would be a special election in 2016. Christie’s office brushed off the Democrats’ move. “It’s impossible to respond to every bit of silly nonsense that comes from this legislature,” Christie spokesman Brian Murray said in a statement to POLITICO. “The Governor has been clear that he is never disconnected from doing his job as governor.” *N.J. Dems Prod a Defiant Chris Christie to Resign <http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/n-j-dems-prod-defiant-chris-christie-resign-n388176> // NBC News // Kelly O’Donnell – July 7, 2015 * New Jersey Democrats are mounting a plan to push Chris Christie out of the governor's office, but Christie aides say it has "zero chance" of being successful. Advisers to the 2016 presidential candidate say that the governor will keep on doing "hands on" work with the state government even as his political foes mull legislation that would require any New Jersey governor seeking the presidency - including Christie - to resign. If that legislation passed, Christie would veto it. A veto override would require that enough Republicans in the legislature join with Democrats, something that has never happened during Christie's tenure. "It's impossible to respond to every bit of silly nonsense that comes from this legislature," Christie deputy press secretary Brian Murray said in a statement. "The Governor has been clear that he is never disconnected from doing his job as governor." Christie's team also pointed on Tuesday to his work with Democrats in the state House to provide a tax break for working families, suggesting that the success of his earned income tax credit proposal shows that he's remained engaged with his home state -- and with the same Democrats prodding him to resign -- despite his frequent out-of-state travel. Asked by NBC's Matt Lauer last week if he would consider resigning his office during his run for president, Christie replied "I can't imagine I would, no." Christie is struggling with poor approval ratings at home. A Monmouth University poll last week showed a majority - 57 percent - of New Jersey voters say that he should resign now that he's made his White House bid official. *Webb: The real deal about Chris Christie <http://thehill.com/opinion/david-webb/247127-david-webb-the-real-deal-about-chris-christie> // The Hill // David Webb – July 7, 2015 * He's announced. I’m telling it like it is. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie officially made his bid for the GOP nomination — and eventually the White House — in his hometown of Livingston, N.J., and then he went straight to New Hampshire. The instant pundit debate over whether Christie can win primaries and win over the Republican base is interesting, but no different from the debate over other GOP candidates. They all have their challenges, their pros and cons. The town hall format is a strength, and that matters to Christie’s campaign in a state like New Hampshire, where retail politics and grassroots engagement — or lack of it — can make or break a candidate. Christie had crisscrossed the state prior to his announcement and will likely spend half of his time or more initially there. New Hampshire, unlike many of the Southern states, has a broader representation of the general electorate across the country. The debate over the spouse of a candidate aside, clearly his wife, Mary Pat, is an asset on the campaign trail as well. She is intelligent, warm and approachable. To some extent she puts a softer side on display for the often-brash Christie. But the governor has a New Jersey problem. There will be a attacks based on the state’s credit downgrades, and issues over the Second Amendment, even about immigration in the growth of the illegal alien population. Christie will have to mount a vigorous defense and explanation based on being a Republican governor in a Democrat-controlled state. The bad legacy left by former governors Jim McGreevey and Jon Corzine will only matter to the voters who know this legacy. The more conservative base of the Republican Party has questioned before and will continue to question the governor’s conservative credentials. I won’t discount a win or top-three placement in the primary for Christie in South Carolina, however. Sen. Lindsey Graham is not really a factor even in his own home state, and straight-talking politicians have appeal in the Palmetto State. By the time the primary arrives, if Christie is in the top five, he will make a serious effort to win South Carolina. Iowa has a staunch Republican base, which will be tough for Christie to win over, and Iowa is not as red as it’s often portrayed, especially in the general election. The big-money donors and political action committees know this. A decent placement in third, or at least in the top five, in the Iowa primary would keep the New Jersey governor in contention. The money matters. Money not only allows for media campaigns and travel — it also grants the ability to put teams in place in key primary states. After all, politics, once the shouting has subsided and the differences are highlighted, is about the ability to mount a consistent and effective ground game. It’s not a question of whether someone like businessman Ken Langone can bundle money for Christie. He is a well-known fundraiser with a significant network. Christie has raised a lot of money, the most of any head of the Republican Governors Association. That gives him access to monetary and political capital. Count on him calling in these favors. Who has to attack Christie? First, those who need to draw a stark contrast. The more socially conservative candidates will do this. They will attack on the basis of Christie being a Northern, moderate Republican. The pushback from Christie will be that he is a pro-life Catholic. So this may be a wash. The second group includes the candidates whose position he threatens. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Donald Trump will have to contend for some of the same voting block: moderate Republican and independent voters. One of the defenses Christie will have against this will be the fact that he worked with a Democrat-controlled legislature that has a union man as president of the state Senate. Constitutional conservatives like myself understand that a governor has to sign what he or she cannot veto. The dread and often dead winter months will be hard for every candidate. Political fatigue will set in for even the hard-core base and many Americans will turn instead to Thanksgiving, Christmas and the new year ahead. Politicians may want to hibernate and prepare for the 2016 relaunch. Super Tuesday is a long way away, but if Christie survives the winter political doldrums, it will become a much more exciting day. It’s a political pundits dream, and for journalists a feeding frenzy. The cynic in me still believes that presidential elections should begin on Jan. 1 of the election year. But then again, like politicians, I am allowed to dream. *Chris Christie Administration Whistleblower To Justice Department: Bridgegate Prosecutor May Be Compromised <http://www.ibtimes.com/chris-christie-administration-whistleblower-justice-department-bridgegate-prosecutor-1997095> // IB Times // David Sirota & Andrew Perez – July 7, 2015 * When Chris Christie’s administration quashed a grand jury’s 43 indictments against the Republican governor's supporters in 2010, local prosecutor Bennett Barlyn objected. He was soon fired. Barlyn says the move to throw out the Hunterdon County indictments may have violated federal law -- and that ties between New Jersey U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman’s office and Gov. Christie may have improperly prevented a probe from moving forward. Barlyn sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday, expressing concern that “apparent conflicts between Governor Christie’s administration and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey ... may be compromising the latter’s independent role relating to the enforcement of federal criminal law.” In February, International Business Times reported that investigators from Fishman’s office interviewed Barlyn about the events surrounding the quashed grand jury indictments. ABC News confirmed the IBTimes report. But Fishman’s office abruptly issued a statement appearing to clear Christie and declaring that no investigation was underway. Former U.S. attorneys interviewed by IBTimes said such a statement pre-emptively exonerating a public official is extremely unusual. Barlyn says in the letter to Lynch that this public backtracking “immediately confirmed my suspicion that the interview was not conducted as part of a genuine inquiry, but was instead intended to placate me and forestall my efforts” to have the quashed indictments investigated. The Justice Department and Fishman’s office declined to answer IBTimes’ questions about Barlyn’s letter. Christie’s office did not respond to IBTimes' requests for comment. Barlyn first contacted Fishman’s office last year with allegations -- made in the past by other former employees in the Hunterdon County prosecutor’s office -- that the Christie administration had illegally thrown out grand jury indictments against supporters, including the local county Sheriff Deborah Trout and Undersheriff Mike Russo. Barlyn has maintained he was fired after raising objections and has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit. Barlyn’s case was assigned to investigator Thomas Mahoney, who was hired by Christie in 2006 when Christie was New Jersey's U.S. attorney. Despite his ties to Christie, Mahoney was permitted to not only be the point person on Barlyn’s case but also be a “supervisory criminal investigator” on the probe of lane closures at the George Washington Bridge by officials at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The "Bridgegate" investigation generated a guilty plea and two indictments of former top Christie allies, but the governor was not implicated. During a Bridgegate press conference in May, Fishman was asked if his office faced any challenges in remaining independent. “There’s nobody who was working on this case in my office -- no lawyers working on this case in my office -- who was hired by Gov. Christie,” Fishman said. A representative for Fishman later clarified that Mahoney had worked on the case but said that “he is not a lawyer.” In fact, according to records obtained by IBTimes, roughly 40 percent of the current U.S. attorney’s office is made up of personnel hired by Christie. Barlyn’s letter to Lynch is the latest incident to raise questions about Fishman’s independence from the governor. In diaries released in early 2014, Hoboken’s Democratic mayor Dawn Zimmer said she feared bringing allegations of Christie administration misdeeds to Fishman because “Christie has friends throughout [the U.S.] attorney's office.” In June, Fishman’s office requested that a federal court bar the public release of 1.5 million pages of documents obtained from the Christie administration in the Bridgegate investigation. Lawyers for one defendant in the case, former Port Authority official Bill Baroni, said Fishman’s move to conceal the documents was designed to prevent the release of information they say could absolve their client and potentially incriminate others in the Christie administration. The attempt to bar disclosure of evidence, Baroni’s lawyers said, in part illustrates that “something is afoot besides a paternalistic desire to protect members of the governor’s inner circle, alumni of this U.S. attorney’s office, high-ranking Port Authority employees and others.” *Governor Chris Christie: Media Should Apologize to Me for Bridgegate <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2015/07/07/governor-chris-christie-media-should-apologize-me-bridgegate#sthash.Tju2N97O.dpuf //> // Newsbusters // Randy hall – July 7, 2015 * During a Monday morning appearance on the MSNBC's Morning Joe program, New Jersey governor Chris Christie was asked by panelist Katty Kay about his role in the possible “creation of a culture” in his administration that led to the Bridgegate lane closure incident, which took place in early September of 2013. The 2016 GOP presidential candidate responded to the obnoxious question by instead calling the incident “an exception, not the rule,” and stating that people in the media should have stood up and said: “We're sorry, governor, for having jumped to conclusions;” and “not only have accused you, but convicted you.” The segment began with Kay asking Christie a question she undoubtedly wouldn't put to Democratic presidential front-runner and scandal-plagued Hillary Clinton: If you were running against yourself, wouldn't you say: “This is somebody who surrounds himself with people to whom the subliminal message is: 'We will do whatever it takes to make sure that we are in the right position politically, even if that means shutting down bridges?' “I don't necessarily want to know about it. I'm not going to talk about it, but that you allowed a culture in your office that would allow that kind of thing to happen?” Christie replied: “That's where the people who accuse you of doing something wrong, when they're disappointed and find out that you didn't, that's their refuge. “Remember in the beginning,” he continued, “it was: 'He did this. He directed it. He's this kind of guy.' Then all of a sudden, you're not. Then they say: 'OK, now what do we do?' “So instead of just standing up and saying what they should say, which is 'We're sorry, governor, for having jumped to conclusions; we're sorry for having prejudged this; we're sorry for having not only accused you, but convicted you,' they say: 'Oh, well, all right; now it's a culture.'” The governor continued: It wasn't a culture because if it was, Katty, there would have been a lot of these incidents. There wouldn't have been 100 Democrats, elected Democrats, supporting me for re-election. I wouldn't have gotten over a third of the Republican vote and 51 percent of the Hispanic vote if this was a pattern. It's not. "Exceptions happen; accidents, mistakes happen,” he stated. “You still have to be accountable for them, but it does not mean there was a culture because if there was, there would be more than just one person in the governor's office. That's called an exception, not the rule.” The problems began on Monday, Sept. 9, 2013, when two of three eastbound toll lanes on the George Washington Bridge were closed to morning rush hour traffic, which was forced to use crowded state and interstate expressways until the road was re-opened the following Friday. As NewsBusters previously reported, NBC's evening newscast devoted four minutes and 55 seconds to the “scandal” when it broke on January 8. According to Scott Whitlock, a senior news analyst for the Media Research Center (the parent company of the NewsBusters website): In less than 48 hours, ABC, CBS and NBC deluged viewers with coverage of Chris Christie's traffic jam scandal, devoting a staggering 88 minutes to the story. In comparison, these same news outlets over the last six months have allowed a scant two minutes for the latest on Barack Obama's Internal Revenue Service scandal. The disparity in less than two days is 44 to one. “From Wednesday through Friday morning, the latest on Christie's Traffic-Gate led 11 out of 13 news programs,” Whitlock noted. “NBC produced the heaviest coverage, over 34 minutes. CBS followed close behind with more than 30 minutes. ABC came in third with just under 23 minutes.” However, when the Republican governor was cleared of any wrongdoing in the matter, “ABC and CBS punted on the story and didn't cover it in their Thursday night newscasts,” MRC news analyst Curtis Houck reported. “NBC Nightly News did cover the story, however, but only in the form of a news brief that lasted for 38 seconds,” he added, in which then-anchor Brian Williams stated: A major headline this evening in the federal investigation into New Jersey governor Chris Christie and his administration. Federal officials tell NBC News that, after nine months, investigators have concluded there is no evidence that governor Christie had advance knowledge of any politically motivated scheme to shut down lanes on the George Washington Bridge, which is the world's busiest span. It wouldn't be wise for Christie to hold his breath while waiting for an apology from the people who used the incident to attack his popularity or hoping the press would pose a similar question to Hillary Clinton. There isn't a shade of purple deep enough to match the color of his face if he tried. *Why Chris Christie may have an edge in GOP race <http://www.cnbc.com/id/102815333> // CNBC // Mark Macias – July 7, 2015 * Donald Trump just might be the second best thing that happened to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Christie recently announced he's running for president in 2016. Much of America might not know it yet, but if you live in New York or New Jersey and watch the local news, you know that Christie has an explosive temperament. You either love his brutal honesty or hate his bullying nature, but regardless of where you sit on the political couch, Christie's mouth can make any ear blush. For the past 6 years, Christie has owned the local political show as the only governor in the Tri-State area to speak his mind without reverence for diplomacy or political correctness. He called a Navy Seal an "idiot" when he challenged the governor publicly. When a teacher asked him why he said their schools and teachers were failing, Christie responded: "Because they are... I am tired of you people." And when another teacher questioned why she wasn't paid fairly, Christie was brutally honest: "Well you know what? Then you don't have to do it." But now, there is a new controversial presidential candidate who is already overshadowing Christie. With Trump in the race, Christie suddenly seems more palatable. Even the "Bridgegate" scandal, which accused Christie's administration of closing the George Washington Bridge in retaliation to a local mayor, seems like a school yard tussle compared to Trump and his fight with Macy's, Univision, NBC, Mexico, China, etc. But will that palatable perception last? Or better yet, will voters in Iowa buy it? If I were consulting Christie, I would say, as long as he can bite his tongue and control his temper between now and New Hampshire, he just might have the political chops and finesse to charm his way with voters. Christie knows that deep, down inside, he can't be constantly combative if he's going to convince voters he should be in control of the nuclear button. He's also smart enough to know he has to be good and liked if he is going to win the nomination. Christie is off to a great start by surrounding himself with smart strategists who understand how the media works. Immediately after his presidential announcement, Christie did an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, where he repositioned his temper as passion. "I'm angry about the fact that taxpayers were being ripped off in New Jersey," Christie told Lauer. "I'm angry about the fact that our urban kids can't get a good education. I'm angry about those things — you're darn right I am. And I think America wants someone who's willing to fight for that." Brilliant PR move: The sooner you address your point of weakness, the less persuasive your opponents sound. The person who tells the story first is in better control of the narrative. Christie didn't avoid the tough accusations like other presidential candidates have done. Instead, he addressed it straight on and unabashedly. Now, whether conservative voters buy into Christie's more moderate positions is another issue. He faces the same challenge that Rudy Giuliani had when he ran for president in 2008: He's a moderate on social issues that are crucial to the conservative base. So, if Trump is the second-best thing to happen to Christie, what's the first? All of the other 13 GOP contenders combined. Publicity is difficult in any crowded field because it's harder to stand out from the pack. When smart phones first hit the market, it was easy to get publicity for mobile apps because they were rare. Today, the market for mobile apps is saturated, making it more difficult to get your story told. It's the same for the GOP candidates. Fiorina, Carson, Graham, Pataki, Paul, Perry — for the typical voter, those names run together like a Jindal, I mean jingle. This is where Christie will shine. He understands, like Trump, how to move the media needle. He has governed a big state, like Jeb Bush and Rick Perry. He has big donors behind him, like Marco Rubio. But unlike those other candidates — Trump, Bush, Perry and Rubio - Christie doesn't have their baggage. No one will question Christie's bravado and experience against Rubio. Christie seems less volatile than Trump, who seems to threaten a new company every day on the campaign trail. Sure, Perry was the longest-running governor of Texas and Bush was governor of a swing state, but Christie was elected governor twice in a blue state. But much of the minutiae will be lost in the crowded presidential debates. When you have 10 candidates on one stage trying to explain a position in under 90 seconds, the only thing voters will remember is how the candidates came across. And who can forget how Christie comes across. As long as Christie can be direct and respectful, he just might have a winning edge to the nomination, assuming he can win over the conservative base. *GRAHAM* *Lindsey Graham Protests 'Brad Pitt' Debate <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-07/lindsey-graham-protests-brad-pitt-debate> // Bloomberg // Ben Brody – July 7, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Lindsey Graham is launching a protest of the "Brad Pitt" debate. In an e-mail Tuesday, the South Carolina senator urged supporters to sign a petition protesting the terms of an Aug. 6 debate, the first scheduled faceoff among the Republican presidential contenders. Fox News, the debate sponsor, has said it will allow 10 candidates, based on their standing in the polls. Graham, at distinct risk of being left out, suggesting Brad Pitt, the A-list star of movies like Fight Club and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, "would have a better shot of being on the debate stage than real candidates for president" because the current "criterion favors celebrities and candidates who have run previously with high name recognition." Another celebrity-turned-presidential candidate, real estate mogul and reality TV star Donald Trump, has polling numbers that give him a virtual lock on an onstage seat. Fox News has said it will rely on candidates' standing in national polls to decide who will head to the stage but hasn't yet specific which polls it will use. Graham receives support from about one percent of registered Republicans in swing states, according to a recent poll from Quinnipiac University, meaning he'd be unlikely to make the cutoff for the first Republican primary debate. "Republican primary voters deserve to hear from all the candidates, not just the ones network executives pick to be on stage," Graham wrote in his email. Fox News has said it will rely on candidates' standing in national polls to decide who will head to the stage but hasn't yet specific which polls it will use. *Lindsey Graham On Trump: GOP “Must Speak Up,” He’s “Not Part Of The Party I Want To Have” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/lindsey-graham-on-trump-gop-must-speak-up-hes-not-part-of-th#.flVvLAk3O> // Buzzfeed // Andrew Jaczynski – July 7, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Lindsey Graham said it’s important for members of his party to “speak up” in opposition to Donald Trump’s controversial remarks on immigrants, adding that Trump’s comments are not part of “the party I want to have.” “I’m not embarrassed I just think that everybody’s got to speak up,” the senator from South Carolina said on Boston Herald Radio. “At the end of the day this is not the party I want to have. You have people in the party who say things sometimes that are against what I think the party stands for, so it’s incumbent upon the rest to say, ‘hey no, that’s not the Republican Party that I want.’” At his presidential campaign announcement event, Trump described the immigrants that come to the United States from Mexico as “rapists.” “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us,” Trump said. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” Graham added in the interview that he thought Trump was a “very successful man” and that the Republican Party “would get through” Trump. He also said he believes the Republican Party had a lot to offer the African-American and Hispanic community. “The Hispanic community, I think Republicans can do well in 2016. African-American and Hispanic families have not done very well in terms of Obama economics. What do we offer, it’s got to be about what we offer and I think the middle class is never gonna get better in this country until you have a growing economy where people compete for labor.” Graham said the way some Republicans speak about immigration has hurt his party. “The immigration issue has hurt us,” said Graham. “I’ve said this for a long time. The way the Republican Party — some elements — have dealt with immigration, the way we’ve talk about immigrants, has hurt us. I just believe we’ve gone from 44% to 27% among Hispanics because of rhetoric like this.” *Graham Questions Obama’s Commitment to Removing Assad From Power <http://freebeacon.com/national-security/graham-questions-obamas-commitment-to-removing-assad-from-power/> // Free Beacon // Blake Seitz – July 7, 2015 * On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) pressed Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to admit that the Obama administration is not committed to deposing Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. “As to Assad, what’s more likely?” Graham mused. “President Obama leaves office in 2017, or Assad goes first?” “Uh, well, it’s certain that President Obama will leave then, so that’s an easy question,” Carter said. “It ends up turning on whether Assad will be in power then.” “Yes, well I know that,” Graham chuckled. The senator repeated his question: “Who leaves first, Obama or Assad?” “Well, I certainly hope it’s Assad,” Carter answered. “Yeah I do, but I don’t think so,” Graham said. The exchange occurred during Tuesday’s hearing on U.S. involvement in the Middle East before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Obama administration officials insisted as early as 2011 that Assad must go, but have since done very little to effect a change of power in Damascus, even after the Syrian regime murdered thousands of its citizens with weapons of mass destruction in 2013. President Obama repeated Monday that the Syrian civil war would only end if there is “a new government without Bashar Assad,” but so far he has forbidden the U.S. military from targeting Syrian government forces in airstrikes as part of Operation Inherent Resolve. Carter told Graham that the United States is committed to finding “a political exit for Assad.” The Syrian Civil War has killed more than 310,000 people in four years, according to the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights. *Lindsey Graham campaign joins Fiorina in attacking Clinton’s CNN Interview: Clinton has ‘selective hearing and memory’ <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/07/lindsey-graham-campaign-joins-fiorina-in-attacking-clintons-cnn-interview-clinton-has-selective-hearing-and-memory/> // Breitbart // Alex Swoyer – July 7, 2015 * GOP presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) campaign joined fellow GOP candidate Carly Fiorina in response to Hillary Clinton’s long awaited formal sit down interview, which the Democratic frontrunner gave to CNN. This was the first national broadcast interview Clinton has given since formally announcing her campaign. Christian Ferry, Graham’s campaign manager, told Breitbart News, “Hillary Clinton clearly has selective hearing and memory.” Ferry continued, “She doesn’t seem to recall that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)47% has been fighting to secure our border and fix our broken immigration system for the last decade. This is no surprise considering that she still believes the national security policy she helped implement with Barack Obama has made the world and our country safer.” Ferry’s statement mirrors the criticism Fiorina made when she posted on Facebook that CNN didn’t question Clinton on her track record as Secretary of State. *HUCKABEE* *Huckabee blasts Obama, ‘Still in denial about the threats we face’ <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/07/huckabee-blasts-obama-still-in-denial-about-the-threat-we-face/> // Breitbart // Alex Swoyer – July 7, 2015 * GOP presidential candidate Gov. Mike Huckabee says President Obama is in denial about ISIS following his statements on the terrorist organization. “President Obama is still in denial about the threat we face from ISIS. The President admitted that ISIS is filling a ‘void’ in the region, but failed to mention why the void exists in the first place: The Obama Administration refused to leave a residual force in Iraq and then dismissed ISIS as a ‘jayvee team,'” Huckabee stated. The presidential candidate added Obama continues to call the terrorists “violent extremists” and not identify them by their ideology – radical Islam. “This is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets from Washington. Jihadists are slaughtering civilians by the tens of thousands and would kill millions if they could,” Huckabee added. He concluded: There was nothing new in President Obama’s glorified photo-op at the Pentagon. The Obama Administration promised to train 5,400 moderate rebels per year to fight ISIS. Yet less than 100 are being trained. What will it take for President Obama to abandon his weak, incremental escalation in the Middle East and finally take the fight to ISIS? *CARSON* *Ben Carson's godly riches <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ben-carsons-godly-riches-119784.html> // Politico // Tarini Parti – July 7, 2015 * Before Ben Carson was vying for votes from members of Christian organizations, he was charging them tens of thousands of dollars — in some cases even more than he charged groups with no religious ties — for speeches. Carson, now a GOP presidential candidate, brought in nearly $2 million delivering inspirational speeches to faith-based groups like Christian high schools and pregnancy centers in 2014. Of his five most expensive speeches, four of them were for Christian entities, a POLITICO analysis of his financial disclosure form shows. Billed by the Washington Speaker’s Bureau as an “inspiring storyteller” who is “soft-spoken yet charismatic” and capable of “commanding the stage,” Carson’s speaking fees varied widely, from $12,320 to $48,500. Last August, Hope Pregnancy Center in College Station, Texas, was one of the organizations that doled out $40,500 — close to Carson’s highest speaking fee — for the neurosurgeon-turned-author to speak at a fundraiser and attend a private, 45-minute reception with donors beforehand. The faith-based, pro-life organization works with women with unplanned pregnancies. “We called the speaker’s bureau and we were told that number,” explained Tracy Frank, executive director of the center. “Washington Speakers Bureau dictated the terms … We’re not that sophisticated and stuff. I’m going to cry if you’re telling me he did others for a lot less.” Carson gave 115 speeches for lower amounts in 2014 alone. Frank said she didn’t negotiate with the Washington Speakers Bureau because of Carson’s popularity. The fundraiser brought in a net profit of $150,000. Frank — along with other organizers of several other events — said Carson was paid more than past speakers, but they were able to make a significant net profit because they drew a bigger audience or were able to charge more for tickets. “It was probably higher than we’ve paid before,” she continued, “but then again, we wanted Phil Robertson from ‘Duck Dynasty,’ and he was far more expensive.” Ron Wade, executive director of HopeWorks Inc. – a Tennessee-based Christian group that seeks to help the poor and homeless and paid Carson $24,500 for a fundraiser last year — said he didn’t know if he was being charged more or less than other organizations. But he said he was willing to pay the speaking fees without much negotiation because it’s hard to find appropriate speakers who can draw a crowd. “It is so difficult to be popular and also meet the mission,” Wade said. “We just go with what we can get. He did a really good job for us in bringing in people who may not have known about HopeWorks. It would be great if he and other speakers would say, ‘HopeWorks is great, and we’ll do it for free.’ But most people don’t say that.” Overall, Carson reported earning $4 million in speaking fees in 2014. In addition to the fees, he earned between $1 million and $6 million in book royalties in the same year, his disclosures show. The Washington’s Speaker’s Bureau did not respond to requests for comment on how the fees were determined. The bureau has taken down Carson’s bio — which said, “Ben Carson’s remarkable journey from tough, inner-city youth to history-making neurosurgeon celebrates and illustrates the power we all have to excel and influence others” — now that Carson is on the campaign trail. Carson’s campaign also declined to comment, saying that it had included everything that was legally required in the financial disclosures. Carson has written six best-selling books, including “America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great”; “One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future”; and “One Vote: Make Your Voice Heard.” In speeches, he often draws from his books along with the TNT movie “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” which chronicles his life and stars Oscar winner Cuba Gooding Jr. Carson’s popularity among Christian crowds is part of how a doctor with no political experience has been able to gain more traction in Iowa than many better-credentialed contenders, such as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who are vying for the same evangelical supporters. Although there was already a movement underway to draft Carson to run for president, nonprofit leaders who hired him for speeches last year said he wasn’t overtly political and focused more on his life story and the “moral climate” of the country. “It was a call for our people to pray more and seek God’s guidance for leadership for our country,” said Gary Moore, senior associate pastor for the Second Baptist Church, of Carson’s speech at the Houston church’s “If My People” conference. But occasionally, based on some video clips and media reports of the speeches, Carson commented on how conservatives have been silenced for their views on social issues. “I think political correctness is one of the worst things that we ever brought to America,” he said in a speech for the Family Foundation of Virginia. “And here we are allowing it to be reintroduced through the back door as a good thing. It’s not a good thing. It’s an evil thing.” “If you believe in traditional marriage, then you’re a homophobe,” he said in the same speech, for which he was paid $32,000. “If you believe in life, then you’re anti-woman. If you’re white and you oppose a progressive black person, you’re a racist. If you’re black and you oppose a progressive agenda, you’re crazy.” During another speech at the University of Cumberlands last April, Carson more directly discussed his potential White House bid, according to a video: “I do realize that our country is in a lot of trouble. One of the biggest challenges that our country faces is our national debt, which is $17.5 trillion. Most people cannot comprehend this amount. Hopefully someone will come along who really catches fire and really understands the Constitution and understands freedom … If that doesn’t happen, I would have to give serious consideration to it.” But more than expressing his views on social and political issues, the paid speeches were a chance for Carson to share his life story with large audiences ahead of his announcement, and pick up supporters who could easily connect to it, like HopeWorks’ Wade, who brought Carson to Cordova, Tennessee, for an event titled, “A Morning of Hope with Ben Carson.” The event cost $60 per ticket. “He’s so authentic,” Wade said. “He impressed me. If he is still in the Republican primary when Tennessee votes, I would vote for him.” *A Movie Was Once Made About Ben Carson (And It May Be Helping Him) <http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/08/a-movie-was-once-made-about-ben-carson-and-it-may-be-helping-him/> // The Daily Caller // Alex Pappas – July 8, 2015 * “There’s too much God in it,” Ben Carson remembers someone telling him. Filming had already started on the TNT movie about his life, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” when one of the major sponsors suggested toning down some parts about his Christian faith. There were concerns about alienating a general audience. “I just said, ‘No problem, you can take it out,’” Carson recalled in a recent interview with The Daily Caller. “‘But take me out too, because it won’t be about me.’” “And then they backed off.” Based on his 1996 autobiography with the same title, the uplifting TV movie tells the story of Carson’s path from inner-city Detroit to the Johns Hopkins operating table, where he first successfully separated twins conjoined at the head. The 2009 movie has helped make Carson, now running as an outsider for the Republican nomination for president, famous: it has played in schools, churches and on the Black Entertainment Television network (BET). Hundreds of thousands of DVDs have been sold. It streams on Netflix. It could also help explain in part why Carson, who has never run for office, is polling in second-place in evangelical-heavy Iowa and in third place nationally, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average. Before the movie deal was inked, Carson said he talked with as many as 15 different production companies. He wanted to make sure the film stayed true to life and didn’t take artistic liberties. Carson was finally satisfied: “TNT and Sony said they would do it accurately, and that they would consult with me in the process.” “It turned out to be a two-edged sword, because they were always calling me,” Carson said with a laugh. In an interview with TheDC, Dan Angel, the executive producer of Gifted Hands, said he made a promise to Carson. “I am going to tell your story from beginning to end and tell the truth. I’m not going to add anything.” Carson was active during production: Angel said he visited the set in Detroit, spending time with actor Cuba Gooding Jr., who played him. “He would be there every step of the way whenever we needed to talk to him about reality checks,” Angel said of Carson. “We would have Cuba Gooding Jr. on the phone with him. And he gave complete access to his life, which is really important.” Gooding, through agent Adam Schweitzer, declined to be interviewed. But in a 2009 appearance on CBS, the actor praised Carson. “I always say about men like this: they’re like God’s tool,” Gooding said. “He’s really given him a gift and he’s touched so many people.” Carson says he was satisfied with the finished product. “I thought they did a spectacular job. Cuba came and spent a couple days with me. He got a chance to sort of see how I talk and how I act.” “I mean the idea that this amazing mom growing up in Detroit could raise two boys in the worst of conditions of poverty — you can imagine what the conditions were in the poorest town in America — and you would have any shot at coming out successful,” said Angel, the executive producer. “It’s the ultimate beating the odds story.” Carson said his mother, Sonya Carson, also spoke with the filmmakers. “She had a number of conversations on the phone with Kimberly Elise, who plays her,” he said. His mother remains in his life today, but her health has been declining. Hours before Carson announced his entry into the presidential race this summer, he got a call that his mom, who has Alzheimer’s, was no longer eating or drinking. “They basically just said, ‘this is the end,’” a soft-spoken Carson said. “Take her home. And let her die there. That’s news I got the day before the announcement.” In what Carson thought might be their final goodbye, his family rushed to her bedside. His wife, Candy, played the violin while his kids were singing and reading verses from the Bible. Carson said supporters told him they were praying for her. And to everyone’s surprise, she got better. “She just all of a sudden bloomed,” he said. “She blossomed. And she was back, and she was better than she was before.” As for the film, Carson said his mother was satisfied with how it turned out, even as it showed difficult times for her, including her bouts with depression. “I’ll tell you, it takes a lot to make her happy,” Carson said with a laugh. “It says a lot for Kimberly.” The film won a $100,000 Epiphany Prize for “most inspiring movie of 2009,” but not all the reviews were pretty. *Ben Carson signs ‘no new tax’ pledge, visits New Hampshire <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/7/ben-carson-pledges-no-new-tax-visits-new-hampshire/> // The Washington Times // Seth McLaughlin – July 7, 2015 * Vowing to crack down on the free-spending ways of Washington, Ben Carson signed a “no new tax” pledge here Tuesday as part a two-day swing through the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire. Buoyed by solid fundraising and strong poll numbers, Mr. Carson is working to broaden his appeal beyond the grassroots activists that helped to compel the retired neurosurgeon to run for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. “The tax pledge is the least I can do,” Mr. Carson told The Washington Times. “I would go much further than saying I am not going to raise taxes. I think we need to reform the system completely — make it truly fair, with liberty and justice for everybody.” Mr. Carson called for a “proportional tax” of somewhere between 10 percent and 15 percent on individual and corporate income, and for the elimination of all tax deductions, including the cherished mortgage-interest and charity-donation deductions. The 63-year-old also came out against “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts on immigration, following the slaying of a San Francisco woman, with which an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times has been charged. Voters in the early primary states are being pulled in various directions because of the sheer size of the GOP field. That was a clear reminder of that Tuesday after Mr. Carson and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina crossed paths on the streets of downtown Portsmouth. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana also traveled through the state on Tuesday. Polls show Mr. Carson, who has never held political office, is running third nationally behind former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. He is tied for second in Iowa, which kicks off the nomination race, and is running in the middle of the pack in New Hampshire. The Carson campaign announced earlier this month that it had pulled in $8.3 million in its opening quarter and more than $10 million since he launched his exploratory committee in early March. “We have easily what we need to run our campaign,” Mr. Carson said. “The pundits early on said it would be impossible for us to mount a national campaign since we weren’t connected to the big money and we are doing just fine because they forgot about one very important thing — the people.” Mr. Carson and his wife, Candy, celebrated his 40th wedding anniversary in nearby Nashua on Monday and followed that up Tuesday with five separate stops across the state. Mr. Carson cast himself as an Washington outsider and drove home the idea that he is taking the same fact-based approach to policy as he did in the operating room, where he became renowned for separating conjoined twins. “There are a lot of people who have been in Washington for decades,” he said “I don’t think you would really want them to tie your shoe.” Mr. Carson said he opposed Obamacare, and said that he would push for health savings accounts, as well as the ability for people to purchase insurance across state lines. Asked about Social Security, he advocated for gradually raising the retirement age over time and said that he would offer a tax credit in exchange for people choosing to opt out of the program. On immigration, he said he would seal the border and provide guest-worker permits to illegal immigrants, as long as the paid back taxes. He said Congress should pass laws protecting religious freedom in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. Ginny Hooker, 60, of Pittsfield, said she is open to voting for Mr. Carson. “I would consider. It is still too early, but I think he will do well,” Ms. Hooker said, adding that she likes how he comes across as a genuine person. “People can relate to him. He feels like he is someone who is easy to approach.” Barry Heller, 66, of Merrimack, said Mr. Carson has good ideas, but comes off flat on the stump. “His biggest shortcoming is he is not as dynamic a speaker as a lot of the others,” Mr. Heller said. “He needs to be a better speaker to get the message across.” *Ben Carson Has Sold More Copies Of His Book Than Every Other 2016 Republican Combined — By A Lot <http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/ben-carson-has-sold-more-copies-of-his-book-than-every-other#.oq3pYnB3M> // Buzzfeed // McKay Coppins – July 7, 2015 * The Iowa caucuses are still months away, but one presidential hopeful has already pulled far ahead in the 2016 conservative book sales primary: Dr. Ben Carson. Carson’s book, One Nation: What We Can All Do To Save America’s Future, has sold a whopping 362,813 hardcover copies to date, according to Nielsen BookScan, a service that tracks most bookstore sales. To compare: If you take the combined hardcover sales of every other book written by a current Republican presidential contender since 2010 and add them together, you only get 252,177. Carson’s dominance as an author has not necessarily translated to frontrunner status in the GOP presidential primaries, where he generally polls among the top cluster of candidates — at around 10% — but has not pulled away from the pack. The book’s success does, however, illustrate how Carson’s specialized brand of charisma, emphasis on personal biography, and proud defiance of political correctness appeals to the book-buying masses of the Republican base. It also comes at a moment when the conservative publishing industry has grown so large, and competitive, that many on the right fear it’s unsustainable. BuzzFeed News explored this phenomenon last year, in part, by examining the quadrennial rush to put out campaign manifestos by prospective presidential candidates. Publishing sources described bidding wars among the proliferation of conservative imprints, which have led to soaring advances that couldn’t be economically justified. Often, campaigns and political action committees end up spending thousands of dollars to inflate the books’ sales numbers. So far, Carson’s book is shaping up to be a rare runaway bestseller in the sub-genre of candidate lit. From BookScan, here are the total hardcover sales for each book released since 2010 by one of the current Republican presidential contenders: American Dreams, by Marco Rubio: 7,807 hardcover copies sold Unintimidated, by Scott Walker: 19,096 Taking a Stand, by Rand Paul: 7,795 Rising to the Challenge, by Carly Fiorina: 2,620 Immigration Wars, by Jeb Bush: 4,905 God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy, by Mike Huckabee: 65,939 Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal: 20,080 Midas Touch, by Donald Trump: 21,424 Fed Up!, by Rick Perry: 27,264 An American Son, by Marco Rubio: 36,786 Bella’s Gift, by Rick Santorum: 6,112 American Patriots, by Rick Santorum: 6,831 Government Bullies, by Rand Paul: 10,818 The Tea Party Goes To Washington, by Rand Paul: 10,778 Blue Collar Conservatives, by Rick Santorum: 3,919 TOTAL: 252,177 One Nation, by Ben Carson: 362,813 *Ben Carson calls for banning sanctuary cities <https://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/herald_bulldog/2015/07/ben_carson_calls_for_banning_sanctuary_cities> // Boston Herald // Chris Cassidy – July 7, 2015 * Republican hopeful Ben Carson today offered a solution to prevent a similar murder like the shooting death in San Francisco allegedly committed by an illegal immigrant who had been previously deported five times. “No sanctuary cities,” said Carson in response to an attendee’s question during a Politics & Eggs event at the Bedford Village Inn this afternoon. “I think that’s ridiculous.” Carson’s comments came as Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez admitted in a TV interview he shot and killed 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle in a tourist-friendly section of San Francisco. The shooting has sparked a nation-wide controversy because Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times and San Francisco’s status as a “Sanctuary City” for illegal immigrants prevented city officials from cooperating with the feds when he was released on drug charges the week before. “You have to turn off the spigot that dispenses the goodies,” said Carson. “If there’s nothing for them to come here for, they’re not going to risk coming in here.” Carson also said Donald Trump’s message about stopping illegal immigration is being overshadowed by the language he’s using, which was “perhaps a little inflammatory.” “I learned that a few months ago, to tone down the rhetoric,” said Carson. “That’s why you haven’t heard me do that much lately because I want people to hear what I’m saying.” Later, he told reporters he doesn’t think Trump is hurting the party. “He is who he is,” said Carson. “Could you imagine a Donald Trump who’s, like, nice, mild-mannered and says everything in a very peaceful -- it wouldn’t be Donald Trump.” He also believes he is a “shoo-in” to qualify among the top 10 candidates to appear on the stage for next month’s first Republican primary debate. *FIORINA* *Carly Fiorina Condemns Donald Trump for Comments on Mexicans <http://time.com/3948333/donald-trump-carly-fiorina/> // TIME // Sam Frizell – July 7, 2015 * Carly Fiorina on Tuesday denounced Donald Trump’s recent comments on Mexican immigrants, saying her fellow Republican presidential candidate “doesn’t represent my party.” “Donald Trump has said many outrageous things in his career, and I suspect he’s going to continue to say outrageous things,” Fiorina said after touring a factor here. “He doesn’t represent me, and he doesn’t represent my party.” Macy’s, NBC and other businesses have cut business ties with Trump, the reality television star and real estate mogul, after said during his campaign launch that the immigrants coming into the U.S. from Mexico are “rapists.” Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive, is seeking a place on the Republican debate stage this summer, a key step in gaining recognition in the race for the presidential nomination. She’ll need to do well enough in national polls to debate her competitors on stage, a feat that could be complicated by Trump’s entry into the race. Trump has rocketed into second place in the race, according to a CNN poll released last week. “I do think the media is sort of obsessed with him in a way that’s bizarre to me,” Fiorina said. “There’s a lot going on in the world and everybody keeps asking about Donald Trump.” Fiorina is in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire this week, meeting voters and touring local businesses. *Fiorina Responds: I’ve Done 24 TIMES As Many National TV Interviews As Hillary <http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/07/fiorina-responds-ive-done-24-times-as-many-national-tv-interviews-as-hillary/> // The Daily Caller // Al Weaver – July 7, 2015 * Hillary Clinton may have sat down for her first national television interview Tuesday, but the number pale in comparison to the only other female in the presidential contest thus far. According to Carly Fiorina’s campaign, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO has sat down for 24 national television interviews since her announcement May 4. The Fiorina camp also tweeted out a fun fact about the number of interviews she has done on a certain network that is not usually kind to Republicans. Fiorina has done four such interviews on the “Lean Forward” network — two with “Morning Joe,” one with “Mitchell Reports” host Andrea Mitchell, and another with “The Cycle” host Abby Huntsman. In a statement following the interview, which took place with CNN’s Brianna Keilar, Fiorina took aim at the questions Clinton did not end up facing, adding that the GOP nominee will need to “hold Hillary accountable.” Stunning…and yet completely unsurprising. Hillary Clinton managed not to answer any substantive questions during that interview. And she wasn’t even asked about her track record as Secretary of State. If we want to win back the White House in 2016, we need a Republican nominee who won’t be afraid to hold Hillary accountable–who will ask her about Benghazi, who will ask her about her conflicts of interest while her family accepted money from countries with business before her, who will ask her why she thought a gimmicky red reset button would dissuade the ambitions of someone like Vladimir Putin. *'Rope line' jokes aplenty as Fiorina knocks Clinton <http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20150707/NEWS0605/150709441#sthash.gaDdXyIU.dpuf> // The Union Leader // Dan Tuohy – July 7, 2015 * Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina casts herself as the anti-Hillary candidate. An audience in Portsmouth was happy to compare and contrast. “Where’s your rope line?” a man asked her Tuesday morning. The grinning questioner was inspired by Democrat Hillary Clinton’s use of a rope line to literally hold reporters back from covering her while she walked in the Fourth of July parade Saturday in Gorham. Others in the crowd at Geno's Chowder & Sandwich Shop in Portsmouth cracked the same joke. Fiorina also teed up on it. “Ladies and gentlemen,” she began her remarks, “I don’t want to rope off the press.” Clinton’s campaign says the rope was necessary in order to allow people along the route to meet and chat with the candidate. Fiorina, who regularly criticizes Clinton and presents herself as the ideal Republican to take Clinton on in the general election, said she remains accessible to the press and has answered more than 600 questions since her failed bid for U.S. Senate in California in 2010. Fiorina, the former chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard, is running as a Washington outsider. She is on a week-long campaign swing through New Hampshire. “Hillary Clinton cannot be President of these United States because she’s not trustworthy,” Fiorina said in Portsmouth. “She’s not transparent. Despite her many titles, she lacks a track record of leadership, and the policies she is pursuing are doubling down on every failed policy of the Obama administration from the last seven years.” Fiorina continued to take aim at the “professional political class.” She also dismissed billionaire businessman Donald J. Trump for his comments on Mexican illegal immigrants. “Donald Trump is what he has always been -- a tireless self-promoter,” she said in response to a reporter’s question. “So he’s going to say lots of outrageous things as he always has. He doesn’t represent me and he doesn’t represent my party.” In speaking to the audience at Geno’s, which opened early for the occasion, said immigration reform takes money, manpower and political will power. She supports strengthening the nation’s borders, but also said America must prioritize some basic steps, like fixing a broken employer verification system to ensure workers are legal. Fiorina proposed cutting back on federal bureaucracy, rebuilding America’s military, and repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with a free-market, states-based solution, in which states manage high-risk pools. One man asked her how she was answer the press when questioned on how she was “separated” from Hewlett-Packard. “I wasn’t ‘separated’ from HP, ok, I was fired,” Fiorina responded. She said she’s proud of her record, and that she was challenging the status quo at her former company during a time of great upheaval in the tech world. She said other leaders -- citing Steve Jobs -- were fired for taking similar stands. Fiorina said she has more endorsements in New Hampshire than any other candidate and is working a grassroots campaign to boost her standing in the first-in-the-nation primary state. She said that her name recognition was less than 4 percent when she started the campaign. And since that “standing start” on May 4, she has raised $1.4 million toward the presidential primary election. Asked if she is now a top-tier candidate, Fiorina said it depends on how one defines it. But, she quickly added, she will be on the debate stage when Fox News and Facebook host the first televised GOP presidential debate Aug. 6. In a critical move, Fox News will limit the entry criteria to the top 10 candidates, based on five recent national public opinion polls. *JINDAL* *Bobby Jindal mocked for posing with gun at campaign stop <http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/bobby-jindal-mocked-for-posing-with-gun-at-campaign-stop/articleshow/47983579.cms> // The Economic Times – July 8, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Bobby Jindal has been mocked on Twitter for posting a photo of himself holding and admiring a weapon while at a campaign stop in Iowa last week. "My kind of campaign stop; Capital Armament in Sibley," read the photo caption of Louisiana's Indian-American governor, inviting mocking comments, according to Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper. The company's Facebook page describes CapArms as a veteran-owned company that manufactures ammunition firearms and smokeless gunpowder. A commentator accused Jindal, a strong supporter of gun ownership rights who has signed several pro-gun rights bills into law in his state, of pandering to constituents and calling him a poser. Another called it Jindal's Dukakis moment, referencing the 1988 campaign photo of Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis riding in a tank. Politico, an influential Washington newssite, referred to that image as one of the "worst campaign backfires in history.” *Bobby Jindal: Sanders and Clinton Would Both Turn Us Into Greece <http://time.com/3947747/bobby-jindal-greece-debt/> // TIME // Bobby Jindal – July 7, 2015 * Greece created democracy, and now the Greeks are showing us how to kill it. It’s simple math to understand what is happening in Greece right now. When Greece joined the euro, it benefited from the financial support of its more fiscally responsible neighbors in the euro zone. Rather than taking the opportunity to enact the structural reforms that could have increased growth — reforms that it still has not undertaken — Greece instead went on a spending spree funded by other people’s money. Greece has been cooking the books with complicated financial instruments for years. But the problems don’t stop there. Greece’s Rubik’s Cube tax code and rampant corruption make tax evasion widespread. Golden parachute public pensions that allow public sector workers to retire as early as 45 drain dollars out of the government coffers while incentivizing a still healthy and work-age workforce to live on the public dime. It’s hard to have sufficient tax paying workers when about 75% of Greek public-sector employees retire by the age 61. After taking office in January, the Alexis Tsipras administration reversed promised privatization of state-owned assets like the Port of Piraeus. In 2011, the IMF predicted Greece could bring in 50 billion euros ($56 billion) from the sale of state assets, not to mention the savings from moving those employees off the public wage and benefit system. To date, it has raised about 3 billion euros. Business has no interest in creating jobs when crushed by government regulation. Tspiras promised to raise the minimum wage, despite the economy spiraling out of control. It’s not surprising the March unemployment rate stood at 25.6%. This is the European nightmare. The way of Greece is where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will take us. It’s simple math: You can’t spend more than you take in. You can’t make it impossible for business to thrive and expect the economy to grow. No wonder the U.S. has had a disappointing about 2% “recovery” growth. That’s not an accident—it’s the result of failed policies. Clinton and Sanders are math deniers, like most of the Democrats in D.C. They want to grow the government economy instead of the real American economy. Rather than pursuing tax reform to improve growth or entitlement changes to reduce future expenditures, Clinton and Sanders are focused on spending trillions on Obamacare, giving free college to everyone, and raising the federal minimum wage. This was all on plain view in New Hampshire this past weekend, where Clinton spent the weekend promoting a third term of President Barack Obama’s failed policies. The irony is that her dishonesty and lack of transparency is a windfall for Sanders. Sanders is rising in the polls. Why? Because he’s honest. He freely admits that he believes in socialism, and Democrats are flocking to the only honest candidate running on their side. Sanders should write Clinton a thank you note. Sanders may be saying what Clinton will not say, but the reality is they’re both socialists. And if you want a peek into our future with Clinton or Sanders, then look at what’s happening in Greece today. Sanders proudly said on Sunday that he wants to raise taxes. Sanders and Clinton seem to believe prosperity lies in the hands of government. We know it lies in the hands of our people. We have to stop pretending. Greece pretended that debt didn’t matter for years. It pretended it could spend money it didn’t have. It pretended that there was some mythical pot of money in Athens that didn’t exist. It pretended that 1+1 didn’t equal 2. The politicians in Puerto Rico are no different. They are demanding that we change U.S. laws so that they can file for bankruptcy. They are even threatening to sway the presidential election in order to force candidates to agree with them. These are the same politicians that led the country to bankruptcy. Everyone knows exactly what is going on here — they are asking the U.S. taxpayers to pay for a bailout. That’s where this leads, and we should be honest about it. I oppose this. Unfortunately, we better admit that our politicians in Washington are taking us down the exact same road that Puerto Rico is on, and that Greece has gone down. The federal minimum wage has strangled economic growth in Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican government tried to throw money at the problem with incentive programs to lure business — but that just cost money and didn’t fix the structural problem, so the economy continued to stall. I know because in Louisiana we reversed decades of outmigration, and we created more than 90,000 jobs by reducing regulations and cutting taxes. Louisiana’s economy boomed. We can do the same for America’s economy. If you want more borrowing and spending, then vote for the Democrats. We know where that leads — Greece and Puerto Rico have shown us how quickly irresponsible spending can kill a democracy. *Jindal back to Iowa, will fundraise with Grassley <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/07/07/bobby-jindal-chuck-grassley-caucus-trips-cedar-rapids-marion/29822565/> // Des Moines Register // Linh Ta – July 7, 2015 * Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal will make a campaign stop with Sen. Chuck Grassley in Marion Saturday. Jindal, who is running for the Republican nomination for president, will make several other stops in Iowa including Cedar Rapids and Davenport. Both Grassley and Jindal will visit the Foot and Ankle Specialists of Iowa in Marion for a meeting with press, along with a private fundraiser and roundtable. Jindal has spent 14 days in the state this year, with his most recent visits to July 4th parades in Urbandale and Windsor Heights. The rest of the stops include: Dubuque: 9 a.m., Saturday, breakfast stop at Courtside Grill, 2095 Holliday Drive Cedar Rapids: 1 p.m., Saturday, town hall meeting at Cedar Rapids Museum of Art, 410 Third Ave. Marion: 5 p.m. Saturday, fundraiser and roundtable with Sen. Chuck Grassley at Foot and Ankle Specialists of Iowa, 1215 Blairsferry Road Davenport: 5 p.m., Sunday, town hall meeting at American Legion Post #26, 702 West 35th St. *Bobby Jindal super PAC drops $700k on Iowa commercials, website reports <http://www.bayoubuzz.com/louisiana-news/louisiana-politics/item/931009-bobby-jindal-super-pac-drops-700k-on-iowa-commercials-website-reports-nolacom> // Bayoubuzz – July 7, 2015 * Gov. Bobby Jindal's Super PAC, Believe Again, is spending more than $700,000 on round of commercials that will keep Jindal for president ads on the air through August, the Washington Post reported. The ads will air between July 13 and August 2, mostly in the major media markets of Des Moines, Sioux City and Cedar Rapids, the Post report said. The buy includes commercials running online and on some cable networks in the state. of the TV ads that have been running in Iowa have been a spot that uses a speech where Jindal talks about how he doesn't like the use of terms he calls "hyphenated Americans" such as Indian-American. He goes on to talk about his views on immigration. The ad is titled "We Are All Americans." Before that, an ad that aired in Iowa touted Jindal's support for religious freedom. *Jindal: No break for Puerto Rico in debt crisis <http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150708/NEWS0605/150709381> // The Union Leader // Dave Solomon – July 7, 2015 * Louisiana governor and presidential candidate Bobby Jindal said on Tuesday that he would oppose any legislation giving the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico a way out of its debt crisis that would leave lenders holding the bag. He criticized Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and fellow Republican Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, for endorsing changes in U.S. bankruptcy laws that would enable Puerto Rico’s public entities to restructure some $72 billion in debt. Legislation has been introduced in Congress that would give the U.S. territory the same options the 50 states have when it comes to restructuring the debt of government-owned entities or municipalities. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, both Clinton rivals for the Democratic nomination, have also endorsed easing the bankruptcy laws for Puerto Rico. Bush is so far the only Republican candidate to do so. “I think that Puerto Rico ought to be treated as other states are treated as it relates to restructuring,” he said during a visit to the island in late April. “We all know what’s next,” Jindal said in an interview with New Hampshire Union Leader editors and reporters. “There will be appeals for U.S. tax dollars for a bailout. We can’t do that. We shouldn’t do that. I don’t know why Jeb Bush is calling for that change in the law. I hope he will reconsider his position.” Jindal linked Puerto Rico and Greece, both on the verge of a massive default, as examples of poor economic policies run amok, and said the United States has been heading in the same direction under President Obama. “The most important domestic issue we have is to rescue the American Dream from becoming the European nightmare — more taxes, more spending, more regulation,” he said. “Greece will be our future if we aren’t careful.” More than a ribbon-cutter The 44-year-old Louisiana native, whose parents immigrated from India, is considered a long-shot for the GOP nomination. His approval rating in Louisiana has plummeted to around 30 percent, as the state Legislature in June closed a $1.6 billion projected budget deficit, ending the state’s biggest budget crisis since the late 1980s. Jindal pointed out that he was elected governor by wide margins, “and then we actually did something after getting elected,” “You want to be popular, cut ribbons and kiss babies,” he said. “We’ve done some things in our state and the state is better for it.” Those initiatives included a school-choice program and privatization of the state-run hospitals. “We were coming out of Katrina,” he said. “People were worried about 25 years of out-migration. Now we’ve had seven years of in-migration, credit upgrades and per-capita income is up.” The son of immigrants, Jindal said the current immigration system is broken. “We have low walls and a narrow gate,” he said, “when we need high walls and a broader gate, meaning we need to secure the border and after that’s done, make it easier to get here legally.” Once through the gate, he said, immigrants need to assimilate. “They need to learn English, adopt our values, role up their shirtsleeves and learn to live here,” he said. “I’m tired of hyphenated Americans. My parents love India, but they came here because they wanted their kids to become Americans.” Jindal opposes subsidies for solar energy, popular in New Hampshire, and for ethanol, popular in Iowa — both critical primary states. “As Republicans, we say we don’t want to be the party of big government, but we can’t be the party of big business either. We can’t say we don’t want to pick winners and losers, so you can’t give special treatment to solar, but we want to give special treatment to oil, gas and the sources that we favor. I am an all-of-the-above guy.” A defining election A fiscal and social conservative, Jindal sees himself as a populist. “The left thinks we aren’t smart enough to choose our own health insurance, to decide where our kids should go to school, how we exercise our Second Amendment rights, how many Big Gulps you should drink,” he said. “I think this election is about populism versus elitism.” Jindal said his Roman Catholic faith informs every aspect of his life, including his politics and decision-making. As a teenager, he at first hid his interest in Christianity from his Hindu parents. “I came to the Christian faith at 16,” he said. “It took me seven years. It wasn’t easy and it wasn’t immediate. I may have been the only teenager who told his parents he was going to a party so he could go to church instead.” In his second visit to the Granite State so far in the campaign, Jindal said he appreciates the civility of the New Hampshire electorate. “One of the great things about New Hampshire and Iowa is that voters are respectful, intelligent and considerate,” he said. “There are a lot of people who come to town halls who disagree with me. They want to tell me how wrong I am. They wait their turn, stand up and give you their piece, but they are not rude.” As regards his standing in the crowded GOP field, Jindal has faith in the biblical admonition, “Many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.” *TRUMP* *P.G.A. Moves Event From Donald Trump Golf Course <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/sports/golf/pga-moves-event-from-trump-golf-course.html> // NYT // Brendan Prunty – July 7, 2015 * About five years ago, when golf was going through an economic downswing, Donald Trump took the opportunity to buy in, scooping up failed properties. He already had courses emblazoned with his name around the world, but credibility? That eluded him. Soon major golf tours came calling, bringing big-money, high-profile events to his courses. Major championships — the prized possessions of every club — came next. In short order, Trump had gone from outsider to having a seat in the club. Now he is wondering if he will get to keep it. “I’ve been very loyal to golf,” Trump said Tuesday in a telephone interview. “I own 17 clubs. They all do great. We will see whether or not golf is loyal to me.” That is the question after the P.G.A. of America on Tuesday became the first major golf organization to pull an event from one of Trump’s properties in response to Trump’s racially insensitive remarks last month about Mexican immigrants during a speech in which he announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president. The P.G.A. Grand Slam of Golf — a year-end exhibition among the winners of the four men’s major championships — was scheduled for October at Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles. Instead, it will be moved to a yet-to-be-determined location. Trump said it was a mutually agreed upon move to protect his friends in the organization from dealing with potential backlash over his remarks, in which he said, referring to Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” He later added, “And some, I assume, are good people.” The P.G.A. and L.P.G.A. issued statements on Tuesday, with the P.G.A. saying “we understand and support” the decision. The L.P.G.A. said that the Women’s British Open at Trump’s Turnberry Resort later this month would be staged as scheduled, adding that “a change in venue for this prestigious major simply isn’t feasible without significantly diminishing the event.” “I think those statements are unnecessary,” Trump said. “The voters of this country agree with me. All you have to do is look at the polls.” Trump later told a Golf Channel reporter days after the June 16 speech that he had “tremendous support from the golf world, because they all know I’m right,” referring to his remarks about Mexican immigrants. That led the U.S.G.A., P.G.A. Tour, L.P.G.A. Tour and the P.G.A. of America to issue a joint statement disputing Trump’s claims. In addition to the Women’s British Open at the Turnberry Resort, which Trump purchased last year, three other major championships will be held at his courses by 2022: the 2017 United States Women’s Open (at Trump National in Bedminster, N.J.), the 2017 Senior P.G.A. Championship (at Trump National in Potomac Falls, Va.) and the 2022 P.G.A. Championship at his Bedminster course. And as part of that deal last year with the P.G.A. of America, it moved the Grand Slam of Golf from its traditional home in Bermuda to Trump’s Los Angeles course in a multiyear deal that runs through 2018. The P.G.A. of America’s statement about the move, however, noted that it was for this year. “I think a lot of people are surprised that it wasn’t all or nothing,” said the former P.G.A. of America president Ted Bishop. “I don’t know what kind of statement the P.G.A. of America makes by saying, ‘We’re not going to do this for one year, but we’re going to go back for all these others.’ ” Bishop, who was ousted from the organization last year after he made public comments that were widely seen as sexist, was part of the group that entered into a multi-event deal with Trump in 2014. He said that both he and the former P.G.A. of America chief executive Joe Steranka originally wanted nothing to do with Trump or his growing grip on the sport. But once Pete Bevacqua took over for Steranka, he said, he pushed for the two sides to do more business. In addition to his own original-design golf properties, Trump had increasingly begun acquiring more pieces of the golf market. He purchased the financially struggling properties in Colts Neck and Pine Hill, N.J. He bought the Doral Resort & Spa — and its famous Blue Monster course, which hosts the W.G.C.-Cadillac Championship — out of bankruptcy in 2012. When the U.S.G.A. awarded him a United States Women’s Open in 2012, the door had been opened for others to follow suit. And if, at the end of the day, golf is not loyal back? “I have wonderful alternatives,” Trump said. “It’s called — I’ll make a fortune.” *GOP donors call for sidelining Donald Trump <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/republican-donors-donald-trump-debates-reaction-119798.html> // Politico // Nick Gass – July 7, 2015 * At least one top Republican donor wants the party to keep Donald Trump from the debate stage. “Someone in the party ought to start some sort of petition saying, ‘If Trump’s going to be on the stage, I’m not going to be on there with him,’” Republican donor John Jordan told The Associated Press on Monday, according to a report published Tuesday. “I’m toying with the idea of it.” “It’s something I feel strongly about as somebody who not only cares about the Republican Party, but also Latinos,” he added. The comments come in the wake of a letter sent by Wyoming-based investor Foster Friess, another top GOP donor, calling for candidates to stay on the “civility reservation,” according to AP. “Our candidates will benefit if they all submit to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, ‘Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican,’” Friess wrote in a letter late last week to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, obtained by the AP. Republican presidential candidates, from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, have routinely pointed out flaws in their fellow partisans. Nearly all of the Republican candidates roundly rejected Trump’s remarks last month that Mexico and other countries are sending rapists and murderers across the border, for example. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, however, declined to condemn Trump’s comments, telling NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he was not going to be a party to “Republican-on-Republican violence.” Christie responded to those remarks on Fox News, calling it “ironic” that the senator is giving “lectures” on the issue after Christie accused Cruz of sponsoring ads against incumbent Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee in the 2014 election cycle. According to a copy of Mike Huckabee’s response to Friess obtained by the AP, the former Arkansas governor said he “hope[s] that we don’t commit fratricide again as a party.” *Workers Building Trump Hotel Present Different Immigrant Image <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/workers-building-trump-hotel-present-different-immigrant-picture-n388281> // NBC News // Suzanne Gamboa – July 7, 2015 * Against the political noise of Donald Trump's anti-Mexican, anti-immigrant declarations and the ensuing backlash, the clank of hammers, clunking of wood and the high-pitched whine of heavy machinery inside a Trump construction site in the nation's capital goes on. Many of the workers, though not all, are immigrants or Latino, or both, and have been on site of the Old Post Office Pavilion on Pennsylvania Avenue — about midway between the Capitol and the White House — since early in the morning and for many days. On Tuesday, during breaks and while leaving at the end of their long day, they wore their work on their clothing and on their skin — splattered paint, dust, the exhaustion of their labor under a tough sun. In his presidential bid, Trump told his audience of supporters that Mexico was sending to the U.S. people who weren't like them. Instead, Mexico was sending problems: rapists, criminals and drug runners, he said. Few of the workers at the construction site wanted to discuss Trump's comments when asked about them a day after the Washington Post ran a front-page story about the workers on the hotel development billed as a $200 million project. The Post reported that several of the workers were immigrants and many were citizens or working legally, but laborers also told the Post that many had first entered the U.S illegally. Many of the workers interviewed were from El Salvador or Honduras, reflective of the Washington, D.C., Latino population. Larger Mexican immigrant populations are found in communities around the district. Those that did talk to reporters Tuesday said Trump was crazy or that he clearly didn't know that the people who work on his projects are decent people. "They've come here to work, to get ahead, not to do anything bad," one worker who would not divulge any personal information told NBC. "All the ones I know, at least, are workers, not rapists." Their stories as reported by the Post give a different view of immigration, one that shows the complexity of the lives of people and their status in the U.S. — here illegally, once here legally but now a citizen, a legal resident, here with temporary protected status. Although Trump has pegged them as problems, the workers' toil away making a luxury hotel out of a historic building complex that houses the official Bells of Congress gifted to the U.S. from Britain during the nation's bicentennial and a 315-foot clock tower dating to 1899. There's no mistaking who is reaping at least some of the benefit of these laborers' work. The blue banners atop fencing across the front of the construction site announce the developer in large white letters: TRUMP. It's a brand that Trump himself acknowledged is becoming increasingly tarnished. Often associated with success, wealth and excess, Trump's brand is increasingly being connected to racism and xenophobia. Businesses have been severing ties with Trump, including NBC, Univision, Macy's and Serta Mattresses. "I didn't know it was going to be quite this severe," Trump said on "Fox & Friends" of the backlash since his statements. On Tuesday, the Professional Golfers Association pulled this year's Grand Slam of Golf from Trump National course in Los Angeles. "I think Donald Trump knew he was going to be provocative and knew he was going to get pushback, but I believe he didn't think the pushback would actually come in the form of being dropped by sponsorships and contracts," said political analyst Victoria Francesco de Soto. "Trump is losing out real money and his brand is being harmed," she said. "We all know Trump has that outrageous provocative brand, but it's going a bit deeper." *Take on Trump? GOP senators opt against it <http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/247163-take-on-trump-gop-senators-opt-against-it> // The Hill // Alexander Bolton – July 8, 2015 * Donald Trump’s recent comments on illegal immigrants from Mexico are giving Republicans heartburn, but GOP senators are leery of criticizing the billionaire real estate mogul. Their reluctance to rip the presidential hopeful for claiming that many Mexicans crossing the U.S. border are drug dealers and rapists could be used by Democrats who are aiming to regain control of the upper chamber. Hispanic voters make up a large portion of the electorate in three battlegrounds that could determine who wins the Senate majority next year: Colorado, Florida and Nevada. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) on Tuesday dodged a question about Trump’s controversial remarks. “I’m focused on fixing No Child Left Behind,” he said, referring to the pending education bill. “There are plenty of candidates in the presidential race who can deal with each other on those issues. I’m not going to get into it.” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he disagrees with Trump’s characterization, but declined to condemn the remarks. “My state has been enriched by the Hispanic influence. We’re a much better place. We have a close and warm relationship across our southern border with our Mexican friends, so, frankly, I just disagree,” said McCain, who is running for reelection in 2016. When asked if Trump’s comments would hurt the party, McCain said, “I’ll leave that to others to decide.” “There are serious issues involved, and they need to be treated seriously, and foremost we need to treat all the people involved with the dignity and respect they deserve,” said Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas). He declined to characterize Trump’s comments as a mistake. “I’m not running for president. You’ll have to ask [them],” Cornyn added. Some of Trump’s rivals on the campaign trail have criticized the TV personality’s claims about immigrants. But Republican lawmakers aren’t showing an interest in going toe-to-toe with Trump. The 2016 candidate is surging in the polls, attracting a lot of media attention, and he’s shown he likes to fire back at Washington insiders. Establishment Republicans are growing increasingly concerned that Trump will be a huge distraction throughout the upcoming cycle. One GOP donor floated the idea of barring Trump from presidential debates, and while some Republican strategists privately embrace the idea, lawmakers are keeping their distance. Trump is famously litigious and not afraid to use scorched-earth tactics to respond to his critics. While his negative characterization of illegal Mexican immigrants has caused corporate partners to recoil, they have helped him gain traction with the Republican base. Trump’s nationwide support has increased to 12 percent, according to a recent CNN/ORC poll, putting him in second place, behind former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. He stood at 3 percent in the polls when he announced his candidacy in mid-June. Some Republicans worry that if the party excludes Trump from the debates or attacks him personally, the strategy could backfire by provoking him to wage a third-party campaign in the general election. “The Republican candidates who decide to take him on and attack him do so at their peril and the party’s peril because the worst thing for Republicans is for Trump to go through the primaries and make a third-party run,” said John Ullyot, a GOP strategist and former senior Senate aide. They fear a replay of H. Ross Perot, who at the very least hampered former President George H.W. Bush’s reelection chances in 1992. Perot won 19 percent of the national vote, and Bill Clinton was elected as the country’s 42nd president. Over the last several weeks, corporate giants including Macy’s, NBC and Univision have cut ties with Trump. In Washington, prominent local restaurateur José Andrés has come under pressure to reconsider opening a new restaurant at the Old Post Office, which Trump is converting into a luxury hotel. Trump has not backed down and pointed to the fatal shooting of a San Francisco woman last week. Kathryn Steinle was shot allegedly by a man who had a long criminal record and had been deported to Mexico five times. A spokeswoman for Trump said she had no comment for this article. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said he thought Trump stumbled in his comments but defended his right to speak his mind. “I just don’t think he has a lot of experience with presidential politics even though he’s been there a few times. He’s undoubtedly going to make some mistakes, and I think that was one,” Hatch said. The Finance Committee chairman argues that Trump’s remarks will give other GOP candidates a chance to portray themselves in a more favorable light by offering a clear contrast. “I think it will give other Republicans a chance to shine,” he said. “He could play a very good role if he will. He’s a smart guy, he’s a very successful guy. I know him personally. I like him personally, but he’s a person who says what he believes and what he thinks. That’s something to be admired, even if you disagree with him,” Hatch added. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said Trump could have expressed himself more deftly but that he did not necessarily say anything inaccurate. “I believe the facts would show that some people, certainly not the majority, if they get in trouble with the law in foreign countries, if they can get to the United States, they can avoid going to jail,” he said. “And we know a huge amount of our drugs are coming across our border. GOP strategists acknowledge that Trump is hurting their party’s effort to reach out to Hispanic voters. “Undoubtedly it has hurt the Republican brand with Hispanics, but it will also give us an opportunity as Republicans to have a conversation with Hispanic voters about what it means to be an immigrant to this country and how we should do this in a safe and orderly fashion,” said Patrick Davis, a GOP strategist and former political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Democrats have pounced on Trump’s words to paint the broader Republican Party as hostile to immigrants. Hillary Clinton, the current Democratic presidential front-runner, told CNN in an interview Tuesday that she feels “very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding.” Unlike other GOP presidential contenders, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has praised Trump for putting a national spotlight on the southwestern border. “I salute Donald Trump for focusing on the need to address illegal immigration,” Cruz told host Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet The Press.” “I like Donald Trump. He is bold, he is brash.” “He has a colorful way of speaking, and it’s not my way of speaking, but I salute him,” Cruz added. *Donald Trump Employees’ 401(k) Plans Come With a Huge Catch <http://time.com/money/3948049/donald-trump-401k/> // TIME // Susie Poppick – July 7, 2015 * It turns out that Donald Trump—the real estate mogul and Republican presidential hopeful who has promised to be “the greatest jobs president that God ever created”—is a bit of a Scrooge when it comes to his employees’ retirement plans. Workers who are eligible for Trump’s company 401(k) cannot actually open an account until they have been employed by the tycoon for a year, Bloomberg reports. And the employer match—a generous-enough 4.5% for employees who invest at least 6% of their earnings—doesn’t kick in for six years. (That’s the longest amount of time allowed by United States law). While these policies may simply signal how much Trump values loyalty, one other important 401(k) feature is lacking in the plan: automatic enrollment. Studies have shown that by automatically signing employees up for savings, employers can greatly boost how much workers end up having for retirement. “If the plan really wanted to facilitate employee savings, it would institute automatic enrollment, reduce or eliminate the eligibility requirement, and vest employees in the employer match more quickly,” Harvard Kennedy School professor Brigitte Madrian told Bloomberg. *These GOP Candidates Are Standing Behind Donald Trump <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/gop-candidates-defending-donald-trump> // Mother Jones // Allie Gross – July 7, 2015 * Following Donald Trump's controversial comments suggesting that Mexican immigrants are "rapists" who bring drugs and crime to America, his fellow 2016 contenders have largely condemned his inflammatory remarks. But a handful of Republican hopefuls have either defended the real estate mogul or, in one case, fled a question on the subject to avoid going on the record. Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson are standing behind Trump. They have defended (even applauded) the billionaire, in what might be attempts to appeal to conservatives opposed to immigration reform. During an appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, "I salute Donald Trump for focusing on the need to address illegal immigration." He chalked up Trump's divisive rhetoric as a "colorful way of speaking." According to Cruz, the controversy is merely an attempt by the media to get Republicans to criticize each other, but he is "not interested in Republican-on-Republican violence" and therefore "ain't gonna do it." Rick Santorum also came out on #teamtrump. The former senator told CBS' Face the Nation on Sunday that he did not like Trump's "verbiage," but said that Trump "focused on a very important issue for American workers, and particularly legal immigrants in this country." Referring to the storm that followed Trump's remarks, Ben Carson contended that political correctness was overshadowing the debate about immigration reform. "It's the P.C. police out in force," Carson told the Daily Caller. "They want to make very clear that this is a topic you're not supposed to bring up." Carson, a former neurosurgeon, said that "our illegal immigration problem," not Trump, should be the focus of attention. His solution? "Secure all our borders—north, south, east and west," with electronic surveillance devices, drones, or people. Rand Paul isn't exactly on #teamtrump, but he has been conspicuously silent on Trump's remarks. Last week, an Iowa voter posted a video to Twitter that showed her asking Paul for his opinion on Trump's statement and being met with no reply. *Donald Trump Taking Message To Hollywood For GOP Event Friday <http://deadline.com/2015/07/donald-trump-hollywood-friends-of-abe-event-1201471883/> // Deadline // Liosa de Morales – July 7, 2015 * Donald Trump’s coming to town. Trump people confirm he is speaking to the group of Hollywood conservatives who go by the name Friends of Abe. The event is scheduled for 7:30 PM on Friday at the Luxe Sunset Blvd Hotel in Brentwood, the invite says. The most controversial of the ever-expanding pack of GOP White House hopefuls is the latest paying a visit to the group. Other Republican contenders already have paid a call, but, of course, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee have not made headlines saying Mexico is sending its drug users and rapists across the border into the United States, so their visits to Abe’s pals went largely unnoticed. “We are delighted to hear from Donald Trump as we are from all 2016 Republican candidates,” a member of the Tinseltown organization told Deadline. The invite sent to Friends of Abe members asks them to come for a “dinner and insightful discussion” with Trump. The ex-Celebrity Apprentice host is called “the very definition of American success” on the invite. Trump’s camp confirmed he is scheduled to speak at the private event. Friends of Abe was founded by the likes of Gary Sinise, Jon Voight and Kelsey Grammer several years ago as a discussion group for embattled Hollywooders with conservative tendencies. Having grown now to more than 2,200 members, the media-avoiding FoA has become a station on the notable GOP presidential and fundraising path as candidates and the Republican Party try to get their hands on Tinseltown cash via networking at the group’s low-key events. Word of Trump’s visit came as Hillary Clinton was clobbering him on CNN over his comments about Mexican immigration. “I’m very disappointed in those comments and I feel very bad, and very disappointed with him and with the Republican party for not responding immediately and saying, ‘Enough! Stop It!’,” Clinton told CNN’s senior political correspondent Brianna Keilar in Clinton’s first nationally televised interview since officially announcing her candidacy three months ago. Trump this week acknowledged the remark he made about illegal immigrants coming across the border with Mexico in announcing his White House bid in mid-June, has cost him more business than he expected. Most notably, he has sued Univision for dumping plans to broadcast the Miss USA and Miss Universe Pageants, which he co-owns with NBC, which also has bailed on the beauty pageant broadcasts, and said it is getting out of business with him. In LA today, pro golf’s PGA backed out of October’s PGA Grand Slam of Golf tourney that had been scheduled at Trump National golf course in Palos Verdes. Clinton, however, said Trump is only in keeping with all of the GOP presidential candidates’ immigration stances, which she described as a “spectrum” of “hostility” on immigration in which all of the Republican hopefuls are opposed to providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants — by way of seguing to her “talk about comprehensive immigration reform.” *How much money will running for president cost Donald Trump? <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/donald-trump-losing-brands-money/> // CNN // MJ Lee – July 7, 2015 * Donald Trump's foes want to hit him where it hurts: His wallet. A slew of corporations from Macy's to NBC to ESPN to NASCAR have abandoned business deals with the Republican presidential candidate after he remarked that some immigrants crossing into the U.S. from Mexico were "rapists." The PGA was one of the latest organizations to dump the bombastic businessman, announcing on Tuesday that it would not hold its 2015 Grand Slam of Golf tournament at a Trump golf course in Los Angeles. All told, the loss of income could add up to millions of dollars. But until Trump files detailed financial disclosure forms, it is difficult to estimate just how hard his profits may take a hit. Trump's assets tied to the Miss Universe, Miss USA and Miss Teen USA pageants that he partially owns and were dropped by Univision and NBC are estimated to be around $15 million. That's a large sum of money but to a self-claimed multi-billionaire like Trump, it's small change. Trump says his net worth is close to $9 billion. About a third of that -- $3.3 billion -- is tied up in "real estate licensing deals, brand and branded developments," according to a summary of Trump's net worth as of last year. The vast majority of the rest of Trump's assets are in residential and commercial properties, as well as real estate investments. Some experts say these assets would be largely shielded from the corporate backlash. Dwight Hill, a retail expert, said he would expect any financial loss Trump experiences from the fallout of his comments to be just a "blip." "At the end of the day, his real wealth and holdings is obviously real estate," Hill said. "I'm sure there will be some boycott of his hotels but I just don't see it as having a long term lasting affect on his brand." A Trump spokeswoman declined to answer several questions about the details of Trump's finances. In his typical brash style, Trump has dismissed the flood of business deals he's lost over the course of a few weeks. "The disassociation of ESPN and NASCAR with the Trump Organization was covered by the press in headlines all over the world as though it was a major setback for me. Really? What were the losses?" Trump said in a statement Tuesday. He went on to boast that he will now turn a bigger profit in part by keeping large portions of the deposits from ESPN and NASCAR. But Trump's public statements seem to belie a recognition that the recent events have put a serious dent in his brand. One person in Trump's inner circle, who spoke anonymously to share Trump's private thoughts, said the businessman was genuinely stung by NBC's decision to sever ties with him. Even after announcing his presidential campaign, Trump had always expected to return to being host of "The Apprentice" — a platform that has been central to creating an image of a tough boardroom CEO and experienced business leader. "I don't think it has anything to do with money. It has everything to do with prestige," this person said. Meanwhile, his critics say they are determined to make the depth of their anger known. The Hispanic business community, for one, is galvanizing around a boycott of Trump brands and properties. Spearheading that effort, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce announced that it would no longer consider Trump hotels as potential venues for two of its upcoming conventions. The Chamber's president, Javier Palomarez, said Trump would have profited several million dollars if he had won the bid to host those gatherings. And Palomarez added that the consequence for Trump will be far wider-ranging than just that: many of the Chamber's sister organizations are joining the boycott, he said, in what Palomarez expects will be a sustained and nationwide anti-Trump campaign. "What you're seeing is the tip of the spear," Palomarez told CNN. "For every brand that you hear that's leaving him there's probably 20 or 30 more brands that have left him ... all the way down to families who were going to vacation at a Trump property -- it goes that far downstream." New York's elected officials are also repudiating one of Manhattan's best-known celebrities. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced earlier this month that the city will "review" its existing contracts with Trump, calling the GOP candidate's comments about immigrants "disgusting" and "hateful." Trump's company operates the Trump Golf Links golf course in the Bronx that opened earlier this year, as well as an ice skating facility in Central Park. *Donald Trump defiant on business fallout amid fresh salvos on immigration <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/donald-trump-defiant-on-business-fallout-amid-fresh-salvos-on-immigration> // The Guardian // Ben Jacobs – July 7, 2015 * Donald Trump says “making America great is more important to me than my company”. In a phone interview with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News, the controversial billionaire took shots at critics, suggested Jeb Bush’s policy ideas were “baby stuff” and accidentally pressed at least one button on his telephone while talking. Trump’s business interests have suffered significant damage since his announcement speech when he suggested that undocumented immigrants crossing the border between the US and Mexico were “bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” He shot back at the latest round of companies to cancel contracts with his venues he owns. In recent days, ESPN and Nascar have cancelled events at Trump-owned properties. Trump jibed that Nascar had simply rented a ballroom from him and lost a big deposit as a result. He gleefully proclaimed: “I’ll rent it to somebody else.” The former Celebrity Apprentice host also said ESPN was being forced to hold a golf tournament at “a course which isn’t nearly as nice”. The real estate mogul also took a far more extreme stance on immigration than he had in the past. The Republican presidential hopeful claimed: “Mexico sends many criminals back in” to the US and went on to say that an illegal immigrant who allegedly killed a woman in San Francisco this week was “forced back in” to the US by Mexico. The real estate mogul also engaged in plenty of hyperbole. Trump asserted that he has been the only candidate “who has brought up illegal immigration” despite the fact that issue has been a subject of ferocious debate in American politics for decades. He also cited an article in the “Huffington Post, which has me No 1.” The article Trump cited, by associate editor Igor Bobic, was more than a little tongue-in-cheek. In the meantime, Republican insiders worried about the rise of Trump in recent polls do have at least one silver lining from his interview. Trump insisted he wasn’t planning on mounting a third party bid for the presidency and that “my thinking was to run as a Republican”. *Obama’s housing chief calls Trump ‘de facto face’ of GOP <https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/07/obama-housing-chief-calls-trump-facto-face-gop/HwjuOHq4ohkuZUBi55WgtL/story.html> // The Boston Globe // Jim O’Sullivan – July 7, 2015 * US Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro on Tuesday warned Republicans that permitting Donald Trump to serve as “the de facto face of the party” while he describes immigrants in inflammatory terms could cost them the presidential election. Castro, a former San Antonio mayor widely considered a short-list candidate to be a 2016 running mate on the Democratic side, described his party’s primary as “a real race.” Visiting Dorchester for a ribbon-cutting with Mayor Martin J. Walsh, President Obama’s housing chief told reporters that Trump’s comments last month that Mexican immigrants are “rapists” would plague the GOP if the real estate magnate continues to be seen as its representative. “The Republican Party needs to do a much better job of reaching out, of creating a big tent, if they want to win in 2016,” Castro said. “Donald Trump is now the de facto face of the Republican Party. He has one of the highest name ID, he’s on TV all the time, and if this is the platform the Republican Party has for immigrants, then they can kiss the 2016 election goodbye.” Several Republican presidential candidates have sought to distance themselves from Trump and disassociate him from the party’s mainstream. A string of business partners have ended their partnerships with Trump. “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists,” Trump said at his June 16 campaign announcement. “And some, I assume, are good people.” Castro, 41, continued to shrug off questions about a potential bid for the vice presidency. He told the Globe he had not spoken with the Democratic front-runner, former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, since a Center for American Progress event in March. Joining her on the 2016 ticket, if she wins the nomination, did not come up, he said. Asked about the Democratic field, where US Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has picked up momentum against Clinton, Castro called it “a real race.” “It’s good that we have an active field on both the Democratic side and the Republican side,” Castro said. “That’s good for democracy, and on the Democratic side and the Republican side, it gives voters the opportunity to hear a variety of perspectives. That’s positive. “I’ve stayed out of the presidential race so far,” he said. “At the right time, later on down the road, I’ll get involved.” *UNDECLARED* *WALKER* *Nearing launch, Walker team sees Bush, Rubio as 2016 competition <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nearing-launch-walker-team-sees-bush-rubio-as-2016-competition/2015/07/07/837fc280-24db-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html> // WaPo // Dan Balz – July 7, 2015 * Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is poised to become the 15th Republican to declare his presidential bid, with at least one more candidate expected to enter soon after. But at this point, his campaign advisers said this week that they see just two principal rivals for the GOP nomination: former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.). Walker will make his intentions clear Monday with an announcement and rally in suburban Waukesha County, the heart of Republican territory in Wisconsin. The venue will be the same place where he celebrated his victory in a 2012 recall election, one more indication that he intends to make his battles with public employee unions in the state the centerpiece of his appeal to conservative activists. Walker has weathered repeated controversies as governor and rocky periods during the past six months as he has prepared to formally join the race. He jumped into the top tier in January with a fiery speech at a GOP gathering in Iowa, but was hurt by a series of missteps and statements. He has faced questions about whether he has changed his positions or tone on immigration, abortion and same-sex marriage. Other Republicans say the momentum he once had has abated. None of that appears to have unsettled Walker or his advisers. With a super PAC called “Unintimidated” — named for the biographical book Walker published about his battles in Wisconsin — the candidate and his advisers are confident as they look ahead to the campaign. They consider Walker uniquely equipped among the candidates to appeal across the spectrum of the Republican Party. “There are three legs of the stool,” campaign manager Rick Wiley said in an interview. “We play in all three. Who else does?” Some of Walker’s competitors will no doubt try to prove his team wrong in that. Tea party activists, Wiley said, like Walker’s fighting style and that he won multiple elections while under siege. His roots as the son of a Baptist minister and his faith give him a reach into the GOP’s social conservative wing. Beyond that, advisers argued that — as a second-term governor who has raised more than $80 million for his Wisconsin campaigns — Walker has appeal in establishment circles, even if he can’t match Bush’s fundraising prowess. Walker’s path to victory, as outlined by his closest advisers, is not significantly different from that of his rivals, but his team says the calendar sets up well for him. Iowa is the key: Walker is leading the polls there and, as a neighboring governor, he has easy access to the state. His advisers expect him to win the Iowa caucuses early next year, and they say he can follow that with top-three finishes in New Hampshire and South Carolina. They also think he can score an early victory in Nevada’s caucuses. Walker’s advisers doubt that anyone who doesn’t win one of the four early states will move to the heavy schedule of contests in March. They also doubt that anyone will have enough delegates to clinch the nomination by the end of March, and they anticipate that the race will drag on into May before there is a winner. The enthusiastic reaction to Walker’s speech at the January GOP forum in Iowa produced some obvious dividends. The sudden and positive attention helped with fundraising and grass-roots organizing. But the scrutiny that came with it, compounded by Walker’s wobbly handling of various issues, brought the team its first crisis. At the time, Walker was just beginning to build his campaign. He lacked the infrastructure to deal with the self-inflicted wounds. “None of our senior staff had even been to Madison,” Wiley said. “It’s amazing we survived.” The small team stepped up its recruiting and brought on policy advisers who could provide Walker with briefings to become more fluent in key issues. By the end of March, the campaign decided to scale back. For the next month or so, Walker made few public appearances, concentrating on policy briefings and fundraising meetings. “We had to slow it down,” Wiley said. Walker formed his first committee last winter, a “527” that allowed him to raise money but did not advocate directly for him as a candidate. The super PAC was formed in April. Walker has held at least 30 meetings with prospective donors since then, said longtime adviser Keith Gilkes, who heads the super PAC. The combined take for the two committees during the first six months of the year is expected to top $20 million when reports are issued later this month. The super PAC has commitments for an additional $5 million or so, Gilkes said, and hopes to raise at least $20 million by the end of the year, giving it $40 million to start with in 2016. Walker advisers said his past battles in Wisconsin have given him the kind of grass-roots foundation that no other candidate can match. He has a list of 300,000 or so donors, and his super PAC had more than 200 donors as of a few weeks ago. Walker advisers said they think that is smaller than Bush’s super PAC but larger than those of most of the other candidates. Beyond that, advisers said, Walker has a list of e-mail addresses that numbers about 700,000. One adviser said that is substantially more than Mitt Romney had by the time he had wrapped up the 2012 GOP nomination. Walker has come under fresh criticism recently for changing his position on immigration — he once supported a path to citizenship for those here illegally — and for changing his tone, if not his position, on same-sex marriage and abortion. Gilkes said Walker has not changed his stance on those two issues, although he suggested that the governor’s priorities are more fiscal and economic than social. “His beliefs never change,” he said. Another adviser said Walker’s call for a constitutional amendment to give states the right to define marriage would end up being a plus, saying Rubio and Bush probably hurt themselves among social conservatives by not reacting more vigorously to last month’s Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage. Walker advisers discount possible threats from others in the establishment wing such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Nor do they see a major threat yet in Iowa from those competing hardest for the social and religious conservatives. “My feeling is every single one of the candidates is focused on Walker in Iowa,” Gilkes said. “I don’t think that’s ever going to let up.” Walker’s team has conducted two focus groups in Iowa. It has concluded that, although he is not well known, the governor has significant opportunities to expand his appeal. The focus group was shown various videos about Walker and were receptive to the portrayal of his record in Wisconsin. “We have so much to work with,” Wiley said. For months, Walker’s team has been preparing for a race against Bush’s money and Rubio’s compelling personal story. Advisers said Walker’s record as governor is more current than Bush’s and draws a sharper contrast with President Obama. Rubio has attributes that Walker has spoken about favorably in private conversations, but the governor’s campaign advisers consider the first-term senator far less tested. Walker’s announcement tour will take him from Wisconsin to Nevada, South Carolina, New Hampshire and then back to Iowa for several days of campaigning. In New Hampshire, he will hold one town hall meeting. He will return to that state later in the month for an event that includes a Harley-Davidson motorcycle ride. His announcement speech will focus heavily on his record in Wisconsin, reprising his fights with unions. As for his promise to put forth “big and bold” ideas, one adviser said not to expect that in the announcement. Any such policies will be introduced later in the year. *Tea partiers and liberals tell Gov. Scott Walker: ‘No more games on Common Core’ <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/07/tea-partiers-and-liberals-tell-gov-scott-walker-no-more-games-on-common-core/> // WaPo // Valerie Strauss – July 7, 2015 * Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who is expected soon to announce his bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, has been inconsistent at best on the Common Core State Standards, being for it before being against it. Now he is being called out on his Core position by an unusual coalition of groups and individuals — in an open letter titled “No More Games on Common Core” — that includes tea parties across Wisconsin as well as liberals and libertarians. The group of signatories to the letter accuses the governor of pretending to be against Common Core but not taking the steps required to eliminate it in Wisconsin. A Walker spokesman says the governor is acting to give Wisconsin school districts the freedom to do what they want on the Core. (See full statement below.) Here’s some Walker history regarding the Common Core: In 2011, his first budget for Wisconsin called for creation of a test that was aligned to the Core standards, which were in place in the state before he became governor. A reading task force he chaired issued a report in January 2012 expressing support for the Core, and as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported here, Walker was seen as being “on board” with the Core in the first half of 2013 by Alan J. Borsuk, an education fellow at Marquette University, in a Journal Sentinel commentary. But things began to change in 2013, when his second budget, while not rescinding the standards, directed the state Department of Public Instruction to stop ordering districts to continue implementing the Core. In January 2014, the Journal Sentinel reported, he said he was creating a commission to take a new look at the standards, and in July of that year, he called for the Core to be rescinded in Wisconsin. That seems pretty concrete, but in early 2015, his message was that he didn’t want Wisconsin districts required to use the Core if they didn’t want to, which is less than an full-out repeal. In his latest budget request, Walker has defunded the Common Core assessment developed by the multi-state, federally funded Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and now has the state looking for a new “accountability” test. But there are questions about what the state is looking for in a new test and whether it can still be aligned to the Common Core. If the new state accountability exam is aligned to the Core, districts would have little choice but to choose to implement the Common Core standards, even if they were permitted not to. Opposition to the Common Core has been rising for years from across the political spectrum with concerns including problems with the content of the standards and the developmental inappropriateness of those for the earliest grades, the design of the new tests, how the new exams were written and by whom, and the federal government’s funding of new standardized tests aligned to the Core. Some far-right wing conservatives have taken criticism of the Core to ridiculous extremes; Phyllis Schlafly, for example, says it actively promotes gay marriage and Glenn Beck has called the standards initiative “evil” and an attempt to impose “communism” on America. The Freedom Project, affiliated with the radical right John Birch Society, has said the Core is an “absolute appropriation of Soviet ideology and propaganda.” But a coalition of groups – mostly tea parties and other hard-right conservatives — have just issued the letter calling for Walker to take a definitive stand on Common Core and Core testing in language that was sensible enough for some liberals and libertarians to sign on. Here’s the letter, and following it is the full comment from a Walker spokesperson in Madison. *Scott Walker hoping new bundlers help vault him over fundraising hurdles <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/scott-walker-campaign-fundraising-strategy/index.html> // CNN // Sara Murray – July 7, 2015 * When you're up against a candidate who belongs to a political dynasty and has a fundraising network that spans decades, there is perhaps only one option: Bring in new blood. As Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker readies his likely presidential campaign, one of his biggest near-term hurdles is building a war chest that will allow him to face off against well-funded opponents. To do that his team said it is targeting a new generation of bundlers by tapping into the network of more than 350,000 potential donors who supported the governor in his recall election and turning to entrepreneurs who've launched new businesses in the last five to 10 years. "Our donor is not the tried and true Republican donor in New York City that's given to everybody since Reagan," said Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder of investment firm SkyBridge Capital and is raising money for Walker. "We don't have the mercenary donor that's paying for past political favors." Jon Hammes, founder of a health care consulting company in Wisconsin, will serve a national finance co-chairman for the campaign, along with Todd Ricketts, co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, according to a source familiar with the plans. The move combines a veteran campaign fundraiser -- Hammes has raised money previous Republican nominees, including Mitt Romney and Arizona Sen. John McCain -- with a big dollar donor who is still relatively new to the political fundraising scene. This will be Ricketts' first role within a presidential campaign. Their goal is to build an army of bundlers like Genevieve Hillis, a 34-year-old lobbyist in Chicago for a health care equipment company. Hillis helped Walker raise money for his gubernatorial campaign and grew that network of supporters during his recall election. Now she's preparing to take on her biggest role yet in a presidential campaign, helping to bring in new donors and introduce Walker to potential high-dollar supporters he might not otherwise meet. "I haven't encountered anybody that was a supporter in the recall that isn't going to be a supporter in the presidential," Hillis said, although she acknowledged fundraising for a candidate in a crowded presidential field is a different battle than raising money for a recall race outside of the normal campaign cycle. Walker's team isn't above courting the moneyed donors other campaigns are chasing either. Hillis often speaks to potential donors who are drawn to Walker and might be inclined to give hundreds of thousands of dollars, but they are also being courted by the Bush campaign. Her pitch: Let me get you on the phone with the governor. "Scott is willing to have very frank conversations," Hillis said. "He's willing to be educated on a subject and open to changing his mind. He's a reasonable person." Walker's allies said they don't expect him to be among the most flush in the field this quarter. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is expected to raise a jaw-dropping sum for the quarter that ended June 30. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and the super PAC supporting him claim to have raise nearly $50 million combined. While the first reporting period is significant, members of Walker's team said they are focused on building a team of bundlers who can steadily broaden his financial base by pitching the governor's message to an ever-widening circle of new donors. "I'm looking for the people, men or women, that are focused on being involved in the process aggressively," said Michael Morgan, 44 years old, who is raising money for Walker. "If that means raising thousands of dollars at the start, I'm happy with it. Hopefully that will graduate to tens of thousands of dollars." Morgan is no stranger to political fundraising. He organized the finance operations for Sen. Mark Kirk's House and Senate bids and remains a staunch supporter of the Illinois Republican. But Morgan's upcoming stint as one of Walker's finance co-chairs in Illinois will be his most prominent role in a president campaign. Walker's "testing-the-waters committee," a precursor to his official campaign, is asking bundlers to raise $27,000 by July 12th. Morgan said it took him just four days to surpass that goal. All of the early contributor were under the age of 50. "It's been a good pace I would say," Morgan said of his fundraising efforts so far. "Now that the announcement is imminent there's a lot more interest." *Scott Walker plans post-announcement blitz, NH stops <http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150707/NEWS0605/150709414#sthash.JJvNbTY3.dpuf> // Union Leader // Dan Tuohy – July 7, 2015 * Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, following his announcement July 13 in his state, will travel to Manchester and Portsmouth later that week, the Union Leader has learned. The New Hampshire visit is part of an early state blitz. Walker is one of the few big names yet to announce a presidential campaign for the Republican nomination. The likely candidate has telegraphed some of his key focus, such as a pitch as a Republican reformer and fiscal and social conservative. Walker, who in mid-June created a "testing the waters" committee as a precursor to a presidential campaign launch, visited New Hampshire in March and April. He addressed a GOP grassroots training session in Concord in March, and he was one of the potential presidential hopefuls addressing the state GOP's "First in the Nation Leadership Summit" in Nashua in April. He would become the 15th Republican candidate in the race. The other Republican yet to announce is Ohio Gov. John Kasich. *Scott Walker's Home Crowd Disadvantage <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jamie-stiehm/2015/07/07/can-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-win-over-home-state-crowd-in-2016-bid> // US News // Jamie Stiehm – July 7, 2015 * Under the July sun, you may spot political squalls on the horizon of this green city's Lake Mendota. That's what you get when a Republican red governor runs for president in a state that usually breaks Democratic blue on the electoral map. Whether that governor would actually carry his own state – with a fairly liberal, active electorate – in the general presidential election in 2016 is quite the parlor game. Word's going door to door in this capital city that Gov. Scott Walker is officially running for president, with a launch planned on July 13. All the talk about him walking the walk to the White House is getting real now, here in the state where the Republican Party itself was founded in the 1850s: Wisconsin. This is also a state, by the way, where the Progressive Party has deep roots. Walker plans to make political hay out of being the only Midwesterner in the Republican presidential field, now top-heavy with Southerners. "Midwest [is] key to Walker strategy," the Wisconsin State Journal noted. Riding his Harley-Davidson (the company is headquartered in Milwaukee) is part of the plain folks image. Of course, if Ohio Gov. John Kasich jumps into the pool of contenders, that could change the Walker formula that starts with a strong early victory in next-door Iowa come the frigid chill of February. (Only a Midwesterner knows how bad it can be.) But feelings about Walker are decidedly mixed here in the state capital, with some bitter memories of a movement to recall him that failed. Walker survived the challenge to his approach on collective bargaining with public employees. The victory made him a conservative media darling in the national spotlight a few years back. It also attracted checks from the conservative Koch brothers. Walker was subsequently re-elected governor, but his support in Wisconsin has been "waning" recently, according to the Wisconsin State Journal. Here's the irony: The harder Walker runs to the right to cement his position as a conservative front-runner for his party's primary nomination, the less popular he is at home, even with Republican state lawmakers. A move to clamp down on the state's open-records law just went awry.The academic community of the University of Wisconsin is warily anticipating yet another showdown: Walker may (or may not) declare war on the traditional tenure system. That's sure to win him debating points and votes, but might hurt him here at home. Another weakness Walker will likely be forced to face: His 2010 campaign promise to create a ton of new jobs is falling flat in Wisconsin's sluggish economy. Walker is not a guy people feel neutral about, a stand-out even in a polarized era. Curiously, his political idol is Ronald Reagan, yet he has none of the genial charm that helped Reagan voters cross political lines. As my dad, a Wisconsinite, observed, most politicians like to be liked, but not Walker. Indeed the governor seems to relish his unpopularity with the other side, refusing to moderate harsh opposition to reproductive rights and to same-sex marriage. And he's enraged University of Wisconsin supporters by suggesting budget cuts for the renowned research institution, while proposing the Milwaukee Bucks receive millions of public funds for a new professional basketball arena. Here in bookish Madison, anyway, it balances out well: Many in the liberal professoriate love to hate Walker, and, by some law of political physics, he loves to be hated by them. The governor's mansion in Maple Bluff is on the other side of Lake Mendota from the university's colorful Memorial Union Terrace. Lucky. But watch for squalls. *The magical, disappearing Scott Walker conversation <http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-magical-disappearing-scott-walker-conversation> // MSNBC // Steve Benen – July 7, 2015 * The chief economist at the Heritage Foundation is itself an awkward title – the Republican think tank has moved away from its pretense of rigorous policy analysis – but the job belongs to Stephen Moore. Earlier this year, after Moore published a bizarre piece criticizing the Affordable Care Act, Paul Krugman described the conservative as “a guy who has a troubled relationship with facts.” Krugman added at the time, “I don’t mean that he’s a slick dissembler; I mean that [Moore] seems more or less unable to publish an article without filling it with howlers … in a way that ends up doing his cause a disservice.” This assessment came to mind last night, reading this New York Times report on a bizarre incident involving Moore and a leading Republican presidential candidate. Last Wednesday, Stephen Moore, a scholar at the Heritage Foundation who is an outspoken supporter of an immigration overhaul, described a recent telephone call with Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, in which he said Mr. Walker had assured him he had not completely renounced his earlier support for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. “ ‘I’m not going nativist, I’m pro-immigration,’” Mr. Walker said, according to Mr. Moore’s account of the call to a reporter for The New York Times. On Sunday, after three days of pressure from Mr. Walker’s aides, Mr. Moore said that he had “misspoken” when recounting his call with Mr. Walker – and that the call had never actually taken place. This one’s a doozy, so let’s back up for a moment and consider how we got to this point. Scott Walker’s position on immigration has been a garbled mess for months. The Republican governor used to be quite moderate on the issue, but as he moved closer to a national campaign, he quickly shifted to the far-right, even going so far as to attack legal immigration. In private, however, Walker has hedged on his new-found posture, and in March, the Wisconsin governor reportedly told a New Hampshire audience – behind closed doors – that he supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the United States. Walker and his team denied the reports, but added little clarity to his actual position. With this in mind, Moore, a reform proponent, told the New York Times last week that he had a recent phone conversation with Walker, and heard directly from the unannounced candidate that he was “not going nativist” and does not oppose immigration. This, of course, raised questions anew within the GOP – is Walker saying one thing in private and something else in public? Is the governor simply pandering, offering half-hearted promises to the right on a key issue? Moore’s on-the-record comments naturally reinforced fears within the party. Which led to yesterday, when Moore reversed course entirely. It’s not that he misunderstood Walker’s comments, the Heritage Foundation economist said, it’s that Moore now says he never even spoke to the governor about immigration at all. Which version of the story is true is now anyone’s guess. It’s possible Team Walker pressured Moore to take this new line; it’s possible Moore didn’t have the conversation he claimed to have. The GOP governor could help clear things up, at least a little, by taking a firm position and sticking to it, but for now, that’s apparently asking too much. From last night’s New York Times report: “So, what exactly is Mr. Walker’s current position on immigration? Asked if he supported any path to citizenship or legal status for illegal immigrants, Mr. Walker’s spokeswoman, AshLee Strong, did not directly respond.” *Busted!: Walker Admits Role in Failed Government Secrecy Rule <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/walker-admits-role-open-records> // TPM // Tierney Sneed – July 7, 2015 * After days of dodging questions about whether Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) was involved in a failed proposal to dismantle the state's open records law, the governor's office confirmed Tuesday that his office was involved in the measure. "Legislative leaders let us know that they were interested in making changes to the open records law. In response, our staff provided input regarding these proposed changes," Laurel Patrick, the press secretary for the governor, said in an email to TPM. "Our intent with these changes was to encourage a deliberative process with state agencies in developing policy and legislation. This allows for robust debate with state agencies and public employees over the merit of policies and proposed initiatives as they are being formed, while ensuring materials related to final proposals, as well as information related to external stakeholders seeking to influence public policy, would remain fully transparent." The admission came shortly after Republican legislative leaders said Walker aides had been involved in writing the proposal, which would have removed certain communications and other legislative documents from under the scope of the state's transparency laws and would have permitted lawmakers not to comply with other kinds of public records requests. The language was initially approved by a party-line vote in the legislature's Joint Finance Committee late Thursday evening before the holiday weekend, as part of a larger budget package known as Motion 999. As backlash began to mount, Walker, joined by top GOP state lawmakers, announced Saturday that the provisions would be dropped from the package. Scrutiny continued, however, as to whether Walker was behind the measure, as he faces a lawsuit for refusing to turn over certain documents in a public records request. Some Republican lawmakers in the state have continued to defend the effort, and say they will try to move alterations to public records law forward as standalone legislation that would go through the typical public review process, instead of attaching it to a budget bill. "Our focus remains on ensuring open and accountable government and we encourage public debate and discussion of any potential future changes to the state's open records law," Patrick, the governor's spokeswoman, said in the email *KASICH* *Kasich: Obama administration ‘in love’ with Iran deal <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/07/kasich-obama-administration-in-love-with-iran-deal/> // Fox News – July 7, 2015 * Gov. John Kasich, R-Ohio, said on “Special Report with Bret Baier” Tuesday that the Obama administration’s push for a nuclear deal with Iran shows “it's very dangerous to fall in love with your own idea.” “I think the administration has probably fallen in love with the fact that they want to get an agreement, and when people are hyperventilating and unable to get one, sometimes they go and they sign something that they shouldn't,” said Kasich, who is expected to announce his intention to run for president in the upcoming weeks. Negotiators from Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States meeting in Vienna did not meet their self-imposed deadline on Tuesday for an agreement on a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program. Sticking points in reaching an agreement include Iranian demands for the lifting of a U.N. arms embargo and ballistic missiles sanctions, a timeframe for U.S. and EU sanctions relief, and future Iranian nuclear research and development. Kasich said that the Obama administration should be prepared to walk away from a bad deal, and cited the example of President Reagan’s negotiations with the Soviet Union. “Just remember Reagan in Reykjavik where Gorbachev said, look, get rid of all nuclear weapons, and I remember Reagan getting back in the car and saying ‘no, we're not gonna do that,’” Kasich said. “So, you have to have the strength to walk away. The problem, Bret, with all of this is just listen to our Arab friends who say, 'listen, if you give the Iranians all this cash by lifting the sanctions, they're going to fund Hamas. They're going to fund Hezbollah' who is the enemy to the Arab nations that we have things in common with,” Kasich said. “So, I don't think it's a good agreement, I would leave the sanctions in place until I saw a determined change in what Iran is all about, so I think, I'm very concerned about this.” *John Kasich Tries To Gin Up Interest In Presidential Bid <http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/07/john-kasich-tries-to-gin-up-interest-in-presidential-bid/> // The Daily Caller // Alex Pappas – July 7, 2015* “I didn’t anticipate this,” Ohio Gov. John Kasich said Tuesday afternoon to the several dozen reporters waiting for him in the lobby of the Republican National Committee headquarters. “I thought it’d be three people here.” “Well, as you probably know, I’m going to have a big announcement on the 21st,” Kasich said, teasing his expected entrance into the presidential race in a few weeks. “Anybody coming?” “It could be about my political career. Or it could be that I’m going to Hollywood,” the former congressman cracked. “We’ll see.” For now, Kasich’s biggest task is getting his poll numbers up. As of this week, Kasich is polling at just one and two percent in most national polls, putting him in 13th place, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average. That’s a problem for someone trying to position himself as a top-tier alternative to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. The first nationally televised debate is set for next month in Ohio, but Fox News — Kasich’s former employer — says only the Republicans who poll in the top 10 will be included in the showdown. (A b-team forum will be held for the Republicans who don’t poll in the top 10 the same day as the debate). Asked about whether’s he concerned Donald Trump’s recent popularity with voters will keep him off the debate stage, Kasich replied: “I’m not really thinking about it. I got other issues I got to think about.” “Let’s not put carts before horses,” he added. “I mean, we still have a month to go. We’ll see what happens.” Pressed on whether he thinks he will get his poll numbers up and make it into the top-tier debate, he replied: “I don’t make predictions. I left that to Muhammad Ali years ago.” Asked during the press conference by a reporter about Donald Trump’s recent comments about illegal immigrants from Mexico, Kasich said: “Well, first of all, I don’t really respond to anybody’s comments.” But Kasich went on to say he doesn’t agree with Trump’s “characterization” because he’s “a believer