Subject: H4A News Clips 7.21.20
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:08:20 -0400
List-Id: <HRCRapid.hillaryclinton.com>

*H4A News Clips*

*July 21, 2015*

*LAST NIGHT’S EVENING NEWS*

All three networks reported Donald Trump's controversial comments about
whether John McCain is a war hero. NBC noted that Trump leads the latest
Republican poll. Trump refused to apologize for his comments regarding
McCain. Reporters claimed that John McCain served in the military while
Trump avoided the draft. CBS interviewed Trump and he clarified that he
doesn't want to run as an independent because running as a GOP candidate is
the best way to win the presidency.

*LAST NIGHT’S EVENING
NEWS........................................................................
**1*

*TODAY’S KEY
STORIES.....................................................................................
**7*

In Facebook Chat, Hillary Clinton Tells of Her Love of Pantsuits, and Jabs
Her Rivals // NYT // Alan Rappeport – July 20,
2015......................................................................................................
7

Clinton: Companies Fined for Wrongdoing Should Cut Executive Bonuses // WSJ
// Laura Meckler – July 20,
2015......................................................................................................................................
8

Here's How Hillary Clinton Says She Would Have Answered The 'Black Lives
Matter' Protesters // HuffPo // Amanda Terkel – July 20,
2015.............................................................................................
10

*SOCIAL
MEDIA.................................................................................................
**11*

Theo Keith (7/20/15, 12:45 pm) - Tough talk from @SenateMajLdr about
Hillary Clinton: "The gender card alone isn't
enough."..............................................................................................................
11

Dan Pfeiffer (7/20/15, 3:36 pm) - Progressive politicians are making a
major error by positioning against the sharing economy.We need to be
shaping the future not opposing it........................................
11

The Des Moines Register (7/20/15, 9:05 pm) - The Des Moines Register,
Iowa's largest newspaper, calls on Trump to withdraw from race & end
"bloviating side show" http://t.co/2MjNd3ST9R…............ 11

*HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE............................................................................
**11*

Hillary Clinton bashes Wall Street, but only a little // WaPo // Anne
Gearan – July 20, 2015.... 12

Hillary Clinton’s top goal as president could be effectively impossible to
achieve // WaPo // Max Ehrenfreund – July 20,
2015.....................................................................................................................
13

Hillary Clinton said it. Black lives matter. No hedge. // WaPo // Janell
Ross – July 20, 2015.... 17

Could the economy boost Hillary’s presidential hopes? // WaPo // Greg
Sargent – July 20, 2015 18

Silicon Valley prefers Hillary // WaPo // Elise Viebeck – July 20,
2015.................................... 21

Hillary Clinton Cites Corporate ‘Short-Termism’ in Call for Capital Gains
Tax Overhaul // WSJ // Laura Meckler – July 20,
2015.....................................................................................................................
22

Hillary Clinton to propose increasing capital gains taxes as part of 2016
campaign plans // AP // Lisa Lerer – July 20,
2015........................................................................................................................
22

Why China Wants a Jeb-vs.-Hillary Race // Politico // Aaron Mak – July 20,
2015................... 23

Clinton skips same-sex wedding of couple in launch video // Politico //
Nick Gass – July 20, 2015                27

Judge slams State Department over Hillary Clinton-related records //
Politico // Josh Gerstein – July 20,
2015............................................................................................................................................
27

Clinton taps digital firm led by ex-strategist for Obama, Eric Schmidt //
Politico // Nancy Scola – July 20,
2015...........................................................................................................................................
30

Hillary Clinton meets the press, on Facebook // Politico // Hadas Gold –
July 20, 2015............ 31

Clinton’s Capital Gains Tax Plan Focuses on Long-Term Growth // Reuters //
Susan Heavey – July 20,
2015............................................................................................................................................
32

Hillary Clinton pledges bigger rewards for corporate whistleblowers //
Reuters – July 20, 2015 33

Hillary Clinton Previews Plans to Get Tough on Wall Street, Raise Capital
Gains Taxes // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – July 20,
2015...........................................................................................
33

Hillary Clinton Makes Speech On Women's Issues Which Could Teach Mail On
Sunday A Thing Or Two // HuffPo // Eve Hartley – July 20,
2015...................................................................................
34

Hillary Clinton Responds To 'Gender Card' Dig: 'Mitch McConnell Really
Doesn't Get It' // HuffPo // Laura Bassett – July 20,
2015.........................................................................................................
35

Hillary Clinton Hints She'd Support Flexible Benefits For Gig Economy
Workers // HuffPo // Alexander Howard – July 20,
2015........................................................................................................
36

Elizabeth Warren Fires Warning Shot Over Clinton's Bow // HuffPo // Liam
Miller – July 20, 2015              37

Clinton on Facebook: 'Black lives matter' and other takeaways // CNN //
Eric Bradner & Dan Merica – July 20,
2015....................................................................................................................................
38

Hillary Clinton Criticizes ‘Hair and Makeup Tax’ on Women’s Time // TIME //
Ryan Beckwith – July 20,
2015............................................................................................................................................
41

Why Hillary's New Plan to Tax Investors Could Win Some Fans on Wall Street
// Slate // Jordan Weissmann – July 20,
2015........................................................................................................................
42

5 key takeaways from Hillary Clinton’s Facebook Q&A // MSNBC // Nisha
Chittal – July 20, 2015 43

Sanders putting pressure on Clinton in Democratic contest // McClatchy //
Anita Kumar – July 20, 2015  44

Given 2 days to think, Hillary Clinton outdoes her opponents in responding
to #BlackLivesMatter // VOX // Dara Lind – July 20,
2015.....................................................................................................
47

Hillary Clinton's capital gains tax reform, explained // VOX // Matthew
Yglesias – July 20, 2015 48

Hillary Clinton: Take away executives' bonuses when their companies break
the rules // VOX // Jonathan Allen – July 20,
2015............................................................................................................
50

Hillary Clinton gives support for racial justice by saying ‘black lives
matter’ // NY Daily News // Dan Friedman – July 20,
2015.....................................................................................................................
51

Hillary Clinton zeroes in on capital gains: About-face? // Christian
Science Monitor // Jessica Mendoza – July 20,
2015...............................................................................................................................
52

Bush and Clinton highlight sharp contrast in dueling policy speeches // LA
Times // David Lauter – July 20,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
53

In Facebook Chat, Hillary Clinton Says 'Black Lives Matter' // NBC News //
Carrie Dann – July 20, 2015   55

Does Hillary Clinton have a small donor problem? // The Week // Paul
Waldman – July 20, 2015                56

Hillary Clinton's Capital Gains Changes Won't Make A Blind Bit Of
Difference To Short-Termism // Forbes // Tim Worstall – July 20,
2015.................................................................................................
57

Jeb Bush And Hillary Clinton Love The Rich Without Knowing It // Forbes //
John Tamny – July 20,
2015............................................................................................................................................
59

Clinton eyes flexible benefits for 'on-demand economy' workers // The Hill
// David McCabe – July 20,
2015............................................................................................................................................
61

Hillary jokes about 'daily challenge' of hair, makeup // The Hill // Judy
Kurtz – July 20, 2015. 62

Jeb and Hillary: Flawed front-runners generating little excitement // Fox
News // Howard Kurtz – July 20,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
62

Here's the Amy Schumer joke that Hillary Clinton 'really liked' // Business
Insider // Aly Weisman – July 20,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
64

New RNC Video Hits Hillary Clinton’s ‘Failed Leadership’ // IJ Review //
Joe Perticone – July 20, 2015    65

Hillary Clinton's Nigeria record once again in the spotlight // The
Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – July 20,
2015........................................................................................................................
65

In One Quote, Hillary Clinton Just Outpaced All of Her Opponents on
#BlackLivesMatter // Mic // Zak Rice – July 20,
2015........................................................................................................................
67

Hillary Clinton shuts down Mitch McConnell on women’s rights: He “doesn’t
understand what our lives are like” // Salon // Sophia Tesfaye – July 20,
2015......................................................................
68

Hillary Clinton Takes To Facebook To Let The Gop Know: Women's Issues Are
Economic Issues // Elle // Mattie Kahn – July 20,
2015..................................................................................................
69

Hillary Clinton Admits Her Morning Beauty Routine Is a 'Daily Challenge' //
People // Tierney Mcaffe – July 20,
2015...............................................................................................................................
70

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE.................................................. **71*

*DECLARED..................................................................................................
**71*

*O’MALLEY................................................................................................
**71*

Why Martin O’Malley had to apologize for saying “all lives matter” // VOX
// Dara Lind – July 20, 2015    71

O’Malley apologizes after saying ‘all lives matter’ at liberal conference
// Washington Times // David Sherfinski – July 20,
2015.....................................................................................................
73

*SANDERS.................................................................................................
**74*

Bernie Sanders hazed on Twitter for civil rights comment // Politico //
Daniel Strauss – July 20, 2015        74

Trumka: I'm not trying to slow the Sanders surge // Politico // Gabriel
Debenedetti – July 20, 2015            75

Bernie Sanders Spent $0 On Polling, Because Really, Would It Change His
Mind Anyway? // HuffPo // Sam Stein – July 20,
2015.............................................................................................................
76

Bernie Sanders Is Against Keystone XL. Hillary Clinton Was 'Inclined' to
Approve It. Why the Difference? // HuffPo // H.A. Goodman – July 20,
2015...............................................................................
78

#BernieSoBlack: why progressives are fighting about Bernie Sanders and race
// VOX // Dara Lind – July 20,
2015....................................................................................................................................
80

What does Bernie Sanders need to do to beat Hillary? // CNBC // Mark Macias
– July 20, 2015 84

Sanders to push $15 minimum wage bill // The Hill // Tim Devaney – July 20,
2105............... 86

Bernie Sanders: structural racism needs to end for economic justice to
succeed // The Guardian // Sabrina Issa – July 20,
2015.....................................................................................................................
87

Berniemania spreads to Texas as Sanders' speech draws crowd of 5,000 // The
Guardian // Tom Dart – July 20,
2015...............................................................................................................................
89

Does Bernie Sanders surge threaten Hillary? // BBC // Anthony Zurcher –
July 20, 2015......... 91

Why are Arizona liberals, Twitter protesting Bernie Sanders? // Christian
Science Monitor // Sarah Caspari – July 20,
2015........................................................................................................................
95

Bernie Sanders And Allies In Congress To Propose $15 Federal Minimum Wage
// IB Times // Cole Stangler – July 20,
2015........................................................................................................................
96

Bernie Sanders Gains Support In Republican States As Arizona & Texas Begin
To Feel The Bern // Bustle // Greta Jochem – July 20,
2015................................................................................................
97

Bernie Sanders added to lineup for Urban League in Fort Lauderdale // Sun
Sentinel // Anthony Man – July 20,
2015...............................................................................................................................
98

*UNDECLARED............................................................................................
**98*

*BIDEN......................................................................................................
**98*

Waiting on Biden // Roll Call // Matt Fleming – July 20,
2015................................................ 98

Joe Biden to talk college during upcoming Denver visit // Denver Post //
Mark Matthews – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
100

*OTHER...................................................................................................
**101*

What that Netroots Nation disaster can tell us about Democrats in 2016 //
WaPo // Janell Ross – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
101

Democratic Party Machinery Shows Rust // WSJ // Peter Nicholas & Colleen
McCain Nelson – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
102

Kenya is set to welcome Obama 'home' to a continent that feels ignored //
Reuters – July 20, 2015             106

*GOP...............................................................................................................
**108*

*DECLARED................................................................................................
**109*

*BUSH.....................................................................................................
**109*

Jeb Bush Promises to Curb Lobbying and Cut Size of Government // NYT //
Michael Barbaro – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
109

How Jeb Bush would revamp Washington and the federal government // WaPo //
Ed O’Keefe – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
110

Jeb Bush wants to dock members of Congress for missing votes. What would
that look like? // WaPo // Philip Bump – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................
113

Jeb Bush says he would make it harder for lawmakers to become lobbyists //
WaPo // Catherine Ho – July 20,
2015...................................................................................................................................
114

Jeb Bush Takes Aim at Lobbyists // WSJ // Beth Reinhard & Chris Stewart –
July 20, 2015.... 115

Jeb Bush Vows to Shake Up ‘Mount Washington’ Establishment // WSJ // Beth
Reinhard – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
117

Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush vows to cut spending, rein in
lobbying // AP // Gary Fineout – July 20,
2015..............................................................................................................................
118

Jeb Bush says that 'arrogance and sheer incompetence' have been accepted in
DC for too long // AP // Gary Fineout – July 20,
2015.......................................................................................................
119

Jeb Bush vows to shrink Washington's bloat // Politico // Matt Dixon – July
20, 2015........... 120

Jeb Bush Takes Aim at Revolving Door in Washington // Bloomberg // Michael
Bender – July 20, 2015    122

In a Swipe at Rivals, Jeb Bush Proposes to Dock Pay for Absentee Lawmakers
// Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – July 20,
2015......................................................................................................................
124

Jeb Bush vows Washington culture shake-up // Reuters – July 20,
2015............................... 126

Jeb Bush on John McCain: 'A real hero' // CNN // Ashley Killough – July 20,
2015................. 126

Jeb Bush defends McCain, but supported Swift Boat attacks against Kerry //
CNN // Jeremy Diamond – July 20,
2015.............................................................................................................................
128

Jeb Bush Wants Military Recruiters Armed...Overturning His Dad's Policy //
HuffPo // John Tures – July 20,
2015...................................................................................................................................
129

Jeb Bush releases new web ad accusing Trump and Obama of divisiveness //
CBS News – July 20, 2015   130

Jeb Bush Pledges to 'Challenge the Whole Culture' of D.C. // NBC News //
Carrie Dann – July 20, 2015     130

Jeb Bush ahead of Marco Rubio among Cuban-American GOP voters in Miami,
poll finds // Fox News // Serafin Gomez – July 20,
2015..............................................................................................
131

'We'll all become conservatives': Jeb Bush pledges budget reform in Florida
// The Guardian // Tom McCarthy – July 20,
2015....................................................................................................................
132

Jeb Bush Wants Every Single Lobbyist-Lawmaker Meeting Made Public // The
Daily Caller // Alex Pappas – July 20,
2015......................................................................................................................
133

Jeb Bush Wants to Cut Automatic Raises for Federal Employees // National
Journal // Eric Katz – July 20,
2015...................................................................................................................................
133

Jeb Bush unveils his plan for 'disrupting' America's government // Business
Insider // Maxwell Tani – July 20,
2015..............................................................................................................................
136

*RUBIO....................................................................................................
**137*

Rubio: We're in 'the most dangerous phase of the Obama presidency' // The
Hill // Jordain Carney – July 20,
2015...................................................................................................................................
137

Marco Rubio’s Close Relationship With For-Profit Corinthian Colleges //
Think Progress // Casey Quinlan – July 20,
2015......................................................................................................................
138

*WALKER................................................................................................
**139*

Scott Walker: We might have to take military action on Day One // WaPo //
Greg Sargent – July 20, 2015 139

Scott Walker, Confronted by Immigrant in Iowa, Blames Obama for Family’s
Uncertainty // WSJ // Reid Epstein – July 20,
2015.......................................................................................................
141

GOP presidential hopeful Scott Walker signs abortion ban bill // AP – July
20, 2015.............. 143

Scott Walker signs Wisconsin abortion bill // Politico // Eliza Collins –
July 20, 2015............. 145

Poll: Walker leads in Iowa, followed by Trump // Politico // Nick Gass –
July 20, 0215........... 146

Scott Walker Steps Down as Head of Wisconsin’s Job-Creation Agency //
Bloomberg // Tim Jones – July 20,
2015...................................................................................................................................
147

Scott Walker Signs 20-Week Abortion Ban Into Law // HuffPo // Laura Bassett
– July 20, 2015 147

Walker And Bush Clash Over When To Go After Iran -- Day One Or Two //
HuffPo // Igor Bobic – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
148

Scott Walker signs 20-week abortion ban // MSNBC // Irin Carmon – July 20,
2015............... 149

Walker first, Trump second in Iowa Poll // The Hill // Jesse Byrnes – July
20, 2015............... 151

Scott Walker: Donald Trump 'Needs to Apologize' for McCain Comments // NBC
News // Kelly O’Donnell – July 20,
2015.......................................................................................................................
151

Scott Walker first, Donald Trump second in Iowa: poll // Washington Times
// David Sherfinski – July 20,
2015...................................................................................................................................
153

This Is How Scott Walker Responded When A 13-Year-Old Girl Asked Why He Was
Trying To Deport Her Dad // Think Progress // Esther Lee – July 20,
2015.................................................................... 154

*PAUL......................................................................................................
**156*

Rand Paul readying Hill push for guns on military bases and in recruiting
stations // WaPo // David Weigel – July 20,
2015......................................................................................................................
156

*CRUZ......................................................................................................
**157*

Claire McCaskill: ‘Cruz following Trump around like a lost puppy’ //
Politico // Eliza Collins – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
157

Cruz: Iran Deal Likely To Force Next President To Take “Direct Military
Action” // Buzzfeed // Christopher Massie – July 20,
2015........................................................................................................
158

Ted Cruz takes aim at Congress’ Obamacare ‘exemption’ // Washington Times
// Tom Howell – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
159

Democratic senator: Cruz scrounging for Trump's 'leftovers' // The Hill //
Jordain Carney – July 20, 2015 161

Cruz and Vitter to Target Congressional Health Care // Roll Call // Bridget
Bowman – July 20, 2015           162

Cruz Plans Slew of Highway Bill Amendments // Free Beacon // Lachlan Markay
– July 20, 2015 163

Claire McCaskill savages Ted Cruz in one brutal tweet: “A lost puppy hoping
to get his leftovers” // Salon // Sophia Tesfaye – July 20,
2015............................................................................................
165

*CHRISTIE..............................................................................................
**166*

First look: Debut ad from pro-Chris Christie super PAC highlights
opposition to Iran deal // WaPo // James Hohmann – July 20,
2015....................................................................................................
166

N.J. union chief says he won't negotiate pension reforms with Chris
Christie // Politico // Ryan Hutchins – July 20,
2015......................................................................................................................
168

Chris Christie's Defining Mistake: Winning in a Landslide // HuffPo //
Nicholas Sheppard – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
169

Christie: No special way illegal immigrants to get US citizenship //
Breitbart // Charlie Sperling – July 20,
2015...................................................................................................................................
171

*PERRY....................................................................................................
**171*

On Military Service and on Border Security, Trump Offers Only Hot Air //
National Review // Rick Perry – July 20,
2015..............................................................................................................................
171

*GRAHAM................................................................................................
**173*

Lindsey Graham and Friends Join to Denounce Iran Deal // NYT // Maggie
Haberman – July 20, 2015     173

Lindsey Graham: Donald Trump is a ‘jackass’ // Politico // Eliza Collins –
July 20, 2015......... 174

Lindsey Graham and his Two Amigos Kick Off 'No Nukes for Iran' Tour //
Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – July 20,
2015......................................................................................................................
175

Lindsey Graham wages war against Iran deal // MSNBC // Amanda Sakuma – July
20, 2015.. 176

GOP presidential candidate warns of another attack on New York City if the
Iran deal goes through // Business Insider // Maxwell Tani – July 20,
2015...............................................................................
178

*SANTORUM............................................................................................
**179*

‘They Are So Afraid’: Santorum Says GOP Leadership Botching Planned
Parenthood Response // Daily Caller // Alex Pappas – July 20,
2015............................................................................................
180

Santorum considers breaking up big banks // Washington Examiner // Ariel
Cohen – July 20, 2015            181

Santorum: Repeal Obamacare, Defund Planned Parenthood // Weekly Standard //
Michael Warren – July 20,
2015...................................................................................................................................
182

*HUCKABEE...........................................................................................
**183*

Huckabee campaign video comments on racial tension, America has a ‘sin not
skin’ problem // Breitbart // Alex Swoler – July 20,
2015.................................................................................................
183

*JINDAL..................................................................................................
**184*

Jindal: Obama quick to push gun control after Charleston massacre, silent
on radical Islam after Tennessee terror attack // Breitbart – July 20,
2015..............................................................................
184

Bobby Jindal: An abortion “patient” is the “unborn baby,” not the woman
having the abortion // Salon // Jenny Krutner – July 20,
2015.............................................................................................
185

Jindal talks family, religion, government at Madison County Fair // The Des
Moines Register // Katherine Klingseis – July 20,
2015.....................................................................................................
186

*TRUMP...................................................................................................
**187*

Veterans’ Groups Take Their Shots at Donald Trump as He Backs Off a Bit on
McCain // NYT // Jeremy Peters – July 20,
2015...................................................................................................................
187

Donald Trump Continues to Have Strong Support in Iowa // NYT // Alan
Rappeport – July 20, 2015           189

Rush Limbaugh Rallies Listeners to Donald Trump’s Defense // NYT // Maggie
Haberman – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
190

Why is Trump surging? Blame the media. // WaPo // John Sides – July 20,
2015................... 191

Poll: Trump surges to big lead in GOP presidential race // WaPo // Dan Balz
– July 20, 2015.. 193

Breaking Down the GOP Silence on Trump’s Immigration Rhetoric // WSJ // Dan
Schnur – July 20, 2015 196

Trump's self-paid presidential run means he's not going away // AP // Julie
Bykowicz – July 20, 2015       197

No, media, Donald Trump isn't done // Politico // Dylan Byers – July 20,
2015...................... 199

Trump’s Waterloo? Don’t count on it // Politico // Ben Schreckinger &
Danile Strauss – July 20, 2015         200

Donald Trump's no-apology tour // Politico // Nick Gass – July 20,
2015............................... 203

Palin calls both McCain and Trump heroes // CNN // Jake Tapper – July 20,
2015................. 205

Donald Trump writes op-ed slamming McCain, Sanders // CNN // Deena Zaru –
July 20, 2015 206

Donald Trump Hits New High in Poll of Republicans // TIME // Sarah Begley –
jUly 20, 2015 207

Donald Trump Is The World’s Greatest Troll // FiveThirtyEight // Nate
Silver – July 20, 2015 207

Has Trump gone too far? // VOX // Jonathan Allen – July 20,
2015....................................... 211

Donald Trump has his biggest poll lead yet (but he's still not going to
win) // VOX // Andrew Prokop – July 20,
2015..............................................................................................................................
212

Donald Trump Gains Yet Shows Vulnerability in a Crowded, Contentious GOP
Race // ABC News // Gary Langer – July 20,
2015........................................................................................................
213

Des Moines Register calls on Donald Trump to drop out // MSNBC // Adam
Howard – July 20, 2015          216

*UNDECLARED..........................................................................................
**218*

*KASICH..................................................................................................
**218*

Long Before His Candidacy, John Kasich Made It to the White House // NYT //
Sheryl Stolberg – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
218

What Ohio Gov. John Kasich is doing to public education in his state //
WaPo // Valerie Strauss – July 20,
2015...................................................................................................................................
218

John Kasich’s anger management // Politico // Alex Isenstadt – July 20,
2015...................... 221

Does John Kasich have a shot? // CNN // Julian Zelizer – July 20,
2015................................ 225

John Kasich is the most interesting GOP presidential contender // VOX //
Andrew Prokop – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
227

John Kasich keeps it real, maybe too real // Yahoo // Matt Bai – July 20,
2015...................... 236

Kasich joins GOP race on Tuesday // The Hill // Jonathan Easley – July 20,
2015.................. 242

*OTHER..................................................................................................
**244*

GOP blasts President Obama’s ‘capitulation’ to U.N. on Iran // Politico //
Burgess Everett – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
244

Republicans Weren't Always Above Attacking A Veteran's War Record // HuffPo
// Igor Bobic – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
246

Republicans learn to love community organizing // Washington Examiner //
David Drucker – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
248

*OTHER 2016
NEWS.......................................................................................
**250*

Forecasters Expect a Strong Economy for the 2016 Presidential Election //
NYT // Neil Irwin – July 20,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
250

The Only Realistic Way to Fix Campaign Finance // NYT Lawrence Lessig –
July 21, 2015...... 253

The Uber Election: 2016 Candidates Are Finally Talking About the New
American Underclass // VICE // George Pearkes – July 20,
2015............................................................................................
254

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS...................................................................
**257*

Martin O’Malley Apologized for Saying “All Lives Matter.” Should Hillary
Clinton? // The New Republic // Rebecca Leber – July 20,
2015.............................................................................................
257

*TOP
NEWS.....................................................................................................
**258*

*DOMESTIC................................................................................................
**258*

The Unarmed Forces: Will the Pentagon let troops carry weapons after
Chattanooga? // WaPo // Dan Lamothe – July 20,
2015...................................................................................................................
258

Bill That Lets Bosses Fire Single Women For Getting Pregnant Gains Steam //
HuffPo // Dana Liebelson – July 20,
2015......................................................................................................................
260

*INTERNATIONAL......................................................................................
**261*

U.S. Embassy in Cuba Reopens After More Than 50 Years // NYT // Azam Ahmed
– July 20, 2015               262

Banks reopen, first repayments start as Greece aims for return to normal //
Reuters // Lefteris Papadimas – July 20,
2015......................................................................................................................
264

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES*

*In Facebook Chat, Hillary Clinton Tells of Her Love of Pantsuits, and Jabs
Her Rivals
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/20/in-facebook-chat-hillary-clinton-tells-of-her-love-of-pantsuits-and-jabs-her-rivals/?_r=1>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton dished out some news on her philosophy of financial
regulation, proclaimed her love of pantsuits and threw some jabs at her
Republican rivals in her inaugural Facebook chat as a presidential
candidate on Monday.

Showing her social media savvy, Mrs. Clinton expanded on her plans for
holding Wall Street accountable and called for paying whistle-blowers more
to come forward and speak out against corporate wrongdoing.

Mrs. Clinton also used the format to set the record straight on racial
inequality, declaring unequivocally that “black lives matter.” Her Democrat
rivals, Senator Bernie Sanders and former Gov. Martin O’Malley, drew
criticism after they seemed to hedge on the issue, but Mrs. Clinton said,
“Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind that.”

The former secretary of state also took the opportunity to bring up Donald
J. Trump and try to make him the face of the Republican Party on
immigration.

“Donald Trump in particular is getting a lot of attention for some hateful
rhetoric, but Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio actually agree with him on denying a
pathway to citizenship and consigning hardworking immigrants to
second-class status,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Mrs. Clinton’s chat drew thousands of readers and while she was peppered
with questions from reporters — “Do you feel responsible for the situation
in Libya?” — she tended to mix policy answers with personal touches about
subjects such as the plight of being a female road warrior and her wardrobe.

“I never met a pantsuit I didn’t love,” Mrs. Clinton said, pointing a fan
to her online campaign store.

*Clinton: Companies Fined for Wrongdoing Should Cut Executive Bonuses
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-companies-fined-for-wrongdoing-should-cut-executive-bonuses-1437431194>
// WSJ // Laura Meckler – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, said Monday that
when corporations pay government fines for wrongdoing, the companies should
reduce the bonuses of executives who “should have been accountable or
should have caught the problem.”

In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session on Facebook, Mrs. Clinton
also proposed increasing rewards for whistleblowers at financial firms, and
she explained why she thinks the capital gains rate should go up for
short-term investments.

Her ideas come at a time when her challengers for the Democratic
presidential nomination are promising big changes to Wall Street
regulation, including reinstating rules that require that commercial and
investment banking be separated. Mrs. Clinton doesn’t plan to go that far,
and is under pressure from the left to offer her own proposals.

Previewing a speech on Wall Street regulation slated for the coming weeks,
Mrs. Clinton vowed to defend and expand the 2010 Dodd-Frank legislation
regulating financial firms, and she repeated her promise to prosecute
individuals as well as corporations for wrongdoing. Her remarks came ahead
of Dodd-Frank’s fifth anniversary Tuesday.

“We have work to do to enhance accountability,” she wrote. “Even though
some institutions have paid fines and even admitted guilt, too often it
seems like the people responsible get off with limited consequences (or
none at all).”

She said she also would “appoint and empower tough, independent-minded
regulators” and give them resources to do their jobs.

In addition, Mrs. Clinton said award amounts for whistleblowers should be
increased, to provide a greater incentive for employees to come forward
amid high Wall Street pay levels. An aide said that the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act caps at $1.6 million the
amount that an individual can receive for coming forward to the Justice
Department to report wrongdoing. The aide said Mrs. Clinton is considering
various approaches to requiring companies that are fined to cut executive
bonuses and would offer details in the coming weeks.

On the capital gains tax, Mrs. Clinton confirmed a Journal report that
later this week she will announce a proposal to revamp the tax so it hits
short-term investors with higher rates. It is part of a package of measures
designed to prod companies to put more emphasis on long-term growth.

She cited changes in corporate attitudes in explaining why she supports
increasing the capital gains tax to rates higher than the 20% she backed in
2008. “The increase in short-termism has grown in urgency since 2008, and
the urgency of our solutions has to match it,” she wrote.

For investments held by top earners for a short time—perhaps two or three
years—the rate would increase to more than 28% from 23.8%. When she ran for
president in 2008, she said that the tax should not go above 20%, a point
that some Republicans seized on Monday.

“Hillary Clinton’s backtrack on her previous capital gains position is a
blatant attempt to appease the liberal wing of her party that she is so
desperate to win over,” said Jeff Bechdel, communications director for the
America’s Rising PAC, a Republican group.

In her Facebook session, Mrs. Clinton also:

–Promised to offer policies aimed at making college more affordable. She
said her ideas include allowing students to refinance debt so it is more
affordable and encouraging more people to use a system that sets debt
repayments as a percentage of income.

–Addressed a question that tripped up her rivals at the liberal Netroots
Nation convention over the weekend. Asked what she would do to begin
dismantling “structural racism” in the nation, she began her response by
writing, “Black lives matter,” a saying that’s been adopted by activists.
At a session earlier this year, she upset some when she said, “All lives
matter,” a phrase seen as diminishing the particular problems facing
African-Americans.

She also repeated her calls for an overhaul of the criminal justice system,
as well as for increasing money spent on early childhood education and for
automatic voter registration.

–Repeated that an increase in people working in the “gig economy”—for
companies such as Uber, though she didn’t mention it by name—offers
challenges and opportunities. She has come under some scrutiny for
suggesting that the business models of these popular companies may diminish
worker protections.

“We have to resolve these questions while embracing the promise and
potential of these new technologies and without stifling innovation or
limiting the ability of working moms and veterans and young people to get
ahead,” she said. She added that the Affordable Care Act has shown the
importance of making sure workers have access to benefits.

–Praised the late South African leader Nelson Mandela as the “greatest
person I’ve had the privilege of meeting.” She said he taught her the power
of overcoming bitterness and hatred that “as he said, can keep you
imprisoned even after you are let out.”

–Responded to a woman who said women suffer a “hair and makeup tax” because
it takes them so much longer to get ready in the morning, and who asked how
Mrs. Clinton manages to prepare for the day. “Amen, sister—you’re preaching
to the choir,” she wrote. “It’s a daily challenge. I do the best I can —and
as you may have noticed, some days are better than others!”

*Here's How Hillary Clinton Says She Would Have Answered The 'Black Lives
Matter' Protesters
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter_55ad1a09e4b065dfe89ed136?1542huxr>
// HuffPo // Amanda Terkel – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton attempted on Monday to distinguish her views on racial
inequality from those of her Democratic presidential rivals, who drew boos
from "Black Lives Matter" activists at a progressive conference over the
weekend.

"Racial inequality is not merely a symptom of economic inequality," Clinton
said when asked during a Facebook question-and-answer session how she would
have responded to the protesters at Netroots Nation, an annual gathering of
progressive activists.

While Clinton skipped the conference, her two main challengers for the
Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov.
Martin O'Malley, participated in a candidate forum on Saturday that was
interrupted by protesters calling for criminal justice reform.

O'Malley was booed by the crowd when he said, "Black lives matter, white
lives matter, all lives matter," and later apologized for seeming
"insensitive" about police brutality toward the black community.

Sanders grew frustrated with the protesters and attempted to stick to his
message of fighting economic injustice.

"Black lives of course matter. But I've spent 50 years of my life fighting
for civil rights. If you don't want me to be here, that's okay," Sanders
told the protesters Saturday, who chanted, "I want Bernie Sanders to say my
name."

In Monday's Q&A, Clinton responded to a question about how she would have
handled the protesters. Her response:

Of course, responding in a Facebook chat is much easier than actually
facing down protesters in the moment. In 2009, former President Bill
Clinton's appearance at Netroots Nation was also interrupted by a
protester, who wanted him to account for his record on gay rights.

In late June, the former secretary of state similarly faced criticism for
saying "all lives matter" while speaking at a black church, even though she
had said "black lives matter" the previous year.

The phrase "all lives matter" has been interpreted  as pushback against
"black lives matter," which became a rallying cry after the high-profile
police killings of black men in places like Ferguson, Missouri.

Speaking about lessons she learned from her mother, Clinton said, "Her own
parents abandoned her. By 14 she was out on her own, working as a
housemaid. Years later, when I was old enough to understand, I asked her,
‘What kept you going?’ Her answer was very simple: Kindness along the way
from someone who believed she mattered. All lives matter."

Around the same time, Sanders also said, "Black lives matter. White lives
matter. Hispanic lives matter. But these are also not only police matters.
They're not only gun control matters. They are significantly economic
matters."

"Saying 'all lives matter' causes erasure of the differing disparities each
group faces," The Huffington Post's Julia Craven explained last year,
noting that police brutality disproportionately affects the black
community. "Saying 'all lives matter' is nothing more than you centering
and inserting yourself within a very emotional and personal situation
without any empathy or respect."

Clinton didn't mention either O'Malley or Sanders in her response, although
her line about racial inequality going beyond economic inequality seemed to
be a dig at Sanders and his reaction to the protesters.

This story has been updated to include further information about Clinton's
and Sanders' remarks in June.

*SOCIAL MEDIA*

*Theo Keith (7/20/15, 12:45 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/TheoKeith/status/623172565431771136>* - Tough talk
from @SenateMajLdr about Hillary Clinton: "The gender card alone isn't
enough."*

*Dan Pfeiffer (7/20/15, 3:36 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/danpfeiffer/status/623214810382139392>* - Progressive
politicians are making a major error by positioning against the sharing
economy.We need to be shaping the future not opposing it*

*The Des Moines Register (7/20/15, 9:05 pm)*
<file:///C:\The%20Des%20Moines%20Register,%20Iowa's%20largest%20newspaper,%20calls%20on%20Trump%20to%20withdraw%20from%20race%20&%20end%20%22bloviating%20side%20show%22%20http\::t.co:2MjNd3ST9Râ€¦>*
- The Des Moines Register, Iowa's largest newspaper, calls on Trump to
withdraw from race & end "bloviating side show" http://t.co/2MjNd3ST9R
<http://t.co/2MjNd3ST9R>…*

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*Hillary Clinton bashes Wall Street, but only a little
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/20/hillary-clinton-bashes-wall-street-but-only-a-little/>
// WaPo // Anne Gearan – July 20, 2015 *

Government penalties for corporate wrongdoing should cut into the bonuses
paid to executives who should have been accountable, and no one is “too big
to jail,” Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said
Monday.

During a lengthy question and answer session on Facebook, Clinton entered
the political controversy over the protest phrase “black lives matter,”
which ensnared her closest competitor for the Democratic nomination over
the weekend. She also cracked wise about her love of pantsuits and agreed
with a woman questioner that professional women are held to different
expectations for physical appearance than men that the questioner called a
“hair and makeup tax.”

“Amen, sister,” Clinton responded. As with others in the Facebook back and
forth, the message was signed “H,” to signify that she wrote it herself.
Clinton’s Facebook page and Twitter account are managed by her campaign.

She managed to plug some campaign merchandise, too.

HRCchat1

Striking a note of outrage over Wall Street abuses that is keyed to appeal
to liberal voters, Clinton pledged to go beyond current regulations if she
is elected president, to prosecute individuals as well as financial firms.
Whistleblowers should win higher awards for calling out malfeasance, she
said.

“We've all heard the shocking stories of misconduct by individuals and
institutions in the financial industry,” Clinton wrote. “And even though
some institutions have paid fines and even admitted guilt, too often it
seems like the people responsible get off with limited consequences (or
none at all). Even when they’ve already pocketed the gains. That's wrong
and it has to change.”

Clinton added that she will defend and seek to expand the 5-year-old set of
financial industry controls known as Dodd-Frank, and accused Republicans of
trying to undo the protection the legislation affords.

Her campaign said the whistleblower proposal refers to a $1.6 million
federal cap on individual awards for exposing wrongdoing.

“While this represents a large sum in real dollars, it pales in comparison
to pay levels within the financial sector and in comparison to
whistleblower rewards offered under comparable anti-fraud statutes,” a
campaign press release said. Clinton wants to “sharply” increase the amount
that could go to whistleblowers, the campaign said, but there was no
mention of a precise figure.

The proposals begin to fill in details of Clinton’s carefully calibrated
economic platform. She is trying to place herself as a watchdog against
corporate wrongdoing and what her allies claim is a dangerous hands-off
approach advanced by Republicans. At the same time she is distancing
herself from the Wall Street bashing that is buoying the underdog candidacy
of challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

"I pledged to prosecute individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud
or other criminal wrongdoing - because no one is 'too big to jail,'"
Clinton wrote. "I’ll be laying out my Wall Street agenda in more detail
soon."

None of the proposals she has put forward so far appear close to the major
crackdown on banking practices, financial loopholes and astronomical
salaries favored by many liberals. Clinton is expected to fill in some
details in a speech about corporate responsibility this week. Eventually
she will have to address issues of income inequality more directly, and to
answer liberal demands for a specific proposal to raise then minimum wage.

Clinton’s own longstanding ties to Wall Street, both as a New York senator
and two-time Democratic presidential contender, have made her suspect in
the eyes of some of the Democratic Party’s most liberal voters. Those
voters wield particular influence now, when they can point up the
shortcomings of the Democratic front-runner by backing a competitor or
withholding support.

Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley were interrupted Saturday
by protesters demanding to know what they would do about racial injustice.
The heckling at the progressive political gathering Netroots Nation
highlighted the divide between the vocal support for Sanders on issues
surrounding economic opportunity and inequality and the Democrats’ black
and Hispanic voter bases.

Clinton skipped the gathering, which draws just the sort of progressive
activists she's had trouble winning over, but weighed in on the hecklers’
question in the Facebook exchange.

“Black lives matter,” Clinton wrote. “Everyone in this country should stand
firmly behind that. We need to acknowledge some hard truths about race and
justice in this country, and one of those hard truths is that that racial
inequality is not merely a symptom of economic inequality. Black people
across America still experience racism every day.”

O’Malley was nearly shouted down at the Netroots event for saying that “all
lives matter,” black and otherwise. He also addressed many of the
protesters’ concerns, but his choice of words angered many who saw it as
dismissive.

Clinton had also been criticized for saying “all lives matter” during a
political event in South Carolina last month.

*Hillary Clinton’s top goal as president could be effectively impossible to
achieve
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/20/hillary-clintons-top-goal-as-president-could-be-effectively-impossible-to-achieve/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed>
// WaPo // Max Ehrenfreund – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton says the "defining economic challenge of our time"
is raising incomes for working Americans, specifically for the middle
class. It is no mystery why: Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for a
generation and a half. Many Americans have not really benefited from an
economic recovery that is now in its sixth year.

This week and the last, Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate, has
been outlining policies to address the challenge: setting a higher minimum
wage, helping workers unionize, allowing new parents to take paid time off,
among others.

But even if she wins the opportunity to try out these ideas during four or
even eight years as president, factors beyond her control could make a
meaningful increase in wages impossible for many Americans.

Some economists argue that forces, such as technological automation and
globalization, have devalued moderately skilled labor and held down wages,
particularly in manufacturing. Better education would mean more employment
opportunities for Americans in the coming decades, but that would take,
well, decades. So might reversing the long decline of organized labor. Some
have even argued that the era of rapid technological advancement might be
ending, meaning growth in incomes will be slower overall.

These are among the reasons that real, lasting middle-class wage growth --
the type experienced in the years after World War II and in the 1990s --
could be difficult or impossible to achieve over the next eight years.

Clinton's advisers say they recognize the challenge, but that it can be
overcome.

Her campaign is "developing evidence-based policies that, taken together,
would boost incomes, create a stronger and fairer economy, and set us on a
path to sustainable long-term growth," Ian Sams, a spokesman, wrote in a
statement, citing research by economists Alan Krueger, Raj Chetty, Heather
Boushey and others.

Falling incomes are an urgent question for Clinton and other candidates for
president. They've declined for the typical American household over the
past 15 years, and they haven't kept pace with growth in the economy for
decades.

Rich and poor shared the benefits of economic growth until about 40 years
ago. That's about when American workers' wages suddenly stopped increasing,
even though they were producing more and more, creating more revenue for
their employers. There is debate among economists about why a rising tide
no longer seems to lift all the boats.

Some argue that employers aren't hiring because they are relying more and
more on machines to get things done. Others contend that on the contrary,
meaningful technological progress has basically stopped, and that's why
living standards are improving more gradually. And still others point to
trade with China, which has created new competition for American labor.

Larry Mishel, president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute, dismisses
these explanations as a way of avoiding what he says is the real problem.
Workers have lost leverage over their bosses, and they're being paid less a
result. "It's bargaining power," he said.

A stronger hand for workers was a theme of Clinton's proposals. She
denounced past policies that had eroded the bargaining power of labor.

"The choices we make as a nation matter," Clinton said last Monday, "and
the choices we make in the years ahead will set the stage for what American
life in the middle class in our economy will be like in this century."

As president, though, Clinton's choices would be limited.

Clinton talked about rules to guarantee workers are paid for overtime and
to prevent employers from misclassifying them as contractors. The Obama
administration has already taken action on these issues, though.

She again proposed raising the federal minimum wage, but policymakers in
many states and cities are a step ahead of Congress on the question.

Roughly three out of five workers are living in a jurisdiction with a
minimum wage above the federal level. Last year, about 3 million workers
received the federal minimum wage or less. That's a lot of people, but it's
a small fraction of the national labor force.

Proponents predict that higher minimums would increase wages even for
workers who are already earning more. Giving a minimum-wage worker a
promotion and a raise could mean paying a wage above the minimum, and an
increase could cascade up the scale this way. The Congressional Budget
Office has predicted that an increase in the minimum wage would raise
incomes slightly for the poor and the middle class, although the estimates
were uncertain.

Clinton said the decline in union membership is another reason wages have
improved little over the past four decades. The research shows that
membership in a union increases a worker's income. And according to one
estimate by Mishel and his colleagues, the decline in unions explains
roughly a third of the increase in income inequality among American men
between 1973 and 2007.

As president, though, Clinton would confront a major obstacle to restoring
unions: the right-to-work laws that conservative governors such as
Wisconsin's Scott Walker, another presidential candidate, have enacted in
half the states.

Clinton also wants to require employers to offer new parents paid leave.
Only about 12 percent of U.S. workers enjoy paid family leave, according to
federal statistics.

Clinton hasn't yet detailed her ideas about paid leave, but the main
proposal in Congress to establish paid leave would implement it with a 0.2
percent tax on payrolls, taking money from workers and returning it to them
when they have children.

Paid leave funded this way could increase household incomes on the whole if
it helped more mothers go back to work after having children. Yet in the
developed world, more generous paid leave is associated with a larger gap
between men's and women's earnings. That could be because mothers take
advantage of paid leave more frequently than fathers in those countries,
and the time off puts those women at an even greater disadvantage when they
go back to work.

To be sure, one way to maximize wages is to have very low unemployment, and
one way to do that would be looser monetary policy at the Federal Reserve.
It's unclear how much more Clinton could achieve at the Fed, since the
central bank is already led by an aggressive advocate for reducing
unemployment, Janet Yellen.

And in any event, the fact that unemployment is already at 5.3 percent and
wages have hardly increased at all raises questions about the future
trajectory of incomes.

In practice, Congress is the most important limit on a president's economic
influence. As Republicans are likely to remain in control of the House no
matter what the outcome of the presidential election, Clinton would have to
win their cooperation if she wanted to enact paid leave for parents or a
higher minimum wage, or if she wanted to repeal state right-to-work laws
through federal legislation.

There are a couple of areas in which Clinton and Republicans might be able
to find common ground. Politicians in both parties have been calling for
comprehensive tax reform, but the last major revision to the tax code -- in
1986 -- had very little aggregate effect on the economy, research suggests.
And Congress started undoing it just a couple of years after it was passed.

The next Congress could also reform the immigration system and make new
investments in public infrastructure. Clinton's aides argued that both
would increase the incomes of ordinary Americans.

Still, some commentators have suggested that Clinton's agenda doesn't go
far enough, and the only way to meaningfully increase incomes for the
working class is to redistribute money to them by raising taxes on the
wealthy.

For example, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of Clinton's competitors for
the Democratic nomination, has suggested raising marginal tax rates on the
highest incomes to 50 percent or more and expanding Social Security to help
prepare workers for retirement.

Clinton has endorsed the idea of a minimum effective tax rate, but it seems
unlikely that she'd propose major increases in taxes on the rich.

Any suggestion that some people might have to pay more taxes to support
incomes for others can make Democrats uncomfortable, as Obama and his
advisers discovered when the president began talking about inequality a
couple of years ago. He soon abandoned the subject.

"The appetite for tax-and-transfer strategies, even among Democrats, much
less among independents or Republicans, is probably somewhat limited,"
Obama recently told The New Yorker. The president explained that people
worry that the burden of new taxes could fall on them and that the
government would not use the money effectively, and stagnant incomes have
made them even more skeptical of proposals for new revenue.

Obama's experience with how Democrats see the issue will be instructive for
Clinton and her advisers if she wins the presidency and Republicans lose
control of the House.

*Hillary Clinton said it. Black lives matter. No hedge.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/20/hillary-clinton-said-it-black-lives-matter-no-hedge/>
// WaPo // Janell Ross – July 20, 2015 *

She said it. She really did. Actually she typed it. But still, there was no
hedge.

In a live Facebook Q&A set up primarily for average people interested in
asking Hillary Clinton questions, some reporters popped in too. Ok, a lot
of reporters popped in, since Clinton hasn't exactly been too open about
taking questions from reporters. Among the online attendees was the Post's
own, Wesley Lowery. Lowery asked Clinton this question and got this
response:

"Black lives matter." With those three little words, Clinton acknowledged
that there are myriad ways that race continues to shape life in America
that have almost no relationship to pocketbooks, educational credentials or
class. There's ample evidence that income, education and the like do not
deliver the same results in black lives that they do in others.

After three successive summers filled with news about the nation's rocky
racial landscape, it's probably fair to say that at least some of the
people running for office in 2016 expect questions about the way the police
do their work and how the country responds when something goes wrong.

But for a group of activists who first organized loosely online under the
hashtag #blacklivesmatter in the hours after a jury acquitted George
Zimmerman on all charges in the death of unarmed, black teen, Trayvon
Martin, just getting someone in the 2016 field -- especially the heavy
favorite to be the Democratic nominee -- to acknowledge that black lives
are in particular peril is pretty huge.

Of course, the journey from point A to point B has not been anything close
to easy.

In June, Clinton went to a Missouri forum, held in a church not far from
the place where another unarmed black teen was shot and killed by a police
officer whom a grand jury later opted not to indict. At the time, she said
this: "All lives matter.”

It was, whether intentional or not, the phrase to which opponents of the
Black Lives Matter movement have most often turned.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont seeking the Democratic
presidential nomination, has offered up his own assessment of the singular
way that race shapes policing in the United States and the relationship
between economic isolation and continued racial inequality.

But Sanders has also used that same phrase, "All lives matter," when
pressed. And, this weekend, when activists in Phoenix deeply concerned with
the way that police do their work in communities of color stormed into a
liberal gathering, Sanders wasn't as forceful on the issue as Clinton.

"Black lives of course matter," he said. "But I've spent 50 years of my
life fighting for civil rights. If you don't want me to be here, that's
okay."

His I'll-just-take-my-ball-and-go-home comment, his irritated body language
and decision to speak over protesters didn't do him any favors. There was
no pivoting to his ideas around police or criminal justice reforms.

Apparently, all that wasn't enough to encourage former Maryland Gov. Martin
O'Malley to shift course. In fact, O'Malley said this at the same
gathering: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter." He
later apologized.

So, Hillary Clinton, habitual avoider of direct contact with reporters has
said on the record: "Black lives matter." She didn't add qualifiers. She
didn't hedge. That is indeed a moment worth noting.

And, perhaps a moment that came in the nick of time. Black Lives Matter
groups from around the country are set to convene in Cleveland this weekend
to talk tactics, platform and strategy.

*Could the economy boost Hillary’s presidential hopes?
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/20/morning-plum-could-the-economy-boost-hillarys-presidential-hopes/>
// WaPo // Greg Sargent – July 20, 2015 *

So what’s going to happen in the 2016 election? Will the economy help or
hurt the incumbent party? Will this campaign be about the economy or
national security?

For purposes of gaming this out, the most important piece of the weekend is
this one from the New York Times’ Neil Irwin, in which he talks to a range
of economists about what the economy will look like on Election Day 2016:

They said they believed that unemployment would be the lowest it has been
during an election since George W. Bush and Al Gore faced off in 2000, when
it stood at 3.9 percent. The median forecast for the unemployment rate when
voters go to the polls in November 2016 was 4.8 percent (which would be
down from 5.3 percent last month). They saw only a 15 percent chance of a
recession starting by next Election Day. Interest rates, inflation and
gasoline prices should all be a bit higher than they are now, they said,
while staying quite low by historical standards…

On its face, all of that points to an election with dynamics similar to
1988 or 2000, when the nominee of the incumbent party (George H. W. Bush in
1988 and Mr. Gore in 2000) could promise continued prosperity. That bodes
well for the Democratic nominee, though as Mr. Gore’s loss despite winning
the popular vote shows, even a favorable economy doesn’t assure victory,
given the workings of the Electoral College.

But here’s one key caveat:

Their consensus was 2.8 percent growth in average hourly wages in the 12
months before the election, slightly higher than the 2 percent rise in
prices. That implies that the weak spot of the Obama economy, in
compensation for ordinary workers, will remain that way heading into 2016.

Thus, even if unemployment is low, wages could continue to stagnate. Yet
this, too, could favor Clinton — though that’s anything but assured — and
this gets at why this projection has direct relevance to the present
political moment.

We now know that both major party nominees will agree that stagnant wages
and stalled economic mobility are among the major problems facing the
country. But we also know that the two parties will differ dramatically on
what to do in response. Hillary Clinton has already telegraphed an
ambitious agenda premised on the idea that these problems are defining
challenges, and that we have the choice of doing something about them, via
a robust, interventionist governmental response. As Paul Krugman has noted,
Clinton’s public statements signal that “there’s now an effective consensus
among Democrats” that “workers need more help, in the form of guaranteed
health insurance, higher minimum wages, enhanced bargaining power, and
more.”

By contrast, all signs are that the GOP nominee will remain generally
wedded to the idea that the solution to those problems is generating more
growth, and that the way to do that, and to ensure wider distribution of
the fruits of that growth, is by getting government out of the way and
cutting taxes for everyone, including top earners.

This may not prove a winning contrast for Republicans. And so, if the
economic argument in 2016 is fought around a general public sense that the
economy is improving but that the gains of the recovery are not achieving
widespread enough distribution, I’d say that probably favors Clinton. But
that’s hardly guaranteed — after all, Republicans might succeed in blaming
stagnant wages on Dem policies while campaigning for “change.” And, of
course, even if this argument does end up favoring Clinton, it still might
not be enough for her to win.

* CLINTON TO ROLL OUT NEW TAX PROPOSAL: Here’s an example of the above,
courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:

Clinton will propose a revamp of capital-gains taxes that would hit some
short-term investors with higher rates, part of a package of measures
designed to prod companies to put more emphasis on long-term growth, a
campaign official said. The proposal, to be laid out in a speech later this
week, is one of a number of ideas designed to tackle what Mrs. Clinton,
some economists and some on Wall Street consider the overly short-term
focus of corporate strategy.

It’s still unlikely that Clinton will embrace inequality proposals as
ambitious as Elizabeth Warren and/or Bernie Sanders, but this signals a
robust agenda that includes combating the impact of “short-termism” on the
economy.

* NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS GIVE IRAN DEAL A BOOST: Dozens of former
national security officials from previous administrations have signed a
joint statement, coordinated by the Iran Project, that endorses the Iran
deal. One key bit:

We acknowledge that the JCPOA does not achieve all of the goals its current
detractors have set for it. But it does meet all of the key objectives.
Most importantly, should Iran violate the agreement and move toward
building nuclear weapons, it will be discovered early and in sufficient
time for strong countermeasures to be taken to stop Iran. No agreement
between multiple parties can be a perfect agreement without risks. We
believe without this agreement, the risks to the security of the U.S. and
its friends would be far greater.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry went on all the Sunday shows to
make the point that if Congress blocks the deal, that, too, will have all
kinds of unpleasant consequences.

* INTRA-GOP WAR LOOMS IN CONGRESS: Politico reports that conservatives in
Congress are preparing for war over an expected push by GOP leaders to link
re-authorization of the Ex-Im Bank (which conservatives opposes as “crony
capitalism”) and a short-term replenishment of the Highway Trust Fund:

The majority of these hard-line members are opposed to any highway deal
that would reauthorize the bank’s charter and have indicated to GOP
leadership not to count on their votes — which could force Speaker John
Boehner, who has praised the bank as essential to job growth, to turn to
House Democrats for votes on a final highway package.

Sound familiar? It’s another reminder that things will get very contentious
in Congress again, particularly with spending bills and the votes on the
Iran deal looming.

* GOP DONORS HOLDING BACK: The New York Times analyzes GOP fundraising and
finds that many of the party’s top donors are taking a wait-and-see
approach:

Only about a fifth of the 1,000 or so fund-raisers and their spouses who
rallied around Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee in 2012, have given
money to any of the 2016 candidates….Some of the bundlers and donors said
they had held back, in part, because the field was the strongest they had
seen in years, with several viable contenders representing the party’s
different generational and ideological segments.

This boosts the stakes for coming GOP debates, where donors will get to see
candidates perform under pressure, and is a reminder that we may not get a
GOP frontrunner for many months.

* JEB BUSH TO PROPOSE LOBBYING BAN: The Washington Examiner reports that
Jeb Bush will propose a six-year ban on lobbying by former elected
officials, saying this in a speech today:

“If I am elected president, I will use all of my influence to enact into
law an immediate, unequivocal six-year ban on lobbying — a full Senate term
— for ex-members of the House and Senate.”

Bush will likely root this proposal in a broader critique of
government-as-the-problem, but the “revolving door” between the Capitol and
K-Street is often attacked by liberals, too. Hillary Clinton will also
probably offer a set of reforms designed to make Washington work better.

* U.S. AND CUBA RESTORE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS: The Associated Press reports
that Secretary of State John Kerry will appear at a news conference today
with his Cuban counterpart to mark the formal beginning of restored
diplomatic relations, after a half century of Cold War hostility.

The GOP presidential candidates will likely condemn what they are seeing,
making this another area in which 2016 will be fought around the proper
extent of U.S. international engagement under the next president, along
with Iran and climate change.

* AND KASICH-MENTUM RAGES ACROSS THE LAND: John Kasich will announce his
presidential candidacy this week, and E.J. Dionne takes stock of the Ohio
governor, noting that he is very conservative on a range of issues, from
the estate tax to his failed effort to roll back public employee bargaining
rights.

But as Dionne also notes, Kasich expanded Medicaid, outrageously suggesting
he has a moral obligation to help poor people. This could prove just as
problematic among conservative voters as has Jeb Bush’s suggestion that the
plight of undocumented immigrants is a morally complex one. How Kasich
explains this will be worth watching.

*Silicon Valley prefers Hillary
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/20/tech-federal-networks-still-vulnerable-silicon-valley-prefers-hillary/>
// WaPo // Elise Viebeck – July 20, 2015 *

Despite bursts of Republican outreach to the tech world, Silicon Valley
still prefers Hillary Clinton to GOPers like Jeb Bush or Rand Paul.
“Clinton’s campaign in the second quarter counted big checks from a variety
of tech executives, including Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl
Sandberg, Google Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, YouTube leader Susan
Wojcicki and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, according to a fundraising report filed
this week. Sandberg, Cerf and Wojcicki each gave $2,700, while Musk gave
$5,000,” Politico reported.

“Bush, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul collected just a handful of donations from
Valley elite. The Republicans did receive support from many lower-level
Silicon Valley employees, particularly Paul, who attracted a large number
of small dollar donations.”

*Hillary Clinton Cites Corporate ‘Short-Termism’ in Call for Capital Gains
Tax Overhaul
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/20/hillary-clinton-cites-corporate-short-termism-in-call-for-capital-gains-tax-overhaul/>
// WSJ // Laura Meckler – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton cited changes in corporate attitudes Monday in explaining
why she supports increasing the capital gains tax to rates higher than
those she backed in 2008.

In a Facebook question and answer session, Mrs. Clinton confirmed that
later this week she will announce a proposal to revamp capital-gains taxes
to promote long-term investment, as The Wall Street Journal reported
Monday. Aides said the proposal would mean that short-term investors would
face higher rates. It is part of a package of measures designed to prod
companies to put more emphasis on long-term growth.

She wrote that her goal will be to “promote long-term investment that will
strengthen companies, workers, and communities.”

“Both business leaders and labor leaders have been speaking out about this
in recent years,” she said. “The increase in short-termism has grown in
urgency since 2008, and the urgency of our solutions has to match it.”

For investments held by top earners for a short time—perhaps two or three
years—the rate would increase to more than 28% from 23.8%. When she ran for
president in 2008, she said that the tax should not go above 20%, a point
that some Republicans seized on Monday.

“Hillary Clinton’s backtrack on her previous capital gains position is a
blatant attempt to appease the liberal wing of her party that she is so
desperate to win over,” said Jeff Bechdel, communications director for the
Republican America’s Rising PAC.

*Hillary Clinton to propose increasing capital gains taxes as part of 2016
campaign plans
<http://www.newser.com/article/74b49e6fd71b4a9dbcd3d8ff6f8b5bda/hillary-clinton-to-propose-increasing-capital-gains-taxes-as-part-of-2016-campaign-plans.html>
// AP // Lisa Lerer – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton plans later this week to propose raising capital
gains taxes for some investors, part of a larger campaign effort to
encourage greater focus on longer-term economic growth rather than more
immediate gains for investors.

The new rates would be pegged to the duration of the investment, with
short-term holdings taxed at a higher percentage.

Earlier this year, President Barack Obama proposed raising the 23.8 percent
capital gains rate to 28 percent for the highest earners. While Clinton's
proposal is still being finalized, her rate would likely be higher than
Obama's for the shortest-held investments, according to a campaign official
who spoke anonymously to discuss plans still being developed. Currently,
gains on securities held for more than a year are taxed at the same rate as
those held for decades.

Clinton's proposal marks a shift from her 2008 campaign, when she promised
not to raise capital gains rates higher than the 20 percent bracket
established during her husband's administration. At the time, the rate was
15 percent — a result of the tax cuts championed by then-President George
W. Bush.

"I wouldn't raise it above the 20 percent, if I raised it at all," Clinton
said in an April 2008 debate.

Over his time in the White House, Obama has raised the rate 8.8 percentage
points — fulfilling a campaign promise to increase capital gains taxes.

Many Democrats would like to see the rate go even higher, as part of a
larger push by the party to crack down on what they see as Wall Street
excess and tackle income inequality.

Last month, Neera Tanden, the head of the liberal Center for American
Progress and a prominent Clinton adviser, proposed a "sliding-scale"
capital gains tax that would drop the rate charged the longer the security
is held.

"Once an investor holds a share past the one-year mark, the tax code
provides no incentives to maintain the position any longer," Tanden wrote,
in a report co-authored by investment banker Blair Effron, co-founder of
Centerview Partners. "A more flexible capital gains tax system could be a
tool to incentivize more prudent behavior in equities markets."

Clinton's plan is part of a larger package aimed at tackling what she
argues is too heavy an emphasis on quick corporate gains at the expense of
workers and broader economic growth. In an economic address last week,
Clinton decried what she termed the problem of "quarterly capitalism,"
saying businesses are paying too little attention to research and
development, improving factories and cultivating talent.

"Now it's easy to try to cut costs by holding down or decreasing pay and
other investments to inflate quarterly stock prices, but I would argue
that's bad for business in the long run," she said. "Workers are assets.
Investing in them pays off. Higher wages pay off. And training pays off."

*Why China Wants a Jeb-vs.-Hillary Race
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/jeb-hillary-beijing-china-media-dynasty-120243.html#.Va2B4hNVikp>
// Politico // Aaron Mak – July 20, 2015 *

Perhaps no one in the world would relish a general election campaign
between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush—apart from the two candidates
themselves—more than the mandarins in Beijing.

Already, official Chinese news coverage of the 2016 primary season is
highlighting the back-and-forth baton exchange between the Clinton and Bush
families. Other U.S. presidential candidates are often brushed off as long
shots; many Chinese writers seem to have bypassed the primaries, already
nominating the front-runners in order to fit the narrative.

Chinese journalists, often eager to take the party line, are framing the
U.S. election—sometimes smugly, sometimes incredulously—as a battle between
hereditary family clans.

The reason for this long-lens look at 2016 from Beijing seems clear. The
ruling Chinese Communist Party is deeply sensitive to charges that it is
non-democratic and the playground of “princelings”— a pejorative term for
the class of Chinese business tycoons and political power players who trace
their lineages to Communist veterans. Nothing helps to blunt that charge as
much as the idea that American democracy is similarly corrupt. “The Chinese
media, especially the Party media, has been using American elections as a
way to discredit democracy,” says Kecheng Fang, a former reporter for the
Southern Weekly in Guangzhou who now researches Chinese media at the
University of Pennsylvania. “I think much of Chinese media has been
referring to this election as Clinton 2.0 versus Bush 3.0, so it’s a very
trendy topic.” As Weihua Chen, chief Washington correspondent for the China
Daily, the government’s largest English-language newspaper, put it to me in
an interview: “You guys always talk about being the greatest democracy, but
now you have a democracy run by two families for more than a decade?”

A litany of articles from China's government-run print news outlets
illustrates this trend. When Xinhua, China’s official news agency, reported
on Jeb’s presidential announcement, the article focused entirely on the
sorry state of familial politics in America. Xinhua also published a story
tracing the history of political pedigrees in the United States,
identifying the Kennedy, Roosevelt, Harrison and Adams families as examples
of this nepotistic strain. Yet another article in the Global Times, a
conservative CCP tabloid, opined that a second Bush-Clinton election “may
lead to a compromised form of democracy that the U.S. has brandished.”

Of course, Chinese newspaper writers are hardly the first or only
journalists to point out the uncomfortably dynastic tenor of this election.
The Washington Post, New York Times and many others have written
disparagingly about the topic. RT, a Kremlin-funded TV network often
accused of being a pro-Russia mouthpiece, published an op-ed on its website
gibing that Chelsea Clinton should marry George P. Bush, thus establishing
a “single line of monarchy.”

The daily machinations of Chinese propaganda officials are murky, and the
level of editorial control they exert can vary from paper to paper, so it’s
impossible to tell for sure whether this overall focus on the family
dynamics of the 2016 race is a directive from the higher-ups or a narrative
being pushed by the journalists themselves. Fang elaborated in a later
email, “For the Clinton vs. Bush dynasty case, I don’t have any evidence
available to prove that it’s coordinated by propaganda officials. But I
think it’s safe to say that the propaganda officials are guiding the
direction in general.”

Bill Bishop, who runs the popular website Sinocism China Newsletter, sees
the dynasty coverage as part of an attempt to legitimize the CCP’s
authoritarian ideology. Official media is an effective instrument to that
end, allowing the government to point out flaws in democracy while
defending the Chinese political system. “It’s very easy for the propaganda
guys if it’s a Bush-Clinton election,” Bishop says.

Among those likely eager to make this anti-democratic narrative stick is
China’s President Xi Jinping, who would no doubt like to divert attention
from the troubling fact that he, himself, is the product of a political
dynasty. His father, Xi Zhongxun, was a vice premier and is regarded as one
of the founders of the CCP; thus the younger Xi is often labeled a
princeling. Still, charges of nepotism in American politics could only come
back to haunt Xi. “It’s a tricky question for the party media because Xi
Jinping is also Xi 2.0,” says Kecheng Fang, who said he has seen comments
from netizens to this effect when such articles are posted on Weibo,
China’s social media giant.

At the same time, though, Xi has waged a massive anti-graft campaign
against his own party, cleaning up the corruption and nepotism that runs
rampant in the upper echelons of Chinese society. Although many see it as a
cynical tactic to get rid of Xi’s political foes, the CCP has been crowing
about its results. One can’t help but notice the potential juxtaposition
that state media could be setting up: As U.S. leaders are becoming more
nepotistic and sullied by money through campaign finance, Chinese leaders
are making efforts to become less so. When asked about nepotism in China,
Chen of the China Daily said, “China has always been in an evolutionary
process. […] You could still say there are many problems, but it’s actually
becoming better.”

This isn’t the first time that the Chinese media has taken issue with the
U.S. electoral system.

In the past two elections, state media pounced on campaign finance and the
candidates’ moneyed patrons, especially the Koch brothers, and sniped about
Barack Obama’s skimpy managerial C.V. Many in China were puzzled that
voters had selected the politically adolescent Obama and twice passed over
Mitt Romney, who, given the Chinese concept of selecting leaders, appeared
to be the obvious choice. He had a Harvard MBA and J.D., had run the Salt
Lake City Olympics, founded the prestigious Bain Capital and was the former
governor of Massachusetts. Meanwhile, Obama seemed to lack executive
experience as a junior senator.

In some ways, says Evan Osnos, the former China correspondent for the New
Yorker, the Chinese may have seen a bit of their own president in Romney.
“In Chinese terms, Mitt Romney’s résumé wasn’t all that different from Xi
Jinping’s résumé,” Osnos says.  Xi served as the party chief in Shanghai,
the governor of Fujian, the governor of Zhejiang, the vice president of
China—and the list of managerial achievements goes on. But more than that,
even though he’s considered a princeling, there is a sense that he still
started at the bottom and climbed his way up. In his first CCP position, he
served as the deputy party secretary of a county in Hebei—a modest
posting—after the party rejected his application to join roughly nine times
due to controversies that swirled around his father.

After Romney’s unsuccessful runs and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United
decision, mainstream Chinese news media seemed to double down on the
argument—using Xi’s career as evidence—that China’s anti-democratic system
ends up selecting experienced leaders in a more meritocratic process than
U.S. elections. The China Daily’s chief Washington correspondent, Weihua
Chen, praised Xi’s determined trudge to the top. He claimed, “You have to
have a proven track record. You don’t take a helicopter—you have to build
step by step to be promoted.” This is why he and others from official media
believe that Xi is a more qualified leader than Obama, lobbing the same
accusations of lack of experience that Republicans have used since 2008. In
fact, the way that Obama skyrocketed to political prominence, assisted in
no small part by his charisma, seems to unsettle Chen. He recalled the 2008
Democratic convention and said: “You guys always complain about Mao’s
personal cult. I feel the same way about President Obama. You have the
Obama badge, the portrait radiating out—almost like you’re looking at the
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.”

Now China’s negative-tinted coverage of Western politics is extending into
new areas. A viral video titled “How Leaders are Made” was uploaded in 2013
to China’s YouTube counterpart, Youku, and made a similar point of
comparing the meritocratic selection of Xi to the baffling paths that Obama
and British Prime Minister David Cameron took to the executive office. The
animated short, which has garnered more than 3 million views, is an
excoriating takedown of campaign finance and the election season circus—all
in the jaunty, colorful style of a PBS Kids cartoon. The producers of the
5-minute video are unknown; there is only one enigmatic credit at the end:
“A studio on Fuxing Road.” But Time magazine suggested that it’s likely
Chinese media officials who are behind the curtain. Beijing’s Fuxing Road
is widely known for being home to many government departments, such as the
General Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, and Television. In
addition, fuxing in Chinese means revival, a word that, at the time, was
the centerpiece of the CCP’s propaganda campaign calling for the
restoration of China’s glory.

Kecheng Fang believes this video will usher in a new era of CCP messaging.
Apart from viral videos, official media has co-opted bloggers. Zhou
Xiaoping, who privately ran a popular conservative blog slamming the United
States, received plaudits from Xi and now gets his rants printed in
official newspapers.

“I think patriotic bloggers, and new types of videos using multimedia
technologies, and social media will be the new trend in the coverage of
next year’s presidential election,” Fang says. For the CCP, the advantages
of such a strategy are two-pronged. Anti-democratic sentiment that is
ostensibly organic won’t smack of a government clutching onto its
authoritarian rule, but rather of citizens who prefer the Chinese political
system. Also, the producers of such media can play fast and loose with the
facts without serious repercussions. On the other hand, the party would be
lambasted if it made errors in the official newspapers.

If Clinton and Bush are nominated in 2016, you can bet that the floodgates
will open for a series of vitriolic articles from CCP gazettes.

In addition, if the Youku video is any indication for what may be in store
for the future, the tricky part about tracing official Chinese media
narratives in 2016 is that their messaging is increasingly shrouded in
subterfuge. We may soon see a cartoon of murky provenance featuring Jeb and
Hillary perched atop royal thrones with bejeweled scepters in hand.
Election cycles are a ripe time to point out flaws in the American brand of
democracy, and China is becoming a pro at peddling oppo.

*Clinton skips same-sex wedding of couple in launch video
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-skips-same-sex-wedding-120350.html>
// Politico // Nick Gass – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton was a no-show at the Sunday wedding of the same-sex couple
featured in her April launch video, but there appear to be no hard feelings.

Jared Milrad and Nathan Johnson, the couple that appeared in Clinton’s
campaign announcement, got married on Sunday at Montrose Harbor in Chicago,
according to the local CBS affiliate.

“I’m getting married this summer to someone I really care about,” Milrad
said in Clinton’s video.

In a tweet sent the same day, Clinton announced her presidential run in
April, Milrad publicly invited her to their wedding.

“BTW @HillaryClinton, feel free to bring a +1. #wedding #LGBT,” he added.

According to the same CBS report, they said Clinton’s staff returned their
invitation with a “we’ll see.”

“She rightfully pointed out that if she came to the wedding, it might
distract from our special day so we understand she supports us,” Milrad
said, according to the report.

Clinton did sent the couple a note congratulating them on their nuptials,
which Milrad posted on Twitter last week.

*Judge slams State Department over Hillary Clinton-related records
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-slams-state-department-over-hillary-clintonrelated-210878.html>
// Politico // Josh Gerstein – July 20, 2015 *

A federal judge is lashing out at the State Department for delaying for
years in providing responses to Associated Press Freedom of Information Act
requests seeking records about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
schedules and her top staffers.

At a contentious hearing last week, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon
demanded explanations for why some of the AP's requests received no reply
for four years or more before the wire service filed suit in March.

Leon said he was determined to establish "what has been going on in the
State Department for four years dragging their feet, not addressing these
issues for four years."

"I want to find out what's been going on over there. I should say, what's
not been going on over there," the judge added. "The State Department, for
reasons known only to itself ... has been, to say the least, recalcitrant
in responding."

Justice Department lawyers representing State said a surge in FOIA requests
caused large backlogs at the agency. They also said State is struggling
with a wave of lawsuits since the disclosure in March that Clinton
exclusively used a private email server during her service as secretary. In
December, she returned 55,000 pages of emails at her former agency's
request.

DOJ lawyers Lisa Ann Olson and Marcia Berman said the agency was
prioritizing the public release of the 55,000 pages of emails in response
to another judge's order requiring monthly releases of those records.

However, Leon accused Olson of responding with "convoluted gobbledygook"
when she insisted that the State Department's processing of those emails
would satisfy the AP's request for records about Clinton Deputy Chief of
Staff Huma Abedin's transition to a special part-time position at State.

"The State Department ... can't say it has done a thorough search until it
reviews all 55,000 pages of documents," Olson said.

"What you just said, Ms. Olson, made no sense," the judge replied. "You're
failing to distinguish between documents created by the State Department
independently of Hillary Clinton's emails — with Hillary Clinton's emails.
And you're giving me some kind of convoluted gobbledygook. about how the
emails contain within them the independently created documents relating to
Huma Abedin's appointment as a special government counsel. ...That is
nonsensical."

Olson noted that the AP request about Abedin did seek Clinton's emails on
that topic. However, the request also sought all other records or
correspondence as well.

A transcript of the hearing suggests Leon grew angry when Olson said she
had no estimate of how many State Department documents were responsive to
the request about Abedin's employment.

"Have it by next week. Have it by next week when we have our hearing. Do
you hear me?" the judge snapped. He also ordered the State official
responsible for FOIA handling to appear at the planned hearing.

Olson said State hadn't produced such an estimate previously because it was
tied up with the production of records in the suit filed by Vice News
reporter Jason Leopold seeking all the Clinton emails.

"In order to come up with an estimate, the State Department will have to
divert resources from the other Leopold search. It has limited resources,
an amazingly limited number of people," Olson said.

Leon, an often-irascible George W. Bush appointee, said he saw no reason
the AP should have to wait because of the more recent request from Leopold.

"The State Department's not going to have the luxury of saying, because
we're focusing on Hillary's emails, we're doing so at the cost and expense
of four-year-old requests. So, that's not going to be an excuse," the judge
said. "In my judgment, a four-year-old request gets a priority over a
recent request."

Both the State Department and the Justice Department declined to comment on
the hearing or the pending lawsuit.

A lawyer for the AP, Jay Ward Brown, told Leon that the wire service was
trying to find out what Abedin did during her time as a "special government
employee." However, the judge was also curious about what Abedin does
currently.

"Where is she now, this Huma person? ... Did you Google her? ... Have you
done LinkedIn?" asked Leon. "You've got to check out on the social-media
scene to see what she's doing."

Brown said that the press reports "extensively on her personal life" and
that she has "some involvement" in politics but said he wasn't clear
exactly what.

Abedin is currently vice chairman of Clinton's presidential campaign.

Leon has been at odds with the Obama administration in several notable
cases recently. He declared the National Security Agency's collection of
U.S. phone records likely unconstitutional. He blocked the administration's
issuance of a rule to expand overtime pay for household workers and health
care aides. And he ordered Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to sit for a
deposition in a libel lawsuit brought by fired Ag official Shirley Sherrod.

