“Opposing nearly everything and supporting hardly anything is not just a bad governing strategy, it is not a very good political strategy either,” says Josh Earnest.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The White House said Wednesday that if Eric Cantor wants to know how he got beat, he should look in the mirror.

Immigration wasn't the problem, Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One. The negotiating tactic of the House Republicans, lead in part by Cantor, was.

"I do think that this outcome does provide some evidence to indicate that the strategy of opposing nearly everything and supporting hardly anything is not just a bad governing strategy, it is not a very good political strategy either," Earnest said, according to a pool report. "That is why the president has pursued a different approach (and) … has laid out what his priorities are."

The White House as well as some immigration advocates on Capitol Hill saw a sliver of a chance at movement on immigration legislation in the House before Cantor lost, and had taken steps to make it easier for House Republicans to get it done.

Earnest insisted it's wrong to think comprehensive immigration action is dead, noting that Cantor opposed the bipartisan Senate bill the White House still hopes to convince House Speaker John Boehner to bring before his chamber for a vote.

"Majority Leader Cantor campaigned very aggressively against common sense, bipartisan immigration reform but yet in the analysis there are some who suggest that his election was a key to getting immigration reform done," Earnest said. "I am not quite sure how people have reached that conclusion. It is the view of the White House that there is support all across the country for common sense bipartisan immigration reform."

Like Senate Democrats have, Earnest pointed out that a sponsor and advocate for the Senate bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, won his Republican primary on the same night Cantor lost his.

Graham made a "persuasive case why comprehensive immigration reform was the right thing for the country."

The political odd couple’s proposal is picking up support, sources say, and supporters expect a Reid-Paul bill within two weeks.

Lucas Jackson / Reuters / Reuters

The Associated Press

Legislation aimed at bringing overseas capital back to the United States by giving American companies one-time tax breaks is gaining momentum in the Senate, two sources involved in the process told BuzzFeed, and supporters expect a bill to be introduced within two weeks.

In a rare show of Congressional bipartisanship, Sens. Rand Paul and Harry Reid have spent recent weeks quietly working behind closed doors on the bill, which would grant American companies a temporary "tax holiday" for profits earned abroad, and use the new tax revenues to replenish the Highway Trust Fund, which supports federal transportation projects. The senators predict that the policy would bring hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy, and generate as much as $30 billion in taxes.

The effort by the political odd couple was first reported Monday in the New York Times, which noted that the legislation faced skepticism from members of the Senate Finance Committee, including Chairman Ron Wyden, and ranking Republican Orrin Hatch. Hatch has raised concerns that the legislation would undercut efforts to overhaul the tax code.

At the time, a spokesman for Reid said that while they were happy with the policy they were crafting, the majority leader would not try to strong-arm Wyden, and would ultimately leave the decision up to the chairman.

But on Wednesday morning, a senior Paul adviser told BuzzFeed the legislation was picking up support, and he was confident it would make it out of committee. The tipping point may have been Tuesday's Republican caucus lunch, where several senators — including Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, and Roy Blunt — voiced support for the Reid-Paul bill.

"I think you'll see near unanimous agreement on it among Republicans," Paul's adviser said.

The Kentucky senator has also been reaching out to House Republicans to pave the way for support in that chamber. His office has also seen promising signs of support from Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Uninterested in risking an intra-party spat with Wyden, Reid's office has been less aggressive in lobbying for the bill, but an aide to the majority leader said they were hopeful the legislation would get broad bipartisan support. Aides on both sides of the aisle stressed that the situation was fluid, and they requested anonymity to candidly discuss the state of play.

Meanwhile, the Democratic aide also noted how well Paul and Reid are getting along.

"Sen. Reid really likes him. They get along very well personally, and at the staff level I think it's been very productive," the Democrat said.

The bill's passage would strengthen Paul's bipartisan credentials, and help him make the case that he's a serious lawmaker — not just a libertarian gadfly — as he eyes a 2016 presidential bid.

Paul's adviser was eager to emphasize his boss' willingness to put partisan differences aside in search of policy solutions — a message the senator stressed earlier Wednesday, when he held a teleconference with Grover Norquist calling for an overhaul of immigration policy.

"He's not shy about reaching across the aisle when he thinks the issue can resonate on both sides, and he thinks it's something that can get done," the adviser said.

View Entire List ›

Eric Cantor was seen as the most important ally on the Hill for members looking to restore Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. “We can’t tell yet what it means.”

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner

Astrid Riecken / MCT

WASHINGTON — The future of the Voting Rights Act has been in limbo for a while now, and with the stunning primary loss of Majority Leader Eric Cantor, supporters of a legislative response to last year's Supreme Court decision are searching for a new way forward.