that the country needs to be unified, not divided.” “At least for the next couple weeks, I’d like to honor Reagan’s 11th commandment about attacking fellow Republicans,” he added. Asked why he’s getting in the race later than others, Kasich said he’s been focused on Ohio. “Ohio is a big state,” he said. “It’s a complicated state. It’s a microcosm of the country. So I needed to take care of Ohio and continue to take care of Ohio before I worry about any national prominence or anything else.” A reporter asked Kasich about how he’s been compared to Jon Huntsman, the former Republican governor who entered the 2012 race with much buzz only to perform poorly. “I’ve never really studied his campaign, or frankly others,” Kasich said. “It’s not something I spend a lot of time on.” “I got John Weaver working with me,” he said of Huntsman’s former top campaign aide. “I just talked to him a few minutes ago. He was actually a big senior adviser to McCain. Last time I checked, he was the nominee a few election cycles ago.” Making his pitch, Kasich referenced his re-election in 2014. “I won 86 out of 88 counties, 63 percent of the women vote, 51 percent of union households in one of the largest victories in Ohio history. There must be something that I’m doing right there in order to do that in what’s one of the most pivotal states.” Kasich also portrayed himself as someone who gets the struggles of regular people. “I’m John Kasich,” he said. “I’m not anybody else. I come from McKees Rocks. My father carried mail on his back. I’ve lived in a town where if the wind blew the wrong way, people found themselves out of work. And I think I understand the anxieties of people in this country, many of whom are middle class, who wonder if the American dream is over. And I don’t believe that it is.” Added Kasich: “I’ve had a lot of blessings in my life. The Lord’s been good to me. And I’m going to do my best to lead and to improve people’s lives whether I sit in the White House or whether in the white house in Lanetta Avenue in Westerville Ohio in being governor.” Kasich said he is in town visiting former colleagues and for a meeting of his new steering committee of lawmakers and members of the business community this evening. The governor said he brought his twin daughters along for the Washington trip too. “I’ve learned an awful lot about Snapchat.” *OTHER* *Candidates Start Showing Their Cards <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-08/candidates-start-showing-their-cards> // Bloomberg // Joshua Gallu - July 8, 2015* Ka-CHING! Some candidates and super-PACs just can't wait for the filing deadlines to share their good new$. The 2016 presidential money race is starting to take shape and early indications are that the road ahead will be lined with bullion. Among the candidates who have shared fundraising numbers, ahead of filing deadlines later this month at the Federal Election Commission, Hillary Clinton, not surprisingly, leads the Democratic field with her campaign and allied groups reporting a combined war chest of nearly $70 million. Even Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as an independent socialist, says he has already lined up $15 million, from primarily smaller donations, to wage his campaign. In typical form, candidates with good news have come out touting their numbers ahead of the official July 15 reporting date. Ted Cruz, who critics said would have trouble finding well-heeled backers, is boasting a $51.2 million arsenal, most of which in super-PACs, which can accept unlimited amounts of money but can't coordinate directly with the campaign. The chart below outlines numbers reported by the candidates themselves, super-PACs that are explicitly allied with and validated by presidential campaigns and other groups, such as 501(c)4 organizations that raise money to help a favored candidate. Now, all eyes are on Jeb Bush. According to Buzzfeed, Bush's Right to Rise super-PAC says it has already pulled in enough money to give his opponents "heart attacks.'" *Inside the GOP’s Effort to Close the Campaign-Science Gap With Democrats <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2015-07-08/inside-the-gop-s-effort-to-close-the-campaign-science-gap-with-democrats> // Bloomberg // Sasha Issenberg - July 8, 2015 * A Republican group aims to emulate President Obama’s campaigns by bringing rigorous testing to campaign tactics. One problem: Not enough Republican scientists. This spring, the Cato Institute identified 600 Americans who read more than 20 books per year and made arrangements to send them each one more. The libertarian think tank split these readers into three groups. One group received a free copy of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, one got longtime Cato executive David Boaz’s The Libertarian Mind, and one a book that Cato scholars considered a useful placebo to free-market doctrine: the Bible. After three months, six months, and 12 months, members of all three groups would be surveyed to see if the unsolicited books they had received could explain differential response rates to one question: Do you consider yourself a libertarian? The Cato researcher behind the project explained to other members of a below-the-radar Republican group known as the Center for Strategic Initiatives, or CSI, that the 600 books were just part of a pilot test. If the design appeared to work properly, the experiment would be replicated on a larger scale: 12,000 books this time. “Political books have never been tested,” says David Kirby, now a vice president and senior fellow at Cato. “Think tanks think that books persuade people. Do they?” Very few other members of the CSI circle had ever used books as tools for changing minds. A range of political consultants and vendors, they tended to trade in more ephemeral modes of communication: television ads and robocalls, direct mail, digital ads, and door knocks. But they were there for the same reason that Kirby had been willing to entertain the perfidy of using Cato resources to question whether reading Ayn Rand actually led people to libertarianism—a willingness to take everything they thought they knew about what works in politics and hold it up to empirical investigation. “We were disappointed in 2012 with how much money we spent and how little we had to show for it.” David Kirby, vice president and senior fellow, Cato Institute The mere existence of the CSI field experiments seminar represents the right’s most constructive engagement with the continued traumas of its loss in the 2012 Presidential race—not just the fact that it had lost, but that it didn’t know at the time it was losing, and even afterward was at a further loss to understand how or why it had done so. While many Republicans responded by conceding catch-phrase-ready deficiencies—a need to do more and better with Big Data or the Ground Game—others were willing to acknowledge that the underlying problem was the lack of a culture within the GOP to encourage innovation. For a small but significant share of the party’s electioneering class, however, any true reckoning with 2012 invites a deeper epistemological crisis about how to run smarter campaigns in the 21st century. “We should not assume anything. Absolutely every aspect of the campaign, from the best way to knock on doors to the best way to broadcast television, should be tested,” says Blaise Hazelwood, a Republican voter-contact specialist who founded CSI. “This is the way I did it on this campaign that won, so this is the way we should do it on all campaigns,” Hazelwood says, mocking the prevailing sentiment of entrenched political consultants. “The test for them is whether they win or lose on election day. That cannot be a valid test.” The conservative establishment has a long tradition of organized gatherings. First there were Paul Weyrich’s weekly “coalitions” lunches, held on Wednesdays when Congress was in session. Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist later claimed the breakfast slot that day, his sessions focused more on economic policy than social issues. Donors and journalists in New York started meeting one Monday per month for an hour and a half; after relocating to South Carolina, Monday Meeting founder Mallory Factor took the concept south with him, launching the Charleston Meeting. All these were devoted to ideological cohesion and legislative strategy, the matching of like-minded donors and politicians. They tended to reaffirm certainties, rather than challenge them. The CSI circle has yet to fall into a reliable schedule, and its gatherings—which now take place roughly every six weeks or so at Cato’s Washington headquarters—already mark a very different mode of collaboration. There is not a politician in sight, or many brand-name operatives; few attendees appear to be over the age of 40. This sphere of political operatives and party hacks angling to remake Republican campaigns includes strategists and tacticians for many of the party’s top presidential candidates, along with staffers from the Republican National Committee and consultants attached to various elements of the Koch political network. “I sense it’s one of the few places where the warring factions of the conservative side of the aisle play together in the same sandbox,” says Columbia University political scientist Don Green, who has advised the group since its launch. “You have people who are close to the Tea Party and people who are antagonistic towards the Tea Party, and they’re all trying to learn from the same research method.” About 50 people responded to Hazelwood’s invitation to gather at Cato in early June and, arrayed before her that Thursday afternoon, at long tables in lecture-hall formation, the schisms of the Republican Party in the early days of the presidential campaign were unmistakable. One of the people she had invited to present research that day came from Deep Root Analytics, which former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's presidential campaign has hired to help target its television ads. Another presenter represented FLC Connect, a phone vendor that has worked for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and has close links to his campaign-in-waiting. A pair of analysts from 0ptimus consulting, now advising Florida Senator Marco Rubio, sat in the back of the room, not far from where the founders of Targeted Victory, the firm former Texas Governor Rick Perry has hired to handle digital advertising and media analytics, found seats after arriving a few minutes after the scheduled 3:30 start time. Hazelwood herself is a longtime advisor to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, through her firm Grassroots Consulting, and has since joined his allied super-PAC as a consultant. She began by reminding those in attendance of CSI’s one rule: What they were about to hear was off the record. “Ask questions like you usually do,” she said. “Attack our speakers, like sometimes happens.” Hazelwood has been asking and answering some of the toughest questions in Republican politics for years. Shortly after the 2012 elections, she faced one from Sally Bradshaw: What did Republicans need to do to improve their electoral mechanics? A longtime adviser to Bush, Bradshaw was one of five party eminences who had been tapped by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to oversee the Growth and Opportunity Project, the postmortem report its authors were repeatedly instructed not to describe publicly as an “autopsy.” Twelve years earlier, Hazelwood had been in a similar position when, as the RNC’s political director, she had organized what was known as the 72-Hour Task Force to fine-tune field operations that Karl Rove and other top advisers to President George W. Bush blamed for his unexpectedly narrow victory. Starting in 2001, Hazelwood deployed dozens of controlled tests in low-profile elections, usually with the goal of convincing party officials and activists that it was worth investing in the infrastructure to support volunteer-based voter contact. (Many of those tests were modeled on the types of field experiments conducted by social scientists, although not conducted to academic standards.) Many Republicans credited the findings of the 72-Hour Task Force with helping Bush in his re-election, but after his victory, the culture that had incubated them withered away. When one of Green’s protégés approached an official on the Indiana Republican Party’s 2006 coordinated campaign asking if he could integrate experiments into the party’s efforts, there was only one question that mattered: Was the political scientist “in the family”? That described a very specific qualification—having worked on one of the two Bush-Cheney campaigns—and it was not on David Nickerson’s CV. Soon, though, Nickerson had a Ph.D. from Yale, then an associate professorship at Notre Dame, and then, in 2012, a title that had never before existed in the history of presidential politics: director of experiments at Obama for America. Nickerson’s trajectory confirmed the extent to which Obama-era Democratic operatives have scientized the project of electioneering. The party’s ascendant young operatives—notably Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager—nearly all had formative experience working on voter contact (rather than strategizing communications or managing political relationships) in a period of technical transformation. They were conditioned to see every aspect of citizen behavior as potentially predictable through statistical modeling, and everything a campaign did to shape it as a potentially testable hypothesis. Meanwhile, the fractured remnants of the Bush-era Republican Party did not indulge such curiosity within its ranks, and when it did emerge, did little to channel it productively. “After 2004 the drive just left. It was no longer there—we no longer did the testing and we ended up where we ended up in 2012. We just kind of stopped,” Hazelwood says. “It was terribly frustrating after 2012 to see what happened, and know we needed to get back to testing, and having that housed in one place to help all conservatives.” Hazelwood made the case to Bradshaw that the party should take the initiative in spurring such a cultural shift, albeit with a different objective than the one that had inspired the 72-Hour Task Force tests. “Back then we framed it completely differently. It was, ‘We’re getting back to grassroots and showing why grassroots works,’” Hazelwood explains. “Now it’s about tests, and getting to test return on investment and how you measure efficiency and effectiveness.” Hazelwood helped Bradshaw rewrite the task force report's section on “campaign mechanics” to offer its imprimatur for what had become her pet project. Republicans should “identify a team of strategists and funders to build a data analytics institute that can capture and distill best practices for communication to and targeting of specific voters,” as the report put it. “Using the GOP’s data, the data analytics institute would work to develop a specific set of tests for 2013 and 2014—tests on voter registration, persuasion, Get-Out-The-Vote, and voter mobilization—that will then be adopted into future programs to ensure that our voter contact and targeting dollars are spent on proven performance.” The report cautiously avoided suggesting that the RNC incubate or host such an institute itself. The national party was a subject of more distrust among conservative activists than it had been during the early Bush years, and after Citizens United even more political spending was being driven by groups that were legally forbidden from coordinating with the party or its candidates. Hazelwood found a model for such a “data analytics institute” in the organization that had paved Nickerson’s way into Democratic campaigns after he was turned away by Indiana’s Republicans. In 2007, similarly driven to self-examination by their inability to dislodge an incumbent president they assumed was beatable, a group of lefty operatives launched the Analyst Institute, to serve as a “clearinghouse for evidence-based best practices in progressive voter contact.” To do so, they formalized a series of “geek lunches,” held at the AFL-CIO, at which individual operatives and researchers presented the scattered experiments they had been running on their own, into a stand-alone entity. Since then, the Analyst Institute’s work has transformed the techniques of Democratic campaigners in the Obama era, and eventually contracted to embed its analysts in the president’s re-election effort in 2012. Hazelwood decided to structure her project similarly, as a for-profit consulting firm that could operate with little concern for ever turning a profit, a status that allows it to work with parties and campaigns as clients without being subject to disclosure laws itself. Hazelwood was transparent in her debt to the Analyst Institute, down to the unhelpfully abstract name. She pitched her new effort to collaborators across the right, eager to take advantage of the oddball calendar of off-year elections to begin running tests. There was one in Massachusetts, where the American Crossroads super-PAC agreed to randomly assign its robocalls on behalf of Gabriel Gomez, a first-time candidate challenging Representative Ed Markey to replace John Kerry in the Senate. In Minneapolis’s mayoral campaign that same year, Hazelwood worked with the pro-business Minnesota Jobs Coalition to test what type of messaging works best to boost a conservative candidate in a officially non-partisan race with a large fragmented field. In parallel, Kirby was also digging more deeply into experiments. He had spent 2012 working at FreedomWorks, the well-funded conservative grassroots organization that had invested heavily in field activity designed to help elect a Republican president and a more conservative Congress. Kirby emerged from the experience resentful of the the confidence political professionals brought to their decisions about tactical approaches. “We were disappointed in 2012 with how much money we spent and how little we had to show for it,” Kirby says. “I felt integrity-bound to ask whether we could do any better.” Kirby was drawn to the experimental method as a tool for resolving that curiosity. He signed up for a brief summer course on randomized trials taught by Green, the Columbia political scientist recognized as his discipline’s most prominent evangelist for field experiments as the only tool capable of truly disentangling cause and effect in campaigns. (Green’s work recently gained broader attention when he was forced to retract a paper he had published in the journal Science, about the effectiveness of sending gay canvassers to advocate for same-sex marriage, amid accusations that his co-author Michael LaCour had falsified survey data.) Green was inspired by Kirby’s enthusiasm, and—after years of finding growing interest in his methods from from labor unions, environmental advocates, and ACORN —the opportunity to see if conservative targets responded differently to political communication than liberal ones. “Almost all the research to date has been on the left or center-left. Very little of it has been on the center-right or right,” Green says. “There isn’t a base of knowledge about the message, the messenger, and the audience they care about.” Kirby was interested in starting with lawn signs. “It is the most elemental political tactic,” he says. “At FreedomWorks we spent probably at least a million dollars on that—hundreds and thousands of yard signs.” Yard signs were often held up as an example of wasteful and pointless campaign spending (“yard signs don’t vote” is a frequent refrain of the bien pensant political class), although there was little empirical evidence to sustain that skepticism. The limited research literature could be attributed partly to methodological complications—it is not easy to control for the spillover effects of, say, voters who drive past signs in a precinct other than the one in which they vote—but some stemmed from a lack of obvious incentive for political professionals to run an experiment. “In the case of lawn signs, what’s odd is if you’re dealing with a person who is deeply skeptical, they’re not interested enough to do a test,” says Green. “People working in low-salience races see them as their one and only affordable tactic and don’t want to take out a control group.” Working with Green, Kirby ran an experiment in which Virginia precincts were isolated and then randomly assigned to have signs placed at a certain density in road medians, each of them photographed and geotagged so it would be possible to monitor whether they were removed by opponents or vandals. The signs had little impact on election results in those precincts, they believe—“maybe a glimmer of an effect” on both turnout and vote share, according to Green—but given how cheap signs are to print and place, the experimenters thought that they might have demonstrated that signs might not be a total waste after all. Kirby became an enthusiastic booster of Hazelwood’s project. After he went to work at the Cato Institute in early 2014, he offered one of the think tank’s large conference rooms to host the right’s version of the “geek lunch.” The first CSI meeting, in late 2013, drew more than 100 people from across conservative politics. “It was the right moment,” says Kirby. “People were curious.” Green led a three-hour introduction to the experimental method, and encouraged attendees to think of it as a tool for assessing the effectiveness of their current tactics and auditioning new ones. Many of the experiments that attendees concocted in response—to test direct mail and phone calls in relation to turnout—addressed research questions that some lefty groups felt they had settled through replication as much as a decade earlier. “It wasn’t breaking any new ground,” Kirby says, “but at least it was getting the muscles flexing.” Within the CSI circle, there is resignation that one cultural problem Republicans face modernizing their campaigns remains beyond their immediate control: Academic social scientists capable of designing, administering, and analyzing field experiments are overwhelmingly on the Democratic side. For his part, Green—with his politically catholic view toward experimentation and promiscuous search for collaborators who will let him test scientific theories in the real world—remained something of a unicorn. “The left enjoys a lot of sympathetic academics and legions of ideologically aligned grad students that we on the right just won't have the same level of access to,” says Brian Stobie, a former official at the Charles Koch Institute who attempted to recruit academic collaborators to test the Koch network’s election-year operations before leaving to start his own firm. (One political scientist approached for this article did not want to acknowledge on the record any openness of graduate students to partner with conservative organizations on research projects, for fear of causing the graduate students reputational damage.) The emergence of the CSI circle has also unmasked a generational divide more fundamental than the one between practitioners of online and offline politicking that defines most press coverage of the Republicans’ technology predicament. There is a Web-savvy new guard that chafes against the old-line consultants who continue to profit from spending on television, phone, and mail. But these disputes—about the percentage of a campaign budget devoted to Web and mobile advertising, or whether a digital consultant has a proverbial “seat at the table” on strategic decisions—are lost on the CSI crowd, who have a scientific bent. Many there are eager to take on the digital consultants and the grandiose claims some of the digital people make, unchallenged, about their potential impact on elections. Those in the experimental set pronounce themselves agnostic about tactics, interested only in those whose worth have been proven, empirically. What can be measured to deliver votes—rather than just clicks or eyeballs—and at what cost? Last May, strategist Dave Carney demonstrated for the CSI seminar what such skepticism could look like when put into practice. He and University of Texas political scientist Daron Shaw had come to present findings from a complicated series of experiments that Carney had invited Shaw to conduct within the gubernatorial campaign of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. (The two had worked together on Perry’s 2006 re-election, when Shaw and Green served on a team of in-house experimenters that Carney named his “eggheads,” a collaboration that has produced more peer-reviewed papers than any other campaign in history.) Shaw could have merely presented his findings in the form of charts and graphs, but that would not have fully satisfied Carney’s preference for dramatic colloquy. He invited the consultants and vendors whose services he had audited to be part of the discussion—an equivalent of beauty-pageant contestants being forced to stand on stage while judges render a verdict on their presence and poise. Shaw had randomized the delivery of $1.6 million worth of campaign communications—across broadcast and cable television, a variety of digital formats, radio, and direct mail—with effects measured at both individual and neighborhood units. Three entire media markets, including El Paso and Amarillo, were assigned to a control group that received no Abbott campaign communication over the course of that month. Unlike many studies, Carney had begun by asking Abbott’s consultants to devise plans at a budget that would “allow them to do what they needed to in order to produce an impact.” “One of the most common criticisms one hears from practitioners about political science experiments is that the treatment is ‘not what we’d do in a real campaign,’” Shaw explained. “The obvious solution is to give the professionals the resources and discretion to design and implement their preferred outreach within the context of the experiment.” Comparing polls conducted before and after the experiment, Shaw explained to the CSI seminar that three weeks of campaigning increased Abbott’s popularity by nearly eight points among the voters he was trying to persuade, with targeted broadcast television buys doing so with the greatest force. At the same time, voters in zip codes served Facebook and online pre-roll video ads were less likely to support Abbott afterward, and turned out at the same rate as those who lived in areas that never received the ads. (Shaw did find that, in some combinations, Internet advertising did have a modestly positive impact on turnout, according to voter-registration records updated after the primary.) Digital consultants “might argue that the relatively modest effects associated with online outreach in our tests still constitute a more cost-effective investment than broadcast television,” Shaw acknowledged in an article, which, as part of his deal with Abbott’s campaign, he has submitted to political-science journals for publication. His presentation of “The Abbott Campaign Experiments: Persuasion and Turnout in Texas” wowed the CSI seminar, as much for its ambition and audacity as any specific finding. But to the disappointment of many attendees, few other consultants expressed an interest in mimicking Carney’s adventurousness. “Testing, whether done on the right or left, tends to show that the majority of what you think ‘works’ doesn’t,” says Stobie, who after the 2012 election launched 0ptimus Consulting to conduct experiments with the promise of helping clients to constrain their spending. “To the majority of operatives and organizations, paying for the opportunity to find out much of what you are doing is ineffective is not an appealing investment.” A few weeks ago, Hazelwood met Priebus for lunch at the Capitol Hill Club and handed over the results of an experimental study he had commissioned from her firm. Hazelwood’s reputation had impressed Priebus long before the two first met, in 2009, back when he was a lawyer who oversaw field offices near his Wisconsin home and had “done every yard-sign job in the party you can imagine.” Sharing a ticket with Bush in 2004 during a failed state Senate run, Priebus saw how, by “dividing states into turf, and measuring outcomes and metrics,” as he puts it, Hazelwood’s internal reforms had modernized the party’s approach to field organizing. “I’ve known her as the author of that concept,” Priebus says. “I really do understand the ground game and what we need to do.” The 72-Hour Task Force had been established to convince local party activists like Priebus that the ground game was not merely something one did or didn’t do—that some tactical approaches to it were superior to others. Hazelwood had isolated “precinct organizing” (assigning a full-time field staffer for a month), “GOP flushing” (indiscriminately turning out Republican voters in the last two days before an election), and “volunteer calling” (compared to paid call centers) as three distinct activities, and subjected each to separate tests. As a result of the impact—two to three percentage points increase in turnout for each, they found—the Task Force prescribed that Republican campaigns assign one person to be individually responsible for every 40 to 100 voters. “Back to People Power,” an internal RNC presentation titled the recommendation at the time . After Bush’s re-election, the party let much of that field infrastructure wither, along with the ethos behind and intellectual justification for it. During the years since, experiments have revealed a cognitive logic for understanding what mobilizes voters. Basic interactions immediately became more potent when they were personalized in a way that introduced a sense of individual responsibility around voting. Campaigns now frequently remind citizens of their past history casting a ballot, and recruit them to sign pledges to do so again. (One of Green’s most famous tests, conducted with his former Yale colleague Alan Gerber, sent voters a copy of their past registration records with a threat to publicize a set after an election, so others could see whether or not they voted. It proved the most effective get-out-the-vote technique ever measured.) The behavioral psychology behind such techniques gave new depth to campaigns’ understanding of “people power.” Hazelwood developed a hypothesis that people power could learn something from stalking. Campaigns have long thought of voter contact as part of a narrative progression: a flight of six direct-mail pieces over which a candidate’s argument unfurls, or a “layered” approach in which phone calls and door-knocks are delivered in a deliberately choreographed sequence. But campaigns rarely share these plans with voters, often preferring to let the interactions speak for themselves and not draw undue attention to their volume. Instead, Hazelwood thought it was time to mash up the various tactics that the 72-Hour Task Force had segregated into distinct programs. Just as the pledges and the vote-history techniques had, walking voters through the process as it was happening could produce a personal engagement with the election. Hazelwood was anxious that the party not let a busy midterm election year pass without using every opportunity to hone tactics it could deploy in earnest in 2016. After San Diego announced a special mayoral election, scheduled for February 2014, Hazelwood convinced a friend managing Republican Kevin Faulconer’s ultimately succesful campaign to let CSI get involved. Hazelwood took command of some of the party’s field programs there, randomly assigning some areas to receive specialized attention from local precinct captains. When she was able to show that her tactics had increased turnout by 8.5 percent among the party’s so-called “low-propensity voters,” the party’s chairman took notice. That finding intersected neatly with what Priebus had identified as his party’s strategic challenge, and one of the areas the Growth and Opportunity Project had blamed for the party’s inability to win the presidency or the Senate in 2012. “We’re a really good midterm party, but for some reason presidential-year-only voters have been trouble for us,” Priebus says. “If we put people out in the field—and we have a limited amount of people and limited amount of time—what’s the combination of things we can do that have the best effect of turning out people who vote only in presidential years?” Over the summer, Priebus signed off on Hazelwood’s proposal to have CSI help answer that question. He was insistent that Hazelwood’s experiments not interfere with the party’s plans to spend $105 million across key races in mitdterm battlegrounds. In three states, however, Hazelwood’s firm was permitted to layer atop the party’s extant organization an additional precinct program that would target the type of low-propensity voters that Republican strategists did not expect to necessarily vote in 2014, but knew they needed to mobilize in 2016. After working with Hazelwood on how to structure her study, Green directed her to enlist Oklahoma State University professor Brandon Lenoir, whom he had guided on another lawn-sign experiment, for help implementing it. (There is such entrenched skepticism about yard signs that Green has waited to publish until he has five experiments, each conducted in distinct geographical and political contexts, that can be assembled into a single paper with more comprehensive findings than Kirby’s alone.) In nine counties across Colorado, Iowa, and Arkansas, Hazelwood’s team worked with the state parties and the Republican Senate candidate to hire dedicated local organizers it called “precinct captains.” Each was given a list of voters who had cast a ballot in one or fewer of the past four major elections, with directions to visit each voter in mid-October for an introductory conversation. “I was designated your Precinct Captain for the Republican Party, for the duration of the election,” the canvassing script instructed. Then, over the next few weeks, the precinct captain would make contact four more times, in a specific order: again at the door, then by phone, followed by a postcard, and a then final door visit. If the voter was home each time, it meant a recurring interaction with an increasingly familiar neighborhood figure. If the voter didn’t answer the door or phone, however, the precinct captain was instructed to make the missed encounter just as personally