The order to Vilsack was overturned by a federal appeals court. The other
two rulings remain on appeal.

Despite Leon's amazement at the four-year delay in the AP's FOIA requests
to State, the wire service is not alone. A request POLITICO filed in
November 2009 about State's approval process for former President Bill
Clinton's paid speeches and business deals didn't produce any records until
February 2014. The agency began to release records only after a
conservative group, Judicial Watch, filed suit over a similar request.

*Clinton taps digital firm led by ex-strategist for Obama, Eric Schmidt
<http://politico.pro/1DpsDZ1> // Politico // Nancy Scola – July 20, 2015 *

Despite all the attention being paid to Hillary Clinton’s bid to emulate
Barack Obama’s digital campaign juggernaut, one political tech shop high up
on the Clinton payroll has managed to fly below the radar.

The Groundwork is headed by Michael Slaby — Obama’s 2008 chief technology
officer and a former strategist for Google Executive Chairman Eric
Schmidt’s private venture capital firm.

In an interview, Slaby said his year-old, Brooklyn-based firm is building
tech infrastructure being used by Clinton, a set of tools that includes
everything from online fundraising to volunteering to figuring out how
supporters can communicate across social media.

“We learned a lot of lessons over two presidential election cycles about
building a digital engagement platform for bringing about a deeper level of
participation,” Slaby said. “We’re thinking about relationships instead of
transactions.”

He declined to go much deeper in describing the technology, saying, “We’re
still just building things and working with our early partners,” and he
referred further questions to the Clinton campaign. A Clinton spokesperson
called The Groundwork “one of five or six” firms it is using to provide
technology services. (Slaby says The Groundwork has clients beyond Clinton,
including nonprofits and NGOs that work on issues ranging from refugees to
early childhood development, but he said he couldn’t name any before
consulting with them.)

This week’s Federal Election Commission filings gave a hint of The
Groundwork’s prominent role, showing the Clinton campaign has already paid
out some $177,000 to the firm. But it’s keeping a low profile; its website
is just a gray screen with a dark logo that consists of a triangle hovering
over roots that look like a circuit board.

Slaby served as the Obama 2008 chief technology officer and, on the
reelection bid, as chief integration and innovation officer. Between
elections, he spent two years as the chief technology strategist for
Schmidt’s TomorrowVentures.

Schmidt has been an adviser and donor to Obama. While there has been
chatter among campaign tech specialists that The Groundwork may be
financially backed by Schmidt, it’s not known whether he’s involved.
Schmidt’s investment firm, TomorrowVentures, didn’t respond to an inquiry,
and Slaby said, “We’re not talking about our investors.”

The Groundwork had until recently been located in the same shared office
space as the social commerce site cir.cl, which is led by Obama alum Carol
Davidsen and names Schmidt as an investor. That office space is just a
six-minute walk from the Clinton campaign’s Brooklyn Heights headquarters.
Slaby says his team is looking for a new home.

Slaby won’t say how much The Groundwork has grown in its first year of
life. Scouring LinkedIn, though, finds about a dozen engineers and others
with experience at places like Netflix, Meetup and Google who note it as
their current gig. One talent scout with a role at the company describes
The Groundwork as “changing the political technology landscape.” Adds a
software engineer: “working on something special.”

*Hillary Clinton meets the press, on Facebook
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/hillary-clinton-meets-the-press-on-facebook-210889.html>
// Politico // Hadas Gold – July 20, 2015 *

It wasn't necessarily planned this way, but Hillary Clinton took questions
from reporters on Monday.

During a Facebook chat the kind normally meant for questions from ordinary
voters, four reporters managed to pose questions to -- and receive an
answer from -- the Democratic front-runner. Clinton received thousands of
questions and answered just 12, including questions about pant suits and
karaoke.

The Washington Post’s Wesley Lowery, CNN’s Dan Merica and the Huffington
Post’s Laura Bassett and Alexander Howard  were among those who had their
questions answered. A Facebook employee who is working on something related
to the news, the Instant Articles experiment, got a question answered as
well.

Lowery asked a question about the "Black Lives Matter" movement,
referencing the Netroots Nation event over the weekend that saw Clinton's
challengers, Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, heckled by protesters.
Clinton avoided the conference, and as a result got to answer the questions
the protesters were asking Sanders and O'Malley from the safety and
security of the Facebook chat.

"Black lives matter. Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind
that," Clinton wrote before mentioning specific actions like body cameras
for police and early childhood education.

Merica, who follows Clinton on the trail, even got a shout-out from Clinton
in response to his question about altering the capital gains tax. "Hi Dan,
good to see you in Arkansas on Saturday," Clinton wrote, making it clear
she knew exactly whose questions she was answering.

Facebook chats are an extremely safe venue for politicians, of course, as
they lack the live aspect of a gaggle. Candidates choose the questions, and
questioners, they want to answer. There’s no back and forth. Follow-up
questions can be ignored.

Still, Clinton's campaign is making an effort to improve on the candidate's
prickly relationship with the media. In the last few weeks, Clinton has sat
down to one major TV interview, let reporters (and a full show) into her
campaign headquarters, and held a press gaggle after a recent town hall
event in New Hampshire, where Clinton answered nine questions.

To be sure, that's a far cry from the access being provided by many of the
other candidates who probably need the media more than Clinton does, but
it's an improvement from the days of dodging all media inquiries and
blocking off the press with a rope, as her campaign did to reporters at a
July 4 parade.

“Hillary Clinton enjoys taking questions from reporters and voters alike
and wants to answer them in any of number of venues – from local town halls
and press gaggles to this Facebook Q&A that reaches people all over the
country. She’s going to continue taking a blend of questions from different
people to lay out her agenda in the weeks and months ahead," Clinton
spokesperson Jesse Ferguson said in an email.

*Clinton’s Capital Gains Tax Plan Focuses on Long-Term Growth
<http://time.com/money/3964492/hillary-clinton-capital-gains-tax-plan/> //
Reuters // Susan Heavey – July 20, 2015 *

Presidential contender Hillary Clinton’s proposed plan to overhaul capital
gains taxes aims to foster long-term growth by taxing some short-term
investments at higher rates, an aide for her campaign said on Monday.

Although details of the plan have yet to be finalized, it would create a
sliding rate scale based on the length of an investment, an aide with the
Democratic candidate’s campaign said.

Under her proposal, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, the maximum
capital gains tax rate on investments held at least a year, currently
23.8%, would rise to at least the 28% proposed by President Barack Obama,
the aide said.

The campaign has not ruled out raising it as high as the regular income tax
rate, which can be as high as 39.6% for top earners, the Journal reported.

Details of the plan will be outlined in a speech later this week, the WSJ
said.

Investments held for less than a year would still be taxed at regular
income tax rates as they are now, the WSJ said. The proposal will also
include other rate changes, with the lowest rates given for investments
held the longest, it reported.

Clinton’s proposal comes as part of her plan to fight an excessive focus on
quick profits in capital markets, including capital gains, which are the
profits made on selling capital assets such as shares or real estate.

In a speech last week in New York, the Democratic front-runner blasted Wall
Street and took aim at financial institutions, vowing tougher oversight in
her first major economic speech of the 2016 election campaign.

Clinton’s plan to revamp such rates appears to be a shift from her position
in 2008, when she last sought the party’s nomination and vowed not to raise
capital gains tax rates above 20%, if at all.

In 1997, her husband, President Bill Clinton, lowered the maximum taxation
rate on capital gains from 28% to 20%. In 2003, it fell to 15 percent under
President George W. Bush.

In 2012, the top capital gains taxation rate rose to 20% for the highest
earners. In the 1970s, the maximum taxation rate for long-term capital
gains reached nearly 40%.

Although Clinton, who along with her husband have deep ties to Wall Street,
is the party’s leading presidential candidate, she still faces some
pressure from liberal Democrats, such as fellow candidate U.S. Senator
Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who want tougher regulations on the financial
industry.

*Hillary Clinton pledges bigger rewards for corporate whistleblowers
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/20/us-usa-election-clinton-whistleblowers-idUSKCN0PU28V20150720>
// Reuters – July 20, 2015 *

U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would increase the incentives
for corporate whistleblowers to come forward to report financial
misconduct, she said on Monday.

Answering questions from voters in an online chat, Clinton, the Democratic
frontrunner, said she would increase the maximum amount of money a
whistleblower can be rewarded so such incentives "are actually effective."

Whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing under the Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act cannot be rewarded more than $1.6
million, an amount Clinton should be "sharply increased," her campaign
staff said soon after in an email to reporters.

"While this represents a large sum in real dollars, it pales in comparison
to pay levels within the financial sector," the campaign's statement said,
and so the cap was not a big enough incentive for finance workers to risk
lucrative careers by reporting wrongdoing.

Whistleblowers in sectors governed by other laws can potentially receive
much larger rewards, measured as a percentage of a settlement or an amount
recovered, and Clinton said this disparity needs to be resolved.

Clinton also said fines for companies caught engaging in financial
misconduct should "cut into" the bonuses of the executives responsible, but
did not provide details as to how this would work.

*Hillary Clinton Previews Plans to Get Tough on Wall Street, Raise Capital
Gains Taxes
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-20/hillary-clinton-previews-plans-to-get-tough-on-wall-street-raise-capital-gains-taxes>
// Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton previewed her ideas Monday for punishing financial
misconduct by Wall Street firms and other corporations, and for
incentivizing long-term corporate decision-making over “quarterly
capitalism,” including an overhaul of capital gains taxation.

Following up on a broader economic- and financial-policy speech delivered
last week in New York, the Democratic presidential front-runner has plans
to unveil proposals later this week aimed at boosting corporate
responsibility and accountability, and began the rollout of those ideas
during a question-and-answer session on Facebook.

On the eve of Tuesday's fifth anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Clinton again vowed to protect and
expand upon the law to "enhance accountability," including by boosting the
financial rewards for whistleblowers and by creating a mechanism to cut
into executives’ compensation when their companies are fined for running
afoul of financial regulations.

Clinton said she wants to “make sure that good people have real incentives
to come forward and report illegal activity by raising the whistleblower
caps so they're actually effective.” The Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery, and Enforcement Act caps rewards at $1.6 million, which may not
be a sufficient incentive for someone to risk a high-paying job on Wall
Street, and Clinton—like former Attorney General Eric Holder—wants to see
the amount increased.

Clinton will also propose policies aimed at making “sure that when
corporations pay fines to the government for wrongdoing, those fines cut
into the bonuses of the executives who should have been accountable or
should have caught the problem. Give people a reason to improve the culture
of their firms.” A campaign official said Clinton is still formulating the
details of this proposal and will put them forward in the weeks ahead.

This week, Clinton will unveil a proposal to tax capital gains using a
sliding rate scale based on the length of an investment, something at which
she hinted during last week’s speech.

Her aim is “to promote long term investment that will strengthen companies,
workers, and communities,” she wrote on Facebook, responding to a
reporter’s question about the apparent shift from her position in 2008.

During her first presidential campaign, Clinton she said she would keep the
capital gains rate below 20 percent, much lower than her new proposal.
“Both business leaders and labor leaders have been speaking out about this
in recent years," she said. "The increase in short-termism has grown in
urgency since 2008, and the urgency of our solutions has to match it.”

*Hillary Clinton Makes Speech On Women's Issues Which Could Teach Mail On
Sunday A Thing Or Two
<http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/20/hillary-clinton-speaks-out-womens-rights_n_7831462.html>
// HuffPo // Eve Hartley – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is teaching the Mail On Sunday a thing or two about women's
issues.

A long standing advocate for women's rights, she passionately declared her
commitment at the Arkansas Democrats dinner and said: "I'm going to keep
going... I'm going to keep fighting for equal pay for equal work."

The Sunday tabloid was branded sexist when Labour leadership candidate Liz
Kendall was asked how much she weighed by journalist Simon Walters. She
responded by telling him to "f**k off".

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at the
Democratic Party of Arkansas Jefferson Jackson dinner in North Little Rock,
Ark., Saturday, July 18, 2015.

The presidential candidate's speech began: "I know that when I talk about
this, some people are going to think 'there she goes again with the women's
issues'... well I am going to keep going, I believe it's so important for
all of us"

"When women get ahead families get ahead and then America gets ahead...

"You know, paid leave, earned sick days, child care, these aren't women's
issues, they're family issues, they're economic issues, they're American
issues."

Clinton, returning to Arkansas where she began her political ascent, also
drew critique of Republican policies denouncing them as "the party of the
past".

She also hit out at the businessman and reality TV star, Donald Trump. Last
week Clinton attacked the millionaire's stance on immigration.

The 67-year-old democratic candidate continues to hold a comfortable lead
over rival Bernie Sanders. Among likely voters in the primary, CNN reports
that 59% picked Clinton and 19% backed Sanders.

Clinton has also been vocal on women's rights on Twitter, supporting the
167th anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention, a milestone for equality:

*Hillary Clinton Responds To 'Gender Card' Dig: 'Mitch McConnell Really
Doesn't Get It'
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-mitch-mcconnell-gender-card_55ad4b5be4b065dfe89f02bd>
// HuffPo // Laura Bassett – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton fired back at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.) on Monday after he accused her of playing the "gender card" during
her presidential campaign.

"Wow," Clinton told HuffPost during a Facebook question-and-answer session.
"If that’s what he said, Mitch McConnell really doesn’t get it. There is a
gender card being played in this campaign. It’s played every time
Republicans vote against giving women equal pay, deny families access to
affordable child care or family leave, refuse to let women make decisions
about their health or have access to free contraception."

McConnell criticized Clinton at an event at the Bullitt County Chamber of
Commerce in Shepherdsville, Kentucky, Monday morning, quipping that "the
gender card alone isn't enough," according to Theo Keith, a
Louisville-based political reporter. Keith said the remark was a blanket
criticism of Clinton as well as of McConnell's recent Democratic Senate
opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes. HuffPost asked McConnell's office to
elaborate on his remarks and has yet to hear back.

When HuffPost asked Clinton about the comment on Facebook, she responded
that equal pay and family leave affect both genders.

"These aren’t just women’s issues, they are economic issues that drive
growth and affect all Americans," Clinton said. "Anyone who doesn’t get
that doesn’t understand what our lives are like."

*Hillary Clinton Hints She'd Support Flexible Benefits For Gig Economy
Workers
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gig-economy_55ad4a84e4b065dfe89f010c>
// HuffPo // Alexander Howard – July 20, 2015 *

If America's economic future includes on-demand labor in a "gig economy,"
then American policymakers will need to build modern safety nets to protect
and support tens of millions of people seeking income on mobile platforms
like Uber.

In a Facebook question-and-answer forum on Monday, Democratic presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton signaled support when The Huffington Post asked
whether workers' compensation or unemployment insurance should be
independent of any given employer:

I had a feeling this might come up! You are asking exactly the kinds of
questions that we all need to be asking about the future of work in an age
of accelerating technological change. I certainly don’t have all the
answers. But we have to resolve these questions while embracing the promise
and potential of these new technologies and without stifling innovation or
limiting the ability of working moms and veterans and young people to get
ahead. On the issue of benefits, the experience of the Affordable Care act
shows that we need to make sure people have access to benefits and that
they are portable as they move from job to job. –H

The former secretary of state's comment is not binding, nor, frankly, does
it specifically address the question. "I certainly don’t have all the
answers" would not be a satisfying or sufficient response to a direct
question from a debate moderator.

At a time when Republican politicians are seeking credibility on tech
issues by praising Uber, Clinton is stepping carefully around the labor
issues raised by the emerging "sharing economy." She didn’t answer a
related question posed by  journalist Kevin Roose at all.

Given the increasing politicization of Uber in New York City, Clinton's
decision to include a caveat about "embracing the promise and potential of
these new technologies without stifling innovation" certainly suggests
that she and her strategists are wary of being portrayed as opposed to
technological progress.

*Elizabeth Warren Fires Warning Shot Over Clinton's Bow
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liam-miller/elizabeth-warren-fires-wa_b_7827272.html>
// HuffPo // Liam Miller – July 20, 2015 *

On Friday, Elizabeth Warren gave the morning keynote speech at Netroots
Nation. Held in Phoenix, Arizona this year to highlight immigration reform,
Warren also spoke at length about financial reform -- and what she feels
any presidential candidate must be prepared to do about it. She said,
"anyone"; but it seemed pretty clear she was talking to Hillary Clinton.
Here's Warren:

We have a presidential election coming up. I think anyone running for that
job - anyone who wants the power to make every key economic appointment and
nomination across the federal government -- should say loud and clear that
they agree: we don't run this country for Wall Street and mega
corporations. We run it for people. Anyone who wants to be President should
appoint only people who have already demonstrated they are independent, who
have already demonstrated that they can hold giant banks accountable, who
have already demonstrated that they embrace the kind of ambitious economic
policies that we need to rebuild opportunity and a strong middle class in
this country.

To put this in context: a few days earlier, Clinton gave a major speech,
and talked about financial reform. It did not have the teeth of Warren's
orations on that subject. For example, Clinton said "too big to fail is too
big a problem", which is about as weaksauce a parroting of Bernie Sanders'
"too big to fail is too big to exist" as you could imagine.

Really, though, what Clinton's toothless statements do is give her the
ever-important out with her rich, banker donors. She didn't say anything
that she couldn't pass off later as necessary campaign rhetoric. Sanders,
of course, is all-in. He neither wants nor expects to get the banks'
support. Clinton already has taken their money, and a lot of it -- which
puts her in the awkward position of needing to seem like a reformer,
without alienating the people she'd ostensibly be reforming.

Which brings us to the heart to of the issue.

Warren has yet to endorse a candidate. Financial reform is one of Warren's
most important issues; and whoever she endorses will have to be seriously
strong on Wall Street. Oh, and by the way, whoever she does endorse will
quite probably seal up the nomination. For Clinton in particular, given
progressives' skepticism about her ties to Wall Street, Warren's
endorsement would be huge, and would also serve to deflate Sanders'
campaign. For Sanders, it would hasten the tipping point moment he's likely
already approaching.

There's still a lot that could happen, of course. But there's no mistaking
how impactful Warren's support will be. With her remarks, Warren made it
pretty clear that she's not buying Clinton's lukewarm financial-reform
rhetoric, and that Clinton better shape up if she wants to have a hope of
getting Warren's endorsement and the help of the powerful progressive
movement Warren helped grow. Boom! The cannonball is, as it were,
resoundingly in Clinton's court.

Of course, in reality it's hard to imagine Warren not endorsing Sanders.
Their positions match up almost one for one. Just listen to Warren's list
of progressive values at Netroots Nation '14; and compare that to Sanders'
speech Friday at the Iowa Democratic party Hall of Fame Dinner, or in
Madison, Wisconsin on July 1.

He and Warren are of one mind, and Warren has already spoken of Sanders in
glowing terms: "I love what Bernie is talking about. I think all the
presidential candidates should be out talking about the big issues." By
contrast, progressives, and Warren chief among them, aren't sold on
Clinton. Like a politician of the pre-internet age, Clinton knows how to
say things that sound good. But she does not take the substantive positions
she needs to, that modern information access requires. Sanders emphatically
does. Here he is at length, from June 19 in Las Vegas:

Let me tell you, that when we use words like 'fraud', when we use words
like 'irresponsibility', when we use terms like 'illegal activity', these
are just other words for Wall Street. The greed, the insatiable greed on
Wall Street, their recklessness, their irresponsible behavior, their
illegal behavior, drove this country into the worst recession since the
great depression. And let me tell you what very few other people will tell
you. There are some candidates, and some folks who say, well, you know, we
have to re-regulate Wall Street. The truth of the matter is that given the
current politics of America, it is not Congress that regulates Wall Street,
it is Wall Street that regulates Congress. If we are concerned about the
power and destructive activities of Wall Street, the only solution is to
break up these huge financial institutions. If a bank is too big to fail,
that bank is too big to exist, we're gonna break 'em up.

If you watched the clip of Warren on Citigroup from the start of this
article, that will all sound very familiar; and it makes it abundantly
clear that she and Sanders are like two bank-busting peas in a financial
reforming pod.

Clinton didn't show at this year's Netroots. Frankly, her campaign might
not have survived the spectacle of her inevitable lukewarm reception. But
her decision not to attend speaks volumes about what she knows about how
progressives feel about her. She knows, and she is running scared.

Warren had said we needed to give Clinton a chance to prove herself, to
demonstrate that she could be a progressive champion. Not so much, so far.
And on Friday, Warren called Clinton out for falling short, and told her
(and the rest of us) unequivocally that that chance is running out.

*Clinton on Facebook: 'Black lives matter' and other takeaways
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/politics/hillary-clinton-facebook-black-lives-matter/index.html>
// CNN // Eric Bradner & Dan Merica – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton declared Monday that "black lives matter," using the
benefit of time to avoid the bitter responses her Democratic foes faced at
a liberal conference over the weekend for their answers on racial justice.

In a Facebook chat, Clinton was asked what she would have said to the
protesters had she attended Netroots Nation in Phoenix, Arizona.

"Black lives matter. Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind
that," she said.

With two days to gauge the reaction to former Maryland Gov. Martin
O'Malley's on-stage declaration that "all lives matter" -- which protesters
perceived as a slight to the issues they wanted candidates to address --
and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' frustration with the protesters, Clinton
took advantage of that hindsight and the more cautious medium.

"We need to acknowledge some hard truths about race and justice in this
country, and one of those hard truths is that that racial inequality is not
merely a symptom of economic inequality," Clinton wrote. "Black people
across America still experience racism every day."

She said police officers everywhere should wear body cameras and called for
alternatives to jail time for "low-level offenders," more money for early
childhood education and automatic, universal voter registration.

In the question-and-answer session, Clinton revealed clues about her
forthcoming Wall Street reform, student debt restructuring and capital
gains tax policy proposals. She also offered glimpses of what it's like to
get ready each morning and where she likes to go in Arkansas, and took
shots at some of her Republican rivals on immigration.

1. "Short-termism has grown in urgency."

Clinton's campaign is evaluating a proposal to incentivize more long-term
investing by raising the capital gains tax, an aide said Monday.

In particular, Clinton is expected to raise the tax rate for the shortest
term investments -- currently 24% -- to above 28%, her aides said. During a
2008 debate, however, Clinton said that she would only raise the rate
"above the 20% if I raised it at all. I would not raise it above what it
was during the Clinton administration."

Clinton responded to a CNN question during the chat about the change,
stating that "the increase in short-termism has grown in urgency since
2008, and the urgency of our solutions has to match it."

She pointed to an economic speech at The New School, a university in New
York City, last week, during which she decried the short-term thinking of
some corporations.

"Later this week, I will be outlining a number of proposals, including
capital gains reform, to promote long term investment that will strengthen
companies, workers, and communities," she wrote on Facebook Monday. "Both
business leaders and labor leaders have been speaking out about this in
recent years."

President Barack Obama proposed raising the investment tax rate for
high-income households in his 2015 State of the Union speech to 28%.
Clinton's aides said she would go higher.

2. "Give people a reason to improve the culture of their firms."

Asked about how she'd curtail Wall Street misconduct, Clinton offered a few
specific policy proposals -- noting that Tuesday is the fifth anniversary
of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law, and saying she wants to
go further.

She said she would prosecute individuals responsible for fraud and other
misdeeds, rather than just taking on their firms. She also called for an
increase to whistleblower caps, which are currently limited to $1.6 million
or less -- far less than the bonuses many Wall Street executives earn.

And she said that when firms are forced to pay fines for wrongdoing, those
amounts should come out of the bonus checks that go to their executives.

3. "Amen, sister."

It wasn't all serious, as Clinton -- whose three decades in the limelight
have hardened many Americans' views of her -- sought to show a more human
side.

She said she loves Dickson Street in Fayetteville, Arkansas. She said she's
"never met a pantsuit I didn't love." And she posted an image of Saturday
Night Live's Kate McKinnon playing Clinton.

She also took a question about how she handles the daily task of getting
ready in the morning -- which, the questioner said, generally takes women
longer than men.

"Amen, sister -- you're preaching to the choir," Clinton wrote. "It's a
daily challenge. I do the best I can -- and as you may have noticed, some
days are better than others!"

4. "Good to see you in Arkansas on Saturday."

One of the biggest takeaways to the chat was the fact Clinton did it at all.

Since leaving the State Department in 2013, Clinton spent most of her time
keeping the press -- and questions in general -- at arm's length. She did
paid events where moderators asked her questions and she almost never spoke
with reporters.

Since launching her campaign in April, though, Clinton has slowly grown
more to the media. She held her first press conference in New Hampshire
last month and conducted her first national interview with CNN earlier this
month.

Monday's Facebook chat, her first as a candidate, is part of that
evolution, particularly with the press. Clinton took four questions from
reporters on Monday, including one from CNN. While the format is admittedly
safe for politicians, the fact she answered questions from reporters is
notable.

*Hillary Clinton Criticizes ‘Hair and Makeup Tax’ on Women’s Time
<http://time.com/3965074/hillary-clinton-facebook-hair-makeup-tax/> // TIME
// Ryan Beckwith – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton said that women have to work extra to get ready in the
morning.

In an online question-and-answer session on Facebook, the former Secretary
of State was asked about her morning routine by a female Facebook staffer
who noted that she has to spend more than 30 minutes getting ready while
her boyfriend “zips out the door.”

“I wonder about how the ‘hair and makeup tax’ affects other women —
especially ones I admire in high-pressure, public-facing jobs,” asked Libby
Brittain, who added that as a “young professional woman” she’d like to know
how Clinton handles it while “staying focused on the ‘real’ work ahead.”

Clinton agreed that it’s a problem.

“Amen, sister — you’re preaching to the choir,” she wrote. “It’s a daily
challenge. I do the best I can — and as you may have noticed, some days are
better than others!”

Though lighthearted the exchange touched on a serious issue that has
bothered Clinton for a while. During a town-hall meeting with students in
Kyrgyzstan in 2010, Clinton was asked by a moderator if she had any
favorite clothing designers. She responded by asking pointedly, “Would you
ever ask a man that question?”

Though she makes lighthearted jokes about her love of pantsuits (later in
the Q&A she noted she “never met a pantsuit I didn’t love”) , Clinton’s
decision to eschew major fashion choices puts her in line with President
Obama, who told Vanity Fair in 2012 that he limits his clothing options to
reduce the number of decisions he has to make in the morning.

“You’ll see I wear only gray or blue suits,” he said. “I’m trying to pare
down decisions. I don’t want to make decisions about what I’m eating or
wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make.”

Clinton’s response earned an enthusiastic response from Brittain.

*Why Hillary's New Plan to Tax Investors Could Win Some Fans on Wall Street
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/07/20/hillary_clinton_s_capital_gains_plan_will_raise_taxes_on_the_rich_maybe.html>
// Slate // Jordan Weissmann – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is getting ready to unveil the next big plank of her
economic platform this week, and it's all about taxing investors.
Specifically, short-term investors—the sort who buy up stock in a company,
push it to shower money on shareholders, then sell off their holdings. And
believe it or not, some powerful figures in finance might actually support
the idea.

While Clinton isn't spelling out her full plan until later this week, the
Wall Street Journal revealed its broad strokes today. In short, the
proposal would change how the government taxes capital gains by creating "a
sliding scale" in which those who hold onto their assets the longest pay
the lowest rates to the IRS.

Currently, when Americans sell investments such as stocks or bonds that
they have owned for less than a year, the government taxes the profits like
any other income, at a top rate of 39.6 percent. If they own their
investments for more than a year before cashing in, however, they pay the
long-term capital gains rate, which maxes out at 23.8 percent.

If you stop and think about this for a second, it's a little weird.
According to our government, owning shares in a company for 364 days make
you a short-term investor. But owning them for 366 days makes you a
long-term investor. The divide is more or less arbitrary. Worse yet, a year
isn't really a very lengthy time to hold stock. So while the tax code
penalizes day traders and high-speed hedge funds, for instance, it treats
everybody else pretty the same.

In some people's eyes, this has created a crisis of short-term thinking in
corporate America, as CEOs focus on hitting their quarterly profit goals in
order to appease equity owners who don't plan on hanging around for
particularly long. Many single out activist investors who have prodded
companies to spend lavishly returning cash to shareholders through stock
buybacks and dividends, rather than devote money to new factories or
product lines, which might be better for their future prospects, as well as
the economy's. One especially prominent critic has been Larry Fink, the CEO
of BlackRock, the world's largest money manager, with more than $4 trillion
in assets. This spring, he wrote an open letter to the CEOs of the
companies included in the S&P 500, urging them to resist demands from
activists to simply hand back money at the expense of long-term growth.

In his missive, Fink suggested that the government should reform the tax
code so that the long-term capital gains rate only kicks in after three
years, "then to decrease the tax rate for each year of ownership beyond
that, potentially dropping to zero after 10 years. This would create a
profound incentive for more long-term holdings and could be designed to be
revenue neutral."

Clinton's plan is apparently somewhat similar, though not as dramatic. She
reportedly wants to add at least one extra capital gains rate, so that
people who sell their Apple stock or Treasury bonds after just two or three
years would pay somewhere north of 28 percent on their returns. That way,
the tax code would have a short-term, mid-term, and long-term rate. The
plan hasn't been finalized yet, however, and could include more than three
tiers.

As for how much money this would bring in for Washington, well, it's not
clear. Unless Clinton plans to lower the long-term rate below its current
level, the proposal would almost certainly create some new revenue, largely
from wealthy taxpayers, since they earn a disproportionate share of the
nation's capital income. But “the campaign didn’t estimate how much in
additional taxes the proposal would raise,” the Journal reports. “The
official said the primary goal is to change behavior, not increase revenue.”

But even though the details are still pending, the plan is of a piece with
an emerging theme in Clinton's economic philosophy, which I've been calling
feel-good capitalism—the idea that the free market just needs a little
nudge to work better for everybody. Last week, she unveiled her tax plan
meant to encourage companies to share profits with their workers
(underlying message: profits are good, but spread them around a bit, Mr.
CEO). This week, it's giving us a plan to hike capital gains taxes that,
theoretically, one of the world's most powerful investors might even like.

But if Larry Fink ends up feeling good about it, alas, progressives might
be another matter.

*5 key takeaways from Hillary Clinton’s Facebook Q&A
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/5-key-takeaways-hillary-clintons-facebook-qa>
// MSNBC // Nisha Chittal – July 20, 2015 *

On Monday afternoon, Hillary Clinton held her first Facebook Q&A of her
campaign, answering questions from voters and journalists on a post on her
official Facebook page. Clinton’s responses were signed with an “-H” at the
end to signal that Clinton herself had personally written the message,
rather than a staffer managing the page.

Clinton’s post received thousands of questions, of which she answered a
handful, addressing racial inequality, responding to recent comments from
Republican leaders, addressing student loan debt and more. Here are some of
the key takeaways from the chat:

1. She addressed the Black Lives Matter questions raised at Netroots
Nation. When asked how she would have responded to the Black Lives Matter
protesters who interrupted her opponents Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders
on Saturday, Clinton responded: “Black lives matter. Everyone in this
country should stand firmly behind that. We need to acknowledge some hard
truths about race and justice in this country, and one of those hard truths
is that that racial inequality is not merely a symptom of economic
inequality. Black people across America still experience racism every day.

Since this campaign started, I’ve been talking about the work we must do to
address the systemic inequities that persist in education, in economic
opportunity, in our justice system. But we have to do more than talk - we
have to take action. For example - we should make sure every police
department in the U.S. has body cameras. We should provide alternatives to
incarceration for low-level offenders. We should invest in early childhood
education for every child. We should fight for voting rights and universal
voter registration. You will continue to hear me talking about these issues
throughout this campaign and pushing for real solutions.”

2. She responded to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said of
Clinton that “The gender card alone isn’t enough.” When asked what her
response to McConnell’s comments would be, Clinton said: “Wow. If that’s
what he said, Mitch McConnell really doesn’t get it. There is a gender card
being played in this campaign. It’s played every time Republicans vote
against giving women equal pay, deny families access to affordable child
care or family leave, refuse to let women make decisions about their health
or have access to free contraception. These aren’t just women’s issues,
they are economic issues that drive growth and affect all Americans. Anyone
who doesn’t get that doesn’t understand what our lives are like.”

3. She took shots at Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump, Jeb
Bush, and Marco Rubio on immigration. Commenter Jasmine Perez asked if
Clinton would make it easier for undocumented immigrants to have a pathway
to citizenship. Clinton responded: “Yes. This is a big difference I have
with most of the Republican candidates. Donald Trump in particular is
getting a lot of attention for some hateful rhetoric, but Jeb Bush and
Marco Rubio actually agree with him on denying a pathway to citizenship and
consigning hardworking immigrants to second class status. I will fight for
comprehensive immigration reform that includes that pathway to citizenship.”

4. She promised to make the student loan debt crisis a priority from “the
first day I become president”.”  A commenter who is a student told of
chipping away at his student loan debt and asked what Hillary Clinton would
do as president to curb the burden that many students are facing. Clinton
responded: “I’ll be putting forward specific proposals to refinance debt so
it becomes more affordable, encourage more people to use income contingency
repayment program so you are paying back as a percentage of what you
actually earn, to try to make college more affordable to start with so that
students today and tomorrow don’t end up with the amount of debt you and 40
million other Americans currently have. This is one of my biggest economic
and educational priorities and I will be addressing it from the first day I
become president.”

5. And finally: she’s still making pantsuit jokes a part of her carefully
crafted communications strategy. When asked a question about her favorite
pantsuit, she responded: “I never met a pantsuit I didn’t like.”
Previously, she launched her Instagram account with a photo of red, white,
and blue pantsuits and the caption “Hard choices.” She also has “pantsuit
aficionado” in her Twitter bio. (We get it, you like pantsuits!)

*Sanders putting pressure on Clinton in Democratic contest
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article27861004.html>
// McClatchy // Anita Kumar – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton never utters his name.

But Bernie Sanders is always there. Garnering the largest crowds of the
presidential race. Raising millions of dollars, more than nearly every
other candidate of either party. And boasting a following that can only be
described as intense.

Over the weekend, he received a raucous reception in the early nominating
state of Iowa at the first joint appearance of the Democratic candidates,
with supporters banging their fists on the table, clinking silverware
against glasses and interrupting him with their enthusiasm. “Preach!”
shouted one woman.

Clinton still boasts the highest poll numbers and a record amount of money
raised. Now the surprising popularity of Sanders, the 73-year-old
self-described socialist who relishes being a champion of the underpaid,
overworked American worker, means Clinton will have to spend money and
effort for a nomination many assumed was hers for the taking.

“Bernie is authentic,” said Kurt Meyer, Democratic chairman of a trio of
rural counties in north-central Iowa, who has not endorsed a candidate. “He
has a fervor in his message that connects with people.”

In late May, the senator from Vermont appeared at a community center in the
tiny town of Kensett in Meyer’s part of the state. The campaign had hoped
to lure 100 people, more than a third of the town’s population, but 300
showed up. Meyer said the supporters were so enthusiastic organizers
decided to pass a bucket to raise money. They collected $1,200.

On Saturday, Sanders drew more than 11,000 people to a rally in downtown
Phoenix, his largest crowd yet, to hear him blast this nation’s income
inequality, “billionaire class” and big, unaccountable money in politics.

Sanders’ strengths – rallies attracting thousands, more money from small
donors reflecting support from everyday Americans, an enthusiastic Twitter
following that uses the hashtag #FeeltheBern – have taken some Clinton
supporters by surprise even as they insist they always knew she’d have to
work for the nomination.

“It concerns me,” said Donald Fowler, a former Democratic National
Committee chairman who is close to the Clintons. He does not think it will
cause Clinton to lose the nomination. “She’ll be fine,” he said.

Still, Fowler said he hopes she learns some lessons from Sanders about the
importance of holding larger events and speaking matter-of-factly about
working Americans. “I think she needs to create an emotional link to
average Democrats,” he said.

Clinton delivered one of her most aggressive speeches at a party dinner
Friday in Cedar Rapids, earning sustained applause and chants of
“Hill-a-ree!” She did so by blasting the Republican candidates for
president, not mentioning her closest Democratic rival.

Sanders gave his own passionate speech, which began with his voice raised
right from the start, as he referred to a “political revolution” and said
over and over “enough is enough!”

Nicholas Johnson, a former Federal Communications Commission commissioner
who teaches at the University of Iowa, said he is more enthusiastic about
Sanders than any other candidate he has supported since the 1940s.

Johnson, clad in a light blue “Bernie for President” T-shirt, described
Clinton as the establishment candidate. “I think the establishment is the
problem,” he said.

Oftentimes, Sanders’ supporters appeared to be more enthusiastic than
Clinton’s, though the cheers were only coming from parts of the room, a
sign his progressive views do not appeal to all Democrats.

“I don’t think he can unite the party,” said Joni Gillispie, 58, of
Burlington, who wore one Hillary Clinton button, one Bill Clinton button
and one of the couple. “He’s going to take the moderates and drive then
over to the other side.”

Several Democratic activists said they prefer Sanders, but are conflicted
because they think Clinton is the one who could beat a Republican candidate.

“We want someone who can win,” said Dallas Knapp, 20, a student at Loras
College in Dubuque who grew up in Bloomington, Ill.

Clinton maintains a big lead in polls nationally. She leads in early
primary states as well, though Sanders is gaining there.

Andrew Smith, the director of the University of New Hampshire Survey
Center, cautioned not to read too much into Sanders’ numbers. He said
historically that 35 to 45 percent of the Democrat electorate in New
Hampshire usually favors a non-establishment candidate, such as Howard
Dean, Bill Bradley or Gary Hart, but that doesn’t mean they will win. “What
you are seeing with Bernie Sanders is not unusual,” he said.

And Sanders’ enthusiasm does not necessarily translate into having the
infrastructure to run a nationwide campaign.

Clinton has dispatched more than 100 paid staffers across the nation to
recruit volunteers. Sanders is still ramping up in early states and
non-existent in other states.

In North Carolina, state party chairwoman Patsy Keever said many liberals
are excited about Sanders though he does not have a presence there.

In Florida, another key swing state, the party’s executive director, Scott
Arceneaux, said he has seen a lot of activity from Clinton's campaign,
including the arrival of a paid organizer, a visit by campaign manager
Robby Mook and an appearance by Clinton herself. Other candidates have been
there for fundraising, but not much else.

Arceneaux said Sanders’ campaign just contacted him last week to tell him
the campaign had hired a Southern regional staffer and are starting to
build up. But Arceneaux said it will be hard to compete with Clinton.

“The Clintons are very popular in Florida,” he said.

*Given 2 days to think, Hillary Clinton outdoes her opponents in responding
to #BlackLivesMatter
<http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9006315/hillary-clinton-blacklivesmatter> //
VOX // Dara Lind – July 20, 2015 *

Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders went to the progressive conference
Netroots Nation over the weekend to try to establish themselves as the
progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton. They ended up performing poorly
in their confrontations with #BlackLivesMatter activists. Monday, in a
Facebook Q&A, Clinton seized the opportunity to come off as more
progressive than her would-be progressive challengers:

The two Democratic presidential candidates who appeared at the conference,
Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, got confronted by progressive activists
affiliated with the #BlackLivesMatter movement. And neither of them
responded terribly well: O'Malley accidentally echoed the opponents of
#BlackLivesMatter, while Sanders's crankiness didn't exactly ease
frustrations with him or his supporters.

RelatedWhy O'Malley had to apologize after his confrontation with
protesters......and why Sanders's reaction led to his supporters  getting
mocked on Twitter

Hillary Clinton got to skip out on all of that drama. And when she finally
got asked how she would have responded, during a Facebook Q&A on Monday
afternoon, she didn't just have the benefit of the extra 48 hours and a
polite questioner — she (and her campaign) had the advantage of being able
to think through the response as it was typed. So it's hardly surprising
that Hillary's typed response was more respectful to the #BlackLivesMatter
movement than O'Malley or Sanders's attempts to respond to the protesters:

Of course, it's impossible to know whether Clinton would have been as calm
and respectful if she'd been on stage instead of O'Malley when protesters
took the microphone Saturday for an impromptu presentation on the deaths of
black women in police custody. But her response is consistent with her
campaign so far: Clinton has a "tough on crime" history, but her 2016
campaign has made a visible effort to embrace reforms in criminal justice
and policing, and to talk about racial disparities in doing so.

This doesn't mean that #BlackLivesMatter protesters will never come after
Hillary Clinton at some future event. But what happened over the weekend
doesn't appear to have been a wake-up call for her campaign; rather, it was
the culmination of something they appear to have been preparing for.

*Hillary Clinton's capital gains tax reform, explained
<http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9005911/hillary-clintons-capital-gains-quarterly-capitalism>
// VOX // Matthew Yglesias – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton's next big policy idea is going to be a revamp of how
investment income is taxed in the United States — aimed at creating a new
system that raises more revenue while maintaining and even enhancing the
tax incentive for patient investors who care about the long-term future of
the companies they are invested in. According to Laura Meckler and John
McKinnon, a more detailed proposal along these lines will come out in a
speech this week, though the exact nuances either haven't been finalized or
aren't yet ready to be leaked.

The basic shape of the proposal, however, is looking pretty clear. It will
raise tax revenue, mostly from rich people, and maybe undercut some of the
emphasis on short-term financial results on Wall Street and in corporate
America.

What's a capital gain? How is it taxed?

A capital gain is income that a person makes from investment. If you buy a
house for $200,000 and sell it 10 years later for $250,000, you have scored
a $50,000 capital gain. The current tax code largely exempts capital gains
earned buying and selling owner-occupied houses, so the debate over capital
gains taxation generally focuses on capital gains secured by buying and
selling stocks, bonds, and other financial assets.

Right now the tax code distinguishes between short-term capital gains and
long-term capital gains. A short-term capital gain is defined as a gain on
an asset that you owned for less than a year, while a long-term capital
gain is defined as a gain on an asset that you owned for longer than a
year. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the same rate as wage or salary
income, but long-term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate.

In other words, the current tax code already features lower tax rates for
income derived from long-term capital gains than for income derived from
other sources. Clinton is proposing, essentially, to extend the logic of
the current system, not to replace it with a whole new logic.

Why is capital gains income taxed at a lower rate?

There are three big explanations for the current system — a cynical one,
one grounded in political rhetoric, and an economics-y one:

The cynical take is that capital gains income receives a tax preference
because the vast majority of capital gains income is earned by rich people.
And not just any old kind of rich person. A movie star or LeBron James is
still mostly working for a living. It takes a classy kind of rich person to
have big stock market earnings.

The rhetorical reason typically offered is that, as the American Enterprise
Institute's James Pethokoukis says, capital gains taxes are a "double tax."
The idea is that first Mr. Richpants gets paid a salary and pays taxes on
it. Then he takes some of his after-tax dollars and invests them in the
stock market. Then when he sells his stock, he is "taxed again" on his
earnings in a way that would not have happened had he spent the money on a
boat rather than invested it in the stock market.

The economics-y reason is a result in theoretical macroeconomics stemming
from work by Christophe Chamley and Kenneth Judd that shows that under
appropriate assumptions, the socially optimal level of investment taxation
is zero. The result involves a lot of math, but the intuitive idea is that
the less you tax investments in capital goods, the more capital goods you
get. And the more capital goods you have, the higher your wages will be.
Consequently, even people who derive all their income from wages benefit in
the long run from not taxing capital income. Garrett Jones has a slightly
longer explanation featuring light math if you are interested.

What is Hillary Clinton proposing to do?

We don't yet know exactly what her campaign will do. But the basic idea is
to make it harder to qualify for "long-term" capital gains status. The
simplest way to do this would be to push the threshold out and say that
instead of holding an investment for at least one year, you need to hold it
for three years or five years. After all, 18 months is not especially
"long-term" in the scheme of things.

But based on the Wall Street Journal's reporting, it seems as if Clinton's
team is leaning toward a more complicated solution in which there will be
three or many levels of long-termness, each with its own rate.

Is the case for low capital taxation correct?

Needless to say, people disagree. In practice, there appears to be very
strong political consensus around preferential treatment for investment
income. Even very liberal members of Congress, for example, do not propose
ending the exemption of capital gains income from the payroll tax that
finances Social Security. Nor do liberal members of Congress propose to end
the exemption of profits made by selling owner-occupied homes from capital
gains taxation. Countries all around the world feature some form of
preferential treatment of investment income, and despite the partisan
controversies around the capital gains tax rate nobody in American politics
is actually proposing to do away entirely with our own preferential
treatment.

That said, as is typical with highly theoretical results in macroeconomics,
there are massive challenges in saying whether the Chamley-Judd construct
applies in a meaningful way to the actual policy choice at hand. As
economist Matthew Martin writes, "Any graduate macro text will show you
some of the ways in which Chamley-Judd assumptions are violated in reality,
producing a non-zero optimal tax rate."

Empirical studies also struggle to confirm the idea that tax rates on
investment income are an important driver of real investment activity. A
recent, statistically sophisticated study of the 2003 dividend tax cut by
Danny Yagan, for example, finds that "the tax cut caused zero change in
corporate investment."

Note, however, that even if the optimal tax rate for capital gains isn't
zero it might still be optimal to have a lower rate on investment income
than on wage income.

Why is Hillary Clinton proposing this?

Rather typically for Clinton as a political actor, what she seems to be
zeroing in on is a clever way to build consensus between competing factions
of wonks.

By raising tax rates on medium-term capital gains, Clinton will raise a
bunch of tax revenue, and she will raise it overwhelmingly from high-income
individuals. These are key demands of liberals, who are hungry for social
spending and redistribution.

At the same time, by maintaining the low rate on longer-term capital gains,
Clinton avoids a root-and-branch challenge to the principle of a tax
preference for investment.

Clinton has been critical lately of what she calls "quarterly capitalism"
and the idea that real world investment activity is being excessively
influenced by short-term stock market fluctuations and earnings targets.
Her altered tax system would make it more lucrative to be a patient
investor than an impatient one, which might help generate an overall more
patient climate on Wall Street — boosting corporate investment and
fostering more long-term thinking.

A serious venture capitalist, for example, would almost certainly find
himself still qualifying for the preferential rate. But a corporate raider
looking to buy a company, strip assets, improve quarterly results, and then
exit as quickly as possible would not.

Expect the campaign to front-load this short-term versus long-term issue,
since it's emerging as a key theme for Clinton overall. But also note that
in theory one could accomplish the same thing with a tax cut. Take today's
rate for investments held over one year and apply it to investments held
for one to three years. Take longer-term investments and apply a new lower
rate to them. This would address the short-termism concern, while also
addressing the GOP's opposition to higher taxes.

Clinton won't offer a proposal along those lines because for her, tax
revenue and tax system progressivity are at least as important as the
short-term versus long-term issue.

*Hillary Clinton: Take away executives' bonuses when their companies break
the rules
<http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9006557/hillary-clinton-executive-bonuses> //
VOX // Jonathan Allen – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton wants executives to forfeit bonus money when their
companies are fined for misconduct.

The frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination unveiled the
proposal in a Facebook Q&A session Monday.

"Too often it seems like the people responsible get off with limited
consequences (or none at all). Even when they’ve already pocketed the
gains," Clinton said. "That's wrong and it has to change."

She laid out a three-part plan to do that.

1) Appoint and empower tough, independent-minded regulators and give them
the resources they need to do their jobs.

2) Make sure that good people have real incentives to come forward and
report illegal activity by raising the whistleblower caps so they're
actually effective.

3) Make sure that when corporations pay fines to the government for
wrongdoing, those fines cut into the bonuses of the executives who should
have been accountable or should have caught the problem.

The proposals are part of Clinton's larger economic platform, which she has
been constructing in piecemeal fashion in recent days. The Wall Street
Journal reported Monday that she wants to raise certain capital gains taxes
in part to encourage long-term investment over short-term profits.

Under current law, whistleblower awards are capped at $1.6 million. Former
Attorney General Eric Holder, who settled a slew of cases against banks,
suggested increasing awards late last year.

Clinton did not get into the specific mechanisms she would use to empower
regulators, boost compensation for whistleblowers, and penalize executives
for corporate misbehavior. Congress would have to act in all three areas,
as the Senate confirms regulators and both chambers write laws governing
the finance industry.

*Hillary Clinton gives support for racial justice by saying ‘black lives
matter’
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-racial-justice-black-lives-matter-article-1.2298347>
// NY Daily News // Dan Friedman – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton said Monday that "black lives matter," in a nod to
activists pressing Democrats to adopt tough rhetoric on racial justice.

The former secretary of state was responding to a reporter's question
during a Facebook chat. He asked what she would have told progressive
activists at Netroots Nation, a progressive conference that Clinton
declined to attend.

"Black lives matter. Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind
that," Clinton wrote. "We need to acknowledge some hard truths about race
and justice in this country, and one of those hard truths is that racial
inequality is not merely a symptom of economic inequality. Black people
across America still experience racism every day."

Clinton called for body cameras on all police officers, prison reform,
universal early childhood education and expansion of voting rights as steps
for countering the effects of racism.

Clinton is among the Democrats who have taken flak in recent weeks for
saying "all lives matter" — a response that some activists say is
inadequate.

Former Gov. Martin O'Malley (R) had to apologize when he told
demonstrators: 'Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.'

Former Maryland governor and presidential candidate Martin O'Malley drew
boos recently for telling demonstrators: "Black lives matter. White lives
matter. All lives matter."

O'Malley later apologized.

Clinton used the Facebook chat to rip Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.) after he was quoted saying that "the gender card isn't
alone enough" for her to become President.

"Wow," Clinton wrote. "If that's what he said, Mitch McConnell really
doesn't get it. There is a gender card being played in this campaign. It's
played every time Republicans vote against giving women equal pay, deny
families access to affordable child care or family leave, refuse to let
women make decisions about their health or have access to free
contraception."

*Hillary Clinton zeroes in on capital gains: About-face?
<http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-zeroes-capital-gains-face-155243835.html>
// Christian Science Monitor // Jessica Mendoza – July 20, 2015 *

The Democratic presidential contender will propose an overhaul to capital
gains taxes that would tax some short-term investments at a higher rate in
a bid to emphasize long-term growth, a campaign official said Monday.

The proposal, which Mrs. Clinton is set to lay out in a speech later this
week, is part of the former secretary of State’s effort to distinguish
herself when it comes to economic policy from her rivals in both the
Republican and Democratic parties. Her approach, she said in a recent
address, will be focused on “growth and fairness” in order to get the
economy moving again full-speed.

Recommended: How much do you know about Hillary Rodham Clinton? Take our
quiz.

The new proposal, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, is one of a
number of measures designed to address what some experts see as corporate
strategy’s excessive focus on quick profits, including capital gains – the
profits made on selling capital assets such as shares or real estate.

Though still being finalized, the plan would create a sliding rate scale
that would depend on the length of time an investment is held, according to
the Journal.

Investments held for two to three years would be taxed higher than the 28
percent President Obama proposed earlier this year for top earners, who at
present have a 23.8 percent capital-gains tax rate. Rates for investments
held less than a year, which currently top out at 39.6 percent for the
highest earners, would remain the same, the Journal reported.

The plan would also include other rate changes, with the lowest rates
provided for investments held the longest.

The proposal appears to be a shift from Clinton’s stance when she last
sought the party’s nomination in 2008. Then, she vowed not to raise capital
gains tax rates above 20 percent, if at all.

The plan, however, is in line with Clinton’s attempt at setting herself and
her policies apart from her rivals. During last week’s speech in New York,
Clinton talked about the need to support workers, particularly women in the
workforce, and reform financial institutions.

Her speech met a lukewarm response from both Wall Street and its reformers,
and some see her upcoming address on capital gains to be more of the same.

“My gut instinct is this is going to sound good but it’s not going to
change very much,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican economist, told the
Journal. “It’s just not that powerful.” He noted that the tax code already
requires investments to be held for a year and is skeptical about how much
difference increasing the time period would make.

But some say there’s potential in Clinton’s approach.

Heather Boushey, executive director and chief economist at the Washington
Center for Equitable Growth, told CNN that Clinton is “laying out an agenda
that looks at what inequality means for families up and down the income
distribution, what we can do to fix it, and it’s really exciting to see a
politician take up a very serious set of research ideas and bring them into
the public debate.”

*Bush and Clinton highlight sharp contrast in dueling policy speeches
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bush-reform-speech-20150720-story.html>
// LA Times // David Lauter – July 20, 2015 *

Jeb Bush pledged to cut government spending by reforming the “culture in
our nation’s capital” in a speech Monday that hit themes long popular with
conservative voters, including a balanced-budget amendment to the
Constitution and a freeze in pay for many government workers.

The speech drew a sharp contrast in tone and content with Hillary Rodham
Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, who has begun rolling out a series of
policy proposals, many of which would involve expanding government’s role.

Clinton, in a speech a week ago outlining her economic ideas, called for
what she termed a “growth and fairness economy,” one in which she would
harness the power of the federal government in an effort to “raise incomes
for hardworking Americans so they can afford a middle-class life.” She
criticized “arbitrary growth targets untethered to people’s lives and
livelihoods," an implicit censure of Bush's pledge that the economy would
grow at a rate of 4% under his presidency.

Bush, by contrast, made clear that he sees government as the problem and
economic growth as the measure of success.

“We’ve learned by now that you can have a fast-expanding economy or you can
have a fast-expanding government, but you can’t have both,” he said in his
speech in Tallahassee, where he served as Florida’s governor for eight
years. “You have to choose.

“For anyone who wants to see a federal government even bigger, even farther
removed from those it is supposed to serve, the other party will be
offering that option,” Bush said. “It will not be my intention to preside
over the establishment, but in every way I know to disrupt that
establishment and make it accountable to the people.”

Bush’s call to change the nature of Washington seemed designed to reassert
his conservative credentials in a GOP primary race in which he faces
several candidates to his right. But it also struck a potentially
discordant note, given that the government he criticized for its “habitual
practice of deficit spending” was headed by his brother President George W.
Bush for eight years during which deficits sharply worsened.

Jeb Bush’s pledge to “turn off the automatic switch on discretionary
spending increases” also struck an odd note. That category of spending,
which covers federal spending governed by annual appropriations bills, has
been shrinking as a share of the budget. Bush said that he would propose
ideas later for the entitlement programs, such as Social Security and
Medicare, that account for most of the long-term growth in federal spending.

Many of Bush’s ideas were longtime conservative staples, including the
balanced-budget amendment, a line-item veto that would allow a president to
strike specific items from spending bills, a 10% reduction in the size of
the federal workforce over the first five years of his presidency, and
moves to freeze the pay of many government workers and make them easier to
fire.

But he included a new idea likely to meet strong resistance from many
Republicans and Democrats in Congress: He would push for a six-year ban on
any member of Congress becoming a lobbyist.

Under Bush’s plan, the definition of “lobbying” would be expanded to cover
“the ambiguous class of consultants who lobby but call it something else.”
His plan, if Congress were to adopt it, would cut off a lucrative path that
many senior members from both parties have followed into the private sector.

Bush also proposed cutting off the pay of members of Congress who don’t
show up for votes. The idea came with an unspoken, but unmistakable,
subtext: His rivals for the nomination include four sitting senators who,
as a group, have missed dozens of roll calls while out campaigning.

*In Facebook Chat, Hillary Clinton Says 'Black Lives Matter'
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/facebook-chat-hillary-clinton-says-black-lives-matter-n395296>
// NBC News // Carrie Dann – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton said Monday that "everyone in this country should stand
firmly behind" the idea that "black lives matter," just days after two of
her Democratic rivals faced protests about racial justice at a liberal
conference in Phoenix, Arizona.

In a Facebook chat, Clinton was asked by a Washington Post reporter what
she would have said to the activists at Netroots Nation, which the former
Secretary of State declined to attend.

"Black lives matter. Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind
that," she replied. "We need to acknowledge some hard truths about race and
justice in this country, and one of those hard truths is that that racial
inequality is not merely a symptom of economic inequality. Black people
across America still experience racism every day."

In her response, Clinton also cited body cameras for police, reforms to the
nation's prison system, a push for expanded voting rights and universal
early childhood education as issues that she will tackle in order to
address structural racism.

The comments by Clinton Monday represent something a do-over for the 2016
presidential contender. Last month, she was criticized for saying the
phrase "all lives matter" at a historic black church in Missouri.

Her remarks in the Facebook chat appeared to be a contrast to responses
from Democratic presidential candidates Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders,
who both faced jeers from the protesters at the conference on Saturday.

O'Malley was booed for telling demonstrators "Black lives matter. White
lives matter. All lives matter."

Activists in the protest movement say that statements like "all lives
matter" take away from a specific focus on the violence that African
Americans have faced at the hands of police.

O'Malley later apologized for his statement, saying "I did not understand
the tremendous passion, commitment and feeling and depth of feeling that
all of us should be attaching to this issue."

Sanders, who is generally viewed as a favorite of the Netroots Nation
community, also faced complaints and shouting from protesters as he tried
to deliver a speech largely focused on economic inequality.

"Black lives, of course, matter. I spent 50 years of my life fighting for
civil rights and for dignity," he said.

*Does Hillary Clinton have a small donor problem?
<http://theweek.com/articles/566840/does-hillary-clinton-have-small-donor-problem>
// The Week // Paul Waldman – July 20, 2015 *

The presidential candidates this week released their fundraising numbers
for the second quarter, and while this kind of thing is usually only of
interest to the most strung-out political junkie, there are some revealing
tidbits within the tidal wave of cash.

A lot of people like to focus on the number of small donors a candidates
gets, the presumption being that small donors are better indicators of
grassroots support than big donors. For instance, The New York Times on
Thursday noted that Hillary Clinton got a smaller portion of her funds from
small donors than the likes of Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders, and presented
it as evidence of a troubling weakness. The relative dearth of such donors
"could represent a financial and strategic liability for Mrs. Clinton if
she were to win the nomination," the paper wrote.

But here's a question: Is there a serious political analyst out there who
thinks that Hillary Clinton's problem is that her campaign won't have
enough money?

If you ask a campaign why small donors are important, you quickly notice
that the answers all emphasize not the donation itself, but what it
represents or what it might lead to in the future. The first thing campaign
operatives always say is, "It shows the incredible enthusiasm thousand of
Americans have for this candidacy." Then they'll tell you how donors will
turn into volunteers who can turn out other people to vote. Then they'll
talk about the potential of a small donor who hasn't "maxed out" by giving
the $2,700 limit, meaning the campaign can keep coming back to ask the
donor for more money.

In other words, you might be able to turn the small donor into a big donor
(the kind of donor you're supposed to pretend you don't like in the first
place). But other than the symbolism of getting more donations from reg'lar
folks, there's no reason the campaign wouldn't rather just have all the
money up front.

And symbolism is what it is. Barack Obama's 2008 campaign is thought of as
the most people-powered in recent history, with an unprecedented amount of
citizen engagement. Which in many ways it was. But more people actually
gave to Obama in 2012, when he was an incumbent running a somewhat less
inspirational campaign. The Obama campaign reported that it received
donations from 4.4 million people in 2012, up from 3.95 million in 2008.

That's a lot of people, without question. But if we divide that into the
number of votes Obama got, we see that in 2008, one out of every 17.6
people who voted for Obama gave him a donation, which rose to one out of
every 15 in 2012. Every candidate has many more supporters than donors, and
it's the votes that count in the end.

The truth is that Obama raised huge amounts of money from everywhere —
small donors, big donors, ordinary people, Wall Street, and every other
source you could imagine. But the candidate powered by small donors is a
certain type, and it isn't the type that usually wins. The candidates
getting the highest proportion of their funds from small donors so far in
this election are Bernie Sanders, Ben Carson, and Rand Paul. They all have
a committed yet finite group of supporters, and a limited appeal to the
big-money donors because of their less than overwhelming chances of winning.

So if you were a Republican running for president, which candidate would
you rather be: Rand Paul, who got 65 percent of his funds from small
donors, or Jeb Bush, who got a paltry 3 percent? Well, when you learn that
Paul raised $6.9 million, while Bush raised $114 million, mostly through
his super PAC, the answer seems pretty clear.

As for Hillary Clinton, I wouldn't worry too much about her. I have a
feeling that she's going to have no trouble finding lots of donors, big and
small. Consider that we really haven't yet seen much of a discussion about
the possibility of electing the first woman president in American history.
But presuming she's the nominee, as Election Day approaches and that
possibility becomes real and urgent, don't be surprised if millions of
women decide to write her a check for $50 or $100 — especially when
eruptions of misogynistic bile come spewing from all manner of
conservatives, which they most certainly will.

Hillary Clinton is going to have many challenges in her quest for the White
House, but having enough money is probably not going to be one of them.

*Hillary Clinton's Capital Gains Changes Won't Make A Blind Bit Of
Difference To Short-Termism
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/20/hillary-clintons-capital-gains-changes-wont-make-a-blind-bit-of-difference-to-short-termism/>
// Forbes // Tim Worstall – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is to suggest higher taxes on short term capital gains it
seems. The aim being to make people invest for the longer term, and counter
what is seen as the dreadfully short term nature of most decision making in
the marketplace. It’s not going to make a blind bit of difference of course
for the suggestion itself ignores a very basic economic fact about
investment markets: they are forward looking. That is, the value of
whatever is going to happen into the future is already priced in, with some
appropriate risk taking, to the price today. Thus absolutely no shareholder
can be investing on a short term basis: the value of that investment
reflects the effects of whatever is being done out into the far future.
Thus there’s no actual problem with short termism: it’s simply not
logically possible.

Not that that’s going to stop our Hillary of course:

Hillary Clinton will propose a revamp of capital-gains taxes that would hit
some short-term investors with higher rates, part of a package of measures
designed to prod companies to put more emphasis on long-term growth, a
campaign official said.

The proposal, to be laid out in a speech later this week, is one of a
number of ideas designed to tackle what Mrs. Clinton, some economists and
some on Wall Street consider the overly short-term focus of corporate
strategy. Other topics will include the risks and benefits of shareholder
activism and the role of executive compensation.

Whether the corporation is investing short or long term is an interesting
and important question. But the proposal isn’t to change the amount that
corporations are taxed. Rather, the proposal is to change the rates at
which investors are taxed, based not on how long the company invests for,
but how long the investor holds the stock for. And there’s simply no
connection between those two things. For the value of a stock reflects the
general opinion of what is the net present value of all future income from
holding that stock. Whether stockholders hold it for one month or 5 years
doesn’t change that basic determinant of the price. Thus changing how
they’re taxed based on the length of their holding makes no difference.

There’s a quick test that can be done on this too. Capital gains tax rates
in my native UK have always been different from those in the US. Currently
in the US you must hold for a year to get that capital rate: profits from
holdings held for less than that pay normal income tax rates (so this is
nothing at all to do with HFT). In the UK there have always been lower
rates for capital gains and there’s been no minimum holding period for them
either. What’s happened?

Based on the NYSE index data, the mean duration of holding period by US
investors was around 7 years in 1940. This stayed the same for the next 35
years.Â The average holding period had fallen to under 2 years by the time
of the 1987 crash. By the turn of the century it had fallen to below one
year. It was around 7 months by 2007.

Similar pattern exists in the UK also as shown in the chart above. There
the average duration has fallen from around 5 years in the mid-1960s to
less than 7.5 months in 2007.

If very different tax laws produce the same outcome then it’s probably not
the tax law influencing the outcome, is it?

What we’ve really got here is something that has become the conventional
wisdom among Very Serious People (as Paul Krugman calls them), that people
holding stocks for short periods of time is a bad idea and something must
be done. Here is something, let’s do it: without anyone actually thinking
through the details of either the supposed problem or the proposed solution.

It is the companies that we’re interested in investing for the long term.
How long their investors hold a stock for makes no difference to that. And
no, the hunger for more dividends or stock buybacks now also makes no
difference to the level of the stock price if they don’t arrive. For those
markets are indeed forward looking. A company that (credibly) promises $1
billion in profits in 5 years’ time is worth more than one which is paying
out $100 million a year for the next five years. Because we discount those
two different profit streams down to the net present value and that’s what
determines what the stock price is. That is, appropriately adjusted for the
risk that the world won’t turn out like we think it will, the value of
those long term decisions at the company level is already incorporated into
the current prices at which the short term holders of the stock are trading.

Changing how things are taxed at the investor level will make no difference
at all to that: nor will they make any difference at all to the time
horizons over which the corporations invest.

This is a non-solution based on an ignorance how the markets work. How
unusual that Hillary should fall for it…

*Jeb Bush And Hillary Clinton Love The Rich Without Knowing It
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2015/07/20/jeb-bush-and-hillary-clinton-love-the-rich-without-knowing-it/>
// Forbes // John Tamny – July 20, 2015 *

An urban myth that survives to this day is the one about Henry Ford and the
high wages he paid his employees.  We learn in history class and out in the
wider world that Ford compensated his employees well so that they would buy
his cars.  Who cares that Ford sold exponentially more cars than he had
employees, the myth lives on.

In truth, and as Mark Spitznagel writes about Ford Motor Company in his
spectacular 2013 book The Dao of Capital, “When profits swelled, he paid
well for labor, creating an uproar when he doubled the basic wage to $5.00
a day, which triggered a virtual stampede of job seekers.” Was Ford simply
feeling generous, or better yet, “altruistic”? No, he was actually feeling
profit motivated.  Thanks to annual employee turnover of 370% in 1913, it
was too expensive for Ford to do anything but overpay his employees.  As
Spitznagel put it, Ford “effectively lowered his costs because higher wages
reduced turnover and the need for constant training of new hires.”

A century-old story of a great American businessman rises in importance
thanks to the presidential candidacies of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.
While they’re not terribly similar in terms of policies, each has chosen to
pander to an apparently easy to gull middle class.  Bush has talked about
“growth that lifts up the middle class” as opposed to just the rich, while
Clinton has called for tax increases on the rich given her view that
boosting incomes for all Americans is “the defining economic challenge of
our time.” Just last week, and in the rollout of her economic plan, Clinton
said to boisterous applause that “Hard working Americans deserve to benefit
from the record corporate earnings they help produce.”

Were both Clinton and Bush more economically literate, and perhaps a bit
more honest, they would correctly say that the best and only way to achieve
their goals would be to substantially reduce the tax burden foisted on the
rich and big corporations alike.  Nothing could be simpler, yet each
candidate seems rather eager to not be seen as too cozy with the
successful.  That’s odd, and not just when we consider the net worth of
Clinton and Bush, along with those donating to Clinton and Bush.

To see why, we need only return to Ford.  Lest we forget, it was rising
profits that made it possible for him to initially offer raises to his
employees.  It’s expensive for companies to lose workers, it’s also
expensive for them to pay taxes, so why not substantially reduce the tax
burden levied on corporations so that they have more in the way of funds to
actively bid up the wages of workers?

If Clinton remains skeptical, she need only ask her many very well-to-do
supporters in Hollywood about how they respond to taxes.  They’ll tell her
that they actively shop their movies to all 50 state film offices with an
eye on securing the best tax deal ahead of uncapping the camera lens.  This
matters to middle class workers because as the increasingly libertarian
actor Rob Lowe recalled in his 2011 book Stories I Only Tell My Friends:

“It takes an army to make a movie.  Camera crews, lighting crews, wardrobe
crews, makeup crews, hair crews, painters, builders (called grips), a crew
to provide the props, a crew to provide the furnishings (the art
department), electricians, special-effects people, stunt performers….”

Readers surely get the picture, as should Clinton and Bush.  As Lowe’s
quote makes quite clear, there are a lot of well-paid middle class jobs
created when movie moguls and studios get to keep more of their money.  And
as the Ford example yet again makes plain, this is true for all industries.

Back to Bush, and judging by some of his stop staffers, it’s apparent that
his middle class rhetoric is rooted in the naïve notion promoted by
self-styled “Reform Conservatives”  that tax cuts for the rich are
yesterday’s news.  The “Reformicons,” ever eager to buy middle class votes,
think Bush should focus on lifting the middle class boat.  With the failed
presidency of Bush’s brother George oddly in mind, the political idea seems
to be to “put money in their [middle class] pockets.” Its failings are
quickly obvious.

What Bush and Clinton must understand, and this is an ironclad tautology,
is that there are quite simply no companies and no jobs without investment
first.  There’s no debating the latter.  Those who think they can should
move on.  It’s a debate they’ll lose.

Applied to middle class pandering, precisely because their pockets aren’t
as deep as those of rich individuals and corporations, tax cuts for middle
earners have nowhere near the positive impact of tax reductions geared
toward individuals and businesses in possession of wealth that is
exponentially more abundant.  With the pockets of the truly rich so deep
that they generally can’t get anywhere close to the bottom of same, tax
reductions meant to allow them to hold onto their wealth boosts the
economic chances of those not rich rather quickly.

Why is this? Since they almost by definition can’t spend it all, the wealth
of the superrich doesn’t lay untouched; rather it’s deposited in banks,
invested in the stock market, or placed in private equity or venture
capital funds.  In short, the wealth of the rich, when left in the hands of
the rich, is quickly redistributed through loans and investment to those
who aren’t rich.

When we wisely decide to not tax away the wealth of the rich, it doesn’t
sit idle as much as its abundance is geared toward bidding up the wages of
the non-rich in concert with investments that boost their productivity.
Put as plainly as possible, Bush and Clinton’s shared goal of “growth that
lifts up the middle class” is only possible insofar as the tax burden on
corporations and the superrich is lifted first.

*Clinton eyes flexible benefits for 'on-demand economy' workers
<http://thehill.com/policy/technology/248552-clinton-says-benefits-should-be-more-portable-for-on-demand-economy-workers>
// The Hill // David McCabe – July 20, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggested on Monday that
she favors making benefits more portable for workers in the “on-demand
economy” — such as those with Uber or Airbnb.

Workers for many of the companies are contractors, not employees. Their
status means they do not get benefits like Social Security contributions or
unemployment.

“I certainly don’t have all the answers,” Clinton said on a Facebook thread
set up by her campaign in response to a question from a Huffington Post
reporter. “But we have to resolve these questions while embracing the
promise and potential of these new technologies and without stifling
innovation or limiting the ability of working moms and veterans and young
people to get ahead."

“On the issue of benefits, the experience of the Affordable Care act shows
that we need to make sure people have access to benefits and that they are
portable as they move from job to job.”

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) suggested separating benefits from on-demand
economy employers during a speech earlier this year. Among other proposals,
he floated the idea of a third-party organization that would administer
benefits for workers who were earning money from different on-demand
economy companies at the same time.

Warner is expected to introduce legislation on the topic.

On-demand economy companies have implied that portable benefits can be good
for their businesses. Uber founder Travis Kalanick, known for generally
harboring libertarian political tendencies, said last fall the ObamaCare
was “huge” for the company.

Clinton did not weigh in on whether workers in the sharing economy are
currently misclassified as contractors or present a more detailed model for
how portable benefits might work. Her campaign did not immediately respond
to a question about when a more detailed policy proposal might be offered
by the candidate.

In her answer, Clinton exhibited the cautiousness that marked her first
remarks on the topic, when she said only that the “on-demand, or so-called
'gig economy,' is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing
innovation, but it's also raising hard questions about workplace
protections and what a good job will look like in the future."

The former secretary of state and other Democrats have said they believe
the misclassification is a problem, but have not tied it explicitly to the
on-demand economy.

Clinton may be trying to avoid alienating the companies and those who
believe they represent the innovative spirit of America’s tech sector.

The on-demand economy is also currently one of the most closely watched
areas in tech. Uber and Airbnb are currently the two most valuable
U.S.-based startups, and both have significant global presences.

Republicans have endorsed the companies has they look to gain credibility
with the tech sector and young people, with some attacking Clinton for her
initial remarks.

*Hillary jokes about 'daily challenge' of hair, makeup
<http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/248538-hillary-jokes-about-daily-challenge-of-hair-makeup>
// The Hill // Judy Kurtz – July 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton says her hair and makeup routine is “a daily challenge.”

The Democratic presidential frontrunner and former secretary of State
participated in a Facebook Q&A on Monday, answering a handful of
wide-ranging questions from users.

“Every morning, as my boyfriend zips out the door and I spent 30+ minutes
getting ready, I wonder about how the ‘hair and makeup’ tax affects other
women,” one Facebook user, Libby Britain, said in a message to Clinton.
Britain added, “as a young professional woman, I’d genuinely love to hear
about how you manage getting ready each morning.”

Clinton replied, “Amen sister — you’re preaching to the choir. It’s a daily
challenge. I do the best I can — and as you may have noticed, some days are
better than others!”

The former first lady has made a habit in recent months of using
self-deprecating humor when mentioning her appearance. She told a crowd in
May, “I’ve been coloring my hair for years.”

“So you’re not going to see me turn white in the White House,” Clinton said
to applause.

The 2016 hopeful — who dubs herself a “pantsuit aficionado” in her Twitter
profile — also weighed in on her signature style.

Asked if she had a favorite pantsuit, Clinton, 67, responded, “I never met
a pantsuit I didn’t love.” She then plugged her campaign website’s store,
which is selling a $30 Clinton-inspired “Everyday Pantsuit Tee.”

*Jeb and Hillary: Flawed front-runners generating little excitement
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/jeb-and-hillary-flawed-front-runners-generating-little-excitement/>
// Fox News // Howard Kurtz – July 20, 2015 *

America may well get another Bush-Clinton race once this whole presidential
thing shakes out, with predictable groans about royal families and
political retreads.

But in looking at the coverage this past week, I was struck by this
thought: This is one weak pair of front-runners.

Jeb is losing to a guy who’s never run for public office and is in hot
water over comments about Mexican immigrants. In short, he’s been Trumped.
(Though maybe The Donald has trumped himself by making light of John
McCain’s Vietnam captivity, not that the media were in love with him
before.)

Hillary is way ahead in her race, but a socialist senator is generating
most of the excitement. A majority of voters have doubts about her honesty.
And she’s long been at odds with the press.

As the New York Times has noted, Hillary may have raised $47.5 million, but
less than one-fifth has come in contributions of $200 or less. That means
big-money donors, many of whom have maxed out at $2,700, are powering her
campaign. Bernie Sanders, by contrast, has gotten four-fifths of his $15
million in small donations. (Hillary has also spent a chunk of her haul,
stirring concerns about another bloated, consultant-heavy campaign.)

Equally worrisome, the latest Fox News poll confirms the findings of
several other surveys that Hillary has a trust problem. Some 58 percent of
respondents say Clinton’s natural instincts lean more toward “hiding the
truth” than “telling the truth.”