Cantor was a crucial ally for members working to restore Section 4 of the VRA, which the Supreme Court struck down in Shelby County v. Holder decision last June. Section 4 included the formula that determined which states — mostly Southern states with histories of voter discrimination — needed federal approval before making changes to voting laws. The court ruled that the formula was no longer valid and left it to Congress to come up with a new formula.

While Cantor had not publicly backed legislation introduced by Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner and Democrat Rep. John Conyers to fix the formula, he had spoken openly of his commitment to restoring protections in the VRA. He had traveled with civil rights hero and Rep. John Lewis on a trip to Selma, Alabama, and when the Shelby ruling came down he said Congress should "find a responsible path forward that ensures that the sacred obligation of voting in this country remains protected."

Sensenbrenner and others are trying to now assess what Cantor's loss means for the bill. There's been no committee hearing thus far on the bill, and without Cantor in the majority leader position, it's unlikely the bill will see floor action any time soon.

"It's a work in progress," Sensenbrenner said. "I don't know what Cantor's loss means for it. I'm going to be doing some calling around in the next week to find out."

Conyers guessed that Cantor would continue to work with the group to push for the bill, even after he steps down as majority leader.

"We can't tell yet what it means," the Michigan Democrat said. "We trust that even though he's retiring from the leadership he will still be working with us on it. I'm putting this in a positive light presuming that he will still work just as hard maybe even harder as a result."

As recently as Tuesday— before Cantor even lost — members were meeting with voting rights advocates about the bill. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer — who had originally invited Cantor on the trip to Selma and has been involved in trying to come up with legislative action — told reporters on Wednesday that the bill was already moving at glacial pace so it was unlikely that Cantor's loss would substantially further stall their efforts.

"It wasn't moving very fast. Whether it slows it down or not we'll see, but I'm hopeful Mr. Cantor will be a leader in this effort. He could be very helpful," Hoyer said.

“Does anyone have a good phone number” for the former secretary of state? Staff for Rep. Steve Cohen are asking every Democrat on Capitol Hill. Update: Cohen’s office says the email is run-of-the-mill.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee — or someone high up on his staff — was trying to track down Hillary Clinton Thursday and apparently hoped someone, anyone, would share her phone number with his office.

Cohen's Director Of Operations, Craig Dulniak, a senior member of Cohen's staff, blasted out an email to every scheduler on the Hill Thursday morning with a simple subject line.

"Phone number for Hillary Clinton," it read. The body was just as direct. "Does anyone have a good phone number for Hillary Clinton?"

The email was forwarded outside Hill circles, too, but maybe not for the reasons Dulniak hoped it would. A source said many Democrats in the city got it, and it quickly became the subject of snickering.

Dulniak did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether or not he got the phone number.

Cohen's communications director Ben Garmisa offers this comment:

"Congressional staff regularly reach out to their internal networks for contact information for various reporters and public figures."

Jewish Republicanism never amounted to much. But can anyone hold the Koch and Adelson wings of the party together now?

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

There has been a fair amount written in the past 24 hours about Eric Cantor and the Jews, for whom this is — necessarily, as the saying goes — either good or bad.

The basic conclusion from Politico's Alex Burns on my old beat: "Oy Vey." The president of the Republican Jewish Coalition, a major fundraising operation, tweeted inconsolably:

But Brooks cares more about Eric Cantor than any other person who isn't related to the man, I think, and there is both less and more to this story than meets the eye.

Cantor has been an interesting anomaly: a Jewish Republican; and, perhaps more interesting, a guy who could vibe with the neocons and raise money from their candidates' biggest patron, Sheldon Adelson; and someone who seemed to have credibility with the uncompromising conservative movement and its main backers, the Koch brothers.

In the end, though, neither group appears quite to have seen him as their guy, and there are fewer tears being shed than you might expect. That may explain some of the coverage that has focused on Jewish politics and on the godforsaken corner of that universe that is Jewish Republicanism. The broader Jewish community questions are as minor as they get: a point of ethnic pride in the first Jew in a House leadership job nobody outside Washington has ever heard of, and having a guy willing to carry obscure and worthy legislation around tax policy for Holocaust survivors. Cantor's work as an ally of hawkish supporters of Israel is also fairly easily replaced, though he was an important connection between the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC and conservative House freshmen. His role in bringing a few new Jewish donors to the GOP is likewise real but not vastly important. And in general, the idea that Republicans needed much rallying to oppose Barack Obama's foreign policy is silly.

"The issues that he was involved vis a vis the pro-Israel community were bigger than him — they were about Obama," said former Bush and Romney aide Dan Senor, who is close to Adelson and other foreign policy hawks.

Other blips make even less sense. Some on the right, for instance, are mourning the end of the enduring fantasy of a mass Jewish migration to the Republican Party, which longtime activists now dismiss as unrealistic: "We could have enough Republican Jews in Congress for a dozen minyans and the Democrats would still get 70% of the Jewish vote," said Emergency Committee for Israel Executive Director Noah Pollak.

