Jeb Bush, talking about Tamir Rice, confuses Cleveland and Chicago
By Eliza Collins
Jeb Bush might need to brush up on his geography.
In an interview with ABC Politics during a campaign event in Lexington, South Carolina, the former Florida governor confused Chicago with Cleveland when talking about the case of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was killed by police.
“I think that Chicago’s got a lot of work to do to rebuild trust,” Bush said. "The level of violence is abhorrent."
“That happened in Cleveland,” ABC News reporter Candace Smith interrupted.
“Oh, I’m sorry," Bush said. "My bad."
He then went on to talk about policing controversies more broadly, arguing, “In every community where you have these cases, the elected officials and the police chief need to engage with the community to rebuild trust, but the process worked. If there's a grand jury that looks at all the facts and doesn't indict, maybe there's reasons for that."
On Monday, a grand jury in Cleveland decided not to charge the officer who shot Rice. The prosecutor, Tim McGinty, cited a “perfect storm of human error, mistakes and miscommunication" and said he could not, in good conscience, recommend a trial based on the evidence available.
December 31, 2015
Fails to qualify
Martin O'Malley fails to qualify for Ohio ballot
By Eliza Collins
Martin O’Malley didn’t get enough signatures to secure a spot on the Ohio primary ballot, according to the Ohio secretary of state’s office.
The former Maryland governor submitted 1,175 signatures but only 772 of those were deemed acceptable by the state's Board of Elections. To qualify for the March 15 primary, a candidate must receive 1,000 valid signatures.
“Deadline to be on the ballot was Dec. 16 so there is no other action that can be taken,” spokesman Joshua Eck told POLITICO.
"Our campaign filed nearly 1,200 signatures for the Ohio ballot. While this news is disappointing, we are exploring all of our options, and Governor O'Malley will campaign vigorously in Ohio," spokeswoman Haley Morris said in a statement emailed to POLITICO. "To date, he is already on the ballot in 18 other states."
By Eliza Collins
Martin O’Malley didn’t get enough signatures to secure a spot on the Ohio primary ballot, according to the Ohio secretary of state’s office.
The former Maryland governor submitted 1,175 signatures but only 772 of those were deemed acceptable by the state's Board of Elections. To qualify for the March 15 primary, a candidate must receive 1,000 valid signatures.
“Deadline to be on the ballot was Dec. 16 so there is no other action that can be taken,” spokesman Joshua Eck told POLITICO.
"Our campaign filed nearly 1,200 signatures for the Ohio ballot. While this news is disappointing, we are exploring all of our options, and Governor O'Malley will campaign vigorously in Ohio," spokeswoman Haley Morris said in a statement emailed to POLITICO. "To date, he is already on the ballot in 18 other states."
Benghazi probe trouble
Gowdy's Rubio nod brings trouble for Benghazi probe
Democrats say the 2016 endorsement shows Gowdy is using his investigative powers for political ends.
By Rachael Bade
White House hopeful Marco Rubio snagged a big-name endorsement this week from Trey Gowdy, the popular South Carolina congressman leading the House investigation of the Benghazi attack.
But the boost for Rubio could mean trouble for Gowdy back in Washington. Democrats are already pouncing, saying it shows Gowdy is not the politically disinterested inquisitor he’s portrayed himself to be throughout his months-long look into the 2012 attack, an investigation that’s scrutinized Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state.
“We knew Trey Gowdy was abusing his power as chair of the Benghazi Committee to attack Hillary Clinton. What’s now clear is that he was doing so in order to help Marco Rubio run for president,” Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), former head of House Democrats’ campaign arm, said in a statement to POLITICO. “His actions in Congress and on the campaign trail are nothing more than to further his partisan political agenda.”
Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, has maintained for months that he’s running a fair and impartial investigation that has nothing to do with politics. He abstained from some campaign events and fundraisers, and distanced himself from political comments made by fellow Republicans about his probe — largely out of concern that it could tarnish the Benghazi investigation’s integrity and give Democrats fodder to argue that it’s a partisan witch hunt.
Those efforts, he and his allies have acknowledged, didn’t protect him from accusations of partisanship and attacks from the left on his panel’s credibility. The complaints reached a crescendo in the weeks leading up to Clinton’s marathon appearance before his panel in October.
Now he appears to be casting aside that caution, plunging into the 2016 campaign. A Gowdy spokesperson noted that the lawmaker still refuses to campaign on the topic of Benghazi and argued he is keeping the two issues separate.
“’I am going to tell you who I’m going to vote for: I’m gonna vote for Marco Rubio,” Gowdy said in Iowa on Tuesday. “National security, public safety are the most important things to me and there is nobody better on those issues than Rubio."
Asked about the endorsement, Gowdy said in a statement for this story, “Marco is a friend and has been for five years. I have long admired the manner in which he communicates the conservative message in hopeful, aspirational tones.”
The Clinton campaign declined to comment, but some of her top surrogates slammed Gowdy’s endorsement.
“Trey Gowdy said this was an impartial investigation about the facts. ... Now Gowdy is openly campaigning in the 2016 race, against the very person he is supposed to be judging impartially,” said David Brock of Correct the Record, a group created to defend Clinton. “Gowdy’s political interests are clear. He should step down from his chairmanship if he wishes to maintain what little credibility his supposedly nonpartisan investigation may have left.”
Gowdy adopted a “no politics” policy after he assumed the chairmanship of the Benghazi panel in May 2014. At times, it’s produced an awkward dynamic between him and other Republicans.
In September, a few weeks before Clinton testified, Gowdy backed out of a Texas fundraiser for Rubio. The next month, he chastised House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and several other Republicans publicly after they credited the Benghazi investigation with damaging Clinton’s poll numbers.
And earlier this year, Gowdy canceled an appearance at a fundraiser for the Republican Party of Virginia, after its organizers had said he would talk about Benghazi.
A Gowdy aide dismissed the notion that his Rubio endorsement would color the Benghazi investigation, saying that backing a GOP candidate doesn’t preclude him from being fair-minded in his committee work.
“Rep. Gowdy has not campaigned on the Benghazi investigation, and he is continuing that practice,” Gowdy spokeswoman Amanda Duvall wrote in an email.
Republicans were also also quick to point out that several Democratic members on the Benghazi panel have endorsed Clinton.
“Perhaps someone should tell the DCCC chairman he has no clothes,” said Jamal Ware, a spokesman for Republicans on the Benghazi Committee. “If he bothered to check, he would know Benghazi Committee Democrats endorsed and actively supported Clinton long before she testified before the committee. In fact, some committee Democrats have done little work other than protect her presidential ambitions.”
Gowdy’s allies also argue that he’ll be called partisan no matter what he does because of the nature of his investigation, Clinton’s involvement, and the fact that the GOP leads the committee.
Gowdy’s embrace of Rubio, which included a formal endorsement during a two-day swing through Iowa this week, comes as the Benghazi committee is winding down its work. The panel is slated in the next few months to release its final report on the attacks in which four Americans were killed.
Democrats are sure to bring up his endorsement then, a House Democratic staffer told Politico.
“It certainly doesn’t help him that he’s endorsing a challenger to Hillary Clinton while investigating her,” the staffer said.
Benghazi came up twice during Gowdy’s first event in Iowa, creating a somewhat stilted moment for the chairman. Iowa state Sen. Jack Whitver, who introduced Gowdy to the crowd, said admiringly that Gowdy would hold Clinton accountable with his investigation — a stark contrast from the congressman’s repeated statements that his probe is not centered on Clinton.
A few minutes later, an audience member suggested he believed the U.S. military could have done more to stop the attacks in Libya and asked Gowdy for his take. Gowdy sidestepped the question, not mentioning Clinton or even the Obama administration. He simply urged the crowd to read his committee’s final report when it’s out.
Democrats say the 2016 endorsement shows Gowdy is using his investigative powers for political ends.
By Rachael Bade
White House hopeful Marco Rubio snagged a big-name endorsement this week from Trey Gowdy, the popular South Carolina congressman leading the House investigation of the Benghazi attack.
But the boost for Rubio could mean trouble for Gowdy back in Washington. Democrats are already pouncing, saying it shows Gowdy is not the politically disinterested inquisitor he’s portrayed himself to be throughout his months-long look into the 2012 attack, an investigation that’s scrutinized Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state.
“We knew Trey Gowdy was abusing his power as chair of the Benghazi Committee to attack Hillary Clinton. What’s now clear is that he was doing so in order to help Marco Rubio run for president,” Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), former head of House Democrats’ campaign arm, said in a statement to POLITICO. “His actions in Congress and on the campaign trail are nothing more than to further his partisan political agenda.”
Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, has maintained for months that he’s running a fair and impartial investigation that has nothing to do with politics. He abstained from some campaign events and fundraisers, and distanced himself from political comments made by fellow Republicans about his probe — largely out of concern that it could tarnish the Benghazi investigation’s integrity and give Democrats fodder to argue that it’s a partisan witch hunt.
Those efforts, he and his allies have acknowledged, didn’t protect him from accusations of partisanship and attacks from the left on his panel’s credibility. The complaints reached a crescendo in the weeks leading up to Clinton’s marathon appearance before his panel in October.
Now he appears to be casting aside that caution, plunging into the 2016 campaign. A Gowdy spokesperson noted that the lawmaker still refuses to campaign on the topic of Benghazi and argued he is keeping the two issues separate.
“’I am going to tell you who I’m going to vote for: I’m gonna vote for Marco Rubio,” Gowdy said in Iowa on Tuesday. “National security, public safety are the most important things to me and there is nobody better on those issues than Rubio."
Asked about the endorsement, Gowdy said in a statement for this story, “Marco is a friend and has been for five years. I have long admired the manner in which he communicates the conservative message in hopeful, aspirational tones.”
The Clinton campaign declined to comment, but some of her top surrogates slammed Gowdy’s endorsement.
“Trey Gowdy said this was an impartial investigation about the facts. ... Now Gowdy is openly campaigning in the 2016 race, against the very person he is supposed to be judging impartially,” said David Brock of Correct the Record, a group created to defend Clinton. “Gowdy’s political interests are clear. He should step down from his chairmanship if he wishes to maintain what little credibility his supposedly nonpartisan investigation may have left.”
Gowdy adopted a “no politics” policy after he assumed the chairmanship of the Benghazi panel in May 2014. At times, it’s produced an awkward dynamic between him and other Republicans.
In September, a few weeks before Clinton testified, Gowdy backed out of a Texas fundraiser for Rubio. The next month, he chastised House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and several other Republicans publicly after they credited the Benghazi investigation with damaging Clinton’s poll numbers.
And earlier this year, Gowdy canceled an appearance at a fundraiser for the Republican Party of Virginia, after its organizers had said he would talk about Benghazi.
A Gowdy aide dismissed the notion that his Rubio endorsement would color the Benghazi investigation, saying that backing a GOP candidate doesn’t preclude him from being fair-minded in his committee work.
“Rep. Gowdy has not campaigned on the Benghazi investigation, and he is continuing that practice,” Gowdy spokeswoman Amanda Duvall wrote in an email.
Republicans were also also quick to point out that several Democratic members on the Benghazi panel have endorsed Clinton.
“Perhaps someone should tell the DCCC chairman he has no clothes,” said Jamal Ware, a spokesman for Republicans on the Benghazi Committee. “If he bothered to check, he would know Benghazi Committee Democrats endorsed and actively supported Clinton long before she testified before the committee. In fact, some committee Democrats have done little work other than protect her presidential ambitions.”
Gowdy’s allies also argue that he’ll be called partisan no matter what he does because of the nature of his investigation, Clinton’s involvement, and the fact that the GOP leads the committee.
Gowdy’s embrace of Rubio, which included a formal endorsement during a two-day swing through Iowa this week, comes as the Benghazi committee is winding down its work. The panel is slated in the next few months to release its final report on the attacks in which four Americans were killed.
Democrats are sure to bring up his endorsement then, a House Democratic staffer told Politico.
“It certainly doesn’t help him that he’s endorsing a challenger to Hillary Clinton while investigating her,” the staffer said.
Benghazi came up twice during Gowdy’s first event in Iowa, creating a somewhat stilted moment for the chairman. Iowa state Sen. Jack Whitver, who introduced Gowdy to the crowd, said admiringly that Gowdy would hold Clinton accountable with his investigation — a stark contrast from the congressman’s repeated statements that his probe is not centered on Clinton.
A few minutes later, an audience member suggested he believed the U.S. military could have done more to stop the attacks in Libya and asked Gowdy for his take. Gowdy sidestepped the question, not mentioning Clinton or even the Obama administration. He simply urged the crowd to read his committee’s final report when it’s out.
Chaos in Carson
Chaos in Carson campaign as top aides resign
Campaign manager Barry Bennett and communications director Doug Watts both resigned, as Carson's operation struggles to regain momentum.
By Kyle Cheney
Ben Carson's campaign manager and a number of top aides resigned on Thursday, throwing the old man's presidential run into turmoil as a controversial general prepares to lead the campaign's comeback effort.
Campaign manager Barry Bennett and communications director Doug Watts both resigned, effective immediately, after weeks of speculation about a shakeup. Carson last week indicated such a move, saying that "everything" was "on the table" as far as changes with his campaign, though he later walked that back and said, “I think the people that I have are spectacular.” Bennett told POLITICO that a slew of other senior operatives had stepped down, too, from the campaign's general counsel to its controller.
Armstrong Williams, a close Carson confidant, told POLITICO that Robert Dees, a Carson advisor and retired Army general, will now chair the campaign, filling a leadership role that's been vacant for months. "General Dees is going to run the organization," Williams said.
It's unclear who will fill Bennett's post as campaign manager, handling the daily staff operation, but early reports indicated that the duty could fall to Ed Brookover, a veteran campaign strategist. "Brookover’s a good guy," Williams said. "Very responsive, people like him ... You have no idea what General Dees is going to ask of Brookover or anybody else."
Williams said Dees would bring more than foreign policy heft to Carson's campaign leadership. "This guy has managed many operations around the world. He’s managed people. He knows how to lead," he said.
Williams also suggested that Mike Murray, a consultant handling much of Carson's direct mail operation, would become more involved in the campaign's financial side.
And he said Carson is ready for a fresh start. "Dr. Carson is a new man. He’s at peace today," Williams said. "He’s very comfortable ... He understands people move on. He has a mission, and that mission is going to go into high gear."
Though the campaign revealed on Wednesday that it had raised $23 million in the quarter that ended Thursday — likely setting the pace among Republican candidates — the operation had been beset by staff-level dysfunction and exorbitant spending on small-donor fundraising efforts.
The announcement also comes as Carson has struggled to halt a dramatic slide in his poll numbers amid doubts about his grasp of foreign policy issues after the Paris terrorist attacks and the accuracy of his personal narrative.
"Barry Bennett and I have resigned from the Carson campaign effective immediately," Watts said in a statement. "We respect the candidate and we have enjoyed helping him go from far back in the field to top tier status." Bennett, a veteran campaign operative with long connections to Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Carson first signaled that a shakeup was imminent in interviews he granted just before Christmas. But he quickly backed off the comments and blasted reporters for the suggestion, insisting he had “100 percent” confidence in his campaign leadership, which also includes Brookover.
Tension had been simmering between Bennett and Williams, who has no formal role in the campaign but often speaks on Carson’s behalf. Bennett told POLITICO last week that he recently had a “tense” call with Williams over his comments to The New York Times about Carson’s canceled trip to Africa, which had been scheduled for this week. Williams told the paper that Carson called off the trip because of a security threat from terror group Boko Haram, a suggestion he later acknowledged was conjecture.
That exchange was emblematic of a series of conflicts between Williams and Carson’s senior campaign team, who frequently were not on the same page in media interviews, creating the appearance, at times, of a struggle for influence with Carson.
Bennett told POLITICO he grew frustrated about Williams' outsize influence on Carson, and his frustration reached a peak two days before Christmas, when Williams arranged for Carson to sit down with reporters and telegraph a shakeup. Bennett said he had "150 staffers going home for Christmas all of them thinking that they might be fired."
He said his decision to resign surprised Carson Thursday morning, but he said he still thinks the neurosurgeon can win Iowa. "It’s going to require him not listening to Armstrong Williams anymore," he said.
Williams on Thursday expressed confidence in Carson, calling the candidate rejuvenated. Two days ago, Williams had kind words for Bennett and the campaign, despite their public clashes. “I am not going to criticize the campaign. They work very hard for Dr. Carson,” he said Tuesday. “With the exception of what happened after the terrorist attacks in Paris … They’ve done very well for a long time. I am not going to judge them for what I’ve seen over the long haul.”
Terry Giles, who helped organize Carson’s campaign structure in the spring — including bringing in Bennett and Brookover — before he was elbowed out over strategic differences, said in an interview with POLITICO on Thursday that the shakeup is Carson’s best chance at rebounding in the primary.
“I think he has a better chance of recovering without these folks in his campaign than he would’ve had if they were still there,” said Giles, a Carson friend since the two were inducted into the Horatio Alger Society in the 1990s.
He said Carson’s campaign leadership had forced out top allies who cared deeply about Carson — from former deputy campaign manager Steve Rubino to businessman Bill Millis — replacing them with professional political operatives who understand the process but were susceptible to mistakes.
“The politico consultant class is, in my opinion, helping to destroy leadership in this country and the way that they do it is they have a tendency to turn politicians into vanilla,” he said. “They don’t want their candidate to get into the weeds of the issues. As a result, they don’t let them have the time to get properly prepared. What they do with the money and how they spend the money is outrageous.”
Millis told POLITICO last month that he left the Carson campaign over strategic differences, and he singled out Bennett as an obstacle to Carson’s prospects. Carson’s campaign leadership, he argued, had encouraged Carson to avoid releasing policy positions until January, a decision that hurt him as foreign policy surged to the fore. He said Thursday that Bennett and Watts did a "remarkable job" before departing, but that Carson needed new leadership.
If Dees, a Texas resident who retired from the Army in 2003, does take over the campaign, it likely won't come without controversy. The general has made notoriously hardline comments about Muslims, once telling an interviewer "trying to appease the Muslim religion by saying that they are a peace-loving religion is problematic … they need to demonstrate how their religion does not lead people to a final end state of violence and oppression.”
He's also made comments about African-Americans that are sure to resurface, writing in his book that "America has worked hard to repent of its 'original sin' of slavery, and if anything has 'overcorrected' to the detriment of African-Americans (witness the 'Great Society' which created an addiction to entitlements)."