It’s hardly shocking that Hillary isn’t firing up the grass roots. She’s
been in public life for a quarter century, as first lady, senator,
presidential candidate, secretary of State and global celebrity. She’s a
Democrat running to succeed another Democrat. And the lack of a major
opponent is draining much of the drama from her race. That’s why Elizabeth
Warren, not HRC, is on the cover of Time.

At the same time, even Hillary’s team is said to be concerned that Sanders,
a 73-year-old who isn’t even a Democrat and who’s been a bit player in the
Senate, could knock her off in Iowa. Or worse.

Yet in a New York Times Magazine piece that’s in part about the press staff
micromanaging Mark Leibovich (no tweeting from her headquarters!), campaign
manager Robby Mook said: “I take issue with the excitement question.”’

Jeb has problems that go beyond Donald Trump. He’s at odds with
conservative Republican voters over illegal immigration and Common Core
education standards. He’s raised $114 million, but he’s had to talk
repeatedly about his brother and why his last name isn’t a liability.

And while Bush has been solid and substantive in his campaign, aside from
his initial Iraq stumble, he has not been a dominating presence. He
regularly talks to the press, in stark contrast to Hillary, but makes
little news.

And Trump is looming as an obstacle for Bush, particularly with the Fox
debate coming up next month.

“During one recent phone call with a political ally,” Politico says, “Bush
pointedly asked about the surging real estate mogul. What, the friend
recalled the former governor wondering out loud, was behind Trump’s antics,
and what was he trying to accomplish?”

Jeb is trying to be the grownup in the room. He told the Los Angeles Times:
"I think candidates ought to lay out proposals to solve problems rather
than basically prey on legitimate fears and concerns.”

The Donald, meanwhile, speaks of Jeb with open disdain. “He raises 100
million, so what does 100 million mean?” Trump asked. “100 million means
he's doing favors for so many people, it means lobbyists, it means special
interests, it means donors," said Trump. "Who knows it better than me?”

The eventual nominees often seem lackluster during the preseason. I
remember lots of political and media grumbling over Mitt Romney, John
McCain, John Kerry and Al Gore, whereas the likes of Howard Dean and Newt
Gingrich generated more excitement. Those who win their party’s nod have to
be acceptable to a broad coalition, which usually means they can’t be
fire-breathing insurgents.

Maybe even Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush aren’t immune from premature
boredom.

*Here's the Amy Schumer joke that Hillary Clinton 'really liked'
<http://www.businessinsider.com/the-amy-schumer-joke-hillary-clinton-really-liked-2015-7>
// Business Insider // Aly Weisman – July 20, 2015 *

Amy Schumer is known for joking about her sex life, but the comedian says
that with the upcoming election she will soon tackle politics as well —
whether people like it or not.

"I think people only want women to speak for so long. They build you up,
and then they're just ready to tear you down. Like Hillary — when it's
really go time for her, I'll definitely be active, and that'll make people
hate me," Schumer tells GQ in a new cover interview. "I know inevitably
I'll get more political, just as an adult with changing interests, which is
good — no one wants to hear me talk about who I f----d or whatever for
another twenty years. And I hope I'm wrong, but I just think there's this
'Don't disappoint me in any way.' If you say one joke that offends, it
feels like, 'Oh, wait, I thought you were my everything, and now you're
dead to me.'"

But Schumer doesn't care what people think about her outspoken political
views, telling GQ she's "always been a fan" of Hillary Clinton.

In November, the comedian met Clinton for the first time at the Glamour
Women of the Year awards.

"It was very cool. She was a good audience member," Schumer said of the
meeting. "She commented on a couple of the jokes I told."

One joke in particular that Clinton told Schumer she resonated with: "I
said that in L.A. my arms register as legs, and she really liked that. She
was like, 'I can relate.'"

But not everyone was as kind to Clinton during the Women of the Year awards.

"One of the acts that had gone up before me did some stuff that was very
disrespectful to her, and I definitely didn't think it was funny," said
Schumer. "I said to her, like, 'What the f--- was that?' She just goes,
'Par for the course.... I'm so used to it.'"

*New RNC Video Hits Hillary Clinton’s ‘Failed Leadership’
<http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/372303-new-rnc-video-takes-aim-at-hillary-clinton-foreign-policy/>
// IJ Review // Joe Perticone – July 20, 2015 *

The Republican National Committee released a new video taking aim at
Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy record on Monday.

In the video, titled “Failed Leadership,” Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of
State is heavily scrutinized, noting several scandals while she helmed the
State Department.

One of the policy failures highlighted in the video is the 2014 Inspector
General report, which revealed nearly $6 billion lost by Clinton’s State
Department. The original report read:

“The failure to maintain contract files adequately creates significant
financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the
Department’s contract actions.”

In addition, the video also focuses on Clinton’s connections to no-bid
contracts, as well as the security failures that led to the terrorist
attacks that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, Libya.

*Hillary Clinton's Nigeria record once again in the spotlight
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clintons-nigeria-record-once-again-in-the-spotlight/article/2568609>
// The Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – July 20, 2015 *

Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari's visit to Washington, D.C., Monday to
discuss the fight against Boko Haram has prompted critics to again question
why Hillary Clinton refused to label the West African insurgents as
terrorists during her State Department tenure.

Buhari and President Obama discussed U.S. support of Nigerian
counterterrorism efforts, which was made possible by Secretary of State
John Kerry's decision to place Boko Haram on the terrorist watch list in
late 2013, just months after Clinton left office.

The State Department under Clinton resisted congressional calls to
designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization.

Robert Jackson, acting assistant secretary of state for African affairs,
testified before Congress in May of last year that the agency could have
acted sooner on Boko Haram.

Clinton's ties to Gilbert Chagoury, a prominent Nigerian businessman and
Clinton Foundation supporter, have prompted at least one member of Congress
to question the motives behind her decision not to slap Boko Haram with a
Foreign Terrorist Organization classification.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., wrote a letter to Kerry in March asking the State
Department to turn over emails in which Clinton discussed Boko Haram.

"[G]iven the drastic foothold Boko Haram was allowed to gain prior to being
designated an FTO, the nexus between the Department's decision against
designating Boko Haram as an FTO and connections to outside groups should
be brought forward," Vitter wrote.

Vitter questioned whether the Clinton's relationship with Chagoury
influenced her decision against labeling Boko Haram a terrorist group.

He noted Bill Clinton had participated in events with Chagoury while his
wife was secretary of state, and that the Nigerian land developer had
"previously agreed to a $66 million plea deal during international
investigation into corruption charges against him."

The Clinton Foundation's acceptance of donations from Nigerian companies
has raised red flags in the past.

For example, the First Bank of Nigeria, one of the country's largest
financial institutions, gave as much as $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

The son of the former chairman of the First Bank of Nigeria was sentenced
to life in prison after attempting to blow up a Detroit-bound passenger
flight on Christmas Day 2009.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Alhaji Mutallab's son, was dubbed the "underwear
bomber" after authorities discovered explosives hidden in his underwear.

Bill Clinton accepted between $500,000 and $1 million from a Nigerian
newspaper publisher in 2012 to speak at an event in Lagos.

The money went straight into the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.

Procter & Gamble's Nigeria operation won a prestigious State Department
award in 2011. The company donated between $1 million and $5 million to the
Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton personally presented the company with the award at a
ceremony in Washington, D.C.

Nestle Nigeria, a food manufacturing company, also donated to the Clinton
Foundation.

Hillary Clinton reportedly invited Buhari to meet with her in 2009, years
before the Nigerian president assumed office.

Powerful oil corporations have played a role in shaping Nigeria's policy.
Many of the energy conglomerates have also enjoyed close ties to the
Clintons.

Royal Dutch Shell, a major oil company and Clinton Foundation donor,
reportedly infiltrated the Nigerian government in its efforts to dominate
the energy sector there.

Leaked diplomatic cables suggest State Department officials received
intelligence updates from Shell executives in Nigeria and were concerned
about the effects of the deteriorating security situation on the country's
oil industry.

The Nigerian ambassador under Hillary Clinton met with executives from
Shell and other corporations — including fellow foundation donors Chevron,
Schlumberger and ExxonMobil — in 2009 and advised them on ways to lobby the
Nigerian government in their favor.

One of the reasons Hillary Clinton's officials cited for refusing to label
the group as terrorists was "the possibility that doing so might heighten
threats against U.S. and Western interests," according to CNN.

*In One Quote, Hillary Clinton Just Outpaced All of Her Opponents on
#BlackLivesMatter
<http://mic.com/articles/122591/hillary-clinton-outpaces-democratic-opponents-on-black-lives-matter>
// Mic // Zak Rice – July 20, 2015 *

Ever since they announced their candidacies, the 2016 presidential hopefuls
have been either wildly off-base or deafeningly silent on issues pertaining
to #BlackLivesMatter.

Hillary Clinton changed that on Monday. In a Q&A conducted via her Facebook
page, Clinton responded to a question from Washington Post reporter Wesley
Lowery about what she, as president, would do to "begin to dismantle
structural racism in the United States."

Here's how she answered:

"Black lives matter. Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind
that. We need to acknowledge some hard truths about race and justice in
this country, and one of those hard truths is that that racial inequality
is not merely a symptom of economic inequality. Black people across America
still experience racism every day. Since this campaign started, I've been
talking about the work we must do to address the systemic inequities that
persist in education, in economic opportunity, in our justice system. But
we have to do more than talk - we have to take action. For example - we
should make sure every police department in the US has body cameras. We
should provide alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders. We
should invest in early childhood education for every child. We should fight
for voting rights and universal voter registration. You will continue to
hear me talking about these issues throughout this campaign and pushing for
real solutions. -H"

Clinton's response demonstrates at least a basic understanding of the role
structural racism plays in daily American life. She acknowledges that
access to quality education, economic opportunity, voting resources and an
equitable criminal justice system all have a distinctly racial tinge, with
black people disproportionately affected. And she implies that she's
committed to concrete, if far from encompassing, solutions: measurable
goals to which her administration can be held long-term, if elected.

She also suggests these are issues we can expect her to address "throughout
this campaign," which is encouraging for those hoping racial inequality
will be a centerpiece of this election.

The question was designed partly as a follow-up to the events of this past
weekend. Democratic presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders and Martin
O'Malley both attended the Netroots Nation organizing conference in
Phoenix, Arizona, where protesters disrupted their onstage Q&A with calls
to "say her name" — a nod to Sandra Bland, whom authorities say was found
dead by suicide in a Texas jail cell on July 13, even as advocates and
family members suggest she died by foul play.

To be fair, Clinton was able to provide her answer through a written post
instead of an in-person confrontation. Nonetheless, Sanders threatened to
walk offstage in response to the interruption. O'Malley responded with the
tepid and widely criticized concession "All lives matter." Both have faced
backlash on social media as a result, even as they've tried to make up
ground for these missteps.

This came at a time when anti-black violence at the hands of both police
and private citizens alike has prompted protests and political action from
Ferguson, Missouri, to Baltimore to Texas and back.

Clinton's answer seems thus far to be the only unequivocal endorsement of
the phrase "black lives matter" in the Democratic field, free of the
implicit dismissal of "all lives matter," and Sanders' suspiciously "I have
plenty of black friends"-reminiscent retort, "I've spent 50 years of my
life fighting for civil rights."

Whether she follows through on this initial commitment is yet to be seen.
But one thing is clear: The #BlackLivesMatter movement officially has the
ear of the presidential candidates field.

*Hillary Clinton shuts down Mitch McConnell on women’s rights: He “doesn’t
understand what our lives are like”
<http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/hillary_clinton_shuts_down_mitch_mcconnell_on_womens_rights_he_doesnt_understand_what_our_lives_are_like/>
// Salon // Sophia Tesfaye – July 20, 2015 *

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly suggested that Hillary
Clinton’s presidential candidacy lacked a sufficient rationale, warning
that “the gender card alone isn’t enough.”

According to local reporters, McConnell made the remarks today while he was
speaking before the Bullitt County Chamber of Commerce where he claimed
there’s not “a dime’s worth of difference” between Clinton and President
Barack Obama:

During a Facebook Q&A today, Huffington Post political reporter Laura
Bassett asked Clinton about McConnell’s comments. Clinton, apparently
unaware of McConnell’s remarks, took the opportunity to castigate the
entire Republican party as she has grown fond of doing in recent weeks:

Wow. If that’s what he said, Mitch McConnell really doesn’t get it. There
is a gender card being played in this campaign. It’s played every time
Republicans vote against giving women equal pay, deny families access to
affordable child care or family leave, refuse to let women make decisions
about their health or have access to free contraception. These aren’t just
women’s issues, they are economic issues that drive growth and affect all
Americans. Anyone who doesn’t get that doesn’t understand what our lives
are like.

The only other woman running for president, former Hewlett-Packard
executive Carly Fiorna, has also brought up the tired “gender card” phrase
to dismiss Clinton’s candidacy as rooted in the appeal of a first woman
president while holding herself out as uniquely qualified to challenge
Clinton as a woman:

I think that if Hillary Clinton were to face a female nominee, there are a
whole set of things that she won’t be able to talk about. She won’t be able
to talk about being the first woman president. She won’t be able to talk
about a war on women without being challenged. She won’t be able to play
the gender card.

*Hillary Clinton Takes To Facebook To Let The Gop Know: Women's Issues Are
Economic Issues
<http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a29409/hillary-clinton-facebook-chat/>
// Elle // Mattie Kahn – July 20, 2015 *

Like you, Hillary Clinton logged on to Facebook this afternoon in the
middle of her workday.

The presidential candidate hosted her first virtual Q&A of this election
season on the platform, answering questions from supporters all over the
country and trumpeting her devotion to at least these two forms of
expression: pantsuits and karaoke.

When a supporter invited her to join him on Dickson Street in Fayetteville,
Arkansas, for an evening of performance, she offered: "I love Dickson
Street." Asked to recall her favorite two-piece ensemble, Clinton claimed
she could not choose between them. "I have never met a pantsuit I didn't
love," she said.

She had less affection, however, for Republican values, which she denounced
over and over again throughout the live session. Clinton restated her
positions on immigration and student debt and promised to continue to
address "hard truths about race and justice in this country." When a user
wanted to know whether Clinton had a retort for Mitch McConnell, who
suggested this morning that the "gender card" would not secure the election
for her, Clinton was vehement:

"There is a gender card being played in this campaign," she wrote. "It's
played every time Republicans vote against giving women equal pay, deny
families access to affordable child care or family leave, refuse to let
women make decisions about their health or have access to free
contraception. These aren't just women's issues, they are economic issues
that drive growth and affect all Americans. Anyone who doesn't get that
doesn't understand what our lives are like."

Indeed, Clinton offered her woman-to-woman support to a comrade—​a "young
professional" who told the former secretary of state that her "boyfriend
zips out the door and I spent 30+ minutes getting ready."

"I wonder about how the 'hair and makeup tax' affects other women," she
wrote, "especially ones I admire in high-pressure, public-facing jobs."

Clinton gets it.

"Amen, sister," she declared. "[Y]ou're preaching to the choir. It's a
daily challenge. I do the best I can—and as you may have noticed, some days
are better than others!"

*Hillary Clinton Admits Her Morning Beauty Routine Is a 'Daily Challenge'
<http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-talks-hair-makeup-tax-facebook-qa>
// People // Tierney Mcaffe – July 20, 2015 *

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is one of the most powerful women
in politics, but her appearance – from her haircuts to her affinity for
pantsuits – has always been a hot topic. So much so that at this year's
White House Correspondents' dinner, comedian Cecily Strong asked the media
to promise "not to talk about Hillary's appearance" this election season.

But when the inevitable question crept up during a Facebook Q&A session on
Monday, Clinton made a surprising confession about the "hair and makeup
tax" that even women like herself in "high-pressure" positions often have
to pay.

"I know these questions can seem fluffy," Facebook user Libby Brittain
wrote, "but as a young professional woman, I'd genuinely love to hear about
how you manage getting ready each morning (especially during your time
traveling as Secretary of State and now on the campaign trail) while
staying focused on the 'real' work ahead of you that day."

"Amen, sister – you're preaching to the choir," Clinton responded. "It's a
daily challenge. I do the best I can – and as you may have noticed, some
days are better than others!"

During the Facebook Q&A session, the first of her 2016 campaign, Clinton
also vowed to make the student loan debt crisis a priority from "the first
day I become president," and addressed how she would have responded to
Black Lives Matter protestors who confronted her opponents Martin O'Malley
and Bernie Sanders at a Netroots Nation convention on Saturday.

"Black lives matter," she said. "Everyone in this country should stand
firmly behind that. We need to acknowledge some hard truths about race and
justice in this country, and one of those hard truths is that that racial
inequality is not merely a symptom of economic inequality."

Clinton also fired back at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who
reportedly accused her of playing "the gender card" in her campaign.

"Wow," she replied. "If that's what he said, Mitch McConnell really doesn't
get it."

"There is a gender card being played in this campaign," she continued.
"It's played every time Republicans vote against giving women equal pay,
deny families access to affordable child care or family leave, refuse to
let women make decisions about their health or have access to free
contraception. These aren't just women's issues, they are economic issues
that drive growth and affect all Americans. Anyone who doesn't get that
doesn't understand what our lives are like."

For her part, Clinton seems to be using humor to take charge of the
narrative about her appearance.

When asked whether she has a favorite pantsuit, she quipped: "I never met a
pantsuit I didn't love."

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*DECLARED*

*O’MALLEY*

*Why Martin O’Malley had to apologize for saying “all lives matter”
<http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9003233/all-lives-matter-black> // VOX //
Dara Lind – July 20, 2015 *

When on earth did saying that "all lives matter" become something you need
to apologize for?

That's a question a lot of people have after a confrontation this past
weekend between Democratic presidential candidates Martin O'Malley and
Bernie Sanders and black activists at the major progressive conference
Netroots Nation. The activists were affiliated with the #BlackLivesMatter
movement, which has sprung up in the past year to protest and respond to
the deaths of young black men and women at the hands of police and while in
police custody. During his attempt to respond, O'Malley said, "Black lives
matter. White lives matter. All lives matter." The protesters, as well as
other attendees and progressives watching the events unfold, were deeply
offended — and O'Malley was forced to apologize the next day.

RelatedWhy #BlackLivesMatter activists are fighting with Bernie Sanders
supporters

Do activists really believe that only black lives matter? No, of course
they don't. But as the phrase "black lives matter" has moved into the
mainstream of progressive politics over the last year, the response that
"all lives matter" has been used to try to shut it down — or to obscure the
real racial disparities in police/community relations. So while O'Malley
almost certainly wasn't trying to diminish the movement, he touched a nerve
— and set off another round of argument about what the slogan really means.

Activists feel police often act like black lives don't matter

The hashtag #BlackLivesMatter, and the campaign that's organized around it
for the past year, isn't about the general improvement of the well-being of
African Americans. It's a protest against police killings of young black
men and women and the deaths of young black men and women in police
custody. To the activists in the #BlackLivesMatter movement, the frequency
with which black Americans die at the hands of police — and the
circumstances of those deaths — are powerful evidence that law enforcement
doesn't care as much about black lives as white lives. And they point to
the media reaction to those deaths, which often focuses on the criminal
records of the victims, as evidence that American society doesn't care as
much about black lives either.

police shooting by race

Joe Posner/Vox

In April, after the shooting of Walter Scott by a police officer in South
Carolina, Tavis Smiley put it this way:

Now how do you know [the officer who killed Scott] didn't care about his
humanity? Because he shot him, like a coward, 8 times in the back as he's
running away. How do you know he doesn't care about his life? Because as
he's dead on the ground, you're so afraid of a black man that as you shoot
him 8 times in the back and he's face down he's dead and you still handcuff
him. What does that say about how you regard or disregard the humanity of
that particular human being?

All lives matter, but not all lives are equally under threat

#BlackLivesMatter is a specific cause. And it's pretty well accepted that
if someone supports one cause, it doesn't mean they don't care about other
ones.

And because "black lives matter" does refer to the specific threats that
activists feel law enforcement poses to black Americans, countering with
"all lives matter" can sound like an attempt to deny that those racial
disparities exist. No one disagrees that all lives ought to matter — but
one of the difficulties with talking about race in America is that even
when race ought not to matter, for many people, it does.

Here's an analogy from Reddit user GeekAesthete, in a thread in which
another user asked redditors to explain why #AllLivesMatter was offensive,
that gets at this:

Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while
everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I
should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad
corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a
wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your
point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you
should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just
dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten
any!

#AllLivesMatter has often been used to attack #BlackLivesMatter

After O'Malley said "All lives matter" on Saturday, he told MSNBC that he
hadn't been aware of the connotations of the phrase. To activists, though,
that's hardly an excuse — in fact, it almost makes the problem worse.
Because for nearly as long as "black lives matter" has been a slogan of
activism against police violence, the phrase "all lives matter" has been
used by its opponents.

The Facebook page ALL Lives Matter features complaints about how there's no
such thing as "police brutality" and photos of white people allegedly
killed by African Americans. And the hashtag #AllLivesMatter on Twitter is
a decent mix of earnest entreaties to stop being divided by race, blaming
Obama for racial divisions, and articles about black-on-black or
black-on-white crime.

Just as he told MSNBC, O'Malley probably wasn't aware before this weekend
that "all lives matter" is often used to attack "black lives matter." He
may have reflexively answered thinking he was accepting their point and
reiterating it. But the honest mistake itself illustrated that he hasn't
been paying very close attention to how the #BlackLivesMatter movement has
developed over the past year, and how it's been attacked — both by people
simply trying to deny the continued relevance of race, and by people trying
to paint African Americans as the real thugs.

And it means O'Malley hasn't been paying attention to the conversation some
#BlackLivesMatter activists have been trying to start within the
progressive movement — to ensure that their issues are seen as progressive
issues. O'Malley was at Netroots Nation to appeal to progressives looking
for an alternative to Hillary Clinton. The protesters who challenged him
took the stance that for a candidate to label himself progressive in the
year 2015, he should have a well-considered position on the biggest
progressive movement of the past year.

Maybe not everyone would be forced to apologize for saying that "all lives
matter" — although, like many other things, the real question is whether
you keep saying it after it's explained why people could take offense. But
Martin O'Malley isn't all people. And the broader lesson of what happened
over the weekend is that black progressives don't feel they're currently
part of the progressive agenda — and they're fighting to change that.

*O’Malley apologizes after saying ‘all lives matter’ at liberal conference
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/20/omalley-apologizes-after-saying-all-lives-matter/>
// Washington Times // David Sherfinski – July 20, 2015 *

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley apologized after he was interrupted by
protesters when the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate said “all lives
matter” at the Netroots Nation conference in Phoenix over the weekend.

“That was a mistake on my part, and I meant no disrespect,” Mr. O’Malley
said in an interview on “This Week in Blackness,” a digital show. “I did
not mean to be insensitive in any way or to communicate that I did not
understand the tremendous passion, commitment and feeling and depth of
feeling that all of us should be attaching to this issue.”

Several dozen demonstrators interrupted Mr. O'Malley by shouting “Black
lives matter!” — which has become a rallying cry in the wake of recent
shootings of black men by police officers — and Mr. O'Malley responded:
“Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter,” according to
CNN.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, one of Mr. O'Malley’s rivals on the
Democratic side, was shouted down as well when he tried to speak, according
to Yahoo! News.

“Black lives, of course, matter. I spent 50 years of my life fighting for
civil rights and for dignity,” Mr. Sanders said. “But if you don’t want me
to be here, that’s OK. I don’t want to outscream people.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the 2016 Democratic
front-runner, was not at the conference, but received some pushback for
using the phrase when she recently spoke at a church near Ferguson,
Missouri, the site of rioting and protests last summer in the wake of the
shooting death of Michael Brown.

In response to a question about the protesters at the event, Mrs. Clinton
said during a Facebook question and answer session Monday that “black lives
matter.”

“Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind that,” she said. “We
need to acknowledge some hard truths about race and justice in this
country, and one of those hard truths is that that racial inequality is not
merely a symptom of economic inequality. Black people across America still
experience racism every day.”

*SANDERS*

*Bernie Sanders hazed on Twitter for civil rights comment
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter-twitter-netroots-nation-120355.html#ixzz3gTqvWPC6>
// Politico // Daniel Strauss – July 20, 2015 *

Sen. Bernie Sanders is getting some blowback for saying he spent five
decades fighting for civil rights when protesters confronted him at a
presidential candidate forum over the weekend.

At the forum on Saturday, at the annual conference of the left-leaning
Netroots Nation, protesters affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement
stormed the stage. A defensive Sanders said, “Black lives matter. But I’ve
spent 50 years of my life fighting for civil rights. If you don’t want me
to be here, that’s OK.”

In the 1960s, Sanders was a civil rights activist who helped organize
anti-segregation sit-ins. In 1988, he helped Democratic presidential
candidate Jesse Jackson win in Vermont.

But Saturday’s comments sparked a minor backlash nonetheless. On Twitter,
the hashtag #berniesoblack was born and directed, with mockery, at the
independent Vermont senator and liberal presidential candidate. There were
multiple kinds of trolling, including from prominent black Twitter users.

And from political Twitter users as well:

Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, who awkwardly said at one point during
the same forum, “black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter,”
faced some criticism of his own. O’Malley later apologized for the remark.

On Sunday, Sanders offered an olive branch of sorts:

*Trumka: I'm not trying to slow the Sanders surge
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-surge-afl-cio-richard-trumka-120360.html#ixzz3gTCyNcvR>
// Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti – July 20, 2015 *

Labor chief Richard Trumka on Monday defended the memo he sent last month
to AFL-CIO leaders telling them to stop trying to endorse Bernie Sanders,
saying it was more a helpful reminder than an effort to slow the Sanders
surge.

“They’re not going rogue, it’s really exciting,” said Trumka, the country’s
most influential organized union chief, in an interview with POLITICO.

“The memo just said, before they got out of hand, you know, debate back and
forth, talk up a storm. But remember: There’s only one endorsement in a
presidential election, and it comes from the national.”

Trumka’s attempt to calm the waters comes as Sanders has picked up
significant momentum among local and state labor groups with his fiery
rhetoric and unabashed support of progressive initiatives such as a 15
minimum wage, equal health care for all and steeper taxes on the wealthy.

He’s drawn a contrast with Hillary Clinton, the dominant front-runner and a
longtime labor stalwart who has met with some skepticism because of her
unwillingness to condemn President Barack Obama’s trans-Pacific trade
negotiations.

Sanders, however, has been feeling the labor love.

The South Carolina AFL-CIO put out a statement supporting Sanders’
candidacy, for example, before Trumka’s national group forced it to walk
back the pseudo-endorsement.

Still, it’s early in the race, Clinton is widely regarded as the leading
contender for the eventual backing of major elements of organized labor and
the endorsement process is ongoing.

She, Sanders, Martin O’Malley and Republican Mike Huckabee will all meet
AFL-CIO leaders on July 29 as part of the procedure, after filling out the
group’s questionnaire.

Trumka said on Monday he isn’t sure whether the group would offer a primary
endorsement anytime soon (or at all) — a declaration that comes just days
after the American Federation of Teachers stirred up some grumbling in the
organized labor community by endorsing Clinton.

“No one was surprised that they would endorse Hillary,” said Trumka. Randi
Weingarten, AFT’s leader, is a longtime Clinton ally who sits on the board
of her supportive super PAC, Priorities USA Action.

Nonetheless, Trumka reiterated the same line his union has promoted from
the start: that all potential candidates would be judged by their plans to
support a minimum wage increase, protect and bolster overtime laws, lessen
mass incarceration, push comprehensive immigration reform and promote equal
pay for women.

He also said the trade debate that divided labor and the White House would,
naturally, be factored into the process — but that Clinton’s reluctance to
weigh in strongly early on was hardly disqualifying: Still, “it was duly
noted, by voters.” He similarly noted union leaders had taken note of
Sanders’ and O’Malley’s strong stances against the deal early on.

Answering questions from a panel of POLITICO reporters and editors, Trumka
also used the opportunity to rail against Republican presidential hopeful
Scott Walker, whom Trumka called a “national disgrace” when the Wisconsin
governor declared his intention to run for president last week.

“He is the most openly and notoriously anti-worker, anti-union candidate
that we have seen in my lifetime,” Trumka said, still insisting that the
AFL-CIO has no specific plan to take on Walker, despite leaving its options
open to attack his record using “all the venues, from paper, to air, to
electronic.”

“Why would any sane human being, knowing his background and who pulls the
strings, vote for Scott Walker?” he added. “If you cut the two strings
behind him that go to the Koch brothers, he’s like putty. He falls down.”

*Bernie Sanders Spent $0 On Polling, Because Really, Would It Change His
Mind Anyway?
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-spent-0-on-polling-because-really-would-it-change-his-mind-anyway_55ad54c2e4b065dfe89f15a6>
// HuffPo // Sam Stein – July 20, 2015 *

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has raised $15 million since April 30, when he
announced his candidacy for president on the Democratic ticket. From that
impressive haul, he devoted exactly $0 to polling.

This is not exactly normal operating procedure for a serious presidential
candidate, which Sanders has become in his short time on the trail. Even
real estate mogul Donald Trump spent $28,000 on polling services, though he
says he doesn’t “want a pollster” (since if the pollster were “so good,”
he'd be running for office himself). Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) spent
$69,000 on polling out of the $2.1 million he raised, and has nary a bump
in the polls to show for it.

But why is Sanders flying blind when it comes to testing public attitudes?

His top aide, Tad Devine, said it’s not because the campaign doesn’t see
the utility in those numbers. In fact, the decision could end up being
reversed -- for example, when or if they decide it’s in their interest to
better target a media purchase.

So far, though, the notoriously frugal Sanders isn’t convinced.

“Bernie doesn’t spend a lot of money on the campaign, OK,” said Devine.
“And research can be expensive.”

“If left to his own devices, he would not like to spend a dime on polling.
I don’t think, as of this moment, we have convinced him of the merits of
doing that,” Devine added. “I personally would like to, but I haven’t
convinced him yet that we should. I’m hopeful I will.”

This actually isn’t the way Sanders has always operated. During his House
and Senate campaigns, which Devine also worked for, he did pay for polling.
But by the time the 2016 campaign started, a few factors persuaded him to
forgo the cost. His extensive travel through New Hampshire and Iowa even
prior to announcing a run provided Sanders and aides with a kind of
on-the-ground focus group operation for their message. And when he started
running, there was no indication he’d be working with the amount of money
he has since raised. Polling was considered an outlandish expense for a
campaign designed to be bare bones. They were planning a reverse
"Moneyball" -- a small-market operation that forgoes the use of data
instead of seeing it as an equalizer.

Devine’s life, by his own admission, is more difficult because of that. If
he had his druthers, he would pay for more research -- well, any research
really.

“I think we will probably have another discussion,” he told The Huffington
Post. “Thus far the discussion has been no.”

Till then, he’s relying on public data. It isn’t as detailed or
micro-targeted as polling, but it also doesn’t cost hundreds of thousands
of dollars. As a point of comparison, former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton’s campaign spent more than $900,000 on polling in the second
quarter of this year.

“I don’t think we’ve lost any ground because we didn’t spend money on
research,” said Devine. “We’ll see if that remains the same in the time
ahead.”

*Bernie Sanders Is Against Keystone XL. Hillary Clinton Was 'Inclined' to
Approve It. Why the Difference?
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-is-against-keystone-xl-hillary-clinton-was-inclined-to-approve-it-why-the-difference_b_7830214.html>
// HuffPo // H.A. Goodman – July 20, 2015 *

The Sierra Club calls Keystone XL a "climate disaster." Therefore, when a
presidential candidate once "inclined" to green-light the pipeline hires
someone who was also a "major Keystone lobbyist," Democrats should inquire
as to the reasoning of such a curious decision. In addition, while
Republicans focus solely on jobs and energy independence, questions should
be asked regarding the long-term economic cost of spills. An article
earlier this year titled Yellowstone Pipeline Spills Fuel Arguments Over
Keystone XL Line highlights the long term economic consequences of ignoring
oil spills:

The Montana pipeline breach temporarily fouled a city's water supply and
emerged as the latest in a string of spills to highlight ongoing problems
with maintenance of the nation's 61,000 miles of crude oil pipelines.

An Associated Press review of government records shows accident numbers
growing steadily since 2009, reversing a decade-long decline...

Keystone would move up to 830,000 barrels of oil a day. A break in the line
could dwarf the recent Montana accident, on a line with a capacity of just
42,000 barrels daily.

Therefore, if a Keystone oil spill "could dwarf the recent Montana
incident" and ruin water supplies, then why are Republicans and some
Democrats supporting Keystone?

It's important to note as well that the Keystone pipeline will go from
Alberta, Canada, and then through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas,
Oklahoma and Texas, all the way to refineries along the Gulf Coast. The
Wall Street Journal states that for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,
"Settlement of all federal and state claims brings total costs to nearly
$54 billion." Because of its size, there's a real possible that a spill
from Keystone could easily exceed such costs; communities from Montana to
Texas would be affected for decades, both economically and environmentally
from a devastating oil spill.

While the debate rages, some people have taken a firm and bold stance on
the environmental disaster in the making. Perhaps the biggest opponent of
Keystone XL in Congress is Senator Bernie Sanders, who says, "The idea that
we would give a green light for the transportation of 800,000 barrels of
some of the dirtiest oils all over the world makes no sense to me." In
addition, Bernie Sanders has openly questioned the sanity of Congress,
declaring that "it is totally crazy" to think Keystone won't adversely
affect the planet and states the following:

With the scientific community telling us loudly and clearly that we must
transform our energy system away from fossil fuels if we are to combat
climate change, it is totally crazy for the Congress to support the
production and transportation of some of the dirtiest oil on the planet.

Clear and direct, Sanders isn't ambiguous on his stance pertaining to
Keystone.

Others, however, are more nuanced in their views.

One big question for Democrats in 2016 will be Hillary Clinton's
'inclination' to support Keystone. In an article by The Christian Science
Monitor titled Hillary Clinton has a Keystone XL problem, Clinton's
ambiguous position on the biggest environmental controversy of recent years
is analyzed:

As Secretary of State, Clinton said she was 'inclined' to sign-off on the
pipeline, which would carry emissions-heavy oil sands from Alberta to US
Gulf Coast refineries. Since then, Clinton has remained silent on Keystone
XL...

'We all remember when Clinton said she was 'inclined' to approve Keystone
XL. If the pipeline goes through, she'll shoulder part of the blame, and
this protest today will be just a small taste of actions to come,' Jamie
Henn, spokesperson for 350 Action, told the Monitor in an email Monday.
'Clinton is saying many of the right things on climate - Keystone XL is an
easy way to start doing the right thing.'

'That unwillingness to take a position on something, it's significantly
more indefensible when you're a declared presidential candidate,' 350.org
spokesperson Karthik Ganapathy told Business Insider last week. 'It's even
more indefensible when Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have taken a position on it
when you, as the Democratic front-runner, have not.'

Therefore, a statement like, "If the pipeline goes through, she'll shoulder
part of the blame," doesn't bode well for a Democrat who is supposed to
counter Republicans on this emotional debate. Being "inclined" to support
Keystone at one point only strengthens the GOP's hand in the Congressional
battle.

In February, President Obama sided with progressives like Bernie Sanders
and took a direct and unwavering stand on the Keystone XL pipeline, vetoing
the Keystone XL bill and blocking what 350.org describes as a "pipeline
that would connect Alberta, Canada with Gulf Coast refineries that would
carry 800,000 barrels per day of tar sands oil across the United States to
be refined, exported and burned." Like Bernie Sanders, who vehemently
opposes the pipeline and believes it will lead to a "significantly less
inhabitable" planet, Obama listened to the concerns of Greenpeace and
others regarding "how disastrous the tar sands oil industry is to the
climate."

However, the debate will still continue with the next president, and a
POLITICO piece titled Greens divided over Hillary Clinton and Keystone
explains one presidential candidate's silence and the impact of this
communication style:

Hillary Clinton is maintaining her years of silence on the Keystone XL
pipeline -- and environmental groups are increasingly divided on how hard
they should push her to take a stand.

It's a further sign that the never-ending pipeline drama will remain one of
the biggest policy minefields facing Clinton's White House campaign...

'Activists who are the ones that will turn out for her events and donate
money are the ones who will also see the gap of her talking about climate
change and yet (if she does) supporting tar sands and fracking,' said Jane
Kleeb, founder of the anti-Keystone group Bold Nebraska. She added that
Clinton 'needs to visit with us and hopefully not listen to some of the DC
lobbyists who I just know are saying 'they will vote for you anyway, what
other option do they have?''

Similar to Clinton's silence on the Trans Pacific Partnership and other
controversial topics, where ambiguity is favored over a clear-cut stance
that could lead to political backlash, Clinton's viewpoint on Keystone
seems to still be mired in "years of silence." One telling observation from
the POLITOCO piece is the quote referencing the mentality of many voters:
"They will vote for you anyway, what other option do they have?"

From Keystone, to Iraq and gay marriage (up until 2013), it seems that many
progressives are resigned to simply accept silence, or overt flip flopping
on controversial topics. In lieu of principled and straightforward
dialogue, some people favor a reverence for the $2.5 billion campaign
machine that's expected to win the White House simply because it's received
the most donor money. Like Eric Zuesse writes in Hillary Clinton's
Bought-And-Paid-For Favors for Keystone XL Deal, "But of course, this isn't
to say that she's any worse than other Republicans; it's merely to note
that, like with Obama, her calling herself a 'Democrat' doesn't make any
difference, other than to fool a different group of suckers."

However, there is a person in 2016 who embodies the Democratic and
progressive principles (like gay rights, when he voted against President
Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act) that Democrats were supposed to always
uphold; even when polls went in a different direction. His name is Bernie
Sanders and he is vehemently against Keystone XL, while others have been
"inclined" to support it. In 2016, Democrats can accept silence on the
future of a "climate disaster" in the making, or vote for Bernie Sanders, a
candidate who clearly states "it is totally crazy for the Congress to
support the production and transportation of some of the dirtiest oil on
the planet."

Finally, the word "why" will be an important issue of its own in the
upcoming election. If the GOP supports Keystone, and Clinton was "inclined"
to support it, then why does there exist a difference on Keystone between
Sanders and Clinton? Why is one person overtly against it while the other
is silent? The answer to this question, and to several others, could
dictate who wins the 2016 Democratic nomination. It's also an answer that
might enable Bernie Sanders to win the presidency.

*#BernieSoBlack: why progressives are fighting about Bernie Sanders and
race
<http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9001639/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter> //
VOX // Dara Lind – July 20, 2015 *

You might expect that Netroots Nation, the progressive conference whose
2015 edition was held in Phoenix last weekend, would be natural Sen. Bernie
Sanders territory. And you could point to his speech on Saturday night,
which turned out 11,000 people, as proof that you were right. But there's
more than one kind of progressive.

Sanders' Netroots Nation appearance at a town hall Saturday afternoon
turned into a confrontation with #BlackLivesMatter activists — and brought
a conflict between Sanders-loving economic progressives on one side, and
organizers for racial justice on the other, out into the open. But while
Sanders is the catalyst, the conflict — at least as Sanders' critics see it
— isn't really about whether to support Sanders or Hillary Clinton for the
2016 nomination. It's about who gets to call themselves a progressive
champion, and when politicians should heed activists' demands to pay more
explicit attention to certain issues.

What happened at Netroots Nation

Two Democratic candidates appeared at Netroots Nation on Saturday: Sanders
and Martin O'Malley. (Hillary Clinton was invited, but declined the
invitation.) O'Malley and Sanders made back-to-back appearances in a town
hall-style session, moderated by journalist and immigration activist Jose
Antonio Vargas.

Both Sanders and O'Malley are trying to win progressive support in the
Democratic primary to become the alternative to Hillary Clinton. But only
one of them has really succeeded: Sanders' candidacy has gained a lot of
momentum, with huge events and the second-most money raised directly of any
candidate (driven largely by small donations). O'Malley, on the other hand,
hasn't been able to capture as much attention. In fact, he's faced
something of an uphill battle with many progressives: O'Malley's political
career started in Baltimore, where he was closely associated with the
aggressive police tactics that were under protest after the death of
Freddie Gray in police custody this spring.

Shortly after O'Malley took the stage, a group of protesters affiliated
with the #BlackLivesMatter movement (which has been organizing for the last
year or so to call attention to deaths of black men and women at the hands
of police) marched into the room chanting "Which Side Are You On?" (a
reference to an old-school labor song). Two women (Tia Oso and Patrice
Cullors) took the stage and the microphone and spoke about deaths of black
men and women in police custody — specifically the recent suspicious death
of Sandra Bland in Texas.

Ending the presentation, Cullors asked O'Malley to offer "concrete
actions": "What will you do to stop police unions from battering our names
after law enforcement kills us?" "And," she added, "we want to hear it from
Bernie Sanders, too."

The activists stayed in the room for the rest of the town hall, chanting
the names of people killed in police custody (the hashtag #SayHerName has
become a locus for activism and grief after women have been killed in
police custody). Neither candidate was exactly graceful in responding to
the interruption.

O'Malley, attempting to respond to the protesters, said "Black lives
matter. White lives matter. All lives matter" — a phrase that's been used
by critics of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and which activists see as an
attempt to dismiss racial disparities in police shootings. O'Malley later
told MSNBC that he wasn't aware of the connotations of "all lives matter,"
which is itself pretty illustrative of the disconnect between O'Malley and
the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

But because O'Malley doesn't have a strong support base among progressives
at the moment, he hasn't had supporters step up in his defense. Instead,
most people have focused on the response that Sanders — the ostensible
progressive champion — gave the protesters.

Why Sanders and his supporters frustrate some racial-justice activists

Sanders was defensive and cranky toward the protesters, saying "Black lives
of course matter. But I've spent 50 years of my life fighting for civil
rights. If you don't want me to be here, that's okay." At other times, he
didn't acknowledge the protesters at all and raised his voice to be heard
over them (which some attendees saw as Sanders "shouting down" the
protesters).

Sanders didn't ignore the issue entirely. But to some observers, it felt
like Sanders "stuck to his script" about economic injustice without giving
racial injustice its due.

There is a legitimate disconnect between the way Sanders (and many of the
economic progressives who support him) see the world, and the way many
racial-justice progressives see the world. To Bernie Sanders, as I've
written, racial inequality is a symptom — but economic inequality is the
disease. That's why his responses to unrest in Ferguson and Baltimore have
included specific calls for police accountability, but have focused on
improving economic opportunity for young African Americans. Sanders
presents fixing unemployment as the systemic solution to the problem.

Many racial-justice advocates don't see it that way. They see racism as its
own systemic problem that has to be addressed on its own terms. They feel
that it's important to acknowledge the effects of economic inequality on
people of color, but that racial inequality isn't merely a symptom of
economic inequality. And most importantly, they feel that "pivoting" to
economic issues can be a way for white progressives to present their agenda
as the progressive agenda and shove black progressives, and the issues that
matter most to them, to the sidelines.

So Sanders' performance at Netroots confirmed the frustrations that his
critics felt. And Sanders' supporters' reaction to the criticism was just
as predictable.

Yes, Sanders marched with MLK. But his critics know that already.

Whether you agree with Sanders' claim that he's been "fighting for civil
rights for 50 years" depends on whether you think he's doing enough in his
Senate career to put civil rights on the agenda. But the "50 years" part is
true: he has admirable civil-rights-movement cred. Sanders was a member of
the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, which helped coordinate much
of the nonviolent action of the early 1960s, and he participated in the
famous March for Jobs and Freedom in 1964, where Martin Luther King, Jr.,
delivered the famous "I Have A Dream" speech.

Today, Sanders' supporters bring up his record in the civil-rights movement
in response to basically any criticism of Sanders' actions on racial
equality. And when Sanders started catching criticism for his Netroots
performance, the supporters were ready with their history. As comedy
podcaster Roderick Morrow — who started the satirical #BernieSoBlack
Twitter hashtag on Sunday — told Vox: "It seems like any time black people
bring this up on Twitter, there's just all these people who, I don't know
if they're just sitting around searching his name on Twitter or something,
they just come and get in your mentions and start harassing you, saying the
same things over and over to you."

But the civil rights movement references aren't actually an answer to his
critics. No one is arguing that Sanders literally doesn't see race, they're
saying that Sanders sees racial inequality as less important than economic
inequality and shouldn't. And as Vox's Andrew Prokop has written, even in
the 1960s, Sanders didn't view race as the fundamental problem many of his
fellow student-activists did:

Even as a student at the University of Chicago in the 1960s, influenced by
the hours he spent in the library stacks reading famous philosophers, he
became frustrated with his fellow student activists, who were more
interested in race or imperialism than the class struggle. They couldn't
see that everything they protested, he later said, was rooted in "an
economic system in which the rich controls, to a large degree, the
political and economic life of the country."

To Sanders' critics, the "but the civil rights movement!" response isn't
just irrelevant, it's insulting. "It's like they're almost trying to
outblack us," says Morrow. "'Oh, you're a black person, what could you
possibly understand about our candidate? He was marching before you were
even born!' That's cool, but you gotta stay on top of it."

So Morrow made a joke:

Morrow wrote a few more tweets and then went off to record his podcast.
When he returned, he saw the hashtag was trending nationwide. "I thought
this [harassment from Sanders supporters] was only happening to a few
people," he says. "Apparently it was happening to a lot of us."

This isn't about the presidential campaign, it's about the progressive
movement

Of course, as always happens on Twitter, some progressive defenders of
Sanders — both white and black — used the hashtag to point out that Sanders
marched with MLK (thus making critics' point for them); to argue that
Sanders' economic agenda would help black Americans; or to contrast Sanders
with Clinton. (Others endorsed the #BernieSoBlack jokes but urged people to
go after Clinton next.) The latter is a reflection of one of the two main
reasons Sanders' supporters are so frustrated by the criticism.

To their minds, Sanders is clearly a more progressive candidate for
president than Clinton — so they don't understand why anyone would direct
their criticism at the better candidate. After all, Clinton didn't even
show up to Netroots.

That isn't how Sanders' critics see it, though. It's worth noting that
#BlackLivesMatter organizers haven't been primarily focused on the
presidential primary, even as other progressives have turned in that
direction. To them, this is about the progressive movement. Bernie Sanders
— and more importantly, the pressure they feel to embrace Bernie Sanders as
a progressive champion — is just the latest illustration that some white
progressives aren't listening to black progressives when deciding what the
"progressive agenda" really is, and who its champions are. If Sanders were
polling at 0 percent (like O'Malley) instead of polling in the mid- to high
teens, it's unlikely that #BernieSoBlack would have become a popular
hashtag.. It's exactly because Sanders is being treated as a progressive
champion that the activists who challenged him Saturday, and made jokes
about his blackness Sunday, feel that, yet again, they're being asked to
put their own concerns aside and fall in line with what white progressives
want.

And this is why it's not clear whether Sanders can appease his critics. He
has spoken about mass incarceration and police violence already. And he
does, in fact, have specific policies he's suggested to improve police
accountability.

His campaign has even tried to respond to the demands protesters were
making Saturday — though there's still something of a learning curve.
Morrow told Vox that the campaign had used the #SayHerName hashtag, but
named one woman and two men who died in police custody — when the point of
the hashtag is to focus on women. (The campaign deleted the tweet.) In a
speech in Dallas Sunday, he mentioned Sandra Bland by name. "Thank you for
saying her name!" shouted one attendee.

"Maybe I'm being foolish, but, hey, they're hearing. They're receptive,"
Morrow said of the Sanders campaign. On the other hand, he said, "I'm more
hopeful for the campaign than I am for his defenders."

This is a demand on white progressives that goes far beyond Bernie: that
they treat racial inequality with the same seriousness that they treat
economic inequality. That's not a demand that Bernie Sanders, himself,
could fulfill even if he tried. It's a demand on his supporters. And as
Morrow points out, it's up against "hundreds of years of history" of people
ignoring "a lot of voices, if they don't like what folks are saying. There
will always be a struggle, even in progressive spaces. How can you support
each other without turning on each other?"

*What does Bernie Sanders need to do to beat Hillary?
<http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/20/what-does-bernie-sanders-need-to-do-to-beat-hillary-commentary.html>
// CNBC // Mark Macias – July 20, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders is close to a statistical tie with Hillary Clinton in the
latest New Hampshire poll, but as Al Gore learned in 2000, one state
doesn't make you president.

For Sanders to seriously challenge Clinton, he needs money and a national
network to motivate voters and volunteers. He must persuade minorities to
leave Clinton — a challenge since she had 72 percent of the nonwhite
Democratic vote, according to a June Washington Post/ABC News poll. Sanders
had only 5 percent in that poll. But his biggest obstacle of all: Clinton's
expected $2.5 billion war chest.

Unfortunately for Sanders, money drives campaigns.

The national media is starting to show video of his campaign rallies. More
impressive, reporters are describing these crowds as larger than Clinton
rallies — and with more passionate followers.

"He's connecting in a way that Hillary Clinton is not," a New Hampshire
state Senator told the Washington Post recently. "He's talking about things
people want to hear. People are used to candidates who are calculated,
produced and measured, and they see through that. Bernie's different."

Read MoreMacias: Why Chris Christie may have an edge in the GOP race

During my time as a producer with NBC in Miami, I learned you can't predict
hurricanes in February, and that goes for calling election results, as
well. I won't predict whether Sanders can beat Clinton six months from now.
But I will tell you how Sanders can move his message beyond New Hampshire
and into a national campaign by leveraging the media.

The Sanders media strategy begins with three words: visuals, perception and
commonality.

Visuals

If an alien lands in Times Square but no one takes video of it, did it
really visit earth? If I didn't see that video, I would assume the radio
station was exaggerating or the photo was doctored. This is why the Sanders
campaign needs to harness the power of video and start creating social
media videos with the purpose of going viral. It doesn't take a $2.5
billion war chest to accomplish this. It takes a few passionate college
interns with an eye for video. The Sanders campaign should be creating
multiple videos, targeting the different key demos and documenting the
crowds so the rest of America can become intrigued.

In New York, tourists flock to Broadway shows even though they frequently
know nothing about the plot. You know why? Because they are seduced by the
intrigue of seeing something that everyone else is experiencing. Sanders
needs to create that same intrigue, so future states will want to see his
"Broadway show" when it comes to town.

I volunteered for my first Congressional campaign for a little known
challenger when I was in college. I didn't realize it then, but I
volunteered because of my perception that he could beat the incumbent. I
was also lured in by a message that spoke to me. Perception drives reality
in politics — and fortunately for Sanders, the public knows little about
him. He's not a national candidate with a long history, like Clinton, so he
is in the enviable position of building a perception from scratch. Sprinkle
a little perception that the public is catching onto his message and
everyone will start to believe it on the news.

Commonality

The 99 percent relates to the Sanders message. He wants to provide free
college, guarantee sick and family leave, and raise the minimum wage to $15
an hour. In the few speeches I heard, Sanders went after large corporations
in a way that felt authentic. Have you heard Clinton criticize
corporations? She sounds like she is reading a script. Sanders sounds like
that uncle at Thanksgiving who speaks passionately about how he can make a
better turkey. When you combine authenticity, passion and commonality, it's
like turkey, mashed potatoes and gravy on Thanksgiving.

Read MoreCongressman screams at Yellen: 'You did nothing!'

Listen to Sanders speak and you get the feeling that he wants to help the
middle class so much that he just might have a heart attack in the process.
That's a passion that moves people. The Clinton campaign is trying to own
the "champion of everyday Americans" theme. If Sanders can stick with his
common message that he is the authentic "champion of every day Americans,"
he can go beyond New Hampshire.

But I saved the worst for last.

There is one more word that should be added to the Bernie Sanders media
strategy. This word will become his biggest weakness in this campaign. It
hasn't gained too much traction with the media, but if the rest of America
starts taking interest in Sanders, mark my word that you will start to hear
more about "socialist Bernie."

That will be a hard label to overcome because the majority of Americans
associate socialism with communism. We defeated communism. Capitalism won.
Does anyone really believe that America will now elect a socialist? And
there is really no way Sanders can distance himself from this label because
he openly embraces it.

I'd not only predict that happens six months out, I'd put money on it.

*Sanders to push $15 minimum wage bill
<http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/248517-bernie-sanders-to-push-15-minimum-wage-bill>
// The Hill // Tim Devaney – July 20, 2105 *

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is pushing new legislation to raise the minimum
wage for all workers to $15 an hour.

The Democratic presidential candidate, who has made addressing income
inequality a centerpiece of his campaign, will introduce the minimum wage
bill Wednesday. Sanders has long called for a $15 minimum wage, but this is
the first bill he is introducing to do so.

Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) will join Sanders
at the press conference Wednesday, and are also expected to introduce
identical legislation in the House.

It’s believed to be the highest minimum wage that has ever been proposed by
legislation in Congress.

“The simple truth is that working people cannot survive on the federal
minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, or $8 an hour or $9 an hour,” Sanders said
recently. "If people work 40 hours a week, they deserve not to live in dire
poverty.”

Sanders' bill comes as low-wage food service workers and janitors at the
U.S. Capitol plan to strike on Wednesday.

The legislation would raise the minimum wage in increments until it reaches
$15 an hour by 2020.

Democratic 2016 frontrunner Hillary Clinton backs raising the minimum wage
and spoke at a rally with groups who back $15-an-hour, but has yet to
officially endorse that figure. Former Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-Md.),
another contender, backs a $15 minimum wage.

Sanders' minimum wage bill would go a step further than one proposed
earlier this year by fellow Democrat Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who
suggested raising it to $12 an hour.

Murray’s Raise the Wage Act quickly garnered support from the Obama
administration and top Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

It’s unclear whether they will back the even higher $15 minimum wage
proposed by Sanders.

Sanders' bill is unlikely to get a vote in the GOP-controlled Senate.

*Bernie Sanders: structural racism needs to end for economic justice to
succeed
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/20/bernie-sanders-structural-racism-economic-justice>
// The Guardian // Sabrina Issa – July 20, 2015 *

It is time for the progressive movement to reckon with structural racism:
its role in enabling it and its moral responsibility to actively dismantle
it. It’s not a request: it’s a requirement for all presidential candidates
that seek progressive votes, and for a political movement that seeks any
hope for relevance in a diverse America.

It’s long past time for Democratic candidates to stop taking black voters
for granted, as was made clear this weekend at Netroots Nation, the largest
annual gathering of progressive activists in America. At the Presidential
Town Hall on Saturday morning, two Democratic Presidential candidates –
former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
– publicly floundered when faced with activists from #BlackLivesMatter.

Sanders’ and O’Malley’s public interviews with journalist, documentarian
and activist Jose Antonio Vargas was essentially taken over by racial
justice activists who drastically changed the conversation of what was
designed to be a typical, stale campaign appearance by shouting “Black
lives matter!” in unison from the audience. Then Tia Oso of the Black
Alliance for Just Immigration took to the stage to demand that the
candidates answer one question: “As leader of this country will you advance
an agenda that will dismantle structural racism in this country?”

Governor O’Malley’s tone-deaf response – “Black lives matter, white lives
matter, all lives matter” – earned him boos from the crowd; he left the
stage shortly after and later clarified his remarks with the news site This
Week in Blackness. Bernie Sanders, with the presidential gravitas of a
toddler, first attempted to shout his usual stump speech over the
protestors, and then scolded them for interrupting him and held what one
could only describe as a mini public tantrum.

Netroots Nation is no stranger to public protest: demonstrators have
interrupted politicians from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to former
President Bill Clinton. And shutting things down is business as usual in
progressive politics writ large: progressive activists regularly heckle
political leaders and organize demonstrations to protest going to war in
Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, government surveillance, climate change,
Keystone pipeline, reproductive rights, marriage equality and many other
issues.

Yet when #BlackLivesMatters demonstrators demanded that candidates explain
what they will do for racial justice, Netroots organizers surreptitiously
flashed an apology for Governor O’Malley on the teleprompter for the
disruption. Sanders supporters, meanwhile, flooded Twitter to dismiss
critiques, criticize demonstrators for interrupting the economic stump
speech and to attempt to civil-rights-splain to racial justice organizers
about the Senator’s actions during the civil rights movement.

If Netroots is, as Sam Drizell wrote in TIME, “a Shangri-La for progressive
idealism”, then why is there such discomfort within the movement when some
attempt to demand specifics from politicians on how to dismantle structural
racism? Or more alarmingly, why is there such discomfort among candidates
seeking public office with discussing America’s racial reality? The civil
rights blind spot in the progressive movement cannot be fixed without
addressing the truth that there cannot be economic progress for all without
racial justice.

In previous races, Sanders has not had to build a diverse coalition of
support to win elections; his past campaigns have made little or no
reference to issues of deep importance in black communities, such as voting
rights protection, housing discrimination and mass incarceration. He speaks
almost exclusively among issues which thrill white liberals: campaign
finance reform and economic justice.

There is a political cost to creating silos within movements: politicians
and citizens end up speaking of the same issues with different languages,
with a lack of empathy and connection. Though Sanders’s policy proposals
likely align with number of black voters, his ability to address race is
limited to the scope of wealth and the economy. But black voters and
organizers need to know why they should fight for Bernie Sanders’ vision of
our economic future when our humanity is in constant peril.

True political inclusion of black voters in the progressive movement will
reveal racial justice and economic progress as inextricably linked, and
that there is no need to forsake one for the other (or to solve one first
and fix the other later).

But, as #BlackLivesMatter supporters continue to drive change in the
political conversation, it becomes more obvious that racial justice is a
siloed issue operating within a largely-white progressive movement. The
clash between what progressives declare their values to be and the issues
on which they’re willing to take action will continue as the progressive
movement and candidates alike seek to engage an increasingly diverse rising
electorate.

We do not need talking points. We need government to help save our lives,
and we need to elect leaders who will champion our humanity.

*Berniemania spreads to Texas as Sanders' speech draws crowd of 5,000
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/20/texas-bernie-sanders-speech-draws-crowd>
// The Guardian // Tom Dart – July 20, 2015 *

Ninety minutes before the scheduled start of Bernie Sanders’ speech on
Sunday night, a 500-person-long line snaked around the arena, in 100F heat
– and in Texas.

The Democratic presidential hopeful’s fans showed up long before the doors
opened and bellowed their approval once inside, as he spoke for more than
an hour in front of 5,000 people, concluding a weekend in which he
addressed about 25,000 in Arizona and Texas and showed that
Republican-dominated states are not immune to Berniemania.

The independent Vermont senator and self-described democratic socialist
attracted more than 8,000 people to a rally in Dallas earlier in the day
and 11,000 in Phoenix on Saturday, the highest turnout of his campaign.

Like his speech at the Phoenix Convention Center, the Houston rally was
moved to a larger venue: an 8,000-capacity basketball arena at the
University of Houston. A speech by Hillary Clinton last month at Texas
Southern University, less than a mile away, drew an attendance of around
1,000 on a weekday afternoon.

Other important numbers – the polls – are less favourable to Sanders. A
Real Clear Politics poll average shows him in second with 16.3%, and
Clinton the frontrunner with 56.8%. Still, his support is growing as he is
biting into Clinton’s commanding lead, and his campaign said earlier this
month that it has raised $15m.

Some in the audience on Sunday waved posters with slogans such as “Bernie
Sanders 2016, Not For Sale”, “Feel The Bern”. While it was a young crowd
overall – especially the two hundred or so in the mosh pit in front of the
stage – there was a wide range of ages.

“I came to hear what he has to say in person. I like a lot of his issues,”
said Ken Dietrich, a 77-year-old businessman.

“I didn’t figure he would spend much time here in Texas, this bastion of of
right-wing insanity,” said Eugene Hayman, 61. “I don’t know if Bernie has a
chance of winning or not but he’s pulling the debate back from the extreme
right, so I would love to see him win.”

Hayman said his “dream match-up” would be Donald Trump versus Sanders – but
“I like Hillary OK”.

Texas’ largest urban areas are bluer than the state’s reputation suggests.
Houston’s mayor, Annise Parker, is a Democrat. While Mitt Romney won 57% of
the vote statewide in 2012, and Barack Obama 41%, the president carried
Harris County, which includes Houston, by 0.1%. He also beat Romney in
Dallas, San Antonio and Austin.

Kenny Jones, of Houstonians for Bernie Sanders 2016, said the group started
with 10 people and now has a hundred.

“Something is happening out here. This is blowing me away, quite frankly.
Houston is such a conservative town,” the 58-year-old schoolteacher said as
he handed out fliers urging voters to “Join the Revolution”. Jones said he
has “done left-progressive organising in Houston before, it’s very
difficult. This is not difficult”.

He believed Sanders was resonating because he is addressing core but often
overshadowed issues such as jobs, healthcare, education and climate change.

“There’s something about him. He doesn’t seem to be doing a political
dance,” Jones said, arguing that Sanders is backed by unions while Clinton
is compromised because her campaign is funded by big corporations and so is
in thrall to their interests.

“I like Secretary Clinton, I respect her a great deal, but she’s dancing
the wrong dance. There’s an old Texas saying: you dance with the one that
brung ya.”

Initially sounding hoarse, the 73-year-old started his speech saying that
he has often been asked “Why in God’s name would you come to Texas?”

He added: “I do know that this is a conservative Republican state and that
is exactly why I am here today. Today it is a conservative Republican
state, but that doesn’t mean it will be conservative Republican tomorrow.

“The reason I am here and the reason next month I’m going to be going to
Alabama, Mississippi, to some very conservative states, is for a couple of
reasons. First of all it is wrong for the Democratic party in my view to
surrender half of the states in America. The national Democratic party must
establish a 50-state strategy including the state of Texas and start
running the Republicans on the defensive.”

He said that given the endemic poverty and other social problems in the
south, it would be wrong for the Democratic party to “turn your back on
some of the poorest states in America … We are not going to abandon those
people.”

Another Sanders appearance in Phoenix on Saturday, at the Netroots Nation
conference with fellow Democratic candidate Martin O’Malley, was
interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters, placing his response to the
disruption under scrutiny.

In Houston, Sanders named African Americans who have died during encounters
with police – “Sandra Bland, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray and many
others” – and said, to a deafening cheer, that officers should be held
accountable if they break the law.

He also addressed many of his key themes: wealth and income inequality,
incarceration rates, infrastructure, campaign finance reform, a route to
citizenship for undocumented immigrants, free tuition in public colleges,
the environment and the evils of Wall Street.

“This campaign is sending a message to the billionaire class, and that
message is – you can’t have it all,” he said.

“The only way we bring about real change is to create a political
revolution where millions of people stand together and say loudly and
clearly that this country belongs to all of us.”

If that remains a longshot, on Sunday night the chant from thousands in the
stands was certainly loud, clear and heartfelt: “Bernie, Bernie, Bernie!”

*Does Bernie Sanders surge threaten Hillary?
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33469464> // BBC // Anthony
Zurcher – July 20, 2015 *

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be the prohibitive favourite
to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, but that doesn't
mean the political ground beneath her feet is solid.

In 2008 and again in 2012 a liberal coalition of minorities,
college-educated whites and single women gave Barack Obama more than enough
votes to comfortably win the presidency. Can it hold fast after he exits
the stage next year?

A two-term presidency can paper over a host of fissures within a political
movement. The longer a party stays in power, the more competing interests
are liable to grow dissatisfied with their share of the governing pie.

Sometimes the centre holds. In 1988, for instance, George HW Bush rode to
power on the strength of the Ronald Reagan governing coalition. By 1992,
however, the foundation had given way, as fiscal and social conservatives
revolted, ushering in eight years of Democratic rule and pushing the
Republican Party farther to the right.

At the Netroots Nation conference of left-wing activists in Phoenix,
Arizona, last week, the fault lines within today's Democratic Party were on
full display. And while Mrs Clinton was more than a thousand miles away,
honouring "prior commitments" in Iowa and Arkansas, the events that
transpired in the desert this weekend should give her pause.

There's no question, for instance, that the enthusiasm and support for
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' insurgent presidential campaign is real.
He's climbed in polls over the past few weeks, and on Saturday night 11,000
turned out to hear the firebrand socialist give one of his 60-minute
stem-winders.

On the menu was a heavy dose of liberal red meat - including condemnation
of the "billionaire class" and calls for higher taxes on the wealthy,
expanding government-run healthcare programmes, raising the minimum wage
and tuition-free college education.

"Bernie Sanders stands up for what's just and right," says conference
attendee Jean Devine of Phoenix. "He's for the Democratic ideals of
equality for all people and for the rich not being able to buy elections."

While in Arizona, campaign supporters hoisted banners and toasted their man
at a local nightclub with cleverly named cocktails like "Weekend at
Bernie's" and "Vermont Treehugger" (with maple syrup-infused whiskey).

There was a point in time when Mrs Clinton was the cool Democrat. She had
her own internet meme. She was near universally beloved by party faithful.
Now, however - at least among the rank and file at Netroots Nation - Mr
Sanders is the candidate of the hour.

The Vermont senator has given voice to the frustration and anger that some
on the left feel over the current state of US politics. They helped elect
Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, but their goal of enacting a full
progressive agenda seems to them far from realised.

"Bernie's looking pretty good," says Hanna Roditi of Connecticut. "He's the
only one who doesn't cater to corporations. The policies that he supports
have more to do with people's needs."

The most common adjectives used to describe Mrs Clinton in Phoenix, on the
other hand, were "calculating," "cautious" and "corporate".

"I won't vote for her," Roditi says, adding that if Mr Sanders doesn't win
the Democratic nomination she'll write in his name on the general election
ballot.

The establishment - whether in the government or the Democratic Party - was
a source of anger time and again at the conference. During a Thursday
afternoon panel discussion, EJ Juarez, director of Progress Majority
Washington - singled out Democratic campaign managers in particular for
betraying their party's progressive ideals.

"We ceded a lot of the soul of our values off to contractors who don't
often adopt the equity principles we talk about," he said. "They aren't
talking the same language."

On Friday morning Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a champion of the
left, used her keynote address to rail against an "insider Washington" that
ignores the liberal priorities of the nation at large - on issues like gun
control, income inequality and tighter Wall Street controls.

"The American people are progressive, and our day is coming," she said.

After calling out the financial behemoth Citigroup by name, she said the US
government - even during the Obama administration - has been dominated by
Wall Street insiders. She then offered some advice for candidates seeking
the presidency.

"I think that anyone running for that job - anyone who wants the power to
make every key economic appointment and every key nomination - should say
loud and clear we don't run this country for Wall Street and
mega-corporations, we run it for people," she said to cheers.

It was likely a barb aimed at Mrs Clinton - who has been criticised by some
on the left for being in the thrall of big-money donors - and set the stage
for the Saturday's presidential town hall forum featuring Mr Sanders and
fellow candidate Martin O'Malley.

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum, however - evidence of yet
another frayed fibre in the Democratic electoral quilt.

Mr O'Malley took the stage first, and about 20 minutes into his
question-and-answer session a group of several dozen protesters from the
group Black Lives Matter interrupted the proceedings with chants, songs and
shouts.

Tia Oso, leader of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, commandeered a
microphone and asked the former Baltimore mayor what he would do to "begin
to dismantle structural racism in the United States".

Mr O'Malley was met by boos when he said: "Black lives matter. White lives
matter. All lives matter." (He would later apologise, saying he did not
want to "disrespect" the passion and commitment of the protesters.)

The demonstrations continued for Mr Sanders. At one point the senator
snapped: "If you don't want me to be here, that's OK. I don't want to
outscream people". He would later cancel previously scheduled afternoon
meetings with conference attendees, including one with the Black Lives
Matter group.

By evening, however, the Bernie show was back. The Phoenix conference
centre was packed with the campaign loyalists in a display of grass-roots
support outpacing even the 10,000 who turned out just weeks earlier in
Madison, Wisconsin.

Bernie Sanders supporters rally last week at a Phoenix nightclub

Unlike that Mid-west liberal bastion, however, Arizona is decidedly
conservative - an indication that the senator is drawing power across the
country.

The true-believing left does have a history of rallying behind unvarnished
candidates like Mr Sanders, however, and they have met with limited
success. Paul Tsongas in 1992, Bill Bradley in 2000 and Howard Dean in 2004
are but a few of the men who failed to translate big crowds and energetic
support into primary victories.

Mrs Clinton must hope that the Sanders campaign meets with a similar fate -
and when it does, that progressive loyalists like conference attendee Pam
Miles of Huntsville, Alabama return to the fold.

"Bernie Sanders says everything that I feel," Miles says. "He's a dynamo,
he is a truth-teller, he speaks truth to power. I love Bernie."

She adds, however, that she'll be happy to back Mrs Clinton if she gets the
nomination. She says she's keen to avoid the kind of intra-party discord
that marred the Clinton-Obama battles of 2008.

"In '08 it was absolutely horrible," she says. "It broke friendships, it
hurt feelings. I'm not going to do that this time."

As for the Black Lives Matters activists who became the surprise story of
Phoenix, Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post asked Mrs Clinton how she
would have responded to the protesters during a Facebook
question-and-answer session on Monday.

"Black lives matter. Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind
that," she replied. "We need to acknowledge some hard truths about race and
justice in this country, and one of those hard truths is that that racial
inequality is not merely a symptom of economic inequality. Black people
across America still experience racism every day."

She went on to recommend body cameras for US police officers, sentencing
reform, voting rights and early childhood education.

Unlike her Democratic competitors, Mrs Clinton had the luxury of time to
respond to this latest challenge. Whether it will be enough to weather what
could be a coming storm, however, remains to be seen.

*Why are Arizona liberals, Twitter protesting Bernie Sanders?
<http://news.yahoo.com/why-arizona-liberals-twitter-protesting-bernie-sanders-211517614.html>
// Christian Science Monitor // Sarah Caspari – July 20, 2015 *

Progressive Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley faced
unrest in Phoenix, Ariz., Saturday from “Black Lives Matter” protesters.

The Vermont senator and the former Maryland governor were in Phoenix for
what was supposed to be a forum led by interviewer and immigrants rights
activist Jose Antonio Vargas at the Netroots Nation progressive convention.
Instead, the crowd did most of the talking, demanding as a group that the
candidates address police brutality and racism, The Associated Press
reported.

For Sen. Sanders, the harsh reception was at odds with his reputation among
progressives as a champion of advocacy for the marginalized. CNN reported
that “excited supporters” began lining up to secure good seats for the
event hours early, but by the end, protesters were walking out on him.

“I’ve been fighting civil rights for 50 years,” Sanders said during the
protest, reminding the audience that he had participated in the 1964 march
where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

But in the eyes of many of the protesters and much of black America, that
oft-cited fact is seen less as evidence of dedication to racial justice and
more as an attempt at a catch-all shut-down for criticism, comedy podcaster
and creator of the hashtag #BernieSoBlack Roderick Morrow told Vox.

“Bernie Sanders, while he does have a good track record on race in the
past, he's kind of been avoiding talking about certain racial issues now,”
Mr. Morrow said. “Whenever he's asked a question, he goes into a spiel on
economics – which is fine, obviously, people do want wage and class
equality. But certain issues are race issues, and they do need to be talked
about, at least from a candidate that I would like to vote for.”

Morrow said he started the hashtag #BernieSoBlack because he felt
supporters used Sanders’ previous civil rights activism to “outblack” black
critics.

“I made a joke that's like, ‘Bernie's blacker than us! Bernie's SO BLACK!’”
he said. “That's how it feels when they come into our mentions [on Twitter]
and tell us that we don't know what we're talking about, and even though
[Sanders] doesn't talk about #BlackLivesMatter right now, we should just
kind of shut up.”

#BernieSoBlack HE teaches you how to Cha Cha Slide! https://t.co/3CJorwWn9b—
Rod TBGWT (@rodimusprime) July 19, 2015

At the Netroots Nation convention Saturday, Sanders tried giving prepared
remarks on economic inequality, but the protesters continued shouting over
him. After agreeing that “black lives matter” and referencing his past
contributions to civil rights, Sanders threatened to leave, according to
CNN.

"If you don't want me to be here, that's okay. I don't want to outscream
people,” he said.

Later that night, Sanders addressed police brutality at an 11,000-person
rally. "When a police officer breaks the law, that officer must be held
accountable," Sanders said, according to AP.

He also quoted Civil War-era abolitionist and former slave Frederick
Douglass, who said, "Freedom doesn't come without struggle."

*Bernie Sanders And Allies In Congress To Propose $15 Federal Minimum Wage
<http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-allies-congress-propose-15-federal-minimum-wage-2016495>
// IB Times // Cole Stangler – July 20, 2015*

The Fight For 15 is heading to Washington. On Wednesday, Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison
(D-Minn.), co-chairs of the 70-member Congressional Progressive Caucus,
will unveil legislation that would set the federal minimum wage at $15 an
hour--a figure that’s more than double the current rate of $7.25.

The proposal is unlikely to pass, but marks an ongoing leftward shift in
the goalposts of minimum wage politics.  By raising the pay floor to $15 by
2020, it outshines another Democratic proposal, backed by the White House,
that sets a $12 rate by 2020. (That legislation, in turn, was a step up
from another, previous Democratic proposal to raise the floor to $10.10 an
hour.) In so doing, the bill ramps up pressure on liberal politicians
looking to establish their low-wage worker bonafides. That development is
especially relevant as Sanders and frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who
recently declined to endorse the $15 figure, vye for the Democratic
nomination for 2016.

The forthcoming legislation is, in part, a response to the so-called Fight
for 15, a series of labor-backed protests calling for “$15 and a union,”
says a Democratic staffer close to the Progressive Caucus. The
high-visibility string of demonstrations and walk-outs, first organized by
groups tied to the Service Employees International Union in late 2012, has
driven the demand for $15 an hour into the political mainstream.

The staffer also pointed to growing momentum for a $15 minimum on the state
level. On the same day that members of Congress will publicly announce
their legislation, a New York wage panel is expected to formally endorse a
$15 hourly minimum for fast food workers statewide. Gov. Andrew Cuomo
impaneled the board earlier this year in response to ongoing protests.
Meanwhile, activists in Oregon are moving closer to putting a $15 minimum
wage initiative on the ballot in 2016.

According to the staffer, economists will also endorse the legislation on
Wednesday. It is unlikely to gather much support, if any, from Republicans,
but a majority of the Progressive Caucus is expected to support the bill.

Presidential politics play a role in the bill’s formation too. Sanders has
already endorsed a $15 federal minimum, though not in legislative form.
Last week, Clinton declined to back a national minimum of $15.

*Bernie Sanders Gains Support In Republican States As Arizona & Texas Begin
To Feel The Bern
<http://www.bustle.com/articles/98530-bernie-sanders-gains-support-in-republican-states-as-arizona-texas-begin-to-feel-the-bern>
// Bustle // Greta Jochem – July 20, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders has long been regarded as an underdog to long-time favorite
Hillary Clinton in the race for Democratic presidential nominee. But is
that changing? Maybe.

