Quantcast
Channel: BuzzFeed News
Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live

Why New Yorkers Should Stop Whining About Bill De Blasio's Snow Removal Fail

$
0
0

Does the backlash against New York City’s mayor show a city gone soft under the snow?

Handout / Reuters

New York City's snow has turned into the kind of icy chunks that make for stinging snowballs. Mayor Bill de Blasio may be dreaming about hurling a few at his new constituents.

Some are bellyaching about an alleged "botched" snow removal earlier this week, when Sanitation Department snowplows weren't quick or effective enough, especially on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

"Bloomberg isn't mayor anymore," one woman shopping for groceries on Tuesday night at an upscale market groused to the New York Times. "So I guess the Upper East Side isn't getting plowed anymore. Maybe he is doing Brooklyn and Queens."

"Mayor de Blasio, two words: 'John Lindsay,'" added NBC weatherman Al Roker. He was referring to the former mayor, whose administration was faulted for not responding quickly enough to a 1969 blizzard that killed 42 people, half of them in Queens.

No matter where you live, as long as it snows, everyone has an opinion about how well the streets are plowed. It's easy to gauge success: You look out at your street, and then the street next to yours. If there is more white stuff on yours, you're getting screwed. And in the absence of real pestilence, storms are our modern-day missions. The second a snowflake lands, TV newscasts go into wall-to-wall snow coverage.

Snow removal is also an immediate test of the competency of elected officials, hence the rush for politicians to appear before the cameras in jeans and official windbreakers, reading all the stats about plows dispatched, tons of salt spread, and overtime hours accrued. When President Obama met with mayors Thursday, he opened with this piece of advice: "Make sure you are shovelling the snow," according to a pool report.

Some places even equip plows with GPS, so we can compare neighborhood cleanups. That's precisely what happened on the Upper East Side — an online map showed it getting the short end of the snowplow.

Here's the thing, though. According to the Sanitation Department, the GPS system on one of the salt spreaders malfunctioned, giving the impression one neighborhood — an affluent area that de Blasio lost in last year's election — was deliberately left to suffocate under snow. It is true that plows couldn't make rounds quick enough. That's because the snowstorm exacerbated the typical New York evening rush. And the NYPD pulled traffic agents because it was too dangerous to leave them out.

No deaths are attributed to this storm. Some people fell because it was slippery. Unplowed streets looked slushy.

This was an inconvenience, not Stalingrad.

Still, some in the press made it seem like de Blasio was meting out snow judgment from a bunker deep below his Park Slope row house: plows for streets where fellow socialists recycle their cooking oil; zippo for those who read the Wall Street Journal. (Funny, I didn't hear grumbling about snowy streets from those other places that voted for Joe Lhota, de Blasio's opponent in November.)

And the kvetching wasn't limited to those who thought their streets weren't squeaky snow-free. Some moaned that the mayor didn't close schools, because it was too cold. (It was about 13 degrees on Wednesday.)

De Blasio isn't telling people to knock it off. While not admitting fault, he says more could have been done on the Upper East Side.

"When I see that we're not performing up to the standard that we should on behalf of our people, I'm going to correct it right away," he told reporters at an unrelated event in Washington, D.C., Thursday.

That seems like a stab at defusing a story, meritless or not. Unlike his predecessor Michael Bloomberg, this mayor is willing to eat some crow. (Don't be surprised if he lets go of the current sanitation commissioner, a Bloomberg holdover.)

Bloomberg was also the one who put GPS systems in snowplows and salt spreaders; the 108th mayor loved data. But with snowplow GPS, there's an implication that clearing a storm is as simple as tracing a line across every street. Fighting back a storm isn't simply a matter of manpower. It's a combination of science, art, and luck. The storm arrived earlier than expected Tuesday. But in case you didn't notice, it's complicated when snowplows have to jockey for tight space with cars.

While de Blasio is being diplomatic, let me fill in the blanks of what could be his thought bubble: Have we all gone soft?

There's talk storms now are fiercer and more frequent than before. But this caterwauling seems to fit into a troubling trend. People want perfection, at zero cost, with no sacrifice. Are flaps like these just another chance for people across the world to again look at us with bemusement?


The Republican Party Used To Defend NSA Spying

$
0
0

A huge turnaround.

In a surprising turnaround, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution at their winter meeting on Friday that renounced the "unconstitutional" spying of the National Security Agency.

Here's a PDF of the full resolution:

In 2006, however, when the New York Times revealed warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration through the NSA, the Republican National Committee attacked both Democrats who were against it and a judge who ruled it unconstitutional.

In 2006, however, when the New York Times revealed warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration through the NSA, the Republican National Committee attacked both Democrats who were against it and a judge who ruled it unconstitutional.

web.archive.org

web.archive.org


View Entire List ›

Republicans Say They Need To Stand Up To Democrats'"Deceptive War On Women Rhetoric"

$
0
0

The Republican National Committee also called for an investigation into the NSA’s “unconstitutional surveillance” program.

Nbc Newswire / Reuters

WASHINGTON — At its winter meeting Friday, the Republican National Committee approved several resolutions in the lead up to the 2014 and 2016 elections, including one measure calling for an investigation into the National Security Agency's spying programs.

Among the 11 resolutions was also a measure to shore up the GOP's stance against abortion and it's intolerance for pro-life Republicans who "stay silent" when Democrats accuse them of having a "war on women."

The NSA resolution says the mass collection of "personal data" by the agency violates the Fourth Amendment. It calls for a special committee to investigate the extent of the spying and "hold accountable those public officials who are found to be responsible for this unconstitutional surveillance."

