Jeb Bush on Marco Rubio: He followed my lead
By Ashley Killough
Jeb Bush painted his longtime ally Marco Rubio as a follower and Donald Trump as an "entertainer" on Wednesday, arguing in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash that he'll go the distance because of his own background as a "proven leader."
In a subtle but significant swipe, Bush tried to cast a shadow on Rubio's experience as a first-term senator, saying the country has already tried a fresh face who promised hope and change, referring to President Barack Obama.
"In fact, he's been the greatest, most divisive president in modern history," the former Florida governor said while sitting at a Dunkin Donuts here. "What we need is someone with proven leadership to fix things, and I believe I have those skills."
As Bush's support has dropped dramatically in the past few months -- a new national poll had him in fifth place -- Rubio has seen a recent surge. Both are taking a slow and steady approach, hoping to peak at just the right moment before the February primaries and caucuses.
It's an awkward situation for the two men. Rubio, who served as speaker of the Florida House when Bush was governor, considered Bush a mentor. Both hail from Miami and are fluent in Spanish, and they're also competing for the mantle as the Republican who can help broaden the GOP base.
Pressed Wednesday on why Bush thinks voters should support him over Rubio -- who regularly says it's time to "turn the page" rather than elect "the most familiar name" -- Bush pointed to his tried-and-tested experience.
"I'm a proven leader," Bush told Bash. "I disrupted the old order in Tallahassee. I relied on people like Marco Rubio and many others to follow my leadership and we moved the needle."
Until recently, Bush has largely refrained from going directly after his former protégé. He has, however, argued that lawmakers who miss votes to campaign should have their pay docked, saying they're not doing their jobs. Many consider that a swipe against Rubio given that the Florida senator has missed more votes than any other senator this year.
"Look we had a president who came in and said the same kind of thing -- new and improved, hope and change -- and he didn't have the leadership skills to fix things," Bush said.
Bush: Trump tax plan blows 'gigantic whole in the deficit'
Talking about another one of his opponents, Bush criticized Trump for not explaining how he would pay for his recently announced tax plan and pointed out that the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation said Trump's plan would cost $10 trillion over 10 years.
"It's not a serious of a plan as it should be, but the fact that he's actually proposing something is encouraging," Bush said. "Every time he talks about policy, he's not insulting somebody. That's a good sign for the Republican primary."
Bush used Twitter on Tuesday to agree with those who would say Trump's plan looks similar to Bush's. Both would get rid of loopholes used by private equity and hedge fund managers, and both would reduce the number of tax brackets down from seven. They also propose lowering the corporate rate and the rate on capital gains, as well as eliminating the estate and alternative minimum tax.
"Finally saw Donald's 'tax plan.' Looks familiar! I'm flattered," Bush's Twitter account read. "But he should've stuck with growth & fiscal responsibility."
In the interview on Wednesday, Bush said Trump's plan would blow a "gigantic whole in the deficit" since he hasn't explained how he would raise enough revenue to offset the cost.
"But look we're going to have a chance to focus on this," Bush said. "I can't wait to hear and see what his plans are about all the other things because up until now it's really just been bluster."
The two candidates will hold dueling events in New Hampshire on Wednesday night. Asked why voters should come to his event over Trump's, Bush promised he would "listen" rather than "entertain."
"If they want to hear someone who's authentic, who has plans for the future, who has leadership skills to fix a few big complex things, who will listen to them and not necessarily entertain them, then they should come to my event," he said. "Or come to both, I don't care. I'm happy to compare and contrast."
Bush: 2016 primary fight a Triathlon
A new Suffolk University poll released Wednesday indicates is in Bush in fifth place nationally at 8%. Trump takes the top spot at 23%, followed by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina at 13%, and Rubio at 9%.
It's yet another survey showing that Bush is struggling to gain traction more than three months after launching his White House bid.
The candidate said Wednesday that the race is no longer a "marathon" as he likes to say.
"I've changed it. It's a triathlon, now," he continued. "Even longer."
Bash said she spoke to a donor who lamented that Bush's donors "keep investing in a company and, as a shareholder, we're not seeing any sales."
Bush, however, continues to keep a long gaze and focus on next winter. He cited John McCain's comeback in 2008 as an example of the ebb and flow of campaigns. Bush said he saw McCain in October 2007 at the airport in Atlanta, alone and carrying his own bag.
"And he won the nomination," Bush said. "People knew that he could lead, and over time, that's what people in New Hampshire do, they decide who presidents are going to be."
Bush expressed confidence in his campaign's plan, one that relies heavily on its organizational strength and its determination to stay focused on sharing his story as governor.
"I'm convinced I'm going to win the Republican nomination," he said. "I'm going to do it in a way that will actually make it possible to win the general election, as well. I am who I am. I think people want authenticity."
He pointed to his record of reducing the size of government in Florida, cutting taxes, and creating a privatized voucher program for students in his state — all examples that he says makes him a "disruptor."
"I mean ultimately this is not about the loudest, you know, it's not entertainment. We're not auditioning for some kind of show here," he said. "We're running for president to the United States and who sits behind the big desk matters."
So at one point in the triathlon is he?
"We're swimming."
September 30, 2015
Free Pass to Lie
How the Media Gave Carly Fiorina a Free Pass to Lie About Planned Parenthood
by Eric Alterman
You may have heard that Carly Fiorina won the September 16 CNN debate and has since entered the “top tier” of Republican presidential candidates. Well, for now that’s true, but in the long run, the true winner will be the same guy who won the August 6 Fox debate and is winning pretty much every political debate we have in this country these days: Roger Ailes.
Allow me to explain: Ever since Ailes founded Fox News in 1996 (with Rupert Murdoch’s money), the station has served as a propaganda arm and ideological enforcer for the Republican Party even as it pretends to be a news network. Its broadcasts ignore reality whenever convenient, preferring to purvey whatever misinformation and/or ideological obfuscation serve Ailes’s strategic and financial purposes. Because the network’s loyal viewers believe whatever nonsense it broadcasts, and because they happen to be the conservative movement’s most dedicated activists, Republican politicians have no choice but to pander to them. Members of the political media are therefore faced with a choice: expose the nonsense or try to imitate it. Alas, most of them — or at least their bosses — took a look at the billions of dollars Ailes and company rake in and, well… money talked.
The degree to which CNN prostituted itself to the Republican Party during the debate would be shocking had this frog not been slowly boiling for over a decade. To earn the right to charge advertisers 40 times its normal rate for a program that reached a record 23 million viewers, CNN executives agreed to allow the deranged right-wing radio announcer Hugh Hewitt to help steer the debate. One imagines they also instructed their own host, Jake Tapper, to invite the candidates to lie with impunity because no self-respecting journalist would have allowed himself to be part of such a degrading performance unless specifically ordered to do so.
It would take an entire issue of The Nation magazine merely to catalog the falsehoods Tapper and Hewitt let slide that night. They ran the gamut from national security to economics to vaccination to climate change to immigration. George W. Bush did not “keep us safe,” and it was his administration, not Obama’s, that ensured both the US exit from Iraq and the growth of ISIS. The Iran deal does not rest on self-inspection, and Iran did not invite Russia into Syria. Vaccinations do not cause autism. Climate change is not in doubt, and attempting to address it would not “destroy” the economy. Undocumented immigrants do not cost taxpayers $200 billion a year. Social Security is not going insolvent. Hillary Clinton is not being investigated because she “destroyed government records.” Believe me, I could go on (and on). These lies, half-truths, and outright crazy statements were so stupid as to be offensive to common sense. And yet because Tapper and Hewitt chose not to challenge them, CNN was not only not supporting democratic debate but actively undermining it.
True, many media institutions did run post-game “fact-checks,” but these same institutions ignored them when the time came to tally up the score. Hence, Fiorina was chosen as debate champion because her lies were considered to be the most effective. According to The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, “pretty much everyone agreed that [Carly] Fiorina…had won the evening.” The paper’s political handicapper, Chris Cillizza, termed her “emotional call to a higher moral authority when talking about Planned Parenthood” to be “the most affecting moment of the debate.” Yet neither Tumulty, who won a 2013 prize for “Excellence in Political Reporting,” nor Cillizza — who recently joked that Obama should serve Hillary “Mad Bitch Beer” — thought it important to note her transparent dishonesty.
The New York Times’s front-page lead story also celebrated Fiorina as “a credible antidote to the gender gap and the Democrats’ claims of a Republican ‘war on women.’” A reader had to wade through more than 1,200 words of padded fluff before learning that the “most affecting moment” staged by this “credible antidote” was a brazen lie. There is no evidence in the secretly taped Planned Parenthood videos of “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” As the story mentions in passing in paragraph 23, “The video that Mrs. Fiorina seems to be referring to does show a still image of a fetus being held outside the womb. But it is not seen squirming as Mrs. Fiorina describes, nor is there any indication that it is about to have its brain removed.” (Her foreign policy pronouncements were even more objectionable… if that’s possible.)
Tapper dived so deeply into right-wing Republican waters, he swam in its xenophobia as well. How else to describe his use of the term “illegal immigrants,” a phrase that’s loaded with conservative assumptions about who is and is not welcome in this country?
Most depressing of all, Tapper found himself celebrated in the MSM for his failure. Ira Glass tweeted, “What a great job getting candidates to talk to each other. A model. Respect.” Bob Woodward used his first tweet ever to announce “@jaketapper soared as the New Boss in the #gopdebate, asserting his authority and making vividly clear his political neutrality.”
The fellow sipping champagne, however, should be Roger Ailes. Thanks to his genius, the Republican presidential primary is a parade of liars, xenophobes, misogynists, and, let’s be honest, lunatics. And the leading lights of American journalism do not merely enable them; they cheer them on. Like victims of the so-called “Stockholm Syndrome,” they’d rather switch than fight. Too bad it’s our democracy that’s really being tortured.
by Eric Alterman
You may have heard that Carly Fiorina won the September 16 CNN debate and has since entered the “top tier” of Republican presidential candidates. Well, for now that’s true, but in the long run, the true winner will be the same guy who won the August 6 Fox debate and is winning pretty much every political debate we have in this country these days: Roger Ailes.
Allow me to explain: Ever since Ailes founded Fox News in 1996 (with Rupert Murdoch’s money), the station has served as a propaganda arm and ideological enforcer for the Republican Party even as it pretends to be a news network. Its broadcasts ignore reality whenever convenient, preferring to purvey whatever misinformation and/or ideological obfuscation serve Ailes’s strategic and financial purposes. Because the network’s loyal viewers believe whatever nonsense it broadcasts, and because they happen to be the conservative movement’s most dedicated activists, Republican politicians have no choice but to pander to them. Members of the political media are therefore faced with a choice: expose the nonsense or try to imitate it. Alas, most of them — or at least their bosses — took a look at the billions of dollars Ailes and company rake in and, well… money talked.
The degree to which CNN prostituted itself to the Republican Party during the debate would be shocking had this frog not been slowly boiling for over a decade. To earn the right to charge advertisers 40 times its normal rate for a program that reached a record 23 million viewers, CNN executives agreed to allow the deranged right-wing radio announcer Hugh Hewitt to help steer the debate. One imagines they also instructed their own host, Jake Tapper, to invite the candidates to lie with impunity because no self-respecting journalist would have allowed himself to be part of such a degrading performance unless specifically ordered to do so.
It would take an entire issue of The Nation magazine merely to catalog the falsehoods Tapper and Hewitt let slide that night. They ran the gamut from national security to economics to vaccination to climate change to immigration. George W. Bush did not “keep us safe,” and it was his administration, not Obama’s, that ensured both the US exit from Iraq and the growth of ISIS. The Iran deal does not rest on self-inspection, and Iran did not invite Russia into Syria. Vaccinations do not cause autism. Climate change is not in doubt, and attempting to address it would not “destroy” the economy. Undocumented immigrants do not cost taxpayers $200 billion a year. Social Security is not going insolvent. Hillary Clinton is not being investigated because she “destroyed government records.” Believe me, I could go on (and on). These lies, half-truths, and outright crazy statements were so stupid as to be offensive to common sense. And yet because Tapper and Hewitt chose not to challenge them, CNN was not only not supporting democratic debate but actively undermining it.
True, many media institutions did run post-game “fact-checks,” but these same institutions ignored them when the time came to tally up the score. Hence, Fiorina was chosen as debate champion because her lies were considered to be the most effective. According to The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, “pretty much everyone agreed that [Carly] Fiorina…had won the evening.” The paper’s political handicapper, Chris Cillizza, termed her “emotional call to a higher moral authority when talking about Planned Parenthood” to be “the most affecting moment of the debate.” Yet neither Tumulty, who won a 2013 prize for “Excellence in Political Reporting,” nor Cillizza — who recently joked that Obama should serve Hillary “Mad Bitch Beer” — thought it important to note her transparent dishonesty.
The New York Times’s front-page lead story also celebrated Fiorina as “a credible antidote to the gender gap and the Democrats’ claims of a Republican ‘war on women.’” A reader had to wade through more than 1,200 words of padded fluff before learning that the “most affecting moment” staged by this “credible antidote” was a brazen lie. There is no evidence in the secretly taped Planned Parenthood videos of “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” As the story mentions in passing in paragraph 23, “The video that Mrs. Fiorina seems to be referring to does show a still image of a fetus being held outside the womb. But it is not seen squirming as Mrs. Fiorina describes, nor is there any indication that it is about to have its brain removed.” (Her foreign policy pronouncements were even more objectionable… if that’s possible.)
Tapper dived so deeply into right-wing Republican waters, he swam in its xenophobia as well. How else to describe his use of the term “illegal immigrants,” a phrase that’s loaded with conservative assumptions about who is and is not welcome in this country?
Most depressing of all, Tapper found himself celebrated in the MSM for his failure. Ira Glass tweeted, “What a great job getting candidates to talk to each other. A model. Respect.” Bob Woodward used his first tweet ever to announce “@jaketapper soared as the New Boss in the #gopdebate, asserting his authority and making vividly clear his political neutrality.”
The fellow sipping champagne, however, should be Roger Ailes. Thanks to his genius, the Republican presidential primary is a parade of liars, xenophobes, misogynists, and, let’s be honest, lunatics. And the leading lights of American journalism do not merely enable them; they cheer them on. Like victims of the so-called “Stockholm Syndrome,” they’d rather switch than fight. Too bad it’s our democracy that’s really being tortured.
Reject
Poll: Wisconsin voters reject Walker
By Nick Gass
Scott Walker remains unpopular among Wisconsin voters in the first poll conducted since the Republican governor ended his presidential campaign.
More than six in 10 Wisconsin voters, 62 percent, do not want Walker to run for a third term as governor in 2018, according to the results of a new Marquette University Law Poll out Wednesday. Just 35 percent said he should seek a third term.
Walker's approval rating slid to a new low: 37 percent, with 59 percent of voters disapproving.
If Walker had stayed in the presidential race, just 28 percent of Republicans said they would vote for him in the state's primary, while 55 percent said they would vote for another GOP candidate.
Donald Trump appeared to have benefited the most from Walker ending his campaign, jumping 9 points from last month's Marquette poll, to 20 percent. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson followed with 16 percent, along with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 14 percent and former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina at 11 percent. Other candidates polled below 10 percent.
In the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, 42 percent to 30 percent, slight decreases for both from last month's poll. Vice President Joe Biden, who has not yet announced whether he will run, is at 17 percent.
The poll was conducted Sept. 24-28, surveying 803 registered voters in the state via cellphones and landlines with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. The margin of error for the subsample of the 321 Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters is plus or minus 6.5 percentage points, while the margin of error for the 394 Democratic voters is plus or minus 5.9 percentage points.
By Nick Gass
Scott Walker remains unpopular among Wisconsin voters in the first poll conducted since the Republican governor ended his presidential campaign.
More than six in 10 Wisconsin voters, 62 percent, do not want Walker to run for a third term as governor in 2018, according to the results of a new Marquette University Law Poll out Wednesday. Just 35 percent said he should seek a third term.
Walker's approval rating slid to a new low: 37 percent, with 59 percent of voters disapproving.
If Walker had stayed in the presidential race, just 28 percent of Republicans said they would vote for him in the state's primary, while 55 percent said they would vote for another GOP candidate.
Donald Trump appeared to have benefited the most from Walker ending his campaign, jumping 9 points from last month's Marquette poll, to 20 percent. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson followed with 16 percent, along with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 14 percent and former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina at 11 percent. Other candidates polled below 10 percent.
In the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, 42 percent to 30 percent, slight decreases for both from last month's poll. Vice President Joe Biden, who has not yet announced whether he will run, is at 17 percent.
The poll was conducted Sept. 24-28, surveying 803 registered voters in the state via cellphones and landlines with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. The margin of error for the subsample of the 321 Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters is plus or minus 6.5 percentage points, while the margin of error for the 394 Democratic voters is plus or minus 5.9 percentage points.
House passes bill
Shutdown averted as House passes stopgap bill
By Lauren French and Seung Min Kim
The House easily cleared a stopgap spending bill on Wednesday evening after the measure zipped through the Senate earlier in the day, as lawmakers avoided a government shutdown just hours before the fiscal year ends at midnight.
The Senate showdown over government funding ended with a whimper, as conservatives couldn’t muster enough votes last week to advance a bill that also would have defunded Planned Parenthood. The Senate passed the short-term funding bill – without the Planned Parenthood language – on Wednesday morning by a 78-20 vote.
The House followed suit with a 277-151 vote to send the bill to President Barack Obama's desk, where he's expected to sign it into law.
Both of the votes proved to be an anticlimactic end to weeks of maneuvering over Planned Parenthood and the budget.
But Wednesday's measure just sets up another showdown threat – with even higher stakes – in December.
Conservatives in both chambers wanted to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal funding after a series of leaked videos showed officials with the organizations allegedly discussing fetal tissues sales. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who’s made defunding Planned Parenthood a rallying cry in his presidential campaign, couldn’t gather enough support from fellow Republicans to push the defunding rider through.