According to The Hill, Monmouth University released a poll last Wednesday
finding that since April, Clinton has dropped 10 points, while Sanders has
gained nine. His jump is greatest in Iowa and New Hampshire — the first
states to hold primaries in the 2016 election. Sanders has been on the road
campaigning, and all poll numbers aside, over the weekend his support in
historically Republican voting states was strong.

The socialist Democrat has some relativity radical stances on education,
raising the minimum wage, and the environment. At the center of his
campaign is the increasing economic inequality that plagues the United
States. “What I’m doing in this campaign is trying to tell the people the
truth,” he said at a recent event in Iowa. “So let me lay it out on the
table for you. You’re living in a country today which has more wealth and
income inequality than any major industrialized nation on earth.”

His supporters have truly been feelin’ the Bern. Over the weekend, Sanders
headed to two major red states, Arizona and Texas, for a successful
weekend.

Rihanna found love in a hopeless place, and Sanders is finding support in
an unlikely place. In the past 10 elections, Arizona has voted for the
Republican candidate. But on Saturday night, according to his campaign,
Sanders greeted the largest crowd of the 2016 presidential race in Phoenix,
Arizona. Sanders addressed the cheering crowd saying, “Somebody told me
people are giving up on the political process… Not what I see here
tonight.” He touched on income inequality, climate change, and raising the
minimum wage. Sanders also talked about jobs saying:

My Republican friends think that the CEOs of large corporations are the
job-creators. You know who the job creators are? You are the job creators.
When working people have money in their pocket, they go out and they buy
goods and they buy services, and when they do that, they create jobs. But
when millions of people have nothing to spend, we’re not creating the jobs
that we need.

Hitting the environment, he urged action, and said, “We have the moral
obligation to lead the world in transforming our energy system.” Sanders
announced his single payer health care plans, saying, “health care must be
seen as a right, not a privilege,” and was greeted by overwhelming cheers.

On Sunday night, Sanders spoke in Texas — also a largely Republican state —
to an excited crowd of 5,200 at the University of Houston. Mirroring his
speech in Phoenix, he discussed topics like income inequality,
unemployment, and education. He also took a strong stance on the United
States’ mass incarceration. Sanders said:

When we have so many of our young people in jail, to me it makes sense that
we invest more in jobs and education rather than jails and incarceration.

He also spoke out against police brutality, citing Eric Gardner and Freddie
Gray.

These are the cases that you have heard about recently but anyone who
thinks this has not been going on decade after decade would be very wrong.
It is unacceptable that police officers beat up people or kill people. If
they do that, they have got to be held accountable.

*Bernie Sanders added to lineup for Urban League in Fort Lauderdale
<http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-bernie-sanders-urban-league-20150720-story.html>
// Sun Sentinel // Anthony Man – July 20, 2015 *

rnie Sanders, the septuagenarian senator who's exciting crowds with his
outspoken liberal agenda, has been added to the list of presidential
candidates appearing at the National Urban League's convention in Fort
Lauderdale.

Like the big names, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Jeb Bush,
Sanders is slated to appear July 31 at a session at which the candidates
"will share their visions for saving our cities."

*UNDECLARED*

*BIDEN*

*Waiting on Biden
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/waiting-on-joe-biden-2016-president-running/?dcz=>
// Roll Call // Matt Fleming – July 20, 2015 *

While most Senate Democrats are #ReadyForHillary, a few are waiting on Joe.

After both buzzed through the Capitol last week — Vice President Joseph R.
Biden Jr. made the trip as the White House’s emissary on an Iran nuclear
disarmament deal and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was
there to shore up support for her White House bid — Clinton has already
locked up the bulk of the Democrats and time seems to be running short for
anyone else.

The reasons vary, but some holdouts are waiting to support a candidate out
of deference to Biden — who represented Delaware in the Senate for 36 years
and hasn’t ruled out a third run for the Oval Office.

A couple of members sound ready to endorse him, but no one told CQ Roll
Call they’re urging him to get in the ring.

“I’m waiting to see about what the vice president is going to decide,” Sen.
Thomas R. Carper, D-Del., said. “He’s been my friend for a long time.”

Carper has held elected office in Delaware since 1976, as state treasurer,
congressman, governor and finally senator. He spoke highly of Clinton, but
his ties with Biden are understandably strong.

Carper did not call for Biden to enter the race, instead saying Biden
should decide in his own time. “I don’t think there’s a need for a rush to
judgement on this, people throughout this country have huge admiration and
affection for him,” he said.

Following a closed-door meeting in the Capitol between Biden and Foreign
Relations Committee Democrats, Delaware’s junior senator, Chris Coons, said
Biden “showed today the remarkable, the impressive depth he has in foreign
policy and national security; his thorough grasp of the underlying issues,
his energy and his engagement.”

“It was an impressive and compelling conversation, so I have no doubts that
he would be a very strong candidate if that’s what he chooses,” Coons said,
though he also declined to call on Biden to run. “But I really hope folks
will let him reach a decision on a timeline that is appropriate for him and
his family.”

Rep. John Carney, the state’s lone representative in the House, is another
longtime Delaware politician, having served as lieutenant governor,
secretary of Finance, chief of staff under then-Gov. Carper, and even as a
Senate staffer for Biden.

In a statement, Carney spokeswoman Francesca Amodeo noted her boss hasn’t
made any statements on the race, but said, “If the Vice President throws
his hat in the ring, Rep. Carney will absolutely be supporting him.”

Biden’s support is slimmer outside of the First State’s delegation. Last
week, Minority Leader Harry Reid reiterated he had not endorsed Clinton.
The Nevada Democrat is waiting to make a decision, possibly out of
deference to Biden.

Others are holding off on endorsing for other reasons. Sen. Sherrod Brown,
D-Ohio, stayed neutral through the 2008 Democratic primary and remains
neutral this time around. But Brown was complimentary of Clinton following
her trip to the Capitol last week.

Oregon’s delegation — Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley — is also
declining to endorse at the moment, with both addressing their concerns
recently to The Oregonian.

Wyden said he supports Clinton, but didn’t think it was “time for a formal
endorsement,” while Merkley said Clinton wasn’t strong enough yet on
campaign finance, income inequality and trade.

Sen. Jon Tester of Montana chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee and is choosing to stay neutral. Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., is
running for the nomination. Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., declined to say
why he hasn’t endorsed.

And Sen. Angus King, the Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats,
told MSNBC in April he’ll let the parties decide who the candidates will be.

“I’m the only guy in Washington who can get away with not answering that
question,” King said.

It’s not that Biden doesn’t have supporters in the Senate — he is generally
well-liked and highly regarded in the body where he spent so many years.
It’s more because of personal preference mixed with a too-little-too-late
vibe.

Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md., said he is a “huge Joe Biden fan” — but he
ultimately endorsed Clinton. Cardin predicted Clinton would be the nominee
with a “relatively” easy time.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who endorsed Clinton before she even announced her
candidacy, said she shouldn’t “take anything for granted” because “people
love [Biden],” but Kaine didn’t believe Biden would run with Clinton in the
race.

Sen. Christopher S. Murphy, D-Conn., another Clinton endorser, said Biden
would be a “fantastic candidate,” but pointed out he is running out of time
to get into the race.

Clinton’s campaign has been running both officially and unofficially for
some time now, spending time messaging and on the ground with supporters.
While Biden is a sitting vice president, she has global name ID. As of June
30, Hillary for America had raised more than $47 million during its first
quarter.

So, endorsements aren’t the only thing Biden is behind on. Perhaps that’s
why no senators are saying they think Biden could beat Clinton, while
others are convinced of the inevitability of a Clinton nomination.

Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., said he thought Clinton would win both the
primary and general elections, while Sen. Richard Blumenthal was blunt on
whether Biden could beat her.

“No,” said the Connecticut Democrat.

*Joe Biden to talk college during upcoming Denver visit
<http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2015/07/20/joe-biden-to-talk-college-during-upcoming-denver-visit/122267/>
// Denver Post // Mark Matthews – July 20, 2015 *

During Joe Biden’s planned trip to Denver on Tuesday, the vice president
plans to highlight the importance of community colleges and their impact on
the broader U.S. economy.

Here’s the full rundown from the administration, released Monday afternoon.

“On Tuesday, July 21st, the Vice President will travel to Denver, Colorado
to deliver remarks on the Administration’s economic policies, and
participate in a roundtable discussion at the Community College of Denver’s
New Manufacturing Center.

“This roundtable will focus on the importance of helping more Americans go
to college and the critical role that partnerships between community
colleges and employers can play in helping Americans obtain the skills they
need to succeed in the workforce.”

*OTHER*

*What that Netroots Nation disaster can tell us about Democrats in 2016
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/20/what-that-netroots-nation-disaster-can-tell-us-about-democrats-in-2016/>
// WaPo // Janell Ross – July 20, 2015 *

The chaos that broke out at the presidential forum at Netroots Nation over
the weekend in Arizona courtesy of the Black Lives Matter movement has
sparked a debate about just how united the longtime Democratic coalition --
a pillar of which is almost-uniform support from black voters --really is
heading into the 2016 election.

The shock and umbrage that protest generated has been pretty well covered
-- as has Martin O'Malley's apology. But, there's something bigger here
than a momentary spectacle. Can any Democrat win the presidential
nomination, much less the general election without those protesters and
people outside the hall who have been essential to President Obama's
victories? And if not, what will candidates have to do, say, support and
ultimately propose to get those voters to show up to the polls?

Netroots Nation is an interesting window into the Democratic coalition; the
annual gathering tends to attract political nerds, staffers and political
obsessives. It also tends be run by and supported mostly by whites. (Yes,
we know that voting rights was on the agenda this year and that there was
at least one session featuring black female bloggers, political
commentators and the like. But, still.)

This year, the activists who seized control of the presidential candidate
forum didn't think the talk about expanding economic opportunity and
creating citizen panels to review police complaints was enough. Or even
close. There may be corners of the Democratic and Republican electorate who
insist that the worst of black America's current problems stem from the
prevalence of inter-group violence, joblessness and the shape of many black
families. But, for these protesters and people who support them, the
reality that by June nearly 400 unarmed people had been killed by police
this year, and that a staggering and disproportionate share of them were
black, is not a concern. It is the concern.

Their logic boils down to this: Black life in America and the pivotal
conversations between families, between friends, between parents and kids
has always included some element of physical danger. Today, for reasonable
and relatively informed black people, the discussion about that danger has
to include what can happen when in proximity to violent criminals, armed
and frightened private citizens and police. One of those groups enjoys
state sanction, making them the most threatening of all. Unlike those other
groups, even when there are legitimate questions about police wrongdoing,
excessive use of force or unlawful shootings, the odds of indictment and
conviction remain shockingly low, as The Washington Post reported in April.

And, of course, if the way that police sometimes do their work has enhanced
the odds that you may wind up dead, maimed or in jail, paying attention to
police makes a certain amount of sense. Reasonable people don't have to
agree with that read on America or what imperils black life in this
country. But that's where the activists who stormed into Netroots are at.
And there's evidence that others are there with them.

Now, in complete fairness to O'Malley, Bernie Sanders and all the
politicians who weren't there, the spectacle at Netroots this weekend could
also certainly be described as just that -- an obvious ploy for publicity.
The Black Lives Matter movement has, so far, made clear its ability to
galvanize public interest, to draw press attention and to disrupt events as
well as the flow of traffic in major American cities. And in the time since
that Netroots showdown this weekend the movement and its supporters flexed
some serious satirical muscle in Sanders' direction in the form of the
hashtag #BernieSoBlack. (Prepare to laugh. Prepare to gasp. Prepare to
understand that, at least on line, these folks are a force with which 2016
candidates must reckon.)

A demonstrator protests recent grand jury decisions not to indict police
officers in the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner at Boston Common in
Boston on Thursday. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)

But what else has Black Lives Matter got? And to what extent is the Black
Lives Matter movement prepared to work in or with the existing political
system to transform their goals into policy?On Saturday night, at a film
festival in Washington, D.C,  where organizers screened, "Vanguard of the
Revolution," a new documentary about the rise and fall of the Black Panther
Party, there were plenty of sobering reminders that the answers to those
questions will matter. A lot.

Perhaps the most pointed came from former Black Panther Eddie Conway.
Conway spent 44 years in a Maryland prison after a jury convicted him in
the murder of a police officer. Conway has long claimed that he is
innocent. Others have referred to him as a political prisoner. And in March
2014, Maryland prosecutors struck a deal with Conway.  Conway was released.
His conviction stands.

When an inevitable question about the Black Lives Matter movement came from
the audience at that film screening, Conway offered this: "At some point,
these young people, the Black Lives Matter movement, will have to something
more than lay down in the street. Spectacle, believe me, is only a start."

*Democratic Party Machinery Shows Rust
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-party-machinery-shows-rust-1437439089>
// WSJ // Peter Nicholas & Colleen McCain Nelson – July 20, 2015 *

Democrat Chris Redfern was confident of his re-election chances, and with
good reason. Voters in his state House district had elected Democrats for
decades, and he was Ohio’s Democratic Party chairman.

Yet on election day, Mr. Redfern lost to a tea-party Republican, a defeat
that drove him from politics into a new line of work, running an inn and
winery.

Mr. Redfern’s political exit came amid a string of midterm-election losses
by Democrats in Ohio and nationwide that reflected a deeper problem: As the
party seeks its next generation of candidates, the bench has thinned.

A tepid economy and President Barack Obama’s sinking approval ratings
contributed to some of the Democratic losses last fall. The setbacks also
revealed a withering of the campaign machinery built by Mr. Obama’s team
more than seven years ago. While Democrats held the White House,
Republicans have strengthened their hand in statehouses across the U.S.

Democrats maintain a significant electoral college advantage as shifting
U.S. demographics tilt their way. This spring, a Pew Research Center
analysis found that 48% of Americans either identify as Democrats or lean
Democratic, compared with 39% who identify with Republicans or lean
Republican.

But many Democrats worry that GOP success capturing state and local offices
will erode that advantage before they have a chance to rebuild.

“If you don’t have a well-funded state party, if you don’t have state
infrastructure, then you’re just whistling past the graveyard,” Mr. Redfern
said. From his new perch in the hospitality industry, he described leading
the state party as the “worst job in politics.”

After two presidential victories, Mr. Obama presides over a Democratic
Party that has lost 13 seats in the U.S. Senate and 69 in the House during
his tenure, a net loss unmatched by any modern U.S. president.

Democrats have also lost 11 governorships, four state attorneys general,
910 legislative seats, as well as the majorities in 30 state legislative
chambers. In 23 states, Republicans control the governor’s office and the
legislature; Democrats, only seven.

Such losses help shape the future: An ousted state lawmaker doesn’t run for
Congress; a failed attorney general candidate loses a shot at the
governor’s office. As a result, the flow of fresh political talent rising
to statewide and national prominence in the years ahead won’t be as robust
as Democrats hope.

The party’s failure to elect more governors, for example, has shrunk the
pool of potential Democratic presidential candidates, one reason few have
challenged Hillary Clinton for the 2016 nomination.

For now, the two parties wield their influence in competing branches of
government: Republicans in control of Congress, using state-level dominance
to draw congressional districts friendly to GOP candidates; and Democrats
in the White House, using their demographic advantage nationwide.

In few places are the Democrats’ troubles more apparent than in Ohio, the
perennial presidential battleground state twice won by Mr. Obama. Ohio
Democrats lost every statewide contest in the November midterms, allowing
the GOP to build supermajorities in both legislative chambers. Democrats
won just a quarter of races last year for county commissioner—the local
masters of land-use rules, as well as county roads, jails and a host of
other government services.

The losses in Ohio are the consequences of failing to develop a strong
corps of local officeholders and the campaign machinery to support them,
Democrats in the state say.

One reason Democrats have struggled to recruit candidates for higher office
is that the pipeline has been choked off by a redistricting process
dominated by the GOP. In Ohio, a five-member state committee made up of
elected officials draws the district lines for state legislative seats that
serve as a springboard to higher office.

The Ohio League of Women Voters, which has been studying redistricting for
decades, says district boundaries now favor Republican candidates—just as
in the past, Democrats drew lines that benefited their party, according to
Carrie Davis, executive director.

An independent study of Ohio’s redistricting process in 2011 concluded:
“The party in power used the process to gain maximum political advantage.”
Today, Republicans outnumber Democrats in the state Legislature 2 to 1.

With a shallow bench, Ohio’s Democratic candidate for governor, Ed
FitzGerald, a former mayor and county executive, faced little opposition in
the party primary. Once nominated, bad news undermined his candidacy,
including the revelation that he drove for years without a valid driver’s
license. He lost by 30 percentage points in November to incumbent Gov. John
Kasich.

Mike Zickar, chairman of the Wood County Democratic Party, said members of
his executive board confided to him that even they didn’t vote for Mr.
FitzGerald, instead leaving the top of the ballot blank.

Without an inspiring candidate at the top of the ticket, Democrats in the
2014 midterm elections couldn’t rely on a broad network of volunteers, the
kind of force that boosted Mr. Obama to wins in Ohio in 2008 and 2012. The
state party mustered three paid field staff members; two years earlier,
with Mr. Obama’s re-election bid in full swing, the number was 600.

“I offered to do more, work-wise, but nobody ever contacted me,” said Loree
Resnik, a neighborhood team leader during Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign.

Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator who lost her bid for secretary of
state last year, said Democrats asked for a visit by Mr. Obama or first
lady Michelle Obama, an invitation the White House said was never received.

“We would have loved to have the president come into Ohio,” Ms. Turner
said. “They didn’t come…I’m not going to mince words about it. We needed
help in 2014, and we did not get it.”

White House officials said the president did all he could to boost fellow
Democrats, headlining dozens of fundraisers and appearing at a handful of
campaign events during the midterm campaign. They said he was willing to do
more but few candidates wanted to share a stage with the president, whose
popularity was slipping at the time.

Obama campaign officials said the president’s campaign staff shared voter
files, data and volunteer lists with Ohio Democrats. But they acknowledged
that the energy and manpower that boosted Mr. Obama’s White House bids in
2008 and 2012 couldn’t be easily replicated in last year’s midterm
elections.

“People have a false expectation that because Obama was able to create all
this enthusiasm that it was directly transferrable to the next campaign,”
Aaron Pickrell, a top Obama campaign official in Ohio, said of Democrats’
struggles in 2014. “It doesn’t mean that Obama can just flip a switch and
say, ‘Now go work for these people.’”

Ohio’s Democrats are trying to regroup. This spring in Columbus, party
officials began training candidates for local office on everything from how
to ask their friends for money to when to put up yard signs.

During a Saturday morning session, candidates for city councils, mayor and
the state Legislature watched PowerPoint presentations and lobbed questions
at Democratic officials about the nuts and bolts of campaigning.

Ms. Turner, the former candidate for secretary of state, told the few dozen
Democratic hopefuls that “the glitz and the glamour seem to be on the
federal level…but this is where the rubber meets the road.”

In nearby Union County, Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David Pepper, who
succeeded Mr. Redfern, joined a statewide listening tour aimed at
re-energizing the party. One conclusion, detailed in a report by state
Democratic leaders: We need better candidates.

Written in the aftermath of Mr. FitzGerald’s defeat, the report said: “A
strong bench of effective public servants at all levels comprises the heart
of a strong state party.” A priority for the state party will be
“recruiting and cultivating candidates who connect with voters, win
elections at all levels, and once they enter office, make a difference on
the issues that matter most in the lives of their constituents.”

Democrats are quick to say they will rebound, just as the GOP bounced back
from setbacks in 2006 and 2008. At the same time, some Democrats say the
party can’t ignore its state-level defeats.

“We have a little bit of blue in the West Coast. A little bit of blue in
the Northeast, and occasional blue elsewhere. But, boy, it’s a bright red
map in all of those big, square states,” said former Senate Democratic
leader Tom Daschle. “That’s where I do worry about recruiting and building
a bench and finding ways to connect with real voters. We’re not doing a
very good job of that.”

On the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton has assured local Democrats that she is
aware of past setbacks and is committed to making the party more
competitive at all levels. More states need a “permanent Democratic Party,”
she has said.

Earlier this month in Iowa City, Mrs. Clinton mentioned Iowa Republican
Joni Ernst’s victory over the Democratic candidate in the 2014 race to
succeed longtime Democratic senator Tom Harkin. “I want to help rebuild the
Democratic Party in Iowa because you can’t have a loss like having Tom
Harkin retire and not be really motivated to get other Democrats in there,”
she said.

Some Democrats blame Mr. Obama, saying his political machine, Organizing
for Action, was good at electing him president but has done little for
other candidates.

“That did hurt the Democratic Party, because a lot of money went into OFA
that might have ordinarily gone into the Democratic National Committee,”
said Howard Dean, a former DNC chairman.

The Obama team “basically ignored” the party, said Ed Rendell, former
governor of Pennsylvania and former chairman of the Democratic National
Committee. Mr. Obama’s defenders said he has left a lasting legacy by
modernizing campaigns with data and technology.

“The tools and the tech culture that defined the Obama operation are now
ingrained here at the party,” Mo Elleithee, the former communications
director for the Democratic National Committee, said before leaving the job
last month.

Mr. Pepper, Ohio’s party chairman, meanwhile told Democratic activists
during his state tour: “Every volunteer who gets excited about Hillary
Clinton, we can’t let them leave a year later. Every piece of information
we enter into the voter file, we keep and learn from not just to win in
’16, but to win in ’18.”

*Kenya is set to welcome Obama 'home' to a continent that feels ignored
<http://www.businessinsider.com/r-kenya-to-welcome-obama-home-to-a-continent-that-feels-ignored-2015-7#ixzz3gR8qi6vQ>
// Reuters – July 20, 2015 *

When Barack Obama visits Africa this month, he will be welcomed by a
continent that had expected closer attention from a man they claim as their
son, a sentiment felt acutely in the Kenyan village where the 44th U.S.
president's father is buried.

"We thought the American government could at least bring some assistance to
the area," said Stephen Okumu Obewa, a teacher in Kogelo village who works
at Senator Barack Obama Primary School, named before Obama reached the
White House.

"Maybe he is interested somehow but we are not aware," he said in a scruffy
school with many broken chairs and desks.

Obama wrote about a visit to Kogelo in his 1995 book "Dreams from My
Father", which helped launch his swift political ascent.

Some of the fame rubbed off on the village. Tourists turned up and visitors
often knock on the door of Mama Sarah, as Obama's step-grandmother is known.

Nearby is the grave of his father, the senior Barack Obama, a Kenyan
government economist who died in a car accident in 1982, 21 years after
fathering the future U.S. president while living in Hawaii as a visiting
student.

Many Africans wonder why Obama has not made development on their continent
more a priority in his two terms in office.

"With his election, there was this huge euphoria and high hopes that the
U.S.-Africa relationship would see substantive improvements and the U.S.
would give more attention to Africa," said David Zounmenou, a research
fellow at the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa. "But the
record is very weak."

Obama visits Kenya and Ethiopia later in July, his third major trip to
Sub-Saharan Africa after traveling to Ghana in 2009 and to Tanzania,
Senegal and South Africa in 2011. He has also visited Egypt, and South
Africa for Nelson Mandela's funeral.

Obama africaLarry Downing/ReutersPresident Barack Obama holds a news
conference at the conclusion of the the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit at the
State Department in Washington on August 6, 2014

"NOT LIKE AN AFRICAN MAN"

"My hope is that we can deliver a message that the U.S. is a strong partner
not just for Kenya, but for Sub-Saharan Africa generally," Obama said last
week. He said he hoped to build on progress made in health, education and
counterterrorism, and to encourage democracy and reducing corruption.

U.S. officials say the perception Obama has ignored Africa is unfair. They
point to U.S. efforts to contain the Ebola virus in West Africa and a $7
billion continent-wide initiative to expand electricity supply that was
launched in 2013.

But that is a tiny sum compared to the many billions that China has been
spending on infrastructure in Africa, bringing roads, airports and railways
to a continent with almost 1 billion people and an emerging middle class.

The year Obama took office, 2009, was also the year China overtook the
United States as Africa's biggest trade partner.

Nor does Obama have a signature African achievement, unlike his two
predecessors.

George W. Bush was lauded for funding HIV/AIDS treatment across the
continent. Bill Clinton signed a law which sharply reduced trade
restrictions on imports from 35 African states. Obama, who leaves office in
January 2017, has carried on both initiatives, but cannot claim them as his
own.

"To me, he's not like an African man. He doesn't even have a building or a
business here," said Calvine Rachuonyo, 28, who drives a motorcycle taxi in
Kisumu, the nearest big city to Obama's father's western Kenyan home
village.

In Kenya, his visit could attract some protests, most likely small. Members
of one fringe anti-gay group are planning to protest naked in the capital
on the eve of Obama's visit because of his support for gay rights. A
student group says it will defile a tree that Obama planted before he
became president at Nairobi University, unless he returns there for another
visit.

Still, the upcoming arrival has meant an uptick in business for Victor
Agwa, who sells Obama trinkets and t-shirts, some emblazoned with the words
"Son of Africa", in Kisumu.

Agwa sold a thousand T-shirts before Obama's first election in 2008. Since
then, business has steadily declined.

"People have a feeling that maybe he got too busy to come here," he said,
hoping for more visits when Obama leaves office.

U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec has said Obama would not visit Kogelo, and
that he will instead address the Kenyan people at a Nairobi stadium on July
26.

But Kogelo residents are still preparing just in case Obama does turn up,
including sprucing up the grave site of the president's father.

"The gate is always open for Barack, day and night," said Mashart Onyango,
who lives on the family compound and said she was one of Obama's aunts. "He
is our relative."

*GOP*

*DECLARED*

*BUSH*

*Jeb Bush Promises to Curb Lobbying and Cut Size of Government
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/us/politics/jeb-bush-promises-to-curb-lobbying-and-cut-size-of-government.html>
// NYT // Michael Barbaro – July 20, 2015 *

Jeb Bush outlined on Monday a sweeping and detailed plan to rein in the
size of the federal government and to curb the influence of the lobbyists
who live off it, calling for a 10 percent reduction in workers, an
immediate hiring freeze, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced
budget and a six-year waiting period before members of Congress can become
lobbyists.

Invoking his record as a budget watchdog during his time as Florida’s
governor, Mr. Bush vowed to replicate that approach during his first term
as president if the 2016 election sends him to Washington, which he held up
as a model of unyielding dysfunction.

“The overspending, the overreaching, the arrogance, and the sheer
incompetence in that city – these problems have been with us so long that
they are sometimes accepted as facts of life,” Mr. Bush said in
Tallahassee, not far from Florida’s Capitol. “But a president should never
accept them, and I will not.”

Mr. Bush also vowed to “challenge the whole culture in our nation’s
capital.”

His speech amounted to a pointed rebuttal to his Republican rivals in the
presidential campaign who have questioned the depth of his conservatism. It
also appeared to be an attempt to portray Mr. Bush as he defines himself: a
serious leader prepared to govern, rather than a clever speaker without a
meaningful record, as he depicts many of his opponents.

Much of his agenda would face stiff resistance in Washington, where a
divided Congress could present a set of obstacles Mr. Bush rarely faced as
governor, when the Republican Party dominated the state’s government.

Mr. Bush said his policies could reduce the size of the federal work force
by 10 percent in four years. Much of that, he said, would be accomplished
through attrition and a strict system of replacing every three departing
federal workers with one new employee.

In a proposal likely to be greeted with deep opposition from federal
workers and the unions that represent them, Mr. Bush demanded changes to
the Civil Service system that would make it far easier to punish and
replace employees.

“There are a lot of exemplary employees in the federal government, but
they’re treated no better than the bad ones,” Mr. Bush said. “And the bad
ones are almost impossible to effectively discipline or remove.”

But he held out a carrot along with the stick: merit pay and bigger raises
for high-performing workers and managers who save money for the government.

Mr. Bush took direct aim at K Street, Washington’s collection of lobbying
firms that have long employed former lawmakers to do the bidding of major
corporations.

He proposed heightened levels of disclosure that would require members of
Congress to report every meeting with a lobbyist on a weekly basis. The
information would be posted on congressional websites.

Mr. Bush has been critical of the lobbying culture, regularly repeating an
anti-Washington message during his fledgling presidential campaign. But he
also has tapped the fund-raising potential of the K Street crowd, bringing
in millions of dollars for his “super PAC” from Washington lobbyists,
political operatives, lawyers and business leaders.

His most eyebrow-raising plan: requiring an inflexible six-year ban on
lobbying for departing members of Congress. Currently, departing House
members must observe a “cooling-off period” of a year before lobbying on
Capitol Hill, and departing senators must wait two years.

“We need to help politicians to rediscover life outside of Washington,” Mr.
Bush said. “Which — who knows? — might even be a pleasant surprise for
them.”

He said he was not interested in making friends with Washington’s power
brokers, a fact that seemed clear from his proposal to encourage members of
Congress to show up for votes.

Mr. Bush wants Congress to introduce a bill that would dock members pay for
days when they are absent from work.

“The reality,” he said, “is that Congress is in session for three days in a
typical week anyway, so it’s not asking too much that every member be there
and work on those days.”

*How Jeb Bush would revamp Washington and the federal government
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/20/how-jeb-bush-would-revamp-washington-and-the-federal-government/>
// WaPo // Ed O’Keefe – July 20, 2015*

In Jeb Bush's Washington, the federal workforce would shrink, a president
would earn back line-item veto powers and former lawmakers wouldn't be able
to lobby old colleagues for at least six years.

The former Florida governor and Republican presidential candidate on Monday
embraced a series of fix-it plans that congressional Republicans and
watchdog groups have tried failed to enact for decades. Democrats noted
that many of Bush's wealthy supporters would be directly affected by the
changes.

"Should I win this election, you will not find me deferring to the settled
ways of 'Mount Washington,'" he said during a speech at Florida State
University. "The overspending, the overreaching, the arrogance, and the
sheer incompetence in that city -- these problems have been with us so long
that they are sometimes accepted as facts of life. But a president should
never accept them, and I will not."

As a gubernatorial candidate in the 1990s, Bush derided what he called
"Mount Tallahassee," a city where lawmakers and lobbyists grew too cozy.
Now, as a presidential candidate, he tells voters how he slashed $2 billion
in spending and helped cut the state payroll by roughly 13,000 public
sector workers, all while Florida's economy grew at roughly 4 percent
annually -- thanks partly to a housing boom that later fizzled.

Bush, a professed policy wonk, sometimes sounded on Monday like a White
House budget director or lawmaker pining to be Speaker of the House as he
ticked off a series of potential reforms.

He endorsed a federal worker attrition plan Republicans have unsuccessfully
pursued for years that would replace every three departing federal workers
with just one new hire. He backed a GOP plan to partially restore the
line-item veto by letting the White House demand a separate up-or-down vote
on spending items a president dislikes. And he said he likes military
contracting reforms unveiled in March that would strip away many of the
mundane hurdles faced by Pentagon contracting officers.

Most boldly, Bush proposed a six-year "cooling off" period for former
lawmakers who want to be lobbyists -- an aggressive expansion of current
law. Once a House lawmaker leaves office, they must wait one year before
actively lobbying former colleagues; senators must wait two years.

"We need to help politicians to rediscover life outside of Washington,
which -- who knows? -- might even be a pleasant surprise for them," he said.

Bush said he wanted lawmakers to publish on their official Web site any
time they meet with lobbyists -- including people who work in "government
relations" or "government affairs." And he would also expand President
Obama's current policy of banning departing executive branch officials from
lobbying the administration.

The changes would have an adverse affect on Washington's $3.2 billion
lobbying industry, and several former lawmakers-turned-lobbyists dismissed
Bush's ideas as unworkable.

"It's over the top," said former Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), who works for
Deloitte, the consulting giant. He suggested that online reporting
requirements would violate the constitutional right to petition the
government.

"Shouldn’t a congressman be able to meet with some expert without the world
knowing about it?" he said. "Why would Congress want to give that authority
up?"

Davis said he likes Bush as a candidate, but suggested the former governor
might have other motives: "If you’re a Bush, running against Washington is
a lot harder than if you’re other people."

Former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who once chaired the powerful Energy
and Commerce Committee, called Bush's plan "far-reaching."

"It sounds good – just like President Obama’s proposals sounded good not to
hire former lobbyists – but then he ended up depriving his administration
of some very good talent," he said.

Obama banned lobbyists from serving in his administration except in limited
circumstances. Since the ban began in 2009, at least 61 executive branch
employees have received waivers from parts of the ethics pledge.

Waxman retired this year after 40 years in Congress and now works for a
public relations and consulting shop established by his son. A vocal
supporter of environmental protections and health-care reform, Waxman said
he works "only for those clients and those causes that I advocated for in
Congress. ... I have no apologies to make for that."

Two former lawmakers-turned-lobbyists who are active Bush supporters,
Republicans Tom Loeffler (Tex.) and Vin Weber (Minn.), didn't return
requests for comment.

Bush's campaign and allied groups raised an unprecedented $119 million for
his presidential bid in the last quarter. The campaign raised $11.4
million, with the rest raised by an allied super PAC and another leadership
PAC. Given the size of the haul, Bush has faced criticism from some of his
GOP rivals -- including business magnate Donald Trump -- that the large
sums mean he might one day reward top donors representing interest groups
or corporations.

Eight lobbyists raised a collective $228,400 for Bush during the second
quarter, according to Federal Election Commission filings submitted by the
campaign Wednesday. The top bundlers including William P. Killmer of the
Mortgage Banking Association, who raised $36,200; Ignacio Sanchez, co-chair
of the lobbying practice at DLA Piper, who raised $32,400; and Al Cardenas,
former chairman of the Republican Party of Florida and now a lobbyist at
Squire Patton Boggs, who helped bring in $18,900.

A number of lobbyists, though not bundlers, also contributed the individual
limit of $2,700 to Bush's campaign. They include Kirk Blalock of Fierce
Government Relations, David Beightol and Brian Sailer of Flywheel
Government Solutions and Josh Holly of Podesta Group. And Bush drew support
from top lobbyists within major corporations including Maria Cino of
Hewlett-Packard, Matt Niemeyer of Goldman Sachs and Woody Simmons Jr. of
Verizon Communications.

Bush also said Monday that he would push Congress to pass legislation that
would withhold pay from lawmakers who miss votes.

"A bill to dock the pay of absentee members might not pass the House or
Senate, but at least it would get them all there for a vote," he said.

*Jeb Bush wants to dock members of Congress for missing votes. What would
that look like?
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/20/jeb-bush-wants-to-dock-members-of-congress-for-missing-votes-what-would-that-look-like/>
// WaPo // Philip Bump – July 20, 2015 *

Jeb Bush has a crazy idea: Maybe members of Congress should get paid for
how much they actually work.

In a speech on Monday, the former governor of Florida proposed creating a
way to get members of Congress to show up for votes. "If it’s an incentive
they need," he said, "how about the one that pretty much every worker in
America has in their job: you don’t show up, you don’t get paid for that
time."

Bush was targeting the habit of some members of the House and Senate to
miss the (relatively few) votes that each chamber actually takes. Like his
primary opponents in the presidential race, for example.

Since January, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham have each missed at
least a fifth of the votes the Senate has taken, according to data from
GovTrack. Since getting to the Senate, Cruz and Rubio have each missed at
least one in ten votes -- which is in part a function of their having been
running for president for much of their tenures as senators. (And, yes, the
figure pales next to the votes missed by President Obama when he was a
senator.)

Bush didn't really articulate how the plan would work. But let's say that
the senators only got the same percentage of their $174,000 salaries as the
percentage of votes they made. That would result in Graham and Cruz losing
$40,000 a year -- and Rubio losing $50,000.

That's only looking at votes, though. As Bush pointed out, Congress is "in
session for three days in a typical week anyway." Since 1978, Congress has
been in session for a full five-day week about once every two months,
thanks in part to the vacation schedule members enjoy. Members of Congress
will point out that they are doing work even when they are not in session,
but of course that's harder to gauge.

For kicks, let's apply the Bush formula more broadly. The government's
Office of Personnel Management says a full-time year is 2,087 hours of work
-- 261 days, or thereabouts.

Here's how Congress' number of days in session has compared to that
standard since 1985.

It was only toward the end of 2014 that Congress had been in session for
enough days since January 1, 2013 to match the government annual standard
of workdays.

In 2014, the Senate was in session for 136 days and the House for 135.
That's about 52 percent of the OPM standard for work days. Let's --
generously! -- give them another 60 days that they worked doing other
things, having meetings in districts, etc. That means that each branch
worked about 75 percent of a full year -- and that each should get about
$130,000 of their $174,000 salaries.

Bush also made another point: That a bill like this would never be passed
by Congress. He probably meant that legislators wouldn't vote against their
own economic self-interest. But he also might have meant that Congress
simply doesn't hold that many votes.

*Jeb Bush says he would make it harder for lawmakers to become lobbyists
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/20/jeb-bush-says-he-would-make-it-harder-for-lawmakers-to-become-lobbyists/>
// WaPo // Catherine Ho – July 20, 2015 *

Jeb Bush on Monday said that former House and Senate members should be
banned from lobbying their former colleagues for six-years after leaving
office as the Republican candidate outlined how he would push to limit the
lobbying industry’s influence if he becomes president.

The proposed change would significantly lengthen the “cooling off period”
for members of Congress who later lobby lawmakers on behalf of paying
clients, such as corporations and foreign governments. House members
currently have a one-year ban on lobbying and Senate members have a
two-year ban. Changing the current system would require congressional
action.

Bush said he would put in place similar restrictions for officials who
leave the White House for lobbying jobs, but did not specify an exact
length of time. Currently, executive branch officials who become lobbyists
have either a one or a two-year ban, depending on their seniority level.

“I will strengthen existing prohibitions that prevent departing executive
branch employees from lobbying members of my administration,” Bush said in
a speech in Tallahassee.

Bush also proposed stricter lobbying disclosure rules that would require
lobbyists and members of Congress to report every meeting they have with
each other.

“Every time a lobbyist meets with any member of Congress, that should be
reported online — every week, and on the member’s official Web site,” Bush
said.

It is not the first time Bush voiced criticism of the lobbying industry. In
a speech announcing his candidacy last month, he said “swarms of lobbyists”
have complicated the U.S. tax code by advocating for special provisions and
carve-outs for the industries they represent.

On Monday, he continued to take aim at K Street.

“It’s the relentless expansion of government that made lobbying
Washington’s premier growth industry,” he said. “Spending on lobbying has
risen by more than 45 percent over the past decade, translating to $12.5
million per member of Congress. Restrain federal spending and bureaucratic
meddling, and we’ll disrupt the culture that thrives on big government.”

Despite his tough rhetoric, Bush enjoys support, financial and otherwise,
from many lobbyists, including several former members of Congress. This
group includes retired Reps. Tom Loeffler (R-Texas) and Bill Paxon
(R-N.Y.), who are now lobbyists at Akin Gump. Both declined to comment on
the lobbying proposal Bush discussed on Monday. Loeffler, a longtime
supporter and adviser to the Bush family, was one of eight lobbyists who
bundled a collective $228,400 for Bush during the second quarter of 2015.
Loeffler raised $31,500 for Bush’s campaign during that period.

Bush also has the support of retired Reps. Vin Weber (R-Minn.) and Denny
Rehberg (R-Mont.), both of whom are now lobbyists at the lobby and public
affairs firm Mercury. Neither immediately returned a request for comment
Monday. Weber has spoken at an event for Bush’s super PAC about economic
mobility and has said he is interested in advising on policy. Rehberg has
been gathering support for Bush in Montana and Washington.

*Jeb Bush Takes Aim at Lobbyists
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/jeb-bush-takes-aim-at-lobbyists-1437434241> //
WSJ // Beth Reinhard & Chris Stewart – July 20, 2015 *

Vowing to rattle the political establishment in Washington, Republican
presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Monday said members of Congress should
disclose their meetings with lobbyists and refrain from lobbying former
colleagues for six years after leaving office.

Senators are now barred from lobbying their former colleagues for two years
after stepping down, though House members can advocate on issues in that
chamber after a year. Critics say the rules are regularly flouted because
ex-lawmakers and administration officials, who also face restrictions, have
begun calling themselves “strategic advisers” or other titles that don’t
require them to register as lobbyists.

“We need a president willing to challenge the whole culture in our nation’s
capital,” Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida, said in Tallahassee,
the state capital.

Mr. Bush’s proposed lobbying overhauls were part of a sweeping speech
promising to shrink the federal workforce and budget, goals that have long
been advocated by Republicans in Washington.

His attack on lobbyists and special interests also is a familiar theme on
the campaign trail, usually espoused by Democrats.

In his first term, President Barack Obama signed an executive order barring
his appointees who later become lobbyists from advocating on the issues
they had worked on at the White House. He also banned gifts from lobbyists.
Almost all of those rules have been loosened or abandoned since then for
legal, political and practical reasons.

The anti-lobbying agenda runs counter to what happened in Florida after Mr.
Bush as governor passed legislation aimed at cracking down on the advocacy
class. He delivered his remarks at Florida State University, whose
president, John Thrasher, served in the Florida House during Mr. Bush’s
first term before becoming a lobbyist at one of the highest-grossing firms
in the state. He later returned to the state Senate.

In December 2005, one year before he left office, Mr. Bush signed a law
requiring lobbyists to disclose their compensation and banning them from
plying lawmakers with meals and gifts. On Monday, Mr. Bush called the
measure “the strictest lobbying reforms in the country.”

However, state disclosure reports show that the lobbying community saw
robust growth after the law was passed. Lobbyists reported fees ranging
from about $145 million to $219 million in 2007, according to filings with
the state. Those dollar figures have risen gradually since Mr. Bush left
office to a range of $178 million to $264 million in 2013. The range of the
reported payments dipped in 2014 to $150 million to $240 million.

In addition, lobbyists found ways around the Florida law by contributing to
lawmakers’ political committees, which could then use the funds to pay for
meals, travel and more. “It stopped us from getting coffee and a muffin but
allowed us to get wheelbarrows of cash,” said former Democratic House
Majority Leader Dan Gelber. The new committees were banned in 2013 in
another effort to curb special interests.

Another sign that the Florida law failed to mitigate the sector’s
influence: The number of registrations for legislative lobbyists increased
from 7,915 in 2004 to 10,507 today, including lobbyists representing
multiple clients.

“I think Gov. Bush helped usher in and encourage the rise of the super
lobbying firms we see today,” said Ben Wilcox, research director at
Integrity Florida, a nonpartisan government watchdog group.

Mr. Bush’s proposal could draw attacks from his Republican rivals, as
lawyers and lobbyists donated $1.2 million to his 1998 and 2002 campaigns,
according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, and they
are emerging as major backers of his presidential bid.

The campaign disclosed last week that eight lobbyists bundled a total of
$228,400 of the $11.4 million raised in the first 15 days of Mr. Bush’s
campaign—more money from the industry than any other Republican candidate.
The only other GOP contender who reported bundlers was Florida Sen. Marco
Rubio, who said three lobbyists raised $113,450 for his bid.

Mr. Bush’s disclosures didn’t include the $103 million raised by his super
PAC as of June 30, which won’t detail its donors until July 31. The super
PAC held about half a dozen events in Washington and many of the co-hosts
were lobbyists. It also organized a $1,000-per-person February fundraiser
in Tallahassee that was co-hosted by 55 industry groups and individuals,
mostly registered lobbyists.

In 1991, Mr. Bush registered as a lobbyist in Miami-Dade County on behalf
of his real estate company with developer Armando Codina before he was
elected to office, according to records. The documents show Mr. Bush also
listed that he was representing the Deering Bay residential development,
which he and Mr. Codina sold after it was battered by Hurricane Andrew in
1992.

“Governor Bush was not working as a lobbyist,” said a spokeswoman, Kristy
Campbell. “This was specific to the Derring Bay project where Governor Bush
was a partner and the project required the Commission weigh in on
permitting approval issues to move forward with work.”

*Jeb Bush Vows to Shake Up ‘Mount Washington’ Establishment
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/20/jeb-bush-vows-to-shake-up-mount-washington-establishment/>
// WSJ // Beth Reinhard – July 20, 2015 *

Boasting of reforms to “Mount Tallahassee’’ during his two terms as Florida
governor, Republican candidate Jeb Bush on Monday vowed to shake up the
status quo in Washington, D.C. if he is elected president.

“I was a governor who refused to go along with that establishment. I wasn’t
a member of the club, and that made all the difference,” Mr. Bush said,
according to his prepared remarks given at Florida State University in
Tallahassee. “Should I win this election, you will not find me deferring to
the settled ways of ‘Mount Washington,’ either.”

What Donald Trump Has Said -- About McCain, Obama, Immigrants, His Hair

Vowing to reform Washington, D.C. is a common talking point for
presidential candidates, and it’s an especially tough case to make by a
candidate who is the son and brother of past presidents.

Mr. Bush touted the state’s average annual economic growth of 4.4% on his
watch, his vetoes of $2 billion in spending projects, and the state’s
upgraded bond rating.  He was considered one of the most aggressive
conservative governors when he served from 1999 to 2007.

As president, Mr. Bush said he would support a constitutional amendment
requiring a balanced budget, line-item veto power, an overhaul of the
defense procurement process, more detailed vetting of budget requests from
federal agencies, and a freeze on federal hiring.

As governor, Mr. Bush stripped civil service protections from more than
16,000 state jobs, making workers easier to fire, a move that presaged
fights Republican governors later waged in other states. Mr. Bush said
Monday that federal employees should retain civil rights and whistleblower
protections but that it should be easier to remove unproductive employees.
He also backed merit pay and financial incentives for managers who reduce
spending.

Mr. Bush also proposed that members of Congress should report their
meetings with lobbyists online, and that the definition of lobbyists should
be expanded “to address the cadre of ‘government relations’ and ‘government
affairs’ specialists now populating the Capitol.” Ex-House and Senate
members should be banned from lobbying for six years, he said.

Bush's speech is the first in a series to lay out his domestic priorities
and he is expected later this year to release proposals dealing with
entitlement programs and his plan to replace President Barack Obama's
health care overhaul. He'll also hold town hall-style meetings in South
Carolina and New Hampshire later this week.

*Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush vows to cut spending, rein in
lobbying
<http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/07/20/jeb-bush-arrogance-and-incompetence-accepted-in-dc>
// AP // Gary Fineout – July 20, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Monday vowed to rein in
federal spending and combat the "arrogance," ''sheer incompetence" and size
of government if he's elected.

In a speech aimed at President Barack Obama's administration as well as his
rivals for the GOP nomination, Bush called for limiting new hires in
government and extending the ban on former members of Congress from
lobbying their colleagues to six years.

Bush also called for amending the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced
budget and to give the president line-item veto power to challenge what he
called "Mount Washington," a quip echoing his time as governor when he
called the state capital "Mount Tallahassee."

"The overspending, the overreaching, the arrogance, the sheer incompetence
of the city are sometimes treated as though it's a fact of life," Bush said
during a speech at Florida State University. "But a president should never
accept it and I will not. We need a president willing to challenge the
whole culture in our nation's capital - and I mean to do it."

Bush gave his speech less than a mile from where he spent eight years as
Florida's governor and he pointed repeatedly to his achievements during two
terms in office as proof he would fulfill his promises even though he was
aided by a solid GOP majority in the Legislature.

Some of his remarks were aimed at fellow Republicans, including Sen. Marco
Rubio, who is also running for president. Bush scolded members of Congress
who miss votes and said they should forfeit their pay if they are absent.
Rubio's missed votes have come under scrutiny recently.

"The reality is that Congress is in session for typically three days a week
when they are up there, so it's not asking too much that every member be
there and work on those days," Bush said.

A Democratic National Committee spokeswoman called Bush's "talk of
government reform nothing but thin air."

"What we have seen from Jeb Bush before, we will see again - greater income
inequality, sky high debt, allegiances to lobbyists and a failed economic
agenda that benefits the wealthy," said Christina Freundlich. "Bush may
have an elevated sense of his record here - but those who are paying
attention know better. "

When Bush became governor in 1999, Republicans controlled both houses of
the Legislature and the governor's mansion for the first time in more than
a century. Many GOP leaders, including current FSU President John Thrasher,
were eager to work with him many initiatives, including an overhaul of the
state's public school system. That effort remains contentious 15 years
after it was put in place.

Bush noted that as governor he pushed through tax cuts and overhauled the
state's civil service system. He cut taxes consistently while the state's
economy tracked upward, in part due to a supercharged real estate market
that collapsed after he left office. But overall state spending also rose
during his administration.

If he's elected Bush said he would save money by implementing a freeze on
new hiring and to replace only one person for every three federal workers
that retire. He said his goal was to eliminate 10 percent of the federal
workforce within five years.

He also promised to crack down on the influence of lobbyists, noting that
as governor he enacted a strict ban on gifts from lobbyists to legislators.
He made his comments before an audience filled with many of his supporters
and former aides who are now registered lobbyists. One of Bush's top
advisers, Sally Bradshaw, is married to the founder of one of Tallahassee's
most successful lobbying firms.

*Jeb Bush says that 'arrogance and sheer incompetence' have been accepted
in DC for too long
<http://www.businessinsider.com/jeb-bush-says-arrogance-and-sheer-incompetence-accepted-in-dc-for-too-long-2015-7>
// AP // Gary Fineout – July 20, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who pursued an aggressive
agenda when he was Florida's governor for eight years, returns to the state
capital on Monday where he plans to outline his top domestic priorities if
elected.

The speech on the campus of Florida State University could include some of
Bush's most forceful statements to date. In a preview on his campaign
website Bush said it's time to challenge what he calls "Mount Washington."
When he was governor Bush referred to state government as "Mount
Tallahassee."

"We need a president who will not defer to the settled ways of 'Mount
Washington,'" states Bush's campaign website. "The overspending, the
overreaching, the arrogance and sheer incompetence has been accepted for
too long."

It's not surprising that Bush would begin rolling out a series of policies
even as the field for president continues to grow. Before he ran for
president he constantly urged other Republicans to offer up alternatives to
Democratic-backed ideas like President Barack Obama's health care overhaul
instead of just opposing them.

The speech also reinforces Bush's attempts to distance himself from the
other Washington politicians in the race, including U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio,
who is also from Florida.

When Bush became governor in 1999 it marked the first time that Republicans
had complete control of Florida state government in more than a century.
Many GOP leaders, including current FSU President John Thrasher, were eager
to work with him on a long line of substantial initiatives, including an
overhaul of the state's public school system that remains contentious 15
years after it was first put in place.

Bush, who has been an infrequent visitor to Tallahassee since he left
office in 2007, is expected to tout that record as proof of his ability to
push forward changes on taxes and spending. His website includes a video
mentioning that Bush balanced budgets for eight years and built up billions
in reserves while slashing state worker jobs.

The video, however, does not note that Florida requires the state to pass a
balanced budget. The reserves cited by Bush also include money that the
state won in a landmark settlement reached with the nation's tobacco
companies prior to his election.

Bush was able to cut taxes consistently while he was governor because the
state's economy tracked upward, part of which was due to a supercharged
real estate market that collapsed after he left office.

*Jeb Bush vows to shrink Washington's bloat
<https://www.google.com/calendar/render?tab=mc#main_7> // Politico // Matt
Dixon – July 20, 2015 *

Jeb Bush kicked off a series of policy speeches in his old political
stomping ground on Monday, rolling out a reform agenda for “Mount
Washington,” a spinoff of the nickname he gave Tallahassee during his eight
years as governor.

“We used to call this city 'Mount Tallahassee' because it was so remote
from the people, caught up in the settled ways of a comfortable
establishment,” Bush said to an audience of political supporters.

The former governor, who served from 1999 through 2007, used the speech to
push for a handful of policy proposals he said will clean up Washington,
outlining a plan to to blunt elected officials' ability to get rich by
leaving office and quickly turning around to lobby their former colleagues,
add transparency to lobbying meetings and expand the president’s veto power.

Bush delivered the roughly 30-minute speech to a room stocked with more
than 200 allies, many of whom worked in his administration before
transitioning to the lobbying firms that line Tallahassee’s downtown
streets.

Bush highlighted lobbying reforms he signed while he was in office,
including a “gift ban” that prohibited lobbyists or any entity that
employed a registered lobbyists from buying meals or gifts for lawmakers.

“Over time, lobbyists and legislators grew too comfortable in each other’s
company,” Bush said, calling the gift ban one of the “strictest lobbying
reforms in the county.”

He called for federal lobbying reforms, including forcing members of
Congress to post any meetings with lobbyists online, and extending to six
years a ban on members leaving office and becoming lobbyists.

“If I am elected president, I will use all of my influence to enact into
law an immediate, unequivocal six-year ban on lobbying — a full Senate term
— for ex-members of the House and Senate,” Bush said, to loud applause.

Bush's remarks also criticized members of Congress who miss votes, a
category that includes Marco Rubio, a Miami Republican who is also running
for president. (In February, POLITICO reported on a Vocativ analysis that
showed Rubio had missed the most votes of any senator—a total off 99 votes,
or about 8 percent, of the total 1,198 cast since he joined the Senate in
2011.)

Bush joked legislation blocking pay for members who miss votes might not
pass, but at least “it would get them there for a vote.”

He also highlighted parts of his record that he said helped shrink the size
of government in Tallahassee, a city he likened to Washington for its
bloated special interests.

Bush slashed the state workforce by 13,000 workers — or about 11 percent —
in his eight years in office, an accomplishment that has already been
touted by Right to Rise, a pro-Bush super PAC. A video released by Bush’s
campaign prior to his visit boasted of 13,000 “fewer bureaucrats” after the
governor’s eight years in office.

Bush said he would call for a federal hiring freeze, as part of his efforts
to slim “federal bureaucracy.”

“It is a fairly safe bet that not everyone who leaves needs to be
replaced,” he said.

Bush also boasted of his heavy veto pen as governor, having vetoed over $2
billion in state spending, which earned him the nickname “Veto Corleone.”

He said the president has to act in the “national interest,” which requires
the ability to line-item veto specific spending items, a power he enjoyed
as governor of Florida.

“It’s time to revive Veto Corleone,” he said.

Democrats who served during Bush’s administration decried his cuts.

“Most of those cuts had been employees that were in critical services,”
said Democrat Dan Gelber, who served in the House from 2001 to 2008, in an
interview before the speech. “Florida has always been austere. We did not
have a lot of staff before the cuts.”

Though he racked up large numbers of vetoes, the size of the Florida’s
overall budget did grow from roughly $50 billion during Bush’s first year
in office to $71 billion when he left in 2007.

Bush said as president he would push for a balanced budget amendment,
saying he had “balanced Florida’s budget” for eight consecutive years.
(Florida politicians regularly tout a balanced budget on the stump, without
mentioning that the state constitution requires a balanced budget.)

Bush also cited improvements to the state’s child welfare system while he
was in office, including changes spurred by the death of 4-year-old Rilya
Wilson, was a foster child in the care of the Department of Children and
Families.

She disappeared in 2000, but DCF did not notice she was missing until 2002.
Her death prompted the “Rilya Wilson Act,” a 2003 law that required
children in state custody enrolled in an early learning program to attend
that program five days per week. An unreported absence now prompts a DCF
home visit.

“Working with the Florida legislature we stepped up our commitment to
community-based care and made the system much more responsive,” Bush said.

But Gelber, who served as the House’s top Democrat just after Bush’s
tenure, said the deep cuts across state government had contributed to a
dangerous lack of oversight at the agency. (A Miami Herald investigation in
2014 found that 477 children whose cases had some contact with the
department had died since 2008, the year after Bush left office.)

“I don’t know how anyone can point to hundreds, maybe thousands, dying
without regretting not having that oversight,” said Gelber.

Bush did not meet with reporters after the speech. Aides said they were
“crunched for time,” but would not elaborate on the candidate's schedule.

*Jeb Bush Takes Aim at Revolving Door in Washington
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-20/jeb-bush-takes-aim-at-revolving-door-in-washington>
// Bloomberg // Michael Bender – July 20, 2015 *

U.S. lawmakers leaving Congress should be banned for six years from
lobbying, tripling the current prohibition, and prevented from influencing
government as consultants, said Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush.

In what his campaign billed as a major address about government reform,
Bush also vowed to reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent over five
years by hiring only one new employee for every three who leave. He said he
supports a line item veto, giving the president the authority to cut
spending, and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Lawmakers should have their pay docked for missing legislative days, Bush
said, something his Senate rivals for the Republican nomination
occasionally have been known to do.

"It will not be my intention to preside over the establishment, but in
every way I know to disrupt that establishment and make it accountable to
the people," said Bush, the son and brother of former presidents and the
grandson of a former senator, adding that his record in Florida shows he
can be a government reformer.

Bush's speech in Tallahassee, the Florida capital where he spent eight
years as governor, is the first in a series of policy addresses from the
presidential contender. Already a favorite of establishment Republicans,
Bush is appealing to the party's grassroots small-government movement with
tough talk on Washington.

Saying the federal system of acquiring military equipment is broken, Bush
encouraged competition among defense contractors and called for a
simplified chain of command in military's procurement process. A document
provided the Bush campaign took aim at the F-22 Raptor, the Comanche
Helicopter and the Zumwalt Destroyer, saying the federal government could
increase efficiency by upgrading defense systems over time, instead of
"waiting decades to launch a new ship or plan with every conceivable bell
and whistle."

"The Pentagon’s acquisition system is so swamped with regulations, only a
handful of giant defense companies can compete for big contracts," Bush
said, endorsing reforms from Senator John McCain and Representative Mac
Thornberry, the Republican chairmen of the Armed Services committees in
their respective chambers.

Targeting a lobbying industry that he said has spent $12.5 million per
member of Congress at last count, Bush designed his six-year lobbying ban
would ensure than senators serve at least one full term without being
influenced by a former colleague. Current restrictions prevent senators
from lobbying for two years, and House members for just one.

Miles Rapoport, president of Common Cause, a Washington-based group that
advocates for tougher lobbying restrictions, praised Bush's proposals,
saying a six-year ban would be "at the top end of what we would have wished
or hoped for."

"It's a strong statement," Rapoport, a former Democratic Connecticut
secretary of state. "It reflects the fact that voters are really turning
into the idea that there are real problems in how Washington's campaign
finance and lobbying industries are operating."

The Republican presidential candidate also proposed weekly, online
disclosure of lobbyists' meetings with members of Congress, and an
expansion of the definition of lobbying to capture the growing class of
what has come to be known as "unlobbyists," which Bush defined as an
"ambiguous class" of individuals who don't register to lobby but belong to
"the cadre of 'government relations' and 'government affairs' specialists
now populating the Capitol."

Lax regulations defining lobbyists have allowed many former congressional
staffers and even former members of Congress to hire on with organizations
that do lobbying but not register as lobbyists.

"We need to help politicians to rediscover life outside of Washington,
which—who knows—might even be a pleasant surprise for them," Bush said.

Without naming names, Bush took a aim at some current members who already
have been spending time outside Washington. Some of the former governor's
top rivals for the Republican nomination are U.S. senators, including Marco
Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas, who have missed votes in recent
months while campaigning and raising money.

"A bill to dock the pay of absentee members might not pass the House or
Senate, but at least it would get them all there for a vote," Bush said.
"If we can’t always get them on the job, let’s at least get them on the
record."

Bush said his first reform would be the partial freeze on hiring for the
federal government, whose civilian workforce includes about 2 million
employees. His plan, which would make an exception for security and safety
workers, would save the government "tens of billions of dollars" without
adding to unemployment, Bush said. A document provided by the campaign
showed that 31 percent of the federal workforce will be eligible for
retirement by September 2017.

Bush also suggested that federal workers are collecting too much
compensation without enough oversight, and said it should be easier to fire
an "unproductive employee." Bush criticized the federal government for
firing just 0.18 percent of its workforce for cause in 2013, but didn't
suggest an appropriate alternative.

*In a Swipe at Rivals, Jeb Bush Proposes to Dock Pay for Absentee Lawmakers
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-20/in-a-swipe-at-rivals-jeb-bush-proposes-to-dock-pay-for-absentee-lawmakers>
// Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – July 20, 2015 *

Jeb Bush proposal Monday "to dock pay of absentee members" of Congress
amounted to a crafty swipe at his Republican presidential rivals, most
notably his "good friend," Senator Marco Rubio.

"Consider a pattern in Congress of members who sometimes seem to regard
attendance and voting as optional, something to do as time permits," the
former Florida governor said during a speech in Tallahassee taking aim at
institutional Washington. "And if it's an incentive they need, how about
the one that pretty much every worker in America has in their job? If you
don't show up, you don't get paid for the time that you miss."

Not-so-coincidentally, some of the biggest truants in the current Congress
include several of Bush's presidential rivals, whose White House bids have
caused them to miss many votes this year. Topping it is none other than
Bush's home-state ally turned rival: Rubio has recently faced criticism for
being the most absentee member of the Senate. So far in the 114th Congress,
the first-term Floridian has missed 72 out of 249 votes, an absentee rate
of 29 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Government.

Others aren't much better: Texas Senator Ted Cruz has missed 24 percent of
votes so far this year; South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham has missed 23
percent of votes. Of the Senate presidential hopefuls, Kentucky Senator
Rand Paul, stands out for having made 99.9 percent of the Senate roll call
votes this year. He missed just three this year.

Balancing the demands of a presidential campaign with the Senate's often
unpredictable schedule sometimes gets awkward: In April, Cruz gave an
impassioned speech urging senators to reject the nomination of Loretta
Lynch for U.S. attorney general, whom he warned had "embraced the
lawlessness" of the Obama administration. By the time the Senate held a
final vote on the nomination, he had skipped town, apparently for a
fundraiser in Texas.

It's a convenient swipe for Bush, who hasn't held elected office since 2007
and, given his disclosed earnings, doesn't need a full-time job as he runs
for president. While roll call votes provide an easy metric to measure
lawmakers' performance, other officeholders, such as governors, aren't as
vulnerable. But Bush's proposal also highlights a real problem: Members of
Congress can skip votes whenever they want, without having to explain why,
and the only accountability they face is reelection. For senators, that's
just once every six years.

This year's crop of senators running for president aren't the first to rack
up jarring absentee rates as they barnstorm the country courting votes and
raising money. During the 2008 election cycle, Republican nominee John
McCain missed 64 percent of votes; Democratic nominee Barack Obama missed
46 percent, according to GovTrack.us.

For now, Paul isn't the only one bucking the trend: Vermont Senator Bernie
Sanders, who's running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has
missed just six votes this year, marking an attendance rate of 99.8 percent.

'Constitutional questions'

Though Bush's proposal could win him points with good-government advocates,
members of Congress are about as likely to pass a bill cutting their own
pay as they are to dance naked en masse in Statuary Hall. And there is
another hurdle: the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. "No law, varying
the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives,
shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have
intervened," it states.

That means there's no way lawmakers can be prevented from receiving full
pay during a given Congress. The last clause of the amendment, however, may
leave room to enact a law tying pay to attendance, as long as it takes
effect after the following election.

"Bush's play-to-pay law raises some important constitutional questions,"
said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UC Irvine School of
Law. He said Article I, Section 6 gives Congress authority to establish
compensation for members, although there are "questions of timing" due to
the 27th Amendment. "No law changing the terms of compensation can go into
immediate effect, but it could be delayed."

Asked about the constitutional barrier, a Bush campaign spokesperson said
Congress seems to have the power to link pay to attendance, pointing to a
passage in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution that authorizes
Congress to "compel the attendance of absent members" and "under such
penalties as each House may provide."

*Jeb Bush vows Washington culture shake-up
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/20/us-usa-election-bush-idUSKCN0PU1EA20150720>
// Reuters – July 20, 2015 *

U.S. Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush will vow on Monday to shake
up Washington's culture if he reaches the White House, saying an "era of
excuses" in the nation's capital must end.

Bush plans to say in a speech in Tallahassee, Florida, that he wants to
reduce U.S. government debt, spark higher economic growth, cut spending and
tackle other problems, such as the number of people on the federal payroll.

"It will not be my intention to preside over the establishment, but in
every way I know to disrupt that establishment and make it accountable to
the people," the former Florida governor said in excerpts released by his
campaign.

Bush, whose father and brother both served as U.S. president, has been
eager to avoid appearing as if he is a creature of Washington or part of a
political dynasty.

He has pointed to his record in Florida to cast himself as a reformer and
to separate himself from the pack of Republicans seeking the party's
nomination for president in the November 2016 election.

On Monday, Bush will say Floridians called their capital "Mount
Tallahassee," before he took over as governor, because its leaders held
themselves apart from their constituents. He said the problems in
Washington were similar and would be unacceptable if he were president.

*Jeb Bush on John McCain: 'A real hero'
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/politics/jeb-bush-john-mccain-donald-trump/>
// CNN // Ashley Killough – July 20, 2015 *

Bipartisan elected officials from the White House all the way to the wide
open Republican primary field are using incendiary comments from Donald
Trump to praise former prisoner-of-war Sen. John McCain.

Jeb Bush broke from his prepared remarks of a policy speech Monday to
declare that McCain is a "real hero," as Donald Trump insists that he owes
no apology to McCain for questioning the Arizona senator's military heroism.

Trump, who's experienced a bump in the polls since announcing his
presidential bid last month, is known for his unfiltered rhetoric, but the
comments made at an Iowa voter forum from over the weekend drew immediate
and near universal rebuke from other elected officials and candidates.

Making his pitch for reforming Washington, Bush said Monday in Tallahassee
that he supports a proposal by McCain, who chairs the Senate Armed Services
Committee, to change the defense procurement process.

When Bush mentioned McCain's name, he interjected to describe the former
GOP presidential nominee as "a real hero, by the way." The audience,
largely comprised of his former associates from his days as governor, broke
out into huge applause.

Shortly after Bush's comments, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest
said that despite the difference between President Barack Obama and his
former campaign rival McCain, "have not reduced (Obama's) appreciation for
Sen. McCain's remarkable service to the country," adding Obama had "deep
respect for Sen. McCain's heroism."

Responding for the first time himself, McCain said Monday morning that he
didn't feel Trump owed him an apology, suggesting instead the billionaire
real estate developer apologize to American veterans.

"... I think he may owe an apology to the families of those who have
sacrificed in conflict and those who have undergone the prison experience
in serving our country," McCain told MSNBC's "Morning Joe".

Bush was quick to defend McCain on Twitter on Saturday, when Trump stirred
controversy by saying McCain wasn't a war hero because he was captured.

"Enough with the slanderous attacks. @SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans -
particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration," he tweeted.

And Bush was by no means the only 2016 candidate condemning Trump's
comments. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, as well as Republican
Sens. Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham condemned the remarks.

"It's not just absurd, it's offensive" Rubio said in an interview Sunday
with CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union." "It's ridiculous. And I do
think it's a disqualifier as commander-in-chief."

*Jeb Bush defends McCain, but supported Swift Boat attacks against Kerry
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/politics/jeb-bush-swift-boat-veterans/index.html>
// CNN // Jeremy Diamond – July 20, 2015 *

After Donald Trump questioned Republican Sen. John McCain's status as a war
hero, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush quickly jumped to McCain's defense.

"Enough with the slanderous attacks. @SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans -
particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration," he tweeted on
Saturday.

But that outrage was missing ten years ago, when a political group attacked
another Vietnam veteran -- then-Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee who
sought to unseat Bush's brother, the incumbent president, during the 2004
election.

Instead, Bush praised Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that lobbed
attacks questioning Kerry's service record in Vietnam -- attacks McCain
unequivocally criticized in 2004 as "dishonest and dishonorable."

When his campaign was asked if Jeb Bush saw a double standard, a spokesman
rejected the premise.

"A thank you letter to Col. Bud Day, Medal of Honor recipient and Air Force
Cross recipient, twice captured as a POW, is not in any way analogous to
condemning Donald Trump's slanderous attack on John McCain," said Bush
campaign spokesman Tim Miller.

In a letter to the head of that group obtained by CNN, Bush thanked Col.
George Day for his "unwavering support" and thanked the group for "their
willingness to stand up against John Kerry."

"As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I
simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand
up against John Kerry," Bush wrote in a letter dated January 19, 2005.

Of the group's members, Bush added: "Their efforts, like their service to
their country, speak volumes about what matters most."

All of the charges were contradicted by official military records and
almost all of the men who served with Kerry came out in defense of their
former crewmate, praising his courage. Only one of the swift boat critics
served with Kerry.

Kerry received several medals for his service in Vietnam, including several
Purple Heart medals for injuries he sustained in combat.

The Swift Boat attacks have since been widely discredited and the term
swiftboating is now synonymous with lobbing unfair political attacks.

*Jeb Bush Wants Military Recruiters Armed...Overturning His Dad's Policy
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/jeb-bush-wants-military-r_b_7832276.html>
// HuffPo // John Tures – July 20, 2015 *

Presidential candidate Jeb Bush says he wants to overturn the ban on arming
military recruiters, a response to the killing of five servicemen in
Chattanooga, Tennessee. In doing so, he'll undo a policy enacted under his
dad's administration, back in 1992.

In a campaign stop in Nevada, Bush said "it seems to me that if you have
military bases or recruiting offices, these are symbols of American might,
they're targets." He also called upon Congress to act to overturn the ban.

Ironically, Jeb Bush would be overturning a policy from his father's
presidential administration, adopted when President George H. W. Bush was
in the last year of his term in office.

Oliver Darcy with The Blaze, a site founded by conservative talk show host
Glen Beck, reported that the having recruiting stations become "gun free
zones" came from Department of Defense Directive 5210.56, signed by Donald
J. Atwood, Deputy Defense Secretary under George H. W. Bush.

Fox News guest Chad Jenkins said:

"Well, and look at the Fort Hood shootings. We had two shootings now that
were mass casualty situations and now the recruiting station.
Unfortunately, the executive order put in place by President Bill Clinton
back in the nineties took away the rights for service members to carry,
conceal, and to protect themselves here in the homeland."

The conservative "Patriot Post" makes a similar claim.

In researching all of President Bill Clinton's Executive Orders (you can
look for yourself here) from 1993, none of them covered this issue.

I did find this military regulation, Army Regulation 190-14, signed in
March of 1993. But all it does is implement the Bush Administration policy
from 1992.

Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno, who served as the military commander in
charge of forces in Iraq during the George W. Bush Administration, said
he'll review the policy, but noted that such a policy could cause more
problems than it solves. Sure enough, in Gainesville, Georgia, a recruiter
accidentally shot himself while on duty.

A lot of the debate after shootings at Ft. Hood (and the less documented
shooting at an Arkansas military recruiting station) was about whether the
act was terrorism or workplace violence, missing the point about whether
the military should protect itself better against either event.

I'm inclined to agree with Republican candidates (others like Scott Walker
and Donald Trump agree with Jeb Bush) and like Bobby Jindal's plan for
providing armed guards for these stations. But I don't agree with attempts
to blame the incident on Bill Clinton. Evidence shows the policy was
developed before Clinton became president.

And Republicans who want to lift the gun ban should be prepared to explain
it to a small group of constituents, the ones who have conspiracy theories
about the military concerning exercises like "Jade Helm 15" and the belief
that our military is about to put us all in Wal-Mart concentration camps.

*Jeb Bush releases new web ad accusing Trump and Obama of divisiveness
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeb-bush-releases-new-web-ad-accusing-trump-and-obama-of-divisiveness/>
// CBS News – July 20, 2015 *

Jeb Bush's campaign released a new web ad during the height of the Trump
dustup over the weekend, called "Come join us," and it goes after Donald
Trump and Barack Obama for their "divisiveness."

The ad, a compilation of Bush moments on the campaign trail, says, "We need
to focus on the things that tie us together, and whether it's Donald Trump
or Barack Obama, their rhetoric of divisiveness is wrong."

Bush presents himself as a contrast, saying, "I campaign embracing
diversity. Come join us - come join the team that is creating hope and
opportunity."

And, he continues, "A Republican will never win by striking fear into
people's hearts."

Bush has criticized Trump on the campaign trail, notably over Trump's
remarks about Mexican immigrants, which he called "extraordinarily ugly."
Trump, for his part, has claimed he doesn't see Bush as "a factor" in the
race.

*Jeb Bush Pledges to 'Challenge the Whole Culture' of D.C.
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/jeb-bush-pledges-challenge-whole-culture-d-c-n395131>
// NBC News // Carrie Dann – July 20, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush pledged on Monday to stir up the
"settled culture" of Washington D.C. by shrinking government, overhauling
lobbying rules and granting the White House line-item veto power.

"The overspending, the overreaching, the arrogance, and the sheer
incompetence in that city - these problems have been with us so long that
they are sometimes accepted as facts of life. But a president should never
accept them, and I will not. We need a president willing to challenge the
whole culture in our nation's capital - and I mean to do it," he said in
remarks in Tallahassee, Florida.

Bush, who served two terms as the governor of Florida, pointed to his
experience in the state, saying that his record as a reformer makes him
well equipped to cut government spending and waste in Washington.

"It will not be my intention to preside over the establishment, but in
every way I know to disrupt that establishment and make it accountable to
the people," he said.

He pledged to push Congress to submit a balanced budget amendment to the
states, and he praised proposals to reform outdated government procurement
protocols.

He also proposed a hiring freeze on federal workers and a six year ban on
lobbying for former members of the House and Senate.

"We need to help politicians to rediscover life outside of Washington,
which - who knows? - might even be a pleasant surprise for them," he joked.

*Jeb Bush ahead of Marco Rubio among Cuban-American GOP voters in Miami,
poll finds
<http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/20/jeb-bush-ahead-marco-rubio-among-cuban-american-gop-voters-in-miami-poll-finds/>
// Fox News // Serafin Gomez – July 20, 2015 *

A new poll published Monday by the Miami Herald shows that former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush leads fellow Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio among
Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade County — which both candidates call home.

Rubio, whose parents were born in Cuba, trails Bush 31 percent to 43
percent among GOP registered voters. The other Cuban-American presidential
hopeful, Sen. Ted Cruz from Texas, only registered 7 percent in the county,
according to the survey conducted by Bendixen & Amandi International.

Among all Miami-Dade GOP registered voters, Bush also led 35 to 25 percent
over Rubio.

Miami-Dade is the most populous county of the Sunshine state.

Bush endeared himself to the Cuban-American community during his two terms,
with a pro-business, anti-Castro rhetoric that resonated among Latino
voters in Florida.