The resolution, approved by a voice vote and without a single objection, is a break from how the party has responded to surveillance programs in the past. When it was revealed the NSA was conducting similar activities during the Bush presidency, the RNC resolved to support the NSA.

"The Republican National Committee condemns the Democrats' deceptive 'war on women' rhetoric," the pro-life resolution reads. "The Republican National Committee will not support the strategy of Republican pro-life candidates staying silent in the face of such deceptive rhetoric."

The pro-life resolution was not a turnaround, but did shore up the party's principles just a day after former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee came under fire for comments about women who get birth control from "Uncle Sugar" because they "cannot control their libido."

Huckabee's comments did not go unheard, as RNC chairman Reince Preibus warned members to choose their words wisely in a speech Friday morning.

"I've said many times before that the policies and principles of our party are sound," Preibus said. "However, as we look to grow the ranks of our party, we must all be very conscious of the tone and choice of words we use to communicate those policies effectively."

Read all the GOP resolutions here:


View Entire List ›

L.A. Democrat Purchased As Much As $1.1 Million In Oil And Gas Stocks In 2010

$
0
0

Bobby Shriver’s campaign said Tuesday the candidate’s stocks were inherited, but records show he purchased stock in 11 oil and gas companies in 2010. “Many large pension funds have many of these stocks we’re talking about. Millions of Californians have investments in all kinds of stocks,” a Shriver campaign advisor said.

Shriver campaign

LOS ANGELES — Bobby Shriver, a Democratic candidate for Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and nephew of President John F. Kennedy, purchased stock in 11 oil and gas companies in 2010, records show, despite earlier statements from the campaign that he had inherited his portfolio.

Shriver's campaign dismissed his ownership of oil and tobacco stocks Tuesday as family investments that "have been in the family for years that date back to his grandfather." However, according to a statement of economic interests filed with the Santa Monica office of the city clerk in 2011, Shriver purchased up to $1.1 million of stock in 11 oil, gas, pipeline, offshore drilling or oilfield services companies in 2010.

"It's clear to me he was making a conscious decision to invest in oil and tobacco when he easily could have sold the stocks," Parke Skelton, a consultant for Sheila Kuehl, a former state legislator also running for the Supervisor seat, told BuzzFeed. "There's some level of hypocrisy he's going to have to explain."

Shriver touted his record on environmental issues during his campaign announcement Tuesday. He was chairman of the California State Park and Recreation Commission from 2001 to 2008, and as Santa Monica mayor, he pushed for Measure V, which raised property taxes to pay for runoff water quality improvements.

The Shriver campaign backtracked Thursday, and said the candidate's investments were not solely made up of inherited stocks, and included a mix of personal picks and stocks chosen by the managers of his funds and trusts. Shriver told the Los Angeles Times Tuesday the only stocks he selected himself were Starbucks, Berkshire Hathaway, and Harley-Davidson.

"There's a few stocks he made a personal decision about, a few were in his existing portfolio, and a few were bought by his portfolio manager," Bill Carrick, a Shriver campaign advisor said. "Many large pension funds have many of these stocks we're talking about. Millions of Californians have investments in all kinds of stocks."

"Having a financial background which Bobby has is an asset for somebody in the County Board of Supervisors with the size of the budget they have," he said.

Financial records also show Shriver is a limited partner in, and receives royalties from, Arctic Royalty Limited Partnership, which deals in oil and gas. According to a 2013 disclosure form filed by Shriver's cousin Caroline Kennedy, Arctic Royalty Limited Partnerships has 143 oil and gas lease site listings throughout Texas and Oklahoma. Unlike corporations, royalty trusts are not subject to corporate or income tax.

"He didn't just own stock in oil and gas companies. He's part owner of two," said Skelton. "It's one thing to go out and buy Occidental (Petroleum), it's another thing to be a part of a tax dodger that's moving money to tax havens."

Public records show in 2011, Shriver made between $10,000 and $100,000 from Arctic Royalty Limited Partnerships.

Shriver is running for the third district seat of the five-person Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the governing body of Los Angeles County. The third district is home to more than 2 million people and stretches from the coast to Glendale and includes Santa Monica, Malibu, Beverly Hills, Calabasas and portions of both Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley. Current third district member Zev Yaroslavsky is leaving due to term limits.

Supreme Court Exempts Religious Nonprofits From Contraception Mandate Paperwork During Appeal

$
0
0

A long-awaited order from the court for several groups seeking to stop the provision from going into effect.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court extended an injunction in place since Dec. 31 preventing several religious nonprofit organizations from needing to fill out paperwork in order to be exempted from the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate.

The case, brought by a group of Catholic nuns, challenges the constitutionality of a federal requirement that religious nonprofits with religious objections to the contraception mandate fill out what the Justice Department described in court filings as a "self-certification."

In order to receive the benefits of the injunction, the Friday court order detailed, however, that applicants must "inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that they are non-profit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services."

As University of California–Irvine law professor Rick Hasen wrote, "So what looks like a victory against having to do a symbolic act may really be a defeat in having to do the nearly identical symbolic act." Gabriel Malor, however, countered that "the Supreme Court order specifically says they do not have to fill out or provide [the self-certification] to their third-party administrator," which is the step that "trigger[s]" the possibility of the contraception coverage objected to by Little Sisters.

that the removal of the requirement that copies of the original certification be sent to third-party administrators represented the so-called "victory" sought by Little Sisters.

The unsigned order of the court "should not be construed as an expression of the Court's views on the merits" of the case, currently on appeal before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, she referred the request to the entire court. She had issued a temporary injunction on Dec. 31 while considering the nuns' request for an injunction during the appeal. There were no filed dissents to the continued injunction.

