“We will complete the job. Not as quickly as I would like, but we will complete it.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Senate Foreign Relations committee passed an authorization for the use of military force to fight ISIS Thursday, but the fate of a final AUMF will remain in limbo until Congress comes back in January.

The AUMF draft written by Chairman Bob Menendez included language to put a three-year timeline on the authorization and prohibits putting boots on the ground.

The bill passed along a party line vote, and it is highly unlikely a full senate vote will happen before the end of the lame-duck session of Congress. But Republican members, including soon-to-be Chairman of the Committee Bob Corker, were insistent the debate would continue in the next congress.

Even though Congress will likely adjourn without passing a full authorization, committee Democrats seemed satisfied that they had at least come this far. Sen. Tim Kaine, who has loudly broken with the administration on the issue of the AUMF, said he obviously would have liked to see their work done now, but as far as he was concerned, the issue was not going away anytime soon.

"We're starting the process of a congressional authorization and that helps support the troops and it helps the mission. And it will become the de-facto starting point," Kaine told BuzzFeed News. "We will complete the job. Not as quickly as I would like but we will complete it and that will provide an authority for a war without authority."

Despite the partisan vote, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul supported several amendments to the bill. And Corker reiterated at the mark-up that he "believe there is a way for us to pass something that is bipartisan" in the next Congress.

"It's created a good starting point…the tone and the civility were just very good," said Sen. Tom Udall of the bills passage. "It feels like we created a good place to have a good discussion."

Members in both parties expressed to Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday that they felt the president was acting outside his legal authority, though Kerry insisted that an AUMF passed in the wake of 9/11 authorized the current fight with ISIS.

Udall said he was concerned that Republicans wanted to leave the option open for boots on the ground, and he was still pushing to get the Menendez version on the floor before Congress leaves.

"We shouldn't go before this is done," he said.

Other Democratic members said that the ramifications of not passing an AUMF could be dire, and are anxious to get working come January.

"If this stretches on too long or if Congress never authorizes force then I think that has dire consequences for us and the future foreign policy of this country," said Sen. Chris Murphy.

Sen. Jim Risch, a Republican on the committee, said he did not believe that the GOP members of the panel disagreed on all that much—and the reason for the party line vote against the bill was due to "the way it was done."

"I do not believe [the administration] is acting with in their authority, I agree with the Democrats on that," he said. "The Democrats and Republicans have a lot more in common than they do in opposition. It's probably going to be a party line vote simply because of the way we're trying to do it."

“If the president is lobbying, we do not like it. And we’re saying to our members, don’t be intimidated by anybody,” said Rep. Maxine Waters.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — In a closed door meeting Thursday, with the deadline to fund the government fast approaching, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough called on House Democrats to vote for an omnibus spending bill that contains two key provisions many of them say they are against.

But Democrats who came out of the meeting and spoke to reporters said their minds remained mostly unchanged, and even that it angered them the White House was digging so deep into this issue at all.

"We're fighting anybody who is lobbying to vote for this bill," Rep. Maxine Waters said. "If the president is lobbying, we do not like it. And we're saying to our members, don't be intimidated by anybody."

The White House was making calls to both Democrats and Republicans Thursday to try and garner support for the bill.

Democrats are put off in particular by two key provisions they didn't expect to be in the bill — one that changes campaign finance rules and another that undoes a key part of Dodd-Frank.

Some Democrats have even laid the blame on their own party members in the Senate who helped negotiate the deal. The omnibus spending bill is a product of long negotiations between Senate Democrats and House Republicans.

"Senate additions of these last two items have raised some concerns," said Rep. Chaka Fattah, who serves on the Appropriations Committee. "What we want to see is the best opportunity to get the work of the Appropriations Committee done, and these two last minute items that were added had nothing to do with the work of the Appropriations Committee."

Rep. Jim Clyburn, who serves in a leadership role, didn't deny that House leadership is frustrated with the Senate when asked directly by a reporter, but said that "those responsible" for the two provisions should help remove them from the bill.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, backed by progressive groups and labor unions, has been one of the leading voices to speak out against the bill. On the House side, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who stands in line with the president on most issues, has also said she would not vote for the bill as it stands.

And with conservatives also withholding votes because the omnibus bill doesn't seek to defund Obama's immigration executive order, House GOP leadership need Democratic votes to pass the bill.

With the uncertainty surrounding the bill, there now appear to be two main options floating among members — either pass the long-term omnibus bill, or pass a three-month continuing resolution and do this all over again early next year.

Other Democrats simply expressed frustration with the entire process. Like Rep. Jim Moran, who is retiring at the end of this year.

"I think that this particular experience, as many others, have validated my decision to leave," Moran said.

Hours before the midnight deadline, the House passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill to keep the government funded.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The House passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill to keep the government funded Thursday night, hours before the deadline to keep the government funded passed.

The bill passed 219-206.

The bill will still need to pass the Senate, where Sen. Elizabeth Warren and others have also said they will fight against it.

With the clock winding down, Democrats in the House had to consider whether it was better to try and stop the bill now and reevaluate next year after passing a short term spending bill, or just vote for the bill that had already been negotiated between Senate Democrats and House Republicans.

"I don't believe this bill gets any better for Democrats in three months," said Rep. Joe Crowley, the vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus who voted in favor of the bill. "I think an awful lot of people who voted 'no' wanted to see this pass."

The House vote came hours later than expected due to Democratic disagreement over two provisions in the bill. One was a measure that undid a key aspect of Dodd-Frank, another was a sweeping change of campaign finance rules.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi broke with other members of Democratic leadership and the White House to vote against the bill. The White House had sent Chief of Staff Denis McDonough to Capitol Hill Thursday to lobby Democrats to support the bill even with the two provisions.

The Senate will vote on a two day continuing resolution Thursday to avoid a shutdown and a vote on the House-passed spending bill "could be as early as tomorrow, but we'll need cooperation to vote before Monday," according to a top Senate Democratic aide. The vote tomorrow is possible, but unlikely, considering opposition to the bill in the Senate.

“And sometimes when I have a real thick briefing I have to read through, I’ll have the game on with the sound off.”