And in the House, conservatives were unable to convince Republican leadership to put forward a continuing resolution that included amendments to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding.
Instead, the government will be funded through December 11 through a so-called “clean” piece of legislation.
But Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters on Tuesday that he is worried that fights over spending caps, Planned Parenthood and overall government funding could lead to a shutdown in December.
“We need to agree on a number that abandons sequestration which nobody really believes will work,” Hoyer said. “We need to come to a budget agreement and I’ve been urging the majority leader to do that for the last few months and I’m hopeful that within the next 30 days we will accomplish that objective.”
Preliminary negotiations over a longer-term budget deal have already begun, but, so far, little headway has been made.
Democrats are demanding increases in domestic spending to match any boost for the Pentagon that GOP lawmakers have been calling for.
But raising existing spending caps will enrage conservative Republicans who will once again look to defund Planned Parenthood.
By Lauren French and Seung Min Kim
The House easily cleared a stopgap spending bill on Wednesday evening after the measure zipped through the Senate earlier in the day, as lawmakers avoided a government shutdown just hours before the fiscal year ends at midnight.
The Senate showdown over government funding ended with a whimper, as conservatives couldn’t muster enough votes last week to advance a bill that also would have defunded Planned Parenthood. The Senate passed the short-term funding bill – without the Planned Parenthood language – on Wednesday morning by a 78-20 vote.
The House followed suit with a 277-151 vote to send the bill to President Barack Obama's desk, where he's expected to sign it into law.
Both of the votes proved to be an anticlimactic end to weeks of maneuvering over Planned Parenthood and the budget.
But Wednesday's measure just sets up another showdown threat – with even higher stakes – in December.
Conservatives in both chambers wanted to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal funding after a series of leaked videos showed officials with the organizations allegedly discussing fetal tissues sales. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who’s made defunding Planned Parenthood a rallying cry in his presidential campaign, couldn’t gather enough support from fellow Republicans to push the defunding rider through.
And in the House, conservatives were unable to convince Republican leadership to put forward a continuing resolution that included amendments to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding.
Instead, the government will be funded through December 11 through a so-called “clean” piece of legislation.
But Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters on Tuesday that he is worried that fights over spending caps, Planned Parenthood and overall government funding could lead to a shutdown in December.
“We need to agree on a number that abandons sequestration which nobody really believes will work,” Hoyer said. “We need to come to a budget agreement and I’ve been urging the majority leader to do that for the last few months and I’m hopeful that within the next 30 days we will accomplish that objective.”
Preliminary negotiations over a longer-term budget deal have already begun, but, so far, little headway has been made.
Democrats are demanding increases in domestic spending to match any boost for the Pentagon that GOP lawmakers have been calling for.
But raising existing spending caps will enrage conservative Republicans who will once again look to defund Planned Parenthood.
Dumbest
4 Dumbest Arguments for Defunding Planned Parenthood
Some of the more bizarre lines of reasoning from Tuesday's Congressional hearing against Planned Parenthood
By Amanda Marcotte
At one point during Tuesday's interminable congressional hearing over federal funding for Planned Parenthood, Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence of Michigan exclaimed in exasperation, "I know my colleagues are more intelligent than this."
She was referring specifically to how her Republican colleagues were pretending not to understand that Planned Parenthood's federal funding primarily comes from billing Medicaid for services rendered – but the quote could've referred to any one of the incredibly stupid arguments Republicans lobbed at Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, who was testifying about her organization.
Here are some of the dumber ones on display.
Because boobs, or something.
One of the GOP Congress members' favorite talking points Tuesday was that Planned Parenthood doesn't have any mammogram machines. They considered this a killer "gotcha" line, for some reason, even though Planned Parenthood is a family planning clinic focused on sexual health care: STI tests, contraception and other services to make it easier for sexually active people, mostly premenopausal women, to have a healthy sex life. Breasts, while surely a favorite of many a Congressman, are not really part of Planned Parenthood's core agenda, which is more focused on below-the-belt stuff.
While Richards tried to get that point across repeatedly, pointing out that the group's clinics refer women for mammograms, her Republican detractors refused to hear it.
Just get your Pap smears from the Boys and Girls Club.
Many Republicans Tuesday invoked a variety of things they wished they could spend Planned Parenthood's federal funding on. Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah dropped giant crocodile tears during his opening statement, saying, "Cancer in this country kills about 1,500 people a day," with the implication being that women are somehow helping kill those people by using up precious research dollars on their birth control pills. Other Congressmen recommended spending the money on "counseling" for the more or less non-existent trauma of abortion regret and, in one case, on the Boys and Girls Club.
The thing is, most of Planned Parenthood's funding comes from Medicaid reimbursements, which means women go to Planned Parenthood clinics for care, and Medicaid gets the bill. No Republican was able to explain how the Boys and Girls Club was going to help Medicaid patients in need of Pap smears. As with the mammogram argument, they were implying that women shouldn't be using the slutty health care Planned Parenthood provides in the first place.
Planned Parenthood makes too much money, but also not enough.
Multiple House members, including Mia Love of Utah and Paul Gosar of Arizona, zeroed in on the argument that Planned Parenthood must be making bucketloads of cash off abortion. That's because, while abortion constitutes only 3 percent of the services that Planned Parenthood offers, it ends up providing about 15 percent of the group's revenue (mostly because abortion is more expensive than Pap smears or birth control prescriptions).
Here's the thing, though. Their outrage over Planned Parenthood making money off abortion is at odds the anti-choice claim that's fueling this round of attacks on Planned Parenthood: that the organization is secretly using federal money to pay for abortions. Republicans are trying to argue that abortions are being offered below cost because Planned Parenthood is illegally and secretly using money bookmarked for contraception to subsidize abortion.
So Republicans are claiming both that abortions are an overpriced revenue-generating service that Planned Parenthood uses to fund the rest of its organization, and that Planned Parenthood is offering abortion too cheaply and using its other services to subsidize it.
Be a man!
"When I look at cities around me that have a Planned Parenthood clinic," Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin argued during the hearing, "usually in those cities, as a guy, I could go to many clinics locally that have all the machines that one would need. All these clinics as far as I know take Medicaid dollars, so you could go to any of those clinics to get any medical service you could."
In case you didn't get the true meaning behind Grothman's "as a guy" remark, he continued: "I guess what I'm getting at is if Planned Parenthood disappeared tomorrow in those towns, there would still be three or four or five clinics or hospitals providing all the… medical care you would want."
All the medical care you would want, unless you have a vagina, that is.
Some of the more bizarre lines of reasoning from Tuesday's Congressional hearing against Planned Parenthood
By Amanda Marcotte
At one point during Tuesday's interminable congressional hearing over federal funding for Planned Parenthood, Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence of Michigan exclaimed in exasperation, "I know my colleagues are more intelligent than this."
She was referring specifically to how her Republican colleagues were pretending not to understand that Planned Parenthood's federal funding primarily comes from billing Medicaid for services rendered – but the quote could've referred to any one of the incredibly stupid arguments Republicans lobbed at Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, who was testifying about her organization.
Here are some of the dumber ones on display.
Because boobs, or something.
One of the GOP Congress members' favorite talking points Tuesday was that Planned Parenthood doesn't have any mammogram machines. They considered this a killer "gotcha" line, for some reason, even though Planned Parenthood is a family planning clinic focused on sexual health care: STI tests, contraception and other services to make it easier for sexually active people, mostly premenopausal women, to have a healthy sex life. Breasts, while surely a favorite of many a Congressman, are not really part of Planned Parenthood's core agenda, which is more focused on below-the-belt stuff.
While Richards tried to get that point across repeatedly, pointing out that the group's clinics refer women for mammograms, her Republican detractors refused to hear it.
Just get your Pap smears from the Boys and Girls Club.
Many Republicans Tuesday invoked a variety of things they wished they could spend Planned Parenthood's federal funding on. Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah dropped giant crocodile tears during his opening statement, saying, "Cancer in this country kills about 1,500 people a day," with the implication being that women are somehow helping kill those people by using up precious research dollars on their birth control pills. Other Congressmen recommended spending the money on "counseling" for the more or less non-existent trauma of abortion regret and, in one case, on the Boys and Girls Club.
The thing is, most of Planned Parenthood's funding comes from Medicaid reimbursements, which means women go to Planned Parenthood clinics for care, and Medicaid gets the bill. No Republican was able to explain how the Boys and Girls Club was going to help Medicaid patients in need of Pap smears. As with the mammogram argument, they were implying that women shouldn't be using the slutty health care Planned Parenthood provides in the first place.
Planned Parenthood makes too much money, but also not enough.
Multiple House members, including Mia Love of Utah and Paul Gosar of Arizona, zeroed in on the argument that Planned Parenthood must be making bucketloads of cash off abortion. That's because, while abortion constitutes only 3 percent of the services that Planned Parenthood offers, it ends up providing about 15 percent of the group's revenue (mostly because abortion is more expensive than Pap smears or birth control prescriptions).
Here's the thing, though. Their outrage over Planned Parenthood making money off abortion is at odds the anti-choice claim that's fueling this round of attacks on Planned Parenthood: that the organization is secretly using federal money to pay for abortions. Republicans are trying to argue that abortions are being offered below cost because Planned Parenthood is illegally and secretly using money bookmarked for contraception to subsidize abortion.
So Republicans are claiming both that abortions are an overpriced revenue-generating service that Planned Parenthood uses to fund the rest of its organization, and that Planned Parenthood is offering abortion too cheaply and using its other services to subsidize it.
Be a man!
"When I look at cities around me that have a Planned Parenthood clinic," Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin argued during the hearing, "usually in those cities, as a guy, I could go to many clinics locally that have all the machines that one would need. All these clinics as far as I know take Medicaid dollars, so you could go to any of those clinics to get any medical service you could."
In case you didn't get the true meaning behind Grothman's "as a guy" remark, he continued: "I guess what I'm getting at is if Planned Parenthood disappeared tomorrow in those towns, there would still be three or four or five clinics or hospitals providing all the… medical care you would want."
All the medical care you would want, unless you have a vagina, that is.
Dudes Women's Health
Watch These Dudes in Congress Tell Planned Parenthood How to Protect Women's Health
By Becca Andrews
Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards appeared today before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in the most recent congressional hearing examining the use of taxpayer funds by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. This was Richards' first appearance before Congress. She had not been invited to participate in either of the two hearings conducted by the House Judiciary Committee earlier in the month, in the wake of the heavily edited and controversial videos released by anti-abortion activist David Daleiden.
Planned Parenthood receives approximately $450 million annually in federal funds, nearly all of which are reimbursements for women's health services from programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. According to Planned Parenthood, last year 41 percent ($528.4 million) of its revenue came from government health services grants and reimbursements.
"The question before us is: Does this organization—does Planned Parenthood—really need a federal subsidy?" said House Oversight chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). "Every time we spend a federal dollar, what we're doing is pulling money out of somebody's pocket and we're giving it to somebody else. What I don't like, what I don't want to tolerate, what I don't want to become numb to is wasting those taxpayer dollars."
Here are some of the recurring themes from the hearing that attempted to answer his question.
1. Her salary is too high: Chaffetz spent much of his allotted time interrogating Richards about her $590,000 annual salary, which he characterized as "exorbitant." She corrected him, saying her annual salary is actually $520,000. (Female nonprofit CEOs still make markedly less than male CEOs. In 2013, for example, Laurance Hoagland Jr., chief investment officer of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, made $2.5 million, and John Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer Society, made $2.1 million.) Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) responded angrily to this inquisition. "The entire time I've been in Congress, I've never seen a witness beaten up and questioned about their salary," she said. "Ms. Richards heads a distinguished organization providing health care services to millions of Americans. I find it totally inappropriate and discriminatory."
2. Her apology was self-incriminating: Several times, Richards was subjected to loud, often aggressive mansplaining about when it is and is not appropriate to issue an apology. Members were referring to a video that PPFA released days after the first sting video in which Richards said, "Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the [sting] video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements." Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) repeatedly asked Richards to justify this. "Why did you apologize?" he asked over and over again. "You can't have it both ways. If nothing was done wrong, why did you apologize? You don’t apologize if she didn’t say anything that was wrong."
Richards explained that her apology was more about the setting of the discussion. "I spoke with Dr. Nucatola, and it was inappropriate to have a clinical discussion in a nonconfidential, nonclinical setting," Richards said. "It was that she used bad judgment to have a clinical discussion in a nonclinical setting." The conversation in the sting video was over lunch and wine.
3. Planned Parenthood doesn't provide mammograms: Republican critics of PPFA were also upset that Planned Parenthood clinics don't provide mammogram services, despite the fact that radiology centers usually offer them because Medicaid reimbursements can't come close to covering their operational costs. This point seemed to be lost on committee members who considered the lack of mammography as evidence that Planned Parenthood did not really provide women's health services. Richards explained that when she goes to see her general practitioner and she gets a breast exam, she is referred to a radiologist to get a mammogram. Centers that depend on Medicaid reimbursement are often unable to pay for the equipment and radiologists' salaries. New 3-D mammography technology is even more expensive. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) saw this as evidence that Planned Parenthood fell short in providing acceptable women's health services: "Do you acknowledge that community health centers offer a broader range of services, including mammograms?" To this, Richards replied, "I’m not an expert on what all community health centers provide."
4. Taxpayer dollars are paying for abortions: The repeated expressions of outrage by Republicans over "taxpayer dollars" being used for abortion services was, according to committee member Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.), "exhausting."
"I know my colleagues are more intelligent than this," Lawrence said. "This is not a lump sum we give Planned Parenthood. It is a reimbursement."
Under federal law, no taxpayer dollars are allocated to abortion services. PPFA has submitted its tax filings and reimbursement records, and so far there has been no evidence that it violated this law. That did not stop Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) from expressing concern that "taxpayer dollars are being used to free up services that you provide that are aberrant services in the view of many taxpayers."
5) Planned Parenthood provides too many abortions: Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) does not understand how the 327,000 abortions Planned Parenthood performed in 2014 amount to only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's services. Meadows claimed it was more like 12 percent. But as Richards explained, some patients visit more than once, and for multiple services, bringing the percentage down substantially.
And as my colleague Kevin Drum reported, Chaffetz used a chart from anti-abortion group Americans United for Life that incorrectly claimed that Planned Parenthood's breast examinations have trended radically downward in recent years, while abortion services have substantially risen. In fact, cancer screenings have declined because, as Richards said, "some of the services, like pap smears, dropped in frequency because of changing medical standards about who should be screened and how often." Abortion rates for Planned Parenthood have only increased about 2 percent per year since 2006.
6) Planned Parenthood is in cahoots with President Barack Obama: Toward the end of the nearly six-hour hearing, Jordan asked Richards about the internal workings of her staff. "Since the videos, has anyone from HHS, CMS contacted you?" Richards replied that because she has a big staff, she can't answer that with 100 percent confidence. "Has the Attorney General of the United States Loretta Lynch contacted Planned Parenthood?" Jordan persisted. "Has anyone from the Justice Department contacted Planned Parenthood since the videos surfaced? There are potentially four federal crimes committed here, and all I'm asking is, has the Justice Department contacted you?" Richards repeated that she could not answer his questions with any certainty.
Jordan then escalated his attack. "Have you had any conversations with the president of the United States?" he asked. "Since the videos have surfaced, how many times have you been to the White House? How many times have you been to the White House since Mr. Obama's been president?" Richards again said she couldn't be sure, but Jordan was ready with an answer. "Our count shows that you, your board members, and senior staff have been to the White House 151 times in six and a half years."
Investigations are also ongoing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and in the House Judiciary Committee. So far, no wrongdoing has been found. Six state investigations that were triggered by the videos have also been closed after finding no evidence that Planned Parenthood violated law.
A subpoena has been issued to anti-abortion activist Daleiden for his investigative materials, and according to Chaffetz, they have been received but not yet opened or examined.
By Becca Andrews
Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards appeared today before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in the most recent congressional hearing examining the use of taxpayer funds by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. This was Richards' first appearance before Congress. She had not been invited to participate in either of the two hearings conducted by the House Judiciary Committee earlier in the month, in the wake of the heavily edited and controversial videos released by anti-abortion activist David Daleiden.
Planned Parenthood receives approximately $450 million annually in federal funds, nearly all of which are reimbursements for women's health services from programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. According to Planned Parenthood, last year 41 percent ($528.4 million) of its revenue came from government health services grants and reimbursements.
"The question before us is: Does this organization—does Planned Parenthood—really need a federal subsidy?" said House Oversight chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). "Every time we spend a federal dollar, what we're doing is pulling money out of somebody's pocket and we're giving it to somebody else. What I don't like, what I don't want to tolerate, what I don't want to become numb to is wasting those taxpayer dollars."
Here are some of the recurring themes from the hearing that attempted to answer his question.
1. Her salary is too high: Chaffetz spent much of his allotted time interrogating Richards about her $590,000 annual salary, which he characterized as "exorbitant." She corrected him, saying her annual salary is actually $520,000. (Female nonprofit CEOs still make markedly less than male CEOs. In 2013, for example, Laurance Hoagland Jr., chief investment officer of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, made $2.5 million, and John Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer Society, made $2.1 million.) Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) responded angrily to this inquisition. "The entire time I've been in Congress, I've never seen a witness beaten up and questioned about their salary," she said. "Ms. Richards heads a distinguished organization providing health care services to millions of Americans. I find it totally inappropriate and discriminatory."
2. Her apology was self-incriminating: Several times, Richards was subjected to loud, often aggressive mansplaining about when it is and is not appropriate to issue an apology. Members were referring to a video that PPFA released days after the first sting video in which Richards said, "Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the [sting] video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements." Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) repeatedly asked Richards to justify this. "Why did you apologize?" he asked over and over again. "You can't have it both ways. If nothing was done wrong, why did you apologize? You don’t apologize if she didn’t say anything that was wrong."