[This article was updated with commentary on the impact of the decision.]


View Entire List ›

Georgia Republican Congressman Surprised Middle Eastern Man Wasn't Given Pat Down At Airport

$
0
0

Georgia Republican Rep. Paul Broun, speaking to Georgia College Republicans Wednesday, told a quick story about TSA agents choosing to let a “Middle Eastern” man go “right through” airport security.

View Video ›

Same-Sex Couple Takes Oklahoma Marriage Case To Federal Appeals Court

$
0
0

Although the focus earlier this month was on a federal court ruling for marriage equality in Oklahoma, a couple is appealing a part of the ruling that tossed out their challenge seeking recognition of their California marriage in Oklahoma.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The focus earlier this month in Oklahoma was on a federal trial court judge's ruling for marriage equality there, but now a couple has appealed another part of the ruling, in which the judge tossed out a same-sex couple's challenge seeking recognition of their California marriage in Oklahoma.

Lawyers for that same-sex couple announced Friday that they are appealing the ruling to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Their part of the lawsuit asked a court to declare that neither an Oklahoma amendment nor federal law can permit Oklahoma to refuse to recognize their California marriage.

U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern ruled Jan. 14 in a longstanding marriage case that a same-sex couple — Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin — could not be prevented from marrying in Oklahoma by an Oklahoma amendment banning such marriages, a ruling previously appealed by Tulsa County Clerk Sally Howe Smith.

In the same ruling, as reported by BuzzFeed at the time, Kern also rejected the claims of a second couple — Susan Barton and Gay Phillips — finding that the couple who married in California lacked standing, or legal authority, to challenge the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which purports to allow states not to recognize same-sex couples' marriages entered into in other jurisdictions.

As to the Oklahoma amendment provision, which prohibits Oklahoma from recognizing same-sex couples' marriages performed elsewhere, Kern also found the couple lacked standing. This is so, he wrote, because the "couple has not taken any steps to obtain recognition and has not shown that [Tulsa County Clerk] Smith is the proper official" from whom they would obtain such recognition.

On Friday, the lawyer for Barton and Phillips — who also represents the other couple — filed a notice with Kern's court that it is appealing his decision "as to Part B of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment" to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawyer for the couple, Don Holladay, told BuzzFeed Friday afternoon that "the appeal is solely as to the Court's standing ruling on Part B of the Oklahoma Amendment" and does not include the DOMA portion of the ruling.

Howe earlier began her appeal of the ruling as to Bishop and Baldwin, in which Kern had found that the provision of the Oklahoma amendment banning Oklahoma from granting same-sex couples marriage licenses was unconstitutional.

Read the notice:

Read the notice:

[Correction: An earlier version of this article did not reflect the Tulsa County Clerk's previously filed notice of appeal in this case.]


View Entire List ›

Ukraine Visa Bans Said To Include Top Government Officials

$
0
0

The Obama Administration responds to escalating official violence in Kiev.

Gleb Garanich / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Ukraine's interior minister and top national security official are among those who have been slapped with a U.S. visa ban in the wake of the country's deteriorating political situation, Russian and Ukranian media are reporting.

The Russian newspaper Izvestia reported that a Ukrainian member of parliament said that the list of banned officials includes the Minister of the Interior, Vitaly Zakharchenko, as well as the Secretary of National Security, Andriy Kluyev.

Voice of America journalist Myroslava Gongadze reported on her Facebook page that two Party of Regions MPs, Volodymyr Oliynyk and Olena Bondarenko, had also been banned. Bondarenko has denied the ban, calling it "rumors." Oliynyk, who is one of the authors of the recent law that seeks to curb protests, told a Ukrainian outlet that "I do not have information about sanctions against me from the side of the US."

Two other sources close to the situation — one Ukranian and one American — said they had been told the list of visa bans, which the State Department does not typically make public, includes Prosecutor General Viktor Pshonka, President Viktor Yanukovych's legal adviser Andriy Portnov, and Justice Minister Olena Lukash.

The U.S. announced a new round of visa bans this week after violence in Kiev left at least four protesters dead. Mass street protests have sprung up in Ukraine after Yanukovych's decision to reject an effort to move closer to the European Union, and to turn closer to Russia instead, accepting a $15 billion last-minute Russian bailout to stave off default.

Spokespeople for the White House and the State Department declined to confirm the names on the list.

A spokeswoman for the State Department directed BuzzFeed to deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf's comments in Wednesday's press briefing:

Well, we obviously – we do have broad authority to revoke visas. As we said, these were several officials implicated in violence against peaceful protestors. For privacy reasons, I can't go into who they were. Obviously, we don't always talk about specifics on visas, but if information comes to light indicating that a visa holder may be inadmissible to the U.S. or otherwise ineligible, we do have a fairly broad authority to revoke those visas.

"In response to actions taken against protestors on the Maidan in November and December of last year, the U.S. Embassy has revoked the visas of several Ukrainians who were linked to the violence," reads a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev from Wednesday. "Because visa records are confidential under U.S. law, we cannot comment on individual cases. We would like to underscore that the Department of State has broad authority to revoke visas based on information indicating that a visa holder may be inadmissible to the United States, and we are considering further action against those responsible for the current violence."

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who visited Kiev to show his support for the protests in December and has stridently called for more U.S. action against the Yanukovych government, declined to confirm the names, but said, "the list is fairly extensive and unless something changes I would not be surprised if the Congress and the administration take some action." Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Bob Menendez (D-NJ) said last week that Congress would take further action on sanctions on its own if the White House and State Department did not move forward.

