Monday, November 30, 2015
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on a Wild Ride
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on a Wild Ride: New Hampshire takes Clinton, Sanders on wild polling ride Surveys in recent weeks suggest everything from a narro...
The Bottom Line on a Wild Ride
New Hampshire takes Clinton, Sanders on wild polling ride
Surveys in recent weeks suggest everything from a narrow Hillary Clinton advantage to a comfortable lead for Bernie Sanders.
With just 71 days to go until the New Hampshire primary, public polls are offering little guidance on the state of the Democratic race in the first-in-the-nation primary. A slew of surveys in recent weeks suggests everything from a narrow Hillary Clinton advantage to a comfortable lead for Bernie Sanders.
It’s been that way for much of the year. Clinton posted large leads through Memorial Day — until Sanders suddenly emerged here as a legitimate threat to the Clinton juggernaut. By early August, Sanders finally passed the front-runner — first in a poll conducted for the Boston Herald, but then in the subsequent eight public surveys up until mid-October.
It’s a level of volatility and uncertainty that the campaigns need to become accustomed to, said Terry Shumaker, a former state co-chairman for both of Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns.
“The polling at this stage in New Hampshire has always been unreliable, going back the 1960s,” he said. “New Hampshire primary voters have numerous opportunities to see the candidates close to the primary; they have no pressure to decide early.”
Those careening polls served as the backdrop Sunday night when the three Democratic candidates appeared for the state party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner at the Radisson Hotel in Manchester, in front of a pro-Clinton establishment audience to which Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Gov. Maggie Hassan voiced their support for Clinton during the program.
The candidates, including Martin O’Malley, took the opportunity to sell a positive pitch to voters, rather than rip into one another, in keeping with the evening’s cordiality. But the frequency of the veiled swipes at rivals provided an ever-present reminder of the unease enveloping the race at the moment.
Clinton, who spoke last, gave one of the most rousing renditions of her everything-but-the-kitchen sink stump speech, ticking through her support for universal pre-k; making tuition at public colleges debt-free; expanding voting rights; supporting and expanding the Affordable Care Act; overturning Citizens United; and fighting the National Rifle Association.
Her supporters, waving blue glow sticks, cheered along for a well-known line in her stump speech — that if Republicans think playing the gender card means fighting for women’s rights and equal pay, they can “Deal! Me! In!”
Clinton, who never mentions Sanders on the trail, singled out “the special immunity Congress gave the gun industry — that was a mistake, plain and simple” — a nod to a Sanders vote in 2005 for a statute that gives gun manufacturers immunity in state and federal courts.
She also used the occasion to dismiss the aspirational nature of the Sanders campaign. “Some candidates may be running to make a point,” she said. “I’m running to make a difference.”
For his part, Sanders spoke at length about his 2002 vote to oppose the war in Iraq — a stark point of contrast with Clinton. “Now is not the time for more establishment foreign policy,” he said.
In an election recently redefined by the terror attacks across Paris earlier this month, Sanders was forced to alter his standard stump speech to include a new emphasis on foreign policy.
“We cannot and should not attempt to do it alone,” he said of confronting the Islamic State. “We cannot and should not be trapped in perpetual warfare in the Middle East. We need to put together a broad coalition including the strong participation of the Muslim countries in the region.”
Still, Sanders managed to frame his foreign policy agenda in terms of his campaign theme of income inequality. “It has been reported that Qatar will spend $200 billion on the 2022 World Cup,” he said, “$200 billion on hosting a soccer event, yet very little to fight against ISIS.”
With the candidates unwilling to go beyond subtle swats at one another, it’s possible that the race here will remain opaque until voters go to the polls Feb. 9 — and Clinton knows it better than anyone.
On the eve of the 2008 primary, the final RealClearPolitics polling average showed Barack Obama with an 8.3-point lead, based on a surge of support following his victory in the Iowa caucuses five days earlier. But that bump in the polls proved illusory: Clinton won New Hampshire by nearly 3 points.
The result was, in the words of former Gallup and Pew Research Center head Andy Kohut, “one of the most significant miscues in modern polling history.”
That 2008 failure led to a thorough autopsy from the polling community, which concluded that pollsters sufficiently captured Obama’s post-Iowa bump but failed to measure a subsequent boost for Clinton in the final day before the primary.
That boost was credited, in part, to a New Hampshire happenstance that the polls were unable to pick up so close to primary day — an emotional moment for the then-New York senator at a coffee shop in Portsmouth.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Warren's Mark
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Warren's Mark: Elizabeth Warren makes her mark Sen. Elizabeth Warren is quietly influencing the presidential race, even with Sen. Bernie Sanders emergi...
The Bottom Line on Warren's Mark
Elizabeth Warren makes her mark
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is quietly influencing the presidential race, even with Sen. Bernie Sanders emerging as the primary liberal foil to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
The Massachusetts Democrat, who shunned loud calls for her to mount a White House bid, has largely seen the national spotlight shift to Sanders (I-Vt.), whose campaign won backing from the Ready for Warren diehards and whose stump speeches have drawn massive crowds across the country.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is quietly influencing the presidential race, even with Sen. Bernie Sanders emerging as the primary liberal foil to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
The Massachusetts Democrat, who shunned loud calls for her to mount a White House bid, has largely seen the national spotlight shift to Sanders (I-Vt.), whose campaign won backing from the Ready for Warren diehards and whose stump speeches have drawn massive crowds across the country.
Still, Warren is picking her spots, as she looks to shape debates taking place both on the campaign trail and in Congress.
“Elizabeth Warren has the unique ability, especially for a non-presidential candidate, to put an issue on the map,” said Ben Wikler, the Washington director of MoveOn.org — one of the groups behind a separate Run Warren Run campaign that ended in June.
“When Warren stakes out a progressive position on a major issue, it becomes a topic that candidates on both sides of the aisle have to answer to,” he said. There is an “invisible line” in Washington between ideas that seem practical and those that are not, and Warren can help to “move that line,” he added.
Last week in Washington, Warren gave a speech on corporate tax policy, arguing that large companies don't pay their fair share and laying out a series of principle guidelines for legislation to reform the system.
Earlier this month, she joined with Sanders to introduce legislation that would give social security recipients a one-time $580 boost and pay for the hike by ending a tax break that allows companies to deduct a portion of their executive salaries that's performance-based.