Richards explained that her apology was more about the setting of the discussion. "I spoke with Dr. Nucatola, and it was inappropriate to have a clinical discussion in a nonconfidential, nonclinical setting," Richards said. "It was that she used bad judgment to have a clinical discussion in a nonclinical setting." The conversation in the sting video was over lunch and wine.
3. Planned Parenthood doesn't provide mammograms: Republican critics of PPFA were also upset that Planned Parenthood clinics don't provide mammogram services, despite the fact that radiology centers usually offer them because Medicaid reimbursements can't come close to covering their operational costs. This point seemed to be lost on committee members who considered the lack of mammography as evidence that Planned Parenthood did not really provide women's health services. Richards explained that when she goes to see her general practitioner and she gets a breast exam, she is referred to a radiologist to get a mammogram. Centers that depend on Medicaid reimbursement are often unable to pay for the equipment and radiologists' salaries. New 3-D mammography technology is even more expensive. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) saw this as evidence that Planned Parenthood fell short in providing acceptable women's health services: "Do you acknowledge that community health centers offer a broader range of services, including mammograms?" To this, Richards replied, "I’m not an expert on what all community health centers provide."
4. Taxpayer dollars are paying for abortions: The repeated expressions of outrage by Republicans over "taxpayer dollars" being used for abortion services was, according to committee member Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.), "exhausting."
"I know my colleagues are more intelligent than this," Lawrence said. "This is not a lump sum we give Planned Parenthood. It is a reimbursement."
Under federal law, no taxpayer dollars are allocated to abortion services. PPFA has submitted its tax filings and reimbursement records, and so far there has been no evidence that it violated this law. That did not stop Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) from expressing concern that "taxpayer dollars are being used to free up services that you provide that are aberrant services in the view of many taxpayers."
5) Planned Parenthood provides too many abortions: Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) does not understand how the 327,000 abortions Planned Parenthood performed in 2014 amount to only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's services. Meadows claimed it was more like 12 percent. But as Richards explained, some patients visit more than once, and for multiple services, bringing the percentage down substantially.
And as my colleague Kevin Drum reported, Chaffetz used a chart from anti-abortion group Americans United for Life that incorrectly claimed that Planned Parenthood's breast examinations have trended radically downward in recent years, while abortion services have substantially risen. In fact, cancer screenings have declined because, as Richards said, "some of the services, like pap smears, dropped in frequency because of changing medical standards about who should be screened and how often." Abortion rates for Planned Parenthood have only increased about 2 percent per year since 2006.
6) Planned Parenthood is in cahoots with President Barack Obama: Toward the end of the nearly six-hour hearing, Jordan asked Richards about the internal workings of her staff. "Since the videos, has anyone from HHS, CMS contacted you?" Richards replied that because she has a big staff, she can't answer that with 100 percent confidence. "Has the Attorney General of the United States Loretta Lynch contacted Planned Parenthood?" Jordan persisted. "Has anyone from the Justice Department contacted Planned Parenthood since the videos surfaced? There are potentially four federal crimes committed here, and all I'm asking is, has the Justice Department contacted you?" Richards repeated that she could not answer his questions with any certainty.
Jordan then escalated his attack. "Have you had any conversations with the president of the United States?" he asked. "Since the videos have surfaced, how many times have you been to the White House? How many times have you been to the White House since Mr. Obama's been president?" Richards again said she couldn't be sure, but Jordan was ready with an answer. "Our count shows that you, your board members, and senior staff have been to the White House 151 times in six and a half years."
Investigations are also ongoing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and in the House Judiciary Committee. So far, no wrongdoing has been found. Six state investigations that were triggered by the videos have also been closed after finding no evidence that Planned Parenthood violated law.
A subpoena has been issued to anti-abortion activist Daleiden for his investigative materials, and according to Chaffetz, they have been received but not yet opened or examined.
Halted Support....
A Super-PAC Just Halted Its Support for Rand Paul
This could be a sign of bigger trouble for the GOP candidate.
By Russ Choma
On Monday, Rand Paul pledged his campaign would outlast "this clown" Donald Trump, and swore he was having no trouble fundraising. Today, he got some bad news. The head of Purple PAC, one of three super-PACs devoted to supporting his candidacy, told Politico that he was holding off on spending any more money for Paul's election until the Kentucky senator's campaign "corrects its problems."
Purple PAC was established by former Cato Institute head Ed Crane two years ago to generally support libertarian candidates. But after raising $1.2 million in the first half of this year, Crane announced the super-PAC was all in for Paul. The super-PAC's website changed its motif and still features a heavily pro-Paul message. But on Tuesday, Crane told Politico that as long as the campaign continues to languish in the polls without a more resonant message, he's not going to spend or raise any money on Paul's behalf.
The libertarian views that catapulted Paul to national prominence had "disappeared," Crane said, leaving many of Paul's longtime backers miffed.
"I want to grab Rand by the lapels and say, 'What are you doing?'" Crane said. "I'm a big fan of Rand Paul. But whatever motivates his campaign, I don't get it."
In an email to Mother Jones, Crane said, "I still support Rand. We've stopped raising money until Rand starts emphasizing his libertarian positions, e.g., NSA, a more rational approach to Middle East, which we expect him to do."
Earlier this year, one Purple PAC contributor told Mother Jones that donors trusted Crane to make calls about supporting candidates, and it's not clear how much of the decision to cease fundraising for Paul is driven by the donors. Crane's outfit has relied heavily on one particular donor—Jeffrey Yass, the founder of investment firm Susquehenna International Group—who has also donated generously to the other pro-Paul super-PACs and is the largest single donor backing Paul's candidacy. If Yass has soured on Paul, that raises questions about the candidate's ability to continue in the race.
Yass, who did not respond to a request for comment, donated $1 million of the nearly $1.2 million raised by Purple PAC this year. He also donated $1 million to America's Liberty PAC, a super-PAC specifically endorsed by Paul. His contribution forms one-third of that PAC's total fundraising haul. A third pro-Paul PAC, Concerned American Voters, has raised $1.8 million, of which Yass has kicked in $250,000. Combined, Yass has given more than $2.2 million, or roughly one-third of the total raised by pro-Paul super PACs.
A Paul aide brushed off the news that Purple PAC was suspending its support for the Kentucky senator: "This PAC, as far as I can tell, has spent no money—zero—in support of Rand. For this and other reasons, this won't impact Rand at all."
The only activity the PAC seems to have taken so far is promoting a contest offering $10,000 in prizes for the five best ideas on how to promote Paul. No winner has been announced.
America's Liberty PAC, the other major recipient of Yass' largesse, was run by two political operatives with close ties to the Paul family's political operation, Paul's nephew-in-law Jesse Benton and John Tate, both of whom have been indicted on campaign finance charges stemming from their involvement with the Ron Paul campaign in the 2012 presidential race. The trial for Benton, Tate, and a third man is scheduled to begin on Monday.
This could be a sign of bigger trouble for the GOP candidate.
By Russ Choma
On Monday, Rand Paul pledged his campaign would outlast "this clown" Donald Trump, and swore he was having no trouble fundraising. Today, he got some bad news. The head of Purple PAC, one of three super-PACs devoted to supporting his candidacy, told Politico that he was holding off on spending any more money for Paul's election until the Kentucky senator's campaign "corrects its problems."
Purple PAC was established by former Cato Institute head Ed Crane two years ago to generally support libertarian candidates. But after raising $1.2 million in the first half of this year, Crane announced the super-PAC was all in for Paul. The super-PAC's website changed its motif and still features a heavily pro-Paul message. But on Tuesday, Crane told Politico that as long as the campaign continues to languish in the polls without a more resonant message, he's not going to spend or raise any money on Paul's behalf.
The libertarian views that catapulted Paul to national prominence had "disappeared," Crane said, leaving many of Paul's longtime backers miffed.
"I want to grab Rand by the lapels and say, 'What are you doing?'" Crane said. "I'm a big fan of Rand Paul. But whatever motivates his campaign, I don't get it."
In an email to Mother Jones, Crane said, "I still support Rand. We've stopped raising money until Rand starts emphasizing his libertarian positions, e.g., NSA, a more rational approach to Middle East, which we expect him to do."
Earlier this year, one Purple PAC contributor told Mother Jones that donors trusted Crane to make calls about supporting candidates, and it's not clear how much of the decision to cease fundraising for Paul is driven by the donors. Crane's outfit has relied heavily on one particular donor—Jeffrey Yass, the founder of investment firm Susquehenna International Group—who has also donated generously to the other pro-Paul super-PACs and is the largest single donor backing Paul's candidacy. If Yass has soured on Paul, that raises questions about the candidate's ability to continue in the race.
Yass, who did not respond to a request for comment, donated $1 million of the nearly $1.2 million raised by Purple PAC this year. He also donated $1 million to America's Liberty PAC, a super-PAC specifically endorsed by Paul. His contribution forms one-third of that PAC's total fundraising haul. A third pro-Paul PAC, Concerned American Voters, has raised $1.8 million, of which Yass has kicked in $250,000. Combined, Yass has given more than $2.2 million, or roughly one-third of the total raised by pro-Paul super PACs.
A Paul aide brushed off the news that Purple PAC was suspending its support for the Kentucky senator: "This PAC, as far as I can tell, has spent no money—zero—in support of Rand. For this and other reasons, this won't impact Rand at all."
The only activity the PAC seems to have taken so far is promoting a contest offering $10,000 in prizes for the five best ideas on how to promote Paul. No winner has been announced.
America's Liberty PAC, the other major recipient of Yass' largesse, was run by two political operatives with close ties to the Paul family's political operation, Paul's nephew-in-law Jesse Benton and John Tate, both of whom have been indicted on campaign finance charges stemming from their involvement with the Ron Paul campaign in the 2012 presidential race. The trial for Benton, Tate, and a third man is scheduled to begin on Monday.
Shortsighted and Stupid
Legendary NASA Scientist Wonders if Aliens Are as Shortsighted and Stupid as Humans
William Borucki spearheaded the mission that discovered thousands of habitable planets, but he says we won't be able to escape to any of them.
By Kate Sheppard
Exploring new stretches of the galaxy brought NASA scientist William Borucki back to Earth.
Borucki, 76, retired in July as the principal investigator of NASA's Kepler Mission, an unmanned spacecraft that has been surveying a portion of the Milky Way for habitable planets since March 2009. The mission has discovered more than 1,000 confirmed planets and inspired many to think about what, if any, life is out there.
But Borucki said it also made him reconsider life on Earth—and its fate in light of climate change.
"The Earth is a very special place," Borucki said in an interview with the Huffington Post earlier this month. "Unless we have the wisdom and technology to protect our biosphere, it could become like many other dead worlds."
Borucki, who began his career at NASA in 1962 working on the Apollo mission, was recently awarded the prestigious Shaw Prize for Astronomy in Hong Kong. He is giving a $100,000 portion of his prize money to the science and environmental advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists to help with climate work.
"There must be an enormous number of small planets roughly Earth size, in the habitable zone of the stars—billions or tens of billions of such planets," said Borucki. If there were life there, one would assume it would evolve into organisms of higher intelligence capable of communication. Yet we haven't heard from them, and there's no evidence of other life forms visiting Earth. Borucki said that forces us to ask why not.
"It's not a silly question anymore," he said. "You used to be able to dismiss it—say there aren't any planets, or they aren't in the habitable zone. That's not true anymore. We know there are habitable planets. The question that is really important is what happened to them?"
One potential scenario Borucki raises: "Could that mean that other civilizations did not recognize the critical importance of maintaining a hospitable climate?"
That prospect concerns him. "It really warns us that we need to think very, very carefully about how we protect our biosphere, how to protect our climate," he said. "It wouldn't take a lot of change to make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves.
"Climate change causes the oceans to change. Climate change causes the temperatures to change. All these things dramatically affect the biosphere," he said. "So it really worries me to see people—to see ourselves—who really don't fully understand what we're doing and the complexities of the system, changing it in such a drastic fashion."
I asked Boruki whether the explorations had led him to believe there's potential for human life on another planet—an idea raised often in science fiction. "No," he said. "The possibility of being able to send people, particularly a large number of people, to settle another planet orbiting another star seems extremely small."
Borucki's earlier research contributed to improved understanding of the ozone layer, and of how human activity could cause its depletion. In the case of ozone, scientific research helped motivate world leaders to take political action to reverse the trend, leading to the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 and subsequent updates. When it comes to climate change, which leaders have been slower to address, Borucki acknowledges that the "required changes are much more extensive in affecting changes in industry and livelihoods."
Yet he said he remains optimistic: "We must not get discouraged because it takes such a long time for a consensus to occur among world leaders and for the development of practical methods to accomplish the necessary changes.
"Once mankind understands the threat, I think they will get together ultimately and conquer that threat," he continued. "But they have to recognize it and really be dedicated to accomplishing the task, because the tasks are just enormous."
William Borucki spearheaded the mission that discovered thousands of habitable planets, but he says we won't be able to escape to any of them.
By Kate Sheppard
Exploring new stretches of the galaxy brought NASA scientist William Borucki back to Earth.
Borucki, 76, retired in July as the principal investigator of NASA's Kepler Mission, an unmanned spacecraft that has been surveying a portion of the Milky Way for habitable planets since March 2009. The mission has discovered more than 1,000 confirmed planets and inspired many to think about what, if any, life is out there.
But Borucki said it also made him reconsider life on Earth—and its fate in light of climate change.
"The Earth is a very special place," Borucki said in an interview with the Huffington Post earlier this month. "Unless we have the wisdom and technology to protect our biosphere, it could become like many other dead worlds."
Borucki, who began his career at NASA in 1962 working on the Apollo mission, was recently awarded the prestigious Shaw Prize for Astronomy in Hong Kong. He is giving a $100,000 portion of his prize money to the science and environmental advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists to help with climate work.
"There must be an enormous number of small planets roughly Earth size, in the habitable zone of the stars—billions or tens of billions of such planets," said Borucki. If there were life there, one would assume it would evolve into organisms of higher intelligence capable of communication. Yet we haven't heard from them, and there's no evidence of other life forms visiting Earth. Borucki said that forces us to ask why not.
"It's not a silly question anymore," he said. "You used to be able to dismiss it—say there aren't any planets, or they aren't in the habitable zone. That's not true anymore. We know there are habitable planets. The question that is really important is what happened to them?"
One potential scenario Borucki raises: "Could that mean that other civilizations did not recognize the critical importance of maintaining a hospitable climate?"
That prospect concerns him. "It really warns us that we need to think very, very carefully about how we protect our biosphere, how to protect our climate," he said. "It wouldn't take a lot of change to make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves.
"Climate change causes the oceans to change. Climate change causes the temperatures to change. All these things dramatically affect the biosphere," he said. "So it really worries me to see people—to see ourselves—who really don't fully understand what we're doing and the complexities of the system, changing it in such a drastic fashion."
I asked Boruki whether the explorations had led him to believe there's potential for human life on another planet—an idea raised often in science fiction. "No," he said. "The possibility of being able to send people, particularly a large number of people, to settle another planet orbiting another star seems extremely small."
Borucki's earlier research contributed to improved understanding of the ozone layer, and of how human activity could cause its depletion. In the case of ozone, scientific research helped motivate world leaders to take political action to reverse the trend, leading to the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 and subsequent updates. When it comes to climate change, which leaders have been slower to address, Borucki acknowledges that the "required changes are much more extensive in affecting changes in industry and livelihoods."
Yet he said he remains optimistic: "We must not get discouraged because it takes such a long time for a consensus to occur among world leaders and for the development of practical methods to accomplish the necessary changes.
"Once mankind understands the threat, I think they will get together ultimately and conquer that threat," he continued. "But they have to recognize it and really be dedicated to accomplishing the task, because the tasks are just enormous."
New Maps of Ceres
Dawn Team Shares New Maps and Insights about Ceres
Mysteries and insights about Ceres are being discussed this week at the European Planetary Science Conference in Nantes, France. NASA's Dawn spacecraft is providing scientists with tantalizing views and other data about the intriguing dwarf planet that they continue to analyze.
"Ceres continues to amaze, yet puzzle us, as we examine our multitude of
images, spectra and now energetic particle bursts," said Chris Russell, Dawn principal investigator at the University of California, Los Angeles.
A new color-coded topographic map shows more than a dozen recently approved names for features on Ceres, all eponymous for agricultural spirits, deities and festivals from cultures around the world. These include Jaja, after the Abkhazian harvest goddess, and Ernutet, after the cobra-headed Egyptian harvest goddess. A 12-mile (20-kilometer) diameter mountain near Ceres' north pole is now called Ysolo Mons, for an Albanian festival that marks the first day of the eggplant harvest.
Another new Ceres map, in false color, enhances compositional differences present on the surface. The variations are more subtle than on Vesta, Dawn's previous port of call. Color-coded topographic images of Occator (oh-KAH-tor) crater, home of Ceres' brightest spots, and a puzzling, cone-shaped 6-mile-high (4-kilometer-high) mountain, are also available. Scientists are still trying to identify processes that could produce these and other unique Cerean phenomena.
"The irregular shapes of craters on Ceres are especially interesting, resembling craters we see on Saturn's icy moon Rhea," said Carol Raymond, Dawn's deputy principal investigator based at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. "They are very different from the bowl-shaped craters on Vesta."
A surprising bonus observation came from Dawn's gamma ray and neutron spectrometer. The instrument detected three bursts of energetic electrons that may result from the interaction between Ceres and radiation from the sun. The observation isn't yet fully understood, but may be important in forming a complete picture of Ceres.
"This is a very unexpected observation for which we are now testing hypotheses," Russell said.
Dawn is currently orbiting Ceres at an altitude of 915 miles (1,470 kilometers), and the spacecraft will image the entire surface of the dwarf planet up to six times in this phase of the mission. Each imaging cycle takes 11 days.