Carson briefly led the presidential pack in early November and was ahead of GOP poll leader Donald Trump in Iowa, earning the mogul’s criticism and scorn. But after Carson's remarks in the wake of the Paris terror attacks exposed his lack of foreign policy depth, he slid to the middle of the pack in polls.
Over the weekend, in an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,“ Carson suggested that he intended to take a more aggressive posture in responding to attacks and criticisms. He told Fox News Wednesday night that he wanted the campaign to be a closer reflection of who he is as a person.
Campaign manager Barry Bennett and communications director Doug Watts both resigned, as Carson's operation struggles to regain momentum.
By Kyle Cheney
Ben Carson's campaign manager and a number of top aides resigned on Thursday, throwing the old man's presidential run into turmoil as a controversial general prepares to lead the campaign's comeback effort.
Campaign manager Barry Bennett and communications director Doug Watts both resigned, effective immediately, after weeks of speculation about a shakeup. Carson last week indicated such a move, saying that "everything" was "on the table" as far as changes with his campaign, though he later walked that back and said, “I think the people that I have are spectacular.” Bennett told POLITICO that a slew of other senior operatives had stepped down, too, from the campaign's general counsel to its controller.
Armstrong Williams, a close Carson confidant, told POLITICO that Robert Dees, a Carson advisor and retired Army general, will now chair the campaign, filling a leadership role that's been vacant for months. "General Dees is going to run the organization," Williams said.
It's unclear who will fill Bennett's post as campaign manager, handling the daily staff operation, but early reports indicated that the duty could fall to Ed Brookover, a veteran campaign strategist. "Brookover’s a good guy," Williams said. "Very responsive, people like him ... You have no idea what General Dees is going to ask of Brookover or anybody else."
Williams said Dees would bring more than foreign policy heft to Carson's campaign leadership. "This guy has managed many operations around the world. He’s managed people. He knows how to lead," he said.
Williams also suggested that Mike Murray, a consultant handling much of Carson's direct mail operation, would become more involved in the campaign's financial side.
And he said Carson is ready for a fresh start. "Dr. Carson is a new man. He’s at peace today," Williams said. "He’s very comfortable ... He understands people move on. He has a mission, and that mission is going to go into high gear."
Though the campaign revealed on Wednesday that it had raised $23 million in the quarter that ended Thursday — likely setting the pace among Republican candidates — the operation had been beset by staff-level dysfunction and exorbitant spending on small-donor fundraising efforts.
The announcement also comes as Carson has struggled to halt a dramatic slide in his poll numbers amid doubts about his grasp of foreign policy issues after the Paris terrorist attacks and the accuracy of his personal narrative.
"Barry Bennett and I have resigned from the Carson campaign effective immediately," Watts said in a statement. "We respect the candidate and we have enjoyed helping him go from far back in the field to top tier status." Bennett, a veteran campaign operative with long connections to Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Carson first signaled that a shakeup was imminent in interviews he granted just before Christmas. But he quickly backed off the comments and blasted reporters for the suggestion, insisting he had “100 percent” confidence in his campaign leadership, which also includes Brookover.
Tension had been simmering between Bennett and Williams, who has no formal role in the campaign but often speaks on Carson’s behalf. Bennett told POLITICO last week that he recently had a “tense” call with Williams over his comments to The New York Times about Carson’s canceled trip to Africa, which had been scheduled for this week. Williams told the paper that Carson called off the trip because of a security threat from terror group Boko Haram, a suggestion he later acknowledged was conjecture.
That exchange was emblematic of a series of conflicts between Williams and Carson’s senior campaign team, who frequently were not on the same page in media interviews, creating the appearance, at times, of a struggle for influence with Carson.
Bennett told POLITICO he grew frustrated about Williams' outsize influence on Carson, and his frustration reached a peak two days before Christmas, when Williams arranged for Carson to sit down with reporters and telegraph a shakeup. Bennett said he had "150 staffers going home for Christmas all of them thinking that they might be fired."
He said his decision to resign surprised Carson Thursday morning, but he said he still thinks the neurosurgeon can win Iowa. "It’s going to require him not listening to Armstrong Williams anymore," he said.
Williams on Thursday expressed confidence in Carson, calling the candidate rejuvenated. Two days ago, Williams had kind words for Bennett and the campaign, despite their public clashes. “I am not going to criticize the campaign. They work very hard for Dr. Carson,” he said Tuesday. “With the exception of what happened after the terrorist attacks in Paris … They’ve done very well for a long time. I am not going to judge them for what I’ve seen over the long haul.”
Terry Giles, who helped organize Carson’s campaign structure in the spring — including bringing in Bennett and Brookover — before he was elbowed out over strategic differences, said in an interview with POLITICO on Thursday that the shakeup is Carson’s best chance at rebounding in the primary.
“I think he has a better chance of recovering without these folks in his campaign than he would’ve had if they were still there,” said Giles, a Carson friend since the two were inducted into the Horatio Alger Society in the 1990s.
He said Carson’s campaign leadership had forced out top allies who cared deeply about Carson — from former deputy campaign manager Steve Rubino to businessman Bill Millis — replacing them with professional political operatives who understand the process but were susceptible to mistakes.
“The politico consultant class is, in my opinion, helping to destroy leadership in this country and the way that they do it is they have a tendency to turn politicians into vanilla,” he said. “They don’t want their candidate to get into the weeds of the issues. As a result, they don’t let them have the time to get properly prepared. What they do with the money and how they spend the money is outrageous.”
Millis told POLITICO last month that he left the Carson campaign over strategic differences, and he singled out Bennett as an obstacle to Carson’s prospects. Carson’s campaign leadership, he argued, had encouraged Carson to avoid releasing policy positions until January, a decision that hurt him as foreign policy surged to the fore. He said Thursday that Bennett and Watts did a "remarkable job" before departing, but that Carson needed new leadership.
If Dees, a Texas resident who retired from the Army in 2003, does take over the campaign, it likely won't come without controversy. The general has made notoriously hardline comments about Muslims, once telling an interviewer "trying to appease the Muslim religion by saying that they are a peace-loving religion is problematic … they need to demonstrate how their religion does not lead people to a final end state of violence and oppression.”
He's also made comments about African-Americans that are sure to resurface, writing in his book that "America has worked hard to repent of its 'original sin' of slavery, and if anything has 'overcorrected' to the detriment of African-Americans (witness the 'Great Society' which created an addiction to entitlements)."
Carson briefly led the presidential pack in early November and was ahead of GOP poll leader Donald Trump in Iowa, earning the mogul’s criticism and scorn. But after Carson's remarks in the wake of the Paris terror attacks exposed his lack of foreign policy depth, he slid to the middle of the pack in polls.
Over the weekend, in an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,“ Carson suggested that he intended to take a more aggressive posture in responding to attacks and criticisms. He told Fox News Wednesday night that he wanted the campaign to be a closer reflection of who he is as a person.
Hit the Road
Jeb Bush's Iowa TV Ads Pulled, His HQ Staff to Hit the Road
By Clyde Hughes
Jeb Bush has pulled his TV ad buys a month before the crucial Iowa caucuses, preferring instead to double his ground staff in the state. Some of those pounding the bricks will be coming from the campaign's Miami headquarters.
Although such moves often mark the beginning of the end for presidential campaigns, the Des Moines Register was told by the Bush camp that the change in strategy didn't mean he was abandoning Iowa all together. Bush is increasing his ground staff in the state from 11 to more than 20, which includes added a Hispanic outreach director.
Bush will make a campaign swing in Iowa Jan. 11-13 and will appear in Iowa City, Grinnell, Des Moines and Ankeny.
"Political observers will be looking closely at Bush's cash on hand when the campaign files its required reports toward the end of January," said Alex Isenstadt of Politico. "The strategic shakeup comes as Bush is mounting a major push in New Hampshire, which his advisers consider a must-win state."
"The former Florida governor, once the frontrunner of the unwieldy GOP field, is making a last-ditch effort to right a campaign that has faltered despite a hefty cash pile and an establishment pedigree."
Politico said Bush is increasing staff in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada as well. All are early voting states.
"For its TV presence, the (Bush) campaign will find itself increasingly reliant on Right to Rise, the super PAC that has been airing tens of millions of dollars in advertisements on Bush’s behalf," said Isenstadt. "The group, which operates independently of the campaign, has reserved advertising time in all four early states."
The Register noted that the Bush campaign had already spent millions on television ads so far, but that has failed to lift him among the Republican leading in Iowa.
According to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Bush currently stands in fifth place in Iowa at 4.8 percent, behind U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (30.3 percent), Donald Trump (27.5), U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (12) and Dr. Ben Carson (9.3).
Bush is in sixth place (7.8 percent) in New Hampshire and fifth place in South Carolina (7.3 percent), according to Real Clear Politics.
By Clyde Hughes
Jeb Bush has pulled his TV ad buys a month before the crucial Iowa caucuses, preferring instead to double his ground staff in the state. Some of those pounding the bricks will be coming from the campaign's Miami headquarters.
Although such moves often mark the beginning of the end for presidential campaigns, the Des Moines Register was told by the Bush camp that the change in strategy didn't mean he was abandoning Iowa all together. Bush is increasing his ground staff in the state from 11 to more than 20, which includes added a Hispanic outreach director.
Bush will make a campaign swing in Iowa Jan. 11-13 and will appear in Iowa City, Grinnell, Des Moines and Ankeny.
"Political observers will be looking closely at Bush's cash on hand when the campaign files its required reports toward the end of January," said Alex Isenstadt of Politico. "The strategic shakeup comes as Bush is mounting a major push in New Hampshire, which his advisers consider a must-win state."
"The former Florida governor, once the frontrunner of the unwieldy GOP field, is making a last-ditch effort to right a campaign that has faltered despite a hefty cash pile and an establishment pedigree."
Politico said Bush is increasing staff in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada as well. All are early voting states.
"For its TV presence, the (Bush) campaign will find itself increasingly reliant on Right to Rise, the super PAC that has been airing tens of millions of dollars in advertisements on Bush’s behalf," said Isenstadt. "The group, which operates independently of the campaign, has reserved advertising time in all four early states."
The Register noted that the Bush campaign had already spent millions on television ads so far, but that has failed to lift him among the Republican leading in Iowa.
According to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Bush currently stands in fifth place in Iowa at 4.8 percent, behind U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (30.3 percent), Donald Trump (27.5), U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (12) and Dr. Ben Carson (9.3).
Bush is in sixth place (7.8 percent) in New Hampshire and fifth place in South Carolina (7.3 percent), according to Real Clear Politics.
Two girls and a boat...
Two girls, a 27 foot sail boat and two years of sailing a big circle... This is how to live and grow up... Check out the blog below, I wish I did this when I was younger....
http://katieandjessieonaboat.com/
http://katieandjessieonaboat.com/
Bush attacks... More like a brush swipe...
Bush: Trump 'a creature of Barack Obama'
He says Trump is appealing to voters because Obama has divided the nation.
By Hanna Trudo
Not only is Donald Trump a “jerk” in the eyes of Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, but he’s also “a creature of Barack Obama.”
Speaking to NPR’s Steve Inskeep on Morning Edition, the former Florida governor took jabs at the party’s leading presidential candidate while opining about his own political future.
“I would argue that Donald Trump is, in fact, a creature of Barack Obama,” Bush said during the Boston-based interview, set to air Thursday.
“But for Barack Obama, Donald Trump’s effect would not be nearly as strong as it is. We’re living in a divided country right now, and we need political leaders rather than continuing to divide as both President Obama and Donald Trump, to unite us,” he said.
Trump and Bush have sustained a distinctly high level of personal and political attacks toward each other throughout the campaign.
Inskeep later asked about the affect Trump’s proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States could have on Republican primary voters. Other GOP candidates have condemned the idea as offensive and out of touch with the base's stance on religious inclusion and constitutional protections.
Quick to minimize the support his billionaire opponent has amassed among those in favor of the proposed measure, Bush replied, “In a month from now, voters won't agree with him. That's the point. The point is, that we're living in this reality TV political environment where he fills the space by saying outrageous things."
Bush added, “People, based on their emotions, will express support for the sentiment, not necessarily the specifics, because there are none and then he'll backtrack. And he'll move on the next thing and he fills the space.”
As the conversation shifted from Trump to foreign policy, Bush told Inskeep that his plans for combating ISIL would be starkly different from Obama’s, which he described as “incremental” earlier in the month.
“He hasn't laid out a strategy, in fact, until recently, he admitted in the last year and three months, he's admitted twice that we didn't have a strategy. He made the mistake of talking about containing ISIS, as though that would be an effective strategy. And then shortly after that, the tragedy of Paris took place. And incrementally, you can continue to see it,” he said.
“There's been some success,” he continued. “This week, there was a successful airstrike that killed one of the high-ranking ISIS operatives. That's good news. But a strategy would require explaining to the American people what the objectives are, how we would go about doing it, doing it in a transparent way, I think.”
In a Bush administration, things would be different, said the former governor, who recently made a plea to donors that the polls indicating his lower standing among voters are not accurate.
“The job of a president is to identify — distinguish between the two, make sure that people know that we view it as a threat, that we're — because people are scared and they're legitimately so — take action accordingly, and then you're going to lessen peoples' fears on their day-to-day activities. We can't be paralyzed in place and that's where we are today.”
If Trump were elected into the Oval Office, however, Bush added that his current strategy for defeating the terrorist organization could pose a danger itself.
“Trump clearly banning all Muslims would actually be so counterproductive in our efforts to destroy ISIS, that it's foolhardy. I mean, it's beyond ridiculous, it's quite dangerous,” he concluded.
He says Trump is appealing to voters because Obama has divided the nation.
By Hanna Trudo
Not only is Donald Trump a “jerk” in the eyes of Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, but he’s also “a creature of Barack Obama.”
Speaking to NPR’s Steve Inskeep on Morning Edition, the former Florida governor took jabs at the party’s leading presidential candidate while opining about his own political future.
“I would argue that Donald Trump is, in fact, a creature of Barack Obama,” Bush said during the Boston-based interview, set to air Thursday.
“But for Barack Obama, Donald Trump’s effect would not be nearly as strong as it is. We’re living in a divided country right now, and we need political leaders rather than continuing to divide as both President Obama and Donald Trump, to unite us,” he said.
Trump and Bush have sustained a distinctly high level of personal and political attacks toward each other throughout the campaign.
Inskeep later asked about the affect Trump’s proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States could have on Republican primary voters. Other GOP candidates have condemned the idea as offensive and out of touch with the base's stance on religious inclusion and constitutional protections.
Quick to minimize the support his billionaire opponent has amassed among those in favor of the proposed measure, Bush replied, “In a month from now, voters won't agree with him. That's the point. The point is, that we're living in this reality TV political environment where he fills the space by saying outrageous things."
Bush added, “People, based on their emotions, will express support for the sentiment, not necessarily the specifics, because there are none and then he'll backtrack. And he'll move on the next thing and he fills the space.”
As the conversation shifted from Trump to foreign policy, Bush told Inskeep that his plans for combating ISIL would be starkly different from Obama’s, which he described as “incremental” earlier in the month.
“He hasn't laid out a strategy, in fact, until recently, he admitted in the last year and three months, he's admitted twice that we didn't have a strategy. He made the mistake of talking about containing ISIS, as though that would be an effective strategy. And then shortly after that, the tragedy of Paris took place. And incrementally, you can continue to see it,” he said.
“There's been some success,” he continued. “This week, there was a successful airstrike that killed one of the high-ranking ISIS operatives. That's good news. But a strategy would require explaining to the American people what the objectives are, how we would go about doing it, doing it in a transparent way, I think.”
In a Bush administration, things would be different, said the former governor, who recently made a plea to donors that the polls indicating his lower standing among voters are not accurate.
“The job of a president is to identify — distinguish between the two, make sure that people know that we view it as a threat, that we're — because people are scared and they're legitimately so — take action accordingly, and then you're going to lessen peoples' fears on their day-to-day activities. We can't be paralyzed in place and that's where we are today.”
If Trump were elected into the Oval Office, however, Bush added that his current strategy for defeating the terrorist organization could pose a danger itself.
“Trump clearly banning all Muslims would actually be so counterproductive in our efforts to destroy ISIS, that it's foolhardy. I mean, it's beyond ridiculous, it's quite dangerous,” he concluded.
New sanctions
Iran blasts talk of new U.S. sanctions
By Nolan D. McCaskill
Iran on Thursday denounced U.S. plans to impose new sanctions on the Islamic Republic for a recent ballistic missile test it conducted. The reported financial sanctions would be the first since Iran reached a nuclear deal with the U.S. and other world powers earlier this year.
“As we have declared to the American government … Iran’s missile program has no connection to the [nuclear] agreement,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossein Jaber Ansari said, according to state media. “Iran will resolutely respond to any interfering action by America against its defensive programs," said Jaber Ansari, who added that new sanctions would be “arbitrary and illegal.”
Following a Wall Street Journal report Wednesday that the Treasury Department is preparing to issue financial sanctions on nearly a dozen companies and individuals allegedly involved in the development of the missile program, the Obama administration confirmed that it is looking into sanctioning Iran but offered no details.
“As we've said, we've been looking for some time at options for additional actions related to Iran's ballistic missile program based on our continued concerns about its activities, including the Oct. 10 launch,” a senior administration official said in a statement late Wednesday. “We are considering various aspects related to additional designations, as well as evolving diplomatic work that is consistent with our national security interests. As always, we keep Congress informed about issues related to Iran sanctions, and will continue to do so as we work through remaining issues.”
The United Nations Security Council said Iran’s testing of a medium-range ballistic missile in October was a “clear violation” of a U.N. Security Council resolution. Iran reportedly conducted a similar missile test in November.
And while the tests may not violate the nuclear pact, Obama administration officials have pledged to punish Iran, noting that the U.S. has the right to sanction Iran over human rights abuses, sponsorship of terrorism and ballistic missile activity.
According to the Journal, Iranian officials for months have told the White House that the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would see any financial sanctions as a violation of the nuclear agreement. Under the deal, Iran will receive billions of dollars in sanctions relief for curbing its nuclear program.
By Nolan D. McCaskill
Iran on Thursday denounced U.S. plans to impose new sanctions on the Islamic Republic for a recent ballistic missile test it conducted. The reported financial sanctions would be the first since Iran reached a nuclear deal with the U.S. and other world powers earlier this year.