And then there's the baseless idea that Cantor was defeated by an ethnic whisper campaign.

"Some of the Jews who happened to be friends with Cantor should stop whining about his loss and inventing totally unfounded charges of anti-Semitism," the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, a leading figure in among hawkish pro-Israel community, said in an email.

View Entire List ›

John Winfield was scheduled to be executed on June 18. Concerns raised that state was allegedly intimidating a correctional officer into not supporting clemency. [ Update: Missouri Attorney General asks judge to alter her ruling and allow the scheduled execution to proceed. ]

AP Photo/Missouri Department of Corrections

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Thursday morning that Missouri's plan to execute John Winfield on June 18 cannot go forward at this time.

U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Perry issued the stay of execution because of concerns that a correctional officer, Terry Cole, was allegedly intimidated by state officials into not supporting Winfield's request for clemency.

Cole had supervised Winfield in the laundry at the prison for five years and initially told Winfield's lawyers that he would provide a letter supporting Winfield's clemency request.

Although the Missouri Department of Corrections policy is that employees can write letters in support of clemency, so long as they make it clear they only are speaking for themselves, the department launched an investigation into Cole "for alleged 'over-familiarity' with Winfield" the day after he told prison officials he was considering doing so.

"The evidence presented to me shows that Winfield is likely to be able to prove at a later trial that prison officials took actions to intimidate [Terry] Cole to keep him from providing support for Winfield's clemency petition," Perry wrote.

It was not immediately clear whether the state would appeal Perry's decision. [Update at 3:45 p.m.: "We are reviewing the ruling," a spokeswoman from Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster told BuzzFeed.]

There have been no executions in the United States since the botched execution in Oklahoma of Clayton Lockett on April 29 led to a review of that state's execution protocol. Prior to Lockett's execution, there had been 19 executions throughout the U.S. in 2014.

First, over a weekend in May, Winfield's lawyer visited with Cole:

View Entire List ›

During a campaign speech . The incumbent senator joked that he would spend time as a kid “doing all sorts of indecent things with animals.”

"It was an adventure to be out there in the country and to see what goes on," Cochran said. "Doing all kinds of indecent things to animals."

View Video ›

Via clarionledger.com

“You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day.”

Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press / MCT

Islamic insurgents have captured key cities in Iraq this week and threatened to capture Baghdad.

The White House condemned the attacks in a statement late Wednesday and President Obama said Thursday "we do have a stake" in keeping jihadists from making permanent gains in Iraq.

Violence has gripped Iraq since Americans troops completely withdrew in 2011, ending the nine-year war. The pace of the drawdown of troops became an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign.

Mitt Romney criticized the Obama administration's failure to negotiate a "status of forces agreement" (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that would have allowed the United States to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq. An Iraqi government agreement with the Bush administration lapsed in 2011.

President Obama himself reportedly negotiated to leave up to 10,000 soldiers in the country to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces.

The issue of the troop drawdown became an issue between the two campaigns in 2012. In the third presidential debate, Obama attacked Romney, saying, "Just a few weeks ago, you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now."

"With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed I believe that there should be a status of forces agreement," Romney replied.

In the debate, Obama likewise criticized Romney for calling Russia our "biggest geopolitical" foe.

Here's the video and transcript of Romney and Obama's back-and-forth argument over Russia and Iraq:

View Video ›

OBAMA: Gov. Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years.

But governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.

You say that you're not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq. But just a few weeks ago, you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now. And the -- the challenge we have -- I know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy -- but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong. You said we should have gone into Iraq, despite that fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day. You indicated that we shouldn't be passing nuclear treaties with Russia despite the fact that 71 senators, Democrats and Republicans, voted for it. You said that, first, we should not have a timeline in Afghanistan. Then you said we should. Now you say maybe or it depends, which means not only were you wrong, but you were also confusing in sending mixed messages both to our troops and our allies.

So, what -- what we need to do with respect to the Middle East is strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. And unfortunately, that's the kind of opinions that you've offered throughout this campaign, and it is not a recipe for American strength, or keeping America safe over the long haul.

SCHIEFFER: I'm going to add a couple of minutes here to give you a chance to respond.

ROMNEY: Well, of course I don't concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that I've said. They don't happen to be accurate. But -- but I can say this, that we're talking about the Middle East and how to help the Middle East reject the kind of terrorism we're seeing, and the rising tide of tumult and -- and confusion. And -- and attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East, and take advantage of the opportunity there, and stem the tide of this violence.

But I'll respond to a couple of things that you mentioned. First of all, Russia I indicated is a geopolitical foe. Not...

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: Excuse me. It's a geopolitical foe, and I said in the same -- in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I'm certainly not going to say to him, I'll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he'll get more backbone. Number two, with regards to Iraq, you and I agreed I believe that there should be a status of forces agreement.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: Oh you didn't? You didn't want a status of...