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

President Barack Obama on Friday appeared on ESPN Radio show "The Herd with Colin Cowherd," where he discussed his views on social media, the political and personal responsibilities of athletes, and the state of Chicago sports.

Immediately, Obama found an opportunity to promote healthcare.gov, which he says is now fully recovered from the problems that plagued its rollout. He also closed the program with a joke about "weekend warriors" on the basketball court, and said that at his age he needs to make sure to have great health care.

During the interview he said he supports LeBron James and Magic Johnson using their platforms to make statements about political causes they feel are important, referencing Muhammad Ali and Arthur Ashe as a precedent for athletes speaking out. He called it important for athletes to embrace that they are "citizens as well as entertainers."

Obama then transitioned to talking about the responsibility players have to their fans and to their employers with regard to personal conduct, but said we must examine how they are treated by the leagues when they do make those mistakes. He said he believes it's important to have plans in place for discipline ahead of time, then got to it and said the NFL was "behind the curve" with the Ray Rice Situation. "You don't want to be winging it."

The President said that to be effective in accessing and handling situations of player conduct the leagues must make a conscious effort to address the systematic issues that remain due to the "old boys' club" mentality. The President made it clear that businesses, in sports and otherwise, must be sure to hire and promote women and "folks of diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds because you make better decisions when you have different viewpoints."

Obama discussed his disappointment with the 5–8 Chicago Bears, but said the Bulls are looking pretty good. He says he "can't sit down and watch an entire game," but makes exceptions for Championships. He says Sportscenter gives him a "pretty good idea of what's going on," and that he watches ESPN most mornings because he can't deal with any more political chatter than he already has to hear.

Obama said that sports fans should remember that we are "all on the same team, and that's the American team."

Listen to most of Obama's comments below:

View Entire List ›

The website could have been registered by Farenthold, or possibly as a prank by someone not associated with the Texas conservative.

Whoisology.com / Via whoisology.com

The website Blow-me.org is registered to Republican Texas Rep. Blake Farenthold, according to an Internet registration page.

The website could have been registered by Farenthold, or possibly as a prank by someone not associated with the Texas conservative.

The telephone number that registered the domain goes to the Elect Blake Farenthold Committee and previously was associated with Farenthold Consulting Group, the congressman's former computer consulting business.

The email address the website is registered to Blake@blake.com, has been associated with the congressman since 1996.

A spokesman for Farenthold did not immediately return a request comment on the registration.

LINK: h/t to Capitol Hill Fox who sent this to me.

Farenthold's business website in 1996

Via web.archive.org

View Entire List ›

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi defied the White House’s request and voted against a bill to fund the government Thursday night.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — A spokesman for the White House defended the relationship between President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Friday at a press briefing.

"I continue to be confident, and I know that the president is confident that the strong working relationship — and the effective, productive working relationship — that we've had over the last six years will continue for the next two," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.

At a long meeting with House Democrats Thursday night, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough implored the caucus to vote for a government spending bill many of them disagreed with. Pelosi, along with Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, broke with leadership and the White House, and still voted against the bill.

On the House floor Thursday, Pelosi said Democrats were being "blackmailed" into voting for the bill.

Though Earnest didn't confirm whether Obama called Pelosi after the vote, he said the president has an "open line of communication" with Pelosi and that "didn't change" Thursday and "it's not going to change in the future."

The Senate still needs to approve the long term spending bill, which progressives and conservatives alike have continued to oppose.

“This is Elizabeth Warren ginning up the leftwing of the Democratic Party who are professional haters of business. This is absolute nonsense.”

w.soundcloud.com

Republican Sen. Pat Toomey slammed "Elizabeth Warren's nonsense" over a provision in the government spending bill that rolls back a financial regulation aimed at Wall Street banks.

"I hope you're not going to fall for Elizabeth Warren's nonsense," said Toomey on WPHT radio Friday.

At issue is the swaps rule, a provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law which requires banks to have certain derivatives in units outside the government's safety net. The House passed the 1.1 trillion spending bill with the provision to roll back the rule Thursday evening. The Senate must now consider the bill, which Democratic Senator Warren has vehemently opposed.

The Pennsylvania Republican suggested Warren's outrage came out of personal ambition, calling it "absolute nonsense."

"This is Elizabeth Warren ginning up the leftwing of the Democratic Party who are professional haters of business. This is absolute nonsense," Toomey said.

"There is a tiny provision in Dodd-Frank that forces banks do something that is counter productive, it forces, in fact it increases taxpayer risk because it forces them to do some of their risk management outside the bank in a separate subsidiary where they can't manage their risk as well. Nobody thinks this is a good idea. No regulators do, nobody who understands banking does, nobody who understands risk management. So all it does is it says banks can conduct their ordinary risk management processes within the institution itself."

"Elizabeth Warren sees this as an opportunity to just gin up the leftwing. Let's not go for that."

Republican Rep. Scott Perry said the Obama administration seems to care more about the rights of terrorists than those of United States citizens.

w.soundcloud.com

Republican Rep. Scott Perry says the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA's interrogation and detention techniques nearly qualifies as treason.

Speaking with WPHT radio Friday, the Pennsylvania Republican added the Obama administration seems to care more about the rights of terrorists than those of United States citizens.

"This is completely regrettable — I think it, for me, as a military guy, it's almost treasonous, and it borders on treasonous," said Perry. "And it vexes me that this president, this administration, and some of his cohort are happier to be concerned about the rights of savages that will kill every American they can get their hands on, while there seem to be disconcerned about our rights, and the transparency."

The congressman then compared the transparency of the torture report to what he said was a lack of transparency in the Ferguson, MO grand jury that declined to indict officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown.

"You know, even from the standpoint of this grand jury investigation in Ferguson, where the one guy that claimed there was a hands-up thing — see, his grand jury testimony, that has to remain secret, but yet this, which has national security implications, and puts lives and national security at risk — that has to be open for the whole world to see."

The Senate Intelligence Committee's 525-page report released Tuesday details cases of detainees being waterboarded to near-death, days worth of sleep deprivation, a detainee chained to the ceiling while clothed in a diaper to go to the bathroom, rectal feeding and rectal rehydration, and a detainee spending more 10 days in a coffin-shaped box, among other details.