“As we have declared to the American government … Iran’s missile program has no connection to the [nuclear] agreement,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossein Jaber Ansari said, according to state media. “Iran will resolutely respond to any interfering action by America against its defensive programs," said Jaber Ansari, who added that new sanctions would be “arbitrary and illegal.”
Following a Wall Street Journal report Wednesday that the Treasury Department is preparing to issue financial sanctions on nearly a dozen companies and individuals allegedly involved in the development of the missile program, the Obama administration confirmed that it is looking into sanctioning Iran but offered no details.
“As we've said, we've been looking for some time at options for additional actions related to Iran's ballistic missile program based on our continued concerns about its activities, including the Oct. 10 launch,” a senior administration official said in a statement late Wednesday. “We are considering various aspects related to additional designations, as well as evolving diplomatic work that is consistent with our national security interests. As always, we keep Congress informed about issues related to Iran sanctions, and will continue to do so as we work through remaining issues.”
The United Nations Security Council said Iran’s testing of a medium-range ballistic missile in October was a “clear violation” of a U.N. Security Council resolution. Iran reportedly conducted a similar missile test in November.
And while the tests may not violate the nuclear pact, Obama administration officials have pledged to punish Iran, noting that the U.S. has the right to sanction Iran over human rights abuses, sponsorship of terrorism and ballistic missile activity.
According to the Journal, Iranian officials for months have told the White House that the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would see any financial sanctions as a violation of the nuclear agreement. Under the deal, Iran will receive billions of dollars in sanctions relief for curbing its nuclear program.
Revolving door
How Obama failed to shut Washington's revolving door
He vowed to keep lobbyists out of his administration, but loopholes weakened his pledge.
By Josh Gerstein
“When I’m president of the United States, if you want to work for my administration, you can’t leave my administration and then go lobby.” — Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa in August 2007
“The revolving door — the pattern of people going from industry to agency, back to industry — that will be closed in the Obama White House.” — Obama, in Iowa in December 2007
The vow of a novice Chicago senator to freeze out lobbyists and nail shut the revolving door was no throwaway line in Barack Obama’s stump speech. It was central to the narrative animating his 2008 campaign: a promise of wholesale change to business as usual in Washington. His presidency would be different.
Eight years later, here’s how different it looks: The top lobbyist for the private health insurance industry that continues to battle aspects of Obamacare is a former Health and Human Services official who played a powerful role in implementing the legislation. The head of the software industry’s lobbying group is a former Obama White House appointee who oversaw the negotiation and enforcement of the intellectual property rules essential to that business. And an Obama aide deeply involved in crafting the White House’s broadband Internet policy now serves as the chief lawyer for the telecom industry group seeking to legally overturn those same rules.
All presidents back away from some of their most dramatic campaign promises. But seven years into Obama’s presidency, the revolving door shuttling officials out of his administration is spinning at a rapid clip, and Obama has seen his campaign promise founder against the deeply ingrained culture of selling government expertise in Washington. “They were overpromising on something they could never deliver,” said Melanie Sloan, former executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “It’s worse than doing nothing.”
There’s no doubt grand promises were made. Just one week after Obama’s sweeping victory, transition chief John Podesta declared that the president-elect made a commitment “he intends to enforce in his government, so that the undue influence of Washington lobbyists and the revolving door of Washington ceases to exist.” On his first full day in office, Obama underscored the issue's personal significance by signing what the White House billed as an “historic” executive order to bar his appointees from lobbying their former administration colleagues for two years after leaving the government.
What happened instead?
The Obama administration has hired more than 70 previously registered lobbyists, according to a 2014 POLITICO review, and watched many officials circle through that revolving door, as Obama’s lobbying policy was weakened by major loopholes and a loss of focus over time. What’s more, the current laws around lobbying, which the administration measures were built on, simply ignore many instances observers would regard as lobbying — and the White House never pressed for changes to those laws.
Obama’s promises on lobbying received considerable media attention in his first months in office but interest waned. Ethics experts say the last year or two have tested the policy like never before as some Obama appointees jump to take highly paid K Street posts before the policy knowledge and connections they made inside the administration run the risk of being devalued if a Republican wins the White House.
“It’s a big problem because people want to sort of cash in towards the end of the president’s term,” said Richard Painter, a White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush. “Things get sort of loosey-goosey the last two years. … Everybody’s looking for lucrative opportunities in the private sector.”
White House spokesperson Brandi Hoffine contended that Obama "has done more in the past six years to close the revolving door of special interest influence than any other president, namely by prohibiting executive branch appointees from accepting gifts from lobbyists, prohibiting former lobbyists from working on issues on which they lobbied, and by preventing appointees from lobbying the White House after working here.
"Our goal has been to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington. The pledge does not bar everyone with prior lobbying experience from serving in this administration. In fact, we welcome individuals with a range of experience in both the public and private sector, consistent with requirements the president has put into place to reduce special-interest influence in government,” she said.
There’s no issue more central to Obama’s legacy than Obamacare. And as head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services since 2011, Marilyn Tavenner played a vital role in crafting the rules, regulations and systems the federal government now uses to try to deliver on the promises in the Affordable Care Act.
But in February of this year, Tavenner quit the government, and in July, she surfaced as the new president and CEO of the powerful trade group for health insurers, America’s Health Insurance Plans — a group that spent more than $100 million to defeat Obama’s landmark health care reform bill before it passed in 2010. The insurance industry has largely made peace with Obamacare, but in November, Tavenner ripped the administration for its handling of insurance exchanges, a clear signal her allegiance had shifted.
"Looking at the drop in uninsured is amazing," Tavenner said. "But we still have work to do with accessibility and the cost side." Those were priorities when she was in the administration and they remain priorities now, she said.
Tavenner registered this summer as a federal lobbyist, but she says she scrupulously complies with the requirements of the Obama ethics pledge. “I have not entered (Health and Human Services),” she told POLITICO, adding that she also keeps social contact with her former colleagues to a minimum to avoid even the appearance of violating the lobbying ban.
Tavenner said much of her work now involves meeting with members of Congress, as well as strategizing with other AHIP personnel who can make the direct contacts with the administration that she can’t. That kind of advice, and the bipartisan goodwill Tavenner earned from key lawmakers, appears to be valuable to the health insurance industry. AHIP won’t say how much Tavenner is being paid, but her predecessor made about $2 million in salary and bonuses in 2014, and was considered one of the most influential figures in the American health care debate.
By keeping her distance and having others lobby directly, Tavenner seems to be satisfying the letter of the Obama ethics pledge. But one reform advocate who slammed that as a loophole just a few years ago was none other than Sen. Barack Obama. “Real reform means ensuring that a ban on lobbying after members of Congress leave office is real, and includes the behind-the-scenes coordination and supervision activities now used to skirt the ban,” he said during a 2006 Senate debate on lobbying reform legislation.
It’s a loophole he didn’t close in his own ethics policy. Nor did he deal with the narrowness of the rules’ language, which allows plenty of room for ex-officials to maneuver. The executive order he signed in 2009 declared: “‘Lobby’ and ‘lobbied’ shall mean to act or have acted as a registered lobbyist.” Because the registration requirement kicks in only when a person spends 20 percent or more of his or her time directly lobbying, many people whose jobs involve trying to influence public policy — but who don’t technically “lobby” for most of that time — manage not to register.
“That actually is a huge loophole. It’s a Mack truck,” says Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in government ethics.
And, in fact, the number of registered lobbyists has dropped from 14,173 when Obama took office to 11,165 in October, continuing a trend that began in 2007, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Experts attribute the trend to several factors, including the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal late in the George W. Bush administration and Obama policies aimed at officially declared “lobbyists.”
Another loophole Obama didn’t close is that the “cooling off” periods between government and lobbying work apply only to the agency where an ex-official used to work. Except for the most senior officials in government, contact with other agencies in that time is fair game.
Until August 2013, Victoria Espinel was the Obama administration’s intellectual property enforcement czar, working closely with the Commerce Department in a new White House post overseeing efforts to enforce the copyright, trademark and patent protections on which some of America’s biggest industries depend. Within weeks of leaving the administration, she took over as president and CEO of the Business Software Alliance, advancing the agenda of tech firms who want the U.S. government to ride herd against piracy and the use of unlicensed software around the world. The job earned her $1.2 million last year, according to newly filed tax forms. And by January 2014, Espinel was reaching out to the Commerce Department on behalf of the software industry, advising the government on how to combat posting of pirated software online.
Asked about her work, Espinel said in a statement: “I was happy to carefully follow the terms of President Obama’s ethics pledge following my departure from my appointed position with the Administration.” A BSA spokeswoman said those rules limited her contact with the Executive Office of the president — so, she’s complying with the rules by ignoring the White House and going straight to the department most closely involved with the policies she used to guide.
“I think the rules ultimately need to be tightened up,” Painter said. “White House staff really shouldn’t be representing back to the agencies they supervised.”
As Espinel spun out of the revolving door, the blur on the other side was her predecessor at the Business Software Alliance, Robert Holleyman. Holleyman, who was registered as a lobbyist for the group through 2009 and left there in April 2013. Less than a year later, Obama nominated him as a deputy U.S. trade representative.
Some of Obama’s actions also fuel doubts about how committed the White House is to the letter and spirit of the ethics pledge. Just 14 months after Espinel left the administration, Obama appointed her to a panel advising the administration on trade policy. The post appeared to require Espinel to advise some of the very officials she was still barred from contacting.
A spokeswoman for Espinel said she didn’t take part in any meetings of the board until “after her restriction period expired.” Just a few weeks later, she turned up in a coveted seat — right next to Obama — as he touted business leaders’ support for the TransPacific Partnership trade deal.
Obama’s rules build on federal ethics laws that bar former officials from advocating to agencies on “particular matters” handled while in office. But that term includes procurements and enforcement actions involving specific parties — and not regulations.
So, Tom Power, who as deputy chief technology officer at the White House was involved in numerous discussions about new broadband net neutrality rules, is free to advocate against those rules in his new job as the top lawyer for the mobile-phone industry’s trade group, CTIA The Wireless Association. Indeed, after Power joined CTIA in January, the group filed a lawsuit in April to block those rules from taking effect.
CTIA said that Power, who has not registered as a lobbyist, complies with all applicable ethics regulations — including the Obama ethics pledge that bars him from doing business with the White House or the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration through December 2016. He did meet with Obama in the Oval Office on Feb. 26 — the day the Federal Communications Commission approved its net neutrality rules — according to White House visitor records; that was for a ceremonial departure photo, according to a source familiar with the meeting.
The rules, however, do not block him from dealing with the FCC, where he is well-known by officials he previously collaborated with while in government. He has met with FCC staff in person at least twice this year, and held at least one telephone meeting, according to agency filings. Separately, he filed numerous comments and petitions on behalf of the nation’s major wireless carriers.
Power's name is not on the legal briefs in the CTIA lawsuit, which was filed by the group's outside counsel. Still, his transition worries some ethics experts.
“Skilled workers are entitled to work, and prior public service should not disqualify them from future employment,” Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Executive Director Noah Bookbinder. “However, it can be concerning when the people in charge of policing industries or developing policy leave and immediately join groups or industries working to get around regulations they helped to write or enforce, or take positions where they help lobby their former employer.”
Power took pains during his government service to abide by conflict-of-interest rules. During the 2013 government shutdown, he took up bartending at Gypsy Sally’s in Georgetown, where he refused tips from telecom lawyers to avoid running afoul of ethics policies.
Power is hardly the first telecom expert to spin through the revolving door. Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell now heads the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, and Power’s boss at CTIA, Meredith Atwell-Baker, is herself a former FCC commissioner. The agency’s current chairman, Tom Wheeler, once served as the leader of both of those trade groups.
Another glaring gap in Obama's anti-lobbying drive: His executive order doesn’t reach the vast majority of the 2.6 million federal employees, even senior ones in the regulatory sphere. It only applies to political appointees. As a result, many key officials can move freely in and out of the revolving door.
A case in point: After serving as acting CEO and vice president of global government and scientific affairs for the dietary supplement industry trade group — the Natural Products Association — scientist Daniel Fabricant landed a job in 2011 as director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the Food and Drug Administration. In 2014, he emerged from the agency and returned to the trade group as its CEO and executive director.
Fabricant's acting replacement at the FDA, Cara Welch, followed a nearly identical path. She arrived from the same trade group to serve as Fabricant's deputy at FDA shortly before he left.
Fabricant, who didn't respond to several requests for comment, now pleads with Welch to fend off FDA enforcement actions. In September, he challenged her over an effort to crack down on sale of powdered caffeine, which can cause heart attacks.
The revolving-door saga at FDA stunned some agency critics.
“Why is this kosher?” asks Pietor Cohen, associate professor at Harvard Medical School. “It makes the whole thing seem ridiculous. ... It means this lobbying group has info about not just what’s being discussed now at FDA but plans for the next several years. It absolutely is not in the consumers’ best interest to have this happen, even if the person is not a political appointee.”
Other high-ranking officials, particularly lawyers, have managed to pass through the revolving door despite the laws and policies already on the books.
Just weeks after Obama took office as president in 2009, Robert Khuzami joined the Securities and Exchange Commission as head of its enforcement division. Few grumbled at the time that his previous employer, Deutsche Bank AG, was at the center of the global financial collapse.
Khuzami’s tenure as the SEC’s top cop received mixed reviews. Many on Wall Street thought he was too aggressive. The SEC went after several major banks for fraud, including Goldman Sachs, which settled for $550 million. However, consumer advocates complained that the agency wasn’t tough enough with big financial players whose deceptive practices helped cause the Great Recession and that the settlements amounted to "tolls" that wouldn't alter behavior on Wall Street.
Khuzami's ties to Deutsche Bank may have fueled suspicion in some quarters that he was being too friendly toward defense lawyers for Wall Street firms and executives. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in 2011 some of Khuzami’s comments at the SEC should “sound the alarm for anyone concerned about the SEC being overly cozy with those it should be investigating.”
Deutsche Bank was ultimately charged not with fraud, but with releasing inaccurate financial statements. Khuzami was walled off from that investigation. The bank settled with the SEC for $55 million two years after Khuzami left the agency.
“Deutsche Bank was as dirty as anyone else,” said Gary Aguirre, a former SEC lawyer fired by the agency who settled a wrongful-termination lawsuit in 2010 and worked at the SEC before Khuzami.
When Khuzami left in 2013, he headed for law firm Kirkland & Ellis. The SEC news release announcing his departure noted his 11 years as a federal prosecutor, but omitted his five years as general counsel at Deutsche Bank.
Publicly available federal court records show Khuzami has represented only one corporate client in litigation since he left the SEC: Deutsche Bank. The cases don’t involve the SEC.
“What Robert Khuzami is doing is really an abuse of the revolving door,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen. “Someone like Khuzami who leaves government service is so valuable with his experience at the SEC. One has to worry about the official actions these revolvers took when they were in office. Were they being influenced into taking any particular action with the promise of lucrative employment after government service?”
Asked by POLITICO about revolving-door concerns, Khuzami said he doesn’t think the term describes him.
“I have had the high honor to spend the majority of my career in public service, and that has always included the duty to observe all ethical rules and obligations,” he said in an email.
Since he was not a political appointee, Khuzami wasn’t covered by Obama’s ethics pledge and its two-year limit on contacts with an employee’s former agency, but he was covered by a similar provision in federal law that applies to highly paid officials.
However, some lawmakers still believe the revolving-door limits on financial regulators are too lax. In July, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) introduced a bill to put broader ethics restrictions on staffers at financial agencies like the SEC and the Treasury Department, including a two-year ban on contacts with an employee’s former agency.
“Even if there isn’t any quid pro quo, it’s important to address the appearance of corruption and the opportunities of undue influence,” said Holman, who helped draft the bill.
Asked about the measure, an official who asked not to be named said: “The administration remains open to additional proposals to further the president’s goal of reducing special interest influence.” The White House also pointed to Obama’s signing in 2012 of the STOCK Act, a law aimed at preventing insider trading by members of Congress. The bill tweaked ethics laws for the executive branch, requiring disclosure on job negotiations and limiting access to initial public offerings of stock.
However, Obama signed a partial repeal of that law the following year, scaling back a provision that called for online release of financial disclosures.
Obama’s anti-lobbying drive also met resistance from both liberal groups and reformers. Liberal environmental and human rights groups bitterly complained that their staffers were blocked from administration jobs because they had gone out of their way to comply with existing law by registering as lobbyists. And advocates for business interests went to court to fight Obama’s policy keeping registered lobbyists off federal advisory panels.
In 2014, a federal appeals court revived the lawsuit arguing that the Obama ban on lobbyists serving on advisory committees appeared to violate the First Amendment. The judges suggested there was no obvious explanation for why corporate executives could sit on government boards but the lobbyists for those companies could not.
Returning the case to a lower court, D.C. Circuit Judge David Tatel suggested Obama’s populist rhetoric in the crusade against lobbyists had gotten the better of him.
“The court may also want to ask the government to explain how banning lobbyists from committees composed of representatives of the likes of Boeing and General Electric protects the ‘voices of ordinary Americans,’” Tatel declared, quoting from a formal memo Obama issued enshrining the policy in 2010.
After mulling the issue for several months, the White House relaxed the ban — allowing lobbyists back on government advisory panels to represent specific industries.
The net result: Aside from Obama’s ethics pledge, nearly seven years into Obama’s presidency, there’s been no change to the core of the revolving-door provisions in federal law and no effort to extend that pledge to a larger swath of the executive branch.
So, was the anti-lobbying push a real attempt to change Washington, or just the right thing to say at the time? The White House defends its record by arguing that Obama took “historic steps” to rein in the influence of money over government policy. “President Obama has done more in the past six years to close the revolving door of special interest influence than any president before him,” Hoffine, the White House spokeswoman said.
Indeed, the White House has been stingy in waiving the rules to hire former lobbyists: Of more than 7,000 political appointees since 2009, only four have gotten waivers to join the administration after lobbying the hiring agency in the preceding two years. One of those — for deputy secretary of Defense nominee Bill Lynn —came just a day after Obama signed his executive order and undercut perceptions of its credibility. Lynn had been defense contractor Raytheon's top lobbyist.
