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

GOP Congressman: 16 To 18 Members Meeting To Oppose Boehner As Speaker

0
0

“I’ve already said I cannot vote in good conscience for John Boehner.”

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Republican North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones says he and a group of 16 to 18 Republicans plan to challenge John Boehner during the next election to be Speaker of the House.

"Right now, I've been meeting with a small group, and we — about 16, 18 — and we're hoping to have a name of a sitting member of Congress that we can call out their name," Jones said on the North Carolina-based Talk of the Town radio program.

Two years ago, Jones was one of a handful of who did not vote for Boehner for speaker. Jones voted for former Comptroller General David Walker.

"I've already said I cannot vote in good conscience for John Boehner," he said earlier in the interview.

View Video ›

Later in the interview, Jones added that the group planning to challenge Boehner had met with the "one individual" who might challenge Boehner in the election for Speaker of the House.

"We're gonna have a conference call the week after Christmas with our little group to see where we are," he added.


View Entire List ›


As Police Defend Themselves, White House Promises Policy Recommendations In 2015

0
0

The White House “Task Force on 21st Century Policing” was announced Thursday. It will make its recommendations to the president about how to fix America’s police forces by early March.

A New York City protester

Eduardo Munoz / Reuters

In recent weeks, police forces across the country have grown defensive after deaths caused by police officers have pushed thousands of protesters into the streets nationwide, calling for nothing less than a fundamental change in how police do business.

In the middle of all this, the White House is promising a major report on policing. On Thursday, top officials promised the report would be ready by early March, in keeping with a 90-day timeline President Obama created for his Task Force on 21st Century Policing when it was announced Dec. 1. Top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and Ron Davis, director of the Community Oriented Policing Services Office at the Department of Justice, announced the list of task-force members on a conference call and discussed their mission.

Davis acknowledged many cops are not in the mood to listen to protesters at the moment. But the officials insist police on the whole are ready to change.

"It's tough right now, because obviously rank-and-file officers feel like everything is focused on them," Davis said in response to a question from BuzzFeed News. "But the other part the task force will do, it will model the behavior we would want to see at the local level. And that is, people coming together, diverse perspectives, diverse views, law enforcement, youth, civili rights organizations. People that maybe even historically have not agreed…will disagree without being disagreeable and learn how to work the solutions and problems."

The existence of the task force itself could help salvage the broken-down relations between many police forces and local activists, Davis said. The White House began examining police relations even before the Michael Brown shooting put the topic on the national agenda, he said. But with tensions at an all-time high, the administration wants solutions quickly.

"We hope that will be a model so these discussions can continue all over the country," he said. "But the discussions, and I think that's why the task force is set with a time period, need to turn into concrete action quickly."

Recent days have seen more and more police vocally express their frustrations over continuing protests after the deaths of Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, and Eric Garner in New York City. Last week, the International Union of Police Associations complained to the AFL-CIO that the umbrella organization wasn't doing enough to quell rhetoric among other AFL-CIO unions IUPA saw as anti-police. On Tuesday, the president of the Cleveland Police Patrolman Union dismissed critics of the Rice shooting, claiming the only lesson to be learned from the incident is "when we tell you to do something, do it." Audio leaked Thursday from a private meeting of New York City police officers a union leader warned "enemies" of the police were in charge in the city.

"The rules are made by them to hurt you," the union leader told assembled officers.

The White House 21st Century Policing task force includes a number of top police officials and is co-chaired by Charles Ramsey, Philadelphia police commissioner.

Jarrett said police leaders are ready to embrace change.

"I remember specifically the executive director of the chiefs of police said police are very interested in making sure police are always looking at best practices," she said, recalling a recent White House meeting on police-community relations. "They deserve, as the Attorney General said in that meeting, to go home at night too. And they'll be safer if there's more trust built between the community and them."

Jarrett also acknowledged fixing police relations at a time when activists and cops are more divided than ever is a tall order. She said the task force will hit its deadline but also noted that it might continue working after the initial report is finished. Other efforts aimed at police, such as a promised presidential executive order that will alter the way federal programs that funnel military hardware to local police work, will come early next year, Jarrett said.

"There's a spirit in this country that is motivated toward change," Jarrett said of the task force efforts. "It's going to be difficult, it's going to be challenging, maybe tense. Some of them may be very uncomfortable. But I think that what the president is determined to do is create an atmosphere where we can have this conversation safely."

GOP Senator Wants To Host Re-Election Fundraiser At A Screening Of "The Interview"

0
0

And he loves Team America.

w.soundcloud.com

Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois said he's "pretty disappointed" in Sony Pictures' decision to pull The Interview from theaters, adding that he wants to have his first big re-election fundraiser at a screening of the film.

"I would say one thing — I'm pretty disappointed in Sony Pictures decision to pull The Interview under pressure from North Korea," Kirk said Thursday on WBEZ radio. "I would say that I'm gonna be trying to hold the first big Kirk for Senate fundraiser at a screening of The Interview, so that everybody shows the North Koreans that you cannot edit what we want to see and do in the United States, under the First Amendment."

Kirk added he hoped the movie was "a smash hit," citing the movie Team America from the creators of South Park.

"It was a terrible lesson to terrorists, to give them what they wanted — that we should, as Americans under the First Amendment, we should never have to ask North Korea for permission as to what movie we can — just think of a previous really good movie, that was Team America: World Police, that was really funny about North Korea. And your birthright as an American citizen — you never have to ask the North Koreans for permission for what movie you can see. I hope that now all the media about this movie makes it a smash hit, and that we see many more movies like it, and teach the North Koreans a lesson about what Americans can and cannot do."

Venezuela Hires New Washington Lobbyists As Obama O.K.'s Sanctions

0
0

Hogan Lovells will lobby for a Venezuela that has been boxed out by coming sanctions and new U.S.-Cuba relations.

Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro

Enrique Marcarian / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The government of Venezuela has hired new Washington lobbyists just as a bill levying sanctions against Venezuelan officials was signed into law by the president.

According to documents filed on Wednesday with the Department of Justice, the Venezuelan embassy has hired the firm Hogan Lovells LLP to represent it in the U.S. Venezuela, which has frosty relations with Washington and which terminated most of its U.S. lobbying contracts in 2009, also recently retained Rasky Bauerlein Strategic Communications to represent its state oil company.