The logo of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency is shown in the lobby of the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia March 3, 2005.

Jason Reed / Reuters / Reuters

Gonzales also said he thinks the drone program has done “equal damage” to the United States standing in the world community.

View Video ›

Former Bush Attorney General and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales said CIA interrogators went beyond the Justice Department's guidance in their treatment of detainees.

"You know, we provided a guidance, and, you know, it was up to the CIA to comply with that guidance. As I started hearing about some of the items in the report, I became a little — I became troubled, because some of those things, some of what was being referenced appear beyond the guidance," Gonzales said on NewsMaxTV's Steve Malzberg Show Friday. "Yesterday, CIA Director John Brennan confirmed that there were some activities that went beyond the guidance, and that, of course, was inappropriate. And I think that's a very important point to understand."

Gonzales added he was unclear of how much trust to put in the report, saying it was one-sided and partisan.

Gonzales also said he thinks the drone program has done "equal damage" to the United States standing in the world community.

"To the extent that waterboarding may hurt our standing in the world community, I think that the way the drone program is being operated does equal damage," said the former attorney general.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's 525-page report released Tuesday details cases of detainees being waterboarded to near-death, days worth of sleep deprivation, a detainee chained to the ceiling while clothed in a diaper to go to the bathroom, rectal feeding and rectal rehydration, and a detainee spending more 10 days in a coffin-shaped box, among other details.

A man walks past a graffiti, denouncing strikes by U.S. drones in Yemen, painted on a wall in Sanaa November 13, 2014.

Khaled Abdullah / Reuters

With a key vote on a spending bill just hours away, Cruz once again has all eyes on him.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Cruz's last minute effort Friday to force a vote over President Obama's immigration executive actions has not only reopened deep wounds within his party but is also shifting blame for government dysfunction away from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other progressives and back on to the GOP.

With lawmakers already headed home Friday, Cruz and fellow conservative Sen. Mike Lee unexpectedly blocked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan to set a vote on a long-term spending bill for Monday, throwing the chamber into chaos in a similar fashion as when the government did shut down a little more a year ago.

Over the last week, Warren had taken Cruz's place as trouble-maker-in-chief of Capitol Hill, leading a nearly successful revolt against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama over banking deregulation language included in a must-pass end of year spending bill.

Rallying House Democrats including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Warren's efforts triggered yet another round of crisis management in Congress and forcing Republican and Democratic leaders, Vice President Joe Biden, and Obama to scramble for votes.

But the potential for a government shutdown seemed to have subsided Friday: until, that is, Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee made their push for a vote on immigration.

Warren has seemingly been more than willing to let Cruz take the spotlight. Warren hasn't given a floor speech since Friday night, nor has she done media appearances.

In the halls of the Capitol she ignores reporters as she briskly walks to and from the Senate floor.

Giving Cruz the spotlight during a Saturday session of Congress has provided Democrats with the space they've needed to place blame for dysfunction back on Republicans, a mantle the party has struggled to shrug off for the last four years.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said he wasn't sure there was any "heat" on Democrats because of Warren's shutdown showdown with leadership, and instead called Cruz and Lee's move to force the Senate back into session on Saturday nothing more than a political power play done at the expense of the rest of the Senate.

"This is an attempt for the two of them to grab a bunch of attention," Murphy said. "This is a play for some advantage in the Republican Party and we're just bystanders to it."

Republicans, to varying degrees, agree.

"[The tactic] is not in keeping with our Republican commitment to return to normal order and to show ... people of this country that we remember our responsibility," Sen. Susan Collins said.

Collins also said the strategy was "counterproductive" and reminded her of last year, when the government shut down for two weeks.

GOP Sen. Bob Corker said he was supposed to be landing in Iraq today, but instead had to stay in town to vote.

Sen. Richard Burr, a Republican, hinted that Cruz skirted leadership just to make a statement. Burr said senators have made similar moves before, but unlike Cruz, also acted with "respect."

"The difference is that the Senate operated because members showed respect for each other," Burr said. "You can't criticize anybody for wanting to make a point and the point that Ted's trying to make is the president doesn't have constitutional authority to do what he did."

Meanwhile, the Senate continues to power through procedural and confirmation votes until it reaches 1 a.m., when a key procedural vote on the large spending bill is expected. The Senate passed by voice vote a short term continuing resolution on Saturday afternoon that guarantees the government won't shut down at least until Wednesday.

Cruz said he offered a deal to Majority Leader Harry Reid earlier in the day to cut debate time and allow a vote on the spending bill as well as an up or down vote on Obama's immigration executive order, which has been Cruz's mission all along. Reid rejected that deal, and is using the time until the vote to squeeze in important procedural votes on presidential nominees.

But those conversations have since come to a halt, both Cruz and a top aide in Reid's office said.

"He fumbled the ball, we recovered it," Reid's aide said. "And now he's asking for the ball back."

With a deal dead in the water, Democrats continue to try to shore up support for the spending bill before the vote later tonight.

"I think we see the light at the end of the tunnel," Murphy said.

Senators reached a deal and were expected to vote on the bill early Sunday morning.

The vote was expected to begin at 1 a.m. ET, according to NBC News. It comes after the House passed the bill late Thursday, thus avoiding a government shutdown.

View Entire List ›

The bill will keep the government funded through September of 2015.

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

After a rare weekend session, the Senate passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill Saturday night that keeps most of the government funded through September.

It passed 56-40, with 18 Republicans and 21 Democrats voting against it.

The vote came after Democrats and Republicans negotiated back and forth throughout the day and night on how they would proceed.

Senate leadership was caught by surprise Friday night when Sen. Ted Cruz along with Sen. Mike Lee blocked a procedural vote to set up a final vote for the omnibus bill on Monday.

Senators who had already skipped town were forced to cancel their plans and turn around back to the Capitol. Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who next year will be the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had to cancel a trip to Iraq and Turkey because of the move.

Democrats later huddled in Reid's office and talked over a Chinese food dinner about how to proceed. Ultimately a deal was reached sending the bill to Obama's desk Saturday night, instead of having a procedural vote at 1 a.m. on Sunday and a final vote early Monday.