Warren’s focus on tax policy comes as the issue is heating up in the GOP presidential primary battle, and as Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — who championed tax reform as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — begins his tenure as Speaker.
It also comes as Sanders appears to have lost a measure of momentum in the race for the Democratic nomination.
Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist unaffiliated with the presidential campaigns, said he thinks Warren is trying to fill a void that’s caused by Hillary Clinton’s substantial lead in the polls for the Democratic nomination for president.
“I think she sees Bernie Sanders faltering,” he said, adding that Warren wants to make sure “she can shape the forum of the campaign.”
But Neil Sroka, communications director for Democracy for America, another group behind the Run Warren Run campaign, said he doesn’t think the timing of the speech related to a sense that Sanders is faltering.
Sroka and other Warren supporters contend that her comments on corporate taxes reflect the current view of most Americans.
Her message hits at “a very American notion of fairness,” Sroka said.
A CBS News/New York Times poll conducted earlier this month found that 63 percent of adults favored increasing taxes on wealthy Americans and large corporations to help reduce income inequality. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Independents favored the tax hikes.
A Sanders spokesman said the senators are good friends, who’ve worked together on issues since Warren was a Harvard professor.
Others suggest Warren’s recent tax speech was aimed, at least in part, at fellow Democrats.
Warren’s position on corporate tax reform differs from that of President Obama as well as Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the Senate Democrats looking to strike a reform deal with Republicans.
They have signaled support for “deemed repatriation” of earnings held overseas at a discounted rate — a concept Warren criticized.
Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said that Warren’s speech was a shot at Obama and Schumer, warning them if they work with Republicans on rate-lowering corporate-tax reform, there will be some backlash.
“I think this is mostly about internal Senate politics more than it is about presidential politics,” he said.
Whatever her motivation, Warren has repeatedly proven able to elevate issues.
“Warren continues to put important issues on the agenda, like debt-free college, which was a key topic in the last Democratic debate,” said Holly Shulman, a former Democratic National Committee official unaffiliated with the presidential campaigns.
Warren has also spoken out about the need for stronger Wall Street regulations, a frequent topic in the debates.
The same day that she gave the speech on corporate taxes, she joined the Economic Policy Institute at the release of the group's 12-point women's economic agenda. She also gave a speech on the Senate floor last week on the Syrian refugee crisis.
Warren and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) recently sent a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary Jo White asking for information on the performance of the SEC's whistleblower office. And she and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) released new findings about the risks posed to taxpayers and the economy after a partial repeal of a Dodd-Frank provision was enacted last year.
Warren’s backers are saying her message resonates with her party’s base, and urge other candidates to follow her lead.
“Even in states like New Hampshire that are known for being anti-tax, Granite Staters overwhelmingly and bipartisanly want to see the wealthy pay more and the middle class pay less,” Shulman said. “And that's what Democrats believe too.”
Bannon said Democrats have a good chance of retaining the White House, particularly if they focus on those themes.
“To me, Elizabeth Warren is synonymous with economic populism,” he said.
“Elizabeth Warren has the unique ability, especially for a non-presidential candidate, to put an issue on the map,” said Ben Wikler, the Washington director of MoveOn.org — one of the groups behind a separate Run Warren Run campaign that ended in June.
“When Warren stakes out a progressive position on a major issue, it becomes a topic that candidates on both sides of the aisle have to answer to,” he said. There is an “invisible line” in Washington between ideas that seem practical and those that are not, and Warren can help to “move that line,” he added.
Last week in Washington, Warren gave a speech on corporate tax policy, arguing that large companies don't pay their fair share and laying out a series of principle guidelines for legislation to reform the system.
Earlier this month, she joined with Sanders to introduce legislation that would give social security recipients a one-time $580 boost and pay for the hike by ending a tax break that allows companies to deduct a portion of their executive salaries that's performance-based.
Warren’s focus on tax policy comes as the issue is heating up in the GOP presidential primary battle, and as Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — who championed tax reform as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — begins his tenure as Speaker.
It also comes as Sanders appears to have lost a measure of momentum in the race for the Democratic nomination.
Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist unaffiliated with the presidential campaigns, said he thinks Warren is trying to fill a void that’s caused by Hillary Clinton’s substantial lead in the polls for the Democratic nomination for president.
“I think she sees Bernie Sanders faltering,” he said, adding that Warren wants to make sure “she can shape the forum of the campaign.”
But Neil Sroka, communications director for Democracy for America, another group behind the Run Warren Run campaign, said he doesn’t think the timing of the speech related to a sense that Sanders is faltering.
Sroka and other Warren supporters contend that her comments on corporate taxes reflect the current view of most Americans.
Her message hits at “a very American notion of fairness,” Sroka said.
A CBS News/New York Times poll conducted earlier this month found that 63 percent of adults favored increasing taxes on wealthy Americans and large corporations to help reduce income inequality. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Independents favored the tax hikes.
A Sanders spokesman said the senators are good friends, who’ve worked together on issues since Warren was a Harvard professor.
Others suggest Warren’s recent tax speech was aimed, at least in part, at fellow Democrats.
Warren’s position on corporate tax reform differs from that of President Obama as well as Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the Senate Democrats looking to strike a reform deal with Republicans.
They have signaled support for “deemed repatriation” of earnings held overseas at a discounted rate — a concept Warren criticized.
Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said that Warren’s speech was a shot at Obama and Schumer, warning them if they work with Republicans on rate-lowering corporate-tax reform, there will be some backlash.
“I think this is mostly about internal Senate politics more than it is about presidential politics,” he said.
Whatever her motivation, Warren has repeatedly proven able to elevate issues.
“Warren continues to put important issues on the agenda, like debt-free college, which was a key topic in the last Democratic debate,” said Holly Shulman, a former Democratic National Committee official unaffiliated with the presidential campaigns.
Warren has also spoken out about the need for stronger Wall Street regulations, a frequent topic in the debates.
The same day that she gave the speech on corporate taxes, she joined the Economic Policy Institute at the release of the group's 12-point women's economic agenda. She also gave a speech on the Senate floor last week on the Syrian refugee crisis.
Warren and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) recently sent a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary Jo White asking for information on the performance of the SEC's whistleblower office. And she and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) released new findings about the risks posed to taxpayers and the economy after a partial repeal of a Dodd-Frank provision was enacted last year.
Warren’s backers are saying her message resonates with her party’s base, and urge other candidates to follow her lead.