About six months after leaving the Pentagon in 2011, Lynn was named CEO of the U.S. branch of contractor Finmeccanica, which last year did $366 million in Pentagon business.
Other waivers of the core lobbying-ban provision went to White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz, who had lobbied for the National Council for La Raza, first lady Michelle Obama's policy aide Jocelyn Frye, formerly a lobbyist for the National Partnership for Women & Families, and White House Senate liaison Marty Paone, who had worked for lobbying firm Prime Policy Group.
Despite the limits on lobbyists entering the administration, some reform advocates say the Obama team's interest in broader lobbying reform has faded over time. They credit a hard-charging lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office, Norman Eisen, with pressing that issue and others like transparency and campaign-finance reform early in Obama's tenure.
After Eisen became ambassador to the Czech Republic in 2011, his portfolio was parceled out to other staffers. There's been little movement on those issues since. He declined to be interviewed.
"As soon as Norm Eisen left, the Obama administration never changed its executive order or internal ethics policies. It no longer pursued strengthening any of the ethics positions," Holman said. "It is distressing."
Others say the White House never saw any political dividend from the ethics actions Obama touted so prominently as a candidate in 2008. "The president just didn't get the bump he thought he would out of the idea of clean government," Sloan declared.
More broadly, the record seems clear that a president who promised to nail shut the revolving door wasn’t looking to bring a complete end to the exchange of government personnel with the corporate sector and even the lobbying world.
“There’s a perception among at least the elite that there are benefits from that fluidity. … What it doesn’t address is the problem a lot of people perceive about capture” of regulators by the industries they oversee, Washington University’s Clark said.
In the end, she said, the change Obama delivered on the lobbying front, like so many others, was more incremental than fundamental.
“It gives the appearance of really doing something about entrenched interests in without actually impairing the relationships between moneyed interests and government.”
He vowed to keep lobbyists out of his administration, but loopholes weakened his pledge.
By Josh Gerstein
“When I’m president of the United States, if you want to work for my administration, you can’t leave my administration and then go lobby.” — Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa in August 2007
“The revolving door — the pattern of people going from industry to agency, back to industry — that will be closed in the Obama White House.” — Obama, in Iowa in December 2007
The vow of a novice Chicago senator to freeze out lobbyists and nail shut the revolving door was no throwaway line in Barack Obama’s stump speech. It was central to the narrative animating his 2008 campaign: a promise of wholesale change to business as usual in Washington. His presidency would be different.
Eight years later, here’s how different it looks: The top lobbyist for the private health insurance industry that continues to battle aspects of Obamacare is a former Health and Human Services official who played a powerful role in implementing the legislation. The head of the software industry’s lobbying group is a former Obama White House appointee who oversaw the negotiation and enforcement of the intellectual property rules essential to that business. And an Obama aide deeply involved in crafting the White House’s broadband Internet policy now serves as the chief lawyer for the telecom industry group seeking to legally overturn those same rules.
All presidents back away from some of their most dramatic campaign promises. But seven years into Obama’s presidency, the revolving door shuttling officials out of his administration is spinning at a rapid clip, and Obama has seen his campaign promise founder against the deeply ingrained culture of selling government expertise in Washington. “They were overpromising on something they could never deliver,” said Melanie Sloan, former executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “It’s worse than doing nothing.”
There’s no doubt grand promises were made. Just one week after Obama’s sweeping victory, transition chief John Podesta declared that the president-elect made a commitment “he intends to enforce in his government, so that the undue influence of Washington lobbyists and the revolving door of Washington ceases to exist.” On his first full day in office, Obama underscored the issue's personal significance by signing what the White House billed as an “historic” executive order to bar his appointees from lobbying their former administration colleagues for two years after leaving the government.
What happened instead?
The Obama administration has hired more than 70 previously registered lobbyists, according to a 2014 POLITICO review, and watched many officials circle through that revolving door, as Obama’s lobbying policy was weakened by major loopholes and a loss of focus over time. What’s more, the current laws around lobbying, which the administration measures were built on, simply ignore many instances observers would regard as lobbying — and the White House never pressed for changes to those laws.
Obama’s promises on lobbying received considerable media attention in his first months in office but interest waned. Ethics experts say the last year or two have tested the policy like never before as some Obama appointees jump to take highly paid K Street posts before the policy knowledge and connections they made inside the administration run the risk of being devalued if a Republican wins the White House.
“It’s a big problem because people want to sort of cash in towards the end of the president’s term,” said Richard Painter, a White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush. “Things get sort of loosey-goosey the last two years. … Everybody’s looking for lucrative opportunities in the private sector.”
White House spokesperson Brandi Hoffine contended that Obama "has done more in the past six years to close the revolving door of special interest influence than any other president, namely by prohibiting executive branch appointees from accepting gifts from lobbyists, prohibiting former lobbyists from working on issues on which they lobbied, and by preventing appointees from lobbying the White House after working here.
"Our goal has been to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington. The pledge does not bar everyone with prior lobbying experience from serving in this administration. In fact, we welcome individuals with a range of experience in both the public and private sector, consistent with requirements the president has put into place to reduce special-interest influence in government,” she said.
There’s no issue more central to Obama’s legacy than Obamacare. And as head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services since 2011, Marilyn Tavenner played a vital role in crafting the rules, regulations and systems the federal government now uses to try to deliver on the promises in the Affordable Care Act.
But in February of this year, Tavenner quit the government, and in July, she surfaced as the new president and CEO of the powerful trade group for health insurers, America’s Health Insurance Plans — a group that spent more than $100 million to defeat Obama’s landmark health care reform bill before it passed in 2010. The insurance industry has largely made peace with Obamacare, but in November, Tavenner ripped the administration for its handling of insurance exchanges, a clear signal her allegiance had shifted.
"Looking at the drop in uninsured is amazing," Tavenner said. "But we still have work to do with accessibility and the cost side." Those were priorities when she was in the administration and they remain priorities now, she said.
Tavenner registered this summer as a federal lobbyist, but she says she scrupulously complies with the requirements of the Obama ethics pledge. “I have not entered (Health and Human Services),” she told POLITICO, adding that she also keeps social contact with her former colleagues to a minimum to avoid even the appearance of violating the lobbying ban.
Tavenner said much of her work now involves meeting with members of Congress, as well as strategizing with other AHIP personnel who can make the direct contacts with the administration that she can’t. That kind of advice, and the bipartisan goodwill Tavenner earned from key lawmakers, appears to be valuable to the health insurance industry. AHIP won’t say how much Tavenner is being paid, but her predecessor made about $2 million in salary and bonuses in 2014, and was considered one of the most influential figures in the American health care debate.
By keeping her distance and having others lobby directly, Tavenner seems to be satisfying the letter of the Obama ethics pledge. But one reform advocate who slammed that as a loophole just a few years ago was none other than Sen. Barack Obama. “Real reform means ensuring that a ban on lobbying after members of Congress leave office is real, and includes the behind-the-scenes coordination and supervision activities now used to skirt the ban,” he said during a 2006 Senate debate on lobbying reform legislation.
It’s a loophole he didn’t close in his own ethics policy. Nor did he deal with the narrowness of the rules’ language, which allows plenty of room for ex-officials to maneuver. The executive order he signed in 2009 declared: “‘Lobby’ and ‘lobbied’ shall mean to act or have acted as a registered lobbyist.” Because the registration requirement kicks in only when a person spends 20 percent or more of his or her time directly lobbying, many people whose jobs involve trying to influence public policy — but who don’t technically “lobby” for most of that time — manage not to register.
“That actually is a huge loophole. It’s a Mack truck,” says Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in government ethics.
And, in fact, the number of registered lobbyists has dropped from 14,173 when Obama took office to 11,165 in October, continuing a trend that began in 2007, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Experts attribute the trend to several factors, including the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal late in the George W. Bush administration and Obama policies aimed at officially declared “lobbyists.”
Another loophole Obama didn’t close is that the “cooling off” periods between government and lobbying work apply only to the agency where an ex-official used to work. Except for the most senior officials in government, contact with other agencies in that time is fair game.
Until August 2013, Victoria Espinel was the Obama administration’s intellectual property enforcement czar, working closely with the Commerce Department in a new White House post overseeing efforts to enforce the copyright, trademark and patent protections on which some of America’s biggest industries depend. Within weeks of leaving the administration, she took over as president and CEO of the Business Software Alliance, advancing the agenda of tech firms who want the U.S. government to ride herd against piracy and the use of unlicensed software around the world. The job earned her $1.2 million last year, according to newly filed tax forms. And by January 2014, Espinel was reaching out to the Commerce Department on behalf of the software industry, advising the government on how to combat posting of pirated software online.
Asked about her work, Espinel said in a statement: “I was happy to carefully follow the terms of President Obama’s ethics pledge following my departure from my appointed position with the Administration.” A BSA spokeswoman said those rules limited her contact with the Executive Office of the president — so, she’s complying with the rules by ignoring the White House and going straight to the department most closely involved with the policies she used to guide.
“I think the rules ultimately need to be tightened up,” Painter said. “White House staff really shouldn’t be representing back to the agencies they supervised.”
As Espinel spun out of the revolving door, the blur on the other side was her predecessor at the Business Software Alliance, Robert Holleyman. Holleyman, who was registered as a lobbyist for the group through 2009 and left there in April 2013. Less than a year later, Obama nominated him as a deputy U.S. trade representative.
Some of Obama’s actions also fuel doubts about how committed the White House is to the letter and spirit of the ethics pledge. Just 14 months after Espinel left the administration, Obama appointed her to a panel advising the administration on trade policy. The post appeared to require Espinel to advise some of the very officials she was still barred from contacting.
A spokeswoman for Espinel said she didn’t take part in any meetings of the board until “after her restriction period expired.” Just a few weeks later, she turned up in a coveted seat — right next to Obama — as he touted business leaders’ support for the TransPacific Partnership trade deal.
Obama’s rules build on federal ethics laws that bar former officials from advocating to agencies on “particular matters” handled while in office. But that term includes procurements and enforcement actions involving specific parties — and not regulations.
So, Tom Power, who as deputy chief technology officer at the White House was involved in numerous discussions about new broadband net neutrality rules, is free to advocate against those rules in his new job as the top lawyer for the mobile-phone industry’s trade group, CTIA The Wireless Association. Indeed, after Power joined CTIA in January, the group filed a lawsuit in April to block those rules from taking effect.
CTIA said that Power, who has not registered as a lobbyist, complies with all applicable ethics regulations — including the Obama ethics pledge that bars him from doing business with the White House or the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration through December 2016. He did meet with Obama in the Oval Office on Feb. 26 — the day the Federal Communications Commission approved its net neutrality rules — according to White House visitor records; that was for a ceremonial departure photo, according to a source familiar with the meeting.
The rules, however, do not block him from dealing with the FCC, where he is well-known by officials he previously collaborated with while in government. He has met with FCC staff in person at least twice this year, and held at least one telephone meeting, according to agency filings. Separately, he filed numerous comments and petitions on behalf of the nation’s major wireless carriers.
Power's name is not on the legal briefs in the CTIA lawsuit, which was filed by the group's outside counsel. Still, his transition worries some ethics experts.
“Skilled workers are entitled to work, and prior public service should not disqualify them from future employment,” Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Executive Director Noah Bookbinder. “However, it can be concerning when the people in charge of policing industries or developing policy leave and immediately join groups or industries working to get around regulations they helped to write or enforce, or take positions where they help lobby their former employer.”
Power took pains during his government service to abide by conflict-of-interest rules. During the 2013 government shutdown, he took up bartending at Gypsy Sally’s in Georgetown, where he refused tips from telecom lawyers to avoid running afoul of ethics policies.
Power is hardly the first telecom expert to spin through the revolving door. Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell now heads the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, and Power’s boss at CTIA, Meredith Atwell-Baker, is herself a former FCC commissioner. The agency’s current chairman, Tom Wheeler, once served as the leader of both of those trade groups.
Another glaring gap in Obama's anti-lobbying drive: His executive order doesn’t reach the vast majority of the 2.6 million federal employees, even senior ones in the regulatory sphere. It only applies to political appointees. As a result, many key officials can move freely in and out of the revolving door.
A case in point: After serving as acting CEO and vice president of global government and scientific affairs for the dietary supplement industry trade group — the Natural Products Association — scientist Daniel Fabricant landed a job in 2011 as director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the Food and Drug Administration. In 2014, he emerged from the agency and returned to the trade group as its CEO and executive director.
Fabricant's acting replacement at the FDA, Cara Welch, followed a nearly identical path. She arrived from the same trade group to serve as Fabricant's deputy at FDA shortly before he left.
Fabricant, who didn't respond to several requests for comment, now pleads with Welch to fend off FDA enforcement actions. In September, he challenged her over an effort to crack down on sale of powdered caffeine, which can cause heart attacks.
The revolving-door saga at FDA stunned some agency critics.
“Why is this kosher?” asks Pietor Cohen, associate professor at Harvard Medical School. “It makes the whole thing seem ridiculous. ... It means this lobbying group has info about not just what’s being discussed now at FDA but plans for the next several years. It absolutely is not in the consumers’ best interest to have this happen, even if the person is not a political appointee.”
Other high-ranking officials, particularly lawyers, have managed to pass through the revolving door despite the laws and policies already on the books.
Just weeks after Obama took office as president in 2009, Robert Khuzami joined the Securities and Exchange Commission as head of its enforcement division. Few grumbled at the time that his previous employer, Deutsche Bank AG, was at the center of the global financial collapse.
Khuzami’s tenure as the SEC’s top cop received mixed reviews. Many on Wall Street thought he was too aggressive. The SEC went after several major banks for fraud, including Goldman Sachs, which settled for $550 million. However, consumer advocates complained that the agency wasn’t tough enough with big financial players whose deceptive practices helped cause the Great Recession and that the settlements amounted to "tolls" that wouldn't alter behavior on Wall Street.
Khuzami's ties to Deutsche Bank may have fueled suspicion in some quarters that he was being too friendly toward defense lawyers for Wall Street firms and executives. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in 2011 some of Khuzami’s comments at the SEC should “sound the alarm for anyone concerned about the SEC being overly cozy with those it should be investigating.”
Deutsche Bank was ultimately charged not with fraud, but with releasing inaccurate financial statements. Khuzami was walled off from that investigation. The bank settled with the SEC for $55 million two years after Khuzami left the agency.
“Deutsche Bank was as dirty as anyone else,” said Gary Aguirre, a former SEC lawyer fired by the agency who settled a wrongful-termination lawsuit in 2010 and worked at the SEC before Khuzami.
When Khuzami left in 2013, he headed for law firm Kirkland & Ellis. The SEC news release announcing his departure noted his 11 years as a federal prosecutor, but omitted his five years as general counsel at Deutsche Bank.
Publicly available federal court records show Khuzami has represented only one corporate client in litigation since he left the SEC: Deutsche Bank. The cases don’t involve the SEC.
“What Robert Khuzami is doing is really an abuse of the revolving door,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen. “Someone like Khuzami who leaves government service is so valuable with his experience at the SEC. One has to worry about the official actions these revolvers took when they were in office. Were they being influenced into taking any particular action with the promise of lucrative employment after government service?”
Asked by POLITICO about revolving-door concerns, Khuzami said he doesn’t think the term describes him.
“I have had the high honor to spend the majority of my career in public service, and that has always included the duty to observe all ethical rules and obligations,” he said in an email.
Since he was not a political appointee, Khuzami wasn’t covered by Obama’s ethics pledge and its two-year limit on contacts with an employee’s former agency, but he was covered by a similar provision in federal law that applies to highly paid officials.
However, some lawmakers still believe the revolving-door limits on financial regulators are too lax. In July, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) introduced a bill to put broader ethics restrictions on staffers at financial agencies like the SEC and the Treasury Department, including a two-year ban on contacts with an employee’s former agency.
“Even if there isn’t any quid pro quo, it’s important to address the appearance of corruption and the opportunities of undue influence,” said Holman, who helped draft the bill.
Asked about the measure, an official who asked not to be named said: “The administration remains open to additional proposals to further the president’s goal of reducing special interest influence.” The White House also pointed to Obama’s signing in 2012 of the STOCK Act, a law aimed at preventing insider trading by members of Congress. The bill tweaked ethics laws for the executive branch, requiring disclosure on job negotiations and limiting access to initial public offerings of stock.
However, Obama signed a partial repeal of that law the following year, scaling back a provision that called for online release of financial disclosures.
Obama’s anti-lobbying drive also met resistance from both liberal groups and reformers. Liberal environmental and human rights groups bitterly complained that their staffers were blocked from administration jobs because they had gone out of their way to comply with existing law by registering as lobbyists. And advocates for business interests went to court to fight Obama’s policy keeping registered lobbyists off federal advisory panels.
In 2014, a federal appeals court revived the lawsuit arguing that the Obama ban on lobbyists serving on advisory committees appeared to violate the First Amendment. The judges suggested there was no obvious explanation for why corporate executives could sit on government boards but the lobbyists for those companies could not.
Returning the case to a lower court, D.C. Circuit Judge David Tatel suggested Obama’s populist rhetoric in the crusade against lobbyists had gotten the better of him.
“The court may also want to ask the government to explain how banning lobbyists from committees composed of representatives of the likes of Boeing and General Electric protects the ‘voices of ordinary Americans,’” Tatel declared, quoting from a formal memo Obama issued enshrining the policy in 2010.
After mulling the issue for several months, the White House relaxed the ban — allowing lobbyists back on government advisory panels to represent specific industries.
The net result: Aside from Obama’s ethics pledge, nearly seven years into Obama’s presidency, there’s been no change to the core of the revolving-door provisions in federal law and no effort to extend that pledge to a larger swath of the executive branch.
So, was the anti-lobbying push a real attempt to change Washington, or just the right thing to say at the time? The White House defends its record by arguing that Obama took “historic steps” to rein in the influence of money over government policy. “President Obama has done more in the past six years to close the revolving door of special interest influence than any president before him,” Hoffine, the White House spokeswoman said.
Indeed, the White House has been stingy in waiving the rules to hire former lobbyists: Of more than 7,000 political appointees since 2009, only four have gotten waivers to join the administration after lobbying the hiring agency in the preceding two years. One of those — for deputy secretary of Defense nominee Bill Lynn —came just a day after Obama signed his executive order and undercut perceptions of its credibility. Lynn had been defense contractor Raytheon's top lobbyist.