Republicans ate Chick-fil-A for lunch while procedural votes took place.

The deal allowed Democrats to file cloture on the less controversial presidential nominees, saving hours of legislative slog. Democrats were ultimately able to set up votes on all 24 nominees they wanted to confirm, according to a Democratic leadership aide.

Among the more controversial nominees that made it onto the docket was Vivek Murthy, Obama's pick for Surgeon General. Murthy's nomination has been held up for months because of strong opposition from the National Rifle Association over his position on gun control.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham directly blamed Cruz for helping Reid advance so many nominees, saying his tactics were misguided.

"I haven't seen Harry smile this much in a long time," Sen. Lindsey Graham said. "Don't like it."

Cruz was still able to force an up or down vote on Obama's immigration executive action by using a procedural tactic before the bill was ultimately passed. The "point of order" vote failed 22-74. Several GOP senators who have said they are against Obama's executive order voted "no" anyway, including Sens. John McCain and Ron Johnson, in a protest against Cruz's delay tactics.

Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat, screamed "absolutely no!" when voting against the Cruz point of order.

Speaking with reporters after the final vote, Cruz conceded that had a vote against Obama's immigration executive order taken place earlier in the week, it would have had more support.

"The division among Republicans is, I think at this point, a procedural division," Cruz said.

U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch has held nearly 30 meetings with various Senators, including almost every member of the Judiciary Committee.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Even as all attention on Capitol Hill focused on an eleventh hour continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown, Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch was meeting with Senators from both parties in a charm offensive ahead of her confirmation proceedings in the next session.

A senior Justice Department official told BuzzFeed News Lynch has held nearly 30 meetings with various Senators, including almost every member of the Judiciary Committee, in an attempt to put a smiling face to the tales of the no-nonsense prosecutor who placed cops and would-be terrorists in jail.

The official added the meetings serve as a precursor for a more aggressive campaign in the weeks to come.

According to this official, who spoke to BuzzFeed News on background, Lynch will tout her background on national security cases as U.S. Attorney, framing her office — the Eastern District of New York — as one of the nation's most prominent for the handling of cases related to the national security of the United States, including against Al Qaeda. Manhattan had long been the chief office to which these issues got referred.

Lynch is also prepared to tout her public corruption cases against Democratic and Republican legislators. Most recently, her office brought corruption charges against Republican Rep. Michael Grimm.

Senate Democrats remain confident she will get confirmed in a bipartisan fashion and that her confirmation hearings will be fair, but there is little doubt on their end that Lynch will face tough questioning about how the president's executive order on immigration falls within his enforcement authority under the Constitution.

Republican Senator David Vitter from Louisiana has been especially clear on this issue, addressing Lynch's nomination in a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday.

"She would be actively giving him legal cover, if you will — bad legal reasoning used for PR purposes to further that illegal executive order," Vitter said.

In addition to immigration, two Democratic Congressional staffers familiar with the incoming majority's process told BuzzFeed News they expect to be peppered Lynch with questions regarding her interpretation of online gaming laws, her prosecution against cyber security, and how she might prioritize the enforcement of marijuana laws.

According to an official at DOJ, the department expects her to be asked to give her opinion on the reauthorizing of a provision that allowed the federal government to collect bulk data. A bill sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy to water down the NSA's surveillance capabilities was voted down this year, but the original provision is up in June.

A spokesperson for Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the incoming chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said while he hasn't given any indication as to the line of questioning he'll take in his first critical task as committee chair, he will not limit the number of questions member have for the nominee.

"He has said that he'll allow for as many questions as members want to ask, so I'd expect a broad range of topics to be discussed," said Beth Levine, communications director for Sen. Grassley's office.

"U.S. Attorneys are rarely elevated directly to this position, so I look forward to learning more about her, how she will interact with Congress, and how she proposes to lead the department," Sen. Grassley said in a statement.

Michelle D. Schwartz, director of Justice Programs at the Alliance for Justice, an organization that monitors judicial nominations nationwide, said there is "pretty wide consensus that she is a very strong choice for attorney general."

"She is somebody who has strong support across the political spectrum including law enforcement," she said.

Rabinowitz and Keyak plan to take an aggressive progressive approach to pro-Israel politics. “Jews are Democrats, and they will be again in two years, and they just are.”

WASHINGTON — Longtime pro-Israel Democratic operative Steve Rabinowitz is launching a new firm with a new business partner after the contentious break up last year with his former partner.

Rabinowitz and Aaron Keyak, who left his job as Rep. Jerrold Nadler's communications director to launch the new venture, will announce the birth of their communications firm Bluelight Strategies on Monday. Bluelight will officially begin in its new iteration in January. The announcement will take place at the annual "Latkes and Vodkas" holiday party, which holds a certain symbolic significance: It's the 20th anniversary of the event which used to be held by Rabinowitz and Matt Dorf, his former partner who broke off to start his own firm last year. Rabinowitz kept the party as part of the split.

"It's time to hit refresh," Rabinowitz told BuzzFeed News on Sunday. "I'm thrilled to have Aaron coming on, we've worked together more than once before," he said, citing their work on "The Hub," an operation during the 2012 campaign designed to keep Jewish voters on the Democrats' side during the election.

The Hub was "such a success, I feel like we're getting the band back together," Rabinowitz said.

"Bringing on Aaron Keyak to his new venture, Bluelight Strategies is a smart move on Steve's part and will bring great energy to this new project," Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement, citing Keyak's work on Capitol Hill and the Hub as well as the National Jewish Democratic Council. "I look forward to the next set of contributions Steve and Aaron will bring to liberal causes and the faith-based community."

Of the name's significance, Rabinowitz said, "The blue is progressive politics in America, and you know, the Jews can think it's Jewish too if they want."

The firm will focus on progressive issues, both foreign policy and otherwise. Rabinowitz and Keyak say their clients include environmental clients in North Carolina and upstate New York, as well as the Jewish Federations of North America and its Jewish community relations councils, a university in Israel, the Times of Israel, the Israel Policy Forum, and the Religious Action Center, Reform Judaism's political arm.