memorable. Each door hanger left behind should have a handwritten Post-it note attached to it, with a message that the “personalized note instructions” recommended should say: “Hi Mary, sorry I missed you today! … I will be back in the neighborhood again next week and try to catch you then.” The postcard would pick up the theme: “I have stopped by your house a couple times and tried to call to make sure you have all the information you need to vote.” For a voter who wasn’t home after two door visits and a phone call, the next note would turn even more ominous: “I will keep checking the list to see if you have voted and if not will drop by your house again to follow up.” Over the course of three weeks, Hazelwood’s “stalker test” deployed some of the most potent psychological tricks known to nudge a citizen into the act of voting—along with some new ones—all as part of a borderline-creepy courtship that would be difficult to ignore. After the election, in which Republicans won the Senate races in all three of those states, Green and Lenoir found that it had a considerable impact, increasing turnout among targets by between two and three percentage points. It had not been easy, though, as stalking demanded attention, resources, and planning that campaigns cannot always muster for their field programs (The report did not calculate the cost of such contact, and it is certainly conceivable that at a much lower price yard signs could prove more cost-effective—if less targetable—than the elaborate program that required the same field staffer to be available for every interaction with an assigned voter.) When Hazelwood presented the analysis to Priebus at the Capitol Hill Club, she put the paper that Green and Lenoir had written into a thick, glossy brochure with far more elaborate graphics than are typically packaged with academic articles. Priebus says the findings confirm what he had assumed about the value of localized field programs that focus on sustained personal contact, but now “I can take that information and go sell it to the state parties, and go to into a boardroom to get people to cut a check.” The finding that most excited both Hazelwood and Priebus, however, grew out of an accident. In Colorado, canvassers were mistakenly assigned to go to some of the party’s reliable voters, who had cast ballots in all four of the most recent elections. After being hounded by a precinct captain, they voted at a lower rate than those who received no contact at all. “We have a proven fact now that we should stop calling these people,” Hazelwood says, with comic impatience. “Stop wasting time!” *Republicans have won the battle over money in politics. Should anyone celebrate? <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/07/republicans-have-won-the-battle-over-money-in-politics-should-anyone-celebrate/> // WaPo // Paul Waldman – July 7, 2015 * As the candidates for president have begun announcing their second-quarter fundraising hauls, a couple of things have become apparent. First, there is a huge amount of money flowing into the campaign, even to some second-tier candidates. And second, the campaign finance system is a joke. As we now approach the anything-goes situation that Republicans have been advocating for years, it’s time to ask: Is this how we want things to work? Republicans in particular should be asked that question, because they’re the ones who created this state of affairs and promised that it would be good for everyone. Here are some of its characteristics: There will almost certainly be more money spent in this election than ever before. A number of candidates have one billionaire benefactor promising to bankroll their campaigns. The Federal Election Commission, deadlocked between its Democratic and Republican members, has essentially stopped enforcing campaign finance laws. The Internal Revenue Service has also all but given up enforcing the laws that govern tax-exempt nonprofits and their political activities. The campaigns are hauling in the cash. On Monday, Ted Cruz announced that his campaign had $51 million dollars behind it, which included $37 million raised by pro-Cruz super PACs — so they’re not even pretending that the “independent” groups are anything but an arm of the Cruz campaign. Hillary Clinton has raised $45 million just since April, and we’re waiting to hear whether the Jeb Bush super PAC Right to Rise met its $100 million goal. This is all enabled by the fact that although campaigns and super PACs are prohibited from “coordinating” with each other, what counts as coordination has become so limited that it’s little more than a speed bump for campaigns and super PACs that are working together. They have nothing to fear from the FEC, where Republicans always appoint commissioners who barely believe there ought to be any regulation of campaign finance at all, and have successfully ground enforcement to a halt. The agency has gone two years without anyone leading its legal office, and its own chairwoman says: “The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim.” The situation at the IRS, which has jurisdiction over nonprofit groups and their involvement in politics, is virtually the same. Because of the “scandal” that came to light in 2013, which involved extra scrutiny given to political groups applying for tax-exempt status as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations, the agency came under withering attack from Republicans and has shrunk back from enforcing the law. Despite a new wave of secret donations going to phony social welfare organizations established by candidates to boost their campaigns, the IRS has essentially surrendered, as the New York Times reports: As presidential candidates find new ways to exploit secret donations from tax-exempt groups, hobbled regulators at the Internal Revenue Service appear certain to delay trying to curb widespread abuses at nonprofits until after the 2016 election. We should take a moment to remember what the IRS scandal was actually about. It wasn’t, as so many conservatives believe, a story of a nefarious White House-directed conspiracy to persecute Barack Obama’s enemies. In reality, there were a bunch of inadequately trained IRS employees attempting to apply a vaguely-worded law in the face of a dramatic increase in the number of applications they had to process after the 2010 Citizens United decision threw open the doors of campaign finance. And the groups that suffered the horrific injury of having their 501(c)(4) applications take longer to process than they should have? Let’s not forget that they were, in fact, violating the spirit of the law. Without question. That’s true of both the conservative and liberal groups who got extra scrutiny, which they absolutely deserved, because they were plainly political groups masquerading as social welfare organizations. But now it’s open season, and most of the presidential candidates have established 501(c)(4) organizations that are allowed to shield their donors’ identity from public scrutiny while operating as an arm of the campaign. Marco Rubio’s (c)(4), the Conservative Solutions Project, has already raised $15.8 million for him. So that’s where we are — limitless donations from the wealthy and corporations to super PACs and (c)(4)s that coordinate with campaigns, billionaires buying more influence than ever, and crippled government agencies unable to enforce the frayed laws that still exist. To which Republicans say, “That’s great!” Which isn’t surprising, given that this was the system they engineered. They filed lawsuit after lawsuit in a (largely successful) attempt to get the Supreme Court to gut the campaign finance laws that had been in place for decades, opening up the system to more money — while they also files suits challenging every attempt at public financing in any form that might level the playing field. They threw sand in the FEC’s gears and bludgeoned the IRS into submission. And they did it all on the assumption that the more money that pours into campaigns and the less accountability there is, the more partisan advantage they’ll gain. Which might or might not be true — after all, it isn’t as though Democratic politicians like Obama and Clinton have had too much trouble exploiting the system and raising spectacular amounts of money themselves. But we’ve now just about reached the campaign finance nirvana Republicans had been working toward for so long. So how’s it working out? Is there anyone who could argue that this is the best of all possible systems? Is there someone who’ll say that the American public benefits when billionaires summon presidential candidates to grovel before them in attempt to secure their patronage? Is there a single person who’ll honestly say, “Yes, this is exactly how campaigns ought to work”? Can anybody make the case that this will produce a more democratic system that helps the government solve problems and secure progress for the public? *OTHER 2016 NEWS* *‘Super PACs’ Take On New Role, Organizing Voters <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/us/politics/super-pacs-take-on-new-role-organizing-voters.html?_r=0> // NYT // Trip Gabriel – July 7, 2015 * College students supporting Rand Paul for president were out in force going door to door in this university town recently, using their iPad Minis to help identify Republicans committed to voting for the Kentucky senator in next year’s Iowa caucuses. And when Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana visited the state the same week in June for town hall-style meetings in Waukee, Council Bluffs and Sioux City, his supporters collected voters’ names and emails with an eye toward caucus day. But the Paul and Jindal campaigns were not behind these time-honored grass-roots organizing efforts. Instead, in a twist that shows how even retail politics is being transformed by a flood of loosely regulated big money, the two candidates’ courtship of voters is being carried out by “super PACs,” which are using their abundant war chests to move into the nuts and bolts of campaign operations. In previous election cycles, super PACs — which can raise unlimited donations from corporations and individuals alike — largely channeled money from wealthy donors into political advertising. But now they are branching out into what had seemed a fundamental function of a campaign committee: organizing voters one at a time. The 2016 race could be the most expensive in history, in part because of spending by “super PACs.” Legally, the groups cannot coordinate with candidates, but there is plenty of wiggle room. By Aaron Byrd and Emily B. Hager on Publish Date July 7, 2015. Candidates “are pushing as much of the stuff as they can over to the super PACs because that’s where the real money is,” said Terry Giles, who recently quit as campaign manager for Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon, to start a new super PAC that will support him. The practice of having super PACS, which can be entirely financed by a single billionaire, take over such operations allows campaigns, which may raise only $2,700 from any one donor, to outsource the costly, labor-intensive work of recruiting activists and building lists of supporters. It could also allow second-tier candidates to be more competitive, prolonging the nominating process. And in the general election, a Republican nominee whose organizing is paid for by a super PAC might level the playing field with Democrats, whose allies in labor have traditionally given the party an edge in mustering volunteers to help turn out voters. But there are risks to outsourcing a field campaign. Candidates, who are legally forbidden to coordinate with super PACs, are in danger of being cut off from their most ardent supporters as they head into caucus and primary elections. “As a campaign, you have absolutely no idea” how you’re doing, said Nick Ryan, president of a super PAC supporting Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor. “That would scare me to death. You’d be disconnected from the very base of your campaign, the people who are most passionate about you.” (Still, Mr. Ryan hesitated to rule out any grass-roots campaign work aside from recruiting volunteers to support Mr. Huckabee.) Tina Goff, who recruited leaders in all 99 Iowa counties on behalf of a super PAC supporting Ben Carson before he even declared his candidacy, turned down an offer of a job with his campaign. “It would have been great to travel around with Dr. Carson,” she said, “but I felt like I had created an infrastructure here and I wanted to continue what I was doing.” She said she was now hiring 25 people to knock on doors in Iowa after paying $40,000 for a list of Republican caucusgoers from the state party. Even for candidates who do not have fund-raising problems, relying on super PACs offers another way to manage expectations and perceptions. In Iowa, where Jeb Bush faces stiff resistance from conservatives, a senior Republican strategist said that before Mr. Bush announced his candidacy, his team discussed leaving some of the field organizing to a super PAC established by his aides. That would spare Mr. Bush’s campaign some embarrassment should he perform badly in Iowa during the caucuses by giving his campaign distance from the effort. Several campaigns have welcomed outside organizing efforts in Iowa, which will hold the first nominating contest on Feb. 1. The farthest along are efforts for Mr. Paul, Carly Fiorina and Mr. Carson. An outside group that supports Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who is expected to announce his candidacy next week, collected cards at a recent political forum in Des Moines from voters pledging to caucus for the candidate. A spokesman for the group, Our American Revival, said it would continue to organize on Mr. Walker’s behalf in Iowa and other states. So far, only super PACs supporting Republicans appear to be organizing the grass roots, although outside groups that back Democrats, including labor unions and nonprofits, have long performed tasks like registering voters and canvassing neighborhoods. (A super PAC aimed at generating grass-roots support for Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ready for Hillary, closed up shop once Mrs. Clinton formally entered the race.) “It’s no surprise that super PACs would at some point evolve into the organizational side of politics,” said Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser to Mr. Paul. He called it a predictable outgrowth of an era that since 2002 has banned unlimited donations to party committees, and in which wealthy donors have rechanneled support to outside groups, which are less accountable. Ms. Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, may have turned over more traditional campaign tasks to a super PAC than any other candidate: lining up endorsements, answering reporters’ questions about her business career and opening field offices in early primary states like South Carolina. The primary reason is her difficulty raising money for a full-fledged campaign. She reported pulling in just $1.4 million in May and June. The super PAC, Carly for America, which said Monday that it had raised $3.4 million, “is running a grass-roots organization focused on building support in early states,” said Katie Hughes, a spokeswoman. The group organizing for Mr. Paul, Concerned American Voters, has pledges of “multiple millions” from wealthy donors in Silicon Valley, said Jeff Frazee, its president. It has had 40 full-time field staffers in Iowa since June 1, knocking on doors during the day and making phone calls at night. But that effort illustrates the potential for duplication and clashing agendas between super PACs and campaigns. Mr. Paul already had a network of activists in Iowa, many of whom supported campaigns by his father, Ron Paul. Asked about the super PAC, the campaign’s state director, Steve Grubbs, said in a text message: “Not commenting on this. Wish I could.” That was because the donors were talking among themselves about shifting support from TV advertising, the focus of America’s Liberty PAC, to a grass-roots campaign. “I’m not convinced that TV ads are really as effective as they were,” said Mr. Banister, an early investor in PayPal, adding that interactive communication with voters mattered more. “Grass roots is just kind of old-school interactive,” he said. Mr. Frazee, the Paul backer, said he was inspired by Barack Obama’s upset victory over Mrs. Clinton in Iowa eight years ago. “He was able to win with a very organized ground game,” he said. “That’s been our strategy.” In Iowa City, Ani DeGroot, a college student on summer break working for Concerned American Voters, approached Timothy Anderson, who was mowing his lawn. “Will you support Rand Paul?” she asked after he had shut down the mower. “I probably will,” he said. “Fantastic,” Ms. DeGroot said. “Are there any issues that are most important to you?” “I wish we would just get out of all these wars and being policemen to the world,” said Mr. Anderson, a human resources manager. Ms. DeGroot entered his responses into her iPad Mini supplied by the super PAC. At a future date, another Paul supporter might call on Mr. Anderson to urge him to volunteer, or even to speak for Mr. Paul at his precinct caucus. The vote may be less than seven months away, but it is never too early to begin organizing. *Puerto Rican debt crisis forces its way onto presidential political agenda <http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/puerto-rican-debt-crisis-forces-its-way-onto-presidential-political-agenda/2015/07/07/40ea8aae-1ffe-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html> // WaPo // Steven Mufson - July 8, 2015* Q: Which place has as many Republican delegates as New Hampshire, plus enough native sons and daughters living in Florida to swing the outcome of that state’s presidential primaries or even the general election? A: Puerto Rico. That political reality has put the financially ailing U.S. territory on the map of presidential hopefuls, who are being asked what, if anything, the federal government should do to help engineer a rescue plan for the debt-strapped island. Politically, much is at stake. Puerto Rico has its own voice at nominating conventions, with more delegates at the Democratic Convention than 21 states. And 1 million Puerto Ricans live in Florida, enough to be the swing vote in one of the nation’s most important swing states. At the current pace of migration, triple the rate just a few years ago, the number of people of Puerto Rican origin in Florida could soon exceed the number of Cuban Americans in the state. Along Interstate 4 between Orlando and Tampa in central Florida, Puerto Rican Americans are everywhere, comprising more than a quarter of the population of Florida’s Osceola County. As a result, presidential candidates are being pressed to voice support for Puerto Rico in its hour of economic need and back the use of bankruptcy law to help the territory, which is teetering on the edge of default, to reduce and manage its $73 billion in debt. While the bankruptcy code can be used by states for the orderly court-supervised reorganization of cities, municipalities, municipal utilities or school districts, Congress in 1984 altered the law to bar the commonwealth of Puerto Rico or any of its utilities, towns or school districts from being able to turn to the bankruptcy code in a crisis. “Those who want the support of Puerto Ricans must help Puerto Rico now. Not later.” Puerto Rico Gov. Alejandro García Padilla said in an interview Sunday on Telemundo. He added, “They need to act now, not in a few months during the elections.” García Padilla said “there are some people who have been a little passive, and they are the candidates for president of the United States. Both the Democrats and the Republicans, especially in Florida, because as you know, it’s a battleground state and it’s important.” And the Puerto Rican vote is up for grabs, both in Florida and the territory. Six Americans of Puerto Rican descent have been elected to the Florida state legislature — three Republicans and three Democrats. In Puerto Rico, the current governor, García Padilla, who narrowly won election, calls himself a friend of President Obama’s. The previous governor, Luis G. Fortuño, resembled a Reagan Republican. “During the last campaign, it was called the swing vote of the swing state,” said Jeffrey Farrow, chairman of the Oliver Group, a public policy communications firm, and a former White House adviser on Puerto Rico under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. A poll by Latino Decisions, a firm that does polling and analysis of Latino voters, showed that Puerto Rican voters in Florida went 72 percent to 28 percent for Obama over Mitt Romney in 2012, while Cuban American voters in the state chose Romney over Obama by 64 percent to 35 percent. Yet Farrow said that while “there is a perception that Puerto Ricans are Democratic voters, that is not necessarily the case in Florida. The more recent poll data shows they identify more with Democrats than Republicans, but they are socially conservative. They voted for Jeb Bush for governor.” “During my race, I said I would slash government expenses,” said Fortuño, now a partner at Steptoe & Johnson, a Washington-based law firm. “Often on radio talk shows, people would say they have a daughter who needs a job, and I’d say she would not have a job in government, and my advisers would go nuts. And I won. So it’s very doable.” Jeb Bush has been courting the Puerto Rican vote for a long time. In 1980, he spent more than two months organizing the campaign of his father, George H.W. Bush, who handily won the primary that year. Jeb Bush delivered speeches in Spanish at more than 75 gatherings. When he campaigned to be governor of Florida, he went to Puerto Rican church fiestas. “I think statehood is the best path, personally. I’ve believed that for a long, long while,” Jeb Bush said during a visit to the territory in April, recalling his father’s long-ago campaign. “Nothing makes me believe that that position should change. To get the full benefits and responsibilities of citizenship, being a state is the only path to make that happen.” He said: “I think the next president, whoever that person is, should use their influence to make sure Congress acts on this and that this should be a question of self-determination. . . . That’s just a question of principle and, you know, morality, I think. It’s not a question of politics.” Bush, while campaigning in Puerto Rico in April and again in South Carolina last week, also came out in support of granting Puerto Rico the option of using Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code to restructure its debts. “Puerto Rico should be given the same rights as the states,” Bush said in Spanish before a small crowd at the Universidad Metropolitana in San Juan. Bush’s Republican rivals have been, by and large, more cautious for fear that extending Chapter 9 to Puerto Rico could look like a bailout of the island — even though bankruptcy extracts concessions from bondholders and requires no federal money. “Senator [Marco] Rubio has been closely watching events in Puerto Rico and is concerned about the economic situation there,” spokeswoman Brooke Sammon told The Washington Post by e-mail over the weekend. “He’s in the process of reviewing the legislation to make sure it is the right approach to begin addressing Puerto Rico’s debt crisis without having any negative impact on American taxpayers.” Donald Trump — whose heavily indebted corporate affiliates have used bankruptcy to reorganize four times — has a unique perspective on Puerto Rico. He is also a partner with local construction tycoons Arturo and Jorge L. Diaz in the Trump International Golf Club, a resort east of San Juan that boasts two 18-hole courses. The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment. In a June 30 tweet, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton did not address the bankruptcy issue but said that “Puerto Rico’s debt crisis is not theirs alone. For PR’s economy to grow & their people to thrive, they need real tools & real support.” But on Tuesday, Clinton said that Puerto Rican municipalities and state-owned enterprises should be allowed to use bankruptcy protections to overhaul their finances. “We’re not talking about a bailout, we’re talking about a fair shot at success,” she said in a statement. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley (D), by contrast, jumped on the issue last week. “I am very concerned about the impending financial collapse of Puerto Rico,” said O’Malley, who backed the use of the bankruptcy code and an equalization of Medicaid and Medicare benefits for the island’s residents. “We must help our fellow U.S. citizens, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because our region’s economic stability depends on it,” he said. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined the discussion on Tuesday, backing bankruptcy protections to enable Puerto Rico to “restructure its debt in a rational way that does not harm its people, ordinary investors or pension funds in the United States.” He blamed the island’s debt crisis on “the policies of austerity and the greed of large financial institutions.” The flow of Puerto Ricans to Florida has altered the calculus of politics there. Whereas politicians once catered to the conservative, anti-Castro Cuban opinion that dominated the Latino vote, now the Cuban American consensus on Cuba has fractured and the Puerto Rican population has swelled. That Puerto Rican electorate has its own concerns. According to polling data gathered last November by Latino Decisions, Puerto Ricans support expanding Medicaid and raising the minimum wage more strongly than Cuban Americans do, although Cuban Americans also strongly endorse those policy proposals. Education also ranks higher as a concern among Puerto Ricans. Yet despite Jeb Bush’s efforts, the Latino Decisions poll in November showed that among Puerto Ricans in Florida, he was then getting a 42 percent “very unfavorable” rating and only 10 percent “very favorable.” Now the territory’s economic plight might become a factor. And people in Florida keep track through readily available media from the island as well as locally. “The Puerto Ricans living here are very, very strongly connected to the island,” said Betsy Franceschini, who is Florida regional director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, an arm of the Puerto Rican government. “They do care even though they’re here.” Franceschini operates her agency in a modest house in Kissimmee with two flagpoles, one for the Puerto Rican flag and one for the American. The agency provides advice to Puerto Ricans moving from the island to the Orlando-Tampa area. The previous governor, Fortuño, had closed the office. García Padilla, fulfilling a campaign promise he made during a visit to Orlando, reopened it. Franceschini said the key public-policy issues of concern to people who come to the office for help are the island’s fiscal crisis, its desire to use the bankruptcy code to restructure municipal debts and unequal Medicare payments by the federal government. “Folks here are very upset about that and are organizing and mobilizing,” she said, “and they want to know where the candidates stand.” *Christie, Paul and Perry Court the Black Vote <http://www.wsj.com/articles/christie-paul-and-perry-court-the-black-vote-1436305667> // WSJ // Jason Riley – July 7, 2015 * President Obama will be leaving the White House in 18 months, but where will that leave the minority voters who helped elect him? It’s a question that Republican presidential hopefuls not named Donald Trump are pondering. Between 1980 and 2004, black support for the Democratic presidential candidates ranged from 83% to 90%. But in 2008 Mr. Obama won 95% of the black vote and was re-elected four years later with 93%. In 2012 black voters turned out at higher rates than white voters for the first time on record. The likelihood of Hillary Clinton or another Democratic nominee drawing Obama levels of black support is small. Many blacks may simply stay home. Others, having observed the black economic retrogression that occurred even with a black Democrat in the Oval Office, might consider alternatives. To that end, Republicans such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul have been actively courting minorities. Mr. Christie has become a familiar presence in Camden, Newark and other economically depressed parts of the Garden State. In 2013 he was re-elected with the backing of 51% of Hispanics and 21% of blacks—an impressive 19-point and 12-point increase, respectively, from four years earlier. Woody Allen once said that 80% of success is showing up, and Mr. Christie has been willing to campaign in communities and among voters that Republicans too often write off. The governor has bothered to introduce himself to black voters directly instead of letting Democratic opponents define him or only giving the occasional speech to the NAACP. “How many Republicans are you going to see walking up and down these streets like this?” a black woman in Orange, N.J., told a Real Clear Politics reporter in 2013. “He’s approachable. I really like that. And I think the people in Orange are really thrilled, whether they’re Democrat or Republican, that he’s here.” Mr. Paul, for his part, has courted younger blacks by visiting historically black college campuses, which is admirable. Less admirable is Mr. Paul’s decision to mouth liberal positions on voter ID, drug laws and prison sentencing in order to win black support. “I’m trying to go out and say to African-Americans ‘I want your vote, and the Republican Party wants your vote,’ ” he told a radio interviewer last year, explaining why he thinks the GOP should drop the voter ID issue. “We have to be aware that the perception is out there and be careful about not so overdoing something that we further alienate a block of people that we need to attract.” That’s not black outreach—that’s pandering. Moreover, it’s off-base. A Fox News poll last year found majority support for voter ID laws among every demographic group, including 51% of blacks. A 2012 Pew survey put black support for voter ID at 62%. And law-abiding ghetto residents want the criminals who prey on them and their children locked up, not coddled. Don’t confuse the agenda of civil-rights groups and other black elites with the desires of most blacks. The better approach is the one taken by former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who launched his second bid for the White House last month and gave one of the campaign’s most poignant speeches last week. Mr. Perry is less concerned with making race-based entreaties than he is with appealing to blacks as fellow Americans. Imagine that! The governor acknowledged America’s history of oppressing blacks—“and because slavery and segregation were sanctioned by government, there is a role for government policy in addressing their lasting effects”—but he also noted the tremendous progress that has been made. “A half-century ago, Republicans and Democrats came together to finally enshrine in the law the principle that all of us—regardless of race, color or national origin—are created equal,” said Mr. Perry. “When it comes to race, America is a better and more tolerant and more welcoming place than it has ever been.” These may be plain truths, but such progress is regularly dismissed by many on the grievance-focused left, where there is money to be made by civil-rights groups, and votes to be had by Democratic politicians, who are willing to pretend that systemic racism still drives racial disparities in the U.S. Mr. Perry believes that a more significant barrier to black progress is poor political representation. The Democratic Party has long operated with no fear of losing the black vote, and Republicans have been too quick to concede it. Mr. Perry’s overarching theme, however, was a rebuke of identity politics, stressing instead what all Americans desire—safe neighborhoods, good schools, economic opportunity. And he urged black voters to compare the track records of liberal and conservative governance on those fronts and then hold politicians accountable. “In the cities where the left-wing solutions have been tried over and over again—places like Detroit and Chicago and Baltimore—African-Americans are moving out,” said the governor. “In blue-state coastal cities, you have strict zoning laws and environmental regulations that have prevented builders from expanding the housing supply.” San Francisco’s black population today is half of what it was in 1970. That’s obviously not because conservatives run the place. If the GOP is getting serious about competing for black voters, it’s a welcome development for our political system. And if Republican presidential candidates are looking for the right approach, they could do a lot worse than Mr. Perry’s template. *2016ers tiptoe around Puerto Rico's debt bomb <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/2016ers-tiptoe-around-puerto-ricos-debt-bomb-119820.html> // Politico // Daniel Strauss – July 7, 2015 * With Puerto Rico asking the U.S. federal government for a lifeline to rescue it from crushing debt, some 2016 candidates see an opportunity – Florida votes. Jeb Bush was first out of the gates. Back in April, as the island territory started careening toward a breaking point, he said Puerto Rico’s public agencies should be able to file for bankruptcy. But late last month, Puerto Rico Gov. Alejandro García Padilla announced that the commonwealth could not pay back its roughly $72 billion in debts, lending the question new urgency. Democrats have urged Washington to help. On Tuesday, frontrunner Hillary Clinton called on Congress to allow Puerto Rico to restructure its debts under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, the first step in what she called a “multifaceted” approach. Her top rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, followed suit a few hours later. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley had previously pressed President Barack Obama and Congress “to act to ensure that Puerto Rico is able to negotiate with its creditors.” But the rest of the 2016 field, including the other four senators running for president, has been conspicuously slower to take a position. Sens. Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul did not respond to questions on the issue. Sen. Marco Rubio’s office said the Florida senator was still looking into it. None were willing to throw their support behind a bill being offered up by Sens. Charles Schumer and Richard Blumenthal that would give Puerto Rico the same bankruptcy protection as municipalities across the rest of the United States. Puerto Rico’s debt crisis has the potential to affect the 2016 race — and nowhere more so than in Florida, with its growing Puerto Rican population of about 1 million people, a key constituency in a purple state with 29 electoral votes. “This is a driver for their vote,” said Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico’s representative on Capitol Hill. “Our votes are swing votes.” In the last two presidential elections, Puerto Rican votes boosted Obama in Florida, but could easily help Republicans this time around, former Puerto Rican governor Luis Fortuno said. “They can sway,” Fortuno, a conservative, said. “I believe other Republicans that want to compete effectively ought to be thinking about this, and they probably have to say something about it.” “I don’t see how you get through the Florida primary without being asked,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former top economic adviser for Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid. But calling for federal intervention is not without political risks: No Republican presidential candidate wants to be tarred as pro-bailout. While bankruptcy protection would not provide the island territory with direct financial support, it could still raise the hackles of creditors eager to toss around the “b” word in a bid to sap congressional momentum. The issue is especially perilous for Rubio, who rode to office in 2010 on a wave of support from tea party voters vehemently opposed to government rescues of big banks and underwater homeowners. So even though Rubio is locked with Bush in a zero-sum struggle with Bush for Florida primary votes, especially among Hispanics, he has been hesitant to weigh in. “Senator Rubio has been closely watching events in Puerto Rico and is concerned about the economic situation there,” Rubio spokeswoman Brooke Sammon told POLITICO. “He’s in the process of reviewing the legislation to make sure it is the right approach to begin addressing Puerto Rico’s debt crisis without having any negative impact on American taxpayers.” Pierluisi said it’s understandable why Rubio and Ted Cruz, the other 2016 candidate of Cuban descent, have been so cautious. “I know for a fact that both of them have been studying this issue and their staff have been getting their feet wet on this,” Pierluisi said. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has already previewed how the more conservative candidates might approach the issue. “We’ve had enough bailouts. Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, not a state, and should not be allowed to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy,” Huckabee told POLITICO. Even among the candidates who support allowing Puerto Rico to file for bankruptcy, there was a visible cautiousness about using the dreaded term. “We’re not talking about a bailout, we’re talking about a fair shot at success,” Clinton said in Tuesday’s statement. *Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton to share stage in Fort Lauderdale <http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-to-share-stage-in-fort-lauderdale/2236438> // Tampa Bay Times // Alex Leary – July 7, 2015 * Jeb Bush will speak before the National Urban League Conference in Fort Lauderdale on July 31, illustrating his campaign's goal of broadening the GOP message. Hillary Clinton is also addressing the group, as is Ben Carson and Martin O'Malley. "The candidates will share their visions for saving our cities on Friday, July 31, during a session entitled 'Off To The Races: The 2016 Presidential Candidates’ Plenary,' " according to a release. “As we convene in Florida to deliberate solutions to the economic and social challenges our cities are facing, it’s vital that those contending for the highest office in the land be part of that conversation,” National Urban League President and CEO Marc H. Morial said. The candidates’ plenary will take place on the second full day of the Conference themed “Save Our Cities: Education, Jobs + Justice.” “Our focus was inspired by a year that saw little accountability for law enforcement responsible for killing unarmed Black men, teenagers and children; a continual assault on voting rights; widening economic inequality gaps; and an increasingly partisan education debate far more rooted in political agendas than in putting our children first,” Morial said. *Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton support bankruptcy rights for Puerto Rico <http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/07/investing/puerto-rico-chapter-9-bankruptcy/> // CNN – July 7, 2015 * Puerto Rico has $73 billion in debt that it says it can't repay. Now it has two very powerful allies on its side: Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Both 2016 presidential candidates support giving Puerto Rico the same legal bankruptcy rights that states have. Puerto Rico's governor has been lobbying hard for that right. There's a bill in Congress to give Puerto Rico what it wants, but it has no co-sponsors. That's why Bush and Clinton's backing could be key. "I think that Puerto Rico ought to be treated as other states are treated as it relates to restructuring," Bush said during a visit to the island in late April. Other Republican candidates have largely stayed silent on the issue thus far. On Tuesday, Clinton jumped on board as well. "Congress should provide Puerto Rico the same authority that states already have to enable severely distressed government entities, including municipalities and public corporations, to restructure their debts," she said in a statement on her campaign website. Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley has been a vocal supporter as well. What it means: To be clear, no state can file for bankruptcy. But the 50 states do have the right to allow municipalities -- cities, towns and other local government entities -- within their states to file for bankruptcy. Puerto Rican municipalities want to be able to file for what is known as Chapter 9 bankruptcy like Detroit and Vallejo, California did. The benefit of bankruptcy is that is allows a broke government to shed some of its debt -- if a judge approve a municipality's game plan. Will Congress act? The bill in Congress would give Puerto Rico the same rights that states have under Chapter 9. So far, the bill's only supporter in Congress is Puerto Rico's representative, who get to vote. It might seem like a small issue in Washington, but it's a big issue for financial markets. Puerto Rico has a tiny population -- about the size of Connecticut -- but it has a debt the size of a big state like New York. Over 20% of U.S. bond funds hold Puerto Rican debt. The island doesn't have enough money to pay back its creditors. Some have even taken to calling it "America's Greece." Governor Alejandro García Padilla says Puerto Rico is in a "death spiral." A lot of the trouble stems from Puerto Rico's power company, known as PREPA. It alone has $9 billion. It would be a game changer if PREPA could declare bankruptcy. Why bankruptcy? "Chapter 9 is really the only way to impose some sort of restructuring on all the bondholders," says David Tawil, a lawyer and president of Maglan Capital. Bond holders don't want Puerto Rico to get that because it opens the possibility that they would be forced to take a loss on their bond investment if a bankruptcy judge sides with the island. But the proposal has little currency in Washington. "The bill that is in Congress has no co-sponsors and no support in Congress, although it does have a fair amount of support among bankruptcy experts," says Juliet Moringiello, a professor at Widener University School of Law and a former scholar of the American Bankruptcy Institute. Moringiello notes that Chapter 9 bankruptcy is rare, although the majority of filings have been public hospitals and utilities like PREPA, not cities. Where the candidates stand: Jeb Bush has been a vocal supporter of statehood for Puerto Rico -- if the island's citizens want that. "I think statehood is the best path, personally," Bush said in April. Since then, he has clarified that he thinks the island needs to make a number of changes to deal with its debt beyond just declaring bankruptcy, including reducing some benefits for workers. On the Democratic side, O'Malley was an early supporter of Puerto Rico getting Chapter 9 bankruptcy rights. Senator Bernie Sanders has voiced his support for Greece, but has yet to say much on Puerto Rico. *OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS* *The non-Clinton alternative for Democrats <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-non-clinton-alternative-for-democrats/2015/07/06/9b8d33ec-241a-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html> // WaPo // Eugene Robinson – July 7, 2015 * Is Bernie Sanders the political reincarnation of Eugene McCarthy? I doubt it, but let’s hope he makes the Democratic presidential race interesting. I don’t know if front-runner Hillary Clinton shares my wish, but she ought to. I’m not of the school that believes competition for competition’s sake is always a good thing. But Sanders has an appeal for younger, more liberal, more idealistic Democrats that Clinton presently lacks. If she competes for these voters — and learns to connect with them — she will have a much better chance of winning the White House. Sanders, the Vermont independent and the only self-described socialist in the Senate, drew packed houses during a weekend barnstorming tour of Iowa. The 2,500 people who attended his rally in Council Bluffs were believed to be the largest crowd a candidate from either party has drawn in the state. This followed last week’s triumph in Madison, Wis. , where Sanders packed a 10,000-seat arena with cheering supporters — the biggest event anywhere thus far in the campaign. At the same time, Sanders is rising in the polls. The latest Quinnipiac survey showed Clinton with a 19-point lead in Iowa, 52 percent to 33 percent. As recently as May, Clinton had a 45-point advantage. Comparisons have been made to McCarthy, the Minnesota senator whose opposition to the Vietnam War galvanized support on college campuses and stunned the Democratic Party establishment. McCarthy’s showing in the 1968 New Hampshire primary — he received 42 percent of the vote — helped lead incumbent Lyndon Johnson to pull out of the race. But let’s not get carried away. A lead of 19 points is a problem any politician would love to have. Sanders’s numbers had nowhere to go but up, and Clinton’s nowhere but down. What’s safe to say at present is that Sanders — not Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb or Lincoln Chafee — has become the non-Clinton alternative for Democrats who, for whatever reason, are suffering some Clinton fatigue. One thing Sanders has going for himself is palpable authenticity. He is the antithesis of slick. To say there’s nothing focus-grouped about the man is to understate; one doubts he knows what a focus group is. “Rumpled” is the word most often used to describe him, but that’s not quite right; it’s not as if his suits are unpressed or his shirttails untucked. He’s just all substance and no style — which, to say the least, makes him stand out among politicians. Clinton, by contrast, has always struggled to let voters see the “authentic” her rather than the carefully curated, every-hair-in-place version her campaigns have sought to project. Part of the problem, I believe, is that women in politics are held to an almost impossible standard; no male candidate’s wardrobe choice or tone of voice receives such microscopic scrutiny. But she also distances herself by campaigning as if she’s protecting a big lead — which she is — and wants to avoid offending anyone. Last, when asked her favorite ice cream flavor, she replied, “I like nearly everything.” What, vanilla lovers were going to abandon her if she had said chocolate? Sanders’s main appeal, however, is that he speaks unabashedly for the party’s activist left. He is witheringly critical of Wall Street, wants to break up the big banks, proposes single-payer health care and promises to raise taxes. He voted against the 2003 invasion of Iraq; Clinton, then a senator, voted for it but now says that she made a mistake. Eight years ago, Barack Obama made opposition to the Iraq war his signature issue and rode it to victory in Iowa and beyond. Will lightning strike the Clinton machine twice? Not the same kind of lightning, surely, and not in the same manner. Obama is a uniquely gifted politician whose appeal went beyond the issues. He was able to make voters believe not just in him but also in themselves and their power to reshape the world. And as the first African American with a legitimate chance to become president, he gave the nation a chance to make history. This time, Clinton is the candidate with history on her side. The fact that she could be the first woman elected president is not enough, by itself, to win her the nomination. But it does matter. She, like Obama, offers voters the chance to feel a sense of accomplishment. And nothing about Clinton’s past remotely compares with the millstone of Vietnam that weighed LBJ down and ultimately caused him to give up. I just don’t see a McCarthy scenario brewing — or an Obama scenario, either. *How Politico became a GOP stooge: Republicans want to destroy Hillary Clinton—and the media is helping them out <http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/how_politico_became_a_gop_stooge_republicans_want_to_destroy_hillary_clinton%E2%80%94and_the_media_is_helping_them_out/> // Salon // Heather Digby Parton – July 7, 2015 * Aaron Blake at The Washington Post wrote a piece yesterday entitled, “The Clinton campaign is roping off reporters. But who will cry for us?” in which he lamented the treatment the press received over the weekend at the hands of Hillary Clinton. Again. If you were to read the twitter feeds of political reporters as it unfolded, it was a trauma they will not soon forget. Here is Politico’s Glenn Thrush, who saw the deeper meaning of the event immediately: The weirdly obsessive Clinton twitter stalker Maggie Haberman of the New York Times brought all the strands of Clinton’s various alleged crimes together: Even three days later, everyone’s still abuzz: Aaron Blake recounted the event in all its chilling detail and then rather sheepishly admitted that nobody in America really gives a damn about how Hillary Clinton treats the press. (A point I made a month ago.) After all, the press is held in only slightly higher esteem by the public than loan sharks and puppy mill operators. The thinly veiled threat underneath all this outrage is that the media will react to being treated badly by giving the candidate bad press, but it’s pretty clear that train left the station a long time ago when it comes to Clinton, so the cost-benefit analysis probably doesn’t argue in favor of the campaign giving a damn either. As it happens, another political reporter wrote a piece about the way the press covers Hillary Clinton yesterday and it was quite a blockbuster confessional. Jonathan Allen of Vox laid it all out: The Clinton rules are driven by reporters’ and editors’ desire to score the ultimate prize in contemporary journalism: the scoop that brings down Hillary Clinton and her family’s political empire. At least in that way, Republicans and the media have a common interest. I understand these dynamics well, having co-written a book that demonstrated how Bill and Hillary Clinton used Hillary’s time at State to build the family political operation and set up for their fourth presidential campaign. That is to say, I’ve done a lot of research about the Clintons’ relationship with the media, and experienced it firsthand. As an author, I felt that I owed it to myself and the reader to report, investigate, and write with the same mix of curiosity, skepticism, rigor, and compassion that I would use with any other subject. I wanted to sell books, of course. But the easier way to do that — proven over time — is to write as though the Clintons are the purest form of evil. The same holds for daily reporting. Want to drive traffic to a website? Write something nasty about a Clinton, particularly Hillary. As a reporter, I get sucked into playing by the Clinton rules. This is what I’ve seen in my colleagues, and in myself. This does not come as a surprise to many observers. It’s been obvious for more than 20 years. But it’s refreshing to see a journalist admit that the dynamic is driven by the media’s Ahab-like obsession with bringing down Hillary Clinton — and that this means they have a common interest with Republicans. It’s not ideological, it’s professional. Allen goes on to list the unofficial rules for covering the Clintons and elaborates on each one. (There are, by his reckoning, five.) He notes that the media must always assume that the Clintons are acting in bad faith until proven otherwise, that everything is newsworthy (even things that really are nobody’s business) because the Clintons are like America’s royal family, and because everything Hillary Clinton does is, so the thinking goes, “fake and calculated.” These assumptions distort political coverage in a dozen different ways. But it’s two rules in particular which should be of very serious concern to the public. The first is, “everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy,’ and mainstream media outlets.” Allen notes that the Clintons have been investigated for 25 years and have probably revealed more about their lives, some of it intensely personal, than any other people in American public life. This has made them protective of their privacy and, perhaps perversely, fatalistic about the media’s hostility. But he also notes something that we should acknowledge is a big problem for our politics: This is, for Republicans, a reasonable strategy. They know that if they keep investigating her, it will do two things: keep the media writing about scandals that might knock her out, and turn off voters who don’t want a return to the bloodsport politics of the 1990s. They leak partial stories to reporters hungry for that one great scoop that will give them the biggest political scalp of them all. He points out that the Republicans are never able to deliver, which often plays into Clinton’s hands, but that’s hardly a justification for the media’s behavior. There is nothing new about this arrangement. This was exactly what happened back in the 1990s. It’s embarrassing for the press that so many of their ranks are either unaware of this history, don’t care about it, or are taking up the challenge to harpoon that big fish without having the slightest compunction about being used by political operatives for partisan purposes. It’s tragic for our country that after the ridiculous spectacle of impeachment, a stolen election, the war in Iraq, and an epic economic meltdown that our political media is still this shallow. That they are willing to enable this three-ring circus that calls itself today’s Republican Party in order to gain power is frightening. Allen’s other point is: “Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.” That correlates to another Clinton rule, which is the “Where there’s smoke there’s fire” tactic. The idea is for there to be so many accusations floating around that a reasonable person must conclude that there’s something to it, even if nothing has been proven. That, after all, is what Benghazi is all about. Allen writes: Terrorists killed four Americans. The conservative echo chamber seems convinced Hillary Clinton is at fault. The reasonable argument to make is that we shouldn’t have been in Libya in the first place and the murders were a down-the-chain result of bad policy. But the right wing wants to prove that they happened because of Clinton’s actions — or inaction — on security matters. They’ve talked about security requests denied for Libya (never mind that the stronger contingent would have been in Tripoli, not Benghazi, and that there’s no evidence Clinton herself was aware of the requests), a stand-down order that prevented reinforcements from arriving in Benghazi (never mind that they wouldn’t have gotten there until after the fighting was done, and that even a House Republican committee found that there was no such order) and, most of absurd of all, that Clinton knew the attack was coming. This is how Limbaugh put it in May. “The fact is they knew about the Benghazi attack 10 days before it was to happen. They knew who did it.” The freedom of the conservative media to make wild allegations often acts as a bulldozer forcing reporters to check into the charges and, in doing so, repeat them. By the time they’ve been debunked, they’re part of the American public’s collective consciousness. Or, as it’s been said, a lie gets around the world before the truth gets out of bed. There’s more to this, however, and it goes hand in hand with the previous rule. These investigations are little more than fishing expeditions in which Republicans demand more and more information and then selectively leak juicy bits to the press for partisan purposes. Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi select committee has descended into farce already, but that hasn’t stopped the New York Times from breathlessly reporting it like it’s Watergate. But it’s not just The Times, although they’ve been among the worst. Eric Wemple of the Washington Post reported that Representative Elijah Cummings came out swinging at Politico yesterday for running with leaked Clinton emails which they didn’t actually see, based on intel from unidentified “sources.” The selectively presented, and allegedly undisclosed, emails gave the appearance that Clinton was working hand-in-glove with adviser Sidney Blumenthal to circulate Benghazi talking points from the Media Matters, where Blumenthal was then on payroll, inside the White House — an insinuation used by Clinton detractors to suggest some sort of Benghazi coverup. However, as the Washington Post explains: But as Cummings notes in his letter, it didn’t go down like that. The [Hillary Clinton email cited by Politico] actually attaches to a different e-mail correspondence between Clinton and Blumenthal, from a week before Blumenthal’s boast about those Benghazi links. As documents released by the State Department last week show, Clinton was actually intent on sending to the White House a Salon article claiming that the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was planning a brand-new line of attack based on Benghazi. Cummings rips away, “It appears that this source fed Politico an inaccurate characterization of these emails and that Politico accepted this mischaracterization without obtaining the emails themselves. The source apparently took an email that was produced to the Select Committee in February, isolated Secretary Clinton’s statement about the White House, removed it from the original email exchange about the presidential debates, and then added it to a different email exchange involving Media Matters.” Another point: The Politico story cites a source as saying that the e-mail wasn’t among those turned over by the State Department. Cummings writes that State had passed it along in February. Politico later issued a correction (which was clear as mud and clarified nothing). Cummings is going to have his hands full trying to sort out these leaks. It’s a dirty job, but apparently he’s decided that somebody has to do it, so that somebody will be him. It remains to be seen if his work to correct the record of this Benghazi committee will have any effect. And who knows if Jonathan Allen’s piece will be taken seriously by his fellow political reporters. It’s clear they are using Clinton’s lack of “accessibility” as a lame excuse for their sophomoric behavior, but it shouldn’t take one of their own writing a Vox explainer on “the Clinton rules” for them to understand that they are being willing dupes for Republican partisans who are laughing behind their backs at their credulousness. Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to be handled with kid gloves. The presidency is a tough job. But neither does she deserve to be held to a different standard than anyone else or subject to a set of rules that are based upon lazy, false assumptions fed by partisans with an agenda they aren’t even trying to hide. The fact that the press is falling so comfortably into that old groove is a testament to the fact that nobody ever paid a price for what they did the first time. *Stop the bed-wetting: Hillary Clinton's doing fine <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/opinions/pfeiffer-bedwetting-over-hillary-clinton/index.html> // CNN // Dan Pfeiffer – July 7, 2015 * It's officially bed-wetting season in the political world when it comes to Hillary Clinton's campaign. With stories this week in Politico and The New York Times about the newly competitive Democratic primary, the whispers have begun about whether this is 2008 all over again. Back then, Clinton was defeated by Obama, an insurgent, progressive outsider. Bed-wetting is a term of art in Obamaland. In 2008, Obama's then campaign manager David Plouffe made it famous in a New York Times article; it refers to the premature panic among pundits and party stalwarts alike during trying political times. While bed-wetting is not an affliction exclusive to a party, Democrats do seem to have a special affinity for it. With Vermont Sen. (and presidential candidate) Bernie Sanders raising millions, exciting progressives, drawing crowds and surging in the polls, it's suddenly the Summer of Sanders. Cue the second-guessing and the handwringing over Clinton and her campaign strategy. But while Clinton's campaign to date hasn't been perfect, she is doing exactly what she needs to do to ensure that she is the Democratic nominee and the 45th President of the United States. A little perspective: First, despite Sanders' very impressive fundraising, Clinton outraised him by about $30 million. In the second quarter of 2007, Obama actually outraised Clinton. Sanders has surged in the polls, impressively consolidating the anti-Clinton vote, but the latest polls have him down 40 points nationally and 19 points in Iowa. While Clinton had huge leads in national polls at this point in 2007, Obama was always in striking distance in the early states. This cycle, the party is much more united around Clinton; in 2008, some of the best fundraisers and strategists were looking for an alternative and found one in Obama. Second, Sanders is a wonderful senator and a very important voice in the Democratic Party, but he is not Barack Obama. President Obama is a once-in-a-generation political talent -- a phenomenal speechmaker and "retail politician" who is quick on his feet and possesses the ability to see around corners. Obama also had natural inroads into two critical constituencies within the party: white college educated progressives and the African-American community, giving him broader appeal than any previous insurgent candidate. Finally, Hillary Clinton circa 2015 is not Hillary Clinton circa 2008. Her first campaign was beset by timidity, dissension and constant changes in strategy in reaction to the D.C conventional wisdom du jour. In Obama headquarters, we would shake our heads in bemusement at some of her campaign's decisions as we realized it was either using an outdated playbook or no playbook at all. Her campaign this time has been disciplined, cohesive and bold. Sure there are tactical things they could have done differently, but they have a smart strategy and are executing it with a precision that reminds me of our campaign in 2008. One of her biggest mistakes her 2008 campaign made was treating field organization as an afterthought. Our field organizers and volunteers were the heart of Obama's 2008 campaign; they were its most valued asset, were given speaking slots at campaign rallies and developed relationships with the candidate. At her recent campaign rally in New Hampshire, one of Clinton's field organizers addressed the crowd. Reporters took mild notice, but on the various text chains, email threads and social media feeds that constitute the informal Obama alumni network, this was taken as a sign that this Hillary Campaign gets it. There is a long road to travel before the Iowa caucuses with many potential pitfalls and a lot of work ahead for Clinton. Sanders is running a great race and the Democratic Party (and Clinton) are better for it. Clinton is not inevitable, and a Sanders win is far from impossible. However, it's worth remembering with that with all of the Clinton campaign's mistakes and Obama's talents and advantages in 2008, we barely beat her. This time around, the environment is better and she is a better candidate, running a much better campaign against a less well-known opponent with fewer resources and a narrower coalition. For all the contretemps about emails, speeches and roped-off reporters, elections are about fundamentals and the fundamentals point to a decisive if hard fought victory for Clinton. A lot can change in the coming months, but at this point in the race, everyone should stop all the bed-wetting. *Donald Trump's Latino comments are just GOP orthodoxy in a cruder shell <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/07/donald-trump-mexico-immigration-republican-politics> // The Guardian // Jeb Lund – July 7, 2015 * alling Donald Trump an idiot is not one of those things you will find on a list of the world’s most arduous tasks. But if you looked to the current field of viable Republican presidential candidates, you’d think it amounted to an impossibility on par with finding an error in the Bible. A party that desperately needs to win more Latino votes in the 2016 election evidently considers condemning Trump’s depiction of Latin American immigrants as rapists and fiends something worth half-heartedly getting around to eventually. “When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) send its people, they’re not sending their best,” he said last month, when announcing his candidacy. “They’re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They’re not sending you (pointing again). They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume are good people!” A dozen heroic culture warriors ordinarily wouldn’t take weeks to call out this sort of vitriol, especially coming from a TV personality who’s spent 10 years sounding as tough as a cabbie who talks your ear off about the bar fight he broke up between “three different guys who knew karate.” But there’s an explanation for that lack of courage. You can’t castigate Donald Trump for acting like a stereotyping, fear-mongering bully when he’s just following your lead. The best you can do is accuse him of being loutish while doing it. Here are some examples of this responsive leadership in action: Rand Paul, 17 days later: “I don’t know what he’s been saying, but uh, he apparently is drawing a lot of attention.” He apparently chuckled when saying this, so the thing he didn’t know about was funny. Also, I suppose we should hope that “I didn’t hear the thing you just said” works as well in the White House as it does as an excuse to avoid doing the dishes by pretending that you’re unaware your spouse just asked you to. Bobby Jindal, 19 days later: “I don’t view people as members of ethnic groups or economic groups. This president has done too much to divide us, so obviously I disagree with [Trump’s] comments. I think we need to look at people as individuals.” Disagreed how? Also, Jindal’s reply here is from the Baby’s First Libertarian Argument Handbook, e.g. Racism and classism are forms of collectivism, which is a form of leftism, which is why leftists like Obama are the ones who create racism and class warfare. Chris Christie, 20 days later: Trump’s comments were wrong and “inappropriate,” and “[I] won 51% of the Hispanic vote.” Points for Christie, but after about 10 seconds on Trump, he immediately pivoted from Trump to call out Ted Cruz for being hypocritical about criticizing other Republicans. There’s no indication how or why Trump is wrong or why Christie appeals to Latinos; instead, the next five minutes of the interview address Cruz, entitlement reform and tone-policing of Trump. Speaking of which: Rick Santorum, 19 days later: “While I don’t like the verbiage he’s used, I like the fact that he is focused on a very important issue for American workers and particularly, legal immigrants in this country.” Misuse of verbiage aside, this ducks the substance of Trump’s comments, which weren’t about American workers but about Mexican “felons” streaming over the border. Instead, Santorum implies that what Trump said was wrong because of how he said it, which probably isn’t surprising coming from someone who, on the 2012 campaign trail, addressed “entitlements” with, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” To be fair, some Republican candidates did condemn Trump. Former New York Governor George Pataki emphatically criticized The Donald, but that’s the sort of thing you can do when you’re polling about as well as write-in votes for Captain Kirk. Lindsey Graham, who is running for Secretary of Defense in someone else’s administration, was likewise free to say something realistic. Even a few viable candidates reluctantly stood up as slowly and vaguely as possible. Rick Perry, 19 days later: “I will stand up and say that those [comments] are offensive, which they were.” Again, Perry eventually tone-polices Trump, but what that means is anyone’s guess. This is the same guy whose concerns about the appearance of offensiveness to minorities was low enough to see him vacation at N*****rhead Ranch. This is also the same guy who, in August 2014, told CNN’s Candy Crowley, “Since September of ’08, we have seen 203,000 individuals who have illegally come into the United States, into Texas, booked into Texas county jails. And, Candy, these individuals are responsible for over 3,000 homicides and almost 8,000 sexual assaults.” Which is a bunch of BS. Jeb Bush, 14 days later: Bush said that Trump does “not represent the values of the