About six months after leaving the Pentagon in 2011, Lynn was named CEO of the U.S. branch of contractor Finmeccanica, which last year did $366 million in Pentagon business.
Other waivers of the core lobbying-ban provision went to White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz, who had lobbied for the National Council for La Raza, first lady Michelle Obama's policy aide Jocelyn Frye, formerly a lobbyist for the National Partnership for Women & Families, and White House Senate liaison Marty Paone, who had worked for lobbying firm Prime Policy Group.
Despite the limits on lobbyists entering the administration, some reform advocates say the Obama team's interest in broader lobbying reform has faded over time. They credit a hard-charging lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office, Norman Eisen, with pressing that issue and others like transparency and campaign-finance reform early in Obama's tenure.
After Eisen became ambassador to the Czech Republic in 2011, his portfolio was parceled out to other staffers. There's been little movement on those issues since. He declined to be interviewed.
"As soon as Norm Eisen left, the Obama administration never changed its executive order or internal ethics policies. It no longer pursued strengthening any of the ethics positions," Holman said. "It is distressing."
Others say the White House never saw any political dividend from the ethics actions Obama touted so prominently as a candidate in 2008. "The president just didn't get the bump he thought he would out of the idea of clean government," Sloan declared.
More broadly, the record seems clear that a president who promised to nail shut the revolving door wasn’t looking to bring a complete end to the exchange of government personnel with the corporate sector and even the lobbying world.
“There’s a perception among at least the elite that there are benefits from that fluidity. … What it doesn’t address is the problem a lot of people perceive about capture” of regulators by the industries they oversee, Washington University’s Clark said.
In the end, she said, the change Obama delivered on the lobbying front, like so many others, was more incremental than fundamental.
“It gives the appearance of really doing something about entrenched interests in without actually impairing the relationships between moneyed interests and government.”
Arizona estate
Sarah Palin lists Arizona estate for $2.5 million
By Nolan D. McCaskill
Sarah Palin is listing her Scottsdale, Arizona, estate for sale at nearly $2.5 million, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.
The former Alaska governor and vice presidential nominee’s 8,000-square-foot manor was built in 2001. The home features six bedrooms, 6½ bathrooms and a six-car garage, the Times reports. The newspaper describes the property as “a blend of Santa Barbara, Tuscan and Spanish styles” with high ceilings adorned with chandeliers.
The backyard, which stretches more than 4 acres, includes a covered patio, veranda and fireplaces, as well as a built-in space to grill, a fire pit, a pool, a spa, a lighted sports court and a synthetic lawn.
According to public records, Palin bought the property, a foreclosure, for $1.695 million in 2011. Her purchase, carried out through an LLC, set off rumors that she was considering running for the Senate to replace the retiring Jon Kyl. Rumors surfaced again in 2014 that she might challenge her former running mate, John McCain — who laughed off the speculation as "foolish."
Then, in January 2015, Palin momentarily signaled she was considering a presidential bid, telling reporters she was "seriously interested.". A bid never materialized.
It hasn't been a great year for Palin. In June, Fox News declined to renew her contract. In July, she ended paid subscriptions to her "Sarah Palin Channel" amid low viewer interest.
By Nolan D. McCaskill
Sarah Palin is listing her Scottsdale, Arizona, estate for sale at nearly $2.5 million, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.
The former Alaska governor and vice presidential nominee’s 8,000-square-foot manor was built in 2001. The home features six bedrooms, 6½ bathrooms and a six-car garage, the Times reports. The newspaper describes the property as “a blend of Santa Barbara, Tuscan and Spanish styles” with high ceilings adorned with chandeliers.
The backyard, which stretches more than 4 acres, includes a covered patio, veranda and fireplaces, as well as a built-in space to grill, a fire pit, a pool, a spa, a lighted sports court and a synthetic lawn.
According to public records, Palin bought the property, a foreclosure, for $1.695 million in 2011. Her purchase, carried out through an LLC, set off rumors that she was considering running for the Senate to replace the retiring Jon Kyl. Rumors surfaced again in 2014 that she might challenge her former running mate, John McCain — who laughed off the speculation as "foolish."
Then, in January 2015, Palin momentarily signaled she was considering a presidential bid, telling reporters she was "seriously interested.". A bid never materialized.
It hasn't been a great year for Palin. In June, Fox News declined to renew her contract. In July, she ended paid subscriptions to her "Sarah Palin Channel" amid low viewer interest.
Enthusiasm
The 2016 enthusiasm gap
Polls show Republicans are fired up and excited to vote in the presidential race. Democrats say there's no cause for alarm.
By Steven Shepard
Republicans are fired up. Ready to go. Democrats? Not so much.
The latest CNN/ORC International poll laid out a stark “enthusiasm gap” between the two parties: Thirty-six percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they were “very enthusiastic” about voting for president next year, compared with just 19 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.
Similarly, a recent survey by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found Republicans, especially older white conservatives, were significantly more interested in the 2016 elections than Democrats and their key demographic groups. Seventy-one percent of likely GOP voters rated their interest in the elections as a “10” on a 1-to-10 scale, compared with 58 percent of Democratic voters who said the same.
It would seem Republicans are energized and poised to swamp the polls after eight years of President Barack Obama. But Democrats say there’s no cause for alarm.
“Sitting here in almost-January-2016, any diagnostic on enthusiasm or motivation is really useless,” said John Anzalone, one of the pollsters working for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
The GOP, Democrats assert, has a far more competitive race for the nomination compared to Clinton, who is a strong favorite to win the Democratic nod. Between that and the Donald Trump phenomenon, the Republican race is more captivating — as evidenced by both poll numbers and television ratings for the five GOP debates, which have consistently drawn larger audiences than the Democratic debates.
“It is more interesting,” said Democratic pollster Jef Pollock. “If you want to ask me — a person who’s never voted for a Republican in my entire life — of course it’s more interesting.”
The greater Republican enthusiasm, according to pollsters in both parties, is driven largely by longstanding antipathy toward Clinton and Obama — and also the noisy spectacle of the GOP race. These Democrats aren't worried that their voters aren’t yet enthusiastic about Clinton’s candidacy, arguing that they will be fired up to defeat the GOP nominee next fall.
“While it’s still quite early, we have seen consistently that support for Hillary Clinton climbs when she is pitted against named Republicans,” said Page Gardner, president and founder of Women’s Voices, Women Vote Action Fund, a nonprofit that worked with Greenberg on his survey. “So we would expect increased enthusiasm for Clinton — assuming she is the Democratic nominee — once the Republicans have picked their candidate.”
“As much as we want our politics to be all positive,” GOP pollster Jon McHenry agreed, “what drives turnout to a great extent is just being pissed off at somebody.”
For now, enthusiasm among Democrats lags that if Republicans, more closely resembling the run-up to Obama’s 2012 reelection — when he didn’t face a primary challenge — than the record-setting 2008 primary between Obama and Clinton.
In an October 2011 CNN poll, 21 percent of Democrats said they were “very enthusiastic” about the coming election, while 38 percent of Republicans said the same.
Compare that to June 2007 — the best-available analog in CNN’s limited trend lines — when 28 percent of Democrats were “very enthusiastic,” compared with 27 percent of Republicans.
Clinton — as a result of her front-runner status and her close ties to the current administration — is functioning as the incumbent, pollsters in both parties said. That makes Democrats less concerned about the lack of a current tide of enthusiasm for her candidacy.
“On my side, I’ve got an incumbent with a nagging primary challenge,” said Pollock, the Democratic pollster. “It’s more like 2012 than it is like 2008.”
Republicans mostly agreed that their current enthusiasm gap is unlikely to hold until the general election — but also cautioned that Democrats may never be truly pumped for Clinton’s candidacy.
“If you’re the Democrats, and you’re looking at the combination of Hillary’s age and the fact she makes a lot of unforced errors and the fact she’s been around since the early ’90s — that’s not exactly the hope and change you’re looking for,” said Republican pollster Glen Bolger.
“There’s always some question of how much enthusiasm there is after eight years for more of the same, even if it’s a bit different,” Bolger added, pointing to the difficulty of a party winning a third consecutive time before a usually restless electorate.
The CNN trend lines hint at this possibility. On the eve of the 2008 election, 45 percent of Democrats described themselves as “very enthusiastic,” compared with only 28 percent of Republicans. That resulted in a 7-point victory for Obama over Arizona Sen. John McCain.
Another challenge for Democrats is, demographically, many of the voters who support them by the widest margins are also the least engaged. The Democracy Corps/Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund study showed a split between likely voters they call the “rising American electorate” — racial minorities, millennials and unmarried women — and other voters: Fifty-six percent of voters in the rising American electorate, a group growing rapidly with every election cycle, rated themselves a “10” on the interest scale, regardless of their vote preference. That’s far behind all other voters, 72 percent of whom rated their interest as a “10.”
Asked what Democrats can do to motivate the important, unenthusiastic members of their coalition, Gardner said their research shows that “if progressive candidates put a middle-class agenda at the center of the economic debate — and couple it with an embrace of reform of politics and government — support and enthusiasm for those candidates will really take off.”
But Gardner and other Democrats also suggested that these groups could step off the sidelines if Republicans nominate one of their more polarizing candidates — like Trump or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Gardner said support among members of the rising American electorate for Clinton “climbs through the roof” when respondents are asked explicitly about a Clinton-Trump match-up.
“If Donald Trump or Cruz are the nominee, I would imagine that how that inflames the base and probably brings millennials or minorities out,” Anzalone agreed. “Once you have nominees, things change — and it becomes very real to people.”
Anzalone also touted the Democratic ground game in the general election, arguing that the party has overcome the enthusiasm gap in past races by turning out voters who were considered less likely to cast ballots until Election Day. In early November 2012, 42 percent of Republicans were “very enthusiastic” about voting, according to CNN data, compared to 37 percent of Democrats.
“We have shown in 2008 and 2012 that regardless of what the polls or the talking heads say … we blow them out of the water in the last month of the campaign in terms of motivating our base and persuading voters to come out and vote for Democrats,” Anzalone said.
None of this means Democrats would prefer to be the party of lower enthusiasm at this point of the campaign — just that they don’t think it’s predictive of what will happen next autumn.
“I don’t care about where they are today,” said Pollock. “I care about where they are come [next] October.”
Polls show Republicans are fired up and excited to vote in the presidential race. Democrats say there's no cause for alarm.
By Steven Shepard
Republicans are fired up. Ready to go. Democrats? Not so much.
The latest CNN/ORC International poll laid out a stark “enthusiasm gap” between the two parties: Thirty-six percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they were “very enthusiastic” about voting for president next year, compared with just 19 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.
Similarly, a recent survey by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found Republicans, especially older white conservatives, were significantly more interested in the 2016 elections than Democrats and their key demographic groups. Seventy-one percent of likely GOP voters rated their interest in the elections as a “10” on a 1-to-10 scale, compared with 58 percent of Democratic voters who said the same.
It would seem Republicans are energized and poised to swamp the polls after eight years of President Barack Obama. But Democrats say there’s no cause for alarm.
“Sitting here in almost-January-2016, any diagnostic on enthusiasm or motivation is really useless,” said John Anzalone, one of the pollsters working for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
The GOP, Democrats assert, has a far more competitive race for the nomination compared to Clinton, who is a strong favorite to win the Democratic nod. Between that and the Donald Trump phenomenon, the Republican race is more captivating — as evidenced by both poll numbers and television ratings for the five GOP debates, which have consistently drawn larger audiences than the Democratic debates.
“It is more interesting,” said Democratic pollster Jef Pollock. “If you want to ask me — a person who’s never voted for a Republican in my entire life — of course it’s more interesting.”
The greater Republican enthusiasm, according to pollsters in both parties, is driven largely by longstanding antipathy toward Clinton and Obama — and also the noisy spectacle of the GOP race. These Democrats aren't worried that their voters aren’t yet enthusiastic about Clinton’s candidacy, arguing that they will be fired up to defeat the GOP nominee next fall.
“While it’s still quite early, we have seen consistently that support for Hillary Clinton climbs when she is pitted against named Republicans,” said Page Gardner, president and founder of Women’s Voices, Women Vote Action Fund, a nonprofit that worked with Greenberg on his survey. “So we would expect increased enthusiasm for Clinton — assuming she is the Democratic nominee — once the Republicans have picked their candidate.”
“As much as we want our politics to be all positive,” GOP pollster Jon McHenry agreed, “what drives turnout to a great extent is just being pissed off at somebody.”
For now, enthusiasm among Democrats lags that if Republicans, more closely resembling the run-up to Obama’s 2012 reelection — when he didn’t face a primary challenge — than the record-setting 2008 primary between Obama and Clinton.
In an October 2011 CNN poll, 21 percent of Democrats said they were “very enthusiastic” about the coming election, while 38 percent of Republicans said the same.
Compare that to June 2007 — the best-available analog in CNN’s limited trend lines — when 28 percent of Democrats were “very enthusiastic,” compared with 27 percent of Republicans.
Clinton — as a result of her front-runner status and her close ties to the current administration — is functioning as the incumbent, pollsters in both parties said. That makes Democrats less concerned about the lack of a current tide of enthusiasm for her candidacy.
“On my side, I’ve got an incumbent with a nagging primary challenge,” said Pollock, the Democratic pollster. “It’s more like 2012 than it is like 2008.”
Republicans mostly agreed that their current enthusiasm gap is unlikely to hold until the general election — but also cautioned that Democrats may never be truly pumped for Clinton’s candidacy.
“If you’re the Democrats, and you’re looking at the combination of Hillary’s age and the fact she makes a lot of unforced errors and the fact she’s been around since the early ’90s — that’s not exactly the hope and change you’re looking for,” said Republican pollster Glen Bolger.
“There’s always some question of how much enthusiasm there is after eight years for more of the same, even if it’s a bit different,” Bolger added, pointing to the difficulty of a party winning a third consecutive time before a usually restless electorate.
The CNN trend lines hint at this possibility. On the eve of the 2008 election, 45 percent of Democrats described themselves as “very enthusiastic,” compared with only 28 percent of Republicans. That resulted in a 7-point victory for Obama over Arizona Sen. John McCain.
Another challenge for Democrats is, demographically, many of the voters who support them by the widest margins are also the least engaged. The Democracy Corps/Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund study showed a split between likely voters they call the “rising American electorate” — racial minorities, millennials and unmarried women — and other voters: Fifty-six percent of voters in the rising American electorate, a group growing rapidly with every election cycle, rated themselves a “10” on the interest scale, regardless of their vote preference. That’s far behind all other voters, 72 percent of whom rated their interest as a “10.”
Asked what Democrats can do to motivate the important, unenthusiastic members of their coalition, Gardner said their research shows that “if progressive candidates put a middle-class agenda at the center of the economic debate — and couple it with an embrace of reform of politics and government — support and enthusiasm for those candidates will really take off.”
But Gardner and other Democrats also suggested that these groups could step off the sidelines if Republicans nominate one of their more polarizing candidates — like Trump or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Gardner said support among members of the rising American electorate for Clinton “climbs through the roof” when respondents are asked explicitly about a Clinton-Trump match-up.
“If Donald Trump or Cruz are the nominee, I would imagine that how that inflames the base and probably brings millennials or minorities out,” Anzalone agreed. “Once you have nominees, things change — and it becomes very real to people.”
Anzalone also touted the Democratic ground game in the general election, arguing that the party has overcome the enthusiasm gap in past races by turning out voters who were considered less likely to cast ballots until Election Day. In early November 2012, 42 percent of Republicans were “very enthusiastic” about voting, according to CNN data, compared to 37 percent of Democrats.
“We have shown in 2008 and 2012 that regardless of what the polls or the talking heads say … we blow them out of the water in the last month of the campaign in terms of motivating our base and persuading voters to come out and vote for Democrats,” Anzalone said.
None of this means Democrats would prefer to be the party of lower enthusiasm at this point of the campaign — just that they don’t think it’s predictive of what will happen next autumn.
“I don’t care about where they are today,” said Pollock. “I care about where they are come [next] October.”
$23 million
Carson campaign raises $23 million in 4th quarter
By Alex Isenstadt
Ben Carson’s campaign raised around $23 million in the last three months of 2015, his campaign manager Barry Bennett said on Wednesday — one-upping Ted Cruz's fourth-quarter haul of nearly $20 million.
The retired neurosurgeon's torrid fundraising pace comes amid turmoil for the Carson campaign, with the candidate speaking openly about the need to shake up his operation as his poll numbers decline.
Meanwhile, donors and longtime Carson loyalists have expressed concerns about his sky-high burn rate, which ate up more than half of what he raised in the previous fundraising cycle — leaving him with just $11.5 million cash on hand after taking in more than $30 million in the first 9 months of 2015.
In Iowa, Carson has been eclipsed by Cruz, who has worked aggressively to consolidate support among the state's critical evangelical Christians. Questions about his foreign policy acumen have plagued him, too, as a spate of high-profile attacks have heightened voters’ concerns about terrorism.
Last week, Carson told several news organizations that “every job” was on the table and that he was cutting the salaries of his senior staff — only to later say his campaign team was “spectacular.”
By Alex Isenstadt
Ben Carson’s campaign raised around $23 million in the last three months of 2015, his campaign manager Barry Bennett said on Wednesday — one-upping Ted Cruz's fourth-quarter haul of nearly $20 million.
The retired neurosurgeon's torrid fundraising pace comes amid turmoil for the Carson campaign, with the candidate speaking openly about the need to shake up his operation as his poll numbers decline.
Meanwhile, donors and longtime Carson loyalists have expressed concerns about his sky-high burn rate, which ate up more than half of what he raised in the previous fundraising cycle — leaving him with just $11.5 million cash on hand after taking in more than $30 million in the first 9 months of 2015.
In Iowa, Carson has been eclipsed by Cruz, who has worked aggressively to consolidate support among the state's critical evangelical Christians. Questions about his foreign policy acumen have plagued him, too, as a spate of high-profile attacks have heightened voters’ concerns about terrorism.
Last week, Carson told several news organizations that “every job” was on the table and that he was cutting the salaries of his senior staff — only to later say his campaign team was “spectacular.”