"Look, there's no getting around the fact that half the staff and half the clients walked away with Matt," Rabinowitz said. "But we have a bunch of old clients, a bunch of new clients, old staff, new staff, brand new staff."

It's an "exciting opportunity to start fresh, to start anew," Rabinowitz said. "And to not have it be all about me. It doesn't need to be Rabinowitz Communications anymore."

"Or Rabinowitz-Keyak," Keyak said.

Bluelight is also gearing up for Hillary Clinton's presumptive 2016 presidential effort. Rabinowitz is a veteran of Bill Clinton's White House and earlier this year launched "Jewish Americans Ready for Hillary," a branch of the larger Ready for Hillary draft-Clinton campaign.

"Steve is a longtime member of Clintonland," Keyak said. "And so when it comes to the various communities we're involved in, especially in the Jewish and pro-Israel communities, we're going to be all about Hillaryland."

"They're good partners, and they know the community," Ann Lewis, a former Clinton White House communications director and senior adviser to Clinton's 2008 campaign. "And that can be very valuable because sometimes people come along who want to tell you they do, but Steve and Aaron both have a deep experience with a wide range, both of organizations and again of individuals."

Bluelight is launching in a fraught time for pro-Israel progressives, as recent polls show signs of a partisan divide on Israel and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict looks farther away than ever after this past year's failed peace talks led by the Obama administration. But the pair are convinced that the Jewish vote will remain Democratic.

"I hear this meme every two years," Rabinowitz said. "Every two years my Republican Jewish friends say this is the year that Jews are going to tilt Republican or tilt politically conservative. And then every subsequent November, it turns out not to be true."

"Jews are Democrats, and they're going to be again in two years, and they just are," Rabinowitz said.

"As Democrats we're going to take no back seat to Republicans on really any issue, but especially within the pro-Israel community," Keyak said.

"Some dynamics are changing; most notably, a growing, vigorous debate, with articulate conservative voices," Lewis said in an email. "(We are not just people of the book, but the website.) But by Election Day, majority of Jewish voters will support Democratic candidates."

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel “needs to order the review” of current regulations barring trans service, a prominent advocate says. Administration officials, for the most part, are staying silent on the issue.

Clockwise, from upper left: President Barack Obama, Kristin Beck, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, Defense Secretary-nominee Ashton Carter, Allyson Robinson, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

Getty Images / AFP / BuzzFeed

WASHINGTON — Advocates for transgender military service are expectant that changes are coming to the military regulations that bar all transgender people from enlisting or, under individual service branch policies, continuing to serve if they come out as trans.

If people at the White House or Pentagon have any such plan in the works, however, almost everyone is staying quiet for now.

But, Allyson Robinson, a former Army captain and one of the country's leading transgender advocates, is optimistic.

Talking about the policies this past week, Robinson was excited by comments from Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James earlier in the week supporting a review of the current policies barring trans service.

"She just adds her voice to that of her boss, [Defense] Secretary [Chuck] Hagel, and her boss's boss, the president, in saying that it's past time to take a look at these obsolete, out-of-date policies," said Robinson, the policy director for SPARTA — an LGBT service members and veterans group.

Unlike the fight over out gay, lesbian, and bisexual service, the ban on trans service is not a law. There is no repeal of a trans "don't ask, don't tell" required — the military could begin changing the policy, or at least reviewing it, immediately if it wanted to do so.

"We have their commitment to do that — we have the commitment of Secretary Hagel himself to review these policies. And, I should add, I am aware, from my conversations with leaders at the Pentagon, that the secretary views this, views those words, as a promise, as a commitment to the service members," Robinson, who is also consulting for the Human Rights Campaign on trans service issues, said.

"I would be shocked if Secretary Hagel doesn't take just a moment in the weeks that he has left in office to make good on a promise that he made to the troops. He needs to order the review," she said. Hagel has announced his resignation, subject to the confirmation of the person Obama nominated to replace him, Ashton Carter.

Despite Robinson's optimism, though, officials, by and large, aren't willing to get into specifics of what — if anything — is going on to look at the issue.

Asked whether the president has ordered the Pentagon to initiate a review of the policies or ordered a change in relevant regulations barring trans service, a White House spokesperson said, "The president has not expressed a view on this issue. I would point you to the Department of Defense."

The Department of Defense was more direct. Pentagon spokesperson Nate Christensen told BuzzFeed News, "I can confirm that for you that no review of the department's policy has been ordered," and pointed to noncommittal comments from Defense Secretary Hagel in May as his "most recent comments" on the issue.

Kristin Beck, the former Navy SEAL who came out as trans and has been advocating for out trans service, told BuzzFeed News that she expects action by the Army on the issue in short order. When asked about the Army's policy, however, Army Public Affairs Specialist Tatjana Christian responded simply, "The Army policy has not changed."

Beck, who was the focus of a documentary, Lady Valor, that debuted on CNN this year and is working with the recently formed Military Freedom Coalition on trans service issues, said that her sources expect an announcement regarding regulatory restrictions on trans service from the Army as soon as this week — a move that she said would be "a huge step in the right direction." Christian, though, did not respond to a follow-up question asking whether any forthcoming changes are expected.

An Air Force spokesperson also did not respond to a message seeking comment about whether any changes were afoot regarding trans service regulations within that service branch.

And yet, Robinson, Beck, and others say they believe policy changes are coming.

Beck told BuzzFeed News she met with a senior Pentagon official in late October; the official was receptive to her arguments regarding trans service, Beck said, and told her that she could leave the meeting assured that the Pentagon is "listening" to her and other advocates' concerns.

"Not only do I think it's possible," Robinson said of a review like that undertaken before "don't ask, don't tell" repeal, "I think that this period of Secretary Hagel — sort of, lame-duck period — represents that best opportunity that we've had so far to get it done," noting that former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta took action on same-sex partner benefits and the combat exclusion for women in "the waning days" of his time.

"He did that, I think primarily, because he felt it was his responsibility to take care of his troops," she said. "He also did it out of a sense of collegiality to the person who was going to follow him. He took, what were seen by some as difficult or contentious issues, and took them off the table so that his successor would be able to start with a clean slate."