The filing, required by law under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), does not specifically mention sanctions but say that Hogan Lovells will "will render advice on matters involving bilateral relations between the United States and Venezuela, including legal analysis, counsel and strategy development, as well as policy advocacy before officials and staff of the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. Government regarding any legislative, regulatory and public policy activities affecting the interests of the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela."

According to the FARA filing, Hogan Lovells will reach out to people in the legislative and executive branches on issues "relating to any matters involving bilateral relations between the United States and Venezuela contained in federal legislation or executive or regulatory action—and related actions by the U.S. or Venezuelan government—that could impact, directly or indirectly, the foreign principal." It is unclear when exactly the contract starts or ends from the information available online provided under FARA, or how much the firm will be paid.

President Obama signed into law on Thursday a bill that imposes sanctions on officials who were involved in the violent crackdown on protesters that occurred earlier this year after Venezuelans took to the streets protesting rampant crime and a sinking economy. This week, the Obama administration also announced plans to normalize relations with Venezuela's longtime ally Cuba.

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro condemned the sanctions in a series of tweets on Thursday, saying "These are the contradictions of an empire that seeks to impose its domination by any means, underestimating the strength and conscience of the nation." The sanctions, once enacted, will result in asset freezes and visa bans for the officials targeted.

The sanctions, the rapprochement between the U.S. and Cuba, to whom Venezuela sends large amounts of oil and aid, and the nosedive in the price of oil look set to make Venezuela more isolated than ever.

Representatives for Hogan Lovells did not immediately return requests for comment about the arrangement with Venezuela, when the contract starts and ends, and how much money it is worth.

This Former Anti-Castro Militant Is Ready To End The Embargo

0
0

A veteran of the hardline anti-Castro groups that carried out a campaign of assassinations and bombings in the 1980s believes ending the embargo will also bring down the Cuban regime.

Ramon Saul Sanchez during the Elian Gonzalez protests in 2000

Getty Images Joe Raedle

MIAMI — Three decades ago, Ramon Saul Sanchez was aligned with anti-Castro militants carrying out bombings and assassinations against Cuban regime figures. Now he's ready for the embargo to end.

"I come from a tradition of armed struggle," Sanchez told BuzzFeed News. "I spent four and a half years in an American prison. That gives me some credibility."

From his teens into his early thirties, Sanchez belonged to militant groups responsible for more than 30 bombings and several assassinations in Miami and New York: Alpha 66, Omega 7, the Organization for the Liberation of Cuba. Far-right, armed to the teeth, and willing to go to any extreme to topple the dictator across the Florida Straits, these groups helped define the tenor of the exiled Cuban opposition of the time. In the 1980s, the heyday of Omega 7, then known as "one of the most active terrorist groups in the United States," the subdued reaction of the Cuban-American community to President Barack Obama's decision to normalize relations with Cuba would have been unthinkable.

Sanchez received a nine-year prison sentence in the mid-'80s for refusing to testify before a grand jury about the activities of Omega 7. He served four and a half years, during which, he said, he "meditated" on the question of violence.

Today, Sanchez adorns his office with pictures of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. He is best known for leading massive nonviolent protests in 2000 against the U.S. government's efforts to send child refugee Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba.

Ramon Saul Sanchez in his Miami office

David Noriega / BuzzFeed News

Even more surprising than Sanchez's sharp turn away from violence is the position he has carved out as a lonely moderate voice in what remains of the hard core of the exiled Cuban opposition. Since his release from prison, Sanchez has been something of a bellwether for moderate ideological trends in el exilio, from his embrace of nonviolence to his championing of dissidents within Cuba (whom many in exile initially decried for not leaving the island).

Notably, Sanchez has long opposed the economic embargo that forms the backbone of the exiled opposition's approach to American politics in relation to Cuba — a position he says he has always held.

"You tell me that the embargo is the way to a free Cuba, that it's a tool to take resources away from Castro," he said. "I'll tell you that it's only guaranteed the regime's political success. Because they can present themselves before the world as victims, and they can tell their people, 'That milk that you don't have? That's the embargo's fault.'"

Since President Obama announced normalized relations with Cuba, reactions among ordinary Cuban-Americans have been varied, and muted street-level reactions in Miami reflect a long-brewing shift away from hardline exile orthodoxy. In contrast, leaders of Miami's Cuban community have stuck to maintaining that any concession to the Castros is catastrophic and unacceptable.

National office holders like Sens. Marco Rubio and Bob Menendez, whose positions were shaped over generations of Miami-influenced politics, have done the same. Republican control of Congress ensures that despite the thaw in U.S.–Cuban relations and the removal of some restrictions on trade, the embargo itself will remain in place for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, Sanchez has been quietly suggesting that Cubans need not rend their garments, even while standing before television cameras right alongside the opposition leaders who denounce Obama as a traitor who sold out the Cuban people.

Sanchez does not exactly support Obama's move. Like most opposition leaders, he believes that the United States gave up a number of huge concessions while the Cuban regime gave up virtually none, or at least none of substance. He asserts that human rights were treated as an afterthought in the agreement between Obama and Castro, and decries the fact that the Cuban people — "who should have been the protagonists on this stage" — were virtually absent from the process.

"We Cubans have a syndrome: defeatism," Sanchez said. "We react far more strongly to what we perceive as negative, as a defeat, than to what we could react to as a victory. The question now is how to orient people's spirits to not think of this as a defeat. There is a risk that the regime will use this to grow stronger, and that is a risk we have to face. But we also have to do everything possible to put the ball in the regime's court."

Despite his reservations, Sanchez believes Obama's decision could do just that.

"For years they have been hiding behind the idea that they couldn't help their people" because of the United States' sanctions, Sanchez said. "And they've taken away that cover. So now what? What are you going to do?"


View Entire List ›

Is This Famous Person From Cuba?

0
0

Test your knowledge of famous Cubans with this timely quiz!

Rand Paul And Marco Rubio Are Fighting About Cuba

0
0

Troll.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Republican Senator Rand Paul is going after fellow Republican Senator Marco Rubio over his views on U.S.-Cuba relations.

In a Facebook post and series of tweets, the libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator, who has been called an isolationist from the more hawkish wing of the Republican Party, lobbed the term at the Florida senator.

"Seems to me, Senator Rubio is acting like an isolationist who wants to retreat to our borders and perhaps build a moat. I reject this isolationism," writes Paul.

Thursday night on Fox News's The Kelly File Rubio said Paul had no clue about Cuba.

"Like many people that have been opining, he has no idea what he's talking about."