Remembering Saud
Remembering Prince Saud Al Faisal bin Abdulaziz 1940-2015
By Ford Fraker
It was May 2007, and I was a newly minted U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia having my first official meeting with Prince Saud Al Faisal bin Abdulaziz, the Saudi foreign minister, son of King Faisal and grandson of the founder of Saudi Arabia, King Abdulaziz bin Mohammed Al Saud. While U.S.-Saudi relations in this post-9/11 era were somewhat uncertain, security cooperation was ironclad. This meant that as ambassador, I had frequent interactions with top Saudi officials, and nurturing those relationships was paramount to my job.
I had looked forward to this meeting with great anticipation but equal trepidation. At the time, Prince Saud was the longest-serving foreign minister—not just of Saudi Arabia but anywhere in the world—in a role he held from 1975 until shortly before his death this year. What could I possibly say to someone with such vast experience in and knowledge of the whole Middle East and its many complicated issues? Certainly there couldn’t be a single subject he hadn’t debated and discussed from every possible angle. Plus, he had probably dealt with at least a dozen U.S. ambassadors already. What could I—a banker by trade and first-time diplomat—possibly add that he hadn’t already heard?
I knew from more than 30 years of banking, investment and finance in the Middle East that establishing a personal relationship was important, so I led the meeting with a comment about soccer. As a schoolboy living in Princeton, New Jersey, I used to ride my bike through the Princeton campus and past the sports fields to get home every day after school. I had heard about the “Saudi prince” who was an undergraduate at the university and played on the soccer team. So I stopped and watched him play. At our meeting, I also mentioned that he was in the same class and eating club as my older brother. Well, the rest of the conversation was spent with him reminiscing about his days at Princeton, how difficult they had been, how at one point he had wanted to leave, but his father, King Faisal, traveled to campus to convince him to stay “for the family’s honor and for his own self esteem.” It was clear he was glad to have stuck it out and graduated. And it was also clear that we had gotten off to a good start in our relationship.
I was always amazed at Prince Saud’s great sense of humor: It was sophisticated and often sardonic. Soon after our first meeting, we found ourselves together in the Saudi city of Tabuk, where Vice President Dick Cheney was meeting King Abdullah. After a sumptuous banquet—with servers standing behind every chair to ensure that whenever the slightest bit of empty plate appeared, it was immediately filled with more food—the king and the vice president retired for private talks. The rest of the official party, including Prince Saud and I, went to a large reception room to wait for the principals to finish their meeting. I was sitting next to the prince, who turned to me and asked if I had heard the joke about the CIA agent’s trip to Russia. A great tale ensued—told with resplendent detail and concluding with the CIA’s total incompetence as the punchline. He laughed uproariously. I soon found out that U.S. government incompetence was a never-ending source for jokes throughout the Middle East.
Another time, I had returned from one of my many trips to far-flung regions and towns of Saudi Arabia—where I would go to talk to local chambers of commerce about U.S.-Saudi business—and went to meet Prince Saud back in Riyadh. He said he had been watching my progress in the press, and was impressed that I was visiting towns he had never visited and was unlikely to. He had also seen pictures of me riding a camel and offered: “I have never ridden a camel because I believe that any creature made with a hump on its back was never meant to be ridden.” It was clearly not the first time he had delivered this line but, again, it was typical of his wry sense of humor.
Prince Saud and I worked closely together on many diplomatic and bilateral issues. We met often at his house, an oasis of calm and elegance with mostly French furnishings and art reflecting his sophisticated tastes. His small private den was his favorite space, full of pictures of his father and his family. He was deeply committed to the U.S.-Saudi relationship and believed that this relationship was the key to solving many problems in the region. But in these private moments after more official meetings, he could be very critical of American policies. He often expressed criticism of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, lack of even-handedness in Palestine and, later on, U.S. engagement with Iran. On more than one occasion, after meetings with senior U.S. officials, particularly regarding Palestine and Israel, he pulled me aside into a private room and emphasize, “Only you, the U.S. government, can make this happen.”
Our most candid exchanges often occurred in these more private moments. After First Lady Laura Bush met with the king to discuss her breast cancer awareness initiative in the Middle East, Prince Saud grabbed me by the arm and took me into a side room. He looked me in the eye and said, “Now I know the strength of America … it is your women!” I replied, “Your Royal Highness, it could be yours, too.” He only smiled.
When President George W. Bush visited Saudi Arabia in May 2008, we signed six bilateral agreements: three on nuclear cooperation, a critical infrastructure protection program, a science and technology agreement, and a five-year mutual visa protocol. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Princes Naif and Saud signed the accords in the presence of the king and the president in the king’s palace. After the signing ceremony, it was Prince Saud who was first to congratulate me, saying, “This is a great day in our relationship, one we can all be proud of.” In fact, none of these agreements would have been possible without the complete support of Prince Saud. Throughout his career, he was always well aware of the critical importance of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.
There are many private stories about Prince Saud’s personal kindness and generosity. Publicly, he will be best remembered as the consummate gentleman-diplomat, and his loss leaves a stunning gap in the field of Middle East policy and diplomacy. His wisdom and wit will be sorely missed, and his experience over the decades made him an icon. For me, the opportunity to work closely with a man of such scope, vision and humanity was an undeniable privilege.
By Ford Fraker
It was May 2007, and I was a newly minted U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia having my first official meeting with Prince Saud Al Faisal bin Abdulaziz, the Saudi foreign minister, son of King Faisal and grandson of the founder of Saudi Arabia, King Abdulaziz bin Mohammed Al Saud. While U.S.-Saudi relations in this post-9/11 era were somewhat uncertain, security cooperation was ironclad. This meant that as ambassador, I had frequent interactions with top Saudi officials, and nurturing those relationships was paramount to my job.
I had looked forward to this meeting with great anticipation but equal trepidation. At the time, Prince Saud was the longest-serving foreign minister—not just of Saudi Arabia but anywhere in the world—in a role he held from 1975 until shortly before his death this year. What could I possibly say to someone with such vast experience in and knowledge of the whole Middle East and its many complicated issues? Certainly there couldn’t be a single subject he hadn’t debated and discussed from every possible angle. Plus, he had probably dealt with at least a dozen U.S. ambassadors already. What could I—a banker by trade and first-time diplomat—possibly add that he hadn’t already heard?
I knew from more than 30 years of banking, investment and finance in the Middle East that establishing a personal relationship was important, so I led the meeting with a comment about soccer. As a schoolboy living in Princeton, New Jersey, I used to ride my bike through the Princeton campus and past the sports fields to get home every day after school. I had heard about the “Saudi prince” who was an undergraduate at the university and played on the soccer team. So I stopped and watched him play. At our meeting, I also mentioned that he was in the same class and eating club as my older brother. Well, the rest of the conversation was spent with him reminiscing about his days at Princeton, how difficult they had been, how at one point he had wanted to leave, but his father, King Faisal, traveled to campus to convince him to stay “for the family’s honor and for his own self esteem.” It was clear he was glad to have stuck it out and graduated. And it was also clear that we had gotten off to a good start in our relationship.
I was always amazed at Prince Saud’s great sense of humor: It was sophisticated and often sardonic. Soon after our first meeting, we found ourselves together in the Saudi city of Tabuk, where Vice President Dick Cheney was meeting King Abdullah. After a sumptuous banquet—with servers standing behind every chair to ensure that whenever the slightest bit of empty plate appeared, it was immediately filled with more food—the king and the vice president retired for private talks. The rest of the official party, including Prince Saud and I, went to a large reception room to wait for the principals to finish their meeting. I was sitting next to the prince, who turned to me and asked if I had heard the joke about the CIA agent’s trip to Russia. A great tale ensued—told with resplendent detail and concluding with the CIA’s total incompetence as the punchline. He laughed uproariously. I soon found out that U.S. government incompetence was a never-ending source for jokes throughout the Middle East.
Another time, I had returned from one of my many trips to far-flung regions and towns of Saudi Arabia—where I would go to talk to local chambers of commerce about U.S.-Saudi business—and went to meet Prince Saud back in Riyadh. He said he had been watching my progress in the press, and was impressed that I was visiting towns he had never visited and was unlikely to. He had also seen pictures of me riding a camel and offered: “I have never ridden a camel because I believe that any creature made with a hump on its back was never meant to be ridden.” It was clearly not the first time he had delivered this line but, again, it was typical of his wry sense of humor.
Prince Saud and I worked closely together on many diplomatic and bilateral issues. We met often at his house, an oasis of calm and elegance with mostly French furnishings and art reflecting his sophisticated tastes. His small private den was his favorite space, full of pictures of his father and his family. He was deeply committed to the U.S.-Saudi relationship and believed that this relationship was the key to solving many problems in the region. But in these private moments after more official meetings, he could be very critical of American policies. He often expressed criticism of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, lack of even-handedness in Palestine and, later on, U.S. engagement with Iran. On more than one occasion, after meetings with senior U.S. officials, particularly regarding Palestine and Israel, he pulled me aside into a private room and emphasize, “Only you, the U.S. government, can make this happen.”
Our most candid exchanges often occurred in these more private moments. After First Lady Laura Bush met with the king to discuss her breast cancer awareness initiative in the Middle East, Prince Saud grabbed me by the arm and took me into a side room. He looked me in the eye and said, “Now I know the strength of America … it is your women!” I replied, “Your Royal Highness, it could be yours, too.” He only smiled.
When President George W. Bush visited Saudi Arabia in May 2008, we signed six bilateral agreements: three on nuclear cooperation, a critical infrastructure protection program, a science and technology agreement, and a five-year mutual visa protocol. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Princes Naif and Saud signed the accords in the presence of the king and the president in the king’s palace. After the signing ceremony, it was Prince Saud who was first to congratulate me, saying, “This is a great day in our relationship, one we can all be proud of.” In fact, none of these agreements would have been possible without the complete support of Prince Saud. Throughout his career, he was always well aware of the critical importance of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.
There are many private stories about Prince Saud’s personal kindness and generosity. Publicly, he will be best remembered as the consummate gentleman-diplomat, and his loss leaves a stunning gap in the field of Middle East policy and diplomacy. His wisdom and wit will be sorely missed, and his experience over the decades made him an icon. For me, the opportunity to work closely with a man of such scope, vision and humanity was an undeniable privilege.
Ramadi
Ramadi residents fleeing ISIS: 'They wanted to use us as human shields'
By Nima Elbagir, Raja Razek and Nick Thompson
Standing in the entrance of her tent on a chilly winter night in the Iraqi desert, Nada Saleh describes the terrifying moment her family almost became part of ISIS' last stand in Ramadi.
As government forces mounted their final assault to retake the key city -- controlled by the Sunni terror group since May -- ISIS began to pull families out of their homes and move them to the eastern part of the city.
Saleh says she and her six children watched as her husband stared down the militants, refusing to allow them to take his family.
The fighters dragged Saleh's husband away with a sword to his neck. Although he eventually managed to escape, he's been taken in for government questioning.
But the few hundred families massed here at this camp in Habbaniyah, a 25-mile drive east of Ramadi in Anbar Province, are the lucky ones.
Just a day ago these people were still inside Ramadi -- and although they're exhausted and cold, they're much safer here than at home.
The Iraqis say roughly 1,000 families remain trapped in Ramadi's eastern districts, some of which is still controlled by ISIS. The government believes they are being used as human shields.
One young woman who arrived in Habbaniyah with her family last night told CNN described desperate conditions as they fled Ramadi.
"We have been without food for two months, no water for the past 10 days," she said.
"We were surprised when we left our home and drove outside the city, we only saw destroyed houses and roads. We could not recognize the city. It looked like another city."
The woman said most of the ISIS fighters in Ramadi either fled or were killed as the army moved in.
"We saw them when we left our houses, we saw their dead bodies in the streets," she said. "Dogs are eating their heads. We only saw their hands and their legs."
The woman and her family would have left sooner, but ISIS was threatening to kill anyone who tried to escape.
"We were waiting for the Iraqi army to secure a safe path for us. They told us not to leave until they do it for us," she said. "I believe they (ISIS) wanted to use us as human shields, along with our kids."
The woman is among the tens of thousands of people who have left the city during the devastating, months-long effort to snatch it back from the clutches of ISIS.
Iraqi forces, backed by Western air power, finally drove ISIS out of the heart of Ramadi earlier this week.
Iraqi TV showed soldiers raising the national flag over Ramadi's government compound to mark the Iraqi military's first major win over ISIS, which controls significant territory in Iraq and Syria.
But during the live coverage, explosions and gunfire could be still be heard in the background. And although up to a quarter of the city remains in the militants' hands, it didn't stop Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi from declaring that 2016 "will be the year we drive ISIS out of Iraq."
Local officials will face a raft of challenges in rebuilding the ruined city, where the U.S.-led coalition says it has carried out more than 630 airstrikes in the campaign to retake it from ISIS since July. The city will need to restore basic infrastructure like electricity and running water, as well as its residents' sense of security.
Back at Habbaniyah, night falls as men gather around a makeshift fire and women and children huddle in their tents.
The camp was built to hold all the families rescued from Ramadi. For now, many of these tents -- too many -- stand empty.
But while the winter chill here is bitter, and although many of these desperate people have lost their life's possessions, just to be here at all -- to be safe -- is enough for now.
By Nima Elbagir, Raja Razek and Nick Thompson
Standing in the entrance of her tent on a chilly winter night in the Iraqi desert, Nada Saleh describes the terrifying moment her family almost became part of ISIS' last stand in Ramadi.
As government forces mounted their final assault to retake the key city -- controlled by the Sunni terror group since May -- ISIS began to pull families out of their homes and move them to the eastern part of the city.
Saleh says she and her six children watched as her husband stared down the militants, refusing to allow them to take his family.
The fighters dragged Saleh's husband away with a sword to his neck. Although he eventually managed to escape, he's been taken in for government questioning.
But the few hundred families massed here at this camp in Habbaniyah, a 25-mile drive east of Ramadi in Anbar Province, are the lucky ones.
Just a day ago these people were still inside Ramadi -- and although they're exhausted and cold, they're much safer here than at home.
The Iraqis say roughly 1,000 families remain trapped in Ramadi's eastern districts, some of which is still controlled by ISIS. The government believes they are being used as human shields.
One young woman who arrived in Habbaniyah with her family last night told CNN described desperate conditions as they fled Ramadi.
"We have been without food for two months, no water for the past 10 days," she said.
"We were surprised when we left our home and drove outside the city, we only saw destroyed houses and roads. We could not recognize the city. It looked like another city."
The woman said most of the ISIS fighters in Ramadi either fled or were killed as the army moved in.
"We saw them when we left our houses, we saw their dead bodies in the streets," she said. "Dogs are eating their heads. We only saw their hands and their legs."
The woman and her family would have left sooner, but ISIS was threatening to kill anyone who tried to escape.
"We were waiting for the Iraqi army to secure a safe path for us. They told us not to leave until they do it for us," she said. "I believe they (ISIS) wanted to use us as human shields, along with our kids."
The woman is among the tens of thousands of people who have left the city during the devastating, months-long effort to snatch it back from the clutches of ISIS.
Iraqi forces, backed by Western air power, finally drove ISIS out of the heart of Ramadi earlier this week.
Iraqi TV showed soldiers raising the national flag over Ramadi's government compound to mark the Iraqi military's first major win over ISIS, which controls significant territory in Iraq and Syria.
But during the live coverage, explosions and gunfire could be still be heard in the background. And although up to a quarter of the city remains in the militants' hands, it didn't stop Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi from declaring that 2016 "will be the year we drive ISIS out of Iraq."
Local officials will face a raft of challenges in rebuilding the ruined city, where the U.S.-led coalition says it has carried out more than 630 airstrikes in the campaign to retake it from ISIS since July. The city will need to restore basic infrastructure like electricity and running water, as well as its residents' sense of security.
Back at Habbaniyah, night falls as men gather around a makeshift fire and women and children huddle in their tents.
The camp was built to hold all the families rescued from Ramadi. For now, many of these tents -- too many -- stand empty.
But while the winter chill here is bitter, and although many of these desperate people have lost their life's possessions, just to be here at all -- to be safe -- is enough for now.
Microbead ban
Microbead ban signed by President Obama
By Jareen Imam
Say goodbye to your exfoliating shower gel.
Those tiny plastic microbeads you have been rubbing on your face are now outlawed in the United States.
President Obama signed a bipartisan bill that prohibits selling and distributing products containing microbeads. The bill is intended to protect the nation's waterways.
A microbead is any solid plastic particle that is less than 5 millimeters and is used for the purpose of exfoliating or cleansing, according to the bill.
These tiny plastic beads have become ubiquitous in hundreds of products ranging from body scrubs to toothpastes. They provide an exfoliating sensation for users and are designed to wash down drains.
But because they are made of plastic, microbeads do not dissolve and may pose a threat to the environment.
In September, a study published in Environmental Science & Technology reported that more than 8 trillion microbeads were entering the country's aquatic habitats daily. The volume was enough to coat the surface of 300 tennis courts every day.
Microbeads have contributed to a greater increase in microplastic polluting the planet's oceans and lakes, researchers say.
Not only are they hard to clean up because they are about the size of a pinhead, researchers say they are also posing a threat to aquatic life.
Some marine life mistake small plastic as food particles. Scientists are researching whether microplastics affect the health of marine life once ingested and if chemicals transfer to humans who eat those species later, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
By Jareen Imam
Say goodbye to your exfoliating shower gel.
Those tiny plastic microbeads you have been rubbing on your face are now outlawed in the United States.
President Obama signed a bipartisan bill that prohibits selling and distributing products containing microbeads. The bill is intended to protect the nation's waterways.
A microbead is any solid plastic particle that is less than 5 millimeters and is used for the purpose of exfoliating or cleansing, according to the bill.
These tiny plastic beads have become ubiquitous in hundreds of products ranging from body scrubs to toothpastes. They provide an exfoliating sensation for users and are designed to wash down drains.
But because they are made of plastic, microbeads do not dissolve and may pose a threat to the environment.
In September, a study published in Environmental Science & Technology reported that more than 8 trillion microbeads were entering the country's aquatic habitats daily. The volume was enough to coat the surface of 300 tennis courts every day.
Microbeads have contributed to a greater increase in microplastic polluting the planet's oceans and lakes, researchers say.
Not only are they hard to clean up because they are about the size of a pinhead, researchers say they are also posing a threat to aquatic life.