At a recent forum held by the Victory Fund Institute, the head of the National Center for Transgender Equality, Mara Keisling, said that she expected out trans service to be a reality within a few years.

In the past three years, several key federal actions to bar anti-transgender discrimination have taken place within the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; in the Justice, Education, and Labor Departments; and — in two separate executive orders signed this summer — from President Obama.

The policy changes have accompanied significant public, cultural shifts, as well. Public figures like actress Laverne Cox and activist Janet Mock have increased awareness of trans issues dramatically in the last few years.

The U.S. military has not changed, however; policies using medical terminology from decades past continue to govern the military's treatment of trans service member and enlistees, denying them the ability to serve and mandating their discharge if found out.

In the Army's "Standards of Medical Fitness," for example, transgender service is dismissed as "render[ing] an individual administratively unfit" alongside "[p]ersonality, psychosexual conditions, transsexual, gender identity, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, other paraphilias, or factitious disorders; disorders of impulse control not elsewhere classified."

Specifically, transgender or intersex people are defined as being subject to such an administrative dismissal whenever the relevant service member exhibits "[a] history of, or current manifestations of … transsexual, gender identity disorder to include major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia such as change of sex or a current attempt to change sex, hermaphroditism, pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis or dysfunctional residuals from surgical correction of these conditions."

What's more, the Palm Center — a think tank that did some of the key academic research preceding the end of "don't ask, don't tell" — has undertaken extensive research into the military's transgender policies. The group argued in a recent paper that a summer change from the Pentagon means that outdated branch regulations need to be reviewed and updated.

This August, the Pentagon "eliminated its default lists of medically disqualifying and administratively disqualifying conditions," the Palm Center's Diane Mazur explained in the group's November report. The now-withdrawn list of "administratively disqualifying conditions," known as Enclosure 5, required separation without exception and without any individualized assessment — a list that included transgender identity. Withdrawing the list, Mazur argued in the report, "suggests that the categorical retention prohibitions" on trans service in individual service branch's policies "are too sweeping" and must be revised.

The Pentagon spokesperson, Christensen, told the Army Times, however, that the change and withdrawal of Enclosure 5 "does not change or have any effect on the department's policy regarding separations and consequently does not affect the department's policy regarding military service by transgender individuals."

The Palm Center's director, Aaron Belkin, told BuzzFeed News that more leadership is needed from the president on the issue — writing that "any change," historically, would have to come from the White House.

But others, like Robinson, are focused on pressing the Pentagon leadership. She said that "a department-level update to these policies" is "the only viable way" of addressing the issue. Moreover, Robinson said that it would be preferable for the Pentagon, and not the White House, to take the lead on the issue.

While advocates debate where to exert pressure, Pentagon and administration officials have not publicly defended the bans on trans service. In May, Hagel said the policy "continually should be reviewed," and that he was "open" to a change. The White House, vaguely, backed Hagel's comments, with then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney saying that "certainly we support his efforts in this area."

The Washington Blade, meanwhile, reported last year that the out gay Undersecretary of the Air Force, Eric Fanning, supported out trans service, and, on Thursday, Fanning's boss, Secretary James, was the first service branch secretary to back a review of the policies, adding that "anyone who is capable of accomplishing the job should be able to serve."

But little has happened — at least, in public — in terms of any policy review, let alone changes. Even small steps appear to be incidental and not, at least formally, representative of any department-wide change.

When the Army, for example, granted two trans veterans' requests to alter their names on their respective DD Form 214 separation documents, a Pentagon spokesperson quickly responded to tell BuzzFeed News that the decision to do so — a request historically rejected by the branches, which cited that the form is a "historical document" and not subject to change ordinarily — was not a military-wide decision: "There has been no change to the [department] policy on this."

When it comes to current service, let alone enlistment, the official word is even less forthcoming: No government officials are saying that changes are being looked at, let alone implemented.

On an individual level, though, advocates insist that change is already happening.

"There is an Army person, who is transgender — male-to-female, just like myself — who, like eight months ago, maybe almost a year ago — I helped them write a memo … to their commander, and they've been kept," Beck said. "So, they've been kept for almost a year, and the commander's been kind of putting his neck out quite far to keep this person in the unit."

Robinson echoed that sentiment. "We know that most of the services are taking some kind of action at some level to protect their transgender service members."

Asked to clarify, she said, "I'm not going to go into specifics, because the potential sort of negative impact on our transgender service members whose careers are kind of hanging in the balance on all of this, but I think it's happening because commanders at all levels are finding themselves stymied by trying to apply 1970s policy in 2014."

Pressed whether she was describing individual commanders' decisions or whether this included higher-ranking officials, Robinson reiterated her "commanders at all levels" language, and said she would leave it at that — optimistically so.

The loudest sexism-tinged attacks on Democratic women over the past few months have been from Democrats.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

WASHINGTON — On Monday, Democratic women in Washington rallied around Sen. Elizabeth Warren after the Massachusetts progressive was the subject of a snarky, anonymous comment that critics said had "rapey" overtones. The reaction was swift and indicative of the rapid response from Democratic women and their allies that has defined the War On Women messaging effort.

Except this time, the perpetrator of the attack was also a Democrat, an anonymous source who speculated about a potential Warren presidential run.

"A Dem source just summed it up neatly," the Washington Post's Phil Rucker tweeted. "'Elizabeth Warren's mouth says no, but her eyes say yes, yes, yes.'"

Democrats broke the partisan code of omerta to go after their fellow Democrat on the record.

"Do better, Dem source," tweeted Jess McIntosh, communications director at EMILY's List.

The quote was the kind of thing Democrats relished in previous election cycles, pivoting off cringeworthy quotes from Republicans to rally women voters to their cause under the ever-present War On Women banner. Republicans made a concerted effort to fix their rhetoric in 2014. There were some cringeworthy moments, but by and large the Republican effort worked: There were no Todd Akin-style comments Democrats could use on the national level to drive a wedge between the Republican Party and women.

Democratic women are still facing down the kinds of moments that Democratic flacks would love if they were caused by Republicans. But since the outcome of the midterm election became clear, it's been Democrats providing one cringeworthy moment after another when it comes to women in politics.