Both senators are seen as potential contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

The series of tweets and the Facebook post are below. This post will be updated with any further tweets and a response, if any from Rubio:

Via Facebook: RandPaul


View Entire List ›

GOP Congressman: Dianne Feinstein "As Much A Traitor" To America As Edward Snowden

0
0

“I think she’s as much a traitor to this country at this point as I thought about Edward Snowden and his release of information about other investigations and abilities from an intelligence stand point.”

w.soundcloud.com

Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan says that Dianne Feinstein is a traitor for releasing the report on the CIA's interrogation and detention techniques.

"We are less safe than we ever have been with regard to our overseas personnel and our nation's military and their ability to do their job," South Carolina congressman said on WCRS radio Thursday. "It ties in to CIA thing and it ties in to Cuba, in that our guys overseas working in foreign relations or in the military our less safe because of bad actors could simply take somebody hostage and hold them until the American government normalizes relations and bargains for their release."

"It's a bad situation. I think America is less safe on a lot fronts and I disagree with the release of the information from Dianne Feinstein," he added. "I think she's as much a traitor to this country at this point as I thought about Edward Snowden and his release of information about other investigations and abilities from an intelligence stand point."

The Senate Intelligence Committee's 525-page report released by Senate Democrats 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.


Obama: Sony Made "A Mistake"

0
0

The president says Sony shouldn’t have killed The Interview.

Larry Downing / Reuters

President Obama criticized Sony for pulling The Interview at his end-of-year news conference Friday.

"I think they made a mistake," Obama said.

The president said he was "sympathetic to the concerns" at Sony after a massive hack exposed embarrassing internal emails and other corporate secrets. On Friday, the FBI said North Korea was responsible for the hack.

Despite the cyberattack, Obama said canceling the release of the film was caving to North Korean demands.

"We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States," he said.

Sony pulled The Interview after threats of terrorist attacks at screenings of the film. Obama contrasted the move with the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, when the city decided to continue the annual event despite the terror threat.

"We can't start changing our patterns of behavior any more than we stop going to football games because there might be the possibility of a terrorist attack," he said.

Obama also poked fun at the North Korean government for its reaction to The Interview.

"I think it says something interesting about North Korea that they decided to have the state mount an all-out assault on a movie studio because of a satirical movie starring Seth Rogan and James Franco," he said. "The notion that that was a threat to them, I think, gives you some sense of the kind of regime we're talking about here."

Miami Venezuelans Try To Succeed Where Their Cuban Allies Failed

0
0

From one day to the next, Obama ended Cuba’s decades-long isolation and signed sanctions against Venezuela’s president. Miami’s Venezuelans had to mourn even as they celebrated.

People peer from their windows beside a giant banner with Cuban former president Fidel Castro (right) and Venezuela's late president Hugo Chavez during a march in Havana on Sept. 30, 2014.

Stringer / Via Reuters

MIAMI — Venezuelans in South Florida had a huge victory to celebrate, but they were careful not to look too happy.

In the space of 24 hours, President Obama signed fresh sanctions into law against the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and normalized relations with Cuba. In doing so, Obama simultaneously ended the United States' longest-running feud in Latin America while quietly escalating another one.

This put the increasingly powerful group of Venezuelan expatriates in Miami in the awkward position of celebrating a hard-won victory even as their conservative Cuban-American allies mourned the end of the Castro regime's isolation. An overly exultant mood, or a failure to acknowledge the bitterness of the moment, might alienate their Cuban-American allies, whose political advocacy against the Castro regime has been a model for Venezuelan expatriates in the United States.

"Now I know what people mean when they say they have mixed feelings," said Ernesto Ackerman, who led the effort to lobby congress for sanctions, and who organized a last-minute celebration Thursday night in Miami. "But the very people who helped us pass the sanctions, the Cuban members of Congress, are suffering because of what Obama did to their country."

The quick succession of events on Wednesday and Thursday reflects an ongoing shift in Miami, long the hotbed of geopolitical maneuvering with regard to Latin America. The exiled Cuban opposition was once a mighty and radical political bloc with the power to sway presidential elections. But as Wednesday's historic thaw with Cuba showed, that power has faded significantly.

Meanwhile, the Venezuelans have coalesced into a genuinely formidable political force increasingly able to draw the attention of politicians on the American right. Most of those politicians — like Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen — are Cuban-Americans for whom opposition to the Castros has been a foreign policy pillar.

David Smilde, a senior fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America, said the Venezuelans' success relies in large part on repurposing the political stances of those legislators. "They're not suddenly going to switch tactics or switch rhetoric," Smilde said. "Given the decline in popularity of the Cuba sanctions, Venezuela is a great replacement. It's a great new way for them to burnish their foreign policy credentials."

In Miami, the Venezuelans say they're happy to learn a lesson or two from their Cuban forebears. "The embargo [against Cuba] has had absolutely no effect," said Ackerman. That's why, he said, the Venezuelans have pursued targeted sanctions against the regime instead of generalized economic blockades. The new sanctions target the finances and overseas travel of Venezuelan officials involved in a violent crackdown against anti-Maduro protesters earlier this year.

"Venezuela's victory has to be achieved by Venezuelans," said Vidal Lorenzo, another expatriate opposition leader. "The Cubans were always a little too enchanted with the idea that the American government would solve their problems."

For Lorenzo, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 is the perfect metaphor: The small invading force of Cuban exiles, believing they would receive air support from the Americans, was instead left alone and trounced by Castro's forces.

The Venezuelans, Lorenzo said, will not suffer the same fate. "We won't be stuck on the beach waiting for air support."

Supreme Court Allows Florida Same-Sex Marriages To Proceed In January

0
0

A late Friday order from the Supreme Court means same-sex couples are expected to be able to marry beginning Jan. 6.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday evening denied Florida's request to stop same-sex couples from marrying during the state's appeal of a federal case challenging the state's ban on such marriages.

The decision, absent some unexpected development, means that same-sex couples will be able to marry beginning January 6.

Under the trial court's order striking down the ban as unconstitutional, the injunction was stayed — or put on hold — until the end of the day January 5. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi has appealed the ruling striking down the ban, but also asked higher courts to keep the trial court's order on hold during that appeal.

The 11th Circuit had rejected Florida's request and, on Friday evening, the Supreme Court did as well. Justice Clarence Thomas, who hears such applications from the 11th Circuit, referred the matter to the full court, which then denied the request.

Both Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, the brief order noted, would have granted the request. The two previously have noted that they would grant such stay requests during appeals of other marriage ban cases.