OBAMA: What I would not have had done was left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. And that certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

ROMNEY: I'm sorry, you actually -- there was a -- there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Governor...

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: ...that your posture. That was my posture as well. You thought it should have been 5,000 troops...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Governor?

ROMNEY: ... I thought there should have been more troops, but you know what? The answer was we got...

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: ... no troops through whatsoever.

OBAMA: This was just a few weeks ago that you indicated that we should still have troops in Iraq.

ROMNEY: No, I...

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: ...I'm sorry that's a...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: You -- you...

ROMNEY: ...that's a -- I indicated...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: ...major speech.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: ...I indicated that you failed to put in place a status...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Governor?

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: ...of forces agreement at the end of the conflict that existed.

OBAMA: Governor -- here -- here's -- here's one thing...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: ...here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIEFFER: Let him answer...

OBAMA: You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean. You just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in Iraq. That is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the Middle East.

Now, it is absolutely true that we cannot just meet these challenges militarily. And so what I've done throughout my presidency and will continue to do is, number one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts.

Number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in Israel's security, because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region.

Number three, we do have to make sure that we're protecting religious minorities and women because these countries can't develop unless all the population, not just half of it, is developing.

Number four, we do have to develop their economic -- their economic capabilities.

But number five, the other thing that we have to do is recognize that we can't continue to do nation building in these regions. Part of American leadership is making sure that we're doing nation building here at home. That will help us maintain the kind of American leadership that we need.

“I’m pretty sure you didn’t answer my question about whether you evolved or it was the American public that changed.”

Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press / MCT

WASHINGTON — Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got into a testy exchange with NPR's Terry Gross on Thursday, as Gross tried to get Clinton to explain her views on marriage equality over time.

Gross attempted to get the former secretary of state to explain whether she had changed her mind over time on the issue of marriage equality or whether she supported marriage equality previously but felt she couldn't say so due to the popular and political opposition.

Listen to the exchange:

youtube.com

NPR's TERRY GROSS: "So what's it like when you're in office and you have to do all these political calculations to not be able to support something like gay marriage, that you actually believe in? Obviously you feel very committed to human rights and you obviously put gay rights as part of human rights, but in doing the calculus you decided you couldn't support it. Correct me if I'm reading it wrong."

HILLARY CLINTON: "I think you're reading it very wrong. I think that, as I said – just as the president has said – just because you're a politician doesn't mean you're not a thinking human being. You gather information, you think through positions, you're not 100 percent set, thank goodness, you're constantly re-evaluating where you stand. That is true for me. We talked earlier about Iraq, for goodness sakes. So for me, marriage has always been a matter left to the states and in many of the conversations I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists to work state-by-state. In fact, that is what is working and I think that being in the position that I was in the Senate, fighting employment discrimination which we still have some ways to go, was appropriate at that time.

As secretary of state, I was out of domestic politics and I was certainly doing all I could on the international scene to raise the importance of the human rights of the LGBT community. And then leaving that position, I was able to very quickly announce that I was fully in support of gay marriage and that it is now continuing to proceed state-by-state. I am very hopeful that we will make progress and see even more change and acceptance. One of my big problems right now is that too many people believe they have a direct line to the divine and they never want to change their mind about anything.They're never open about new information and they like to operate in an evidence-free zone. I think it's good if people continue to change."

View Entire List ›

The president is in really good shape, according to an annual medical exam.

But their fate hangs on wary courts.

EL PASO, Texas — Amidu Fredrick Sinayor came to this quiet border town from his native Ghana, where he was persecuted for being gay. Abdi, from Somalia, came here to escape Islamist militants who he says tortured him at home.

Since late December, dozens of Africans seeking asylum have entered the United States not by flying directly into the country, but by going first to South or Central America and then trekking northward along the "Migrant Trail" that has been used for decades by Latino migrants to cross into the U.S. from Mexico.

It is an extremely dangerous journey, even for Latin Americans who know the region's customs and political realities, let alone for migrants who don't speak the language and have little in common with the local population. They must walk for hundreds of miles in the jungle, pay off corrupt border officials and the human smugglers known as coyotes, and sometimes battle thieves.

If they survive this harrowing journey and finally cross onto American soil, then their dreams of achieving asylum depend to a shocking extent on which border town they choose to enter the United States. In some jurisdictions, judges grant asylum to 62% of those who come before them. In others, judges grant just 13%, according to federal data collected by the University of Syracuse's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

Sinayor and Abdi told BuzzFeed the story of their journeys from Africa to the U.S. Both ended up in the same detention center in the same border town. Abdi, who on Monday spent eight hours in an asylum hearing, is expected to learn his fate following a July 15 hearing. Sinayor's hearings are scheduled to begin in August.