“In spite of the fact that Jeb enjoys honorary Cuban status, he does that
much better than the person who would be the first potential Cuban-American
president of the United States,” pollster Fernand Amandi told the Miami
Herald.

“It could be a very difficult number for Marco,” he added. “When he can’t
win over the heart of his base, what does that mean for his prospects of
winning the primary in Florida?”

Being fluent in Spanish may also help him in the Cuban-heavy county. In a
separate article back in June, the Herald noted that the former governor is
the only one of the three who speaks Spanish at home — and with a slight
Cuban-American accent.

“He speaks Spanish better than some of us,” a young Cuban-American lawmaker
named Marco Rubio said of Bush in 2002, the Herald said.

“He’s practically Cuban, just taller,” Rubio added.

Bush has lived in Venezuela and Mexico, where he not only taught English as
a second language but also met his wife, Columba.

The Bendixen survey polled 600 registered voters in English and Spanish
between July 8-14. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage
points.

*'We'll all become conservatives': Jeb Bush pledges budget reform in
Florida
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/20/jeb-bush-florida-budget-reform>
// The Guardian // Tom McCarthy – July 20, 2015 *

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush returned on Monday to the state capitol to
accuse the federal government of broad incompetence and present himself as
the person to fix it.

Touting his record as a steward of the Florida economy and scourge of
do-nothing bureaucrats, Bush sought to create sparks in the damp caverns
where people go to discuss deficit spending, federal procurements and civil
service contracts.

The presidential candidate mixed in some politics. He railed against
absenteeism in Congress, without mentioning by name the member with the
worst attendance record, according to a February study – Florida senator
Marco Rubio, Bush’s former ally and Republican presidential rival.

Bush also went out of his way to praise Senator John McCain – “a real hero,
by the way” – after a weekend in which a remarkable amount of political
oxygen was consumed by another White House pretender, Donald Trump, and his
attack on McCain’s war record.

The bulk of Bush’s speech, however, was given to workmanlike promises to
reshape the federal budget, founded on boasts, some of which have attracted
robust skepticism, about his record in two terms as Florida governor.

Bush said, as he did last month in announcing his candidacy, that he would
lead the country to 4% economic growth, pointing to Florida’s 4.4% growth
and 1.3m jobs added during his tenure, from 1999–2007.

Much of Florida’s nominal success, however, was driven by the real estate
speculation that made the state ground zero for the national housing bubble
that burst just as Bush left office. In the next four years, the state shed
900,000 of those 1.3m jobs.

In his return to Tallahassee on Monday, Bush called for a balanced budget
amendment, line-item veto power for the president, an overhaul of defense
department procurements, a federal hiring freeze and an end to automatic
“baseline” funding increases.

“It doesn’t matter who’s the cause of all this,” Bush said. “It’s time to
reform all these things to make government smaller so that we can rise up
again.”

Looking past the numbers, Bush cast the promise of smaller government in
terms of political enlightenment, with capital-R Republicanism as an end.
“A self-governing society doesn’t need the kind of government we have,” he
said. “By our very nature we’ll all become conservatives, because demands
on government will subside.”

*Jeb Bush Wants Every Single Lobbyist-Lawmaker Meeting Made Public
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/20/jeb-bush-wants-every-single-lobbyist-lawmaker-meeting-made-public/>
// The Daily Caller // Alex Pappas – July 20, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Monday he would like to see
a new law requiring lawmakers to disclose all meetings with lobbyists.

“We need to reform disclosure rules in Washington,” Bush said in a speech
Monday morning in Tallahassee. “Here is what I propose: every time a
lobbyist meets with any member of Congress, that should be reported online
– every week, and on the member’s official website.”

Bush said the “definition of the term ‘lobbyist’ should be expanded to
address the cadre of ‘government relations’ and ‘government affairs’
specialists now populating the Capitol.”

The Republican also said he wants a law that would increase the amount of
time between lawmakers leaving the House and Senate and becoming lobbyists.

“I will use all of my influence to enact into law an immediate, unequivocal
six-year ban on lobbying – a full Senate term – for ex-members of the House
and Senate,” he said.

As for the executive branch, Bush said, “We will take similar measures at
the White House. I will strengthen existing prohibitions that prevent
departing executive branch employees from lobbying members of my
administration.”

During his speech at Florida State University, Bush presented his plan for
reducing the federal workforce by implementing a freeze on hiring.

“We will go by a simple three-out, one-in rule across the federal
workforce, with exceptions for critical positions related to our security
and safety,” he said. “Only one new hire for every three who leave.”

Added Bush: “This policy can, on its own, reduce the size of the federal
bureaucracy by 10 percent within 5 years.”

*Jeb Bush Wants to Cut Automatic Raises for Federal Employees
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/jeb-bush-strip-feds-of-automatic-pay-raises-and-due-process-20150720>
// National Journal // Eric Katz – July 20, 2015 *

Jeb Bush on Monday outlined how he would overhaul the federal civil service
if he is elected president, including a proposal to transform the pay-raise
system for federal employees.

Speaking at Florida State University in Tallahassee, the former Florida
governor said the practice of awarding the approximately 2.1 million
federal employees an across-the-board pay raise each year should be done
away with. Billed as a policy address to spell out his economic agenda,
Bush detailed the importance of modernizing what he called an outdated
federal personnel system.

Bush said the civil service, like much of federal government, operates
problematically without anyone "stopping to ask why."

He added: "It's a system in the old ways, rule by inertia and unaccountable
to the people. With more than 2 million people on the federal payroll,
these programs and these problems carry a heavy cost, and a few serious
reforms will go a long way."

The first reform of a Bush administration would be to institute a federal
hiring freeze. Over the next five years, Bush said with a smile on his
face, it is a "fairly safe bet" that not everyone who retires would need to
be replaced. Therefore, he explained, his administration would fill just
one out of every three vacancies created by departing federal workers. The
plan echoes one lined out in the budgets of Wisconsin GOP Rep. Paul Ryan,
which were twice approved by House Republicans.

Like the Ryan budget, Bush would make exceptions for national-security
positions. He said the strategy would allow for a 10 percent reduction in
the size of the federal workforce within five years. Coupled with other
reforms, however, Bush said he would slash more than 10 percent of the
workforce within his first term and save "tens of billions of dollars
without adding to unemployment."

Bush called the personnel system a "relic of the 1970s" under the Carter
administration, which "didn't have the taxpayers' interest foremost in
mind."

"The whole idea of management is to reward good performance and make the
best the standard," Bush said. "And that's not the system we have in
Washington, D.C. right now."

The next significant reform would be to undo rewarding "longevity instead
of performance." He said federal employees earn, on average, $1,500 more in
annual salary than their private sector counterparts, and $16,000 more in
benefits.

The private-federal pay gap has long been disputed, with conservative
groups finding that feds earn more than their private-sector peers,
federal-employee groups finding that nonpublic employees earn more, and the
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office concluding that there was no
clear way to make the determination.

Regardless of that debate, Bush said the pay system does not provide the
proper incentives to "bring out the best" in public servants or to improve
the morale of the federal workforce.

"Just like in the real world, compensation should depend on the type of
work, and the quality of the work," Bush said.

To fix that issue, Congress and the White House should no longer approve
across-the-board pay raises, he said. Instead, Bush said the government
should move to a merit-based pay system. Bush's brother, former President
George W. Bush, oversaw moving the Senior Executive Service to a
pay-for-performance system.

"If we respect and recognize skill and dedication when we see them," Bush
said, "then I promise you we'll see a lot more excellence in the ranks of
civil service and we'll attract new talent as well."

Additionally, Bush proposed giving bonuses to managers who identify ways to
cut spending at their agencies, similar to a proposal put forward by
another 2016 Republican presidential contender—Sen. Rand Paul—earlier this
year.

"When federal employees are found squandering money, we should call them
out on it," Bush said. "And when they find ways to save money, we should
reward them." Bush noted that as governor, he instituted the Davis
productivity awards. Employees that find ways to "shrink government"
deserve bonuses, he said.

The third tenant of Bush's civil-service reforms, which he called "long
overdue," would make it easier to fire federal workers. Bush did not lay
out specifics of which civil-service laws he would attempt to change, but
did promise to maintain "civil rights and whistleblower protections."
Otherwise, he said, the time it takes to "remove an unproductive employee
should be weeks, rather than years."

"There are a lot of exemplary employees in the federal workforce, but
they're treated no better than the bad ones," Bush said. "And the bad ones
are nearly impossible to effectively discipline or remove." He added that
"job security is one thing; job entitlement is another." Every removal of a
federal employee should not be a "federal case," Bush said.

The son and brother of former presidents hailed his ability to transform
the personnel system in Florida during his eight years as governor.

In his first term, Bush introduced his "Service First" reforms to remake
much of the state's workforce. Bush successfully stripped Florida's 16,000
career managers and supervisors of due-process protections by turning them
into at-will employees. Bush also changed the policy for "cause" from a
specific list of fireable items to the much broader "sound discretion of an
agency head." He coupled those policies with a directive to all state
agencies requiring them to issue blueprints for reducing their workforces
by 25 percent.

Florida already ranked 50th among states in spending on government salaries
per citizen, but Bush successfully trimmed the number of state employees by
25 percent within five years.

Bush placed his federal civil-service reforms in the broader context of
cutting agency spending and reducing the size of government.

"We're going to turn off the automatic switch of discretionary-spending
increases and weigh budgets only on its merits," Bush said. "Too much of
federal government runs on automatic."

*Jeb Bush unveils his plan for 'disrupting' America's government
<file:///C:\Jeb%20Bush%20unveils%20his%20plan%20for%20'disrupting'%20America's%20government%20%20Read%20more\%20http\::www.businessinsider.com:jeb-bush-government-spending-plan-2015-7#ixzz3gSKXbHbM>
// Business Insider // Maxwell Tani – July 20, 2015 *

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) on Monday laid out his plan for how he'll
overhaul federal-government spending if he's elected president.

In a speech on Monday in Florida, the Republican presidential candidate
unveiled his plan for "disrupting" Washington by downsizing the federal
government.

Bush's plan takes aim at the federal budget. He proposes cutting the number
of federal employees by at least 10% and radically overhauling the budget
process to require a balanced budget, a controversial prescription popular
with the conservative base.

"It will not be my intention to preside over the establishment, but in
every way I know to disrupt that establishment and make it accountable to
the people," Bush said.

Bush is calling his reform effort "Mount Washington," a reference to "Mount
Tallahassee," the disparaging nickname given to Florida's state government
for being far removed and inaccessible to the people.

Here are the reforms that Bush outlined in his speech:

Balanced budget amendment. Bush says that he will push for a constitutional
amendment that would require the federal government to balance its budget
every year. The idea has been gaining steam in conservative circles for
some time, though it seems difficult to achieve considering opposition in
blue states.

Line-item veto. Bush supports a line-item veto like the one sponsored by
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin). According to The Washington Post, Ryan's 2012
line-item veto bill proposed granting the president the ability to send
budget items that he or she dislikes back to Congress for an amendment-free
up or down vote. Proponents believe that this will allow the president to
cut wasteful spending, while critics note that Ryan's plan reduces the
deficit, instead of allowing the money saved to go back into the pot.
President Bill Clinton briefly enjoyed a line-item budget veto, but it was
ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Federal employee hiring freeze. Bush says that he will institute a policy
of hiring one employee for every three who leave when it comes to federal
hiring, with the exception of national-security related jobs. Bush
suggested that federal agencies shouldn't replace many workers who retire —
according to the governor, 10% of the federal workforce will retire within
the next five years, and "not everyone who leaves has to be replaced."

Merit pay. Bush claims too many mediocre federal employees are being paid
the same as exemplary employees. Though he didn't delve too far into
specifics on this point, the former Florida governor said that he'll make
it easier to fire bad federal employees.

Dock congressional pay. Bush suggests that members of Congress who don't
show up for votes or committee hearings should have their pay docked. This
could be seen as a slight dig at some of his primary rivals — Sen. Marco
Rubio (R-Florida) has missed more votes than any other senator. Many
members have to juggle intense fundraising schedules in addition to their
official congressional duties. The Huffington Post reported in 2013 that
Democratic freshmen members were advised to spend four hours a day
fundraising.

Budget procurement reform. Bush says that he supports a procurement reform
plan by Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona). It would reduce the Secretary of
Defense's power to dictate military acquisitions, and would change defense
contracts to reduce incentives for contractors to not meet deadlines, which
results in cost overruns.

Get rid of "baseline budgeting." Bush would no longer measure spending cuts
based on last year's budget.

*RUBIO*

*Rubio: We're in 'the most dangerous phase of the Obama presidency'
<http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/248473-rubio-slams-obama-over-uns-iran-vote>
// The Hill // Jordain Carney – July 20, 2015 *

Presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) slammed President Obama for
allowing the United Nations Security Council to vote on the Iran nuclear
agreement.

“President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is a dangerous and destabilizing
failure, and it is telling that he is seeking Russia and China’s seal of
approval of his deal before administration officials have even briefed
Congress," Rubio said in a statement. "The stakes are too far high for
America’s security to be outsourced to the United Nations."

Rubio's comments came after the U.N. Security Council unanimously endorsed
the deal in a 15-0 vote.

The Iran vote at the U.N. also took place on the same day that the United
States and Cuba reopened their embassies as part of the restoration of
diplomatic ties.

Rubio, a vocal critical of the president's Cuba policy, linked the two
events, suggesting that July 20, 2015, will be remembered as "Obama's
capitulation Monday."

"Monday’s events at the U.N., Washington and Havana leave no doubt that we
have entered the most dangerous phase of the Obama presidency in which the
president is flat-out‎ abandoning America’s vital national security
interests to cozy up to the world’s most reprehensible regimes," he added.

“July 20 will be a powerfully symbolic day for the Obama-Clinton foreign
policy legacy, which will be remembered as a dark time in American history
when the mullahs in Iran and the thugs in Havana celebrated at America’s
expense.”

The Florida senator is part of a growing number of Republicans, as well as
key Democrats, who pressed the administration to block action at the U.N.
until after Congress had 60 days to review the Iran agreement.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another 2016 presidential candidate, said
allowing the U.N. to vote before Congress "is an affront to the American
people and further evidence of a weak president trying to sell a bad deal."

The State Department handed over the final parts of the Iran deal to
Congress over the weekend, which means the review period officially started
Monday.

The pushback over the U.N. Security Council vote is threatening to
complicate the administration's sales pitch to Congress, where Republicans
have largely disavowed the deal and many Democrats remain skeptical.

*Marco Rubio’s Close Relationship With For-Profit Corinthian Colleges
<http://thinkprogress.org/education/2015/07/20/3682328/marco-rubio-received-nearly-30000-profit-colleges/>
// Think Progress // Casey Quinlan – July 20, 2015 *

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is running for president in 2016, has a strong
record of supporting for-profit colleges, namely Corinthian Colleges, which
shut down all of its remaining campuses in April. Rubio has accepted
contributions to the tune of $27,600 throughout the past five years. The
last donation filed with the Federal Election Commission was for $2,700 on
April 30, Bloomberg reported.

Last year, Rubio also sent a letter requesting that the U.S. Department of
Education would exercise “leniency” on Corinthian Colleges by not halting
federal aid while it was being investigated. The letter was obtained by
Bloomberg Politics and reads, in part:

While I commend the Department’s desire to protect our nation’s students
from fraudulent and malicious activity by any institution of higher
education, regardless of tax status, I believe the Department can and
should demonstrate leniency as long as Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continues
to expeditiously and earnestly cooperate by providing the documents
requested.

The U.S. Department of Education stated it would fine Corinthian Colleges
for misleading students before the campus shutdowns, citing problems such
as falsifying post-graduation data. A 2012 Senate report accounted for
several trends in the for-profit college industry, such as poor graduation
rates, high tuition, even though students with modest financial resources
are targeted, and that they often fail to provide adequate student support
services.

Rubio has supported the idea of for-profit colleges in general, not only
Corinthian Colleges. In a speech this month in Chicago, he said the rules
for colleges’ accreditation needed to be loosened for “innovative, low-cost
competitors” to succeed. That reference to low-cost competitors is likely
shorthand for for-profit colleges. Rubio worked with Sen. Michael Bennet
(D-CO) on a budget amendment earlier this year that would create an
alternative accreditation process. However, some would argue that the
process of accreditation is already too loose, as the accreditation
agencies are paid by the very institutions they oversee through fees.

Rubio is not the only Republican presidential candidate to support
for-profit colleges. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Louisiana Gov. Bobby
Jindal, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker are
among those who have spoken in support of or have received money from
for-profit colleges.

*WALKER*

*Scott Walker: We might have to take military action on Day One
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/20/scott-walker-we-might-have-to-take-military-action-against-iran-on-day-one/>
// WaPo // Greg Sargent – July 20, 2015 *

A dispute has erupted between Scott Walker and Jeb Bush over how to handle
the task of undoing Obama’s Iran deal as president, with Bush hinting that
Walker is approaching the issue with a lack of maturity, and Walker
suggesting that Bush is not zealous enough about confronting the enemy.

Walker is also saying that it’s “very possible” the next president will
have to take military action on Day One of his presidency — though it’s
unclear whether he means against Iran in particular, or more generally.

The argument says a lot about the two candidates’ differing calculations
with regard to the level of nuance GOP primary voters are prepared to
entertain about the Iran deal, and more broadly, about foreign policy in
general.

But I think the dispute also underscores the point made by David Axelrod
last week: That for all the professed GOP confidence about the domestic
politics of the agreement, it could prove to be more of a political problem
for the GOP presidential candidates than for Hillary Clinton.

The Weekly Standard reports that Bush said this to a voter in Nevada:

“One thing that I won’t do is just say, as a candidate, ‘I’m going to tear
up the agreement on the first day.’ That’s great, that sounds great but
maybe you ought to check in with your allies first, maybe you ought to
appoint a secretary of state, maybe secretary of defense, you might want to
have your team in place, before you take an act like that.”

That was a shot at Walker, who has said he would undo an Iran deal on Day
One of his presidency, regardless of what our allies have to say about it.
Bush subsequently stood by his remarks, noting that on Day One, he would
not yet have had the intelligence briefings required to make an informed
decision. Bush added: “If you’re running for president, you know, I think
it’s important to be mature and thoughtful about this.”

The Weekly Standard report continues thusly:

At a press conference after his appearance at the Family Leader Summit here
Saturday, Walker was asked if he thinks Bush is wrong. “He may have his
opinion. I believe that a president shouldn’t wait to act until they put a
cabinet together or an extended period of time,” Walker said.

“I believe they should be prepared to act on the very first day they take
office. It’s very possible – God forbid, but it’s very possible – that the
next president could be called to take aggressive actions, including
military action, on the first day in office. And I don’t want a president
who is not prepared to act on day one. So, as far as me, as far as my
position, I’m going to be prepared to be president on day one.”

In a subsequent statement to the Standard, Bush clarified that he thinks
the Iran deal is “terrible” and called on Congress to “reject it,” and
added:

“Should it be upheld, as President I would begin immediately to responsibly
get us out of this deal, with a comprehensive strategy that is responsive
to the conditions at the time and confronts Iran’s continued pursuit of a
nuclear weapons capability, its support for terrorism and instability, its
ballistic missile proliferation, and its horrific human rights record.”

The basic difference here appears to be that Walker believes the next
president should start the process of undoing the deal on Day One, while
Bush is stopping just short of that and hinting that he would go about this
more “responsibly,” and with more solicitude towards changing international
conditions. Bush apparently believes he can win the GOP primary while
offering a (somewhat) more nuanced and “mature” (his word) approach than
Walker. The Wisconsin Governor is apparently trying to appeal to GOP
primary voters by portraying Bush’s comments as a sign he’d be more
resolved towards Iran (and towards undoing Obama’s deal), and more
“prepared” as president.

Obviously, if Congress fails to block the deal, and things go wrong, that
could rebound badly on Hillary Clinton, who has already signaled she’ll
embrace it. But the dispute between Bush and Walker raises another
possibility: That the eventual GOP nominee’s position on the Iran deal
could prove a lot harder to explain than Republicans think.

Jeb’s suggestion that he will approach the situation based on the
conditions of the moment (that’s crazy talk!!!) suggests an awareness of
something that Walker may or may not share: Undoing the deal in 2017 could
have all sorts of unpleasant consequences that haven’t been sufficiently
gamed out yet. As one expert put it recently, it could undermine our
relationships with allies in ways that could have “a lot of ripple effects
around wherever the U.S. and Europe have security cooperation.”

What’s more, vowing to undo the agreement would put pressure on the GOP
nominee to articulate his alternative.  As Axelrod argues, if Democrats can
successfully make the case that the only alternative to the Iran deal is
likely to be war, then supporting the agreement may well end up being the
majority position in this country. (A new Washington Post/ABC News poll
finds that 56 percent of Americans support the deal, though a large
majority is skeptical that it will work, suggesting Americans want to give
it a try even if success is far from assured.)

Obviously the eventual GOP nominee may not think the consequences that
could flow from undoing the deal are all that worrisome, or he may believe
that the agreement is so awful that risking those consequences is worth it.
But that might prove a tough position to explain, and general election
voters might not find it all that persuasive.

UPDATE: A Walker adviser sends over a full transcript of his remarks. It’s
not entirely clear whether Walker is referring to the possibility of
military action on day one against Iran in particular, or more generally.
So I’ve edited the above, just in case he meant the latter.

Still, whatever he meant, the broader point is the same: This dispute
between Walker and Bush, over how aggressively to go about undoing the Iran
deal, shows that it could create political problems for the GOP nominee,
and not necessarily for Hillary Clinton.  Here’s the transcript:

Walker: “[…] I believe that this deal with Iran is so bad not just because
of its implications regarding Iran’s illicit nuclear infrastructure, but
because we have the premier state sponsor of terrorism now being empowered
in that region and by lifting sanctions using economic capacity, as well as
the president in terms of his credibility in the world –  I think that it’s
a bad enough deal that it needs to be terminated right off the bat and I
will work with the congress not only to reinstate the already previously
authorized sanctions but to work with them to put in place even more
crippling sanctions and to convince our allies to do the same. To me I just
think it’s a different opinion, and he may have his opinion.

“I believe that a president shouldn’t wait to act until they put a cabinet
together or for a certain period of time. I believe that they should be
prepared to act on the very first day they take office. It’s very possible,
God forbid that this would happen, but it’s very possible that the next
president could be called on to take aggressive actions, including military
actions, on their very first day in office, and I don’t want a president
who is not prepared to act on day one. So as far as me, as far as my
position, I’m going to be prepared to be president on day one.”

*Scott Walker, Confronted by Immigrant in Iowa, Blames Obama for Family’s
Uncertainty
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/20/scott-walker-confronted-by-immigrant-in-iowa-blames-obama-for-familys-uncertainty/>
// WSJ // Reid Epstein – July 20, 2015 *

Some politicians get energized when challenged by protesters. Scott Walker
appears calm.

While union protesters are a regular presence outside the Wisconsin
governor’s 2016 presidential campaign stops, Sunday afternoon marked a rare
occasion of his being directly challenged by someone inside of one of his
events.

Here, in a no-stoplight town of 450 where Mr. Walker lived as a boy, he’d
just concluded an abbreviated version of his stump speech when a
13-year-old girl from Waukesha, Wis., approached him. Mr. Walker put his
arm around her shoulder and posed for a photograph. The girl, Leslie
Flores, then asked, “Governor Walker, why are you trying to break my family
apart?”

What Donald Trump Has Said -- About McCain, Obama, Immigrants, His Hair

Mr. Walker didn’t flinch. Within seconds he mentioned he didn’t have time
for a discussion and turned to walk toward a Fox News crew waiting to
record a live interview.

Mr. Walker described his style as a regional affect during a stop earlier
in the day in Cedar Falls.

“In the Midwest we just take care of problems. We don’t make a lot of fuss,
we just go out and get the job done and we go back to work,” he said.
“Sometimes I think people don’t understand that. That’s why we didn’t lash
out [during the 2011 protests against his legislation to strip
public-sector unions of collective-bargaining rights]. We just got the job
done and moved forward.”

Meanwhile, the Flores family – Leslie was with her father, José, an
undocumented immigrant who works as a painter, and 7-year-old brother Luis
– told the dozen or so reporters traveling with the Walker campaign their
plight. José Flores, 38 years old, came to the U.S. illegally from Mexico
19 years ago. He said he is eligible for President Barack Obama‘s deferred
action program for parents of U.S. citizens. (A federal court has ruled the
Mr. Obama doesn’t have the authority to implement the program.) Organizers
from Voces de la Frontera, the Wisconsin immigrants’ rights organization
that brought the Flores family here, recorded the exchanges on their
smartphones.

“My family is at risk of being separated by being deported,” Leslie Flores
told the reporters

The immigration issue is a delicate one for Mr. Walker, especially in Iowa
where would-be 2016 Republican caucus-goers are steadfastly opposed to Mr.
Obama’s executive actions on immigration and any path to citizenship for
the undocumented. For a decade until earlier this year, Mr. Walker was in
favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the U.S. In 2013,
when the Senate was weighing an overhaul to the nation’s immigration laws,
Mr. Walker said increasing border security was unnecessary.

Once he began building a profile as a presidential candidate, Mr. Walker
offered a different view. Now, as part of his regular stump speech, he says
he is opposed to a path to citizenship (though he has offered a slightly
different view in some private conversations), decries “amnesty” and
pledges to secure the border. At his direction, Wisconsin joined 25 other
states in a lawsuit to block Mr. Obama’s DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents
of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) program, for which Mr. Flores
said he qualifies.

After his Fox News interview and a tour of the Dietz family farm – Janice
Dietz was his childhood babysitter – that included a photo-op with a line
of a half-dozen cows, Mr. Walker returned to the Flores family. Leslie had
tears welling in her left eye and streaming down her cheek. Both sides were
prepared for the second confrontation, and Mr. Walker didn’t miss the
opportunity to blame Mr. Obama for the family’s uncertainty.

“The president had years to deal with this throughout the legitimate
legislative process. He even had his own party in charge for the first two
years,” Mr. Walker told Mr. Flores in a calm, emotionless tone that
embodied a father gently scolding his children. “I’m not blocking anything.
The president has made this issue. I sympathize with it. But I want to make
sure that going forward we follow the law in a way that is responsible.”

The answer wasn’t satisfactory to Mr. Flores, but it made a ready-made
soundbite for Iowa’s Republican electorate. Mr. Flores asked if he would be
deported should Mr. Walker be in charge of fixing the immigration system.

Young Luis asked Mr. Walker: “Do you want me to come home from school and
my dad got deported?”

Mr. Walker said that’s not his plan. “That’s not what I’m talking about,”
he said. “My point is that, in America, no one person is above the law. The
president can’t make the law just because he says it.”

One of the camera-wielding activists traveling with the Flores family asked
Mr. Walker if he would deport undocumented immigrants before new
immigration laws could be enacted. Mr. Walker said he wouldn’t. With that,
the governor ended the conversation and walked into the crowd of awaiting
townsfolk.

*GOP presidential hopeful Scott Walker signs abortion ban bill
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/gop-presidential-hopeful-scott-walker-signs-abortion-ban-bill/>
// AP – July 20, 2015 *

Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, one week after launching his bid
for the 2016 presidential nomination, signed a bill Monday that outlaws
non-emergency abortions at or beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Abortion is a core issue for the conservative Republican base whose support
Walker will seek as he tries to stand out in a crowded presidential field
that also includes former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio
and billionaire Donald Trump.

While Walker has a long history of opposing abortions, it's an issue where
he could be targeted by rivals: Just nine months ago he ran a television ad
during his gubernatorial re-election campaign where he said whether to
obtain an abortion is an agonizing decision between a woman and her doctor.

Walker's record includes defunding Planned Parenthood, requiring abortion
doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, a law currently
blocked by a federal court judge, and requiring women to have ultrasounds
and be shown images of the fetus before having an abortion.

Walker last year, during his re-election campaign, refused to say last year
whether he would support a 20-week abortion ban.

But in the face of questions from anti-abortion conservatives over his
commitment to the issue in the light of the campaign ad,Walker in March
came out in support of the 20-week abortion ban.

"The truth is that Scott Walker lied to Wisconsin voters when he was
elected governor after saying that abortion is between a woman and her
doctor," said Sasha Bruce with NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion
rights advocacy group. "Now, in an effort to win the votes of the extreme
base of the Republican Party, Walker has traded the health and well-being
of women and families to score cheap political points."

The governor's signature makes Wisconsin the 15th state to pass similar
bans. There is no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

The new law — which cleared the Legislature without any Democratic support
— is expected to be challenged in court. Walker, speaking with reporters
after the bill signing, said he was confident it would survive any legal
challenge, calling the five-month ban a "reasonable standard."

"For people, regardless of where they might stand, when an unborn child can
feel pain I think most people feel it's appropriate to protect that child,"
Walker said.

But Kaylie Hanson, speaking for the Democratic National Committee, said the
new law was nothing more than a "timely favor" for the Republican base days
after Walker joined the presidential race.

"The harsh reality is that this law will hurt women, as it puts up barriers
to care for rape and incest survivors - no exceptions - and threatens the
health of the mother," Hanson said in a statement. "This law doesn't only
undermine the most basic women's health services. It's radical, dangerous,
and lacks respect for half the population of Wisconsin."

Bans on abortion after 20 weeks are popular, at least on the surface. A
Quinnipiac University poll conducted in November of 2014 found that 6 in 10
Americans support banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in
cases of rape or incest.

On the other hand, a 2012 CNN/ORC poll found the vast majority of Americans
— more than 8 in 10 — said abortion should be legal in cases of rape or
incest.

An Associated Press-GfK poll conducted in January and February found that
51 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most
cases, while 45 percent think it should be illegal in most or all cases.

Under the new Wisconsin law, doctors who perform an abortion at or after 20
weeks in non-emergency situations could be charged with a felony punishable
by up to $10,000 in fines and 3½ years in prison. Doctors could also be
sued for damages.

Doctors would be allowed to perform abortions beyond 20 weeks only if the
mother is likely to die or suffer irreversible injuries within 24 hours.

The law's supporters say fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks. They say the
ban will spare those unborn children an excruciatingly painful death. The
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, says fetuses
can't feel pain until the third trimester starts at 27 weeks. Minority
Democrats have complained that Republicans should leave women alone and let
them decide how to handle their own bodies.

Abortions after 20 weeks are rare in Wisconsin. According to the most
recent state Department of Health Services information, 89 of nearly 6,500
abortions performed in Wisconsin in 2013, or roughly 1 percent, occurred
after the 20-week mark.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established a nationwide
right to abortion but allowed states to restrict the procedures after the
fetus reaches viability, the point where it could survive outside the womb.
The ruling offered no legal definition of viability but said it could range
from the 24th to 28th week of pregnancy.

Courts have blocked bans in Georgia, Idaho and Arizona. Litigation in other
states is ongoing. A federal appellate court in May struck down Arkansas'
ban on abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy if a doctor can detect a
fetal heartbeat, finding that prohibition unconstitutionally burdens women.

*Scott Walker signs Wisconsin abortion bill
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/wisconsin-abortion-20-weeks-not-legal-scott-walker-120370.html>
// Politico // Eliza Collins – July 20, 2015 *

Abortion after 20 weeks is now illegal in Wisconsin — with no exceptions
for rape or incest.

On Monday, Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill that bans all non-emergency
abortion after 20 weeks.

The legislation makes performing an abortion a felony punishable by up to
three and a half years in prison and $10,000 in fines.

The only way abortions after 20 weeks are allowed is if the mother is
likely to die or be severely injured.

Anti-abortion activists have coalesced around 20 weeks because, they say,
that’s when fetuses begin to feel pain. The American Congress of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, says that pain doesn’t occur
until 27 weeks.

Walker is running for the Republican nomination for president and is
leading in some polls.

Wisconsin legislators approved the abortion measure earlier this month,
just days before Walker officially announced his bid for the White House.

GOP lawmakers said that the ban had nothing to do with the governor’s
ambitions, but the bill benefited from a few legislative shortcuts,
including an expedited hearing process and an “extraordinary” July session,
to land on his desk at a convenient political time for Walker.

The legislation comes less than a year after Walker, who was stuck in a
tight reelection campaign, released an ad that called a woman’s decision to
terminate a pregnancy “agonizing,” saying he supported legislation that
would make the decision between a woman and her doctor.

“I said I’m pro-life but I can only imagine how difficult a decision must
be for someone who’s thinking about ending their pregnancy. That’s why I
support a law that provides more information to someone to make that
decision,” Walker said in the ad. “The law still leaves the decision to the
woman and her doctor. As for me, I want to look out for the health and
safety of all citizens in my state.”

On Monday, Walker tweeted: “Just signed pain capable bill into law to
protect unborn at 5 months when they can feel pain.- SW #Walker16”

*Poll: Walker leads in Iowa, followed by Trump
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/poll-iowa-gop-scott-walker-leads-donald-trump-second-120352.html>
// Politico // Nick Gass – July 20, 0215 *

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is still out in front of all Republican
contenders in a new Monmouth University poll out Monday surveying likely
Iowa GOP caucus-goers.

But in second place is Donald Trump, whose remarks on Arizona Sen. John
McCain’s military service do not appear to have had a material effect on
his standing in the Hawkeye State, or at least not yet. In fact, a
plurality of those surveyed (47 percent) said they have a favorable view of
the multibillionaire candidate, while 35 percent said they do not.

Walker grabbed 22 percent, compared to Trump’s 13 percent. Retired
neurosurgeon Ben Carson received 8 percent, with former Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz with 7 percent each. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike
Huckabee, who won the 2008 caucus, follows with 6 percent, with Florida
Sen. Marco Rubio and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 5 percent, and Louisiana
Gov. Bobby Jindal at 4 percent.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who won the 2012 caucuses, grabbed
3 percent, as did former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and retired Hewlett-Packard
executive Carly Fiorina.

It should be noted that polling for this survey began last Thursday, two
days before Trump’s statement that McCain “was a war hero because he was
captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

Trump stood by and intensified his remarks against the senator over the
weekend and on Monday.

The poll was conducted July 16-19 via landlines and cellphones, surveying
452 likely Republican caucus-goers. The overall margin of error is plus or
minus 4.6 percentage points.

*Scott Walker Steps Down as Head of Wisconsin’s Job-Creation Agency
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-20/walker-steps-down-as-head-of-wisconsin-s-job-creation-agency>
// Bloomberg // Tim Jones – July 20, 2015 *

Saying his presence had become a distraction, Wisconsin Governor Scott
Walker stepped down as chairman of an embattled commission charged with job
creation.

Walker, a Republican who announced his candidacy for the White House on
July 13, signed a budget provision Monday removing himself as head of the
Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., a panel he created after taking
office in 2011.

The agency came under attack after a May report from Wisconsin’s
Legislative Audit Bureau showing the authority failed to follow the law and
its own policies in awarding taxpayer-funded incentives. Walker began
distancing himself from the operation before his presidential announcement.

“I thought it was important to put the focus on the job creators,” Walker
said in Oshkosh on Monday, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

WEDC is a quasi-public authority that Walker created to replace the state’s
Department of Commerce. He promoted it as a more efficient means to create
jobs. Documents made public in June showed more than two dozen awards
valued at more than $124 million were made to two companies without a
formal staff review.

Wisconsin Democrats quickly pounced on Walker’s exit.

“Rather than digging in and solving the problems with his jobs agency,
Governor Walker is choosing to escape the bad headlines and instead
campaign for president,” said House Minority Leader Peter Barca in a
statement released from his office.

Walker campaigned in 2010 on a promise to created 250,000 private-sector
jobs during his first term. About half of that amount was created during
his first four years in office. He was re-elected last November, defeating
Democrat Mary Burke, 52 percent to 47 percent.

*Scott Walker Signs 20-Week Abortion Ban Into Law
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-walker-abortion-ban_55ad0c69e4b065dfe89ec3d8>
// HuffPo // Laura Bassett – July 20, 2015*

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed a bill into law on Monday that bans
abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless the mother's life is in
danger. The legislation, which passed the GOP-controlled state legislature
earlier this month, makes no exceptions for severe fetal anomalies or for
victims of rape and incest.

Walker, a 2016 presidential candidate, said he supports the legislation
because fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks -- an assertion that has been
disputed by the mainstream medical community.

"At five months, that's the time when that unborn child can feel pain,"
Walker said Monday. "When an unborn child can feel pain, we should be
protecting that child."

Abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy are very rare, making up less than 1
percent of all abortions. Often, women who seek abortion care after that
point have discovered a severe fetal anomaly that could not be detected
earlier on in the pregnancy.

Several major medical groups in Wisconsin oppose the 20-week abortion ban,
including the Wisconsin chapter of the American Congress of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, the Wisconsin Medical Society, the Wisconsin Academy of
Family Physicians and the Wisconsin chapter of the American Academy of
Pediatrics. A group of 100 gynecologists in the state wrote a letter to
Walker and members of the state legislature earlier this month urging them
to oppose the bill because they say it "tie[s] the hands of doctors seeking
to help women."

"This is bad medicine, based on the thoroughly debunked fallacy that a
20-week fetus – which is not viable – can feel pain," the doctors wrote.
"SB 179/AB 237 would block Wisconsin ob-gyns from being able to treat our
patients in a medically  appropriate and humane manner. These bills would
undoubtedly place us in the unconscionable position of having to watch our
patients and their loved ones undergo additional emotional trauma, illness
and suffering during what is already a difficult time."

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed to bring a
federal version of the 20-week abortion ban to a vote this year, and nearly
every GOP presidential candidate has endorsed it.

Anti-abortion activists hope the federal 20-week ban, which has been
enacted in 11 states and passed the U.S. House of Representatives this
year, will be a vehicle through which to challenge Roe v. Wade, the
landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. The court
ruled in Roe that women have a constitutional right to an abortion up until
the point that the fetus would be viable outside the womb, which does not
occur until around 22 to 24 weeks of gestation.

*Walker And Bush Clash Over When To Go After Iran -- Day One Or Two
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-walker-iran-deal_55acfd69e4b0d2ded39f57c2>
// HuffPo // Igor Bobic – July 20, 2015 *

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said over the weekend that the next
president of the United States needed to be prepared to take aggressive
military action on their very first day in office, including against Iran.

The presidential contender, who had promised to "terminate" the nuclear
agreement with Iran upon his inauguration, made the remark while speaking
with reporters at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, on Saturday.
Walker was asked about a criticism from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R),
who asserted during a town hall last week that unwinding the agreement on
day one was an unrealistic promise.

“One thing that I won’t do is just say, as a candidate, ‘I’m going to tear
up the agreement on the first day,’” Bush said in Nevada on Thursday.
First, said Bush, he needs to have his team in place. "That’s great, that
sounds great but maybe you ought to check in with your allies first, maybe
you ought to appoint a secretary of state, maybe secretary of defense, you
might want to have your team in place, before you take an act like that.”

Asked about Bush's remarks on Saturday, Walker argued -- without mentioning
Iran directly -- that a president ought to be ready to take action from the
moment they step foot into the Oval Office.

"He may have his opinion. I believe that a president shouldn't wait to act
until they put a cabinet together or an extended period of time, I believe
they should be prepared to act on the very first day they take office," he
said. "It's very possible, God forbid that this would happen, but very
possible, that the next president could be called to take aggressive
actions, including military actions, on their very first day in office."

After Walker aides accused Bush of softening on his opposition to the
agreement, the former Florida governor issued a statement to The Weekly
Standard assuring that he “would begin immediately to responsibly get us
out of this deal.”

The dispute between the two early GOP frontrunners comes just weeks before
the first debate, hosted by Fox News in August. It also follows Walker's
efforts to bone up on foreign policy, positioning himself as one of the
most hawkish candidates in the 2016 Republican presidential field.
Addressing conservatives at the Family Leadership Summit on Saturday,
Walker said the U.S. needed "a foreign policy that puts steel in the face
of our enemies," and one that unapologetically asserted power across the
globe.

*Scott Walker signs 20-week abortion ban
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scott-walker-signs-20-week-abortion-ban> //
MSNBC // Irin Carmon – July 20, 2015 *

Just in time for his nascent presidential campaign, Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker signed a bill Monday banning abortion at 20 weeks — without an
exception for rape and incest and with only a narrow emergency exception.
In doing so, he reasserts his anti-abortion bonafides after a midterm
election where he soft-pedaled his position on the issue, irritating a key
portion of the Republican base.

“At five months, that’s the time when that unborn child can feel pain,”
Walker said. “When an unborn child can feel pain, we should be protecting
that child.”

But Walker’s assertions are disputed by the medical evidence, which has
overwhelmingly found that pain receptions come weeks later in gestation.
“This is bad medicine, based on the thoroughly debunked fallacy that a
20-week fetus — which is not viable — can feel pain,” wrote 99 physicians,
all members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in
a letter. They said the law “would block Wisconsin ob-gyns from being able
to treat our patients in a medically appropriate and humane manner.”

About 1% of abortions take place after the 20-week mark, which also happens
to be around the time that many fetal anomalies, some of which are
incompatible with life, are detected. Such bans have proliferated in states
thanks to a nationwide anti-abortion strategy to undermine the Supreme
Court’s repeated holding that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy
until the fetus is viable, about four to six weeks after the 20 week mark.
In most of the states where these bans have become law, supporters of
abortion rights have declined to challenge them, reluctant to test the
Supreme Court on this slice of the issue.

The exceptions are Idaho and Arizona, two states with 20-week bans that
fell when the more liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found them to be
unconstitutional. Wisconsin, which is covered by the 7th Circuit Court of
Appeals, previously struck down on a preliminary basis another Walker
anti-abortion law requiring hospital admitting privileges for abortion
providers. That law threatened to shut down some of the state’s abortion
providers.

It was that law, as well as a forced-ultrasound law, that Walker alluded to
in a now-infamous television commercial during his 2014 re-election fight.
Accused of being anti-woman, Walker described the two laws as “legislation
to increase safety and to provide more information for a woman considering
her options,” respectively. But, he said, mimicking pro-choice rhetoric,
“The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor.”

That irked his supporters. Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for
America, told Politico, “I didn’t like the ad. You’re using the other
side’s garbage and it’s not helpful.”

Seemingly to placate his base, Walker asked for the 20-week ban bill to
contain no exceptions for rape and incest, which many opponents of abortion
consider unacceptable compromises. He got his wish with unusual speed.
Walker also offered assurances on conservative media. On her radio show
last week, Laura Ingraham asked Walker about the ad, saying, “You don’t
believe the final decision should be between a woman and her doctor? You
believe –” Walker cut in, “No.”

Kaylie Hanson, a press secretary for the Democratic National Committee,
responded, “If it wasn’t clear before, it is now …. Maybe he doesn’t think
we’re capable, maybe he doesn’t trust us, or maybe he wants to make the
decision for us. Whatever it is, this statement is just another line from
Scott Walker that proves what we’ve known all along: he’s wrong for women.”

A similar 20-week ban is expected to be introduced in the U.S. Senate soon
after the August recess ends. The House of Representatives passed a similar
ban in May. President Obama has promised to veto the bill if it comes to
his desk.

*Walker first, Trump second in Iowa Poll
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/248492-walker-first-trump-second-in-iowa-poll>
// The Hill // Jesse Byrnes – July 20, 2015 *

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker leads a crowded field of Republican
presidential contenders in the early voting state of Iowa, according to a
new Monmouth University poll of likely caucusgoers.

Walker takes 22 percent in the poll released Monday, a double digit lead
against all other GOP candidates with the exception of businessman Donald
Trump, who has 13 percent support.

Neurosurgeon Ben Carson (8 percent), former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (7
percent), Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (7 percent) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike
Huckabee (6 percent) follow behind.

The poll was conducted amid Trump's controversial comments Saturday in
Iowa, in which he said that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was not a war hero
because he was captured during Vietnam.

Republicans seized on the remark to condemn Trump, a celebrity real estate
developer who has taken top spots in polls since launching his White House
bid in mid-June.

Walker has led a slew of Iowa polls in recent weeks by similar margins to
those in the most recent Monmouth poll, leading in favorability especially
among tea party and very conservative voters.

The survey of 452 Iowa voters was conducted July 16-19 via landlines and
cellphones with a margin of error of 4.6 points.

*Scott Walker: Donald Trump 'Needs to Apologize' for McCain Comments
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/scott-walker-donald-trump-needs-apologize-mccain-comments-n394871>
// NBC News // Kelly O’Donnell – July 20, 2015 *

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has tried to ignore Donald Trump's bluster by
leaning on the old "Reagan commandment" that discourages attacks against
fellow Republicans. That ended Sunday after the tycoon's comments about
Sen. John McCain's military record.

In an exclusive and wide-ranging interview with NBC News, Walker had a
message for Trump and the real-estate mogul's supporters.

"At a minimum, he needs to apologize," Walker said. "I think more people
need to push him. Not just candidates or elected officials, I think more
people across America including some of those who, maybe up until now, have
been supporters of him."

At the Family Leadership Summit on Saturday, Trump said McCain is "not a
war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured."
Under fire, Trump later acknowledged that McCain's sacrifice was heroic.

Walker was careful not to mention Trump by name but said his insulting rant
against McCain went too far, "when it came to personal attack like this
against the military, an American hero, I'm gonna call it like I see it."

Instead of an apology, Trump has shown only more defiance. He refused
Sunday to take back his slam against McCain's service as a prisoner of war
in Vietnam.

Walker said he was not avoiding conflict with Trump to avoid becoming one
of his targets. "No, from my standpoint, I just stayed out of it," he said.
"We don't want to be a circular firing squad."

The Wisconsin governor is a rarity in presidential politics when it comes
to resume. He didn't finish college. Instead, a job offer came during his
senior year.

"Unlike some of my friends who were a year or two older than me, they had
degrees but they didn't have jobs," Walker said.

He had considered going back to finish school but life's responsibilities
intervened. "Next thing you know, all your time and your money is spent on
your family," he said.

Walker said his career success despite the lack of a college degree makes
him qualified to speak to and for much of the country who choose to do an
associate degree or an apprenticeship instead of the traditional four year
bachelor's degree.

"I'm not unlike about two-thirds of America who're in a very similar
circumstance," he said.

However, Walker wasn't keen for his sons Matt and Alex, a junior and senior
in college, to follow in his footsteps. "I think college is great for my
sons. It's right for the careers they want to pursue," he said. "They know,
not just from my standpoint, but from their mother. She wants them to
finish just like I do."

Wisconsin's first family may be on the same page about finishing college,
but they do not agree about the right for same-sex couples to marry.

Walker disagrees with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that marriage
is a Constitutional right for same-sex couples. His sons support gay
marriage.

He said his sons' positions won't change his own mind. "I've had this
position for more than two decades. I believe that marriage is between one
man and one woman," he said. Walker added the family's public disagreement
reveals that "we're very transparent."

He said: "Both my sons' generation has different views than some folks do,
but that doesn't change who I am or what I believe in."

Walker's 22-year marriage to wife Tonette brings another personal dimension
to the GOP race for the White House that is seldom seen in
presidential-level politics. Walker, at age 47, is 12 years younger than
his wife.

Asked whether he has ever felt judged by society's double-standard on
marital age differences, Walker replied: "No, Tonette was a widow before we
married. In some ways, I think it actually makes her tough for the job."
Walker described her life experiences as a political asset. Her first
husband lost a battle with a terminal illness at almost the same time her
brother died of bone marrow cancer. Her mother also died from brain cancer
and her father from lung disease, he said.

"She's dealt with some pretty tough things in her life. And I think looking
ahead, when people ask, 'Is she up to the challenge?' Boy, I think anybody
who's gone through that personally is more than prepared for anything crazy
that could be thrown on his plate."

*Scott Walker first, Donald Trump second in Iowa: poll
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/20/scott-walker-first-donald-trump-second-iowa-poll/>
// Washington Times // David Sherfinski – July 20, 2015 *

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has a nine-point lead over businessman Donald
Trump, his nearest Republican rival, in a new poll on the 2016 GOP field in
Iowa.

Mr. Walker was the first choice of 22 percent of Iowa Republicans, followed
by Mr. Trump at 13 percent in the Monmouth University poll released Monday.

“Walker has been a favorite of Iowa voters ever since his well-received
appearance at the Iowa Freedom summit in January. More recently, Trump has
outmaneuvered the rest of the field to earn the second spot despite his
controversial statements over the weekend,” said Patrick Murray, director
of the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, New
Jersey.

Many Republicans have hammered Mr. Trump for saying Saturday in Iowa that
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, is a war hero
“because he was captured; I like people that weren’t captured, OK?”

Mr. Trump says the remarks have been misrepresented and said that Mr.
McCain is a war hero but he has failed on veterans’ issues.

According to the poll, Mr. Trump got 13 percent of the vote to Mr. Walker’s
19 percent Thursday and Friday — a slight difference from Saturday and
Sunday, when Mr. Trump got 13 percent to Mr. Walker’s 25 percent.

Behind those two men were retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 8 percent,
former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas at 7 percent
apiece, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — who won Iowa in 2008 — at 6
percent, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky at 5
percent apiece, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal at 4 percent.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the 2012 Iowa caucus winner,
former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
were tied for tenth at 3 percent apiece.

Mr. Walker, Mr. Trump, and Mr. Cruz ran 1-2-3 among voters who aligned
themselves with the tea party, voters who described themselves as “very
conservative,” and voters who said they were evangelicals.

Mr. Murray also took note of Mr. Jindal’s position in the poll.

“It’s worth noting that Bobby Jindal enjoys more support in Iowa than he
does nationally,” he said. “He is among the top 10 candidates in Iowa, but
his showing in the national polls makes it unlikely he will gain entry to
the first debate.”

The survey of 452 likely Republican caucus-goers was conducted July 16-19
and has a margin of error of plus/minus 4.6 percent.

*This Is How Scott Walker Responded When A 13-Year-Old Girl Asked Why He
Was Trying To Deport Her Dad
<http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/07/20/3682320/waukesha-flores-family-confront-scott-walker/>
// Think Progress // Esther Lee – July 20, 2015 *

A 13-year-old U.S. citizen of undocumented parents living in Wisconsin
twice confronted Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a 2016 Republican
presidential candidate, in Iowa on Sunday to ask why their state was part
of a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s executive action on deportation
relief for upwards of five million immigrants.

During the five-minute exchange obtained by Voces de la Frontera, Walker
told 13-year-old Leslie Flores, “I completely sympathize with the situation
you’re all in and others are in,” but said that he wouldn’t drop Wisconsin
from the lawsuit because “the president of the United States can’t make law
without going through the Congress.”

Turning to address Leslie’s family, Walker accused Obama of having the
chance to fix immigration in his first two years in office, but failing to
do so. Walker added that as president, he would make sure to secure the
borders and put “in place a system that enforces the laws, and then, then
the next president and Congress can deal with these issues going forward.
But right now, I’m not blocking anything.”

Leslie was in Iowa with her seven-year-old brother Louis and her
undocumented father Jose.

Before breaking out into tears, Louis asked Walker, “Do you want me to like
come home and come from school and my dad get deported?” Walker
sidestepped, stating that he had two nieces who go to school in Waukesha,
but that his point was “in America nobody’s above the law.” Instead of
addressing the topic of deportation, Walker stated that he hoped kids like
Louis would learn in school that “the President and the Congress have to
work together.”

When Jose jumped in later, asking if Wisconsin could be dropped from the
lawsuit, Walker stated, “I agree with it, I support the lawsuit because the
President can’t be above the law.”

Watch the extended confrontation here:

Walker has a long history of flip-flopping on immigration reform,
reportedly telling people privately that he would support some sort of
legal status for undocumented immigrants, but soon after the comments were
made public, his spokeswoman said “we strongly dispute this account.” He’s
since maintained that he rejected so-called “amnesty,” or the ability for
some undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and perhaps earn legal
status of some kind.

And a well-known conservative Heritage Foundation scholar who supports an
immigration overhaul recently recanted his account of a private phone call
with the Wisconsin governor in which Walker allegedly said, “I’m not going
nativist, I’m pro-immigration.”

During his time as governor, Walker repealed in-state tuition for
undocumented students, mandated immigration background checks in all 72
Wisconsin counties, and supported a lawsuit to rollback on President
Obama’s executive action on immigration that would have provided
deportation relief and work authorization for upwards of five millions of
immigrants.

Obama’s executive actions are currently halted from moving forward after a
Texas judge issued an injunction in February. Jose would have likely
qualified for the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program,
which would have shielded parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent
residents from deportation. In the meantime, even undocumented immigrants
without serious offenses are still at risk of deportation and separation
from their families.

Last December, Walker requested Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen
join the multi-state lawsuit led by Texas. At the time, Walker condemned
the president’s executive actions for exceeding “the limits of his
administrative powers.”

But in the past, Walker twice signed resolutions backing programs that
would have granted legal status to undocumented immigrants as a county
executive in Milwaukee County. And in 2013, Walker endorsed legal status
for undocumented immigrants.

Jose Flores is one of about 85,000 undocumented immigrants living in
Wisconsin, a 2012 Pew Hispanic Center report found. But he is also one of
25,000 undocumented immigrants in Wisconsin who are potentially eligible
for the president’s expanded deferred action program.

A Center for American Progress report estimated that if undocumented
immigrants, like Jose, “are able to receive a temporary work permit, it
would lead to a $19 million increase in tax revenues for Wisconsin, over
five years.”

*PAUL*

*Rand Paul readying Hill push for guns on military bases and in recruiting
stations
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/20/rand-paul-readying-hill-push-for-guns-on-military-bases-and-in-recruiting-stations/>
// WaPo // David Weigel – July 20, 2015 *

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is working on legislation to allow soldiers to
carry guns on military bases, and could introduce it as soon as this week.
That could establish him as a leader among conservatives who say last
week’s massacre at a Chattanooga, Tennessee recruiting station should
change how the military looks at the issue.

“After Major [Nidal] Hasan did the shooting at Fort Hood, we did
legislation on arming military on bases,” said Paul, in a roundtable with
reporters at his Washington, D.C campaign office. “This was a recruiting
station, right? Well, I would include recruiting stations. One of the weird
things is that we have 15-20 states where you can open carry. So everybody
can carry, except for the military? I think that’s crazy. The rules that
apply to everybody should at least apply to the military.”

Paul, who was elected to the Senate a year after Hasan’s 2009 killing spree
on the Texas military base, has long favored a policy shift that would
allow guns on bases. His new bill may go even further than the versions
that followed Fort Hood. In 2013, former Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Tex.)
sponsored a Safe Military Bases Act, written to allow guns. Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-Tex.), one of Paul’s rivals for the Republican Party’s presidential
nomination, has used his perch on the Armed Services Committee to ask for
hearings on the gun policy.

The killings in Chattanooga have pushed the issue into overdrive. On Monday
afternoon, the National Rifle Association called for military recruiters to
be armed. In recent days, Republican frontrunners Donald Trump, Jeb Bush,
and Scott Walker have all questioned the logic of the gun ban.

“These [members of the military] are people who could have handled guns
very easily,” said Trump at a Republican fundraiser in Arkansas. “They
would have had a good chance if they had a gun.”

Paul’s commitment to gun rights has a stronger pedigree than Trump’s. He is
closely tied to the National Association for Gun Rights, a group that
positions itself to the right of the NRA.

“I think guns are a great deterrent anyway,” Paul said on Monday. “I’ve
also had bills, for a couple of years now, making it easier to arm pilots. “

In the wake of Chattanooga, Paul has also criticized immigration laws,
asking whether they are letting anti-American elements into the country.
“I’m very concerned about immigration to this country from countries that
have hotbeds of jihadism and hotbeds of this Islamism,” he told Breitbart
News reporter Matthew Boyle last week. Paul expanded on those comments
Monday, recalling how he had wanted “Rubio’s legislation” – i.e., the
stillborn 2013 immigration reform bill – to add screening for potential
terrorists.

“We wrote a letter to Harry Reid, saying we should slow the bill down, and
have a discussion about putting the National Security Entry-Exit
Registration System in,” said Paul. “It gave extra scrutiny to countries
that had radical elements that were professing a desire to harm Americans
or America. I don’t think it has to say one religion or not, but I think
you find out that most of the anti-American movements around the country do
seem to be coming from predominately Islamic countries.”

Paul’s call for reform of NSEERS put the PATRIOT Act’s biggest Republican
critic in the rare position of endorsing an anti-terror policy enacted by
George W. Bush.

“This program was in existence for a decade, and I think we should have
more scrutiny," he said. "If a third of [a country's] population is in
civil war, and saying 'death to America,' maybe we should ask them a few
more questions before they visit. Same goes for student visas.”

*CRUZ*

*Claire McCaskill: ‘Cruz following Trump around like a lost puppy’
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/claire-mccaskill-slam-ted-cruz-donald-trump-120358.html>
// Politico // Eliza Collins – July 20, 2015 *

Sen. Claire McCaskill thinks Sen. Ted Cruz is behaving like a lost puppy in
his dealings with fellow Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump —
and not in a cute way.

“There’s something unseemly about Cruz following Trump around like a lost
puppy, hoping to get his leftovers when he finally flames out,” the
Missouri Democrat tweeted Monday.

Cruz is one of the only 2016 candidates to avoid criticizing Trump’s often
inflammatory comments, and some argue that’s hurting his chances of getting
the GOP nomination.

After Trump said that Mexico was sending “rapists” and other criminals to
the U.S., Cruz said he saluted Trump for bringing immigration into the
conversation and said that the real estate magnate “has a colorful way of
speaking.”

The two also met last week at Trump Tower in Manhattan. After the meeting,
Cruz called it “a good visit.”

“We had a conversation about the race,” Cruz said. “He’s running, I’m
running and we both agreed that we started out as friends and will end as
friends.”

On Saturday, Trump escalated his feud with John McCain by saying the
Arizona senator’s time as a prisoner in Vietnam does not make him a war
hero.

“He’s not a war hero,” said Trump. “He was a war hero because he was
captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

Republicans swiftly condemned the remarks, with most GOP candidates calling
Trump’s comments unacceptable.

But the Texas senator has remained supportive, and has declined to
criticize Trump.

“You know, I recognize that folks in the press love to see
Republican-on-Republican violence, and so you want me to say something bad
about Donald Trump, or bad about John McCain or bad about anyone else,”
Cruz said Saturday. “I’m not going to do it.”

*Cruz: Iran Deal Likely To Force Next President To Take “Direct Military
Action”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/cruz-obamas-nuclear-deal-cost-tens-of-millions-of-lives#.sqbG1ne4z>
// Buzzfeed // Christopher Massie – July 20, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said on Saturday that the deal
to restrict Iran’s nuclear program and lift economic sanctions on the
country would likely force the next president to take “direct military
action” to prevent a nuclear catastrophe that “could cost the lives of tens
of millions of Americans.”

The Texas senator said in an interview with the Trail Talk podcast over the
weekend that it was “very likely that a new president” would be told, in
January 2017, that Iran was “on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.”
Cruz said the deal rendered economic sanctions “no longer an effective
tool,” and therefore the new president would be presented with two choices:
“acquiesce” or attack.

He said that the “unacceptably high” odds of Iran using a nuclear weapon if
it acquired one made it so that President Obama had essentially forced his
successor into taking the military option.

“I think it is likely the next president will be advised in January ‘17,
you have two and only two choices,” Cruz said. “Either you acquiesce to
Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon or direct military action must be used to
take it out. I think that’s unfortunate but that’s what President Obama is
forcing.”

Cruz added that Iran could launch a nuclear warhead from a ship off the
Atlantic Coast, setting off an “electromagnetic pulse,” which would “take
down the electrical grid for the entire Eastern seaboard.” Such a disaster,
he said, could leave tens of millions of people “unable to get food and
water.”

“The projections are that tens of millions of Americans would die, as they
were unable to get food and water and the basic foodstuffs of life,” Cruz
said. “That’s the threat President Obama’s nuclear deal provides and anyone
who is remotely qualified to be commander in chief needs to be prepared to
do whatever is necessary prevent a threat that could cost the lives of tens
of millions of Americans.”

CRUZ: “If Congress does not stop this deal, I think it will be the single
greatest challenge a new president in January ‘17 will confront because it
is very likely that a new president when he or she sits down in the Oval
Office for the first security briefing, will be told that Iran is on the
verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and because President Obama unraveled
the international consensus on sanctions, sanctions will no longer be an
effective tool. Because even if you wanted to reimpose sanctions, it would
take months, even years, if ever, to bring foreign countries back together
in an effective sanctions regime, which means that tool, President Obama’s
effectively taken away from the next president. I think it is likely the
next president will be advised in January ‘17, you have two and only two
choices: either you acquiesce to Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon or direct
military action must be used to take it out. I think that’s unfortunate but
that’s what President Obama is forcing.”

QUESTION: “And President Cruz would entertain a direct military?”

CRUZ: “Under no circumstances would I allow Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons. And I believe any responsible commander in chief should be
prepared to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons because if they acquired those weapons, the odds are unacceptably
high that they would use them in the skies of Tel Aviv or New York or Los
Angeles. That getting this decision wrong could result in the deaths of
millions of Americans and in fact it’s even worse than that. One of the
greatest threats of an Iranian nuke is if they had one nuclear warhead and
they put it on a ship anywhere off the Atlantic seaboard and they fired it
on a missile straight up in the air into the atmosphere and detonated a
nuclear weapon, it would set off what’s known as an electromagnetic
pulse—an EMP, which would take down the electrical grid for the entire
Eastern seaboard. The projections are that tens of millions of Americans
would die, as they were unable to get food and water and the basic
foodstuffs of life. That’s the threat President Obama’s nuclear deal
provides and anyone who is remotely qualified to be Commander in Chief
needs to be prepared to do whatever is necessary prevent a threat that
could cost the lives of tens of millions of Americans.”

*Ted Cruz takes aim at Congress’ Obamacare ‘exemption’
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/20/ted-cruz-takes-aim-congress-obamacare-exemption/>
// Washington Times // Tom Howell – July 20, 2015 *

Sen. Ted Cruz, a vocal conservative running for president, will push to
expose fellow members of Congress for “exempting” themselves from Obamacare
this week, adding sparks to an already-fraught debate over a highway bill
that needs to pass by July 31.

Mr. Cruz, Texas Republican, will try to force votes on an amendment that
would cancel the subsidy lawmakers collect to help cover their insurance
costs when they buy plans on an Obamacare exchange.

It’s a thorny issue for his colleagues, many of whom defend the subsidy as
the equivalent of the arrangements most businesses have with their
employees. But Mr. Cruz and a cadre of fellow senators argue that Obamacare
is different, and lawmakers have given themselves a sweetheart deal no
other exchange customers enjoy.

“Members of Congress retain their illegal exemptions from Obamacare, and
it’s time to end the Washington favors that have gone on for far too long,”
Mr. Cruz said.

The wrinkle is that the fight would happen on an unrelated bill to renew
the federal highway fund, which would otherwise expire at the end of the
month, shutting down road projects across the country.

Considered a must-pass bill, the highway legislation is already attracting
the interest of lawmakers who want to tack their own priorities onto it.

In addition to Mr. Cruz’s Obamacare fight, some senators have said they’ll
force a vote to revive the Export-Import bank. Still others, including Mr.
Cruz, want to have a fight over federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

His Obamacare exemption push may be one of the thorniest, though.

Under Obamacare, members of Congress and their official staffers lost their
generous federal health plans and are instead required to buy insurance on
the exchanges. But the administration’s Office of Personnel Management
decided in 2013 that lawmakers and staffers who use the D.C. small-business
exchange can still get their employer subsidies to cover premiums.

Regular Americans who buy plans through the exchange are restricted from
having employers contribute to their premiums.

The disconnect plays into Mr. Cruz’s claims there is a “Washington cartel”
of lawmakers and lobbyists who put their own interests first. It’s also the
type of elbow-throwing that’s won him support from conservative quarters
and scorn from centrist GOP colleagues who said his anti-Obamacare strategy
led them into a 16-day shutdown in fall 2013.

“He never is going to win the most popular legislator award so it makes
more sense for him to play to outside constituencies and go after unpopular
perks,” said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings
Institution. “Anything that challenges special privileges is going to be
popular with voters.”

Earlier this year, Mr. Cruz signaled he might actually buy an Obamacare
plan because his wife, Heidi, decided to take an unpaid leave of absence
from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in Houston, as the senator runs for
president. But instead, his family decided to purchase an off-exchange plan
on the open market from Texas Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

Other lawmakers have bought coverage in exchanges in their home states,
shunning the subsidy. And still others have insurance unrelated to their
jobs.

The issue is a sensitive one, since it involves lawmakers’ personal
finances and health decisions.

For years Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, led a one-man crusade to
expose lawmakers who take the employer subsidy.

But Mr. Vitter is a senior member of the Environment and Public Works
Committee that wrote the highway bill, and is reluctant to see it slowed by
unrelated fights. Instead, he will reintroduce standalone legislation
Tuesday that prohibits lawmakers from getting the employer subsidy.

“The Washington Obamacare exemption represents a level of arrogance from
Congress and D.C.’s elite that fundamentally undermines our nation’s
government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” Mr. Vitter
said.

Each of the GOP senators running for president — Mr. Cruz, Marco Rubio of
Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — voted
earlier this year for a non-binding amendment to the budget to stop the
subsidy.

“Members of Congress shouldn’t get a benefit while hardworking Americans
have to pay full freight for their health insurance,” Cruz campaign
spokesman Brian Phillip said. “It’s an issue of fundamental fairness and
Americans deserve to know where the candidates for any federal office,
Congress or the presidency, stand on it.”

Congress needs to pass a highway funding bill before the end of the month,
when the federal government will no longer be able reimburse states for
their road projects. The House passed a short-term extension of the highway
trust fund through Dec. 18 to buy time to negotiate a six-year deal this
fall.

*Democratic senator: Cruz scrounging for Trump's 'leftovers'
<http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/248489-dem-cruz-following-trump-around-like-a-lost-puppy>
// The Hill // Jordain Carney – July 20, 2015 *

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) gave Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) a Twitter
smack-down on Monday after he refused to disavow fellow presidential
candidate Donald Trump's criticism of Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) time
spent as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

"There's something unseemly about Cruz following Trump around like a lost
puppy, hoping to get his leftovers when he finally flames out," the
Missouri Democrat tweeted on Monday.

She made her remarks after Trump sparked a firestorm among Republicans when
he mocked McCain, saying that “he was a war hero because he was captured. I
like people who weren’t captured.”

But Cruz refused to weigh in on the rhetorical battle between Trump and the
Arizona Republican, saying that "folks in the press love to see
Republican-on-Republican violence."

“You want me to say something about Donald Trump or bad about John McCain
or bad about anyone else,” he added, according to The Washington Post. “I’m
not going to do it.”

Trump has recently surged in the polls, including leading a national Fox
News poll released late last week. Cruz, meanwhile, has struggled to gain
momentum after launching his presidential bid weeks ahead of his
competitors.

Monday's tweet isn't the first time McCaskill has commented on Trump's
remarks. The Missouri senator weighed in over the weekend, calling his
comments on McCain, and prisoners of war more generally, "disgusting."

In a separate tweet she pressured the Republican National Committee, which
released a statement on Saturday afternoon, to disavow Trump's remarks,
adding "will Cruz agree with Trump on this one too?"

*Cruz and Vitter to Target Congressional Health Care
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/cruz-and-vitter-to-target-congressional-health-care/?dcz=>
// Roll Call // Bridget Bowman – July 20, 2015 *

Sen. David Vitter’s crusade against congressional health care benefits will
continue this week, this time with help from a presidential hopeful.

The Lousisiana Republican is expected to introduce “No Exemptions”
legislation to combat the employer contribution for lawmakers, and Sen. Ted
Cruz, R-Texas, is expected to copy the language and try to insert it as an
amendment into the highway funding bill the Senate is set to consider this
week.

Cruz and Vitter have vigorously opposed the government contribution to
congressional health care under the Affordable Care Act, calling it a
“Washington exemption.” Lawmakers and their staffs were able to maintain
that contribution as the result of a 2013 Office of Personnel Management
ruling that House and Senate employees could participate in the D.C. Small
Business Health Option Program, rather than enroll on the individual
exchanges.

“The very people who wrote the law — Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats —
wanted out of it. And this Administration was only too happy to oblige,”
Cruz said in a statement Monday. “Today, the taxpayers subsidize their
platinum plans while millions of Americans across this country have lost
their jobs, have been forced into part-time work, have lost their health
insurance, have lost their doctors, and are facing skyrocketing premiums,”
Cruz continued. “Yet members of Congress retain their illegal exemptions
from Obamacare, and it’s time to end the Washington favors that have gone
on for far too long.”

Cruz offering the amendment to the long-term transportation bill would be a
move sure to bring more contention to the process.

Another GOP presidential hopeful, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, has already
signaled he wants an amendment vote this week to block federal dollars from
flowing to Planned Parenthood, and the must-pass measure is also lining up
as the vehicle for reviving the Export-Import Bank.

Aside from presidential politics, there may be a good reason for Cruz to
take charge this time.

Unlike the many times Vitter sought to get votes on amendments related to
what he calls the “Washington exemption” from the reach of the Affordable
Care Act, the highway bill is a measure on which the Louisiana Republican
has played a significant role. He’s a senior member of the Environment and
Public Works Committee and chairman of the subpanel with federal-aid
highways in its jurisdiction.

But Vitter made no reference to potentially complicating the highway bill
in a statement Monday. Instead, he touted a 73-page report on his
investigation into “Congress’ fraudulent Obamacare subsidy.”

Vitter contends Congress should not have been allowed to enroll in the
small business exchange, since it is, by definition, not a small business
under D.C. law since Congress employs more than 50 people. The question of
Congress’ characterization as a small business in the exchange was the
subject of a recent taxpayer lawsuit, but the suit was dismissed when a
D.C. Superior Court judge ruled congressional staff could enroll in the
exchange.

Still, Vitter is looking for answers, even after a failed attempt to
subpoena the D.C. government over the issue. He listed a series of
questions at the end of his report, including which members of Congress met
with the White House to discuss the OPM rule.

*Cruz Plans Slew of Highway Bill Amendments
<http://freebeacon.com/issues/cruz-plans-slew-of-highway-bill-amendments/>
// Free Beacon // Lachlan Markay – July 20, 2015 *

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) plans to offer numerous amendments to a federal
highway funding bill reauthorizing an export finance agency that the GOP
presidential hopeful has pledged to kill, his staff confirmed on Monday.

The seven amendments are vast in scope. Two deal with Obamacare (one would
repeal the law entirely). Two pertain to illegal immigration. Others focus
on the recently negotiated nuclear deal with Iran, an Internet access tax,
national firearm laws, and federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

The amendments threaten to roil an already contentious debate over funding
for the national highway system, which is expected to include provisions
reauthorizing funding for the U.S. Export-Import Bank, an agency that
finances the purchase of U.S. exports by foreign governments and
corporations.

Authorization for Ex-Im funding expired at the end of June, though the
agency will continue disbursing approved commitments through September.
Proponents of the agency are hoping to reauthorize it before then, and are
eyeing the highway bill as the means to do so.

Opponents hope that funding for national infrastructure is too important
for Ex-Im critics to oppose. But Cruz said last week that he is “willing to
use any and all procedural tools to stop” Ex-Im reauthorization.

Cruz’s amendments all hit on popular conservative issues. In addition to
repealing Obamacare, they would remove federal funding for Planned
Parenthood, prohibit illegal immigrants granted deportation relief under an
executive order from working on federally funded highway projects, place a
permanent moratorium on federal internet access taxes, and block a nuclear
deal with Iran unless the Islamic Republic recognizes the state of Israel
and releases American hostages currently imprisoned there.

Cruz will also sign onto an amendment introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton (R.,
Okla.) that would bar cities that refuse to enforce U.S. immigration
laws—so-called “sanctuary cities”—from receiving federal law enforcement
grants.

If passed by the Senate, those measures could test Democratic support for
the highway bill. But Cruz says the amendments are standalone policy
efforts, not simply an attempt to impede legislation containing Ex-Im
reauthorization.

“Each of these amendments addresses a critical policy issue that deserves
Congress’ full attention,” Cruz said in an emailed statement on Monday. “I
fully intend to take this opportunity to stand against the Washington
Cartel and to stand for liberty and our Constitutional rights.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) has signaled that he will
allow amendments on the highway bill when it is considered in the Senate
this week. That will likely give Cruz an opportunity to offer his proposals.

However, that is also the avenue that Ex-Im supporters will use to link the
legislation to the agency’s reauthorization—a fact that drew conservative
criticism of McConnell on Monday.

Some of Cruz’s conservative colleagues have joined him in pledging
procedural efforts to block the bill if Ex-Im funding is attached.

“I think those of us who oppose it will continue to use any and all
procedural tools at our disposal in order to oppose it,” Sen. Mike Lee (R.,
Utah) said at a press conference last week.

It is not clear that a filibuster would prevent the bill’s passage. A
symbolic procedural vote on the agency’s funding last month received 65
votes in the Senate, including 22 from Republicans, suggesting that a
highway bill could muster the 60 votes necessary to end debate on the
measure even with Ex-Im reauthorization attached.

That would bring the Senate’s version of the legislation back to the House,
which last week approved a stopgap highway funding measure with no
accompanying Ex-Im provision.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee, urged the Senate to pass that version of the legislation
“without any unrelated measures.” Instead, the upper chamber will vote on a
multi-year authorization bill that could contain significant language
outside of the scope of highway funding.

Dan Holler, the communications director of the conservative group Heritage
Action for America, praised House leaders for urging consideration of a
bill free of Ex-Im language, though he noted that his group opposed the
House measure.

“It is incumbent upon [Republican leaders]—and anybody who opposes
Washington’s corrupt practice of favoritism—to ensure Ex-Im remains dead,”
Holler said in a statement last week.

Update: A previous version of this story stated that Cruz’s amendment would
place a moratorium on Internet sales taxes, not access taxes as is the case.

*Claire McCaskill savages Ted Cruz in one brutal tweet: “A lost puppy
hoping to get his leftovers”
<http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/claire_mccaskill_savages_ted_cruz_in_one_brutal_tweet_a_lost_puppy_hoping_to_get_his_leftovers/>
// Salon // Sophia Tesfaye – July 20, 2015 *

“I’m not going to do it.”

Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz refuses to join the rest of the
GOP field in condemning Donald Trump’s recent remarks making light of Sen.
McCain’s time as a prisoner of war and now the Texas senator’s weak-kneed
approach to the GOP frontrunner is drawing scrutiny.