The request has been watched by advocates on both sides of the issue because it comes as the Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear any of several marriage cases pending before the justices. This also was the first time in recent months that the justices have been asked to weigh in on whether same-sex couples could marry in a state while an appeal was pending in a state where the federal appeals court has not yet ruled on the merits of a constitutional challenge to a marriage ban.

Although the justices have allowed same-sex couples to marry during appeals in several states, from Alaska to South Carolina, the cases all involved appeals pending in states where a higher court already had found a similar ban to be unconstitutional. Florida, in contrast, is in the 11th Circuit, which is yet to rule on the issue.

While the decision from the Supreme Court has no bearing, technically, on the issue of whether marriage ban such as Florida's are constitutional, it does show a growing comfort with the justices to allowing same-sex couples to marry before they themselves have resolved the issue definitively.

A year ago, when same-sex couples began marrying in Utah, for example, the Supreme Court weighed in a few weeks after the marriages started — issuing a stay while the appeals court considered the issue.

Now, less than a year later, only two justices announced that they would have granted Florida's stay request.


View Entire List ›

Rubio: It's Unfortunate Rand Paul Has Adopted And Is Supporting Obama's Foreign Policy On Cuba

0
0

“I think it’s unfortunate that Rand has decided to adopt Barack Obama’s foreign policy on this matter.”

w.soundcloud.com

Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio responded to a series of tweets and a Facebook post from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) criticizing his view on U.S.-Cuban relations.

Paul had wrote that Rubio was "acting like an isolationist" for not supporting normalized relations with Communist Cuba. His comments came after Rubio went on Fox News Thursday night and said libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator "has no idea what he's talking about" in regard to Cuba.

"I think it's unfortunate that Rand has decided to adopt Barack Obama's foreign policy on this matter," Rubio told radio host Mark Levin Friday evening, citing his personal knowledge of atrocities of the Castro regime.

The remarks were first flagged by the conservative blog The Right Scoop.

"So you have these people coming out and saying, 'Well maybe we should try something different,'" Rubio added. "And that's what basically Rand did, he repeated the talking points of the president. And that's fine, he has every right to support the president's foreign policy if that's where he wants to line up with. But I'm telling you, it isn't going to work."

The notion that opening up relations with Cuba would help bring freedom to the country was false, the Florida senator added, and ultimately would only serve to strengthen the regime.

Congressman Peter King: It's Time For President Obama, The Media, NYC Mayor To Stop Cop-Bashing

0
0

“It’s really time for our national leaders, the president, it’s time for the mayor of New York, and really for many in the media to stop the cop bashing, to stop this anti-police rhetoric,” King said on Fox News

View Video ›

Republican Rep. Peter King of Long Island, appearing on Fox News Sunday, cited the death of two NYPD officers as reasons for President Obama and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio to "stop the cop bashing and anti-police rhetoric."

"This is an absolute tragedy, what occurred in New York, and it's really time for our national leaders, the president, it's time for the mayor of New York, and really for many in the media to stop the cop bashing, to stop this anti-police rhetoric," said the Long Island Republican. "I mean, for the last four months, we've basically heard nothing other than the cops are guilty, presumed cops are guilty, then the grand jury says they're not going to be indicted. People demonstrate, march in the streets, and it's so slanted."

Two NYPD officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, were shot and killed inside their squad car on Saturday afternoon in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. Police identified Ismaaiyl Brinsley as the suspect who shot the two officers, before fleeing into a subway station and killing himself. An Instagram profile linked to Brinsley said before the incident he would be "putting wings on pigs" and avenging the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

King added that the death of Eric Garner in Staten Island was being perceived as racial, but said "it was an African-American chief of the police department who sent in the police officers at the request of minority business owners." King added the top-ranking police officer at scene was African-American.

"That didn't stop Al Sharpton and others from demonstrating," said King.

King again blamed "the anti-police rhetoric" for creating a climate where "it's being considered perfectly appropriate for thousands of people to demonstrate, calling cops murderers and killers after a grand jury says that the police officer was not guilty," before linking this climate to the shooting of the police officers.

King joined a growing number of police supporters blaming the mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, for not denouncing "thousands of demonstrators chanting they wanted dead cops, they wanted dead cops now."

Rand Paul Will Bring Up The Senate Debate Over Police Militarization Next Year

0
0

Staff for the Kentucky Senator tell BuzzFeed News Paul will reintroduce a bill aimed at ending the practice of sending lethal military hardware to local cops.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — A version of the police militarization debate will be part of the Senate agenda next term.

Next year, Sen. Rand Paul will reintroduce a bill that goes after the federal programs that send military-grade equipment to local police departments, staff for the Kentucky Republican told BuzzFeed News.

Paul's decision to keep bill, which was crafted by the retiring Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, alive will be a significant test for the political viability of the issue. Paul will be trying to force a Republican-controlled Senate to examine federal programs that funnel millions in grant money and surplus to arm local police forces with weapons and vehicles designed for the battlefield. Paul's expected presidential run, which will likely launch next year, could put the issue back on the national agenda as well.

Coburn's bill — which is very similar to legislation Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia has vowed to reintroduce in the House next Congress — targets a small fraction of the millions of dollars worth of military surplus shipped by the Pentagon to local law enforcement each year under the Defense Department's so-called 1033 program. Most of the surplus equipment is mundane — office furniture, uniforms, etc. But the most controversial 1033 shipments see vehicles and weapons used by the U.S. armed forces sent to local police. Coburn's bill would ban that practice while keeping the non-lethal surplus flowing.

Paul has been the loudest Republican critic of 1033 since the Ferguson protests last August. Scenes of heavily-armed police in military-style vehicles confronting protesters led him to pen an op-ed in Time that called for an end to militarized policing.

After Paul's op-ed, President Obama called for a interagency review of 1033, which so far has resulted in new training and data collection requirements for local police departments that receive combat equipment.

The White House has so far declined to weigh in on legislation like Coburn's while defending the Pentagon surplus program and federal grant programs that help police buy new military-style equipment.

After some hearings on Capitol Hill in the fall, the bipartisan push for changes to the programs collapsed under pressure from police groups and, aides on the Hill say, political pressure ahead of the 2014 midterms.

Senate Democrats’ Top Fundraiser Hates Money In Politics

0
0

Can Sen. Jon Tester win back the Senate for Democrats while also staying true to his stand against big money in elections?

CQ-Roll Call/Bill Clark

WASHINGTON — The man who will lead fundraising for Senate Democrats in the 2016 cycle has an unusual trait: He is against big money in politics.

