podesta_email_00158.txt

podesta-emails 94,329 words email

P21 D6 V11 P17 P19

-----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 20, 2015* *TODAY’S KEY STORIES..................................................................................... **5* *Hillary Clinton Says No to Granting ‘Fast Track’ Authority on Trade Deal* // NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................................. 5 *Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders dominate on Facebook* // Politico // Hadas Gold – June 19, 2015..... 7 *Inside Hillary Clinton’s Grassroots Campaign* // TIME // Sam Frizell – June 19, 2015............................ 7 *SOCIAL MEDIA................................................................................................ **10* *Martin O’Malley (6/19/15, 3:22 PM)* – It’s time we recognize this is a national crisis. It’s time we say what we’re all thinking: that this is not the America we want to be living in................................................. 10 *Olivia Nuzzi (6/19/15, 12:34 PM)* – Candidates to acknowledge racism behind #CharlestonShooting: Ben Carson, Bernie Sanders, Lindsey Graham, Martin O’Malley................................................................ 10 *ABC News (6/19/15, 4:54 PM)* – White House: Pres. Obama “has said before that he believes the Confederate flag belongs in museums” -@ABCPolitics........................................................................................... 10 *Mike Allen (6/19/15, 8:21 AM)* – Charleston, S.C. (AP) – South Caroline governor tell NBC Charleston church shooter should get the death penalty................................................................................................ 10 *Sam Stein (6/19/15, 10:31 AM)* – Per source, Side Blumenthal faced 3x as many qs on Clinton foundation and Brock empire than Benghazi w/ @srlevine2....................................................................................... 10 *Sarah Kliff (6/19/15, 12:04 PM)* – No matter how you score it, CBO says Obamacare repeal increases the deficit. http://1.usa.gov/1LnEATF................................................................................................................ 10 *Nick Minock (6/19/15, 2:13 PM)* – Mayor Riley, who usually doesn’t side with the death penalty, said he’s open to it in this case #cbsnews #Charleston.............................................................................................. 10 *Matt Katz (6/19/15, 7:42 PM)* – At Christie Family meeting 2 weeks ago, his wife & kids gave him the green light to run for prez, @GovChristie tells Fox News.............................................................................. 10 *HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE............................................................................ **10* *Changing Views on a Female President* // NYT // Lynn Vavreck – June 19, 2015.................................. 10 *Hillary Clinton’s Hampton’s Quandry* // NYT // Amy Chozick – June 19, 2015..................................... 12 *Log On and Hit ‘Like’…Facebook Measures the Candidates* // NYT // Alan Rappeport – June 19, 2015. 17 *Hillary Clinton confidante is confident that release of full Benghazi deposition would absolve him* // WaPo // Colby Itkowitz – June 19, 2015........................................................................................................... 17 *Hillary Clinton’s trade fiasco* // Politico // Ben White – June 19, 2015................................................. 18 *Hillary Clinton fundraising off Treasury putting woman on $10 bill* // Politico // Nick Cass – June 19, 2015........................................................................................................................................................ 19 *Judge reopens FOIA case on Hillary Clinton aide Abedin* // Politico // Josh Gerstein – June 19, 2015... 19 *Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump’s racial rhetoric ‘not acceptable’* // Politico // Adam B. Lerner – June 19, 2015....................................................................................................................................................... 20 *Clinton criticizes predatory lenders during veterans forum* // AP // Michelle Rindels – June 18, 2015.. 22 *Hillary Clinton Is Trouncing Everyone in the Facebook Primary* // Bloomberg // Andrew Feather – June 19, 2015................................................................................................................................................. 22 *Hillary Clinton Wants Woman on $10 Bill But Won’t Say Which One* // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................................ 23 *Lawyer for Clinton Confidant Wants Congress to Release Testimony* // Bloomberg // Billy House – June 19, 2015................................................................................................................................................. 24 *Clinton: Stop For-Profit Colleges From Targeting Veterans* // TIME // Sam Frizell – June 18, 2015....... 25 *Hillary Clinton sees a different California than her husband once did* // LA Times // Kurtis Lee – June 19, 2015........................................................................................................................................................ 26 *Hillary Clinton hitting three $2,700-per-person Westside fundraisers today* // LA Daily News // June 19, 2015........................................................................................................................................................ 27 *Ex-charity exec who helped expose $500G Clinton Foundation donation faces legal threats* // Fox News // Adam Shaw – June 19, 2015.............................................................................................................. 28 *Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Need the Media…Yet* // National Journal // S.V. Date – June 19, 2015............ 30 *The Great 2016 Foreign Policy Gamble* // National Journal // Josh Kraushaar – June 18, 2015............. 32 *EMILY’s List Already Raising Big Bucks for Hillary Clinton* // HuffPo // Paul Blumenthal – June 19, 2015 34 *Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Address* // HuffPo // Bill Moyers and Michael Winship – June 19, 2015.... 35 *Sidney Blumenthal’s Benghazi Testimony Focuses More on Domestic Politics Than The Attack* // HuffPo // Sam Levine and Sam Stein – June 18, 2015........................................................................................ 38 *Voters Generally Support Clinton Voting Push* // Public Policy Polling // - June 20, 2015..................... 40 *Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump’s speech drives Charleston-like violence* // Breitbart // Ben Shapiro – June 19, 2015................................................................................................................................................. 41 *Hillary Clinton alludes to Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric as fuel for hateful acts like the Charleston shooting* // NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph – June 19, 2015............................................................................ 42 *How Hillary Clinton will raise gobs of cash from Wall Street while trashing the industry in public* // Business Insider // Linette Lopez – June 19, 2015............................................................................................ 43 *How Hillary Clinton thanked a pizza place that’s been feeding her campaign* // Business Insider // Hunter Walker – June 19, 2015..................................................................................................................... 44 *Hillary Clinton Talks First Term To H’wood Donors At Tobey Maguire’s House* // Deadline // Dominic Patten – June 20, 2015................................................................................................................................... 45 *Hillary Clinton Woos Young Hollywood Democrats at Fundraisers in L.A.* // Hollywood Reporter // Tina Daunt – June 19, 2015................................................................................................................................. 46 *Harassment Complaints Tripled at State Department Under Clinton, Kerry* // Free Beacon // Joe Schoffstall – June 19, 2015................................................................................................................................... 46 *Clinton to Fundraise at L.A. House of Tax Evading Clinton Foundation Donor* // Free Beacon // Brent Scher – June 19, 2015................................................................................................................................... 47 *Hillary Clinton’s 24-hour fundraising jaunt in Hollywood expected to net $1 million* // Washington Times // Jennifer Harper – June 19, 2015........................................................................................................ 48 *Hillary Clinton stressing support for immigration reform* // AZ Central // Dan Nowicki – June 19, 2015 49 *Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?* // FactCheck.Org // Robert Farley – June 19, 2015........... 53 *A note from Jorge Ramos* // Fusion // Jorge Ramos – June 19, 2015.................................................... 57 *Judicial Watch Statement in Reponse to Federal Court Reopening Lawsuit Seeking Information on Top Clinton Aide Huma Abedin* // Digital Journal // June 19, 2015........................................................... 58 *I’m A Republican Woman & I’m Voting For Hillary* // Refinery 29 // Asma Hasan – June 19, 2015........ 59 *These Women Probably Don’t Fit the Bill: Fans Suggest Hillary, Beyoncé and Taylor for #TheNew10* // People // Tierney Mcafee – June 19, 2015..................................................................................................... 61 *OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE.................................................. **61* *DECLARED........................................................................................................... **61* *O’MALLEY......................................................................................................... **61* *An Angry O’Malley Calls for an Assault Weapons Ban* // NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 19, 2015...... 61 *O’Malley’s Two-Word Response to Charleston Shooting: ‘I’m Pissed’* // Bloomberg // Sydney McNeal – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................................ 63 *O’Malley: ‘I’m pissed’ about gun climate* // CNN // Theodore Schleifer – June 19, 2015........................ 64 *Martin O’Malley is ‘Pissed About Gun Control* // TIME // Sam Frizell – June 19, 2015.......................... 65 *O’Malley says he won’t be deterred from criticizing Clinton* // Baltimore Sun // Michael Dresser – June 19, 2015................................................................................................................................................. 65 *Martin O’Malley Launches Major Post-Charleston Gun Control Push With “I’m Pissed”* // Buzzfeed // Evan McMorris-Santoro – June 19, 2015..................................................................................................... 67 *SANDERS.......................................................................................................... **68* *Bernie Sanders hits the Las Vegas strip, takes aim at billionaire Sheldon Adelson* // WaPo // Philip Rucker – June 19, 2015................................................................................................................................... 68 *Bernie Sanders and immigration? It’s complicated* // Politico // Seung Min Kim – June 19, 2015.......... 69 *Sanders gains with blunt talk of rich vs. poor* // AP // June 19, 2015.................................................... 72 *Bernie Sanders Faces Awkward Issues for His Liberal Allies: Immigration and Guns* // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – June 19, 2015.................................................................................................................... 74 *Clinton, Sanders, Paul top Facebook chatter in key early presidential states* // McClatchy // David Lightman – June 19, 2015................................................................................................................................... 76 *Bernie Sanders Calls for Broader End to Deportations* // TIME // Philip Elliot – June 19, 2015............. 77 *Where Bernie Sanders disappoints liberals* // CNN // Dan Merica – June 19, 2015............................... 79 *Bernie Sanders wants to talk about guns. But not right now.* // CNN // Dan Merica – June 19, 2015..... 81 *Why Sanders is a good fit for Warren Backers* // CNN // Erica Sagrans and Charles Lenchner – June 19, 2015....................................................................................................................................................... 83 *Sanders has favored a lighter touch on gun control than Clinton, O’Malley* // Boston Globe // Anne Linksey and Tracy Jan – June 19, 2015........................................................................................................... 84 *Ready for Warren Sets Up Outlet for Members to Back Bernie Sanders* // National Journal // Eric Garcia – June 19, 2015................................................................................................................................... 87 *Sanders denounces ‘billionaire class’ outside GOP donor’s Vegas casino* // The Hill // Jonathan Easley – June 19, 2015........................................................................................................................................... 88 *Ready for Warren endorses Sanders* // The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 19, 2015.................................. 89 *Bush, Sanders and the long, slow death of the GOP* // The Hill // Bernie Quigley – June 19, 2015........ 89 *Democrats May Keep Bernie Sanders Off New York Primary Ballot* // Gothamist // Emma Whitford – June 18, 2015................................................................................................................................................. 91 *Inside the mind of Bernie Sanders: unbowed, unchanged, and unafraid of a good fight* // Guardian // Paul Lewis – June 19, 2015....................................................................................................................... 92 *CHAFEE.......................................................................................................... **100* *Only Lincoln Chafee Knows Which Woman Should Be on the $10 Bill* // Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – June 19, 2015................................................................................................................................. 100 *UNDECLARED.................................................................................................... **102* *WEBB.............................................................................................................. **102* *Jim Webb to speak to Clinton County Democrats* // Des Moines Register // Jason Noble – June 19, 2015 102 *OTHER............................................................................................................ **102* *‘Ridin’ With Biden’ in 2016, but So Far the Vice President’s Not Aboard* // NYT // Peter Baker – June 19, 2015...................................................................................................................................................... 102 *Chasing Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley Court Teachers Unions // US News and World Report* // Allie Bidwell – June 19, 2015.................................................................................................................................. 104 *What Did O’Malley and Sanders Tell the NEA?* // Ed Week // Alyson Klein – June 18, 2015............... 106 *GOP............................................................................................................... **108* *DECLARED......................................................................................................... **108* *BUSH............................................................................................................... **108* *Voodoo, Jeb! Style* // NYT // Paul Krugman – June 19, 2015............................................................. 108 *Jeb Bush Pledges Debate on Gay Marriage After Court Ruling* // NYT // Jeremy Peters – June 19, 2015 109 *Jeb Bush’s slam against Washington, D.C.* // WaPo // Glenn Kessler – June 19, 2015......................... 110 *Like grandfather, like father, like son: Jeb Bush Jr. joins the campaign fray* // WaPo // Ed O’Keefe – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 113 *Five myths about Jeb Bush* // WaPo // Brian E. Crowley – June 19, 2015........................................... 115 *Jeb Bush Emphasizes Anti-Abortion Record as Florida Governor* // Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – June 19, 2015...................................................................................................................................................... 118 *Jeb Bush Makes Surprise Pick for Political Director* // WSJ // David James – June 19, 2015................ 119 *Jeb Bush might have a big problem on his hands if he wins the White House* // AP // Annie Greene – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 119 *Jeb Sells Catholicism to Evangelicals* // Daily Beast // Betsy Woodruff – June 19, 2015...................... 121 *Jeb Bush demonstates the opposite of economic wonkery* // MSNBC // Steve Benen – June 19, 2015. 123 *Paul Krugman: Jeb Bush’s economic policies could turn the entire country into a failed Kansas-style “experiment”* // Salon // Scott Eric Kaufman – June 19, 2015............................................................ 124 *Jeb Bush’s pathetic Charleston dodge: “I don’t know” if white supremacist suspect was motivated by racism* // Salon // Scott Eric Kaufman – June 19, 2015..................................................................................... 125 *Jeb Bush already a winner – when it comes to campaign logos* // Dallas News // Christy Hoppe – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 125 *Jeb Bush changes tune, calls Charleston shooter ‘racist’* // Tampa Bay Times // Kirby Wilson – June 19, 2015...................................................................................................................................................... 127 *Bush makes his case vs. Walker, Rubio, minus criticism* // Des Moines Register // Jennifer Jacobs – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 127 *As Florida Governor, Jeb Bush Bought Land from Timber Company That Later Paid Him $1 Million* // IB Times // Andrew Perez – June 19, 2015............................................................................................ 130 *Jeb! Bush isn’t sure what motivated the killer who ‘wanted to start a race war’* // Daily Kos // Barbara Morrill...................................................................................................................................................... 133 *RUBIO.............................................................................................................. **134* *Marco Rubio’s supply-side problem: Why anti-tax fanatics have it in for him* // Salon // Simon Maloy – June 19, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 134 *PAUL................................................................................................................ **135* *Rand Paul Names Hedge Fund Chief Mark Zpitznagel as Economic Advisor* // NYT // Alexandra Stevenson – June 19, 2015.................................................................................................................................. 135 *Rand Paul taps hedge-fund manager as senior economic advisor* // Politico // Daniel Strauss – June 19, 2015...................................................................................................................................................... 136 *A New ‘Rand Paul’ Super PAC is Making Paul’s Official Super PAC Nervous* // Bloomberg // David Weigel – June 19, 2015.................................................................................................................................. 137 *Rand Paul Pitches Plan to ‘Blow Up’ Tax Code* // AP // June 19, 2015................................................. 139 *Rand Paul’s First Two Books Are Full Of Fake Founding Fathers Quotes* // Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski and Megan Apper – June 18, 2015.......................................................................................................... 141 *CRUZ................................................................................................................ **144* *Ted Cruz: Democrats using Charleston as ‘excuse’ to take away gun rights* // WaPo // Katie Zezima – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 144 *Cruz commits to ‘full Grassley’ in caucus run* // Des Moines Register // Matthew Patane – June 19, 2015 145 *PERRY............................................................................................................. **147* *Rick Perry calls Charleston church shooting an ‘accident’* // WaPo // Patrick Svitek – June 19, 2015.... 147 *Rick Perry Says Obama Administration Always Overreacts to ‘Accidents’ Like Charleston Shooting* // Think Progress // Kay Steiger – June 19, 2015............................................................................................ 148 *GRAHAM......................................................................................................... **148* *Returning Home to Console, Lindsey Graham Joins the Mourning* // NYT // Ashley Parker – June 19, 2015...................................................................................................................................................... 148 *Lindsey Graham: Confederate Flag Is a “Part of Who We Are”* // Mother Jones // Inae Oh – June 19, 2015 150 *CARSON........................................................................................................... **151* *‘Crazy’ Ben Carson Is The GOP’s Voice of Sanity on Charleston* // Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – June 19, 2015...................................................................................................................................................... 151 *Ben Carson Not for Traditional Marriage* // Real Clear Politics // Rebecca Berg – June 19, 2015.......... 153 *TRUMP............................................................................................................ **155* *Carl Icahn politely declines Trump Cabinet offer //* Politico // Adam B. Lerner – June 19, 2015........... 155 *Carl Icahn Says He’ll Never Be Trump’s Treasury Secretary* // Bloomberg // Ben Brody – June 19, 2015 155 *Trump slams Hillary Clinton, calls her ‘pathetic’* // CNN // Theodore Schleifer – June 19, 2015........... 156 *Donald Trump ‘felt bad’ for bashing Jeb Bush* // CNN // Tom LoBianco – June 19, 2015..................... 156 *Trump campaign responds to Hillary linking him to South Carolina shooting: ‘She must be nervous’* // Breitbart // Alex Swoyer – June 19, 2015.......................................................................................... 157 *Charleston: Hillary Clinton says Trump-like comments can spark race attacks* // Telegraph // Rob Crilly – June 20, 2015................................................................................................................................. 158 *UNDECLARED.................................................................................................... **159* *WALKER......................................................................................................... **159* *Scott Walker unveils new Web site as he stockpiles money for unlikely presidential bid* // WaPo // Matea Gold – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................... 159 *ScottWalker.com goes live* // Politico // Nick Gass – June 19, 2015..................................................... 161 *How Scott Walker dismantled Wisconsin’s environmental legacy* // Salon // Siri Carpenter – June 19, 2015...................................................................................................................................................... 162 *Scott Walker’s Wisconsin job agency gave out $124 million without review* // Chicago Tribune // June 19, 2015...................................................................................................................................................... 166 *CHRISTIE........................................................................................................ **168* *Chris Christie rips Rand Paul on the Patriot Act* // Politico // Daniel Strauss – June 19, 2015.............. 168 *KASICH............................................................................................................ **169* *Operation replace Jeb Bush* // Politico // Alex Isenstadt – June 19, 2015........................................... 169 *OTHER............................................................................................................. **171* *GOP Presidential Candidates: The More the Scarier* // RealClearPolitics // Jonathan Riehl & David B. Frisk - June 20, 2015.................................................................................................................................. 171 *Republican candidates struggle to talk about race, guns* // Politico // Eli Stokols and Daniel Strauss – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 174 *GOPers road-test their religious messages* // Politico // Kyle Cheney, Katie Glueck, and Eli Stokols – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 176 *Top Repulican Candidates Tread Lightly on Gay marriage at Evangelical Summit* // Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur and Josh Eidelson – June 19, 2015................................................................................................... 179 *Post-Charleston, Republicans Urge Prayers But No Action* // Real Clear Politics // Rebecca Berg – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 181 *Wilmore: Santorum, Fox News on Charleston ‘Makes My F**king Head Explode’* // TPM // Brendan James – June 19, 2015.................................................................................................................................. 182 *RNC raised $9.3M in May* // The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 19, 2015................................................ 183 *OTHER 2016 NEWS....................................................................................... **184* *TOP NEWS..................................................................................................... **184* *DOMESTIC.......................................................................................................... **184* *Today in Politics: Charleston Shooting Leads to a Campaign Pause* // NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 19, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 184 *NRA board members blames pastor for Charleston deaths* // Politico // Nick Gass – June 19, 2015..... 184 *McConnell promises Senate vote on late-term abortion bill* // AP // Alan Fram – June 19, 2015.......... 185 *Iowa court allows remote dispensing of abortion pill* // AP // June 19, 2015....................................... 186 *The Left and Right Try to Lobby Pope Francis Months Ahead of U.S. Visit* // Bloomberg // Melinda Henneberger – June 19, 2015.......................................................................................................... 187 *Cashing In* // US News and World Report // Kenneth T. Walsh – June 19, 2015................................. 190 *Iowa Supreme Court: Ban on telemed abortion unconstitutional* // Des Moines Register // Tony Leys – June 19, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 192 *INTERNATIONAL............................................................................................... **194* *Iran Still Aids Terrorism and Bolsters Syria’s President, State Department Finds* // Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt – June 19, 2015................................................................................................................... 194 *OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS................................................................... **197* *The opacity of Hillary’s Clinton’s e-mail* // WaPo // Rick Morris – June 19, 2015................................. 197 *Hillary Clinton is playing the “woman card” too early* // WaPo // Ed Rogers – June 19, 2015............... 197 *Hillary Clinton wants to take us back to yesterday, not the future* // Fox // Cal Thomas – June 18, 2015 198 *ASU suckered by Clinton Foundation* // AZ Central // Laurie Roberts – June 19, 2015....................... 200 *MISCELLANEOUS ADDED BY STAFF............................................................ **201* *Marriage Equality Is Only Step One* // Medium // Gavin Newsom – June 18, 2015............................. 201 *TODAY’S KEY STORIES* *Hillary Clinton Says No to Granting ‘Fast Track’ Authority on Trade Deal <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-says-no-to-granting-fast-track-authority-on-trade-deal/> // NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 19, 2015 * Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would “probably not” vote for fast-track authority for the trade deal that President Obama is seeking, but she acknowledged that she once said positive things about “the potential” for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Mrs. Clinton made the comments in an interview with Jon Ralston, a Nevada journalist, after spending Thursday in the state, which holds early caucuses. Mrs. Clinton, who has not taken a yes-or-no position on the trade deal, which is strongly opposed by labor groups, is in a bind over an agreement she once praised as a potential “gold standard” for trade deals when she was secretary of state. “I said positive things about the process and the potential,” said Mrs. Clinton, who occasionally called Mr. Ralston “Joe” during the interview. “Some people don’t like any trade agreement, and some people are willing to take any trade agreement,” she said. Asked whether she would vote in favor of fast-track authority if she were still in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton replied, “Probably not, because that’s a process vote, and I don’t want to say that’s the same as T.P.P.” Mrs. Clinton has been criticized for not taking a clear position on the issue since becoming a candidate. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, indicated this week that trade deals, on balance, tend to work, a position consistent with his views when he was president. Mrs. Clinton also spoke again about the shooting death of nine people at a black church in South Carolina; a 21-year-old white man, allegedly fueled by racial hatred, is accused of opening fire after sitting through a prayer study. “We have to have a candid national conversation about race and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Unfortunately the public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be.” She then turned her comments to Donald J. Trump, the real estate mogul who, in kicking off his presidential campaign this week, accused Mexico of allowing rapists and other criminals to sneak into the United States. Without naming Mr. Trump, she said that a recent candidate had “said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans — you don’t talk like that” in political campaigns. “I think he is emblematic,” Mrs. Clinton said. But there’s another culprit, she said. “Let’s just cut to the chase – it’s guns. We have to have a better balance,” she said. Mrs. Clinton noted that there was widespread support for background checks for gun buyers, but that Congress had failed to act “in the face of tremendous pressure from the gun lobby.” She said she witnessed it first-hand when her husband fought for the assault weapons ban as president in the 1990s. She did not say whether she would now support such a measure herself. An assault weapons ban is far more politically contentious than background checks. *Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders dominate on Facebook <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-dominate-on-facebook-119207.html> // Politico // Hadas Gold – June 19, 2015 * Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are dominating the Facebook conversations among all the presidential candidates in some of the most important early primary states, data provided by Facebook for the past month shows. From May 13 to June 13, Clinton dominated the conversation in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Sanders came in second in Iowa and New Hampshire, while Rand Paul came in second in South Carolina. In Iowa, Clinton had 66,000 Iowans make 289,000 interactions (which Facebook defines as likes, comments, posts, and shares) about her. Sanders had 30,000 Iowans make 153,000 interactions about him for the same time period. Paul had 24,000 people make 98,000 interactions about him in Iowa during that time period. In New Hampshire during the same time period, Clinton had 32,000 people make 145,000 interactions about her, while Sanders had 23,000 people make 123,000 interactions about him and Paul had 12,000 people make 59,000 interactions about him. Clinton makes the largest mark in South Carolina, far outpacing any other candidates. From May 13 to June 13 she had 104,000 people make 460,000 interactions about her. In second place was Paul, with 34,000 people making 132,000 interactions about him. Ben Carson comes in third, with 24,000 people making 120,000 interactions about him. South Carolina’s own Lindsey Graham comes in fourth, with 43,000 people making 100,000 interactions about him. Martin O’Malley barely registers on Facebook in these early states, making the bottom three in each state, never going above 3,000 people or 5,000 interactions. The data for the early primary states is more or less in line with Facebook data nationwide on the candidates. For example, From June 3 through June 9, Clinton topped Facebook interactions nationwide with 2.1 million people making 5.7 million interaction about her. Sanders followed with 999,000 people making 3 million interactions about him with Rick Perry close behind at 1.1 million people making 2.2 million interactions about him (Perry announced his candidacy on June 4). It’s important to note that this data includes any mentions, both positive and negative, and is current only up until June 13, before one candidate who makes a lot of noise on Facebook hadn’t announced: Donald Trump. Trump, who announced his candidacy on Tuesday, had 3.4 million people on Facebook in the U.S. generate 6.4 million interactions about him in the 24 hours after his announcement, according to data provided by Facebook earlier this week. See the full data sets, courtesy of Facebook, below. *Inside Hillary Clinton’s Grassroots Campaign <http://time.com/3927384/hillary-clinton-grassroots-campaign/?xid=tcoshare> // TIME // Sam Frizell – June 19, 2015 * At first, there was nothing on the screen, just the hum of a distant, crowded room. Then Hillary Clinton appeared, peering out of a television into Liz and Tom Nash’s bedroom on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The former Secretary of State looked into the camera and gazed directly, it seemed, at the sixteen everyday Americans gathered in the Nashes’ apartment. “I wish I could be everywhere,” Clinton said, “but I’m very happy to be right here.” This was the latest technological trick from the Democratic candidate’s campaign: a live videostream that beamed Clinton out of corn country in Iowa and into an elegant bedroom with ninth-floor views of Manhattan rooftops. As part of Clinton’s broader push to build a far-reaching 50-state grassroots campaign, she rallied supporters on Saturday evening via videostream in more than 650 house parties in all 435 congressional districts stretching across the country. The Upper East Side party had gathered in the Nashes’ in a prewar apartment one block from Central Park. Still-life paintings of pears and flowers and photos of the family skiing dotted the rooms. Biographies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson and two copies of Robert Caro’s The Power Broker sat on the bookcases, and a framed print of the American painting by Ammi Phillips of a girl in a red dress holding a cat hung on the dining room wall. During the call, Clinton rallied her supporters in Manhattan and elsewhere to get organized. “I want to ask each and every one of you at all the house parties that are taking place all over our country: please get involved in this campaign,” she said from a living room in Sioux City. “Please go to hillaryclinton.com, sign up to be a volunteer, to knock on doors and to talk to your friends. We have a lot for people to do.” The guests applauded when the broadcast ended after about 10 minutes, and then they headed for the dining room, where guacamole and tortilla chips, San Pellegrino and white wine lay on the table beside three white “Clinton 2016” paper napkins. The group munched and praised the campaign launch on Roosevelt Island that day, where framed by the Manhattan skyline, Clinton had rolled out a lengthy wish list of Democratic proposals before promptly flying to Iowa. “It wasn’t just a good speech. It was from the heart and articulate and hard-hitting,” said Gale Brewer, Manhattan’s borough president, former New York City councilwoman and friend of the hosts. “I think it was a real turning point.” “She’s had a busy day,” Peter Slusser, an older man in a blazer and sneakers said, stretching his legs. “We feel so launched,” launch-day host and Clinton volunteer Liz Nash said, summing up the mood. “The beginning of the rest of my life is looking really good based on this morning’s performance. And yes, I have had one glass of wine, but I love the woman, I really do.” Nash’s party was one of many incubators for Clinton’s new campaign, which plans to build on events like this one to mobilize supporters. The 435-congressional-district simulcast was partly a marketing stunt showing the Clinton juggernaut is ubiquitous and raring to go. But Clinton’s staff also believes that parties like the Nashes’ will eventually convert all those flakey spinach pockets and glasses of white wine into votes and campaign dollars. “It’s events like this, and the more-than-650 others we held around the country that night, that are really the building blocks and the lifeblood of this campaign,” Marlon Marshall, the Clinton campaign’s director of state campaigns and political engagement told TIME. “You don’t build something that big in one fell swoop—you build it state by state, community by community, house party by house party.” Clinton already has staff in all 50 states, as well in Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the territories. In the early primary states, Clinton has nearly 12,000 committed volunteers and 15 offices as part of what will amount to a $100-million primary effort, according to a campaign tally from last week. There’s little immediate value to paying a Clinton staff member for territories like Guam, which has no votes in the Electoral College and a population little bigger than Fargo, North Dakota. But then-Sen. Obama defeated Clinton in the 2008 Guam primary against Hillary Clinton by a margin of just seven votes, and Guam may actually someday be up for grabs. “We take nothing for granted,” campaign manager Robby Mook likes to say. Many people at the Nashes’ apartment on Saturday had helped out on political campaigns before. Gerrie Nussdorf, a retired psychologist from the West Village who wore a baseball cap and T-shirt from the 2008 campaign bearing Clinton’s name, recalled how she had volunteered for in seven states for the candidate eight years ago. She began listing them: “New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Montana—that’s the only one where we lost the primary—” “You had a good record,” Brewer, the Manhattan borough president interjected. Brewer has endorsed Clinton already, as have other New York politicians like congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and city public advocate Letitia James. But Bill de Blasio, the city’s progressive mayor who ran her first Senate campaign, has notably not yet backed Clinton. “I don’t think that matters,” said Brewer of the mayor, sitting in the Nashes’ warmly lit living room. “I don’t know what he’s waiting for. Some comment on inequality, maybe.” Few left the party with firm commitments to organize for Clinton. But they had some rough ideas. Caroline Converse, an Upper East Side resident, canvassed for President Obama in 2012 and plans to pitch in this year, too. Haleigh Collins, a 20-year-old junior at Bowdoin College who saw Clinton speak in Portland, Maine, says she’ll sit in the student union and sign up voters. Liz Nash said she’ll continue volunteering regularly at the Brooklyn campaign headquarters, where she recently met Clinton. The sheer size of Clinton’s campaign infrastructure leaves little room for other candidates to take on talent and even enthusiastic volunteers. Even with Bernie Sanders hiring staff in Iowa and New Hampshire as he gains in the polls, it’s all aboard the Clinton campaign train for most. And Clinton seems happy to include the willing, no matter where they live. “Obviously, Iowa is particularly important because it is the first state, but I think the entire country is important too,” Clinton had said earlier, live from the Hawkeye State. “I don’t want anybody to feel left out.” *SOCIAL MEDIA* *Martin O’Malley (6/19/15, 3:22 PM)* <https://twitter.com/GovernorOMalley/status/611962227365650432>* – It’s time we recognize this is a national crisis. It’s time we say what we’re all thinking: that this is not the America we want to be living in.* *Olivia Nuzzi (6/19/15, 12:34 PM)* <https://twitter.com/Olivianuzzi/status/611919867684487168>* – Candidates to acknowledge racism behind #CharlestonShooting: Ben Carson, Bernie Sanders, Lindsey Graham, Martin O’Malley* *ABC News (6/19/15, 4:54 PM)* <https://twitter.com/ABC/status/611985326609862656/photo/1>* – White House: Pres. Obama “has said before that he believes the Confederate flag belongs in museums” -@ABCPolitics* *Mike Allen (6/19/15, 8:21 AM)* <https://twitter.com/mikeallen/status/611856203858214913?s=03>* – Charleston, S.C. (AP) – South Caroline governor tell NBC Charleston church shooter should get the death penalty.* *Sam Stein (6/19/15, 10:31 AM)* <https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/status/611889035309617152>* – Per source, Side Blumenthal faced 3x as many qs on Clinton foundation and Brock empire than Benghazi w/ @srlevine2* *Sarah Kliff (6/19/15, 12:04 PM)* <https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/611912498393018368>* – No matter how you score it, CBO says Obamacare repeal increases the deficit. * *http://1.usa.gov/1LnEATF* <http://t.co/qDaFT4KU0x> *Nick Minock (6/19/15, 2:13 PM)* <https://twitter.com/NickMinock/status/611944942336897024/photo/1>* – Mayor Riley, who usually doesn’t side with the death penalty, said he’s open to it in this case #cbsnews #Charleston* *Matt Katz (6/19/15, 7:42 PM)* <https://twitter.com/mattkatz00/status/612027637448445952>* – At Christie Family meeting 2 weeks ago, his wife & kids gave him the green light to run for prez, @GovChristie tells Fox News.* *HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE* *Changing Views on a Female President* <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/upshot/changing-views-on-a-female-president.html?abt=0002&abg=1>* // NYT // Lynn Vavreck – June 19, 2015* On Saturday, Hillary Rodham Clinton told thousands of people at a rally on Roosevelt Island in New York City that she wanted the United States to be a place “where a father can tell his daughter yes, you can be anything you want to be, even president of the United States.” It was a line she used in her concession speech in 2008 and one that highlights what could happen if she or, less likely, Carly Fiorina win her party’s nomination and ultimately the presidency. Nearly 100 years after women were given the right to vote, Americans may send their first woman to the Oval Office. The role that female candidates will play in 2016 — and probably in most future presidential campaigns — helps highlight how attitudes have changed over the last 80 years. The changes over the decades can be described in one word: gradual. But the state of opinion today, about the possibility of a female president, demands a different word: accepting. It wasn’t always so. Only two years after the “you’ve come a long way, baby” Virginia Slims ad campaign was this stark reminder from a poll the company commissioned in 1970: Two-thirds of Americans agreed that there wouldn’t be a female president for a “long time” and that it was “just as well.” The marketers at Virginia Slims turned this skepticism about a female president into a print ad showing a campaign button for “Rosemary for President” above the tagline “Someday.” For 40 years the American National Election Study has asked a random sample of adults a question about whether women and men should be equals in the workplace. The question asks: “Some people feel that women should have an equal role with men in running business, industry and government. Others feel that women’s place is in the home. Where would you place yourself … or haven’t you thought much about this?” In 1972, the first year the question was on the survey, 29 percent of the population thought a woman’s place was in the home. Only 47 percent of the population thought women should have an equal role to men at work; another 24 percent placed themselves squarely in the middle or didn’t know what to think about the question. By 1980, 20 percent of Americans thought women should stay at home, and a decade later nearly 15 percent felt this way. The last time the question was asked in 2008, 7 percent of Americans still thought a woman’s place was in the home, 10 percent couldn’t take a side, and 83 percent backed equality and work. Still today, a small portion of the electorate is unsure about whether women and men should have equal roles in government or business — and this has implications for whether a woman can win the Oval Office. Another series of questions from the Gallup Organization sheds light on beliefs about a female president more specifically — and the trends look familiar: very low levels of support for a female president at the start of the 20th century and steady movement toward support into the 21st century. In 1937, Gallup asked approximately 1,500 adults if they would vote for a woman for president if she were qualified “in every other respect.” The wording of the question reveals a lot about the nature of opinions about women in the White House at that time. And there were clear reservations in the responses: 64 percent of Americans said no, they would not vote for a woman for president if she were qualified in “every other” way. Being a woman was a deal-breaker. By 1945, Gallup had changed the question’s wording: “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for president of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” More than half (55 percent) of Americans said they would not vote for that woman. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, support grew slowly, edging just past 50 percent near the end of the 1960s. During the 1970s, people became increasingly comfortable saying they would vote for a qualified woman for president, and by 1978, nearly three-quarters of the population said they would do so if their party gave them that choice. There are obvious differences between saying you would vote for a woman and actually doing so, but the change in responses to this question over time is compelling. In this decade, nearly all Americans (95 percent via the Roper Center) say they would vote for a woman if she were qualified and were a party nominee, and although there are differences by age, education and income, the pace of change on this topic has been roughly the same across all these groups over the decades. There are very few differences based on gender. And nearly everyone in America also believes that men and women should play equal professional roles. When Mrs. Clinton said to supporters on Saturday that she may not be the youngest candidate in the race, but she would be the “youngest woman president in the history of the United States,” she was reminding generations of Americans of a time, not so long ago, when girls only dreamed of striking out on their own, without a man, and independently contributing to the world around them. Most Americans over 40 remember those days. *Hillary Clinton’s Hampton’s Quandry <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/style/hillary-clinton-hamptons-vacation.html?_r=1> // NYT // Amy Chozick – June 19, 2015 * For the past several summers, Bill and Hillary Clinton have done what New York City’s moneyed residents have done for decades: They spent their vacation amid the prime beachside real estate of Long Island. In 2011 and 2012, there was the eight-bedroom, 12,000-square-foot East Hampton rental with a heated pool that the couple took for part of August, the kind of house that typically goes for $200,000 per month, according to local real estate listings. Then, in 2013, they opted for an equally pricey six-bedroom mansion in Sagaponack with a private pathway to the beach. (Mrs. Clinton worked on her memoir, “Hard Choices,” from a sunny office with an ocean view.) Last year, when speculation about Mrs. Clinton’s presidential run reached a fever pitch, the former first couple chose the comparatively lower-key town of Amagansett, just up Montauk Highway from the lobster shacks and fishermen at the end of Long Island. The seven-bedroom bluffside estate with sweeping views of Gardiners Bay, the kind of house in that area that rents for $100,000 for the month of August, was next door to the home of the Clinton friend and donor Harvey Weinstein. In the more than 20 years that the Clintons have been in the public eye, much of that time on one campaign trail or another, the couple’s choice of vacations spots has been well chronicled and exhaustively debated, going back to the first presidential summer, at the moneyed enclave of Martha’s Vineyard. 1993 On his first extended vacation as president, Bill Clinton chose Vail, Colo., where he golfed twice with former President Gerald R. Ford, jogged, entertained friends with a sax rendition of “My Funny Valentine” and attended an outdoor performance of the Bolshoi Ballet Academy. That same summer, the Clinton family also spent time on Martha’s Vineyard, coaxed there by his friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. 1995 Nicknamed the “vacationer in chief,” Mr. Clinton and family chose horseback riding and hiking in Jackson, Wyo. By then the Clintons were a mainstay on Martha’s Vineyard, where they went that fall to attend the wedding of their friends Mary Steenburgen and Ted Danson. 1998 At the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Clinton family retreated to a 12-day vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. “This is a family that has some healing to do,” Mike McCurry, the White House press secretary, said as they boarded Air Force One to the island. 1999 With Hillary Clinton expected to run for the United States Senate in New York, the Clintons spent a weekend in the Hamptons and five days in the low-key Finger Lakes region, in the previously little-known village of in Skaneateles, N.Y. They also returned to Martha’s Vineyard. 2000s The Clintons keep the Vineyard in the mix but also become fixtures in the Hamptons, with Mr. Clinton raising money for his philanthropic foundation there and Mrs. Clinton finding a welcome vacation from her Senate work. During the heated 2008 Democratic presidential primary, Mrs. Clinton found some of her most devoted backers behind the hedges of their Hamptons estates. 2011-12 The Clintons spend two summer vacations in the East Hampton, N.Y., home of the developer Elie Hirschfeld, which they rented for prime late-August days. The oceanfront house has a large heated pool, eight bedrooms and 12,000 square feet of space where the Clintons’ extended family could stay. They did not continue to rent the home after the expenses associated with it ate up the bulk of their security deposit, according to several people with knowledge of the transaction. 2013 With the grueling travel of the State Department behind her and a book to write, Mrs. Clinton and husband relaxed in a rented $11 million house on 3.5 acres of prime real estate in Sagaponack, N.Y., with six bedrooms, four fireplaces, ocean views and a private path to the beach. 2014 Mrs. Clinton stopped at a bookstore in East Hampton to sign copies of her latest memoir, “Hard Choices,” but she chose to vacation slightly farther east in the comparatively laid-back town of Amagansett. But the Clintons’ go-to vacation spot for the last several summers now seems problematic, as Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, delivers a populist economic message that the deck is stacked in favor of the wealthiest Americans and that she plans to “reshuffle the cards.” Thus, it may not be ideal for Mr. and Mrs. Clinton to be photographed mingling at summer cocktail parties with the likes of Jerry Seinfeld, Alec Baldwin, Steven Spielberg and other wealthy Hamptons regulars. The Clintons looked into renting another home in the Hamptons, but they have hesitated to sign a lease, said several real estate agents in the Hamptons, who could discuss the Clintons only on condition of anonymity for fear of jeopardizing their client list. Campaign aides have said Mrs. Clinton will take a vacation in August, but they declined to comment on the specifics of when or where. Whether they rent there or not, the couple are expected to spend much of their vacation on the shores of Long Island, where their circle of New York friends and donors own luxe houses. The Clintons will also spend at least one weekend in their old vacation haunt of Martha’s Vineyard, likely alongside President and Michelle Obama, to celebrate the 80th birthday of their friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. (Mr. Jordan and other friends lured Mr. Clinton to the island in the early years of his presidency, and it quickly trumped his previous leisure spot in Arkansas. A White House spokesman said it was too early to confirm Mr. Obama’s August plans.) Another presidential candidate, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, who on Monday declared that he was seeking the Republican nomination, has already drawn criticism for his summer vacations in Maine. The Boston Globe reported that Mr. Bush is getting his own four-bedroom, 3,000-square-foot cottage on the Bush family oceanside compound in Kennebunkport. Donors who did not want to talk on the record offering Mrs. Clinton unsolicited advice said they hoped she could avoid the inevitable claims of elitism by not renting a Hamptons home again, given the optics of a presidential campaign and the still-sluggish economy. (One donor advised she should at least opt for the less-flashy Sag Harbor.) At the same time, Mrs. Clinton and her allies, under intense pressure to raise money for both her campaign and Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting her bid, will need to woo the country’s wealthiest Democrats this summer, wherever the 0.001 percent happen to be. “There is only going to be one fund-raiser for Hillary in the Hamptons this summer: it starts on Memorial Day and ends on Labor Day,” said Robert Zimmerman, a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton with a home in Southampton. With her kickoff rally in New York last Saturday and a week of campaigning in early nominating states behind her, Mrs. Clinton will dive into a breakneck schedule of fund-raisers across the country. “The fund-raising for Hillary has been easier than other fund-raising, but it’s never easy,” said Jay Jacobs, a Nassau County Democrat and longtime Clinton friend. Many of Mrs. Clinton’s most devoted backers, including the Washington lobbyist Liz Robbins and Alan Patricof, a New York-based investor, have homes in the Hamptons and have hosted fund-raisers for the Clintons’ various charitable and political causes in the past. The hyperkinetic Clintons tend to work on their vacations, squeezing in fund-raisers for the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. In 2013, Mr. Patricof hosted a high-dollar gala at the Topping Rose House in Bridgehampton. Guests included Mortimer B. Zuckerman, the publisher of The Daily News, and the real estate executive Peter S. Kalikow, who each donated $25,000. “Some of us will go into catastrophic withdrawal if we’re not tapped to raise money for one of the Clintons,” said Ken Sunshine, a veteran Democratic activist and public relations executive with a home in Remsenburg. But this year, it’s not so simple. As she mounts a campaign built on lifting the middle class and alleviating the growing gap between rich and poor, Mrs. Clinton has come under criticism for her family’s wealth. Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have earned more than $125 million in paid speech income since leaving the White House in 2001, according to financial disclosures. That level of income “shows how out of touch they’ve truly become,” said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee. The attack appears to have made inroads. A CNN poll released June 2 showed that 47 percent of voters believed Mrs. Clinton “cares about people like you,” down from 53 percent last July. Mrs. Clinton’s allies said the issue was less about perception and more about practicality. The excruciating pace of a presidential campaign, even in its infancy, doesn’t allow for two consecutive weeks of downtime, much less the long walks on the beach and clambakes the Clintons have come to enjoy in previous years. “They probably won’t have the time to spend out there, so why spend the money?” Mr. Patricof said. But it could pay for Mrs. Clinton to have a presence in the Hamptons. Already, some of the women who move to vacation homes for the season and are active in charitable causes have inquired about hosting fund-raisers and luncheons to raise money for Mrs. Clinton, said Alison Brod, a public relations executive and Hamptons hostess. “It’s a time for people to show their allegiance and show off their houses at the same time,” Ms. Brod added. The parties won’t exactly feature the poolside glamour the area is known for. Campaign finance rules dictate that a married couple may spend $2,000 on expenses like cocktails and appetizers. That doesn’t go far in an enclave where a party tent can cost tens of thousands of dollars, not including the band, passed hors d’oeuvres and Veuve Clicquot that go in it. “Let’s face it, none of the people coming to my event on Monday are coming for the coconut shrimp,” Mr. Jacobs said ahead of the June 1 fund-raiser at his family home in Laurel Hollow, N.Y., a Long Island enclave with a very distinct vibe from the Hamptons. “They’re coming to see Hillary.” Republican presidential hopefuls will also find ripe fund-raising ground in the Long Island hamlets, where conservative, deep-pocketed donors will open their wallets, and their beach houses, in droves. In 2012, the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, picked up $3 million in a single weekend in the Hamptons, with back-to-back events at the sprawling East End estates of Ronald O. Perelman, the Revlon chairman; David H. Koch, the billionaire conservative; and Clifford M. Sobel, a donor and ambassador for George W. Bush. (The Obama campaign used the weekend blitz to reinforce its charge that Mr. Romney was out of touch, despite Mr. Obama’s own Hamptons fund-raising.) “There’s such a great amount of wealth here,” said Samantha Yanks, editor in chief of Hamptons Magazine. But, she added, “It’s tricky for politicians to be associated with that for too long.” “It’s a place you come, you visit and fund-raise, but, as a politician, you don’t necessarily want to be living in,” she said. The Clintons’ summer vacation plans have always jelled at the last minute and been wrought with political symbolism. In 1999, when Mrs. Clinton was close to running to be a senator from New York, the Clintons tacked on five days in the Finger Lakes region upstate, in addition to time on Martha’s Vineyard and fund-raising in East Hampton. Indeed, for the last several summers, the Clintons have been a part of the fabric of the Hamptons. Mr. Clinton takes his young niece and nephew for miniature golf and his 9-year-old arthritic chocolate Labrador, Seamus, for walks on the beach. The family dines at Babette’s, a casual French bistro with an outdoor patio, and Almond, the Bridgehampton restaurant partly owned by Jason Weiner, the brother-in-law of Mrs. Clinton’s close aide Huma Abedin. Mr. Clinton celebrated his 67th birthday in the Hamptons at a dinner party that included Paul McCartney and Jimmy Buffett as guests. Some Hamptons-based donors said it was too early to tell whether Mrs. Clinton’s Secret Service detail would become a mainstay on the narrow farm roads near Long Island Sound. “Summer starts after July Fourth,” Mr. Patricof said. *Log On and Hit ‘Like’…Facebook Measures the Candidates <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/19/log-on-and-hit-like-facebook-measures-the-candidates/> // NYT // Alan Rappeport – June 19, 2015 * If elections were won based on Facebook chatter, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Rand Paul would be the front-runners in early primary season states. The social media company has released figures on how the candidates — and presumed candidates — fared in terms of Facebook interactions in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina from mid-May to mid-June. Interactions represent likes, posts, comments and shares about a candidate. Mrs. Clinton is leading all candidates in the three states, and is generating the most interest in South Carolina, where she has 460,000 interactions from 104,000 people. Mr. Sanders, the independent from Vermont running for the Democratic nomination, trails Mrs. Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire, but leads all the other Republicans in those states. Mr. Sanders, a socialist who rails against the influence of corporate money in politics, has an enthusiastic cadre of followers on Facebook and Twitter. Mr. Paul, who has also invested in a sophisticated social media strategy and likes to “troll” his opponents online, comes in third place in Iowa and New Hampshire, after Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders. He is doing even better in South Carolina, where he is in second place. Former Gov. Jeb Bush, of Florida has some ground to make up on the Facebook front. He ranks fourth in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire (following Senator Ted Cruz of Texas) and seventh in South Carolina. The social media dynamics in South Carolina are somewhat different than Iowa and New Hampshire, as Senator Lindsey Graham, who hails from the state, is generating more discussion there and Ben Carson ranks third. Some White House hopefuls such as Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who has yet to declare, have landed in the middle of the pack despite national polls that label them as “top tier” candidates. But social media chatter is no substitute for formal surveys, as interest in a candidate, such as Donald Trump, can overshadow how seriously voters take them as a potential president. *Hillary Clinton confidante is confident that release of full Benghazi deposition would absolve him <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-confidante-is-confident-that-release-of-full-benghazi-deposition-would-absolve-him/> // WaPo // Colby Itkowitz – June 19, 2015 * Details from Tuesday’s Benghazi committee deposition of Hillary Clinton friend Sid Blumenthal have leaked out in bits and pieces, but the full eight-hour exchange remains unavailable to the press and public. Now Blumenthal’s attorney is demanding a transcript of the interrogation be released. “Leaks like these are distorting the truth by mischaracterizing facts and circumstances,” Attorney James Cole wrote Friday in a letter to Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the Republican charged with leading Benghazi investigation. “They are creating an incomplete and unfair narrative about the deposition, Mr. Blumenthal’s knowledge about Libya, and the tragedy that occurred in Benghazi.” The letter, obtained by the Loop from a Democratic committee aide, followed one sent by Democrats on Wednesday also calling for the full transcript be made public to “provide important background and context to his emails.” Blumenthal sent memos to Clinton when she was secretary of state about the security situation in Libya before and after the attacks on the diplomatic compound in September 2012 that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Gowdy has said he plans to make those e-mails public. A Gowdy spokeswoman declined to comment. Democrats on the committee, who have long argued that the Republicans have slow walked the investigation to coincide with Clinton’s run for the White House, say the deposition transcript will show that most of the GOP questions were politically motivated. By their count, Blumenthal’s interactions with Clinton were brought up 160 times. The Clinton Foundation was mentioned more than 50 times. And Blumenthal’s own business interests in Libya were cited more than 270 times. But the Benghazi attacks themselves were only specifically referenced 20 times, the Democrats say. The four people who died, including Stevens, were not mentioned once. We’d love to confirm those stats ourselves. But we don’t have the transcript… *Hillary Clinton’s trade fiasco <http://www.politico.com/morningmoney/> // Politico // Ben White – June 19, 2015 * Hillary Clinton is an absolute mess on trade right now. She was a strong advocate of TPP as Secretary of State and in her pre-campaign book “Hard Choices.” But now says there is stuff in it she doesn’t like. She’s backed Nancy’s Pelosi’s approach, which was to torpedo TAA in order to stop TPA. But without TPA there is no TPP, which Clinton once supported. Many of her comments on the topic lately have made no logical sense whatsoever. This is probably the most bizarre: “The TPA is a process issue. The issue for me is what’s in the deal,” she said this week in New Hampshire. “I think this is a chance to use this leverage so that the deal does become one that more Americans and members of Congress can vote for.” Where to start? TPA is not a process issue. Without it there is no TPP. And what kind of leverage was she talking about? TPA is designed to give the administration leverage to get the best trade terms possible. Blocking it would take that leverage away. Clinton might as well have said: “I can’t anger the left or feed Bernie Sanders’ momentum by backing my former boss on TPA so an advisor told me to dismiss it as a ‘process issue’ so that’s what I’m doing even though it makes no sense and everyone knows it.” The heat is only going to rise if the current legislative gambit to get TPA done works, which it probably will. Which means Obama could finish TPP and send it to Congress. Perhaps Clinton’s need to tack so nakedly and embarrassingly to the left will be over by the time that happens and she can return to her previous support for TPP. But she will not have covered herself in glory (or consistency or trust-worthiness) by the time that happens. *Hillary Clinton fundraising off Treasury putting woman on $10 bill <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-2016-fundraising-woman-10-bill-119227.html> // Politico // Nick Cass – June 19, 2015 * Hillary Clinton’s campaign is fundraising off news this week that the Treasury Department will put a woman on the newly redesigned $10 bill in 2020. “Women are too often erased from our nation’s history — putting a woman on a major piece of currency is a first step toward fixing that,” reads the email that went out to supporters on Friday. “Let’s celebrate this historic event by chipping in $10 to Hillary for America — because we’ve still got barriers left to break.” A spokeswoman for Clinton’s campaign did not elaborate on which woman Clinton would like to see on the new $10 bill, telling Bloomberg Politics that “there’s no doubt they have a long list to choose from.” Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced the change on Wednesday, while also noting that he is considering keeping Alexander Hamilton on some of the bills. *Judge reopens FOIA case on Hillary Clinton aide Abedin <http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/06/judge-reopens-foia-case-on-hillary-clinton-aide-abedin-209186.html> // Politico // Josh Gerstein – June 19, 2015 * Reacting to the disclosure that Hillary Clinton exclusively used a private email account during her tenure as secretary of state, a federal judge agreed Friday to reopen a conservative group's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking details about the employment arrangements of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. However, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan declined — for now — to address claims from Judicial Watch that Clinton's use of the private account and server led State Department officials to commit a fraud on the court by certifying they had turned over all responsive records. "In view of revelations that then-Secretary of State Clinton and members of her staff used personal email accounts to conduct State Department business, and that emails from those accounts may not have been covered by State Department searches for documents responsive to the FOIA request at issue in this case, the plaintiff seeks to reopen this case for further proceedings," Sullivan noted in an order Friday. "The newly discovered information is a changed circumstance regarding the prior judgment in this case--i.e. the stipulated dismissal in 2014." The State Department agreed to reopen the case, but rejected Judicial Watch's claims of fraud. Sullivan said he was re-opening the case under the "changed circumstances" in federal court rules "rather than spilling ink to resolve [the parties'] dispute as to whether Judicial Watch has submitted clear and convincing evidence of fraud by the State Department." The FOIA lawsuit seeks information about Abedin's continued employment at State as a "special government employee" after she stepped down from her role as deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 2012. Critics have said the arrangement, first reported by POLITICO in 2013, courted conflicts of interest because Abedin was also working for the consulting firm, Teneo, at the same time. The State Department inspector general is conducting a review of State's "special government employee" program, according to a letter the IG sent to Senate Judiciary Committee in April. A spokesman for Clinton's presidential campaign had no immediate comment on the development. Clinton publicly acknowledged in March that she solely used a private email account as secretary. In response to a request from the State Department last year, she turned over to her former agency in December about 30,000 emails totaling roughly 55,000 printed pages. She also acknowledged having about 32,000 emails erased after her lawyers determined they were private or personal in nature. Judicial Watch has said it wants relevant information from Clinton's emails, as well as any Abedin or other Clinton aides kept on private accounts. Abedin is known to have maintained an account on the same clintonemail.com domain her boss used. Sullivan is an appointee of President Bill Clinton. *Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump’s racial rhetoric ‘not acceptable’ <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-racist-speak-119210.html#ixzz3dWRyY8gL> // Politico // Adam B. Lerner – June 19, 2015 * Hillary Clinton took a swipe at Donald Trump on Thursday, saying — without mentioning the New York real estate tycoon by name — that his presidential launch speech was offensive to Mexicans and “emblematic” of the kind of rhetoric that cannot be tolerated in the wake of the tragic South Carolina shootings. “We have to have a candid national conversation about race and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred,” Clinton said in an interview with KNPB’s Jon Ralston. “But unfortunately the public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who are less than stable.” “For example,” the former secretary of state added, “a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable. You don’t talk like that on talk radio. You don’t talk like that on the kind of political campaigns.” “You can name him,” Ralston responded, but Clinton refused to use Trump’s name. “I think he is emblematic,” she said. “I want people to understand it’s not about him, it’s about everybody.” “We should not accept it,” Clinton said of hateful speech in national political conversation. “Decent people need to stand up against it.” Trump fired back at Clinton’s remarks on Friday in a post to Instagram. “Wow, it’s pretty pathetic that Hillary Clinton just blamed me for the horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina. This is why politicians are just no good. Our country’s in trouble,” he said. Hillary’s comments referred to a line from Donald Trump’s discursive Tuesday announcement speech, in which he claimed that Mexico is sending criminals to the United States. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump told the audience. “They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.” Other Republican presidential candidates have not yet spoken out against Trump. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina told a conservative radio host that Trump is “endlessly entertaining” and his campaign pitch is “tapping into the frustration of the American people with the professional political class.” Hillary Clinton did not just condemn Trump’s speech — she also reiterated President Obama’s assertion that gun policy should be included in a national discussion of how to combat mass murders. The Democratic 2016 frontrunner called the president’s speech Thursday “very moving” and agreed with his sentiment on the relevance of guns in creating tragedies. “Let’s just cut to the chase: It’s guns,” she said, adding that state and local politicians need to join in a national effort to combat “tremendous lobbying pressure from the gun lobby.” The interview also touched on Clinton’s earlier assertion that whether to grant President Obama fast-track authority on trade “is a process issue,” not a substantive question that requires her to take a position. She has declined to take a firm stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive 12-country trade deal that many Democrats oppose. Clinton told Ralston that, given what she knows now, she would not vote for fast-track authority if she were still in the U.S. Senate without greater aid to workers. “At this point, probably not because it’s a process vote and I don’t want to say it’s the same as TPP,” Clinton said. “Right now I’m focused on making sure we get trade adjustment assistance and I certainly would not vote for it unless I were absolutely confident we would get trade adjustment assistance.” The former secretary of state also sought to explain why she promoted the TPP while serving in the Obama administration, but refuses to take a position on it now. “When [TPP] began to be negotiated I said it holds out the promise to be the gold standard” of trade deals, Clinton said. “I said positive things about the process and the potential.” “If we could get the right kind of agreement that was good for workers, good for wages, good for the environment, labor, safety, health and good for our national security, that would be great for America,” she said. *Clinton criticizes predatory lenders during veterans forum* <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8ed331ac1f58454283942cd66203bb9b/clinton-criticizes-predatory-lenders-during-veterans-forum>* // AP // Michelle Rindels – June 18, 2015* Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday vowed to protect veterans from aggressive for-profit colleges and predatory lenders while preserving the dominance of the U.S. military. The former secretary of state spoke at a historic VFW post in Reno before about 200 people and five panelists from the military community. She said her top priorities as president would include taking care of veterans when they return home. Clinton argued for continuing the post-9/11 G.I. Bill and promised to veto any efforts to pare down its benefits. She said her plan to get veterans into school and the workforce included cracking down on for-profit colleges that can saddle former servicemembers with heavy debts. Her plan called for closing the "90-10 loophole," which prevents colleges from deriving more than 90 percent of their revenue from federal financial aid. The 90 percent cap doesn't count Defense Department grants or VA benefits, which entices for-profit colleges to market to veterans. Clinton also said she supported strengthening the Military Lending Act to prevent payday lenders from victimizing servicemembers. Nevada's caucuses are a key early event in the path to the Democratic nomination, and the state is also expected to be one of a narrow range of swing states in the November 2016 election. Several presidential candidates scheduled campaign appearances in the state this week, including Republican Ben Carson and Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders. *Hillary Clinton Is Trouncing Everyone in the Facebook Primary <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/hillary-clinton-is-trouncing-everyone-in-the-facebook-primary> // Bloomberg // Andrew Feather – June 19, 2015 * It's not even close—Hillary Clinton has been far and away the presidential candidate with the most Facebook buzz. According to data from Facebook collected May 13, 2015 to June 13, 2015, Clinton leads in all of the first three primary states when it comes to likes, posts and views. In fact, she has about twice as many interactions as the second place candidate in both Iowa and New Hampshire and more than four times the online interaction of the closest candidate in South Carolina. The charts below illustrate two metrics: unique people and total interactions. Interactions include likes, posts comments and shares. Unique people measures the number of unique individuals that contributed to the interactions of a given candidate. Senator Bernie Sanders is holding second place with a firm grip, however, with his online outreach excelling in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Sanders' populist message has resonated with younger audiences who tend to spend more time using social media, and on sites like Reddit, where Sanders has an active "subreddit" page. Sanders' strength showed up in Facebook interaction data from both Iowa and New Hampshire, but he sits in fourth place in South Carolina behind two Republicans. Rand Paul holds second place in South Carolina but has only generated about a quarter of the interactions created by the Clinton campaign. Libertarian-leaning candidates have traditionally done well online. One of the most striking examples comes from Paul's father's bid for the White House in 2008. According to the New York Times, independent supporters of Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign raised $4 million online in a single day. Democrats have historically performed better than Republicans online, which helps explain Clinton's dominance and Sanders' strength. The disparity between the parties online was demonstrated by a study published by the Harvard University Institute for Politics. In 2014, researchers at Harvard found that Democrats between the ages of 18 to 29 are more likely to use almost every social media platform than Republicans of the same age group. Moreover, even if the same percentage of Republicans and Democrats in that age group use a given service, there are almost twice as many Democrats as Republicans in that age group, according to a 2014 Gallup Poll. Trump, the missing variable Donald Trump announced his candidacy outside of Facebook's dataset, but the level of online interaction he is generating may reach that of the frontrunners depending on how long his candidacy lasts. According to Facebook, Trump's announcement generated 6.4 million interactions from 3.4 million people. In comparison, Hillary Clinton generated 10.1 million interactions from 4.7 million unique people, and Rand Paul generated 1.9 million interactions from 865,000 unique people. Data on Trump from the early primary and caucus states was not available. *Hillary Clinton Wants Woman on $10 Bill But Won’t Say Which One <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/hillary-clinton-wants-woman-on-10-bill-but-won-t-say-which-one> // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – June 19, 2015 * There's a long list of women who could join Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, Hillary Clinton's campaign said Friday, endorsing the Treasury Department's plans to redesign the currency. “Putting a woman on the $10 bill is a long overdue step toward recognizing the tremendous impact women have had on the history of our country," senior policy advisor Maya Harris said in a statement to Bloomberg. While suggestions for the bill have ranged widely, including many ineligible options like Beyonce and Clinton herself (though some of those came as jokes from the right <https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=%2410%20bill%20hillary>, since the winning woman cannot be a living person), the campaign declined to weigh in on who the candidate might want to see on the bill. "We’re looking forward to seeing which woman is selected by U.S. Department of Treasury – but there’s no doubt that they have a long list to choose from," Harris said. The Treasury Department this week announced plans to modernize the $10 bill. As part of that process, some of the new bills will carry the image of a woman of historic importance, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew announced. Hamilton's image will remain on other $10 bills. It will mark the first time that a feminine face has appeared on paper U.S. currency since the 19th century. *Lawyer for Clinton Confidant Wants Congress to Release Testimony <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/hillary-clinton-wants-woman-on-10-bill-but-won-t-say-which-one> // Bloomberg // Billy House – June 19, 2015 * A lawyer for Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal says House Republicans are leaking pieces of his closed-door testimony before the House committee investigating the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi. James Cole, in a letter dated Friday to the Benghazi panel's chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, requests the immediate release of Blumenthal's full testimony transcript and related emails because, he writes, these selective leaks are "distorting the truth." Blumenthal was called to give a closed-door deposition Tuesday about memos and advice on Libya he sent then-Secretary of State Clinton prior to the attacks on the U.S. facilities in which four Americans were killed. "There have been numerous leaks and about his emails and testimony many of which have given an inaccurate account of what occurred in the deposition," says Cole's letter. The emails refer to nearly 60 messages produced for the committee by Blumenthal regarding Libya and Benghazi. Cole adds that "it is unfair to my client" to let this inaccurate record persist of his testimony, which was given behind closed doors on Tuesday. Cole cites several specific press accounts carrying such "selective details" he says were released by members or staffers of the committee. The list includes one story published by Bloomberg News the day after Blumenthal's testimony. Stories by the National Review, Politico, and Fox News were also cited by Cole. Gowdy and committee Republicans had no comment about the letter, which was released by a spokesman for committee Democrats, Paul Bell. Cole's letter comes as Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi have themselves been calling for release of the complete transcript of closed-door testimony, along with related e-mails. The panel's top Democrat—Elijah Cummings of Maryland—said in a statement earlier Friday the committee has, since Blumenthal's testimony on Tuesday, "become a sieve, with anonymous 'sources' repeatedly leaking selected excerpts of Mr. Blumenthal's emails out of context." Cummings said the transcript reveals exactly how Republicans are spending taxpayer dollars -- investigating Clinton "and her personal relationships rather than the attacks in Benghazi," he said in the statement. "It's time to end this circus," Cummings said. "The Committee should immediately release all of Mr. Blumenthal's emails and his full deposition transcript together." Earlier this week, all five Democrats on the panel said they want Republicans to release publicly the full transcript of the committee's hours-long deposition Tuesday with Blumenthal. In a letter to committee Chairman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina released Wednesday, the Democrats said, “Rather than selectively leaking only certain information about Mr. Blumenthal, the American people deserve the benefit of Mr. Blumenthal's responses to the hundreds of questions that you and other Select Committee Members asked him, including questions about these same emails.” *Clinton: Stop For-Profit Colleges From Targeting Veterans <http://time.com/3927668/hillary-clinton-veterans-college/> // TIME // Sam Frizell – June 18, 2015 * Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday a new plan intended to stop for-profit colleges from fleecing veterans who use federal G.I. Bill funds to attend school. Speaking before a roundtable with veterans in Reno, Nevada, Clinton focused her remarks on the so-called 90-10 rule. The rule requires for-profit colleges to accept at least 10% of their money from private dollars rather than federal financial aid and loans, with the idea of holding the schools more accountable to the open market. But an unintended loophole in the 90-10 rule means that federal military benefits like the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill can count toward schools’ 10%. That leads for-profit schools to aggressively target veterans in search of federal dollars, often deceptively. Proponents of a new bill say that veterans at many for-profit schools have high dropout rates and leave badly in debt. Clinton would plan to close the loophole. It’s hardly a sweeping vision for the country of the tenor that Clinton laid out in her campaign launch speech on Saturday. But in the coming months, advisers say Clinton will continue to roll out policy proposals at the rate of about one per week. Two bills similar to Clinton’s proposal introduced in the House and Senate have foundered without gaining much momentum. Clinton also said on Thursday she would plan as President to address predatory lending to veterans, healthcare and expanding job options after service. She sang the praises of bipartisan compromise, too. “In a democracy, nobody has all the answers,” Clinton said. “You have to get up everyday and say, ‘I’m willing to work for anyone whose willing to work for the good of America and in particular the good of our veterans.'” *Hillary Clinton sees a different California than her husband once did <http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-clintons-in-california-20150617-story.html> // LA Times // Kurtis Lee – June 19, 2015 * When Bill Clinton arrived in California for the state's 1992 Democratic primary he was a considerable underdog. He had a commanding delegate tally and was well on his way to securing the party's presidential nomination, but faced a political titan in the state: the former and future governor, Jerry Brown. The result? He beat Brown by 7 percentage points. Now, more than two decades after that June 1992 primary victory, his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has embarked on her second White House run. On Friday, she arrives in Los Angeles for three Westside fundraisers, including one at the home of actor Tobey Maguire and his wife, Jennifer Meyer. Unlike the opponents her husband faced, Hillary Clinton's rivals are longshots at best and have no substantial ties to California. Rather than worry about a contested primary, this Clinton can focus on California's other role in Democratic politics, the cash machine. For both parties, California has proven a fertile place for raising money. But for Democrats, that's particularly true. During the last presidential cycle, President Obama raised almost $63 million from people who listed a California residence, as opposed to just over $41 million for Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, according to a compilation by the Center for Responsive politics, which tracks campaign fundraising. But California's position as a Democratic stronghold wasn't always so steadfast. Before Bill Clinton's 1992 victory, in which he beat incumbent President George H.W. Bush 46% to 32% in the state, California had a healthy track record of electing Republican candidates. Four years earlier, Bush defeated Democrat Michael Dukakis by 3 percentage points. Two of the last five Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, were Californians. While Bill Clinton raised cash in the Democratic money belt of the Westside, he also spent time in Southern California actively campaigning. In the 1992 election, it was not uncommon to see the Arkansas governor travel to South Los Angeles to meet with African American voters. He even addressed Orange County Republicans on a visit in December 1991. "There really has been this bond between California and the Clintons that is interesting," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist, who worked in the Clinton administration. "Californians have given their support and the Clintons have embraced this state." Lehane notes several Clinton administration officials, including Leon Panetta, who served as chief of staff and John Emerson, who worked as deputy director of Intergovermental Affairs, had histories in California politics. Panetta, a former member of Congress, went on to serve as Secretary of Defense and head of the CIA in the Obama administration. Emerson is ambassador to Germany. Such connections have stuck with the Clintons. "Just look at 2008," said Lehane. "Hillary won California by a wide margin over President Obama." At least on this trip, however, Hillary Clinton does not have plans for retail politicking of the sort her husband displayed in 1992. After a day of fundraising, she plans to travel north to San Francisco on Saturday to address the U.S. Conference of Mayors. *Hillary Clinton hitting three $2,700-per-person Westside fundraisers today <http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20150619/hillary-clinton-hitting-three-2700-per-person-westside-fundraisers-today> // LA Daily News // June 19, 2015 * Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is scheduled to conduct three $2,700-per-person fundraisers on Los Angeles’ Westside today to benefit her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. The series of fundraisers will begin with a 12:30 p.m. luncheon at the Beverly Hills home of Westfield Corp. co-CEO Peter Lowy and his wife Janine. Organizers said “a couple dozen people” plan to conduct a protest outside the home over Clinton’s refusal to definitively oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Opponents of the trade agreement say it will serve to export millions of high-paying jobs to low-wage countries, reduce wages for 90 percent of American workers, lower food safety and environmental standards, and increase human rights abuses. The Obama administration says the partnership will boost economic growth by increasing American exports, support the creation and retention of American jobs, and promote innovation. In an interview Thursday with Nevada radio host Jon Ralston, Clinton said, “I was willing to wait until I could see what’s in it before I took a decision, like when I was a senator.” The luncheon will be followed by a 5 p.m. event at the home of HBO executive Michael Lombardo and husband Sonny Ward; and a 7 p.m. event at the home of actor Tobey Maguire and his wife Jennifer Meyer. The ticket price is the maximum individual contribution for a candidate seeking his or her party’s presidential nomination. The 67-year-old Clinton, who is seeking to be the nation’s first female president, also conducted a fundraiser Thursday at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, with tickets priced from $1,000 to $2,700. Clinton’s stump speech, which she is expected to deliver at the fundraisers, discusses her commitment “to being a champion for everyday Americans” and outlines “the four fights that are the focus of her campaign -- building the economy of tomorrow, not yesterday; strengthening families and communities; fixing our dysfunctional political system; protecting our country from threats,” an aide said. The visit to the Southland is Clinton’s second since declaring her candidacy on April 12. She also conducted three fundraisers on the Westside on May 7. *Ex-charity exec who helped expose $500G Clinton Foundation donation faces legal threats <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/19/ex-charity-exec-who-helped-expose-500g-clinton-award-stands-firm-in-face-legal/> // Fox News // Adam Shaw – June 19, 2015 * A former charity executive who helped expose a questionable $500,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation is now being threatened by her old bosses with a lawsuit seeking tens of thousands of dollars, FoxNews.com has learned. Sue Veres Royal, former executive director at the Happy Hearts Fund, was initially quoted in a May 29 New York Times article that said the charity lured Bill Clinton to a 2014 gala only after offering a $500,000 donation to The Clinton Foundation. His office previously had turned down the charity's invitations, but this time he accepted; the accompanying donation amounted to almost a quarter of the gala's net proceeds. Veres Royal, who spoke to FoxNews.com about the fallout from that report, is now embroiled in a legal battle with the charity. She filed a formal complaint June 4 with the New York attorney general's Charities Bureau, as the charity itself threatened her with legal action for allegedly breaking her confidentiality agreement. The Times report gave several behind-the-scenes details, including that founder Petra Nemcova explicitly told Veres Royal to offer the $500,000 "honorarium." The Happy Hearts Fund’s legal team fired off a cease-and-desist order to Veres Royal the same day the Times report was published. The charity claimed she had breached a confidentiality agreement and gave “numerous falsehoods, inaccuracies and disparaging statements” about the organization to the Times. The letter demanded she no longer speak to the media or else they would seek damages. A Happy Hearts Fund spokesman said they are unable to discuss the situation concerning Veres Royal as they, too, are bound by a confidentiality agreement, but defended the 2014 award to Clinton. "Because we know the strong impact of working together and because the Happy Hearts Fund and the Clinton Foundation have a shared goal of providing meaningful help to Haiti, we proposed a joint educational project with the Clinton Foundation. Any suggestion that this joint project is some kind of ‘honorarium’ or ‘fee’ is unequivocally false," the spokesman told FoxNews.com in a statement. According to the group, such partnerships have allowed the charity to build 113 schools since 2006 in nine different countries, with more opening this month. However, Veres Royal said she was appalled not only by the 2014 Clinton donation but by details she had not known before the Times report was published -- most notably that the $500,000, which was supposed to go to causes in the ravaged country of Haiti, still had not been earmarked for any particular project by The Clinton Foundation. “It’s disgusting to me that this organization is being used in this way,” Veres Royal said. “I have been to Haiti three times. I’ve seen how desperate the need is, and it’s disgusting to me that people are trying to do good while they’re sitting on half-a-million dollars. I think that’s a disservice to those people who have donated the money, and to the people of Haiti.” The threat of legal action comes as the Happy Hearts Fund tries to limit the damage already caused to the organization's reputation after the revelations. Veres Royal said two conservative-leaning board members already have resigned after finding out about the exorbitant donation which, to Veres Royal’s knowledge, was never voted on by the board. Veres Royal responded to the Happy Hearts Fund legal demand by claiming she was not in breach of her confidentiality agreement. She says she was not the source of the report, but was merely quoted on what she called a matter of public interest. It was at that point she then filed the formal complaint about HHF’s actions with the New York attorney general. In the complaint, Veres Royal alleges the gala was used to shore up the rocky political fortunes of Haitian President Michel Martelly, a close ally and friend of Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe, who was then dating Nemcova, a Czech model. Martelly was at that time dealing with a number of corruption allegations, specifically over the location of education funds, Veres Royal said. The complaint claims that Nemcova, who was an ambassador at-large for Haiti, “specifically instructed Veres Royal to ‘find a reason’” to honor Martelly and then pushed to get Clinton’s staff to agree for Martelly to be honored as well. Consequently, she claims, a “totally concocted” award -- for “Leadership in Education” -- was also presented to Martelly at the Clinton gala. Bill and Hillary Clinton -- now a Democratic presidential candidate -- have been heavily involved in the reconstruction of Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, though their role in the country’s recovery has come under scrutiny amid accusations of running a pay-to-play operation with Haitian reconstruction. The Clinton Foundation did not respond to FoxNews.com’s request for comment. Veres Royal’s complaint also alleges improper financial oversight and gross misrepresentation to the public about fundraising. After she filed the complaint, HHF sent an email, seen by FoxNews.com, arguing again that Veres Royal was breaching a confidentiality agreement, and that HHF was entitled to over $30,000 in payments Veres Royal received as part of the agreement, as well as unspecified “injunctive relief and monetary damages." Despite being under fire, and not having an attorney of her own, Veres Royal says she is going to keep pursuing her complaint, and will not back down under the threat of legal action: “Although it’s been nerve-wracking to me, I feel it’s my ethical responsibility to do so.” *Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Need the Media…Yet <http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-hillary-clinton-20150619?utm_content=buffer5c120&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer> // National Journal // S.V. Date – June 19, 2015 * Two months since she officially became a presidential candidate again, a favorite topic of reporters covering Hillary Clinton has been: how reporters are covering Hillary Clinton. Clinton doesn't engage with the journalists covering her, the complaint goes. She doesn't take enough of their questions. She hasn't been accommodating about her day-to-day schedule. She isn't forthcoming about the private email server she used as secretary of State or about the fundraising at the Clinton Foundation. All of which is true—and none of which is likely to change any time soon. Because while these political reporters' goal is to provide their audiences as much information about Clinton as possible, Clinton has a different goal: to win. And while those two goals may at some point coincide, now is not one of those times. Today, more than 200 days before the first ballots are cast for the Democratic nomination, one Clinton objective is to first build teams of organizers and volunteers in the early voting states and then in the likely battleground states in the general election. Another is to ramp up the fundraising grind in $2,700-chunks. Neither makes for compelling news coverage, which is why the national media instead focus on the emails and the foundation and the attacks they've drawn from Republicans—or, alternatively, on the campaign's general disinclination to engage with the media at all. While some polling suggests Clinton's image has suffered because of the foundation fundraising questions, it's not at all clear what effect her campaign's treatment of the media is having or will ever have. Gallup Poll's Frank Newport said only 24 percent of the public has confidence in newspapers, while 21 percent trust TV news. "That's pretty not good," he said. "She's not harming an institution that Americans have a lot of confidence in right now." "My instincts are that voters don't particularly care," said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac University Poll. "Journalists are not exactly held in great admiration by the public." What's more, he said, Clinton's long history in national politics means that those most likely to vote in Democratic primaries are the least likely to be put off by her strategy. "If they're going to be for Hillary, they're going to be for Hillary," Brown said. Clinton holds large leads over her Democratic rivals in most polls and is likely to show substantially better fundraising when the first reports are filed next month. And the eight years she spent as first lady, another eight years in the Senate, including two on the 2008 presidential campaign trail, and then four as secretary of State relieve her of the necessity of treating every press query as an opportunity for free publicity. In any case, Clinton's treatment of the political press is hardly unprecedented, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. "Front-runners routinely minimize their contact with reporters early in the campaign season without serious penalty," she said. "Experienced reporters grouse about the behavior but know enough about history to expect it." The Clinton campaign says it understands the various complaints and is considering changes to some of its policies. At a panel sponsored by Politico on the eve of Clinton's kickoff speech in New York City last weekend, campaign manager Robby Mook said he does expect Clinton to engage more with the media but said there were still eight months until Iowa and 18 months to November 2016. "We've got to pace this thing," he said. Days later, Clinton held an impromptu press conference in Concord, New Hampshire, where she took questions from reporters covering her visit. Of course, that availability also served the purpose of generating competing news in the same hour that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced his entry into the Republican presidential race. Bush and his aides are quick to note that he takes numerous media questions on any given day, even dozens—just as he did during his two terms as Florida governor. Ari Fleischer, longtime spokesman for Jeb Bush's brother, former President George W. Bush, said Clinton takes a heavy-handed approach with the media at her own peril. "One day, something significant will go wrong, and if you mistreat the press and ignore the press, the press will make whatever goes wrong into a bigger explosion than it otherwise would have been," he said. "Payback is inevitable." George W. Bush and his campaign staff treated journalists better than Democrat Al Gore and his staff did, Fleischer said. And when it came out that Gore had claimed to have visited parts of wildfire-ravaged Texas when he had not, reporters were ready to portray it as a reflection of Gore's honesty and tendency to exaggerate, rather than merely misremembering a detail, Fleischer said. Eight years later, in contrast, reporters gave presidential candidate Barack Obama a pass on misstatements, like saying there were 57 states, rather than questioning his intelligence, because they liked him and his campaign, Fleischer said. "It may not matter at this early stage," he said about the current Clinton campaign, "but it will matter eventually." Of course, not all media is getting equally shut out. Like many past and current campaigns of both parties, the Clinton campaign is providing local outlets in the early voting states upgraded access. On the same day she gave dozens of national reporters about 20 minutes to ask questions, Clinton afforded 10 minutes to a single newspaper: the Concord Monitor, with a circulation of less than 20,000. It squeezed in six questions in its allotted time—not a single one concerned email servers or the Clinton Foundation. *The Great 2016 Foreign Policy Gamble <http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/the-great-2016-foreign-policy-gamble-20150618> // National Journal // Josh Kraushaar – June 18, 2015 * When it comes to the politics of national security, Republicans and Democrats are worlds apart. Not only do they differ on the threat posed by Islamic terrorism and the appropriate tactics to defeat it, but they don't even agree—at least publicly—on how significant an issue it will be in the presidential election. Hillary Clinton barely touched on foreign affairs in her lengthy campaign relaunch last week, while her advisers are confidently proclaiming that 2016 won't be a national security election. Meanwhile, nearly every Republican presidential candidate emphasizes the emerging threats abroad in their stump speeches. The approach mirrors where the party's supporters are: Republicans ranked fighting terrorism as more important than the economy in January's Pew Research Center polling. Slightly more Democrats rated income inequality and wage equity as more significant issues than "the situation with Islamic militants," which ranked only sixth among top priorities in a fall 2014 Gallup survey. This disconnect between the two parties' strategies on the subject is remarkable. Even when partisans deeply disagree on policy prescriptions, there's often a general consensus when it comes to political tactics. But on national security, Republicans are convinced that Hillary Clinton will have trouble answering for the Obama administration's persistent weaknesses on the issue, while Democratic strategists believe that voters are much more focused on bread-and-butter economic issues, and those most alarmed about the rise of ISIS would be voting Republican anyways. In her sparse comments referencing terrorism in New York last weekend, Clinton focused on backing legislation that guarantees health care coverage for 9/11 victims, and optimistically outlined the ways the Obama administration used "smart power" to challenge foreign enemies. The GOP presidential candidates' speeches regularly warn audiences about growing threats from abroad. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, for one, gave an entire speech in New Hampshire about national security last week, to an audience normally focused on fiscal issues. "It's a much more important issue for the Republican base than the Democratic base. That may give the Republicans a distorted picture of the general election," Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said. "But there's also no question that there's momentum behind national security and terrorism issues. If present trends continue, the issue for 2016 is going to be whether people think this next president can keep the world in order." There's a lot of risk for both sides in their reading of the environment. Clinton is downplaying her record as secretary of State because it's not the political asset she expected it to be. Like Mitt Romney's tortured relationship with his Massachusetts health care reforms during the 2012 campaign, she doesn't want to have to answer for the controversies that have emerged since she left office. She'll be criticized for several high-profile blunders that occurred under her tenure—including post-Qadaffi Libya becoming an outpost of global mayhem, the administration's ill-timed "reset" in relations with an emboldened Russia, and the failed security of the American diplomatic facilities in Benghazi. Clinton advisers maintain that she starts the campaign with a significant advantage because voters already view her as tough and experienced. As Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta told The Washington Post: "She doesn't need to go to England to prove she knows the difference between the queen and the prime minister." But to believe her experience will automatically translate into voters approving of her judgment is an awfully cocky assumption to make, especially given the opposition material Republicans already have to use against her. Republicans, meanwhile, recognize that it's a lot easier to sound a muscular tone on foreign policy than to advance specific policies requiring American military engagement in the Middle East. Even some of the more hawkish Republican candidates, such as Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, have avoided calling for more American troops to fight the Islamic State. Many haven't gone much further than President Obama in calling for training other countries' fighters to join the fight against ISIS. They know that while there's intense dissatisfaction over the passive manner Obama has handled foreign policy, there's still widespread resistance for another American military incursion in the Middle East. "Here's the dilemma: People agree with the policies Obama supports, but they dislike the results. There's a general sense that the world is not under control," Mellman said. The burden for Clinton is that she'll need to offer a more plausible defense for the decisions she made as secretary of State. She can't simply say she "stood up to Putin," when evidence shows that the Obama administration was pursuing better relations with the Russians. It won't pass the plausibility test. For Republicans, they'll need to nominate someone who's credible in speaking about foreign policy. There's a reason why several Republican governors, without much national security experience, have been going to school—literally—to bulk up on their knowledge. Clinton's experience argument on foreign policy would play better against an untested governor like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker than a Rubio or Bush. Democrats generally believe that, absent a large-scale war involving American military casualties, the public won't change their votes over foreign policy. Republicans think Obama's approval ratings are so weak on the subject are enough for nearly any of Clinton's challengers to exploit the party's weaknesses. Both are wrongheaded. The reality is there's not much optimism that the national security outlook will get noticeably better by the next presidential election; Obama's advisers, in calling the fight against ISIS a long war, have acknowledged as much. There's little doubt that the next president will be inheriting a chaotic environment abroad. If voters care a lot about those worrisome trends, Republicans will start out with an advantage. But if it's politics as usual, Clinton's strategy of playing to her base will look prescient. *EMILY’s List Already Raising Big Bucks for Hillary Clinton <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-emilys-li_n_7623324.html> // HuffPo // Paul Blumenthal – June 19, 2015 * Hillary Clinton is already seeing a windfall in contributions from EMILY's List, a group dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women that endorsed her campaign in April. EMILY's List donors donated more than $200,000 to Clinton during the first month and a half of her campaign, according to Federal Election Commission filings. That is nearly half of the $550,689 the group raised during the entirety of Clinton’s first presidential bid in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The donations to Clinton's 2016 campaign were split close to evenly between contributions of $1,000 or more, which totaled $111,400, and those of $500 or less, which added up to $84,356. The larger contributions included donations from EMILY's List President Stephanie Schriock, EMILY's List founder Ellen Malcolm, longtime Democratic donors Nancy and Reinier Beeuwkes, philanthropist Anne Hess and Democratic Party strategist Mary Beth Cahill. Following a string of tough losses in the 2014 election and amid the continued rollback of abortion rights at the state level, EMILY's List is putting increased weight behind its efforts to put the first woman in the White House. “Our network of over 3 million members are fired up about 2016. We are ready to elect the first woman president -- and more Democratic women up-and-down the ballot, from coast-to-coast," EMILY's List Executive Director Jessica O'Connell said in a statement. Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United opened the door to unlimited independent spending by corporations, unions and, ultimately, individuals, EMILY's List has ramped up its independent spending. In the 2014 cycle, the group reported more than $8 million in federal election spending to the FEC. The organization plans to spend even more than that to boost women candidates in the 2016 cycle. EMILY's List says it anticipates that it will benefit Clinton indirectly by supporting candidates further down the ballot in battleground states like Nevada, where Catherine Cortez Masto is seeking to fill the open seat being vacated by Sen. Harry Reid (D), and New Hampshire, where Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) may run for Senate. Schriock has longstanding ties to the former secretary of state. Before Clinton named Robby Mook as her campaign manager, Schriock was under consideration for the post. Schriock was also briefly served on the board of Priorities USA Action, the pro-Clinton super PAC, but stepped down in order to be able to work more closely with the campaign through EMILY's List. EMILY's List Political Director Denise Feriozzi, who is in charge of the group’s presidential campaign spending, replaced Schriock on the super PAC’s board. The Ready for Hillary super PAC -- now simply called Ready PAC -- has ceased most operations since Clinton announced her candidacy. The PAC is expected to transfer its social media followers over to EMILY's List ahead of the election. This would include Ready PAC’s 2.2 million Facebook and 145,000 Twitter followers. *Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Address <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/hillary-clintons-wall-str_1_b_7622148.html> // HuffPo // Bill Moyers and Michael Winship – June 19, 2015 * "Perfect! Perfect!" exclaimed a woman looking around at the Four Freedoms Park on New York City's Roosevelt Island as a large crowd waited for Hillary Clinton to announce her presidential candidacy last weekend. And so it was. Secretary Clinton had chosen an ideal setting to link her destiny to the founding father of the modern Democratic Party, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the political giant whose famous proclamation in 1941 of the Four Freedoms -- freedom of speech and worship, freedom from fear and want -- defined the essence of American ideals after a devastating economic disaster and as we prepared to enter a great world war. "Perfect! Perfect!" Except for one thing -- something the exultant spectator packed in the crowd at ground level might not have been able to see. As the camera pushed in toward the horizon behind Clinton, there it was, beyond the island and across the water: the skyline of Wall Street, the embodiment of financial might and its moguls and barons -- "the malefactors of great wealth," as his cousin Teddy called them -- that FDR took on in his fight to save democracy from unbridled greed, and capitalism from itself. As Clinton spoke -- "Prosperity can't be just for CEOs and hedge fund managers" and "Democracy can't be just for billionaires and corporations," -- you could imagine the juxtaposition to have been deliberate, staged by her managers to superimpose her rhetorical defiance of plutocracy against its glass and steel castles off in the distance. No doubt she had thrown around herself this cloak of populism because it is the current fashion -- a superb and timely one -- among many Democrats, especially progressives battling the oxymoronic Wall Street Democrats who in the past thirty years hijacked FDR's party and severed it from its working class roots. So it was refreshing to see her sally forth to do battle with the hyenas of Wall Street (as one noted hedge fund manager candidly described his ilk) proclaiming that: The financial industry and many multinational corporations have created huge wealth for a few by focusing too much on short-term profit and too little on long-term value, too much on complex trading schemes and stock buybacks, too little on investments in new businesses, jobs, and fair compensation. Her loyalists were presenting her to us as the reincarnation of the young woman she was in the '70s and '80s, the student who wrote her senior thesis on the organizer Saul Alinsky, interned at a fearless and controversial civil rights law firm, worked as an attorney for the Children's Defense Fund, investigated the treatment of migrant workers and chaired the board of the Legal Services Corporation. Yet, you could also wonder if they had been unaware of another possible reading of the metaphor presented by the sight of Roosevelt Island against the skyline of Wall Street -- something her handlers didn't intend: A mockery of the words she was speaking at that very minute. She is, after all, a favorite of the giant banks, the CEOs and hedge funds she now was castigating. Between 2009 and 2014, Clinton's list of top twenty donors starts out with Citigroup and includes JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, whose chief Lloyd Blankfein has invested in Clinton's son-in-law's boutique hedge fund. These donors are, as the website Truthout's William Rivers Pitt notes, "The ones who gamed the system by buying politicians like her and then proceeded to burn the economy down to dust and ash while making a financial killing in the process." They're also among the deep-pocket outfits that paid for speeches and appearances by Hillary or Bill Clinton to the tune of more of more than $125 million since they left the White House in 2001. It could hardly escape some in that crowd on Roosevelt Island, catching a glimpse of the towers of power and might across the river: Can we really expect someone so deeply tethered to the financial and business class -- who moves so often and so easily among its swells -- to fight hard to check their predatory appetites, dismantle their control of Congress, and stand up for the working people who are their prey? Consider the two Canadian banks with financial ties to the Keystone XL pipeline that fully or partially paid for eight speeches by Hillary Clinton. Or her $3.2 million in lecture fees from the tech sector. Or the more then $2.5 million in paid speeches for companies and groups lobbying for fast-track trade. According to TIME magazine and the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2014: Almost half of the money from Hillary Clinton's speaking engagements came from corporations and advocacy groups that were lobbying Congress at the same time... In all, the corporations and trade groups that Clinton spoke to in 2014 spent $72.5 million lobbying Congress that same year. Then look at David Sirota's recent reporting for the International Business Times, especially the revelation that while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, her department: Approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data... nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush's second term. Those nations include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar, each of which "gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents." Further, American defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed who sold those arms and their delivery systems also shelled out heavily to the $2 billion Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family. According to Sirota: In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors' donations, making a more precise accounting impossible. The Washington Post reports that among the approximately 200,000 contributors there have also been donations from many other countries and corporations, overseas and domestic business leaders, the odious Blackwater Training Center, and even Rupert Murdoch of celebrity phone hacking fame. Meredith McGehee, policy director of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, told David Sirota: "The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation." We pause here to note: All of these donations were apparently legal, and as others have written, at least we know who was doling out the cash, in contrast to those anonymous sources secretly channeling millions in "dark money" to the chosen candidates of the super rich. In The Atlantic, Lawrence Lessig, campaign finance reform activist and director of Harvard's Safra Center for Ethics put it well: The question is not whether Hillary Clinton is a criminal. Of course she is not. The question is whether she can carry the mantle of a reformer. Can she really stand above the cesspool that is Washington -- filled not with criminals but with decent people inside a corrupted system trying to do what they think is good -- and say, this system must change. And does she really see the change that's needed, when for the last 15 years, she has apparently lived a life that seems all but oblivious to exactly Washington's problem. We see "exactly Washington's problem" in how, during the 1990s, Bill Clinton became the willing agent of Wall Street's push to deregulate, a collaboration that enriched the bankers but eventually cost millions of Americans their homes, jobs, and pensions. Thanks to documents that came to light last year (one even has a hand-written note attached that reads: "Please eat this paper after you have read this."), we understand more clearly how a small coterie of insiders maneuvered to get President Clinton to support repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act that had long protected depositors from being victimized by bank speculators gambling with their savings. Repeal led to a wave of Wall Street mergers. As you can read in stories by Dan Roberts in The Guardian and Pam and Russ Martens online, the ringleader of the effort was Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, who breathlessly persuaded the president to sign the repeal and soon left office to join Citigroup, the bank that turned out to be the primary beneficiary of the deal. When it overreached and collapsed, Citigroup received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of U.S. finance. Rubin, meanwhile, earned $126 million from the bank over ten years. According to The New York Times, Rubin "remains a crucial kingmaker in Democratic policy circles" and, as an adviser to the Clintons, "will play an essential role in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for president..." Hillary Clinton, as a young Methodist growing up in Park Ridge, Illinois, was weaned on the social ethics of John Wesley, a founder of Methodism and a courageous champion of the poor and needy; we have her word for it and the witness of others. "Do all the good you can," the Methodist saying goes, "in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can." But over time, Hillary Clinton achieved superstar status among Washington's acculturated class -- that swollen colony of permanent denizens of our capital who may have come from the hinterlands but can hardly resist the seductive ways of a new and different culture in which the prevailing mindset is: It's important to do good but more important to do well. Lawrence Lessig believes she is an unlikely reformer - "which is precisely why she might be a particularly effective one." But her way of life has marinated for a long time now in the culture of wealth, influence, and power -- and a way of thinking engrained deeply in our political ethos, one in which one's own power in democracy is more important than democracy itself. It will take a conversion worthy of John Wesley to wrest free of that mindset, but God forbid we should have to live with another White House eclipsed by the skyline of Wall Street. *Sidney Blumenthal’s Benghazi Testimony Focuses More on Domestic Politics Than The Attack <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/sidney-blumenthal-benghazi-deposition_n_7617974.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067> // HuffPo // Sam Levine and Sam Stein – June 18, 2015 * The 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, have been investigated by congressional Republicans for years. Increasingly, however, they've resembled a vehicle for probing the actions of one player in that tragedy: then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now a Democratic presidential candidate. The most recent evidence of a narrowed, singular focus came this week, when Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi called a longtime Clinton confidant, Sidney Blumenthal, to testify in private. Blumenthal has Benghazi ties himself. He provided informal consultation to Clinton while she was at the State Department and apparently had business interests in Libya at the time. But according to sources familiar with his testimony, including one who was in the room, committee members placed far more attention on Blumenthal's domestic political role for Clinton and how he will help her presidential ambitions than in understanding the nature of the attack that killed four U.S. officials, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. Those sources told The Huffington Post that it was several hours into Blumenthal's deposition before Republicans actually asked about the attacks. Blumenthal's congressional inquisitors posed roughly three times as many questions on his associations with the Clinton Foundation -- the charitable organization tied to the former first family for which he was a paid consultant -- as well as his work for Democratic-campaign institutions such as Media Matters and Correct the Record, than on the Benghazi attacks. Requests for comment to the committee's chair, Rep Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) were not returned. But the recollections of those sources mirror a Politico report on Wednesday, which asserted that Republicans spent much of Tuesday's nearly nine-hour deposition asking Blumenthal about his political and philanthropic work. Blumenthal has publicly said that the deposition was political and that he knows nothing about the attacks. “My testimony has shed no light on the events of Benghazi, nor could it, because I have no firsthand knowledge of what happened,” Blumenthal told reporters after his deposition. “It seems obvious that my appearance before this committee was for one reason and one reason only, and that reason is politics.” Republicans have defended these lines of inquiry on grounds that they need to further understand the role Blumenthal was playing in the Clinton universe in order to assess the advice he gave her about Libyan intelligence while she was secretary of state. According to the sources familiar with Blumenthal's testimony, many of the questions posed about his work at Media Matters focused on whether he authored, edited, or provided materials for that organization to use in defending Clinton's role during the Benghazi attack. Despite it all, the source in the room called the deposition civil, and said "nobody yelled or screamed." Blumenthal sent Clinton at least 25 memos in 2011 and 2012 that contained intelligence about Libya. Clinton forwarded several of the memos to top State Department aides for review, but she and her colleagues expressed skepticism that the memos contained accurate information -- and they sometimes didn't. Blumenthal did not write the memos himself, both he and Gowdy have said. The extensive questioning of Blumenthal's political association will undoubtedly further fuel Democratic criticism of Gowdy and his committee. Those critics say that the committee, charged with understanding all of the "policies, activities and decisions" that led to the attack on the U.S. compound, has become a not-so-subtle vehicle for badgering Clinton as she begins her campaign. And they point to the lethargic pace of the investigation as evidence that the election, not Benghazi, is at the forefront of its concern. Despite pledges from Gowdy otherwise, the committee appears unlikely to release its final report until 2016. *Voters Generally Support Clinton Voting Push <http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/voters-generally-support-clinton-voting-push.html> // Public Policy Polling // - June 20, 2015* Americans strongly support the premise that it would be a good thing for the country if everyone voted- 67% share that view, compared to 19% who think that it would be a bad thing. There is bipartisan agreement on that point with majorities of Democrats (86/6), independents (60/21), and Republicans (52/34) all saying they believe it would be good. There's more division on a specific proposal Hillary Clinton has made toward that end- automatic voter registration. 48% of voters support that to 38% who are opposed. Democrats (72/17) are strongly in favor of it while Republicans (28/59) are mostly opposed. -As the Supreme Court decision looms the once unpopular Affordable Care Act now has Americans at least pretty evenly divided. 42% say they support it to 43% who opposed. When we last asked the question nationally last winter, there was only 39% support and 48% of voters who were opposed. Obamacare may still not exactly be popular, but it's not the big albatross it might have been for Democrats in the past either. -2 of the big recent policy debates in Washington have Americans largely saying 'meh.' 53% of voters have no opinion on the Trans Pacific Partnership. Among those who do have one 18% are supportive and 29% are opposed. The 18% support is the same we found a month ago, the 29% opposition has ticked up a little bit from 25% in May. Democrats (23/24) are pretty closely divided on it while both Republicans (15/35) and independents (15/29) are mostly opposed to the extent they even have a take. It's a similar story when it comes to attitudes toward the USA Freedom Act. 61% have no opinion about that but it's more popular with voters who do have one- 26% support it to 14% who are opposed. That one meets with support across party lines from Decembers (32/11), Republicans (23/14), and independents (21/17) alike. -Last week's gun news was the legality of bringing your gun into the airport- only 23% of voters nationally think you should be allowed to do that, compared to 64% who are opposed. Democrats (12/81), independents (25/57), and Republicans (34/50) are all firmly against guns in airports. This is one issue where the elected officials who decided to allow it are way out of line with how their constituents feel about the issue. -Much is made of Barack Obama being unpopular- 45% of voters approve of the job he's doing to 50% who disapprove. But his numbers are positively stratospheric compared to where the leaders of Congress and the body itself stand with the public. John Boehner has only a 22% approval rating with 62% of voters disapproving of him, and Mitch McConnell is even less popular with just a 16% approval rating and 61% of voters disapproving of him. It's a given that Boehner and McConnell are disliked by Democrats but what's really striking is the extent to which even voters in their party don't like them. Boehner has a 31/50 approval rating with Republican voters, and McConnell's is 24/50. Congress itself has a 12/77 approval rating. That does at least make it more popular than some of the things we polled on though. Chris Brown has a 10/52 favorability rating and Justin Bieber is even more unpopular at 10/67. And Congress does outpoll ISIS, which comes in at a 5/81 favorability rating. -We tested a bunch of prominent performing artists that we had also polled on in 2013 to see how their numbers had changed since then. The most popular folks we looked at were Taylor Swift and Justin Timberlake, each of whom came in at 54/15. In 2013 Swift was at 53/27 and Timberlake was at 52/24 so their negatives have dropped while their favorability numbers have basically stayed in place. Only two of the people we polled have seen their numbers shift significantly in the last couple years. Lady Gaga has become a good deal more popular, going from a 29/50 favorability rating to 42/32. Justin Bieber, already unpopular, has headed even further in the wrong direction going from 20/54 to 10/67. *Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump’s speech drives Charleston-like violence* <http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-donald-trumps-speech-drives-charleston-like-violence/>* // Breitbart // Ben Shapiro – June 19, 2015* Speaking with host John Ralston, she explained, “Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable.” She continued, “I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.” Presumably, Hillary was referencing Trump’s comments during his announcement speech in which he said Mexico was sending people across the border: “They’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Dylann Roof murdered nine people at a historically black church. There are no reports he was a fan of Donald Trump, or that Roof shot six black women and three black men after being inspired by Trump’s rhetoric about Hispanic illegal immigrants. But facts have no bearing on such nonsensical arguments. This hatred for the First Amendment – the European notion that freedom of speech must be curtailed in order to avoid triggering the unstable or evil – has become a hallmark of the left. Whether the left blames Pamela Geller for the violence of radical Muslims who try to murder people for drawing cartoons of Mohammed, blames Sarah Palin for Jared Loughner’s shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, or mistakenly blames the Tea Party for James Holmes, right wing speech has become their bugaboo. Of course, the same does not hold true for the left, according to the left. When Mayor Bill De Blasio shut down New York police use of stop and frisk, sending crime skyrocketing, then followed up that botchery by blaming racist cops for the death of Eric Garner while invoking his biracial son (he said he and his wife “have had to talk to Dante for years about the dangers that he may face” from police) – and when two NYPD officers were then murdered in cold blood — the NYPD turned their backs on him. The left promptly blamed the NYPD for the rift. When Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said on national television, “We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that” with regard to rioters, the left said she had been taken out of context. When the president of the United States spoke in the aftermath of the Ferguson verdict and railed that “there are still problems and communities of color aren’t just making these problems up… there are issues in which the law too often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion,” and when violent riots broke out, the left insisted that the president had forwarded race relations. As for Hillary Clinton herself, the former Secretary of State is no stranger to inflammatory rhetoric. In her campaign relaunch announcement, she accused Republicans of wanting to “take away health insurance from more than 16 million Americans… sham[ing] and blam[ing] women… put[ing] immigrants who work hard and pay taxes at risk of deportation… turn[ing] their backs on gay people who love each other.” She has accused Republicans of attempting to stop black people from voting. She has insisted that religious people must be forced to abandon their religious beliefs on social issues. When she was in the Senate, Clinton screamed from the floor regarding the Bush Administration’s intelligence before 9/11, “What did Bush know and when did he know it?” But naturally, that’s just politics. It always is, when leftists are participating in it. When right-wingers engage in First Amendment-protected speech, however, they’d best watch themselves: you never know when the next evil maniac is around the corner. Perhaps the only safe course would be to curtail the First Amendment to prevent such rhetoric. After all, if only we can save one life, is that so high a price to pay? *Hillary Clinton alludes to Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric as fuel for hateful acts like the Charleston shooting <http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-slams-donald-trump-inflammatory-speech-article-1.2264389> // NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph – June 19, 2015 * The type of “inflammatory” rhetoric Donald Trump uses can "trigger people who are less than stable to do something" like the Charleston shootings, Hillary Clinton said Friday. "The people who do this kind of dastardly horrible act are very small percentage, but unfortunately the public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who are less than stable to do something like what we've seen," Clinton said during an interview with journalist Jon Ralston in Las Vegas, referring to the murders of nine black churchgoers earlier this week. Donald Trump, who canceled a campaign event in South Carolina in the wake of the massacre, fired back. Clinton then took aim at Trump, who during his presidential announcement speech earlier this week said many of the immigrants who come here illegally from Mexico are “rapists” who are “bringing drugs” and “bringing crime.” “For example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans,” Clinton said, refusing to name the bellicose businessman. “Everybody should stand up and say that's not acceptable. You know, you don't talk like that on talk radio.” Trump, who canceled a campaign event in South Carolina in the wake of the massacre, fired back. “It’s pretty pathetic that Hillary just blamed me for the horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina,” he said in an instagram video. “This is why politicians are just no good.” *How Hillary Clinton will raise gobs of cash from Wall Street while trashing the industry in public <http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-and-wall-street-2015-6#ixzz3dWey7Pow> // Business Insider // Linette Lopez – June 19, 2015 * Here's how a politician would normally get money from Wall Street to finance their campaign. Stop by the office and visit the CEO, like Marco Rubio did with Blackstone founder Steve Schwarzman. Throw some public events for younger donors and then have a private dinner with the heavy hitters at night to collect the big checks, like Jeb Bush did with Goldman Sachs. Do something that billionaire hedge fund manager Carl Icahn has pointed out President Obama hasn't been able to do: Make nice with the Hamptons crowd. Hillary Clinton is not likely to do these things. If Clinton wants to keep her base happy and be a champion against income inequality and for the middle class, she can't be seen hobnobbing with Wall Street's elite. So how does a candidate in Clinton's position still get Wall Street's elite money? Very, very quietly, and through back channels. That's what we learned from speaking to a number of bundlers, donors, and political insiders. Dinners with Wall Street will be private and small. And, likely, you will not see Clinton visiting any banks, hedge funds or private equity firms. There will be a number of industry leaders collecting checks for her quietly too, like Marc Lasry, the billionaire founder of Avenue Capital. He sent out emails to friends in an attempt to raise $270,000 within the first week of Clinton's campaign. That kind of stuff works. The reality of political bundling is that donations are given not because of some PR stunt or because of some swanky party. Donors give money to campaigns when the right people ask them for that money. Lasry, for one, is on that list of "right people." He runs a huge hedge fund and people want to be able to do business with him. Lots of those people will donate to whichever candidate Lasry wants them to, just to stay on his good side. Meanwhile, Clinton will go out to the world with her populist, anti-Wall Street rhetoric. Every once in a while, this will upset some of her donors. That sensitivity has already become apparent in the campaign. In an interview with CNN, billionaire Leon Cooperman complained that Clinton "hangs out with these people in Martha's Vineyard and in the Hamptons and the very first thing she does is criticize hedge funds." This was in response to Clinton pointing out that "the top-25 hedge fund managers making more than all of America's kindergarten teachers combined. And often paying a lower tax rate." She added, "So you have to wonder: 'When does my hard work pay off? When does my family get ahead? When?'" See? Sensitive. Another way insiders expect Clinton to raise cash from Wall Street is through Wall Street's lawyers. Lawyers tend to lean more liberal than their Wall Street clients do, and Clinton can rally their support so that they can approach clients who might be able to sign a check or two. The approach will work if only because, as everyone knows, Wall Street owes its lawyers a debt of gratitude or two. The question is, then, will the Clintons still summer in the Hamptons? *How Hillary Clinton thanked a pizza place that’s been feeding her campaign <http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-pizzeria-thank-you-note-2015-6> // Business Insider // Hunter Walker – June 19, 2015 * Monty Q's, a pizzeria located near Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, has become a favored source of food for her staff. Clinton checked out Monty Q's for herself on May 14. Afterwards, she sent the restaurant a note thanking them for a "warm welcome to the neighborhood." "My campaign staff has been raving about Monty Q's for weeks now so I just had to stop by for lunch — and they were right. The salad was delicious," Clinton wrote. "Thank you for your friendly and courteous service and for keeping our staff and volunteers well-fed." Clinton's letter, which was dated May 20, is now framed and hanging in the pizzeria along with a picture she took with the staff. A Clinton staffer told Business Insider the restaurant's offerings, which include more than standard pizzeria fare, have definitely become quite popular with the campaign team. "The made-to-order salad and pasta stations are only topped by the chocolate chip cookies - a definite fan favorite," the staffer said. Check out Clinton's letter to Monty Q's and her picture with the staff below. *Hillary Clinton Talks First Term To H’wood Donors At Tobey Maguire’s House <http://deadline.com/2015/06/hillary-clinton-fundraisers-hollywood-tobey-maguire-michael-lombardo-1201450763/> // Deadline // Dominic Patten – June 20, 2015* The former Secretary of State told a sold-out fundraiser of more than 200 Tinseltown supporters tonight that she isn’t running for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama’s third terms but her own first term. Hillary Clinton’s remarks were made in the backyard of Tobey Maguire and his wife Jennifer Meyer’s Brentwood home on Friday. Long time supporters Leonardo DiCaprio, Pitch Perfect 2 director and Hunger Games star Elizabeth Banks and Homeland EP Howard Gordon were among the well-heeled crowd nibbling on a low-key spread of hors d’oevres and sipping wine and soft drinks. The once and potentially future White House resident also talked about growing the economy for the middle class and expanding opportunities for the LGBT community if she becomes America’s first female Commander-in-Chief. The threat of ISIS, clean energy and reaching across the aisle to pass legislation with the likes of now GOP candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham were among the other topics Clinton touched on in what one attendee described as “a stump speech.” In contrast to President Obama’s remarks at his own set of DNC L.A. fundraisers on Thursday, Clinton did not mention the fatal shootings in Charleston, S.C. that occurred earlier this week. Meyer, hostess and daughter of NBCUniversal Vice Chairman Ron Meyer, introduced Clinton on Friday night. Jennifer Meyer told the gathering about how the 42nd President of the United States told her in 2004 that no one in America was more qualified to be President than his wife. Expected to raise more than $500,000 for her 2016 Presidential bid, the 7 PM $2,700 a ticket event was Clinton’s third fundraiser of the day. With a $1 million total haul, today’s visit to the Hollywood ATM was the ex-New York Senator’s second set of L.A. donorfests in less than 2 months. Earlier Friday, Clinton was feted at another $2,700 per ticket fundraiser at the home of HBO’s president of programming Michael Lombardo and his partner Sonny Ward. Before that 5 PM event, the candidate attended a donor lunch at the BevHills home of Westfield co-CEO Peter Lowy and his wife Janine. That event was also $2,700 a ticket, which is the maximum an individual can contribute during the primary season. No word yet on when Hillary will be back in L.A. but, as with Obama this week, expect frequent fundraisers over the next year and a half and beyond if she wins. Also, other Democratic contenders like former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley are coming to town soon with cup in hand. Can Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders be far behind? *Hillary Clinton Woos Young Hollywood Democrats at Fundraisers in L.A. <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clinton-woos-young-hollywood-803846> // Hollywood Reporter // Tina Daunt – June 19, 2015 * By the time Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton leaves Los Angeles Saturday, she hopes to have added well over $1 million to her campaign war chest and to have cemented her family’s famous Hollywood ties to a new generation of entertainment industry donors. The lynchpin of her two-day swing through Southern California is Friday evening’s gathering at the home of Spider-Man star Tobey Maguire and his wife, Jennifer Meyer Maguire. All 250 places at that event are sold out at $2,700 apiece. Attendees are expected to include Leonardo DiCaprio, Elizabeth Banks, singer Sia Furler, ID PR founder Kelly Bush and an array of other "young" Hollywood types, one insider told The Hollywood Reporter. The event, which was organized by Greg Propper and Mark Daley of social advocacy firm Propper Daley, is slated to raise more than $500,000. California, and Hollywood in particular, always have been Clinton country. When Bill Clinton first sought the Democratic presidential nomination, he raised funds and campaigned relentlessly in the state and ultimately defeated California's favorite son, the once and future governor Jerry Brown, in the primary. In 2008, Hillary Clinton bested Barack Obama in California's Democratic primary. Friday’s schedule demonstrated just how wide the Clinton’s entertainment industry reach remains. Earlier in the day, she was the star attraction at a $2,700-per-person event hosted by Westfield Corp. co-CEO Peter Lowy and his wife, Janine. That was followed by a $2,700-per-person conversation with the former First Lady and Secretary of State at the home of HBO president of programming Michael Lombardo and his husband, Sonny Ward. On Thursday, Clinton was in Newport Beach to scoop up presidential campaign cash. Supporters at Balboa Bay Club paid between $1,000 and $50,000 to mingle with the Democratic front runner. Clinton will continue her California tour with a Saturday visit to San Francisco, where she’ll address the U.S. Conference of Mayors. *Harassment Complaints Tripled at State Department Under Clinton, Kerry <http://freebeacon.com/politics/harassment-complaints-tripled-at-state-department-under-clinton-kerry/> // Free Beacon // Joe Schoffstall – June 19, 2015 * Harassment complaints nearly tripled at the State Department under the watch of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, according to a State Department watchdog report released Thursday. The Washington Times reports that harassment complaints hit 88 formal claims during Clinton’s third year at State in 2011. This number jumped to 248 formal claims just three years later in 2014 with Kerry serving as secretary. Hundreds more informal harassment complaints were also filed during this time. Last year, more than one-third, or 38 percent of complaints filed by employees, dealt with sex discrimination or reprisals. An additional 43 percent of complaints were made up of alleged harassment dealing with unfair hiring or promotions. Despite the spike in harassment claims at the State Department, there is no mandatory training program in place dealing with the issue. “A significant increase in reported harassment inquiries in the Department of State over the past few fiscal years supports the need for mandatory harassment training,” the department’s inspector general said. Due to the department’s non-existent mandatory harassment training programs, one of the biggest recommendations includes periodic training for every employee at the State Department. “The Office of Civil Rights, in coordination with the Bureau of Human Resources and the Foreign Service Institute, should mandate periodic harassment training for all Department employees,” the report stated. *Clinton to Fundraise at L.A. House of Tax Evading Clinton Foundation Donor <http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-to-fundraise-at-l-a-house-of-tax-evading-clinton-foundation-donor/> // Free Beacon // Brent Scher – June 19, 2015 * Hillary Clinton will attend a $2,700-a-plate luncheon on Friday at the Beverly Hills home of a man who was investigated by the Senate for hiding $68 million in assets in an offshore tax haven. Peter Lowy, who was born in Australia but is a U.S. citizen, is chief executive officer of the Westfield Group, one of the world’s largest owners of shopping malls. The company was founded by his father, Frank Lowy, and is controlled by the Lowy family. The family came under fire in 2008 when a report from then-Sens. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) and Norm Coleman (R., Minn.) alleged that the Lowys were hiding $68 million in a Lichtenstein tax haven called the LGT Group. The relationship between the Lowys and the LGT Group began in 1997 when the family started a Lichtenstein foundation worth $54 million. It grew to $68 million by 2001 when the foundation was dissolved. The information came during an investigation by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations into LGT Group and others that were being used as tax shelters. “LGT was aware that Mr. Lowy and his sons were hiding assets in the new foundation,” according to the report. Lawyers for Lowy maintained that he did nothing against the law and that “businesses all over the world use a variety of tax structures to legitimately protect their assets.” He said all the money was given to charity. Lowy, however, refused to cooperate with the Senate investigation. He invoked his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination during a hearing held by the committee. “Senator, I’m sorry, I mean no disrespect. But on the advice of my counsel I assert my rights under the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution not to answer any questions,” said Lowy. His lack of cooperation did not end there. Levin said the Lowy family refused to hand over documentation of the charitable donations to his subcommittee. Lowy was also accused during the hearing by Coleman of taking “a red-eye flight to Australia” to avoid a subpoena. An investigation into the Lowy finances carried out by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) led to further efforts in Bermuda to hide assets that should have been taxed by the United States. The Friday fundraiser for Hillary Clinton is not the beginning of the Lowy relationship with the Clinton family. The earliest recorded instance came in 1995, when Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign received donations from multiple Lowy family members. Both Lowy and his wife Janine Lowy also made the maximum allowed contribution to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. They also both donated to Clinton’s 2006 Senate campaign. The couple’s political giving to federal candidates totals over $1 million and remains active. Lowy has also given between $50,001 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and made donations as recently as last year. His company, the Westfield Corporation, has also made Clinton Foundation donations in the same range. The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the Friday event. *Hillary Clinton’s 24-hour fundraising jaunt in Hollywood expected to net $1 million <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/19/hillary-clintons-two-day-fundraising-jaunt-hollywo/> // Washington Times // Jennifer Harper – June 19, 2015 * Hillary Clinton made her grand public debut before American voters only a week ago in New York City, then rushed off for some quick grassroots stops in Iowa and New Hampshire. And at week’s end came the big stop in California, land of Hollywood fundraising. Mrs. Clinton is expected to do exceptionally well. “By the time Democratic front-runner leaves Los Angeles Saturday, she hopes to have added well over $1 million to her campaign war chest and to have cemented her family’s famous Hollywood ties to a new generation of entertainment industry donors,” says The Hollywood Reporter, an industry source which tracks the stars and the business. On Friday night, Mrs. Cinton appeared at the home of Tobey Maguire, he of “Spiderman” fame, for an elite gathering of 250 which included Leonardo DiCaprio, Elizabeth Banks, and singer Sia Furler. The event will raise $500,000. Mrs. Clinton appeared in two more fundraisers in the Beverly Hills area and Newport Beach, bringing the total haul up to a cool $1 million, the Hollywood Reporter said, basing the figure on an unnamed source. But wait, there’s more. On Saturday, it’s on to San Francisco for a fourth event - a swank brunch in the Mission District, with admission prices rising as high as $50,000. It is of note that President Obama was also on the West Coast at the same time - also raising money in Los Angeles and San Francisco, this primarily for the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Obama is scheduled to play golf in Palm Springs for the rest of the weekend - his fifth visit to the area’s links in two years. This one came with a little local warning. “President Barack Obama’s weekend visit will close roads near the Palm Springs airport from Friday afternoon until Monday morning. According to a notice from Palm Springs police, both Kirk Douglas Way and Airport Center Drive will be closed from 1 p.m. Friday until 7 a.m. Monday,” noted a terse dispatch form The Desert Sun, a local paper. In the meantime, talk that Mrs. Clinton could raise $1 billion for her White House campaign may not be pure conjecture. When the weekend is over, she will have completed her 26th fundraiser for the year. *Hillary Clinton stressing support for immigration reform <http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-backing-comprehensive-immigration-reform/28966917/?hootPostID=%5B%27add4acb41b1cfc2fd7d8101c7d8d5706%27%5D> // AZ Central // Dan Nowicki – June 19, 2015 * As the 2016 Republican presidential field toughens its tone on border security and enforcement, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has drawn a sharp distinction on immigration by embracing comprehensive reforms such as a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers already in the United States. Speaking Thursday before the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, Clinton, a former secretary of State, reiterated promises she made during a May 5 roundtable in North Las Vegas. That she would fight for comprehensive immigration reform that includes "a real path to citizenship" for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants who have settled in the United States. That she would oppose any move to deport the young immigrants known as "dreamers" or to undo President Barack Obama's executive actions that are shielding millions of immigrants from enforcement action. And that if Congress continues to balk at acting on immigration reform, "as president I will do everything possible under the law to go even further than what President Obama has attempted to achieve," she said. "There are so many people with deep ties and contributions to our communities, like many parents of dreamers, who deserve a chance to stay, and I will fight for them, too," Clinton said to applause from a standing-room-only crowd inside the Aria Resort & Casino. "But I don't have to wait to become president to take a stand, right here and right now, against divisive rhetoric that demonizes immigrants and their families. It's wrong and no one should stand for it." The contrast between Clinton and the Republican White House prospects grew sharper this week with the entry into the race of celebrity real-estate developer Donald Trump, who announced his candidacy with a speech bashing Mexican immigrants as "rapists" and vowing to build a border wall at Mexico's expense. "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people," Trump said of immigrants from Mexico. While Trump is viewed by many political handicappers as a novelty candidate, others said his anti-immigrant rant could tarnish the Republican brand with Latino voters, a fast-growing demographic that is increasingly influential in key swing states such as Nevada, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and Virginia. Despite warnings from national GOP leaders after the loss of 2012 nominee Mitt Romney to Obama, in which Romney was shellacked among Latino voters, most of the Republican presidential contenders continue to stake out hard-line positions on immigration and border security. Trump's comments were a noisy distraction from the official entry into the race of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a more moderate GOP presidential candidate who supports immigration reform. But even Bush didn't appear inclined to take up the issue during his Monday announcement until he was interrupted by pro-citizenship hecklers. "By the way, just so that our friends know, the next president of the United States will pass meaningful immigration reform so that that will be solved, not by executive order," Bush said. Later in the week, Bush called for immigration reform while campaigning in Iowa, which hosts the first presidential caucuses. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., another GOP 2016 candidate, also sparred this week with immigration activists who interrupted a speech he was giving in Washington, D.C. Ben Carson, a conservative retired neurosurgeon seeking the Republican nomination, was the only GOP hopeful to make an appearance at the NALEO conference. His remarks on Wednesday largely avoided immigration and instead highlighted the economy and the need for global U.S. leadership. He did say national-security concerns dictate the need to seal the borders. "What we should do, I believe, is provide them a way that they don't have to hide in the shadows," Carson said of the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the country. "Give them an opportunity to become guest workers. They have to register. They have to enroll in a back-tax program. And if they want to become citizens, they have to get in the line with everybody else and do what's necessary." Clinton spent less than five minutes of her 30-minute speech to the NALEO conference focusing explicitly on immigration policy. She also discussed other issues that resonate with Latino voters, including early-childhood development, preschool, jobs, education and voting rights. She also addressed the mass shooting Wednesday in Charleston, S.C., which killed nine people at a historic Black church. Clinton's efforts to secure the Latino vote are fueled, in part, by anxiety among some Democrats that Obama's winning coalition might not be as motivated to turn out to the polls if Obama is no longer on the ticket. "Because this is what this community wants and needs to hear, it's what it's going to take to energize that community to actually show up in this election," said state Sen. Martin Quezada, D-Phoenix, who attended the NALEO conference. "If we don't, I think she's going to be in trouble. It's going to be a tough race anyway, so she needs this community to turn out next year and this is one way to really motivate them to do that." One political scientist said that while the Republicans must finesse immigration-related issues so as not to alienate anti-"amnesty" conservatives who are influential in the GOP primary, Clinton's pro-reform stance appeals not only to Democratic primary voters but also to less partisan general-election voters. Clinton so far has a few opponents in the Democratic race, including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who is expected to address the NALEO conference on Friday. "A Democrat on an issue like this can run for the broad center from the beginning and doesn't have to worry that she'll pay a big price for that in the primaries, whereas on the Republican side, even nominal immigration moderates like Jeb Bush have to say they're against the executive action," said Louis DeSipio, a professor of political science and Chicano/Latino studies at the University of California-Irvine. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee suggested Clinton's efforts to appeal to Latinos is merely cynical politics. "Latinos deserve to know that Hillary Clinton is looking out for her own political ambition instead of their interests," Reince Priebus, the RNC chairman, said Thursday in a written statement. "As she has proven time and again, Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected — making big promises she won't and can't keep, just like President Obama." Still, Clinton's all-out endorsement of immigration reform so early in the presidential campaign has immigrant-rights activists applauding. "I don't doubt whether she is deeply committed to it, but what I respect is that she understands the power of our movement, the importance of the Latino vote, and therefore she feels like it's in her interest to say what she's saying," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of America's Voice, a liberal national group that advocates for comprehensive immigration reform. "To me, it's a movement victory that she's saying what she's saying. And for me, it's slow-motion political suicide for the Republicans to be saying what they're saying, with a few notable exceptions." Even so, Clinton's expansive pro-immigration agenda is a recent development for her and a sharp break from the policies of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who served two terms in the White House from 1993 to 2001. As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for the border-fence-authorizing Secure Fence Act of 2006, although she distanced herself from it as early as her 2008 presidential race. Also during the 2008 campaign, when she lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, Clinton came out against issuing driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, a position she reversed this year. "Hillary seemed tone-deaf and rusty when she was on her book tour (for her 2014 memoir 'Hard Choices') and she was asked a couple of questions about immigration, and both times she fumbled it," Sharry said. "But now, as a candidate, she has really leaned into it, taken ownership of the issue and made it clear that she's going to draw sharp distinctions with whoever the Republican nominee is, including if it's Jeb Bush." Her husband's legacy could follow her as the campaign rolls on. Bill Hing, a University of San Francisco law professor and immigration-policy expert, said that from the standpoint of immigrant-rights advocates, Bill Clinton "has one of the worst immigration records" of any president in modern history. Under his administration, the United States started the "big militarization of the border" through Operation Gatekeeper, which was aimed at stopping illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego by deploying more Border Patrol agents, and installing fencing, ground sensors, lights and other technology, Hing said. Clinton also signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a sweeping bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress that was aimed at cracking down on undocumented immigrants through a wide range of punishments. Those included barring undocumented immigrants from returning to the United States for up to 10 years, and expanding the list of crimes for which legal immigrants could be stripped of their status and deported. However, Hing doubts Bill Clinton's old positions on border security and immigration enforcement will hurt Hillary Clinton with Latinos. "Latino voters are giving her a pass because the Republicans have been so intransigent on immigration reform," Hing said, pointing out that in recent years conservative Republicans have consistently foiled attempts by moderate Republicans and Democrats to pass immigration reform. Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization System during the Clinton administration, said it's unfair to tie Bill Clinton's record to Hillary Clinton. The border-security and immigration-enforcement measures launched under Bill Clinton's administration were badly needed, Meissner said. But what distinguishes Hillary Clinton from her Republican rivals is that she believes it is time to move beyond border security and immigration enforcement, she said. "She's talking about now what needs to be done in addition and that is very different from what all the Republicans are saying," Meissner said. "They are just saying more of the same and they are in a time warp. ... We just don't have the same issues at the border." *Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go? <http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/> // FactCheck.Org // Robert Farley – June 19, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that “so little” of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation “actually go to charitable works” — a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues — but Fiorina is simply wrong. Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity. Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly. Fiorina Attacks Fiorina has been shadowing Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail in order to contrast herself with her Democratic rival. In a Fox News interview, Fiorina was asked about a New York Times story about Sen. Marco Rubio’s finances, and Fiorina responded that she wished the New York Times would do more to investigate the Clintons’ finances, and particularly “what they’ve been doing with their donors’ money to the Clinton Global Initiative.” Fiorina, June 10: I mean, honestly, the question, I think, now for the Clintons is, ‘What else don’t we know? What don’t we know about your donors? What don’t we know about the conflicts of interest that those donors represent when Mrs. Clinton is serving as Secretary of State?’ We are now finding out that so little of those charitable donations actually go to charitable works. Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.” That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself. Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.” “There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).” Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation, said the Clinton Foundation is “an implementer.” “We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email. “Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation so that our staff can implement the work.” Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these: Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops. Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects. Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment. Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans. To bolster its case, CARLY for America noted that the Clinton Foundation spent 12 percent of its revenue on travel and conferences and 20 percent of its revenue on salaries. That’s true. But the Form 990 specifically breaks out those travel, conference and salary expenses that are used for “program service expenses” versus those that are used for management or fundraising purposes. For example, nearly 77 percent of the $8.4 million spent on travel in 2013 went toward program services; 3.4 percent went to “management and general expenses”; and about 20 percent went to fundraising. As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a programming expense. And when it comes to salaries — which includes pension plan contributions, benefits and payroll taxes — about 73 percent went to program service expenses. “I am not the expert on what portion of the Clinton Foundation activities are truly charitable,” Vince Stehle, executive director of Media Impact Funders and a board member of the Center for Effective Philanthropy told us via email. “But I can say that it is not appropriate to simply calculate that based on what portion goes out in grants. Certainly all types of foundations are able to engage in direct charitable activities in any event. But as I understand it, the Clinton Foundation is a public charity, despite the name. Many charities call themselves foundations, which can be confusing, as they might seem like private foundations. “The organization carries out programs,” Stehle said. “I am not intimately familiar with those programs, but assuming they are genuine, those would be considered charitable activities.” Charity Evaluators Fiorina isn’t the only one making this charge about the Clinton Foundation. Fox Business Network’s Gerri Willis, for example, also claimed only 6 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s 2013 revenue “went to help people.” Willis claimed that charity experts have looked into whether the Clinton Foundation “wisely spen(t) charitable dollars” and weighed in with a “resounding no.” “Charity Navigator … [has] placed the Clinton Foundation on a watch list,” Willis said. “They think there are problems with this nonprofit. They don’t like the way it runs itself. They say the money is not spent wisely.” She said Charity Navigator concluded the Clinton Foundation “does not meet their criteria as an organization that does charitable work.” But that’s not what Charity Navigator said. Here’s what the Charity Navigator site actually states: Charity Navigator: We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model. What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated? It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator. We spoke by phone with Sandra Minuitti at Charity Navigator, and she told us Charity Navigator decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation because the foundation spun off some entities (chiefly the Health Access Initiative) and then later brought some, like the Clinton Global Initiative, back into the fold. Charity Navigator looks at a charity’s performance over time, she said, and those spin-offs could result in a skewed picture using its analysis model. If the foundation maintains its current structure for several years, she said, Charity Navigator will be able to rate it again. The decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns about the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. Further, Minuitti said citing only the 6 percent of the budget spent on grants as the sum total spent on charity by the foundation — as Willis and Fiorina did — is inaccurate. She referred us to page 10 of the 2013 990 form for the Clinton Foundation. When considering the amount spent on “charitable work,” she said, one would look not just at the amount in grants given to other charities, but all of the expenses in Column B for program services. That comes to 80.6 percent of spending. (The higher 89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a CharityWatch analysis of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.) “That’s the standard way” to measure a charity’s performance, Minuitti said. “You have to look at the entirety of that column.” Minuitti said it is also inaccurate to assume all money spent on travel and salaries does not go toward charity. Depending on the nature of the charity, she said, travel and salary could certainly be considered expenses related to charity. It’s true, as Willis said, that Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its “watch list,” but not because of concerns about insufficient funds going toward charity. Mainly, it was put on the watch list due to questions raised in the media about foreign donations to the foundation and the potential for quid pro quo when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. The site also linked to a story about the abrupt resignation earlier this year of the foundation’s CEO. (Go here to see a full list of articles that led to the decision by Charity Navigator to place the foundation on its watch list.) According to the Charity Navigator site, it “takes no position” on the allegations raised in the media reports, nor does it “seek to confirm or verify the accuracy of allegations made or the merits of issues raised.” Minuitti said the watch list was more like “news to know” for potential donors. None of the articles cited by Charity Navigator has anything to do with a low percentage of funding going to charitable work. Another philanthropy watchdog, CharityWatch, a project of the American Institute of Philanthropy, gave the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating. Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard. By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants, Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,” Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities. The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide. “What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.” In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative. “Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.” Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said. We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses. We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work. *A note from Jorge Ramos <http://fusion.net/story/153677/a-note-from-jorge-ramos/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialshare&utm_content=desktop+top> // Fusion // Jorge Ramos – June 19, 2015 * As journalists the most important thing we have is our credibility and integrity. We maintain that, in part, through transparency with our audience, our colleagues and our critics. That is why I am disclosing that my daughter, Paola, has accepted a position working with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. As a father, I am very proud that she has decided to actively participate in our democratic process. I hope that more young people get involved, regardless of political parties or ideological preferences. Our democracy and our future depend on that. I completely support and respect Paola’s decision. In our family we have always cherished tolerance, dialogue and active participation in what you believe. Like many reporters who have parents, siblings or other family members that are active in politics, this will not change how I approach my duty as a journalist. I will continue to report with complete independence and ask the tough questions, the same way I have done for the last 30 years. *Judicial Watch Statement in Reponse to Federal Court Reopening Lawsuit Seeking Information on Top Clinton Aide Huma Abedin <http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2590379> // Digital Journal // June 19, 2015 * Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding today's decision by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to reopen a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that sought records about Huma Abedin, the former deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). Hillary Clinton's massive email cover-up is unraveling. We welcome Judge Sullivan's decision to reopen this lawsuit. Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration concealed records and lied to obstruct federal courts and Judicial Watch from finding out about the secret emails. The court battle to get to the truth about Huma Abedin's "special government employee" (SGE) privileges at State is underway. The reopening of this case brings Judicial Watch one step closer to forcing the State Department to ensure that the government records in Hillary Clinton's "secret" email system are properly preserved, protected and recovered as federal law requires. Ms. Abedin is part of the Clinton cash raising operation and was even involved in the Benghazi scandal, so this lawsuit could not be more timely. This is the second Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit that has been reopened because of Hillary Clinton's hidden email records. Judicial Watch is aware of no prior instances of Freedom of Information lawsuits being reopened by federal courts. Judge Sullivan ruled that the "changed circumstances" of the discovery that Hillary Clinton and members of her State Department staff used secret email accounts to conduct government business warranted "reopening" the lawsuit. In asking Judge Sullivan to reopen the lawsuit, Judicial Watch cited a federal court rule (Rule 60(b)(3)) that allows a party to reopen a case due to "fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party:" The State Department had an obligation under the Federal Records Act to properly preserve, maintain, and make available for retrieval records of its official functions. In fact, it is the obligation of the head of every federal agency to do so. Secretary Clinton plainly violated her own legal obligations. Doing so was misconduct. The State Department originally agreed with Judicial Watch's request but later changed its mind and asked the court to reopen the lawsuit because of "newly discovered evidence." In today's ruling, Judge Sullivan simply reopened the case, rather than "spilling ink" on whether Hillary Clinton and the State Department committed fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct. Huma Abedin left the State Department in February 2013, and in May 2013, Politico reported that, since June 2012, she had been double-dipping, working as a consultant to outside clients while continuing as a top adviser at State. Abedin's outside clients included Teneo, a strategic consulting firm co-founded by former Bill Clinton counselor Doug Band. According to Fox News, Abedin earned $355,000 as a consultant to Teneo, in addition to her $135,000 SGE compensation. Teneo describes its activities as providing "the leaders of the world's most respected companies, nonprofit institutions and governments with a full suite of advisory solutions." [Emphasis added] Outside of the U.S., it maintains offices in Dubai, London, Dublin, Hong Kong, Brussels, Washington, and Beijing. Teneo was also the subject of various investigative reports, including by the New York Times, which raise questions about its relationship with the Clinton Foundation. In February 2014, the State Department assured Judicial Watch that it had searched the Office of the Executive Secretary, which would have included the offices of the Secretary of State and top staff. Relying upon the State Department's misrepresentation that the agency conducted a reasonable search, Judicial Watch agreed to dismiss its lawsuit on March 14, 2014. *I’m A Republican Woman & I’m Voting For Hillary <http://www.refinery29.com/2015/06/89426/republican-woman-voting-hillary-clinton-for-president> // Refinery 29 // Asma Hasan – June 19, 2015 * Since I was 18 years old, Hillary Clinton has punctuated my life. As I grew up, she’s been a compass for me — a woman I looked to as a model of female leadership and strength. I often listen to my inner Hillary Clinton as she urges me, in a gracious but all-knowing tone, to be a strong woman who picks her fights wisely. That’s why I hope to vote for her for president — even though I’m a lifelong Republican. I started at Wellesley College in the fall of 1993 — the same year Clinton, our most famous graduate, became First Lady. My fellow first-years and I (at Wellesley, we do not call them "freshmen") watched her be vilified in the press — for working, for playing too large a role, just for being. Dozens of major magazine articles that first year compared her to Lady MacBeth (who, as you'll remember, nagged her husband until he killed himself). But, in a way, that vilification was a great gift to us. Everyone goes off to college thinking they will change the world, but my classmates and I may have felt it more than most — a real sense we’d make a contribution on our own terms. If people criticized us in the process, like they did Hillary, that criticism became a badge of honor. Criticism, it seemed, was a sign of success, not its antithesis. Watching Hillary, I also learned how important it is to support your fellow women, even if you disagree with them. Too many men, then and now, would rather stick together than promote a woman. It was in college that I learned from my advisor (incidentally, he was also Hillary’s advisor) never to apologize for being “bossy.” I learned not to turn down more work or a new experience because, if I did, there would be a man who would take it for himself, even if he was less qualified than I. To be a woman growing into herself, in the time of Hillary, has been a powerful experience — one that probably would have been very different if Hillary had never existed. I was still an undergrad when Hillary gave her amazing speech at the U.N. Conference on Women, where she stated the (obvious, but until then unrecognized) aphorism that women’s rights are human rights, and human rights are women’s rights. It was such a simple sentiment, it may have changed the world. Now, 20 years later, I’ve graduated, set up a law practice, and settled into a more conservative set of political views. And yes, through that lens, the past decades of Hillary Clinton’s public life give me doubt. I questioned how, as Hillary's husband was leaving the Oval Office, she carefully selected a state in which to run for Senate. I felt like she was a reverse carpetbagger — a woman born in Illinois, first lady of Arkansas, then of Washington, cherry-picking New York simply because it was a northern state she had the best chance of winning. This reeked of the elitist privilege that I, as a feminist, seek to untangle. During the 2008 election primaries, I was irritated at some of Hillary’s backhanded insults against Obama, her sly allusions to racism and Islamophobia. And yes, more recently, I was shocked to learn that she had both maintained her own email server as Secretary of State and also deleted what are essentially government records. We’re both attorneys, and if there’s one thing a lawyer knows, it’s the importance of document retention. Why then, would she do something so bizarre if she didn’t have something to hide? It seems sloppy at best and incriminating at worst. While I try not to wonder why she stayed with Bill despite his obvious chicanery (since it’s impossible to know what goes on in someone else’s marriage), I do wish she’d address the issue in an honest way. If only to clearly establish there is a real love there that stretches beyond his misdeeds — not just the mere opportunism from being part of a political power couple. Are these foibles, gaffes, and, perhaps illegalities enough for me to say I can’t vote for her? While I would love to be an idealist, no, they’re not. It’s too important to have a woman president. Haven’t men done these sorts of things for centuries? Made decisions for women and the populace at large from smoky back rooms? Promoted their fellow undeserving men over hard-working women? Stolen or destroyed records? Fixed elections (all over the world)? How can I be a feminist who stands for the improvement and promotion of women and not support Hillary’s machinations? Isn’t this what it will take to accomplish some measure of female success in what is still a male-dominated society? I’d put my chips on Hillary as the woman who could shut down the roadblocks, whether via a more gracious approach or by simply dismissing them as she did in her GIF-worthy Benghazi testimony. Watching her sit in front of a panel of mostly men as they tried, time after time, to latch onto her, was inspiring. She was masterful in her bottled disdain, and many of us — Republican me included — could identify. Strange as it may seem, I’m still a Republican. The GOP is in accord with my feminist spirit — believing in individualism, judging one on one’s own merits, and not feeding my hard-won gains back into a system that benefits mainly men. I know this line of argument, culminating in a vote for HRC, won’t win me any arguments among Republicans, but I don’t need to. Other groups can speak up for themselves, and we can see where we all end up. *These Women Probably Don’t Fit the Bill: Fans Suggest Hillary, Beyoncé and Taylor for #TheNew10 <http://www.people.com/article/celebrity-women-new-ten-dollar-bill> // People // Tierney Mcafee – June 19, 2015 * Hillary Clinton might become the first woman president in U.S. history, but she probably won't become the first woman to appear on a U.S. bank note in more than a century. Ever since the U.S. Treasury Department announced Wednesday that a woman will grace the face of the new $10 note in 2020, fans have been taking to Twitter to suggest candidates who fit the bill. The last woman to be featured on U.S. paper currency was Martha Washington, who was on the $1 Silver Certificate between 1891 and 1896. Now historical figures including Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt and Rosa Parks have become frontrunners for #TheNew10 on social media and in a poll conducted by the group Women on 20s. But it seems that for every Harriet vote, there's a Hillary vote; for every Parks, a Beyoncé; for every Roosevelt, a Taylor Swift. *OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE* *DECLARED* *O’MALLEY* *An Angry O’Malley Calls for an Assault Weapons Ban <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/19/an-angry-omalley-calls-for-an-assault-weapons-ban/> // NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 19, 2015 * Using an off-color word to describe his anger, Martin O’Malley, a Democratic candidate for president, called for a new national assault weapons ban and other gun control measures in an email sent to supporters after the shooting deaths at a South Carolina church this week. Mr. O’Malley is the only candidate so far to call for reinstating the assault weapons ban, a politically charged topic. Mr. O’Malley repeatedly used a word that is sometimes invoked to accentuate anger, and appeared to take an oblique swipe at his leading party rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Instead of “jumping to act,” he said, people are choosing to “sit back and wait for the appropriate moment to say what we’re all thinking: that this is not the America we want to be living in.” He chastised Congress for failing to pass stronger gun control laws in early 2013 after the deaths of nearly two dozen children at a school Newtown, Conn., and highlighted his record as the governor of Maryland passing laws “that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing standards and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers.” “It’s time we called this what it is: a national crisis,” he wrote in his email. “I proudly hold an ‘F’ rating from the N.R.A., and when I worked to pass gun control in Maryland, the N.R.A. threatened me with legal action, but I never backed down.” The gun control bill that died in Congress more than two years ago was a blow to President Obama, and began a longer-term drop in his popularity. *Martin O’Malley: ‘I’m pissed’ at lack of action on gun control* <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/19/omalley-im-pissed-at-lack-of-action-on-gun-control/>* // WaPo // John Wagner – June 19, 2015 * Democratic presidential hopeful Martin O'Malley sent a tartly worded e-mail to supporters Friday saying he is "pissed" by congressional inaction on gun control and asking them to stand with him in an effort to toughen laws after this week's massacre at a Charleston, S.C., church. "It's time we called this what it is: a national crisis," O'Malley said in the e-mail, which carried the subject header "I'm pissed" and included links to a Web page to provide contact information to his campaign. He used the word "pissed" four more times in the e-mail. O'Malley's choice of words -- more common among teenagers than presidential candidates -- seemed a gambit to attract attention to a campaign mired in the low single digits in early-state polls. But a spokeswoman said the tone was a true reflection of how the former Maryland governor, who has used salty language on other recent occasions, feels about the issue. In the e-mail, O'Malley pointed to his record as governor, which included passage in 2013 of a wide-ranging gun-safety bill. On the national level, he is calling for an assault weapons ban, stricter background checks and efforts to prevent "straw purchases" of guns, such as fingerprinting requirements, which Maryland implemented. O'Malley's proposals are more specific than anything his Democratic rivals, including former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have suggested in recent days. In the past, Clinton has supported banning assault weapons and other measures favored by gun-control advocates. Sanders has a mixed record that includes voting against the landmark Brady bill that required background checks and a waiting period before buying a firearm. "I'm pissed that after working hard in the state of Maryland to pass real gun control — laws that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing standards, and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers — Congress continues to drop the ball," O'Malley wrote. He also knocked Republicans running for president, saying none of them have been "even close to being right on this issue." O'Malley's e-mail followed an appearance earlier Friday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," in which he said -- in less colorful terms -- that the shootings this week should be a call to action on gun control and mental health issues. In late April, O'Malley raised eyebrows when during an interview on National Public Radio, he referred to a Republican economic argument as "patently bulls---." Afterward, he sent an email to supporters with the subject header, "Yeah, I said it." O'Malley used the same epithet in a conversation with reporters during a recent trip to the early nominating state of New Hampshire. *Martin O’Malley not worried about retribution for Hillary Clinton attacks* <http://www.politico.com/p/pages/2016-elections?ml=na>* // Politico // Nick Gass – June 19, 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley says he is not worried about retribution from fellow Democrats in going after Hillary Clinton. “No, I do not,” the former Maryland governor said Friday in response to a question on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” pertaining to Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan’s latest column. “The Democrats have an enforcement mechanism to keep all their candidates in line. Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley know without being told that the party will kill them if they tear apart the assumed nominee,” she wrote in the op-ed published Thursday. “Their careers will be over if they go at her personally.” O’Malley’s reply: “Well my career ended when I was elevated to the rank of citizen about three months ago, so I don’t have a career to kill. He added, “I’m the only candidate in this race with 15 years of executive experience as the mayor of a very great but a very challenged city and as a governor.” *O’Malley’s Two-Word Response to Charleston Shooting: ‘I’m Pissed’ <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/bernie-sanders-faces-awkward-issues-for-his-liberal-allies-immigration-and-guns> // Bloomberg // Sydney McNeal – June 19, 2015 * In the aftermath of Thursday’s shooting in Charleston, everyone from President Obama to those campaigning to succeed him expressed shock, sorrow, and frustration about the tragedy, and also the government’s inability to end gun violence. On Friday, Martin O’Malley, who is trailing Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders in the race for the Democratic nomination, went even further in an impassioned e-mail to supporters with the subject line, “I’m pissed.” I'm pissed that we’re actually asking ourselves the horrific question of, what will it take? How many senseless acts of violence in our streets or tragedies in our communities will it take to get our nation to stop caving to special interests like the NRA when people are dying? I'm pissed that after working hard in the state of Maryland to pass real gun control—laws that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing standards, and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers—Congress continues to drop the ball. He did not mention the nine victims, their families, or the African Methodist Episcopal church community in the message, though he did express condolences on Twitter on Thursday. As governor of Maryland, he passed legislation that banned assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, toughening some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. *O’Malley: ‘I’m pissed’ about gun climate* <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/omalley-pissed-gun-control/>* // CNN // Theodore Schleifer – June 19, 2015* Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley is "pissed" about the nation's unwillingness to pass gun control, he told supporters in an email Friday. O'Malley, who is looking to galvanize the left in order to mount a credible primary challenge to frontrunner Hillary Clinton, looked to build his email list with an "I'm pissed" subject line and boasted about his poor grades from the gun-rights lobby. "I proudly hold an F rating from the (National Rifle Association), and when I worked to pass gun control in Maryland, the NRA threatened me with legal action, but I never backed down," O'Malley said in the email. "What we did in Maryland should be the first step of what we do as a nation." The former Maryland governor called for a national assault weapons ban, stricter background checks and fingerprint requirements that could reduce straw-buying. After the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in late 2012, President Barack Obama spent the first months of his second term pushing for a package of gun-control legislation, but Republicans, backed by the NRA, successfully thwarted those bills on Capitol Hill. Few Democrats or gun-control advocates are hopeful that much will change after a white gunman killed nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina this week. "I'm pissed that we're actually asking ourselves the horrific question of, what will it take? How many senseless acts of violence in our streets or tragedies in our communities will it take to get our nation to stop caving to special interests like the NRA when people are dying?" O'Malley asked supporters. *Martin O’Malley is ‘Pissed About Gun Control <http://time.com/3928841/martin-omalley-gun-control-pissed/> // TIME // Sam Frizell – June 19, 2015 * Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley told supporters in the wake of this week’s South Carolina shooting that he’s “pissed” Congress is not passing more stringent gun control measures. “I’m pissed that after an unthinkable tragedy like the one in South Carolina yesterday, instead of jumping to act, we sit back and wait for the appropriate moment to say what we’re all thinking: that this is not the America we want to be living in,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in an email. Nine people were shot dead in a historically black church in Charleston on Wednesday. A 21-year-old white man, Dylann Roof, has been charged for the crime. O’Malley passed broad gun control measures as governor that included banning weapons, limiting handgun magazines to 10 rounds, and requiring gun owners to provide their fingerprints as part of their weapons licenses. The presidential candidate is now advocating nationally for a national assault weapons ban, stricter background checks, and fingerprint requirements. “I proudly hold an F rating from the NRA,” O’Malley said. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton on Thursday also called for new actions to curb gun violence. “How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?” she said, but didn’t lay out specific proposals. On Friday morning, O’Malley spoke on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program and advocated coupling mental health programs with stricter gun control. *O’Malley says he won’t be deterred from criticizing Clinton* <http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-omalley-says-he-wont-be-deterred-from-criticizing-clinton-20150619-story.html>* // Baltimore Sun // Michael Dresser – June 19, 2015* Former Gov. Martin O"Malley said Friday that he won't be deterred from vigorously criticizing front-runner Hillary Clinton in his race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. O'Malley, appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe program, told co-host Mika Brzezinski that he isn't concerned about damage to his career or retaliation by party leaders if he criticizes Clinton too harshly. "My career ended when I was elevated to the rank of citizen about three months ago," he said." I don't have a career to kill." O'Malley, who actually left office five months ago, was responding to a question about former White House speech writer Peggy Noonan's contention in the Wall Street Journal that Clinton's Democratic challengers were pulling their punches in their campaigns because of a concern they could become pariahs in their party if they go after the presumptive nominee on a personal level or criticize her ethical practices. Noonan, who worked for President Ronald Reagan, predicted Clinton would "glide" to the nomination "dinged but not damaged." O'Malley said he was encouraged by a poll showing that 59 percent of New Hampshire Democrats want to have an alternative to Clinton in the nation's first primary. While the former Maryland governor said he would have no compunction about attacking Clinton, he did not level personal criticism of her Friday. His most pointed remark came as he sought to contrast his position with Clinton's on President Obama's proposed Asian trade deal, which the former secretary of state recently criticized. "I was opposed to it not after it failed but before it," O'Malley said. In the wake of the slaying of nine people at a Charleston, S.C., church Wednesday, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked O'Malley about how to prevent such incidents. Scarborough said the law O'Malley pushed through the Maryland General Assembly after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre would not have prevented the accused Charleston shooter from obtaining his gun, reportedly a gift from his father. O'Malley said the nation's laws must deal with both gun control and mental health, adding that the Maryland law he signed addressed both issues. "It's a matter of doing both, and not either/or," he said. O'Mallley said the "vast majority" of Americans would favor background checks for handgun purchasers. But the former governor acknowledged the difficulty of preventing such shootings. "How do you make sense of giving a gun to a troubled young man?" he said. The former governor followed up his TV appearance with an email from his campaign with the subject line "I'm pissed." In it, he wrote about the the things that anger him about the Charleston shooting and pointed to his record of support for gun control. "I'm pissed that after working hard in the state of Maryland to pass real gun control -- laws that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing standards, and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers — Congress continues to drop the ball," he said. O'Malley spelled out steps he would support as president: a national assault rifle ban, stricter background checks and a fingerprinting requirement for gun purchases -- all provisions of the Maryland law. He said it was time for the United State to stop "caving" to the National Rifle Association. Asked on MSNBC about the racial aspect of the Charleston shootings, in which the victims were black and the accused killer is white, O'Malley said the nation has to face up to its history. "We do it by acknowledging the racial legacy we share as Americans," he said. O'Malley, who has been working to differentiate himself from Clinton as she has moved to the left, cast himself as a critic of the financial industry, with which Bill and Hillary Clinton have had close ties. "Wealth and power has become very, very concentrated in our country,' he said, adding that Americans are looking for "new leadership." *Martin O’Malley Launches Major Post-Charleston Gun Control Push With “I’m Pissed” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/martin-omalley-launches-major-post-charleston-gun-control-pu#.cwyQwpJ0a> // Buzzfeed // Evan McMorris-Santoro – June 19, 2015 * Martin O’Malley launched a major push for gun control tied to the Charleston shooting Friday, his campaign’s latest attempt to use his record as Maryland governor to drive up support for his presidential campaign. In what has become a trademark for O’Malley, he announced his new gun control focus in a brusque manner. “I’m pissed,” reads the subject line from a gun-control focused email O’Malley’s campaign sent to supporters Friday. (O’Malley sent a similar list-building email after he called Republican economic plans “bullshit” on NPR in April.) “I’m pissed” comes with a series of policy prescriptions O’Malley promises to make a centerpiece of his campaign moving forward. The plan is modeled on policies O’Malley signed into law as Maryland governor that drew the ire of the NRA and its allies and praise from gun control supporters. O’Malley is proposing a national assault-weapons ban, tightening background checks, and efforts to end so-called “straw purchasing,” where firearms will be purchased legally on behalf of someone unable to legally purchase them. O’Malley’s gun policy agenda is similar to ones Democrats and President Obama hoped to pass after the 2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. In the presidential field, it puts him in a more unique position: Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont and according to polling second place candidate in the Democratic nomination race, voted for an assault-weapons ban and expanded background checks in 2013, but has not expressly called for a ban since announcing his presidential candidacy. Gun-rights advocates ultimately defeated the 2013 effort, leaving Obama, he said Thursday in his remarks after Charleston, with little recourse policy-wise. The former Maryland governor appeared to take issue with Obama’s read on the situation in D.C. — namely, that nothing can be done about new gun laws while Congress is divided the way it is — on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Friday. “I think you have to advocate for it in Congress,” O’Malley said. “I think when incidents like this happen, we shouldn’t say, ‘well, it’s just America. That’s just the way it is.’” Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic frontrunner, spoke about Charleston Thursday but did not issue support for an assault-weapons ban or other specific policy proposals. O’Malley’s running towards his gun-control record in his new presidential campaign push. His email to supporters boasts about his “F rating from the NRA.” A senior O’Malley aide told BuzzFeed News the supporter email was “the beginning of what will be a major push” and said voters “will be hearing a lot more from him on this.” The former mayor of Baltimore will find a friendly audience for a gun-control message when O’Malley addresses the U.S. Conference of Mayors Sunday, his next scheduled public appearance. Mayors have often been among the most vocal proponents of gun-control legislation, and have stepped up their calls for it after mass shootings in the past. *SANDERS* *Bernie Sanders hits the Las Vegas strip, takes aim at billionaire Sheldon Adelson <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/19/bernie-sanders-hits-the-las-vegas-strip-takes-aim-at-billionaire-sheldon-adelson/> // WaPo // Philip Rucker – June 19, 2015 * Directly across the Las Vegas Strip from the Venetian, the lavish hotel and casino built by wealthy political donor Sheldon Adelson, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders rallied more than 700 supporters here Friday to join his revolution against the billionaire class whose greed he says is crushing the United States. “Today we live in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, but the vast majority of the American people do not know that, do not feel that, because almost all of that wealth today rests in the hands of a tiny few," Sanders said. "What we are saying to the billionaire class is, 'Your greed, which is destroying this country, has got to end.'" Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont who describes himself as a socialist but caucuses with Democrats, took direct aim at Adelson, who together with his wife, Miriam, spent roughly $100 million to help elect Mitt Romney and other Republicans in 2012. "People like Sheldon Adelson -- you know who he is! -- and the Koch brothers are now spending unbelievable sums of money," Sanders said. When he argued that such political spending had created an "oligarchy" and wrecked "the foundations of American democracy," the crowd stood on its feet and chanted, "Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!" Sanders received a raucous reception here Friday, with repeated standing ovations and loud cheers. The hour was early, especially by Las Vegas standards -- 9 a.m. -- but hundreds of people, young and old, streamed in, sipping coffee and munching on muffins and breakfast cake. The Sanders campaign received so many responses from locals wanting to see him that they relocated his town hall meeting from the University of Nevada Las Vegas to a venue that could accommodate hundreds more -- the ballroom at Treasure Island, a hotel and casino on the Las Vegas Strip. On Saturday, Sanders is scheduled to hold an event in Denver, where campaign officials said they already have received about 7,000 RSVPs. If they all show up, it would be perhaps the largest rally any candidate in either party has staged thus far in the 2016 campaign cycle. Sanders argued that the reception he saw here in Las Vegas and in other recent stops, from Iowa to Minnesota to New Hampshire, shows that his message is resonating with progressive activists. “This campaign is about you, your kids, our parents, our grandparents," he said. "It is about having the courage to do something which is pretty hard, and that is to say very loudly and clearly that enough is enough, that this government, our country belongs to all of us and not just a handful of billionaires." Climate change is a core theme of Sanders's pitch to voters, but he added a new line to his stump speech, referring to Pope Francis's call to action, issued Thursday from the Vatican, that the burning of fossil fuels and human activity contribute to climate change. "As Pope Francis reminded us yesterday, climate change is real; climate change is caused by human activity; climate change is already having devastating impact in America and around the world," Sanders said. He argued that it is an "international embarrassment" that some U.S. senators from the Republican Party continue to deny climate change science. *Bernie Sanders and immigration? It’s complicated <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-and-immigration-its-complicated-119190.html> // Politico // Seung Min Kim – June 19, 2015 * Running as a presidential hopeful in 2016, Bernie Sanders has touted his support for immigration reform and the need to find a solution to a problem that has long vexed Washington. But in 2007, Sanders was part of the charge from the left to kill an immigration overhaul bill. Back then, the Vermont independent warned that the immigration bill — a product from then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — would drive down wages for lower-income workers, an argument that’s been used by hard-liner reform opponents. He paired with conservative Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on a restrictive immigration amendment. And Sanders backed provisions characterized as poison pills to unravel the bill, while voting to block the final measure in June 2007. Sanders’ history on immigration that year is complicated. But his overall record has come under renewed attention after criticism that the senator was being too quiet on the issue during his long-shot campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. He plans to address immigration when he appears before a conference of Latino officials on Friday in Las Vegas. Sanders, more comfortable speaking in the language of income inequality and economic populism, has largely skipped over immigration while campaigning — a silence that prompted Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) to muse in a television interview last week: “I don’t know if he likes immigrants because he doesn’t seem to talk about immigrants.” “He’s running for the nomination of my party, and my party has made pretty clear that immigration is a top-tier issue,” Gutierrez said, explaining why he pushed Sanders on the topic. Still, Gutierrez added: “I have no reason to doubt his authenticity and sincerity.” For all his rhetoric in 2007, Sanders didn’t oppose a pathway to citizenship or efforts to boost border security. That chapter in Sanders’ immigration record reflects less on his support for the issue and more on his alliance to labor — and key unions also opposed the 2007 legislation. “Sanders was basically one of our only allies … especially for low-skilled workers” in 2007, said Ana Avendano, a former top immigration official at the AFL-CIO. “He adamantly put his foot down and said these kinds of programs [allow] employers to bring in more and more vulnerable workers.” For some overhaul supporters, Sanders’ stance was a blow in 2007. “I wasn’t happy when he voted against the bill and I wasn’t happy we lost. It hurt,” said Frank Sharry, a longtime veteran of Washington’s immigration battles. “In retrospect, we realized that the only way we can proceed is that progressive forces are united behind the bill, and then you negotiate from strength with the business community and conservatives on employment and business immigration.” Fast forwarding to today, Sanders’ immigration stance is still notable, though more for how muted it has been compared to his competitors’ views. Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley have aggressively tackled the issue. Clinton has pledged to go further than President Barack Obama has on shielding immigrants here illegally from deportations, while O’Malley vowed to take on reform within the first 100 days as chief executive. After Gutierrez’s comments last week, Sanders inserted new remarks in his stump speech in Des Moines, calling for a “rational immigration process” that differed from the “Republican alternatives of self-deportation or some other draconian non-solution.” In a brief interview, Sanders said Gutierrez’s criticism didn’t influence his decision to include immigration in his stump speech. The senator also said he would speak on the issue during his Friday Las Vegas event. “We’ll have a very strong statement on the need for comprehensive immigration reform,” Sanders said, previewing his remarks at the gathering of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. “It’s an issue that I’ve been involved in.” The son of Polish immigrants, Sanders has a record on immigration that’s broadly praised by advocates. In December 2010, Sanders voted for the Dream Act — legislation that would have legalized immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children. It passed the Democratic-led House, but blocked in the Senate. Sanders voted with all Senate Democrats to support the so-called Gang of Eight bill in 2013. And last year, when Sanders began flirting with a presidential run, he pressed Obama on taking executive action for millions of undocumented immigrants at a time when moderate Senate Democrats up for reelection fretted over the White House acting on its own on deportations. But in 2007, Sanders was far from a reliable vote for immigration reform in the Senate. The problem for Sanders was a guest-worker program that some immigration advocates and Democratic lawmakers begrudgingly accepted as part of a comprehensive deal — but was abhorred by labor unions and their allies on Capitol Hill. “What concerns me are provisions in the bill that would bring low-wage workers into this country in order to depress the already declining wages of American workers,” Sanders said in May 2007. “With poverty increasing and the middle-class shrinking, we must not force American workers into even more economic distress.” The guest-worker program proposed in the 2007 bill would bring in foreign workers for two years at a time, but force them to leave the United States for a year in between each renewal. It also offered few protections for those workers, labor advocates said. In early June of that year, Sanders proposed an amendment with Grassley that would ban companies that have laid off workers en masse from being approved for new worker visas. Then-Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) pitched an amendment to end that guest-worker program after five years, which passed by one vote and has since been called a poison pill that helped scuttle the bill. Sanders voted in favor of Dorgan’s amendment, as did Clinton. “Sanders was very active in trying to reduce the guest-worker parts of the ‘07 bill,” said Roy Beck, the executive director of Numbers USA, a group that calls for stricter immigration laws. “It was remarkable that Sanders went along with that in 2013.” The 2007 measure splintered both parties in the Senate — as a coalition of conservative Republicans, union-friendly liberals and centrist Democrats banded together to block the legislation and effectively killed immigration reform under President George W. Bush. Other labor-backed Senate Democrats, such as Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Tom Harkin of Iowa, sided with Sanders. But Clinton voted to advance it, as did then-Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Joe Biden of Delaware. In contrast to the failed 2007 push, labor and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2013 struck an agreement for lower-skilled immigrant workers — a landmark deal that was key to the Senate proposing and passing its comprehensive bill in June that year. But even though he ultimately voted for it, Sanders wasn’t too keen on guest-worker plan in 2013, either. The new program, Sanders argued, would “allow large corporations to import hundreds of thousands of blue-collar and white-collar workers from overseas.” And for good measure, Sanders also ripped a section in the sweeping bill that would have bolstered the number of high-skilled immigrant workers into the country — a less contentious provision. Sanders ultimately secured a sweetener in the final days of the 2013 immigration battle: a $1.5 billion youth jobs program that, on its face, appeared to have little to do with immigration. It would dole out that money to states to help 16- to 24-year-olds in the United States become employed, which Sanders proclaimed would help more than 400,000 young people. He argued that his youth jobs program was necessary to offset the immigrants coming here to do jobs that Sanders said the young Americans would otherwise do. “Like any piece of complicated legislation, there are aspects of this bill which I strongly support and others I disagree with,” Sanders after he voted to pass the 2013 bill. “One of the areas I have serious concerns about and want to see improved as the bill progresses is the huge increase in guest-worker programs. At a time when unemployment remains extremely high, these programs bring hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers into our economy making it harder for U.S. citizens to find jobs.” That wasn’t too far off from Sanders in 2007 — except that back then, he voted against the bill. “At a time when the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing and millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages it makes no sense to me to have an immigration bill which, over a period of years, would bring millions of ‘guest workers’ into this country who are prepared to work for lower wages than American workers,” Sanders said after that year’s bill died. “We need to increase wages in this country, not lower them.” *Sanders gains with blunt talk of rich vs. poor <http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2015/06/19/bernie-sanders-vermont-iowa-blunt-talk-rich-poor/28970237/> // AP // June 19, 2015 * Bernie Sanders likes to call it "practicing democracy." He doesn't take the stage to a blaring soundtrack. He doesn't have a teleprompter or a phalanx of Secret Service agents surrounding him. But when his Brooklyn accent booms out at a campaign stop in rural Iowa, heads nod along in approval. "What I'm doing in this campaign is trying to tell the people the truth — but a truth which is not heard a whole lot in Washington or discussed a lot in the media," Sanders said recently at a picnic in Iowa's Warren County, south of Des Moines. "So let me lay it out on the table for you," he said. "You're living in a country today which has more wealth and income inequality than any major industrialized nation on earth." In a race for the Democratic presidential nomination with Hillary Rodham Clinton, the blunt talk about the economy and the gap between the rich and poor is working for Sanders. The independent senator from Vermont is an unconventional messenger at a time when many politicians test-drive what they want to say in polls and with focus groups. Sanders is drawing sizable crowds in the early voting states. He's also gaining against Clinton in very early polls, particularly in New Hampshire, a factor that impresses the political class even though opinion surveys at this point are limited in predicting who will win. Clinton remains the race's overwhelming favorite, but there's no question that the 73-year-old self-described democratic socialist, whose disheveled white hair might remind some of Doc Brown from "Back to the Future," isn't just a novelty. "This is a unique individual," said Iowa Democratic state Rep. Scott Ourth, who introduced Sanders last weekend at the picnic in Indianola. "This guy has only one standard. If it's right for people, he's going to fight for it. If it's bad for people, he's going to take a stand against it." Drawing unexpectedly large crowds, the campaign has moved a town meeting planned in Las Vegas on Friday into a more spacious venue. About 5,000 people are expected at a rally Saturday at the University of Denver. "The challenge for us, really, is that at this point the crowds are way ahead of us," said Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver. Sanders is running with a relentless focus on policy. He rarely talks about his family, other than mentioning his four children and 7 grandchildren when explaining the importance of confronting climate change. In Minneapolis he was joined on stage by his wife, Jane, and noted they had just celebrated their 27th wedding anniversary. He's promoting a massive government-led jobs program to fix roads and bridges. He wants a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and higher taxes on the wealthy and Wall Street. He advocates for a single-payer health care system, an expansion of Social Security benefits and debt-free college. He's combative, too. Sanders often points to some European and Scandinavian countries that provide subsidized or free education, universal health care and generous family leave policies as models for the U.S. While speaking to graduate students recently, Sanders asked a student from Finland whether his country is "crazy" to pay for his education. Then he grilled the students about U.S. policy on paid sick leave for new parents. "C'mon guys, you're in graduate school!" he barked. "What are you teaching these guys? Do you know anything?" One woman yelled, "None," meaning no national policy on such leave. Nodding, Sanders instructed the students that people in Finland get paid leave after they have children. "Ahhh. Now I want to get everybody very nervous," Sanders said sarcastically. "This is called European socialism! Terrible, horrible, right? Because none of you want to be able to go to college and graduate school tuition-free. "None of you, when you have kids, want the opportunity to bond with your kids. Terrible! European socialism!" His speeches often reflect such a black-and-white view of the world. He rarely mentions that tax rates in such countries are far higher than in the U.S. It's a style that couldn't be more different than Clinton's. Hours before the first major rally of her campaign, Clinton released a Spotify playlist of songs, featuring music by Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson and Sara Bareilles. One of her campaign Twitter feeds showed a green silhouette of her head wearing trendy headphones. Clinton has been traveling with Secret Service agents since her husband's presidency in the 1990s. Sanders shows up at rallies and events with a small contingent of aides. In Indianola, he carried a folded piece of paper scrawled with notes while he spoke. Other presidential candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire will linger long after their speeches, trying to shake every hand and make a personal connection with a potential voter. Sanders doesn't make a lot of small talk. After receiving a standing ovation in Indianola, he was stopped repeatedly for photos and handshakes — which he obliged — but he kept moving. "Very quickly, very quickly," he said to one man requesting a photograph. For all of that, the woman he's challenging is perhaps the most dominant front-runner within the party in a generation. "Clinton is going to be a safer bet," said John MacBride, a 24-year-old Sanders supporter who drove from Kansas City to see him speak. "A lot of my peers think she's a safer bet. But they like what he says better." *Bernie Sanders Faces Awkward Issues for His Liberal Allies: Immigration and Guns <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/bernie-sanders-faces-awkward-issues-for-his-liberal-allies-immigration-and-guns> // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – June 19, 2015 * Senator Bernie Sanders is positioning himself as the furthest-left mainstream presidential candidate, but on Friday he ended up confronting two of the issues where he’s most at odds with liberals: immigration and guns. Speaking to a gathering of Latino government officials, Sanders touted his support for a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws, saying he backs a path to full citizenship for the undocumented as well as efforts to improve working conditions for immigrants. “It is not acceptable to me and I think a growing majority of the American people that millions of folks in this country are working extremely hard but they are living in the shadows and that has got to end,” Sanders told the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials convention, drawing a substantially smaller crowd than another hopeful for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, did a day earlier. Sanders talked up his support of the 2013 Senate immigration bill, which included a measure linking new immigration laws to heightened border security. On Friday, though, he said he opposes "tying immigration reform to the building of a border fence.” Addressing the Immigration Issue Sanders’ speech marked his first extended discussion of immigration, an issue that his campaign has downplayed. It was missing from his announcement speech in May, drawing the criticism of liberal commentators and at least one outspoken immigrant rights advocate. It was also missing during last week's visit to Marshalltown, an Iowa town with a sizable Latino population, when he faced sharp questions from an immigration advocate. "I don’t know if he likes immigrants, because he doesn't seem to talk about immigrants. But sooner or later he’ll tell us. I hope he likes immigrants. I haven’t heard him say anything. He’s been kind of quiet and silent," Illinois Rep. Luis Gutiérrez said last week in an interview with Larry King. Gutiérrez is a Clinton supporter but told King that he’s also satisfied with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s position on the immigration. During last summer’s border crisis, Clinton supported the Obama administration’s general approach, saying that children who had arrived in the United States "should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are.” The country, she said, needs to “send a clear message: just because your child gets across the border doesn’t mean your child gets to stay.” O’Malley, though, bucked his party’s leader and said that the United States is not a "country that should turn children away and send them back to certain death.” Sensing Clinton’s vulnerability a year later, Sanders offered a critique. “It was wrong for some to suggest turning away the unaccompanied Central American children along the border,” he said. Avoiding Gun Talk Earlier Friday, speaking to a crowd of more than 700 that had gathered for a town hall discussion in a ballroom at the Treasure Island casino after RSVPs outpaced plans for a smaller space at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Sanders avoided talk of guns during his stump speech, even when discussing Wednesday’s mass shooting at a church in Charleston, S.C. When started taking questions, though, one audience member went for it, saying that she sees a need for tougher gun laws. Sanders framed his response with his backstory, telling the woman: “I come from a state that has zero gun control and it also has a very low crime rate.” Even so, Vermonters "are more than aware that we have guns in the hands of people who should not have those guns. There are weapons out there that have nothing to do with hunting but are designed to kill people and kill them quickly. So those are issues that must be dealt with.” Sanders first got to Congress in 1990 after beating Republican Rep. Peter Smith, who had voiced support for an assault weapons ban, drawing the ire of the NRA, which ended up campaigning against him, though not directly for Sanders. Once Sanders got to the House, he opposed the Brady Bill, in what one article at the time called an “especially incongruous” position. But Sanders’ explanation then and in the quarter-century since has been that he takes his stance on behalf of all Vermonters, many of whom see guns as essential to rural life. Asked after his town hall by a reporter on how those issues could be dealt with, Sanders avoided getting specific. “I think rural America needs to understand what urban America fears. Urban America needs to understand the culture of rural America,” he said. Pressed on what he would do as president, he said only: “I will talk about guns at some length but not right now.” *Clinton, Sanders, Paul top Facebook chatter in key early presidential states <http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/19/270552/clinton-sanders-paul-top-facebook.html> // McClatchy // David Lightman – June 19, 2015 * Hillary Clinton’s winning big in the “Facebook poll” in New Hamsphire and South Carolina, but Bernie Sanders is right behind. And among Republicans, Rand Paul is on top. Those are the results of Facebook “interactions,’’ which include likes, posts, comments and shares, over the past month. The data cover May 13 to June 13. No one knows, of course, how much influence Facebook and social media will have, but at the moment, Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, is clearly the most talked-about candidate. Her 289,000 Iowa interactions are far ahead of runnerup Sanders, the senator from Vermont, who had 153,000. Paul, a senator from Kentucky, had 98,000. Sanders came closer in New Hampshire, which shares a long border with Vermont. He had 123,000 interactions to Clinton’s 145,000. But he fell way back in South Carolina, where Clinton topped him, 460,000 to 116,000. Clinton held her first major rally Saturday, the last day the data was collected. Sanders held his first big presidential event May 26. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who has been trying to appeal to the Republicans’ evangelical base, did well in that state, finishing a close second to Paul. Here are South Carolina data. The first number is unique people. The second is interactions: Hillary Clinton 104,000 460,000 Rand Paul 34,000 132,000 Ben Carson 24,000 120,000 Bernie Sanders 24,000 116,000 Lindsey Graham 43,000 100,000 Ted Cruz 25,000 94,000 Jeb Bush 32,000 80,000 Mike Huckabee 29,000 80,000 Rick Perry 33,000 71,000 Marco Rubio 18,000 48,000 Scott Walker 14,000 39,000 Rick Santorum14,000 28,000 Carly Fiorina 10,000 25,000 Chris Christie 13,000 24,000 Donald Trump 12,000 20,000 Bobby Jindal 8,000 15,000 Martin O Malley 2,000 5,000 George Pataki 2,000 2,000 John Kasich 1,000 2,000 *Bernie Sanders Calls for Broader End to Deportations <http://time.com/3928948/bernie-sanders-immigration/?xid=tcoshare> // TIME // Philip Elliot – June 19, 2015 * Prosecutors in the Colorado theater shooting trial rested Friday, concluding their argument that James Holmes methodically planned and executed the 2012 massacre in a case that relied heavily — over defense objections — on victims’ recollections of the carnage he inflicted inside the darkened cinema. Over the past eight weeks, prosecutors weaved experts’ testimony with survivors’ personal stories to try to convince jurors that Holmes was sane when he opened fire on a midnight showing of the Batman film The Dark Knight Rises. The former neuroscience student killed 12 people and wounded 70. For its last witness, the prosecution called a survivor whose story was among the most heart-wrenching. Ashley Moser was paralyzed and suffered a miscarriage in the shooting, and her 6-year-old daughter, Veronica, was killed. Moser came to the witness stand in a motorized wheelchair. She described hearing what she thought were kids setting off fireworks in the theater, and wanting to leave. She reached for her daughter’s hand, but it slipped away. The soft-spoken Moser used a tissue to wipe away tears as she described the attack. She said it started with an explosion and something spewing gas behind her, then bright flashes at the front of the room. Moser said she assumed someone was setting off fireworks as a prank, and she stood up to take her daughter’s hand and leave. “Did her hand reach back?” prosecutor George Brauchler asked. “It just slipped through my hand,” she replied. Moser said she felt a pain in her chest and fell on top of her daughter, but couldn’t move. “I heard the movie still playing and people crying and screaming,” Moser said, vaguely recalling being carried out of the theater. She learned later that her daughter was dead. As Moser testified from her wheelchair, Holmes stared straight ahead, slightly swiveling in his chair. The prosecution rested after displaying Veronica’s kindergarten graduation picture. The gallery was packed, and several victims and their relatives hugged and thanked prosecutors once the jury was dismissed for the day. Holmes’ lawyers will now begin calling their own psychiatrists and presenting other evidence to argue Holmes was in the grips of a psychotic episode at the time of the shootings and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity. They plan to begin their case Thursday. The defense says Holmes’ mental illness distorted his sense of right and wrong, a key factor the jury must consider in determining if he was sane. Holmes’ attorneys say he should be committed to the state mental hospital. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Holmes abandoned a prestigious graduate program at the University of Colorado-Denver before he opened fire at the suburban Denver movie theater where more than 400 people were watching the midnight premier. Prosecutors showed jurors nearly 21 hours of Holmes’ videotaped interviews with a state-appointed psychiatrist who concluded Holmes was seriously mentally ill but legally sane at the time of the shooting. On the video, Holmes said he felt nothing as he took aim at fleeing moviegoers. Halting and awkward, he blurted out that he feared being stopped from committing what he acknowledged was a crime. Prosecutors also took jurors on a video tour of the theater, the camera moving past bodies wedged between rows of seats or sprawled throughout aisles amid spent ammunition, spilled popcorn and blood. The footage, taken by an investigator, zoomed in on bullet fragments, bloody stairs and shoes left behind in the panic to escape. Prosecutors introduced a brown spiral notebook Holmes kept titled “Of Life,” in which he scrawled a self-diagnosis of his “broken mind” and described an “obsession to kill” since childhood. Holmes made lists of weapons he planned to buy and included detailed drawings of the theater complex, complete with pros and cons of attacking different auditoriums and police response times. Dr. Lynne Fenton, the university psychiatrist who treated Holmes before the attack, testified she did not have enough evidence to have him detained but was so concerned after he confessed his homicidal thoughts that she violated his health care privacy to call his mother. Trial began April 27 after three months of jury selection that produced 12 jurors and 12 alternates. Five of those jurors have been dismissed — three amid concern they were exposed to news of the proceedings, one after her brother-in-law was wounded in a Denver ATM robbery, and one because she recognized a witness. That left 19 jurors, including seven alternates. *Where Bernie Sanders disappoints liberals <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/bernie-sanders-immigration-reform-2016/> // CNN // Dan Merica – June 19, 2015 * Bernie Sanders has a growing immigration problem. The Vermont independent senator is an outspoken liberal champion on social issues, jobs and foreign policy. He is known for his boisterous speeches on the Senate floor, his blunt style and his penchant for getting under the skin of his opponents. But when the newly minted presidential candidate takes the stage at the National Association of Latino Elected Officials meeting in Las Vegas on Friday, he will stand before many Latino lawmakers that feel he hasn't been nearly liberal enough on the issue of immigration. "It is not his priority," Arturo Vargas, the executive director of NALEO, said on Thursday. "I think that is one of the challenges his campaign is going to have to confront." Sanders does have a record on immigration. He backed the 2013 immigration reform law, he has worked extensively on migrant worker rights and has spoken out, at times, about how lower wages impact immigrant families more than most. But he helped kill a 2007 immigration push and until recently, the issue was not something Sanders addressed in his presidential stump speech. When he kicked off his campaign earlier this year on the shores of Lake Champlain in Burlington, Vermont, his 3,509 word speech did not mention immigration. "He absolutely needs to get up to speed," Debra Guerrero, a member of the San Antonio Independent School District and NALEO attendee. "If he wants to serve as our leader ... he needs to be aware of what the future holds and immigration is a part of that." Omar Narvaez, a NALEO member and a Dallas County Schools Board of Trustee, said "it could be a bit of a problem, especially for those of us who come from southern states or states that border Mexico." "If you are going to run for president, you have to have some plan or thought process that you can delver for us," he said. The Latinos gathered Las Vegas feel that Sanders has not brought the same forcefulness he usually does to liberal causes when talking about immigration. Many attribute this to the fact he is from Vermont, a state that has fewer than 10,000 undocumented immigrants, according to Pew Research. Sanders' lack of outspokenness on immigration has caught the attention of some of his colleagues on Capitol Hill, too. "I don't know if he likes immigrants because he doesn't seem to talk about immigrants," Rep. Luis Gutiérrez, D-Illinois told Larry King earlier this month. "But sooner or later, he'll tell us. I hope he likes immigrants. I haven't heard him say anything. He's been kind of quiet and silent." Sanders will address the audience at NALEO on Friday and his campaign aides said this week that he will outline, in detail, his views. In a statement to CNN, Sanders noted that, as the "son of an immigrant," he believes it is "time to bring our neighbors out of the shadows." Sanders pushed back against the idea that he isn't outspoken enough on immigration by noting his record of voting for immigration reform and workers' rights. "The Republican majority in both the House and the Senate needs to let us debate and pass real immigration reform," Sanders told CNN. Polls show Sanders struggling with minority voters. A CNN/ORC poll released earlier this month found that 5% of non-white voters supported Sanders for president, compared to 10% of overall voters who support the independent senator. By comparison, Hillary Clinton -- the Democratic frontrunner who won a majority of Latino voters in her 2008 primary vote against then Sen. Barack Obama -- enjoyed 62% support from non-white voters. Vargas, the executive director of NALEO, said it wasn't too late for Sanders, however. "Immigration is an extremely important issue, it is not the only issues," he said. "You have people here who are running school districts. What is his policy on public education? You have people here running cities. What is policy on infrastructure? And what is his policy on public safety? "I wouldn't say he has a clean slate. But he certainly is an unknown factor and I think tomorrow is an opportunity for him to define himself," Vargas said. *Bernie Sanders wants to talk about guns. But not right now. <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/bernie-sanders-guns-south-carolina-church-shooting/> // CNN // Dan Merica – June 19, 2015 * Bernie Sanders says he wants to talk -- at length -- about guns. Just not now. Two days after a white man walked into a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, and killed nine people, the Vermont senator and presidential candidate took a cautious approach on gun control Friday when speaking with reporters after an event in Las Vegas. "I think the people of Vermont understand that guns in Vermont are different than guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles," Sanders said, telling the assembled journalists that he thinks "it is wrong" when people are "in some cases suicidal and in some cases homicidal" are "still being able to purchase guns." Sanders, saying his home state of Vermont has "zero gun control," acknowledged that different parts of the country have different outlooks on guns. "I think we need to have as serious conversation about that," Sanders said. "I think rural America needs to understand what urban America feels. Urban America needs to understand the culture of rural America. But I think together we have got to go forward to make certain that people who should not be having these weapons do not have them." When CNN tried to follow up with Sanders about how he would handle guns differently than President Barack Obama, the independent senator rejected the question. "I will talk about guns at some length," he said, "but not right now." Sanders' caution smacks in the face of his usual persona: Blunt, brash and proudly liberal. Before his chat with reporters, Sanders delivered his proudly liberal stump speech to an energized audience at The Treasure Island Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. He framed his campaign as one where the lower and middle class were fighting against the wealthy. "Brothers and sisters, this is a tough fight," he said, just before a woman shouted, "but we are going to win!" "We are going to win," Sanders responded with a slight smile. The senator started his rally with a moment of silence for the people killed in Charleston, a tragedy he said was a remind that "racism, sadly, remains alive and well in this country and that we have much too much violence." As his campaign aides watched closely, Sanders also addressed guns during his remarks, again contrasting his background in Vermont with urban America. "There are weapons out there that have nothing to do with hunting and are designed to kill people and kill them quickly," Sanders said. "And this is an issue that must be dealt with." In the eyes of gun control activists, Sanders has a mixed and moderate background on the issue, something that contrasts with his more liberal persona. Sanders voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993, a law that imposed a five-day waiting period for gun purchases and mandated background checks, and voted for allowing guns on Amtrak. For much of his career, Sanders has followed the lead of his constituents -- who mostly back gun rights for hunters -- by keeping a generally states' rights view of gun laws. But Sanders has also backed stricter gun laws. He voted for the 1994 assault weapons ban, and after the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, Sanders backed Obama's failed push for more background checks and another assault weapons ban. Even after the 2013 push, though, Sanders questioned whether the legislation he supported would even work. "If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don't think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen," he told Seven Days, an independent paper in Vermont. Sanders' reluctance to address specifics on gun control contrasts with his foremost progressive challenger, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who outlined specific policy proposals Friday in an email to supporters entitled, "I'm pissed." O'Malley backed a national assault weapons ban, stricter background checks and "efforts to reduce straw-buying, like fingerprint requirements." "How many senseless acts of violence in our streets or tragedies in our communities will it take to get our nation to stop caving to special interests like the NRA when people are dying?" he asked. *Why Sanders is a good fit for Warren Backers <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/opinions/sagrans-lenchner-warren-sanders/index.html?eref=rss_topstories> // CNN // Erica Sagrans and Charles Lenchner – June 19, 2015 * Elizabeth Warren's rallying cry is simple: If we fight for our values, we will win. And the question she's asked supporters is this: Are you ready to fight? It was that fearless, fighting spirit that inspired us to start Ready for Warren more than a year ago to draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president. We believe the movement to draft Warren fundamentally changed the terms of the 2016 debate, and these days, just about every Democrat running for president seems to sound a lot like Warren. Few people have ever played as large a role in a Democratic presidential primary without even entering the race. But having demonstrated how much support Elizabeth Warren has, we've spent the past few weeks listening to our grassroots supporters and the progressive community about what they want to do next. And one thing we heard time and again is that they're ready to play a big role in 2016, fighting alongside Warren on issues like trade, student debt, and reining in Wall Street. They are also ready to back "Warren Wing" candidates who embody Warren's fearless brand of progressive populism. And although it isn't just about the presidency, 56% of supporters have urged us to back Bernie Sanders as the candidate currently running for president who best embodies the values that Warren champions. That's why on Friday, Ready for Warren is launching a new grassroots initiative called Ready to Fight -- and Ready to Fight is endorsing Bernie Sanders as its candidate for president. Why? Because while Warren is the champion who inspired this movement, the draft effort was never just about her -- it's about her message and the values she represents. Bernie Sanders has caught fire in a way that's reminiscent of the draft Warren movement itself -- from the Internet to town halls in Iowa, Sanders has captured the imagination and support of people looking for a real progressive challenger in the 2016 Democratic primary. One reason we're witnessing such a surge of support for politicians like Sanders and Warren is that they have given voice to Americans' deeply-felt frustration that the game is rigged against working people and stacked in favor of corporations and the very wealthy. For example, Robert Reich, citing a Pew report, notes that "the percentage of Americans who believe most people who want to get ahead can do so through hard work has plummeted 14 points since 2000." While it's harder and harder for working people to get ahead or even get by, their voices are being drowned out by corporate influence and a flood of money in politics -- some $3.7 billion in last year's election cycle alone. Indeed, a 2014 Princeton study of more than 1,800 policy initiatives concluded that, over the past two decades, the United States has transformed from a representative democracy to a country where the elites hold power and shape policy, regardless of the will of the majority of voters. We've seen this imbalance play out with the outsize influence of corporations in the fight over the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership. About 500 corporate trade "advisers" have access and input into the details of the trade deal, while the text has been kept secret from representatives from labor and environmental groups, as well as the media and voters. As the gap in priorities between policy makers in D.C. and people across America widens, the voices of progressive populists like Warren and Sanders are growing louder and louder. But to be successful, they need the power of the people behind them -- people who are willing to stand up and fight. The launch of Ready to Fight doesn't mean the movement to draft Warren is over. Organizations don't create movements, and they can't end them. There is still a real and widespread desire to see Elizabeth Warren run for president, and Ready for Warren is continuing to organize in order to make the case to Warren, and the country, that she should be a candidate in the 2016 race. We're a long way from Iowa, and no one knows what the future holds. But this effort has always been a bottom-up movement. It's an expression of a deep and broadly felt desire for leaders who are willing to stand up to powerful interests and fight for working families. The Warren Wing is on the rise -- you can see it in everything from the fight against TPP to the growing momentum around Bernie Sanders, and in the way Hillary Clinton and even Republican candidates are echoing Warren's themes on income inequality. We're ready to fight -- standing with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to make sure the values we share are represented in next year's presidential election. *Sanders has favored a lighter touch on gun control than Clinton, O’Malley <http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/06/19/bernie-sanders-has-favored-lighter-touch-gun-control-than-hillary-clinton-martin-malley/w28HABk8NLT59aSl5gzZNO/story.html?event=event25> // Boston Globe // Anne Linksey and Tracy Jan – June 19, 2015 * Senator Bernie Sanders has built his insurgent presidential campaign by trying to outshine Hillary Clinton on populist economic issues. But political reaction to the racially motivated mass murder in a Charleston, S.C., church this week highlighted an area where he’s out of sync with most liberals: gun control. Sanders, from Vermont, a rural state where support of guns and hunting is part of the political culture, has amassed a mixed record on proposed gun restrictions in his years as a congressman and senator. The self-avowed Democratic socialist once earned a C- rating from the National Rifle Association — not a high mark for a Republican contender, but one that sets him apart as practically gun friendly among the 2016 Democrats vying for the nomination. The issue isn’t one that Sanders typically discusses on the stump, unless a question comes up. But after Wednesday’s church shooting, gun control back has bounced back to the national agenda. Interest in Sanders and his positions also has spiked as he has attracted large numbers of people to his events who are eager to listen to the most prominent liberal alternative in the field to Clinton. Clinton’s response to the Charleston shootings was in line with her past views. She said the country must “face hard truths about race, violence, guns, and division.” Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor and another Democrat in the presidential race, said the slayings should “call all of us to action” on gun control. President Obama, too, speaking from the White House on Thursday, decried the multiple mass shootings that have occurred since he assumed office, while lamenting the opposition to stricter rules on Capitol Hill. Sanders made no mention at all of firearms or gun regulations in the wake of the attacks at Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Instead, he focused on the alleged motive for the attack, calling it a “tragic reminder of the ugly stain of racism that still taints our nation.’’ A 21-year-old man was charged Friday in the murders of the worshippers, who were all African-American. Sanders also canceled a planned trip to South Carolina over the weekend. On Friday afternoon, in response to questions from the media and an attendee at a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Sanders said additional gun control should be considered but noted there are deep differences between rural and urban areas on the issue, according to Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman. Sanders, 73, doesn’t own a gun, added Briggs, and he shot a weapon once — as a Boy Scout. Sanders’ views more closely reflect a general pro-gun attitude in Vermont, said Ed Cutler, the president of Gun Owners of Vermont. “Even the liberals have guns up here,” Cutler said. He added that he has met with Sanders several times, and the senator has shown little interest in gun related legislation. In one instance, Sanders even refused to touch an empty magazine that Cutler hand-crafted to demonstrate how easy they are to make. “Firearms is not his issue,” Cutler said. “He doesn’t know a whole lot about them.” Sanders has voted against the landmark Brady bill that required background checks and a waiting period before purchasing a firearm. He supported legislation allowing guns to be transported on Amtrak trains. He voted for a a measure to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits in cases of shootings. At other times, Sanders has supported gun control measures, including voting for an assault weapons ban and supporting President Obama’s gun control package in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left 20 children and six adults dead. The National Rifle Association awarded Sanders an F rating in 2002 when he ran for reelection in the House of Representatives. The grade changed to a D+ in 2004; a C- in 2006 when he ran for the Senate, and most recently earned a D- when he ran in 2012. In contrast, Clinton and O’Malley have both earned consistently failing grades from the organization. The NRA hasn’t issued any ratings yet for 2016. In the past, Clinton has supported banning assault weapons, expanding background checks, and banning high-capacity magazines. During a “town hall” style meeting last year that was broadcast on CNN, she delighted gun control advocates by saying: “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a view point that terrorizes the majority of people.” O’Malley oversaw sweeping new gun control legislation in Maryland after the Sandy Hook massacre, a package that prompted one gun manufacturer to leave the state. On Friday O’Malley e-mailed supporters under the subject line “I’m pissed,” and called for an assault weapons ban, stricter background checks, and measures to prevent so-called straw purchases of weapons where a person without a criminal record purchases a weapon on behalf someone with one. The Republican presidential field, predictably, generally opposes gun control measures. In response to the Charleston killings, Republicans shunned the subject of gun control while denouncing the attacks in a church and highlighting the deep religious faith of the victims. Gun rights lobbyists have identified former Florida governor Jeb Bush as one of the most conservative in the GOP side, pointing to his A+ rating from the NRA and now-famous “stand your ground” law in 2005 that expanded the rights of people to use deadly force when threatened in their homes or in a public place. Bush also signed bills that expanded protections for gun owners carrying concealed firearms, including out-of-state visitors. While running for governor in 1998, however, he backed a Florida law mandating background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows. The NRA lobbied against a bill to close a loophole that allows gun buyers to avoid background checks following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. Senators Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz -- who are all running for president -- opposed the measure, which failed. Rubio, a Florida Republican who says he has a concealed weapons permit but does not carry a gun, also voted against banning high-capacity magazines. He’s proposed rolling back laws in the District of Columbia that prohibit guns. Following the Sandy Hook shootings, Rubio said he was open to bills that would limit access to guns for criminals and the mentally ill. While running for US Senate, he said he supported background checks and waiting periods. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who also has an A+ endorsement from the National Rifle Association, has in recent months voiced support for a version of Florida’s “stand your ground” law. In a March appearance in Charleston, Walker highlighted his gun record at a Republican luncheon. As governor, he signed a law, which he called the “castle doctrine,” that provides protections for gun owners who shoot home intruders. He’s also signed legislation allowing permit holders to carry concealed firearms, including into public buildings including the Wisconsin State Capitol. *Ready for Warren Sets Up Outlet for Members to Back Bernie Sanders <http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/ready-for-warren-sets-up-outlet-for-members-to-back-bernie-sanders-20150619> // National Journal // Eric Garcia – June 19, 2015 * Ready for Warren is no longer exclusively ready for Warren. The organization is keeping its efforts to draft Elizabeth Warren in place, but for those supporters who are giving up and want to shift gears and back another candidate, they have launched a project backing Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential bid. In an email to supporters, the group's organizers said they were launching an initiative called Ready to Fight, and that when members were asked about 2016, 56 percent supported Sanders, leading the organization to give the Vermont Democrat its support. An op-ed for CNN by Ready for Warren campaign manager Erica Sagrans and cofounder Charles Lenchner explained the decision to back Sanders. "Sanders has captured the imagination and support of people looking for a real progressive challenger in the 2016 Democratic primary," they wrote. But in an email to supporters, Ready for Warren insisted that the movement to draft Warren effort was not over yet. "Ready for Warren will continue to be a place for everyone who wants to organize to make the case to Warren, and the country, that she should run," the email said. By hosting these two organizations, Ready for Warren likely is trying to settle the predicament of how to keep momentum for their draft effort while maintaining the energy of people in the tent who are ready to channel their efforts toward an actual candidate's campaign. Warren has repeatedly rebuffed pushes to jump in the race from Ready for Warren and Run Warren Run, which suspended its efforts last week and instead said it would focus on helping Warren in her fight for progressive causes. The boosters who held onto a potential Warren candidacy for so long, though, aren't all just going to bounce to Bernie Sanders. Saba Hafeez, who helped drop off signatures to Warren's office to ask her to run for president, and was a campus organizer at the University of Iowa for the effort, said last week that she had seen former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley speak in Iowa City and was planning on seeing Hillary Clinton speak in Sioux City. "I haven't decided what I'm doing next, but I would love to work in another campaign," Hafeez said. Warren supporters are trying to show the campaigns that they are a valuable constituency in the Democratic Party, but it is unclear how much of an influence or help that Warren's backers would be to Sanders, or if their movement to him would have any effect on Clinton's front-runner campaign. *Sanders denounces ‘billionaire class’ outside GOP donor’s Vegas casino <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/245576-sanders-denounces-billionaire-class-outside-gop-donors> // The Hill // Jonathan Easley – June 19, 2015 * Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) rallied hundreds of supporters against “the billionaire class” at a campaign stop Friday in Las Vegas across the strip from a luxury hotel and casino built by GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson. “Today we live in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world,” said Sanders, a candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, according to The Washington Post. “But the vast majority of the American people do not know that, do not feel that, because almost all of that wealth today rests in the hands of a tiny few." "What we are saying to the billionaire class is, 'Your greed, which is destroying this country, has got to end,’ ” Sanders said. Sanders called out Adelson by name. "People like Sheldon Adelson … and the Koch brothers are now spending unbelievable sums of money [to influence the political process]," Sanders said, according to the Post. Charles and David Koch are billionaires who also support conservative causes and candidates. While Sanders took advantage of the proximity to Adelson's casino, the location of the rally didn’t appear to be intentional. He had reserved a room at the University of Nevada Las Vegas but had to move to a bigger location at the Treasure Island hotel and casino near the Venetian to accommodate a bigger-than-expected crowd. Adelson’s net worth is estimated to be near $30 billion. He donated some of the largest sums to conservative causes in the 2012 election cycle, spending about $100 million. That year, he almost single-handedly kept former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s (R-Ga.) campaign afloat by showering an affiliated super-PAC with tens of millions of dollars. GOP candidates in the 2016 race have been lining up to seek his support. *Ready for Warren endorses Sanders <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/245541-ready-for-warren-endorses-sanders> // The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 19, 2015 * Two top officials with Ready for Warren, the group that attempted to nudge Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) into a presidential bid, are throwing their support behind Sen. Bernie Sanders, who appears to be Hillary Clinton’s progressive foil. “While Warren is the champion who inspired this movement, the draft effort was never just about her — it's about her message and the values she represents,” Erica Sagrans and Charles Lenchner write in an opinion piece on CNN released Friday morning. “Bernie Sanders has caught fire in a way that's reminiscent of the draft Warren movement itself — from the Internet to town halls in Iowa, Sanders has captured the imagination and support of people looking for a real progressive challenger in the 2016 Democratic primary.” Sagrans is the campaign manager for the group, which has now rebranded itself as Ready to Fight. Lenchner is the group’s co-founder. Sanders has emerged as Clinton’s leading opponent from the left. While he still trails Clinton by significant margins in most national and statewide polls, he’s racking up strong poll numbers in New Hampshire and is drawing large crowds in Iowa. The two write that 56 percent of the group’s supporters have asked it to back Sanders, whom the article frames as the new torchbearer of the “Warren Wing.” “You can see it in everything from the fight against TPP to the growing momentum around Bernie Sanders, and in the way Hillary Clinton and even Republican candidates are echoing Warren's themes on income inequality,” the op-ed says. The Ready for Warren rebrand comes weeks after another group, Run Warren Run, suspended operations after it delivered a petition of 365,000 signatures urging Warren to run. *Bush, Sanders and the long, slow death of the GOP <http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/245542-bush-sanders-and-the-long-slow-death-of-the-gop> // The Hill // Bernie Quigley – June 19, 2015 * I wrote here in late February, making the case that former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) has had turnings in life which he responded to positively as a family man: His wife didn't like to cook so he simply took the job of cooking for family and kids. He was raised an Episcopalian and she a Roman Catholic and he converted to Catholicism so as to unite the family. In both cases, he made the selfless decision to do what needed to be done to keep the family whole. These acts and judgments in the family microcosm reflect the most essential nature of an individual, and they show Bush to be a man of substance. On the other hand, he is not exactly an Alpha Dog. In the whole crew rising to 2016, possibly former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina is most effectively an Alpha Dog. And in the recent conservative oeuvre which weirdly affirms the marginal — bikers, hillbillies, mountain free church preachers, yellers, Phil Robertson and Church Norris — she is also the most urbane. Do conservatives really want to win? It might also be not unfair to note that Bush appeared to reject out of hand the family path of Sen. Prescott Bush (R-Conn.) and President George H.W. Bush and their tradition of capable public service, perhaps running away from the New England family tradition scorned as "W.A.S.P." (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) in his college years, even though it was that tradition that provided the backbone of establishment America from President John Adams to the Kennedy period. Instead, he headed below the border to find the better life and it might be said that he escaped from the "Bush name" and the W.A.S.P. baggage. But isn't this the distinct American character which brings some to want another Bush? Do they not want what H.W. brought to the Oval Office: steady and dependable patrician reliability? He is, as he says, an "introvert," and as such, he would likely be in time, possibly a very short time, uncomfortable as president. And so would we. (He would be an excellent priest or pope.) My wife and I are introverts. Introverts are librarians and solitary writers with cats who look forward to eating supper in front of the TV, watching "24." Already, he is getting testy with Neil Cavuto on Fox, one of the most gentle and companionable commentators on TV. I'm not sure that he actually wants to be president, but is getting encouraged to do so by Henry Kissinger and Fred Barnes and that crowd. New York money has been pouring in, thinking him to be the best bet. It may be a problem this time around that conservatives have convinced themselves that they will be running against Hillary Clinton and it will be a cakewalk, so they can send in young, inexperienced "new" people from the far red margins. Bush would likely win against Hillary and that, as far as I can see, is his only value. But I am not so sure that Clinton will get the nomination. They failed to anticipate Bernie. The millennial generation will soon rise to action, and it is beginning to swarm around Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). His old socialist approach is a radical departure from what we have seen in the last 25 years. One of my millennials emailed home this week to say of Clinton/Bush: "Thanks, but we're tired of your families." Today, Sanders's approach may be winning the millennials, the group said to be essential to the turn and rise of the century. Sanders is everywhere on their indigenous means of communication, Facebook and Twitter. He may be their Gray Champion. President Obama might have been that figure, but his inexplicable insistence on the imperious Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) ruins everything. And TPP could well be the trigger for the new generation rising. Generational theorists predict, accurately in my opinion, that the generation that rises to action cohesively today will be the action generation to advance the century, just as the so-called "Greatest Generation" rose to master its world-shaking events in the 1930s and '40s. If they continue to follow Sanders's cue, and that of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the La Passionara of this new movement, it could bring a slow and painful death to conservatism as we know it. Millennials are not slackers or sleepyheads, as they are said to be; they are bright, disciplined and acutely focused. They are — it is — a generation in waiting. And it may well be waiting for Bernie Sanders. *Democrats May Keep Bernie Sanders Off New York Primary Ballot <http://gothamist.com/2015/06/18/bernie_sanders_new_york.php> // Gothamist // Emma Whitford – June 18, 2015 * Vermont Senator/Indie Rocker Bernie Sanders is an Independent on paper, which means that he's going to have a hard time getting his name on the Democratic presidential primary ballot in New York to compete with Taylor Swift fan Hillary Clinton next year. Why? Meet Wilson-Pakula, a very obscure state law. The Wilson-Pakula act, which passed in New York State back in 1947, bars any candidate from running for the nomination of a political party that he or she is not officially affiliated with. Unless, that is, he or she manages to get permission from that party's committee leaders. Sadly, Wilson-Pakula helped marginalize some of the political movements that Bernie supports. According to the Washington Post, pre-1947, "communist and socialist candidates had been able to become candidates... after winning support from voters." In other words, back then, average New Yorkers got to make candidacy appointments. Under current law, permission to cross party lines is, apparently, very rarely granted. It doesn't help that the relevant committee in New York State has a lot of Hillary supporters: From Assembly Chair David Paterson, to Governor Cuomo himself who, as Capital put it, "controls most of the party apparatus." Undeterred, as of this writing, 4,269 people have signed an online petition to "GET BERNIE SANDERS ON BALLOT IN NEW YORK." From the letter, addressed to Governor Cuomo and David Paterson: We believe that selecting candidates to represent us is one of the core functions of the people. Thus, we stand in solidarity with Governor Cuomo's call to repeal the Wilson Pakula law. The Wilson Pakula law, which requires a candidate from one party obtain permission from party bosses to run as a candidate from another party, is antiquated and not Democratic. Indeed, as recently as the spring of 2013, Cuomo proposed an end to Wilson-Pakula, following the arrest of then-Senate majority leader Malcolm Smith, a Democrat, after he tried to bribe Republican leaders to grant him permission to run for mayor on their ticket. Another wrinkle for all of the New York Sanders groupies out there: While there are no party affiliation requirements in presidential elections, primaries in several states, New York included, require voting along party lines. As one Redditer put it yesterday, "I wonder if all the Bernie fans realize they have to register as democrats to vote for him?" *Inside the mind of Bernie Sanders: unbowed, unchanged, and unafraid of a good fight <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/19/bernie-sanders-profile-democrat-presidential-candidate> // Guardian // Paul Lewis – June 19, 2015 * The diplomatic overture was dispatched to Hu Yaobang, chairman of the Chinese Communist party, on 29 October 1981. A near-identical letter was sent to the Kremlin, for the attention of Leonid Brezhnev, general secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. “Like an unconscious and uncontrollable force, our planet appears to be drifting toward self-destruction,” the newly installed socialist leader of somewhere called Burlington wrote. He urged them “in the strongest possible way” to disarm militarily and begin immediate negotiations with other world leaders. Bernie Sanders, the ardently leftwing mayor of Vermont’s largest city, dispatched similar missives to Downing Street, the Élysée palace and the White House, before releasing a statement declaring: “Burlingtonians cannot calmly sit back and watch our planet be destroyed – with hundreds of millions of people incinerated.” The correspondence, unearthed by the Guardian, confirms what has long been said of America’s longest-serving independent member of Congress who, at the age of 73, recently launched a bid for the Democratic nomination for president. Bernie Sanders is unafraid of punching above his weight. Never has that been more the case than now. Six weeks into his campaign, Sanders has gained the kind of momentum few expected from the Vermont senator, establishing himself as the primary obstacle between Hillary Clinton and the Democratic ticket for the White House. His national poll rating has more than doubled, to over 10%, in little over a month. His rallies in Iowa and New Hampshire have been attracting crowds larger than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. Hard copies of his memoir – mostly a dry recitation of a 1996 congressional race – are suddenly selling for more than $250 on Amazon. The race for the 2016 presidential nomination is in its infancy, and Clinton remains the clear frontrunner by a margin most political analysts believe is all but unassailable. But Sanders is changing the contours of the race: the rise of a hard-left politician, long battling to to be heard from the sidelines, is now the first unexpected twist in the Democratic primary contest. The Guardian has spoken to close to a dozen of Sanders’ closest friends, family, confidants and operatives. They paint a picture of a politician who has spent a lifetime obsessed with the same issues that still drive him today, and is now wrestling with the demands of a 2016 presidential race. For his part, Sanders suggested in an interview with the Guardian that some of his policies remain a work in progress, but rejected the notion that his surge in popularity should come as a surprise. “I am a United States senator, I did win my last election with 71% of the vote,” he said last week. “So it’s not just like someone just walked in off the street and suddenly they’re Hillary Clinton’s main challenger. We’ve been doing this for a few years.” The unquenchable optimism of an electric young politician Sanders was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1941, into a family struggling to get by on the low wage of his father, a Polish immigrant and paint salesman. “That created tensions for our parents, and that was an important part of our life,” said the senator’s 80-year-old brother, Larry, who now lives in Oxford, England, where he recently stood as a parliamentary candidate for the Green party. Larry Sanders recalled his brother’s first foray into politics, some time in the late 1950s, when he ran for election to be class president at James Madison high school. Sanders lost, but found consolation in defeat. “The student who won ended up adopting Bernie’s policy about raising money for Korean orphans,” Larry said. The consensus in Washington is that the best Sanders can hope for is a similar outcome in 2016, using a campaign that will almost certainly end in defeat in order to pull Clinton to the left. The MIT academic Noam Chomsky, who was personally invited by Sanders to give a speech at Burlington city hall in 1985, gave a similar assessment. “I am glad that he’s doing it,” Chomsky said, arguing that Sanders’ presidential campaign would promote ideas that are rarely part of mainstream political discourse. “But the chances of him winning at the primary, or even at the national level, are virtually nil in our system, which is not a democracy but a plutocracy.” Sanders told the Guardian he was “not as pessimistic as Noam is”. “He’s right, we live in an increasingly oligarchic form of society, where billionaires are able to buy elections and candidates, and it is very difficult, not just for Bernie Sanders but for any candidate who represents working families,” the senator said. “But I think the situation is not totally hopeless, and I think we do have a shot to win this thing.” That unquenchable optimism has always been a part of Sanders’ career, and was perhaps forged in the 1970s, the first major chapter of his political life. Working as a youth counsellor and carpenter, Sanders ran in four consecutive US senate and gubernatorial elections, representing Liberty Union, a socialist party born from the anti-Vietnam war protests. He lost every election he stood in, never winning more than the 6% of votes he secured in a 1976 gubernatorial race. But these early campaigns gave Sanders an opportunity to advance his stridently progressive agenda. One press release – from a Senate race he contested in 1974 – proposes a radical solution to rising energy prices. “Bernard Sanders, the Liberty Union candidate for the United States Senate, today called for the public takeover of all privately owned electric companies in Vermont,” it stated. The press release discovered by the Guardian is annotated and could be a draft, and it goes on to describe the policy as a “dollar and cents” proposal rather than a forced appropriation of the means of producing energy. (Electricity in other municipalities in America was, at the time, administered by public bodies.) But that was never the kind of policy likely to win a statewide election in Vermont in the 1970s, which was still in a process of transitioning from a Republican-leaning state to the liberal haven it has become today. Around 1976, Sanders left Liberty Union and spent a couple of years as an amateur historian and film-maker, selling educational film strips to schools across New England. His main project was a short documentary about his hero, Eugene Debs, an early 20th-century union leader who was a six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist party. (Sanders remains fascinated with historical figures and, sources close to the senator confirm, on the rare occasions he is not working, the senator spends hours on YouTube watching political documentaries and biopics.) But that interest in the history of politics has rarely crossed over into theory. Then as now, according to friends, Sanders had a secret disdain for what he believed were doctrinaire academics who failed to ground their ideas in the real world. Huck Gutman, the senator’s longtime friend – and, until 2012, his chief of staff – recently tried to persuade Sanders to engage with the work of Thomas Piketty, the French economist whose research into wealth inequality has received widespread acclaim. Sanders rolled his eyes and replied: “I got 30 seconds.” Given his aversion to intellectuals, it is ironic that two of the senator’s best friends are leftwing academics at the University of Vermont. One is Gutman, 71, an English professor. The other is Richard Sugarman, 70, who teaches Jewish philosophy and existentialism. Two Sundays ago, the trio was on a picnic bench in Burlington’s Ethan Allen park, reflecting on the hectic turn of events. The previous day Sanders had been in Keene, New Hampshire. Like every other event the senator has attended since announcing his campaign, the town hall was packed. Sanders spoke for an hour, railing against growing economic inequality, the corporate media, millionaires and billionaires, global warming, Barack Obama’s Pacific trade deal and the Iraq war. The Vermont senator promised equal pay for women, tuition-free colleges and universities, an equitable tax system, the right to healthcare for all, an expansion of social security for the elderly, and tough action against Wall Street banks. Those lucky enough to have a seat spent much of the hour on their feet, in wave after wave of standing ovation, as Sanders laid out his platform in his trademark Brooklyn twang; sober, exasperated, always impassioned. “The best president in the history of the world – somebody courageous, smart, bold – that person will not be able to address the major crises that we face unless there is a mass political movement, unless there’s a political revolution in this country,” Sanders told his approving audience of more than 700 people. The next day, on the picnic bench, Sanders was upbeat as he regaled his friends with a rundown of the event. “It was busy in Keene,” Sanders told the professors, according to Sugarman’s account of the conversation. “You wouldn’t believe how many people showed up.” “OK, good. Did they seem sympathetic?” Sugarman asked. “Yeah, they seemed to get it,” Sanders said. “They really seemed to get what was going on.” Not far from the park, Sanders’ presidential campaign team was in the process of working out how best to tap into that surge of energy. Money is pouring into the campaign coffers – in the first 24 hours after his campaign launch, Sanders raised $1.5m. The funds mostly came from small-money donors, but he still raised more than any other presidential candidate who has disclosed their first-day tally. The donations have allowed the campaign to scale up in New Hampshire and Iowa, where Sanders opened an office this past weekend. The campaign has hired Revolution Messaging, the digital and social media firm that provided groundbreaking support to Barack Obama presidential campaign in 2008. But the operation remains a fraction of the team hired by Clinton; one senior aide described the process of building a large campaign apparatus as “a very big challenge and one we’re still working out”. The top operatives on the Sanders team are – with one exception – Vermont old-timers who have been at the senator’s side for most of his career. The senator is anxious about expanding too quickly, and is reluctant to hire the many Washington-based political consultancies that have been knocking on his door. “He has concerns that as you run for president, everybody who is president wants business from you and dollars from you,” Gutman said. “Both Richard and I said he should depend on his own good sense.” But winning election in the tiny state of Vermont is not the same as a nationwide presidential race. One of Sanders’ campaign operatives, talking on the condition of anonymity, spoke of the moral incentive for a “50-state strategy”, spreading resources more equitably across the country. Another acknowledges the difficulty of managing the boon in grassroots support, suggesting that Sanders supporters may need to be left to their own devices and “self-organise, organically”. Even Sanders, a disciplined politician who rarely deviates from his script, can give the impression he is still working out the finer points of the campaign. Asked how he would transition the country from the Affordable Care Act, toward the universal, single-payer system he prefers for healthcare, Sanders seemed unsure. “That’s a good question,” he told the Guardian. “I can’t give you a definitive answer.” He added that he envisaged a system “kind of modelled on what the Canadians are doing”. Pressed on his taxation policy, Sanders said he would “absolutely” make the income tax system more progressive, but declined to say precisely how much top-rate earners should pay on their income. “I don’t want to develop policy off the top of my head,” he said, pointing to the extensive work he had already done on legislation to close tax loopholes for corporations and tax Wall Street stock transfers. “We will come up with a progressive individual tax rate as well.” It is hardly uncommon for presidential candidates to avoid taking detailed policy stances early on in their campaigns, although their hand can often be forced by rivals. On the picnic bench with Gutman and Sugarman, the senator discussed one of the more peculiar issues on which he may be asked take a stand: Rhode Island’s governor, Lincoln Chafee, was ridiculed earlier this month when he launched his campaign for the Democratic nomination with a pledge to transition America toward the metric system of measurement. Both Gutman said Sugarman said they talked to the senator about whether he too should adopt the policy. “No, absolutely not,” Sugarman said he told the senator. “Fight it. That will be our conservative, traditional, issue. You have got to have a few dialectical issues or you really are going to be a liberal moron.” Michael Briggs, Sanders’ campaign spokesman, insisted the senator had “no recollection” of any discussion about the metric system. It was Sugarman who, in 1981, persuaded Sanders to run for mayor of Burlington, the rural city 40 miles from the Canadian border where the pair were roommates. Running as an independent, Sanders ended up winning the election by just 10 votes, dislodging the incumbent Democratic mayor in a victory that made national news. Sanders was the only mayor in the entire country who was neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and one of the few self-described socialists to gain public office. Burlington’s political establishment was aghast. “It was like Trotsky had been elected mayor,” Sugarman recalled. “But it wasn’t Trotsky. It was Bernie.” Sanders was re-elected mayor three times, laying the foundations for the statewide election that made him Vermont’s only congressman in 1990. It has often been said that Sanders’ eight years in city hall, redeveloping Burlington’s waterfront and spurring a civic initiative to clear snow from the streets, turned him into a pragmatist attuned the needs of everyday people. But that is only half the story. The University of Vermont’s library has a collection of archived papers from Sanders’ mayoral years. The documents, which include notes scribbled on the yellow legal pads that he still uses today, are contained in 50 boxes that, remarkably, have not been inspected since the senator announced his candidacy for president. The files confirm how Sanders spent much of his time as would be expected of a small-city mayor, solving a garbage disposal problem, building a bike path and securing a minor league baseball team for Burlington. But they also reveal a concerted effort by Sanders to leverage his modest power base to affect change in places far away from Vermont. The letters he sent to the Soviet Union, China, the UK and France, urging military disarmament in conjunction with the UN’s international disarmament week, was just one example of dozens of diplomatic initiatives from Sanders, who used his perch at city hall to influence issues as diverse as apartheid in South Africa and the US invasion of Grenada. In July 1981, the UK’s prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was informed that Burlington was “deeply disturbed” by what Sanders said was her government’s abuse, humiliation and mistreatment of prisoners in northern Ireland. And when François Mitterrand announced a visit to the US later that year, Sanders wrote to the French president’s wife, Danielle, inviting her to his “struggling socialist municipal government” in Vermont to speak on any topic of her choosing. President Ronald Reagan was the recipient of several Sanders letters relating to international affairs, most of which concerned Nicaragua, where the US was covertly funding a guerrilla war against the leftwing Sandinista government. In 1985, Sanders actually travelled to Nicaragua, for the sixth anniversary of the Sandinista revolution, and met the country’s president, Daniel Ortega. In a letter addressed to the people of Nicaragua, penned in conjunction with that trip, Sanders denounced the activities of the Reagan administration, which he said was under the influence of large corporations. Burlington’s mayor assured the Nicaraguan people that Americans “are fair minded people” who had more to offer “than the bombs and economic sabotage”. “In the long run, I am certain that you will win,” Sanders wrote, “and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened.” Sanders was the highest-ranking American official to visit Nicaragua at that time, and returned to the US intent, it seems, on acting as emissary between the two countries. In a letter to the White House, Sanders relayed that Ortega was willing to meet with Reagan “at any time or any place” to resolve the conflict. He also sought to enlist the help of the Democratic former president Jimmy Carter, telling him in a letter that he was highly thought of in Nicaragua. Sanders even invited Ortega to Burlington; the Nicaraguan leader politely declined. The mayor’s international expedition was hailed by leftwingers across the country, and cemented Burlington’s reputation as a magnet for anti-establishment types. Chomsky was one of a long line of liberal thinkers, musicians and artists who flocked to the mountain city. Another was Allen Ginsberg, who visited Burlington in February 1986; a handwritten and signed poem composed by the beatnik writer is also contained in Sanders’ mayoral archives. (Entitled Burlington Snow, it begins with lines about “Socialist snow on the streets” and “Socialist kids sucking socialist lollipops”, and ends: “Isn’t this poem socialist? It doesn’t belong to me anymore.”) Not everyone in Burlington appreciated the town’s transition, under the supervision of a travelling, socialist mayor, into a people’s republic. The WMNY-TV station put out an editorial that decried the mayor’s “vacation” in Nicaragua as “absolutely shameful”. Sanders told the Guardian that he still stands by the international approach he took in Burlington, which was summed up in the mantra “think globally, act locally”. “What you want to do is use your capabilities, whether you’re a mayor, governor, senator or president – whatever it is – to make this world a better place,” he said. “During my time as mayor, the United States was involved in the support of the contras in Nicaragua, something that I thought was part of the long-term Latin America policy in support of rightwing oligarchies and against the needs of the poor people of the continent.” Burlington’s solidarity with the Sandinistas was cemented the year before the mayor’s trip, when it formed a sister city relationship with the Nicaraguan coastal town of Puerto Cabezas. When Sanders was mayor, Burlington formed an alliance with another city – in the Soviet Union. When Sanders traveled to Yaroslavl, 160 miles north-east of Moscow, in 1988, the trip doubled as a honeymoon with his new wife, Jane. Not much survived in terms of paperwork from that trip, although the mayoral archives do contain a tape recording of Sanders interviewing Yaroslavl’s mayor on a boat somewhere on the Volga river. After receiving a rundown of central planning, Soviet-style, from Yaroslavl’s mayor, Alexander Riabkov, Sanders notes how the quality of both housing and healthcare in America appeared to be “significantly better” than in the communist state. “However,” he added, “the cost of both services is much, much, higher in the United States.” The ‘one percent’ – 20 years ago Burlington was by no means the only American city to develop cultural and education exchanges in the Soviet Union as the cold war drew to a close. But Sanders’ broader embrace of international politics during his mayoral years was by his own admission unique, standing him apart from local elected officials elsewhere in the country. He even visited Cuba – a highly unusual journey for any American in the 80s – hoping to meet with Fidel Castro. The encounter did not take place, although he did meet Havana’s mayor at the time. “A number of cities have nice waterfronts, good streets, honest police departments, and even minor league baseball,” Sanders wrote in his memoir. “But how many cities of 10,000 have foreign policy? Well, we did.” Today it is rare to find Sanders talk about the plight of people overseas. That, friends say, is perhaps the most significant change he has witnessed in the senator’s political career, as he has become less interested in international affairs. Sanders has gradually taken a less keen interest in foreign policy; his politics have become more parochial, focused on the needs of everyday Americans. Gutman described the senator’s evolution as becoming more aligned with the bread-and-butter interests of voters. “The way to succeed in politics is not to be excessively concerned about the people far away,” he said. Foreign policy barely got a mention in his presidential announcement speech in Burlington at the end of April, except for a reference to the senator’s opposition to “an endless war in the Middle East”. Sugarman said he recently discussed with Sanders the idea of making his campaign’s foreign policy “an extension of his economic policy”. On the domestic front, in contrast, Sanders has remained resolute through four decades of political campaigning, sticking to the issues that underpinned his mayoral years. The central thrust of Sanders’ message – about economic inequality and the corruption of political power – has never really changed. Take almost any excerpt from his announcement address, and the thread can be traced back in time, often to a speech or article that is decades old but adopts the very same language. He was comparing soaring corporate profits and the accumulation of wealth at the top with a decline in real terms wages of average workers in 1974, as a Liberty Union candidate for the US senate. He attacked “giant banks and multimillion-dollar corporations” in his inauguration speech in Burlington in 1981. Sanders first started speaking about the richest “one percent” – language now synonymous with the Occupy movement, since co-opted by mainstream politicians – as far back as 1996. Asked on C-Span in 1988 what the socialist mayor of Burlington would like to see from the next president, Sanders replied that the ideal candidate would “recognise that we have an extreme disparity between rich and poor, that elections are bought and sold”. Those issues are the pillars of his bid for the White House in 2016. Anguish, a choice, and a breakthrough at long last So committed is Sanders to his beliefs about economic injustice that it almost convinced him not to stand for president. In the months during which he was contemplating his run for the White House, Sanders reflected on the careers of other progressive politicians, past and present. Despite a highly successful career defined outside the Democratic party, Sanders never contemplated following Ralph Nader’s example and running for president as an independent. Sanders was adamant he did not want to be a “spoiler”, sapping votes from whoever the Democratic presidential candidate is, in much the same way Nader did to Al Gore in 2000. Another politician on his mind was Elizabeth Warren, the populist Massachusetts senator who was under intense pressure from the progressive wing of the Democratic party to mount a challenge against Clinton. Sanders’ friends remain divided over whether he would have run if Warren had decided to be a candidate. Sugarman suggested his friend would not have entered the race, saying that had Warren run, she would have saved the Vermont senator “a lot of anguish”. “People needed to feel as though they had a choice,” Sugarman said, explaining his friend’s thinking. “He felt these issues had to come to the fore.” Yet even then, there was a third politician Sanders had in mind when he was considering whether to run. “He didn’t want to be Chris Dodd,” Gutman said, referring to the Connecticut senator who came last in the 2008 Democratic primary contest. Sanders was not worried about what an embarrassing defeat would mean for him personally – his concern, friends say, was the damage such a defeat could inflict on the cause of economic justice in America. “What he was saying over and over again was that he had a responsibility to the ideas that he represents,” his brother Larry said. “If he went in and he was badly beaten and humiliated, he could take it. But it would be a setback to those ideas, and the people who need those ideas.” That fear, so far at least, appears to have been unfounded. In just the latest example of his rising standing among Democrats, a Suffolk University poll released on Tuesday showed the Vermont senator receiving 31% of support among New Hampshire primary voters – just 10 points behind Clinton. It is a stunning endorsement of Sanders, who has been beating the same drum, mostly in vain, for close to half a century. Now, in the twilight of his career – and very possibly at its pinnacle – the reverberations are starting to be heard. “Sadly enough, I suppose, the world has caught up with what I have been saying for many years,” the senator told the Guardian, adding that he was, perhaps, “a bit ahead of his time”. “People are now saying, wait a minute, this is absurd, this is unsustainable, this is a rigged economy,” Sanders said. “And people are now demanding change.” *CHAFEE* *Only Lincoln Chafee Knows Which Woman Should Be on the $10 Bill <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/only-lincoln-chafee-knows-which-woman-should-be-on-the-10-bill> // Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – June 19, 2015 * It's not exactly up there with immigration, trade, and abortion for controversy: Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew's announcement earlier this week that a redesigned $10 bill will feature a portrait of a woman is one of the few feel-good stories of the summer. The decision was roundly welcomed. And yet the 2016 presidential candidates are having a hard time taking a stand. Plenty of names have been floated by advocates agitating for the government to put the face of a woman on paper currency. The organization Women on 20s, through a voting process narrowed the final four to abolitionist leader Harriet Tubman, civil-rights icon Rosa Parks, Cherokee Nation chief Wilma Mankiller, and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. (Their primary round included Alice Paul, Betty Friedan, Shirley Chisholm, Sojourner Truth, Rachel Carson, Rosa Parks, Barbara Jordan, Margaret Sanger, Patsy Mink, Clara Barton, Harriet Tubman, Frances Perkins, Susan B. Anthony, Eleanor Roosevelt and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The group's website offered fifteen, and then another seventy, more.) New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who introduced an official Women on the Twenty Act into Congress, last month said she'd love to see a woman who had actually served in government on the bill, and suggested Frances Perkins, the first woman appointed to the U.S. Cabinet and the longest-serving secretary of labor. But the nation's would-be leaders refused to pick—perhaps because each has his or her own constituency. Of a considerable slate of assumed and declared presidential hopefuls, only one reached by Bloomberg Politics would name a preference: former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, who through a representative selected Rachel Carson, the marine biologist whose landmark book Silent Spring did much to advance the environmental movement. A spokesperson for former Virginia Senator Jim Webb declined to answer, because the candidate was at his daughter’s graduation, but offered the following: “As a very proud Dad of his daughter graduating high school today I'd guess he would put her on the bill.” And that was, more or less, it. A representative for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie replied, “Thanks for reaching out. I won’t have a response in time for your deadline, but thank you again for the opportunity.” (Bloomberg had not specified a particular deadline.) A spokesperson for Donald Trump expressed thanks for “offering to include us,” but said “we will pass on this one.” Same from Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s campaign: “We'll pass. Thanks.” Bloomberg did not hear back from representatives for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Senator Ted Cruz, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker—or even Carly Fiorina, whose campaign has made so much of gender and the importance of boosting women. What about the woman who seems closest to becoming the first American woman president, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? A Clinton spokesperson, after a day-long waiting period, sent the following statement to Bloomberg: Putting a woman on the $10 bill is a long overdue step toward recognizing the tremendous impact women have had on the history of our country. We’re looking forward to seeing which woman is selected by U.S. Department of Treasury – but there’s no doubt that they have a long list to choose from. That’s it? The woman hoping to run the country, who has articulated her admiration for Eleanor Roosevelt and Rosa Parks, to name just two, replies: Let’s leave it to a man. Good luck with that, Mr. Lew. *UNDECLARED* *WEBB* *Jim Webb to speak to Clinton County Democrats <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/19/jim-webb-clinton-county-hall-fame-dinner/28977269/> // Des Moines Register // Jason Noble – June 19, 2015 * Former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, will speak at the Clinton County Democrats' annual Hall of Fame Dinner next Friday in eastern Iowa. Webb has not formally declared his candidacy, but is exploring a run in 2016 and has visited Iowa several times over the last few months. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders are officially seeking the Democratic nomination. Clinton is seen as the frontrunner both in Iowa — home of the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses — and nationally. The Clinton County Democrats Hall of Fame Dinner is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on June 26 at Gil's Ballroom in Clinton. Tickets are $30. *OTHER* *‘Ridin’ With Biden’ in 2016, but So Far the Vice President’s Not Aboard <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/us/politics/ridin-with-biden-in-2016-but-so-far-the-vice-presidents-not-aboard.html?_r=0> // NYT // Peter Baker – June 19, 2015 * On the whiteboard at campaign headquarters in a spartan downtown office are listed the day’s tasks. No. 1: “Send out bumper stickers.” Those would be the “I’m Ridin’ With Biden” bumper stickers featuring the vice president of the United States in his signature aviator sunglasses behind the wheel of a favorite muscle car with a slightly mischievous grin on his face. Never mind that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is not for the moment actually running for president. The founders of the Draft Biden 2016 committee refuse to take probably not for an answer. And in this spare office with a shuffleboard table but no televisions, a handful of Democratic activists is trying to build the unlikely nucleus of an unlikely presidency. Theirs is not exactly a political juggernaut. During a recruiting trip to a Democratic event in South Carolina, some who encountered the Draft Biden movement asked if it was a beer. Mr. Biden has not endorsed the effort, nor called or visited or publicly acknowledged its existence. The closest the team of activists has come to the vice president during this campaign season is the life-size cardboard cutout figure of Mr. Biden in the corner of their office. But Will Pierce and his band of Bidenistas argue that the vice president is the best Democrat to carry on the legacy of President Obama and they are working overtime to convince him of that. They have collected more than 81,000 petition signatures, sponsored house parties, secured endorsements, made fund-raising calls, issued news releases and, on Saturday, will sponsor a rally in Davenport, Iowa, all in the hope of luring the vice president into the race. “We’re bringing on more people. We just want to show the vice president the support he has,” said Mr. Pierce, 27, an Army Reserve captain who served in Iraq and started the draft committee this spring. “When and if he gets into the race, he’ll have a foundation. He’ll have some endorsers. He’ll have a grass-roots organization ready to go.” The draft committee reflects an undercurrent of discontent in the Democratic Party with the idea of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gliding to the nomination. The momentum shown by the long-shot candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has encouraged those in the party who want a choice. “We’re trying to engage Democrats who up until this point have felt disengaged by a coronation,” said Joseph Schweitzer, 26, who serves as the Draft Biden committee’s finance director. Mr. Biden has not ruled out a campaign, but he has given no indication that he is serious about running either. In recent months, he has been consumed by family crisis as his elder son, Joseph R. Biden III, known as Beau, battled brain cancer and died last month. Since his son’s death, the vice president has spent most of his time with his family at home in Wilmington, Del., but he has made several forays to Washington in recent days wearing a simple black rosary with a religious medal on his wrist. Some who saw him at the White House said he seemed eager to get back into a work routine. Some Democrats wonder whether Mr. Biden, 72, who served 36 years in the Senate and ran for president in 1988 and 2008, might emerge from the tragedy recommitted to public service and give another look at a third presidential bid. But several people close to Mr. Biden said they saw no real chance that he would run absent an unforeseen development taking Mrs. Clinton out of the race. Still, unlike Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who consistently said she was not running despite a draft effort, Mr. Biden has not definitively said no, instead promising a decision by the end of summer. As long as he is not telling them to stop, the Democratic activists here in Chicago figure the door remains open. Mr. Pierce said the committee got its start in his living room a few months ago when he sent out an email to 2,000 people arguing for a Biden presidential bid. He then went to the gym to work out. “I came back and when I saw my email” there were “all these people who said, ‘We want to get involved,’” he said. “Since then, it’s just taken off.” Like the others on the committee, Mr. Pierce has no strong ties to Mr. Biden. He did some motorcade advance work for the vice president and his wife. Most of the 10 or so others who work full-time for the committee — about half a dozen are paid — have worked on Democratic campaigns, usually in field work or fund-raising. Ahmed Khan, 31, the communications director, ran unsuccessfully for Chicago alderman and worked for three successive challengers to Mayor Rahm Emanuel. But none of them served in senior positions with the Obama-Biden team, and only a few have met Mr. Biden in passing once or twice at events. Mr. Biden’s advisers said they learned about the draft committee only when it announced its formation. The activists hope to collect 500,000 petition signatures by the end of summer and have been raising money, although they will not say how much until the next required reporting period. (“We haven’t found our billionaire yet,” Mr. Schweitzer allowed.) Their focus has been on enlisting supporters from Mr. Biden’s past campaigns. They showed up one day a couple months ago in the office of Roxanna Moritz, the elected auditor of Scott County, Iowa’s third most populous county, and won her support. “I love the fact that Biden tells it like it is,” she said by telephone from Davenport, the county seat. “I don’t believe you have to be charismatic and do the fluff. I really want to know how that person feels. And while he’s sometimes too blunt, I know it’s coming from his heart and his mind. I like that about him.” Mr. Biden is way behind Mrs. Clinton in any theoretical matchups and few independent analysts see him as a serious threat. But he does have a reservoir of good will among Democrats. A New York Times/CBS News survey in early May found that 53 percent of registered Democratic voters would consider voting for Mr. Biden versus 85 percent who would consider voting for Mrs. Clinton. “As soon as he were to hint or even drop a line to anybody that had a say, I think that poll number would go far up and we wouldn’t have a problem about viability or electability,” Mr. Khan said. *Chasing Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley Court Teachers Unions // US News and World Report <http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/19/bernie-sanders-and-martin-omalley-talk-testing-equity-with-teachers-union-chief> // Allie Bidwell – June 19, 2015 * The nation's two largest teachers unions are in the thick of their 2016 presidential endorsement processes, having met with the three major Democratic candidates who have announced their candidacies. On Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders – an independent from Vermont running for the Democratic nomination – and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley met with Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association. Both the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers – the nation's largest teachers union after the NEA – now have heard from O'Malley, Sanders and front-runner Hillary Clinton at a time when the party each hopes to represent in the White House is divided over how to improve K-12 education in America. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Divide on Education "We are asking the tough questions that get to the heart of the issues that educators, their students and families are facing every day. They see what is happening in their schools and communities. They know that all students deserve the support, tools and time to learn," Eskelsen Garcia said in a statement. "But are politicians willing to commit to the success of every student regardless of his or her ZIP code? That is the key question that educators will ask over and over again." So far, all three candidates have focused on framing education as an economic imperative that creates the clearest path to the middle class. They've also put a focus on the needs to reduce standardized testing in schools and empower teachers – desires the unions share – while staying away from more controversial topics such as teacher tenure and evaluation systems, school choice and Common Core. Sanders is the only candidate so far to focus on problems with No Child Left Behind in his remarks to the unions, according to excerpts provided by the NEA and AFT. Sanders, who serves on the Senate education committee, said there are few others as opposed as he is to the sweeping education law – which Congress is attempting to update – and to "this absurd effort to force teachers to spend half of their lives teaching kids how to take tests." "If I have anything to say in the coming months, we would end [No Child Left Behind]," Sanders told Eskelsen Garcia. NEA President Lily Eskelsen García met with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley on Thursday as part of the association’s recommendation process for the 2016 presidential campaign. National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen García speaks with former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley on Thursday at the association's headquarters in Washington. Both candidates also made the overuse of standardized testing a focus of their NEA remarks. Sanders said it's important to "look at the whole child," and to give teachers more flexibility to work with their students. "Teaching kids just to take [a] test in my view does not go far enough," Sanders said. O'Malley, too, said there needs to be a more holistic approach to teaching. "Increasing the frequency of tests doesn't necessarily increase the quality of education," O'Malley said. "We have to be mindful of the whole child – their development, their nutrition, their health. Learning is about more than that feedback loop of tests and quizzes." O'Malley used his remarks to focus on his time as governor, saying that during his tenure from 2007 to 2015, Maryland "made public education a priority by partnering with teachers, and by not doing less but by doing more." He also defended the federal government's role in K-12 education, which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said needs to be scaled back to some extent. "No child is a spare American. In Maryland, we came together to forge the consensus to make the investments at the state level to give our children the quality education they deserve," O'Malley said. "There's so much the federal government can do better in education, but we won't do better if we insist on doing less, not more." Sanders and O'Malley are far behind Clinton in early polling, though Sanders has showed some momentum of late, trailing Clinton by 10 points in a recent Suffolk University poll of New Hampshire. *What Did O’Malley and Sanders Tell the NEA? <http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/06/what_did_sanders_and_omalley_t.html> // Ed Week // Alyson Klein – June 18, 2015 * The National Education Association is getting started early on its 2016 presidential endorsement process. The union's president, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, has already met with Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, and a contender for the Democratic nod. And Thursday, the union met with two more candidates for the Democratic nomination: Martin O'Malley, the former Maryland governor, and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is technically an Independent, identifies as a socialist, but is running as a Democrat anyway. Dying to know what did the two leading, Non-Hillary Democratic candidates in the race have to say for themselves on education? Luckily NEA sent around some excerpts. Under O'Malley, Maryland won a Race to the Top grant, changed its teacher evaluation laws to better incorporate student test data, and it is a leader in one of the two consortia offering tests aligned to Common Core State Standards. But he didn't emphasize those things to the NEA, at least not in the remarks the union sent around. Instead, he talked about the limitations of testing. And he stuck up for the federal role in K-12, which isn't so popular these days: "We need to do a better job of listening to the people who are doing the job. I've never believed one could make teachers the enemy and expect to improve student and classroom outcomes. "The issue of more time in the classroom is related to this holistic approach about how we educate children. Increasing the frequency of tests doesn't necessarily increase the quality of education. We have to be mindful of the whole child—their development, their nutrition, their health. Learning is about more than that feedback loop of tests and quizzes. "As president I would make education funding an economic issue and continue to spread that understanding that the more a child learns, the more that child will earn and the better for our entire economy. As governor, we made public education a priority by partnering with teachers, and by not doing less but by doing more." "No child is a spare American. In Maryland, we came together to forge the consensus to make the investments at the state level to give our children the quality education they deserve. There's so much the federal government can do better in education, but we won't do better if we insist on doing less, not more." Sanders, meanwhile, has been one of the most outspoken Democratic critics of the Obama administration's competitive grants. But, in his remarks, he hit mostly on his distaste for the No Child Left Behind Act, which is on its last legs anyway: "I am running for president of the United States to start a political revolution. We have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income in the country since 1929. The great middle class has been disappearing. The American dream is disappearing. We have priorities that are absolutely backwards. There are 45 million Americans living in poverty. A teacher at a recent town hall meeting told me that 90 percent of her students are eligible for free and reduced lunch. This is not what America is about. "Our country belongs to all of us, not just billionaires. No president can take care of all the problems facing Americans today alone. We need a movement of working people, of middle-class people, to stand up right now. If we don't, I worry about the future of our children and grandchildren. "As I sit on the Senate education committee, it's fair to say that there are few people on the committee who are as opposed to No Child Left Behind and as opposed to this absurd effort to force teachers to spend half of their lives teaching kids how to take tests. If I have anything to say in the coming months we would end NCLB. "If elected president, we are going to look at the whole child. We are going to give teachers the opportunity and freedom to work with kids in any and all ways to improve their lives and to give them the best possible education. Teaching kids just to take tests in my view does not go far enough." For those keeping score at home, NEA and the American Federation of Teachers have each met with Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley. The NEA doesn't have any other meetings scheduled just yet, but it's still early in the union's endorsement process. It's worth noting that when he ran for president back in 2007, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and a GOP candidate again this time, took the NEA's endorsement process seriously, and wound up getting the stamp of approval of the union's New Hampshire affiliate, which turned out to be a mixed blessing for him. Also, back in the 2008 season, the union didn't elect to endorse in either the GOP or Democratic primaries. Still, it will be the biggest edu-political surprise of the year if either union endorses anyone but frontrunner Clinton, who is continuing to hit education on the campaign trail. She told the National Conference of Latino Elected Officials in Las Vegas Thursday about her plan to move toward universal preschool, expand college access, and staff "our primary and secondary schools with K-12 teachers who are second to none in the world, and get the respect they deserve for sparking the love of learning in every child." *GOP* *DECLARED* *BUSH* *Voodoo, Jeb! Style <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/opinion/voodoo-jeb-style.html> // NYT // Paul Krugman – June 19, 2015 * On Monday Jeb Bush — or I guess that’s Jeb!, since he seems to have decided to replace his family name with a punctuation mark — finally made his campaign for the White House official, and gave us a first view of his policy goals. First, he says that if elected he would double America’s rate of economic growth to 4 percent. Second, he would make it possible for every American to lose as much weight as he or she wants, without any need for dieting or exercise. O.K., he didn’t actually make that second promise. But he might as well have. It would have been just as realistic as promising 4 percent growth, and considerably less irresponsible. I’ll get to Jeb!onomics in a minute, but first let me tell you about a dirty little secret of economics — namely, that we don’t know very much about how to raise the long-run rate of economic growth. Economists do know how to promote recovery from temporary slumps, even if politicians usually refuse to take their advice. But once the economy is near full employment, further growth depends on raising output per worker. And while there are things that might help make that happen, the truth is that nobody knows how to conjure up rapid productivity gains. Why, then, would Mr. Bush imagine that he is privy to secrets that have evaded everyone else? One answer, which is actually kind of funny, is that he believes that the growth in Florida’s economy during his time as governor offers a role model for the nation as a whole. Why is that funny? Because everyone except Mr. Bush knows that, during those years, Florida was booming thanks to the mother of all housing bubbles. When the bubble burst, the state plunged into a deep slump, much worse than that in the nation as a whole. Taking the boom and the slump together, Florida’s longer-term economic performance has, if anything, been slightly worse than the national average. The key to Mr. Bush’s record of success, then, was good political timing: He managed to leave office before the unsustainable nature of the boom he now invokes became obvious. But Mr. Bush’s economic promises reflect more than self-aggrandizement. They also reflect his party’s habit of boasting about its ability to deliver rapid economic growth, even though there’s no evidence at all to justify such boasts. It’s as if a bunch of relatively short men made a regular practice of swaggering around, telling everyone they see that they’re 6 feet 2 inches tall. To be more specific, the next time you encounter some conservative going on about growth, you might want to bring up the following list of names and numbers: Bill Clinton, 3.7; Ronald Reagan, 3.4; Barack Obama, 2.1; George H.W. Bush, 2.0; George W. Bush, 1.6. Yes, that’s the last five presidents — and the average rate of growth of the U.S. economy during their time in office (so far, in Mr. Obama’s case). Obviously, the raw numbers don’t tell the whole story, but surely there’s nothing in that list to suggest that conservatives possess some kind of miracle cure for economic sluggishness. And, as many have pointed out, if Jeb! knows the secret to 4 percent growth, why didn’t he tell his father and brother? Or consider the experience of Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback pushed through radical tax cuts that were supposed to drive rapid economic growth. “We’ll see how it works. We’ll have a real live experiment,” he declared. And the results of the experiment are now in: The promised boom never arrived, big deficits did, and, despite savage cuts to schools and other public services, Kansas eventually had to raise taxes again (with the pain concentrated on lower-income residents). Why, then, all the boasting about growth? The short answer, surely, is that it’s mainly about finding ways to sell tax cuts for the wealthy. Such cuts are unpopular in and of themselves, and even more so if, like the Kansas tax cuts for businesses and the affluent, they must be paid for with higher taxes on working families and/or cuts in popular government programs. Yet low taxes on the rich are an overriding policy priority on the right — and promises of growth miracles let conservatives claim that everyone will benefit from trickle-down, and maybe even that tax cuts will pay for themselves. There is, of course, a term for basing a national program on this kind of self-serving (and plutocrat-serving) wishful thinking. Way back in 1980, George H.W. Bush, running against Reagan for the presidential nomination, famously called it “voodoo economic policy.” And while Reaganolatry is now obligatory in the G.O.P., the truth is that he was right. So what does it say about the state of the party that Mr. Bush’s son — often portrayed as the moderate, reasonable member of the family — has chosen to make himself a high priest of voodoo economics? Nothing good. *Jeb Bush Pledges Debate on Gay Marriage After Court Ruling <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/19/jeb-bush-pledges-fight-on-gay-marriage-after-court-ruling/?smid=tw-share> // NYT // Jeremy Peters – June 19, 2015 * Jeb Bush told a gathering of religious conservatives on Friday that the debate over same-sex marriage should continue on “irrespective of what the courts say,” signaling that he would not consider a Supreme Court decision favorable to gay rights as the last word on the issue. With the court expected to rule before the end of the month on the question of whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, one of the looming questions for Mr. Bush and the other Republicans running for president is how aggressively they will respond. There are many in the Republican Party who have hinted that they would rather the issue simply go away. And while they may prefer the court not invalidate state laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples, they would welcome a decision that settles the issue once and for all. In his comments to the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority Conference in Washington, Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida, said he was not content letting the issue fade away. “It’s got to be important over the long haul, irrespective of what the courts say,” he said. He added: “We need to make sure that we protect the right not just of having religious views, but the right of acting on those religious views.” “Conscience should also be respected for people of faith who want to take a stand for traditional marriage,” he said. Mr. Bush, who also stressed in the speech the role that his Catholicism plays in his life as both a private citizen and a public servant, extolled the importance of raising children in families with heterosexual parents. “In a country like ours we should recognize the power of a man and a woman loving their children with all their heart and soul as a good thing, as something that is positive and helpful for those children to live a successful life,” he said. Mr. Bush has not yet addressed a question that seems likely to divide Republicans if the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex couples: Should there be renewed push for a constitutional amendment that limits marriage to one man and one woman? Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin recently said that he would support such an amendment, as have several of the other Republican presidential candidates who are running as social conservatives, like former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. At least two, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, do not support such an amendment. *Jeb Bush’s slam against Washington, D.C. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/19/jeb-bushs-slam-against-washington-dc/> // WaPo // Glenn Kessler – June 19, 2015* “This morning I was in Washington, Iowa. Washington, Iowa, is a little different than Washington, D.C. It’s pretty, the people there are hard-working, they don’t think that they’re the masters of people. It’s not the most prosperous place in the world, in the United States. Sadly, Washington, D.C., is. I don’t know if you know this — Washington, D.C., has the highest per capita income in the United States. Washington, D.C., has average home values of $800,000. Washington, D.C., doesn’t have unemployment. Washington, D.C., has federal workers making significantly more than the private sector workers for lifetime jobs. Washington truly believes that it is the master of us, rather than its servant. And the next president of the United States needs to reverse that trend and put it back where it should be which is our servant focused on doing fewer things, but doing them much, much better.” — Former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R), speaking in Pella, Iowa, June 17, 2015 It is a time-honored tradition for politicians to attack Washington, D.C. But they need to get their facts straight when they do so. So how does Bush fare with four of the factoid he tossed out in a speech to voters in Iowa, as he tried to make the case that the District is the ‘most prosperous place’ in the United States? The Facts ‘Washington, D.C. has the highest per capita income in the United States’ This claim struck us as a little odd, given that a number of metro areas generally are often ranked higher than the Washington, D.C., area. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, a unit of the Commerce Department, says the Washington D.C., metro area ranks 10th, with a per capita personal income of $73,461 in 2013. By contrast, Midland, Tex. ranks the highest, with income of $129,193, followed by cities such as San Jose, ($100,115), Bridgeport ($93,404), San Francisco (78,844), Seattle ($74,701) and Boston ($74,701). So the D.C. area is certainly near the top — the per capita figure for all 381 metro areas is $52,093 — but not the “highest,” as Bush claimed. The Bush campaign, however, pointed to other BEA data at the state level, which at first glance appears to show the “District of Columbia” with a 2014 per capital income of $76,532, higher than the state of Connecticut, with $62,467. But the District is not a state, and BEA officials note that this table includes the District but does not rank it. Connecticut is ranked as number 1. So it’s incorrect for the Bush campaign to claim that this table shows that Washington, D.C., has the highest per capital income in the United States. The District’s per capita income simply should not be measured against other states; it’s a city. ‘Washington, D.C., has average home values of $800,000’ The key word here is “average.” The Bush campaign pointed to a 2014 article quoting the D.C. chief financial officer as saying the average price will hit $813,600 in 2015. But a more recent 2015 forecast shows that the average price was $736,400 in 2014 and is projected to be $771,200 in 2015. The median price, according to the article, is around $600,000. Zillow pegs the median price at nearly $500,000. (The median is the middle value, with an equal number of data values larger and smaller.) So D.C. house prices are high, but not quite as high as Bush claimed. ‘Washington, D.C., doesn’t have unemployment’ This is a strange quote when talking about a city with a 7.5 percent unemployment rate (compared to Iowa’s 3.8 percent.) A Bush spokesman explained that “the point the Governor is trying to make is that D.C. is a boomtown where many more people are moving to find jobs off of Government largess.” He noted from December 2007 (when the Great Recession started) to today, the District has had a 9 percent increase in the number of nonfarm employees, compared to 2 percent for the entire United States, according to the Bureau of labor Statistics. Okay, so Bush misspoke. We don’t try to play gotcha here at The Fact Checker. But if Bush is talking about people with jobs in the federal government, then he’s looking at the wrong set of data. The growth of federal jobs in this period was just about 8,000, or 4 percent, the BLS says. The real growth in jobs – about 63,000, or nearly 14 percent – came in private industry. ‘Washington, D.C., has federal workers making significantly more than the private sector workers for lifetime jobs’ This is where Bush is on the strongest ground. His campaign cites a 2012 Congressional Budget Office report that estimated that “on average for workers at all levels of education, the cost of hourly benefits was 48 percent higher for federal civilian employees than for private-sector employees with certain similar observable characteristics.” If benefits are included, “overall, the federal government paid 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers.” Workers with professional degrees tend to earn about 23 percent less than their private-sector counterparts, but they make up only 7 percent of federal workers, CBO said. Workers with bachelor’s degrees tended to earn about the same as private sector workers, but workers with no more than a high school degree tended to earn about 21 percent more, on average. The Pinocchio Test Bush would have done better if he had not gotten off-track with some of his specifics. The Washington area does have one of the highest per capita income levels, but not the highest. Meanwhile, the District has a relatively high unemployment rate, while the growth in jobs has been in the private sector, not in the federal government. He’s right that home prices are high, if not quite $800,000. And the CBO confirms that federal salaries are much higher, on average, compared to private-sector workers. Overall, Bush earns Two Pinocchios. *Like grandfather, like father, like son: Jeb Bush Jr. joins the campaign fray <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/like-grandfather-like-father-like-son-jeb-bush-jr-joins-the-campaign-fray/2015/06/19/1092a474-15ed-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html> // WaPo // Ed O’Keefe – June 19, 2015 * As his father was on stage here fielding questions from the crowd, Jeb Bush Jr., the third and youngest son of Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, was playing the role of seat filler. He sat listening from the bleachers and later hung back quietly as the candidate posed for pictures with admirers. Earlier in the day in another town, he watched from a distance, arms crossed, as his father pitched Iowa Republicans for the first time as an official candidate. John Ellis Bush Jr. is nicknamed Jebby — though he prefers Jeb — or “2.0,” as some campaign aides call him. The 31-year-old serves as a frequent travel companion and active campaign surrogate for his father, with a focus on building support among Hispanic and millennial voters. It is a role once played by Jeb Bush himself for his father, George H.W. Bush, and for his brother, George W. Bush. Jeb Bush’s oldest son, George P. Bush, the 39-year-old Texas land commissioner, will play a limited role because of his day job. His daughter, Noelle, 37, and his wife, Columba, aren’t expected to make many appearances. When asked this week, Jeb Bush suggested that his older brother might not campaign with him, either. Jeb Bush waits to speak to a crowd of supporters in Pella, Iowa. His son, Jeb Jr., second But Jeb Jr. has been close to his father for several years. They shared a Miami office suite, where they ran Jeb Bush & Associates, a consulting firm that focused on the health-care, technology, energy and real estate sectors. After deciding last year to run for president, his father divested his business interests and left his son to run a few projects on his own. “I basically told him I was all in and happy to do whatever he wanted me to,” Jeb Jr. said this week in his first extended interview. He said his father’s initial response was: “You should focus on making money and having more grandkids.” Speaking with reporters this week, the candidate pulled Jeb Jr. in close and said: “My advice is to have fun, do it with joy in your heart, don’t get too wonky. Use the kind of humor that he’s got to take me down a notch or two.” Jeb Jr. has already served as his father’s liaison to major GOP fundraising events and has headlined fundraisers for younger donors at Miami nightclubs, Washington restaurants and New York apartments. “As Dad has said, we’re organizing the win and taking every state seriously,” he said. “It’s a huge effort. That’s one thing I’ve learned so far: how much of a massive effort this takes. Not only to potentially win a primary, but win a general. And also actually to get something done when you get there. It’s a huge, long process that takes a massive organization.” Kent Lucken, a Bush supporter and Boston-based banker who is helping the campaign, said he was impressed by the younger Bush’s demeanor at a Utah conference hosted last weekend by 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Active in Florida politics, Jeb Bush Jr. endorsed Marco Rubio, left, for Florida's open Senate seat in April 2010. (AP/J. Pat Carter) (J Pat Carter/ASSOCIATED PRESS) “I couldn’t get over how he’s picked up his father’s tone, his respectful manner,” he said. “He can speak like his dad. He’s been with him side-by-side for seven years doing business deals. Most fathers don’t spend seven years with their sons next to them like this.” The Bushes are part of a long tradition of large political families helping a sibling or parent become president. Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy and her children met with small groups of female voters as her son, John F. Kennedy, campaigned for president in 1960. Romney’s five sons used an RV to tour Iowa’s 99 counties in 2008 and fanned out across the country for their father in 2012. Chelsea Clinton didn’t play an active role in Bill Clinton’s 1992 or 1996 campaigns, but she is expected to help Hillary Rodham Clinton in the coming year. Jeb Bush’s first taste of presidential politics came in 1980, when his father sent him to Puerto Rico to help win the island’s first GOP primary. The three other Bush sons, George W., Marvin and Neil, also campaigned for their father that year in Iowa and New Hampshire. The family did it again in 1988 and 1992, and for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. George P. Bush and Jeb Bush Jr. first dabbled in politics through MAVPAC, a committee launched by veterans of George W. Bush’s administration to help fund GOP campaigns. Jeb Jr. has been especially active in South Florida: He campaigned for Marco Rubio during his 2010 U.S. Senate campaign and has been mentioned as a possible candidate for several positions. For now, Jeb Jr. said, he’s more interested in charitable work with St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital and helping his father. Little has bothered him about the media coverage of his father, he said, but he is plagued by “the anxiety of people not knowing his record and who he is as Jeb.” So Jeb Jr. is trying to build out his father’s personal history. At fundraisers hosted by Right to Rise USA, the super PAC supporting his father’s candidacy, he told younger crowds that his dad is a fan of “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby,” the 2006 movie starring Will Ferrell, who is also known for his lampooning of George W. Bush. The former governor also likes country music, Al Green and Stevie Wonder, his son said. And with a mother who was born in Mexico, Spanish music often filled the Bush home. “There was a lot of salsa, a lot of Luis Miguel,” Jeb Jr. said, referring to the popular Mexican singer. “A little Cuban influence. But Mom was always big on the Luis Miguel.” “My mom still speaks to me in Spanish,” he added. “I made the mistake of responding in English, so my Spanish is kind of intermediate. It should be fluent.” After growing up in Miami, he attended the University of Texas and earned a Latin American Studies degree — just like his father. Jeb Jr. had a brief run-in with the law in 2005, when he was arrested in Austin for public intoxication and resisting arrest. Now he lives near his parents with his wife, Sandra. She was born in Canada and is of Iraqi descent; they met in London when he was traveling on business. Together they speak to their two young daughters in English, Arabic and Spanish. In a bilingual interview with ABC News this week, Jeb Bush marveled at how his young granddaughters are learning three languages. “It’s a very American mix,” he said in Spanish. *Five myths about Jeb Bush <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-jeb-bush/2015/06/19/f2143148-15f1-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html> // WaPo // Brian E. Crowley – June 19, 2015 * The nation has the chance to vote for another Bush now that Jeb has declared his candidacy for president. Though his last name is one of the most famous in the country, much of the conventional wisdom about Bush is wrong, starting with his first name. (It’s not actually Jeb.) Here are five other myths about the third child of George and Barbara. 1. Jeb Bush is a moderate. “Republican vanilla” was how Henry Olsen put it in National Review. Others have described Bush’s “ ‘very conservative’ problem” (National Journal), the right’s “wary” response to his candidacy (the Boston Globe), and similarities between him and Hillary Clinton (Laura Ingraham, who said they could “run on the same ticket”). At the heart of Bush’s supposedly moderate ideology: his support for Common Core and immigration reform. While some conservatives disagree over those two issues, almost nothing in Bush’s record as governor suggests he’s a moderate. The notion puzzles Floridians who watched him govern for eight years, during which he pushed to disrupt public schools by establishing vouchers, grading schools and student performance, and creating charter schools. He reduced the size of state government, promoted tax cuts for the wealthy, passed tough-on-crime bills and bragged about helping Florida have more concealed-weapon permits than other states. When Bush left office, “he was widely, unanimously, unambiguously regarded as the most conservative governor in the United States,” according to Steve Schmidt, who was Sen. John McCain’s senior campaign adviser in the 2008 presidential race. Darryl Paulson, a professor emeritus of government at the University of South Florida, said, “He governed as a conservative, and everyone in the Florida Republican Party considered him a conservative.” Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell stated it more bluntly: “a union-busting, school-voucher-promoting, tax-cutting, gun-loving, Terri Schiavo-interfering, hard-core conservative.” 2. George is the dumb one, Jeb is the smart one. “When we first started doing [George W.] Bush on ‘Saturday Night Live,’ ” former head writer Adam McKay told the New York Times, “the ‘Bush is dumb’ joke was too good.” While George’s unique way with words launched a thousand late-night jokes, Jeb emerged as the “smart one.” Last year, the Times described the younger Bush’s reputation thusly: “an intellectual in search of new ideas, a serial consulter of outsiders who relishes animated debate and a probing manager who eagerly burrows into the bureaucratic details.” George the bumbler, Jeb the thinker. Got it. But some who worked in the Bush White House say the perception that Jeb is smarter may have more to do with style than with substance. George’s persona is often one of swagger and verbal stumbles. However, Keith Hennessey, former director of Bush’s National Economic Council, argues that “President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer.” Meanwhile, Jeb the policy wonk has had his share of gaffes. During the 1994 gubernatorial race, an African American woman asked candidate Bush what he would do for blacks in Florida. Bush answered, “Probably nothing.” The remark followed him through the rest of the campaign. And last month, Jeb flubbed questions about whether he would have authorized the Iraq war, demonstrating that, like his big brother, he, too, can slip when he speaks. Bottom line: George and Jeb are two intelligent men who happen to express themselves differently. 3. Bush is Marco Rubio’s mentor. Last year, National Review asked: “Would a presidential run by his mentor lock Rubio out of the race?” The Times called Rubio the protege of Bush and described the senator’s decision to run as a “Shakespearean turn in a 15-year relationship so close, personal and enduring that friends describe the two men as almost family.” Both Rubio and Bush live in Miami-Dade County and are heavily immersed in the Hispanic community. As fellow Republicans, they worked together and were politically close as Rubio climbed the ranks of the state House of Representatives, eventually becoming speaker in November 2006. Bush once gave Rubio a samurai sword. But was Rubio really Bush’s protege? “I wouldn’t diminish the relationship or exaggerate it,” Rubio told The Washington Post in February. Bush was not a “mentor in the traditional sense,” S.V. Dáte noted in a Politico story that examined the relationship. Dáte also found that Bush’s archived e-mails don’t suggest a bond with Rubio any more special than with other lawmakers, and the men took very different paths, marked by very different styles, to office. One Florida GOP operative told The Post that Rubio respected Bush but was “not necessarily a protege,” and strategist Ana Navarro suggested that a Bush-Rubio matchup “would be less awkward for Jeb and Marco than for a lot of us around them.” Why the false narrative? A battle between mentor and mentee certainly increases the personal drama of the campaign; “Marco Rubio vs. His Mentor” is a much catchier headline than “Marco Rubio vs. other guy who happens to be from Florida.” 4. Bush will campaign “joyfully.” Last year, while discussing whether he would run for president, Bush said, “The decision will be based on ‘Can I do it joyfully?,’ because I think we need to have candidates lift our spirits.” He’s apparently decided that yes, he can. His opponents in his three races for governor would have been delighted to see Bush campaign joyfully. At home, he ran tough races. In 1994, he aired a TV ad accusing Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles of not moving fast enough to execute Larry Mann, the killer of a 10-year-old girl. The spot featured the child’s grieving mother, Wendy Nelson. Chiles “says it can’t be done; we know that it can,” said Cory Tilley, Bush’s spokesman at the time. The ad led the Sun Sentinel to declare in an editorial that Bush was “showing his utter contempt for the truth, for fair play, for his own party’s Code of Conduct . . . and for the voters he wants to hire him as governor.” (Bush left office in 2007. Mann was executed in 2013.) In 1998, according to the Los Angeles Times, Bush ads portrayed fiscally conservative Lt. Gov. Buddy MacKay “as having spent his 30-year political career trying to push through tax hikes on everything from senior citizens’ income to burglar alarms.” In 2002, Bush called Tampa lawyer Bill McBride, who had never held public office, “a tax-and-spend Democrat, political death in tax-allergic Florida, which still resists a state income tax,” as Time magazine said. Nothing about Bush’s attack ads was out of the ordinary. And he got hit back just as hard. But it would be a very unusual presidential campaign that did not use negative ads, and the idea that Bush’s team will somehow refrain and embrace “joy” instead is unlikely. 5. He has broad support in Florida. “Return of the GOP King” was the headline of a January Miami Herald story about the growing Bush campaign machine. Just before Bush formally became a candidate, Florida’s three elected Cabinet officers and 11 of 17 Republicans in the state’s congressional delegation endorsed him. So Bush has Florida sewn up, right? Not exactly. Despite this establishment support, polls suggest that Bush, who has not been on the ballot in the Sunshine State in 13 years, cannot take Florida for granted. A Mason-Dixon poll from April showed Bush (30 percent) and Rubio (31 percent) essentially tied among Florida Republican voters. A look at past races suggests that Bush could have a hard time. In 1994, he narrowly lost to Chiles, a reluctant candidate who showed little energy until the end of the campaign. In 1998, MacKay ran a terrible race and, as many Democrats predicted, lost. In 2002, running for a second term, Bush outspent political novice McBride by as much as 4 to 1. While the latter races offered little resistance, Bush’s toughest test after 1994 was the 2000 presidential campaign. The Bush family had every reason to believe that Jeb would help his brother carry Florida. He did, but only by a very controversial 537 votes. And much has changed since Bush left the governor’s mansion. One study, as Bloomberg News reported, “found that nearly three-quarters of Florida’s 12.9 million currently registered voters have never even seen Bush’s name on a ballot.” *Jeb Bush Emphasizes Anti-Abortion Record as Florida Governor <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/turmoil-only-sure-thing-if-supreme-court-rejects-gay-marriage> // Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – June 19, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush drew applause from an evangelical crowd Friday when touting anti-abortion measures he enacted as governor of Florida, including parental notice for minors and a ban on "partial-birth abortion." "We also put the most vulnerable in society at the front of the line, guided by my faith," Bush said at the Faith & Freedom Coalition meeting in Washington. "And we also put the rights of the unborn in the front of the line." Bush, whose positions on immigration (he favors a path to legal status for some immigrants in the United States illegally) and education (he favors the national education standards known as the Common Core) have put him out of sync with some of his party's more conservative voters, is placing a heavier emphasis on abortion than some of his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. He is placing his gubernatorial record front-and-center as he makes his case for the White House. In 2000, Bush signed measure to ban a late-term abortion procedure. In 2005 he enacted the Parental Notification Act, which mandates that doctors notify parents of a minor at least 48 hours prior to terminating a pregnancy. "When I became governor I was shocked at the total lack of regulation of abortion clinics, and that parents had no legal role in their minor daughter's abortion decision," he said. "So what we did was we put regulations on abortion clinics. And we narrowed the number of them... I signed into law a partial birth abortion ban." He said he also supported funding for crisis pregnancy centers. Later Friday, Bush named David James, who served as senior adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, as political director, according to The Wall Street Journal. He will oversee voter contact, campaign volunteers, efforts to maximize voter turnout, Bush spokesman Tim Miller told the paper. *Jeb Bush Makes Surprise Pick for Political Director <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/19/jeb-bush-makes-surprise-pick-for-political-director/> // WSJ // David James – June 19, 2015 * For the second time in less than two weeks, Jeb Bush is shuffling the top tier of his 2016 campaign staff. The job of political director – expected to go to Kentucky-based consultant Scott Jennings – will instead be filled by David James, who served as a senior adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. He has also worked at the Republican National Committee and helped lead the Pennsylvania Republican Party. The political director oversees voter contact, campaign volunteers, and other grassroots efforts to maximize Election Day turnout. Mr. Jennings, who advised Mr. Romney’s 2012 campaign and George W. Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns, will work with Mr. James and serve as a senior political adviser, according to Tim Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Bush. The shift in staffing comes just four days after Mr. Bush officially launched his campaign in Miami and 11 days after he decided to name Danny Diaz as his campaign manager. That job was expected to go to Iowa-based consultant David Kochel, who will instead serve as chief strategist. Some GOP donors are concerned that the staff shakeup reflects Mr. Bush’s failure to establish himself as the clear frontrunner in a crowded GOP field despite his fundraising prowess and national profile. Mr. Miller said, “After a successful announcement where Jeb really laid out how he is uniquely prepared to fix the problems in Washington, we are happy to be building out a political operation with David, Scott and the rest of the team that will spread that message in the primary and caucus states.” *Jeb Bush might have a big problem on his hands if he wins the White House <http://www.businessinsider.com/jeb-bush-corporate-election-campaign-2015-6> // AP // Annie Greene – June 19, 2015 * Jeb Bush's deep dive into corporate America, where he served on the boards or as an adviser to more than a dozen companies, could trigger complications for him if he wins the White House. Companies that paid Bush as a board member or adviser regularly hire lobbyists to press issues in Washington before federal agencies, Congress and the White House. Others have been fined by U.S. agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, or faced inquiries from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Some are expected to conduct business beyond November 2016 that will be directly affected by U.S. government decisions. That nexus raises thorny questions for Bush if he wins the Republican nomination and the presidency: How would he respond when one of the companies that paid him seeks favorable treatment or undergoes scrutiny from the federal government? That potential entanglement could hamper any presidential candidate with a history in corporate America, such as Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state whose family foundation received big-money support from corporate interests. "Anytime you have these kinds of entanglements, there's certainly the potential for conflict," said Dale Eisman, a spokesman for Common Cause. Unlike lower-ranking employees, a president can't effectively recuse himself and pass on a decision to a more neutral supervisor. Bush began shedding his corporate ties late last year to prepare his run for president. Potential conflicts of interest involve federal interactions with companies that paid him millions. Beyond his own companies and educational foundations, Bush was a board member or adviser to at least 15 companies and nonprofits after leaving the Florida governor's office early in 2007, an AP review found. At least seven of those companies lobbied the federal government in recent years — an effort likely to continue over a range of issues, such as health care and corporate taxes. Bush spokesman Tim Miller said Bush won't play favorites. "If Jeb is successful in his campaign, special interests are going to find his administration to be unwelcome territory because he's going to clean out the broken tax and regulatory system," Miller said. The companies Bush formerly advised frequently appear before regulatory agencies. Take, for instance, Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare, where Bush served on the board of directors for eight years through 2014, earning nearly $2.4 million in compensation. In the past two years, Tenet has hired lobbyists to represent its interests on dozens of issues in Washington, including the congressional budget, Medicare's reauthorization and the Hospital Payment Fairness Act. Tenet has benefited from President Barack Obama's health care law, with the company's CEO saying last year that an increase of newly insured people led to an uptick in admissions to its hospitals. Republicans, including Bush, have chided "Obamacare," raising the specter that a GOP White House victory could lead to a legislative imbroglio — and trigger a massive lobbying effort from industry. Tenet's lobbying goes well beyond one issue. Since 2014, the company put its lobbyists to work before 10 different federal agencies and offices. Another example is Rayonier Inc., a publicly traded Florida timber company where Bush served on the board of directors from 2008 to 2014 and earned nearly $1 million in total compensation. This year, Rayonier has hired lobbyists on federal issues involving taxation of timberland, an international trade dispute involving U.S. pulp production and the tax treatment of timber real estate investment trusts. In November, with Bush on the board, the SEC subpoenaed Rayonier over its public filings; the company said it is cooperating with the agency, which is led by a presidential appointee. Rayonier spokesman Mike Bell said any candidate seeking to rise to national prominence would naturally bring "a body of knowledge, background associations and affiliations with business and nonprofits." Rayonier won't stop lobbying in Washington and Bell said he does not believe the connection would be troublesome. "I am confident that Governor Bush knows when to recuse himself," he said. Another potential connection involves the Barrick Gold Corp., where Bush served on the international advisory board from 2011 to 2013. In the last two years, Barrick lobbyists pressed issues with the Senate, House, Army Corps of Engineers, Treasury and EPA. Barrick has been fined by the EPA, an agency also led by a presidential appointee. Andy Lloyd, a Barrick spokesman, said the company complies with lobbying regulations in every country it serves, "and we will continue to do so." *Jeb Sells Catholicism to Evangelicals* <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/19/jeb-sells-catholicism-to-evangelicals.html>* // Daily Beast // Betsy Woodruff – June 19, 2015* Evangelicals aren’t typically the target audience for Roman Catholic theology talk. Low-church Protestants from the Bible Belt have historically been hostile to Catholicism, even sometimes fearing that Catholics’ devotion to the pope will lead to one-world government, and that their political clout in the United States presages the end times. So it was perhaps a little surprising when Jeb Bush, who converted to his wife’s Catholicism, launched into an emotional testimony before a predominantly Evangelical audience on Friday about the joy he felt when he left Protestantism. Catholics and Evangelicals haven’t always played well together. In 2008, Rev. John Hagee—a Texas pastor and one of the country’s most powerful Evangelical leaders—apologized to Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for intimating that the Catholic church was the “great whore” of Revelation, and for telegraphing the kind of anti-Catholic rhetoric typically associated with 19th-century nativists. (Among Southern Baptists, in particular, there’s long been a flamboyantly anti-Catholic strain of thought and rhetoric.) And while conservative Catholics and Evangelical Protestants are simpatico when it comes to certain public policy goals, they usually avoid public discussions about areas of theological disagreement. But here in a ballroom in a hotel in D.C.’s Woodley Park neighborhood, Bush decided that courting the country’s leading social conservative activists could entail discussing one of the elements of Catholic theology that’s least amenable to Evangelicals—namely the blessed sacraments, which include confession and communion. “I converted to the Catholic Church—Christ came into my life a little earlier, but I converted to being Catholic in honor of my wife and because I believe in the blessed sacraments and they give me great comfort,” he said at the beginning of his speech before the Faith and Freedom Coalition. “On Easter Sabbath of 1995, I had lost an election in 1994 and found a total serenity and solace in the RCIA class, and converted to being a Catholic and it’s been an organizing part of my architecture, if you will, as a person and certainly as an elected official.” RCIA stands for Right of Christian Initiation of Adults, and refers to the catechesis process that would-be Catholic converts go through before entering the Church. Evangelicals, needless to say, do not see the act of leaving Protestantism as something that should necessarily be a source of “total serenity and solace.” Evangelicals, needless to say, do not see the act of leaving Protestantism as something that should necessarily be a source of “total serenity and solace.” And sometimes, as in Hagee’s case, their leaders show outright hostility to those who jump ship. So Bush’s willingness to talk explicitly about his decision to leave behind the Protestantism that galvanizes so many members of the Faith and Freedom Coalition audience reflects an important shift in the way social conservatives talk to each other. Yes, the two groups have long been political allies—the evangelical George W. Bush handily won Catholics in 2004, and the stalwart Catholic Rick Santorum was kept afloat in the 2012 GOP primary by southern Evangelicals. But increasingly, Evangelical Christians and conservative Roman Catholics are finding common ground not just in their shared political concerns but also in a shared language about personal devotion to faith. And that shared devotion played heavily in Bush’s speech, as he reiterated his support for the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns embroiled in a fight with the federal government over contraceptive coverage, and his repulsion with Hillary Clinton’s comment that “religious beliefs…have to be changed.” Clinton’s camp hasn’t clarified which specific religious beliefs she thinks must change, but conservatives like Bush have taken the comment as a direct attack on their pro-life convictions. Bush’s criticism of Clinton’s comment drew warm applause from the crowd. Penny Nance, an Evangelical Christian who heads the conservative Concerned Women for America, said those comments reflect growing unity and cooperation between conservative Catholics and Evangelicals. “We are more united than we have been in my lifetime, certainly,” she said. “Catholics and Evangelicals have certainly linked arms and will continue to link arms over the issue of life and marriage.” “Jeb embracing his Catholicism is not a problem for Evangelicals,” she added. Nance would know—she wrote a Fox News op-ed in February of 2012 titled “We are all Catholics now”. And Patricia Miller of Salon argued in March of this year that white Catholics’ increasing affinity for the GOP could become a problem for the Democratic party. “[F]or the first time, white Catholics are more Republican than the voting group usually considered the ultimate Republicans: white Protestants,” she wrote. It’s just one more indicator that despite a fraught history, Protestant Evangelicals and conservative Catholics have become a cohesive political unit. As the two groups become more and more closely allied on public policy issues, and as they both increasingly adopt a defensive posture in the culture wars, conservative Catholic candidates like Bush will feel more comfortable talking about their faith in more explicit ways before Evangelical audiences. *Jeb Bush demonstates the opposite of economic wonkery <http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/jeb-bush-demonstrates-the-opposite-economic-wonkery> // MSNBC // Steve Benen – June 19, 2015 * At his formal presidential campaign kickoff this week in Miami, Jeb Bush pointed to a rather specific economic target. “There is not a reason in the world why we cannot grow at a rate of four percent a year,” the Florida Republican said. “And that will be my goal as president – four percent growth, and the 19 million new jobs that come with it.” In reality, there are all kinds of reasons why GDP growth of 4% per year is unrealistic – reasons Bush is supposed to understand. Indeed, in the modern era, how many presidents have averaged 4 percent growth over the course of their terms? Zero. Not Clinton, not Reagan, not Obama, no one. But the real fun kicks in when we consider how, exactly, Jeb Bush arrived at his 4% target. When Reuters asked for an explanation, the Republican responded, “It’s a nice round number. It’s double the growth that we are growing at. It’s not just an aspiration. It’s doable.” Except, it’s not doable at all. Matt Yglesias flagged this piece, noting that Bush apparently chose his goal randomly, “backed by zero substantive analysis of any kind.” That ambitious goal was first raised as Bush and other advisers to the George W. Bush Institute discussed a distinctive economic program the organization could promote, recalled James Glassman, then the institute’s executive director. “Even if we don’t make 4 percent it would be nice to grow at 3 or 3.5,” said Glassman, now a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In that conference call, “we were looking for a niche and Jeb in that very laconic way said, ‘four percent growth.’ It was obvious to everybody that this was a very good idea.” That’s a great use of the word “laconic,” by the way. There was no detailed economic discussion, no number crunching, no projections based on hours of pouring over spreadsheets. Bush just blurted it out, convinced that four is a round number. This is problematic on its face, but let’s not forget that for much of the political world, Jeb Bush is one of his party’s leading policy wonks. This is the guy who describes himself as a “nerd” who loves public policy and the substantive ideas of governing. Except this reputation is a sham. He got on the phone with some folks from the George W. Bush Institute – as if his brother’s economic team was brimming with competence – and picked that number off the top of his head, confident that his vague ideas about tax cuts will make him the single most successful economic president of the last 75 years. Anyone who still considers the former governor a policy wonk simply isn’t paying close enough attention. *Paul Krugman: Jeb Bush’s economic policies could turn the entire country into a failed Kansas-style “experiment” <http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/paul_krugman_jeb_bushs_economic_policies_could_turn_the_entire_country_into_a_failed_kansas_style_experiment/> // Salon // Scott Eric Kaufman – June 19, 2015 * Paul Krugman lit into Jeb Bush in Friday’s column for the New York Times, calling the Republican presidential contender “a high priest of voodoo economics” whose plan to revitalize the American economy resembles Governor Sam Brownback’s disastrous “experiment” in Kansas. Bush has promised that, if elected, “he would double America’s rate of economic growth to 4 percent,” which would be an impressive feat given that not even economists “know very much about how to raise the long-run rate of economic growth.” But unlike economists, Bush believes he has the answer — and he’s basing it on the misguided belief that “the growth in Florida’s economy during his time as governor offers a role model for the nation as a whole.” Krugman finds that “kind of funny…because everyone except Bush knows that during those years, Florida was booming thanks to the mother of all housing bubbles.” When the bubble burst, the state plunged into a deep slump, much worse than that in the nation as a whole. Taking the boom and the slump together, Florida’s longer-term economic performance has, if anything, been slightly worse than the national average. The key to Mr. Bush’s record of success, then, was good political timing: He managed to leave office before the unsustainable nature of the boom he now invokes became obvious. But Mr. Bush’s economic promises reflect more than self-aggrandizement. They also reflect his party’s habit of boasting about its ability to deliver rapid economic growth, even though there’s no evidence at all to justify such boasts. It’s as if a bunch of relatively short men made a regular practice of swaggering around, telling everyone they see that they’re 6 feet 2 inches tall. To be more specific, the next time you encounter some conservative going on about growth, you might want to bring up the following list of names and numbers: Bill Clinton, 3.7; Ronald Reagan, 3.4; Barack Obama, 2.1; George H.W. Bush, 2.0; George W. Bush, 1.6. Yes, that’s the last five presidents — and the average rate of growth of the U.S. economy during their time in office (so far, in Mr. Obama’s case). Obviously, the raw numbers don’t tell the whole story, but surely there’s nothing in that list to suggest that conservatives possess some kind of miracle cure for economic sluggishness. And, as many have pointed out, if Jeb! knows the secret to 4 percent growth, why didn’t he tell his father and brother? *Jeb Bush’s pathetic Charleston dodge: “I don’t know” if white supremacist suspect was motivated by racism <http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/jeb_bushs_pathetic_charleston_dodge_i_dont_know_if_white_supremacist_suspect_was_motivated_by_racism/> // Salon // Scott Eric Kaufman – June 19, 2015 * As news of Dylann Roof’s longstanding and deeply rooted racist beliefs began to filter through the media yesterday, many of the Republican candidates for president nevertheless denied that race was the motivating factor. Taking their cues from Fox News, Rick Santorum and Lindsey Graham speculated that Roof was a “whacked out” opponent of “religious liberty,” just one of many “people out there looking for Christians to kill them.” Early Friday morning, CNN reported that a source close to the investigation said that Roof had confessed to police that he chose the historically black Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church because he wanted to start a race war. That statement is consonant with what a survivor told Sylvia Jones yesterday — that Roof had said that African-Americans have “raped our [white] women, and you are taking over the country. I have to do what I have to do.” And yet, despite the abundance of evidence that Roof’s attack was racially motivated, GOP presidential front-runner Jeb Bush told attendees at a Faith and Freedom Coalition summit in Washington today that he doesn’t “know what was on the mind or the heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes.” According to Talking Points Memo’s Tierney Sneed, Bush followed Santorum and Graham’s lead and focused on the fact that Roof decided to stage the opening salvo of his race war at a church. (The fact that it’s a historically black one is, we must assume, beside the point.) Bush later claimed that while Roof is completely opaque to him, he does know “what was in the heart of [Roof's] victims.” “They were praying. They were learning and studying the word of the Lord,” he said. “In times like these, in times of great of national mourning, people of faith, all of us must come together and at least reflect on this and fortify our strength and love of Christ, love of God to be able to continue to go forth.” The Huffington Post’s politics reporter Laura Bassett asked him point blank about the racial component of the Charleston massacre: For their part, both Democratic candidates have addressed the racial animus that motivated Roof, Clinton in a speech yesterday and Senator Bernie Sanders on Twitter today. *Jeb Bush already a winner – when it comes to campaign logos <http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/national-politics/20150619-jeb-bush-already-a-winner--when-it-comes-to-campaign-logos.ece> // Dallas News // Christy Hoppe – June 19, 2015 * Political campaigns take apple pie, pour in red, white and blue, sprinkle sunshine, add a hint of Lincoln, a kiss of hope, wrap it in a flag and call it a logo. Fifteen announced presidential campaigns have unfurled their banners. And the symbols they’ll put on signs, stickers and shirts are mostly predictable, though some have refreshing flourishes, two experts in campaign messaging say. “You can spot a political logo a mile away,” said San Antonio political consultant and marketing executive Lionel Sosa. They have flags, American colors and usually, a tagline like “leadership, honesty, integrity or the even more boring, experienced,” he said. But this year, a few at least “have a touch of freshness,” Sosa said. Ben Bentzin, a marketing lecturer at the University of Texas at Austin, said eventually the logo of a well-known and well-funded candidate will become emblematic of who they are and what they want to do. And the most effective logos incorporate the candidate’s name as a brand. Bentzin, who has been a legislative candidate, said he skews “toward simple logos that convey personality.” The two experts largely agreed on which candidates have succeeded with their first important decision — the symbol of their campaign — and which should have stayed a little longer at the drawing board. Follow Christy Hoppe on Twitter at @christyhoppe. Winner: Jeb Bush Sosa: “Jeb’s logo is the freshest and therefore the best — a strong, sophisticated serif typeface with an exclamation point. Short, sweet, to the point.” Bentzin: “I ranked Jeb the highest for personality and simplicity.” The experts agreed on the next four as their next top choices. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum all conveyed strong symbols — eternal flames and an eagle. Bernie Sanders’ simple star dotting the “i” was a notable touch. Sosa: “The eternal flame as the American flag for Ted Cruz. Nice and simple. No taglines needed for these, and that’s part of their strength.” Bentzin: “These logos are brands.” Hillary Clinton, perhaps trying to avoid the dynasty tag, left out her name altogether. And the experts see that as a mistake. Sosa: “Is she taking a page from Nike and Apple, big brands that substitute a graphic for the name? Or does she think she is so well known that there is no need to even mention her name? “While I like the simplicity of Hillary’s logo, it works against her — the graphic reflects a hard, corporate and untouchable feel, which only reinforces her least desirable qualities.” Bentzin: “Hillary is simple, but I didn’t rate it higher because it feels contrived, like it is trying too hard.” The complicated logo for Rick Perry prompted a novel suggestion from Sosa. “Perry’s logo would be much stronger if he had left out the silly P with the nerdy star and replaced it with a strong graphic of his face,” Sosa said. “After all, he’s not a bad-looking fellow.” Sosa: “All lowercase letters and the use of a U.S. map for a period? Really? ‘A new American century’ might have worked in 2000 but comes off as unimaginative today.” The weakest effort, both experts agreed, was Mike Huckabee’s. Bentzin: “These messages help to define the candidate, but at the expense of making the logos more complex and that’s harder to understand and remember.” As for the rest, Sosa summed it up: “Just more of the same old, same old.” *Jeb Bush changes tune, calls Charleston shooter ‘racist’* <http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/jeb-bush-changes-tune-calls-charleston-shooter-racist/2234418?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>* // Tampa Bay Times // Kirby Wilson – June 19, 2015* In a speech at a Hillsborough County Republican Party dinner Friday night, Jeb Bush called the Charleston shooter who killed 9 African Americans as they prayed Wednesday a "racist." "It breaks my heart that somebody, a racist, would do the things he did," Bush said. The former governor's characterization of shooter Dylann Roof stood in contrast to remarks from earlier Friday, when he said, "I don't know what was on the mind or heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes." The earlier remarks came in a speech to Christian conservatives Friday morning at the Washington, D.C. Faith & Freedom Coalition conference. Bush cancelled his planned events in Charleston Thursday in the aftermath of the tragedy. *Bush makes his case vs. Walker, Rubio, minus criticism <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/19/bush-makes-case-walker-rubio/29010483/> // Des Moines Register // Jennifer Jacobs – June 19, 2015 * Ask Jeb Bush why he'd be a better president than Scott Walker or Marco Rubio, and his argument comes down to this: After eight years as Florida's chief executive and decades managing ventures in the business world, he has learned that his "sweet spot" is his ability to forge fixes for big problems. "Practical business experience is actually a virtue in public service because you can apply private-sector practices. For people who have only been involved in government, they literally have no clue," Bush told The Des Moines Register on Wednesday in his first sit-down news interview in Iowa of his presidential campaign. And as a governor, Bush said, he has a concrete record of reforms. "We have a lot of really talented senators, but they have the ability to hide behind the collective body," he told the Register during an hourlong van trip between two campaign stops. "Over time, they kind of start speaking in a different language. They speak the language of Washington. They honestly do brag about filing an amendment and calling that success. Governors have to balance budgets. They have to make decisions that make people mad sometimes. They have to lead." Bush added: "I don't say any of this in criticism of anyone else. I hope we can get to the point where you can actually toot your own horn without implying that someone else is bad." As it happens, Walker, the Wisconsin governor and frontrunner in Iowa polling in the race for the GOP caucuses, has had a career mainly in government. He'd been doing marketing and fundraising for the American Red Cross at age 22 when he made his first bid for public office. He lost that legislative race, but was victorious at age 25. He was a state representative for nearly nine years, then county executive in Milwaukee County for almost nine years. He was elected governor at age 43 and has held that office for 4 ½ years. Rubio, a 44-year-old first-term U.S. senator in Florida, is popular among Iowa's likely GOP caucusgoers as their second choice for president and has a high favorability rating, according to a late May Iowa Poll. Those are signs he could potentially do very well in Iowa if he can persuade voters to make him their top choice. In the horse race for first choice for president, Walker is strongly in the lead, followed by Rand Paul and Ben Carson tied in second place, and Bush and Mike Huckabee tied in fourth place, the May 25-29 Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll found. Asked Wednesday how his approach to dealing with public-sector unions compares to Walker, who has a strong reputation for taking on organized labor, Bush said: "In Florida, we created probably the most dramatic changes in career civil service rules in the country." Bush said he shrunk the state government workforce by 13,000 employees. That statement is true, Matthew Corrigan, chairman of the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of North Florida, told the Register later. Bush also reclassified another 16,000 from civil service to at-will employees, Corrigan said. That means the workers are nonunionized and can be fired without evidence to support disciplinary or performance problems. Bush also said he reformed the pension system. "I earned the wrath of AFSCME," he said, referring to the public employee union. "Someone who's a friend of mine who's active in Democratic politics told me that at my re-election, they had 4,000 folks that came in from out of state to take me out," Bush said. "Because they were worried that if Florida could do it, then other states could do it as well, so they had to punish me. My opponent outraised me in terms of money, plus his union support was pretty spectacular. And I beat him like a drum." Bush added: "You have tenure for all government workers in most places in the country. In Florida, you don't." In 2008, the country made a big bet on a gifted senator, Bush said. "I think it's pretty clear now despite the skills, the eloquence, the charisma of Barack Obama, he's not a leader. And there was nothing in his background that suggested he would be one," he said. "So we need a leader now, because we can't keep talking about our problems. Leaders skip over that, and they start talking about solutions. That's my sweet spot." Bush joined a Florida real estate firm with a friend in 1981 and built it from three employees to 280, he said. He and his son, Jeb, started a consulting business and an investing business, he said. As governor from 1999 to 2007, Florida saw 4.4 percent growth annually over eight years, Bush said, and he left the state with a triple A bond rating and close to $10 billion in reserves. He cut taxes every year, for a total of $19 billion, he said. Corrigan said Florida added a million jobs during Bush's tenure, although some were low-wage agriculture and tourism jobs, and some were housing-boom construction jobs that went away when the recession hit in 2007. Corrigan said Bush did cut taxes, but the exact amount is in dispute. PolitiFact rated Bush's "$19 billion" statement "half true." Education is at the center of Bush's legacy. "I'm not bragging here. It's just a simple fact that when you look at rising student achievement in Florida, we to this day continue to lead the nation," Bush said. "We started at the bottom. The state of Florida, with 57 percent of the students qualified for free and reduced (price) lunch, kids near or at the poverty level, are now in the upper quartile in terms of reading and math scores." But the testing element of Bush's reforms has become unpopular, Corrigan said. The charter school Bush co-founded in Miami had financial problems later and closed. Bush also said he managed the affairs of state during eight hurricanes and four tropical storms that caused more than $100 billion in losses. "Nothing's ever happened like this in the country," he said. Corrigan agreed that the 2004 hurricane season was particularly tough, and Bush handled it well, partly because of his ability to speak Spanish. Bush said: "I'm a proven leader. No disrespect to anybody else." *As Florida Governor, Jeb Bush Bought Land from Timber Company That Later Paid Him $1 Million <http://www.ibtimes.com/florida-governor-jeb-bush-bought-land-timber-company-later-paid-him-1-million-1974360> // IB Times // Andrew Perez – June 19, 2015 * Florida was buying wetlands. Seeking to conserve its fragile coastline, the state sought to set aside acreage in perpetuity, ensuring it would never be developed. But as then-Gov. Jeb Bush assessed a proposal to buy a choice parcel -- a 26,000-acre piece of swampland near Jacksonville -- he worried that the price was far higher than the land’s true worth. “I’m concerned about the value of the property,” Bush told top state officials during a meeting in Tallahassee in March 2000. This was a subject Bush knew something about, having previously earned his living in real estate. After expressing his reservations, however, Bush quickly assented to the purchase, calling the parcel “a jewel.” Then he cracked a prescient joke. "Man,” the governor said, according to the minutes of the meeting, “I can’t wait to get back into the real-estate business and sell property to the state." That wish would ultimately come true. A year after the state bought the land, Bush approved a plan through which the state purchased logging rights on part of the property, paying $4.6 million to a publicly traded timber and real-estate company called Rayonier Inc. A state audit would later conclude that this price was likely inflated: Florida officials had relied on “questionable assumptions” that “may have led to misleading and overstated value conclusions.” During Bush’s eight years in office, Rayonier would secure almost $100 million from the state of Florida in exchange for surrendering logging rights and property. In 2008, two years after Bush left office, Rayonier gave him a seat on its board of directors as it continued to sell property to Florida. When Rayonier appointed Bush to its board, the company specifically touted his “expertise in real-estate and public-policy issues.” This know-how was an asset, given that Rayonier was at the same time publicly expressing concerns about what it called “anti-development groups” in Florida that were “seeking constitutional amendments, legislation and other anti-growth limitations” that threatened to impede the growth of its business. With Bush on hand to lend his knowledge of state government and his political connections, Rayonier overcome these obstacles, securing state government backing for two major developments near Jacksonville. Florida has agreed to spend taxpayer money widening a highway in the vicinity of those developments. Rayonier secured a deal with the state to sell renewable energy to Florida utilities. Rayonier also waged a legal battle that ultimately prompted the state Legislature to preserve a tax benefit boosting major landowners. During his six years on Rayonier’s board, Bush would draw nearly $1 million in pay for this part-time job, according to the company’s financial statements. As Bush now seeks the Republican Party's nomination for the U.S. presidency, he is presenting himself as an outsider who abhors the culture of lobbying and inside dealing that often shapes politics. But some advocates for greater government transparency point to the land deals Bush brokered with Rayonier followed by the hefty payday he secured for himself as evidence that he is a savvy exploiter of the very culture he now decries. “It’s a classic example of cronyism,” said Peter Butzin, who leads Common Cause Florida, an advocacy group, who described Bush’s dealings with Rayonier as emblematic of how many politicians operate. “When they are cozy with interests in office, it’s not surprising they would end up working on behalf of those interests when they leave office.” Bush’s presidential campaign did not respond to questions from International Business Times. A Rayonier representative, Roseann Wentworth, told IBTimes it was “entirely appropriate” for the company to have brought on Bush. “We had in Governor Bush somebody with extensive real-estate experience and experience in the state of Florida where we had so many real-estate interests,” said Wentworth, whose company manages 416,000 acres in Florida and runs a factory in one of 29 areas recently flagged by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to meet air-pollution standards. Although Bush stepped down from Rayonier’s board in December, his relationship with the timber company is not the only one that has provoked questions about his proclivities for mixing public and private interests. While Bush was governor, his administration directed state pension investments to firms that employed top donors to the campaign that elevated his brother, George W. Bush, to the White House. Some of those donors are now contributing to his own campaign. Jeb Bush also pressed state officials to consider investing taxpayer money into a donor’s financial firm. Since leaving office, he has gone on to serve as a board member or adviser to 15 companies and nonprofit organizations, including firms with significant business with the Florida government, such as Barclays PLC, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Tenet Healthcare Corp. Some of those firms also lobby federal government agencies Bush would supervise were he to win the presidency. Few relationships better illustrate Bush’s overlapping public and private dealings than the one he forged with Rayonier. The firm is one of the largest landowners in Florida. It lobbies both the Florida and federal governments. The connection dates back to 1999, when Bush’s administration helped coax the timber conglomerate into moving its headquarters to Jacksonville from Stamford, Connecticut, with the aid of $2.6 million worth of state and local tax incentives. Bush and other state officials soon approved a $60 million purchase of 57,000 acres of the company’s land in the northern part of Florida as part of an environmental-preservation deal negotiated by the Nature Conservancy. In 2001, Bush and other Florida officials backed the proposal to buy the timber rights from Rayonier on a portion of the swampland the state had purchased the year before. An audit that emerged in 2003 suggested the terms of the two deals had been overly generous to Rayonier. The report from Florida’s auditor general, obtained by IBTimes, said the administration’s appraisals on one of the Rayonier land deals contained “inconsistencies” and “unsupported assumptions” about the potential for development. The report further found the valuations on the timber-rights purchase “contained questionable assumptions related to future timber rights that may not have supported” the price the state paid to Rayonier. Wentworth, the Rayonier representative, said the company was not concerned by the questions the audit raised about the appraisal process. “It’s part of a normal state auditing process, and due diligence is part of that kind of transaction,” she said. While he was governor, Bush acknowledged the state often paid a premium in purchasing property. He presented this as a sign that Florida was successfully pursuing public aims while still rewarding property owners. “When I got elected governor, I thought that private property owners typically got the shaft from the state, that there was an erosion of private property rights,” he said during a meeting to approve the deal for land on which Rayonier held timber rights. “They come up here every other week, and they do real well.” While the state was directing taxpayer money to Rayonier, Bush was developing political ties with the company. As Bush sought re-election in 2002, his administration was publicly lauding Rayonier’s environmental record. Both the company’s then-CEO, Lee Nutter, and his wife gave the Bush campaign maximum contributions of $500 each. According to emails compiled by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, Bush also agreed to solicit a donation from Nutter to Enterprise Florida, the state’s public-private partnership that recommends economic-development strategies. An Enterprise Florida representative said the group has no record of support from Nutter or Rayonier. Those ties were a precursor to 2008, when Bush was appointed to Rayonier’s board of directors. Some longtime observers of Florida politics say Bush’s current rhetorical mode, in which he rails against political influence peddling, collides with the apparent reason that Rayonier saw fit to include him within its inner circle. “You know why people get on boards and why they are sought after, and why he in specific was sought after,” said Ron Book, a prominent lobbyist in Florida’s capital Tallahassee. “People end up on boards because they are people of stature and people of influence, and they are looking for intelligent people that fit that sphere from a profile perspective.” In Bush’s first year on Rayonier’s board, the company lobbied the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to oppose an accounting regulation that would have required timberland to be appraised at “fair market value” on a quarterly basis. The rule was designed to compel companies to more accurately report the value of their property to governments and to ensure that firms are paying required taxes. While Bush was on the board, the company also raised objections to a Florida clean-water regulation proposed by the federal government. At the same time, Bush served on Rayonier’s audit committee, which helps oversee the company’s financial statements -- now the subject of a class-action lawsuit and an SEC subpoena amid claims that the firm misstated its earnings. Government watchdogs say the former governor must explain how he came to land on the Rayonier board. “The question that comes to mind is, ‘Is this some sort of payback for the land purchase and the tax breaks?’” said Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, an advocacy group that tracks government development deals nationwide. “The governor should be forthcoming about how this happened and whether there’s a quid pro quo.” *Jeb! Bush isn’t sure what motivated the killer who ‘wanted to start a race war’ <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/19/1394615/-Jeb-Bush-isn-t-sure-what-motivated-the-killer-who-wanted-to-start-a-race-war> // Daily Kos // Barbara Morrill * Jeb! Bush becomes the latest Republican who just can't bring himself to admit that racism motivated the mass murder of nine African Americans in Charleston, South Carolina, on Wednesday night: "I don't know what was on the mind or the heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes," Bush said in remarks at a Faith and Freedom Coalition summit in Washington. Huh. Let's see if we can help old Jeb! out here. Has Dylann Roof himself said anything about why he did it? One of the officials said that Roof, who is white, told investigators that he wanted to start a race war. Did this killer say anything as he gunned these people down? Sylvia Johnson, a cousin of church shooting victim Pastor Clementa Pinckney says she spoke with one of the survivors "and she said that he had reloaded five different times... and he just said 'I have to do it. You rape our women and you're taking over our country. And you have to go.'" And did family or friends of Roof offer any insight? There were many signs Roof had been planning an attack, telling his roommate he "wanted to start a civil war" and "was going to do something like that and then kill himself." He was infuriated by Trayvon Martin and Freddie Gray protests and told a friend something needed to be done for the sake of "the white race." Yep, what was on Dylann Roof's mind when he murdered those nine African Americans remains a mystery. Could have been anything ... heck, maybe it was even an attack on Christianity. Guess we'll never know ... *RUBIO* *Marco Rubio’s supply-side problem: Why anti-tax fanatics have it in for him <http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/marco_rubios_supply_side_problem_why_anti_tax_fanatics_have_it_in_for_him/> // Salon // Simon Maloy – June 19, 2015 * Marco Rubio’s tax plan has always been fantasy. His proposal, crafted in conjunction with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, sought to bridge the gap between two factions of conservative economic thinkers: the supply-side devotees who view rate cuts for top earners as the alpha and omega of tax policy, and the so-called “reformicons” who want to gently ease the Republicans away from tax-cut mania and focus more on using the tax code to bolster middle-class incomes. The solution Rubio and Lee came up with was to try to give both sides what they wanted: a reformicon-friendly expansion of the Child Tax Credit paired with across-the-board rate cuts, a slashed corporate tax rate, and the elimination of taxes on capital gains and estates. This was quite sensibly derided by the New York Times’ Josh Barro as the puppies-and-rainbows tax plan: “It’s full of things everybody likes, at least on the Republican side: family tax cuts that will make it easier to buy the children a puppy, and capital tax cuts that chase a pot of capital investment gold at the end of the rainbow.” Deeply cutting taxes on the wealthy lowers revenue, and expanding tax credits costs money, and in doing both Rubio created a plan that would rip a gargantuan hole in the budget – the price tag is so high that he doesn’t even pretend that it can be dynamically scored into revenue neutrality. It also suffers another potentially fatal flaw: It doesn’t account for just how single-minded and ferociously zealous the supply-siders are when it comes to rate cuts and “pro-growth” tax policy. And now the supply-siders are lashing out at Rubio for his heresies. The Wall Street Journal published a long editorial yesterday attacking Rubio’s tax plan as a “major detour from pro-growth tax reform.” Their biggest beef is with the expanded Child Tax Credit, arguing that it “does nothing for economic growth. The only growth case for it is the Keynesian claim that it would boost consumer spending and aggregate demand, but by now we’ve seen how that doesn’t work.” Instead of wasting money on families and children, they argue, they should cut taxes for rich people some more. This is very similar to the Heritage Foundation’s critique of Rubio’s plan, which judged it to be “pro-growth” overall but viewed the expanded tax credit as a “missed opportunity” to make further cuts to the top rate. Strangely, though, the Wall Street Journal sees the political dynamic in Congress as favoring the reformicon-oriented portions of Rubio’s plan winning out over the tax cuts they so desperately crave. “The larger political danger would arrive if Mr. Rubio became President,” they write. “In the inevitable negotiations with Congress, his tax cuts on capital would surely be watered down while his giant tax credit would pass. What happens if the economy failed to respond?” Really? If nothing else, Rubio has shown that his tendency is to mollify the supply-siders, who still dominate the conservative establishment. The Journal may complain bitterly about Rubio’s tax plan, but the fact is that he’s already massively overhauled to make it more acceptable to the trickle-down set. As the New Republic’s Brian Beutler wrote back in April: As originally conceived, [Rubio’s] tax plan would’ve paired modest middle class benefits with very large tax cuts for high earners, much like George W. Bush’s first big tax cut in 2001. But when conservatives voiced dissatisfaction with that particular distribution, Rubio responded not by telling them to buzz off, or by eliminating the middle-income benefits and plying the savings into further high-end tax cuts. He kept the benefits, and layered hugely regressive additional tax cuts for the wealthy on top of an already unaffordable plan. What once would have increased deficits by $2.4 trillion over a decade, according to the Tax Policy Center, would now increase them by trillions more. In Congress, Republicans tend to take their tax policy cues from people like Paul Ryan, who is squarely in the supply-side camp, views tax cuts as the “secret sauce” of economic growth, and considers them vastly more important than expanding tax credits for middle-income families. Seems like they’d be unwilling to let a newly elected President Rubio back off his promise of zeroed-out capital gains taxes and more than happy to let the Child Tax Credit wither, if forced to choose between the two. On a broader level, though, this entire debate is surreal. Rubio’s tax plan is already an insanely generous giveaway to top earners, and he’s already bent over backward to try to make peace with the trickle-down folks. But they’re still not happy, they’re still demanding more. There’s just no compromising to be had with extremists, I suppose. *PAUL* *Rand Paul Names Hedge Fund Chief Mark Zpitznagel as Economic Advisor <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/business/dealbook/rand-paul-names-hedge-fund-chief-mark-spitznagel-as-economic-adviser.html> // NYT // Alexandra Stevenson – June 19, 2015 * Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has appointed Mark Spitznagel, the hedge fund manager, as a senior economic adviser as he seeks the Republican presidential nomination. At first blush, the two might seem like an odd pair. Mr. Spitznagel is the founder of Universa Investments, a $6 billion hedge fund that is set up to make money in an economic crisis. But the two share a similar outlook on the government’s role in the financial markets: that it should not have one. Mr. Paul, whose policies are inspired by libertarianism, has promoted his belief in limited government spending and a hands-off approach to the economy by the Federal Reserve. Mr. Spitznagel has argued that the Fed’s recent policy of quantitative easing, which involved pumping trillions of dollars into the financial system, set the stage for the next market reckoning. “As I travel across the country, the top concern of the American people is our failing economy,” Mr. Paul said in a written statement. “I look forward to working alongside Mark to solve our nation’s economic problem and to restore the American dream,” he added. In his own statement, Mr. Spitznagel credited Mr. Paul as the only presidential candidate who understood “the destructive ramifications” of the Fed’s current policy. “I look forward to working with him on his ideas and message to change that policy,” Mr. Spitznagel said. Mr. Spitznagel, who is 44, gained credibility for predicting two market routs over the last decade, first in 2000 and then in 2008. In the 2008 financial crisis, his Universa funds rose by 115 percent as the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index plummeted. Mr. Spitznagel believes the next market rout is coming soon. “There needs to be a purge,” he said in an interview with The New York Times in 2013. “If there isn’t a purge, you don’t get healthy growth.” His thinking is shaped by the Austrian school of economics, which has its roots in 19th-century Vienna and makes the argument that the government should not meddle in any part of the economy because when it does, it causes all kinds of distortions. In addition to limiting the role of the government in the markets, Mr. Spitznagel has had other ideas on how to bolster the economy. Last year, he brought 18 goats to a blighted neighborhood in Detroit to help clean it up. Part of his plan was to employ local residents to take care of the goats, which he hoped to increase to 60 in total. But the plan was thwarted by city officials who argued local laws prohibited animals from grazing on city property. Within 48 hours the goats were back on a truck, destined for the butcher. Mr. Spitznagel is also a friend of Mr. Paul’s father, Ron Paul, a former Texas congressman and presidential candidate. The elder Mr. Paul wrote a foreword in Mr. Spitznagel’s book, “The Dao of Capital” (Wiley, 2013), in which Mr. Spitznagel outlines his philosophy of the markets. *Rand Paul taps hedge-fund manager as senior economic advisor <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-taps-hedge-fund-manager-as-senior-economic-adviser-119240.html> // Politico // Daniel Strauss – June 19, 2015 * Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has brought on a hedge-fund manager known for his strong support for the so-called Austrian school of economics as a senior economic adviser for his 2016 presidential campaign. Paul’s campaign announced Friday that Mark Spitznagel, the founder and chief investment officer of the $6 billion investment management firm Universa Investments L.P., would be joining the campaign. Spitznagel has been a vocal critic of the Federal Reserve and an advocate of the Austrian school of economics, which argues vigorously against government intervention in the economy. “Rand Paul is the only candidate that really understands the destructive ramifications of current economic policy driven in large part by a reckless Federal Reserve. I look forward to working with him on his ideas and message to change that policy,” Spitznagel said in a statement released on Friday. Spitznagel seems like a comfortable ideological fit with Paul, who has repeatedly criticized the Federal Reserve’s use of monetary policy during the 2007-2008 financial crisis and has pushed legislation to “audit the Fed.” “I am very grateful to have Mark Spitznagel serve as Economic Advisor to my campaign,” Paul said in a statement. “As I travel across the country, the top concern of the American people is our failing economy. I believe we can revitalize our economy by encouraging opportunity and entrepreneurship with lower taxes, a balanced budget, less Federal Reserve interventionism, and limited government spending. I look forward to working alongside Mark to solve our nation’s economic problem [sic] and to restore the American Dream.” character: In 2014, he sent 20 goats to a blighted neighborhood in Detroit to graze there in what he called an “urban farming experiment.” At the end of that summer, he promised to give the goats to butchers and send the profits to help the community. “Goats are an effective way to do landscaping,” he told The New York Times. *A New ‘Rand Paul’ Super PAC is Making Paul’s Official Super PAC Nervous <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/a-new-pro-rand-paul-super-pac-is-making-paul-s-official-super-pac-nervous> // Bloomberg // David Weigel – June 19, 2015 * The phone calls were confounding, until they multiplied. People at the top of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul's network were being asked about a new group that wanted to turn donations into campaign wins. What, they asked, was the Concerned American Voters super PAC? The short answer: A headache. The new iteration of the CAV super PAC is the child of a movement that mostly helps but sometimes bedevils Rand Paul. It was relaunched this week, with much fanfare, when long-time FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe announced that he'd left the Tea Party group to become a senior PAC advisor. The new PAC would try to organize Iowa for Paul, starting with 40-full time organizers. Kibbe's goal, he told reporter Byron Tau, was to prevent 2016 from being another "train wreck for the GOP" by out-organizing the Republican establishment. At FreedomWorks, Kibbe had endorsed Paul's work whenever he could. In 2013, he and FreedomWorks endorsed Paul's filibuster over the legality of drone warfare. In 2014, he stood behind Paul to endorse the senator's civil suit over the NSA's bulk data collection program, "on behalf of our six million-plus members." Yet people close to Paul discouraged Kibbe from building up his own PAC. It was nothing personal; it was just that the candidate had already sanctioned America's Liberty PAC. One source euphemistically described Kibbe's move as entrepreneurial, to emphasize that the senator had not been pining for a second super PAC. "We have no animosity and Mr. Kibbe is free to support Rand in any way he likes," America's Liberty PAC Jesse Benton told Bloomberg in an e-mail. "America's Liberty PAC, however, will remain the only Super PAC endorsed by Senator Paul, and the only PAC that will host Senator Paul at events." Benton, that PAC's lead strategist, has spent eight years in Paul's orbit. He became the spokesman for the quixotic presidential campaign of his father, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, in 2007. He went on to work with Paul's congressional re-election committee, for his Liberty PAC, for the Campaign for Liberty (a non-profit grassroots group created in the wake of the presidential bid) and for his 2012 presidential campaign—and during all that, he married Paul's granddaughter and started a family. Benton and Campaign for Liberty president John Tate were making America's Liberty PAC what Right to Rise PAC was for Jeb Bush, or what Priorities USA Action was for Hillary Clinton. But Concerned American Voters pulled from another group of pro-Paul activists. Its president is Jeff Frazee, who ran Ron Paul's youth outreach campaign in 2008 and turned that into the still-growing Young Americans for Liberty. Its senior tech advisor is Steve Oskoui, president of the 2012 pro-Ron Paul Endorse Liberty PAC that convinced Silicon Valley entrepreneur Peter Thiel to fork over $2 million. Thiel, famously, has resisted making a similar commitment to Rand Paul. While America's Liberty PAC is most famous (so far) for a WWE-styled commercial for Paul's PATRIOT Act filibusters, CAV is packaging itself as an on-the-ground disrupter. "We already have 40 full-time field staffers in Iowa knocking on doors and making phone calls," Frazee told Bloomberg. "Our team has knocked on over 75,000 doors and made over 70,000 phone calls as of today. We're building a grassroots operation that the other candidates won't be able to compete with in Iowa. Based on polling and the responses we're getting back, it's certainly a state we think Rand can win." If anything, Frazee was even more ambitious in a Thursday statement about the new PAC. "By focusing on grassroots organization, e-marketing and proven Get Out The Vote tactics, Concerned American Voters will give Rand the edge he needs to win the Republican nomination and the general election," he said. "The Internet cuts out middlemen, party bosses, lobbyists, and bundlers looking for a quid pro quo. This is the dynamic that allowed then-Senate candidate Rand Paul to beat Mitch McConnell's hand-picked successor in Kentucky in 2010." Benton might not put those exact words together. In 2013 and 2014, he embodied the rapprochement between Paul and McConnell by serving as McConnell's campaign manager. He only left, late in the campaign, after nagging questions about the Ron Paul campaign's 2012 endorsement from an Iowa state senator who took a kickback. In the sprawling, grassroots side of Paul movement, the branding of America's Liberty PAC leaves something to be desired. Yet Concerned American Voters is no blank slate. As Ken Vogel has reported, Kibbe left FreedomWorks after a years-long struggle that spilled into the media. After the disappointing losses of the 2012 election, FreedomWorks president Dick Armey resigned, and Kibbe took over. In 2013, Armey himself went on a PR tear, describing a fight over the writing and rights of Kibbe's 2012 book, decrying the "secrecy" with which money came in for campaigns. Later in 2013, when Buzzfeed reported that FreedomWorks was in "dire financial straights," the group dismissed the "baseless attacks" and went ahead funding a series of 2014 Republican primary challenges—with limited success. According to FreedomWorks's 990 tax filing, its revenue dropped dramatically in 2013, and it ended the filing period with less than $1 million in net assets, down from around $5 million the year before. In the same period, Kibbe's compensation was cut from $321,343 to $258,619. But Kibbe no longer works for FreedomWorks. "The Concerned American Voters team is going going to focus on grassroots organization, GOTV, door knocking, and social media persuasion and canvassing," Kibbe told Bloomberg in an e-mail. "This is our comparative advantage, and it nicely complements what the other Rand PAC is doing. I think we both add value in our efforts to ensure a Rand Paul victory." Asked if he had been discouraged to join and build a new pro-Paul PAC, Kibbe said he hadn't. "I think everyone is good and we will run a very inclusive operation that does not step on other folks' toes." *Rand Paul Pitches Plan to ‘Blow Up’ Tax Code <http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2015/06/19/rand-paul-pitches-plan-to-blow-up-tax-code/> // AP // June 19, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul called Thursday for a "fair and flat tax" that would "blow up" the nation's tax code, offering a proposal his campaign said would cut taxes by $2 trillion over the next decade. The first-term senator from Kentucky released the outline of a plan to institute a 14.5 percent income tax rate on all individuals and on businesses. It was among the first major policy proposals released by Paul's presidential campaign, although he did not make the full plan available for review. "Basically my conclusion is the tax code can't be fixed and should be scrapped," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We should start over." Many of the dozen major Republican candidates for president list tax reform among their priorities. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, is among the GOP contenders calling for the wholesale abolition of the Internal Revenue Service -- a position many experts say is unrealistic. But few have offered detailed proposals, and while Paul said his plan would benefit American both rich and poor, he cited an independent analysis that his campaign did not make available to reporters. In a column describing highlights of his plan published Thursday in The Wall Street Journal, Paul called for the outright elimination of payroll taxes on workers and of several other federal taxes, including those on gifts and estates, telephone service and all duties and tariffs. He also proposed eliminating all corporate tax subsidies and personal tax deductions, except those for mortgage interest and charitable donations. Paul says the first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed and the earned-income tax credit would be preserved. "In Washington, most Republicans are very tepid and very uninspiring on tax policy," he said in the interview. It was not clear how Paul would ensure cutting taxes so deeply would not at the same time explode the nation's debt. He wrote in the column that his plan would "reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts," but he did not detail those cuts. In the interview, Paul referred to his previous budget proposals, which include sweeping cuts in foreign and domestic spending. In particular, he has previously called to eliminate all aid to foreign governments, including Israel. He has also proposed eliminating the federal departments of education, energy and housing and urban affairs. He noted, however, he's also called for increased national security spending in his most recent spending plans. "I think that the priority for spending is national defense and national security so we don't have significant cuts in our preparedness," he said. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio stands out among his Republican colleagues for offering the most detailed economic agenda of the GOP candidates for president, anchored by a massive tax cut that the conservative Tax Foundation said could add as much as $4 trillion to the nation's debt in its first decade. That approach keeps with conservative economic thinking that the best way to spark growth and increase wages is to reduce the tax burden on businesses, the wealthy and investors. Rubio would also eliminate all taxes on investment income, a change that largely favors the most wealthy Americans. Like Paul's emphasis on tax cuts, however, it is an approach that exposed Republicans to Democratic criticism that they favor the rich. While Paul offers just one tax rate, Rubio's plan would set two: 15 percent for those making less than $75,000 (or families earning under $150,000), and 35 percent for all making more. "Our outdated policies from yesterday are not going to fix this," Rubio said Thursday while calling for new tax policies in a speech to religious conservatives. "The more your employer pays you, the less they will owe in taxes to the IRS," he said of his plan. "We will help working families by helping them to keep more of what they earn." Cruz, meanwhile, has repeatedly promised to scrap the tax-collecting agency as he runs for the GOP presidential nomination. He did not address taxes while speaking to evangelical Christians on Thursday, but Cruz advisers said the senator would soon release more details on his proposal, which he has said would allow most Americans to file their taxes on the back of a postcard-size form. *Rand Paul’s First Two Books Are Full Of Fake Founding Fathers Quotes <http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rand-pauls-first-two-books-are-full-of-fake-founding-fathers?utm_term=.wg5b3eXP3#.gsK497Vd2> // Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski and Megan Apper – June 18, 2015 * Many of the quotes attributed to the Founding Fathers in two of Rand Paul’s books are either fake, misquoted, or taken entirely out of context, BuzzFeed News has found. Paul’s first two books — *Government Bullies*, which was an e-book best-seller, and*The Tea Party Goes to Washington* — lay out the conservative manifesto he hoped to bring to Washington following the tea party wave in 2010. A heavy theme in Paul’s books is that the tea party movement is the intellectual heir to the Founding Fathers, with Paul often arguing he knows what position our country’s earliest leaders would have had on certain issues. The final line in Paul’s book *The Tea Party Goes to Washington* is a fake sentiment attributed to Jefferson: The Constitution is very clear about it. The Tea Party’s job is to keep making things clearer, and this is only the beginning. It is not a job that will be finished overnight or even in an election cycle. Thomas Jefferson believed that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance — and now the Tea Party must prove it. “We currently have no evidence to confirm that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote” this phrase, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation has said of “the price of liberty was eternal vigilance,” which Paul uses twice in his book. Earlier, Paul used another fake Jefferson quote: In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers— whose Constitution was supposed to restrain our rulers— would have likely made the same prediction. Jefferson wrote, “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” This has certainly been true of too much government intervention, as well as attempts to administer too many government benefits. “This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson,” writes the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Writing on the Patriot Act, Paul again cites a fake Jefferson quote. “This sort of invasiveness is also precisely the reason we have a Second Amendment protecting our right to keep and bear arms, or as Jefferson wrote ‘The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.’” As noted by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, “this quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.” Later, writing on Obamacare, Paul cites a different fake Jefferson quote. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that a “government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have,” he could have easily been referencing Obamacare. “Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson,” writes the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. The foundation notes that it has been attributed to Gerald Ford, though an assistant to Ford said he heard it from someone else. Another quote cited by Paul from Jefferson appears to be a misquote. “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical,” reads the Jefferson quote at the beginning on one chapter. As noted by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, this quote comes from Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and the original actually reads, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” Paul also uses a fake George Washington quote. Such is the nature of government, which is precisely why the Founders viewed military use, even when warranted, as something that should be definite and limited. George Washington told us: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force…. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” Science tells us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Yet today it seems we are much less hesitant to use government action, whether abroad or domestically, than the Founders could have ever imagined. The Founding Fathers also would not be surprised to see that trying to solve problems with continuous government action creates its own set of problems. Not surprisingly, the majority of what our federal government does today, abroad or domestically, also continues to take place well outside the parameters of the Constitution. The quote, as noted by professor Eugene Volokh and Fred Shapiro, editor of the*Yale Book of Quotations*, is also fake. “This is undoubtedly apocryphal, like many other quotations attributed to Lincoln or Washington,” said Shapiro. “No one has ever found any evidence that Washington said it.” Later in the book, a quote from Benjamin Franklin is used out of context. In the context of the quote as used in the 1750s, Franklin was actually speaking in support of not only taxation but also defense spending. Writes Paul: Who’s to say the Tea Party won’t become the government’s next target under the PATRIOT Act? Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,” and Americans who continue to support unconstitutional intrusions into the private lives of their fellow citizens will inevitably learn the same lesson. As noted by Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the editor of *Lawfare* blog, the letter from Franklin concerned a dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Penn family. “He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar,” Wittes said recently on NPR. “And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly’s acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.” Paul also mischaracterized this quote in his second book, *Government Bullies*, on two separate occasions with slightly different variations. Writes Paul in his book, “as Benjamin Franklin famously said and our Founders knew well, those who trade liberty for security get neither.” Then, Paul cites a fake Thomas Jefferson quote again to lead off the chapter “Living Everyday in Fear of Your Government.” “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,” Paul cites Jefferson as saying. But again, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation notes they “have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote” these remarks. Paul’s chapter “Paved With Good Intentions” also starts off with a mischaracterized Jefferson quote. “If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who live under tyranny,” Paul attributes to Jefferson. As noted again by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, “This quotation has never been found in Jefferson’s papers in its above form, but it is most likely a paraphrase of Jefferson’s statement in *Notes on the State of Virginia*, “Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.” Paul’s chapter “How Can We Solve the Problem” starts off with a quote from former President James Madison that is likewise disputed. “If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy,” Paul quotes Madison saying. As noted by etymologist Barry Popik there’s no evidence Madison said it, and no citations link it to Madison before the 21st century. In the past three weeks, Paul has misattributed a quote to former President Abraham Lincoln (a quote he again repeated in a speech today) and used a fake quote from Founding Father Patrick Henry. Previously, Paul used a fake Thomas Jefferson quote in his Senate victory speech. At CPAC in 2011, Paul cited a Jefferson quote that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation says they have “no evidence” he ever said. Paul’s campaign declined to comment, and the book publisher did not respond to request for comment. *CRUZ* *Ted Cruz: Democrats using Charleston as ‘excuse’ to take away gun rights <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/19/ted-cruz-democrats-using-charleston-as-excuse-to-take-away-gun-rights/> // WaPo // Katie Zezima – June 19, 2015 * Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said Friday that Democrats are using the shooting deaths of nine people in a Charleston, S.C., African American church as an "excuse" to try to roll back gun rights. "It’s sad to see the Democrats take a horrific crime and try to use it as an excuse not to go after people with serious mental illness or people who are repeat felons or criminals but rather try to use it as an excuse to take away the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens," Cruz told reporters after a town hall event here. "Those are altogether different issues and we need to focus on protecting our Bill of Rights and also on keeping everyone safe." Cruz said it is evocative of a line used by Chicago Mayor and former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. "I’ll tell you it’s reminiscent of Rahm Emanuel who said you never let a good crisis go to waste," Cruz said. Cruz said, as he did Thursday, that he is "horrified" by the killings and offered his prayers to the families of the victims. "A sick and deranged man went and prayed for an hour with the congregants in an historically black church and then, for reasons that we don’t fully understand murdered nine innocent souls," Cruz said of Dylann Roof, who was charged with nine counts of murder. The nine victims were shot Wednesday night inside Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, the South’s oldest African American church. "Sadly there is evil in the world and there is evil in the world that has to be dealt with. We’ll find out more about this crazed gunman and what led this to happen." Roof confessed to police, a law enforcement official said, and wanted his actions known. In an extraordinary display at Roof's bond hearing Friday, relatives of the dead offered him forgiveness. A reporter for The Huffington Post asked Cruz why it has been "difficult" for Republicans to "acknowledge that the attack was racially driven." Cruz said he disagreed with the premise of the question. "It appears to be racially driven from what was reported that this deranged man said and a racial hate crime is horrific. And any murder is horrific," Cruz said. "I don’t think we should be using this question to try to divide people and to try to seek partisan advantage. I think we should be praying for those who lost loved ones." Cruz said earlier that Democrats like to "go after our rights to keep and bear arms" and there has been a "consistent pattern" from the Obama administration and Democrats of violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights. During the town hall event Cruz defended Second Amendment rights and used a quip he tailors for the states he is visiting on campaign trail: "The great thing about the state of Iowa is pretty sure y'all define gun control the same way we do in Texas: hitting what you aim at." Cruz is scheduled to attend a "celebrate the Second Amendment" event in Iowa Saturday. He recalled going to a gun range in New Hampshire recently that had a fully automatic machine gun on a tripod. His wife Heidi, whom he described as a "petite California blond," fired the machine gun while wearing a "pink baseball cap that said 'armed and fabulous,'" he said. *Cruz commits to ‘full Grassley’ in caucus run <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/19/ted-cruz-commits-full-grassley/29010169/> // Des Moines Register // Matthew Patane – June 19, 2015 * Speaking from the home city of one of his fellow U.S. senators, Ted Cruz committed Friday to completing a full 99-county tour of Iowa as he competes for his party's presidential nomination. "I'm going to be spending a lot of time in your great state. Indeed, between now and the Iowa caucuses, it is my intention to do what I guess is called the 'full Grassley' ..." Cruz told a crowd in Red Oak, the home of U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst. The Red Oak stop was part of a series of visits Cruz is making this weekend. He gave a similar speech at a stop in Denison. Friday's speeches focused on many of the same issues he has laid out at prior events, such as religious liberty, maintaining the Constitution, fighting terrorism and distancing himself from Washington, D.C. "If you think things in Washington are going great, we're on the right trajectory, we just need someone to fiddle around the edges — I ain't your guy," the Texas Republican said. Rod Goodemote , 49, of Villisca brought his 11-year-old daughter, Bethany, to the town hall to witness "history in the making." "This is history 101, right here," Goodemote said. After hearing him speak, Goodemote said Cruz could "very well be my guy." "I think that we need a man that fears and respects God," he said. "We need a man that has wisdom, and wisdom comes from God. We need a man that supports life, that understands that God is the author of life." Earlier in the day, the leaders of Cruz's Iowa campaign took over for him at a stop in Council Bluffs. A canceled flight kept Cruz from making it in time for the town hall. In Council Bluffs, registered nurse Barb Wunderlich came from her night shift to see Cruz speak. Although disappointed he wasn't there, Wunderlich said she is "pretty much all in" for Cruz because he's a constitutionalist and because of his faith. "Ted's the whole package to me. Any of the guys — except for (Donald) Trump and Jeb Bush — that are running would probably be good. Ted would be best," said Wunderlich, who lives in Glenwood. David Overholtzer, a self-employed certified public accountant in Council Bluffs, said he hasn't decided who to back in the 2016 race. "I haven't seen one I wouldn't be comfortable with in the White House. ... I'm looking for fresh ideas," Overholtzer said. Cruz was the first contender to enter the Republican presidential race, but he sits in the middle of the pack in a number of polls. Five percent of likely caucusgoers said Cruz is their current first choice in the most recent Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll. That ranks him eighth in the field of 16 declared and possible contenders. The event SETTING: In Council Bluffs, a meeting room in the city's public library. In Red Oak, a conference room at the Red Coach Inn & Restaurant. In Denison, a dining room in Cronk's Cafe. CROWD: About 60 people started at Council Bluffs, but only about 30 were left by the end of the event, which Cruz did not attend. About 73 showed up in Red Oak and about 80 in Denison. REACTION: Sighs of disappointment, followed by relatively calm discussion in Council Bluffs. In Red Oak and Denison, Cruz was greeted with multiple rounds of applause around some of his more popular lines, such as jokes about the Obama administration. One supporter rang a cowbell multiple times during Cruz's speech in Denison. WHAT'S NEXT: On Saturday, Cruz is scheduled to attend a "Celebrate the 2nd Amendment" event in Johnston. *PERRY* *Rick Perry calls Charleston church shooting an ‘accident’ <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/19/rick-perry-calls-charleston-church-shooting-accident/> // WaPo // Patrick Svitek – June 19, 2015 * The one presidential candidate who cannot make a mistake did just that Friday. Addressing Wednesday's massacre at a South Carolina church, former Texas governor Rick Perry referred to it as an "accident." His campaign quickly clarified that he meant "incident," but not before the apparent slip of the tongue sparked a social media backlash, inviting inevitable comparisons to the so-called "oops" moment that defined Perry's last bid for the White House. The comment came during a TV interview in which Perry was asked about President Obama's response to the shooting, which left nine people dead at the historically black Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. In a speech Thursday, Obama suggested more gun control might be necessary to prevent tragedies like it. "This is the M.O. of this administration anytime there is a accident like this," Perry told Newsmax's Steve Malzberg in an interview published Friday. "You know, the president's clear. He doesn't like for Americans to have guns, and so he uses every opportunity, this being another one, to basically go parrot that message." Shortly after Perry's remark began making headlines and ricocheting around social media, spokesman Travis Considine indicated the former governor misspoke. "From the context of his comments, it is clear Gov. Perry meant incident," Considine said in a statement. But the sound bite had already become a hot topic online, evoking memories of the 2012 debate where Perry was unable to remember the third federal agency he would eliminate if elected president. In the Newsmax interview, Perry spoke extensively about the shooting, saying he did not know whether it was an act of terror but did know it was a "crime of hate." He also suggested the alleged shooter, 21-year-old Dylann Roof, may have been "medicated," apparently tying the issue to his campaign's outreach to current and former members of the military. "I know for a fact, being a substantial supporter of our military and our veterans, that the Veterans Administration, for instance, is handing out these opioids in massive amounts," Perry told Malzberg. "And then people question, 'Well then why can't these young individuals get work?' or 'Why is the suicide rate so high?' " Perry was also asked whether the Confederate flag should fly over the South Carolina Capitol in the aftermath of the shooting, which many consider racially motivated. In his response, Perry reminded Malzberg that the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Texas has the right to refuse to issue Confederate license plates, a decision with which he agrees. And Perry indicated he would be open to taking down the flag in South Carolina, saying "maybe there's a good conversation that needs to be had." *Rick Perry Says Obama Administration Always Overreacts to ‘Accidents’ Like Charleston Shooting <http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/06/19/3672122/rick-perry-says-obama-administration-always-overreacts-accidents-like-charleston-shooting/> // Think Progress // Kay Steiger – June 19, 2015 * In an interview with Steve Malzberg’s Newsmax TV program on Friday, Republican presidential candidate and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry called the shooting deaths of nine black church members in Charleston, S.C. an “accident.” “This is the M.O. of this administration, any time there is an accident like this — the president is clear, he doesn’t like for Americans to have guns and so he uses every opportunity, this being another one, to basically go parrot that message,” Perry said in response to President Barack Obama’s Thursday remarks, according to a video posted by RWW blog. Perry then went on to say that Dylann Storm Roof, the alleged shooter who confessed to the killing, may have been unduly influenced by drugs. “Also, I think there is a real issue to be talked about. It seems to me, again without having all the details about this, that these individuals have been medicated and there may be a real issue in this country from the standpoint of these drugs and how they’re used.” He may have been referring to a theory the conspiracy website Infowars posted about on Thursday that postulated Roof may have been taking a drug called suboxone, which supposedly causes personalities to change and prompt violent outbursts in its users. Perry also called the incident “a crime of hate.” *GRAHAM* *Returning Home to Console, Lindsey Graham Joins the Mourning* <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/us/politics/returning-home-to-console-lindsey-graham-joins-the-mourning.html>* // NYT // Ashley Parker – June 19, 2015* Senator Lindsey Graham was in the passenger seat on Friday, preparing to make what would be the first of many difficult phone calls in the coming days. Mr. Graham, a South Carolina Republican and 2016 presidential hopeful, was running down a list, calling the families of the nine people who were killed Wednesday night at a historic black church. First on his list: John Pinckney, the father of the church’s slain pastor, the Rev. Clementa C. Pinckney, a state senator whom Mr. Graham knew. “I just wanted to say, well, I feel terrible, but nobody can feel it like you do,” Mr. Graham said, clearing his throat. “Your son — every time he walked into the room, I’d smile because I knew I was going to get something nice said, and a request to help someone other than himself.” “You raised a fine man,” the senator continued. People attended a vigil on Friday for the nine shooting victims at the College of Charleston TD Arena in Charleston, S.C. Credit Travis Dove for The New York Times “It’s hard for people, particularly in the South, to imagine somebody could go into a church, stay for Bible study, talk to people for an hour, look them in the eye, and then stand up and start shooting,” Mr. Graham said. “Even the crazy people, they don’t go into church,” he said. Mr. Graham visited the church Thursday evening, quietly making his way there with a bouquet of lilies, bowing his head, and offering a short prayer. “For comfort and healing and understanding to those who have suffered in a way that most of us can never imagine,” he said. He spent Friday morning shuttling around town for television interviews, making himself a presence on screens throughout the city. Later, his aides sent him a list of the victims’ families for him to call. And Friday evening, he arrived at a prayer vigil here, greeting residents who had come to mourn with handshakes and hugs. Continue reading the main story Who Is Running for President (and Who’s Not)? In the process, he also grappled with the racial history of his state, which in many ways he himself embodies. He did not have an African-American classmate until middle school, and said he did not experience full integration until high school. The importance of the end of segregation, he said, could not be overstated: “It’s not just for a black family to go to a better school,” he said. “It’s for white kids at an early age to understand that merit and leadership are not unique to one group.” And in an e-book he recently released, he recalled growing up underfoot at his parents’ bar, which sold beer to anyone of legal age but for many years expected black patrons to drink it off premises. “That eventually changed, but not until the early seventies, much later than it should have,” he wrote. He said he thinks he has earned some credibility among South Carolina’s black communities by being open to working with Democrats, and supporting some of Mr. Obama’s nominees, like Loretta E. Lynch, a black woman, who is now attorney general. Yet during his Senate re-election campaign last year, he won just 6 percent of the state’s black vote. But on Friday morning, he clarified when asked, saying he believed it was a racially motivated hate crime. “The only reason these people are dead is because they’re black,” he said. Later, Mr. Graham described Mr. Roof as “a racial jihadist.” He also fielded questions about the Confederate flag, demurring when asked if he believed it should continue to fly on the grounds of the State Capitol. He was fine revisiting the issue, he said, but it was a decision for the State Legislature. On the question of gun control, he said he welcomed a debate on background checks for guns, but that the current background check system was broken. “We’ll talk about guns, we’ll talk about the flag, we’ll talk about anything you want to talk about, but we’re going to bury these people with dignity, we’re going to honor their memory,” Mr. Graham told one television reporter. But throughout it all, Mr. Graham could not seem to shake the question: How could someone enter a church, attend a Bible study, an then open fire, killing nine people? He kept coming back to it — when former Senator Saxby Chambliss called him to offer condolences and when he set out Friday morning, the temperature sliding past 80 degrees before the sun was even ripe in the sky. The night before, over dinner — his usual fried green tomatoes and fried chicken livers at Magnolias— Mr. Graham wondered again and again, what it must have been like to learn that your loved one had gone off to Bible study and was not coming home. “I don’t know why I’m fixated on it, but I just keep thinking about what it must be like, to pick up the phone and hear your loved one was killed at church,” he said. *Lindsey Graham: Confederate Flag Is a “Part of Who We Are”* <http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/lindsey-graham-defends-confederate-flag>* // Mother Jones // Inae Oh – June 19, 2015* Following the mass shooting inside a black church in Charleston, South Carolina on Wednesday, one flag was conspicuously not lowered to half-mast in tribute to the nine lives lost in the deadly attack—the Confederate flag, which regularly flies on the grounds of the state capitol, despite countless calls for its removal because of its racist roots. The rebel flag's presence in Columbia was especially disturbing this week after images surfaced showing the suspected gunman's embrace of the flag, which was on his license plates. (Dylann Roof also wore patches baring the flags of Apartheid-era South Africa and Rhodesia, the racist symbolism of which was evident.) While other GOP politicians, including Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, are criticizing the flag's enduring presence, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who hails from South Carolina and is now running for president, has come to the rebel flag's defense. According to Graham, the Confederate flag is an integral "part of who we are." This isn't exactly surprising, considering Graham appeared on "The View" yesterday to promote his new e-book and brushed aside the obvious racial overtones of the attacks, suggesting that suspected shooter Dylann Roof was seeking to massacre Christians. "This guy's just whacked out," he said. "It's 2015—there are people who are looking for Christians to kill them." Although Graham acknowledged to CNN the flag has been used to push racist agendas in the past, he said "the problems we have in South Carolina and throughout the world" do not stem from symbols, but because of "what's in people's heart." "How do you go back and reconstruct America?" he asked hopelessly. Actually, here's one solution: remove the damn Confederate flag. *CARSON* *‘Crazy’ Ben Carson Is The GOP’s Voice of Sanity on Charleston <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/19/crazy-ben-carson-is-the-gop-s-voice-of-sanity-on-charleston.html> // Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – June 19, 2015 * Before today, Ben Carson was far from the voice of reason in the Republican party. The brain surgeon and presidential candidate has purveyed theories like “Obamacare is worse than slavery” and Obama’s America is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Now, however, Carson has the distinction of being the lone Republican candidate to be honest and plainspoken about the fact that racism was the motive for the Charleston church shooting. How we got here is a sad indictment of American politics, where candidates would rather shove their fist in their mouths or speak in riddles than risk upsetting anyone with the reality of racism. It started yesterday afternoon. Just before Rand Paul took to the stage of the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, where a crowd of evangelical conservatives waited for him to speak, police arrested Dylann Storm Roof. A 21 year old white supremacist, Roof had, the night before, walked into a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, sat among its congregation for a time, and then opened fire, murdering nine of them. It seemed obvious that Paul would address the tragedy before the self-anointed “Faith and Freedom Coalition.” If the Republican Party is truly shifting to appeal to new (i.e., less white) constituencies, it is Paul who is helping to lead the way by openly discussing things Republicans of primaries past wouldn’t touch, like the failed war on drugs, criminal justice reform, and the fact that “race…skew[s] the application” of justice in America. But, when Paul opened his mouth to discuss the terrorist attack in Charleston, what came out was a confusing string of words designed to assure the Christian crowd that none of it would’ve happened if more Americans were like them. How we got here is a sad indictment of American politics, where candidates would rather shove their fist in their mouths or speak in riddles than risk upsetting anyone with the reality of racism. “What kind of person goes into church and shoots nine people?” he asked. “There’s a sickness in our country, there’s something terribly wrong, but it isn’t going to be fixed by your government. It’s people straying away, it’s people not understanding where salvation comes from. And I think that if we understand that, we’ll understand and have better expectations of what we get from our government.” Paul didn’t say anything about Roof’s confederate flag license plate, his pro-apartheid emblazoned jacket, or his blatant act of domestic terror. Ted Cruz, as Talking Point’s Memo’s Brendan James put it, “kinda dipped his toe in,” to the topic of race when he held a moment of silence for the victims and said, “Today the body of Christ is in mourning that a sick and deranged person came and prayed with a historically black congregation for an hour, and then murdered nine innocent souls.” The following day, the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s event was still going. Chris Christie took to the stage and acknowledged that the “conduct” of the shooter was “depraved [and] unthinkable,” but “only the goodwill and the love of the American people can let those folks know that that act was unacceptable, disgraceful that we need to do more to show that we love each other.” He said nothing about race. Jeb Bush, at the same event, said, “I don’t know what was on the mind or the heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes.” After his speech, Bush told The Huffington post, “it was a horrific act and I don’t know what the background of it is, but it was an act of hatred.” Asked again if race was behind the attack, Bush said, “I don’t know. Looks like to me it was, but we’ll find out all the information. It’s clear it was an act of raw hatred, for sure. Nine people lost their lives, they were African-American. You can judge what it is.” Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal similarly evaded the issue, while Marco Rubio ignored the shooting altogether, save for a polite Tweet, but spoke of his love for the Second Amendment during his Thursday speech to the Faith and Freedom crowd. Lindsey Graham, who is the Senator from South Carolina, initially suggested the persecution of Christians was as likely a reason for the shootings as racism. “There are real people out there that are organized to kill people based on race. This guy is just whacked out. But it’s 2015, there are people out there looking for Christians to kill them.” On Friday, however, while visiting Charleston, Graham had made a shift. He told The New York Times’ Ashley Parker, “the only reason these people are dead is because they’re black.” Rick Perry on Friday told Newsmax “this was a crime of hate. We know that.” But the former Texas governor criticized president Obama’s call for gun control. “So I mean there are a lot of issues here underlying this that we as a country need to have a conversation about rather than just the knee-jerk reaction of saying, ‘if we can just take all the guns away, this won’t happen.’” During an appearance on MSNBC, Martin O’Malley acknowledged race as the motivating factor but did so timidly. “From the reports I read, and let’s be honest with one another, the facts are still evolving here. I mean, it would appear that the racial motivation was certainly a big part of what happened here.” In contrast, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders sounded like civil rights activists. Clinton said that in order to make sense of the shooting, “we have to be honest—we have to face hard truths about race, violence, guns and division,” and offered words of comfort from Dr. Martin Luther King. Sanders was even more direct. “The Charleston church killings are a tragic reminder of the ugly stain of racism that still taints our nation,” he said in a statement. “While we have made significant progress in advancing civil rights in this country, we are far from eradication racism.” But it was Carson who stuck out amid the cowardly tongue-twisting of the majority of his party’s candidates with his straightforwardness. "Racial based hate is still very much alive as last night so violently reminds us,” he wrote on Facebook. “I fear our intolerance of one another is the new battle ground of evil. Today many feel it is ok to hate someone who thinks different than you do…As a brain surgeon I can assure you that all of our brains look the same, no matter what our skin color or party affiliation.” And so here we are, with Ben Carson—the right-wing sideshow who, despite competitive polling, could never truly be taken seriously as a candidate because of his proclivity for voicing off-the-rails theories and his complete lack of political experience—is teaching the rest of the Republican field how to sound like a human being when discussing a tragedy caused by racism in America. The real absurdity of American politics is that the people running for office are more often than not the ones stupid enough to believe that they can only win if they are so agreeable that they ignore reality altogether, fearing that acknowledging its ugliness might reflect it onto them. Perhaps that’s why Carson felt free to say the truth before poll-testing it, and without insulating it in caveats. *Ben Carson Not for Traditional Marriage <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/19/ben_carson_not_for_traditional_marriage_amendment_127054.html> // Real Clear Politics // Rebecca Berg – June 19, 2015 * Should the Supreme Court decide this month that state same-sex marriage bans are not constitutional, some Republican presidential candidates plan to push for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. But Ben Carson would not be one of them. In an interview Friday with RealClearPolitics, the neurosurgeon and conservative favorite said although he “would not be in agreement” with a ruling to legalize gay marriage nationwide, “I think you always have the obligation to uphold the laws of the land.” “My strong belief is that everybody i protected by the Constitution, regardless of their sexual orientation, their race, whatever,” Carson said. “That needs to be our primary focus.” The Supreme Court is expected to decide within the next two weeks whether state bans on gay marriage are constitutional. Carson has been vocal about his support for “traditional marriage,” and has indicated that he views homosexuality as a choice. But he said Friday that his primary concern regarding a Supreme Court ruling would be with any groups granted “extra rights.” “We need not be thinking of providing extra rights to anybody. That’s where you get into problems -- where you pick this group or that group and say, ‘Well, let’s change everything for everybody because you want it that way,’” Carson said. “That’s when you start having problems with America as it was envisioned.” He added: “I would be comfortable with phrasing that said, ‘Everybody in our society has equal rights, and equal rights of association.’” Carson was in Washington, D.C., to appear at a conference hosted by the conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition, where the prospect of the Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage was vigorously opposed by many speakers. Sen. Ted Cruz, another Republican candidate for president, warned in a speech Thursday of a deliberate attempt by Democrats to impose “mandatory gay marriage in all 50 states.” “I would encourage everyone here to be lifting up in prayer that [the Supreme Court] not engage in an act of naked and lawless judicial activism tearing down the marriage laws adopted pursuant to the Constitution,” Cruz said. In addition to Cruz, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Sen. Rick Santorum have said they will push for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage if the Supreme Court rules to legalize it. *TRUMP* *Carl Icahn politely declines Trump Cabinet offer // <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/carl-icahn-donald-trump-cabinet-offer-119223.html> Politico // Adam B. Lerner – June 19, 2015 * Donald Trump may be less than a week into his presidential campaign, but he’s already been rebuked by one of his top Cabinet picks. On Thursday, Trump floated three names that he would possibly nominate as Treasury secretary in the unlikely event that he wins the presidency next year. “I’d like guys like Jack Welch. I like guys like Henry Kravis. I’d love to bring my friend Carl Icahn,” the real estate mogul and current 2016 Republican presidential contender said in an interview Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Icahn, a legendary billionaire ‘corporate raider’ who founded Icahn enterprises, responded to Trump’s comments in a blog post on Shareholders’ Square Table, saying, “I am flattered but do not get up early enough in the morning to accept this opportunity.” Though he declined to “opine on [Trump’s] chances” to win the presidency, he wrote, “I am knowledgeable concerning markets and believe Donald is completely correct to be concerned that we have ‘a big fat bubble’ coming up. We have artificially induced low interest rates.” Trump warned in his MSNBC appearance Thursday that interest rates are too low, noting that he had borrowed cheaply to finance the building of a luxury hotel in Washington, D.C. “Without proper leadership, I predict you’re going to see some very, very bad things happening economically,” he said. “They give you free money.” Icahn agreed with Trump’s point wholeheartedly. “I personally believe we are sailing in dangerous unchartered waters,” Icahn wrote. “I can only hope we get to shore safely. Never in the history of the Federal Reserve have interest rates been artificially held down for so long at the extremely low rates existing today.” “I applaud Donald for speaking out on this issue — more people should,” he concluded. *Carl Icahn Says He’ll Never Be Trump’s Treasury Secretary <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/carl-icahn-says-he-ll-never-be-trump-s-treasury-secretary> // Bloomberg // Ben Brody – June 19, 2015 * Billionaire Carl Icahn doesn't want to be Treasury Secretary in the Trump Administration, but he thinks the Donald is "completely correct" in his concern about interest rates. "I was extremely surprised to learn that Donald was running for President and even more surprised that he stated he would make me Secretary of Treasury," the activist investor wrote in a statement he linked to on his verified Twitter account. "I am flattered but do not get up early enough in the morning to accept this opportunity." He added, though, that he thinks the real estate mogul, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, is right to worry that the U.S. has "a big fat bubble coming up" because of low interest rates. "I personally believe we are sailing in dangerous unchartered waters," wrote the former corporate raider, who is worth approximately $22 billion and is the 33rd richest person in the world, according to Bloomberg. "I can only hope we get to shore safely. Never in the history of the Federal Reserve have interest rates been artificially held down for so long at the extremely low rates existing today. I applaud Donald for speaking out on this issue — more people should." Trump said Thursday he might name his "friend Carl Icahn" treasury secretary of he should find himself in the White House. He also suggested former GE CEO Jack Welch and KKR co-founder Henry Kravis could also fill the spot. *Trump slams Hillary Clinton, calls her ‘pathetic’ <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/trump-clinton-pathetic-charleston/> // CNN // Theodore Schleifer – June 19, 2015 * Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton is blaming him for the killings in Charleston, South Carolina, an attack he returned as "pathetic" and as evidence that "politicians are just no good." In an 11-second video posted to his Instagram account on Friday, Trump, the bombastic new entrant into the Republican presidential race, said Clinton "blamed me for the horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina." In an interview on Thursday, Clinton said Trump's comments about Mexicans during his announcement speech typified the inflammatory rhetoric that could "trigger people who are less than stable to do something" like the shootings. Trump said during his speech that some Mexicans who come to the United States are "rapists." "Everybody should stand up and say that's not acceptable. You know, you don't talk like that on talk radio," Clinton said in the interview. *Donald Trump ‘felt bad’ for bashing Jeb Bush* <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/donald-trump-jeb-bush-too-rough/>* // CNN // Tom LoBianco – June 19, 2015* Republican candidate Donald Trump says he "felt bad" after being "too rough" on Jeb Bush in his campaign announcement this week. "I think he's a nice person. I actually felt bad because I hit him very hard one day like two days ago, three days ago, and I said, why am I hitting him so hard?" Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview set to air Sunday during "State of the Union." Trump grilled many of his Republican competitors this week in his announcement speech, dropping the politeness and subtler digs most other politicians stick to and he delivered his sharpest hits on Bush. "I don't see how he can get the nomination," Trump said in his kickoff. "He's weak on immigration and he supports Common Core. How the hell can you vote for this guy?" Trump told CNN that the Bush campaign is taking him seriously and that he knows it because "they do call, and they write, and just believe me they take me very seriously." On reflection, the grandiose billionaire told Tapper he might have gone too far knocking Bush. "I actually saw myself a couple of days ago and I said that's, that's too rough. Because I really think he's a nice man, I think he's a wonderful man. I don't know if I want him negotiating with ISIS. I think Trump will do a lot better. You think so too, but you're not going to say it." Trump opened his campaign for president this past Tuesday with an hourlong speech packed with some spectacular claims, by political standards. He held out a financial statement he said showed his worth at $8.7 billion and said he "will be the greatest jobs president God ever created." If elected president, he also said he would seek to build a wall along the border and have Mexico pay for it. (The U.S. struggled initially with the construction of the border fence, taking five years to construct from the time President George W. Bush signed the legislation creating it in 2006.) Some top tier candidates, like Bush friend Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, have been keeping their powder dry when it comes to knocking their Republican rivals, instead focusing their fire squarely on Hillary Clinton. But Trump and a few others, including Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have had no trouble firing away at Bush. *Trump campaign responds to Hillary linking him to South Carolina shooting: ‘She must be nervous’ <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/19/trump-campaign-responds-to-hillary-linking-him-to-south-carolina-shooting-she-must-be-nervous/> // Breitbart // Alex Swoyer – June 19, 2015 * The 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner hinted that the shooting at a church in Charleston, South Carolina is in some way connected to Donald Trump’s recent presidential announcement. Clinton told an interviewer: Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable. I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable. Clinton was referring to Trump’s announcement speech, when he commented about the illegal aliens coming across the southern border from Mexico. “They’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” Trump said in his announcement speech. A spokesperson said Trump sends his prayers and condolences to South Carolina residents. Following the violent incident, Trump canceled a sold out campaign event in South Carolina out of respect for the grieving. “At this time of national sorrow, a responsible leader should be focused on uniting and healing the country,” the spokesman said, adding: Mr. Trump believes that Hillary Clinton does not have any credibility when she blames words for violence. This is the same politician who lied to the world after she failed to take proper steps to secure the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and falsely blamed the radical Islamic attack on a YouTube video. This is the same person who illegally deleted her emails after getting a subpoena from the U.S. Congress. Also, it is “totally inappropriate” for Clinton to use this tragedy as a way to attack a political opponent, the spokesman says. “She must be nervous about something,” he added, hinting Clinton must feel threatened by Trump’s recent media popularity following his formal White House bid. *Charleston: Hillary Clinton says Trump-like comments can spark race attacks <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11688120/Charleston-Hillary-Clinton-says-Trump-like-comments-can-spark-race-attacks.html> // Telegraph // Rob Crilly – June 20, 2015 * Hillary Clinton has accused Donald Trump, the property mogul and Republican presidential candidate, of deploying the sort of race rhetoric that can trigger attacks like the Charleston shootings. Mrs Clinton, who is the frontrunner in the Democratic race, used a radio interview to take issue with language used by Mr Trump in his campaign launch on Tuesday. Her comments came two days after Dylann Roof is accused of walking into a historic church in Charleston, South Carolina, and shooting dead nine black people. Dylann Roof after his arrest "The people who do this kind of dastardly horrible act are very small percentage, but unfortunately the public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who are less than stable to do something like what we've seen," said Mrs Clinton during an interview in Las Vegas with KNPB. Although Mrs Clinton did not name Mr Trump, her target could not have been more clear. “For example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans,” she said. “Everybody should stand up and say that's not acceptable. You know, you don't talk like that on talk radio.” On Tuesday Mr Trump had been characteristically blunt in describing the problems facing the US and its jobs market. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” he told his audience at Trump Tower in New York. “They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.” On Friday he fired back at Mrs Clinton with an Instagram post. “Wow, it’s pretty pathetic that Hillary Clinton just blamed me for the horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina. This is why politicians are just no good. Our country’s in trouble,” he said. *UNDECLARED* *WALKER* *Scott Walker unveils new Web site as he stockpiles money for unlikely presidential bid <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/19/scott-walker-unveils-new-web-site-as-he-stockpiles-money-for-likely-presidential-bid/?postshare=831434727303922> // WaPo // Matea Gold – June 19, 2015 * Scott Walker is making an early push to stockpile money for his likely presidential bid, asking donors to raise $27,000 by mid-July, when he is expected to launch a White House campaign. An e-mail that went out to supporters Thursday asked them to be the first donors to a new “testing the waters” committee, which he can use to raise and spend money as he considers a run. All contributions made to the committee now would go to his eventual campaign. Donors were urged to visit a new Web site and participate in “The Race to 270” by raising $27,000 by Sunday, July 12. That is the day before when supporters expect Walker to formally launch his campaign in the Milwaukee area. “Once you cross the finish line, you will be invited to a special thank you event and be provided RACE TO 270 benefits,” according to an e-mail from fundraiser Jenny Drucker that was obtained by The Washington Post. Those benefits include an exclusive Race to 270 event and special gear, along with an “Exclusive Race to 270 Conference Call with Governor Scott Walker,” according to the details provided to supporters. The donation page of the new Web site asks supporters to show Walker that "he has the support to run for President of the United States." "It is clear what we have accomplished in Wisconsin can be replicated across the country," the Web site states. "Big Government liberalism broke Washington. Limited government conservatism will fix it." A spokeswoman for Walker's political organization said he will not make a final decision about running until after the Wisconsin budget is complete. However, the governor appeared to confirm his mid-July timing in an off-air comment to Fox’s John Roberts, who tweeted last week that Walker told him that “his presidential announcement would likely be around the 2nd week of July.” Once Walker decides to run and collects $5,000 for his "testing the waters committee," he has 15 days to file his statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission. *Scott Walker learns a lesson* <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/06/19/scott-walker-learns-a-lesson/>* // WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – June 19, 2015 * The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported this week: Scott Walker said Wednesday that he will stop talking about private meetings with world leaders after British Prime Minister David Cameron disputed that he had disparaged President Barack Obama’s leadership in private comments to the Wisconsin governor. “I’m just not going to comment on individual meetings I had with leaders like that, be it there or anywhere else,” the White House hopeful told reporters when asked about Cameron’s response. Walker on Friday told Republican donors at a Utah gathering that Cameron and other leaders were concerned about Obama’s “lead-from-behind mentality.” Cameron’s office responded that the prime minister never expressed concerns about Obama in his February meeting with the governor. The report quotes Walker as saying, “What I learned best from that is I should leave discussions like that that aren’t done in front of the media to be treated privately, whether it was there or anywhere else.” On the one hand, a mini-kerfuffle this early in the race is unlikely to have any lasting effect. On the other hand, coming on the heels of Jeb Bush’s near-flawless overseas trip and Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) adept handling of all sorts of foreign policy questions, it should remind Walker and his supporters that he still has much to learn. In particular, Rubio — the other “new generation” Republican reformer with appeal to working and middle class voters — poses a real challenge to Walker. Dorothy Rabinowitz writes: Candidate Rubio has, and it is no small advantage, a gift for language found frequently in people who have been voracious readers from childhood on. Like many children with his history, he also imbibed the sense of American exceptionalism at an early age and it has not gone away nor is it likely to do so. There is no love of country quite as deep or conscious as that of the first-generation American. Mr. Rubio is the child of immigrants, Cubans in this case, who tutored him, as other immigrant parents have done with their children, in the unparalleled blessings of America. . . . In the course of his campaign rollout two months earlier than Mrs. Clinton’s, Mr. Rubio too addressed the dangers of leadership and ideas based on the values of yesterday. Only in his view those dangers were the obstruction of economic progress, the stifling of America’s ability to compete—and not least the failure to remember the importance of U.S. leadership in the world. “And so they appease our enemies, they betray our allies, they weaken our military,” he says of the current administration. A dramatically different set of charges against yesterday’s thinking—and one with which virtually all Republican candidates would agree—than the compendium of victims suffering under the heels of Republicans and millionaires and billionaires that Mrs. Clinton cited on Roosevelt Island. In other words, it may be that the policy outcome Rubio and Walker reach is quite similar, but Walker will find it hard to match Rubio’s verbal dexterity and comfort level on national security — at least for a while. Walker navigated some bumpy moments early in the year before he began his foreign policy studies and started traveling. For a time he seemed to have found his footing and was effective in interviews. But the bar rises as the campaign goes on, especially in side-by-side comparison with other candidates in debates and the like. As other candidates show their ability to navigate foreign policy issues Walker will have a smaller margin for error. And soon when he travels abroad, the expectation will be that he speaks and/or takes questions from the press. The lesson for Walker is therefore two-fold: Don’t characterize publicly what foreign leaders say to you privately, and, more importantly, the goal posts will keep moving throughout the race, forcing each candidate to improve. For someone who has not spent his career delving into foreign policy and has no military experience, that means the learning process must continue throughout the primary and into the general election. It’s not enough as it was a couple of months ago to avoid big missteps or to just list Hillary Clinton’s errors. Candidates will need to instill confidence and demonstrate mastery of the ins and outs of international affairs. It is a tall order, but then no one ever said it was easy to become a credible commander in chief. *ScottWalker.com goes live* <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/scott-walker-launches-scott-walker-dot-com-119222.html>* // Politico // Nick Gass – June 19, 2015* In the latest step toward his all-but-announced presidential campaign, Scott Walker’s “testing the waters” committee on Friday launched a new website, ScottWalker.com. The website features a prominent link to donate to Walker’s personal Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram profiles, along with options to donate $10, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, $2,700 or some other amount. The website is listed as paid for by “Scott Walker Inc., Testing the Waters.” According to The Washington Post, Walker is asking donors to raise $27,000 ahead of his expected campaign announcement next month. Walker has said that he will not make a decision on when he is specifically going to announce until the completion of the state’s budget. In a post to RedState on Friday, Walker outlined why he is considering a run for the White House. “I have heard these voices loud and clear. That’s why I am launching a testing the waters committee to gauge support for a presidential run. This will be the final step before I decide whether I become a candidate for our nation’s highest office, and I urge you to sign up at ScottWalker.com so you can be among the first to know when I have made this important decision,” he wrote. “There are many accomplished people eyeing the GOP nomination for president. Some want you to think they fight. But speeches aren’t fighting or winning. Others have won elections but haven’t fought any big fights. In Wisconsin, we have a record of doing both,” the governor said. *How Scott Walker dismantled Wisconsin’s environmental legacy <http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/how_scott_walker_dismantled_wisconsins_environmental_legacy_partner/> // Salon // Siri Carpenter – June 19, 2015 * When Wisconsin’s new state treasurer Matt Adamczyk took office in January, his first act was to order a highly symbolic change in stationery. Adamczyk, a Republican and one of three members of the board that oversees a small public lands agency, “felt passionately” that Tia Nelson, the agency’s executive secretary, should be struck from the letterhead. As soon became clear, his principal objection to Nelson, daughter of former Wisconsin governor and environmentalist-hero Gaylord Nelson, was that in 2007–08 she had co-chaired a state task force on climate change at the then-governor’s request. Adamczyk insisted that climate change is not germane to the agency’s task of managing timber assets, and that Nelson’s activities thus constituted “time theft.” When he couldn’t convince the two other members of the agency’s board to remove Nelson from the letterhead, he tried to get her fired. When that motion failed, he moved to silence her. In April the board voted 2–1 to ban agency staff from working on or discussing climate change while on the clock. The climate censorship at the public lands agency made national headlines. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has kept his distance from Adamczyk. It is easy to see why: Walker is widely expected to announce a bid for the Republican presidential nomination. And his environmental legacy—which so far has gone largely unexamined in the national press—has reached much farther than anything the board of a tiny public lands agency could accomplish. Since taking office in 2011 Walker has moved to reduce the role of science in environmental policymaking and to silence discussion of controversial subjects, including climate change, by state employees. And he has presided over a series of controversial rollbacks in environmental protection, including relaxing laws governing iron mining and building on wetlands, in both cases to help specific companies avoid regulatory roadblocks. Among other policy changes, he has also loosened restrictions on phosphorus pollution in state waterways, tried to restrict wind energy development and proposed ending funding for a major renewable energy research program housed at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Most recently Walker has targeted the science and educational corps at the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which has responsibility for protecting and managing forests and wildlife, along with air and water quality. In his 2015–17 budget, released in February, he proposed eliminating a third of the DNR’s 58 scientist positions and 60 percent of its 18 environmental educator positions. (The cuts were approved by the state legislature’s budget committee in May, and the budget is currently making its way through the legislature.) Walker also attempted to convert the citizen board that sets policy for the DNR to a purely advisory body and proposed a 13-year freeze on the state’s popular land conservation fund—both changes that lawmakers rejected in the face of intense public objections. Walker’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comments for this article. But he and his allies in the Republican-controlled legislature have said that such policy shifts will streamline regulations that they say interfere with business development. Many scientists and environmental advocates as well as some conservative political and business leaders say Walker’s actions diminish the role of science in policy decisions and undermine key environmental protections that have long distinguished Wisconsin as a conservation leader. “I just see a guy who’s afraid of the mob” One of the biggest environmental controversies to mark Walker’s tenure came in 2013,when he signed a law paving the way for Gogebic Taconite, a mining company later revealed to be a major political donor, to build a 6.5-kilometer-long open-pit mine in the Penokee Hills region in the Lake Superior watershed. Citing a 2011 study funded by Gogebic, Walker argued the mine would bring thousands of jobs to the struggling region. Gogebic helped write the new law, which allows companies to dump mine waste into nearby wetlands, streams and lakes; doubles the area around a mine that a company can pollute; allows the DNR to exempt any company from any part of the law; and strips citizens of the right to sue mining companies for illegal environmental damage. The new law also included a philosophical shift: Where the old law specified that mining should impact wetlands as little as possible, the new one says that significant adverse impacts on wetlands are presumed to be necessary. Gogebic dropped the Wisconsin mining project after finding more wetlands than expected in the area, raising questions about the cost of meeting federal mitigation standards. The rewritten Wisconsin law, however, would govern any future projects. Phosphorus pollution has been another flashpoint. In 2010 Wisconsin was the first state in the U.S. to adopt rules imposing numeric limits on phosphorus pollution, which impairs hundreds of Wisconsin waterways and can harm aquatic life and human health. When Walker took office in 2011, he argued that the rules would be too expensive for manufacturers and communities to follow and proposed to delay implementing them for two years. In 2014 he signed a law allowing polluters to postpone meeting the phosphorus restrictions if they could demonstrate that complying with the rules would pose a financial hardship. Environmental groups say that by diminishing polluters’ responsibility for reducing phosphorus discharges, the law is a step backward for water quality. Walker has also resisted measures to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Like many Republican governors and lawmakers, he has avoided making public remarks on climate change. But his actions paint a picture. In 2008 before he was governor, he signed the Koch-backed “No Climate Tax Pledge,”vowing to oppose any climate legislation that increased government revenue. In 2014 he appointed a utility commissioner who said in a confirmation hearing that “the elimination of essentially every automobile would be offset by one volcano exploding,” a remark he later recanted. In February a child asked Walker what he would do about climate change if he were president. Walker’s reply: as a Boy Scout he believed in leaving his campsite cleaner than when he found it. Nevertheless, this spring Wisconsin joined 13 other states in a lawsuit challenging U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which would cut carbon emissions from Wisconsin power plants by 34 percent by 2030. (A federal court dismissed the suit on June 9.) Walker has argued, based on a study funded by the coal company Peabody Energy that the new rules are “unworkable” because they would be too expensive for manufacturers and residents and has implied that Wisconsin might not comply with them. Although some conservatives in Wisconsin praise Walker’s actions, he’s attracted the ire of others, including former Republican state senator Dale Schultz, who retired from the senate last winter after 32 years in the legislature. “I think what’s going on is appalling,” Schultz says. “As somebody who thinks that should be the first thing conservatives ought to be doing is protecting our environment, it’s embarrassing. I’m a pretty pro-business Republican. But a clean environment is essential to business. This is just wholly unacceptable.” Schultz attributes Walker and other far-right Republicans’ policy positions to the demands of wealthy benefactors, especially those connected to the energy industry. “Some days I look at Governor Walker and I just see a guy who’s afraid of the mob,” Schultz says. “He helped create it, he fosters it, but then he’s also fearful of it.” “The term ‘climate change’ has become a red flag” The Walker administration’s policy changes have been accompanied by efforts to weaken scientists’ role in policymaking. Even before taking office, Walker signaled his environmental agenda by appointing former Republican state senator and construction-company owner Cathy Stepp as DNR secretary, explaining that he wanted “someone with a chamber-of-commerce mentality” at the agency’s helm. Stepp, who does not have a background in science or natural resource management, had publicly derided DNR staff as “unelected bureaucrats who have only their cubicle walls to bounce ideas off of” and who thus “tend to come up with some pretty outrageous stuff that those of us in the real world have to contend with.” Recently retired scientists spoke to a sharp shift under Stepp’s leadership. Adrian Wydeven, a wolf biologist who ran the DNR’s wolf management program from 1990 until 2013 and retired last year, points to the 2013 restructuring of all the DNR’s wildlife advisory committees. In that restructuring the agency removed university scientists and greatly reduced the number of DNR professional staff; it also gave special interest groups, such as politically influential pro-hunting groups, more slots. Wydeven says the DNR has also restricted scientists’ opportunities to speak directly with lawmakers about proposed regulations and has become deferential toward the legislature. “In the past, if the legislators were proposing anything that wasn’t scientifically sound, the DNR was much more forceful in disagreeing with the legislature and making recommendations to improve the legislation,” he says. “Now there’s much less of that.” Although DNR researchers haven’t been explicitly forbidden from mentioning climate change (as Tia Nelson was at the public lands agency until the board yesterday amended its policy to ban staff only from engaging in advocacy on climate policy), they nonetheless describe a “chilling effect” on discussion about politically controversial subjects. In November 2010 the DNR’s main climate change Web page was a rich portal containing detailed information about climate trends, forecasted impacts of climate change and DNR programs aimed at addressing the problem. The page also acknowledged that “the most renowned group of scientists working on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stated that it is very likely [more than 90 percent probability] that human activity is responsible for rising temperatures.” Today, the page contains a single paragraph describing, in general terms, a partnership with the University of Wisconsin to study the impacts of climate change and a link to the university’s project Web site. The chilling effect is also evident in internal discussions, DNR scientists say. Sally Kefer, a land use expert who retired from the DNR in 2014, says that she encountered increasing institutional resistance to discussing climate change in the course of helping communities prepare for a warmer and wetter future. “I was being told to quit contacting the communities to determine their level of interest in having a discussion about climate adaptation,” Kefer says. “I was told to wait until they called me. And can’t I figure out a way to call it something other than ‘climate adaptation’? Can’t we just call it ‘sustainability’?” A current DNR scientist, who requested anonymity, says that the term “climate change” has become a red flag in internal grant proposals. “It’s impossible to work on natural resources without incorporating climate change in some way,” the researcher says. But “we’re less likely to cause problems if we just call it something else. ‘Environmental variability’s sort of our code word.” Kimberlee Wright, executive director of Midwest Environmental Advocates, an environmental law center, works closely with DNR engineers and scientists to review and comment on pollution permits for activities such as wastewater disposal and groundwater pumping under the Clean Water Act. In the past, Wright says, the process was typically straightforward, and she and colleagues were routinely able to hammer out permits that followed the technical requirements of the law. But since Gov. Walker took office, she says, “We have not been able to settle one permit—we’ve had to litigate every single challenge. We’re often told by [DNR] staff, ‘We know you’re right, but you’re going to have to sue us because the people above me won’t let me issue a technically sufficient permit.’ That’s a really big difference—the interference in science-based decision-making is pretty complete.” The DNR Office of Communications did not permit agency scientists to be interviewed for this article and did not make Sec. Stepp or Bureau of Science Services Director Jack Sullivan available for comment on whether the agency restricts scientists’ freedom to communicate about areas of their expertise. The department’s spokesperson, William Cosh, said in an e-mail that “When it comes to making decisions the agency remains committed to doing so by using sound science, following the law and using common sense.” But Walker’s 2015–17 budget proposal, which called for eliminating a third of all research scientist positions and more than half of environmental educator positions from the DNR, would dramatically decrease the influence of science on natural resources policy and public outreach. According to the state’s bipartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, which provides fiscal information to the lawmakers, about half of the scientist positions Walker slated for elimination are federally funded. In March Stepp said the agency was considering subsuming remaining positions into other parts of the agency, dissolving the Bureau of Science Services altogether. Walker has indicated that he wants science to inform policy decisions on “an as-needed basis.” The agency spokesperson said the cuts do not eliminate the agency’s research capacity. “What these cuts require us to do,” he said in an e-mail, “is to better prioritize the research that our scientists are engaged in to help inform management decisions.” DNR scientists reject that assertion. “I don’t understand how they can say with a straight face that cutting a third of the research program will not diminish their capacity to do research,” says one researcher, who requested anonymity. “We already have a pretty formalized process of prioritizing research; every two years we go through a process where they identify their research needs.” Walker’s proposal to shrink the DNR’s scientific capacity appears to have been the brainchild of Tom Tiffany, a GOP state senator who is a longtime critic of the DNR’s science bureau. In May he confirmed on a regional radio program that he requested Gov. Walker cut the DNR scientist, educator and communications positions. Tiffany said he thinks the agency’s scientists have a wildlife management “agenda” that has driven the agency to mismanage the deer herd, curtailing sportsmen’s hunting opportunities. He has also said he believes the agency’s scientists spend too much time on controversial subjects like climate change, which he views as “theoretical.” (According to DNR records, just under 3 percent of DNR scientists’ work hours during the last fiscal year involved activities related to climate change.) The DNR changes are “an assault on the science side of policy making,” says Curt Meine, a conservation biologist and biographer of conservation pioneer Aldo Leopold. “Wisconsin’s conservation has always been built on a broad public commitment to building and sustaining the health of the landscape and the inherent connection between a healthy economy and healthy land and waters,” he says. “We have a long record of bipartisan support for that. There’s always been tensions, there always will be tensions, maybe—but science has always been a way of talking across those divisions because everybody wants good information to make decisions. Now that legacy, fostered by the likes of Aldo Leopold and Gaylord Nelson, is eroding away.” *Scott Walker’s Wisconsin job agency gave out $124 million without review <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-scott-walker-jobs-agency-20150619-story.html> // Chicago Tribune // June 19, 2015 * More than two dozen awards worth more than $124 million were made to companies without a formal staff review by the underwriting department of Gov. Scott Walker's economic development agency, it reported Friday. Documents detailing the awards were made public late Friday afternoon in advance of a Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation board meeting on July 20 to discuss one troubled unsecured loan that went to a failing company owned by a Walker donor. The Republican Walker, who is expected to formally launch a presidential campaign in mid-July, has been hounded by troubles with the quasi-private jobs agency he created shortly after taking office in 2011. An internal review released Friday showed that WEDC gave out 27 award contracts to 24 companies between July 2011 and June 2013 without staff review, which WEDC said was not required at the time. Those were discovered during a review of 371 awards WEDC made in its first two years of operation. Walker's spokeswoman Jocelyn Webster said the governor would review the documents to prepare for the discussion at the July 20 board meeting. Rep. Peter Barca, the Assembly's Democratic leader, called the situation "outrageous." He said there are many unanswered questions about how many loans were approved over underwriters' objections. "I am not at all confident we have even a fraction of the troubling details board members need in order to carry out our fiduciary responsibility," he said. "This is yet another example of how senior WEDC officials have kept the board and Wisconsin taxpayers in the dark about serious problems surrounding the governor's jobs agency." Some of the companies on the list are owned or affiliated with donors to Walker's political campaigns. Kenneth C. Stock, the chief executive of KCS International, a luxury boat builder in Oconto, donated $8,500 to Walker. Members of the Sonnentag family, which owns County Materials, have donated at least $36,000 to Walker. Laona-based WD Parket LLC, is a fifth-generation company run by the Connor family, longtime Republican donors. The three highest un-reviewed awards all came through the enterprise zone program. The largest, $62.5 million, went to Kohl's Department Stores for an expansion of its corporate headquarters on June 28, 2012, for a project that was expected to create 3,000 jobs but that has created just 473 so far. The next highest was $18 million to Kestrel Aircraft Company for an expected 665 jobs, but just 24 have been created. The third highest was $15 million to Plexus Corp. to create 350 jobs, but none have been created, according to a tally provided by WEDC. Of the 27 awards, just over 6,100 jobs were expected to be created, but to date only about 2,100 have been. Nearly 8,900 jobs have been retained, according to WEDC. The projects made about $490 million in investment, the report said. One of the 27 unsecured awards was a $500,000 loan to the now-defunct Milwaukee construction company Building Committee Inc. that was collapsing at the time and created no jobs. That was among several loans questioned by state auditors that led Walker in May to call for scrapping the loan program. The loan to BCI came after its owner William Minahan had given Walker's 2010 gubernatorial campaign a last-minute $10,000 donation on Election Day — the maximum individual contribution. A memo from Jake Kuester, the vice president of credit and risk at WEDC, outlined what he called an "extensive review" of all awards the agency made worth more than $200,000 during its first two years in operation. Kuester said employees of the former Department of Commerce, which WEDC replaced, said it was an "acceptable practice" for the secretary of the agency to approve an award with no formal written staff review "when the need to be flexible and reactive to a business's needs warranted it. That practice was carried forward into WEDC during its early days." In July 2013, the WEDC board approved a new policy that included requiring a written review on all program awards. Since then, WEDC says it has approved more than 760 awards, all of which were reviewed by staff. *CHRISTIE* *Chris Christie rips Rand Paul on the Patriot Act <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/chris-christie-rand-paul-patriot-act-119217.html> // Politico // Daniel Strauss – June 19, 2015 * New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie lit into Sen. Rand Paul on Friday over his efforts to force the expiration of the PATRIOT Act. The governor and likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate devoted a chunk of his speech at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority conference to hitting Paul for successfully causing parts of the PATRIOT Act to expire. Christie didn’t mention Paul by name, but it was clear he was referring to the Kentucky Republican senator’s efforts to alter the anti-terrorism law. “These types of actions, I’m telling you from experience, are shortsighted. And these same people who give these long speeches up on Capitol Hill if, God forbid, there is some kind of other attack in this country, will be the first ones to [drag] the CIA director and the FBI director up to Capitol Hill, put them under oath and excoriate them for not connecting the dots and not preventing the attacks,” Christie said. In late May, Paul was able to cause parts of the PATRIOT Act to expire through procedural tactics that delayed the law’s renewal. Christie suggested in his speech Friday that the move was really about Paul raising money and his profile for his presidential bid. “This is about life and death for our country, and I stand for keeping America safe and making America strong and not giving political speeches on the floor of the Senate to raise money for a political campaign,” Christie said. *KASICH* *Operation replace Jeb Bush <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/john-kasich-replace-jeb-bush-2016-candidate-119191.html> // Politico // Alex Isenstadt – June 19, 2015 * Sensing the window of opportunity is closing, John Kasich is on a last-minute dash across the country to convince party donors and power-brokers that there’s room for one more candidate in the most crowded Republican presidential field in decades. The Ohio governor, who’s expected to formally announce his White House bid next month, is jetting to America’s political money capitals — from Dallas to New York City to Palm Beach — with the goal of securing the financial support he’ll need to wage a 2016 campaign. He’s huddled with Ann Romney at a lavish Utah ski resort and pushed to win the backing of a powerful longtime friend, media mogul Rupert Murdoch. He’s also tried to convince Ohio’s deepest-pocketed donors to keep their powder dry and not commit until he gets into the race. The case for his candidacy is grounded in his record as a popular swing state governor. But part of his sell to donors is that Jeb Bush has run an ineffective campaign, creating an opening for a candidate who happens to fit Kasich’s own profile. At times, Kasich, who waged a disappointing campaign for the GOP nomination in 2000 and lacks the national profile of many of his would-be 2016 rivals, has faced tough questions about whether he’s getting in too late. During one meeting, which took place about two weeks ago, the governor grew angry when a major Republican Party contributor pointed out that others had already formally launched their campaigns and built expansive teams of political advisers. “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” Kasich snapped at the donor, who wished to remain anonymous because the meeting was private. It was still early, Kasich insisted, and Bush, who had endured a rocky rollout, was “losing steam.” Kasich’s temper has made it harder to endear himself to the GOP’s wealthy benefactors. Last year, he traveled to Southern California to appear on a panel at a conference sponsored by the Republican mega-donors Charles and David Koch. At one point, according to accounts provided by two sources present, Randy Kendrick, a major contributor and the wife of Ken Kendrick, the owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks, rose to say she disagreed with Kasich’s decision to expand Medicaid coverage, and questioned why he’d expressed the view it was what God wanted. The governor’s response was fiery. “I don’t know about you, lady,” he said as he pointed at Kendrick, his voice rising. “But when I get to the pearly gates, I’m going to have an answer for what I’ve done for the poor.” The exchange left many stunned. About 20 audience members walked out of the room, and two governors also on the panel, Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, told Kasich they disagreed with him. The Ohio governor has not been invited back to a Koch seminar — opportunities for presidential aspirants to mingle with the party’s rich and powerful — in the months since. A Kasich spokesman, Chris Schrimpf, declined to comment on the episode. As he travels the country, Kasich, a two-term governor who spent nearly two decades in the House of Representatives, has made a forceful case for why there’s room for him in the race and has said that the fluid nature of the contest guarantees that the dynamics will shift before the primary season intensifies. In his talks with the party’s top donors — a group that includes retail king Les Wexner and publishing magnate John Wolfe — Kasich, 63, has argued that other candidates had failed to coalesce the party behind them. And he has suggested they consider holding off on giving to other contenders, or at least consider contributing to him as well. In his conversations with some of the party’s top statewide leaders, he’s pointed out that Bush had been unsuccessful in steamrolling the competition — as, he’s fond of pointing out, he was expected to do. “It’s a year-and-a half before the election,” said Matt Borges, the Ohio Republican Party chairman and a staunch Kasich ally. “It’s not that the landscape might change. It’s that the landscape will change.” Those briefed on Kasich’s plans say he’s begun a concerted push to lock down the support of Murdoch, the Australian-born media tycoon who is an influential voice in conservative circles, and was hopeful he could be brought aboard. The two have long been close: Murdoch was Kasich’s boss during his six-year tenure as Fox News host, and during Kasich’s 2010 gubernatorial bid he persuaded Murdoch to make a $1 million contribution to the Republican Governors Association. When they are both in New York City, Kasich and Murdoch make plans to see one another. But Murdoch, those familiar with the effort say, hasn’t yet committed to Kasich, and has said he has many friends in the contest. He has pointed to Bush, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie as candidates he particularly admires. There’s little question that Bush is a serious obstacle to Kasich. Both see themselves as serious, cerebral men with unrivaled policy chops. And both are seeking to win over the party’s pro-business establishment. Leaving nothing to chance, in recent months, the former Florida governor has launched a mission to secure support in Ohio, robbing Kasich of prospective fundraising dollars in his home state before he gets his campaign off the ground. Two of Ohio’s biggest Republican givers, Wexner and businessman Mercer Reynolds, recently cut checks to Bush, who’s brought on Heather Larrison, a top fundraiser for Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, to help introduce him to the state’s Republican benefactors. And while House Speaker John Boehner, who remains a force in Ohio politics, has stopped short of endorsing Bush, there’s little question about where his allegiances lie. Last year, Boehner praised the former Florida governor by saying that he “has a record of serious, big reforms” and that he would have “a real shot” at winning the White House. For Kasich, it’s an ironic twist. Running for president in 2000, Kasich, then a congressman, found himself gasping for air when George W. Bush dominated in the race for money and endorsements. Kasich would drop out before the primary season got under way, and in the years after, he would tell friends that he was stung by the loss. Today, another Bush is standing in his way. But as he prepares to enter the 2016 maw, Kasich’s advisers insist he’s a different candidate — and one with more financial support. He’s gathered a formidable group of donors that is expected to include manufacturing company executive Karen Wright and venture capitalist Mark Kvamme. “What that experience taught him was that he wasn’t really ready,” said Doug Preisse, the Franklin County Republican Party chairman and a longtime top Kasich political adviser, noting that historically, it’s been difficult for a member of the House to seek the presidency. “The difference is that he’s 15 years older, and he’s the executive of the seventh-largest state in the union.” Kasich isn’t simply focused on raising dollars. He’s also racing to increase his profile, hoping that it will boost his standing in national polls so he can qualify for the first Republican debate, slated for August in Cleveland. If he doesn’t get in, it would prove embarrassing — and potentially damaging to his prospects. In recent weeks, Kasich — who at times during his gubernatorial tenure has been media-shy — has made himself a regular figure on the Sunday show circuit. Unlike most candidates who attended a Republican donor retreat in Park City, Utah, Kasich went out of his way to make himself accessible to the reporters covering the event. He hung out in a media room, joked around with journalists, and made time for a 15-minute press conference. The only thing he didn’t want to talk about, it seemed, was the thing he got asked about the most: Bush. Just days earlier, while stumping in New Hampshire, Kasich had said, “I thought Jeb would just suck all the air out of the room, and it just hasn’t happened.” “You know, I said some things in New Hampshire about the fact that I wouldn’t have gotten in if I thought there was a clear winner,” Kasich said in Utah, adding: “I’m done talking about Jeb Bush, OK? I like Jeb.” *OTHER* *GOP Presidential Candidates: The More the Scarier <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/20/gop_presidential_candidates_the_more_the_scarier.html> // RealClearPolitics // Jonathan Riehl & David B. Frisk - June 20, 2015* Hillary Clinton apparently doesn’t scare the Republican Party, since a candidate roster of unprecedented size is amassing in search of the party’s presidential nomination. But the very size of that overcrowded field is diminishing GOP chances of retaking the White House in 2016. For centrist voters, the chaotic array of candidates will reinforce an impression that except for criticizing the incumbent president, the GOP lacks focus. Meanwhile the Democrats will, perhaps fitfully, draw toward their center of gravity. The challenge Clinton faces in maximizing unity and enthusiasm before her coronation as nominee is not trivial, as Bernie Sanders’ unexpected strength in the recent Wisconsin Democratic convention straw poll reveals. But Clinton's intra-party difficulties look trivial compared with those a ridiculously crowded field presents to the GOP. This is all the truer because base Republican voters are juggling a complicated set of criteria that makes it hard for them to settle on what “best nominee” actually means. With no clear leader, the conservative ship of state is truly adrift – notwithstanding any half-hearted protestations about the embarrassment of riches. An important factor in lengthening the candidate roster and also making a quick winnowing unlikely is a long decline in political discipline among conservatives, who for many decades have dominated the Republican electorate. One notable result of this indiscipline is trouble judging who is most worth backing in a presidential race – the proliferation of fuzzy thinking about who is most likely to win a general election, remain true to conservative principles, and deliver for conservatives as president. This situation results from at least two causes. One is conservatives' and libertarians' ambivalent attitude toward power and therefore toward practical, as distinct from merely expressive, politics. The other is their long record of frustration with presidential power and federal authority. Despite their substantial success within the GOP, some of these voters have felt increasingly alienated from a political system that has produced such limited policy victories for them in the half century since conservatives flouted the party's moderate establishment to nominate the unabashedly ideological Barry Goldwater. In addition, the famous “Buckley Rule” from that era, accurately attributed to the founding editor of National Review — that the party should nominate the rightmost viable candidate — has been widely preached but little fulfilled. What William F. Buckley Jr. meant was that the party should focus on someone who would clearly advance the conservative cause even if he didn't win. Even by that modest standard, it would be hard to choose from among the current crop of contenders on the Republican right. How has Ted Cruz, for example, demonstrated any ability to nudge large swaths of voters in his direction, even in a losing cause? As for winning a national election while advancing conservatism’s broader agenda, Ronald Reagan may be the only nominee who ever pulled off that trick. In that sense Reagan succeeded where Goldwater did not. But in the 2016 field, the Republicans don’t appear to have a Reagan or a Goldwater. They do have a Bush, but that’s part of the problem, not the solution. To cite one result of the dysfunctional criteria many conservatives now apply to nomination contests: Organizers of the early debates will probably feel compelled to include Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson even if their poll numbers are statistically nonexistent — lest conservatives accuse them of favoring insiders. Symbolic politics are too much at work. Conservatism and its postwar legacy of intellectual seriousness are in real peril. The crowded debate stages will prevent any one or two candidates from making a strong enough impression to actually begin shaping the Republican field. Worse, the teeming cast will allow far too little time for viewers to learn much about candidates or issues — a problem not just for democratic citizenship, but for the GOP's morale and sense of identity as well. The overcrowding will also tend to dangerously delay the emergence of strong motivation for any particular candidate among volunteers and donors, even if they have early inclinations toward one or another. (Each candidate of any prominence will have some deeply, durably committed backers. But not, we think, a very significant number.) The existence and likely continuance of a plethora of campaigns will also multiply occasions for resentment among the supporters of various candidates, or types of candidates, as the looming battle is joined. And finally, all of this proceduralism will waste even more Republican money in the primary phase than would be the case anyway. Furthermore, even if conservatives did promptly zero in on the questions that actually matter most to their cause, this candidate field would be hard to judge. A thumbnail sketch of the higher-profile Republican hopefuls' key assets and liabilities suggests the trouble that primary voters will have in deciding who is most electable and politically trustworthy — and therefore ending, reasonably soon, what promises to be a dangerously long primary season for the GOP. Jeb Bush would insure the GOP against the risks of relative inexperience, can be expected to show strong command of many issues, and wouldn't offend centrist independents. But his name and the dynastic factor are backward-looking minuses — and he isn’t likely to win the hearts of social conservatives or immigration restrictionists, two constituencies that exert significant pressure on the nominating process, or the many Republicans who distrust the politics of compromise and incrementalism. Ben Carson breaks the party's supposedly damaging “white male” image — and does so as an outspoken conservative. His combination of geniality, superior achievement in a profession far more popular than the corporate world, and fearless denunciation of the left could be formidable, but he’s never held or run for office, and is given to the kind of impolitic gaffes that invariably bedevil political amateurs. Ted Cruz has a strong aura of self-promotion, and something rings hollow in his rhetoric, (and his thin Senate record) especially if he is standing next to someone like fellow freshman Sen. Rand Paul. But he can motivate conservatives, and with his public speaking skills might be able to get others to listen. Carly Fiorina is the Hillary Clinton antidote, at least as far as gender demographics are concerned, but her resume stands in stark contrast to the Democrats’ frontrunner. Clinton is a former first lady, U.S. senator, and secretary of state—though not without critics of her role as the nation’s top diplomat. Fiorina is a corporate CEO with a mixed record of success and a failed Senate candidate. Mike Huckabee has, like Jeb Bush, “run” a state. Uniquely among the candidates, he also has experience dealing with the Clinton machine back home in Arkansas. More than most in the field, he understands the economic plight of working and middle-class Americans. And his commitment to social conservatism is genuine and appreciated by the GOP base, but may have limited appeal. Those traits might make him a more formidable primary season candidate than his current poll numbers suggest, but his social conservatism could render him unelectable in November 2016. Rand Paul capitalizes credibly on the anti-Washington mood —giving the impression of an honest, committed, independent thinker who would rather be right than president. But his tendency toward isolationism — even if he pref ers it to be called non-interventionism — is simply not in sync with most Republicans’ foreign policy views. Marco Rubio, the third of the GOP’s troika of freshmen senators, is a fresh face, projects inclusiveness and optimism, and is especially quick and articulate. Like Cruz, he is Hispanic and speaks evocatively of the immigrant experience. But many conservatives also want a candidate who can speak convincingly of the great danger they believe the country is in — and who is comfortable “going negative.” He may not be able to. Scott Walker has an impressive gubernatorial and electoral record, beating back the twin bogeymen of public-employee unions and MSNBC (in the person of Ed Schultz) for good measure. But does he have the charisma the role demands? His network of think tank leaders, opinion leaders, and donors is impressive to insiders, but does he come across as presidential? Will his lack of gravitas give voters pause? *Republican candidates struggle to talk about race, guns <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/gop-candidates-2016-charleston-dylann-storm-roof-ben-carson-race-119230.html> // Politico // Eli Stokols and Daniel Strauss – June 19, 2015 * Republican presidential candidates are struggling to characterize the motivation behind the tragic mass shooting in Charleston, S.C., with only Ben Carson speaking quickly and forcefully about the role of race in the killing of nine people in a historically black church this week. “If we don’t pay close attention to the hatred and division in our nation, it is just a harbinger of what we can expect,” said Carson, who stands apart from the rest of the GOP field as a rare African-American conservative. The Faith and Freedom Coalition, at which many of the Republican contenders are appearing this week, showed the party’s overall discomfort with talking about race and guns. While the Justice Department quickly opened up a hate crime investigation into the killings, carried out by a 21-year-old white man, and Hillary Clinton argued the tragedy should force America to focus on “hard truths” about race, guns, violence, and divisions, Republicans were initially reluctant to attribute the murders to racism. Some of the earliest reactions argued that the shooting at the A.M.E. Church in Charleston was really an attack on religious liberty and a matter of good versus evil. But by Friday afternoon much of the field suggested that the shooting was (at the very least) related to race. “The idea that anyone would walk into a church and pray with the people he intended to murder is depraved,” said New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who spoke Friday morning. “It’s unthinkable.” Early on in the conference, several Republican candidates who touched on the Charleston shooting here — only Marco Rubio, who spoke Thursday, completely ignored it — chose to focus on the fact that it happened inside “a House of God.” Though he spoke about race when urging Republicans to become a “party of minority rights,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, ascribed the killings to “people straying away” from faith. “There’s a sickness in our country,” he said. “There’s something terribly wrong but it isn’t going to be fixed by your government … It’s people not understanding where salvation comes from.” That same day, former senator Rick Santorum described the shooting as a “crime of hate” and pegged it as a “assault on religious liberty.” Jeb Bush, who emphasized his conservative bona fides at the conference, was cautious when asked whether he thought the shooting was racially motivated. “Looks like it to me it was, but we’ll find out all the information,” Bush said Friday at the conference during a hallway interview, according to spokesman Tim Miller . “It’s clear it was an act of raw hatred, for sure. Nine people lost their lives, and they were African American. You can judge what it is.” During his remarks just before from the stage, however, the former Florida governor told the crowd that he didn’t know “what was on the mind or heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes. “I do know —I do know what was in the heart of the victims. They were meeting in brotherhood and sisterhood in that church.” The candidates’ hedges and wobbles are at odds with the facts that have emerged about the alleged killer, Dylann Storm Roof. His own Facebook page, his statements to law enforcement officers and media reports quoting those who know him show strong connections to white supremacy beliefs. Bush’s initial avoidance of that reality mirrored that of Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who acknowledged the obvious racial aspect of the shooting only after being asked by reporters after his speech. “What I noticed is that the entire country is now standing shoulder to shoulder with the minority community, the African American community in South Carolina, and God bless them,” he said. Asked whether the shooting was a hate crime, Kasich replied, “There’s nine people dead…you read what they say about the guy, it sure appears that way.” Speaking to the crowd of several hundred religious conservatives, Bush, Christie and others called for prayer and little else. “Laws can’t change this,” he said. “Only the good will and love of the American people can let folks know that an act like this is unacceptable.” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal opened his remarks by himself leading a long prayer, expressing grief for the victims, their families and the Charleston community; he prayed that God brings comfort to children asking their parents “about the realities of evil.” Bush, while acknowledging that the shooting “has had a big effect on me”, encouraged the audience to turn inward for solace in the shooting’s aftermath. “We must continue to bear witness to the truth that God acts through us; and that, even in crisis, even in desperate times, we can always walk upright as brothers and sisters and look to the havens and know that we’re children of God,” Bush said. “Let’s hope it never happens again.” *GOPers road-test their religious messages <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/2015-faith-freedom-forum-119235.html?hp=t3_r> // Politico // Kyle Cheney, Katie Glueck, and Eli Stokols – June 19, 2015 * Jeb Bush invoked Terri Schiavo. Rand Paul called for cutting foreign aid to countries that “persecute Christians.” And Ted Cruz warned that a Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage would amount to “naked and lawless judicial activism.” Washington’s annual social conservative cattle call, a three-day event hosted by the Faith & Freedom Coalition, has so far amounted to a message test for a dozen Republicans running for president, each tailoring rhetoric they hope resonates among the religious right. Some quoted scripture and others hewed closely to their stump speeches. But the ones who found particular favor with their audience — a potent force in GOP primary politics — described a conservative Christian community under siege by government, Democrats and an increasingly godless society. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal warned of an “assault on religious liberty” in America. Paul called it “a sickness.” Bush said freedom of religion was “under attack.” But few were more hot-blooded than Cruz, who argued that a recent battle in Indiana over a religious freedom law — ripped by opponents as an attack on gay rights — exposed many of his Republican competitors as weak-kneed. “More than few Republicans, sadly, even more than a few Republican running for president in 2016, chose that moment to go rearrange their sock drawer,” he said. Cruz referenced William Barret Travis, who, according to legend, drew a line in the sand with his saber to determine which of his men were willing to die defending the Alamo. “You choose which side of the line you’re on,” Cruz said. The candidates are betting that the moment is right to mobilize evangelicals and other Christians worried about the erosion of religious values in America. The latest blow, they fear, will come later this month, when the Supreme Court is set to decide whether same-sex marriage is legal nationwide. That anxiety was on display throughout the conference, which included a panel discussion dubbed “The War on Christianity” and it was threaded through many speeches by non-candidates too — Rep. Steve King called for “civil disobedience” if the Supreme Court supports gay marriage. Bush, who has run afoul of the GOP base by supporting immigration reform and Common Core education standards, emphasized his Catholicism and social conservatism. “We shouldn’t push aside those who believe in traditional marriage,” he said, touching on a subject he rarely brings up during his forays into Iowa and New Hampshire. As he did in his announcement speech in Miami Monday, Bush focused on his belief in religious freedom and blasted Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration for suing Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor over their religious objections to Obamacare. “Religious freedom now is under attack more than ever before,” Bush said, as he defended religion generally as “the greatest force for good in the world.” “If we act on our faith everyday, we’re going to create a more just, more loving world,” Bush said. The former Florida governor reminded the audience of his intervention on behalf of Schiavo’s family in the 2005 right-to-die case in an effort to keep her alive. “When I was asked to intervene on behalf of a woman who could not speak up for herself…I stood on her side,” Bush said. He also emphasized his work during two terms as Florida governor regulating abortion clinics, signing a bill into law requiring parental notification and another banning partial-birth abortions. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also mentioned abortion, albeit obliquely, telling the audience it’s important to support people before and after they’re born. “I believe if you are pro-life, as I am, you need to be pro-life for the whole life,” Christie said, pivoting to his own record and his administration’s prioritizing of drug treatment over incarceration for nonviolent offenders and its support for expanding educational opportunity through charter schools. “You can’t just afford to be pro-life when the human being is in the womb.” In fact, the issue of abortion rarely came up in the candidates’ comments. Cruz, Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio barely discussed it at all. It was left largely to other speakers — Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and Iowa’s King — to broach the subject with any force. The forum, which continues Saturday with speeches from Carly Fiorina and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, also offered a chance for underperforming candidates to find new energy. Jindal trails badly in early polling, but on Friday, he found a receptive audience, earning one of the most enthusiastic receptions of the morning. Jindal, who is expected to announce for president next week, tapped into the siege mentality that has gripped many religious conservatives, charging that under the Obama administration, the ability to freely practice faith is under attack. He blasted the Obamacare contraception coverage mandate that became an issue for Hobby Lobby, described his path to Catholicism — he converted from Hinduism — and jabbed at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who once opposed same-sex marriage, saying, “My views on marriage are not evolving with the polls.” The Louisiana governor was one of the earliest and consistently loudest voices supporting the Indiana religious freedom measure and, like Cruz, tore into businesses that opposed the law. “I’ve got a message for big business: You’re now in bed with the folks who want to tax you and regulate you,” he charged. To big applause, Jindal argued, “The United States of America did not create religious liberty. Religious liberty created the United States of America.” Even former New York Gov. George Pataki, whose barely perceptible presidential campaign launched last month, found that standing up for religious liberty could energize his audience. He quoted St. Francis of Assisi and hailed a recent Supreme Court ruling preventing limits on pastors who wish to advertise when they hold services. Others tested mellower messages and mixed in stories about the role of faith in their lives, like Ben Carson, who quoted proverbs and emphasized a belief that God (not evolution) created humanity. He said that God helped him find his wife more than 40 years ago, after years of ignoring romantic relationships to focus on his studies. “He’s available if we just ask him for stuff in terms of our faith,” he said. Ohio Gov. John Kasich — who’s taken flak from Republicans for invoking God to justify controversial decisions — spent the bulk of his speech … invoking god to justify controversial decisions. “I have a mission and I have a role on this Earth, but I’m trying to prepare myself for the world to come,” he said, describing his policy decisions to aid the working poor through Medicaid expansion and through de-emphasizing incarceration for convicts with mental health issues. It just so happens, he said, that those decisions made good politics, too, leading to a resounding reelection last year in which he won a quarter of the African American vote and a majority of women. “Why did that happen? Hope returned,” he said, adding, “That’s what has to happen in America.” *Top Repulican Candidates Tread Lightly on Gay marriage at Evangelical Summit <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/top-republican-candidates-tread-lightly-on-gay-marriage-at-evangelical-summit> // Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur and Josh Eidelson – June 19, 2015 * There was an elephant stalking the room this week at the Faith & Freedom Coalition's annual Washington meeting, and it wasn't of the crowd-pleasing Republican variety. The Supreme Court's imminent ruling on same-sex marriage has Republican presidential candidates caught between a general election electorate that’s rapidly embracing gay rights, and a large faction of the party's evangelical base that's still steadfast in its opposition. Same-sex marriage, which the Republican Party successfully wielded as a wedge issue just a decade ago, now commands the support of three-fifths of Americans. Many legal scholars expect the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states before the justices conclude their term by the end of the month. The result: Delicate footwork by the Republicans most likely to win the nomination — and therefore wanting to preserve their opportunity with swing voters — and red meat rhetoric from long-shot competitors anxious to gain ground with the evangelical constituency that can often determine primary and caucus winners. The differences in how they addressed the crowd were stark. The Red Meat Contingent Senator Ted Cruz of Texas accused Democrats of pushing "mandatory gay marriage in all 50 states," and warned that a judicial victory for gay marriage advocates could lead to government persecution of Christian churches and schools. He asked the crowd to pray that the justices “not engage in an act of naked and lawless judicial activism, tearing down the marriage laws adopted pursuant to the Constitution." Cruz also cited this year’s controversies over two states’ religious freedom bills, where Republican governors and state lawmakers backtracked following protests over the prospect that the laws would shield anti-gay discrimination. “Every one of us, our hearts broke a couple months ago in Indiana and Arkansas,” the Texan said, before adding "more than a few Republicans running for president in 2016 chose that moment somehow to go and rearrange their sock drawer." The crowd ate it up. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, the party's runner-up in 2012 who's running again in 2016, stressed his history of fighting gay marriage and urged the crowd while evaluating candidates to "look at their track record" and willingness to lead, "particularly on the cultural issues." Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal cast the issue of same-sex marriage as an overarching battle about whether Americans truly have freedom of religion and speech. "Unlike President [Barack] Obama and Hillary Clinton, my views on marriage are not evolving with the polls. I believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman," said the potential Republican candidate. "This fight is bigger than marriage... This fight is about religious liberty. This fight is about whether you really do have First Amendment rights. "I'll summarize this in a way that even the liberals and Hollywood can understand: The United States of America did not create religious liberty, religious liberty created the United States of America," he said. Other candidates seemed aware of the changing poll numbers, delivering remarks that suggested sympathy with the crowd without leaving a trail of tell-tale soundbites that Democrats might use against them The Front Runners "While there are people that disagree with this, we should not push aside those that do believe in traditional marriage," said former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. "I for one believe it's important, and I think it's gotta be important over the long haul irrespective of what the courts say." Senator Marco Rubio of Florida didn't mention same-sex marriage, but made a veiled reference to it when he argued that "the government is not meant to replace moms and dads, it is meant to empower them." "We see an erosion in our culture and in our values," he added. "You cannot have strong families with a government that strong-arms parents and our faith." Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky emphasized the importance of virtue and the rights of minority religious views, but didn’t directly address same-sex marriage. “We believe that our rights come naturally from God,” he told the crowd, “and that a majority shouldn’t take them away from us.” The pledge The National Organization for Marriage on Thursday released a pledge which would commit candidates to back a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, in an attempt to overturn an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling, and to have the Justice Department investigate harassment of same-sex marriage opponents. Iowa Congressman Steve King used his Faith & Freedom speech Thursday to reiterate his call for “civil disobedience” if the Supreme Court sides with same-sex couples, a prospect he compared to its rulings in Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott, the 1857 pro-slavery decision. If they’re defeated at the Supreme Court, some same-sex marriage opponents want presidential candidates to show similar commitment. “I would hope that they would strike that [ruling] down, and just do what our Founding Fathers said to do and what the Bible says to do,” said Faith and Freedom attendee Gary Cuprisin, a 69 year-old retired chef. If a ruling in favor of gay marriage stands, he said, “what I’ve heard on the talk radio is that every law, and everything that says ‘man and woman’ and ‘family’ is going to have to be struck from the records.” But even at the conference of the Faith & Freedom Coalition — the group Ralph Reed founded as 'a 21st-century version of the Christian Coalition on steroids' — others were ready to move on if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land. “I don’t think they should amend the constitution,” said South Carolina insurance agent Donna Snyder. 'If the Supreme Court says it, then I will go along with it, because they are the rulers of the land ultimately." *Post-Charleston, Republicans Urge Prayers But No Action <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/19/post-charleston_republicans_urge_prayers_but_no_action_127049.html> // Real Clear Politics // Rebecca Berg – June 19, 2015 * In the aftermath of the mass shooting Wednesday at an African-American church in Charleston, S.C., Republican candidates for president have offered heartfelt prayers and solemn condolences. They have also derided a culture of hate that might have caused suspect Dylann Roof, 21, to shoot and kill nine people. But few have suggested that the government should act in response. On the contrary, many GOP candidates are insisting that lawmakers cannot solve the problems at the root of this and other such tragedies. “There's a sickness in our country. There's something terribly wrong,” Sen. Rand Paul said Thursday at a conference in Washington, D.C., hosted by the conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition. “But it isn't going to be fixed by your government.” That thinking reflects not only his party’s steadfast support for the Second Amendment and its opposition to restrictive gun laws, but also the small-government theme that anchors many of the Republican presidential campaigns and the party at large. In an interview Friday with RealClearPolitics, Ben Carson said he believes the shooting represents not a regulatory problem but a cultural one, which would require cultural solutions. “There’s something that we can all do, and that is to begin to teach real values and principles to our young people. That’s the only way you’re going to solve this problem,” Carson said. “This young man obviously was not brought up in the right environment, because he would not have harbored such hatred if he had been. That’s what we need to be working on. “In terms of government regulations, that’s not going to do anything,” Carson added. “If you have an evil heart, government regulation isn’t going to help you.” Likewise, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Friday characterized the shooting as a “depraved” and “unthinkable” act. But, he said, “laws can’t change this.” “Only the goodwill and love of the American people can let folks know that act was unacceptable,” Christie said in his speech to the Faith and Freedom gathering. Democrats have presented a starkly different picture of the root causes of mass violence in American society and of the regulatory path forward, urging government action to prevent such events in the future, including more stringent gun control laws. “How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?” Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, said Thursday. That call for action was echoed Thursday by President Obama, delivering his 14th statement in response to an act of gun violence while president. “At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency,” Obama said. “It is in our power to do something about it. … I say that [while] recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now." The divide between Democrats and Republicans mirrors the chasm so apparent in the aftermath of the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and six adults were killed. Although the president took a series of executive actions in response, Congress did not approve any new legislation. On Friday, one Republican candidate for president, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, broke with his party, saying he is "open-minded" about improving the system of background checks for gun owners and taking into account mental illnesses. "I own a bunch of guns, and I haven't hurt anybody. But there is something wrong with the background system," Graham told CNN. "... There's probably a million people who have been adjudicated by a court to be mentally unstable whose records are not in the national background system." But that remark put Graham in the minority, with most of his peers recommending a considerably more passive approach. At the Faith and Freedom event Friday, Jeb Bush urged only this: “Let’s hope it never ever ever happens again.” *Wilmore: Santorum, Fox News on Charleston ‘Makes My F**king Head Explode’ <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/larry-wilmore-charleston-shooting-fox-news> // TPM // Brendan James – June 19, 2015 * While his colleague Jon Stewart decided not to tell any jokes on Thursday after the killing of nine people in Charleston, S.C., Larry Wilmore had more to say. "Even on a day like today, Fox News just makes my fucking head explode," the host of "The Nightly Show" said. He ran a montage of clips showing Fox frame the attack of a historically black church as an "attack on faith," in the words of "Fox & Friends" co-anchor Elizabeth Hasselbeck, and actively downplay the idea it was a racially-motivated attack. Wilmore was stunned, referencing the evidence and replaying the clips reporting shooter Dylann Roof's racism and statements to the victims like, "you are raping our women and taking over the country.” "Nice try anyway, Fox," Wilmore said. Next he turned to presidential candidate and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who echoed the Fox line, saying the attack was an assault on "religious liberty." Wilmore pointed out that when four black girls were killed in a church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, there wasn't a question about motive. "Back then, no one pretended to wonder what the motivation was," he said. "If you tried to say it was about religion, even the perpetrators would have corrected you." Watch the clip, courtesy of Comedy Central. *RNC raised $9.3M in May <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/245522-rnc-raised-93m-in-may> // The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 19, 2015 * The Republican National Committee raised $9.3 million in May, a figure first shared with The Hill, growing its campaign fund to almost $15 million for the competitive 2016 election cycle. The figures, to be released on Friday, show 98 percent of those donations were $200 and under, with an average donation of $92. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told The Hill in a statement that the committee is “incredibly grateful for the strong support.” “There is clearly enthusiasm on the Republican side to take the fight directly to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats and to put a Republican back in the White House," he said. "Our supporters understand the importance of investing early in ground game infrastructure, staff and volunteer training, voter engagement, and data and digital operations. “We’re laying the groundwork for our nominee earlier than ever before. While Hillary Clinton has already lost the trust of the majority of Americans, Republicans are working every day in communities across the country to earn the trust of new voters and first-time voters, sharing our values and listening to their concerns,” Priebus added. The May haul is slightly less than the $10.1 million the committee raised in April. The RNC has now raised more than $45 million in the 2016 cycle and holds $1.8 million in debt, according to the new figures. The Democratic National Committee has not yet released its May figures, with one more day to file before the Federal Election Commission’s deadline. In April, the party raised $4.9 million, bringing its cash on hand to more than $8.2 million with a total of $21 million raised in the 2016 election cycle. With its fundraising figures set to go public within days, the DNC also held about $5.4 million in debt as of April. *OTHER 2016 NEWS* *TOP NEWS* *DOMESTIC* *Today in Politics: Charleston Shooting Leads to a Campaign Pause <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/19/today-in-politics-charleston-shooting-leads-to-a-campaign-pause/> // NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 19, 2015 * The killing of nine people at a predominantly African-American church in South Carolina, where the gunman was said to have sat and prayed with his victims before unleashing violence, will leave a lasting impression on the state and has already affected the dynamics of the 2016 presidential race. The magnitude and maliciousness of the crime will linger in national discussions. It is unclear whether Democrats, who tried in vain to pass a federal gun-control bill in early 2013 along with some center-right Republicans in Congress, will broach that politically difficult issue in their campaigns. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican presidential hopeful, denounced the violence. Jeb Bush canceled his planned appearances in the state. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic candidate for president, had left Charleston, where the shootings took place, just before the violence occurred. In an appearance in Nevada on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton called for facing “hard truths” about race, policing and gun violence. She did not make an explicit call for gun-control measures, which bedeviled President Obama after the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012. But the question of race in America is going to be critical as the nation looks toward the post-Obama era. Other Democrats also weighed in. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has voted against gun-control bills in the past, emailed his list of supporters seeking donations to the church where the shootings took place, and canceled what had been a large rally planned in the state this weekend. Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, posted a note of prayer for the victims on Twitter. *NRA board members blames pastor for Charleston deaths <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/nra-board-member-blames-clementa-pinckney-charleston-shooting-119202.html#ixzz3dWvdf89u> // Politico // Nick Gass – June 19, 2015 * A board member for the National Rifle Association blamed the gun-control position of South Carolina state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, a pastor who was killed in Wednesday night’s shooting at a historic black church in Charleston, for the deaths of his congregation. If had voted to allow gun owners to carry their own weapons, Charles Cotton wrote, “eight of his church members … might be alive.” A spokesman for the NRA told POLITICO, “Individual board members do not speak for the NRA and and do not have the authority to speak for the NRA.” Cotton, who according to his bio page has been a board member for 13 years, also moderates TexasCHLforum.com, described as “the focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions.” In one thread discussing the shooting at Emanuel AME Church on Thursday morning, a user with the name ShootDonTalk wrote: “Something else to consider: The pastor of this church, who was killed, is a State Legislator in S.C.” “And he voted against concealed-carry. Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead,” Cotton responded to the post on Thursday afternoon. “Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.” The bill that Pinckney voted against in 2011 would have permitted gun owners to bring guns into public places like churches and daycare centers. It ultimately failed. Gov. Nikki Haley addresses a full church during a prayer vigil held at Morris Brown AME Church for the victims of Wednesday's shooting at Emanuel AME Church on Thursday, June 18, 2015 in Charleston, S.C. Dylann Storm Roof, 21, was arrested Thursday in the slayings of several people, including the pastor, at a prayer meeting inside the historic black church. According to an NRA site, Cotton has also been elected to the Board of Trustees of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. Following the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Cotton wrote that President Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and others were trying to use the event to launch their “anti-gun response.” “The shameful truth is that the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition used the Sandy Hook shootings as a Hollywood-like soundstage to launch their long planned attack on the Second Amendment,” he wrote at the time. *McConnell promises Senate vote on late-term abortion bill <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fdb1da3a30f74b469261af32d8173f3b/mcconnell-promises-senate-vote-late-term-abortion-bill> // AP // Alan Fram – June 19, 2015 * Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised Friday that his chamber will vote on legislation banning most late-term abortions, setting the stage for a showdown over a top conservative priority that his party will likely lose. "It's about time we begin the process of putting America into the ranks of most other civilized countries by protecting unborn children after 20 weeks in the womb," the Kentucky Republican told a conference of the conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition. McConnell was interrupted by applause as he reminded the crowd that the measure "couldn't even get a hearing" when Democrats controlled the Senate. "I promise you will be getting a vote," he said, though he did not specify when. Underscoring how the issue galvanizes both sides, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee almost immediately solicited contributions from supporters, writing in an email, "When anti-women attacks are what passes for leadership, it's time for a change." Though the GOP-run House approved similar legislation last month, it faces an uphill climb in the Senate. Republicans control that chamber with 54 seats but will need 60 votes to defeat a Democratic filibuster. Most Democrats are sure to oppose the bill by presidential hopeful Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and some moderate Republicans could too. Among the handful of GOP senators not listed as co-sponsors Friday were Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Mark Kirk of Illinois, who face potentially competitive re-election races next year. Should it reach his desk, a veto by President Barack Obama would be all but certain. "I hope Republicans will reverse course and focus on real challenges rather than using women's health to score political points, but if they don't, they should know that this dangerous legislation is nothing but a dead end," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., top Democrat on the Senate Health committee. The bill makes exceptions to save the mother's life or if she was a rape victim who receives counseling or medical treatment at least 48 hours before the procedure. Also exempted would be minors who were victims of rape or incest and reported the incident to law enforcement or social service officials. *Iowa court allows remote dispensing of abortion pill <http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_96bb3cad-881f-5da5-9f0e-7706754f4940.html#.VYQ_qE8VOJg.twitter> // AP // June 19, 2015 * The Iowa Supreme Court has struck down a restriction that would have prevented doctors from administering abortion-inducing pills remotely via video teleconferencing, saying it would have placed an undue burden on a woman's right to get an abortion. Iowa is one of only two states that offers so-called telemedicine abortions — Minnesota offers them on a smaller scale — and doctors at Iowa's urban clinics that perform abortions had been allowed to continue offering the remotely-administered abortions while the ruling was pending. Planned Parenthood's local affiliate, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, had sued the Iowa Board of Medicine over its 2013 decision that would have required a doctor to be in the room with a patient when dispensing abortion-inducing medication. The board cited safety concerns when it passed the rule requiring a physical examination, but Planned Parenthood and other critics said it was just another attempt by abortion rights opponents to make it harder for women to get abortions. They said the Iowa board's restriction particularly would have made it harder for women in more rural areas who don't live near the few urban clinics where doctors who perform abortions are based. The court agreed with Planned Parenthood's argument that the rule would have placed an unconstitutional burden on women by requiring a doctor's physical presence in the room. "Because the Board agrees the Iowa Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy to the same extent as the United States Constitution, we find the rule violates the Iowa Constitution," the justices wrote. Telemedicine is becoming a more popular method of treating patients nationwide, but its use to dispense abortion-inducing medication is fairly new. Iowa was the first state in the country to offer it in 2008, and it has provided services to more than 7,000 women to date. More than a dozen states in recent years have preemptively banned the abortion method without ever having allowed it, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a national nonprofit that follows reproductive health issues. *The Left and Right Try to Lobby Pope Francis Months Ahead of U.S. Visit <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/the-left-and-right-try-to-lobby-pope-francis-months-ahead-of-u-s-visit> // Bloomberg // Melinda Henneberger – June 19, 2015 * In Rome last week, a Vatican official who had already seen Pope Francis’s encyclical on the environment had this advice for a visiting American who was concerned that the pontiff was about to blame man for changing the Earth’s climate: You might not want to read it, then. That’s one way Catholics have been able to avoid the disagreeable experience of ever disagreeing with their pope: Just play dumb and keep walkin’. Another strategy, though—and one that’s become far more blatant under Francis—is to try and influence him by passing messages through those around him. Lobbying, in other words. In the months leading up to the release of the encyclical, conservative American Catholics and even the oil and gas industry sent emissaries to the Vatican hoping to dissuade the Holy Father from weighing in on climate change, arguing that the science isn’t settled and that cutting back on fossil fuel use would hurt rather than help the world’s poor. Exxon Mobil sent several delegations to meet with Vatican officials, and a conservative Chicago-based think tank, the Heartland Institute, held a whole counter-conference on alternative climate science in Rome at the end of April. But the Pope was apparently unmoved, and the encyclical states “there is a very consistent scientific consensus that indicates that we are witnessing a worrying warming of the climatic system…Humanity is called to take conscience of the need to change life styles, ways of production and consumption to fight this warming, or at least the human causes that produce it or accentuate it.” Conservatives aren't the only ones who have been lobbying. Ahead of Francis’s September trip to the U.S., both left- and right-leaning believers, as well as secular groups, are offering him their unsolicited counsel. Earlier this month, a delegation of about 20 American community organizers and union leaders stressed to the Vatican officials they met with how important they feel it is that Pope Francis use his U.S. pulpit to preach on criminal justice and immigration reform and institutional racism. They also want him to talk as specifically and forcefully as possible about pay so low it doesn’t add up to a “living wage”—a phrase coined by the American priest John A. Ryan in his doctoral thesis at Catholic University way back in 1906. The trip, organized by the Service Employees International Union and PICO, a national network of faith-based community organizations, felt like a big success, said Allen Stevens, a deacon at St. Peter Claver Catholic Church in New Orleans and long-time PICO organizer. “We were able to meet with a number of cardinals who advise Pope Francis,’’ he said, and talk to them about the push to raise the minimum wage, the Black Lives Matter campaign, and the Live Free response to mass incarceration. “We wanted to make sure he clearly understands the landscape, and there’s no doubt the message came through.’’ Some cardinals prayed with them, and Stevens said that some of the cardinals even said they hoped the pope would adopt specific language proposed by the group. Wish List Conservative American Catholics have a very different wish list, of course, and want the Pope’s men to pass on their impression that he doesn’t seem to like the U.S. that much—he's never been here, after all, although his friends insist that this is simply because he hates traveling. Conservatives also see anti-Americanism in his writing about the excesses of capitalism—though his predecessors also touched on that subject. They want to hear more from him on abortion, religious liberty and the traditional family, aren’t sure he should even be going to Cuba in the fall, and wonder why, with Christians being rounded up and killed in Libya, he would choose to focus on the environment, of all things. Not all efforts to shape the message are going on inside the Vatican. Maureen Ferguson, of the conservative lay group Catholic Alliance, said, “We’re not part of any direct lobbying, but we’re in conversations with people putting together the visit, and we’re very focused on the Philadelphia stop,” where Francis will speak on the family. The central purpose of his whole visit, said Ferguson, a former official with National Right to Life, “is to talk about the beauty of church teaching on the family.” Yet there is also some risk involved, she said: “Because of his off-the-cuff manner of speaking, which is marvelous and refreshing, when he says ‘Who am I to judge?’ that also lends itself to misunderstanding and confusion among faithful Catholics…We see our role as helping to communicate the full message.” That the pope’s first trip to the U.S. comes against the backdrop of a presidential election–and one in which several of the candidates are Catholic, including Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum and Chris Christie–heightens one of the pontiff’s own concerns about the visit, according to several people who know him well: He doesn’t want to be used by any aspirant or either party, and is determined not to be. There has been more intense and more obvious lobbying under Francis, several church officials said, especially from Americans. (Though the Vatican practically invented politics, Italians don’t even have one word for ‘lobbying,’ and tend to use the English one instead of the Italianized ‘lobbismo,’ or work-arounds like ‘tentare di influenzare’–to try to influence–or plain old ‘pressione,’ or pressure.) Though it’s Francis’s open, easy manner that seems to have invited the perception that he can be moved, those who know him say that once he makes a decision, he isn’t likely to change his mind. And in fact, he’s less accessible through old-fashioned “I know somebody who knows somebody” channels than Benedict or John Paul: You’re unlikely to meet this pope, a friend in Rome quipped recently, unless you’re in a wheelchair or a wedding dress, at one of the Wednesday morning audiences where he embraces the sick and blesses the newly married. (“The high point’’ of his group’s recent lobbying trip to Rome, said Deacon Stevens, “was that even though we didn’t get to meet him, we did get to see him,’’ at the audience, “and our founding director was able to shake his hand and look him in the eye and share that PICO spirit.”) The Gospel's Interests Austen Ivereigh, author of The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, predicts that attempts to shape what Francis says in the U.S. won’t go any better than trying to get him to rethink what he wanted to say in the encyclical did: “Francis is allergic to lobbies and pressure groups,” Ivereigh said, “and sees it as his duty as pope not to let the church or the papal office be used for interests other than those of the Gospel.’’ He even avoided going to his native Argentina this year because he doesn’t want to be used in the presidential election there, Ivereigh said, and “he’ll be studiously careful to avoid being used in the U.S. campaign. On the other hand, he’ll want to build relationships with all the key players—but most of the bonding will be off-camera.” If anything, attempts to harness him to either party’s agenda could backfire, he and others feel. And while Francis’s message will certainly contain elements that will please and offend both Republicans and Democrats, one is likely to have a harder time than the other, though not because the pope is a closet Democrat: “One of Francis’s objectives in his U.S. trip,’’ Ivereigh said, “is to challenge what he regards as an unhealthy nexus that has grown up between U.S. conservatives and the Catholic Church” during fights over abortion and religious liberty. “The deal has too long been that evangelicals and Catholics present a united front on life and family issues and religious freedom while staying silent on economic injustice, immigration, the death penalty and ecology. Francis believes that a key part of the Gospel message has been suffocated by the church’s proximity to conservatives, and he is determined to restore it.” The new environmental encyclical, Laudato Si': On Care For Our Common Home, “is a major instrument of that rebalancing.” Previous popes spoke about the environment, too–to the point that Benedict was even called the “green pope”–but American conservatives remained unfazed because the overall emphasis on social issues was still to their liking. With Francis, that’s no longer the case. He is trying to integrate the two halves of Catholic teaching in the U.S., and here’s a taste of what that looks like: “I think the environment has become a pro-life issue–respecting the life that we find of God in others and his handiwork in the environment,” New Orleans Archbishop Gregory Aymond recently told GroundTruth’s Jason Berry. Meanwhile, lobbying the Vatican may not only have the effect of hardening the lobbied, but also of softening the supplicant: One American conservative who went to Rome recently filled with concern about whether Francis is anti-American, and eager to communicate that he ought to let Americans know how much he appreciates the generosity that only the prosperous can provide, came home with a changed focus. Now, she said, she’s no longer as worried about what the pope is going to say to America as about what America is going to show the pope during his visit. Danger for Democrats The danger of trying to co-opt his message is clearly greater for Democrats, who may feel that he’s on their side—but being seen as trying to translate his loftier purpose into votes could easily come off as shabby: “I’m going to slap the first person who says the pope is a Democrat,’’ says Michael Sean Winters, a National Catholic Reporter columnist and fellow at Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies. In part, that is, because “it’s so strategically stupid.” Taking on such a popular and persuasive figure as Francis carries as much risk as hugging him too tightly. But thus far, both Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum have said he should stick to matters of faith and avoid science. One jarring thing about their criticism is that conservatives have long chafed at references to Galileo, both because the case against the Renaissance astronomer was more complicated than the oft-told cartoon version, and also because the church has been pro-science–it was a Belgian priest, Georges Lemaître , after all, who came up with the Big Bang theory. Yet now it’s Santorum and others on the right who are invoking Galileo as a cautionary tale about why the church should stay out of scientific debates. But it isn't so much that the shoe is on the other foot now, with conservatives rather than liberals on the outs where the Vatican is concerned, as that the pope wants to put Catholic shoes on both feet: His social and economic messages don't fit together in American politics; but in church teaching, they do. Beyond the environmental message in his encyclical, he drives that home again and again, connecting abuse of the environment with human trafficking, the ecology of the human person with the ecology of the planet, and GMOs with research on human embryos. He’s arguing that we’re so interconnected that every form of violence, from disease-causing pollution to animal abuse to abortion, sends out ripples that affect the entire world. When he addresses Congress in September, fellow Catholics John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi will be seated behind him, as speaker and minority leader of the House and his joint hosts. Presumably both will be applauding their pope, too. “I think John Boehner is the most excited person in Washington about this visit,’’ said his friend Maureen Ferguson, of Catholic Alliance. Pelosi, who often attends daily Mass, issued a statement on Thursday lavishly praising Francis’s encyclical and concluding, “We really must listen to His Holiness as we go forward.” But the fact that Pelosi and Boehner are likely to be standing and cheering at very different moments during the pope’s address is the perfect illustration of the very split he’s coming here to address. *Cashing In <http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/06/19/former-presidents-cash-in-after-leaving-office> // US News and World Report // Kenneth T. Walsh – June 19, 2015 * How times have changed for America's former presidents. Harry Truman, who served as commander in chief 70 years ago, wrote, "I have a very strong feeling about any man who has the honor of being an occupant of the White House in the greatest job in the history of the world, who would exploit that situation in any way, shape or form." But ex-presidents today routinely make millions of dollars by parlaying their White House experiences into speeches, personal appearances and books. All this, taken together, diminishes their stature and lessens their influence. Bill Clinton has been widely criticized for milking his presidency for tens of millions of dollars, and former first lady Hillary Clinton, who is running for president in 2016, has been attacked for using her time in the White House to boost her income, partly through book sales and speeches. It turns out that former President George W. Bush has been doing much the same thing. Politico reports that since he left office in 2009, "Bush has given at least 200 paid speeches and probably many more, typically pocketing $100,000 to $175,000 per appearance. The part-time work, which rarely requires more than an hour on stage, has earned him tens of millions of dollars. Relative to the Clintons, though, he has attracted considerably less attention, almost always doing his paid public speaking in private, in convention centers and hotel ballrooms, resorts and casinos, from Canada to Asia, from New York to Miami, from all over Texas to Las Vegas a bunch, playing his part in what has become a lucrative staple of the modern post-presidency." Clearly, the nature of the post-presidency has morphed in a fundamental way since Truman's time. As the longevity of ex-presidents increases, more of them will be on the public stage longer than their predecessors, and they will be tempted to seek media and public attention as they defend and promote their legacies, size up contemporary issues and make money. There are currently four ex-presidents who are still living – George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama will join this elite club in a year-and-a-half, when his second term expires. A recent academic study offers some surprising assessments about who have been the best ex-presidents – John Quincy Adams, Jimmy Carter, William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover, even though none of them was in the top tier of presidents when they were in office, according to historians. Justin S. Vaughn, a political scientist at Boise State University who helped lead the study, said the standards he and his researchers used were two-fold: Having the longevity and good health to provide "meaningful service" for an extended period of time, and accomplishing "something significant beyond campaigning for their fellow partisans, burnishing their legacy and cutting the ribbon at the groundbreaking for their library." Vaughn concluded in a recent New York Times essay, "The greatest ex-presidents have engaged in important work, sometimes at a level that rivaled their accomplishments in the White House." Vaughn added: "Our worst ex-presidents, on the other hand, have been noteworthy for taking strong positions against the national interest and consistently undermining their successors for personal and political reasons." The worst ex-presidents, he said, were John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and Theodore Roosevelt. Of these, only Roosevelt was in the top tier of incumbent presidents. Vaughn noted that, "Mr. Obama's slow pivot to his retirement coincides with renewed controversy over how Bill Clinton has conducted his, especially around donors to the Clinton Global Initiative and possible conflicts of interest during Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. Some assessments of Mr. Clinton's post-presidential career have become extremely critical. ... President Obama would do well to chart an active course that makes a difference but avoids partisan entanglements and financial controversy." It is likely that Obama has more than a passing interest in this analysis as the outlines of his post-presidency become clear. He has approved building his presidential library in Chicago, his political base for many years. He is widely expected to write a book about his tenure, which will probably be a bestseller. (Book writing is probably the least offensive way in which a president can remain in the public eye and make money because presidential books tend to be at least in some way educational and add to the public's understanding of history.) It's unclear how much speaking he will do for profit. His friends say Obama plans to devote himself, at least in part, to altruistic pursuits such as working with young people and inspiring African-Americans to strive and emulate him and his wife Michelle as examples of the American dream in achieving success. Obama has already signaled his intention through his devotion to a White House initiative called "My Brother's Keeper." It's designed to inspire African-American men to overcome whatever obstacles exist to live successful and productive lives and take good care of their families. The challenge for the ex-presidents, as Truman suggested, is to avoid profiting crassly from their years of public service, and at the same time making a positive difference in people's lives. No one has come up with a perfect formula, but soon it will be Obama's turn to try. *Iowa Supreme Court: Ban on telemed abortion unconstitutional <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/19/iowa-supreme-court-approves-planned-parenthood-heartland-telemedicine-abortion-system/28973085/> // Des Moines Register // Tony Leys – June 19, 2015 * Iowa's Supreme Court ruled Friday that Planned Parenthood of the Heartland may keep using its controversial telemedicine-abortion system. More than 7,200 Iowa women have used the system to obtain abortion-inducing pills since 2008. The system, the first of its kind in the nation, allows Planned Parenthood doctors in Des Moines or Iowa City to interact via video with patients in outlying clinics, then dispense the pills to the women. State regulators, appointed by Iowa's anti-abortion governor, ruled in 2013 that the system should effectively be banned because of purported safety concerns. The ban was put on hold while Planned Parenthood appealed in court. A district judge sided with the regulators in 2014, but the Supreme Court disagreed Friday. The justices decided 6-0 that the Iowa Board of Medicine's rule violated women's constitutional rights. The court noted that telemedicine is being used to provide many other types of health care. But the medical board only focused on telemedicine's use for abortion when it imposed a requirement that doctors personally perform physical exams on patients, the justices wrote. "It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the board's medical concerns about telemedicine are selectively limited to abortion." The Supreme Court determined the medical board's rule imposed an unconstitutional "undue burden" on women's right to abortion. It noted that national standards do not require a physician to perform a physical examination on a woman before providing a medication abortion. The court also noted that other staff members in the outlying Planned Parenthood clinics draw blood, take medical histories and perform sonograms on the patients, which are transmitted to the physicians. The justices wrote that they didn't see proof that an in-person exam by a doctor would "provide any measurable gain in patient safety." Supporters say the telemedicine system provides a safe way to offer abortion services in rural areas where they otherwise are unavailable. The Iowa case is being watched nationally, because abortion providers in other states have considered setting up similar systems. This is believed to be the first time in more than 40 years that the state Supreme Court considered an abortion case. Suzanna de Baca, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland's president, hailed the ruling. "This is a major victory for the women of Iowa and for reproductive rights in general," she said. De Baca added it was significant that the justices were unanimous. "It really validates our belief that this was politically motivated," she said, referring to the medical board's attempt to ban the telemedicine system. De Baca was asked if the ruling also could be seen as a rebuke to Gov. Terry Branstad, who appointed the medical board members. She paused, then replied: "I think we are thrilled that we have an independent judiciary, who make decisions based on evidence and not on politics." Branstad spokesman Jimmy Centers released a statement expressing the governor's frustration with the justices' ruling. He noted that the medical board's ruling came after it received a petition from health care professionals who were concerned about the system's safety. "The governor is extremely disappointed that the Iowa Board of Medicine's action, which ensured women received the high standard of care that they deserve, was reversed by the Iowa Supreme Court." Centers said it was too soon to speculate on whether any more appeals are possible. Jenifer Bowen, executive director of Iowa Right to Life, said she'd heard conflicting theories on whether the Iowa justices' ruling could be appealed to federal court. Bowen said the ruling was a setback. "We're devastated," she said, "but obviously we're not going to wave the white flag of surrender." Bowen said she was disappointed by the "lackluster" presentation of the medical-board's legal case before the Supreme Court in March. That presentation was made by a lawyer from the office of Attorney General Tom Miller, a Democrat. But she said she had hoped the justices would be swayed by the medical board's written explanation of why it believed Planned Parenthood's telemedicine arrangement was unsafe. Bowen said her group would continue to spread its message that the telemedicine abortion system exposes vulnerable women to a potentially dangerous drug without sufficient medical backup in case of complications. The medical board, responding to petitions filed by abortion opponents, ruled in 2013 that the system's use was inappropriate and unsafe. The board, which licenses physicians, ruled that doctors must perform in-person physical exams before dispensing abortion pills. That would effectively have banned use of Planned Parenthood's telemedicine system. Planned Parenthood noted that under a previous governor, the medical board looked at the telemedicine abortion system and found no problems. The 2013 ruling against the system came after Branstad, who opposes abortion, replaced all 10 members of the board. His replacement members included a Catholic priest and a former legislator known for introducing abortion-limiting bills. The medical board's ruling was on hold while Planned Parenthood fought the matter in court. A Polk County district judge sided with the medical board last August. Planned Parenthood then appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, which heard arguments this March. A lawyer for the attorney general's office, who represented the board before the Supreme Court, contended that the board followed proper procedures, including having a public hearing and taking written comments, before making the decision. Critics noted that the board rules wording was taken nearly verbatim from a petition filed by abortion opponents. In its ruling, the Supreme Court sidestepped Planned Parenthood's request that it declare a more extensive right to abortion under the Iowa Constitution. The justices said they didn't need to answer that question, because the medical board's rule violated the "undue burden" test established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The opinion was written by Justice David Wiggins, a political independent. Justice Bruce Zager, a Republican, did not participate in the case. Iowa Supreme Court justices don't generally explain reasons for such abstentions. *INTERNATIONAL* *Iran Still Aids Terrorism and Bolsters Syria’s President, State Department Finds <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/world/middleeast/state-department-terrorism-report-iran-syria.html?ref=world&_r=0> // Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt – June 19, 2015* WASHINGTON — Iran continued its “terrorist-related” activity last year and also continued to provide broad military support to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, the State Department said Friday in its annual report on terrorism. The assessment suggests that neither the election of President Hassan Rouhani nor the prospect of a nuclear accord with the United States and its negotiating partners has had a moderating effect on Iran’s foreign policy in the Middle East. “In 2014, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training and the facilitation of primarily Iraq Shia and Afghan fighters to support the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown,” the report said. “Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior Al Qaeda members it continued to detain and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody,” it added. The report does not contend that Iranian officials are conspiring to kill Americans. Nor does it accuse Iraqi militias backed by Iran of plotting to attack American advisers in Iraq. The report also does not provide specific figures on Iranian operations that might indicate whether they are increasing or decreasing. But it paints a picture of an aggressive Iranian foreign policy that has often been contrary to the interests of the United States. Even when the United States and Iran have a common foe, as they do in the Islamic State, the Iranian role in Iraq risks inflaming sectarian tensions. Some of the Shiite militias Iran has backed in Iraq, including Kataib Hezbollah, have committed human rights abuses against Sunni civilians, the report said. Although the report covers 2014, American officials said the Iranian policies described in it had continued this year. “We continue to be very, very concerned about I.R.G.C. activity as well as proxies that act on behalf of Iran,” said Tina S. Kaidanow, the State Department’s senior counterterrorism official, referring to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. “We watch that extremely carefully.” Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has suggested that Iran sees its regional and nuclear policies as proceeding on separate tracks, an approach that may be intended to placate hard-liners at home but may also reflect his foreign policy strategy. The White House has held out hope that a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program might be the first step toward an eventual easing of tensions and perhaps even cooperation on regional matters. But even if the two sides remain at odds over the Middle East, Obama administration officials insist a nuclear accord is worth pursuing in its own right. The report comes a week before Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to travel to Vienna to try to seal a nuclear accord. In a broad survey of terrorist trends, including a country-by-country assessment, the report notes that the threat from Qaeda leaders who have sought sanctuary in Pakistan has diminished even as the group continues to be a source of inspiration for militants elsewhere. But the threat from the Islamic State, the militant group that has established what it calls a caliphate in much of Iraq and Syria, has grown. The report said that as of December, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, could muster 20,000 to 31,500 fighters. The group derives most of its funding not from external donations, as Al Qaeda does, but from smuggling oil, kidnapping for ransom, robbing banks and selling stolen antiquities. The pace at which foreign fighters have traveled to Syria — more than 16,000 as of late December and thousands more since — is greater than that at which foreign militants have gone to Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen or Somalia at any point in the last 20 years, the report said. “The ongoing civil war in Syria was a significant factor in driving worldwide terrorism events in 2014,” it stated. The report also noted that the Islamic State had deftly used the news media and social media to influence a wide spectrum of potential audiences: local Sunni Arab populations, potential recruits, and governments of coalition members and other populations around the world, including English-speaking audiences. “ISIL has been adroit at using the most popular social and new media platforms (YouTube, Facebook and Twitter) to disseminate its messages broadly,” it said. American counterterrorism officials have voiced increasing concern that the Islamic State, as well as Al Qaeda and its affiliates, is inspiring, but not necessarily directing, a greater number of so-called lone-wolf attacks — like the terrorist attacks last year in Ottawa and Sydney, Australia. “These attacks may presage a new era in which centralized leadership of a terrorist organization matters less, group identity is more fluid, and violent extremist narratives focus on a wider range of alleged grievances and enemies,” Ms. Kaidanow said. An annex to the report indicates that the problem of terrorism has grown, though many of the figures reflect militant attacks in the wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. The number of terrorist attacks in 2014 was up 35 percent from 2013, while the number of fatalities from those assaults increased 81 percent. The number of exceptionally lethal attacks has also grown. In 2014, there were 20 attacks that killed over 100 people. In 2013, there were only two such attacks. The statistics, appended to the State Department report, were prepared by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, at the University of Maryland. Despite the increasing attacks, State Department officials said the United States was making headway in the struggle against terrorism, including by working with partners in the region. John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said defeating the Islamic State would take time. “It’s going to take about three to five years,” he said. *OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS* *The opacity of Hillary’s Clinton’s e-mail <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-opacity-of-hillary-clintons-e-mail/2015/06/19/91d0d548-1452-11e5-8457-4b431bf7ed4c_story.html> // WaPo // Rick Morris – June 19, 2015 * In his June 12 op-ed, “Get the Benghazi panel back on track,” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) left out pertinent facts. First, requests from Congress and the Select Committee on Benghazi for documentation and information have gone either unanswered or the responses provided have been slow-rolled since late 2012. This is still occurring even with the release of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. The requests are being expedited now only because a court ordered it. When Ms. Clinton, using a private computer server, determines which e-mails to turn over to State, there can be no accountability. Ms. Clinton deleted some 30,000 other e-mails. Regardless of your political position, it is difficult to assume transparency under those circumstances. Even if other secretaries of state used private e-mail accounts, none had a private e-mail server. In addition, the FBI has determined that some information in at least one e-mail was considered classified and redacted it before it went to the committee. This contradicts statements Ms. Clinton made that no classified information was in her e-mails. *Hillary Clinton is playing the “woman card” too early <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-is-playing-the-woman-card-too-early/> // WaPo // Ed Rogers – June 19, 2015 * Americans won’t be doing themselves any favors if they make the same mistake three times in a row and elect a candidate who is more interested in acting as some sort of symbol than in being an engaged, working president. President Obama probably peaked on Election Day 2008. He thought he had done his job simply by getting elected and becoming an icon of America’s progress on race. By being elected, he proved the melting pot is real. And as significant as that is, it hasn’t made him an effective president. Obama is living proof that a president won’t necessarily be feared or respected or succeed just because their election was some sort of symbolic breakthrough. In 2016, it is urgent that we elect a president who actually has the skill set and personality required to be an effective leader at home and abroad. The presidency is not one-size-fits-all. It is a unique job that requires skills that are both innate and learned. So is it smart for Hillary Clinton to play the “women card” this early in the race? She is already talking about the symbolism of her candidacy as a reason why we should support her. As she said in an interview with the Des Moines Register in Iowa on Sunday, “I expect to be judged on my merits, and the historic nature of my candidacy is one of the merits that I hope people take into account.” Well, her campaign can’t be pitched as a third Obama term and her own post-government private sector money hunt erodes her credibility in championing solutions to income inequality. Her record as Secretary of State doesn’t exactly shine. She doesn’t appear to feel particularly strongly about any particular issue. “Fighting for the middle class” isn’t exactly a fresh, bold appeal. Anyway, the operative class is beginning to murmur, and a lot of the pundits cannot seem to discern what her real, ultimate campaign strategy is. Is her strategy just to hunker down, stick to a narrow script and play the “woman card”? In the absence of anything else to say, Hillary Clinton has felt compelled to remind everybody that she is a woman and offer that fact as a key reason why one should vote for her. And perhaps relying on gender and the historic nature of the first female president would be a viable — if risky — plan for a frontrunner during the last ten days of a campaign, but sustaining this for a full eighteen months before election day will become untenable. She needs to build and maintain appeal for a long stretch ahead, and an overt reliance on her gender will not do the trick. Hillary Clinton will need to start answering questions and taking positions on the issues that matter most to the Democratic base, or she risks “Clinton Campaign” becoming a new synonym for “opaque and dodgy”. Her campaign is on the brink of supplying more punchlines than real messages. I have often thought the Democrats didn’t want to have freewheeling relationships with the fair-minded media because they didn’t want people to know what they really think. Hillary, on the other hand, doesn’t want to deal with the media because she doesn’t know what she believes. Sure, she’s a classic liberal and all that, but she only knows for certain that she wants to be president. Everything else seems negotiable and her policy positions are — at best — situational. *Hillary Clinton wants to take us back to yesterday, not the future <http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/18/hillary-clinton-wants-to-take-us-back-to-yesterday-not-future.html> // Fox // Cal Thomas – June 18, 2015 * In her reintroduction speech on Roosevelt Island in New York last Saturday, Hillary Clinton hit all the boilerplate liberal Democrat notes: The New Deal, big government, soak the rich, evil Wall Street … you know the song because the music is from a familiar score. Speaking of songs, Hillary Clinton made reference to The Beatles’ “Yesterday” and tied it to the seemingly outdated ideas of the Republican Party. In light of what the country is facing, yesterday is looking increasingly better, particularly if one considers the foreign and domestic policies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (minus some of the tax increases). While Hillary Clinton wants to channel The Beatles, there is another song called “Yesterday” that may not be as familiar, but better describes her failed policies, as well as those of President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, who appear committed to an unverifiable nuclear deal with Iran. Country singer Roy Clark sang this “Yesterday” song. Here are a few excerpts that might well be used to rebut Hillary Clinton: “Seems the love I’ve known has always been The most destructive kind Yes, that’s why now I feel so old Before my time.” That could describe Clinton’s relationship with her husband, but let’s not go there again. And then there’s this: “The thousand dreams I dreamed, the splendid things I planned I always built to last on weak and shifting sand.” Examples: Hillarycare, which was rejected by a Democratic Congress during her husband’s first term, the absence of any significant legislation while she was a senator from New York, the failed “re-set” with Russia, Benghazi, Middle East policy, including the rise of ISIS, the hidden emails, the refusal, so far, to release her medical records, which might shed light on her fall and hospitalization while she was secretary of state. Need I go on? Hillary Clinton succeeded as secretary of state in logging lots of airline miles at taxpayer expense, but no one seems to know what she actually accomplished. TV interviews of some of her supporters have produced no substantive answers to the question: “What has she done?” Back to “Yesterday.” “I never stopped to think what life was all about And every conversation I can now recall Concerns itself with me and nothing else at all.” That seems fairly descriptive. It has always been about Hillary and Bill, hasn’t it? And then the quite sad last line of the song: “There are so many songs in me that won’t be sung, I feel the bitter taste of tears upon my tongue. The time has come for me to pay for Yesterday when I was young.” That “pay” will come in next year’s election if Republicans don’t blow their opportunity by cowering in the face of the bogus “war on women” attack and retreat on social issues as the secular wing of the party continues to urge them to do. We only learn from the past. We can’t learn from the future because it hasn’t arrived. But we can help shape the future by not repeating the mistakes of yesterday, focusing instead on those things that have a track record of working. Democrats want to cling to yesterday’s ideology, the one promoted by Franklin Roosevelt during different times. So who is really living in the past? All Hillary Clinton has to offer is bigger government, higher taxes, more spending on failed programs and a lax morality that has eaten away at the moral underpinnings of the nation. To paraphrase FDR, the only thing we have to fear is Hillary Clinton, herself. *ASU suckered by Clinton Foundation <http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2015/06/19/asu-paid-to-host-clinton-global-initiative-university/28987141/> // AZ Central // Laurie Roberts – June 19, 2015 * As the world – and more importantly, the Arizona Legislature -- now knows, Arizona State University shelled out $500,000 for the privilege of hosting last year's Clinton Global Initiative University. It was, Michael Crow has told us, "money well spent." So says the sucker who paid half of million dollars to get the Clintons for this three-day "marketing opportunity." Turns out at least three universities haven't paid a dime to host the Clinton Global Initiative University, according to The College Fix. After learning of ASU's largesse, student reporters reached out to the six other schools that have hosted the weekend conference since its inception in 2008. Tulane University said it didn't pay a dime to host the inaugural event. Neither did the University of Texas at Austin, which hosted the 2009 conference. In fact, the Clinton Foundation reimbursed the UT's student government group $28,851 to cover its expenses. George Washington University, the 2012 hosts, also paid nothing. "As part of our partnership, we provided space on our campus and many of our students participated and volunteered during the meeting," a campus official told The College Fix. "We did not pay an honorarium to host." Several private universities -- including the University of Miami, which has hosted the event twice – either didn't respond or declined to disclose whether they kicked in to bring the Clintons to town. The only other public university to host the event, University of California at San Diego, has not yet responded to questions about whether it paid to land CGIU in 2011. The website reports that it expects an answer to its public records request in July. Unlike ASU, the school doesn't show up on a list of donors to the Clinton Foundation. That leaves ASU thus far the only public university willing to pay to coax the Clintons to come to town. That is, ASU, the school so financially strapped that it is attaching a $320 surcharge to tuition this fall in order to get by. Student reporters asked one of ASU's army of PR warriors if the school was aware that others got for free what ASU paid $500,000 to land. The school gave its usual non-answer, saying that "the university co-invested in this educational and promotional opportunity, which was co-produced for our students, and for students from around the world." Last month, after being criticized for the expense, Crow wrote an op-ed explaining the $500,000 was a worthwhile marketing expense. Hacks like me, he sniffed, "fail to recognize that the university is about outcomes, about creating master learners immersed in a diversity of thought and prepared for any career path. They fail to acknowledge what the university is and how it acquires what it needs to be successful." Well, I'm all for master learners immersed in a diversity of thought. I'm just wondering why that diversity of thought costs so much bring here when UT can get it for free? *MISCELLANEOUS ADDED BY STAFF* *Marriage Equality Is Only Step One <https://medium.com/@GavinNewsom/marriage-equality-is-only-step-one-1ebaf4ba392d> // Medium // Gavin Newsom – June 18, 2015 * In the next ten days, the United States Supreme Court will hand down its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges — a case that has the potential to take a place in history alongside landmark rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and Roe v. Wade. Depending on the outcome, same-sex couples across the nation could soon have the constitutional right to marry, a right that those of us outside the LGBT community have always taken for granted. In 2004, the year we started to marry same-sex couples in San Francisco, it was impossible to imagine that this day might come so quickly. Even in that liberal community, my decision as Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco to order the County Clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples set off a firestorm of such magnitude that the controversy ended up in the California Supreme Court. Although the Court halted the unions, more than 4,000 same-sex couples already had married in San Francisco, availing themselves of the right to have their relationships legally recognized for the first time, and giving their children the joy of seeing their parents’ unions receive the same protections and validation as the marriages of the their friends’ and classmates’ parents. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the California Constitution. The joy that the court’s decision brought was soon muted six months later when Proposition 8 enshrined discrimination into California’s constitution with a simple phrase, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” After a lengthy battle, Prop 8 was overturned by the Federal District Court in August of 2010 on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. Now, in 2015, after a series of victories in federal courts, 37 states allow same-sex marriage. If the Supreme Court affirms that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right, that ruling will overturn constitutional amendments across the country banning same-sex marriage. While this certainly will be cause for celebration, bringing to a close a dark chapter in our history, I fear that the celebration of this milestone might lead some to believe that the fight for equality is over. Far from it. Over our history, even when the courts and Congress have acted to afford important and significant legal protections for fundamental rights — such as 19th Amendment,(women’s suffrage) , the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, and Roe v. Wade — we have all too frequently seen those rights undermined in subsequent judicial decisions and laws enacted at the state and federal levels. In 2013, for example, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, freeing states to change their voting laws and redistricting maps in ways that would effectively deprive many minority citizens their right to vote and to have equal representation. Chief Justice Roberts reasoned in his opinion for the Court’s majority that, “Our country has changed” and such protections are no longer required. That would surprise the millions of citizens who still are prevented from early voting or required to meet onerous identification requirements at the polls. Restrictions on using race or gender as a criteria for school admissions, scholarships and hiring have eroded equal rights for minorities and women. And for decades, state legislatures have been passing laws that limit who may perform abortions, in what types of facilities, and at what stage of pregnancy, all of which have severely limited women’s access to abortions in many states. If the Supreme Court recognizes a constitutional right of same sex couples to marry, then we can almost certainly expect similar efforts to undermine that right. But even if the right to marry remains protected across the country, there is a long list of other rights that must be guaranteed before the LGBT community achieves full equality. There still are no federal workplace protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity expression; no federal anti-bullying laws to protect LGBT students; and we are nowhere near having in place adequate protections of the rights of transgender Americans. While same-sex marriage rights may soon be guaranteed, the patchwork of same-sex adoption laws across the states continues to be a source of great confusion and frustration for many prospective parents. Beyond the changes that must take place through continued judicial and legislative action, more fundamental change is needed in public opinion. The impetus for my decision to order the clerks in San Francisco to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples was hearing then President George W. Bush call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage during his 2004 State of the Union address. “Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage,” he said, as though the nation — or marriage — were under attack. But even more important to my decision was a conversation I overheard shortly afterwards at the coat check in the capitol. Two men were talking about how glad they were that President Bush was taking on same-sex marriage when one of them said, “I’m glad he’s finally doing something about those homosexuals.” “Those homosexuals” — in other words, those people who are in some fundamental way different from us. Unfortunately, even the Supreme Court cannot outlaw the underlying fear and ignorance that leads people to view “those homosexuals” as a problem we need to “do something about.” In the eleven years since the so-called “winter of love” in San Francisco, I have become the proud father of three young children. Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides later this month, by the time my children are old enough to consider marrying, I feel confident that the notion that a same-sex couple may not marry will seem as arcane and absurd as the separate lunch counters and drinking fountains of more than five decades ago. But I’m less sure that the underlying prejudices will have disappeared. Until they have, we must all continue to fight for full equality. And we must fight to eliminate ignorance and hate. Bigotry may never go completely away, but as the national referendum in favor of same-sex marriage in Ireland demonstrated just last month, majority attitudes can change — and with them, our public policy. And when they do, it will truly be time to celebrate.