“You know I recognize that folks in the press love to see
Republican-on-Republican violence” Cruz lamented this weekend, blaming the
media for manufacturing a controversy. “So you want me to say something bad
about Donald Trump, or bad about John McCain or bad about anyone else,” he
said before adding, “I’m not going to do it.”

Speaking with Iowa voters over the weekend, Trump said of John McCain’s
service during the Vietnam War, “He’s a war hero because he was captured …
I like people that weren’t captured.”

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov.
Scott Walker and Sen. Lindsey Graham joined with the Republican National
Committee in rebuking Trump, some calling from his exit from the
presidential race and declaring no room for such comments in the GOP. But
instead of denouncing Trump’s attack, Cruz simply tweeted his belief that
McCain is “an American hero”:

Well, Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill found Cruz’s refusal to
lay an easy jab against a rival peculiar, tweeting that Cruz’s behavior
towards Trump was “unseemly” and comparing their relationship to that of a
“lost puppy” following a man “hoping to get his leftovers when he finally
flames out”:

McCaskill’s observation may be on point. Last week, Trump confirmed a
meeting between the two rivals, a move clearly orchestrated by the Cruz
campaign:

TRUMP: Ted Cruz called me, and – I don’t know why I’m meeting him, to be
honest. But I do have respect for him. I respect the fact that, along with
a couple of others, he came out and he came out very strongly and agreed
with what I said on illegal immigration. And he came out very strongly and
he came out early. And I respect that. I like him. He called me, he wanted
to meet, and we are going to meet. What it’s about, I have absolutely no
idea.

It is apparent that Trump is a fan of Trump fans and for now, Cruz looks to
be a Trump fan but Cruz’s willingness to embrace Trump is even more curious
given that earlier this year, Trump said Cruz faced a particular “hurdle
that nobody else seems to have at this moment”:

He was born in Canada, if you know, and when we all studied our history
lessons, you’re supposed to be born in this country, so I just don’t know
how the courts would rule on it. But it’s an additional hurdle that he has
that no one else seems to have.

*CHRISTIE*

*First look: Debut ad from pro-Chris Christie super PAC highlights
opposition to Iran deal
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/20/first-look-debut-ad-from-pro-chris-christie-super-pac-highlights-opposition-to-iran-deal/>
// WaPo // James Hohmann – July 20, 2015 *

The first ad from the super PAC supporting Chris Christie focuses on the
New Jersey governor’s opposition to the Iran deal.

America Leads will put $1.1 million behind the spot in New Hampshire
between Tuesday and Aug. 6, including an ad buy on Boston TV and a strong
digital component.

The 30-second commercial shows Christie at a town hall meeting in Sandown,
New Hampshire.

“This president is allowing Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in
the world, to have a glide path towards a nuclear weapon,” the Republican
tells the crowd. “A strong American military is not built to wage war; it
is built to prevent war. I am the only candidate who has actually been
responsible for fighting terrorism and has prosecuted terrorists and put
them in jail. And if I become president, we’re going to protect the
homeland, not lower our defenses against them.”

The group, led by former Republican Governors Association executive
director Phil Cox, reported raising $11 million last week.

America Leads has also reserved $2.8 million worth of airtime during the
three months leading up to next February’s New Hampshire primary.

This is part of a broader strategy to “let Christie be Christie” and go
positive from the start. With a cameraman at every town hall, the super PAC
is developing a library of footage of the governor taking on every issue
out there so that when an issue moves to the forefront, like Iran, they can
quickly get up on the air with Christie in his own voice saying where he
stands.

“Christie’s persona and authenticity lend itself to this kind of approach,”
a strategist for the group explained.

*Super PAC backing Christie launches first ad*
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/chris-christie-2016-ad-super-pac-iran-120349.html>*
// Politico // Adam Lerner – July 20, 2015 *

The super PAC supporting Chris Christie’s presidential bid has launched a
new television ad and its message is clear: The New Jersey governor is the
GOP field’s strongest opponent of the Iranian nuclear deal.

In the ad, dubbed “Glide Path,” a pro-Christie sign emblazoned with the
phrase “Telling It Like It Is” appears on screen, and the New Jersey
Republican begins warning a town hall audience, “This is a dangerous,
dangerous world right now.”

“This president is allowing Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in
the world, to have a glide path towards a nuclear weapon,” Christie says.

Christie continues to assert that he is “the only candidate who has
actually been responsible for fighting terrorism and has prosecuted
terrorists and put them in jail,” referring to his six years as U.S.
attorney for the District of New Jersey in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

America Leads, the super PAC that created the ad and plans to run more in
the future, has already reserved $2.8 million in air time from November to
February in New Hampshire, according to the Bergen County Record, which
says the group raised $11 million through June 30 and has $10.7 million in
cash on hand. The ad’s footage comes from a June 30 town hall event in
Sandown, New Hampshire, after the preliminary outlines of the deal were
announced, but before the Obama administration released the final
agreement’s language.

Last week the White House announced that it had reached a deal with Iran
and five other world powers to severely restrict the country’s nuclear
program, although a portion of the country’s nuclear infrastructure will
remain intact. Hillary Clinton quickly came out in support of the deal,
while every single prominent Republican presidential candidate has joined
with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in denouncing it.

*N.J. union chief says he won't negotiate pension reforms with Chris
Christie
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/nj-union-chief-says-he-wont-negotiate-pension-reforms-with-chris-christie-120377.html#ixzz3gTqeESsv>
// Politico // Ryan Hutchins – July 20, 2015 *

The head of New Jersey largest public employee union said Monday he will
not negotiate any pension reforms with Governor Chris Christie, a
Republican who rose to national prominence on claims he had “fixed” the
state’s pension system.

Four years later, Christie finds himself unable to make scheduled payments
into the retirement system and saying, as a spokeswoman put it on Monday,
that the system remains “broken and unaffordable.” But Wendell Steinhauer,
president of the New Jersey Education Association, said he and his members
“will not concede one inch to this governor.”

“He’s dishonest, unreliable and hopelessly incapable of good-faith
negotiations,” Steinhauer said in a fiery, six-paragraph statement. “He’s
consistently lied about his pension funding intentions, and he’s yet to
live up to the promises he’s already made. The ball is in his court to fund
the pensions according to the law he signed. We will not negotiate against
ourselves.”

After a lengthy and bitter battle with unions, Christie signed a reform
package into law in 2011 that boosted contributions from public employees
and slashed cost-of-living adjustments, but said the state would start
making annual contributions to the fund. Christie hailed the deal for
years, even talking about it in his 2012 keynote speech at the Republican
National Convention.

But the fiscal situation in New Jersey did not turn out as expected, and
this year, Christie found himself unable to keep up with the payments. As
he prepared to launch his presidential campaign, the governor won a state
Supreme Court case last month that allowed him to skip a $1.57 billion
pension payment and balance the budget.

Spokeswoman Nicole Sizemore said Monday the teacher’s union needs to
recognize the reality the state is facing.

“The simple fact is this: the average NJEA member contributes $186,000 to
their pension and health benefit costs over 30 years and takes out $2.5
million in benefits,” Sizemore said. “The math does not work and all the
name calling in the world by NJEA leadership won't change that fact.”

The union said it will continue to talk to State Senate President Steve
Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto, as well as other Democratic
leaders in the Legislature, on potential changes. Prieto met with the heads
of several public workers unions last week to discuss potential changes
that would increase payments into the plan over five years, according to
one source, but wasn’t ready to discuss the issue publicly yet.

Christie said last week that he wouldn’t accept any changes to the system
that don’t include concession from the unions, saying, “if all it does is
to stretch out the time requirement to make the same payment for the same
bloated system, then it's no solution.”

*Chris Christie's Defining Mistake: Winning in a Landslide
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-sheppard/chris-christies-defining-_b_7821810.html>
// HuffPo // Nicholas Sheppard – July 20, 2015 *

For an ambitious, surging politician, Chris Christie's desire to run for a
second term as Governor, and to win in a landslide, would have been
irresistible -- but in retrospect it may have been a defining mistake. He
would be positioning himself far more viably as a presidential hopeful now
if he had taken the counter-intuitive, but ultimately more shrewd decision
to step down after a single, successful term.

New Jersey elections for Governor are on odd years. Christie's re-election
was in November of 2013. If he hadn't run, the timing would have been
perfect: a two-year intermission between standing down, in January of 2014,
and the general election of 2016, a period not long enough out of
circulation to be thought of as losing relevance, especially relative to
Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush; yet a period long enough for him to have
occupied a political medium of bi-partisan goodwill, not on the same scale,
but still evocative of Rudy Giuliani in the mid 2000s after he stepped down
as mayor at the end of 2001 having shown strong and competent leadership
during a massive crisis, and transcending partisanship as a tough moderate
from a blue state.

Christie's single term would have encapsulated everything he needed: a
first half boldly and brazenly conservative, to the extent he was
contemplated as a possible Republican Vice-presidential nominee in 2012;
and a second half defined by transcendent bi-partisanship, visibly summed
up by a fulsome welcome of the president in the aftermath of Super Storm
Sandy. In retrospect, he had all the necessary credentials and the
compelling story he needed by the end of a single term, burnished further
by a brash, no-nonsense career as a prosecutor. Given this context, in
terms of risk vs reward, a second term was undoubtedly inviting, but not
strictly necessary. It may well turn out to be his undoing.

Straightaway, when he chose to run for re-election, there were problems: he
was criticized for spending an additional $12-25 million of state money to
hold a special election for the Senate three weeks earlier, instead of
simply holding the special election on the general election day, when
popular mayor Cory Booker might have attracted more votes for Barbara
Buono, his opponent in the Governor's race.

The Fort Lee lane closures occurred before the 2013 election; but they were
motivated by it: as retribution against Fort Lee's Mayor for not endorsing
Christie in the Governor's race. Media outlets began reporting on the
incriminating exchanges, between Christie's aides, in January of 2014, just
days after his inauguration for a second term. The issue has lingered: In
May of this year, a Monmouth University poll found that 50 percent of New
Jersey's adults believed Chris Christie was personally involved in the
scandal. According to a recent Business Insider poll of polls, Christie's
net favorability peaked in January 2013 - the moment he would have stepped
down had he chosen not to run. 51% of Americans had a favorable opinion,
and just 23% had an unfavorable opinion at that time.

During Hurricane Sandy, he projected strong leadership, and by the time of
the re-election, he was able to argue that his administration had managed
the recovery and overseen much of the relief effort. Not long after his
re-election, however, allegations were already starting to emerge that much
of the federal house aid money allocated to Hurricane Sandy victims were
going to areas of New Jersey that weren't particularly impacted by the
storm. By March of this year, pockets of hecklers from New Jersey were
starting to dog Christie on the trail in Iowa. Had he not stood for
re-election, he would not be having to answer for a year and a half of
impatience and disaffection.

In November of 2014 he vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of
gestation crates in New Jersey. It passed both houses easily, and 9 out of
10 New Jersey voters wanted Christie to sign it. The implication was that
Christie wanted to be seen as supporting the status quo on agriculture in
Iowa, where the hog industry is worth $7 billion. Had he stepped down as
Governor a year earlier, he would not have had to give the impression he
was putting his national ambitions before his constituents.

Then there was the settlement, in March this year, with Exxon. The state
Senate passed a resolution condemning the deal, which settled Exxon's
liability for pollution at two refinery sites for $225 million. The figure
caused an uproar because the state's lawyers had been seeking as much as
$8.9 billion at trial. If Christie had left this to a successor, he would
not have taken flak for it.

Christie had already endured several credit downgrades under his watch.
Nearly a year after his re-election, however, things got far worse, with a
cumulative effect that has impacted severely on his image of competence.
New Jersey was downgraded by Fitch, then a month later by Standard and
Poor's, then again, in April this year, by Moody's. If he hadn't run for
re-election, his fiscal reputation - a key factor in a presidential run -
would not be severely compromised.

His high polling numbers from early 2013, the moment he would have stepped
down from office had he not run for re-election, have since flipped
upside-down, with polling this month showing him 27% favorable and 55%
unfavorable. A Fairleigh-Dickinson Public Mind poll released last month had
him with an approval rating of 30%.

In terms of his presidential ambitions, Christie has gained almost nothing
from his second term. Rather, it has left him compromised, it has lowered
his stocks, and forced him into a difficult and often unsuccessful
balancing act, trying to make an impression in Iowa and New Hampshire,
without giving his constituents the impression his attention is divided.
Had he not run, he could be dictating the degree of public exposure,
working full time on donors and organization, be relatively scandal free,
and be positioning himself as a nominee with the vigor and effectiveness of
Kasich or Walker, but with the national profile and mainstream appeal of
Bush. Instead, he is languishing, both as a Governor, and in early
Republican presidential polling.

*Christie: No special way illegal immigrants to get US citizenship
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/20/chris-christie-no-special-way-for-illegal-immigrants-to-get-u-s-citizenship/>
// Breitbart // Charlie Sperling – July 20, 2015 *

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie denounced the idea of special treatment
for illegal immigrants who are currently living in the United States,
accusing Hillary Clinton of “pandering” to them just to get votes.

“There should be no special way for anybody to be able to get citizenship
any different than any other foreigner,” he said during an interview on
CNN’s New Day this morning.

Christie suggested that Clinton was going out of her way to promise
citizenship for illegal immigrants to win the support of more American
Hispanics.

“I think, you know, Secretary Clinton talks about path to citizenship for
people who are here illegally – she’s just pandering,” he said.

Christie distanced himself from comments he made in 2010 encouraging
members of Congress and President Obama to find a path to citizenship for
illegal immigrants.

He explained in the years since his comments, he understood as Governor of
New Jersey that the first priority for illegal immigrants was work, not
citizenship.

He argued that there should be stiffer prosecution for businesses who were
profiting by exploiting illegal laborers.

“Those people need to be penalized for that,” he said. “And that will be
the way to stop the flow from wherever they’re coming from – south of the
border or elsewhere, into this country illegally.”

*PERRY*

*On Military Service and on Border Security, Trump Offers Only Hot Air
<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421364/rick-perry-says-trumps-mccain-smear-disqualifies-him>
// National Review // Rick Perry – July 20, 2015 *

Being president of the United States is serious business, not a reality TV
show.

This is especially true for the next president, who will have a big job
ahead after the failures of the Obama administration. Our challenges are
too complex — and the future of our country too important — to let egos,
inflated rhetoric, and emotion take the place of thoughtful discussion.

I made the case recently for why GOP policies are the best to create
opportunity across the country for families of all backgrounds. I’ve held
up my home state’s reforms in economic, education, and sentencing policies
as examples of conservative governance that have made life better for
minorities in Texas compared with other places around the country. And I’ve
been honest about our party’s shortcomings — including my own — in engaging
all Americans in our conversations about the future of this nation.

But we can’t do that if we’re pitting black against white against brown;
rich against poor; women against men. Playing identity politics takes a
page right out of the Democrats’ playbook, and we Republicans are better
than that.

That’s why rhetoric such as the kind employed by Donald Trump is damaging —
it’s damaging to our party, and most important, damaging to the United
States of America. I believe strongly that Mr. Trump’s philosophy is not
conservatism, but rather a toxic mix of demagoguery and nonsense.

Mr. Trump’s absurdity reached a new low over the weekend, when he spit in
the eye of every American prisoner of war, particularly Senator John
McCain. But frankly, we should expect no better from a man who couldn’t be
bothered to answer the call to serve his nation when it needed him most.

Mr. Trump’s absurdity reached a new low over the weekend, when he spit in
the eye of every American prisoner of war, particularly Senator John McCain.

As a veteran and the son of a veteran, I find Mr. Trump’s brand of vitriol
particularly offensive, and I have no confidence that he could adeptly lead
our nation’s armed forces. His comments over the weekend should completely
and immediately disqualify him from seeking our nation’s highest office.

Our nation’s warriors have been let down and left behind by the
bureaucratic bungling of the Veterans Administration. They deserve a leader
who will stand up for them, not one who ridicules the deadly circumstances
they willingly put themselves in when they volunteer to protect our nation.

Then there is the issue of border security — a challenge Mr. Trump claims
to have single-handedly identified and suddenly become expert in. But Mr.
Trump’s ridiculous and irresponsible assertion that Texas has not done
enough to secure the border betrays his fundamental misunderstanding of
this issue.

And even though Mr. Trump may spend a lot of time talking about border
security today, his interest doesn’t predate his entrance in the
presidential field. We heard no outcry from Mr. Trump when Jocelyn
Johnson’s husband, Rodney, was gunned down in 2006 in a sanctuary city by
an individual who had previously been deported. Mr. Trump was similarly
silent last summer, when we saw an unprecedented flood of unaccompanied
children crossing the border because of President Obama’s dangerous amnesty
policies. Likewise last year, not a word from Mr. Trump when Border Patrol
agent Javier Vega Jr. was shot and killed in front of his wife, two
children, and parents by — again — individuals who had been arrested and
deported multiple times.

If Mr. Trump plans to “tell it like it is,” then he should tell the facts.
Border security is a federal responsibility. Period. But when it became
clear that Washington, D.C., wouldn’t act, I told President Obama that if
he didn’t secure the border, Texas would.

As the former governor of Texas, a state with a 1,200-mile border with
Mexico, I had to live and govern under the shadow of the federal
government’s decades-long failure to secure our borders. And rather than
sit idly by while Washington, D.C., left our communities vulnerable to a
porous border, I acted.

During my time in office, I oversaw the dedication of nearly $1 billion to
border-security efforts. I’ve overseen surge operations with our state law
enforcement, the creation of Texas Ranger Recon teams, and I even deployed
the Texas National Guard to the border region last summer. I signed a bill
strengthening penalties for those who engage in human trafficking — a
bipartisan effort to put an end to the scourge of a modern-day slave trade
that is enabled by our unsecured border.

I also signed an executive order mandating the use of E-Verify for all
state employees and contractors. By doing this, we ensured that people like
Mr. Trump — who has a history of using illegal-immigrant labor for his
construction projects (including his new hotel currently under construction
in Washington, D.C.) — do not use taxpayer resources on illegal-immigrant
labor.

That is real, tangible action. Make no mistake: Contrary to what Mr. Trump
seems to believe, Texas never should have had to do any of this, but we
stepped in when the federal government failed.

When it comes down to it, Mr. Trump and President Obama have similar
records on border security. Neither seems to understand that it’s the
federal government’s responsibility to secure our borders. Neither has
taken the time to visit the border. Neither has paid any attention to the
issue until it’s become politically convenient. And most significantly,
neither has put forward any thoughtful solutions to secure the border.

Rather than thanking Texas for stepping into a gap it shouldn’t have to
fill, Mr. Trump has made clear that he believes the states should fend for
themselves on border security. Rather than praising the men and women of
the Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas National Guard, and Texas game
wardens, Mr. Trump ridicules their tireless work to protect our
communities. Not only is this wrong, but it perpetuates the same failed
policies that have left our southern border porous and vulnerable.

As I’ve said before, this will be a “show me, don’t tell me” election. Our
nation needs a thoughtful, experienced leader with the character, resolve,
and will to rebuild what this nation has lost over the past six years.

Mr. Trump has done nothing to prove that he is the man for the job.

*GRAHAM*

*Lindsey Graham and Friends Join to Denounce Iran Deal
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/20/lindsey-graham-and-friends-join-to-denounce-iran-deal/>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – July 20, 2015 *

Surrounded by two of the “three amigos” — as former Gen. David H. Petraeus
called them — Senator Lindsey Graham appeared with Senator John McCain and
former Senator Joseph I. Lieberman in New York on Monday to denounce the
deal to contain Iran’s nuclear program.

Mr. Graham, a Republican presidential hopeful from South Carolina who is
one of the most hawkish voices in his party, repeatedly invoked the Sept.
11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, just over three
miles from the Women’s National Republican Club in Midtown Manhattan, where
the “No Nukes for Iran” forum was held.

“My friends, what we will see is a nuclearized Middle East,” said Mr.
Graham of the deal’s implications, arguing it would extend well beyond
Iran. “They view New York as a symbol of America. This is the place they
would choose to hit us again if they could.”

He mentioned Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic presidential contender
and former senator from New York, and used a well-worn line that she “could
have gotten a better deal than this.” The crowd of mostly older voters
greeted the line with silence.

“To the American people, I will do everything I can to make sure that there
is never another 9/11,” Mr. Graham said of the attacks that killed more
than 3,000 people. Referring to the terrorists who carried out that attack,
he said: “They could not get the weapons to kill three million of us. If
they could, they would.”

*Lindsey Graham: Donald Trump is a ‘jackass’
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/lindsey-graham-donald-trump-is-a-jackass-120386.html>
// Politico // Eliza Collins – July 20, 2015 *

Sen. Lindsey Graham thinks real-estate mogul Donald Trump is a “jackass”
and his comments about Sen. John McCain were the beginning of the end of
his candidacy.

“He’s bringing his name down and he’s not helping the process and he
shouldn’t be commander in chief,” Graham said.

The South Carolina senator was speaking on CNN’s “Out Front” on Monday,
responding to Trump’s Saturday comment that McCain was not an American hero
because he was taken prisoner by North Vietnamese forces.

“He’s not a war hero,” said Trump. “He was a war hero because he was
captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

Graham called Trump’s comments out of sync with the Republican Party, which
he called “the party of the military.”

He also bemoaned the media’s focus on Trump instead of national security
issues, which Graham has made the main focus of his long-shot presidential
run.

“The world is literally falling apart … and all we're talking about is
Donald Trump,” Graham said.

A spokesman for Trump said on CNN that Graham’s comments were a political
move by someone who is floundering in the polls.

*Lindsey Graham and his Two Amigos Kick Off 'No Nukes for Iran' Tour
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-20/lindsey-graham-and-his-two-amigos-kick-off-no-nukes-for-iran-tour>
// Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – July 20, 2015 *

The amigos are back for a sequel.

For more than ten years, Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John
McCain of Arizona, and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut traveled together
—from Iraq to Afghanistan, Germany to Bhutan. Dubbed the "three amigos" by
General David Patreaus, together they helped shape American foreign policy,
and on Monday they reunited to try and do so again.

Graham, who now is running for president, brought along Lieberman (who is
no longer in Congress), and McCain, two hawkish confrères who both have had
their time on national tickets, to help bolster his own bid and quash
President Obama's deal with Iran.

“Do you think these four hostages would still be in Iran if Ronald Reagan
we're president?”

Sitting between his two old friends beneath gold curtains and crystal
chandeliers, a sign behind the amigos declared "No Nukes for Iran," the
name of a multi-state tour headlined by the Republican candidate.

Graham articulated his strong objection to the deal made by world leaders
last week in Vienna that would grant Tehran relief from international
sanctions in exchange for Iran’s curbing its nuclear program. “I believe
with all my heart and soul that Iran wants a nuclear weapon—a nuclear power
plant—and that they’ll get them if somebody doesn’t stop them,” the South
Carolina senator said. “The last line of defense is the United States
Congress and the power of the next president to protect us and the world at
large.”

He was speaking in the ballroom of Manhattan’s Women’s National Republican
Club, whose grand staircase features a vaguely seductive portrait of woman
labeled only “Mrs. Ronald Reagan.”

The stated aim of Graham’s tour, which will last for sixty days, is to urge
members of Congress to vote against a “bad deal” by a president he has
called “incompetent.” (Congress has a 60-day period to review the deal
before it comes to a vote.) Of course, the national exposure can’t hurt his
long-shot quest to win his party's presidential nomination.

The tour will take him to states including Minnesota, Massachusetts,
Indiana, Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. But Graham launched
it in New York, he told his enthusiastic audience, because it is “the most
diverse city on the planet,” a city that “represents America.” Graham also
conjured the terrorist attacks on 9/11, saying, “this is the place they
would choose to hit us if they could.”

Graham stressed that he did not want to see war, and he reiterated a belief
that he has stated before, that, were she president, Hillary Rodham Clinton
could have struck up a better deal. (“I want to say something bipartisan,”
he prefaced.) He also spoke positively of the strength and vigor of Senator
Chuck Schumer, a Democrat of New York.

But also Graham reminded the audience that this year marked the anniversary
of the end of World War II, and portrayed Obama's deal as a threat to the
Jewish state of Israel. “Seventy years ago this year we liberated the
camps,” he said, adding, “To our friends in Israel, I join you in saying
never again. To the American people I say, I will make sure that there is
never another 9/11.” Later, he warned, “Don't put Israel in this box. Don't
make it feel that she—that Israel—has to go it alone.”

An observant Jew, Lieberman is himself a major proponent of Israel, and
called the vote on whether to approve the Iran deal “the most important
opinion that any member of congress will ever cast.”

“This is a mortal threat to our values,” Lieberman argued.

Both Graham and Lieberman also took jabs at real estate magnate Donald
Trump over his ongoing feud with McCain over the question of the latter's
heroism as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. “Anybody that suggests that John
McCain and his fellow prisoners of war are somehow lacking in the title of
being called ‘American hero,’ you shouldn’t be our commander-in-chief
because you don’t know our military,” Graham said.

Referring to Trump by name, Lieberman called his remarks “un-American,” as
McCain looked down modestly as the crowd clapped.

This was a way to defend their friend, but also for one candidate to
criticize a rival. The campaigning continued when both Lieberman and McCain
articulated what a good president Graham might be, and then both exited and
left the stage to their friend to answer questions.

During the Q & A, Graham repeatedly spoke of the need for a president who
could “leverage to get a better deal.”

“Do you think these four hostages would still be in Iran if Ronald Reagan
we're president?” Graham asked.

And then, with barely a pause, he answered, “I don't think so either.”

*Lindsey Graham wages war against Iran deal
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lindsey-graham-national-pitch-reject-iran-deal>
// MSNBC // Amanda Sakuma – July 20, 2015 *

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is building on his long-shot Republican
presidential campaign to pressure Congress to reject the historic nuclear
deal between world leaders and Iran.

Appearing alongside Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former
Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut during a town hall event in
New York, the Graham said he hopes to see the American public voice
opposition to the agreement.

“I believe with all my heart and soul that Iran wants a nuclear weapon – a
nuclear power plant – and that they’ll get them if somebody doesn’t stop
them,” Graham said. “The last line of defense is the United States Congress
and the power of the next president to protect us and the world at large.”

World leaders struck the historic deal in Vienna last week, culminating
years of negotiations that will ultimately require Iran to scale its
nuclear program in exchange for harsh economic sanctions on the country
being lifted.

The event was a part of a national tour — spanning Indiana, Colorado,
Florida, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Minnesota, and others — for
Graham to campaign on his reputation as a foreign policy hawk and gin up
public support against the deal.

Americans broadly approve a nuclear deal with Iran by a 2-to-1 margin,
according to the latest poll conducted last month by NBC News/Wall Street
Journal.

A number of Republicans in Congress, however, remain skeptical of the
deal’s details and question whether Iran will hold up its end of the
bargain. Congress has a 60-day period to review the agreement and
ultimately vote on whether to accept the terms.

“How this debate ends and how this vote goes is very much in the air,”
Graham said. “I would say there is a better than 50-50 chance that we can
reject the deal with the understanding that the next president will have
power to negotiate a better deal.”

In a rare show of bipartisan praise in the midst of a presidential election
season, Graham tipped his hat to Democratic presidential front-runner
Hillary Clinton, saying the former secretary of state could have negotiated
better than her successor.  “I think Hillary Clinton could have gotten a
better deal than this,” Graham said.

Despite his prominent national profile in Congress, Graham has fallen
behind the pack in a several national polls. But he opened the event by
taking aim at the unlikely Republican leading the pack: billionaire and
real estate mogul Donald Trump.

Trump made personal attacks against McCain during a Republican cattle call
event in Iowa over the weekend, saying repeatedly that the Arizona senator
was “not a war hero” despite being captured and tortured during the Vietnam
War. McCain responded during an exclusive interview on MSNBC’s “Morning
Joe” by saying the real estate mogul owes an apology to military families
affected by captivity during conflict. At Monday’s event, Graham defended
his friend and Senate colleague, declining to name names. “If anybody that
suggests that John McCain and his fellow POWs are somehow lacking in the
title of being called ‘American hero,’ you shouldn’t be our
commander-in-chief because you don’t know our military,” Graham said.

*GOP presidential candidate warns of another attack on New York City if the
Iran deal goes through
<http://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-graham-iran-deal-john-mccain-2015-7>
// Business Insider // Maxwell Tani – July 20, 2015 *

US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) is warning that world powers'
nuclear deal with Iran could lead to another attack on the United States.

Speaking at an event in New York City on Monday, Graham cautioned of the
dangers of the recently announced nuclear deal with Iran. Graham, a GOP
presidential candidate, ended his remarks with a stark alert for New
Yorkers.

"Where do you think they'd like to come most outside of Washington? Right
where we're sitting," Graham said.

"New York City represents America. This is the place that they'd choose to
hit us again if they could," Graham added.

Flanked by Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) and former Sen Joe Lieberman
(D-Connecticut), Graham struck an almost-apocalyptic tone when discussing
the deal. He frequently drew parallels between Iranian Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei and Adolf Hitler, claiming that the deal posed an enormous threat
to Israel and to the US and that it would lead to a nuclear-arms race in
the Middle East.

"A yes vote takes all the leverage off the table, locks in the deal, and
makes a conflict in the Middle East much more likely," Graham said. "...
The Sunni Arabs are not going to sit on the sidelines and wait for the
Iranian Shiite Persians to get a nuclear weapon."

Lindsey GrahamBrendan McDermidU.S. Republican presidential candidate
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaks during a campaign event

Though the Republican presidential field is universally opposed to the
deal, Graham — who is currently one of the lowest candidates in the polls —
is making his opposition to the Iranian deal a bigger part of his campaign.
He is planning a slew of stops over the next 60 days — or until Congress
votes on the deal — on a "no nukes for Iran" tour.

Speaking to reporters after the town hall on Monday, Graham said that he
agreed with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) comments that it is "very
possible" that a new president would be forced to take military action
against Iran on the first day of his or her presidency.

"The military option should be on the table for any president, at any time
because the consequences of a nuclear breakout for Iran are just enormous
to our national security," Graham told Business Insider in response to
questions about Walker's comments.

Both Graham and Walker are taking much more hard-line stances than Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who said over the weekend that it would be naive not to
consult with allies and key Cabinet members appointed and confirmed before
proceeding to possible military options on Iran.

At the even on Monday, Graham took a dig at one of his rivals: Sen. Rand
Paul (R-Kentucky).

"I'm going to say something bipartisan: Hillary Clinton could've done a
better deal than this," Graham said, who later repeated the phrase and
added that "almost anybody could have, except maybe Rand Paul."

Graham rattled off numerous provisions in the deal that he found dangerous,
including the eventual end of an arms embargo on Iran and the need for
inspectors to give Iran 24 days' notice before inspecting at certain
nuclear cites.

"Do you mind if we come by in three weeks?" Graham asked sarcastically.

Graham said that his goal for now is to rally support for Democratic
members of Congress who appear to be hesitant to endorse the deal, at least
for now. The South Carolina senator pleaded with traditional Israeli allies
in the Democratic caucus — including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) — to rally Democrats to oppose the deal.

Opponents need to meet at key 67-senator threshold to overcome a likely
presidential veto if they vote down the deal. If they cannot get two-thirds
of the House and the Senate to overturn the president's veto, the deal will
automatically go through.

“The last line of defense is the United States Congress and the power of
the next president to protect us and the world at large,” Graham said.

Though he admitted that Republicans do not have the votes yet, Graham
remained optimistic that he could convince his Senate colleagues.

"I think we could get there," Graham said.

The South Carolina senator said that his solution would be to start over on
a new deal, without ending the arms embargo and with an "anytime, anywhere"
mandate for inspection. Graham said he'd punish any Russian, French, and
German company that sold arms to Iran.

"A better deal could be easily had only with leverage," Graham said. "If
you vote no to this deal, you're giving the next president leverage to get
a better deal."

*SANTORUM*

*‘They Are So Afraid’: Santorum Says GOP Leadership Botching Planned
Parenthood Response
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/20/they-are-so-afraid-santorum-says-gop-leadership-botching-planned-parenthood-response/>
// Daily Caller // Alex Pappas – July 20, 2015 *

Rick Santorum is accusing the Republican congressional leadership of
failing to adequately respond to the video of a Planned Parenthood employee
discussing how fetal body parts are sold after abortions.

“This is why I sort of scratch my head at our leadership,” the Republican
presidential candidate said Monday during a conversation with several
reporters at a Capitol Hill restaurant. “Because they are so afraid of
these issues.”

Speaker of the House John Boehner called for congressional hearings into
the matter last week, but Santorum argues Congress should be moving faster
to go after Planned Parenthood. Legislation targeting the organization
should have already been voted on, he said.

“I would have had a vote on the floor of the Senate, if I was the Senate
leader, to defund Planned Parenthood and have a debate on it,” he said. “As
well as have hearings to see if there’s any criminal activity or criminal
investigation that should pursued.”

Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, suggested Republican leaders
are pressured by some in the party not to emphasize pro-life issues,
worried about the politics of it.

“You have a group of members and a group of donors who will climb down your
throat if they do,” he said. “They just want to avoid these issues at all
cost.”

“I don’t understand it,” Santorum added. “I don’t understand why we can’t
point out the dehumanization that’s going on in this country. Because
that’s what it is. It’s dehumanization.”

Santorum said Republicans are missing a big opportunity to go on offense
against the pro-abortion lobby.

“For me, it’s an opportunity to expose the cruelty of abortion, as well as
the hypocrisy of the people who are denying the reality of what occurs
during abortion,” he said.

Also during Monday’s discussion, Santorum was asked about rival
presidential candidate Donald Trump and the situation he finds himself in
over his negative comments about Arizona Sen. John McCain’s service during
Vietnam.

But Santorum said it was actually something else Trump said in Iowa over
the weekend that has evangelicals suspicious of the businessman.

While discussing his Christian faith Saturday, Trump said he is religious
but gave an awkward answer when asked if he’s ever asked for forgiveness
from God. “I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job
from there,” Trump said.

Santorum, who was also in Iowa last weekend, said he went to a church the
next day in Oskaloosa, where a pastor expressed concern over Trump’s
comments.

The senator didn’t directly criticize Trump directly over his statements on
his faith.

“People have their own relationship with the Lord…I’m not judging anybody
on their own faith walk,” he said.

But Santorum contrasted himself with Trump. “My faith walk is very
different,” he said. “I apologize continually throughout the day — ask
forgiveness for some of the things I think and occasionally some of the
things I say and do.”

With all the attention on Trump, Santorum said he tries not to take the
bait from the media to dump all over him. When he disagrees with a rival,
Santorum says he tries to be “critical of what they say” but not be
“critical of the person.”

“It provides fodder to the other side, and you’re playing to the press….The
media wants blood out of Republicans,” he said.

*Santorum considers breaking up big banks
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/santorum-considers-breaking-up-big-banks/article/2568639>
// Washington Examiner // Ariel Cohen – July 20, 2015 *

A presidential candidate criticized big banks and Wall Street Monday, but
it wasn't Bernie Sanders or any of the other Democrats.

Republican White House hopeful Rick Santorum said that he has "real
concerns about too big to fail," while speaking with reporters in
Washington, D.C.

"I have real concerns about the size of the banks and think that while I've
looked at various ideas as how to break up these financial institutions, I
would certainly be open to ideas that would reduce systemic risk," Santorum
said.

In contrast with what he sees as a the big-government solutions of Sanders,
Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley, Santorum proposed that the federal
government could create regulations and laws that would lead to banks
deciding on their own terms to break up.

O'Malley has made reforming Wall Street a key component of his platform,
often stating that those responsible for the 2008 fiscal crash on Wall
Street are "criminals." Sanders has repeatedly called for the
re-installation of Glass-Steagall. Clinton has said "too big to fail is too
big."

Santorum is one conservative Republican who hasn't ducked these issues,
though he doesn't agree with everything Washington has done in the name of
regulating Wall Street.

"I would be more oriented towards clearly Dodd Frank is a disaster and
needs to be redone," Santorum said. "The institutionalization of too big to
fail is something that has to be unwound, including unwinding some of these
large institutions."

*Santorum: Repeal Obamacare, Defund Planned Parenthood
<https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/santorum-repeal-obamacare-defund-planned-parenthood_994403.html>
// Weekly Standard // Michael Warren – July 20, 2015 *

Rick Santorum is keeping expectations low for his second presidential
campaign. Asked if he would need to win the Iowa caucuses to stay in the
race, the former senator said it “depends.”

“If I finish third and half a percent behind first, I think I feel pretty
good. If I finish third and I’m ten points out, well, that’s a different
story,” he told a small group of reporters in a Washington restaurant
Monday afternoon.

That’s quite an admission from Santorum, who actually won the 2012 Iowa
caucuses by a razor-thin margin over Mitt Romney. Initial media reports
were that Romney had won, and it took 18 days before the state of Iowa
confirmed Santorum’s victory, and the bounce he might have received from
winning on caucus day didn’t quite materialize. Even so, he would go on to
win ten more states to place second to Romney. On paper, that record might
suggest Santorum would have been an obvious “next in line” candidate for
2016.

But so far, the Pennsylvania Republican’s been more of an afterthought.
According to the Real Clear Politics average of national polls, he’s at two
percent support. It’s nowhere close to a sure thing Santorum will make it
into the top-ten pool for the first Fox News debate August 6. (He called
the Republican National Committee’s debate requirements “arbitrary.”) And
in Iowa, the state that kept Santorum alive for the long haul in 2012, he’s
polling at an average of 4.3 points, putting him in ninth place.

Meanwhile, Santorum, who served two terms in the U.S. House and two in the
Senate before losing his seat in 2006, is resolute about his chances in
2016. “We’re in this thing to win it. If I didn’t think I could win it I
wouldn’t run,” he said.

For the Iowa voters he’s met this time around, Santorum says there are some
differences in what issues these Republicans are concerned about. They’re
more interested in talking about national security and immigration than
they were in 2012. There’s less anxiety, too, about health care, and he
said many Republicans are “convinced that they’re stuck with Obamacare.”

“They’re not,” Santorum said. “You give me 50 United States senators and a
Republican House, and we can de facto repeal Obamacare through
reconciliation. Take all the money out and make it impotent. And then
replace it with a plan that provides federal support for everybody to be
able to go out and get the plan they want. And then put patients and
doctors back in charge of the health-care system. That’s the answer.”

A staunch opponent of abortion—he was the chief Senate sponsor of the
partial-birth abortion ban—Santorum was critical of the response from
congressional leadership of a recent video showing a high-ranking Planned
Parenthood official casually discussing the selling of body parts from
aborted infants. House speaker John Boehner has called for committee-led
investigations into the organization, but Santorum says the Republican
Congress should have already voted to strip Planned Parenthood of its
federal funding.

“This is why I sort of scratch my head at our leadership. They are so
afraid about these issues that even when you have an issue that is probably
an 80 to 90 percent issue in America, they won’t talk about that, because
you have a group of members, a group of donors, who will climb down your
throat if you do. And they just want to avoid these issues at all costs.
They don’t recognize that these issues don’t go away. They don’t go away,
and they’re important to people,” he said.

Santorum has called on the GOP to adopt a more populist agenda on
economics, even writing a book in 2013 called Blue Collar Conservatives. I
asked him how healthy blue-collar conservatism is in the party. “I think
you see more Republicans sound like me,” Santorum said. “Four years ago, if
you think about it, was there anyone else in the race that really had a
focus on a populist economic message, on workers, and being more critical
of corporate America?”

There wasn’t. This time there are, with candidates like Scott Walker, Mike
Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump all sounding a populist
tone on some or many issues: trade, immigration, corporate welfare,
entitlements, and government bureaucracy. Santorum’s 2012 run may have
helped give populism a new lease on life within the Republican party. But
so far, that lease hasn’t been extended to Santorum himself.

*HUCKABEE*

*Huckabee campaign video comments on racial tension, America has a ‘sin not
skin’ problem
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/20/exclusive-huckabee-campaign-video-comments-on-racial-tension-america-has-a-sin-not-skin-problem/>
// Breitbart // Alex Swoler – July 20, 2015*

GOP presidential candidate Gov. Mike Huckabee released a new online ad
titled “Sin Not Skin,making its first debut with Breitbart News.

The paid online campaign ad began running in Iowa and South Carolina. It
features Huckabee’s remarks on racial tension while he spoke at the Family
Leader Summit in Ames, Iowa on Saturday.

The transcript of the ad is as follows:

We don’t have a skin problem in America, we have a sin problem in America.
That is the root and the heart and the cause of racial strife and it cannot
be reconciled by the government stepping in and making pronouncements.
There is a prescription…2nd Chronicles 7:14….’If My people, who are called
by My name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from
their wicked ways’ – those are the conditions – then He says ‘He will hear
from Heaven, He will forgive our sins, and He will heal our land.’ I think
people forget God will heal this land, but He won’t do it if we don’t meet
the conditions for Him to heal it.

Huckabee gave similar remarks when he appeared at an Africa American Church
in South Carolina on Sunday.

The video is part of push by the Huckabee campaign to engage African
American voters. Huckabee won roughly 48 percent of the black vote in
Arkansas, a CNN exit poll suggests.

*JINDAL*

*Jindal: Obama quick to push gun control after Charleston massacre, silent
on radical Islam after Tennessee terror attack
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/20/bobby-jindal-obama-quick-to-push-gun-control-after-charleston-massacre-silent-on-radical-islam-after-tennessee-terror-attack/>
// Breitbart – July 20, 2015 *

On Breitbart News Saturday, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal slammed
President Barack Obama for reflexively politicizing the tragic Charleston
massacre to push for more gun control while remaining silent about radical
Islamic terrorism after Muhammad Youssuf Abdulazeez murdered five
servicemen in Tennessee last week.

“You remember after the horrific shooting in Charleston, this president had
no problems going out quickly and saying, well here’s an opportunity to
talk about gun control… within 24 hours,” Jindal told host and Breitbart
News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125. “When we
see these attacks in Fort Hood, when we see these attacks in Garland,
Texas, when we see these attacks in Tennessee, where’s the same clarity in
going after radical Islamic terrorism?”

The 2016 GOP presidential candidate said Obama’s reaction to “this
terrorist attack” was “disheartening,” especially because “everyday
Americans get it–we’re at war with radical Islamic terrorism.’

“I wish we had a Commander-in-Chief who was honest enough to tell us that,”
Jindal said, adding that “you have to be deaf, blind, and dumb to ignore
what everything that we know is telling us.”

Jindal noted that the Obama administration is “still calling Fort Hood” an
act of “workplace violence,” which he said was “nonsense.” He said if you
“look at what happened in Garland, Texas… it is clear that Islam has a
problem, and that problem is radical Islam.”

“It is clear these terrorists want to bring this fight to us. They’re not
content to stay in Syria and Iraq. It’s clear that leading from behind has
not worked,” Jindal said. “The reality is that we are at war with them,
they are at war with us… whether our president wants to admit it or not.”

Jindal, who issued an executive order on Friday to arm National Guardsmen
at military facilities in his state, said “it is ridiculous” that military
personnel are not armed because “it’s like sending a fireman without a
hose.”

“Why are we creating a gun-free zone where the terrorists are armed?” he
asked. “I am glad law enforcement did have a gun–they were able to kill
this terrorist.”

Jindal challenged Obama to have the moral clarity to demand from Muslim
critics to say that those committing heinous acts of terror are going
“straight to hell” instead of being martyrs who are rewarded in the
afterlife. As he has been doing on the campaign trail, Jindal pressed
Islamic leaders to also “explicitly embrace the same freedoms for others
with different religious and political beliefs from themselves that they
demand if they want those freedoms for themselves.” Jindal stressed that
Americans cannot allow radical Islamists to “use our freedoms to undermine
the freedoms of other people.” Jindal said he may be labelled a “racist” or
“anti-Muslim” for his views by the left, but insisted that Americans are
just getting “sick and tired” of having to be politically correct on
terrorism.

He criticized Obama for not having a clear strategy to defeat Islamic
terrorism and pointed out that Obama first said Al Qaeda had been defeated,
then said ISIS was a “JV team,” then said he did not have a long-term
strategy to confront radical Islam before finally saying that “it’s a
generational conflict.” Jindal said the Obama administration needs “to take
the political handcuffs off the military” in the fight against radical
Islam.

“I don’t want our military in a fair fight,” he said. “I want our military
to dominate any potential fight.”

After the Tennessee massacre, Jindal led a nearly two-minute prayer before
a campaign event in Iowa, and Jindal reflected on that moment, saying it
was “a tough day for every American” and he was praying for the “resilience
and resolve to take on evil.”

“It was like a member of our own family had died. Without praying for their
families,” Jindal said. “I want God to comfort and bring the peace and the
love and grace that only He can bring to the parents, siblings, children,
spouses that lost a loved one. These are amazing men and women that put on
the nation’s uniform and run towards danger not away from it so we can be
safe”.

*Bobby Jindal: An abortion “patient” is the “unborn baby,” not the woman
having the abortion
<http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/bobby_jindal_an_abortion_patient_is_the_unborn_baby_not_the_woman_having_the_abortion/>
// Salon // Jenny Krutner – July 20, 2015 *

Republican presidential hopeful and Lousiana Gov. Bobby Jindal quickly
outed himself last week as someone who buys into the claims of a heavily
edited anti-Planned Parenthood video that began circulating last week,
which accuses the organization of illegally selling donated fetal tissue
(known to some conservatives as “baby parts”).

Speaking with talk radio host Steve Deace on Friday, Jindal — who launched
an investigation of his state’s Planned Parenthood affiliates after the
video was released — called once again for Congress to defund the
healthcare provider (which, don’t you worry, it’s already tried/trying to
do). He also tossed in a very bizarre conception of how abortion (a medical
procedure involving a patient) goes down.

“They try to defend themselves by saying this is health care and
patient-centered,” Jindal said. “Abortions are not health care, and this is
not about the patient. The patient in this case is that unborn baby.
They’ve got no concern for the unborn baby, and you can see that in the
video.”

The GOP presidential candidate went on to say there is “no reason” for
taxpayers to continue to fund or support Planned Parenthood — because
surely all those other services the organization provides, such as cancer
screenings and contraception, aren’t worth keeping around.

*Jindal talks family, religion, government at Madison County Fair
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/07/19/bobby-jindal-madison-county-fair/30399489/>
// The Des Moines Register // Katherine Klingseis – July 20, 2015 *

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal used a few family stories to illustrate his
plans for America at a presidential campaign stop at the Madison County
Fair on Sunday.

“My parents, they have chased, they have caught, they have lived the
American dream,” Jindal said. “I want my children and one day my
grandchildren to be able to live the American dream. That’s really what
this election is about.”

Jindal and his wife, Supriya Jolly, mingled with fairgoers at the event’s
GOP booth. Jindal gave a brief speech and had a question-and-answer session
with the crowd.

During his speech, Jindal hit on his campaign’s four objectives: securing
America’s borders, replacing Obamacare, rebuilding America’s defenses and
restoring the country’s standing in the world, and shrinking the
government. The crowd of about 30 people clapped after each talking point
Jindal listed.

“We’re going to shrink the size of the government and actually grow the
private sector for our economy so our kids can join the middle class by
getting an education, by getting a good-paying job,” Jindal said.

Jindal told attendees stories about his wife and their three children. In
one of these stories, Jindal used his son’s frustration with some math
homework to illustrate what he says are the flaws of the Common Core State
Standards Initiative.

Jindal also discussed his support of religious freedom. He told the crowd
he is against abortion and he believes marriage should be between one man
and one woman.

The Madison County Fair stop came a day after Jindal received multiple
standing ovations while speaking at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames.
Jindal told The Register that the crowd’s reaction echoed the response his
campaign has received at town hall meetings.

“I think the reason our message resonates is people see I’ve got a proven
track record in Louisiana of shrinking the government, fighting for
religious liberty and we are unafraid to stand up to save the American
dream for our children and grandchildren,” Jindal said Sunday.

*TRUMP*

*Veterans’ Groups Take Their Shots at Donald Trump as He Backs Off a Bit on
McCain
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/us/politics/veterans-groups-take-their-shots-at-trump-as-he-backs-off-a-bit-on-mccain.html>
// NYT // Jeremy Peters – July 20, 2015 *

Of the many offenses Senator John McCain has committed in the eyes of his
most ardent conservative critics — supporting an immigration overhaul, for
example, or more recently calling some of them “crazies” — a poor record on
veterans’ issues is not one that has ever come up.

That left Donald J. Trump with few defenders after the attacks he leveled
at Mr. McCain over the weekend, and facing a barrage of condemnation
himself on Monday over his own commitment to veterans’ causes as well as
the propriety of attacking a former prisoner of war who is honored as a
hero.

Mr. Trump, a businessman who is running an outsider’s campaign for the
Republican nomination for president, first said that Mr. McCain was “not a
war hero” because he was captured after bailing out of his Navy jet during
the Vietnam War. Then he said that as a senator Mr. McCain had failed to
lead on military and veterans’ issues, while he has championed their cause.

Mr. Trump did soften his words somewhat late on Monday when he told Bill
O’Reilly of Fox News that he has respect for Mr. McCain and said,
“Certainly if there was a misunderstanding, I would totally take that back.”

Continue reading the main story

What Donald Trump Would Need to Do to Win

But veterans’ groups said Mr. Trump was in no position to criticize anyone,
and denied that he is the longtime ally he claims to be.

“Donald Trump is not a leader in veterans’ philanthropy, unless he’s
donated a lot of money that nobody knows about,” said Paul Rieckhoff,
founder and chief executive of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
“We were founded in New York. We are headquartered in New York. I’ve been
here 10 years, and I don’t think I’ve ever even seen Donald Trump.”

Mr. Trump’s attacks were all the more misguided, veterans’ advocates said,
because Mr. McCain has an extensive record of being helpful and involved.
He has played a leading role in passing numerous pieces of legislation that
aim to improve veterans’ health care.

In just the last year, Mr. McCain was a key player in negotiations with
Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who was then chairman of the
Veterans Affairs Committee, to pass a broad-based overhaul of the
Department of Veterans Affairs after the disclosure that staff members had
been manipulating wait times to make it appear that patients were receiving
care faster than they were.

Mr. McCain was also a lead sponsor of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for
American Veterans Act — one of the first pieces of legislation that became
law after Republicans took over Congress this year.

Mr. McCain’s office said Monday that it was currently processing 600
veterans-related cases and had dedicated five of its 10 case workers to
working on Veterans Affairs complaints full time.

For his part, Mr. McCain, who is now chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, demurred on Monday when asked if Mr. Trump should apologize to
him. Rather, he said, Mr. Trump should apologize to the men and women who
have been captured in war and whose service Mr. Trump appeared to belittle.

“I think he may owe an apology to the families and those that have
sacrificed in conflict and those who have undergone the prison experience
in serving their country,” a reserved Mr. McCain said in his first comments
on the matter on the MSNBC program “Morning Joe.”

“There are so many men and some women who have served and sacrificed who
happened to have been held prisoner — to denigrate that service I think is
offensive to most of our veterans,” Mr. McCain added.

Mr. McCain’s friend Senator Lindsey Graham, who is also seeking the
Republican presidential nomination, was more direct. “To anybody who
suggests that John and his fellow P.O.W.s are somehow lacking in the title
of being called American hero, you shouldn’t be our commander in chief
because you don’t know our military,” he said without mentioning Mr.
Trump’s name.

Why Mr. Trump would single out veterans’ issues and Vietnam as a line of
attack — when his own record on the subject is not extensively documented,
and he avoided serving in Vietnam by receiving a medical deferment — is
unclear. Mr. Trump and his campaign advisers have pointed to a few examples
of Mr. Trump’s advocacy decades ago, including his donation of over $1
million to build a Vietnam veterans memorial in New York in the 1980s and
his underwriting of a parade honoring veterans in 1995.

Writing in USA Today, Mr. Trump said on Monday, “It was one of the biggest
parades in the history of New York City, and I was very proud to have made
it possible.”

His campaign also noted that he had put on various benefits for
organizations like the Wounded Warriors Project and had hosted active-duty
soldiers and veterans at his golf courses.

But a review of publicly available records of Mr. Trump’s charitable
contributions shows that relatively little of his money has gone to
programs that support veterans. While he has donated millions of dollars to
charities like the United Way and the American Heart Association, records
show that he gave at least $20,000 and possibly as much as $50,000 to the
Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund in 2003 and 2004. He donated in later years for
unspecified amounts.

Even some of Mr. Trump’s allies said that they would not quibble with Mr.
McCain’s record. “Don’t get me wrong, I think John McCain is strong on
veterans’ issues,” said Joel Arends, chairman of Veterans for a Strong
America, which defended Mr. Trump over the weekend in a statement that his
campaign issued in a news release.

“The problem is not John McCain’s record. The problem is how do we run
government and is government going to be responsive to men and women who’ve
laid their lives on the line for this country,” Mr. Arends said, adding
that he believed Mr. Trump had hit a nerve by identifying the
inefficiencies and breakdowns in veterans’ services.

Some advocates said they were hoping that the glare of media attention that
Mr. Trump has turned on them would be of benefit. “I’ve gotten more media
calls today than I probably have in the last 11 years,” Mr. Rieckhoff said.
“But this is a bigger conversation than whether or not Trump said something
stupid.”

*Donald Trump Continues to Have Strong Support in Iowa
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/20/donald-trump-continues-to-have-strong-support-in-iowa/>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport – July 20, 2015 *

Donald J. Trump has caused a big stir by criticizing Senator John McCain’s
war record, but so far his polling strength appears to be intact.

A new survey of likely Republican caucusgoers in Iowa by Monmouth
University found that Mr. Trump’s support has been holding steady in the
state despite attacks from his rivals. Mr. Trump drew nearly universal
backlash from the Republican Party establishment for suggesting that Mr.
McCain is not a war hero.

In Iowa, however, he retained support of 13 percent of the state’s
Republicans. That trails only Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who leads the
pack with 22 percent. Ben Carson, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas round out the top five in the poll, which was
conducted from Thursday to Sunday.

“Trump has outmaneuvered the rest of the field to earn the second spot
despite his controversial statements over the weekend,” said Patrick
Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute in New Jersey.

Mr. Trump often points to his strong performance in national and state
polls as evidence of his credibility as a candidate. But the true impact of
his comments will likely not be known for several days, as voters fully
digest them and assess their significance.

The survey found little difference in reaction to Mr. Trump before and
after his remarks on Saturday. His support was strong among those who
consider themselves members of the Tea Party, voters who are very
conservative, and evangelical Christians.

While some skeptics about Mr. Trump’s candidacy point out that his
lifestyle and inconsistent views on social issues make him out of step with
the party, Monmouth’s poll indicates that social issues appear to be less
important among Iowa Republicans this year. Former Senator Rick Santorum of
Pennsylvania and former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, who have
traditionally performed well in Iowa, are failing to gain traction this
time around.

Monmouth’s poll of 425 likely Republican voters has a margin of error of
4.5 percent.

*Rush Limbaugh Rallies Listeners to Donald Trump’s Defense
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/20/long-before-his-candidacy-john-kasich-made-it-to-the-white-house/>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – July 20, 2015*

The conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who has a substantial following
among grass-roots Republicans, came to the defense of Donald J. Trump on
Monday as prominent leaders in the party stepped up their criticism of Mr.
Trump’s pointed comments about Senator John McCain.

Such a defense is not entirely surprising, since Mr. Limbaugh’s distaste
for the Republican establishment is deep and well documented. But the
supportive words from Mr. Limbaugh may provide Mr. Trump with the
inoculation he needs to survive the scorn of the party’s elders long enough
to be included in the presidential debates.

Mr. Trump is not following the typical protocol for public figures who are
scorned by the establishment, Mr. Limbaugh said.

“The American people haven’t seen something like this in a long time,” the
radio host said, speaking to the unique nature of the emerging 2016
Republican presidential contest, in which harnessing anger and money may be
crucial ingredients for success. “They have not seen an embattled public
figure stand up for himself, double down and tell everybody to go to hell.”

“Trump can survive this, Trump is surviving this,” Mr. Limbaugh said at the
start of his three-hour program on Monday, two days after Mr. Trump took
issue with the description of Mr. McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner-of-war,
as a “war hero.” “This is a great, great teachable moment here, this whole
thing with Trump and McCain.”

Last week, Mr. Limbaugh expressed aggravation with Mr. McCain, who has
never been a favorite of the Republican base, for saying that Mr. Trump was
riling up “the crazies” in the party with his comments about illegal
immigrants from Mexico.

Mr. Limbaugh described the dust-up as an over-hyped effort from “the
drive-by media.” He returned to the topic in the show’s second hour,
pointing out that Democrats have taken shots at Mr. McCain’s service —
including Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, years before he was elected to
the Senate.

“When leftists attack McCain, they’re perfectly warranted, because they’re
nice people,” Mr. Limbaugh said. “Here comes Trump, and you would think
that nobody has ever said anything like this before about the revered and
respected John McCain.”

Pointing out how many people are calling now for Mr. Trump to exit the race
for president, Mr. Limbaugh said: “There’s just one problem — Trump is not
following the rules that targets are supposed to follow. Targets are
supposed to immediately grovel, apologize.”

“Guiding all of this,” Mr. Limbaugh said, “is the guiding presumption that
the majority of the American people are as outraged as the media are.”

*Why is Trump surging? Blame the media.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/20/why-is-trump-surging-blame-the-media/>
// WaPo // John Sides – July 20, 2015 *

Donald Trump’s surge to the front of the GOP presidential polls has
occasioned not a little media attention and endless speculation as to why.
You can disregard most of that speculation. The answer is simple: Trump is
surging in the polls because the news media has consistently focused on him
since he announced his candidacy on June 16.

Below is a graph that I made with UCLA political scientist Lynn Vavreck
using social analytic tools provided by Crimson Hexagon.  These tools are
devised to gather and reveal the volume and tone of media coverage on major
news sites. Vavreck and I are analyzing the news coverage of presidential
candidates as part of our joint work on the 2016 election.

The graph shows you how much coverage Trump got in the week before he
announced his candidacy, and in the 30 days after. For comparison, there is
a line for the other Republican candidates who have announced their
candidacy in the past 2 months: Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Rick
Perry, Rick Santorum, and Scott Walker.

The graph shows two important things. First, Trump’s announcement generated
a much larger spike in media coverage than these other candidates received.
The day before he announced his candidacy, Trump received 4 percent of the
media coverage devoted to these candidates. The day after, he received 31
percent.

Second, the news media’s attention to Trump hasn’t faded away, as is
typical. He has consistently attracted 20-30 percent of the news coverage
of these candidates. Only Jeb Bush comes close. In the month since Trump’s
announcement, Trump has received 21 percent of the news coverage. Bush has
received 20 percent.

Has this attention to Trump driven his poll numbers? Almost certainly.
Think about it this way: voters don’t change their minds without new
information. No one wakes up on June 17 and randomly decides on their own
that Donald Trump should be the Republican nominee for president. People’s
minds change because they are hearing information that they haven’t heard
before.

In this case, people are being bombarded with news stories about Trump.
When the news media suddenly focuses on a candidate that hasn’t previously
received much coverage, Vavreck and I refer to this as the “discovery”
phase of that candidate’s campaign. The resulting spike in news coverage
then drives the poll numbers.

In our book on the 2012 presidential election, “The Gamble,” Vavreck and I
documented this pattern over and over in 2011—for Perry, Herman Cain, and
Newt Gingrich. In 2015, we’ve already seen similar, smaller surges for Cruz
and Rubio after they announced their candidacies.

You can see the same pattern by closely examining Trump’s news coverage and
the national polls:

Trump’s poll numbers increase only after the first spike in news coverage.
Here is an apples-to-apples comparison. In a YouGov/Economist poll
conducted from June 13-15—right before Trump’s announcement—Trump polled at
2 percent. In a YouGov poll from June 20-22, he polled at 11 percent.

His numbers have only increased since then. This is completely expected:
Trump has received a larger-than-usual spate of media coverage and so, as
Nate Cohn showed Sunday, his polling bump is larger and more durable too.

Now, it’s tempting to think that each surge is somehow the result of each
candidate’s idiosyncratic appeal to Republican voters. This is what
commentators often assume about Trump.

But a simpler explanation is this: when a pollster interrupts people’s
lives and asks them about a presidential primary that doesn’t formally
begin for months, a significant number of people will mention whichever
candidate happens to be in the news these days. It’s basically a version of
what’s called the “availability heuristic.” And for any causal consumer of
news, Trump is very available these days.

But, as Cohn noted (and see also Andrew Prokop), this discovery phase
doesn’t last. It’s followed by what Vavreck and I call “scrutiny”—in
particular, scrutiny from the news media, aided and abetted by the
competing candidates. (Hillary Clinton knows all about this.) This scrutiny
tends to produce much less favorable coverage and, for many candidates, a
permanent decline in the candidate’s poll numbers. In the primary, this is
often fatal for that candidate’s campaign.

In Trump’s case, his remarks about John McCain have finally elicited strong
criticisms from the other GOP contenders. Now the question is whether Trump
will feel the full scrutiny of the press—which, as political scientist
Matthew Dickinson argues, necessitates more than simply enabling Trump to
traffic in controversy. Dickinson suggests this:

Instead, journalists should take his candidacy seriously by pressing him on
the details of his policy pronouncements, and helping the public understand
the differences between the public and private sector. The sooner the media
begins evaluating The Donald on the details of his policies and his
governing expertise, rather than on his deliberately provocative comments
designed to mobilize a disaffected public, the sooner The Donald’s
political bubble is likely to burst.

In other words, the media giveth, and the media can taketh away. This is
what underlies the seemingly unpredictable Republican presidential primary
of 2015.

*Poll: Trump surges to big lead in GOP presidential race
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-trump-surges-to-big-lead-in-gop-presidential-race/2015/07/20/efd2e0d0-2ef8-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html>
// WaPo // Dan Balz – July 20, 2015 *

Businessman Donald Trump surged into the lead for the 2016 Republican
presidential nomination, with almost twice the support of his closest
rival, just as he ignited a new controversy after making disparaging
remarks about Sen. John McCain’s Vietnam War service, according to a new
Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Support for Trump fell sharply on the one night that voters were surveyed
following those comments. Telephone interviewing for the poll began
Thursday, and most calls were completed before the news about the remarks
was widely reported.

Although the sample size for the final day was small, the decline was
statistically significant. Still, it is difficult to predict what could
happen to Trump’s support in the coming days and weeks as the controversy
plays out.

Even with the drop in support on the final night of the survey, Trump was
the favorite of 24 percent of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning
independents. That is the highest percentage and biggest lead recorded by
any GOP candidate this year in Post-ABC News polls and marks a sixfold
increase in his support since late May, shortly before he formally joined
the race.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who announced his candidacy a week ago, is in
second place, at 13 percent, followed by former Florida governor Jeb Bush,
at 12 percent. Walker’s support is strongest among those who describe
themselves as “very conservative.”

The next seven, ranging in support from 8 percent to 3 percent, are: former
Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), retired
neurosurgeon Ben Carson, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), former
Texas governor Rick Perry and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

The rankings are more important than early national surveys in previous
campaigns because only the top 10 candidates, based on an average of the
most recent national polls, will qualify for the first Republican debates.
The first debate will be held Aug. 6 in Cleveland. Fox News Channel is the
sponsor of that event and established the rules for qualification.

The bottom six candidates in the Post-ABC News survey are Ohio Gov. John
Kasich, who plans to announce his candidacy Tuesday, Louisiana Gov. Bobby
Jindal, former New York governor George Pataki, former senator Rick
Santorum (Pa.), businesswoman Carly Fiorina and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham
(S.C.). Their support ranges from 2 percent to less than 1 percent.

The Republican race remains highly fluid and continues to change with each
survey. Four months ago, Bush was at 21 percent, and that support has
dropped significantly. Others who have faced erosion include Cruz, who was
at 12 percent shortly after he announced his candidacy this spring and is
at 4 percent now. Paul was at 11 percent two months ago and is at 6 percent
in the new survey. Christie also has dropped steadily, from 14 percent in
January to 3 percent.

In the contest for the Democratic nomination, former secretary of state
Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains a wide lead, with 68 percent of registered
Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying they would vote for
her today in a caucus or primary. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is
drawing big and enthusiastic crowds in many states, is in second, at 16
percent. Support for Sanders has grown with each Post-ABC News poll this
year.

Trailing the top two candidates are former senator Jim Webb (Va.), at 5
percent, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, at 2 percent, and former
Rhode Island governor Lincoln D. Chafee, at 1 percent.

When Vice President Biden is included as a choice, Clinton is at 63
percent, Sanders at 14 percent and Biden is at 12 percent. Biden is not a
declared candidate but has not said definitively that he will not run.

Clinton, who has highlighted the possibility of becoming the first female
president in U.S. history, is far more popular among Democratic women than
men, by almost 20 points. About 9 in 10 of her supporters say they are
enthusiastic about her candidacy.

Part of Clinton’s strength is that she is considered ideologically
acceptable to a broad swath of the Democratic Party. Nearly 7 in 10 say she
is “about right” ideologically. Only 40 percent say the same about Sanders,
in part because nearly as many say they don’t know enough about him to have
an opinion.

Sanders is more popular among liberal Democrats than those who are moderate
or conservative. He is significantly more popular among college graduates
than those without a college degree. Although his message attacks what he
calls the “billionaire class” and focuses on wealth and income inequality,
he has more support among Democrats earning more than $50,000 than among
those who make less than that.

The poll also tested attitudes about President Obama, who has recorded a
series of victories over the past six weeks. They include Supreme Court
decisions legalizing same-sex marriage and upholding the Affordable Care
Act, a hard-fought win in Congress on trade policy (with significant GOP
support) and last week’s agreement with Iran designed to check that
country’s path to developing a nuclear weapon.

Those successes have not changed Obama’s overall approval rating, however.
The new survey shows that 45 percent approve of the way he is handling his
job and 50 percent disapprove, almost identical to the poll in late May.

Just 35 percent say they approve of how he is handling the situation with
Iran, while 52 percent disapprove. He receives better marks on the economy,
with 47 percent saying they approve and 48 percent saying they disapprove.
His ratings on the economy are unchanged from the last poll.

Trump has dominated campaign news since he announced his candidacy. His
comments about illegal immigrants have drawn strong responses, pro and con.
He said that the Mexican government is sending across the U.S.-Mexican
border criminals, drug dealers and rapists, but that some of them are
“nice” people.

Through nonstop media interviews and some high-profile appearances,
including a big rally in Phoenix on July 11, he has drowned out his
opponents. His rivals were tentative in taking issue with his immigration
comments but pounced over the weekend when he went after McCain (R-Ariz.),
a former prisoner of war, who drew the ire of Trump when he said the
Phoenix rally had drawn out the “crazies” in the GOP.

Trump has struck a chord with at least a part of the Republican electorate.
He does far better among those who are not college graduates than among
those who are.

His support among men and women is about the same, and he performs somewhat
better among GOP moderates than among those who say they are “very
conservative.”

His views on immigration are not widely shared. Just 16 percent of
Americans say that undocumented immigrants from Mexico are mainly
“undesirable people like criminals,” while 74 percent say they are mainly
“honest people trying to get ahead.”

Even in the Republican Party, Trump’s characterizations reflect a minority
view. Among Republicans, 66 percent say undocumented immigrants from Mexico
are mainly honest, while 19 percent say they are mainly undesirable.

There is clear resistance to his candidacy within the party. A majority (54
percent) say his views do not reflect the core values of the Republican
Party.

If Trump were to receive the GOP nomination, 62 percent of Americans say
they definitely would not consider voting for him. In contrast, just over 4
in 10 say they would definitely not consider voting for Clinton, Bush or
Sanders.

Trump, however, could become a factor if he were to leave the GOP race and
run for president as an independent. The survey shows that in a
hypothetical three-way race, Clinton is at 46 percent, Bush is at 30
percent and Trump is at 20 percent among registered voters.

Trump takes more support away from Bush than Clinton in such a contest. In
a head-to-head matchup, Clinton tops Bush by 50 percent to 44 percent among
registered voters.

At this point, big majorities in each party say they are satisfied with
their choices in the presidential race, with Democrats slightly more so.
But compared to this time four years ago, Republicans are noticeably more
satisfied with their field of candidates today.

The Post-ABC News poll was conducted July 16-19 among a random national
sample of 1,002 adults, including landline and cellphone respondents.
Overall results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5
percentage points. Full results of the poll and detailed methodology are
available here.

*Breaking Down the GOP Silence on Trump’s Immigration Rhetoric
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/20/breaking-down-the-gop-silence-on-trumps-immigration-rhetoric/>
// WSJ // Dan Schnur – July 20, 2015 *

John McCain is a war hero. The overwhelming majority of immigrants from
Mexico are not rapists. And it’s time for Donald Trump to go home.

None of these sentences should be particularly difficult for a Republican
presidential candidate to say out loud. But while the contenders for the
GOP nomination (appropriately) rushed to Sen. McCain’s defense this
weekend, the question remains: Why did they hesitate to forcefully
criticize Mr. Trump during the weeks he was attacking immigrants rather
than war veterans?

Hillary Clinton noted this disparity, albeit before inaccurately conflating
Mr. Trump’s statements on immigration policy with the rest of the
Republican field. But Mrs. Clinton’s misrepresentation of Jeb Bush, Marco
Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and others on this issue was made easier by the lack
of strength, speed, and clarity of their rejections of Mr. Trump’s message.

It was Rick Perry who finally denounced Mr. Trump with force and anger: He
called the real estate mogul’s statements “a toxic mix of demagoguery and
nonsense.” But even Mr. Perry’s condemnation came weeks after Mr. Trump
joined the race, a stark contrast with the speed with which Republican
candidates rejected Mr. Trump’s insult of Sen. McCain.

There is no question that veterans are a much more integral part of the GOP
coalition than Latinos. But the Republican Party is struggling to gain
support among minority voters, and the frail and faint nature of GOP
candidates’ repudiation of Mr. Trump’s rhetoric was an important missed
opportunity. For the other immigration hard-liners in the 2016 field, Mr.
Trump has merely expressed their position in harsher and more inflammatory
language. For those candidates who support a path to citizenship or other
legal status, simply differentiating themselves from Mr. Trump without
excoriating him was insufficient.

A sizable portion of the Republican base virulently opposes immigration
reform, so Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio have been forced to tread carefully on
this issue (much as Mrs. Clinton has tried to tiptoe through the ongoing
debate over trade). And for Mr. Bush, the prospect of a Trump independent
candidacy next fall is likely to bring back memories of the damage that
Ross Perot did to his father’s candidacy in the 1992 campaign.

Armchair quarterbacks and romantics like myself yearn for candidates to
stand up to the most extreme elements in their party, the way Bill Clinton
and George W. Bush did in their first presidential campaigns. Mr. Clinton’s
denunciation of rap singer Sister Souljah, who had publicly speculated
about the mass murder of white Americans, is regarded as a particularly
evocative moment in political history.

But Sister Souljah was not a billionaire running for president. And Mr.
Clinton’s goal of separating himself from Jesse Jackson was not nearly as
risky as it will be for Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio to state their positions in
the face of much more formidable opposition from their party’s base.

This challenge is about to get even harder. In two weeks, Mr. Bush and Mr.
Rubio could be on a debate stage with Mr. Trump. Navigating around him to
the GOP nomination requires an approach that lies somewhere between
accommodation and self-immolation.

*Trump's self-paid presidential run means he's not going away
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4ffc0492133a4988bf0110e452f86b67/gop-sheds-cautious-approach-trump-he-may-not-care>
// AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 20, 2015 *

Donald Trump faced an avalanche of fresh criticism Monday for questioning
Sen. John McCain's heroism. But he's getting no pressure at all from the
one community that could push a candidate out of the 2016 presidential
race: political donors.

The billionaire businessman is paying for his own campaign, and that means
Republicans may have him around far longer than some party leaders would
like.

"Nobody leaves a race because they get tired, or because they think they
don't have the votes. They leave the race because they run out of money,"
said Frank Luntz, a GOP pollster. "Donald Trump will never run out of
money, and that makes him incredibly powerful."

Indeed, Republican operatives suggest that Trump enjoys a rare freedom.

Because he doesn't need tens of millions of dollars from wealthy donors — a
notoriously risk-averse crowd — the standard rules of politics simply don't
apply. He can afford, literally, to continue dropping the verbal bombs that
have defined his presidential campaign since the day he joined the 2016
contest in June.

At his formal announcement last month, Trump said illegal immigrants from
Mexico are prisoners and rapists. Then, at a conservative summit in Iowa
last weekend, he dismissed McCain's reputation as a war hero, saying of the
Arizona senator who was once a prisoner in Vietnam, "I like people who
weren't captured."

Critics began piling on Trump immediately, and new voices emerged on
Monday, from veterans groups, Republican colleagues and President Barack
Obama's spokesman, who defended McCain and called on Trump to apologize.

Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said
Monday that Trump's "asinine comments" were "an insult to everyone who has
ever worn the uniform — and to all Americans."

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said veterans "are entitled to an
apology."

A candidate reliant on campaign contributions probably would be feeling the
pain by now.

Yet the self-funded Trump has shown little sign of backing down. He leveled
new criticism against the McCain on Monday, saying the senator had made
America "less safe" through his votes in Congress. The real estate
executive also lashed out at fellow GOP presidential aspirants who have
criticized his remarks, calling them "failed politicians."

Trump said he did not need "to be lectured by any of them."

"If he were dependent on donors for his campaign, he would find the vast
majority of donors would be looking for other candidates at this point,"
said Fred Malek, who has raised money for Republican presidential hopefuls
for four decades.

Presidential competitors in both parties, and the outside groups supporting
them, have already raised about $400 million for the 2016 White House
contest, the majority of the money coming from donors who face no limits on
their contributions.

Trump hasn't solicited a dime. Reports filed last week with federal
regulators show he loaned his campaign $1.8 million. His campaign has never
held a fundraising dinner where attendees pay the legal maximum of $2,700
to attend, and he has never sent email asking for others to chip in $25.
Both are hallmarks of a traditional presidential candidate.

"I don't need anybody's money. It's nice," Trump proclaimed during his
presidential announcement June 16 in New York City. "I'm using my own
money. I'm not using the lobbyists. I'm not using donors. I don't care. I'm
really rich."

Trump filed details of his personal wealth with federal regulators last
week that declare a net worth in excess of $10 billion.

"Being a billionaire means you're the master of your own domain," Luntz
said.

He would know: Luntz once worked for Texas businessman H. Ross Perot,
perhaps the best-known presidential candidate who paid his own way. In
1992, Perot ran as an independent candidate, using almost $64 million of
his fortune to get his name on ballots across the country.