Starting in October and continuing into December, Dawn will descend to its lowest and final orbit, an altitude of 230 miles (375 kilometers). The spacecraft will continue imaging Ceres and taking other data at higher resolutions than ever before at this last orbit. It will remain operational at least through mid-2016.
Dawn made history as the first mission to reach a dwarf planet, and the first to orbit two distinct extraterrestrial targets, when it arrived at Ceres on March 6, 2015. It conducted extensive observations of Vesta in 2011 and 2012.
Mysteries and insights about Ceres are being discussed this week at the European Planetary Science Conference in Nantes, France. NASA's Dawn spacecraft is providing scientists with tantalizing views and other data about the intriguing dwarf planet that they continue to analyze.
"Ceres continues to amaze, yet puzzle us, as we examine our multitude of
images, spectra and now energetic particle bursts," said Chris Russell, Dawn principal investigator at the University of California, Los Angeles.
A new color-coded topographic map shows more than a dozen recently approved names for features on Ceres, all eponymous for agricultural spirits, deities and festivals from cultures around the world. These include Jaja, after the Abkhazian harvest goddess, and Ernutet, after the cobra-headed Egyptian harvest goddess. A 12-mile (20-kilometer) diameter mountain near Ceres' north pole is now called Ysolo Mons, for an Albanian festival that marks the first day of the eggplant harvest.
Another new Ceres map, in false color, enhances compositional differences present on the surface. The variations are more subtle than on Vesta, Dawn's previous port of call. Color-coded topographic images of Occator (oh-KAH-tor) crater, home of Ceres' brightest spots, and a puzzling, cone-shaped 6-mile-high (4-kilometer-high) mountain, are also available. Scientists are still trying to identify processes that could produce these and other unique Cerean phenomena.
"The irregular shapes of craters on Ceres are especially interesting, resembling craters we see on Saturn's icy moon Rhea," said Carol Raymond, Dawn's deputy principal investigator based at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. "They are very different from the bowl-shaped craters on Vesta."
A surprising bonus observation came from Dawn's gamma ray and neutron spectrometer. The instrument detected three bursts of energetic electrons that may result from the interaction between Ceres and radiation from the sun. The observation isn't yet fully understood, but may be important in forming a complete picture of Ceres.
 |
| Occator crater |
Dawn is currently orbiting Ceres at an altitude of 915 miles (1,470 kilometers), and the spacecraft will image the entire surface of the dwarf planet up to six times in this phase of the mission. Each imaging cycle takes 11 days.
Starting in October and continuing into December, Dawn will descend to its lowest and final orbit, an altitude of 230 miles (375 kilometers). The spacecraft will continue imaging Ceres and taking other data at higher resolutions than ever before at this last orbit. It will remain operational at least through mid-2016.
Dawn made history as the first mission to reach a dwarf planet, and the first to orbit two distinct extraterrestrial targets, when it arrived at Ceres on March 6, 2015. It conducted extensive observations of Vesta in 2011 and 2012.
Cooperating???
The U.S. Is Considering Cooperating With Russia in Syria
Behind closed doors, Obama and Putin are closer on dealing with Assad than they have been in years.
By Michael Hirsh
The bad blood between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin and their so-called dueling speeches at the United Nations on Monday masks a deeper reality: The two presidents are today in more alignment than they have been in years on what to do about Syria. As a result, some sources suggest that despite the tough rhetoric on the surface between the two countries, there’s a much higher likelihood of an accommodation with Moscow—an accommodation that will prolong Bashar al-Assad’s regime and place the U.S. and Russia on the same side against the so-called Islamic State (ISIL).
Secretary of State John Kerry has scheduled several meetings on Syria in New York this week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov; the third is set for Wednesday. Kerry also sat down with Assad’s other biggest ally, Iran—specifically with Javad Zarif, Iran’s American-educated foreign minister, with whom Kerry has grown much closer to in the course of the Iran nuclear deal. (Zarif, for his part, made history by shaking Obama’s hand in New York.) In a TV interview, Kerry sketched out how “in exchange perhaps for something that we might do,” he had discussed with his Russian and Iranian counterparts putting pressure on Assad to keep him from dropping barrel bombs.
Meanwhile, President Obama himself met with Putin for a longer-than-expected 90 minutes and, in his own U.N. speech, edged back from his previous strident calls for Assad to step down, saying that “realism dictates that compromise is required,” and that this should mean “a managed transition” rather than Assad’s immediate departure.
What “realism” is Obama referring to? The European nations, which were largely behind Obama in demanding Assad’s ouster a year ago, are beset with a nightmarish Syrian refugee crisis. Absent any other credible opposition to ISIL in Syria, it’s a crisis that would only grow far worse if Assad were toppled any time soon. Obama, heading into his final year in office, is facing a growing consensus that his failure to do more to contain Syria’s horrific civil war could be the single-biggest blot on his foreign-policy record. Even his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, criticized him over it this week. Under pressure, the administration is casting about frenziedly for a new approach. Now, in view of Putin’s fait accompli of sending military aid to Assad, it may finally yield to the inevitable.
A senior State Department official told Politico Magazine Tuesday night that Kerry had called a meeting of the major European allies and the Saudis, as well as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, to forge a united front before the secretary of state's meeting with Lavrov on Wednesday. The official said that the United States was trying to find a way of cooperating with the Russians against the Islamic State, including the use of "kinetic operations," without working with Assad. The official said that the administration believes that the rebel coalition is still providing the main military opposition to the Islamic State. While Washington is still standing firm that Assad must go, "what the political transition looks like and feels like is very much in question right now," the official said.
U.S. officials this week notably backed away from opportunities to condemn the stepped-up Russian military intervention in Syria. In his meeting with Putin, Obama “made clear that we do not have—we are not opposed to Russia playing a constructive role in the fight against ISIL,” a senior administration official said in a telephone conference with reporters on Monday. “We just want to make sure that, number one, we are de-conflicting any activities within Syria, and number two, we are working in tandem to address the political reality that is fueling the conflict.”
Still, much will depend on whether Russian forces focus on the Islamic State or the other rebels, inc luding Kurdish forces that are now considered one of the most potent opponents of the Islamic State. On Wednesday Russia began airstrikes near the city of Homs, which is not controlled by the Islamic State; if it turns out that the main targets were secular rebels, that could seriously complicate the U.S.-Russia talks.
“I think an accommodation is possible,” says Atlantic Council director Frederic Hof, who formerly served as the administration’s special adviser for transition in Syria. “If people take a look at what’s already been agreed by the [UN] P5, in terms of the Geneva Final Communique, the formula’s there.”
The most tragic irony of the new geopolitical landscape is that the U.S. and Russia appear headed towards the same position on Assad where they were three years and more than 150,000 lost lives ago—and before the real rise of ISIL—when that communique was signed in Geneva and opened the door to peace negotiations that never took off. “We could have done this a long time ago,” says Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma who is sometimes consulted by the administration.
Three years ago, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was a special UN envoy to Syria who managed to get both Lavrov and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to sign the communique, which called for a political “transition” in Syria. Afterward, Annan flew to Moscow and gained what he believed to be Putin’s consent to begin to quietly push Assad out. But suddenly both the U.S. and Britain issued public calls for Assad’s ouster; Annan felt blindsided. Immediately afterward, against his advice, then-UN Ambassador (now national security advisor) Susan Rice offered up a “Chapter 7” resolution opening the door to force against Assad, an effort that Annan felt was premature. Annan resigned from his post a month later, privately blaming the Obama administration for succumbing to fears of political attacks from Mitt Romney and other Republicans during the 2012 presidential season. “He quit in frustration,” explains one former close Annan aide. “I think it was clear that the White House was very worried about seeming to do a deal with the Russians and being soft on Putin during the campaign.”
Landis had advised—long before such views became conventional wisdom—that Assad had greater staying power than U.S. officials were saying back in 2012. But, he says, “the price was too high a long time ago, because Syria was not important. The French, the British, the Americans—everybody was a coward. They hung the Syrian people out to dry because it was too expensive domestically to make a deal with Assad.”
Hof, who was part of the negotiating effort in 2012, agrees that the negotiations then could have been better handled then and the harsh demand that “Assad must go” voiced by Clinton and others was perhaps “gratuitous” considering the need to compromise. Still, he says it’s far too simplistic to suggest that Russia would have genuinely backed Assad’s eventual departure then—and it’s less likely now, as Putin declares frankly that only autocrats like Assad can save the Middle East from total radicalization. By the same token, even if Obama steps away from his calls for Assad’s ouster, it remains politically difficult for him to deploy real force to help Putin’s military effort in Syria. Launching air strikes in the newly ISIL-held city of Palmyra, for example, will leave Obama open to accusations that he’s become Assad’s air force.
Beyond that, the political risk for Obama and the Democrats is that they are seen welcoming the ostracized Putin back into the diplomatic fold—as they’ve already done partially over the Iran nuclear deal—even as he continues his partial occupation of Ukraine and declares openly that he’s parting ways with the West on the basic issue of democracy.
In his U.N. speech—in stark contrast to Obama’s calls for democracy in his remarks earlier in the day—Putin all but openly embraced autocracy as a better form of government, at least in the Middle East, saying that thanks to the West’s previous interference in the region , “instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster.” Putin also took a shot at the American Exceptionalist belief in the power of freedom and democracy, taunting: “I cannot help asking those who have caused the situation, do you realize now what you’ve done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned.”
Nonetheless, Kerry appears to be pushing the new diplomatic effort with Moscow hard, saying the United States and Russia agree on “some fundamental principles” for Syria: “that Syria should be a unified country, united, that it needs to be secular, that ISIL needs to be taken on, and that there needs to be a managed transition,” Kerry told MSNBC.
Kerry himself, in fact, is among the slew of former and current administration officials who have criticized the president on this more than any other issue. In 2013 he told a conference that the administration was “late” in helping the once mostly secular rebels against Assad, just as Hillary Clinton, now running for president, reminded viewers this week that she’d advised more robust training, along with former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey.
Kerry also told Congress that “one of the reasons Assad has been using [chemical weapons] is because they have, up until now, made the calculation that the West writ large and the United States particularly are not going to do anything about it.”
But now the calculations have changed for the West writ large. Landis argues that ever since millions of refugees broadsided Europe, turning the Syrian war into a domestic crisis for government after government across the continent, its leaders have backed down from their earlier hard-line stances. “Now all the Europeans are climbing down from ‘Assad has to go’ to ‘Assad’s got to go after the crisis is over,’” he says. “There’s no alternative but to make that kind of compromise.”
It was only two years ago that Kerry and Lavrov worked closely together to resolve the last major Syrian spillover. In the summer of 2013, when evidence mounted that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons, Kerry condemned Assad as a “thug and a murderer” who faced imminent U.S. retaliation, only to find that an equivocating Obama was undercutting and kicking the decision over to Congress. With help from Lavrov, Kerry negotiated a deal with Assad that compelled the Syrian dictator to surrender his chemical weapons.
Today the United States—whether indirectly or not, and whether it is officially admitting it or not—is working with Assad once again.
Behind closed doors, Obama and Putin are closer on dealing with Assad than they have been in years.
By Michael Hirsh
The bad blood between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin and their so-called dueling speeches at the United Nations on Monday masks a deeper reality: The two presidents are today in more alignment than they have been in years on what to do about Syria. As a result, some sources suggest that despite the tough rhetoric on the surface between the two countries, there’s a much higher likelihood of an accommodation with Moscow—an accommodation that will prolong Bashar al-Assad’s regime and place the U.S. and Russia on the same side against the so-called Islamic State (ISIL).
Secretary of State John Kerry has scheduled several meetings on Syria in New York this week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov; the third is set for Wednesday. Kerry also sat down with Assad’s other biggest ally, Iran—specifically with Javad Zarif, Iran’s American-educated foreign minister, with whom Kerry has grown much closer to in the course of the Iran nuclear deal. (Zarif, for his part, made history by shaking Obama’s hand in New York.) In a TV interview, Kerry sketched out how “in exchange perhaps for something that we might do,” he had discussed with his Russian and Iranian counterparts putting pressure on Assad to keep him from dropping barrel bombs.
Meanwhile, President Obama himself met with Putin for a longer-than-expected 90 minutes and, in his own U.N. speech, edged back from his previous strident calls for Assad to step down, saying that “realism dictates that compromise is required,” and that this should mean “a managed transition” rather than Assad’s immediate departure.
What “realism” is Obama referring to? The European nations, which were largely behind Obama in demanding Assad’s ouster a year ago, are beset with a nightmarish Syrian refugee crisis. Absent any other credible opposition to ISIL in Syria, it’s a crisis that would only grow far worse if Assad were toppled any time soon. Obama, heading into his final year in office, is facing a growing consensus that his failure to do more to contain Syria’s horrific civil war could be the single-biggest blot on his foreign-policy record. Even his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, criticized him over it this week. Under pressure, the administration is casting about frenziedly for a new approach. Now, in view of Putin’s fait accompli of sending military aid to Assad, it may finally yield to the inevitable.
A senior State Department official told Politico Magazine Tuesday night that Kerry had called a meeting of the major European allies and the Saudis, as well as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, to forge a united front before the secretary of state's meeting with Lavrov on Wednesday. The official said that the United States was trying to find a way of cooperating with the Russians against the Islamic State, including the use of "kinetic operations," without working with Assad. The official said that the administration believes that the rebel coalition is still providing the main military opposition to the Islamic State. While Washington is still standing firm that Assad must go, "what the political transition looks like and feels like is very much in question right now," the official said.
U.S. officials this week notably backed away from opportunities to condemn the stepped-up Russian military intervention in Syria. In his meeting with Putin, Obama “made clear that we do not have—we are not opposed to Russia playing a constructive role in the fight against ISIL,” a senior administration official said in a telephone conference with reporters on Monday. “We just want to make sure that, number one, we are de-conflicting any activities within Syria, and number two, we are working in tandem to address the political reality that is fueling the conflict.”
Still, much will depend on whether Russian forces focus on the Islamic State or the other rebels, inc luding Kurdish forces that are now considered one of the most potent opponents of the Islamic State. On Wednesday Russia began airstrikes near the city of Homs, which is not controlled by the Islamic State; if it turns out that the main targets were secular rebels, that could seriously complicate the U.S.-Russia talks.
“I think an accommodation is possible,” says Atlantic Council director Frederic Hof, who formerly served as the administration’s special adviser for transition in Syria. “If people take a look at what’s already been agreed by the [UN] P5, in terms of the Geneva Final Communique, the formula’s there.”
The most tragic irony of the new geopolitical landscape is that the U.S. and Russia appear headed towards the same position on Assad where they were three years and more than 150,000 lost lives ago—and before the real rise of ISIL—when that communique was signed in Geneva and opened the door to peace negotiations that never took off. “We could have done this a long time ago,” says Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma who is sometimes consulted by the administration.
Three years ago, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was a special UN envoy to Syria who managed to get both Lavrov and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to sign the communique, which called for a political “transition” in Syria. Afterward, Annan flew to Moscow and gained what he believed to be Putin’s consent to begin to quietly push Assad out. But suddenly both the U.S. and Britain issued public calls for Assad’s ouster; Annan felt blindsided. Immediately afterward, against his advice, then-UN Ambassador (now national security advisor) Susan Rice offered up a “Chapter 7” resolution opening the door to force against Assad, an effort that Annan felt was premature. Annan resigned from his post a month later, privately blaming the Obama administration for succumbing to fears of political attacks from Mitt Romney and other Republicans during the 2012 presidential season. “He quit in frustration,” explains one former close Annan aide. “I think it was clear that the White House was very worried about seeming to do a deal with the Russians and being soft on Putin during the campaign.”
Landis had advised—long before such views became conventional wisdom—that Assad had greater staying power than U.S. officials were saying back in 2012. But, he says, “the price was too high a long time ago, because Syria was not important. The French, the British, the Americans—everybody was a coward. They hung the Syrian people out to dry because it was too expensive domestically to make a deal with Assad.”
Hof, who was part of the negotiating effort in 2012, agrees that the negotiations then could have been better handled then and the harsh demand that “Assad must go” voiced by Clinton and others was perhaps “gratuitous” considering the need to compromise. Still, he says it’s far too simplistic to suggest that Russia would have genuinely backed Assad’s eventual departure then—and it’s less likely now, as Putin declares frankly that only autocrats like Assad can save the Middle East from total radicalization. By the same token, even if Obama steps away from his calls for Assad’s ouster, it remains politically difficult for him to deploy real force to help Putin’s military effort in Syria. Launching air strikes in the newly ISIL-held city of Palmyra, for example, will leave Obama open to accusations that he’s become Assad’s air force.
Beyond that, the political risk for Obama and the Democrats is that they are seen welcoming the ostracized Putin back into the diplomatic fold—as they’ve already done partially over the Iran nuclear deal—even as he continues his partial occupation of Ukraine and declares openly that he’s parting ways with the West on the basic issue of democracy.
In his U.N. speech—in stark contrast to Obama’s calls for democracy in his remarks earlier in the day—Putin all but openly embraced autocracy as a better form of government, at least in the Middle East, saying that thanks to the West’s previous interference in the region , “instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster.” Putin also took a shot at the American Exceptionalist belief in the power of freedom and democracy, taunting: “I cannot help asking those who have caused the situation, do you realize now what you’ve done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned.”
Nonetheless, Kerry appears to be pushing the new diplomatic effort with Moscow hard, saying the United States and Russia agree on “some fundamental principles” for Syria: “that Syria should be a unified country, united, that it needs to be secular, that ISIL needs to be taken on, and that there needs to be a managed transition,” Kerry told MSNBC.
Kerry himself, in fact, is among the slew of former and current administration officials who have criticized the president on this more than any other issue. In 2013 he told a conference that the administration was “late” in helping the once mostly secular rebels against Assad, just as Hillary Clinton, now running for president, reminded viewers this week that she’d advised more robust training, along with former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey.