The U.S. has also floated the idea of taking "additional steps" beyond visa bans.

"But we will continue to consider additional steps, as I said, including sanctions, in response to the use of violence," Harf said in the briefing on Wednesday. "We urge — continue to urge President Yanukovych and his government to protect the democratic rights of all Ukrainians, including the right to peaceful protest. And if we have to take additional steps, we will."


Mitt Romney Slow Jams The News With Jimmy Fallon

$
0
0

“Aw yeah, President Obama looked the American people up and down and said, ‘I’d tap that.’”

"Jimmy, I'm not running again," the former presidential candidate said. "There are a lot of great candidates for 2016 and I'll be supporting the Republican nominee 100 percent."

"Don't you mean 47 percent?" Fallon joked.

"That's a low blow -- but it's pretty funny," Romney replied.

"I had to do it."

youtube.com

Clinton Supporters Want Iowa To Want Her

$
0
0

“You guys want a list. Iowans want a sense of engagement and conversation and dialogue like they got on the Obama campaign.” The super PAC takes the first of what they say will be many trips to the early caucus state.

Justin Hayworth / Associated Press

DES MOINES — By Saturday afternoon, Craig Smith was tired. His jacket was off, sleeves rolled up. He didn't sleep much on Friday night. After a string of flight delays out of Washington and canceled connections from multiple airports, he finally napped during the snowy midnight drive from Chicago to Des Moines.

The 55-year-old Arkansas native sat at the head of a table before a dozen Iowa Democrats in a brewery downtown. He was trying explain, to the fifth group that day, that "Ready for Hillary" is not Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"We're not setting up offices," said Smith, the PAC's senior adviser. "We're not hiring staff. We're not doing polling. We're not buying TV ads. We're not making policy pronouncements. We're not endorsing candidates. We're not the campaign."

"That's not what we are," Smith said. It was a common message Saturday, as he mostly explained, again and again, what the group is and is not.

After the meetings, the exhausted team declared the day a success. Attendees had been excited; had pinned "Iowans Ready for Hillary" buttons to their lapels; had smiled wide watching video clips from Clinton speeches; had even, at one point, broke into spontaneous applause and cheering at her mention.

"If we build it, she will come," said one of the meeting's organizers, Bonnie Campbell, a former Iowa attorney general and Clinton administration appointee.

But despite a sense of excitement over the specter of Hillary Clinton's could-be campaign, the meetings revealed a tension between what an early primary state like Iowa wants and what a group like Ready for Hillary can actually offer.

The PAC was founded last January to help convince Clinton to run for president a second time. On the day of the group's first birthday, Smith and three other Ready for Hillary operatives met with more than a hundred Iowans — activists and union leaders, former Obama staffers and former Clinton staffers — in the critical caucus state where Clinton managed a disappointing third-place finish last time around.

Jerry Crawford, an Iowa fundraiser with deep ties to the Clintons, helped organize the meetings, along with a powerful duo: Jackie Norris and Teresa Vilmain, the Iowa state directors to the Obama and Clinton campaigns, respectively. "Our goal," said Crawford, sitting near Smith, "is to build the most exhaustive grassroots-up organization in the history of the Iowa caucuses."

The day took the shape of a fact-finding mission for the group that has focused largely so far on building a list of people who say they want Clinton to run. After explaining Ready for Hillary at the start of each meeting, Smith solicited advice.

"You guys have to tell us how to do this. You've got to tell us what works for you," Smith said. "You tell me. How do we go from here?"

For many Democrats in the room, there was no clear answer to Smith's question. While Ready for Hillary members said they intend to lay early Iowa groundwork for a potential campaign, the group seemed prepared only to set up tables at state events, hand out bumper stickers, and collect more names for a list they presume Clinton's eventual campaign will purchase. The locals who attended the meetings had another suggestion: If Ready for Hillary wants to build support, it should help Iowa Democrats win races this year.

"We got a little something ahead of us first," said Ken Sager, the president of Iowa Federation of Labor. During the first meeting of the day with other union officials, Sager said his mind was on the year ahead, not 2016. This fall, Iowa has a governor's race, an open U.S. Senate seat, and two U.S. congressional races. And Democrats are hanging onto their majority in the state Senate by one seat.

During another meeting with elected officials and candidates, state Sen. Jack Hatch, Iowa's likely Democratic gubernatorial nominee, also asked the group to get involved in the midterms. "We want you to play in the 2014 elections," Hatch said. "What we need is money and volunteers and cooperation."

It's common practice for presidential hopefuls to invest either money or manpower in other Iowa campaigns one election cycle out from the race. John Edwards did it in 2006. John Kerry did it in 2002.

Peggy Huppert, a prominent Democrat in the state, remembers a staffer for Evan Bayh, who considered caucusing, staying in an extra room in her basement during Iowa's midterm election campaigns in 2006.

"Other candidates did that too. You give money — cash — from your leadership PAC or you send paid staff," said Huppert, who did not attend Saturday's meetings. "It was to build favor, and it works. When you're thinking about running but you haven't announced yet, that's the most effective thing to do."

Smith indicated that Ready for Hillary would not send staffers or give money to other campaigns — though Crawford, separately, said in an interview that "some financial assistance" from the PAC in 2014 would be a possibility. "I would guess so," said Crawford. "I haven't had that discussion with them yet."

Ready for Hillary officials have also said they will not engage with other candidates unless Clinton herself has endorsed them first.

Smith, who visited New Hampshire for a similar gathering two weeks ago, acknowledged in an interview that midterm elections are something the group has "to figure out." He suggested that Priorities USA Action, another super PAC supporting Clinton, might be able to provide financial assistance. "I don't know if that's something Priorities is interested in," he said.