This year, with Republican Party pressure building, Luntz wonders if Trump
will break off and go the Perot third-party route.

"You may be able to look back on this day as the beginning" of that
campaign, he said. "You make up your own rules."

On the other hand, a self-financed candidate can also be his or her own
worst enemy, said Ed Rollins, Perot's onetime campaign manager.

Rollins predicted Trump would follow the same path as his former boss: off
a cliff.

Perot was polling ahead of the major-party candidates in June before the
election but ended up not winning a single state in November.

"He first promised to spend whatever it took to win, and we presented him
with a budget of about $450 million," Rollins said. "He balked at that. He
argued over every item. The Ross Perots, the Donald Trumps, they don't want
to be told what to do."

*No, media, Donald Trump isn't done
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/no-media-donald-trump-isnt-done-210882.html>
// Politico // Dylan Byers – July 20, 2015 *

Did you read the news this weekend? Donald Trump's candidacy is done. Over.
Dead. Kaput.

“DON VOYAGE! Trump is toast after insult," the New York Post announced on
Sunday's front page, one day after Trump told Iowa voters that Sen. John
McCain wasn't a war hero. The conservative journal Commentary declared the
same.

In the more august pages of The New York Times, Nate Cohn declared the
event "a turning point," and "a shift that will probably mark the moment
when Trump’s candidacy went from boom to bust."

Boom to Bust! Trump, who had rocketed to the top of a crowded Republican
field, besting Jeb Bush in the most recent Fox News and USA Today/Suffolk
University polls, had just rung his campaign's death knell, the articles
suggested.

On Monday, the Times' political team took a more measured tone: "It remains
to be seen whether Mr. Trump’s standing in public opinion surveys will
suffer from the episode with Mr. McCain," one article stated.

With good reason: Later the same day, Monmouth University released a survey
showing that Trump's standing with Iowa voters -- second only to Scott
Walker -- remained unchanged: "The poll did not find any significant change
in support for Trump in interviews conducted after his comments about John
McCain’s military service," Monmouth said.

Public opinion can be slow to change, and it is certainly possible that
days of negative headlines could influence voter sentiment heavily. But the
rush to declare Trump's candidacy dead -- especially when journalists on
the ground were reporting that many attendees "were not nearly as offended"
as party officials -- is premature at best.

The next national survey for the Republican field is set to be released
early Monday evening. Like the Monmouth poll, it will likely include data
from both before and after Trump's remarks about McCain. A strong showing
from Trump won't be proof that he's weathered the storm, any more than the
media's gut reaction was proof that he wouldn't. But it should serve as a
reminder to exercise caution before acting as coroner.

UPDATE (5:17 p.m.): An ABC News/Washington Post poll published at 5 p.m. ET
on Monday had Trump leading the Republican field with a whopping 24
percent, far ahead of Scott Walker (13%) and Jeb Bush (12%).

However, the poll was conducted between Thursday and Sunday, and the poll
notes that "Trump’s support was conspicuously lower Sunday than in the
three previous days." Specifically: "Trump’s support was 28 percent in this
survey’s first three nights of polling. While the sample size of registered
leaned Republicans on Sunday is quite small, he dropped to the single
digits that day."

The Sunday sample size was indeed quite small: Just 82 Republicans and
Republican-leaning independents, only 65 of whom who reported being
registered to vote. So, once again: Caution.

*Trump’s Waterloo? Don’t count on it
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trumps-waterloo-dont-count-on-it-120374.html>
// Politico // Ben Schreckinger & Danile Strauss – July 20, 2015 *

When Donald Trump derided John McCain’s war hero status on Saturday and set
off a media firestorm, many in the Republican establishment thought he had
finally self-destructed. They can keep dreaming.

Trump’s partisans are disappointed. But they’re disappointed in McCain, the
media and the party establishment, not Trump.

Interviews with his supporters in New Hampshire and the first drips of
polling data suggest the mogul’s core constituency has no intention of
abandoning him over the dust-up.

“I don’t like McCain anyways, to be perfectly frank with you,” said Jerry
DeLemus, a Marine Corps veteran and Republican activist in New Hampshire.
DeLemus said he was a supporter of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz before formally
signing on to support Trump on Sunday.

He said Trump’s comments the day before — “He’s not a war hero,” said Trump
of McCain at a gathering of religious conservatives in Iowa, adding, “He’s
a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured” —
do nothing to shake his support and that it’s McCain who should have to
answer for his treatment of veterans.

“You think about [McCain] calling all the supporters of Trump ‘crazies,’”
said DeLemus. “How many of those guys are veterans? Trump didn’t insult
veterans. He went after McCain.”

DeLemus called the party establishment’s outrage “disingenuous,” given its
support for the dubious claims made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a
group that claimed Kerry did not deserve his military accolades, which
include the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Heart medals,
when he ran for president against George W. Bush in 2004.

“For the mainstream media to take Mr. Trump’s comments out of context are
very unfortunate and clearly in an effort to try to torpedo his candidacy,”
said Lou Gargiulo, Trump’s Rockingham County, New Hampshire, co-chairman,
who served in the Army. “He has spoken about the plight of veterans and as
a veteran myself, I find people taking those comments out of context very
unfortunate.”

“People are out there looking for an opening to try to rip Donald Trump
down, and we don’t want to lose sight of what’s most important,“ said New
Hampshire state Rep. Steve Stepanek, who has endorsed Trump.

Early indications from Iowa polling are also showing that for Trump’s
supporters, his comments only burnish the brash, blunt image that drew them
to the businessman in the first place.

In a Monmouth poll conducted from Thursday through Sunday, Trump registered
13 percent support among likely Republican caucus-goers surveyed on
Thursday and Friday, before Trump derided McCain on Saturday morning. His
support among likely caucus-goers surveyed on Saturday and Sunday was also
13 percent, putting him second only to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and 5
points ahead of the third-place candidate, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

While two days of Iowa polling represent a limited sample size, and many
respondents may not have processed Trump’s remarks by the time they
registered their preference, the poll gives no indication that Trump’s
supporters are peeling away.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t any fallout.

A national ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted during the same period
did show Trump’s support dropping off significantly on Sunday night, though
that sample consisted of fewer than 200 voters and the poll’s overall
results still showed Trump surging to a commanding national lead with 24
percent support, 11 points ahead of his nearest rival, Scott Walker.

“It doesn’t have me worried at all,” said Trump’s campaign manager, Corey
Lewandowski, of the Sunday night drop-off. Nor does a call from former
Texas Gov. Rick Perry for Trump to drop out of the race because of the
comments. “We don’t respond to Rick Perry,” he said.

Trump has also caught the scorn of veterans groups, including the Military
Officers Association of America, which have called on Trump to apologize.
Richard Weidman, executive director for policy and government affairs of
Vietnam Veterans for America, said the mogul’s comments were especially
“outrageous” because he received five deferments that allowed him to avoid
serving in the war.

For his part, McCain on Monday morning said that while he doesn’t need an
apology from Trump, other veterans deserve one.

But even Trump’s detractors who are also veterans are skeptical he has done
himself any harm.

“I think Donald Trump is way off-base here and he’s a bit of an
embarrassment to the political process,” said Brandon Friedman, an Iraq and
Afghanistan veteran and CEO of the McPherson Square Group, a strategic
communications firm that often works on veterans affairs.

“For normal politicians, this would obviously be very damaging,” said
Friedman, a Democrat who also served in the Obama administration as a
deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. “But Donald Trump is kind of a force.”

He added, “Under normal circumstances, if veterans groups mobilized and
really rallied their constituents, you would see Trump’s poll numbers drop.
… But I think it’s very hard to predict right now how this is going to go.”

Jonathan Freeman, an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran from Iowa who served as
the deputy veterans outreach coordinator for Obama’s 2008 campaign, said
Trump’s attack on McCain’s service “befuddles the mind.” But he also said
that Trump’s follow-up attack, during which he refused to apologize for his
comments in a press availability on Saturday and instead went after
McCain’s record on veterans issues, resonates with many former service
members. “As of 2008, [McCain] had not actually done that much for
veterans.”

And Democrats are taking Republicans’ fast-and-furious condemnation of
Trump as an opportunity to remind voters of the party’s support — in
particular, Jeb Bush’s support — for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

“Enough with the slanderous attacks,” Bush tweeted in response to Trump on
Saturday. “@SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans - particularly POWs have
earned our respect and admiration.”

But in January 2005, Democrats quickly pointed out, the former Florida
governor praised the campaign to impugn Kerry’s record of service.

“Thank you for your personal support of my brother in his re-election,”
Bush wrote to the late George Day, who worked on behalf of the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth and also shared a prison cell with McCain in Vietnam. “I
know you will be joining other Swifties — POWs in Orlando soon. Please let
them know that I am personally appreciative of their service to our nation.
As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I
simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand
up against John Kerry.”

Trump, who remains unapologetic, appears to believe he can shift the focus
of the debate rather than retract his comments. “This story is no longer
about John McCain, it’s about our horribly treated vets. Illegals are
treated better than our wonderful veterans,” he tweeted on Monday.

Trump has also touted his contributions to veterans’ causes, saying he gave
over $1 million for the building of a Vietnam veterans memorial in New York
and another $1 million for a parade to honor veterans in New York in 1995.
“A Trump administration will provide premium universal access health care
for our veterans,” he said in a statement. “They will be able to get the
best care anytime and anywhere.”

*Donald Trump's no-apology tour
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-john-mccain-feud-veterans-usa-today-op-ed-120347.html>
// Politico // Nick Gass – July 20, 2015 *

For all the words coming out of Donald Trump’s mouth since he declared his
run for the White House, there have been two words missing: I’m sorry.

He’s even doubling down on his comments about Sen. John McCain’s time as a
prisoner of war in Vietnam, comments that had many saying this is it, now
he’s crossed the line.

“He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like
people who weren’t captured,” Trump said during his appearance at the
Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa.

In the past 24 hours, Trump again tried to flip the script, telling NBC’s
Matt Lauer that the media is distorting his words and saying in a USA Today
op-ed that his critics should be the ones feeling shame for their
willingness to lecture him.

The outrage has been swift. Jeb Bush called on him to stop the “slanderous
attacks.” Rick Perry said he should withdraw from the race. Marco Rubio
said the comments should disqualify him for the presidency.

Even Secretary of State John Kerry, focused on the landmark Iran deal and
the warming ties with Cuba, was moved to issue a statement: “If anyone
doesn’t know that John McCain is a war hero, it only proves they know
nothing about war and even less about heroism.”

McCain is showing self-restraint. Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on
Monday morning, the five-term senator who spent more than five years in the
“Hanoi Hilton” as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said Trump does not owe him
those two words.

But he said others deserve an apology.

“I think he may owe an apology to the families of those who have sacrificed
in conflict and those who have undergone the prison experience of serving
their country,” McCain said.

“I’m not a hero, but those who were my senior ranking officers, people like
Col. Bud Day, a congressional Medal of Honor winner, and those that have
inspired us to do things that we otherwise wouldn’t have been capable of
doing. Those are the people that I think he owes an apology to,” McCain
said.

Trump doesn’t appear close to offering one, and in general, apologies don’t
seem to come easily for Trump. When asked at the Iowa summit over the
weekend about whether he has ever asked God for forgiveness for his
actions, Trump replied, “I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a
better job from there. I don’t think so,” he said.

And in the Monday morning interview with Lauer, Trump again blasted McCain
for what he called the “terrible job” he has done for veterans, and
continued his double-speak style of explaining himself.

“We talk about John McCain, and I think it’s great. He is a very brave man
and all of that, but we don’t talk about the people who weren’t captured,
and that’s what I was trying to refer to, and I think I did. And by the
way, if you see the news conference right afterwards, a few minutes
afterwards, everything was perfect,” Trump said, referring to a press
availability after the event in Iowa.

“I never even thought this would be an issue,” Trump added. “My opponents
have brought it up. These are guys who have zeros in the polls.”

Trump’s comments about McCain poured gallons of gasoline on an already
raging fire within the Republican party on what do about the real estate
mogul and the collateral damage he’s creating.

The fire started on Day One. In his announcement speech on June 16, during
the rambling hour-long discourse, Trump made big and lasting headlines by
saying the U.S. has become a dumping ground for Mexican immigrants who are
rapists and drug peddlers.

As Trump doubled down, and tripled down, and quadrupled down, and so forth,
on the comments, Republicans have failed to find a unified response.

Some third-tier candidates, desperate for a bump in the polls that could
help get them in the first debate on Aug. 6, have exploited the comments
with shame-on-you smackdowns to grab some of the spotlight for themselves.

Others have held their tongue. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is arguably being
hurt most by Trump’s recent ownership of uncompromising, anti-establishment
rhetoric, has declined to criticize him, and even met up with Trump while
in New York on Friday.

The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, has deployed a combination of
direct engagement and public condemnations to rein in Trump, with little
success.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus reportedly called Trump a couple weeks ago to
tell him to “tone it down” — a phone call that Trump later spun into an
atta-boy.

On Saturday RNC spokesman Sean Spicer issued a written statement,
denouncing Trump’s latest remarks.

“Senator McCain is an American hero because he served his country and
sacrificed more than most can imagine. Period. There is no place in our
party or our country for comments that disparage those who have served
honorably,” Spicer said.

But Trump’s not ready to back down.

“He’s terrible,” Trump said on Monday morning about McCain. “And he’s doing
a horrible job with the vets.”

*Palin calls both McCain and Trump heroes
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/politics/john-mccain-donald-trump-sarah-palin-hero/>
// CNN // Jake Tapper – July 20, 2015 *

Asked about the dispute between Donald Trump and Sen. John McCain,
R-Arizona -- the candidate at the top of the ticket when she was 2008
Republican vice presidential nominee -- former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin
Monday afternoon called both men heroes.

"I have the good fortune of knowing both John McCain and Donald Trump
well," Palin told CNN in an email. "Both men have more in common than the
today's media hype would have you believe. Both blazed trails in their
careers and love our great nation."

Palin, who attached a photograph of McCain returning from Vietnam to her
email, wrote, "Sen. McCain dedicated his life to serving our country, and
in my humble opinion the sacrifices made by all ethical service members are
heroic -- putting it all on the line to defend freedom IS heroic -- and
Donald Trump is a hero in another arena."

"Trump is the candidate giving voice to untold millions of fed-up Americans
witnessing a purposeful destruction of our economy and the equal
opportunity for success that made America exceptional," Palin said. "We're
watching career politicians throw away our kids' future through bankrupting
public budgets and ripping open our porous borders which, obvious to all us
non-politicians, puts us at great risk."

Seeming to take issue with some of the language used by McCain in the past
to describe attendees at Trump rallies and some of the Senate tea party
members, Palin added, "Everywhere I go, hard-working patriotic Americans --
not 'crazies' or 'wacko birds' -- ask me to pass on to Mr. Trump
encouragement to keep educating the masses about true ramifications of
illegal immigration, and in general the real state of our union."

Palin concluded by recommending both Trump and McCain "resolve the media
driven wedge between them."

"We can keep the debate focused on significant issues at hand," she said.
"I leave politics of personal destruction to those on the Left and lazy
media lapdogs who's only take away from any debate is any salacious
slip-up, as if they've never wanted to restate something they've publicly
uttered."

"I'll fight the exhausting, divisive strategy that's taken hold under the
current crop of politicians who refuse to allow our United States to unite.
Both Mr. Trump and Sen. McCain can contribute their gifts and talents to
join that fight to work together, because the Left is headed the other
direction and under that desired division we will fall," she said.

*Donald Trump writes op-ed slamming McCain, Sanders
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/politics/donald-trump-john-mccain-oped/> //
CNN // Deena Zaru – July 20, 2015 *

After a weekend full of backlash for his comments saying former POW Sen.
John McCain is "not a war hero," Donald Trump put his defiance in writing.

In an op-ed for USA Today published Sunday, Trump writes that the Arizona
Republican "has failed the state of Arizona and the country."

Trump renewed his attacks on McCain and writes "The reality is that John
McCain the politician has made America less safe, sent our brave soldiers
into wrong-headed foreign adventures, covered up for President Obama with
the VA scandal and has spent most of his time in the Senate pushing
amnesty."

Trump also wants Republican presidential candidates who blasted him for his
comments on McCain to know that he doesn't care.

"A number of my competitors for the Republican nomination have no business
running for president. I do not need to be lectured by any of them," Trump
writes. "Many are failed politicians or people who would be unable to
succeed in the private sector. Some, however, I have great respect for."

Trump could be referring to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who recently met with
Trump and has declined to denounce his comments on McCain.

Trump criticizes Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who is a
former Chairman of the Senate Veteran's Affairs Committee. Sanders was the
head of the committee during the Veteran's Affairs scandal last year which
led to the resignation of Secretary Eric Shinseki.

"Thanks to McCain and his Senate colleague Bernie Sanders, their
legislation to cover up the VA scandal, in which 1,000+ veterans died
waiting for medical care, made sure no one has been punished, charged,
jailed, fined or held responsible," Trump writes.

*Donald Trump Hits New High in Poll of Republicans
<http://time.com/3965192/donald-trump-john-mccain-poll/> // TIME // Sarah
Begley – jUly 20, 2015 *

Republican voters favor Donald Trump over any other GOP contender for the
2016 presidential race, according to a new poll by the Washington Post and
ABC News.

The poll shows a new high of 24% of registered Republicans and
Republican-leaning registered voters saying they would vote for Trump if
their state primary were being held today. That is nearly twice as much
support in the poll as his runner up, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, whom 13%
support.

(Trump’s previous high was 18 percent in a Fox News poll conducted July
13-15.)

The last day of the poll coincided with Trump’s controversial statement
that Sen. John McCain is “not a war hero,” so it’s not clear yet if those
remarks have hurt his standing with voters, although many Republicans have
criticized Trump over them. There was some statistically significant
drop-off in support for him on that day, however.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush placed third in the poll, with 12% saying they
would vote for him, followed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee with 8%.

On the left, Hillary Clinton is completely dominant with 63% of Democrats
and Democratic-leaning registered voters saying they would choose her; Sen.
Bernie Sanders comes in second place at 14%, closely trailed by Vice
President Joe Biden (who has not declared himself as a candidate) at 12%.

The poll of 1,002 adults was conducted with cell phone and landline
respondents from July 16-19. It has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage
points.

*Donald Trump Is The World’s Greatest Troll
<http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-the-worlds-greatest-troll/>
// FiveThirtyEight // Nate Silver – July 20, 2015 *

“A troll,” according to one definition, “is a person who sows discord … by
starting arguments or upsetting people … with the deliberate intent of
provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting
normal on-topic discussion.”

The goal of the troll is to provoke a reaction by any means necessary.
Trolls thrive in communities that are open and democratic (they wouldn’t be
invited into a discussion otherwise) and which operate in presumed good
faith (there need to be some standards of decorum to offend). Presidential
nomination contests are highly susceptible to trolling, therefore. Access
is fairly open: There’s no longer much of a filter between the campaigns,
the media and the public. And it’s comically easy to provoke a reaction.
How many times between now and next November will we hear that a
candidate’s statement is “offensive,” whether or not it really is?

Trolls operate on the principle that negative attention is better than
none. In fact, the troll may feed off the negative attention, claiming it
makes him a victim and proves that everyone is out to get him.

Sound like any presidential candidates you know?

There’s a notion that Donald Trump’s recent rise in Republican polls is a
media-driven creation. That explanation isn’t entirely wrong, but it’s
incomplete. It skims over the complex interactions between the media, the
public and the candidates, which can produce booms and busts of attention.
And it ignores how skilled trolls like Trump can exploit the process to
their benefit.

Let’s look at some data. In the chart below, I’ve tracked how media
coverage has been divided among the Republican candidates over roughly the
past month (the data covers June 14 through July 12), according to article
counts on Google News. In turn, I’ve shown the share of Google searches for
each candidate over the same period. The data was provided to
FiveThirtyEight by Google but should closely match what you’ll get by
searching on Google Trends or Google News yourself.

Even before his imbecilic comments about Sen. John McCain this weekend,
which came too recently to be included in this data, Trump was receiving
far more media attention than any other Republican. Based on Google News,
46 percent of the media coverage of the GOP campaign over the past month
was directed toward Trump, more than for Jeb Bush (13 percent), Chris
Christie (9 percent), Scott Walker (8 percent), Bobby Jindal (6 percent),
Ted Cruz (4 percent) and Marco Rubio (4 percent) combined.

And yet, the public is perhaps even more obsessed with Trump. Among the GOP
candidates, he represented 62 percent of the Google search traffic over the
past month, having been searched for more than six times as often as
second-place Bush.

So if the press were going purely by public demand, there might be even
more Trump coverage. Instead, the amount of press coverage that each
candidate has received has been modulated by the media’s perception of how
likely each is to win the nomination.

The chart I showed you above contained data on each GOP candidate’s chances
of winning the nomination, according to the prediction market Betfair.1
Candidates who are perceived as having a credible chance to win the
nomination — like Bush, Walker and Rubio — receive proportionally more
media attention than public attention. The reverse is true for candidates
who are seen by the press as long shots, such as Rand Paul and Ben Carson.2

As is usually the case, however, life gets more complicated when we go from
identifying correlations to trying to understand their causes. As we’ve
seen, press coverage is highly correlated with the level of public interest
in a candidate and the candidate’s perceived chances of winning the
nomination. It could be, however, that public attention to a candidate is
triggered by media coverage rather than the other way around. Likewise,
while the media might be fairly sophisticated at identifying which
candidates are more likely to win and provide correspondingly more coverage
of them, the media can also produce a self-fulfilling prophecy. Being
ignored by the media or labeled as a loser can make it hard for a candidate
to attract money, endorsements and other resources that might allow them to
make a comeback.

We can aspire to determine causality by comparing the timing of Google News
and Google search hits for a candidate. If the press drives public interest
in the candidates, spikes in Google News should precede spikes in Google
searches. If instead the press is reacting to the public, Google News hits
will lag search.

Unfortunately, this isn’t so easy to determine. Shifts in public and media
attention tend to occur at about the same time — as you can see, for
example, in the graphic below, which compares Trump’s Google News and
Google search traffic from week to week.

But a regression analysis — you can read the gory details in the footnotes3
— suggests that press attention both leads and lags public attention to the
candidates. This makes a lot of sense. The public can take cues from the
media about which candidates to pay attention to. But the media also gets a
lot of feedback from the public. Or to put it more cynically: If
Trump-related stories are piling up lots of pageviews and Trump-related TV
segments get good ratings, then guess what? You’re probably going to see
more of them.4

This creates the possibility of a feedback loop. Some event sparks a news
story about a candidate, which triggers more public attention, which
encourages yet more media attention — and so on. It may help to explain why
we’ve repeatedly seen the so-called “discovery, scrutiny and decline” cycle
in the past two primary campaigns for candidates like Trump, Newt Gingrich
and Herman Cain — bursts of attention that coincide with spikes in the
polls but then fade or even burst after several weeks.

These “bounces” aren’t entirely new. Presidential candidates usually get a
temporary bounce in support following their party’s convention, for
example. But the polls in the 2012 Republican campaign were far more
volatile than those in any previous nomination race. We’re really just
getting started in 2016, but it’s been pretty wild as well. Bounces that
might have happened once in a cycle now seem to occur all the time.

So if these spikes are media-driven, they seem to be driven by some
particularly modern features of the media landscape. Social media allows
candidates to make news without the filter of the press. It may also
encourage groupthink among and between reporters and readers, however. And
access to real-time traffic statistics can mean that everyone is writing
the same “takes” and chasing the same eyeballs at once. Is the tyranny of
the Twitter mob better or worse than the “Boys on the Bus” model of a group
of (mostly white, male, upper-middle-class, left-of-center) reporters
deigning to determine what’s news and what isn’t? I don’t know, but it’s
certainly different. And it seems to be producing a higher velocity of
movement in the polls and in the tenor of media coverage.

Trolls are skilled at taking advantage of this landscape and making the
news cycle feed on its own tail, accelerating the feedback loop and
producing particularly large bounces and busts in the polls. In 2012,
Gingrich’s whole strategy seemed to involve trolling the media, and he went
through a couple of boom-and-bust cycles in polls. In 2008, Sarah Palin,
though beloved by Republicans, was brilliant at trolling Democrats and the
media. She was extremely popular at first, although her popularity was
ultimately short-lived.

Trump has taken trolling to the next level by being willing to offend
members of his own party. Ordinarily, this would be a counterproductive
strategy. In a 16-candidate field, however, you can be in first place with
15 or 20 percent of the vote — even if the other 80 or 85 percent of voters
hate your guts.

In the long run — as our experience with past trolls shows — Trump’s
support will probably fade. Or at least, given his high unfavorable
ratings, it will plateau, and other candidates will surpass him as the rest
of the field consolidates.

It’s much harder to say what will happen to Trump’s polling in the near
term, however. That’s in part because it’s hard to say exactly what was
driving his support in the first place. Trump wasn’t doing especially well
with tea party voters or with any other identifiable group of Republicans.
My guess is that his support reflected a combination of (i) low-information
voters who recognized his name and (ii) voters who share Trump’s disdain
for the trappings of the political establishment and (iii) voters who were
treating him as an inside joke or a protest vote, making him vaguely like
an American equivalent of Beppe Grillo. None of them will necessarily be
deterred from declaring their support for him because of his comments about
McCain. Some of them might even be encouraged.

But what if you want Trump to go away now?

The media isn’t going to stop paying attention to Trump. Nor should it,
really: His candidacy is a political story and not just “entertainment.”5

Republicans are another matter, however. They might rightly be concerned
that Trump is tarnishing their brand image or at least meddling with their
already-challenging task of choosing a candidate. Other Republicans should
resist the temptation to extend the news cycle by firing back at him,
however — even when what he says is genuinely offensive.6

After 12 years of writing on the Internet, I’ve learned that the old adage
is true. Don’t feed the troll. The only way to kill a troll like Trump is
to deprive him of attention.

*Has Trump gone too far?
<http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9002547/trump-gone-too-far> // VOX //
Jonathan Allen – July 20, 2015 *

Donald Trump continues to test the tenets of Politics 101. The rule he's
breaking this time: Don't get in a scrap with someone who has less to lose
than you do.

When the real estate mogul and former TV star vaulted to the top of
Republican presidential primary polls, his rivals for the nomination tried
to handle him with kid gloves. No one wanted to kindle his already ignited
base or risk the optics of getting in a public fight with a character they
hoped would buckle under the weight of his own inexperience. That didn't
work so well — at least not at first. The Donald kept rising in the polls
and is now the leader.

But he's been baited into a fight with 2008 Republican nominee John McCain,
and many political analysts — particularly GOP strategists who hope it's
true — think this is the beginning of the end of the Trump phenomenon.

McCain, an Arizona senator playing the role of elder statesman, has taken
umbrage at Trump's hard-line rhetoric and positioning on unauthorized
immigrants, specifically at a recent rally in Phoenix. Trump "fired up the
crazies," McCain told the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza last week. He also noted
that Hillary Clinton had attended a Trump wedding — "I don’t know which
wedding it was," he said, pointing to the fact that Trump has been married
repeatedly.

When Trump responded, he touched an electrified political third rail of
politics by challenging McCain's war record. "He’s not a war hero," Trump
said in Iowa Saturday. "He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like
people who weren’t captured."

That set off a backlash among Republicans, many of whom were looking for a
reason to go after Trump. "America’s POWs deserve much better than to have
their service questioned by the offensive rantings of Donald Trump," Marco
Rubio tweeted.

Trump fell into a traditional political trap by getting in a fight with
McCain, overstepping what some considered a line of decency in attacking a
war veteran and letting his rivals come to McCain's defense while he
refused to apologize. But traditional political rules don't always seem to
apply to Trump.

Kevin Madden, a top adviser to 2008 and 2012 presidential candidate Mitt
Romney, said Trump's not playing at a strategic level.

"We're overthinking it," he told Vox. "Trump doesn't have any strategy
other than to be the ringleader of his own media circus. So when we try to
assess his moves tactically, we're overlooking the fact that he's only
interested in one thing, which is putting Donald Trump in the middle of the
conversation."

But given that Trump's anti-immigration base hates McCain, it's not clear
how much he loses by going after the Arizona senator. It will be
interesting to see whether this is the tipping point at which Trump starts
to fade or another data point in the case that the basic rules of politics
don't apply to him.

*Donald Trump has his biggest poll lead yet (but he's still not going to
win) <http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9006799/donald-trump-poll> // VOX //
Andrew Prokop – July 20, 2015 *

In a new national poll, Donald Trump just got his best result yet — he's
surged to an 11-point lead, leaving the rest of his Republican rivals in
the dust.

Most of the new Washington Post/ABC News poll was taken before Trump's
controversial remarks on John McCain's military service, so any impact
those may have on the race aren't yet clear. But the celebrity mogul has
now led three of the past four national polls, and his lead in this one is
the largest any GOP presidential candidate has held in any national poll
tracked by RealClearPolitics this year:

Again, it's important not to get carried away by this result. Trump is not
going to win the nomination. Winning 24 percent of Republicans is
impressive in a crowded field, but it's still very far away from a majority
of the party. Additionally, Trump's polling surge resembles those of past
"outsider" candidates known for saying provocative things, like Michele
Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain — candidates who all eventually
collapsed. GOP elites will go to the mattresses to stop Trump, who looks
toxic in a general election, from being their nominee. Trump's candidacy
may collapse well before the first ballots are cast, and even if it
survives until then, the party will eventually find a non-Trump alternative
to unify around.

Yet one risk inherent to that is that Trump could fund his own third-party
candidacy — and this new poll finds that in a three-way race, Hillary
Clinton would get 46 percent, Jeb Bush 30 percent, and Trump 20 percent.

Trump's decline could occur sooner, though, and some pundits are
speculating that his statement that John McCain isn't really a war hero
could repel GOP voters. "Support for Trump fell sharply on the one night
that voters were surveyed following those comments," according to the
Post's Dan Balz and Peyton Craighill, who added: "Although the sample size
for the final day was small, the decline was statistically significant."

And even if Trump does somehow, in some way, defy the odds and end up the
GOP nominee, this same poll shows that a clear majority of general election
voters — 62 percent — "definitely would not" vote for Trump:

As for Trump's rivals, Scott Walker, with a post-announcement bump, comes
in second here with 13 percent support, while Jeb Bush is just behind him
with 12 percent. These aren't particularly strong results for the two
candidates generally considered to be the most plausible GOP nominees.

But as I wrote last week, the real losers from Trumpmentum are all the
other candidates in the race, who are less known and desperately need media
attention. From Marco Rubio to Ted Cruz to Chris Christie, the GOP field is
so crowded right now, with 15 candidates and two more expected to jump in
soon, that the key challenge most contenders face is simply getting anyone
to pay attention to them. And that's extremely difficult with Trump in the
race, being covered obsessively by the media — and partially justifying
that coverage by polling so strongly.

*Donald Trump Gains Yet Shows Vulnerability in a Crowded, Contentious GOP
Race
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-gains-shows-vulnerability-crowded-contentious-gop/story?id=32576808>
// ABC News // Gary Langer – July 20, 2015 *

Controversial Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump leads the GOP
primary field in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, while also garnering
enough support as a hypothetical independent candidate in the general
election to potentially damage his party’s chances.

That’s even though a majority of Americans, including most Republicans, say
Trump does not represent the Republican Party’s core values, and six in 10
overall – including three in 10 in his own party– say they wouldn’t
consider supporting him for president were he the GOP nominee.

See PDF with full results, charts and tables.

How long the Trump surge lasts is an open question; this poll was conducted
Thursday through Sunday, mostly before his controversial criticism Saturday
of Sen. John McCain’s status as a war hero. And Trump’s support was
conspicuously lower Sunday than in the three previous days.

Trump’s frontrunner status, moreover, reflects the crowded GOP race. He
leads the 16-candidate field with 24 percent support among Republicans and
Republican-leaning independents who are registered to vote, up sharply from
4 percent in May. While enough for a lead, that also means 76 percent
prefer someone else, or none of them.

Scott Walker has 13 percent support, Jeb Bush 12 percent, with the rest in
single digits.

Trump’s support was 28 percent in this survey’s first three nights of
polling. While the sample size of registered leaned Republicans on Sunday
is quite small, he dropped to the single digits that day.

His improvement overall, compared with an ABC/Post poll in May, occurred
largely across the board. Support for Rand Paul dropped by 5 percentage
points, for Ted Cruz by 4 and for several other candidates by generally
non-significant 1- to 3-point margins.

Among groups, Trump’s advanced since May by 7 points among college
graduates, but just to 8 percent, underscoring his weakness in this group.
But – at least until Sunday – his gains otherwise were broad, up, for
example, by 16 points among Republicans, 23 points among GOP-leaning
independents and 20 points among moderates and conservatives alike.

He’s at least numerically ahead, as a result, across many key groups.

Nativists

There’s a nativist element to Trump’s support: He’s backed by 38 percent of
Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who feel that immigrants, overall,
mainly weaken U.S. society. That drops to 12 percent among those who say
immigrants strengthen this country.

Another, related result underscores a disconnect for Trump with the public
overall, one that may pose a challenge for him in the future. Seventy-four
percent of Americans see undocumented immigrants from Mexico as “mainly
honest people trying to get ahead” as opposed to “mainly undesirable people
like criminals.” Trump, again controversially, has said such immigrants
include drug dealers and rapists, while “some, I assume, are good people.”

The question of core values is a potentially difficult one for Trump.
Republicans and Republican-leaning independents by a 24-point margin, 56-32
percent, say his views do not reflect the core values of the Republican
Party (leaned Democrats agree, by a similar 61-32 percent). And 31 percent
of Republicans say they wouldn’t consider voting for Trump were he the
party’s nominee – a large group to lose on his own side. (Just 11 percent
of Democrats, by contrast, rule out supporting Hillary Clinton.)

General

In a general election trial heat, Clinton leads Bush, the GOP fundraising
leader, by a slight 50-44 percent among registered voters. But with Trump
as an independent candidate that goes to 46-30-20 percent,
Clinton-Bush-Trump – with Trump drawing support disproportionately from
Bush, turning a 6-point Clinton advantage into 16 points.

Trump’s support in this three-way matchup was 21 percent from Thursday to
Saturday, vs. 13 percent in Sunday interviews.

These are early days, of course; leaders came and went like flashcards in
the 2012 Republican primary contest, and, as noted, potential fallout from
Trump’s comments on McCain – or his next pronouncements – remains to be
seen. But the results underscore the GOP’s conundrum in responding to
Trump, a billionaire businessman and television celebrity who hasn’t ruled
out an independent run for the presidency.

Among other results in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research
Associates:

The Dems

Clinton retains very broad backing for the Democratic nomination, 63
percent, vs. 14 percent for Bernie Sanders and 12 percent for Joe Biden.
With Biden out (he hasn’t announced a candidacy), most of his support goes
to Clinton, boosting her to 68 percent.

That said, Clinton’s support is less enthusiastic than it might be – 42
percent of her supporters are very enthusiastic about her candidacy. And
while 72 percent of leaned Democrats are satisfied with their choice of
candidates, that compares with 83 percent at this point in 2007.

Sixty-nine percent of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents call
Clinton “about right” ideologically, as opposed to too liberal or too
conservative. That falls to 40 percent for Sanders – not because he’s seen
as too liberal, but because nearly four in 10 don’t know enough about him
to say. Also, despite Sanders’ more liberal image, Clinton wins 64 percent
support from liberals.

She also does 19 points better among women than men in support for the
nomination, and 15 points better among nonwhites than whites.

More GOP

Republican candidates do less well in their base than Clinton in hers on
being seen as “about right” ideologically – 46 percent for Bush, 45 percent
for Marco Rubio, 44 percent for Trump, 38 percent for Walker and 35 percent
for Ted Cruz.

Twenty-two percent call Bush “too liberal” and 17 percent say the same
about Trump. Walker, Cruz and Rubio, like Sanders, have high undecided
numbers on the question.

As shown in the table above (online readers, see the pdf), Bush is notably
weak among very conservative leaned Republicans, with just 6 percent
support – a persistent difficulty for him.

General

A general election match-up between Clinton and Bush is a bit better for
her now (50-44 percent, as noted) than in May, 47-44 percent. That relies,
in part, on a 19-point advantage for Clinton among moderates. (She has 21
percent support among conservatives; Barack Obama won 17 percent of that
group in 2012). Clinton also does 10 points better among women than men (as
did Obama) and far better among under-30s (71 percent support) than their
elders, especially seniors (40 percent). And she has 78 percent support
among nonwhites vs. Bush, compared with 39 percent of whites – margins
again similar to Obama’s in 2012.

Bringing Trump into the mix as an independent reduces Bush’s support in his
better groups, including Republicans (-27 points for Bush with Trump
added), conservatives (-23) and whites (-19).

Another result marks the mood confronting both political parties: Asked
which better represents their own values, a substantial 23 percent of
Americans volunteer that neither does (of the rest, 38 percent pick the
Democrats, 31 percent the Republicans). And in a challenging finding for
candidates trying to find a lever, the public fractures on what attributes
matter most to them – a strong leader (24 percent, peaking among
Republicans), one who’s honest and trustworthy (also 24 percent), one who
shares their values (20 percent) or who understands their problems (17
percent, peaking among Democrats). Two other items finish lower on the list
– having the best experience (10 percent) or the best chance to win (3
percent).

And the pres

As to the president (not the chief focus of this survey, clearly), Obama
continues to encounter difficulties in his popularity overall. While 45
percent of Americans approve of his job performance, more, 50 percent,
disapprove, essentially unchanged from 45-49 percent in May. Despite recent
economic gains he manages just an even split on handling the economy, also
unchanged. Views of the president remain highly polarized.

Methodology

This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cellular
telephone July 16-19, 2015, in English and Spanish, among a random national
sample of 1,002 adults, including 815 registered voters. Results have a
margin of sampling error of 3.5 points for the full sample, and 4.0 for
registered voters, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 30-21-39
percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.

Interviews were conducted Sunday among 200 respondents overall, including
82 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and 65 leaned
Republicans who reported being registered to vote. ABC customarily reports
results for groups at or near 100 respondents, but may make
characterizations of results in smaller groups. Sunday results on Trump
support characterized in this analysis were essentially identical
regardless of registration.

The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New
York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of
New York, N.Y.

*Des Moines Register calls on Donald Trump to drop out
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/des-moines-register-calls-donald-trump-drop-out>
// MSNBC // Adam Howard – July 20, 2015 *

The Des Moines Register, arguably the most influential publication in the
early primary state of Iowa, called on Donald Trump to drop out of the 2016
presidential race in an op-ed published on their website late Monday.

The op-ed comes amid a firestorm of controversy generated by Trump’s
comments about Sen. John McCain’s war record at the Family Leadership
Summit on Saturday. Trump initially said McCain was “not a war hero” during
a Q&A. Although he later clarified that McCain, who was a prisoner of war
in Vietnam for over five years, was “perhaps” a hero, Trump has stubbornly
refused to apologize for his statements.

In the scathing piece penned by the Register’s editorial board, Trump is
accused of being more “focused on promoting himself, and his brand, than in
addressing the problems facing the nation.”

“If he were merely a self-absorbed, B-list celebrity, his unchecked ego
could be tolerated as a source of mild amusement. But he now wants to
become president, which means that he aspires to be the leader of the free
world and the keeper of our nuclear launch codes,” the op-ed reads. “That
is problematic, because Trump, by every indication, seems wholly
unqualified to sit in the White House. If he had not already disqualified
himself through his attempts to demonize immigrants as rapists and drug
dealers, he certainly did so by questioning the war record of John McCain,
the Republican senator from Arizona.”

The piece goes on to commend McCain’s service in Vietnam and to call
Trump’s critique of the senator “disgraceful.”

“The best way Donald Trump can serve his country is by apologizing to
McCain and terminating this ill-conceived campaign,” the op-ed concludes.
Previously, Trump’s GOP rival, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry called on Trump
to quit the race. And he has been criticized by nearly every other 2016
candidate for his attacks on McCain.

Still, the real estate mogul appears to be unmoved, claiming that “nobody”
at the summit was insulted by his comments and that the entire story has
been promoted by his Republican peers who trail him in the polls. He has
also faulted McCain personally for starting the feud. The Arizona senator
had dismissed Trump supporters as “crazies” in the past.

In his own op-ed published Sunday, Trump defended his record on veterans
and said he will not be lectured by “failed politicians.” During an
appearance Monday night on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” Trump said “I
have respect for Sen. McCain, I used to like him a lot. I supported him. I
raised a lot of money for his campaign against President Obama. And
certainly if there was a misunderstanding I would totally take that back,
but hopefully I said it correctly and certainly, shortly thereafter I said
it correctly … I would like him however to do something with the 15,000
people that were in Phoenix about illegal immigration.”

Several polls have shown Trump emerging as a frontrunner among GOP voters
nationwide, and he has ranked second to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in some
recent polls out of Iowa.

On several talk show appearances since Saturday, Trump has repeatedly
claimed that he is not a “fan” of McCain because he has done “nothing” to
help U.S. veterans. McCain said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Monday that he
doesn’t need an apology from the polarizing candidate but that he does
“owe” a mea culpa to the families of other prisoners or war.

“There are so many men, and some women, who served and sacrificed and
happened to be held prisoner and somehow to denigrate that, in any way,
their service I think is offensive,” McCain said.

“A great honor of my life was to serve in the company of heroes. I’m not a
hero,” he added.

*UNDECLARED*

*KASICH*

*Long Before His Candidacy, John Kasich Made It to the White House
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/20/long-before-his-candidacy-john-kasich-made-it-to-the-white-house/>
// NYT // Sheryl Stolberg – July 20, 2015 *

Like the 15 other Republicans running for president, Gov. John R. Kasich of
Ohio – who is expected to announce his candidacy on Tuesday – knows it
takes guts, and even a little chutzpah, to make it to the White House. It’s
a lesson he learned 45 years ago when, as an 18-year-old freshman at Ohio
State University, he begged President Richard M. Nixon to let him visit.

“I think that you, as far as I can judge, are not only a great president
but an even greater person,” Mr. Kasich wrote, in neat cursive, in a letter
dated Dec. 2, 1970. The letter, on file with Mr. Kasich’s papers at the
Westerville Public Library in Ohio, was hand-delivered by the president of
Ohio State, Novice Fawcett.

“Would it be possible,” the young Mr. Kasich continued, “for me to come to
the White House to talk and see you sometime in the future? I would
immediately pass up a Rose Bowl trip to see you. My parents would permit me
to fly down anytime, and I know my grades wouldn’t suffer.”

Mr. Kasich went on to predict, correctly, “a big Nixon victory in ’72.”

Flattery worked; Mr. Nixon wrote back and on Dec. 22, 1970, the young Mr.
Kasich spent 20 minutes with Mr. Nixon in the Oval Office, according to a
White House schedule.

“I don’t really remember that visit,” Mr. Kasich said Friday when asked in
an interview what they talked about.

But the governor (and aspiring White House occupant) does recall one thing
about his time in the Oval Office: “I remember them telling me I was going
to get, like five minutes,” he said. “And I thought that was a ridiculously
short time.”

*What Ohio Gov. John Kasich is doing to public education in his state
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/20/what-ohio-gov-john-kasich-is-doing-to-public-education-in-his-state/>
// WaPo // Valerie Strauss – July 20, 2015 *

With two-term Ohio Gov. John Kasich joining the crowd of candidates for the
2016 Republican presidential nomination, it’s a good time to look at the
public education mess that has developed in his state under his leadership.

Kasich has pushed key tenets of corporate school reform:

*expanding charter schools — even though the state’s charter sector is the
most troubled in the country

*increasing the number of school vouchers that use public money to pay for
tuition at private schools, the vast majority of them religious — even
though state officials say that fewer than one-third of those available
were used by families this past school year)

*performance pay for teachers — even though such schemes have been shown
over many years not to be useful in education

*evaluating educators by student standardized test scores in math and
reading — even though assessment experts have warned that using test scores
in this way is not reliable or valid.

Meanwhile, the Ohio Education Department in Kasich’s administration is in
turmoil. David Hansen, his administration’s chief for school choice and
charter schools resigned over this past weekend after admitting that he had
unilaterally withheld failing scores of charter schools in state
evaluations of the schools’ sponsor organizations so they wouldn’t look so
bad. (Hansen’s wife, incidentally, is Kasich’s chief of staff, who is
taking a leave from that post to work on his campaign.) There are growing
calls now for the resignation of the Kasich-backed state superintendent of
education, Richard Ross.

Under his watch, funding for traditional public schools — which enroll 90
percent of Ohio’s students — declined by some half a billion dollars, while
funding for charter schools has increased at least 27 percent, with
charters now receiving more public funds from the state per student than
traditional public schools, according to the advocacy group Innovation
Ohio. This despite the fact that many charters are rated lower than
traditional public schools. Meanwhile, local governments have been forced
to pass levies to raise millions of dollars in operating money for
traditional public schools because of state budget cuts.

If Kasich’s goal for his reform efforts was to close the achievement gap,
it hasn’t worked. The achievement gap in Ohio — when calculated by the
Kasich-approved assessment method of using student standardized test scores
in math and reading — is bigger than the national average, according to a
new White House report. According to the report, Ohio has the country’s
ninth-largest reading gap between its highest- and lowest-performing
schools, as well as the second-largest achievement gap in math, and the
fourth largest gap in high school graduation rates.

If the goal of his reform efforts has been to expand “school choice” then
he has succeeded — but not in any way that he would want to trumpet on his
upcoming campaign. Ohio charters, which in 2013-14 educated more than
120,000 students, or 7 percent of the total public school enrollment in the
state, as, according to this recent story in the Akron Beacon Journal,
misspends tax dollars more than any other public sector in Ohio.

The newspaper reviewed 4,263 audits released last year by the state, and
said that Ohio  charter schools appear to have misspent public money
“nearly four times more often than any other type of taxpayer-funded
agency.” It says that “since 2001, state auditors have uncovered $27.3
million improperly spent by charter schools, many run by for-profit
companies, enrolling thousands of children and producing academic results
that rival the worst in the nation.”

The amount of misspending could be far higher, it says. Though Kasich
promised in December 2014 to overhaul the charter sector and require more
oversight, strong legislative efforts have gone pretty much nowhere so far.

Meanwhile, school vouchers — the vast majority of them for religious
schools — have at least doubled in number under Kasich’s administration;
Ohio spent $99 million in public funds to pay for private school tuition in
2010, a year before Kasich became governor, and it was more than $200
million in the last school year. As Innovation Ohio noted, Kasich initially
said he supported vouchers to help children from poor families escape awful
schools, but now, middle-class students from great districts can get
vouchers too.  The advocacy groups says, “And since voucher money is
deducted from the amount public school districts would otherwise receive,
the end result is that taxpayers are now subsidizing religious and private
school educations at the direct expense of the traditional public schools
attended by their own children.”

If Kasich’s goal was to curb union power and reduce public oversight of
public schools, then he has succeeded. Last week, he signed a controversial
bill  that “drastically changes how the state can step in to run ‘failing’
school districts,” according to the Plain Dealer, “by creating a new CEO
position, allowing mayors to appoint school board members and giving the
CEO power to override parts of union contracts.”  The measure, the
newspaper wrote, was introduced in the House and Senate, which held
hearings on it, and approved it — all in one day. Aside from what can only
be called a secretive process to get the bill approved, critics say it
strips power away from voter-elected school boards.

The Plain Dealer  is now reporting that Ross helped push that plan — which
was hatched to allow official intervention in the troubled Youngstown
district but will also affect others — without telling members of the state
school board, which hired him … “even as the board planned, took and
discussed a trip to Youngstown to review how an existing improvement plan
was working.”

And if Kasich’s goal is to work deliberately with people in the education
world, he needs some lessons in how to get along. Earlier this year, he
said he would “take an ax” and slash funding of Ohio’s public universities
and colleges if they didn’t cut costs themselves. The Columbus Dispatch
quoted him as saying:

“I reserve the right … to say that within the course of the next year, if
they do not enact these changes … I think you just start cutting funding
and tell them to deal with it,” Kasich said after meeting privately for an
hour with presidents of two- and four-year colleges and universities in his
cabinet room.

Kasich, incidentally, supports the Common Core State Standards and has
criticized Republicans who turned against it, saying they were playing
politics. He did support the Ohio legislature’s recent decision to dump the
federally funded Common Core test known as PARCC, after schools
administered it in the 2014-15 school year and faced numerous problems with
the online exams.

That is Kasich’s public education record. In some crowds, it may be a great
record to run on. To public school advocates, not so much.

*John Kasich’s anger management
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/john-kasichs-anger-management-120345.html>
// Politico // Alex Isenstadt – July 20, 2015 *

John Kasich has a résumé seemingly tailor-made for a serious run for the
Republican nomination: blue-collar upbringing, congressional budget hawk,
Fox News commentator, investment banker, successful two-term governor of
Ohio.

But there’s just one problem, according to interviews with dozens of those
who’ve worked in politics alongside him at various points over the past
several decades: his short fuse.

There was the friend who excitedly called Kasich to tell him he was about
to announce a campaign for statewide office, only to get a letdown of a
reply: “How stupid are you?”

There was the wealthy conservative donor he raised his voice to during a
Koch brothers-sponsored conference, prompting a walkout.

There was the BP employee who, in the middle of a meeting, found himself
the target of Kasich’s derision. “You know why oil and gas companies have a
bad reputation?” the governor barked at him. “Because they deserve it.”

There was the professor who wrote Kasich, then a young state senator, a
letter of complaint about his education policies. “When you learn to write
a civil letter,” the brash lawmaker fired back, “I will respond
accordingly.”

Kasich, 63, is far from the only politician to face questions about his
temperament. During his presidency, Bill Clinton was known to have lashed
out at those who worked in the White House. Chris Christie’s outbursts have
become a trademark of sorts, proudly displayed in clips on the New Jersey
governor’s YouTube channel.

But the tales of angry tantrums have dogged Kasich throughout his long
career, from the state Legislature, to the halls of Congress, to the
governorship. So much so that even the famously volatile Sen. John McCain
once said of Kasich: “He has a hair-trigger temper.”

And as the governor — who will formally declare his presidential bid during
a Tuesday appearance at The Ohio State University — steps into the glare of
the national spotlight, it seems certain that the questions about his
bedside manner will only intensify.

Kasich’s advisers say his bluntness will appeal to frustrated voters
looking for a tell-it-like-it-is candidate who has sharp elbows and
authenticity.

“Even when voters disagree with him, they respect his willingness to speak
truthfully about his views,” said Chris Schrimpf, a Kasich spokesman. “Many
wind up thanking him for being so refreshing.”

Those who know Kasich insist that he doesn’t really have anger problems but
is, rather, deeply intense — a pol who spurns the polished style that most
of his colleagues embrace. He’s an acquired taste, they contend — the kind
of person who gives a better second impression than a first. Yet as the
primary season takes on a greater intensity, and as every word a candidate
utters is put under a microscope, his temperament also presents a danger.

“There’s no question that John is very direct. He doesn’t waste anyone’s
time. I find it refreshing. For other people, they can’t deal with that
kind of directness,” said former Rep. Doug Ose, a California Republican who
served with Kasich. “It depends on what your cup of tea is.”

Kasich’s “directness” dates back to the earliest days of his political
career, when he demonstrated a willingness to confront constituents who
criticized him.

“I received your curt, one-sentence letter,” Kasich wrote in an August 1981
missive to Larry Reutzel, a Boardman, Ohio, resident who’d promised to
oppose the state senator’s reelection if he voted for a piece of
legislation dealing with the state’s medical board. “I suggest you learn a
little diplomacy before writing any more letters to members of the
Legislature.”

“Letters like yours,” Kasich added, “will do nothing to promote your cause.”

The stories have kept coming since Kasich was first elected governor in
2010.

Matt Mayer, a conservative activist in Ohio, can recall an incident from
2011. He was walking down the street with a friend when they ran into
Kasich and his entourage. Only months earlier, Mayer, who was working at a
think tank called The Buckeye Institute, had released a report calling the
state’s government bloated and inefficient.

Spotting the two, the governor ignored Mayer but pulled aside his friend,
telling him something out of earshot. The friend walked back over. “I’m
supposed to tell you the report’s wrong,” the friend said.

To the governor’s detractors, run-ins like those underscore his inability
to accommodate the views of others. “When you criticize Kasich, you’re sort
of dead to him,” said Mayer. “That’s the way it works.”

His defenders, though, highlight his direct style and willingness to engage
with those who disagree. “If you’re not prepared to go head to head with
him, it can be tough,” said former Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan
Republican who served alongside Kasich.

Powerful interests aren’t immune to the fire. In May 2013, the governor
found himself clashing with the petroleum industry, which was battling his
proposal for a tax hike on oil and gas. At a gathering of business
professionals near Youngstown, his anger boiled over.

“Oil companies are liars and they are going to be screwed,” he told a BP
public relations staffer named Curtis Thomas, according to one person who’d
obtained a transcript of the meeting. Kasich warned that an even higher tax
than the one he proposed could go before voters. “Then you’ll be crying to
me.”

“You said you wanted to be a good partner, but what do you do?” the
governor asked. “You fight me. Do you think I want to work with people like
that?”

Even Republican Party donors, a class that is accustomed to being courted
and stroked by presidential hopefuls, have felt the venom. Last year, while
appearing at a conference sponsored by the billionaire industrialists
Charles and David Koch, Kasich collided with Randy Kendrick, the wife of
Arizona Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick, who questioned him about why he’d
said that his push for Medicaid expansion was what God wanted. “I don’t
know about you, lady,” Kasich 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 took many in the audience aback; about 20 people sitting in
the crowd walked out. Two governors also on stage with Kasich, Nikki Haley
of South Carolina and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, told him they disagreed
with his remarks.

Earlier this year, he clashed with another powerful donor, who during a
private meeting pressed Kasich on whether he was entering the race too
late. “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” Kasich snapped at the
donor, who wished to remain anonymous.

His blowups have not simply been behind the scenes. In January 2011, while
speaking at at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Kasich told a
story about a police officer pulling him over on a highway for driving too
close to an emergency vehicle. The police officer, the governor said
several times, was an “idiot.” Kasich would later meet with the officer to
apologize.

Kasich’s style, his friends say, is the product of his blue-collar
upbringing in McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, a hard-luck industrial town just
outside of Pittsburgh where Kasich’s father worked as a mailman.

“I never knew Kasich to have anger issues,” said former Speaker Newt
Gingrich, who spent more than a decade with Kasich in the House. “He has
intensity, urgency and passion issues.”

The Ohio Republican is particularly driven, the former speaker said, by a
desire to correct the government’s failures. “He doesn’t see public policy
as some abstract intellectual thing, but rather as an emotional, right and
wrong process that can help or hurt people.”

During a news conference in Washington, D.C., earlier this month, Kasich
brushed aside a question about whether his temperament would hamper his
presidential bid by pointing to his record of electoral success. Last year,
he won a second term as governor by a landslide.

“I think people want someone is who direct,” he said. “That’s where I think
they are on this.”

While Kasich can be combative and prone to challenging the views of those
around him, he can be equally reflective. Dave Hobson, a former Ohio
congressman, recalled one flare-up at the Monocle, a popular Capitol Hill
bar, during the 1990s. Kasich was in a heated argument with a fellow
lawmaker about a policy issue. “He’d really gone at it. It was loud,”
Hobson said. “I moved away from the table.”

A short while later, Kasich approached Hobson. It had occurred to him that
he’d been on the wrong side of the argument.

“He got me, didn’t he?” the congressman asked.

Others talk about a caring side. A few years ago, Hoekstra called his
former colleague to tell him that he was about leave the private sector to
embark on a 2012 Senate bid.

“Hoekstra, how stupid are you?” Kasich snapped. “Why would you want to do
that?” It was the kind of conversation, Hoekstra recalled, “that made you
want to hold the phone 3 or 4 inches away from your head.” The governor
spent “3 or 4 minutes” telling the former congressman why he was making a
mistake.

The next time they spoke, though, Kasich was of a very different mindset.
What, he wanted to know, could he do to help?

“He can be intimidating, but he’s always there to support the people that
he’s dealing with,” said Hoekstra. “I have never seen an ounce of meanness.”

At times of great stress, and when political stakes are particularly high,
Kasich can exhibit a surprising coolness. At one point during his tenure on
the House Committee, Kasich found himself in an office with Floyd Spence,
the longtime South Carolina congressman. Kasich was leading the charge to
terminate funding for the B-2 bomber, an expensive aircraft that had been
found to have design flaws. Spence, a member of the Armed Services
Committee, was none too happy about it.

At one point in the meeting, according to one staffer present, Spence
called Kasich a traitor.

Rather than lash out — as many were expecting him to do — the Ohio
congressman was placid.

“Floyd,” he said calmly. “I’m sorry you feel that way.”

For all his fire, Kasich’s friends say, he doesn’t lack self-awareness.

Hobson said he recently ran into his former colleague, who made him a
promise about his temper.

*Does John Kasich have a shot?
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/opinions/zelizer-kasich-candidate/> // CNN
// Julian Zelizer – July 20, 2015 *

Just when it seemed as if every possible Republican was already in the
primary contest for the 2016 party nomination, the field is getting even
bigger.

This week, Ohio Gov. John Kasich will announce his candidacy. He is a
pretty serious contestant. Unlike some of the others in the GOP cast of
characters, his resume is impressive and he can boast of a record that
seems rather formidable on paper.

Kasich has extensive experience in many levels of government as well as the
private sector (though this will be a controversial part of his record,
given that he worked for Lehman Brothers before its collapse).

Kasich has long-standing ties to the conservative movement that produced
the historic Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. He is a budget hawk
who has taken on the unions that so many in the GOP dislike.

Yet, as the governor of one of the most important swing states in the
nation, Kasich has displayed a streak of pragmatism on issues such as the
expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, which can appeal to
independents who are seeking someone who can move Washington beyond the
partisan gridlock.

He has offered tough responses to conservatives who have criticized his
work for the poor, grounding his decisions in his devotion to religion. The
governor has an affable and straightforward personality, saying what he
thinks, which can be appealing in an age of scripted politics. He is the
kind of "blue collar" Republican who could avoid the "one percenter"
attacks that dragged down Mitt Romney in 2012.

Nor does Gov. Kasich face the kind of scandals, at least thus far, that
have bogged down candidates like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

But Kasich enters the race with a number of pretty big obstacles working
against him. The most important is money. One of the big reasons that
former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is so difficult to knock down is the extensive
network of campaign donors that he and his family have nurtured over the
years.

A few days ago, the media reported that Bush and his Super PAC had raised a
stunning $114 million, more than all the other Republican candidates put
together. Like it or not, money matters when it comes to campaigns.

While individual Super PACs do have the ability to propel lesser voices
into the media spotlight, the fact is that to win the nomination, vast
amounts of money will be necessary for the kind of advertising blitz that
it takes to blanket major primary states, especially when primaries are
bundled together.

While Kasich will be able to raise some serious money and make a run for it
in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will need to make some dramatic gains if he
wants to catch up to Bush and some of the other candidates, such as Marco
Rubio and Scott Walker, in the money competition.

Bush has done very well in rounding up support from party leaders who by
all indications are still tilting his way. Last month, Bush announced the
names of an impressive roster of Republican leaders in Iowa who pledged
their support.

Appealing and talented candidates have often suffered in the presidential
nomination process. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who many people thought
had all the right stuff, did horribly in 2012 as he faced the formidable
campaign infrastructure of Mitt Romney.

The number of candidates who are in play poses a big problem for Kasich and
all the other second- and third-tier candidates -- regardless of their
skill. The large number of people the media has to cover diminishes the air
time for any individual candidate.

The complexity of the pragmatic agenda Kasich seeks to pursue might quickly
be lost in the sound bites that now last for a few seconds.

In the immediate future, he might not even be able to participate in the
Republican debates. The large number of candidates who are running has
resulted in the decision to limit the spots in the debate to those
candidates who are ahead in the national polls. This will squeeze lesser
known candidates, and those who have entered late, such as Gov. Kasich.

The reality is that someone like real estate mogul Donald Trump, willing to
say or do almost anything to get on the air, has a better chance of
participating in the debate even if he is far less impressive as a
presidential candidate than Kasich.

Kasich's virtue, his unwillingness to bend to the expedient political
incentives, will be a liability in the primary process. He will be tempted
to abandon the political style he has practiced in recent years.

As we have seen, many of the candidates, including the so-called moderates,
are already playing to the primary voters who tend to lean to the right of
the political spectrum. In early April, Jeb Bush praised Indiana Gov. Mike
Pence's controversial religious freedom bill, though he backed off after
being criticized.

Gov. Scott Walker shifted to the right on immigration and gay marriage. If
Kasich sticks to his guns and refuses to play their game, he will certainly
run into problems in states like South Carolina, where primary voters have
little appetite for the center. In a less crowded field, this might be
fine. But given all the other challenges he faces, this will create
difficulties.

It is true that, as Jeff Greenfield argued in Politico, there have been a
number of cases in primaries, such as Reagan's challenge to Gerald Ford in
1976 or Ted Kennedy's challenge to Jimmy Carter in 1980, and more recently
Howard Dean's strong showing in 2004 or Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum's
showing early in 2012, to remind us that primaries can be open-ended. Yet
in all of those instances the "mainstream" candidate ultimately did win.

The irony is that Kasich might be one of the strongest candidates that the
Republicans have on the ticket. But this primary season will leave little
oxygen for him to move his way up to the top. It's probably time for both
parties to start thinking through the fundamentals of their primary process
to make sure that the strongest candidates are able to get the kind of
hearing that they deserve from primary voters.

*John Kasich is the most interesting GOP presidential contender
<http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9000563/john-kasich-medicaid-obamacare> //
VOX // Andrew Prokop – July 20, 2015 *

n April 2013, Gov. John Kasich of Ohio spoke at a gathering of wealthy
conservative donors hosted by the Koch brothers in Palm Springs. Around 20
people in the audience stood up and walked out on him.

At the time, Kasich was battling his own party over whether to accept
Obamacare's Medicaid expansion. Since the federal government had promised
to shoulder the vast majority of its cost, a few Republican governors in
other states had started to sign on, for pragmatic reasons.

But none had done so quite like Kasich. Again and again, the Ohioan made an
argument rarely heard from a Republican politician — that Medicaid had to
be expanded to help the poor. Not only was it the smart and right thing to
do, Kasich said, it was the Christian thing to do. And then he went
further, suggesting that supporters of limited government had to do more to
help the less fortunate.

So as Kasich spoke on a panel during the Palm Springs conference, a donor —
Randy Kendrick, wife of the wealthy owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks —
pushed back. "A lady was yelling at me, saying, 'You're using God against
your people,'" Kasich later recounted.

Irritated, the governor refused to backpedal. "I don’t know about you,
lady. But when I get to the pearly gates, I’m going to have an answer for
what I’ve done for the poor," he said, according to Politico's Alex
Isenstadt.

That's when audience members started walking out, while the other governors
on the panel — Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley — rushed to emphasize their
disagreement with Kasich. The governor later told the Wall Street Journal's
Neil King Jr. that the incident was "unforgettable," adding, "I really
shouldn't speak about it, other than to say, 'God bless people who go to
those events.'"

Kasich told the New York Times that his own party was waging a "war on the
poor"

The consensus of the modern GOP is that trying to help the poor through
government spending is ineffective or even counterproductive. Republicans
simply don't argue that more government spending is a good way to help
people — that's viewed as something liberals say. "It's the sort of straw
man that I think President Obama would be impressed by," says Jason Hart,
an Ohioan reporter for the conservative site Watchdog.org.

So Kasich's enthusiastic adoption of moral and religious rhetoric to
promote a key plank of Obamacare was extremely unusual — and he took it
quite seriously. He said that year that his "most important mission" was to
convince conservatives that "when some of us are doing better, it is
essential that we begin to figure out how to help people who are not doing
better." His own party, he told the New York Times, was waging a "war on
the poor."

As he's prepared for a presidential campaign — which he'll officially
announce Tuesday — he hasn't backed off, instead arguing that his views are
the truly conservative ones. "Read Matthew 25," Kasich said on Fox News a
few months back. "Did you feed the hungry? Did you clothe the naked? If
we're doing things like that, to me that is conservatism." He then
bristled: "And you know what? I have a right to define conservatism as much
as somebody sitting up in the stands down in Washington trying to tell us
what we ought to do."

It's an agenda that's made Kasich — whose team didn't respond to requests
for comment for this article — quite popular in Ohio. And his landslide
reelection last year in one of the most important presidential swing states
has made some think he could be a strong GOP presidential nominee.

But to supporters of government spending reductions, from the Koch brothers
to Tea Party activists, rhetoric like Kasich's is quite dangerous. Because
if you argue so passionately that federal spending programs really help
people, those programs become quite hard to cut.

As a congressman, John Kasich was a lot like Paul Ryan

  There was little about Kasich's decades-long political career that
suggested he'd boast such fervor for expanding Medicaid. Instead, he's only
slowly transformed himself from the very face of Republican budget cutting
— the Paul Ryan of his day — to someone who argues that supporters of
limited government aren't doing enough to help the poor.

Kasich first rose to national prominence because he produced detailed
spending reform plans that Washington deemed serious. When he joined the
House Budget Committee in 1989 as a junior member, he immediately began
drafting and releasing his own budget each year, complete with far more
dramatic spending cuts than those proposed by the Bush White House budget.
He built up so much credibility that, like the similarly young and
energetic Paul Ryan, he leapfrogged several more senior colleagues to
become the Budget Committee chair after the GOP retook the House in 1994.
He was 42 years old — the youngest committee chair in the chamber.

Kasich named his dog after a budget-cutting bill he had co-written

By all accounts, Kasich was obsessively committed to the task of slashing
government spending. The Associated Press called him "a divorced
workaholic" who "subsists mostly on pizza and instant noodle soup," and Cox
News Service wrote that he had "little personal life." When a spending cut
bill he authored with Democratic Rep. Timothy Penny became famous in DC as
the "Penny-Kasich" proposal, Kasich named his dog after it. But unlike Paul
Ryan, whose political persona is unfailingly cheerful and polite, Kasich
has always had a harsher edge. Words like "headstrong," "brash," and
"argumentative," fill profiles of him. (He hasn't softened up as governor,
where his prickliness has become the stuff of legend.)

As part of Kasich's effort to cut spending, he challenged some of
Washington's entrenched interest groups — from defense hawks to protectors
of farm subsidies and corporate tax breaks. He achieved only mixed success
on those fronts, and his proposals for ambitious reforms of entitlements —
like block-granting Medicaid — didn't get off the ground at all. But
eventually, he helped broker the 1997 balanced budget agreement between
President Clinton and congressional Republicans. The budget didn't stay
balanced long, but it's an achievement Kasich still touts today.

Still, the ambitious young congressman wanted to rise even further. He
announced in 1999 that he'd explore a presidential campaign, and spent
months on the trail in early primary states. Once there, however, he
concluded that his obsessive focus on budget cutting was misplaced, and
that a Republican candidate needed a message with broader appeal to get
elected. "The public is not yelling for spending cuts," he told the
Associated Press. He tried to mention his faith and religious convictions
more often, so he wouldn't be viewed as only a stingy accountant.

It didn't work. George W. Bush raised far more money, and firmly entrenched
himself as the frontrunner in the polls. Kasich concluded he couldn't win,
and quit the race that July. Term-limited out of his budget chairmanship,
he also decided not to run for another term in the House. Recently
remarried and expecting his first child, Kasich was ready for a break from
politics. He said, modestly, "I accomplished everything I ever set out to
accomplish in the House of Representatives."

But as he endorsed Bush, Kasich couldn't resist expressing some envy in
response to Bush's campaign message. "This business of compassionate
conservative," he said. "I wish I'd thought it up."

In March 2011, his third month as governor, Kasich signed a major bill to
roll back public sector workers' collective bargaining rights.

But by the time Kasich finally returned to politics in 2010 — after an
interim working at Lehman Brothers, as well as hosting a Fox News show —
the Tea Party was in ascendance, and far-right economic policies were back
in vogue. Since Ohio's economy was badly damaged by the recession, Kasich
decided to take on the incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland. During the campaign,
Kasich pointed to his own anti-tax, anti-spending record, saying, "I think
I was in the Tea Party before there was a Tea Party."

He won, and when he was sworn in the next January, it looked like he was
ready to govern from the right. Near the top of his agenda was a bill to
roll back collective bargaining for public employees, like Scott Walker's
platform in Wisconsin. "We're not going after anybody's rights," Kasich
said at a press conference. "What we're doing is we're balancing, restoring
some power with taxpayers." As hundreds of protesters flooded into the
statehouse, Kasich lobbied reluctant state senators to back the bill and
helped it pass, as reported by Henry Gomez of the Northeast Ohio Media
Group in "Kasich 5.0," the definitive profile series on the governor.

"No one has tried this level of reform, that I’m aware of in the country,
including Wisconsin," Kasich bragged

On March 31, 2011, Kasich signed the reforms into law — and in many ways,
the final package went further than Walker's. While Ohio public employees
could still bargain over wages, they could no longer bargain over health
care or pensions. "Ohio’s law also gives city councils and school boards a
free hand to unilaterally impose their side’s final contract offer when
management and union fail to reach a settlement," the New York Times's
Steven Greenhouse wrote. And the bill applied to police and firefighters,
who were exempted from Walker's law. "No one has tried this level of
reform, that I’m aware of in the country, including Wisconsin," Kasich
bragged.

The backlash was swift and severe. Kasich's approval-disapproval rating
plummeted to 30-46. And unlike in Wisconsin, the union countermobilization
in Ohio was actually successful. In the Badger State, there was no way
unions could get the law itself put up for a statewide vote of approval or
disapproval. But Ohio's constitution allowed them to do so, if enough
signatures were gathered — a task they soon accomplished. Though Kasich
campaigned in favor of the law, when the state's voters cast their ballots
in November 2011 he lost overwhelmingly, 61 to 38.

Kasich's signature first-year achievement had been wiped out. "It's time to
pause," he said at a news conference. "The people have spoken clearly."
Asked what they said, the governor responded: "They might have said it was
too much too soon."

Kasich embraced Medicaid expansion with a convert's zeal

Over a year later, when Kasich announced that he'd expand Medicaid, he
sounded like a new man. "I'm not a supporter of Obamacare," the governor
said when he announced his decision during his 2013 State of the State
address. But, he continued, "my personal faith in the lessons I learned
from the Good Book" is "very important to me — not just on Sunday, but just
about every day."

During his speech, delivered at the Veterans Memorial Civic Center in Lima,
Ohio, the governor argued that the working poor, the mentally ill, and the
addicted — the people who need help most — would benefit from his decision.
"They can't afford health care. What are we going to do, leave them out in
the street? Walk away from them, when we have a chance to help them?" He
continued: "For those that live in the shadows of life, those who are the
least among us, I will not accept the fact that the most vulnerable in our
state should be ignored. We can help them."

When the US Supreme Court had effectively made the Medicaid expansion
optional for states in 2012, governors across the country were faced with a
choice about whether to accept federal dollars to expand Medicaid to
everyone whose income was lower than 138 percent of the federal poverty
line. In Kasich's case, this number was estimated to include 366,000
Ohioans.

Supporters of the Medicaid expansion argued that it would be the only
affordable way for many low-income people to obtain health insurance.
That's because Obamacare's design creates a coverage gap — people with
incomes below the federal poverty level made too little money to qualify
for subsidized private insurance from the exchanges, but didn't qualify for
traditional Medicaid.

It was the percentage of the expansion that would be paid for by the feds,
though, that was most relevant to many governors concerned with their
bottom line. For three years, states would pay nothing at all — and the
federal government would pay 90 percent or more of the expansion's cost
afterward. Furthermore, states seemed to get nothing out of saying no — if
a state refused to participate, its residents' federal tax dollars would
still go toward funding the expansion elsewhere.

To many governors and policy wonks across the country — including Kasich —
the expansion seemed to be a no-brainer. And the governor believed he could
implement it in a free market way. He proposed to apply for a special
waiver from the federal government, so Ohio could give the new
beneficiaries private — not government — insurance. To him, the right thing
to do also appeared to be the smart thing to do.

When his own party resisted, Kasich rammed through the expansion

But within days of Kasich's announcement, Ohio Republicans and Tea Party
groups started lining up to oppose his plan. "There is no free money," Josh
Mandel, the Republican state treasurer and a conservative favorite, wrote
in a letter urging state legislators to vote against the expansion. "In the
long term Ohioans will have to repay the debt." Soon, two dozen Tea Party
groups in the state wrote a similar missive. "Borrowing taxpayer dollars to
pay for an expanded entitlement program does not solve the long term
problem of affordable health care," Marianne Gasiecki of the Ohio Tea Party
Patriots told the Associated Press.

"People who believe we shouldn’t spend more money than we have were opposed
to it"

Nationally, many conservatives had turned against the Medicaid expansion
too. Some critics objected that the federal government couldn't be trusted
to deliver on its generous funding promises, and that states might be stuck
footing more of the bills in future years. Others argued that Medicaid
provided inferior insurance that should be reformed rather than expanded —
or that federal spending simply shouldn't be expanded at all.

"The Medicaid expansion was supported by all the business groups and the
unions," says Hart, the Watchdog.org reporter who has frequently criticized
the governor. "So Kasich and his supporters describe the opposition as just
ideological — and to an extent, that's true. People who believe in limited
government, people who believe we shouldn’t spend more money than we have,
were opposed to it. Because we saw it as a bad policy that would increase
the spending problem we had at the national level."

Ohio Rising, a Tea Party group, soon launched an ad campaign with "TV,
radio, direct mail and online advertising to urge Republican primary voters
in key legislative districts to press lawmakers to oppose the expansion
plan," as reported by Jackie Borchardt of the Dayton Daily News. "We
sincerely believe this is really bad for Ohio and really bad for the
long-term financial stability of Ohio," Chris Littleton, the group's head,
told her.

The result? By April, House Speaker William Batchelder (R) said 20 members
of his caucus "might shoot themselves" rather than vote for Medicaid
expansion. He ended up dropping Kasich's Medicaid plan from the budget
entirely, and the state Senate decided not to include it either.

But when faced with this opposition, Kasich only grew more obstinate and
determined. "I will not give up this fight till we get this done. Period.
Exclamation point," he told reporters. "I'm not gonna give this up. I will
not. I don’t care how long it takes."