Sinoyar first thought he would go to South Africa.

He had been seeking to flee Ghana, where intercourse between men is criminalized, since last summer, after he had been repeatedly attacked by the Ga Mashie Youth for Change, a group that beats up gay and lesbian Ghanaians because of their sexuality, and his computer business had been burned down. "They hit me with sticks, whips and their hands," Sinayor said in his asylum application of a November 2012 attack. "They told me this was just a warning and the next time they would come with petrol and burn me to death."

"When I went outside, people would say, 'Here comes the animal,' 'He prefers sex with men more than women,' 'Hey, people, cover your asses or you will get fucked by someone,'" he said. "They would tell me, 'We are going to beat or stone you to death one of these days' … or 'We will hand you over to the police to lock you up like an animal.'"

A.C. Wowolo, a police superintendent in Sakumono, Ghana, said police were unable to charge the local leader of the Ga Mashie Youth who coordinated attacks on Sinayor because: "The Chief and his elders and some politicians both supported this youth movement that targets homosexuals and lesbians … leaving the police with little to do to fully defend and protect the victims," he wrote in a letter to the El Paso immigration court, given to BuzzFeed by Sinayor's lawyer.

So Sinayor fled. He took a bus to Togo, then Benin, then Nigeria, where he considered fleeing to South Africa, because of its constitutional protection of LGBT rights and marriage equality. But cultural acceptance has lagged behind the law, and after seeing news reports from South Africa about violence against gay men, Sinayor decided that the United States was his best bet for asylum.

He traveled to Cameroon, where he paid some sailors $2,000 to hide him in a container ship engine room. After two weeks in his cramped hiding place, allowed out briefly only at night, Sinayor stepped off the boat and onto the shores of Colombia.

After a few days, Sinayor connected with a group of other Africans — mostly Somalis, but also another Ghanaian who fled because he was gay — and began the trek north. Coyotes took them to a well-worn path near the border of Colombia and Panama, where they paid villagers to help them cross. "We walked for two days in the jungle. People had been walking it, so we just followed the path."

When they reached the border, the group turned themselves over to Panamanian authorities, explaining that they were heading to America in search of asylum. This became the pattern: Sinayor would follow migrant trails through the jungle, find a patrolled border crossing, and turn himself over to the local authorities, who after taking him and his fellow travelers into custody would eventually issue them all special papers allowing them to traverse the country.

Detention lengths varied. Costa Rica did not detain them at all and granted them transit papers right away, while in Panama they were taken to the capital and jailed for a month before being released with travel documents and a warning to be out of the country within two weeks.

For migrants, particularly Africans and others who speak little or no Spanish, such travel documents give protection from jailing, but more importantly, they let them travel in the open on buses, a much faster — and far safer — way of traveling than relying on local coyotes.

And yet sometimes coyotes — who are little more than guides, often connected to drug cartels and other criminal organizations — are necessary. They shepherded Sinoyar's group into Nicaragua, and another took them over a mountain on the Honduras–Guatemala border. At Mexico's southern border, coyotes helped them across the Suchiate River "on a raft made of tubes with plywood on top."

On Feb. 15, Sinayor crossed one of the four bridges connecting the Mexican border town of Juarez and El Paso, Texas, approached the first American official he saw, and asked for asylum.

View Entire List ›

Copy-and-paste.

Chris McDaniel Facebook / Via Facebook: senatormcdaniel

Rising Mississippi Republican Senate candidate Chris McDaniel appears to have plagiarized his immigration plan during his first run office in 2007. McDaniel's immigration plan, archived on his old state senate campaign website heavily copies text from the Federation For American Immigration Reform and research from a University of Pittsburgh law school publication.

A recent poll showed the Tea Party challenger McDaniel with 3% lead over incumbent Republican Sen. Thad Cochran.

McDaniel and Cochran are headed for a primary runoff on June 24.

Here's a screenshot of McDaniel's archived immigration issues webpage:

Via web.archive.org

Here's FAIR in at least 2005:

While most illegal immigrants may come only to seek work and a better economic opportunity, their presence outside the law furnishes an opportunity for terrorists to blend into the same shadows while they target the American public for their terrorist crimes.

And here's McDaniel:

While most illegal immigrants may come only to seek work and a better economic opportunity, their presence outside the law furnishes an opportunity for terrorists to blend into the same shadows while they target the American public for their terrorist crimes.

Here's an line that appeared in The Jurist, a web-based legal news research service article in March 2007.

Last year, 30 states passed some 57 laws to crack down on illegal immigrants, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. That flurry of legislation reflects states' mounting frustration with federal inaction.

And here's McDaniel:

Last year, 30 states passed some 57 laws to crack down on illegal immigrants, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. That flurry of legislation reflects states' mounting frustration with federal inaction.

View Entire List ›

“Accidentally.”