“Even in states like New Hampshire that are known for being anti-tax, Granite Staters overwhelmingly and bipartisanly want to see the wealthy pay more and the middle class pay less,” Shulman said. “And that's what Democrats believe too.”
Bannon said Democrats have a good chance of retaining the White House, particularly if they focus on those themes.
“To me, Elizabeth Warren is synonymous with economic populism,” he said.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on BernieCare!
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on BernieCare!: What to Know About 'BernieCare,' Sanders' Health Overhaul The most ambitious "repeal and replace" health care plan ...
The Bottom Line on BernieCare!
What to Know About 'BernieCare,' Sanders' Health Overhaul
The most ambitious "repeal and replace" health care plan from a presidential candidate comes from Sen. Bernie Sanders, not from a Republican.
The most ambitious "repeal and replace" health care plan from a presidential candidate comes from Sen. Bernie Sanders, not from a Republican.
The Vermont independent who's seeking the Democratic nomination has been chastised by front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton for espousing an all-inclusive, government-run system.
It's called the "single-payer" plan, loosely modeled on how health care is financed in Canada and most of Western Europe.
Basically it means putting almost all the $3.2 trillion-a-year U.S. health care system in the hands of the federal government, with states acting as administrative subcontractors.
Currently, government at all levels pays about half of the nation's health care bill.
Clinton accuses Sanders of wanting to "eliminate" popular programs such Medicare and Medicaid, which cover about one-third of Americans. She also contends Sanders would ditch President Barack Obama's health law.
Actually Sanders would incorporate those programs into the new system, promising that patients would have no gaps in coverage.
What would be eliminated would be things such as insurance premiums, deductibles and copays. In their place would be taxes, something else that few like.
Some things to know about what's being called BernieCare:
———
DEFINITELY WOULDN'T HAPPEN ON DAY ONE
A Sanders presidency remains a long shot. Even more improbable is his health care proposal sweeping through Congress.
Health insurers and pharmaceutical companies, powerful lobbying groups now at odds over high drug prices, would unite to oppose Sanders' plan. For insurers, survival would be at stake. For drugmakers, the single-payer system means government-set prices, a reality they must endure in other countries.
Business groups would fight the plan's payroll tax, designed to recoup much of what employers now pay for health care, and funnel those dollars into the new system.
Conservatives who howled about Obama's public-private approach to coverage, modeled in part on older GOP proposals, would finally be facing a full government takeover of health care.
Democrats are likely to be divided. Single-payer is an ideal embraced by many liberals. Moderates may prefer to stick with incremental improvements to existing programs.
Sanders is under no illusions. The single-payer bill the senator introduced two years ago has no co-sponsors. If elected, Sanders says he would lead a movement for such a system, but there are no guarantees about how it might turn out.
———
PROS AND CONS FOR CONSUMERS
Simplicity of use and breadth of coverage would be big draws for consumers.
You could go to the doctor or spend two weeks in the hospital and not worry about getting a bill.
No insurance premiums, deductibles, cost-sharing or copays, even for brand-name medications. Gone would be worries about being penalized for seeing an out-of-network doctor.
Long-term care would be covered, whether in a nursing facility or one's own home. Most dental care would be covered, too.
That's attractive, especially for working families struggling with out-of-pocket costs for health care.
But the plan would raise taxes. Among them would be a new 2.2 percent "health care income tax," with higher rates for upper-income earners.
A single-payer system could lead to waiting lists for tests and surgeries not deemed urgent. Not everybody who's nursing back pain may be willing to wait a few weeks for an MRI.
———
WHAT ABOUT INSURERS?
Economic changes, new technologies, and globalization have disrupted many industries. People in the United States have learned to live with fast-paced change, even if they don't like it. But rarely does the government shut down a major industry.
That's basically what would happen to health insurance companies under Sanders' plan. Insurers would be relegated to selling supplemental coverage for services not covered under the single-payer plan.
States could hire them to help administer coverage. But hundreds of thousands of jobs would disappear. Billions of dollars in shareholder equity would evaporate.
Sanders has proposed a transition plan for workers displaced by the conversion to single-payer. That plan, too, would have to be paid for with taxes.
———
COST CONTROL
Single-payer advocates say they don't plan to suddenly slam the brakes on spending. With health care accounting for 18 percent of the economy, that would be a shock with wide-reaching consequences. The U.S. still would spend more on health care than any other economically advanced country.
Instead, single-payer would aim to slow the rate of growth in costs by putting hospitals on budgets, negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies and eliminating much of the waste that many experts believe characterizes the U.S. health care system.
Administrative savings would come from doing away with layers of insurance company bureaucracy. Those would be offset somewhat because the government bureaucracy would grow.
It may take some time for any expected savings from a single-payer system to start showing up, especially when the costs of the transition get factored in.
Over the long haul, some experts believe that single-payer gives policymakers more powerful tools to control costs. But that doesn't magically solve the problem. Countries with long-established government-run systems also struggle with their health care spending.
———
THE STATE ROLE
States would have some leeway under Sanders' plan. His office says, for example, that states could determine whether to cover immigrants who are in the country illegally.
But states could not buck the system. Many Republican-led states have refused to enact the Medicaid expansion provided under Obama's health law. Sanders' office says states would not be allowed to opt out of single-payer. The federal government would step in.
As with Medicaid, the federal-state health program for low-income people, states would be expected to cover part of the cost of new system. How much remains to be determined.
Friday, November 27, 2015
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Hillary Attacking Single-Payer!...
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Hillary Attacking Single-Payer!...: Hillary Clinton Attacks Bernie Sanders' Plan for Single-Payer Healthcare Following Sanders' proposal is 'one thing we shoul...
The Bottom Line on Hillary Attacking Single-Payer!
Hillary Clinton Attacks Bernie Sanders' Plan for Single-Payer Healthcare
Following Sanders' proposal is 'one thing we should not do,' Clinton said.
Hillary Clinton took aim on Tuesday at Bernie Sanders' plan for a single-payer healthcare system.
She did not mention Sanders by name at a rally at a Dallas community college, instead saying, "One thing we should not do is follow a proposal that has been made by one of my opponents."
"I was actually the only one on that debate stage on Saturday who will commit to raising your wages and not your taxes," Clinton said, referring to the presidential debate. "I can't see how you can be serious about raising incomes if you also want to slap new taxes on them, no matter what the taxes would pay for."