"Reagan was fiscally responsible, but he was also pragmatic and
compassionate"

So the governor soon launched a remarkable public pressure campaign aimed
at the recalcitrant legislators. At one rally, he said, "You must rally
your friends and family to go and see them, and to make it clear that
saying ‘no’ is not an option." At another: "Kick them in the shins if
they're not going to vote for this." To reporters: "Because people are poor
doesn't mean they don't work hard. ... The most important thing for this
legislature to think about: Put yourself in somebody else’s shoes. Put
yourself in the shoes of a mother and a father with an adult child that's
struggling. Walk in somebody else’s moccasins. Understand that poverty is
real."

All this was to no avail — by the fall, it was clear that the legislature
wouldn't budge. So Kasich simply moved ahead without them.

In October 2013, the governor announced that he would bypass the full
legislature and expand Medicaid through a highly unusual maneuver. He'd go
to a state body called the "Controlling Board," which was created to handle
adjustments to the state's budgetary flow, and ask them to simply decide to
let the federal Medicaid money come in. (This tactic forced him to drop his
attempt to use private insurance to cover the new beneficiaries, which
would have required legislative approval.)

In an op-ed explaining his decision, Kasich wrapped himself in the banner
of a conservative hero: "Reagan was fiscally responsible, but he was also
pragmatic and compassionate," he wrote. "When we consider what Reagan would
do, let's also remember what he did do — expand Medicaid."

But activists like Tim Phillips — the head of Americans for Prosperity, a
free market group founded by and closely tied to the Koch brothers — pushed
back hard. "We think it’s pretty outrageous that a governor would then go
around the elected representatives of the people and go to an unelected
board," Phillips told the Los Angeles Times.

"I am so excited about the fact that we have been able to reach out to many
people who had been forgotten"

The Controlling Board, staffed by one appointee from the governor and six
others appointed by the legislative leadership (four Republicans and two
Democrats), was a convenient — if legally questionable — vehicle for
ramming the expansion through. It was typically used for much more minor
projects. Yet the votes of Kasich's appointee and the two appointees from
Democratic leaders were never in doubt. And when the two appointees from
Speaker Batchelder looked like they'd vote no, Batchelder simply replaced
them. The final count was 5-2 in favor.

As with many things related to Obamacare, the new policy soon became
entangled in legal wrangling. Two conservative groups and six Republican
legislators filed a suit arguing that Kasich's maneuver was illegal and
overstretched the Controlling Board's authority. But though the case went
to Ohio's Supreme Court, the governor's move was upheld. "Obviously, we're
pleased with the court's ruling," Kasich's spokesperson Rob Nichols said at
the time, "and glad that Ohio can now move forward."

Kasich had won. The expansion was implemented, and by the end of 2014, it
had let hundreds of thousands more Ohioans get Medicaid. At the same time,
Kasich's popularity rebounded — in one poll, 55 percent of Ohioans approved
of his job performance, and only 30 percent disapproved. And while
campaigning for reelection in 2014, he was also fortunate enough to have
his Democratic challenger implode in scandal. It was a landslide year for
Republicans everywhere, but especially for Kasich — he ended up with a
massive 31-point victory.

"I am so excited about the fact that we have been able to reach out to many
people who had been forgotten," Kasich said in his victory speech. "Whether
they're the mentally ill, or whether they're the drug addicted, or whether
they're the working poor."

"Nothing good is ever lost," Kasich continued. "Anything you ever do to
lift someone else, to give them a chance, to improve their lives, to give
them some hope — if it's just one person — it will be recorded in the book
of life. And will follow you through eternity."

What Kasich did will certainly follow him through the Republican primaries,
where he'll begin his campaign as a serious underdog. This week, he'll be
the 16th GOP candidate to enter the race. He's currently ranked around 12th
place in national polls, and hasn't yet topped 3 percent in a single one.
As a result, he may well fail to qualify for the first debates.

On paper, Kasich appears to present an appealing profile for any
Republicans seeking an accomplished but less polarizing alternative to Jeb
Bush and Scott Walker. Ohio is a key swing state, and Kasich remains quite
popular there, fresh off his landslide win. He also has some financial
support: An outside group supporting him has raised $11.5 million so far —
not Bush money, but enough for a healthily funded pro-Kasich ad campaign to
start airing in New Hampshire, aimed at driving up his numbers in the early
primary state that's most crucial to his chances.

"[St. Peter] is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have
a good answer."

Additionally, Kasich would be one of the only candidates seriously
suggesting that the GOP moderate on economic issues. After the 2012
elections, party elites quickly concluded that their problems could be
solved by moderating on immigration policy — but commentators like Ross
Douthat and David Frum pointed to the GOP economic agenda instead, arguing
it was too oriented toward the wealthy. Kasich's approach may not be quite
what they had in mind, but if his success in Ohio is any indication, swing
voters might like it.

The risk for a candidate like Kasich is that he could end up like Jon
Huntsman, the former Utah governor and 2012 presidential candidate who
couldn't restrain himself from repeatedly pointing out how wrong he thought
the Republican base was about everything. Huntsman's campaign,
unsurprisingly, went nowhere. (Two key consultants for the infamously
dysfunctional effort have now joined Kasich's team.)

The danger is real, because there's already some serious resentment for
Kasich and his tactics among conservatives. If Kasich runs for president,
the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein wrote earlier this year, "it will be
important for conservative voters to punish him for his expansion of
President Obama's healthcare law." Klein continued: "Just like a liberal
demagogue, he portrayed those with principled objections to spending more
taxpayer money on a failing program as being heartless."

Conservative health wonk Avik Roy concurred. "He’s really calling into
question the character and the motivation of those who disagree with him on
the Medicaid expansion, pretty much literally saying that you’re going to
rot in hell if you didn’t agree," Roy told the Columbus Dispatch in March.
"I would say that it’s highly probable that many conservative Christians
will be offended [to hear] that they’re not good Christians if they don’t
support a massive expansion of government health care." (Roy later took a
job with Rick Perry.)

"I think it's pretty offensive, frankly," says Hart, the Watchdog.org
reporter. "He's expanding this federal welfare program, taking more money
from taxpayers, funneling it through the government, and running it through
this pretty ineffective Medicaid program. And he's treating it as if it’s
morally and practically the same thing as taking your own money and
choosing to give it out in your community where you see a need."

These critics are correct that there's an element of incoherence to
Kasich's argument, when viewed in philosophical terms. It seems to not
really gel with his overall, decades-long project of slashing government
and taxes — and, of course, with his continued advocacy for the repeal of
Obamacare. It's also not entirely clear, for instance, whether the moral
imperative to help the least fortunate only kicks in if the federal
government happens to be footing the bill for your state.

But by acknowledging that Obamacare's Medicaid expansion really does help a
great many people, Kasich sees himself as recognizing an obvious fact that
other conservatives contort themselves to deny. And he's also contradicting
the widely held belief on the right that government can't do anything good.

The pointed sales pitch he described himself making to a legislator in 2013
doubles as his challenge to the GOP as a whole:

I said, "I respect the fact that you believe in small government. I do,
too. I also happen to know that you're a person of faith. Now, when you die
and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he's probably not going to ask you
much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to
ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer. "

Yet not everyone appears to be buying what Kasich is selling. Charles Koch
announced in April that he'd winnowed the burgeoning GOP field to five main
contenders. Kasich, unsurprisingly, wasn't among them.

And as for wealthy Koch donor network events like the one Kasich caused
such a stir at? He hasn't been invited back.

*John Kasich keeps it real, maybe too real
<https://www.yahoo.com/politics/john-kasich-keeps-it-real-maybe-too-real-the-124591847086.html>
// Yahoo // Matt Bai – July 20, 2015 *

The last time I’d hung out with John Kasich, on a plane ride across Ohio
three years earlier, he had offered me life advice from Gandalf the wizard.
(“You’re a very fine fellow, Mr. Hobbit, but this is a wide world, and you
don’t think all these things happen by accident.”) So it didn’t really
surprise me when, within two minutes of sliding into our booth at the
Frisch’s Big Boy diner in Columbus last Friday, he started pressing me to
revisit Judaism.

“Do you go to synagogue?” Ohio’s governor asked me, while his press aide
was off on an ill-advised break to get water for the boss. “Do you read the
Torah? Maybe you should. Do you realize how much wisdom there is there for
life?”

Feeling oddly shamed, I mumbled something about being busy.

“I just find that it kind of tells us the best way to live our lives, and
we get to learn from the mistakes of others and the strengths of others,”
Kasich went on. He was wearing a light blue golf shirt and had just come
from a haircut. “So I don’t know why we wouldn’t be reading that. What’s
more important than that book? So you don’t read it. So maybe you’ll think
about it.”

Kasich, who will announce his entry into the presidential race Tuesday,
offered that he himself had been “slipping away” lately, unable to find the
time to read Scripture. (Born Catholic, he converted to an evangelical
brand of Protestantism after a drunk driver killed his parents 28 years
ago.) Then he paused, and all at once he seemed to relent, as if catching
himself in an old and irritating habit.

“Hey, look, man, I’m lost, OK?” he said, gently throwing up his hands. “So
that’s just the way it goes.”

Lost?

“I don’t have things figured out. I’m not that great a guy. So who am I to
— I’m acting like, ‘Well, listen to me, I can tell you.’ Well, you know,
it’s an easy thing to say but harder to do.”

I wondered aloud if calling yourself lost, even in the nonsecular sense,
was an odd way to embark on a presidential campaign.

“What I’m saying is I’m a flawed man,” Kasich told me. “When I say I’m
lost, it’s because I look and I say — first of all, I’m not running yet,
and second, when I say that, I mean that I don’t always know the way, in
terms of the depths of my life, my heart and my conscience. I try to work
on these things and study these things.”

He shook his head.

“You know. I was lost, and I guess now I’m found. But it’s not an easy
road.”

Kasich seemed to be enjoying this conversation about his spiritual
self-doubt, and I was too. But having talked to some of his friends and
advisers, I could almost hear their collective groan. Why does the guy have
to do this kind of thing?

If you were going to sit down and sketch, on paper, the ideal Republican
candidate for 2016, you might come up with a résumé a lot like Kasich’s.
The son of a mailman, he was elected to Congress when he was 30 and went on
to become the forceful and reform-minded chairman of the powerful House
Budget Committee, where he helped negotiate balanced budgets in the 1990s.

After a decade working for Lehman Brothers and hosting his own show on Fox
News, Kasich got himself elected to the governorship in 2010 and reelected
with 64 percent of the vote last year, having presided over an impressive
economic turnaround. As governors like Scott Walker and Chris Christie
struggle to explain their unpopularity at home, Kasich, who closed a $6
billion budget gap even while slashing taxes and trying to eliminate the
income tax altogether, boasts an approval rating of over 60 percent.

And yet, when the fantasy-baseball crowd of presidential politics shows up
on cable TV, the 63-year-old Kasich is never in what they call the top
tier. And that’s because the popular narrative holds that he may just be
too impetuous and too self-involved to be president — in other words, that
he’s the kind of guy who shows up to an interview and starts proselytizing,
just because it’s on his mind.

When at last I changed the subject and raised this unflattering narrative
with Kasich, he brushed it aside as the stuff of Beltway arrogance.

“A lot of people used to say that I was undisciplined, OK?” he told me. “I
mean, come on. How do you balance the budget or fix Ohio or do what I did
for the 10 years I was out and be undisciplined? But I’m not real good at
being programmed. I don’t like to be programmed. I like to be able to be
real.

“Keeping it real — who said that?” Kasich asked me. “Whoever said that, I
like it.”

I’ve written before that in politics, as in life, your greatest strengths
always turn out to be your greatest weaknesses. Just look at the 2016
Republican field.

Jeb Bush is a known quantity with a famous name, but his biggest
vulnerability is that all that history links him too firmly to the past.
Scott Walker has a black-and-white way of framing issues, but that also
means he may struggle to demonstrate much depth. Marco Rubio has the
advantage of being young and culturally different. The problem there is
that he’s young and culturally different.

So it is with Kasich. No one’s ever said the guy isn’t extraordinarily
bright and dynamic, with a working-class authenticity and probing intellect
that have always made him politically unpredictable.

As one of Newt Gingrich’s chief lieutenants in the ’90s, Kasich went after
corporate welfare and the B-2 bomber program. As a conservative governor
eyeing the presidency, he accepted the president’s expansion of Medicaid
and has been a vocal champion of set-asides for minority contractors.

Kasich has an instinctive aversion to anything that sounds like talking
points or triteness. Curt Steiner, a longtime adviser to Ohio Republicans,
described this quality to me as “dissonance,” by which he means that
Kasich, like a jazz musician, will riff in a way that seems discordant but
somehow resonates on a deeper level.

But presidential politics isn’t improv. It is thought to require a fair
amount of rote repetitiveness and diplomacy (which is why Donald Trump, for
all his P.T. Barnum-like panache, will likely flame out before the snow
falls in Manchester).

It also requires a good deal of grace, which is something Kasich, with all
that working-class authenticity and the latent resentment that sometimes
comes with it, often has a hard time holding on to. One of his worst
moments as governor came when a video surfaced showing a belligerent
Kasich, in a lecture to government employees, referring to a state cop who
once pulled him over as an “idiot.”

A few weeks ago, the website of the Cleveland Plain Dealer ran this
headline over an op-ed by Brent Larkin, its former editorial page editor:
“Ohio Gov. John Kasich runs the risk of being perceived as a jerk.” You’d
have to think they were going for subtlety.

As we sat in Frisch’s, a diner Kasich finds so uplifting that he once felt
moved to call the owner and leave him a complimentary voicemail, Kasich
insisted that the rest of the country was about to meet a politician who
had grown more measured with age.

“Initially I was a ball of fire in this job,” he said, recalling his early
years in the Statehouse. “You just mature. There’s no question I’m
different than I was. I would hope that, look, when I’m 80 I’m going to be
better than I am now.”

Kasich said he had learned to be more like the father of his state. It was
a telling analogy; Gingrich had suggested to me that having raised twin
daughters (they’re now 15) had mellowed Kasich considerably over the years,
as fatherhood often does.

“My wife told me that one time,” Kasich said. “She said, ‘You’re the father
of Ohio. Would you act like it?’”

So would Kasich need to rein himself in during the long slog ahead?

“Look, the people of this state rewarded me unlike they’ve rewarded
anybody,” he said. “We can all get better. But you know, you also don’t
want to take the starch out of John Kasich either, do you? My closest
friends, my wife, they will tell me where they think I can improve, and I
will listen to them.

“But I’m not going to read a column in a newspaper written by somebody that
I don’t know, or nobody that’s ever spent any real time with me. What do
they know? They don’t know me!”

Neither did I, or not really. A few minutes later, Kasich abruptly cut me
off in the middle of a question. “You know what it is about you?” he said,
staring across the table.

I braced myself, expecting some kind of anti-Washington tirade.

“I think you get me,” Kasich declared. “You don’t get all of me. But you
get more.”

I started to say I might. Then he leaned forward and cut me off again.

“You know, in Washington, if you’re a congressman down there, do you know
how much energy it takes to move that system?” Kasich asked, his voice
rising. “Do you know how amazing it is to limit the production of a major
defense program? Do you know how hard it is to move the system and balance
the frickin’ budget? Do you know what that takes?

“So when people say, ‘He has too much energy’ or ‘He’s too strong’ or
whatever — you can’t get anything done otherwise! I was in Congress!
President is a little different. Governor is a little different. You call
the tune.”

The strange thing here is that whatever impressions linger of Kasich’s
temperament are almost certainly lost on actual voters. Most of them won’t
remember him from Congress 20 years ago, and in any event they’re going to
get an up-close look at the man in the weeks ahead. They can decide for
themselves.

But Kasich is getting into the race late (he’s No. 16, if anyone’s
bothering to keep track anymore), and the battle for activists and money is
intense. Whether the popular governor of Ohio can position himself as a
serious contender among party insiders will depend, in part, on whether
they believe he’s truly evolved.

Kasich’s team clearly understands the importance of dispelling the old
image. Earlier this month, his PAC released what amounts to his first
campaign ad, produced by Fred Davis, the renegade adman best known for
creating the infamous “demon sheep” spot for Carly Fiorina’s doomed Senate
run in California.

The ad opens with a cacophonous mash-up of all the other candidates’
clichéd rhetoric, followed by a female voice asking: “Hey, what about us?”
Then there’s Kasich, in a sober dark suit and white shirt and graying
noticeably, telling his story in a relaxed, fatherly tone.

It’s easily the best ad of the early presidential season so far — not just
because it feels fresher and more authentic than anything else but because
it goes right to the heart of Kasich’s challenge. Talking to the camera, he
seems calm, confident, in control.

He seems undeniably presidential.

Kasich, as you may recall, ran for president once before, in the run-up to
the 2000 election. Although he was 47 at the time, he describes himself
then as a “kid,” and that’s probably an accurate summation of what
Republican voters thought, too. The party establishment closed ranks around
a governor named George W. Bush and blocked off the avenues for just about
everyone else, and Kasich ran out of cash.

“I just kept running into the wall and couldn’t crack anything,” Kasich
told me. “It was unusual. It was unusual for me in that no matter how hard
I worked at it, I didn’t feel like I was making progress.”

I pointed out that he had never waged a losing campaign before then (and
hasn’t since). He shook his head impatiently.

“No, I’m talking about life,” he said. “When I keep struggling and keep
working at something, I can usually get somewhere. I have to say, and I
guess I never really thought about it this way, Matt, but I think it was
just the frustration of feeling like I didn’t make any progress.”

You would think the memory of this might give Kasich pause as he surveys
the terrain for 2016. Here again, his party’s establishment is enamored of
a guy named Bush, with all the fundraising and organizing muscle the name
brings with it. To this point, Kasich barely registers in national polls
and is very much in danger of being cut out of the first debate next month,
while Donald Trump and Ben Carson command the stage. Worse yet, the debate
happens to be in Cleveland.

When I raised the specter of this humiliation with Kasich, he tried to
sound Zen. “Well, you’re not a fortune teller, are you?” he asked me. “I
don’t control that. I worry about things that I can have some impact on.
And things I can’t — what am I going to do? Whine?”

In fact, 2015 really isn’t much like 1999. This time, the Bush in the field
is leading polls with only a small plurality, and according to an
exhaustive analysis by Nicholas Confessore and Sarah Cohen in the New York
Times last weekend, the “vast majority” of Republican fundraisers and
contributors have thus far been sitting this one out, waiting for the field
to take shape.

Kasich may be the last major entrant into the race (Jim Gilmore, the former
Virginia governor, is apparently still planning to get in, for some
reason), but that also means he won’t feel as played out as some of the
contenders who have been hanging around for months already. You could see
how voters in Iowa might already be tired of Walker, who’s been up and down
so much by now that the media actually billed his announcement speech as a
comeback.

And Kasich has not only a strong case to make, in terms of his success in
Ohio, but also a style that suits the moment. The most successful
candidates of the modern era — Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama —
have managed not only to capture the bases of their parties but also to
co-opt the reform ethos that seems to resurface with every election. Even
as they’re pushed into ideological camps, voters, and especially younger
voters, feel less connected to the artifice and predictability of party
politics and yearn for something real.

Kasich is probably better situated to exploit that impulse than any other
candidate. The trick for him is to somehow walk the line of candor without
crossing the boundary into provocation — to come across as the grownup
alternative who defies convention and orthodoxy, rather than another
quick-tongued challenger starved for attention.

Near the end of our conversation at Frisch’s, I asked Kasich about Hillary
Clinton. Republicans — like just about everyone else right now — assume
she’ll be the Democratic nominee, and one of the central questions for
candidates this fall will be how they intend to beat her after losing two
consecutive elections.

“I’ve known her a long time,” Kasich told me. “I think it’s all about a big
vision. That’s what it’s all about. Who’s got the bigger vision. Who can
connect best and give people the sense that they’re going to be treated
fairly, that we’re going to be unified. I mean, I have my views of Hillary,
which at some point I will express.”

He started in on a preview of what the Kasich vision will sound like.

“There’s a concern in this country that the American dream is being eroded,
that maybe my kids won’t have it as good as I got it from my parents,”
Kasich began. For a moment, I assumed he was going to sound like every
other Republican candidate who prattles on about the American dream, but
then came one of those Kasich riffs.

“Does the system work? Is the system fair? Is the system crooked? Is
anybody looking out for me? Am I all alone? ‘Bowling Alone.’ I never read
the book, but I should.

“And I think it’s a person that has the credibility to say, ‘No. Stop it.
We can do it. This can work. This is a great country! We’re going to be OK!
And here’s some things we’re going to do, and you’re not going to get
shafted, and if we have to do some things where we have to sacrifice, no
one’s going to be left out. If you know somebody, you’re not going to get
special treatment. If you’re the underdog, we love you.’”

I sat there for a moment, trying to imagine the power this message could
have, if he could keep from getting sidetracked or petulant. That’s the
thing about dissonance: When it’s not jarring to the ear, it can grab you
by the throat.

*Kasich joins GOP race on Tuesday
<http://thehill.com/homenews/presidential-campaign/248545-kasich-counts-on-new-hampshire-to-fuel-late-entry-into-gop>
// The Hill // Jonathan Easley – July 20, 2015 *

John Kasich on Tuesday will enter the Republican race for the White House
needing a burst of momentum to claim a spot in the first GOP debate
scheduled on Aug. 6 in the Ohio governor's home state.

Kasich joins the fight with the respect of establishment Republicans and
conservative media pundits, who have long seen him as a potential rival to
former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

But he's little known nationally, and polls have him falling outside the
GOP's top 10 — which would keep him off the debate stage in Cleveland next
month.

“His central problem is that he has all of Jeb’s weaknesses and lacks some
of his strengths,” said Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak.

To do well, Kasich needs to jumpstart his campaign with a successful launch
from Ohio State University.

Kasich plans to pitch himself to primary voters as the only candidate in
the field with experience on Capitol Hill, in the private sector and as
governor. He's putting most of his chips on a solid showing in New
Hampshire, where he'll be running in the same mainstream conservative lane
as Chris Christie and Bush —who has so far outraised Kasich by about a
10-to-1 margin.

Kasich’s late launch date could be perfectly timed to help propel him into
debate contention.

The polling difference between Kasich and the candidates currently in 9th
and 10th place are negligible, and his entrance into the race in late July
could give him the bump he needs.

“It’s critical for him to get into that debate, just like it’s critical for
everyone, so he’ll be looking for a short-term boost from his
announcement,” said Republican pollster David Winston, a veteran of Newt
Gingrich’s 2012 campaign. “It could come down to how compelling an argument
he makes during his launch.”

Fox News is capping the number of participants at 10 based on national
polling numbers. Kasich is currently in 12th place, according to the
RealClearPolitics average of polls, taking only 1.5 percent support.

So far this year, GOP candidates have seen varying degrees of bounces in
the wake of their announcements. Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio
(Fla.), as well as Ben Carson, got sizeable bounces in the immediate
aftermath of their announcements. Others, like Christie and Sen. Rand Paul
(Ky.), got almost no bounce at all.

Kasich’s team is downplaying the importance of the debate, arguing that
their focus is squarely on the early voting states, and New Hampshire in
particular. Spending by New Day for America, the nonprofit group supporting
Kasich’s presidential bid, backs up that claim.

Rather than pumping money into national television ads, as some candidates
are doing to raise their profiles ahead of the debates, New Day for America
launched a second round of ads this week that will run in the Granite State.

“That’s a much sounder investment of our resources,” New Day for America
spokesman Chris Schrimpf told The Hill.

Kasich could face some of the same troubles with the base that have dogged
Bush. He unapologetically supports Common Core education standards, has
said he would be open to supporting a pathway to citizenship for those in
the country illegally, and he expanded Medicaid in Ohio under ObamaCare.

At his alma mater, Kasich is expected to hammer home the argument that he’s
the most experienced candidate in the field,  highlighting a decades-long
record that has taken him from Washington, to Wall Street to Columbus.

Kasich spent 18 years representing Ohio’s 12th district. He rose to
chairman of the Budget Committee and points frequently to his role in
achieving a balanced federal budget under former President Bill Clinton.

Kasich also spent time on the Armed Services Committee, making him the rare
governor running for president who can boast of having substantial foreign
policy experience.

Following his time in Congress, Kasich worked for Lehman Brothers, before
returning to politics and unseating former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland
(D-Ohio) in 2010. In 2014, Kasich won reelection in a landslide, carrying
86 of the 88 counties in a state that will be critical in determining the
outcome of the 2016 election.

“He is uniquely qualified to lead the country,” Schrimpf said. “Nobody else
can say they balanced the federal budget, have executive experience running
a major state, and have the kind of foreign policy experience he has. He’s
the total package.”

Republicans say that Kasich is a natural fit for the Independent and
mainstream conservatives primary voters in New Hampshire, and his political
team appears poised to all-in there.

New Day for America, which hauled in an impressive $11.5 million in the
second quarter, put $1.7 million behind a first round of ads introducing
Kasich to New Hampshire voters. The group declined to say how much it put
behind a second round of ads launched Tuesday, but called the investment
“significant.”

Kasich will have the support of former Sen. John E. Sununu, whose family
has a towering political presence in New Hampshire.

And following his launch, Kasich will conduct five townhall-style events in
New Hampshire over a three-day period. It’s a forum Republicans say will
showcase Kasich’s strength as a charismatic, no-nonsense straight-shooter.

“It’s a style that plays well up here,” said Tom Rath, a GOP strategist in
New Hampshire and senior adviser to Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign. “The more
I talk to people out here, the more his name comes up. He’s going to get a
look.”

But even if Kasich can get out of New Hampshire with a win or a high
finish, some in the party remain skeptical that he has broader appeal to
Republican primary voters. Like Bush, Kasich has said he won’t back away
from positions on education, immigration or healthcare.

“I think he has bigger problems with the conservative base than he
realizes,” said Mackowiak.

Team Kasich is betting that his unapologetic and unconventional style will
win over skeptical Republicans and bring new Independent voters into the
fold.

Rath noted that about one-third of New Hampshire primary voters could be
self-described independent voters, giving the electorate a more moderate
flavor.

“I think what’s going to appeal to folks, and independents in particular,
is that he’s not someone who plays politics,” Schrimpf said. “He’s going to
do what’s best for his state or best for the country, not just give you the
political answers you want to hear. He’s going to tell the truth, and
people respond to someone who doesn’t change with the political winds.”

*OTHER*

*GOP blasts President Obama’s ‘capitulation’ to U.N. on Iran
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/iran-deal-obama-united-nations-gop-criticize-120354.html>
// Politico // Burgess Everett – July 20, 2015*

Influential Republicans and a handful of Democrats howled in protest Monday
over President Barack Obama’s decision to seek the United Nations’ blessing
for the Iran nuclear deal before Congress has had a chance to weigh in. The
move, critics said, appeared designed to box Congress in by signaling that
international sanctions on Iran are going away regardless of whether
Congress accepts or rejects the deal.

But there were few signs that that bipartisan frustration will translate
into new opposition in Congress to the Iran deal as its 60-day review
period officially kicked off.

Influential Republicans called it “inappropriate” and an “affront” to
Americans that the U.N. Security Council unanimously backed the agreement
to scale back Iran’s nuclear ambitions and begin loosening some sanctions
before Congress voted; Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) went so far as to dub July
20 “Obama’s Capitulation Monday.” But though top-ranking Democrats had
expressed concern leading up to the vote about an end run around Congress,
members of the president’s party were mostly quiet following the U.N.’s
action.

Though Congress still has the ability to block lifting congressional
sanctions on Iran that are a key portion of the deal even after the U.N.
resolution, it won’t be in concert with international leaders who signed
off on the agreement with Iran. That gives the administration a powerful
talking point as its representatives fan out across the Hill this week to
soothe jittery lawmakers, particularly undecided Democrats, who are
frustrated that the vote for international economic relief for Iran comes
two months before a pivotal congressional vote.

Still, “This doesn’t substantively cause any real problems,” said an aide
to one undecided Democratic lawmaker, who added that, while criticism from
those in charge of the review process is understandable, the timing of the
U.N. vote was expected and mostly perfunctory. Indeed, on Monday afternoon
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she is “pleased that the
response thus far from House Democrats has been so positive” to the Iran
deal.

But for the most vocal GOP critics, the U.N. action amounted to fresh
ammunition to aim back at the White House. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
called the move to present the plan to the council “further evidence of a
weak president trying to sell a bad deal,” while Senate Majority Whip John
Cornyn (R-Texas) charged that the decision is an “affront to the American
people.” The Senate’s No. 2 Republican threatened that lawmakers will vote
down any deal that “jeopardizes American security and paves the way for a
nuclear-armed Iran.”

“The administration is more concerned about jamming this deal through than
allowing the scrutiny it deserves,” Cornyn said.

Asked Sunday on “Meet the Press” if this move corners Congress, Kerry
responded: “Absolutely not.”

“We specifically, to protect the Congress, put in a 90-day period before
[the U.N. resolution] takes effect. So nothing will change,” Kerry said.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) joined the criticism and vowed that
Congress’ review would be just as vigorous. “This is a bad start for a bad
deal,” he said in a statement. “The American people expect their
representatives to review this potential agreement and stop Iran’s push for
a nuclear weapon, and we will continue our critical work to do just that.”

Congress will need two-thirds of both chambers to block the lifting of
sanctions, which Obama has promised to veto.

But moving the agreement through the U.N. before a congressional review has
piqued concerns not just of hawkish Republican critics but critical swing
Democrats as well, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking
member Ben Cardin and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, both of Maryland.

“We had urged the administration not to take any definitive action in the
60 days,” Cardin said in an interview last week, referring to a letter to
the president in which Cardin and Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) urged Obama
not to go to the U.N. before Congress. A delay, Cardin said, would have
been “trying to keep this in the spirit of the review.”

But Cardin did not join Corker’s latest critique on Monday, in which the
chairman called the U.N. resolution “contrary to the spirit” of the review
law, which was overwhelmingly supported in Congress and signed in to law by
Obama this spring.

“It is inappropriate to commit the United States to meet certain
international obligations without even knowing if Congress and the American
people approve or disapprove” of the agreement, Corker said.

House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) issued
a joint statement with Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) Monday that also
knocked the maneuver.

“We are disappointed that the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution on
Iran this morning before Congress was able to fully review and act on this
agreement. We are also greatly concerned that the resolution lifts
restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missiles in eight years and conventional
arms in five years,” the duo said in their statement.

Still, in a sign that the political fallout is likely to be minimal, the
most vocal criticism was from Republicans, like Rubio, who already were
staunchly opposed to the Iran deal.

“History will remember July 20, 2015 as Obama’s Capitulation Monday,” said
Rubio, who has vowed he would undo the deal if he were to be elected as
president. “President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is a dangerous and
destabilizing failure, and it is telling that he is seeking Russia and
China’s seal of approval of his deal before administration officials have
even briefed Congress.”

*Republicans Weren't Always Above Attacking A Veteran's War Record
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-john-kerry-war-record_55ad5a9be4b065dfe89f1cbc?m0smunmi>
// HuffPo // Igor Bobic – July 20, 2015 *

Republican Party officials and presidential hopefuls have stood in near
universal opposition against Donald Trump's comment that Sen. John McCain,
a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, was no hero. But many in the GOP had
no trouble questioning the military record of another Vietnam War veteran,
Secretary of State John Kerry.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was one of several 2016 GOP presidential
candidates to condemn Trump's "slanderous attacks." He tweeted on Saturday
that "all our veterans - particularly POWs have earned our respect and
admiration." But Bush didn't object to such attacks in 2005, when he
praised Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of veterans that had helped
torpedo Kerry's 2004 presidential bid by running television ads slurring
his service record in Vietnam.

"As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I
simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand
up against John Kerry," Bush wrote in a January 2005 letter to Col. George
Day, one of the group's members.

Bush also rejected the notion that the attacks were unfair during a 2004
interview. "I don't think [their allegations] are a smear," he told radio
host Sean Hannity. "In fact, what ought to happen is, there ought to be
fact checks. Every ad that goes out ought to be looked at by the press in
an objective way, and people can make their own determination whether
they're accurate or not."

Kerry's opponent in the 2004 White House race was, of course, Jeb's brother
George.

A Jeb Bush spokesman told CNN this week that his letter to Day was "not in
any way analogous" to Trump's comments regarding McCain.

Kerry earned several awards for his service in Vietnam, including a Silver
Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts. Critics charged
that Kerry lied about his war wounds, but such allegations were
contradicted by official military records.

The effort to tarnish Kerry's service reached such a feeding frenzy in the
weeks before the 2004 election that even the GOP's 1996 presidential
nominee, former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, joined in the fray. Dole, a World War
II veteran, went on CNN and directly called into question Kerry's record:

"With three Purple Hearts, he never bled that I know of. And they're all
superficial wounds."

Dole apologized for the remark the next day after a personal call from
Kerry, saying that before taping the interview, "maybe I should have stayed
longer for brunch somewhere."

But the apology came perhaps too little, too late, as then-Texas governor
and current presidential candidate Rick Perry picked up the baton. Perry,
who over the weekend called on Trump to withdraw from the race, said in
2004 that Kerry ought to release his military records because "a lot of
questions” remained unanswered.

"When a person like Bob Dole asks the question ... lay your records out.
It's pretty hard to argue that about Bob Dole's Purple Heart," Perry said.

A week later, at the Republican National Convention in New York, party
delegates mocked Kerry by applying bandages on their faces and various
other body parts with Purple Hearts drawn on them. The bandages also read,
"It was just a self-inflicted scratch, but you see I got a Purple Heart for
it."

At the time, leading GOP officials, including the George W. Bush campaign,
sought to distance themselves from the bandage mockery. But they resisted
disassociating themselves from the Swift Boat ads entirely, arguing instead
that Kerry's anti-war activism after he came home from Vietnam reflected
negatively on American troops.

*Republicans learn to love community organizing
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-learn-to-love-community-organizing/article/2568425>
// Washington Examiner // David Drucker – July 20, 2015 *

When the Republican Party crowns a presidential nominee one year from now,
he (or she) will be handed a campaign organization that is fully staffed
and operational in every electoral battleground.

That might be the most important component of the top-to-bottom overhaul of
the Republican National Committee's voter turnout program undertaken since
the 2012 presidential election, as detailed in an interview with the
Washington Examiner.

Four years ago, GOP nominee Mitt Romney was outgunned and outclassed by
President Obama in the trenches of door-to-door combat for votes in swing
states. Obama's advantage was multifold — better data, better manipulation
of that data, a better candidate. But the RNC concluded that Obama's
advantage stemmed, as well, from fielding a more competent organization
that never packed up and went home after he won the presidency in 2008.

The president's campaign stayed in the field and prepared for his 2012
re-election almost from the minute his first race ended, deepening ties to
the community. Romney, meanwhile, secured the nomination after a protracted
primary fight, and was forced to rush a team with varying experience into
the competitive states with barely months to go before voting started — as
had every non-incumbent GOP nominee before him.

The party determined not to get caught flat-footed again. So, the RNC took
a page from Obama for America's playbook and decided to build an operation
that would be permanently deployed and available for the Republican
presidential nominee to lease every four years.

"In 2007-08, we're laughing about this community organizing model, saying:
'You're going into presidential politics and you're going to bring
community organizing into it?' Of course, they had the last laugh," said
Chris Carr, the RNC's political director and its senior field strategist.

Soon after Obama's re-election, the RNC commissioned an autopsy report on
its antiquated voter turnout program. Chairman Reince Priebus and party
leaders concluded that wholesale reforms were required for the party to be
competitive. The RNC invested more than $100 million in 2013 and 2014 to
improve the collection and quality of voter data and the methods and
technology used to target and push voters to the polls.

The party saw measurable results in the midterm elections with its new
digital and data analytics program and ground game strategy that focused on
targeting low-propensity voters who were highly likely to support
Republicans if only they would pull the lever. But there have been
complaints about the technology the RNC created to work with its improved
voter file, and committee officials said coming digital products will
change that.

The deficiencies the party suffered four years ago weren't just in data and
technology. Nor was Obama's more prepared campaign the Republicans' only
problem in the states. How the party organized its ground forces, and how
it deployed them, was outdated. After studying how Obama for America
structured its field team and volunteer army, Carr threw out the RNC's
decades-old flow chart and redesigned the party's command and control.

"We started a very in-depth look at what OFA had been doing the last eight
years," said Carr, a Louisiana native who spent several years as a GOP
operative in Nevada before joining the RNC in February. "This is going to
be a big change."

That change began by jettisoning the voting precinct and the precinct
captain.

For decades, the RNC had organized teams of volunteer door-knockers who
pounded the pavement hustling votes for the GOP presidential nominee based
on precincts, the geographical regions for collecting and counting votes
drawn by state and local governments. Precinct captains managed those
teams. But under the RNC's new system, states are divided into "turfs" of
8,000-10,000 people that the party's voter file classifies as swing voters,
persuadable voters and low-propensity Republican voters.

Each turf is led by a "field organizer" who oversees a group of
"neighborhood team leaders," who in turn run organized teams of volunteers.

The new approach lets the party maximize outreach to voters who matter in
competitive races, and avoids wasting resources in areas with little to
gain — either because they're overwhelmingly Democratic or because support
for Republicans is reliable. During next July's Cleveland convention, the
Republican who accepts the presidential nomination will take possession of
a campaign that has roughly 2,000 trained staff and volunteers working in
about 1,500 turfs in about a dozen battleground states.

The RNC this year opened the Republican Leadership Institute to train the
volunteers who will man the turfs. More than 2,000 applied for the program
since June. The six-week training, held in cities across the country, was
modeled on an Obama for America fellowship to learn how to become an
effective community organizer. Incidentally, when the RNC compared how its
2016 "turfs" compared with the locations of Obama's 2012 campaign offices,
they discovered remarkable symmetry.

The RNC aims to return to what worked for the party so well during
President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election and what Obama emulated and
improved on: the value of personal contact. Three years ago, Republicans
were perplexed by the proliferation of Obama's empty campaign offices,
compared to their fewer but larger regional headquarters that were teaming
with people manning phone banks. The Obama folks were out talking to voters
one-on-one.

Republicans rediscovered this simple secret belatedly, and at its core,
this approach is the driver of its "new" 2016 strategy.

"We want to hire more people from within these states who actually know
these communities," Carr said. "We want our field organizers to reflect
that particular community that they're working in."

*OTHER 2016 NEWS*

*Forecasters Expect a Strong Economy for the 2016 Presidential Election
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/upshot/the-economic-forecast-for-2016-and-what-it-means-for-the-election.html?rref=upshot&abt=0002&abg=1&_r=1>
// NYT // Neil Irwin – July 20, 2015 *

When it comes to elections, fundamentals matter. A lot.

A wide range of political science research suggests that if you want to
know who will win the presidency, the state of the economy — and especially
how economic conditions are changing — matters a great deal, perhaps even
more than how charismatic the candidates are or how much money they raise.

The election is 16 months away, but knowing what we know now, what should
we expect the economic backdrop to be when Americans choose their next
president?

To answer that question, The Times asked leading forecasters from economic
consultancies, financial firms and universities for their predictions on
where key economic variables will stand on Nov. 8, 2016 — Election Day. The
17 who participated replied with a relatively strong consensus.

They said they believed that unemployment would be the lowest it has been
during an election since George W. Bush and Al Gore faced off in 2000, when
it stood at 3.9 percent. The median forecast for the unemployment rate when
voters go to the polls in November 2016 was 4.8 percent (which would be
down from 5.3 percent last month). They saw only a 15 percent chance of a
recession starting by next Election Day. Interest rates, inflation and
gasoline prices should all be a bit higher than they are now, they said,
while staying quite low by historical standards.

“All in all, I’d guess it should be as close to a feel-good time as any
we’ve seen in the past several years,” said Michael Feroli, chief United
States economist at JPMorgan Chase.

On its face, all of that points to an election with dynamics similar to
1988 or 2000, when the nominee of the incumbent party (George H. W. Bush in
1988 and Mr. Gore in 2000) could promise continued prosperity. That bodes
well for the Democratic nominee, though as Mr. Gore’s loss despite winning
the popular vote shows, even a favorable economy doesn’t assure victory,
given the workings of the Electoral College.

“On Election Day November 2016, voters should be feeling quite a bit better
about where they stand economically and looking at their economic future a
bit more optimistically,” said Scott Anderson, chief economist of Bank of
the West.

In the voluminous research on the connection between economic performance
and election outcomes, one important finding is that what matters is less
an absolute level of economic activity or the unemployment rate, and more
the speed and direction of economic change. That might explain, for
example, why President Obama was re-elected in 2012 despite a 7.8 percent
unemployment rate on Election Day. That is a poor number historically, but
it was down from 8.6 percent a year earlier.

Some research has found that the economy matters less when the race for the
presidency is wide open, as it will be in 2016, than when there is an
incumbent on the ballot for whom the vote can be viewed as a referendum. In
other words, if Hillary Rodham Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she
probably won’t own President Obama’s economic successes and failures to the
degree the president himself did in 2012.

The forecasters’ projections also point to a soft underbelly in the economy
that the Republican nominee could exploit.

Their consensus was 2.8 percent growth in average hourly wages in the 12
months before the election, slightly higher than the 2 percent rise in
prices. That implies that the weak spot of the Obama economy, in
compensation for ordinary workers, will remain that way heading into 2016.

The forecasters saw only a 25 percent chance of an economic boom — defined
as G.D.P. growth greater than 3 percent maintained for a year — happening
between now and Election Day. This slow-moving expansion generally hasn’t
resulted in the kind of explosive growth that was seen in the late Reagan
or late Clinton administrations, and there’s a slim chance of that changing
soon.

It’s against that backdrop that Jeb Bush and other Republican contenders
have pledged to attain 4 percent annual economic growth; if they can pull
it off, that would be a step up from the roughly 2.5 percent that has been
typical of the Obama years.

Sustained growth of 4 percent or greater has been seen only rarely in
American history, most recently from 1997-2000 and 1983-5. And those years
had more favorable demographic trends driving that growth than the coming
presidential administration is likely to encounter.

We asked 17 economists for their forecast of the nation’s economy in
November 2016.

That helps explain why forecasters’ consensus was 2.8 percent G.D.P. growth
in the year before the election, and why they were skeptical that 4 percent
growth would prove attainable.

“The 4 percent G.D.P. goal of some candidates is unrealistic with the baby
boom generational wave retiring and spending less,” said Christopher
Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ.

The forecasters could be wrong, of course. Surveys of economic
prognosticators in the past have shown plenty of mistakes, including
failing to predict the severity of the 2008-9 recession and offering overly
optimistic projections during the sluggish recovery.

On the side of pessimism, forecasters failed to predict the economic
acceleration of the late 1990s.

In elections that have been dominated by shifts in the economic winds,
there tended to be evidence of what was to come by this point in the cycle.
The subprime mortgage crisis that would spiral into a recession that
characterized the 2008 election was well underway by July 2007, with
foreclosures mounting. Though a recession in July 1991 had technically
ended by Election Day 1992, the rebound was not swift enough to secure
re-election for the first President Bush.

The forecasters, who were surveyed in early July, identified a number of
threats that might undermine their forecasts of sunny economic skies in
late 2016.

The Greek debt crisis was mentioned often, though the potential ripple
effects for the United States economy appear much weaker than they did a
few years ago when Greece’s position in the eurozone was first at risk.
They mentioned the possibility of a Middle East crisis causing an oil
shock, and a Chinese economic slowdown that seemed plausible given a recent
sharp sell-off in its stock market. But the economic threat that the
forecasters mentioned most often — the Federal Reserve raising interest
rates — would be driven by domestic policy.

If the Fed moves too quickly to raise interest rates, it could have any
number of adverse effects: potentially stomping on the housing recovery,
undermining exports by strengthening the dollar or causing dangerous
volatility in financial markets.

The consensus of the forecasters was that the Fed’s target interest rate
would be 1.37 percent on Election Day 2016; the consensus of Fed officials
themselves was that the rate would be 1.625 percent at the end of 2016.
(Those views aren’t mutually inconsistent, as there could be a rate
increase in December after the election.) In effect, rates have been so low
for so long that forecasters lacked confidence about exactly how robust an
economic expansion would be in the face of tighter money.

Still, the forecasters said that they thought the Fed would move cautiously
enough that incumbents could breathe easier than they have in years.

“Odds are good that by Election Day the economy will be at full employment,
growing strongly,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics.
“The economic winds will be at the back of incumbents.”

*The Only Realistic Way to Fix Campaign Finance
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/opinion/the-only-realistic-way-to-fix-campaign-finance.html?_r=0>
// NYT Lawrence Lessig – July 21, 2015*

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — FOR the first time in modern history, the leading issue
concerning voters in the upcoming presidential election, according to a
recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, is that “wealthy individuals and
corporations will have too much influence over who wins.” Five years after
the Supreme Court gave corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited
amounts in political campaigns, voters have had enough.

Republican candidates, including Chris Christie, Ted Cruz and Lindsey
Graham, and the main Democratic candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Martin
O’Malley and Bernie Sanders, all acknowledge the problem, with some tying
it to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, which unleashed
virtually unlimited “independent” political spending.

The solution proposed by some, notably Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Graham and Mr.
Sanders, is amending the Constitution.

It sounds appealing, but anyone who’s serious about reform should not buy
it. For a presidential candidate, constitutional reform is fake reform. And
no candidate who talks exclusively about amending the Constitution can be
considered a credible reformer.

This is not because we don’t need constitutional reform. Of course we do.
No sane constitutional designer would have picked the mix of restrictions
and rights that our Constitution has been read to embrace. And with due
respect to the Supreme Court, neither did our framers. Amendments will be
essential to restoring this democracy, just as a healthy diet is essential
to the recovery of a patient who has suffered a heart attack.

Nor is this because a constitutional amendment is impossible. No doubt it
is ridiculously difficult to amend our Constitution. The veto of one house
in just 13 states — representing as little as 5 percent of the American
public — could block an amendment. But in the last hundred years we’ve
added 10 amendments to our Constitution, with an average ratification time
(excepting the most recent, which took 202 years) of less than 16 months.
We’ve done it before; we can do it again.

Nor does this mean that the many reform organizations pushing for a
constitutional amendment are not themselves true reformers. Of course they
are, and their work is the most important force building the essential
political movement that real reform will require.

But even if we could pass amendment to reverse Citizens United soon (and
not since the Civil War has an amendment been adopted with support from
just one party), it would not solve the problem of money’s influence in
American politics.

If the core problem is politicians beholden to their funders, then giving
Congress the power to limit the amount spent or the amount would not
resolve it. Regardless of how much was spent, the private funding of public
campaigns, even with limits, would inevitably reproduce the world we have
now.

Real reform will require changing the way campaigns are funded — moving
from large-dollar private funding to small-dollar public funding.

Democrats, for example, have pushed for small-dollar public funding through
matching systems, like New York City’s. Under a plan by Representative John
Sarbanes, Democrat of Maryland, contributions could be matched up to nine
to one, for candidates who agree to accept only small donations.

Republicans, too, are increasingly calling for small-dollar funding
systems. The legal scholar Richard W. Painter, a former “ethics czar” for
President George W. Bush, has proposed a $200 tax rebate to fund
small-dollar campaigns. Likewise, Jim Rubens, a candidate in the Republican
primary for Senate in New Hampshire last year, proposed a $50 tax rebate to
fund congressional campaigns.

Either approach would radically increase the number of funders in
campaigns, in that way reducing the concentration of large funders that
especially typifies congressional and senatorial campaigns right now.

Some 13 states already offer two kinds of public campaign funding: In
Arizona, Connecticut and Maine, “clean elections” laws offer full subsidies
to candidates who agree to limit their spending and private fund-raising,
while Florida and Hawaii match small donations up to a certain amount. The
Brennan Center for Justice wants to expand New York City’s
matching-contributing law to the rest of the state, saying it would
increase transparency, accountability and voter turnout.

Most Americans are deeply skeptical of reform, and especially reform that
costs money. So it’s much easier to call for a constitutional amendment
than to propose public financing.

But solving the crisis in our democracy will not be cheap or easy. We won’t
end the corruption of a system beholden to the funders until we, the
citizens, are the funders. That truth takes courage to utter. This election
needs that courage.

*The Uber Election: 2016 Candidates Are Finally Talking About the New
American Underclass
<http://www.vice.com/read/2016-uber-war-candidates-finally-talking-about-the-sharing-economys-underclass-720>
// VICE // George Pearkes – July 20, 2015 *

Every week, it seems, Uber opens a new and previously unimaginable
battlegrounds in its war for global ride-sharing dominance. Last month, the
company was turning French cabbies into a new Parisian mob, hunting down
anyone they suspected of being a cake-eating Uber driver. Just a few weeks
later, it was launching a full-scale PR assault against the Mayor of New
York, adding a "De Blasio" tab to show riders how long they would have to
wait for a car if the city's taxi-loving despot gets his way.

Meanwhile, for most of us, Uber is the $50 billion-with-a-b ride-sharing
juggernaut we hate on principle, but don't know how to get home from the
bar without. Given this ubiquity as the world's most combative car-hailing
company, it perhaps makes sense that Uber now finds itself in the middle of
the country's biggest political battlefield, used as a rhetorical football
in the 2016 presidential debate.

...many Americans are making extra money renting out a small room,
designing websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or
even driving their own car. This on-demand, or so-called gig economy is
creating exciting economies and unleashing innovation. But it is also
raising hard questions about work-place protections and what a good job
will look like in the future.

She went on to pledge that she would "crack down on bosses who exploit
employees" by classifying them as contractors, "or even stealing their
wages."

To many, it seemed like a direct shot at Uber and the rest of the so-called
"gig" or "sharing" economy—the Uber drivers, AirBnB hosts, Etsy sellers,
and Postmates messengers who can be beckoned at the tap of a smartphone,
but who also aren't on any employer's payroll.

The GOP saw its opening for an attack. As Clinton's remarks settled, the
Republican National Committee went into action, blasting out a "Petition in
Support of Innovative Companies Like Uber" with ominous warnings about the
"taxi unions and government bureaucrats who would stifle innovation." Jeb
Bush's campaign gleefully alerted reporters that the 2016 presidential
candidate would be hailing an Uberon his visit to San Francisco Thursday.

Other GOP White House hopefuls have also heaped praise upon the sharing
economy. Marco Rubio dedicated a whole chapter of his book to "Making
America Safe for Uber." Ted Cruz has even gone so far as to claim that he
is Uber—"the Uber of Washington."

So far, though, there hasn't been much effort on either side to come up
with specific policies or solutions to adapt public policy around the
realities of this new workplace—both to protect and foster innovation, and
also to ensure fair wages and treatment for independent contractors working
in this new landscape.

Independent contractors get paid on an ad hoc basis instead of an hourly
wage. While the practice isn't new by any means, it has become
controversial for app-based companies whose business model relies on the
idea that they are third-party facilitator, connecting service and
customer, but not the employer of those providing the services.

A recent decision by California's Labor CommissionCalifornia's Labor
Commission foundthat a former Uber driver who had filed a complaint had
actually been an Uber employee—something the company has been fighting
against in several courts. While the decision applies only to one driver,
its implications are big: If Uber drivers are employees, they are eligible
for things like overtime, workers comp, and minimum wage. Similar
class-action suits are moving down the pipeline in the state, and in other
jurisdictions as well.

To make matters worse for Uber, a San Francisco judge recommended last
Wednesday that the company be suspended from operations in California for
refusing to hand over data on who their drivers pick up and where, to show
that the company is providing equal access to its services.

So what does all this mean for 2016? Clinton's speech was made in the
context of concerns independent contractors are exposed to more risk than
traditional employees. Some costs are also shifted from employers to
contractors. Payroll tax accrual, insurance, health care and other basic
benefits businesses are required to provide for employees can be avoided.
This is arguably a huge benefit for profit margins of businesses in the
sharing economy. Firms can generate higher profits because drivers are less
costly to "employ".

Ironically, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, actually makes it easier
for firms to employ contractors. The ACA's exchanges are designed to make
it easier and cheaper for individuals to purchase health insurance, making
independent contracting for sharing economy companies more attractive than
prior to its passage when employer-provided health care was the only option
for many Americans. Jeb Bush acknowledged that in a scrum with reporters
after his campaign appearance in San Francisco last week.

Employees even provide the tools of their trade themselves, driving their
own cars to pick up riders or deliver food, or renting own their own
houses. Economically speaking, they're providing labor and capital, and
being charged for it via the tech company's cut of their revenue. Clinton's
logic is that this cost shifting is emblematic of a broader decline in
labor's "bargaining power" or share of economic output. If workers are
seeking flexibility, the sharing economy can be a liberating experience
with no set hours or boss. But for members of society who turn to the
sharing economy as a last resort, that liberation can feel more like
desperation and a race to the bottom; these are the Americans that Clinton
was trying to address.

From an economic perspective, there's some truth to the idea that workers
aren't getting as much pay as they have in the past. It's certainly not the
exclusive fault of the sharing economy though. Labor's share of economic
output has fallenfrom a peak of about 59 percent in 1970 to about 53
percent today—a difference of about $1 trillion in wages, salaries and
benefits for workers, or enough to boost the average family's pre-tax
income from $64,432 to $72,656. In that context, the emergence of the gig
economy is relatively recent—most app-based sharing companies, including
Airbnb, Uber, Lyft, Spinlister, among others, were founded after the 2008
crisis.

Whether these gig companies are actually hurting labor income—or are
treating workers unfairly—is a much more open question. Clinton's remarks
assume that they are: Her concerns about the costs of the sharing economy
are targeted at the Taskrabbits among us who feel forced to work at the
instruction of apps because of a lack of options or opportunity in the
traditional workforce—not workers who actively opt-in to the sharing
economy for its benefits.

On the other hand, Bush and other Republicans have good reason to believe
that support for Uber will score political points. The company has, after
all, grown from nothing to a valuation that's about the same as General
Motorsin the span of six years—regardless of how you feel about Uber and
its Objectivist founders, it's hard to deny theirs is a bonafide American
entrepreneurial success story. Bush is also on the record saying that he
believesAmericans need to work more hours, and the flexible hours offered
by sharing economy companies are a reasonable way to get people working
more, offering more choice, lower prices for consumers, and less regulatory
burden than traditional businesses.

Republicans have fetishized Uber and other tech "disrupters," whose
business models they see as shining examples of a free-market,
anti-regulatory ideology, challenging government-sanctioned monopolies—on,
say, taxis or hotels—that keep consumer prices higher they would otherwise
be. That was the source of the riots in France: French taxi drivers, angry
that Uber was taking their fares, protested, and things got out of control,
giving Courtney Love an unfortunate scare; the French government responded
by cracking down on Uber's UberPOP service, effectively protecting the
country's licensed cab driver monopoly. AirBnB has faced similar issues in
numerous jurisdictions, including New York City.

In short, the sharing economy has all the ingredients of a punchy campaign
issue: It's a metaphor for a big shift that's been under way for over
thirty years, neatly encapsulating a lot of complicated economics and
policy into one symbol. And it's a jumping off point for an important
election-year debate over what that "normal" American economy should look
like after years of slow recovery from a massive recession. Plus, all the
kids are doing it.

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS*

*Martin O’Malley Apologized for Saying “All Lives Matter.” Should Hillary
Clinton?
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122335/omalley-apologized-saying-all-lives-matter-should-clinton>
// The New Republic // Rebecca Leber – July 20, 2015 *

Martin O’Malley was booed at a liberal conference on Saturday when, after
being interrupted by Black Lives Matter demonstrators, he said, “Black
lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.” Within hours, the
former Maryland governor apologized, saying on the digital show “This Week
in Blackness,” “I meant no disrespect. That was a mistake on my part and I
meant no disrespect. I did not mean to be insensitive in any way or
communicate that I did not understand the tremendous passion, commitment
and feeling and depth of feeling that all of us should be attaching to this
issue.”

But O’Malley isn’t the only Democratic presidential candidate who has said
“all lives matter.” Frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who didn’t attend
Netroots, used the phrase in a speech last month at a historic black church
five miles from Ferguson, Missouri. Describing her mother's life, Clinton
said, “Her own parents abandoned her. By 14 she was out on her own, working
as a housemaid. Years later, when I was old enough to understand, I asked
her, ‘What kept you going?’ Her answer was very simple: Kindness along the
way from someone who believed she mattered. All lives matter.”

There was some debate over whether she ever needed to clarify her remarks.
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile didn’t see the need for it.

Clinton has never explicitly apologized for saying “all lives matter.”
Asked Monday if she regretted using the phrase and plans to apologize for
it, her campaign sent a link to a Facebook comment by Clinton in response
to a question by the Washington Post’s Wesley Lowery.

“All lives matter” has become a common conservative retort to
#blacklivesmatter, and activists (among others) object to the phrase
because it obscures how black lives in particular are treated as less
valuable in America. As Berkeley professor Judith Berkeley put it earlier
this year:

Claiming that “all lives matter” does not immediately mark or enable black
lives only because they have not been fully recognized as having lives that
matter. I do not mean this as an obscure riddle. I mean only to say that we
cannot have a race-blind approach to the questions: which lives matter? Or,
which lives are worth valuing? If we jump too quickly to the universal
formulation, “all lives matter,” then we miss the fact that black people
have not yet been included in the idea of “all lives.”

Update: Another Democratic presidential candidate, Vermont Senator Bernie
Sanders, has made remarks not unlike "all lives matter." In June, he told
NPR's David Greene, "Black lives matter. White lives matter. Hispanic lives
matter. But these are also not only police matters. They're not only gun
control matters. They are significantly economic matters."

*TOP NEWS*

*DOMESTIC*

*The Unarmed Forces: Will the Pentagon let troops carry weapons after
Chattanooga?
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/07/20/the-unarmed-forces-will-the-pentagon-let-troops-carry-weapons-after-chattanooga/>
// WaPo // Dan Lamothe – July 20, 2015 *

Three weeks ago, the U.S. Army awarded Purple Hearts to two soldiers who
were wounded in an attack by a gunman on a military recruiting center. One
of them, Pvt. William Long, received the award posthumously after being
killed in the attack. The other, Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, was wounded
numerous times but survived.

The June 1, 2009, attack in Little Rock, Ark., was recalled by many
following the shootings last week at a military recruiting center and naval
reserve installation in Chattanooga, Tenn., that killed four Marines and a
sailor: Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan, 40; Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, 35; Sgt.
Carson A. Holmquist; Lance Cpl. Squire D. “Skip” Wells, 21; and Petty
Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith, 26.

All five were at the naval reserve center, one of two locations targeted by
the shooter, Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24, who was also killed.

The attacks are evidence, some say, that the Pentagon should end its
long-held restrictions on U.S. service members arming themselves while at
military facilities. Law enforcement officials said Monday that they had
recovered a privately-owned pistol at the reserve center following the
shootout that may have been carried by one of the deceased Marines, but
they would not have been allowed to do so.

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter called on Friday for “immediate steps”
to be taken to enhance force protection following the Chattanooga shooting,
but arming troops was not one of them. Mark Wright, a spokesman at the
Pentagon, said that the Marine Corps chose to close all recruiting offices
within 40 miles temporarily, instruct recruiters across the country not to
wear uniforms and to boost security at recruiting stations to force
protection level Charlie, indicating an increased terrorist threat exists.

The Army also increased its security at recruiting centers to force
protection level Charlie, and the Navy opted to have more random searches
at facilities and coordinate more closely with law enforcement.

Pentagon officials said that Carter also called for a review by the
services to determine how security can be improved, with recommendations
due back to him within a few days.

Carter, asked about the review Sunday while flying from Washington to
Israel, did not say whether he is considering arming U.S. troops while on
base Stateside.

“We took some steps on Friday that seemed immediately advisable,” the
secretary told reporters, without elaborating. “I’ve asked the services to
quickly, but in a comprehensive way, assess additional things that they
might recommend.”

Pressure is mounting to arm troops. Sen. Ron Johnson (R.-Wis.) said Friday
he would introduce legislation that would get rid of rules preventing
service members from being armed at military installations. Sen. John
McCain (R.-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R.-Tex.), chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee, also called Friday for the Pentagon to do more to protect troops.

“Long before the Chattanooga attack, we had been working to clarify a post
commander’s authority to allow carrying of personal firearms,” McCain and
Thornberry said in a joint statement. “This year’s National Defense
Authorization Act will reflect that work.  Together, we will direct the
Pentagon to end the disconnect between the threats our war fighters and
their families face and the tools they have to defend themselves.”

The independent Marine Corps Times captured the sentiment among many
rank-and-file Marines on the cover of its newspaper on Monday. The
headline: “The call to arm all Marines — now.” It was greeted by readers on
Facebook with widespread agreement.

In the 1990s, the Pentagon restricted who can carry weapons at military
facilities, ostensibly to make them safer by allowing only military police
to carry weapons in most situations.

There is some disagreement over where the policy originated. Some have
blamed former President Clinton, citing a 1993 Army directive that limited
the use of firearms on military bases. But it actually traces back a little
farther. A 1992 Defense Department directive issued during President George
H.W. Bush’s administration addressed the issue and provided the Pentagon’s
rationale for limiting who carried firearms in the United States.

“The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified
personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets
will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried,” the directive said.
“Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering
this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or
indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel regularly engaged in law
enforcement or security duties shall be armed.”

The issue has come up after numerous shootings on military bases, including
the 2009 and 2014 attacks at Fort Hood, Tex., and the 2013 mass shooting at
the Washington Navy Yard.

*Bill That Lets Bosses Fire Single Women For Getting Pregnant Gains Steam
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/first-amendment-defense-act_55a7ffe6e4b04740a3df4ca1>
// HuffPo // Dana Liebelson – July 20, 2015 *

In wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage,
Republicans are pushing legislation that aims to protect Americans who
oppose these unions on religious grounds. But critics say the language is
so broad, the bill creates a license to discriminate that would let
employers fire women for getting pregnant outside of wedlock.

The First Amendment Defense Act prohibits the federal government from
taking discriminatory action against a person -- which is defined to
include for-profit corporations -- acting in accordance with a religious
belief that favors so-called traditional marriage. This means the feds
can't revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status or end a company's federal
contract over this issue.

The bill specifically protects those who believe that marriage is between
"one man and one woman" or that "sexual relations are properly reserved to
such a marriage." Ian Thompson, a legislative representative at the
American Civil Liberties Union, said that in addition to targeting lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender people, the bill "clearly encompasses
discrimination against single mothers" and would hobble the ability of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal body that
protects women from sex-based discrimination, to act.

This scenario isn't merely hypothetical. There are a number of recent cases
where religious schools have fired unwed teachers for becoming pregnant. A
Montana Catholic school teacher who was fired for having a baby out of
wedlock, for example, filed a discrimination charge last year with the
EEOC. While the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a ministerial exception
to employment discrimination laws, that exception is somewhat limited, not
necessarily covering educators employed by Catholic schools who teach about
exclusively secular subjects.

James Ryan, a spokesman for the EEOC, said the commission could not comment
on pending legislation in Congress.

At a press conference on Thursday, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), who
authored the House bill, strongly denied that it could be used this way.
"It's just allowing people to continue to believe the way they do," he told
The Huffington Post.

His colleague, Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) said, "We're not going to try to
dance on the head of a pin here. This legislation protects an institution
based on its sincerely held religious beliefs from persecution."

When NPR asked Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who introduced the companion Senate
bill, about a hypothetical university firing an unmarried woman for having
sex out of wedlock, he said, "There are colleges and universities that have
a religious belief that sexual relations are to be reserved for marriage"
and they "ought to be protected in their religious freedom."

The legislation is picking up steam, with pressure reportedly mounting on
GOP leaders to call a vote this month on the bill. When House Speaker John
Boehner (R-Ohio) was asked on Thursday what he thinks of the bill and
whether he'll bring it to the floor, he said, "The Supreme Court’s decision
on marriage raises a lot of other questions and a number of members have
concerns about the issues it raises." He added, "No decision has been made
on how best to address these."

Thompson said that this isn't the only problem with the bill. He said it
would eviscerate anti-discrimination protections for LGBT federal
contractors signed into law by President Barack Obama last year and allow
federal grantees to turn away LGBT people from homeless shelter services or
drug treatment programs. Comparing it to a religious freedom bill in
Indiana that faced national backlash, he said, "This bill is Indiana on
steroids."

*INTERNATIONAL*

*U.S. Embassy in Cuba Reopens After More Than 50 Years
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/world/americas/cuba-us-embassy-diplomatic-relations.html>
// NYT // Azam Ahmed – July 20, 2015 *

After more than a half-century defined by mistrust and rancor, the United
States officially reopened its six-story embassy in the Cuban capital on
Monday, the culmination of many months of negotiations to overcome decades
of historical enmity and to restore diplomatic relations between the two
nations.

More than two years of effort went into restoring relations between Cuba
and the United States, both public and private, yet most observers say they
believe it will be many more years before mutual wariness fades.

A litany of questions have yet to be answered, including: Will the American
trade embargo that has crippled Cuba’s economy be lifted, and if so, when?
Will the Cuban government improve its human rights record and incorporate
outsiders into the political spectrum? How much, and how fast, will the
lives of ordinary Cubans, who earn $20 a month on average, improve?

But for now, the reopening of the embassy on the Malecón waterfront in
Havana, previously used as an interests section, a limited diplomatic
outpost, stands as the most concrete symbol yet of the thaw set in motion
last year when President Obama ordered the full restoration of diplomatic
ties between the countries.

“It is sort of like a wedding,” said James Williams, the president of an
advocacy group, Engage Cuba, which has been lobbying for improved
relations. “You’ve spent all this time planning your wedding day, and
finally you’re getting to see someone walk down the aisle.”

“Now,” he added, “you have the rest of your life together.”

If Cubans are expecting bells and canapés to celebrate the nuptials, they
will be sorely disappointed. The official celebration to inaugurate the
American Embassy will not take place until later in the summer, when
Secretary of State John Kerry plans to visit, to formally raise the flag
and install the new signage.

For now, the change is imperceptible from the outside, arguably a metaphor
for the state of Cuba itself.

Technically, there will be differences. Diplomats will be formally
registered, and, for the first time since the American Embassy was closed,
they will be allowed to travel freely in the country. They will be invited
to functions, too, like members of other diplomatic corps.

The American government is supposed to ease access for Cubans entering the
embassy and for the American Foreign Service officers inside, a State
Department official said.

Mr. Obama, when announcing an end to the diplomatic freeze, eased travel
restrictions, opened the door for more remittances to Cuba, and expanded
the amount of goods that visiting Americans could take home, like Cuban
cigars and rum. In May, he removed the country from the list of nations
that sponsor terrorism.

President Raúl Castro has spent the past five years, before the thaw began
with the Obama administration, trying to jump-start the nation’s economy,
ordering that hundreds of thousands of government employees be laid off,
encouraging Cubans into self-employment and entrepreneurship, and creating
a special economic zone in the coastal city of Mariel to attract foreign
investment.

But many of these changes have been confronted with bracing realities. A
farm program to encourage crop cultivation struggled because of regulations
and a lack of reliable transportation, and the mass public-sector layoffs
Mr. Castro promised never really materialized. Real estate overhauls that
now allow Cubans to sell their homes have run into a problem that vexes
just about every segment of Cuban life: a lack of supplies.

Often, these initiatives have been ensnared by the mentality that has both
preserved and ossified Cuban life, one forged through years of
anti-American sentiment that has defined the social, political and economic
lives of Cubans. Letting go of that is not easy.

Mr. Castro has said that change will be slow, and that it will not come at
the cost of stability or values. Again and again, what emerges is this:
Cuba will change, yes, but at its own pace and with no apologies.

For many Cubans, that is reason enough for hope.

“The genie is out of the bottle,” said Carlos Alzugaray Treto, a former
Cuban diplomat who is close to Mr. Castro and his brother Fidel, the
country’s longtime president. “And once it’s out, you’re not going to be
able to put it back in.”

Out of the bottle or not, life continues as usual in Havana. A number of
Cubans know about the opening of the American Embassy and have formulated
opinions about what it will mean for them.

Some fear that Cuban culture could be lost, devoured by American
consumerism. But just as many, if not more, are fine with change if it
means that they can earn enough to live on.

“For me, inequality is not a problem,” said Lázaro Borrero, 39, a
journeyman worker who does a bit of construction, cooking and tobacco
rolling to make ends meet. “If you earn $1 million a year, and I earn $1 a
year, good for you.”

Oswaldo Alamo, 66, in the government-owned shop in Havana where he sells
rationed food items. Mr. Alamo said he supported the re-establishment of
diplomatic relations with the United States. Credit Meridith Kohut for The
New York Times

Change that will have an effect on the wallets of normal Cubans is, by some
estimates, many years away. It will require the lifting of the American
embargo as well as what many Cubans refer to as the “internal embargo,” or
the state impediments that exist in everyday life, from communications to
buying groceries.

It will require change from within the Cuban system and adapting to
economic norms that might require letting go of some of their control,
experts say.

“Cuba has more of a challenge to change than does the United States,” said
Ricardo Pascoe, a former Mexican ambassador to Cuba. “They’re going to have
to open up one way or another.”

But it will not be only the Cubans who change. American tourists are
expected to come in waves to discover a nation so long forbidden, and there
will also be families who can reunite without having to cross political
minefields.

Consider Lucía Nuñez, the director of the Civil Rights Department for the
government of Madison, Wis. Her parents, born in Cuba, left the country a
year before America severed diplomatic ties with it under President Dwight
D. Eisenhower, in 1961.

Ms. Nuñez drifted emotionally from Cuba over the years, growing up in the
Virgin Islands and eventually moving to New England for high school and
college. She was ashamed, she said, of having parents with accents and a
cuisine that differed from her friends’.

She raised her children in the United States and has lived in Wisconsin for
the past 17 years. Her mother, who has been back to Cuba only once since
leaving, missed the deaths of her brothers on the island.

“I spent a lot of years denying I was Cuban,” Lucía Nuñez said from the
home of a Cuban entrepreneur who has been licensed to rent to foreign
visitors. “But there’s no denying it: I am Cuban. I am as much frijoles
negros as I am Bruce Springsteen.”

So this summer, she, her 81-year-old mother and her 19-year-old daughter
decided to take a trip to Havana and to the small town near Guantánamo
where the family is from. They recently arrived in Cuba and plan to stay
for about a month, and Ms. Nuñez’s mother will see her sister for the first
time in years.

“I hope the normalcy of the relations — or whatever it is they are calling
them — I hope it brings us closer to the family I used to have,” she said.

*Banks reopen, first repayments start as Greece aims for return to normal
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/20/us-eurozone-greece-idUSKCN0PU0DJ20150720>
// Reuters // Lefteris Papadimas – July 20, 2015 *

Greece reopened its banks and started the process of paying off billions of
euros owed to international creditors on Monday in the first signs of a
return to normal after a deal to agree a new package of bailout reforms.

Customers were queued up outside bank branches open for the first time in
three weeks on Monday after they were closed to save the system from
collapsing under a flood of withdrawals.

Increases in value added tax agreed under the bailout terms also took
effect, with VAT on food and public transport jumping to 23 percent from 13
percent. The stock market remained closed until further notice. The bank
closures were the most visible sign of the crisis that took Greece to the
brink of leaving the euro earlier this month, potentially undermining the
foundations of the single European currency.

Their reopening followed Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras' reluctant
acceptance of a tough package of bailout demands from European partners,
but a revolt in the ruling Syriza party now threatens the stability of his
government and officials say new elections may be held as early as
September or October.

"Things are better than the last few weeks. Thank God we didn't end up with
the drachma!" said 62-year-old pensioner Maria Papadopoulou. "I came to pay
bills and my taxes today. Last week I couldn't and all of this is very
tiring for the older people like me."

Limits on withdrawals will remain, however -- at 420 euros ($455) per week
instead of 60 euros per day previously -- and payments and wire transfers
abroad will still not be possible, a situation German Chancellor Angela
Merkel said on Sunday was "not a normal life" and warranted swift
negotiations on a new bailout, expected to be worth up to 86 billion euros.

"Capital controls and restrictions on withdrawals will remain in place but
we are entering a new stage which we all hope will be one of normality,"
said Louka Katseli, head of the Greek bank association.

Greeks will be able to deposit cheques but not cash, pay bills as well as
have access to safety deposit boxes and withdraw money without an ATM card.

Bankers said there may be minor disruptions after the extended interruption
to services but said they expected services to resume largely as normal.

"I don't expect major problems, our network and the network of our
competitors are ready to serve our clients," said a senior official at
Piraeus Bank, one of the big four lenders. "There might be lines because
many people will want to withdraw money from their deposit boxes," the
official said.

Athens initiated procedures to pay 4.2 billion euros in principal and
interest to the European Central Bank due on Monday after European
authorities agreed last week to provide emergency funding assistance,

It is also paying 2.05 billion euros to the International Monetary Fund in
arrears since June 30, when Greece became the first advanced economy to
default on a loan to the IMF, along with 500 million euros owed to the Bank
of Greece.

Tsipras is eyeing a fresh start and swift talks on the bailout aimed at
keeping Greece afloat but faces hurdles with factions in his party.

Although the Greek parliament approved the bailout package on Thursday, the
40-year-old prime minister was forced to rely on votes from the opposition
after 39 rebels from Syriza refused to back the government by voting
against or abstaining.

A second vote will be held on Wednesday on measures including justice and
banking reforms and a similar outcome is expected. The voting arithmetic is
finely poised, however.

Together with his coalition partners from the right-wing Independent Greeks
party Tsipras has 162 seats in the 300-seat parliament. But Thursday's
rebellion cut his support to just 123 votes, meaning he is likely to need
opposition votes again.

Some officials in the government have suggested that if support from
lawmakers from within the coalition dropped below 120 votes, early snap
elections would have to be called while the bailout was still being
negotiated.

Their argument is that under Greek law, the lowest number of votes a
government can have to win a confidence motion is 120 out of 240, the
minimum quorum in parliament for a vote to be valid.

Dropping below 120 would be a symbolic blow but whether it would actually
push Tsipras to step down is unclear given that he would have the support
of the pro-European opposition parties if a confidence vote were called.

"What worries me is that some people still think that there would be no
austerity if we were out of the euro. This argument is absolutely false,"
State Minister Nikos Pappas, one of Tsipras' closest aides told the leftist
Efimerida Ton Syntakton newspaper.

Acceptance of the bailout terms and reopening of the banks have marked a
new stage for Tsipras after months of difficult talks.

The bailout terms, which are tougher than those rejected in a referendum
earlier in July, include tax hikes, pension cuts, strict curbs on public
spending, an overhaul of collective bargaining rules and a transfer of 50
billion euros of state assets into a special privatization fund.