Kerry also told Congress that “one of the reasons Assad has been using [chemical weapons] is because they have, up until now, made the calculation that the West writ large and the United States particularly are not going to do anything about it.”
But now the calculations have changed for the West writ large. Landis argues that ever since millions of refugees broadsided Europe, turning the Syrian war into a domestic crisis for government after government across the continent, its leaders have backed down from their earlier hard-line stances. “Now all the Europeans are climbing down from ‘Assad has to go’ to ‘Assad’s got to go after the crisis is over,’” he says. “There’s no alternative but to make that kind of compromise.”
It was only two years ago that Kerry and Lavrov worked closely together to resolve the last major Syrian spillover. In the summer of 2013, when evidence mounted that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons, Kerry condemned Assad as a “thug and a murderer” who faced imminent U.S. retaliation, only to find that an equivocating Obama was undercutting and kicking the decision over to Congress. With help from Lavrov, Kerry negotiated a deal with Assad that compelled the Syrian dictator to surrender his chemical weapons.
Today the United States—whether indirectly or not, and whether it is officially admitting it or not—is working with Assad once again.
Major deal...
Schumer in talks with Ryan on major tax, infrastructure deal
The two, along with Sen. Rob Portman, are trying to hash out a sweeping bipartisan package.
By Burgess Everett and John Bresnahan
Three years ago, Chuck Schumer called Paul Ryan's plans for deficit reduction a "fraud.” Now the future Democratic leader wants to cut a deal with him.
The New York senator isn’t playing it safe as he prepares to lead his caucus in 2017. Despite getting hit by liberals for siding with Republicans on the Iran nuclear deal, Schumer is in talks with the conservative Ryan (R-Wis.) and vulnerable Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman to deliver a major infrastructure bill that’s eluded Congress for a decade.
The discussions to marry international tax reform with transportation investment are not close to yielding a deal yet and already face serious skepticism from Republicans and Democrats, for policy and political reasons. But Schumer and Ryan are forging ahead, meeting twice in the Capitol this month to advance a blueprint that Schumer floated this summer alongside Portman. The Schumer-Portman team-up is notable because the Ohio senator faces a tough reelection next year, one of several races that will determine whether Schumer becomes majority leader in 2017.
But the deal-cutting Schumer, who faces questions from the party’s liberal wing about what kind of leader he would be, is brushing off any concerns about working with Portman and Ryan. Schumer said he can always walk away from the talks if it’s not a good deal for his side.
“If it’s not going to be robust, really strong on the highway side, we’re not going to get it done. We don’t want to get it done,” Schumer said in an interview.
Still, there are lingering concerns in the caucus over Schumer’s propensity to go out on a limb with Republicans. He is fresh off opposing President Barack Obama’s Iran accord, one of only four Senate Democrats to do so. Schumer’s stance, while not a surprise to fellow Senate Democrats, infuriated some on the left, who were upset to see the future party leader aligning himself with GOP hawks.
And after Democrats lost the Senate last year, Schumer said Democrats “blew” their mandate from the 2008 election by putting “all of our focus on the wrong problem — health care reform” during Obama’s first year in office. Though the remarks and his Iran stance did not go over well with many in his party, Schumer still enjoys strong support within the caucus to succeed Harry Reid, despite some criticism from the left, said Democratic sources both loyal to Schumer and skeptical of him.
Schumer is setting a high bar in his talks with Republicans. He wants to grant a one-time tax break on overseas profits that multinational corporations bring back to the United States. The “repatriation” windfall would finance a sweeping infrastructure package, for which he hopes to get strong buy-in from his caucus, and Republicans would get lower tax rates overseas moving forward.
Schumer has personally pressed Ryan and his lieutenants to agree to generating hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure projects. But the two haven’t gotten into particulars that will make or break the negotiations.
“The challenge for this is the details … there’s certainly going to be a vigorous debate about rates,” said Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee. “The biggest challenge is the difference of opinion that Republicans have between themselves.”
Schumer has, however, recruited Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Mark Warner of Virginia to help shore up his effort’s support on the left and center of the Democratic Party, respectively.
“You’re going to need a very broad consensus on the Democratic side,” Schumer said. “We have the makings of it.”
Yet the dealings with Portman and Ryan, whose policies Schumer has used as an electoral foil for years, are troubling to some Capitol Hill Democrats. The key for progressives is how much to cut international tax rates. Give too much away, and progressives would hammer Schumer for selling out.
“This is incredibly sensitive, and [Schumer] has to be extremely cautious here,” said a Democratic senator close to the talks.
Portman was matched up with Schumer in an international tax reform working group designed by Finance Committee leaders earlier this year. One senior Democratic aide said an agreement with Portman and Ryan would be a loser all around, particularly by aiding a vulnerable Republican senator.
“On a political level, Schumer should be honest about the fact that striking a deal would absolutely help Portman in his race,” the person said. “Helping him secure a corporate tax deal that will be a stinker for Democrats and a talking point for Portman is only a good move if your sole goal is self-promotion, even if it comes at the expense of the caucus.”
Several other Democrats shrugged off the possibility that Schumer is hurting his own chances at becoming majority leader by collaborating with Portman. They believe that beating Portman hinges on turnout in the presidential race and the Republican’s embrace of the broader GOP agenda — not a long-shot attempt working across party lines with one of the nation’s most powerful Democrats.
Senate leaders must “do what they have to do: What’s right for their state and right for the country,” said Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, who leads the Democrats’ campaign arm.
However, Republican officials said that this type of bipartisan effort is central to the campaign of the Ohio senator, who helped craft a deal on unemployment insurance that stalled in 2014 and is eager for a major accomplishment to point to on the trail.
“This is good for Portman,” one national GOP official said.
Though Schumer risks upsetting internal caucus politics by pursuing an agreement with Ryan and Portman, people in both parties agree that linking international reform and infrastructure spending is an uphill battle that may end in failure. Democrats are looking for a transformative infrastructure plan after years of dithering on the Hill, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputies doubt that Ryan would ever agree to the type of new spending and revenues that Schumer prefers.
“Their idea of tax reform is basically to raise more revenue. My idea of tax reform is to lower rates,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican who often works out alongside Schumer in the Senate gym. But, he added: “They ought to talk, I think that’s useful.”
Still, there could be a window over the next month for the House to make a move. Resigning House Speaker John Boehner has long favored a big deal on infrastructure and his chamber is now on the hook to pass legislation that would be hashed out in conference committee with a three-year proposal approved by the Senate.
And since Boehner is against raising the gas tax, an international tax reform deal could conceivably be an alternative to McConnell’s proposal that keeps infrastructure spending relatively flat.
The Schumer-Ryan-Portman plan — which builds on earlier proposals from the White House and former Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) — is being pitched as a win for both sides. Republicans would get tax reform and lower rates overseas, Democrats would get more highway spending. And both sides would get potentially more jobs in the United States.
A deal “is urgent because if we don’t do it, you will see more and more American companies move their jobs overseas,” Portman said.
But the window for House action is small with Boehner's resignation effective at the end of October. The next speaker, probably Kevin McCarthy of California, will likely seek to lock down the conservative wing of the conference rather than seek bipartisan deals with Democrats in the coming weeks.
The talks do serve both sides politically even if they fall short: Ryan and Portman could say they tried but that Democrats want to plunge America deeper into debt. And Schumer could make the case that only a Democratic Congress can deliver a big highway bill.
“The only way a deal could come together is if it results in the longest, most robust infrastructure spending bill in a generation,” said a person close to Schumer. Otherwise “this isn’t going to work.”
The two, along with Sen. Rob Portman, are trying to hash out a sweeping bipartisan package.
By Burgess Everett and John Bresnahan
Three years ago, Chuck Schumer called Paul Ryan's plans for deficit reduction a "fraud.” Now the future Democratic leader wants to cut a deal with him.
The New York senator isn’t playing it safe as he prepares to lead his caucus in 2017. Despite getting hit by liberals for siding with Republicans on the Iran nuclear deal, Schumer is in talks with the conservative Ryan (R-Wis.) and vulnerable Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman to deliver a major infrastructure bill that’s eluded Congress for a decade.
The discussions to marry international tax reform with transportation investment are not close to yielding a deal yet and already face serious skepticism from Republicans and Democrats, for policy and political reasons. But Schumer and Ryan are forging ahead, meeting twice in the Capitol this month to advance a blueprint that Schumer floated this summer alongside Portman. The Schumer-Portman team-up is notable because the Ohio senator faces a tough reelection next year, one of several races that will determine whether Schumer becomes majority leader in 2017.
But the deal-cutting Schumer, who faces questions from the party’s liberal wing about what kind of leader he would be, is brushing off any concerns about working with Portman and Ryan. Schumer said he can always walk away from the talks if it’s not a good deal for his side.
“If it’s not going to be robust, really strong on the highway side, we’re not going to get it done. We don’t want to get it done,” Schumer said in an interview.
Still, there are lingering concerns in the caucus over Schumer’s propensity to go out on a limb with Republicans. He is fresh off opposing President Barack Obama’s Iran accord, one of only four Senate Democrats to do so. Schumer’s stance, while not a surprise to fellow Senate Democrats, infuriated some on the left, who were upset to see the future party leader aligning himself with GOP hawks.
And after Democrats lost the Senate last year, Schumer said Democrats “blew” their mandate from the 2008 election by putting “all of our focus on the wrong problem — health care reform” during Obama’s first year in office. Though the remarks and his Iran stance did not go over well with many in his party, Schumer still enjoys strong support within the caucus to succeed Harry Reid, despite some criticism from the left, said Democratic sources both loyal to Schumer and skeptical of him.
Schumer is setting a high bar in his talks with Republicans. He wants to grant a one-time tax break on overseas profits that multinational corporations bring back to the United States. The “repatriation” windfall would finance a sweeping infrastructure package, for which he hopes to get strong buy-in from his caucus, and Republicans would get lower tax rates overseas moving forward.
Schumer has personally pressed Ryan and his lieutenants to agree to generating hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure projects. But the two haven’t gotten into particulars that will make or break the negotiations.
“The challenge for this is the details … there’s certainly going to be a vigorous debate about rates,” said Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee. “The biggest challenge is the difference of opinion that Republicans have between themselves.”
Schumer has, however, recruited Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Mark Warner of Virginia to help shore up his effort’s support on the left and center of the Democratic Party, respectively.
“You’re going to need a very broad consensus on the Democratic side,” Schumer said. “We have the makings of it.”
Yet the dealings with Portman and Ryan, whose policies Schumer has used as an electoral foil for years, are troubling to some Capitol Hill Democrats. The key for progressives is how much to cut international tax rates. Give too much away, and progressives would hammer Schumer for selling out.
“This is incredibly sensitive, and [Schumer] has to be extremely cautious here,” said a Democratic senator close to the talks.
Portman was matched up with Schumer in an international tax reform working group designed by Finance Committee leaders earlier this year. One senior Democratic aide said an agreement with Portman and Ryan would be a loser all around, particularly by aiding a vulnerable Republican senator.
“On a political level, Schumer should be honest about the fact that striking a deal would absolutely help Portman in his race,” the person said. “Helping him secure a corporate tax deal that will be a stinker for Democrats and a talking point for Portman is only a good move if your sole goal is self-promotion, even if it comes at the expense of the caucus.”
Several other Democrats shrugged off the possibility that Schumer is hurting his own chances at becoming majority leader by collaborating with Portman. They believe that beating Portman hinges on turnout in the presidential race and the Republican’s embrace of the broader GOP agenda — not a long-shot attempt working across party lines with one of the nation’s most powerful Democrats.
Senate leaders must “do what they have to do: What’s right for their state and right for the country,” said Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, who leads the Democrats’ campaign arm.
However, Republican officials said that this type of bipartisan effort is central to the campaign of the Ohio senator, who helped craft a deal on unemployment insurance that stalled in 2014 and is eager for a major accomplishment to point to on the trail.
“This is good for Portman,” one national GOP official said.
Though Schumer risks upsetting internal caucus politics by pursuing an agreement with Ryan and Portman, people in both parties agree that linking international reform and infrastructure spending is an uphill battle that may end in failure. Democrats are looking for a transformative infrastructure plan after years of dithering on the Hill, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputies doubt that Ryan would ever agree to the type of new spending and revenues that Schumer prefers.
“Their idea of tax reform is basically to raise more revenue. My idea of tax reform is to lower rates,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican who often works out alongside Schumer in the Senate gym. But, he added: “They ought to talk, I think that’s useful.”
Still, there could be a window over the next month for the House to make a move. Resigning House Speaker John Boehner has long favored a big deal on infrastructure and his chamber is now on the hook to pass legislation that would be hashed out in conference committee with a three-year proposal approved by the Senate.
And since Boehner is against raising the gas tax, an international tax reform deal could conceivably be an alternative to McConnell’s proposal that keeps infrastructure spending relatively flat.
The Schumer-Ryan-Portman plan — which builds on earlier proposals from the White House and former Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) — is being pitched as a win for both sides. Republicans would get tax reform and lower rates overseas, Democrats would get more highway spending. And both sides would get potentially more jobs in the United States.
A deal “is urgent because if we don’t do it, you will see more and more American companies move their jobs overseas,” Portman said.
But the window for House action is small with Boehner's resignation effective at the end of October. The next speaker, probably Kevin McCarthy of California, will likely seek to lock down the conservative wing of the conference rather than seek bipartisan deals with Democrats in the coming weeks.
The talks do serve both sides politically even if they fall short: Ryan and Portman could say they tried but that Democrats want to plunge America deeper into debt. And Schumer could make the case that only a Democratic Congress can deliver a big highway bill.
“The only way a deal could come together is if it results in the longest, most robust infrastructure spending bill in a generation,” said a person close to Schumer. Otherwise “this isn’t going to work.”
Street Cash Race
Bush and Rubio race for Wall Street cash
The Florida rivals have dueling fundraisers in New York next month as they court elite GOP donors.
By Ben White
Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are headed for a smackdown on Wall Street.
The former Florida governor and current Florida senator have dueling fundraisers set for the week of Oct. 12 with top financial industry executives in New York as Bush looks to maintain his dominance in the industry despite low poll numbers and Rubio hopes to capitalize on recent momentum to make his case to the deep-pocketed Republican establishment.
The invite to Bush’s breakfast event on Oct. 16— one of several he will hold that day — features a daunting array of 68 top Wall Street names including Jets owner Woody Johnson, attorney Larry Bathgate, Barclays executive Patrick Durkin and Highbridge Capital’s Scott Kapnick.
The minimum donation to attend the event is $2,700. Those who commit to contribute and raise $27,000 get a photo opportunity with Bush in addition to the breakfast, which will take place at the Hilton Hotel on Sixth Avenue. Bush supporters say the list reflects the former governor’s dominant position among the financial elite.
“This is the varsity squad,” one donor quipped. “I’m not sure Rubio’s would even qualify as the junior varsity.”
Rubio’s invite features 20 people,including younger and less well-known but rising figures such as Courtney Geduldig, a former Senate Banking staffer now at McGraw Hill Financial. The event, which requires a minimum $1,000 donation and $2,700 to serve as a “host,” will take place at 6 p.m. Oct. 14 at the Fifth Avenue offices of Phil Rosen, a co-chair of law firm Weil Gotshal’s real estate practice and a close associate of billionaire GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson. The event invite also features Wayne Berman, a top D.C.-based executive at private equity firm Blackstone Group, who was an early Rubio backer. Jewish Insider first reported on the Rubio invite on Sunday.
But the battle for New York won’t wait until October.
Bush is also in New York this week,with meetings set for Thursday with potential financial industry leaders not currently aligned with any campaign. One meeting will take place Thursday morning in Woody Johnson’s office and is intended to bring on board top financiers not already aligned with Bush’s campaign.
This group includes Paul Singer of hedge fund Elliott Management, perhaps the most sought-after uncommitted Wall Street executive. Singer has been invited to the breakfast, but people familiar with the matter said the hedge fund manager had not committed to attending.
Other invitees to the Bush event include prominent activist investor Dan Loeb of Third Point Partners and longtime GOP fundraiser Georgette Mosbacher, people familiar with the matter said. One source familiar with the matter said Loeb had already committed to backing Bush. A spokesperson for Loeb did not immediately return a call for comment.
Bush’s campaign on Tuesday also rolled out an endorsement from hedge fund manager Anthony Scaramucci of SkyBridge Capital, who previously backed the campaign of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
In an interview, Scaramucci, a regular presence on financial television shows and at his prominent SALT Conference in Las Vegas, cited his close ties to former President George W. Bush and others in the family’s orbit for his decision to back the former Florida governor.
“I have nothing against Marco Rubio. I just think Gov. Bush has the experience and a great record as an executive,” Scaramucci said. “It’s not Rubio’s time. This is like surfing and it’s Jeb’s wave to surf. It’s been a little shaky because of Donald Trump and the rest of the outsiders, but I do not believe the GOP is going to select a nominee for the most important political job in the world who doesn’t have political experience.”
A spokesman for Rubio did not immediately respond to email messages for comment. The Florida senator is enjoying increased popularity following two strong debate performances and is looking to turn that momentum into a stronger fundraising performance.
People close to Rubio say rolling out the Scaramucci endorsement is an indication that the Bush campaign is worried about Rubio’s momentum and appeal to wealthy, establishment donors who want to back a winner who is gaining ground in the polls. They also note that the Bush team is worried about other former Walker supporters and staffers moving to Rubio's campaign. A Bush spokesman declined to comment.
Both Bush and Rubio appeal to elite GOP donors who are terrified of Trump’s impact on the party, especially among women and Latino voters. The assumption that supporters of both candidates make is that Trump will eventually fade and the party will turn to the set of more traditional candidates to select a nominee, rather than move to retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson or former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina, who currently lead both Bush and Rubio in most polls.