The Clinton campaign pointed to legislation Sanders introduced in 2013, and said it would mean tax increase on working families; while a strategist for his campaign team said that details for how his current proposal would be funded is delayed until they have a "fully costed analysis," his, and many health experts', position is that a single-payer plan would ultimately reduce inequality and ultimately save taxpayers money by putting healthcare security above corporate profits.
Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon added in a statement Tuesday, "If you are truly concerned about raising incomes for middle-class families, the last thing you should do is cut their take-home pay right off the bat by raising their taxes."
But the Sanders campaign shot back against that framing of the issue. Sanders spokesperson Michael Briggs said Tuesday, "On Medicare for all, the middle class would be far better off because it would save taxpayers money."
"More people would get better care at less cost," he stated.
Briggs added that Clinton supports a system that "props up private insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies which have given so much money to her campaigns."
The Vermont senator has long advocated for a single-payer healthcare system, and reiterated that position during the debate Saturday. "I want to end the international embarrassment of the United States of America being the only major country on Earth that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to all people as a right, not a privilege," he said.
"We end up spending—and I think the secretary knows this—far more per capita on health care than any other major country, and our outcomes, health-care outcomes are not necessarily that good," he added.
Sanders' embrace of a single-payer system—also widely backed by the American public—earned him the endorsement of the National Nurses United (NNU), the nation's largest organization of nurses. NNU Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro said in August that his " issues align with nurses from top to bottom," including his "insist[ance] that healthcare for everyone is a right not a privilege."
In a statement released Wednesday, the NNU condemned Clinton's attack on single-payer.
"While the Affordable Care Act corrected some of the worst injustices in our insurance, profit-based healthcare system, the work of healthcare reform is far from done," stated NNU Co-President Jean Ross. "Today, 33 million Americans remain uninsured. Tens of millions more remain uninsured, facing bankruptcy due to unpayable medical bills or the choice of getting the care they need or paying for food or housing for their families."
"The only fix for our broken system once and for all is the prescription Bernie Sanders has so eloquently presented—joining the rest of the world by expanding and updating Medicare to cover every one," Ross said.
John Geyman, a doctor with the Physicians for a National Health Program, wrote in September that a single-payer system "would bring our entire population more protection against the costs of healthcare, at a lower cost than we now pay, with more efficiency and fairness, while eliminating today’s narrow networks that restrict our choice of physicians, other health professionals, and hospitals. Opponents who decry its costs are distorting the issue as they try to perpetuate profit-driven markets at the expense of patients, their families, and taxpayers."
Thursday, November 26, 2015
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders' Bid!
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders' Bid!: Lagging behind Clinton in 2016 bid, Sanders boosts staff, spending Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is boosting the size...
The Bottom Line on Sanders' Bid!
Lagging behind Clinton in 2016 bid, Sanders boosts staff, spending
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is boosting the size of his campaign staff and increasing state budgets in his challenge against the frontrunner for the party's nomination, Hillary Clinton.
Clinton has capitalized on a series of strong debate performances, and she received wide praise for enduring 11 hours of questioning during an October congressional hearing about her handling of the attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi in 2012. As a former secretary of State, she is seen as the strongest candidate to handle matters of international consequence.
The recent attacks in Paris are helping her in the Democratic primary race, said Democratic pollster Tom Jensen of the firm Public Policy Polling.
"Eighty percent trust her most on national security," Jensen said.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is boosting the size of his campaign staff and increasing state budgets in his challenge against the frontrunner for the party's nomination, Hillary Clinton.
Over the past six weeks, Clinton widened her lead over Sanders in opinion polls both nationally and in early states in the nominating process for the 2016 presidential election. She now leads Sanders by 20 points nationally, with the support of 54 percent of Democrats versus 34 percent for the U.S. senator from Vermont, according to the most recent Reuters/Ipsos polling.
Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver told Reuters that the campaign rewrote its budgets last week, doubling them to add more staff in each of the states holding nominating contests on March 1.
A dozen states hold votes that day and award delegates on a proportional basis rather than awarding all to the winner, so Weaver said the campaign calculated that it is important to compete hard in all of them rather than skip states where Sanders may not perform as well as Clinton.
Weaver said the campaign has also begun adding two dozen additional paid field staffers in the first contest in Iowa, which holds caucuses on February 1.Clinton has capitalized on a series of strong debate performances, and she received wide praise for enduring 11 hours of questioning during an October congressional hearing about her handling of the attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi in 2012. As a former secretary of State, she is seen as the strongest candidate to handle matters of international consequence.
The recent attacks in Paris are helping her in the Democratic primary race, said Democratic pollster Tom Jensen of the firm Public Policy Polling.
"Eighty percent trust her most on national security," Jensen said.
Even as the national conversation is moving toward those issues, Weaver said other metrics show Sanders is on the rise in the Democratic primary electorate, especially among voters who care about economic issues. In a Quinnipiac poll of Iowa Democrats released on Wednesday, 47 percent said they trusted Sanders most to handle the economy compared to 42 percent for Clinton.
"I think we're getting a second look," he said.
In an effort to try to erase Clinton's hefty lead with Latino voters, the Sanders campaign has begun airing Spanish language radio ads and delivering Spanish language mailings to Democratic voters in Nevada.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Rapper's Endoresment!
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Rapper's Endorsement!: Sanders and rapper Killer Mike a 'lethal' combo Bernie Sanders' rally in Atlanta got off to a flying start Monday when home...
The Bottom Line on Rapper's Endorsement!
Sanders and rapper Killer Mike a 'lethal' combo
Bernie Sanders' rally in Atlanta got off to a flying start Monday when hometown rapper Killer Mike took the stage to offer a passionate welcome to the Vermont senator.
"I'm talking about a revolutionary," the hip hop star and activist told supporters. "In my heart of hearts, I truly believe that Sen. Bernie Sanders is the right man to lead this country."
Killer Mike, who headlines "Run the Jewels" along with rapper and producer El-P, has backed Sanders for months, first offering the candidate his blessing in late June.
"Make sure that wherever you go, you take the name, the ideas, the philosophies and the ideology of Bernie Sanders and you make sure when you leave they are on fire, because they have 'felt the bern,'" he said on Monday, channeling the campaign catchphrase.
Then, quoting from his own song "Untitled," Killer Mike, whose given name is Michael Render, delivered a rousing introduction.