Earlier this year, Ready for Hillary placed a voluntary cap of $25,000 on donations so that Priorities USA could focus without competition on large-dollar contributions. The two groups, along with a research-focused project by American Bridge and a polling effort by EMILY's List, have emerged as a network of outside organizations already coordinating in support of Clinton.

"Next time we meet," Smith said of that larger web of PACs, "I gotta say, 'Look, we've got to figure this out.' Everywhere I go, they ask this question."

The midterms tug at a larger potential problem for Ready for Hillary: Now that the PAC, which has presented itself to voters as a sort of draft campaign for Clinton, is engaging on the ground with Democrats in primary states, there is an expectation that the group will "be the player on her behalf," Smith said. "Certain obligations flow from that. We have to figure out how to deal with it."

"And I got nothing for you," Smith said, laughing.

Another frustration emerged during meetings. In spending time and resources on a candidate who isn't even in the race yet, some said, Ready for Hillary stages a "total inversion" of the traditional primary, as state Rep. Jo Oldson put it.

Iowa, Oldson said, likes its candidates to beg voters — not the other way around. "This is just a different twist on how Iowans view getting into presidential campaigns," she said. "It's Iowa asking her to run, rather than the candidate asking Iowa to elect her."

Already, the Clintons aren't Iowa favorites. In the 1992 presidential primary, Bill Clinton skipped the state altogether because he had no chance against the state's U.S. senator, Tom Harkin. Four years later, as an incumbent, Clinton didn't come back. And in 2008, Hillary Clinton ran what some operatives who worked in the state describe as a half-pregnant campaign.

She worked rope lines instead of mingling directly with voters; she rarely took questions at campaign events; she didn't spend enough time in the state. Many Democrats here still bring up the 2007 campaign memo that suggested Clinton skip Iowa altogether. Clinton's old Iowa campaign headquarters, its windows darkened and insides empty, stands in an abandoned business park just a few miles west of the brewery where Ready for Hillary assembled on Saturday.

Huppert, who at the time ran Caucus for Priorities, a nonprofit that advocated for redirecting Pentagon spending to social programs, recalled that every other Democrat but Clinton aggressively courted the group's endorsement. "It's really hard to campaign in Iowa above the fray," she said. "The fray is the campaign."

In the meetings, Oldson said there is still a concern inside the state that, should she run in 2016, Clinton might "blow right by" Iowa again.

"Right or wrong, that's the perception," Oldson said.

Janet Petersen, a state senator who supported Obama over Clinton, said she'd heard similar comments from Democrats. "What you're asking in terms of creating lists is not what Iowans want," Petersen said, sitting next to Oldson. "You guys want a list. Iowans want a sense of engagement and conversation and dialogue like they got on the Obama campaign."

Smith responded to Peterson. "You mean engagement with the candidate — which is the one thing we can't produce," he said.

"And that's what I'm saying," said Petersen. "Do you want them to organize around a PAC or around a candidate?"

Smith later acknowledged this problem too. "Candidates usually ask of Iowa, and we're trying to set a structure that flips that," he said in an interview toward the end of the daylong confab. "That's a challenge here."

And what could he do about it? Smith answered by relating "an old Arab saying" that he said he heard when he was young and never forgot.

The story went like this: An elephant is walking through the desert and sees a sparrow lying on its back with his legs in the air. The elephant asks, "What are you doing?" The sparrow says, "I heard the sky was going to fall, and I'm going to try to hold it up." The elephant looks down in disbelief. "You're a sparrow. Those two little legs? You're not gonna be able to hold up the sky!"

And the little sparrow says, "Look, you do what you can."

Smith finished the story, laughed, slapped his knee, and said, "All I can do is what I can," before heading back to the table for the next meeting.

Hillary Clinton Hasn't Driven A Car Since 1996

$
0
0

“The last time I actually drove a car myself was 1996,” Clinton said speaking at the New Orleans meeting of the National Automobile Dealers Association. Clinton called it a “regret” of having a public life, but joked the Secret Service remembers well the last time she drove.

According to a 2008 report in the New York Times, however, Clinton aides told reporters "she sometimes used a hybrid S.U.V. back home in New York."

What The AFL-CIO President Wants Out Of The State Of The Union

$
0
0

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka emphasizes income inequality, minimum wage, and immigration reform in audio message to President Obama.

Getty Images

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka wants President Barack Obama to address income inequality, immigrant deportations, and the minimum wage at Tuesday's State of the Union.

In the audio message that will be released Monday by AFL-CIO, Trumka asks the president to outline a "serious" plan to raise the minimum wage and to stop deporting immigrants. He also calls on Obama to talk about "the need to create good jobs" by investing in education and rebuilding infrastructure.

"President Obama has a lot of challenges ahead of him, but he's not alone," Trumka says. "If he's willing to fight for working people, well, we'll have his back every step of the way."

You can listen to the whole clip here:

I Watched The New Mitt Romney Documentary With My Wife And It Was A Huge Mistake

$
0
0

The compelling new Netflix film reveals, among other things, the ideal Mormon husband. Thanks a lot, Mitt.

At the Republican National Convention in 2012, the Romney campaign released a piece of political propaganda that quickly came to plague Mormon men everywhere. Using a few clips of old home movies and interviews with the Romney brood, the stylishly edited 10-minute biographical video masterfully portrayed the candidate as a doting husband, a committed father, and a successful breadwinner who still got home every night in time for his kids to playfully smear frosting on his face. To most of the GOP delegates gathered in the convention hall that night, the video depicted a good family man for whom they would be proud to pull the lever come November. To Obama supporters, it was merely slick editing meant to mask the sinister motives of a political villain. But to millions of Mormons watching from home, Romney's particular brand of domestic heroics was recognized as the product of a lifetime of Sunday school lessons and grooming by LDS religious culture — the gold standard of Mormon manhood by which the rest of us would now be judged at home. My wife, alas, was in this last group.