Here's the tweet by Vox reporter Matt Yglesias:

The tweet is a link to the post on the website Vox about how dating app Tinder will allow "Moments" enabling users to have pictures disappear they shared within 24 hours.

Matt Yglesias Twitter

Here's a screenshot of the favorite on Weiner's page on Thursday night.

Weiner, who previously had 27 Twitter favorites, now has only one: a tweet by Twitter user @Mobute.

Via Twitter: @anthonyweiner

View Entire List ›

President says he’s “still weighing the options” about how America will assist the Iraqi regime, says solving the problem is “up to the Iraqis.”

U.S. President Barack Obama makes comments on accepting the resignation of Eric Shenseki as Secretary of Veterans Affairs on Friday, May 30, 2014.

Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press / MCT

WASHINGTON — American ground troops are not headed back to Iraq to rescue that country's regime from a growing threat from "vicious terrorist group" ISIS, President Obama said Friday.

But the rapidly degrading situation in Iraq may require some U.S. military intervention, Obama said, though what exactly it might entail, even if it will happen at all, remains open questions. In a brief statement and Q&A with reporters on the south lawn of the White House, Obama repeatedly condemned ISIS as "terrorists" and also chastised the Iraqi regime for not standing strong in the face of ISIS forces.

"Unfortunately, Iraqi leaders have been unable to overcome, too often, the mistrust and sectarian differences that have long been simmering there. And that's created vulnerabilities within the Iraqi government, as well as their security forces," he said, noting that many Iraqi soldiers have abandoned their posts and refused to fight as ISIS has moved into cities across the country.

"So any action that we make take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces has to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq's leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq's communities, and to continue to build the capacity of an effective security force. We can't do it for them," Obama added.

Obama said ISIS gains in Iraq "could pose a threat eventually to American interests," and so his team will be talking with the Iraqi regime over the weekend to determine what, if anything, the U.S. does to help. But the president insisted action will come only if disparate Iraqi groups present a unified plan to move forward.

"I want to make sure that everybody understands this message — the United States is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they're prepared to work together," Obama said. "We're not going to allow ourselves to be dragged back into a situation in which while we're there we're keeping a lid on things, and, after enormous sacrifices by us, as soon as we're not there, suddenly people end up acting in ways that are not conductive to the long-term stability and prosperity of the country."

“I’m not running to be a member of the debate team….not to have some made-up hokey high-school-looking debate, when there is nothing to debate.

View Video ›

Incumbent Republican Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran is refusing to debate his runoff opponent, state senator Chris McDaniel. Cochran says "there's nothing to debate" with McDaniel.

"First of all, I'm not running to be on a debate team. I'm running for a vacancy that's going to exist in the U.S. Senate this year," Cochran said to WAPT's Bert Case. "That's what I'm trying to do — get elected to serve in the U.S. Senate. I think the pathway to that is the outline."

"So you won't debate him?" Case followed up.

"I'm not running to be a member of the debate team," Cochran repeated with a laugh. "I'm running for U.S. Senate. I'll debate in Washington on the floor of the Senate, and in the appropriations committee for Mississippi's interest. That's what I'm running to achieve, not to have some made-up hokey high school-looking debate, when there is nothing to debate," Cochran said.

A recent poll showed the Tea Party challenger McDaniel with 3% lead over incumbent Republican Sen. Thad Cochran heading into the June 24 primary runoff on June 24.

U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) greets Ingalls Shipbuilding employees outside of the Pascagoula, Miss., shipyard on Friday, June 13, 2014. Cochran is in a runoff against State Sen. Chris McDaniel for the Republican nomination for his seat.

John Fitzhugh/Biloxi Sun Herald / MCT

The more things change…

Then:

Washington Post, February 3, 2005.

Now:

Wall Street Journal, June 13, 2014.

Then:

Agence France Presse, November 14, 2005.

Now:

New York Times, June 13, 2014.

View Entire List ›

Idaho Rep. Raul Labrador is a leader in the bipartisan movement to change the way mandatory minimum sentences work.

Rep. Raul Labrador, right, and last year.

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

WASHINGTON — On Friday, Idaho Republican Rep. Raul Labrador threw his hat into the ring to replace Eric Cantor as House Majority Leader, casting himself as the choice of conservatives cool to supporting Cantor's choice of a replacement, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy.

Last month, in an interview with BuzzFeed about his support for the bipartisan Smarter Sentencing Act, Labrador veered off into a brief discussion on his vision of bipartisanship overall.

The second-term Republican believes the media unfairly portrays the tea party as obstructionists unwilling to work with Democrats. Rather, he said, the right way to think about them is ready to work with anyone who agrees with them on specific issues, but doesn't demand they "meet in the middle."

Labrador called this a new way of looking at bipartisanship, most common to the new crop of "southern and western conservatives" that came into the House with Labrador in 2010. One way tea partiers have shown their interest in that new form of bipartisanship, he said, is found in where they actually sit on the House floor.