"I don't trust the Church and I don't trust the government, a Democrat or Republican, a pope or a bishop or those other men," he said, "but after spending five hours tonight -- after spending five hours with someone who has spent the last 50 years radically fighting for your rights in mind -- I can tell you that I am very proud tonight to announce the next president of the United States, Sen. Bernie Sanders!"
Earlier in the day, Killer Mike gave Sanders a taste of the town, taking the candidate out for some soul food at the Busy Bee diner. He later retweeted a fan's tribute to their memorable meal.
Sanders, who traveled to Georgia from South Carolina, where he spent Sunday on the church circuit, is trying to win over black voters in the region. Both he and Killer Mike invoked Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in their remarks, Mike saying he came around to Sanders after the senator promised to restore the Voting Rights Act. Sanders met with King's daughter Bernice earlier in the day.
Monday, November 23, 2015
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Ending ISIS...a Sanders Preside...
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Ending ISIS...a Sanders Preside...: The Only Way to Destroy ISIS Is With a Bernie Sanders Presidency Bernie Sanders says "I'll be damned" if the U.S. leads t...
The Bottom Line on Ending ISIS...a Sanders Presidency!
The Only Way to Destroy ISIS Is With a Bernie Sanders Presidency
Bernie Sanders says "I'll be damned" if the U.S. leads the fight against ISIS and Americans are sent back to never-ending quagmires. I explain in this YouTube segment that only Bernie Sanders, not Clinton or Trump, will refrain from sending more Americans back to failed counterinsurgency wars in the Middle East. Because of his work as chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, Sanders witnessed how the perpetual wars espoused by Bush, and Democrats like Clinton, continue to affect American soldier and their families. For this reason, he recently won the Congressional Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
In addition, Sanders understands how ISIS and other groups wage war. The primary goal of groups like ISIS is to lure America into asymmetric wars that mitigate our military advantages; submarines and nuclear weapons can't defeat IEDs or insurgents hiding in apartment buildings. The willingness of Bernie Sanders to move beyond the traditional American paradigm of continual war, in the hopes of ending continual terror, is why Sanders has the right formula to defeat ISIS.
After the horrific attacks in Paris, Sanders explained that "the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations." While Hillary Clinton echoed the same talking points (in a slightly less bellicose tone) as Trump, Carson, and Republicans, Sanders focused on long term strategy.
Bernie Sanders is also the only presidential candidate to blast Saudi Arabia for suggesting U.S. troops against ISIS and states, "With the third largest military budget in the world and an army far larger than ISIS, the Saudi government must accept its full responsibility for stability in their own region of the world." Focusing the responsibility of destroying ISIS upon Saudi Arabia is the right thing to do, especially since American wars have resulted in numerous unintended consequences.
Also, Middle Eastern terrorist groups feed upon our duplicity; Fox News blames Islam, yet we've made Saudi Arabia the largest importer of weapons in the world.
Yet, both Clinton and Trump advocate the U.S. accelerate its current strategy against ISIS and ignore the teachings of previous failed wars.
Perhaps Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and others who advocate America leads the fight against ISIS should read General Daniel Bolger's landmark book Why We Lost. According to The Washington Post in a review of Why We Lost, General Bolger "contends that the U.S. military is suited for rapid and conventional wars of the Desert Storm variety, not for long wars of insurgency." While Clinton is more nuanced in her strategy to defeat ISIS, the core of her advocacy rests in the same GOP rhetoric heard from Trump and others; America must lead the fight against terror at all costs.
However, we've spent close to fifteen years leading the charge against terror.
Have our efforts resulted in a safer world?
Regarding major foreign policy decisions associated with Hillary Clinton and hawks in both parties, the Iraq War resulted in the creation of ISIS, while the Libyan civil war (that erupted after Clinton's decision to bomb Libya) has resulted in a safe haven for ISIS. As stated in a recent New Republic article, Benghazi Won't Stick to Hillary Clinton, But the Disastrous Libyan Intervention Should.
When Hillary Clinton recently unveiled her strategy to defeat ISIS at the Council on Foreign Relations, she conveniently failed to mention the consequences of her Iraq vote. As stated by the Council on Foreign Relations, "Zarqawi's successors rebranded AQI as the Islamic State of Iraq and later, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)... reflecting broadened ambitions as the 2011 uprising in Syria created opportunities for AQI to expand." Al Qaeda in Iraq was "rebranded" ISIS, and while Hillary Clinton's supporters simply point out that she's called her vote a "mistake" (as if this warped logic sufficiently justifies future decisions in the Oval Office), it's clear that our invasion of Iraq resulted in a great many unintended consequences.
It's these unintended consequences that a Sanders presidency will avoid, and during both Democratic debates, only Bernie Sanders mentioned the impact of war upon our veterans and country. Thus far, 4,494 Americans have died in Iraq and 32,223 Americans have been wounded in the same country President Obama recently sent more Americans to help Iraqis fight ISIS.
As for Afghanistan, President Obama decided to prolong the war that already resulted in 2,372 Americans dead and 17,674 wounded. Rebecca Ruiz of Forbes explains the magnitude of both conflicts in a piece titled A Million Veterans Injured In Iraq, Afghanistan Wars.
Unfortunately, the sacrifice of America's warriors and their families has not resulted in a decrease in global terror groups; Paris is just one of many examples.
So what have we learned from both wars?
On October 27, 2015, a Washington Post headline read Obama weighs moving U.S. troops closer to front lines in Syria, Iraq. While critics question the price tag of better education and healthcare programs attributed to Bernie Sanders, these naysayers remain silent about war. We've already spent 2.4 billion fighting against ISIS, and now Clinton and Trump both want to increase spending and resources.
Why doesn't Clinton or Trump mention the $2.4 billion already spent fighting ISIS?
While Clinton and others have called for the ouster of Assad in Syria, nobody has explained who will replace Assad once he's gone, and nobody has explained why we've sent Americans to Syria, even though America has recently scrapped a $500 million program to arm the Syrian rebels. Like Iraq with Saddam, Clinton continues to ignore the lessons from bombing Libya and its civil war after ousting Gaddafi.
Sadly, we just ended a half billion dollar program to arm the Syrian rebels, proving that Hillary Clinton's advocacy of this endeavor is yet another failed foreign policy objective, along with Iraq and the bombing of Libya.