Just after the election, Democrats ensnared themselves in a gender-based controversy that might have sunk a Republican politician. As part of an internal post-election struggle over control of the Democratic House caucus, prominent Democrats — including House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi — voted to deny a caucus proxy vote to Illinois Rep. Tammy Duckworth, who couldn't make it to Washington due to the late stages of her pregnancy.

Women's rights advocates were upset, and also confused. Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, noted that Democrats are leading the policy fight for legislation that would bar employers from refusing to accommodate pregnancies.

"It's completely in my view outrageous that the Democratic caucus wouldn't make an accommodation for Tammy Duckworth," O'Neill told BuzzFeed News. "That is an issue of public policy that is extremely important. You don't always get to time your pregnancy perfectly to account for things, and pregnancy is not like any other condition. It needs to be treated with the respect that it deserves."

"It's odd," she said, recalling the Duckworth episode as well as an internal Democratic fight over child care access at the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. "I don't think that a single Republican has signed on to the Pregnant Worker's Fairness Act yet! So, public policy-wise, Democrats are doing well. But they don't always."

O'Neill joined the critics of the anonymous quote about Warren too. She praised the Democratic Party for endorsing what she called a pro-woman policy agenda, but said the anonymous quote, the Duckworth episode and other gender-based attacks on Democratic women from other Democrats show the party isn't yet fully evolved.

Just before the election, when the upcoming drubbing was already clear in the mind of Democratic strategists, Democratic National Committee chair and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz came under fire from members of her party who said she mismanaged the DNC, making an uphill midterm climb for Democrats even steeper. Among their complaints: Wasserman Schultz, Politico reported, requested DNC funds to pay for the many expensive outfits required of a woman expected to speak publicly and hobnob with the wealthy like a DNC chair is. (Wasserman Schultz denied the allegation and said that using funds for clothes would be "inappropriate.")

Women's groups have rallied against reporting the details of a woman politician's outfit in a way that would generally not be used when writing about a man, and there was widespread outrage from women's advocates last year when a reporter noted that Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellin wore the same outfit twice. While much of this criticism emerged in the years after 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin faced round after round of liberal attacks for expensive clothing purchased for her by the McCain campaign, there is little doubt Democrats today would come after a Republican who criticized a Democratic rival for complaining about the costs of clothing required for her job.

"On substance, the Democrats are, in fact, doing a better job of promoting public policy that's good for women," O'Neill said. "That doesn't mean that they have suddenly become a truly multicultural, feminist organization."

Women's groups, empowered by the War On Women branding that put them at front-and-center in the Democratic party in recent elections, flexed their rhetorical muscles against the anonymous Democrat snarking about Warren. The Senator's office didn't respond to a request for comment on the quote, or the controversy it kicked up. Democratic-allied women's groups, meanwhile, went after the unnamed source as though the quoted Democrat were, well, a Republican man.

"That quote is shameful. Joking about sexual assault is wrong. Always," Shaunna Thomas, president of the progressive women's advocacy group UltraViolet, told BuzzFeed News. "If that 'source' had half the courage of the millions of rape survivors who have come out and told their stories, they would publicly out themselves and apologize for their truly outrageous statement."

Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and a longtime progressive women's advocate, said the Democratic source should consider a career change.

"Anyone who uses references to sexual assault to make a political point has no business being in politics," she said in a statement. "Whoever this so-called 'Democratic source' is should take a long look in the mirror and question whether getting quoted in the Washington Post is more important than having any moral compass. That quote is nothing short of shameful and has no place in our national debate."

Dr. Vivek Murthy’s confirmation was held up for months because of opposition from Republicans and the National Rifle Association.

Jason Reed / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Dr. Vivek Murthy to be the next U.S. surgeon general Monday, in a vote that was held up for months in part because of intense opposition from the National Rifle Association over comments Murthy made on gun control.

Murthy, who was confirmed 51 to 43, is the country's first Indian-American surgeon general. At the age of 37, he is also the youngest to serve in the position.

In 2012, Murthy tweeted that guns are "a health care issue" and that politicians were "putting lives at risk b/c they're scared of NRA."

Murthy continued to use social media to promote gun control, tweeting in April 2013, "Signs of progress-we got 20 votes in the senate in favor of gun violence legislation that we wouldn't have had 1 year ago. Have faith."

He has not tweeted since Sep. 1, 2013.

The president nominated Murthy to the post in November of 2013. The NRA sent a letter to Senate leadership in February detailing the reasons it disapproved of Obama's nominee.

In the months since, the NRA said its opposition to Murthy remained steadfast, but a spokesman declined to say if the group attempted a last ditch effort to sway support away from him in the lead up to Monday's vote.

"The NRA's position hasn't changed," spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said in an email. "America's next surgeon general should not be a political operative whose professional inexperience has been a source of bipartisan concern."

Arulanandam said the NRA will also "score" the vote.

Murthy is a physician at Harvard Medical School and the president and co-founder of Doctors for America. He has been a vocal supporter of the Affordable Care Act.

The company, responding to Sen. Al Franken, also says they have scaled back access to “God View.” Franken isn’t satisfied: “It still remains unclear how Uber defines legitimate business purposes for accessing, retaining, and sharing customer data.”

WASHINGTON — In a letter to Sen. Al Franken, Uber writes that an employee who accessed a journalist's account information did so because she was "30 minutes late" to a meeting.

The letter was in response to a November letter sent by Franken to Uber, in which he requested more information about the company's privacy policies.

Writing to Franken, Uber repeated a familiar line: Employees can only access rider information for "legitimate business purposes." The company also argues in the letter that reports from the media generated "misperceptions" about how Uber uses customer data.

Franken said he was "concerned" by the response and would continue "pressing for answers."

"While I'm pleased that they replied to my letter, I am concerned about the surprising lack of detail in their response," Franken said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. "Quite frankly, they did not answer many of the questions I posed directly to them. Most importantly, it still remains unclear how Uber defines legitimate business purposes for accessing, retaining, and sharing customer data. I will continue pressing for answers to these questions."