Like many Montana Democrats, Sen. Jon Tester has long railed against dark money in politics — but the new chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also has opposed measures that would increase the flow of money into more conventional fundraising methods, too.

Earlier this month, Tester voted against the omnibus bill to fund the government. That bill contained a provision that increases the amount of money individual donors can contribute to national committees — like the one Tester now runs. Now, an individual donor can give more than $1 million to the committees

Tester's office said the senator was unavailable for an interview when BuzzFeed News reached out for comment on this story and instead pointed to their press release on the vote.

"I will not support measures that make it more difficult to elect responsible leaders willing to make tough decisions to strengthen our country," Tester said in the statement. "We can pass bill after bill, but if we don't stop the flood of money into politics, special interests will win at the expense of everyday Americans."

In the past, Tester pushed for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision and co-sponsored the failed DISCLOSE Act, which would have required groups to release the names of donors who gave more than $10,000. The senator releases press statements emphasizing how he "strongly believes that stopping the flood of money into America's elections is vital to preserving the nation's democracy."

Now, he'll run the DSCC, which raised $16 million in September alone.

Asked about this issue, DSCC spokesman Justin Barasky said it wasn't a problem and that the DSCC "will continue to raise the resources necessary to support our candidates and help them win."

Tester will have a significant fundraising cycle ahead. The DSCC outraised its GOP counterpart, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, by $29 million in the 2014 cycle and still lost nine seats. Money typically flows in more smoothly in a presidential cycle, so Tester will be expected to not only significantly outdo this cycle's fundraising in 2016, but also to recruit a crop of candidates who can use the cash effectively. The DSCC was also left with $20.4 million in debt after the 2014 cycle.

While the committees raise money in the traditional ways, Senate Majority PAC — the super PAC headed by two former aides to Minority Leader Harry Reid, Susan McCue and Rebecca Lambe — will also likely be a presence in Democratic efforts next cycle.

Advocates say they are high on Tester and that they hope he'll stick to his guns by continuing to push for legislation that seeks more disclosure from donors and encourage small money donations.

"When I look at the 2014 elections and the debate between Republican and Democratic candidates, the issue of money in politics was a food fight," said David Donnelly, the executive director of Every Voice. "You either got your money from Hollywood or you got your money from big oil."

Donnelly also said that if anyone tries to say it's "hypocritical" for Tester to both be for campaign finance changes and for raising money in the capacity he'll be expected to at the DSCC, they are "just trying to score political points."

It isn't unheard of for the head of a Democratic campaign committee to hold opinions like this when it comes to campaign finance. Tester's fellow Montanan and corporate-money-in-politics critic Gov. Steve Bullock is now heading the Democratic Governors Association. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who sponsored the DISCLOSE Act in the House, chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for several years.

And Sen. Michael Bennet, Tester's DSCC predecessor, was also supportive of some campaign finance changes, but activists say Tester has a longer and more critical track record on the issue.

Still, activists are not doe-eyed to the fact Tester might have to stray from the principles they like about him as November 2016 barrels closer.

"It's impossible for any member of Congress to unilaterally disarm from big money while having to still fight for one's own reelection and one's colleagues," said Aaron Scherb, the director of legislative affairs at Common Cause. "But as long as members of Congress are cosponsors of certain bills, we won't criticize."


Reports: Michael Grimm Will Plead Guilty To Tax Evasion

0
0

Grimm easily won his reelection bid last month.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Michael Grimm will plead guilty to tax evasion in court on Tuesday, according to multiple reports.

The news leaves Grimm's future in Congress in doubt, though he is expected to say he can continue to serve, according to the reports.

During his campaign, which the Staten Island Republican handily won, Grimm was asked what he'd do if convicted.

"If I was unable to serve, of course I would step down," he said.

Grimm was charged in a 20-count indictment in April for avoiding taxes on more than $1 million in wages and sales connected to a restaurant he co-owned.

The case was brought by U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch, who is President Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general.

Grimm, a former FBI agent, had previously pleaded not guilty to all the charges. The trial was slated to start in February.

He is scheduled to appear in court in Brooklyn on Tuesday at 1 p.m. before Judge Pamela K. Chen, the court confirmed to BuzzFeed News.

An aide to House Speaker John Boehner said there was no immediate response to the reports.

BuzzFeed News attempted to confirm the reports with Grimm's office, but has not yet received a response.

Jesse Jackson: Blaming NYPD Deaths On Sharpton, Obama "Wild And Irresponsible"

0
0

“We should not equate the acts of a sick man who did a sick thing with mass demonstrations for justice and for healing. Don’t make that equation.”

NewsmaxTV / Via youtube.com

In an interview with NewsmaxTV, Rev. Jesse Jackson challenged claims being made that the murder of two NYPD officers in Brooklyn this weekend were related to anti-police statements made by President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Rev. Al Sharpton.

"That's wild and irresponsible language," Jackson asserted. "Clearly, here is a man who is mentally challenged, who shot his own girlfriend, estranged from his family, and posted killing two policemen. This is a cold-blooded, sick man, and to equate him with the dignity of the civil rights struggle for justice for all is not a fair equation."

"I think we should be careful not to try to stereotype all police. Most police do their jobs," said Jackson. He continued: "We need police, police need people. We must work out a relationship that allows us both to respect each other and pursue justice and fairness."

Jackson was adamant that this weekend's violence was the action of a lone individual who did not represent protestors in cities across the country.

"This was not a political assassination," Jackson insisted. "This was the act of a deranged, sick man. We should not equate the acts of a sick man who did a sick thing with mass demonstrations for justice and for healing. Don't make that equation."

Justices To Consider On Jan. 9 Whether To Hear Same-Sex Marriage Cases, Legal Group Says

0
0

“The [Tennessee case plaintiffs’] petition will be considered at the Court’s January 9 conference, along with … petitions filed by the plaintiffs in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Louisiana,” an advocate tells BuzzFeed News.

The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington in this May 20, 2009 file photo.

Molly Riley / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to consider on Jan. 9 whether it will hear appeals of same-sex couples' marriage challenges in cases out of five states, one of the legal teams representing the couples told BuzzFeed News on Monday.

"The Tanco [Tennessee case] petition will be considered at the Court's January 9 conference, along with ... petitions filed by the plaintiffs in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Louisiana," National Center for Lesbian Rights spokesperson Erik Olvera told BuzzFeed News on Monday afternoon.