As for Clinton's belief in America's leadership against ISIS, it's interesting that even though ISIS is linked to Saudi Arabia, the Clinton Foundation accepted $10-$25 million from the Saudis. As Secretary of State, there are also questions of weapons deals linked to Clinton towards Saudi Arabia. What's even more bizarre is that according to a CBS News article titled WikiLeaks: Saudis Largest Source of Terror Funds, Clinton has acknowledged Saudi Arabia's link to funding terrorism:
Therefore, why would Clinton's foundation accept money from a country she believed "remains a critical financial support base for al Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups"?
Others agree with Clinton's assessment. The Guardian's Patrick Cockburn explains Saudi Arabia's link to ISIS in a piece titled Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country. Former MI6 agent Alistair Crooke also explains the Saudi/ISIS link in a Huffington Post piece titled You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia.
Again, why would Clinton's foundation accept money from a country she linked (in a State memo) to the terrorist groups we're fighting?
You'll never hear the word "quagmire" from Clinton or Trump, especially since neoconservatives could easily influence both (and form an alliance with Clinton) in the White House. Instead, Clinton will defend her hawkish record, as she did during the latest debate, while Sanders will rightfully state that Americans shouldn't continue to be sent to "quagmires in the Middle East." In terms of overall strategy, only Bernie Sanders demands that Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries lead the fight against ISIS. It's this road map that will defeat ISIS, not the lofty rhetoric of Clinton or diatribes from Trump. With Bernie Sanders as president, America won't be lured into perpetual conflict by an enemy that wants us to fight endless counterinsurgency wars.
Bernie Sanders says "I'll be damned" if the U.S. leads the fight against ISIS and Americans are sent back to never-ending quagmires. I explain in this YouTube segment that only Bernie Sanders, not Clinton or Trump, will refrain from sending more Americans back to failed counterinsurgency wars in the Middle East. Because of his work as chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, Sanders witnessed how the perpetual wars espoused by Bush, and Democrats like Clinton, continue to affect American soldier and their families. For this reason, he recently won the Congressional Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
In addition, Sanders understands how ISIS and other groups wage war. The primary goal of groups like ISIS is to lure America into asymmetric wars that mitigate our military advantages; submarines and nuclear weapons can't defeat IEDs or insurgents hiding in apartment buildings. The willingness of Bernie Sanders to move beyond the traditional American paradigm of continual war, in the hopes of ending continual terror, is why Sanders has the right formula to defeat ISIS.
After the horrific attacks in Paris, Sanders explained that "the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations." While Hillary Clinton echoed the same talking points (in a slightly less bellicose tone) as Trump, Carson, and Republicans, Sanders focused on long term strategy.
Bernie Sanders is also the only presidential candidate to blast Saudi Arabia for suggesting U.S. troops against ISIS and states, "With the third largest military budget in the world and an army far larger than ISIS, the Saudi government must accept its full responsibility for stability in their own region of the world." Focusing the responsibility of destroying ISIS upon Saudi Arabia is the right thing to do, especially since American wars have resulted in numerous unintended consequences.
Also, Middle Eastern terrorist groups feed upon our duplicity; Fox News blames Islam, yet we've made Saudi Arabia the largest importer of weapons in the world.
Yet, both Clinton and Trump advocate the U.S. accelerate its current strategy against ISIS and ignore the teachings of previous failed wars.
Perhaps Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and others who advocate America leads the fight against ISIS should read General Daniel Bolger's landmark book Why We Lost. According to The Washington Post in a review of Why We Lost, General Bolger "contends that the U.S. military is suited for rapid and conventional wars of the Desert Storm variety, not for long wars of insurgency." While Clinton is more nuanced in her strategy to defeat ISIS, the core of her advocacy rests in the same GOP rhetoric heard from Trump and others; America must lead the fight against terror at all costs.
However, we've spent close to fifteen years leading the charge against terror.
Have our efforts resulted in a safer world?
Regarding major foreign policy decisions associated with Hillary Clinton and hawks in both parties, the Iraq War resulted in the creation of ISIS, while the Libyan civil war (that erupted after Clinton's decision to bomb Libya) has resulted in a safe haven for ISIS. As stated in a recent New Republic article, Benghazi Won't Stick to Hillary Clinton, But the Disastrous Libyan Intervention Should.
When Hillary Clinton recently unveiled her strategy to defeat ISIS at the Council on Foreign Relations, she conveniently failed to mention the consequences of her Iraq vote. As stated by the Council on Foreign Relations, "Zarqawi's successors rebranded AQI as the Islamic State of Iraq and later, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)... reflecting broadened ambitions as the 2011 uprising in Syria created opportunities for AQI to expand." Al Qaeda in Iraq was "rebranded" ISIS, and while Hillary Clinton's supporters simply point out that she's called her vote a "mistake" (as if this warped logic sufficiently justifies future decisions in the Oval Office), it's clear that our invasion of Iraq resulted in a great many unintended consequences.
It's these unintended consequences that a Sanders presidency will avoid, and during both Democratic debates, only Bernie Sanders mentioned the impact of war upon our veterans and country. Thus far, 4,494 Americans have died in Iraq and 32,223 Americans have been wounded in the same country President Obama recently sent more Americans to help Iraqis fight ISIS.
As for Afghanistan, President Obama decided to prolong the war that already resulted in 2,372 Americans dead and 17,674 wounded. Rebecca Ruiz of Forbes explains the magnitude of both conflicts in a piece titled A Million Veterans Injured In Iraq, Afghanistan Wars.
Unfortunately, the sacrifice of America's warriors and their families has not resulted in a decrease in global terror groups; Paris is just one of many examples.
So what have we learned from both wars?
On October 27, 2015, a Washington Post headline read Obama weighs moving U.S. troops closer to front lines in Syria, Iraq. While critics question the price tag of better education and healthcare programs attributed to Bernie Sanders, these naysayers remain silent about war. We've already spent 2.4 billion fighting against ISIS, and now Clinton and Trump both want to increase spending and resources.
Why doesn't Clinton or Trump mention the $2.4 billion already spent fighting ISIS?
While Clinton and others have called for the ouster of Assad in Syria, nobody has explained who will replace Assad once he's gone, and nobody has explained why we've sent Americans to Syria, even though America has recently scrapped a $500 million program to arm the Syrian rebels. Like Iraq with Saddam, Clinton continues to ignore the lessons from bombing Libya and its civil war after ousting Gaddafi.
Sadly, we just ended a half billion dollar program to arm the Syrian rebels, proving that Hillary Clinton's advocacy of this endeavor is yet another failed foreign policy objective, along with Iraq and the bombing of Libya.