The Bush campaign has moved in recent days to calm donors dismayed at the former governor’s weak poll numbers. Top bundlers were recently called to Miami to make last-minute fundraising calls ahead of Wednesday’s end to the third-quarter filing period. Bush’s array of fundraising vehicles, including the Right to Rise super PAC, hauled in a record $103 million through the first six months of the year, blowing away all the other candidates in the field.
But donors do not expect anywhere close to those kind of numbers for the third quarter, as Bush is now more focused on smaller-dollar donations for his campaign, which are capped at $2,700 per donor. “No one is talking about ‘shock and awe’ for the third quarter,” one Bush bundler said.
Another Wall Street donor said that while none of Bush’s financial industry supporters are “jumping ship,” they are concerned about Rubio’s rise in the polls and Bush’s stagnation at around 7 percent. “It’s way too early to panic,but Rubio is a very, very legitimate candidate,” this donor said.
The Florida rivals have dueling fundraisers in New York next month as they court elite GOP donors.
By Ben White
Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are headed for a smackdown on Wall Street.
The former Florida governor and current Florida senator have dueling fundraisers set for the week of Oct. 12 with top financial industry executives in New York as Bush looks to maintain his dominance in the industry despite low poll numbers and Rubio hopes to capitalize on recent momentum to make his case to the deep-pocketed Republican establishment.
The invite to Bush’s breakfast event on Oct. 16— one of several he will hold that day — features a daunting array of 68 top Wall Street names including Jets owner Woody Johnson, attorney Larry Bathgate, Barclays executive Patrick Durkin and Highbridge Capital’s Scott Kapnick.
The minimum donation to attend the event is $2,700. Those who commit to contribute and raise $27,000 get a photo opportunity with Bush in addition to the breakfast, which will take place at the Hilton Hotel on Sixth Avenue. Bush supporters say the list reflects the former governor’s dominant position among the financial elite.
“This is the varsity squad,” one donor quipped. “I’m not sure Rubio’s would even qualify as the junior varsity.”
Rubio’s invite features 20 people,including younger and less well-known but rising figures such as Courtney Geduldig, a former Senate Banking staffer now at McGraw Hill Financial. The event, which requires a minimum $1,000 donation and $2,700 to serve as a “host,” will take place at 6 p.m. Oct. 14 at the Fifth Avenue offices of Phil Rosen, a co-chair of law firm Weil Gotshal’s real estate practice and a close associate of billionaire GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson. The event invite also features Wayne Berman, a top D.C.-based executive at private equity firm Blackstone Group, who was an early Rubio backer. Jewish Insider first reported on the Rubio invite on Sunday.
But the battle for New York won’t wait until October.
Bush is also in New York this week,with meetings set for Thursday with potential financial industry leaders not currently aligned with any campaign. One meeting will take place Thursday morning in Woody Johnson’s office and is intended to bring on board top financiers not already aligned with Bush’s campaign.
This group includes Paul Singer of hedge fund Elliott Management, perhaps the most sought-after uncommitted Wall Street executive. Singer has been invited to the breakfast, but people familiar with the matter said the hedge fund manager had not committed to attending.
Other invitees to the Bush event include prominent activist investor Dan Loeb of Third Point Partners and longtime GOP fundraiser Georgette Mosbacher, people familiar with the matter said. One source familiar with the matter said Loeb had already committed to backing Bush. A spokesperson for Loeb did not immediately return a call for comment.
Bush’s campaign on Tuesday also rolled out an endorsement from hedge fund manager Anthony Scaramucci of SkyBridge Capital, who previously backed the campaign of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
In an interview, Scaramucci, a regular presence on financial television shows and at his prominent SALT Conference in Las Vegas, cited his close ties to former President George W. Bush and others in the family’s orbit for his decision to back the former Florida governor.
“I have nothing against Marco Rubio. I just think Gov. Bush has the experience and a great record as an executive,” Scaramucci said. “It’s not Rubio’s time. This is like surfing and it’s Jeb’s wave to surf. It’s been a little shaky because of Donald Trump and the rest of the outsiders, but I do not believe the GOP is going to select a nominee for the most important political job in the world who doesn’t have political experience.”
A spokesman for Rubio did not immediately respond to email messages for comment. The Florida senator is enjoying increased popularity following two strong debate performances and is looking to turn that momentum into a stronger fundraising performance.
People close to Rubio say rolling out the Scaramucci endorsement is an indication that the Bush campaign is worried about Rubio’s momentum and appeal to wealthy, establishment donors who want to back a winner who is gaining ground in the polls. They also note that the Bush team is worried about other former Walker supporters and staffers moving to Rubio's campaign. A Bush spokesman declined to comment.
Both Bush and Rubio appeal to elite GOP donors who are terrified of Trump’s impact on the party, especially among women and Latino voters. The assumption that supporters of both candidates make is that Trump will eventually fade and the party will turn to the set of more traditional candidates to select a nominee, rather than move to retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson or former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina, who currently lead both Bush and Rubio in most polls.
The Bush campaign has moved in recent days to calm donors dismayed at the former governor’s weak poll numbers. Top bundlers were recently called to Miami to make last-minute fundraising calls ahead of Wednesday’s end to the third-quarter filing period. Bush’s array of fundraising vehicles, including the Right to Rise super PAC, hauled in a record $103 million through the first six months of the year, blowing away all the other candidates in the field.
But donors do not expect anywhere close to those kind of numbers for the third quarter, as Bush is now more focused on smaller-dollar donations for his campaign, which are capped at $2,700 per donor. “No one is talking about ‘shock and awe’ for the third quarter,” one Bush bundler said.
Another Wall Street donor said that while none of Bush’s financial industry supporters are “jumping ship,” they are concerned about Rubio’s rise in the polls and Bush’s stagnation at around 7 percent. “It’s way too early to panic,but Rubio is a very, very legitimate candidate,” this donor said.
Being childish
Bye-bye baby — time for all of us to grow up
By Roger Simon
Maybe this democracy thing is overrated. We would like to believe that every four years, Americans go to the polls and prove that our system of government works.
But maybe this time it won’t. Maybe this time, democracy will hiccup and produce a president who is not just professionally unqualified for but also personally unworthy of the job.
I could give you a list. But I am not sure I can remember that many names.
Let me quote the president who Republicans still worship: Ronald Reagan. Reagan was good at the quip — “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help” — but he was also good at what is now called “the vision thing.”
The vision thing used to be important in American politics. Now it is considered a parlor trick. If you can master it, fine. If you can’t, don’t worry. We’ll just use a video.
This is from Ronald Reagan’s last speech from the Oval Office:
“I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life,” Reagan said. “After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true to the granite ridge, and her glow has held no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.”
I never liked Reagan’s policies, but he knew how to rouse a nation. And that line about hurtling through the darkness toward home can still give one chills.
No Republican would say that today, of course. We don’t want to be a magnet. We don’t want pilgrims from lost places. They need a home? Fine. Let them find one — far away from us.
And who is the leading Republican this time around? And what does he say? Well, he says a great deal. Not much of it inspirational, however.
Here is a list of Donald Trump’s greatest hits compiled by USA Today:
Jeb Bush is “weak” ...
Bobby Jindal is at “zero” in the polls.
Lindsey Graham is a “total lightweight.”
Karl Rove is “a total loser.”
Chuck Hagel and George Will are “morons.”
On Rick Santorum: “I have a big plane. He doesn’t.”
On Fox newscaster Megyn Kelly after the Republican debate on Aug. 6: “Fox viewers give low marks to bimbo.”
On Megyn Kelly on her returning from vacation in late August: “The bimbo’s back in town. I hope not for long.”
Why Trump’s dislike of Kelly? She held him to account for what came out of his mouth. He wasn’t used to that and he didn’t like it one bit.
At the debate, Kelly had said to Trump: “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on ‘The Celebrity Apprentice’ it would be a ‘pretty picture’ to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?”
Trump was angry with the question and after the debate denied saying some of the things Kelly accused him of saying.
So PolitiFact.com, a nonpartisan fact-checking agency of the Tampa Bay Times, looked into Trump’s claim that Kelly had lied. “The record, however, shows the opposite is true,” PolitiFact said. “He has said exactly what Kelly mentioned in the debate. We rate Trump’s statement False.”
There has been much written lately that the “Summer of Trump” is over, the public finally sees through him. His poll numbers are slipping, and people are finally waking up to his act.
That might make an ordinary candidate nervous. It makes Trump belligerent.
This is a CNN news release from Monday:
“Donald Trump admitted Monday that his rhetoric on the campaign trail may not always sound entirely presidential.
“Probably is a little childish,” Trump said in an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett at Trump Tower in New York. “But you know what? This is a campaign.”
Hell yes! This is only a campaign! And only for the presidency of the United States!
So why get all huffy and dignified and fancy-shmancy. Treat your critics like the insects they are. Especially if they aren’t rich and don’t own big planes.
Being childish is what the political process is all about. Or at least it’s what Donald Trump is all about.
Because there has never been a bigger baby running for president.
By Roger Simon
Maybe this democracy thing is overrated. We would like to believe that every four years, Americans go to the polls and prove that our system of government works.
But maybe this time it won’t. Maybe this time, democracy will hiccup and produce a president who is not just professionally unqualified for but also personally unworthy of the job.
I could give you a list. But I am not sure I can remember that many names.
Let me quote the president who Republicans still worship: Ronald Reagan. Reagan was good at the quip — “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help” — but he was also good at what is now called “the vision thing.”
The vision thing used to be important in American politics. Now it is considered a parlor trick. If you can master it, fine. If you can’t, don’t worry. We’ll just use a video.
This is from Ronald Reagan’s last speech from the Oval Office:
“I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life,” Reagan said. “After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true to the granite ridge, and her glow has held no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.”
I never liked Reagan’s policies, but he knew how to rouse a nation. And that line about hurtling through the darkness toward home can still give one chills.
No Republican would say that today, of course. We don’t want to be a magnet. We don’t want pilgrims from lost places. They need a home? Fine. Let them find one — far away from us.
And who is the leading Republican this time around? And what does he say? Well, he says a great deal. Not much of it inspirational, however.
Here is a list of Donald Trump’s greatest hits compiled by USA Today:
Jeb Bush is “weak” ...
Bobby Jindal is at “zero” in the polls.
Lindsey Graham is a “total lightweight.”
Karl Rove is “a total loser.”
Chuck Hagel and George Will are “morons.”
On Rick Santorum: “I have a big plane. He doesn’t.”
On Fox newscaster Megyn Kelly after the Republican debate on Aug. 6: “Fox viewers give low marks to bimbo.”
On Megyn Kelly on her returning from vacation in late August: “The bimbo’s back in town. I hope not for long.”
Why Trump’s dislike of Kelly? She held him to account for what came out of his mouth. He wasn’t used to that and he didn’t like it one bit.
At the debate, Kelly had said to Trump: “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on ‘The Celebrity Apprentice’ it would be a ‘pretty picture’ to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?”
Trump was angry with the question and after the debate denied saying some of the things Kelly accused him of saying.
So PolitiFact.com, a nonpartisan fact-checking agency of the Tampa Bay Times, looked into Trump’s claim that Kelly had lied. “The record, however, shows the opposite is true,” PolitiFact said. “He has said exactly what Kelly mentioned in the debate. We rate Trump’s statement False.”
There has been much written lately that the “Summer of Trump” is over, the public finally sees through him. His poll numbers are slipping, and people are finally waking up to his act.
That might make an ordinary candidate nervous. It makes Trump belligerent.
This is a CNN news release from Monday:
“Donald Trump admitted Monday that his rhetoric on the campaign trail may not always sound entirely presidential.
“Probably is a little childish,” Trump said in an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett at Trump Tower in New York. “But you know what? This is a campaign.”
Hell yes! This is only a campaign! And only for the presidency of the United States!
So why get all huffy and dignified and fancy-shmancy. Treat your critics like the insects they are. Especially if they aren’t rich and don’t own big planes.
Being childish is what the political process is all about. Or at least it’s what Donald Trump is all about.
Because there has never been a bigger baby running for president.
Toast...
Paul on Cruz: He's pretty much done for in the Senate
By Eliza Collins
Rand Paul on Tuesday had a blunt message for his presidential rival and fellow Republican senator Ted Cruz: You're a hack.
In no uncertain terms, Paul called out Cruz for trying — and failing — to disrupt GOP leadership's efforts to fund the government without attacking Planned Parenthood, as well as past name-calling from the Texas senator.
“Ted has chosen to make this really personal and chosen to call people dishonest in leadership and call them names which really goes against the decorum and also against the rules of the Senate, and as a consequence he can’t get anything done legislatively,” Paul said, referring to a spat in July when Cruz called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a liar.
“I approach things a little different, I am still just as hardcore in saying what we are doing is wrong, I just chose not to call people liars on the Senate floor and it’s just a matter of different perspectives on how best to get to the end result."
Paul, who was speaking on Fox News Radio’s “Kilmeade & Friends,” has taken aim at the Texas senator in the past, but was especially sharp on Tuesday.
“He is pretty much done for and stifled, and it’s really because of personal relationships, or lack of personal relationships, and it is a problem,” Paul said.
The Kentucky senator also addressed McConnell, when asked if the majority leader had let him down.
“I think I would say we have disagreements on tactics on how to do it and I stand up forcefully for what I think is right, but I try not to make it personal,” he said. “I think in not making it personal and understanding that other people have different perspectives and really this is a democratic republic, you have to woo people, you can’t hit them over the head.”
On Tuesday Paul dodged when asked by POLITICO if McConnell should step down. House Speaker John Boehner made news last week by suddenly stepping down after facing a conservative rebellion.
By Eliza Collins
Rand Paul on Tuesday had a blunt message for his presidential rival and fellow Republican senator Ted Cruz: You're a hack.
In no uncertain terms, Paul called out Cruz for trying — and failing — to disrupt GOP leadership's efforts to fund the government without attacking Planned Parenthood, as well as past name-calling from the Texas senator.
“Ted has chosen to make this really personal and chosen to call people dishonest in leadership and call them names which really goes against the decorum and also against the rules of the Senate, and as a consequence he can’t get anything done legislatively,” Paul said, referring to a spat in July when Cruz called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a liar.
“I approach things a little different, I am still just as hardcore in saying what we are doing is wrong, I just chose not to call people liars on the Senate floor and it’s just a matter of different perspectives on how best to get to the end result."
Paul, who was speaking on Fox News Radio’s “Kilmeade & Friends,” has taken aim at the Texas senator in the past, but was especially sharp on Tuesday.
“He is pretty much done for and stifled, and it’s really because of personal relationships, or lack of personal relationships, and it is a problem,” Paul said.
The Kentucky senator also addressed McConnell, when asked if the majority leader had let him down.
“I think I would say we have disagreements on tactics on how to do it and I stand up forcefully for what I think is right, but I try not to make it personal,” he said. “I think in not making it personal and understanding that other people have different perspectives and really this is a democratic republic, you have to woo people, you can’t hit them over the head.”
On Tuesday Paul dodged when asked by POLITICO if McConnell should step down. House Speaker John Boehner made news last week by suddenly stepping down after facing a conservative rebellion.
Can't quell...
Democrats doubt McCarthy can quell Republican rebellions
By Lauren French
Congressional Democrats knew what they were getting when they battled with Speaker John Boehner, for better or worse.
With Kevin McCarthy, they'd be dealing with a virtual unknown – and top Democrats are worried about what that will mean for the coming high-stakes battles to raise the debt limit and prevent a government shutdown.
A Democratic leadership aide said McCarthy, the frontrunner to become speaker, has never had a private meeting with Minority Leader and fellow Californian Nancy Pelosi. Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, also from McCarthy’s home state, described his relationship with the likely next speaker as “friends [but] not a close friend.”
Boehner, to the chagrin of the House conservatives who pushed him out, was willing to turn to Democrats time and again to stave off government shutdowns and avoid a first-ever default on the nation’s debt. The fear among Democrats is that McCarthy will have even less room to maneuver as firebrands on the right push for more confrontation.
Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, one of the few prominent Democrats who can point to a relatively tight relationship with McCarthy, said he’s not optimistic that the California Republican can change or improve the gridlock that has gripped the chamber. “We have worked together but I think he’s [going to be] in the same position that Mr. Boehner has been in,” Hoyer said.
McCarthy has risen through the House ranks so quickly he hasn’t had time to forge many deep relationships across the aisle – the kinds of bonds that Boehner used to great effect. The same is true for the White House, where officials haven’t had frequent interactions with the majority leader.
Still, Democrats would like to work with McCarthy to avoid plunging over any future cliffs, and perhaps even make some deals on legislation. But they’re not holding their breath.
Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill said his boss “hopes to work with Mr. McCarthy to create a dialogue through which the House can take steps to address the major challenges our country faces.”
But he said that bipartisan cooperation is the only way to avoid disaster. “With a Democratic President and sufficient Democratic support in both chambers to sustain vetoes, working with Democrats will remain the only sustainable path to moving our country through the Republican calendar of chaos that lies before Congress this fall,” Hammill added.
Top Democrats say they haven’t been impressed by his tenure in leadership – McCarthy was majority whip before becoming the No. 2 – as the GOP has repeatedly pulled difficult legislation off the floor, not to mention the 2013 government shutdown.
Across the Capitol, McCarthy’s relationships with the Senate minority aren’t much tighter. When asked about his relationship with Democratic leaders, one source pointed to McCarthy’s failed negotiations with Sen. Chuck Schumer to try and re-up a terrorism risk reauthorization bill – a priority for the New York Democrat. McCarthy was tapped by Boehner to lead negotiations on a compromise package but he couldn’t overcome a conservative rebellion to strike a deal.
Still, McCarthy has at times played a central role during negotiations between President Barack Obama and House Republicans, but administration officials are still trying to get a sense of the California lawmaker’s grip on his members.