The plaintiffs and marriage equality advocates alike hope the petitions will provide the Supreme Court with the chance to take a case to resolve the issue nationally with a ruling that would apply across the country.

Although the justices denied petitions filed earlier in the year from other states, all were in cases in which the lower court had struck down the bans — and before there was a "circuit split," a disagreement among the federal appeals court on the issue. All five petitions before the court now come from decisions upholding the various states' bans.

In November, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reversed the four district courts to have heard the cases out of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee — sending the plaintiffs in the cases from all four states to the Supreme Court seeking an appeal.

NCLR is among the lawyers representing the same-sex couple plaintiffs challenging Tennessee's ban on recognition on same-sex couples' marriages, and Olvera said the news about the Jan. 9 conference came from the Supreme Court clerk's office.

The justices need to decide in the next month whether they will hear a case addressing same-sex couples' marriage rights this term — meaning the case would be heard this spring and a decision would be expected by late June.

If the justices don't accept one of the cases for review by mid-January — even if they accept a case later this winter or spring — then it is expected the case would not be heard until the Supreme Court's next term, which begins in October 2015. If they deny the petitions out of the 6th Circuit, on the other hand, the lower court ruling would stand and the bans would remain in effect.

Although it was expected the petitions would be considered at the Jan. 9 conference given the timelines for such petitions at the court, four of the five cases are yet to be distributed to the justices — making Olvera's comments the first known confirmation from the court that they all would be considered on Jan. 9.

The Supreme Court previously noted on its docket that the Louisiana case had been distributed to be considered at the Jan. 9 conference. To be considered on Jan. 9, the other cases are expected to be distributed to the justices on Tuesday.

The same-sex couples challenging marriage bans in Kentucky and Tennessee on Monday filed their reply briefs on Monday, joining the reply brief filed on Sunday from the plaintiffs in the Ohio case. The reply brief is the plaintiffs' last chance to tell the justices why they should take their case.

Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio officials agreed that the Supreme Court should take a case and resolve the issue nationally; only Tennessee officials opposed Supreme Court review.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Jeffrey Fisher, from Stanford Law School, joined the Kentucky lawyers, led by Daniel Canon, in Monday's reply brief, arguing, "For petitioners here – and for lesbian and gay couples and families across both the Sixth Circuit and the country – the harm and confusion that the circuit split has caused calls out for immediate review."

In the Tennessee case, and responding to the state's argument against Supreme Court review, the lawyers, led by Douglas Hallward-Driemeier of Ropes & Gray in D.C., noted, "Apart from noting that the Court is not 'compelled' to grant review of a circuit split, respondents offer no reason why the Court should not now take up the issue." Ropes & Gray is joined by NCLR and local counsel that includes William Harbison and Abby Rubenfeld.

In Ohio, the ACLU and Lambda Legal are supporting Alphonse Gerhardstein's reply, in which they argue that, in addition to taking up the case in order to address the marriage recognition question, they also should take up the question of whether the state can refuse to recognize the adoption of a child to a same-sex couple granted by another state.

The four petitions seeking a writ of certiorari, the technical way the justices take a case, out of the 6th Circuit will be joining the petition from a case out of Louisiana — where the plaintiff same-sex couples, after losing at the trial court, are asking the justices to hear the case before the appeals court weighs in on the matter. Louisiana has supported Supreme Court review of the issue.

On Jan. 9, incidentally, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will be hearing the appeal of the Louisiana marriage case, along with cases challenging similar bans in Mississippi and Texas.

LINK: More, From Dec. 15: "Stage Is Set For Supreme Court Marriage Showdown — If The Justices Want It"

Read the Kentucky plaintiffs' reply:

Read the Kentucky plaintiffs' reply:


View Entire List ›

Federal Judge Refuses To Keep Oklahoma Executions On Hold

0
0

Four inmates in Oklahoma are set to be executed in the first three months of 2015. The inmates’ lawyer says they will continue to fight to stop the scheduled executions.

Handout / Reuters

A federal judge in Oklahoma on Monday refused to keep executions in the state on hold, turning down a request from four death-row inmates' scheduled to be executed in the first three months of 2015.

U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Friot denied the request for a preliminary injunction on Monday following a three-day hearing that took place last week.

"[T]he court concludes that the movants have failed to establish a probability of success on the merits of any of the five claims they assert for preliminary injunction purposes," Friot wrote in the brief order, adding that "that entry of a preliminary injunction would not be in the public interest."

The lawsuit, filed by several Oklahoma death-row inmates, followed the botched execution of Clayton Lockett in April. Although Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin temporarily halted executions and reviewed the state's execution procedures, the state altered its execution protocol and has prepared to re-start executions.

Charles Warner is set to be executed on January 15, 2015, Richard Glossip on January 29, 2015, John Grant on February 19, 2015, and Benjamin Cole on March 5, 2015.

"There are several reasons for serious concern about Oklahoma's ability to carry out executions that comply with the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment," the inmates' lawyer, Dale Baich, said in a statement. "We will move forward and continue to fully challenge and expose the lack of safety and efficacy of the lethal injection procedures in Oklahoma."

Among the reasons to grant the injunction, the inmates had argued, were because they have a "real and immediate concern" they won't get "timely and meaningful notice as to how they will be executed" — depriving them of the opportunity to seek relief from the courts.

The state countered that most federal courts agree that inmates have "no due process right to information regarding the methods of their executions."

The inmates also raised Eighth Amendment claims, arguing that the drugs and procedures used and training provided have the potential to lead to cruel and unusual punishment. "Defendants continue to experiment on captive subjects by using untested procedures that produce unknown results," the inmates' lawyers wrote.

"To the extent that there is a possibility that an individual would be currently licensed, pass the requisite background checks, participate in the training, and still make a mistake in the execution process," the state responded, "this is merely an outlier possibility, not a substantial risk of serious harm created by the protocol."

Finally, the inmates raised concerns about whether they will be "able to access information, access their counsel, and in turn access the courts on the day of their executions."

Of the "claim that they have a First Amendment right to information regarding their executions," the state argued, "[T]his claim is baseless and unsupported by the law."

The Draft Campaign Elizabeth Warren Didn’t Ask For But Hasn’t Killed

0
0

Michael Dwyer / AP Photo

She has said it in newspapers and magazines. She has said it on the radio and on national television. She has said it at public events and book signings; in prepared statements to reporters and in quick exchanges with the press. She has said it four times in a single interview — twice. Since last fall, Elizabeth Warren has said it a total of 49 times.