As for Clinton's belief in America's leadership against ISIS, it's interesting that even though ISIS is linked to Saudi Arabia, the Clinton Foundation accepted $10-$25 million from the Saudis. As Secretary of State, there are also questions of weapons deals linked to Clinton towards Saudi Arabia. What's even more bizarre is that according to a CBS News article titled WikiLeaks: Saudis Largest Source of Terror Funds, Clinton has acknowledged Saudi Arabia's link to funding terrorism:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged U.S. diplomats to do more to stop the flow of money to Islamist militant groups from donors in Saudi Arabia.Although Clinton supporters will no doubt evade the logic of my argument and focus on ad hominem attacks, the fact remains that the Clinton Foundation accepted millions from Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi government, Clinton wrote, was reluctant to cut off money being sent to the Taliban in Afghanistan and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) in Pakistan.
"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," according to the memo signed by Clinton.
Therefore, why would Clinton's foundation accept money from a country she believed "remains a critical financial support base for al Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups"?
Others agree with Clinton's assessment. The Guardian's Patrick Cockburn explains Saudi Arabia's link to ISIS in a piece titled Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country. Former MI6 agent Alistair Crooke also explains the Saudi/ISIS link in a Huffington Post piece titled You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia.
Again, why would Clinton's foundation accept money from a country she linked (in a State memo) to the terrorist groups we're fighting?
You'll never hear the word "quagmire" from Clinton or Trump, especially since neoconservatives could easily influence both (and form an alliance with Clinton) in the White House. Instead, Clinton will defend her hawkish record, as she did during the latest debate, while Sanders will rightfully state that Americans shouldn't continue to be sent to "quagmires in the Middle East." In terms of overall strategy, only Bernie Sanders demands that Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries lead the fight against ISIS. It's this road map that will defeat ISIS, not the lofty rhetoric of Clinton or diatribes from Trump. With Bernie Sanders as president, America won't be lured into perpetual conflict by an enemy that wants us to fight endless counterinsurgency wars.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sander's Speech
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sander's Speech: The top 5 takeaways from Bernie Sanders' big speech Sen. Bernie Sanders gave one of the most important speeches of his presidential...
The Bottom Line on Sander's Speech
The top 5 takeaways from Bernie Sanders' big speech
Sen. Bernie Sanders gave one of the most important speeches of his presidential campaign in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, outlining his “democratic socialist ideals.”
Speaking at Georgetown University, the Democratic candidate battled perceptions his ideas are foreign or “radical” and framed his proposals as a modern version of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.
His remarks included much of his standard stump speech embedded in a broader narrative framework seeking to situate his policy pronouncements within a broader political vision and American historical context.
Sanders also discussed foreign policy in the wake of the Paris terror attacks that left 129 people dead last Friday.
Here are five key points from the address:
1. Sanders doesn’t think his ideas are radical.
A core issue for Sanders as he has mounted a surprisingly strong challenge to frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary has been electability and the question of whether voters can get comfortable with his unorthodox political identity. In his speech, Sanders attempted to argue his “democratic socialist” views are in line with American traditions and ideals.
Sanders repeatedly referred to F.D.R. and claimed his policies are similar and face similar opposition from the “ruling class.”
“He redefined the relationship of the federal government to the people of our nation. He combated cynicism, fear and despair. He reinvigorated democracy. He transformed our country,” Sanders said of Roosevelt. “And that is exactly what we have to do today. And by the way, almost everything he proposed, almost every program, every idea he introduced was called ‘socialist.’”
Sanders also invoked Martin Luther King Jr. and Pope Francis as he made his case.
In addition to arguing his ideas are not unprecedented within the country, Sanders pointed out that many of them are already in place abroad. When he discussed his plan for universal health insurance, Sanders noted that some people consider it “incredibly radical.” He pushed back against that characterization.
“This is not a radical idea. It is a conservative idea. It is an idea and a practice that exists in every other major country on Earth,” Sanders said.
2. Sanders thinks the system is rigged.
Fighting income inequality and pushing for campaign finance reform are the two cornerstones of Sanders’ platform.
In his speech, Sanders attempted to link these two things together and argued there is a “corrupt” and “rigged” political system that allows the incredibly wealthy and major corporations to solidify their position at the expense of the majority.
“The bottom line is that today in America, we not only have massive wealth and income inequality, but a power structure built around that inequality, which protects those who have the money,” Sanders said. “Today, a handful of super wealthy campaign contributors have enormous influence over the political process, while their lobbyists determine much of what goes on in Congress.“
3. Sanders doesn’t necessarily think this is a free country.
Sanders pointed to Roosevelt’s call for a “Second Bill of Rights” as he outlined his proposals. He noted Roosevelt believed “true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”
“In other words, real freedom must include economic security,” said Sanders. “That was Roosevelt’s vision 70 years ago. It is my vision today. It is a vision that we have not yet achieved, and it is time that we did.”
Sanders described a suite of policies that he said would give people a “living wage.” They included universal health coverage, free tuition at public colleges, paid sick and family leave, raising the minimum wage to $15 and prison reform. He also called for a “full-employment economy” and vowed to generate jobs by rebuilding our “crumbling infrastructure.”
“So, the next time that you hear me attacked as a socialist — like tomorrow,” Sanders said, provoking laughs from the audience, “remember this: I don’t believe government should take over, you know, the grocery store down the street. But I do believe that the middle class and the working class of this country, who produce the wealth of this country, deserve a decent standard of living.”
4. Sanders believes America has made serious foreign policy mistakes.
The last part of Sanders’ speech was focused on foreign policy. In it, he vowed not to remake “the failed foreign policy decisions of the past.”
“I will never send our sons and daughters to war under false pretense or pretenses about dubious battles with no end in sight,” Sanders declared.
Sanders went on to reiterate his longstanding opinion that the Iraq War, which Clinton voted for as a member of the U.S. Senate, was one of these mistakes.
“Unilateral military action should be a last resort, not a first resort,” he said. “Ill-conceived military decisions such as the invasion of Iraq can wreak far-reaching devastation and destabilization over regions for decades.”
Sanders has faced questions about his relative lack of foreign policy experience compared to Clinton. By making the argument our past policies have failed, he seems poised to use Clinton’s experience as a former senator and secretary of state against her.
5. The Bernie doctrine
Sanders also detailed his plan to combat the jihadist group Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS.