It's easy to see why the video struck a chord. Like the Romneys, we had chosen a relatively traditional Mormon lifestyle, with my wife — who was four months pregnant at the time — preparing to quit her job and stay home with our first child. Unlike the Romneys, the family patriarch still needed some polishing if he was going to live up to the ideal set in those golden-hued family home videos.

It wasn't long before my every husbandly action was being compared to the extended campaign commercial. When my wife caught me scrolling through Twitter on my phone during dinner, trying to keep up with the frenetic pace of the campaign I covered for a living, I was gently encouraged to follow the example of Mitt Romney, who, we learn in the campaign video, "left his briefcase by the door and … never thought about work again until he left the next morning." Whenever a spousal spat began to escalate, I was reminded that Mitt Romney was unfailingly sweet to his wife. ("We could never, ever say anything bad about my mom," Mitt's son, Josh, helpfully recalls in the video.) And as we prepared for the arrival of our first child, the footage of Romney horsing around with his kids, his tie loosened after a long day at Bain Capital, served as the omnipresent backdrop to every discussion.

"What would Mitt do?" came the inevitable chiding response whenever I failed to live up to the candidate's shining example.

So, you can imagine my anxiety when it was announced last year that Netflix would stream Mitt, a documentary by filmmaker Greg Whiteley, who was given expansive access to the Romney family over the course of the candidate's six-year pursuit of the White House. If a couple of secular political operatives with a few minutes of home video were able to inadvertently turn Romney into the perfect embodiment of Mormon family life, how would the subject emerge in the hands of a Latter-day Saint filmmaker with years of footage?

So far, the reviews of the film, which went live on Netflix Friday, have been remarkable for their consistency. Mitt, we are told in one identical article after another, reveals a shockingly likable "other side" to the candidate. It "humanizes" him. It "pulls back the curtain," or "goes behind the scenes," to "reveal a fuller, more intimate portrait" of a man who proved elusive during the election. If only this movie had been released during the campaign, many have argued, it might have changed the outcome of the race. If only voters had been able to meet the Real Mitt Romney.

It's a sentiment Romney's most avid supporters — and Mormons, in particular, who most closely identify with Mitt — are eager to embrace. But, if anything, their reaction to the film illustrates the hopelessness of our quadrennial quest to discover the Truth about the people who run for president.

As I watched the movie with my wife and another Mormon couple on Friday night, I began to take note of every time something on the screen provoked a sympathetic sigh from our small audience. It happened when one of Mitt's grandkids jumps on top of him in the snow; when the ever-frugal Mitt opts to keep his old sturdy winter gloves instead of new ones that were gifted to him ("These work great!"); when a tearful Ann Romney kneels in a hotel on the eve of the 2008 New Hampshire primary and leads the family in prayer, telling the Lord that their "motives are pure" and asking for strength to endure the daily persecutions of campaign life; when, upon realizing he's going to lose the election, Mitt immediately begins consoling his family members, worried that the failed campaign may harm his sons' careers.

When Mitt is shown, hours before a big debate, diligently cleaning up after a trash can that has tipped over on a windy hotel balcony, someone watching with me remarked, "He's such a good guy."

And when Mitt, upon seeing the 2008 New Hampshire primary returns, stifles a curse word by adopting a silly falsetto and exclaiming, "That's not good!" my wife turned to me and said, "Oh my gosh, Mitt Romney is my dad."

The reaction to the film in my living room was essentially a tribal one. This was no crowd of right-wingers — everyone present had been at least mildly critical of Romney's politics during the campaign, and at least one had voted for President Obama — but in this portrayal of Mitt, they saw shades of their grandfathers, bishops, and Boy Scout leaders, and they instinctively sympathized with him.

It's safe to say that if the documentary had been released during the campaign, it wouldn't have been widely greeted with the same generosity.

For example, one of the most candid moments captured by Whiteley's camera takes place immediately after the candidate's triumphant performance in the first general election debate. At the top of the notepad he had the podium, Romney had drawn a sun to remind him of a verse in the New Testament — "Let your light so shine" — and beside the doodle, he had written the word "dad."

"He was the real deal," Mitt says, marveling at his late father, George. "The guy was born in Mexico. He didn't have a college degree. He became head of a car company and became a governor," Mitt goes on, contrasting his father's achievements with his own. "I started where he ended up. I started off with money and education and Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School."

"I'm standing on his shoulders," Mitt concludes, before kneeling in prayer and thanking God for the opportunities his parents provided him.

The scene will likely be treated by Mitt's admirers as singularly revealing — proof that he is a decent man, humbled by his privilege and duty-bound to use it for good. But in the heat of a campaign, Romney's opponents no doubt would have seen a selfish plutocrat content to take advantage of his own good fortune while writing off 47% of the country. His words in the film would have been spun and spliced and used to fill out various political caricatures. Critics would have cynically dismissed his reference to the New Testament as religious pandering. And Romney's comment about his father's birth in Mexico would have become fodder for the birther message boards in the internet's fever swamps. By Election Day, the documentary would have brought us no closer to consensus about Mitt Romney's inner life than the video the campaign released at the convention.