"All of these southern and western new conservatives, we are all trying to work in a bipartisan basis," he said. "Look where we sit, we actually sit in the aisle there. We talk to Democrats all the time, because they come over and start talking to us. So even on a personal relationship level."

As Labrador makes his pitch to the GOP caucus for a slot in leadership, the month-old interview offered some insights into what a Labrador led-House Republican approach to legislating might look like.

Labrador: Has the media actually misidentified the conservative movement and especially the new conservatives in the House? I think they have. All of these Southern and Western new conservative, we are all trying to work in a bipartisan basis.

Look where we sit, we actually sit in the aisle there. We talk to Democrats all the time, because they come over and start talking to us. So even on a personal relationship level.

BuzzFeed: So you sit on the aisle so people can physically find you easier?

Labrador: Correct. I don't think that was done on purpose but that's something that's happened.

BuzzFeed: So why do we talk so much about partisan breakdown then? It is true that Congress hasn't done much to pass much legislation in a while. Where's that coming from?

Labrador: I do think we have some major differences with the other party on some specific issues. The old way of looking at bipartisanship is, you know, I need to meet in the middle. We're not centrists. What we are talking about, the new conservatives, on the issues we can work with, like immigration, like prison reform, we have no problem working with you [the Democrats.] On other issues like taxation and growth in government, we're not going to meet them in the middle because that makes us centrists and we're not centrists. Can you understand the difference between those two? It's definitely not, 'I'm going to meet you in the middle.' It's, 'Let's figure out the issues that we can work on together that we can actually move forward on an agenda that helps America.'

BuzzFeed: So, basically, it's 'if you want to come to us, we're willing to work with you.' That's how you're saying it?

Labrador: No, no. It's just on prison reform, we agree with you so let's work on that together. On taxation, we don't agree with you so I'm not going to meet you in the middle.

A change long sought by advocates.

Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press / MCT

WASHINGTON — The federal government is telling insurers Friday that they can now provide transgender people with coverage for transition-related care — including sex-reassignment surgery — in federal employee health care plans, BuzzFeed has learned.

Two sources informed of the decision told BuzzFeed the longtime exclusion of transition-related care under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program is coming to an end on Friday in the form of a letter being sent to the insurance providers. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) officials would neither confirm nor provide comment to BuzzFeed about the decision.

The move comes two weeks after Medicare made a similar move. In the Medicare case, the Department of Health and Human Services' Departmental Appeals Board issued a ruling that ended a ban on Medicare even considering the coverage of sex-reassignment surgery and related care because a fear of "serious complications" resulting from the "experimental" surgery.

The OPM change does not mean that federal employee health insurers must cover transition-related care, the sources said, but the change does permit the insurers to do so.

The move by OPM has been long sought by LGBT advocates and appears to be part of action taken by OPM to "update various nondiscrimination provisions ... to provide greater consistency and reflect current law."

Under a proposed OPM rule from September 2013 slated to be finalized this month, "An employment practice must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), national origin, age (as defined by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended), disability, genetic information, marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, labor organization affiliation or nonaffiliation, status as a parent, or any other non-merit-based factor."

View Entire List ›

Obama’s controversial judicial nominee has lost the Senate Democrats and doesn’t have a lot of Republican friends either. “I promise you he’ll be there until the very end,” says a supporter.

WASHINGTON — Michael Boggs is fighting an uphill battle on Capitol Hill. His friends say he likes it that way.

"There's an old country and western song, 'If I'm going to go down, I'm going to go down swinging,'" said John Thigpen, an attorney from Blackshear, Georgia, and a supporter of the embattled state Appeals Court judge nominated to the federal bench by President Obama. "He'll go down swinging."

"He's a determined man," Thigpen said. "I promise you he'll be there until the very end."

That attitude Thigpen describes might explain why Boggs is still kicking around. After all, his nomination has not gone well for Obama, the Republican senators who backed him, or for Boggs himself.

Progressives rallied against Boggs from the outset, forming an extraordinary coalition of abortion rights, LGBT rights and civil rights advocates that has successfully pressured top Democrats to formally oppose the nominee, including two members of the Judiciary Committee, suggesting Boggs might have trouble making it to a Senate floor vote. After a disastrous confirmation hearing, the White House — which nominated Boggs as part of a deal to get their other nominees past Republican opposition — bailed on Boggs, too. Following the hearing, Democrats demanded written answers from Boggs and when they got them, found them decidedly lacking.

On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, separated Boggs' name from the rest of the Georgia slate of nominees after Democrats demanded more answers from Boggs.

Federal nominees have dropped out for less, and back home in Georgia, attorneys are scratching their heads.