Some marine life mistake small plastic as food particles. Scientists are researching whether microplastics affect the health of marine life once ingested and if chemicals transfer to humans who eat those species later, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Boxing Day
Boxing Day and the start of the Sydney Hobart. To make room for the fleet we leave Constitution Dock for a berth at the Royal Yacht Club of Tasmania. We watch the start in the club lounge. The local favourite is taken out in a crash. Comanche storms to the lead. The locals switch to the cricket. We polish stainless and fill tanks. Stumps is called. There is much drama off the pitch. The umpires lift the stumps. Comanche takes the gun. The locals cheer. We go to Taste of Tasmania for chocolate dipped raspberries.
The wind dies. Dawn cracks. Rambler and Ragamuffin clear the Iron Pot. They engage in a slow motion jibing duel. Using their canting keels they roll through the jibes like 100’ sailing dinghies. Rambler covers and holds a narrow lead. Less than a mile to go. Ragamuffin breaks cover and storms the line. The locals forget about the cricket. We sail for 2016 and Port Davey. Play ends for the day. – Anarchist Bruce.
December 30, 2015
Conversations
Death Panels: An Obituary
On January 1, Obamacare starts paying for end-of-life conversations, and a scare story finally dies.
By Ellen Goodman
This is the moment in the year when we assess the past, bid farewells and wipe our slates clean. 2015 may well go down as a year of demagoguery, or Trump-agoguery, if you prefer, in which no lie was so blatant it couldn’t enhance a politician’s popularity.
That said, let us raise a glass to one piece of outrage that was actually buried.
I give you an obituary for “death panels."
Remember death panels? The saga began in 2009, when a provision in President Barack Obama’s new health care bill proposed that doctors be paid for time spent having conversations with patients planning for end-of-life care. Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, was the first to magically transform these voluntary talks into mandatory sessions that would tell seniors “how to end their life sooner.” But it was Sarah Palin, with her gift for disinformation, who renamed these talks death panels.
In rapid order, death panels became the star of cable news, politicians dove under their desks, and there was rabid talk about a government plan to pull the plug on grandma.
PolitiFact called this the “lie of the year” in 2009, since there was nothing in the bill that would limit care, or create a government panel. But Palin and her Facebook friends had won the framing exercise. The proposal was deleted from the plan and then later from regulations, and anything to do with “end of life” became the third rail of health care policy. A few champions, like Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) remained stalwart, but the administration went silent. As one policymaker in the administration described it, “It was a group tongue-biting exercise.”
Fast forward to this season’s greeting. In July, Medicare put forward nearly the same proposals for public comment. They sailed through with barely a ripple of protest. Starting January 1, doctors and other clinicians will be paid a modest fee for the time spent discussing patient’s preferences for the treatment they want in their last days.
What happened? How did truthiness—or truthlessness—go down? How did the frame collapse?
It turns out that sometimes, yes, people’s life experiences trump political posturing. Sometimes the culture changes and creates a new frame. We go from hyperbole to reality.
These past five years have been a time of remarkable transformation. The old taboo against talk of death is gradually lifting. There’s a growing movement to encourage the most important conversation too many Americans still aren’t having.
I’ve seen that change up close. In 2010, at the height of the death panel flare-up, a small group of us—doctors, media, clergy—had just begun meeting in Boston. I helped begin this in the aftermath of my mother’s death, when I was overwhelmed, indeed stunned, by the decisions that had fallen to me. I often wished that I could hear her voice, telling me what she wanted.
At our first gathering, we took off our professional hats and shared similar stories of the loss of people we loved. We all talked about being faced with a cascading number of decisions for which we felt unprepared. We talked about good deaths and hard deaths. The difference, it often seemed, was whether we had known what our loved ones wanted.
We began to think about how we could make this easier for ourselves and the people we loved. We began to call ourselves simply “The Conversation Project,” and to envision a public engagement campaign to see that people’s wishes for end-of-life care were expressed and respected.
That spring, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, which was then led by Don Berwick, invited a group of experts in end-of-life care to meet with us. Dr. Berwick had just been picked by the president to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, but the atmosphere around this issue was so toxic that he literally couldn’t join us in the meeting room.
His successor, Maureen Bisognano, led a gathering with 30 experts who’d worked for decades to change end-of-life care and were deeply frustrated. Too many people were not dying in the way they would choose. Too many survivors were left guilty, depressed, uncertain that they had done the right thing.
What we needed, they agreed at the end of the day, was to go outside the health care system and change the culture. We needed to change the norm from avoiding conversations about how we want to live at the end of life, to talking about it.
Once you open the door to talking about it, it often seems that everyone has a story. In my half a century as a journalist, I’ve never encountered an issue like this. When I talk about this with someone, there is half a beat and then it begins to pour out. Many people’s stories have been locked away for years, but they carry deep emotional resonance. As experiences are shared, we know we’re not “the only one.”
Since 2010, a growing number of people and organizations have begun working in and out of the health care system to encourage talking about end of life preferences.
As one of those groups, The Conversation Project with our partners at IHI, created a kit to make it easier for people to talk at the kitchen table with their loved ones before there is a crisis. It’s deliberately designed to talk more about values than medical procedures.
If the “death panel” furor heightened anxiety that “faceless bureaucrats” would make life and death decisions, these conversations are committed to exactly the opposite idea: people should be at the center, making their own decisions.
The belief in death panels didn’t just evaporate. Repeated polls taken after 2009 showed that, yes, as many as a third of people continued to believe that there were death panels in Obamacare which would decide whether to “pull the plug on granny.” And yet, at the same time, a much larger majority thought doctors should be paid for their time discussing end-of-life care — exactly the provision that was distorted into death panels.
An even larger majority thought people should talk about their own wishes. In a survey that The Conversation Project did, 90 percent said it was important to have these conversations. Since 90 percent of Americans don’t agree on anything—including the national anthem—that’s huge. Fewer than 30 percent have actually had these conversations. But we are at that turning point.
The signposts of cultural change? If this were BuzzFeed, I would offer a list of Top 10 Signs that have appeared over the past year or two. But this list will do for now:
In 2014, Atul Gawande’s book, “Being Mortal”—a book that the publishers thought was too grim to be released around Christmas—took off and stayed on the best-seller list for a year. “The Fault in Our Stars,” a movie about teenage death, made $48 million its first weekend. Brittany Maynard, a young woman with terminal brain cancer, provoked a national debate over her desire to end her own life with physician assistance. The American Medical Association came out in favor of reimbursing conversations between doctors and patients about end-of-life care. And the venerable Institute of Medicine published a seminal report on “Dying in America” that said, “advance care planning is essential to ensure that patients receive care reflecting their values, goals and preferences.”
Death panels were not just debunked; the fear-mongering around the topic has turned out to be on the wrong side of the everyday experience of families.
Culture warriors have misunderstood the public instincts on end-of-life care before. In 2005, in the dramatic struggle over Terri Schiavo’s fate, then-Governor Jeb Bush framed himself as her protector, taking sides against her husband. By last spring, the new Jeb told a New Hampshire crowd that “if you are going to mandate anything from government, it might be that if you’re going to take Medicare you also sign up for an advance directive where you talk about this before you’re so disabled.” Yo, Jeb—government mandates?
What now? The new Medicare rules will help encourage and normalize end-of-life conversations. Beginning Friday, doctors and other clinicians will be reimbursed for talking with all their patients—not just sick patients—about end-of-life care. Quietly, in one room after another, in 2016, a talk that almost derailed Obamacare in 2009, will become routine.
A modest payment of $80 or $86 is not in itself going to change the way of death in America. We still need to help clinicians become trained and comfortable as they talk about the D word. We need to be sure that when the time comes the health care system respects those treatment plans—indeed, can even find them.
More than anything else, these are not just conversations to have with providers; we need to have them with people we love, those who may have to decide for us. This is more than a code on a chart; it’s a gift.
But for the moment, when fact-checking seems like a thankless occupation, and Trump boasts that “Every time things get worse, I do better,” it sure does lift the spirit to deep-six one big fat lie. Death panels: May they rest in, well, peace.
On January 1, Obamacare starts paying for end-of-life conversations, and a scare story finally dies.
By Ellen Goodman
This is the moment in the year when we assess the past, bid farewells and wipe our slates clean. 2015 may well go down as a year of demagoguery, or Trump-agoguery, if you prefer, in which no lie was so blatant it couldn’t enhance a politician’s popularity.
That said, let us raise a glass to one piece of outrage that was actually buried.
I give you an obituary for “death panels."
Remember death panels? The saga began in 2009, when a provision in President Barack Obama’s new health care bill proposed that doctors be paid for time spent having conversations with patients planning for end-of-life care. Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, was the first to magically transform these voluntary talks into mandatory sessions that would tell seniors “how to end their life sooner.” But it was Sarah Palin, with her gift for disinformation, who renamed these talks death panels.
In rapid order, death panels became the star of cable news, politicians dove under their desks, and there was rabid talk about a government plan to pull the plug on grandma.
PolitiFact called this the “lie of the year” in 2009, since there was nothing in the bill that would limit care, or create a government panel. But Palin and her Facebook friends had won the framing exercise. The proposal was deleted from the plan and then later from regulations, and anything to do with “end of life” became the third rail of health care policy. A few champions, like Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) remained stalwart, but the administration went silent. As one policymaker in the administration described it, “It was a group tongue-biting exercise.”
Fast forward to this season’s greeting. In July, Medicare put forward nearly the same proposals for public comment. They sailed through with barely a ripple of protest. Starting January 1, doctors and other clinicians will be paid a modest fee for the time spent discussing patient’s preferences for the treatment they want in their last days.
What happened? How did truthiness—or truthlessness—go down? How did the frame collapse?
It turns out that sometimes, yes, people’s life experiences trump political posturing. Sometimes the culture changes and creates a new frame. We go from hyperbole to reality.
These past five years have been a time of remarkable transformation. The old taboo against talk of death is gradually lifting. There’s a growing movement to encourage the most important conversation too many Americans still aren’t having.
I’ve seen that change up close. In 2010, at the height of the death panel flare-up, a small group of us—doctors, media, clergy—had just begun meeting in Boston. I helped begin this in the aftermath of my mother’s death, when I was overwhelmed, indeed stunned, by the decisions that had fallen to me. I often wished that I could hear her voice, telling me what she wanted.
At our first gathering, we took off our professional hats and shared similar stories of the loss of people we loved. We all talked about being faced with a cascading number of decisions for which we felt unprepared. We talked about good deaths and hard deaths. The difference, it often seemed, was whether we had known what our loved ones wanted.
We began to think about how we could make this easier for ourselves and the people we loved. We began to call ourselves simply “The Conversation Project,” and to envision a public engagement campaign to see that people’s wishes for end-of-life care were expressed and respected.
That spring, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, which was then led by Don Berwick, invited a group of experts in end-of-life care to meet with us. Dr. Berwick had just been picked by the president to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, but the atmosphere around this issue was so toxic that he literally couldn’t join us in the meeting room.
His successor, Maureen Bisognano, led a gathering with 30 experts who’d worked for decades to change end-of-life care and were deeply frustrated. Too many people were not dying in the way they would choose. Too many survivors were left guilty, depressed, uncertain that they had done the right thing.
What we needed, they agreed at the end of the day, was to go outside the health care system and change the culture. We needed to change the norm from avoiding conversations about how we want to live at the end of life, to talking about it.
Once you open the door to talking about it, it often seems that everyone has a story. In my half a century as a journalist, I’ve never encountered an issue like this. When I talk about this with someone, there is half a beat and then it begins to pour out. Many people’s stories have been locked away for years, but they carry deep emotional resonance. As experiences are shared, we know we’re not “the only one.”
Since 2010, a growing number of people and organizations have begun working in and out of the health care system to encourage talking about end of life preferences.
As one of those groups, The Conversation Project with our partners at IHI, created a kit to make it easier for people to talk at the kitchen table with their loved ones before there is a crisis. It’s deliberately designed to talk more about values than medical procedures.
If the “death panel” furor heightened anxiety that “faceless bureaucrats” would make life and death decisions, these conversations are committed to exactly the opposite idea: people should be at the center, making their own decisions.
The belief in death panels didn’t just evaporate. Repeated polls taken after 2009 showed that, yes, as many as a third of people continued to believe that there were death panels in Obamacare which would decide whether to “pull the plug on granny.” And yet, at the same time, a much larger majority thought doctors should be paid for their time discussing end-of-life care — exactly the provision that was distorted into death panels.
An even larger majority thought people should talk about their own wishes. In a survey that The Conversation Project did, 90 percent said it was important to have these conversations. Since 90 percent of Americans don’t agree on anything—including the national anthem—that’s huge. Fewer than 30 percent have actually had these conversations. But we are at that turning point.
The signposts of cultural change? If this were BuzzFeed, I would offer a list of Top 10 Signs that have appeared over the past year or two. But this list will do for now:
In 2014, Atul Gawande’s book, “Being Mortal”—a book that the publishers thought was too grim to be released around Christmas—took off and stayed on the best-seller list for a year. “The Fault in Our Stars,” a movie about teenage death, made $48 million its first weekend. Brittany Maynard, a young woman with terminal brain cancer, provoked a national debate over her desire to end her own life with physician assistance. The American Medical Association came out in favor of reimbursing conversations between doctors and patients about end-of-life care. And the venerable Institute of Medicine published a seminal report on “Dying in America” that said, “advance care planning is essential to ensure that patients receive care reflecting their values, goals and preferences.”
Death panels were not just debunked; the fear-mongering around the topic has turned out to be on the wrong side of the everyday experience of families.
Culture warriors have misunderstood the public instincts on end-of-life care before. In 2005, in the dramatic struggle over Terri Schiavo’s fate, then-Governor Jeb Bush framed himself as her protector, taking sides against her husband. By last spring, the new Jeb told a New Hampshire crowd that “if you are going to mandate anything from government, it might be that if you’re going to take Medicare you also sign up for an advance directive where you talk about this before you’re so disabled.” Yo, Jeb—government mandates?
What now? The new Medicare rules will help encourage and normalize end-of-life conversations. Beginning Friday, doctors and other clinicians will be reimbursed for talking with all their patients—not just sick patients—about end-of-life care. Quietly, in one room after another, in 2016, a talk that almost derailed Obamacare in 2009, will become routine.
A modest payment of $80 or $86 is not in itself going to change the way of death in America. We still need to help clinicians become trained and comfortable as they talk about the D word. We need to be sure that when the time comes the health care system respects those treatment plans—indeed, can even find them.
More than anything else, these are not just conversations to have with providers; we need to have them with people we love, those who may have to decide for us. This is more than a code on a chart; it’s a gift.
But for the moment, when fact-checking seems like a thankless occupation, and Trump boasts that “Every time things get worse, I do better,” it sure does lift the spirit to deep-six one big fat lie. Death panels: May they rest in, well, peace.
Shakeup...
Bush campaign shifts resources to early states in strategy shakeup
The campaign is expected to deploy between 50 and 60 Miami-based staffers to early states.
By Alex Isenstadt
Jeb Bush's campaign is deploying nearly all of its staff in its Miami headquarters to early states, staffers were informed on a conference call Wednesday afternoon.
Top campaign officials informed employees that the deployment would be staggered throughout the month of January, one participant on the call said. The campaign is expected to deploy between 50 and 60 Miami-based staffers, with 20 going to New Hampshire and 10 or more going to Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada.
The move comes as Bush is mounting a major push in New Hampshire, which his advisers consider a must-win state. The former Florida governor, once the frontrunner of the unwieldy GOP field, is making a last-ditch effort to right a campaign that has faltered despite a hefty cash pile and an establishment pedigree.
Also on Wednesday afternoon, the Bush campaign announced that it would be canceling its TV ad reservation in Iowa and shifting the money to fund an increase of field staffers in the state. Bush has been struggling in the state, with polls showing him persistently trailing.
The funds will also be reallocated to beefing up radio buys in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
“For us, we’re making a strategic resource reallocation,” said Tim Miller, a Bush spokesman.
The campaign is expected to deploy between 50 and 60 Miami-based staffers to early states.
By Alex Isenstadt
Jeb Bush's campaign is deploying nearly all of its staff in its Miami headquarters to early states, staffers were informed on a conference call Wednesday afternoon.
Top campaign officials informed employees that the deployment would be staggered throughout the month of January, one participant on the call said. The campaign is expected to deploy between 50 and 60 Miami-based staffers, with 20 going to New Hampshire and 10 or more going to Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada.
The move comes as Bush is mounting a major push in New Hampshire, which his advisers consider a must-win state. The former Florida governor, once the frontrunner of the unwieldy GOP field, is making a last-ditch effort to right a campaign that has faltered despite a hefty cash pile and an establishment pedigree.
Also on Wednesday afternoon, the Bush campaign announced that it would be canceling its TV ad reservation in Iowa and shifting the money to fund an increase of field staffers in the state. Bush has been struggling in the state, with polls showing him persistently trailing.
The funds will also be reallocated to beefing up radio buys in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
“For us, we’re making a strategic resource reallocation,” said Tim Miller, a Bush spokesman.
Shaking up Oklahoma
Rattled on the Plains
Earthquakes and a looming budget crisis are shaking up Oklahoma.
By Cary Aspinwall
A few days after Thanksgiving, Oklahoma City residents huddled in their homes watching a thick layer of ice snap power lines and split stubby trees. Only a few days later, as the ice started to thaw and power was restored in most neighborhoods, a 4.7-magnitude earthquake shook the state a couple hours before dawn.
The epicenter was 100 miles north, in a region where oil and gas have for decades driven the state economy. Scientists suspect the practice of injecting deep into the earth the salty wastewater from the drilling process may be causing the earthquakes, or at least increasing the frequency.
Prior to 2009, the state had just two quakes per year. Now on average, quakes shake the state twice a day, more than anywhere in the lower 48 states, a fact that is stoking outrage among residents who are growing tired of worrying about the foundations of their homes and whether to buy earthquake insurance. The quakes are an unwelcome byproduct of the oil and gas industry, but they are also a powerful metaphor for a looming fiscal crisis driven by falling fuel prices.
When the Legislature convenes at the beginning of February, it will face a projected budget shortfall of at least $900 million. It’s an unpleasant reality in a state and capital city that, until recently, were enjoying unprecedented prosperity and growth, largely due to the oil boom. The state already absorbed a $611 million budget shortfall last year, so the shock waves from coming cuts will likely be felt even in corners of the state the floor-shaking tremors don’t reach.
Some school systems are considering four-day weeks to save money. Prisons may have to cut half their guards. The state’s health care authority may have to continue to reduce payments to Medicare providers.