When you run for something as big and important and hard as the presidency, you forfeit any right you once had to shape your own identity, and you become a canvas on which political factions, religious groups, and various socioeconomic tribes project their own biases. The ads for Mitt ask viewers to do something that is antithetical to our popular political instincts: "Whatever side you're on, see another side." That's much easier to do now that Romney has lost.

White House Press Secretary Laughs About NSA Taking Angry Birds Data

$
0
0

Reports Monday said the National Security Agency could take user’s mobile data from apps such as Angry Birds.

View Video ›

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that he's "not in a position" to discuss reports that the National Security Agency has the ability to take information from so-called "leaky" mobile apps such as Angry Birds, a question which drew laughs from Carney and the White House press corps. Carney added that the NSA was not "focused" on the communications of ordinary Americans.

"What I'm saying is that the NSA in its collection is focused on the communication of people who are valid foreign intelligence targets," Carney said. "They're not focused on the information of ordinary Americans, and that's the case in answer to questions about, you know, the variety of revelations that have been made in the press."

According to documents published in the New York Times, the Guardian, and ProPublica Monday, the NSA can collect data from mobile apps that can reveal a user's personal information.

Arguments Set For Thursday In Case Challenging Virginia Marriage Ban

$
0
0

Three hours of arguments are set for same-sex couples’ challenge to Virginia’s amendment prohibiting such couples from marrying.

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Oral arguments in one of two lawsuits challenging Virginia's ban on same-sex couples marrying will go forward Thursday, with the judge scheduling up to three hours of arguments in the case.

The decision came after last week's news that Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring filed papers in the federal case, Bostic v. Rainey, opposing the constitutionality of the amendment banning such marriages.

After calling for input as to whether arguments were still needed after Herring's move, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen wrote in an order Monday that "the Court confirms that oral argument on the summary judgment motions and the motion for a preliminary injunction will be heard commencing at 9 AM on Thursday, January 30, 2014."

The plaintiffs — now represented by Ted Olson and David Boies and supported by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, as well as the law firm of Shuttleworth Ruloff Swain Haddad & Morecock, which filed the case — urged the court to decide the matter based on the papers filed with the court.

Three hours of oral arguments are set for Thursday, per Allen's order:

NOTE -- the Court sets the following Order of Presentation for oral argument at the hearing: Counsel for Plaintiffs present opening argument for no more than twenty minutes; Counsel for Defendant Rainey present argument for no more than twenty minutes; Counsel for Defendant Schaefer, III, present argument for no more than thirty minutes; Counsel for Intervenor McQuigg present argument for no more than thirty minutes; Counsel for Amicus The Family Foundation of Virginia present argument for no more than thirty minutes; Counsel for Amici Professors in Support of Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment present argument for no more than thirty minutes; Counsel for Plaintiffs present rebuttal for up to ten minutes; and Counsel for Defendant Rainey present rebuttal for up to ten minutes.

A ruling is not expected Thursday, as Allen wrote, "The pending motions will be taken under further advisement at the close of the hearing."


Sir Mix-A-Lot And CNN's Jake Tapper Talked About Butts And Honesty On Twitter And It Was Awesome

Clinton Spokesman Says She Used Facebook, Bought Something Online Last Wednesday

$
0
0

Hillary Clinton hasn’t driven a car in 18 years. Philippe Reines appears to be joking in response to questions about other common activities.

Hillary Clinton hasn't driven a car in almost 20 years, the former secretary of state said Monday.

"The last time I actually drove a car myself was 1996," Clinton said in a speech in New Orleans. "I remember it very well. Unfortunately, so does the Secret Service, which is why I haven't driven since then."

Given her national prominence and the official roles she's occupied since the 1992 presidential election, the fact that Clinton hasn't driven is understandable. Security concerns alone would make driving difficult.

But the duration of Clinton's national service does put her in a unique class of Americans, in some ways separate — by necessity or otherwise — from some everyday tasks.

BuzzFeed asked Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines if Clinton has had the opportunity to do activities fairly commonplace in 2014. He provided the following response.

The links in Reines' email go to a drawing of a bull, the Pulitzer Prize entry page, the Grammys awards page, and a few images of the former secretary.

Is Anyone Even Paying Attention To The State Of The Union?

$
0
0

On Tuesday, President Obama will address the nation. Lower ratings and fewer journalists may await.

Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Obama's State of the Union address is no longer the hottest ticket in town.

Normally, the Washington press corps rush early to get tickets for a coveted seated spot inside the room for the State of the Union speech.

This year though, the demand for seats has dropped off significantly, with media organizations waiting until the last minute to get their tickets to cover the event. The press galleries are still likely to be full by the time Obama takes the podium, but by late Monday afternoon that still wasn't a sure thing.

Reporters aren't the only ones taking a pass on spending 90 minutes or so with America's elected representatives Tuesday night. Brad Adgate, a media buyer at the New York firm Horizon Media and a noted expert on television ratings, said he's not expecting Obama to draw a large audience with his speech.

"I think there is a general dissatisfaction with Washington of late and that will be reflective in viewers not tuning into the speech," he said Monday. "So it could be lower than last year's, which was the least watched since 2000."

Obama's 2013 State of the Union, coming just a few weeks after voters handed him a second term, had some of the lowest ratings of any State of the Union since 2000, drawing a television audience share "just slightly higher than your average first-run Seinfeld episode two decades ago," according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of State of the Union Nielsen ratings. The ratings for Tuesday's speech could be worse.

A triple whammy of Washington ennui, presidential history and a changing media landscape has conspired to make this year's State of the Union one of the least anticipated in recent memory, observers say. The White House has gamely tried to boost anticipation for the speech, pumping out speech teasers across the administration's many social media channels — even enlisting cast members from The West Wing to help sell the speech. But with Congress likely to remain deadlocked through the election year and poll numbers for all of Washington in decline, those who keep a close eye on the office of the presidency aren't expecting much interest once the speech begins.