“I am not running for president.”

She has also committed, on two occasions now, to complete her first term in the U.S. Senate. The “pledge” would keep her on Capitol Hill until 2019. Still, the question almost always gets asked. And it doesn’t matter how, where, or by whom: Warren sticks to her answer with studied discipline, only sometimes adding a special flourish.

“I am not running for president. Period.”

“No means no.”

“No, no, no, no.”

“No, no, no, no, no.”

But three weeks ago, when organizers from MoveOn.org, the largest progressive group in the country, contacted Warren’s office to let her staff know about their plan, the reply they received was neutral and dispassionate, taking some activists by surprise.

“When we gave them a heads up, they said ‘thanks’ and ‘we’ve appreciated the work we’ve done together in the Senate,’” said Ben Wikler, MoveOn’s Washington director.

The organization was about to launch a campaign to convince Warren to run for president. MoveOn officials expected support from the majority of their members — there are 8 million spread across every state, county, and zip code. And they intended to spend at least $1 million on the effort, opening offices and hiring staff in New Hampshire and Iowa, the states that begin the presidential nominating process every four years.

After MoveOn announced the project, Warren reverted to her go-to line. A spokesperson reiterated Warren’s pledge to serve a full Senate term. And her staff circulated audio from an event in Boston, where Warren told reporters again that, no, she isn’t running.

Still, organizers working on the campaign to draft Warren — who has become an avatar of the party’s progressive flank — found it significant that she didn’t go further.

“The response was just ‘OK,’ not a statement up or down,” said one progressive operative involved in the campaign. “If Warren or her team had been dead set against a draft from a big movement player like MoveOn, there was an easy way to make that clear.”

“It would have stopped it dead,” this person said. “MoveOn would not have done it.”

Progressives have spent months parsing these fine distinctions: weighing what Warren has said against what she has stopped just short of saying to close the door on 2016. Many activists see a difference big enough to justify a draft campaign. They believe she hasn’t ruled out a presidential run. They believe she can still be convinced.

It’s a void that, fair or not, Warren has helped create. And now the big players are heading toward it with their own methods, motives, and expectations.

Two other groups, Democracy for America and Ready for Warren, have glommed on to MoveOn’s draft. The campaign, barreling into the New Year with no certain end-date, has become a growing, shifting thing that inspires some progressives but troubles others.

In interviews this month, more than a dozen liberal strategists and activists said the movement will carry consequences good and bad for each party in this dance: Warren, the paragon, and a wider progressive community that, angling to push the party to the left and recoup influence, has consigned its brand and future to a single figure.

Most of the people at RootsCamp, an annual gathering of progressive campaign aides and organizers, had their own theory or hunch about why Warren might run.

For some, it’s the fact that Warren won’t use the future tense, only the present, when ruling out a 2016 bid. For others, it’s the one time she didn’t stick to her script, vaguely telling People magazine about the “amazing doors that could open.” And for one activist, Sean McKeown, the first volunteer to sign up for the Ready for Warren group, it’s page 212, chapter six, of her book, A Fighting Chance — the part where the Harvard professor and bankruptcy expert decides to become a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

The 34-year-old activist manned a table of “Run Liz Run” postcards last weekend at RootsCamp, the so-called “unconference” in D.C.’s immense convention center where MoveOn and the two other pro-Warren groups held their first event together.

McKeown has committed to memory the memoir’s key page number and chapter.

“It’s like she gave us a manual,” he said. “It’s how to convince her to run.”

But put aside the book and the People magazine interview. Put aside the fact that, for all 49 times she has said she’s not running, she hasn’t issued a “Shermanesque statement” vowing she won’t run in the future… Warren’s actions are far less ambiguous.

Democrats close to Warren’s operation, including ones familiar with her network of donors, said they see clear signals indicating one thing: It’s not happening.

Since the midterm elections, the senator’s financial gatekeeper, Paul Egerman, has told inquiring Democrats that she is still not considering a run, according to several people who have spoken with him late this year. (He has also reasoned that the sweeping Republican wins last month made 2016 even less appealing for Warren, one person said.)

Egerman served as Warren’s campaign finance chair, helping her raise $42 million. He is a board member of the Democracy Alliance, a network of top liberal funders, and is seen by many of those donors as the go-to contact for matters pertaining to the senator. Late last fall, after a New Republic cover story floated the idea that Warren would challenge Hillary Clinton in a primary, Egerman assured donors that she wasn’t running.

Warren’s lawyer, Marc Elias, also warned in a letter earlier this summer that any draft efforts should “not confuse donors about a non-existent run for president.”

Progressive financiers still aren’t picking up a different message. “Nothing has changed that I can see,” said Steve Phillips, a California-based donor and member of the Democracy Alliance. “No side meetings, no whispers, no movement.”

Warren hasn’t made moves on the staff side, either.

Her political operation, for all the interest, remains lean. She has one main strategist, Doug Rubin, based in Boston. There is no communications director in her Senate office, just a press secretary and deputy. And Mandy Grunwald, the ad-maker with decades-long ties to the Clintons, is still her media consultant. (Grunwald worked on Bill Clinton’s 1992 race and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns in 2000, 2006, and 2008.)

“Warren has not made gestures toward running for president that a seasoned political professional could see and embrace,” said one senior Democratic strategist.

“It’s become too cute by half.”

Warren is building a widening platform in the Senate, instead. One week after the midterms, she secured a minor but custom-made leadership post following a series of private talks with Harry Reid, the top Senate Democrat. Warren’s role has been described as unofficial “liaison” with the liberal base of the party.

Few Democrats interpreted the move as a step toward a national campaign.

“Everyone knows she is beloved by the left and has a big voice,” said Mike Lux, a veteran liberal strategist who has worked with Warren. “She hasn’t changed what she has said about the race one iota. So nothing has changed.”

“Elizabeth Warren likes being a senator,” said Ari Rabin-Havt, a longtime progressive operative who hosts a show on Sirius XM. “She just joined leadership in the Senate.”

“You just don’t do that if you’re going to run for president.”

The draft movement started more than a year ago, on a listserv.

In those early email exchanges, the project was just an ill-defined idea. In turn, that morphed into Ready for Warren, a super PAC some progressives have eyed as ineffective. MoveOn would come later, followed by Democracy for America, forming a three-legged collaboration that still hasn’t figured its own mechanics. But even last year, at the beginning, progressives worried about how a draft would work — and the impact of an evolving 2016-focused movement over which Warren would have no control.