BuzzFeed News reported in November that an executive at Uber discussed wanting to conduct opposition research on journalists that wrote negatively about the company. BuzzFeed News also reported that Uber's New York City general manager Josh Mohrer had accessed a BuzzFeed News reporter's personal account information without her knowledge.

The letter states that Mohrer accessed BuzzFeed News reporter Johana Bhuiyan's information on two occasions. The first time, according to the letter, was to send her notifications she said she hadn't received — "just as he would if he had if he had heard from any other rider that he or she was not receiving notifications and wanted help."

The second time was because she was "30 minutes late" to a meeting and "Mr. Mohrer wanted to meet her in the lobby."

Uber states Mohrer showed "poor" judgement and the company "disciplined him accordingly."

Uber also states in the letter that the company has scaled back access to its "God View" function, so only employees in "operations or other areas, like fraud prevention" can use it.

The so-called "God View" is a function that allows Uber to see where all of its cars and all of its riders are at any given time.

Uber states that the company had shown God View to "third parties" in the past because it has a "compelling visual display," as has been previously reported.

When Uber shows off the function to anyone outside the company, Tassi writes in the letter, the company uses "presentation view, which has been available for about a year now and makes rider personal data inaccessible."

Read the letter:

Almost all of the parties in five same-sex marriage cases pending at the high court — save for Tennessee officials — are urging the justices to resolve the issue nationwide. Word on whether the justices will weigh in isn’t expected until January.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Cases from five states are now before the Supreme Court raising the constitutional question of same-sex couples' rights to marry and have their marriages recognized, with cases from two more states on the way and a related request from an eighth state pending there as well.

When the justices declined to review cases out of five states on Oct. 6, they expanded the marriage equality map to include Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin, and Virginia — with a ripple effect that has extended outward. The justice also might have thought they were delaying the need for them to take up the issue — perhaps into the next year's term, which begins in October 2015.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the marriage and/or marriage-recognition bans in four states — Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee — later that month, setting up the surge of petitions seeking certiorari that now are back before the court. Same-sex couples from those states filed their Supreme Court petitions in mid-November.

In addition to the 6th Circuit states, plaintiffs in a case challenging Louisiana's marriage ban, who lost at the trial court, have asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in their case as well — before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has a chance to rule in the case.

What's more, officials in both North Carolina and South Carolina have said that they plan to seek Supreme Court review of their cases before judgment from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal — which previously struck down Virginia's ban over the summer.

In four of the five states in which petitions and responses have been submitted — all except Tennessee — the states weighed in to agree with the same-sex couples that the court should accept one or more of the cases for review, although all four states differ with the plaintiff couples on whether the bans themselves are constitutional.

In a filing at the court on Monday, however, Tennessee officials broke ranks, telling the justices that "the conflict between the Sixth Circuit and other circuit's does not compel this court's review."

Instead, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery writes that "certiorari is regularly denied in cases presenting a conflict of decision" — citing a 1990 opinion from former Justice Byron White discussing the point.

Given the timing of the petitions, it is expected that the justices will consider the Michigan, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee petitions at their Jan. 9 conference. If the justices accept one or more marriage cases from that conference, it is expected that it would be heard in the current term — meaning a decision would be expected by late June.

LGBT advocates — along with most states — have been pressing the court to take action in the issue in this term, but the justices themselves will make the final decision as to if and when they will take up the matter.

In the meantime, however, the justices will have to resolve one marriage-related question. On Monday, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that she was seeking a stay from the Supreme Court in her state's federal marriage case — attempting to keep the trial court order stopping enforcement of the ban from taking effect on Jan. 6. The current stay ends at the end of the day on Jan. 5, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to issue any further stay.

Although the justices have denied stay requests attempting to stop same-sex couples from marrying during states' appeals since their October decision denying certiorari in those several states' marriage cases, the Florida request notes, "The Court's recent denials of stays in other marriage lawsuits have arisen from circuits that already decided the ultimate issue." In Florida, in contrast, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — where Florida has appealed the trial court ruling — is yet to decide on "the ultimate issue" of whether same-sex couples can be prohibited from marrying.

The Monday filing from Bondi is directed at Justice Clarence Thomas, who can act on the request himself or refer the matter to the full court for review. As of 6 p.m. Monday, a court spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that the request had not yet been docketed with the court.

The former Florida governor and brother to George W. Bush made the announcement on Facebook.

CQ Roll Call Tom Williams

"As a result of these conversations and thoughtful consideration of the kind of strong leadership I think America needs," Bush wrote in the Facebook post, "I have decided to actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States."

Although the former governor is not launching a formal exploratory committee yet, the announcement Tuesday signals he is very likely to run for president in 2016.

The brother of former President George W. Bush and son of former President George H.W. Bush, Bush served as the governor of Florida for two terms, which were generally seen as successful. Since exiting the governor's mansion, Bush has been particularly outspoken on the issues of education and immigration; in particular, he supports the national federal standards installed by Common Core, a deeply unpopular stance with many conservatives. Bush, who is Catholic, is a vocal social conservative, particularly on abortion.

This year, Bush has publicly ruminated about the possibility he will run for president. News about his decision-making process has spiked in recent weeks.

The former governor, who has not run for elected office since 2002 and not served in elected office since 2007, announced the formation of a new leadership political action committee, which will allow him to make political contributions in state races.

Despite the non-official nature of the announcement, the prospect of a Bush candidacy puts accelerated pressure on other potential Republican candidates. For instance, Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio share a similar pool of donors and political operatives. And Bush will likely court the same kind of establishment Republican, Wall Street interests that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another likely candidate, would.

Interest in Jeb Bush's campaign appears to remain primarily a phenomenon of the GOP's elite.

Last week, Sen. Ted Cruz, Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Rand Paul, Gov. Scott Walker, and Dr. Ben Carson were more discussed on Facebook than Bush, according to data provided by a BuzzFeed News partnership with Facebook.

When people have discussed Bush in recent weeks on Facebook, the sentiment has been about evenly split.

In Facebook interactions about Bush between Nov. 30 and Dec. 13, 46% were positive, 47% were negative, and 6% were neutral. That trails, slightly, the average sentiment for national Republicans tracked during the same period (52% positive, 44% negative, 4% neutral).

View Entire List ›