He outlined a multilateral approach to military action, calling for the creation of “a new organization like NATO to confront the security threats of the 21st century.” He also argued America should take a supporting role in the fight against ISIS and let Muslim nations lead the effort.
“The fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam,” Sanders said. “Countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations with the strong support of their global partners.”
Thursday, November 19, 2015
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders PAC
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders PAC: Bernie Sanders backed by $570,000 from union super PAC A super PAC tied to a union supporting Bernie Sanders has spent almost $570,000 t...
The Bottom Line on Sanders PAC
Bernie Sanders backed by $570,000 from union super PAC
A super PAC tied to a union supporting Bernie Sanders has spent almost $570,000 to help his presidential run, according the Sunlight Foundation and representatives from the group, spending that contradicts some of what the Vermont senator has said in the past about campaign finance reform.
A super PAC tied to a union supporting Bernie Sanders has spent almost $570,000 to help his presidential run, according the Sunlight Foundation and representatives from the group, spending that contradicts some of what the Vermont senator has said in the past about campaign finance reform.
National Nurses United For Patient Protection, a independent expenditure group, or super PAC, has spent $569,000 backing Sanders. National Nurses United, the union associated with the group, endorsed Sanders in August, the first national union to do so, and has since been seen supporting him at events across the country.
The backing offers proof that it will be difficult for Sanders to stick to a no-super PAC pledge.
One of the most well-received lines in Sanders' stump speech is when he blasts super PACs and suggests that they have a corrupting influence on the political system. Many of his supporters say one reason they like him is because of his view on super PACs, which are not subject to campaign finance limits.
"You are looking at the non-billionaire major candidate for president who does not have a super PAC," he told an audience in Boulder last month.
"I don't have a super PAC," he told reporters in Washington over the summer. "I am not going to have a super PAC."
Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said the senator is "honored" to have the union's support. "They understand firsthand the need for health care reform in this country and which candidate as president would actually support single-payer health care for all and not attack it."
Weaver said that Sanders's campaign is not connected to the super PAC.
"Unlike others, we have not started a super PAC, are not coordinating with a super PAC, and we have not fundraised for a super PAC," Weaver said. "We stand by our position that we do not want the help of a super PAC."
Most of the group's spending has been on printing pro-Sanders literature and online and print advertising.
Michael Lighty, the nurses union political director, argued on Wednesday that the independent expenditure group -- which is often referred to as a super PAC -- was not one.
"This is not a super PAC. It is really a different animal," Lighty said. "This PAC predates the Sanders campaign. It was a PAC set up originally under the pre-Citizen United rules, so it is not a super PAC."
But according to the Federal Election Commission, that isn't the case. An FEC spokesman told CNN on Wednesday that National Nurses United For Patient Protection is, in fact, a super PAC, despite being established in 2009, before the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that led to the proliferation of super PACs.
National Nurses United super PAC is different than those supporting other candidates, like Priorities USA, a PAC backing Hillary Clinton, and Right to Rise, a group backing Jeb Bush. Both of those organizations have raised millions of dollars with the blessing of their respective candidates and are generally run by former aides.
The nurses super PAC is funded by union members and does not coordinate with Sanders, nor does Sanders raise money for the group. The groups has also been active in past, spending $2.4 million in 2014 and $500,000 in 2012.
"Our organization exists to protect nurses and patients. No candidate has better amplified the critical issues nurses have voiced for many years than Bernie Sanders," Deborah Burger, co-president of National Nurses United, told CNN in a statement. "We are proud to support Bernie Sanders and will continue to do so."
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on a Sanders Interview!
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on a Sanders Interview!: Bernie Sanders on Paris, IS, refugees and more In an interview with Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric on “Yahoo News Live,” Democrat...
The Bottom Line on a Sanders Interview!
Bernie Sanders on Paris, IS, refugees and more
In an interview with Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric on “Yahoo News Live,” Democratic presidential candidate Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders addressed questions about the blowback to accepting Syrian refugees in the United States in the wake of the Paris attacks, his foreign policy experience, the differences between him and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and controversy surrounding if and when he will give a planned speech on democratic socialism.
When asked about more than half of the nation’s governors saying they will not accept any refugees from Syria, Senator Sanders told Couric: “What we have got to be is not just strong and tough, but we have got to be smart.” Sanders continued: “I think in terms of the refugees, clearly it goes without saying that any refugee coming into this country has got to be vetted, but to simply say that when hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing Syria, are fleeing Afghanistan, that we or Europe or the Gulf region will turn our backs on those people, I don’t think that’s what America is about.”
On any concerns about the shift in focus on the campaign trail regarding foreign policy in the wake of the Paris attacks, Senator Sanders said: “Of course, focusing on ISIS is enormously important, and we have got to do that, but I disagree with people who say, ‘Oh, we can’t talk about the growing gap between the rich and the poor or the fact that we have a corrupt campaign finance system. We’re not going to talk about that.’ I don’t agree with that.”
Couric also asked Sanders if we would be better off had Saddam Hussein remained in power. He replied: “Saddam Hussein was a brutal, disgusting tyrant, and the effort would’ve been how do you get rid of him? But to destabilize that region the way we did, to bring about that chaos and the incredible cost to us in terms of human life and trillions of dollars of expenditure, yes, we should not have undertaken that invasion.”
When asked to respond to those who say he’s not that strong on foreign policy, he told Couric: “Oh, really? Well, compared to whom? Which candidate voted [for] the biggest foreign policy blunder in the modern history of America, and let me give you a hint: It wasn’t Bernie Sanders. It was Hillary Clinton.”
He continued, “True, I was not a secretary of state for four years, I concede that. But I think if you check my record and the votes I have cast and what I have said, you’ll find that, in fact, we do have a lot of credibility in many foreign policy areas.”
When asked if he was offended by Hillary Clinton’s comments invoking 9/11 in the Democratic debate when discussing Wall Street donors, Sanders said, “I wouldn’t use the word ‘offensive.’ I found them a little bit silly and a little bit absurd.”
On whether or not he should be more aggressive in his campaign against Clinton, particularly around the issue of her character, as some have suggested: “What media likes is food fight … and I think that’s sad.”
Finally, Sanders disputed any debate within his campaign about the risks associated with giving a planned speech about democratic socialism. “I said I would, and if I said I would, I will.” When pressed again: “As soon as the schedule allows it, but it will be in a reasonably short period of time, and I look forward very much to doing that.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)