"Everyone is saying, 'Why hasn't he withdrawn?'" said Suzy Ockleberry, a lawyer and top official at Advocacy For Action, a Georgia-based group aimed at increasing racial diversity on the Georgia bench that opposes Boggs. After the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and the continuing call for answers from Boggs from Democrats, Ockleberry said Boggs' refusal withdrawal is pure hubris.

"I think that it is surprising that he thinks his nomination is still viable," she said. "His positions in a lot of the follow-up questions would indicate that he probably should withdraw."

In Washington, those involved with the Boggs nomination are keeping tight-lipped about why he's still facing a Judiciary Committee vote. The White House did not respond to a request for comment about Boggs, and staff for Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss — seen as the man who helped orchestrate the deal that put Boggs forward along with a slate of judges Obama wanted — said Chambliss "does not comment on judicial nominees."

Boggs didn't respond to a message left for him at his office in Georgia.

Progressive advocates in D.C. pushing Democrats to reject Boggs aren't willing to say his nomination is dead yet, and are moving ahead with their efforts even after Boggs' nomination was delayed.

"Michael Boggs not getting a vote this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee reaffirms his questionable record and inconsistent statements," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We will continue our efforts to make sure the committee, the full Senate, and the public are aware of Boggs' past and to defeat his confirmation."

Thigpen, a fellow attorney from a county Boggs represented in the state legislature, said Boggs could suffer in Georgia if he loses an embarrassingly lopsided confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate. Boggs is ambitious, and the next move for him if he doesn't get the federal judgeship could be an attempt to jump from the state court of appeals to the state supreme court. But Thigpen said the political risk isn't enough to stop Boggs from seeing the fight with the progressives in Washington to the bitter end.

"Any time you're rejected for anything you're damaged," Thigpen said. "But he'll come back and he'll overcome it."

Immigrant rights to be a central issue down ballot for Tim Wu. “I think I can beat Andrew Cuomo,” says Zephyr Teachout.

Zephyr Teachout

Tim Wu

Zephyr Teachout, who failed in a surprisingly stiff challenge to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for the nomination of the progressive Working Families Party, will challenge Cuomo for the Democratic nomination for governor, she confirmed for the first time in an interview with BuzzFeed Friday.

Teachout, a Fordham law professor who also worked on Howard Dean's failed presidential bid, will run alongside Tim Wu, a Columbia law professor known for his advocacy of net neutrality, as her lieutenant governor, they said in the joint interview.

Teachout also opened a new front against Cuomo with criticism of his own choice for Lieutenant Governor, Kathy Hochul, who is best known in the state for her 2007 battle against a plan to issue drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants.

Teachout said that in a state that typically focuses on "honoring the dignity of all immigrants" she is "disappointed" in Hochul.

She described Hochul as someone "who has not traditionally been a friend of immigrant communities."

Another progressive candidate, Bill Samuels, reportedly considered challenging Hochul.

Even getting on the primary ballot may be a challenge: New York State requires 15,000 signatures. And Cuomo, who eked out a victory in the progressive-dominated Working Families Party, has deep roots in the state's Democratic Party. He has also supported liberal causes on social issues, such as same sex marriage, even as he tacked to the center on economic issues.

Teachout and Wu said they will to position themselves as the anti-Cuomo's, touting their progressive bonafides while highlighting Cuomo's right-leaning tendencies, such as cooperating with a Republican-led state Senate and supporting tax breaks for the rich.

Teachout's unlikely bid at the Working Families Party convention was upended by a last minute deal cut between Cuomo, top union leaders, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. Though Cuomo promised to champion some progressive causes and work to win a Democratic state Senate, many within the party don't fully trust him to uphold his end of the bargain. Teachout said she hopes to win their support and draw out others who usually skip out on primaries.

Despite de Blasio's role in helping Cuomo win the party line, Teachout said she isn't upset with the mayor who has become a national darling of the progressive movement.

"No bad blood at all. I love the Working Families Party," she said. "I think it was an important moment for concessions from Andrew Cuomo. I think it's still important to challenge him. I think I can beat Andrew Cuomo."

In reaction to growing rumors of Teachout's challenge to Cuomo, the Working Families Party sent out a statement Friday afternoon encouraging "progressives to support Governor Cuomo in the Democratic primary."

Teachout and Wu wouldn't delve too much into politics outside of the state. They said they admire Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown but wouldn't name any current governors they look up to because it's "very hard to judge people in the present."

Instead, they harkened back to the early 20th Century, citing both Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt as governors they admire.

"We think anti-trust policy is important," Wu said. "It used to be Standard Oil...now it's Comcast."

Though Teachout's campaign can prove disruptive to Cuomo's early election season, it has one silver lining for the incumbent.

Without a primary challenger, Cuomo would have to return a percentage of donations he received. With Teachout's entry, Cuomo will be able to accept maximum donations for both the primary and general election cycles.

View Entire List ›