A White House official said there has always been “an open line of communication with the Majority Leader’s team”
“We have our policy disagreements, we are able to have candid conversations with each other on what is doable and what is not when it comes to legislation moving through the House,” the official said.
For his part, McCarthy describes his relationship with the Obama as solid.
“I have a good relationship with the president. I met him many times. We have been in a few meetings,” he said on CBS This Morning. “As you know, I have not been speaker so we have never sat down to negotiate or anything like that.”
It’s not unusual for the No. 2 or 3 leaders in a party to focus more on internal conference politics than building bridges with the other party. Since he was elected in 2006, McCarthy has spent the vast majority of his time counting votes for Republicans – a job that doesn’t often put him in the same room with Democrats.
And, first and foremost, McCarthy needs to earn the trust of GOP lawmakers, including the 40-person House Freedom Caucus. Any talks with Democrats are secondary to winning over restive conservatives.
Still, negotiating major budget legislation or other big bills will likely require Democratic support, if at the least in the Senate.
And it’s not that Democrats don’t like McCarthy – it’s just that they aren’t convinced he’ll be any more effective than Boehner was at containing rebellions from the right flank. Rep. Joe Crowley, the vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, said he’s unsure McCarthy – or anyone – has the ability to convince rock-ribbed conservatives that compromising is worth the price.
Crowley, whose wife serves on the board of Ford’s Theatre with McCarthy’s wife, says he and the California Republican have a social relationship.
“I wouldn’t say I’m close to him but I find Kevin very approachable. He’s always very friendly,” Crowley said. “The biggest question for me is how he is going to deal with the floor situation within his own party.”
He added that to Democrats, McCarthy is just “an unknown entity at this point.”
The few Democrats McCarthy is close to, including Hoyer and Reps. Karen Bass of California and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, say he is a sensible leader with an understanding of how to run a chamber.
McCarthy was part of Republican leadership when he served in the California State Legislature.
But even Bass, who was the majority whip back in California when McCarthy was in office, said he will face challenges from conservative Republicans.
“We’ve had a good relationship ever since but I am concerned about the challenges he is going to have because of how difficult things are in his caucus,” Bass said. “I definitely think he has the temperament to bring people together.”
By Lauren French
Congressional Democrats knew what they were getting when they battled with Speaker John Boehner, for better or worse.
With Kevin McCarthy, they'd be dealing with a virtual unknown – and top Democrats are worried about what that will mean for the coming high-stakes battles to raise the debt limit and prevent a government shutdown.
A Democratic leadership aide said McCarthy, the frontrunner to become speaker, has never had a private meeting with Minority Leader and fellow Californian Nancy Pelosi. Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, also from McCarthy’s home state, described his relationship with the likely next speaker as “friends [but] not a close friend.”
Boehner, to the chagrin of the House conservatives who pushed him out, was willing to turn to Democrats time and again to stave off government shutdowns and avoid a first-ever default on the nation’s debt. The fear among Democrats is that McCarthy will have even less room to maneuver as firebrands on the right push for more confrontation.
Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, one of the few prominent Democrats who can point to a relatively tight relationship with McCarthy, said he’s not optimistic that the California Republican can change or improve the gridlock that has gripped the chamber. “We have worked together but I think he’s [going to be] in the same position that Mr. Boehner has been in,” Hoyer said.
McCarthy has risen through the House ranks so quickly he hasn’t had time to forge many deep relationships across the aisle – the kinds of bonds that Boehner used to great effect. The same is true for the White House, where officials haven’t had frequent interactions with the majority leader.
Still, Democrats would like to work with McCarthy to avoid plunging over any future cliffs, and perhaps even make some deals on legislation. But they’re not holding their breath.
Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill said his boss “hopes to work with Mr. McCarthy to create a dialogue through which the House can take steps to address the major challenges our country faces.”
But he said that bipartisan cooperation is the only way to avoid disaster. “With a Democratic President and sufficient Democratic support in both chambers to sustain vetoes, working with Democrats will remain the only sustainable path to moving our country through the Republican calendar of chaos that lies before Congress this fall,” Hammill added.
Top Democrats say they haven’t been impressed by his tenure in leadership – McCarthy was majority whip before becoming the No. 2 – as the GOP has repeatedly pulled difficult legislation off the floor, not to mention the 2013 government shutdown.
Across the Capitol, McCarthy’s relationships with the Senate minority aren’t much tighter. When asked about his relationship with Democratic leaders, one source pointed to McCarthy’s failed negotiations with Sen. Chuck Schumer to try and re-up a terrorism risk reauthorization bill – a priority for the New York Democrat. McCarthy was tapped by Boehner to lead negotiations on a compromise package but he couldn’t overcome a conservative rebellion to strike a deal.
Still, McCarthy has at times played a central role during negotiations between President Barack Obama and House Republicans, but administration officials are still trying to get a sense of the California lawmaker’s grip on his members.
A White House official said there has always been “an open line of communication with the Majority Leader’s team”
“We have our policy disagreements, we are able to have candid conversations with each other on what is doable and what is not when it comes to legislation moving through the House,” the official said.
For his part, McCarthy describes his relationship with the Obama as solid.
“I have a good relationship with the president. I met him many times. We have been in a few meetings,” he said on CBS This Morning. “As you know, I have not been speaker so we have never sat down to negotiate or anything like that.”
It’s not unusual for the No. 2 or 3 leaders in a party to focus more on internal conference politics than building bridges with the other party. Since he was elected in 2006, McCarthy has spent the vast majority of his time counting votes for Republicans – a job that doesn’t often put him in the same room with Democrats.
And, first and foremost, McCarthy needs to earn the trust of GOP lawmakers, including the 40-person House Freedom Caucus. Any talks with Democrats are secondary to winning over restive conservatives.
Still, negotiating major budget legislation or other big bills will likely require Democratic support, if at the least in the Senate.
And it’s not that Democrats don’t like McCarthy – it’s just that they aren’t convinced he’ll be any more effective than Boehner was at containing rebellions from the right flank. Rep. Joe Crowley, the vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, said he’s unsure McCarthy – or anyone – has the ability to convince rock-ribbed conservatives that compromising is worth the price.
Crowley, whose wife serves on the board of Ford’s Theatre with McCarthy’s wife, says he and the California Republican have a social relationship.
“I wouldn’t say I’m close to him but I find Kevin very approachable. He’s always very friendly,” Crowley said. “The biggest question for me is how he is going to deal with the floor situation within his own party.”
He added that to Democrats, McCarthy is just “an unknown entity at this point.”
The few Democrats McCarthy is close to, including Hoyer and Reps. Karen Bass of California and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, say he is a sensible leader with an understanding of how to run a chamber.
McCarthy was part of Republican leadership when he served in the California State Legislature.
But even Bass, who was the majority whip back in California when McCarthy was in office, said he will face challenges from conservative Republicans.
“We’ve had a good relationship ever since but I am concerned about the challenges he is going to have because of how difficult things are in his caucus,” Bass said. “I definitely think he has the temperament to bring people together.”
Brookings exit
Warren criticism leads to Brookings economist's exit
She had accused Robert Litan of failing to disclose financial conflicts.
By Daniel Strauss
Robert Litan, a top economist at the Brookings Institution, resigned Tuesday after Sen. Elizabeth Warren accused him of publishing "highly compensated and editorially compromised work on behalf of an industry player seeking a specific conclusion."
“It is with regret that I have accepted [Robert] Litan’s resignation today as a nonresident senior fellow,” Brookings President Strobe Talbott said in a statement. “He is a well-known, highly respected researcher, who has spent most of his life either as a government servant or as a public policy analyst. He has acknowledged that he made a mistake in not following Brookings regulations designed to uphold the independence of the institution."
Litan’s resignation came after Warren sent a letter to the think tank accusing Litan of failing to properly disclose financial-industry funding behind a study examining how the Labor Department planned to regulate financial advisers — specifically, how the Labor Department sought to help investors seeking retirement fund advice, a Warren-backed initiative.
Litan’s study cast a critical light on the plan, arguing it was dangerous to consumers, and he used the findings as the basis for his testimony before a Senate committee in July.
The study was commissioned by Economists, Inc, a consultancy that does work on behalf of trade groups, legal counsel, and government agencies. But the study listed Litan's Brookings affiliation, violating the think tank's rules on how its name can be used.
Researcher Hal Singer conducted the study along with Litan, both as staffers for Economists, Inc. Litan had previously worked as an associate director for the Office of Management and Budget and Singer as a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.
Warren, in her letter, argued that the report's disclosure of funding from Capital Group, a mutual fund manager, was insufficient: "broad — but vague."
In response to Warren's questions, Litan said that Capital Group paid Economists Inc. $85,000 for the study and Litan got $38,800 of that. Warren argued that Litan’s failure to disclose that information upfront raised “significant questions about the impartiality of the study and its conclusions.”
Warren also said Litan told her "the study was funded entirely by the Capital Group and that the Capital Group provided 'feedback on our initial outline and some editorial comments' on the study."
Litan denied that the Capital Group had influenced his findings, but told The Wall Street Journal that the letter Warren sent “created some discomfort” and that he “thought it would be best for the institution if I went elsewhere."
She had accused Robert Litan of failing to disclose financial conflicts.
By Daniel Strauss
Robert Litan, a top economist at the Brookings Institution, resigned Tuesday after Sen. Elizabeth Warren accused him of publishing "highly compensated and editorially compromised work on behalf of an industry player seeking a specific conclusion."
“It is with regret that I have accepted [Robert] Litan’s resignation today as a nonresident senior fellow,” Brookings President Strobe Talbott said in a statement. “He is a well-known, highly respected researcher, who has spent most of his life either as a government servant or as a public policy analyst. He has acknowledged that he made a mistake in not following Brookings regulations designed to uphold the independence of the institution."
Litan’s resignation came after Warren sent a letter to the think tank accusing Litan of failing to properly disclose financial-industry funding behind a study examining how the Labor Department planned to regulate financial advisers — specifically, how the Labor Department sought to help investors seeking retirement fund advice, a Warren-backed initiative.
Litan’s study cast a critical light on the plan, arguing it was dangerous to consumers, and he used the findings as the basis for his testimony before a Senate committee in July.
The study was commissioned by Economists, Inc, a consultancy that does work on behalf of trade groups, legal counsel, and government agencies. But the study listed Litan's Brookings affiliation, violating the think tank's rules on how its name can be used.
Researcher Hal Singer conducted the study along with Litan, both as staffers for Economists, Inc. Litan had previously worked as an associate director for the Office of Management and Budget and Singer as a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.
Warren, in her letter, argued that the report's disclosure of funding from Capital Group, a mutual fund manager, was insufficient: "broad — but vague."
In response to Warren's questions, Litan said that Capital Group paid Economists Inc. $85,000 for the study and Litan got $38,800 of that. Warren argued that Litan’s failure to disclose that information upfront raised “significant questions about the impartiality of the study and its conclusions.”
Warren also said Litan told her "the study was funded entirely by the Capital Group and that the Capital Group provided 'feedback on our initial outline and some editorial comments' on the study."
Litan denied that the Capital Group had influenced his findings, but told The Wall Street Journal that the letter Warren sent “created some discomfort” and that he “thought it would be best for the institution if I went elsewhere."
Shatter-proof
For Hill Republicans, the glass ceiling is shatter-proof
House’s top GOP woman tries — and fails — to rise in latest bid to break it.
By Anna Palmer and John Bresnahan
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers found out what generations of Republican women before her have discovered: The glass ceiling on Capitol Hill is real.
The Washington Republican’s bid for House majority leader was over before it even started. After just a few days of phone calls, McMorris Rodgers, 46, formally decided against running for the No. 2 leadership slot, virtually ensuring the top three posts will be held by white men.
McMorris Rodgers will remain as House Republican Conference chair, but that looks like as high as she’ll go in the GOP pecking order. It’s also as high as any woman has ever reached.
While there are more women serving in Congress than ever before, for female Senate and House Republicans, there is no sign that any of them will be party leader anytime soon.
The frustration among some female Republican lawmakers that they haven’t broken through to the most senior ranks of GOP leadership was palpable after McMorris Rodgers decided not to challenge House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana and House Budget Chairman Tom Price of Georgia for the position.
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a fellow Washington state Republican, said the House GOP “missed a golden opportunity, and I think we will pay for that.”
“As the first Hispanic from Washington state, as a young female who is a Republican — so I fit all the minority boxes — absolutely,” said Beutler, when asked whether she was hopeful that women could eventually break into the top three leadership slots.
“My message to her was to continue to do an awesome job at the conference and — you know what? — 18 months from now we are going to revisit this question,” Herrera Beutler said she told McMorris Rodgers. “It’s not like she is a handicap. We’re not talking about affirmative action here. We are talking about someone who would benefit us.”
McMorris Rodgers declined to comment for this article. “The best way right now for me to empower my colleagues through positive change is to remain conference chair,” she said in a statement explaining her decision not to run for majority leader.
McMorris Rodgers has struggled to gain widespread support in the conference. She doesn't have a large delegation behind her and Republican women lawmakers haven't been eager to make gender an issue.
Still, female Republicans on Capitol Hill face major hurdles — now and in the future — when it comes to rising up the leadership ranks.
Out of 21 full committees in the House, Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.) is the only woman wielding a gavel. But Miller, who was appointed to that position by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), will retire at the end of this Congress. She was defeated by Texas Rep. Mike McCaul in a 2012 race to become head the Homeland Security Committee.
Other women in GOP leadership include Reps. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, who serve as secretary and vice chair of the conference, respectively.
In the Senate, New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte is the lone woman in Republican leadership, serving as the appointed “counsel” to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Senate Energy Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is the sole woman atop a full committee. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) serves as chairwoman of the Special Committee on Aging.
House Democrats have been led for the past dozen years by Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Donna Edwards of Maryland are co-chairs of the Steering and Policy Committee, appointed by Pelosi. Additionally, eight female Democratic lawmakers hold the ranking member position on full committees.
In the Senate, Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is conference secretary and also ranking member on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Female Democratic senators serve as ranking member on nine full committees.
Overall, there are 65 Democratic women in the House, including three delegates, vs. 23 female Republicans, including one delegate. The Senate has 14 Democratic women and six female Republicans.
Still, Democratic senators like Kirsten Gillibrand of New York say they've experienced sexist behavior. In a book she wrote that was published last year, Gillibrand said that male colleagues made comments about her weight.
“It is an old boys’ club without a doubt. We only have 20 women,” Gillibrand said at the time. “But it is what it is. I wouldn’t say it’s sexist, I would say it is reality. It is a very male-dominated industry.”
Some Republicans argue that the dearth of female lawmakers in the highest echelon of leadership ranks is rooted in a broader problem within the GOP, including its difficulty attracting female candidates. They also say female Republican lawmakers have been elected more recently, and therefore haven’t yet risen in the seniority system to chair committees.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a first-term Republican from West Virginia and a former House member, said McMorris Rodgers’ decision not to run isn’t evidence of limitations for Republican women on Capitol Hill.
“No. It has nothing to do with her being a woman,” Moore Capito said. “It has to do with her evaluation of where she fits best and what’s achievable for her. … From everything I’ve heard, it was very positive. … [Her decision] doesn’t have anything to do with her gender.”
Foxx agreed, saying that Republicans don’t have a “quota” for women in leadership.
“We have to be judged on our talents, not just whether we’re males or females,” the North Carolina lawmaker said in an interview. “I don’t feel any sexism in our conference at all. I think the fact that Cathy will continue as conference chair is great. She provides important leadership in that position.”
Added Miller, “Look, when you have Cathy McMorris Rodgers as conference chair, and you have two other women in leadership with Virginia Foxx and Lynn Jenkins, you have our voices heard.”
Miller conceded, however, that “we don’t have as many elected Republican women as on the Democratic side. I think we have to do a better job of candidate recruitment, I really do. That’s something for all of us to do.”
While current Republican lawmakers are quick to say there isn’t sexism on Capitol Hill, former Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), the only other woman to serve as House Republican Conference chair, said she did encounter gender-related concerns among some of her conservative colleagues about whether she would be able to handle the job while raising a family.
“I had a small child when I ran for conference chairman. It did come up. Not the fact that I was a woman, but that I had children at home,” Pryce said. “I don’t think Cathy would ever do anything that would hurt her children. She would be fine and she could handle all of this. She has even better home support than I did at the time.” McMorris Rodgers has had three children while serving in public office.
Pryce, who said she hadn’t spoken with McMorris Rodgers, added that there are many reasons for deciding not to run for higher elected leadership. In Pryce’s case, voting with leadership hurt her when she represented a swing district.
“There’s all kinds of glass ceilings if you want to call it that — there’s the practical considerations on the home front, there’s the ones in your own district, the good-judgment ones — is this my time or not? And I really do honestly think women consider that more than men do for whatever reasons,” Pryce said.
House’s top GOP woman tries — and fails — to rise in latest bid to break it.
By Anna Palmer and John Bresnahan
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers found out what generations of Republican women before her have discovered: The glass ceiling on Capitol Hill is real.
The Washington Republican’s bid for House majority leader was over before it even started. After just a few days of phone calls, McMorris Rodgers, 46, formally decided against running for the No. 2 leadership slot, virtually ensuring the top three posts will be held by white men.
McMorris Rodgers will remain as House Republican Conference chair, but that looks like as high as she’ll go in the GOP pecking order. It’s also as high as any woman has ever reached.
While there are more women serving in Congress than ever before, for female Senate and House Republicans, there is no sign that any of them will be party leader anytime soon.
The frustration among some female Republican lawmakers that they haven’t broken through to the most senior ranks of GOP leadership was palpable after McMorris Rodgers decided not to challenge House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana and House Budget Chairman Tom Price of Georgia for the position.
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a fellow Washington state Republican, said the House GOP “missed a golden opportunity, and I think we will pay for that.”