Republican Party,” in Spanish. In English, he said, “I don’t agree with him. I think he’s wrong.” Which, hey, fair play to Bush. Four days later, he added that he “absolutely” took personal offense to Trump’s comments, in light of his own family. Bush’s wife, Columba, is Mexican. One wonders, though, if Bush forgot about that for two weeks. Marco Rubio, 17 days later: “Trump’s comments are not just offensive and inaccurate, but also divisive,” the candidate said, before immediately laying racial problems at Obama’s feet and reassuring the base about his own policies. “Our next president needs to be someone who brings Americans together – not someone who continues to divide. Our broken immigration system is something that needs to be solved, and comments like this move us further from – not closer to – a solution. We need leaders who offer serious solutions to secure our border and fix our broken immigration system.” Those serious solutions amount to “securing the border” in the same vague but absolutist way that Trump would, in addition to imposing immigration standards that would not have applied to either of his parents. In effect, what Donald Trump said about the border and immigration was wrong because he labeled immigrants as felons, rather than wanting to lock them out on general principle. But if you want to take the temperature of the Republican response to Trump, look to Ted Cruz, who in his grandstanding way can’t help but give away the game. Fifteen days after Trump’s comments, Cruz defended Trump against the loss of relationship with NBC, stating, “I think he speaks the truth, and I think NBC is engaging in political correctness that is silly and that is wrong.” Days later, on NBC, Cruz added, “I salute Donald Trump for focusing on the need to address illegal immigration. …The Washington cartel supports amnesty, and I think amnesty’s wrong.” Brand recognize Brand, and Cruz is happy to cross-promote one as insubstantial as his. As my colleague Simon Maloy points out, it’s good long-term strategy. Whenever Trump fizzles out or realizes that campaigning is work, his voters have to go somewhere, and Ted Cruz wants them to have a home. And Trump is currently polling second in Iowa and New Hampshire. Ted Cruz’s interest in those voters is no different than any other candidate’s. But, like Homer Simpson, he keeps accidentally saying the innocuous things in his head and the Republican inner monologue out loud. Look back at that list. Rand Paul ducked the question, while everyone else avoided it or criticized Trump for the way he said things, not for having bad ideas about immigration. The most principled statements come from dead-enders, wafflers or hypocrites. Jeb Bush’s objection showed up two weeks late and came out of the mouth of a guy who spent a career being fairly positive about immigration before doing a 180 back in 2012 to appeal to hardline Tea Partiers and is now trying to walk that back. Rick Perry is basically Trump with better hair and focus. And Marco Rubio’s immigration policy probably differs from Trump’s only by one gaudy border fence. The party has run so long on nativist anxiety about foreigners plundering lady liberty, stealing jobs and slowly strangling the republic to death that the next step is just calling immigrants rapists, thieves and murderers. And thanks to years of purity testing in Republican primaries, after trying to ignore the issue for weeks, the remaining candidates have only two options left: try to join or outflank Trump to the right or try to non-ignore ignore him by writing him off as “inappropriate.” The rest of the world can just call Trump an idiot, a man with few ambitions outside of being Trumpy, whose remaining strands of what one might call policy are wisps of spun sugar extruded by hot air, reminding everyone of the tacky coif that sits atop his blanched Smithfield Ham of a face. The Republican Party can’t even luxuriate in ad hominem. Yeah, they could call him an empty suit and a bozo, but that stops working the moment anyone notices that he sounds like a slightly loaded version of themselves. *Why Hillary Clinton Is Revising Expectations Downward <https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/07/07/hillary-clinton-inevitable-nominee-no-more/> // Commentary Magazine // Noah Rothman – July 7, 2015 * “I’m baaaack!” former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced as she took the stage in Iowa at former Senator Tom Harkin’s annual steak fry event in September of last year. Presidential campaigns are replete with bizarre moments, but perhaps none were as curious as Clinton implicitly comparing herself to the poltergeist that torments little Carol Anne in the classic flick of the same name. For a campaign that is itself haunted by the ghosts of failure, it would have been in the best interests of the inevitable Democratic nominee to make the case for candidacy beyond her own prohibitive stature within her Party. If that pillar were to collapse, Clinton’s viability as Barack Obama’s successor would soon follow. Today, as the specter of a modestly competitive Democratic primary looms, Clinton’s campaign is at work setting back expectations for how well she will perform in the early primary states and, in doing so, is chipping away at the central pillar holding her candidacy aloft. In an appearance on MSNBC on Monday, Clinton campaign communications director and former White House communications official Jennifer Palmieri conceded that the former secretary’s campaign had become formally “worried” about the insurgent challenge to her inevitability mounted by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. “He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don’t think that will diminish,” Palmieri confessed. When the New York Times investigated the thinking inside the Clinton campaign, reporters discovered that there was emerging consensus that the coronation had been abruptly called off. “I think we underestimated that Sanders would quickly attract so many Democrats in Iowa who weren’t likely to support Hillary,” an unnamed advisor told the Times. Apparently, that fear was confirmed by other similarly well-placed sources. Ultimately, the Times report suggested what former Democratic advisor Joe Trippi contended outright: “She could lose Iowa.” Clinton’s support has ebbed in recent weeks, particularly in Iowa among likely Democratic caucus-goers. The most recent Quinnipiac survey of Democrats in the Hawkeye State showed Sanders support had more than doubled since May to 33 percent while Clinton’s had ebbed some from 60 to 53 percent. In a caucus state, in which energy and enthusiasm are the central elements of victory, the candidate with the most animated supporters can engineer an upset – as Clinton, who came in third in Iowa in 2008 behind Barack Obama and John Edwards, would attest. And if Clinton’s support is ebbing, she only has herself to blame. Clinton’s campaign has not substantially adapted to changing political circumstances in almost a year. “[H]er remarks were neither exceptional in what she said nor particularly passionate in how she delivered them,” Washington Post columnist Dan Balz wrote after digesting Clinton’s steak fry performance. “They were safe and largely predictable, a kind of Democratic Message 101 heading into the most important stretch of the fall campaign.” But the midterm campaign came and went and Clinton’s tactics failed to evolve. Her campaign remains safe and predictable; she projects the air of a candidate who is allergic to unscripted events and substantial contact with unscreened voters. Clinton’s aversion to exposing herself to press scrutiny neared cartoonish levels when she was photographed perambulating down a New Hampshire street amid a Fourth of July parade with the media gaggle almost literally in tow, straining at the ropes that held them at a safe distance from the lofty figure in their midst. So why would Clinton’s campaign want to shed her formerly cultivated air of inevitability? Even Trippi concedes that Clinton would merely shrug off an unthinkable loss in Iowa and go on to win the nomination anyway. Why would the campaign that has spent so much energy and capital to stave off a reprise of what she described in her memoirs as an “excruciating” defeat in the Hawkeye State embrace the prospect that history might repeat itself? Perhaps because Sanders is the best challenger that Clinton could have hoped for. A fringe politician with a small but fanatical following who once held radical and deeply impolitic social views poses about as much challenge to Clinton as former Texas Rep. Ron Paul posed to Mitt Romney. Clinton is in no danger of losing her party’s nomination to Sanders in the same way she would, say, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. But if Clinton appears soft in a primary and, ultimately, beatable in a general, those beads of sweat dotting the brows of Democratic Party elders will soon grow into a cascading torrent. Draft efforts that failed to draw Warren, or any other credible Democrat, into the race will be resurrected. Democratic careerists who dared not challenge their party’s anointed heir will think twice about whether they made the right move, and a late entry into the race might spark a stampede among skittish and unenthusiastic grassroots Clinton supporters. It is in Clinton’s interests to cast Sanders as the best that the anti-Clinton elements in her party can do. Is Hillary Clinton truly vulnerable in Iowa? Perhaps. A narrow loss is easy to envision. Might Sanders rob her of her party’s nomination? That’s far harder to imagine; at least, harder than it would be to see another credible Democrat with broader appeal and proper left-wing bona fides pulling off a successful coup. That’s probably the true nightmare scenario that Clinton hopes to stave off by feigning injury. *TOP NEWS* *DOMESTIC* *‘Complicated’ Support for Confederate Flag in White South <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/us/a-georgia-county-where-the-rebel-flag-is-still-revered.html?ref=us&_r=0> // NYT // Richard Fausset – July 7, 2015 * Brandon Heath, Haralson County’s chief magistrate judge, flies the Confederate battle flag on his property. A version of it adorns the front bumper of his cherry-red Chevrolet pickup. It is painted on the wall of the gymnasium of his alma mater, Haralson County High School, where the sports teams are called the Rebels and Rebelettes. Like a number of people in this rural, working-class county — which is 92 percent white and just beyond the creep of Atlanta’s western suburbs — Mr. Heath believes that efforts to remove the flag from public spaces across the South are “plumb ridiculous.” And he insists that his reverence for the banner has nothing to do with race. “It’s just about where we come from, and locally here, we’re just real proud of that,” said Mr. Heath, 35, an auctioneer who, when not in court, favors camouflage ball caps and speaks with an unhurried country twang. “It’s all about your school, and your upraising, and who you are.” Support for the Confederate flag may be waning among Southern lawmakers in the aftermath of the church shootings in Charleston, S.C. But here in this county of 29,000 people, as in many other stretches of the white, working-class South, the flag remains a revered symbol, not only of the Confederate dead, but of a unique regional identity. At the Georgia Peach Oyster Bar, President Obama’s campaign poster, altered to say “Nope,” combined with a Confederate flag. Credit Kevin Liles for The New York Times In Haralson County, a ragged patch of low hills and homesteads at the southern tip of Appalachia, it can seem like the battle flag is baked into the culture. One finds it displayed on the welcome sign in Buchanan, the county seat, as part of the seal of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, alongside that of the Lions Club. And while support for the flag is widespread here, its supporters, and their justifications, vary drastically: There are overt racists and avowed antiracists; students of history and those who seem oblivious to it; ardent defenders of the Lost Cause and others who do not understand why the blue-spangled X on a red field — as ubiquitous here as deer stands, church steeples and biscuits with gravy — can be so controversial. “I just don’t get why people are getting all mad about it,” said Corey Doyle, 19. Mr. Doyle, who was recently hired as a car salesman, was standing the other day with five other white protesters on a grassy berm outside the local Walmart, whose corporate office decided to pull Confederate merchandise from its shelves after the Charleston massacre. The protesters waved the battle flag and an old version of the Georgia state flag. That state flag, which prominently incorporated the battle flag’s design, was introduced in 1956 by an arch-segregationist state Legislature as courts were ordering the South to integrate. It was replaced in 2001 by lawmakers more sensitive to Georgia’s image to outsiders. Passing cars and trucks honked in solidarity as they turned into the parking lot. Earnest Fryer, 28, an ice cream truck driver, was waving the old state flag. Asked about its segregationist origins, he drew a blank. To him, it was the flag that his father had given him, and one that had long adorned the wall of his room, he said. Like Mr. Heath and Mr. Doyle, Mr. Fryer insisted that his stand on the flag had nothing to do with matters of race. “We don’t want to offend nobody,” Mr. Fryer said, noting that he was part Cherokee. Later, he said slavery was the “one thing that makes all the rest of my heritage look bad.” “But there’s a lot more about us than that one thing,” he added. And yet that one thing still looms disturbingly large. At Kimball’s General Store, a popular meeting place here, a man who declined to give his name blamed blacks for the new assault on the flag, and muttered a racial slur. Near Mr. Heath’s office at the county courthouse, a pickup parked beside a weatherworn house sported a pair of Confederate flags, and a window sticker that read “American Nazi Party.” Just across the county line, the Georgia Peach Oyster Bar has operated as a scandalous open secret. Its website features two Confederate battle flags, the description, “The Original Klan, Klam & Oyster Bar,” and a stunningly virulent collection of racist signs. Patrons are confronted with a selection of crude cartoons and graffiti, and a menu that declares, on the appetizer page, “We cater to hangins’.” Mr. Heath acknowledged the existence of such sentiments here. But he also noted that this overwhelmingly white place, so committed to the flag, also elected a black man, H. Allen Poole, as the chairman of its Board of Commissioners in 2004, and has re-elected him twice. Last year, voters elected the state’s first Asian-American Superior Court judge, Meng Lim, a Cambodian refugee who grew up in the Haralson County city of Bremen. “It’s complicated,” Mr. Heath said. At Haralson County High School, where the sports teams are called the Rebels and Rebelettes, students once voted by a wide margin to repaint the battle flag at the gym when it was defaced. Credit Kevin Liles for The New York Times For Mr. Heath, the flag helped get him elected in 2008, when he bounced around the county’s rural back roads in his pickup, hunting for votes. The battle flag was affixed to the front bumper. A 12-gauge shotgun was in the gun rack, and an old bloodhound was in the back. It was all part of a package that validated Mr. Heath’s regular-guy credentials and bolstered his argument that the magistrate court would be better run by a self-proclaimed good old boy with a high school diploma than by the lawyer who was the incumbent at the time. Mr. Heath saw it as an appeal to a common culture, not a racial gesture, a way to show voters that he was one of them: conservative, Republican (the county went 81 percent for Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election) and, as he said, “salt of the earth.” On a recent weekday morning, Mr. Heath gave a brief tour of Haralson County, starting with Hutcheson’s Memorial Chapel and Crematory, where he introduced the owner, Danny Hutcheson, the county coroner. Mr. Hutcheson sat in a back room that was decorated with political and historical memorabilia, including a picture of an ancestor who, according to family legend, was robbed of his cattle by Yankee soldiers during the Civil War. He says he does not display the flag for fear of upsetting his black friends and clients. But he defends those who do. A reproduction of the old Georgia flag, which incorporates the Confederate battle flag, on Mr. Heath's truck. “It’s just about where we come from, and locally here, we’re just real proud of that,” he said. Credit Kevin Liles for The New York Times Mr. Heath drove on to the high school where the trophy room of the gym features the battle flag painted on the wall. Such displays have caused trouble here in the past. In September 2000, someone painted over a flag at the gym, and students were allowed to vote on whether to repaint it. Repainting won by a vote to 861 to 150, according to news reports at the time. A group of black football players threatened to boycott a game, but that never materialized. It all seemed perplexing to Cain Jackson, a 22-year-old graduate, who is white. “I don’t see how it’s racist to anybody,” he said. Later, Mr. Heath paid a visit to Mr. Poole, the chairman of the county commission. Mr. Poole, a Republican, said Southern governors were wrong to take the battle flag down. He noted that he, too, had graduated from Haralson County High School in 1974, and had played safety and outside linebacker on the football team. “I was a Rebel,” he said, “for four years.” But not everyone is so comfortable. Angelica Griffin is also an African-American, and also played sports at the high school. She said she was “terrified” to criticize the flag while she was there. Ms. Griffin, 28, recently completed law school at DePaul University in Chicago and is studying for the bar exam. After the Charleston shootings, she said, she posted her displeasure with the flag on social media, sparking debate and pushback from white friends back home. “People were so apt to defend it, without even thinking about other people and how that flag makes them feel,” she said. But Ms. Griffin also spoke about the time, in 2008, when her mother lost her job. White Haralson County neighbors showered her mother with money and gift cards so she could afford to drop her off at college. “You know what? It doesn’t make sense,” Ms. Griffin said. “It’s the great conundrum of the South.” *Air Force jet collides with Cessna over South Carolina, killing two people <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/07/07/military-jet-collides-with-cessna-over-south-carolina/?hpid=z4> // WaPo // Mark Berman – July 7, 2015* Two people were killed Tuesday morning when an Air Force fighter jet and a small civilian plane collided in the air over South Carolina, according to federal authorities. Emergency responders rushed to a region north of Charleston, S.C., shortly after 11 a.m., as word emerged of the rare midair collision that sent debris raining down on the area below. There were two people killed aboard the small plane, a Cessna 150, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. The pilot of the F-16 Fighting Falcon ejected safely, according to a statement from Shaw Air Force Base in Sumter, S.C., where the aircraft originated. Air Force officials later identified the pilot as Maj. Aaron Johnson of the 55th Fighter Squadron at Shaw. After the crash, Johnson was taken to a clinic at Joint Base Charleston to be examined. Johnson was conducting a routine instrument training mission when the crash occurred, Col. Stephen F. Jost, commander of the 20th Fighter Wing at Shaw, said at a news conference on Tuesday afternoon. It did not appear that Johnson had any injuries, Jost said, and the pilot was expected to return to Shaw on Tuesday evening. “I can tell you in my experience, I haven’t had any close calls because the Air Force is very disciplined about how it operates its aircraft,” Jost said. While Jost said that he knows about military planes colliding, he has never seen a military plane crash into a civilian one. “It’s very rare, because of the procedures and the equipment we have in place,” he said. “It’s unfortunate.” A spokesman for Berkeley County said the two planes collided over Lewisfield Plantation in Moncks Corner, a town about 45 minutes north of Charleston. The county government said it was setting up a command center in that town, which is near Lake Moultrie. “From what I understand from a witness, the military plane struck the other, small aircraft broadside,” Bill Salisbury, the Berkeley County coroner and chief of the county’s rescue squad, said at an earlier news conference on Tuesday afternoon. Debris was seen on land as well as in the water, officials said Tuesday. In the hours after the crash, authorities found the F-16’s wreckage and some parts of the Cessna on the ground and the water, but they were still looking for other parts of the Cessna. The Cessna left the Berkeley County airport in Moncks Corner just before 11 a.m. and were likely heading for Myrtle Beach, Salisbury said. He said that a wallet was found after the collision. “We have no reason to believe that anyone survived the crash,” Salisbury said. He declined to identify the people who were on the Cessna, saying only that they were believed to be from the area. Salisbury said that officials were still working to find the two people. “Our thoughts are with the friends and family of anyone aboard the civilian aircraft,” Shaw Air Force Base officials said in the statement. There were no reports of any injuries on the ground or any damage on the ground, a spokesman for Berkeley County said on Tuesday afternoon, about six hours after the crash. “I turned around, and I saw the jet,” Wayne Ware, who lives in the area, told the Post and Courier. “Pieces started falling out of the sky. His engine is lying right there at the campground.” *INTERNATIONAL* *Afghans and Taliban end peace talks with plans to meet again <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/afghans-and-taliban-representatives-meet-in-pakistani-capital/2015/07/07/398462c8-24b1-11e5-b621-b55e495e9b78_story.html> // WaPo // Sudarsan Raghavan & Tim Craig – July 7, 2015* Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that peace talks between representatives of the Taliban and an Afghan government delegation had concluded but would restart after the Islamic holy month of Ramadan ends in two weeks. The talks were held Tuesday night in Murree, a mountain resort 90 minutes north of Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. “The participants exchanged views and ways and means to bring peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan,” the Pakistani statement said. “It was agreed that for lasting peace in the region, each side would approach the process in sincerity and with full commitment.” The two sides met Tuesday in what Afghan officials hoped would be a step toward negotiating a peace deal with the insurgent group and ending the country’s protracted war, Afghan and Pakistani officials said. The gathering near Islamabad, under discussion for several weeks, was not the first time the two sides have met to discuss a cease-fire. Meetings between Taliban representatives and Afghan officials have taken place in recent months in Qatar, China and Norway. At least one dead in Taliban attack on Afghan intelligence agency(0:48) The Taliban on Twitter claimed responsibility Tuesday for two attacks that rocked the Afghan capital that same day. (Reuters) But this meeting carried more significance because of Pakistan’s long-standing ties to the Taliban, as well as Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s efforts to persuade Pakistan to play a significant role in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table. It was the first time such a senior-level Afghan delegation has met face-to-face with Taliban representatives. “We have always had a pretty clear view of what Pakistan can and cannot do in terms of delivering the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table,” a U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss the peace efforts, said in a recent interview. “But we see, at this point, a sustained effort by the Pakistanis to support President Ghani’s effort.” On Tuesday, Ghani’s office announced through its official Twitter account that “a delegation from the High Peace Council of Afghanistan has traveled to Pakistan for negotiations with the Taliban.” The council is a body that includes former Taliban members. It was created in 2010 by then-President Hamid Karzai to negotiate with elements of the Taliban. The delegation also includes Afghanistan’s deputy foreign minister, Hekmat Karzai, a cousin of the former president. According to Pakistani officials, the Taliban sent four delegates representing “all top Taliban leaders.” A second U.S. official said the United States also sent representatives to the talks after being invited by the Afghan and Pakistani governments. The meeting between the two sides took place after the end of the daily Ramadan fast, according to Pakistani officials. The talks continued past midnight. It remains to be seen whether the talks will have any impact on the conflict, now nearing the 14-year mark. Even as meetings have taken place in various countries, the Taliban has mounted fierce offensives across Afghanistan and dispatched suicide bombers to attack government officials and symbols of official power in Kabul and elsewhere. The second U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations, said the fact that legitimate representatives of the Taliban and the Afghan government were meeting was significant. “That means something. . . . But how you get to a process where you start talking about substantive issues is a difficult question,” the official said. Some analysts have suggested that the Taliban’s offensives are an attempt to strengthen its bargaining position ahead of potential peace negotiations. There is also growing concern in the Taliban about the emergence of the Islamic State, which has been wooing Taliban factions to defect and align with its cause. In Nangahar province, the Taliban is engaging in skirmishes with defectors operating under the Islamic State brand who have managed to seize control of several areas of the province. The specter of more fighters joining the Islamic State could prompt the Taliban’s leadership to agree to a political settlement with the government, some analysts say. But there is also the question of which Taliban the Afghan government is negotiating with. The insurgency is far less cohesive today than it was in 1996, when it quickly seized power across Afghanistan. With its supreme leader, Mohammad Omar, not seen in years, many factions have become more independent from the Taliban’s core leadership. It remains unclear whether many Taliban commanders would even accept a peace agreement — or would instead continue fighting or would join the Islamic State. Pakistan is viewed by some as a questionable intermediary. Many Afghans, including powerful political and military figures, remain suspicious of Islamabad and its motives. The Pakistani military and intelligence services have long been viewed in both Afghanistan and Pakistan as the godfathers of the Taliban, nurturing it as a proxy and providing haven to its leadership. Pakistani officials on Tuesday said they are honest brokers. “Pakistan, as a friend of Afghanistan, is trying to facilitate result-oriented talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban,” said a Pakistani security official who spoke on the condition of anonymity under government rules. In a meeting Tuesday with local reporters and political analysts, Ghani said the meeting in Islamabad would focus on “confidence-building and preparing key points in the peace talks agenda,” and would set the stage for future discussions, according to a statement from his office. Ghani said that peace talks would be led by the Afghans, suggesting that the Pakistanis would play a less visible role, and that the government was speaking with the insurgents from a position of strength, the statement said. He also said that women will continue to be part of the peace delegations. “Our goal is reducing the violence level in the initial phase and then end it finally,” Ghani said, according to the statement. *Eurozone Sets Sunday Deadline for Greece Financing Deal <http://www.wsj.com/articles/solution-to-greek-crisis-wont-come-overnight-juncker-warns-1436255691> // WSJ // Gabriele Steinhauser And Matthew Dalton – July 7, 2015 * Eurozone leaders set Greece a Sunday deadline to come up with new and even-tougher economic measures if the country wants to avoid defaulting on the European Central Bank and crashing out of the currency union. As a sweetener for such a deal, leaders raised the possibility of some short-term financing to help Athens make a July 20 payment and—most important for Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras—action down the road to relieve Greece’s crushing debt burden. Obstacles to an agreement that keeps Greece in the eurozone remain high, however. Most notably, the policy overhauls and budget cuts demanded go beyond those that were resoundingly rejected by Greek voters in a referendum last weekend. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said after Tuesday’s emergency summit of eurozone leaders that it is up to Greece to act. “Of course, at the very end, one will have to discuss how debt sustainability can be recreated but not by saying first ‘How do we close the gap?’ but “What can Greece do?’ ” she said. She added that Mario Draghi, the ECB president, made clear to leaders at the summit that Sunday would be “the right moment to take decisions” for Greece to avoid a meltdown of its banking system. Mr. Tsipras said that the negotiation process would be fast. “I believe there will be a solution by the end of the week at the latest,” he said. Leaders said that the broad outlines of such an agreement needed to be nailed down at a new summit on Sunday of the leaders from the entire European Union, including nine countries that aren’t in the eurozone. Without some new cash in the coming weeks, Greece won’t be able to make the €3.5 billion ($3.8 billion) bond payment to the ECB, leading to the country’s second default in less than a month. Such a nonpayment could push the ECB to cut emergency lending to Greek banks—a move that would send the country’s financial system into meltdown and force the government to print its own money to recapitalize them. Greek banks have been shut for more than a week, after the ECB put a limit on the emergency loans they had been drawing to buffer growing deposit outflows. Cash withdrawals from ATMs have been limited to €60 a day and depositors are unable to transfer money abroad. Some short-term funding and the prospect of a longer-term bailout deal from the rest of the eurozone could allow Greece—and the ECB—to let banks reopen and normal economic activity in the country to resume. Getting there, however, would require a formidable turnaround by Mr. Tsipras and his government. In addition to the pension cuts and tax increases, rejected in the referendum, a new rescue package to keep the government afloat for two to three years would require overhaul measures that had dropped out of negotiations in recent months. These, Ms. Merkel said, include changes to labor laws to make it easier to fire workers, changes to product markets and the privatization of state assets. “This isn’t about a program from today, or from yesterday or from 10 days ago, for a program until November…this program is, according to the now-withdrawn Greek request, meant to be two years long, so it is a multiyear program,” Ms. Merkel said. “That such a multiyear program has to entail more commitments is in itself clear,” she added. Only once that is clear, leaders would look at ways to make Greece’s debt sustainable again, Ms. Merkel said, adding that any debt relief wouldn’t include cuts to the nominal value of rescue loans. But talks on details of a final plan could drag on for weeks. “The short-term deal is only possible in a longer-term deal,” French President François Hollande said at his postsummit news conference. “And the short-term deal has conditionality.” A senior French official pushed the idea that Greece could get emergency financing by passing just the budget measures of a potential agreement through the Greek parliament, and passing non-budgetary, more structural changes later. But Germany may not accept that. Emboldened by Sunday’s referendum, Mr. Tsipras came to Brussels to present his eurozone counterparts a proposal for interim financing until the end of the month, a senior Greek government official said. That would give Greece and its creditors time to work out a longer-term financing deal and avoid defaulting on the ECB. Mr. Tsipras was hoping to use the leverage from his referendum victory to win enough of a political nudge from the summit that would allow the ECB to keep its lifeline in place. He raised the idea of interim financing with Ms. Merkel, Mr. Hollande and Jean-Claude Juncker, head of the European Union’s executive Commission, ahead of the summit, the Greek official said. Whether the new reform commitments from Mr. Tsipras were credible, “I can’t say today,” Ms. Merkel said later. At a meeting of finance ministers earlier Tuesday, Greece’s new finance chief, Euclid Tsakalotos, read out proposals the government had presented last week, three European officials said. But the new finance minister’s performance raised some hopes among ministers that things had changed. “The minister Tsakalotos came for the first time in this meeting and he adopted clearly a constructive, moderate listening mode, which I think was appreciated by all the colleagues,” Pierre Moscovici, the EU’s economics commissioner said. The International Monetary Fund, which Greece technically defaulted on last month, has said “comprehensive” debt relief should be included in any further bailout. But divisions still run deep in Europe. Leaders warned Tuesday that failure to strike a deal could catapult Greece outside the common currency. “We have a Grexit scenario prepared in detail,” said Mr. Juncker.