A collective shrug on the part of the American people is essentially baked in, experts say.

"Heading into a midterm, almost to the point of cliche, is pretty terrible for a president. Usually by the sixth State of the Union most people have begun to, in a sense, tune the president out and they are starting to enter a lame-duck phase," said Dan Mahaffee, director of policy at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. "Usually it's the president's supporters who are the most loyal viewers and by the time you get to the sixth, even your party base is looking to who might replace you. Their attention is elsewhere."

The White House is aware of this kind of talk, and is working hard to dismiss it. Asked Monday about the chance for a smaller television audience for this year's State of the Union compared to the 2013 address, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said a dip would be "consistent with past presidencies."

"What is absolutely the case is that the State of the Union address, for any president in any year of his or her presidency, it is an enormous opportunity to speak to legislators in Congress, but even more importantly, to the millions of Americans, millions of Americans who tune in," Carney said.

He's right about declining audiences for a sixth State of the Union, said George Edwards, a political scientist at Texas A&M noted in his field for his research on the impact of the annual address on a president's standing.

"The fact is presidents rarely are in positions to great things in their sixth year," he said. "It is quite typical that we do not expect a great deal out of the SOTU in the sixth year because it's not a time to be announcing a new agenda."

Close allies of the president watching the administration limp out of 2013 say Obama has to knock it out of the park Tuesday night.

"I think there's a little bit of a feeling of lethargy right now. He's had some setbacks," former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle told Bloomberg last week. "I think he needs to re-engage and re-energize, and I think he'll do that."

It could be an uphill battle to grab the national spotlight however.

Changes in media — Edwards pointed to cable channels providing alternative viewing options to the State of the Union — may make it harder for Obama to draw a big TV audience. Americans can easily skip the speech if they want to. And in most cases, Edwards said, when it comes to the sixth State of the Union there's very little reason why they wouldn't.

"It is quite typical that we do not expect a great deal out of the State of the Union in the sixth year because it's not a time to be announcing a new agenda," he said. "A small amount of people are going to tune in. It's not an Obama problem — it's a presidents problem."

The sixth-year president has to rely on moments from the address that get replayed over and over again to break through, observers said. That has worked for some presidents in the recent past. The previous two-term presidents to Obama actually saw increases in the television audiences for their sixth State of the Union addresses, but it's hard to find anyone in Washington predicting Obama will do the same thing.

"[George W.] Bush and Clinton actually saw spikes in their sixth State of the Unions in terms of viewership but Clinton's was mainly because he was beginning to announce a balanced budget and talk about the combined gains of the Republican Party and his administration," said Mahaffee. "With Bush, there was increased attention because we were looking at questions on what would be his Iraq policy going into the midterms."

Obama, whose speech is expected to focus on executive actions he can take on climate change and the income equality without Congress, isn't bringing the right formula to the table to boost his audience over 2013 Tuesday, Mahaffee said.

There are some positive signs for the White House in terms of public engagement with Tuesday's speech, however. An analysis of Twitter #SOTU chatter conducted by the company for BuzzFeed Monday found hype for the 2014 speech is running slightly above what it did in 2013. The 24 hours before last year's State of the Union saw "189,000 tweets mentioning 'obama' or 'State of the Union' or 'sotu/#sotu,'" said Elaine Filadelfo, a representative for Twitter. By early evening Monday, Filadelfo said #SOTU tweets were "on pace for 206,000" in the 24 hours before Obama takes the mics at the joint session of Congress.

And the president's allies say a strong speech by Obama Tuesday can move the national dialogue in the coming months.

"Don't listen to the cynics who don't believe in anything, never think it's going to work, never think anything is going to happen. Those people who start the conversation out with 'what are the odds' and 'this is a waste of time,' don't listen to them," said Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, who chairs the progressive caucus. "The president addressing the United States people and the members of Congress who represent them is very important. It's important because just because the president says it, doesn't mean it will happen but the president says it and it means we have a debate about it."

Rep. Steve Israel, who heads up the political arm in the House for Democrats, said that the ratings for the State of the Union may not be that high, but it's still an important moment to talk to voters and members of Congress.

"Will it get Super Bowl ratings? Maybe not. It's not only a historic event but it points to the future and I think many Americans will tune in," he said.

"For 'normal people' who watch the State of the Union, if you are more to the left you are going to agree with most what the president says. If you are to the right, you are going to disagree with him. It's the people in the middle who will be most pivotal in this election," he added.

Gabby Giffords: "Congress Is Afraid Of The Gun Lobby"

$
0
0

Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords unveils a new ad calling out Congress for failing to act on the gun violence issue. CNN and MSNBC will air the spot before and after the State of the Union address on Tuesday.

youtube.com

Americans for Responsible Solutions will air an ad during President Obama's State of the Union address in which the gun reform organization's founder, former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords asks, "What is Congress afraid of?"

During the 2013 State of the Union, President Obama addressed the gun control issue, saying, "Gabby Giffords deserves a vote, the families of Newtown deserve a vote."

In April 2013, a bill to expand background checks on firearms failed in the Senate and the gun issue has since fizzled to the background of the national agenda.

"Nine out of 10 Americans support background checks as a commonsense measure to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and the dangerously mentally ill," said Pia Carusone, executive director of Americans for Responsible Solutions. "Congress continues to listen to the gun lobby instead of their constituents, so we're going to keep fighting at the state level to make our communities safer. It's too dangerous to wait."

Which Barack Obama Are You?

Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images