None of this is welcome news for Gov. Mary Fallin, who was elected to her second term with 56 percent of the vote in November 2014 and has been flirting with a larger national profile. Fallin, 61, the chair of the Republican Governors Public Policy Committee, has been mentioned on occasion as a potential vice presidential pick. She’s already got a fan in Sarah Palin, who back in 2010 when Fallin was running for governor the first time, endorsed the candidate as a member of the “Mama Grizzly” club of conservative women. In September, Fallin spent time with Jeb Bush at a fundraiser in the capital city and gave Marco Rubio a tour of the Oklahoma City National Memorial when he visited the state to talk about energy policy.
But energy prices are putting a damper on the state mood. Oil has dropped 70 percent since 2008 and natural gas prices are at 14-year lows. Whatever boost to the state economy might have come from the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have transported Canadian crude through Oklahoma and created as many as 800 construction jobs, it was lost in November when President Obama rejected the project.
“Oklahoma has done a great job of diversifying its economy, but energy is still one of its top industries. Unfortunately, President Obama’s anti-oil and -gas policies have caused financial distress across all states with abundant energy resources,” Fallin said.
Fallin, who started her career in hospitality and real estate, is quick to point out the positive: Unemployment has decreased from 7.1 percent when she took office in January 2010 to 4.3 percent as of October. The state has $535 million in its savings account and has created 110,000 new jobs – scattered across a variety of sectors like transportation, trades and hospitality - over four years.
But if Obama is unpopular in this deeply red state, Fallin’s stock is not much better.
She currently ranks last in favorability among Oklahoma’s current and most well-known statewide elected officials, according to recent survey by Sooner Poll, an independent nonpartisan polling firm in the state. Among likely Oklahoma voters surveyed, Sooner Poll’s Bill Shapard said, Fallin finished ahead of only the president.
Shapard thinks it’s unlikely Fallin will be considered as a 2016 running mate for anyone in the Republican field. “We’re too small of a state, we’re too red of a state, so Republicans don’t really need Mary Fallin,” Shapard said.
She’s a second-term Republican governor in an energy-focused state, but the Republicans can go somewhere else to find someone who is more popular, such as New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, said Keith Gaddie, chairman of the University of Oklahoma’s political science department.
“In a state with a crisis like this, and the executive and legislative branches doing nothing to address it, it’s really not a case to put her on the ticket,” Gaddie said.
Fallin said she’s focused on budget challenges and growing the state’s economy. “As far as my plans after this term, I am confident there are still great rewarding career opportunities ahead!” she emailed.
Many wonder what will be Fallin’s legacy as governor. Even before the current budget crisis hit, Fallin had drawn national attention in 2014 for her response to a botched execution by lethal injection. Clayton Lockett writhed and groaned for 40 minutes before he died. In a statement acknowledging the execution took too long, Fallin chided the “out-of-state pundits (who) consistently forget to mention or even consider … Lockett’s victims.”
Earlier this year, news helicopters revealed that Fallin’s 28-year-old daughter, Christina, a musician and tattoo makeup artist, had parked her mobile home on the grounds of the governor’s mansion in Oklahoma City and was plugged into the building’s electrical power. Fallin’s political opponents filed an ethics complaint in November.
“It sends a stereotypical ‘We’re a bunch of dumb Okie hicks kind of image,” Shapard said.
But those were passing controversies compared to the earthquakes. Geologists are recording quakes of magnitude 4.0 or greater every 10 days.
Fallin, though, has been slow to point fingers.
In February, Fallin told a Tulsa newspaper investigating the rising number of earthquakes: “At this point in time, I don’t think we have enough information to truly understand what is causing earthquakes… A lot of it is just natural earthquakes that have occurred since the beginning of time...”
Fallin created a “Coordinating Council on Seismic Activity” in 2014 to study the issue, but the council has no plan to release any reports and its meetings remain closed to the public. Nearly half its members have ties to the energy industry.
In August, at a meeting she finally allowed the media to attend, Fallin seemed willing for the first time to acknowledge there is a “direct correlation” between increased seismic activity and wastewater disposal wells used by the oil and gas industry.
“My position has always been to be proactive while gathering fact-based, scientific information,” Fallin told POLITICO. She recently formed a “fact-finding” group to study potential uses for recycling and reusing what she calls “produced water.”
If more scientific information is the goal, it’s not coming from the state seismologist. Austin Holland left for a job in New Mexico this past summer and has not been replaced. Holland had said he felt pressured by some in the energy industry regarding his research at the Oklahoma Geological Survey, a state agency housed inside the University of Oklahoma’s Mewbourne College of Earth and Energy.
In a new interview with Al Jazeera America, Holland revealed that at a coffee meeting with Continental Resources oil billionaire Harold Hamm, he was told to “watch how you say things.”
Though Oklahoma’s deep reliance on its energy economy may have delayed acceptance of the science linking injection wells and earthquakes, “only a hardcore conservative in denial could argue there’s no link,” Gaddie explained. “It’s a scientific issue that’s also politicized, but now the science has pretty much prevailed over the politics.”
The University’s campus in Norman is far south of Oklahoma’s earthquake alley, but even Gaddie’s office hasn’t escaped damage. For 18 months, the political science department was evicted from the campus’s Dale Tower Hall building after a 5.1-magnitude quake destabilized it in 2010. “When it happens to you, you tend to notice,” Gaddie said.
The question is what to do about the problem. Pressure is mounting to shut down the wastewater wells, or at least limit the volume pumped into them. But the oil and gas industry fears that will only hurt their already bruised bottom line.
To add to the state’s woes, a report this month by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis shows Oklahoma posted the worst performance among all states over the past quarter.
That’s scarier than any earthquake and raises a question for Republican lawmakers: Will Oklahoma have to follow in the footsteps of Kansas and reluctantly raise taxes?
That’s going to be extremely tough in a state that requires a 75-percent approval in the legislature or vote of its people to approve any tax increase, Gaddie said. Fallin said she has no plan to ask legislators to repeal the tax cut trigger she signed into law in 2014.
“History has shown over the decades that gradual tax cuts have spurred economic growth and have helped lower our unemployment rate to 4.3 percent,” she said. “We are working this year to fix the structural impediments and imbalances to our budget challenges.”
Critics say the problem is Oklahoma’s tax cuts are not triggered by an increase in actual revenue -- just projections. So in 2016, the state’s top income tax rate will fall from 5.25 percent to 5 percent, in spite of Oklahoma’s revenue shortfall.
The concept sounded good when oil soared to $150 per barrel, but there’s no mechanism to stop the tax cuts when revenue falls far short of earlier projections, Gaddie said.
State officials can’t claim they weren’t warned. Treasurer Ken Miller has been trying to raise the fiscal alarm since taking office in 2011.
A bigger problem, he said, is that lawmakers never learned to how to live with less.
More than $1 billion in non-recurring revenue has been used to fill budget holes during the past five years. Using such large amounts of alternative revenues to prop up the state budget is an admission by policymakers that they don’t have enough money to spend as they please, Miller said.
“We didn’t get into this situation overnight, and the solution can’t be implemented quickly either.”
Miller doesn’t believe the political will exists to rescind the tax cut.
State lawmakers made a similar mistake prior to the oil bust in the 1980s, when oil dropped from $40 per barrel to $11, Gaddie pointed out.
The state still bears scars from the 1980s bust, he said -- projects abandoned, towns that dried up, infrastructure that was never restored. In the early 1990s, however, Oklahoma City, decided it wanted to shed its image as a bleak metro area devastated by the 1980s collapse of oil and banks in the state.
City leaders dreamed big, passing a series of local sales taxes to fund civic improvements that transformed a drainage ditch into a boathouse-lined river. Now residents can fly high across the river on a zip line, or take a water taxi to a baseball game or dinner at a local brewpub.
Downtown redevelopment has thrived and a skyscraper completed in 2012 now looms over the skyline. The city snagged Seattle’s NBA basketball team, now the enormously popular Oklahoma City Thunder, which plays in the Chesapeake Energy Arena.
Still, it’s hard for residents not to worry about what will happen if oil prices don’t rebound. Chesapeake, a pillar of the local economy, already cut 15 percent of its workforce this fall and announced it wouldn’t put on its popular annual holiday light display this year.
The almost daily shudders are a physical reminder to residents of the capital that they are bound closely into the state’s economy. But the city has shown it’s willing to get creative when times are tough; and even the most conservative voters will endure higher taxes for amenities they want to have, Gaddie said.
“Oklahoma City has shown they don’t need the rest of the state.”
Earthquakes and a looming budget crisis are shaking up Oklahoma.
By Cary Aspinwall
A few days after Thanksgiving, Oklahoma City residents huddled in their homes watching a thick layer of ice snap power lines and split stubby trees. Only a few days later, as the ice started to thaw and power was restored in most neighborhoods, a 4.7-magnitude earthquake shook the state a couple hours before dawn.
The epicenter was 100 miles north, in a region where oil and gas have for decades driven the state economy. Scientists suspect the practice of injecting deep into the earth the salty wastewater from the drilling process may be causing the earthquakes, or at least increasing the frequency.
Prior to 2009, the state had just two quakes per year. Now on average, quakes shake the state twice a day, more than anywhere in the lower 48 states, a fact that is stoking outrage among residents who are growing tired of worrying about the foundations of their homes and whether to buy earthquake insurance. The quakes are an unwelcome byproduct of the oil and gas industry, but they are also a powerful metaphor for a looming fiscal crisis driven by falling fuel prices.
When the Legislature convenes at the beginning of February, it will face a projected budget shortfall of at least $900 million. It’s an unpleasant reality in a state and capital city that, until recently, were enjoying unprecedented prosperity and growth, largely due to the oil boom. The state already absorbed a $611 million budget shortfall last year, so the shock waves from coming cuts will likely be felt even in corners of the state the floor-shaking tremors don’t reach.
Some school systems are considering four-day weeks to save money. Prisons may have to cut half their guards. The state’s health care authority may have to continue to reduce payments to Medicare providers.
None of this is welcome news for Gov. Mary Fallin, who was elected to her second term with 56 percent of the vote in November 2014 and has been flirting with a larger national profile. Fallin, 61, the chair of the Republican Governors Public Policy Committee, has been mentioned on occasion as a potential vice presidential pick. She’s already got a fan in Sarah Palin, who back in 2010 when Fallin was running for governor the first time, endorsed the candidate as a member of the “Mama Grizzly” club of conservative women. In September, Fallin spent time with Jeb Bush at a fundraiser in the capital city and gave Marco Rubio a tour of the Oklahoma City National Memorial when he visited the state to talk about energy policy.
But energy prices are putting a damper on the state mood. Oil has dropped 70 percent since 2008 and natural gas prices are at 14-year lows. Whatever boost to the state economy might have come from the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have transported Canadian crude through Oklahoma and created as many as 800 construction jobs, it was lost in November when President Obama rejected the project.
“Oklahoma has done a great job of diversifying its economy, but energy is still one of its top industries. Unfortunately, President Obama’s anti-oil and -gas policies have caused financial distress across all states with abundant energy resources,” Fallin said.
Fallin, who started her career in hospitality and real estate, is quick to point out the positive: Unemployment has decreased from 7.1 percent when she took office in January 2010 to 4.3 percent as of October. The state has $535 million in its savings account and has created 110,000 new jobs – scattered across a variety of sectors like transportation, trades and hospitality - over four years.
But if Obama is unpopular in this deeply red state, Fallin’s stock is not much better.
She currently ranks last in favorability among Oklahoma’s current and most well-known statewide elected officials, according to recent survey by Sooner Poll, an independent nonpartisan polling firm in the state. Among likely Oklahoma voters surveyed, Sooner Poll’s Bill Shapard said, Fallin finished ahead of only the president.
Shapard thinks it’s unlikely Fallin will be considered as a 2016 running mate for anyone in the Republican field. “We’re too small of a state, we’re too red of a state, so Republicans don’t really need Mary Fallin,” Shapard said.
She’s a second-term Republican governor in an energy-focused state, but the Republicans can go somewhere else to find someone who is more popular, such as New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, said Keith Gaddie, chairman of the University of Oklahoma’s political science department.
“In a state with a crisis like this, and the executive and legislative branches doing nothing to address it, it’s really not a case to put her on the ticket,” Gaddie said.
Fallin said she’s focused on budget challenges and growing the state’s economy. “As far as my plans after this term, I am confident there are still great rewarding career opportunities ahead!” she emailed.
Many wonder what will be Fallin’s legacy as governor. Even before the current budget crisis hit, Fallin had drawn national attention in 2014 for her response to a botched execution by lethal injection. Clayton Lockett writhed and groaned for 40 minutes before he died. In a statement acknowledging the execution took too long, Fallin chided the “out-of-state pundits (who) consistently forget to mention or even consider … Lockett’s victims.”
Earlier this year, news helicopters revealed that Fallin’s 28-year-old daughter, Christina, a musician and tattoo makeup artist, had parked her mobile home on the grounds of the governor’s mansion in Oklahoma City and was plugged into the building’s electrical power. Fallin’s political opponents filed an ethics complaint in November.
“It sends a stereotypical ‘We’re a bunch of dumb Okie hicks kind of image,” Shapard said.
But those were passing controversies compared to the earthquakes. Geologists are recording quakes of magnitude 4.0 or greater every 10 days.
Fallin, though, has been slow to point fingers.
In February, Fallin told a Tulsa newspaper investigating the rising number of earthquakes: “At this point in time, I don’t think we have enough information to truly understand what is causing earthquakes… A lot of it is just natural earthquakes that have occurred since the beginning of time...”
Fallin created a “Coordinating Council on Seismic Activity” in 2014 to study the issue, but the council has no plan to release any reports and its meetings remain closed to the public. Nearly half its members have ties to the energy industry.
In August, at a meeting she finally allowed the media to attend, Fallin seemed willing for the first time to acknowledge there is a “direct correlation” between increased seismic activity and wastewater disposal wells used by the oil and gas industry.
“My position has always been to be proactive while gathering fact-based, scientific information,” Fallin told POLITICO. She recently formed a “fact-finding” group to study potential uses for recycling and reusing what she calls “produced water.”
If more scientific information is the goal, it’s not coming from the state seismologist. Austin Holland left for a job in New Mexico this past summer and has not been replaced. Holland had said he felt pressured by some in the energy industry regarding his research at the Oklahoma Geological Survey, a state agency housed inside the University of Oklahoma’s Mewbourne College of Earth and Energy.
In a new interview with Al Jazeera America, Holland revealed that at a coffee meeting with Continental Resources oil billionaire Harold Hamm, he was told to “watch how you say things.”
Though Oklahoma’s deep reliance on its energy economy may have delayed acceptance of the science linking injection wells and earthquakes, “only a hardcore conservative in denial could argue there’s no link,” Gaddie explained. “It’s a scientific issue that’s also politicized, but now the science has pretty much prevailed over the politics.”
The University’s campus in Norman is far south of Oklahoma’s earthquake alley, but even Gaddie’s office hasn’t escaped damage. For 18 months, the political science department was evicted from the campus’s Dale Tower Hall building after a 5.1-magnitude quake destabilized it in 2010. “When it happens to you, you tend to notice,” Gaddie said.
The question is what to do about the problem. Pressure is mounting to shut down the wastewater wells, or at least limit the volume pumped into them. But the oil and gas industry fears that will only hurt their already bruised bottom line.
To add to the state’s woes, a report this month by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis shows Oklahoma posted the worst performance among all states over the past quarter.
That’s scarier than any earthquake and raises a question for Republican lawmakers: Will Oklahoma have to follow in the footsteps of Kansas and reluctantly raise taxes?
That’s going to be extremely tough in a state that requires a 75-percent approval in the legislature or vote of its people to approve any tax increase, Gaddie said. Fallin said she has no plan to ask legislators to repeal the tax cut trigger she signed into law in 2014.
“History has shown over the decades that gradual tax cuts have spurred economic growth and have helped lower our unemployment rate to 4.3 percent,” she said. “We are working this year to fix the structural impediments and imbalances to our budget challenges.”
Critics say the problem is Oklahoma’s tax cuts are not triggered by an increase in actual revenue -- just projections. So in 2016, the state’s top income tax rate will fall from 5.25 percent to 5 percent, in spite of Oklahoma’s revenue shortfall.
The concept sounded good when oil soared to $150 per barrel, but there’s no mechanism to stop the tax cuts when revenue falls far short of earlier projections, Gaddie said.
State officials can’t claim they weren’t warned. Treasurer Ken Miller has been trying to raise the fiscal alarm since taking office in 2011.
A bigger problem, he said, is that lawmakers never learned to how to live with less.
More than $1 billion in non-recurring revenue has been used to fill budget holes during the past five years. Using such large amounts of alternative revenues to prop up the state budget is an admission by policymakers that they don’t have enough money to spend as they please, Miller said.
“We didn’t get into this situation overnight, and the solution can’t be implemented quickly either.”
Miller doesn’t believe the political will exists to rescind the tax cut.
State lawmakers made a similar mistake prior to the oil bust in the 1980s, when oil dropped from $40 per barrel to $11, Gaddie pointed out.
The state still bears scars from the 1980s bust, he said -- projects abandoned, towns that dried up, infrastructure that was never restored. In the early 1990s, however, Oklahoma City, decided it wanted to shed its image as a bleak metro area devastated by the 1980s collapse of oil and banks in the state.
City leaders dreamed big, passing a series of local sales taxes to fund civic improvements that transformed a drainage ditch into a boathouse-lined river. Now residents can fly high across the river on a zip line, or take a water taxi to a baseball game or dinner at a local brewpub.
Downtown redevelopment has thrived and a skyscraper completed in 2012 now looms over the skyline. The city snagged Seattle’s NBA basketball team, now the enormously popular Oklahoma City Thunder, which plays in the Chesapeake Energy Arena.
Still, it’s hard for residents not to worry about what will happen if oil prices don’t rebound. Chesapeake, a pillar of the local economy, already cut 15 percent of its workforce this fall and announced it wouldn’t put on its popular annual holiday light display this year.
The almost daily shudders are a physical reminder to residents of the capital that they are bound closely into the state’s economy. But the city has shown it’s willing to get creative when times are tough; and even the most conservative voters will endure higher taxes for amenities they want to have, Gaddie said.
“Oklahoma City has shown they don’t need the rest of the state.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)