“As the first Hispanic from Washington state, as a young female who is a Republican — so I fit all the minority boxes — absolutely,” said Beutler, when asked whether she was hopeful that women could eventually break into the top three leadership slots.
“My message to her was to continue to do an awesome job at the conference and — you know what? — 18 months from now we are going to revisit this question,” Herrera Beutler said she told McMorris Rodgers. “It’s not like she is a handicap. We’re not talking about affirmative action here. We are talking about someone who would benefit us.”
McMorris Rodgers declined to comment for this article. “The best way right now for me to empower my colleagues through positive change is to remain conference chair,” she said in a statement explaining her decision not to run for majority leader.
McMorris Rodgers has struggled to gain widespread support in the conference. She doesn't have a large delegation behind her and Republican women lawmakers haven't been eager to make gender an issue.
Still, female Republicans on Capitol Hill face major hurdles — now and in the future — when it comes to rising up the leadership ranks.
Out of 21 full committees in the House, Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.) is the only woman wielding a gavel. But Miller, who was appointed to that position by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), will retire at the end of this Congress. She was defeated by Texas Rep. Mike McCaul in a 2012 race to become head the Homeland Security Committee.
Other women in GOP leadership include Reps. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, who serve as secretary and vice chair of the conference, respectively.
In the Senate, New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte is the lone woman in Republican leadership, serving as the appointed “counsel” to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Senate Energy Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is the sole woman atop a full committee. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) serves as chairwoman of the Special Committee on Aging.
House Democrats have been led for the past dozen years by Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Donna Edwards of Maryland are co-chairs of the Steering and Policy Committee, appointed by Pelosi. Additionally, eight female Democratic lawmakers hold the ranking member position on full committees.
In the Senate, Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is conference secretary and also ranking member on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Female Democratic senators serve as ranking member on nine full committees.
Overall, there are 65 Democratic women in the House, including three delegates, vs. 23 female Republicans, including one delegate. The Senate has 14 Democratic women and six female Republicans.
Still, Democratic senators like Kirsten Gillibrand of New York say they've experienced sexist behavior. In a book she wrote that was published last year, Gillibrand said that male colleagues made comments about her weight.
“It is an old boys’ club without a doubt. We only have 20 women,” Gillibrand said at the time. “But it is what it is. I wouldn’t say it’s sexist, I would say it is reality. It is a very male-dominated industry.”
Some Republicans argue that the dearth of female lawmakers in the highest echelon of leadership ranks is rooted in a broader problem within the GOP, including its difficulty attracting female candidates. They also say female Republican lawmakers have been elected more recently, and therefore haven’t yet risen in the seniority system to chair committees.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a first-term Republican from West Virginia and a former House member, said McMorris Rodgers’ decision not to run isn’t evidence of limitations for Republican women on Capitol Hill.
“No. It has nothing to do with her being a woman,” Moore Capito said. “It has to do with her evaluation of where she fits best and what’s achievable for her. … From everything I’ve heard, it was very positive. … [Her decision] doesn’t have anything to do with her gender.”
Foxx agreed, saying that Republicans don’t have a “quota” for women in leadership.
“We have to be judged on our talents, not just whether we’re males or females,” the North Carolina lawmaker said in an interview. “I don’t feel any sexism in our conference at all. I think the fact that Cathy will continue as conference chair is great. She provides important leadership in that position.”
Added Miller, “Look, when you have Cathy McMorris Rodgers as conference chair, and you have two other women in leadership with Virginia Foxx and Lynn Jenkins, you have our voices heard.”
Miller conceded, however, that “we don’t have as many elected Republican women as on the Democratic side. I think we have to do a better job of candidate recruitment, I really do. That’s something for all of us to do.”
While current Republican lawmakers are quick to say there isn’t sexism on Capitol Hill, former Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), the only other woman to serve as House Republican Conference chair, said she did encounter gender-related concerns among some of her conservative colleagues about whether she would be able to handle the job while raising a family.
“I had a small child when I ran for conference chairman. It did come up. Not the fact that I was a woman, but that I had children at home,” Pryce said. “I don’t think Cathy would ever do anything that would hurt her children. She would be fine and she could handle all of this. She has even better home support than I did at the time.” McMorris Rodgers has had three children while serving in public office.
Pryce, who said she hadn’t spoken with McMorris Rodgers, added that there are many reasons for deciding not to run for higher elected leadership. In Pryce’s case, voting with leadership hurt her when she represented a swing district.
“There’s all kinds of glass ceilings if you want to call it that — there’s the practical considerations on the home front, there’s the ones in your own district, the good-judgment ones — is this my time or not? And I really do honestly think women consider that more than men do for whatever reasons,” Pryce said.
Kock attack
Senate Dems meet to plot 2016 attacks on wealthy Kock brothers
Harry Reid invites David Brock to make the case that Democrats should attack the billionaire mega-donors
By Kenneth P. Vogel and Burgess Everett
A coalition of deep-pocketed liberal groups ― including a pair of super PACs backing Hillary Clinton ― has been meeting quietly for months, examining the 2016 map and plotting attacks against the powerful Kock brothers' network.
At midday Thursday, the architect of that effort, Clinton antagonist-turned-enforcer David Brock, is scheduled to present his findings ― complete with the back-up polling and research ― to the Senate Democratic Caucus, sources tell POLITICO.
Brock declined to comment for this story. But sources familiar with the caucus meeting plan say it appears his goal is to win strategic buy-in from Democratic Senators, who are looking for ways to make the most of a favorable 2016 electoral landscape.
Brock's argument, according to his recently released book and interviews with his allies, is that spotlighting the massive political spending of the conservative groups backed by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Kock is a "critical component" of boosting Democratic candidates, including Clinton, in 2016.
While the strategy produced little tangible benefit for Democrats in the 2014 election, several Democratic Senators in interviews this week expressed support for recommitting to the attacks.
"Well, I'm going to continue talking about them," said Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has spearheaded the Democrats' war on the Kocks and invited Brock to the Capitol. Reid first reached out to Brock about the effort in 2014, according to Brock's book, which recounts a conversation in which Brock asked the senator "What should I be doing?"
Since then, Brock's groups have invested heavily in providing ammunition for the Kock attacks. And Reid asserted the effort has publicly defined the billionaire brothers, whose network intends to spend $889 million shaping the political and public policy debate in the run-up to 2016.
"We've proven in the long run that they're interested in one thing: Their bottom line. They're trying to buy the country, they want to become America's oligarchs," said Reid, who before the 2014 election repeatedly took to the Senate floor to lambast the Kocks as poster children for the corrupting power of money in politics. The broadsides were supported by multi-million-dollar political advertising campaigns, many of them funded by unlimited money super PACs that got their research from American Bridge, a non-profit operation founded by Brock. The common theme was that GOP candidates were beholden to super-rich donors like the Kocks rather than the middleclass voters who tend to decide elections.
Democrats lost nine Senate seats and, with them, control of the Senate, while Republicans also made gains in the House and state capitals around the country. And Reid faced criticism from across the political spectrum for attacking the Kocks. Even Reid's fellow Democrats questioned the efficacy of attacking a pair of little-known ― albeit hugely influential ― donors, arguing it detracted from Democrats' core messages about the plight of the middle class.
"How could you say it's effective? Look at the results. I think the American public wants a discussion on solutions," Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), said Tuesday. "When you start making [the Kocks] front and center, you are losing sight of what you absolutely need to do," said Heitkamp, who does not face reelection until 2018. "We need to be more mindful of what the message is, not who the messengers are and who's paying for them."
James Davis, a spokesman for Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the non-profit group that orchestrates the Koch network, accused Brock and Reid of pursuing a cynical ― and unsuccessful ― political ploy. "Their past attempts to divide America by demonizing job creators have failed," he said. "We remain focused on advancing free-market principles ― ending corporate welfare, reducing barriers to opportunity and restoring fiscal responsibility."
The Kocks' allies have pointed out that some of the Kocks' top policy goals ― like reforming criminal justice laws and eliminating the Export-Import Bank ― have little, if any, bearing on their family-owned multi-national industrial conglomerate, Koch Industries. And they've mocked Reid for his occasional diatribes against the Kocks, who he's accused of being one of the "main causes" of climate change, alleging it's all part of an effort to intimidate conservative donors from political participation.
The Koch brothers have defended their network's spending as driven by a desire to improve society by advancing free market policies, rather than Koch Industries' profits. And the company has spent heavily on ads touting its corporate citizenship and the 60,000 U.S. jobs it provides.
Democrats have interpreted that as a sign that their attacks are working.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asserted this week "The fact that the Koch brothers are spending a fortune on positive advertising about themselves is an indication that their reputation has suffered."
And Brock and his allies have argued that the 2014 efforts by Reid and his big-money super PAC allies laid the groundwork for the strategy to pay dividends in 2016, when Democrats will face a more promising landscape. They're defending only 10 Senate seats, compared to 24 for Republicans.
Sources familiar with the plan for Thursday's caucus meeting say Brock will be accompanied by the veteran Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who works for both American Bridge and Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that plans to air millions of dollars of ads supporting Clinton's presidential campaign.
Garin, who has conducted focus groups for American Bridge on Koch-themed political messaging, has argued that the attacks on the Kocks in 2014 may have helped Democrats win one Senate race ― Democrat Gary Peters' victory over Republican Terri Lynn Land in Michigan ― and kept others close.
For Reid, who is not seeking reelection in 2016, the battle also is personal. His accusations ― among them that the Kocks are "un-American" ― have provoked personal responses from the Kocks and their allies.
At the Kocks' annual summer donor summit in 2014, organizers erected a life-sized cardboard cutout of Reid, his arms spread and his mouth agape as if in midspeech. Emanating from it was a cartoon-like quote bubble with the word "un-American." This summer, Charles Koch took a swipe at Reid, mentioning his "bad eye" ― an allusion to an exercise accident early this year that left Reid blind in one eye.
And the Kock network has been building a robust infrastructure in Nevada, which likely would have deployed against Reid had he sought another term. In particular, the Koch-backed LIBRE Initiative, which courts Latino voters, was plowing money into infrastructure in Reid's backyard. It could still make things tricky for Reid's preferred successor, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, who is Latina.
LIBRE's efforts contributed to the defeat of two Latino Democrats in 2014, said Cristóbal J. Alex, president of the Latino Victory Project, a liberal advocacy group. It's working with Brock's groups to counter LIBRE's efforts in 2016.
"We don't want to be caught flatfooted like we were in 2014. We won't let our candidates be attacked without response," he said, adding that his group would highlight LIBRE's Koch funding, without attacking the Kocks directly.
Likewise, a liberal group that reaches out to veterans, VoteVets.org, has worked with Brock's coalition to counter the efforts of a Koch-backed group called Concerned Veterans for America.
"Every chance we get, we're going to talk about Concerned Veterans being financed by the Koch brothers, because we think it's important for people to know," said VoteVets President Jon Soltz. Additionally, he said "when I mention the Koch network to my email database, it raises money and it fires up my base." In fact, in a Tuesday email to his supporter list, he warned that "the Koch Brothers are funding a massive organization to replicate our efforts, but with a focus on privatizing veterans' health care. And they are very dangerous."
Beyond the electoral and fundraising components, Democrats say the focus on the Kocks can help generate momentum for campaign finance reform.
"The Kock brothers are symptoms of a bigger problem, and that is Citizens United … free speech means normal folks can get swamped out," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).
Harry Reid invites David Brock to make the case that Democrats should attack the billionaire mega-donors
By Kenneth P. Vogel and Burgess Everett
A coalition of deep-pocketed liberal groups ― including a pair of super PACs backing Hillary Clinton ― has been meeting quietly for months, examining the 2016 map and plotting attacks against the powerful Kock brothers' network.
At midday Thursday, the architect of that effort, Clinton antagonist-turned-enforcer David Brock, is scheduled to present his findings ― complete with the back-up polling and research ― to the Senate Democratic Caucus, sources tell POLITICO.
Brock declined to comment for this story. But sources familiar with the caucus meeting plan say it appears his goal is to win strategic buy-in from Democratic Senators, who are looking for ways to make the most of a favorable 2016 electoral landscape.
Brock's argument, according to his recently released book and interviews with his allies, is that spotlighting the massive political spending of the conservative groups backed by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Kock is a "critical component" of boosting Democratic candidates, including Clinton, in 2016.
While the strategy produced little tangible benefit for Democrats in the 2014 election, several Democratic Senators in interviews this week expressed support for recommitting to the attacks.
"Well, I'm going to continue talking about them," said Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has spearheaded the Democrats' war on the Kocks and invited Brock to the Capitol. Reid first reached out to Brock about the effort in 2014, according to Brock's book, which recounts a conversation in which Brock asked the senator "What should I be doing?"
Since then, Brock's groups have invested heavily in providing ammunition for the Kock attacks. And Reid asserted the effort has publicly defined the billionaire brothers, whose network intends to spend $889 million shaping the political and public policy debate in the run-up to 2016.
"We've proven in the long run that they're interested in one thing: Their bottom line. They're trying to buy the country, they want to become America's oligarchs," said Reid, who before the 2014 election repeatedly took to the Senate floor to lambast the Kocks as poster children for the corrupting power of money in politics. The broadsides were supported by multi-million-dollar political advertising campaigns, many of them funded by unlimited money super PACs that got their research from American Bridge, a non-profit operation founded by Brock. The common theme was that GOP candidates were beholden to super-rich donors like the Kocks rather than the middleclass voters who tend to decide elections.
Democrats lost nine Senate seats and, with them, control of the Senate, while Republicans also made gains in the House and state capitals around the country. And Reid faced criticism from across the political spectrum for attacking the Kocks. Even Reid's fellow Democrats questioned the efficacy of attacking a pair of little-known ― albeit hugely influential ― donors, arguing it detracted from Democrats' core messages about the plight of the middle class.
"How could you say it's effective? Look at the results. I think the American public wants a discussion on solutions," Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), said Tuesday. "When you start making [the Kocks] front and center, you are losing sight of what you absolutely need to do," said Heitkamp, who does not face reelection until 2018. "We need to be more mindful of what the message is, not who the messengers are and who's paying for them."
James Davis, a spokesman for Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the non-profit group that orchestrates the Koch network, accused Brock and Reid of pursuing a cynical ― and unsuccessful ― political ploy. "Their past attempts to divide America by demonizing job creators have failed," he said. "We remain focused on advancing free-market principles ― ending corporate welfare, reducing barriers to opportunity and restoring fiscal responsibility."
The Kocks' allies have pointed out that some of the Kocks' top policy goals ― like reforming criminal justice laws and eliminating the Export-Import Bank ― have little, if any, bearing on their family-owned multi-national industrial conglomerate, Koch Industries. And they've mocked Reid for his occasional diatribes against the Kocks, who he's accused of being one of the "main causes" of climate change, alleging it's all part of an effort to intimidate conservative donors from political participation.
The Koch brothers have defended their network's spending as driven by a desire to improve society by advancing free market policies, rather than Koch Industries' profits. And the company has spent heavily on ads touting its corporate citizenship and the 60,000 U.S. jobs it provides.
Democrats have interpreted that as a sign that their attacks are working.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asserted this week "The fact that the Koch brothers are spending a fortune on positive advertising about themselves is an indication that their reputation has suffered."
And Brock and his allies have argued that the 2014 efforts by Reid and his big-money super PAC allies laid the groundwork for the strategy to pay dividends in 2016, when Democrats will face a more promising landscape. They're defending only 10 Senate seats, compared to 24 for Republicans.
Sources familiar with the plan for Thursday's caucus meeting say Brock will be accompanied by the veteran Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who works for both American Bridge and Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that plans to air millions of dollars of ads supporting Clinton's presidential campaign.
Garin, who has conducted focus groups for American Bridge on Koch-themed political messaging, has argued that the attacks on the Kocks in 2014 may have helped Democrats win one Senate race ― Democrat Gary Peters' victory over Republican Terri Lynn Land in Michigan ― and kept others close.
For Reid, who is not seeking reelection in 2016, the battle also is personal. His accusations ― among them that the Kocks are "un-American" ― have provoked personal responses from the Kocks and their allies.
At the Kocks' annual summer donor summit in 2014, organizers erected a life-sized cardboard cutout of Reid, his arms spread and his mouth agape as if in midspeech. Emanating from it was a cartoon-like quote bubble with the word "un-American." This summer, Charles Koch took a swipe at Reid, mentioning his "bad eye" ― an allusion to an exercise accident early this year that left Reid blind in one eye.
And the Kock network has been building a robust infrastructure in Nevada, which likely would have deployed against Reid had he sought another term. In particular, the Koch-backed LIBRE Initiative, which courts Latino voters, was plowing money into infrastructure in Reid's backyard. It could still make things tricky for Reid's preferred successor, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, who is Latina.
LIBRE's efforts contributed to the defeat of two Latino Democrats in 2014, said Cristóbal J. Alex, president of the Latino Victory Project, a liberal advocacy group. It's working with Brock's groups to counter LIBRE's efforts in 2016.
"We don't want to be caught flatfooted like we were in 2014. We won't let our candidates be attacked without response," he said, adding that his group would highlight LIBRE's Koch funding, without attacking the Kocks directly.
Likewise, a liberal group that reaches out to veterans, VoteVets.org, has worked with Brock's coalition to counter the efforts of a Koch-backed group called Concerned Veterans for America.
"Every chance we get, we're going to talk about Concerned Veterans being financed by the Koch brothers, because we think it's important for people to know," said VoteVets President Jon Soltz. Additionally, he said "when I mention the Koch network to my email database, it raises money and it fires up my base." In fact, in a Tuesday email to his supporter list, he warned that "the Koch Brothers are funding a massive organization to replicate our efforts, but with a focus on privatizing veterans' health care. And they are very dangerous."
Beyond the electoral and fundraising components, Democrats say the focus on the Kocks can help generate momentum for campaign finance reform.
"The Kock brothers are symptoms of a bigger problem, and that is Citizens United … free speech means normal folks can get swamped out," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)