At the time, the “Warren for President” talk was shifting into a higher gear. One group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, branded the senator their “North Star” and unveiled the slogan, “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren Wing.” The appeal was and remains clear, even if Warren still lacks a major legislative victory. No other figure speaks as effectively, or frequently, about the slate of economic causes she has made her signature: easing student loan debt, expanding Social Security, reinstating stricter regulations on banks. Warren assumed the progressive mantle easily and early.

She had been in office just nine months when Billy Wimsatt, a liberal organizer, started a Facebook page called Ready for Warren.

Wimsatt sent the link to “Game Changers Salon,” a private mailing list where he moderated messages between the estimated 1,200 progressive subscribers with access: activists, pundits, operatives, fundraisers, donors, and a handful of journalists.

The group was “for fun,” Wimsatt wrote. “Holler if you want to play with it.”

About two weeks later, Wimsatt sent another email to the thread: A journalist had contacted him about Ready for Warren. Wimsatt hadn’t even publicized the Facebook page. (It only had 12 likes.) “I’m debating what to do,” Wimsatt wrote. He proposed he promote the group and find a team to helm it. “Unless I hear any majorly compelling objections, I think we’re going to go forward with this and give it a try.”

Immediately, replies filed in. Some liked the idea. But many worried about the effect on Warren. It might look like she is playing along, even if she isn’t, one strategist said. It might politicize her efforts in the Senate, said another. It might be a burden for her staff, might overexpose her national brand, might hurt in some unexpected way.

Wimsett eventually handed the page over to three volunteers. They maintained Ready for Warren’s quiet, prenatal internet existence until the summer, when the group went public with a website and campaign manager, Erica Sagrans, a digital strategist who worked on President Obama’s reelection.

What launched, several movement progressives said, was a high-visibility, fledgling group that didn’t initially loop in Warren’s camp or other liberal stakeholders. “It was a surprise to everyone when stories started leaking about this,” said one progressive strategist. (In an interview, Sagrans said she hadn’t reached out to Warren’s office, either.)

The week of the roll-out, Sagrans hadn’t registered Ready for Warren with the Federal Election Commission, or decided how to structure the entity. But the group debuted later that week at Netroots Nation, the biggest progressive gathering of the year.

At the conference, volunteers passed out signs and plastic boater hats, each one decorated with an “Elizabeth Warren for President” sticker. (In the months that followed, more than one progressive operative joked with a shrug, “Well, they had hats!”)

Ready for Warren has since faded into the mix, letting MoveOn take a central role, along with Democracy for America, which joined the draft movement last week. But at the RootsCamp conference, the trio of groups still appeared disjointed and scattered.

It’s not clear how the three will work together.

“Talking to each other all the time is a good first step,” said Wikler, the MoveOn official.

Inside the convention hall, MoveOn and Ready for Warren set up separate tables and peddled stickers bearing opposing slogans: “Run Warren Run” vs. “Run Liz Run.” At the panel the two groups co-hosted, along with Democracy for America, officials from each organization pitched attendees to visit their own respective websites, where the groups are collecting their own respective lists of donors, volunteers, and email addresses.

There is no central hub online for the larger Warren draft movement.

Instead, organizers have encouraged supporters to start their own projects, create new social media pages, and host events independent of the existing campaign structure.

At the RootsCamp panel, Sagrans described the Warren effort as a “duocracy” made up of many entities. Join Ready for Warren, she said, but also “start your own Facebook page, record a video, do an event, do a meet-up… whatever you want to do.”

Wikler chimed in. “We’re all the protagonists in these stories,” he said. “You’re gonna see an explosion of Facebook groups, of different organizations, of endorsement votes, of announcements and press releases, of visibility actions, of photo petitions, of tumblrs.”

The political director of Democracy for America, Eden James, said the three organizations should embrace the disorder. “[We’re] building a foundation for the grassroots to empower themselves as much as we empower them,” James said.

“So as soon as we lose control of this movement, we will have won."

Near the crêpe stand at RootsCamp, a fight broke out.

It didn’t get physical — but two operatives exchanged harsh words about a short video, produced by MoveOn, to promote the launch of the draft effort this month.

The film, about four minutes in length, closes with a clip from David Muir’s interview with Warren from the spring. When the video reaches its final frames, a title screen asks in all caps, “Are You Ready?” Then a voice-over. “This may be Elizabeth Warren’s moment.” Then Muir’s face. “Are you gonna run for president?” he asks. Then there’s Warren, staring blankly, silent, seeming to hesitate. Finally, she blinks. Then a “Run Warren Run” logo flashes across the screen. And that’s it — the video is over.

The actual interview went like this —

DAVID MUIR: Are you gonna run for president?

ELIZABETH WARREN: I'm not running for president.

DAVID MUIR: There's nothing that could change your mind?

ELIZABETH WARREN: I'm not running for president.

— and that’s why the one activist was so upset. The ad, he argued, his voice loud in the convention hallway, willfully misleads people about Warren’s intentions.

There have been other disputes over the methods and messaging driving the movement. Some progressives bristle, for instance, when officials aligned with the campaign make public reference to Warren’s verb tense, or talk about her unwillingness to issue a “Shermanesque” denial. “The parsing,” said one, “is blurring on offensive.”

The arguments evince a wider and deeper rift in the progressive wing about the consequences of a presidential draft movement, particularly for MoveOn.

Now, Warren is seen as an ideal presidential candidate and a potent megaphone in the race. But people inside the progressive community have expressed concern that a movement focused on a figure who is so singularly fixed on one issue — income inequality — could narrow the policy lens of MoveOn and its partners.

“It’s surprising how organizations with such a breadth of concerns have focused this campaign so narrowly,” said the senior Democratic strategist, citing other significant progressive priorities like abortion rights, immigration, and civil rights.

More than a decade ago, MoveOn’s singular, clear, cutting voice made it the most influential liberal outfit in the country. The group, founded in 1998, rode a rising progressive sentiment against President George W. Bush. By the spring of 2003, MoveOn was such a force in Democratic circles that officials decided they would hold their own presidential primary, online, and endorse the candidate who cleared 50%. (John Kerry actually purchased ads on Yahoo! urging people to participate.)

Since then, MoveOn’s membership has grown by millions, but its power has dwindled.

In 2014, the group has something to gain from Warren’s voice and platform. She is a viral commodity. When she confronts a banking executive in a Senate hearing, the YouTube clip of the exchange will draw hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of views.

This fall, on Facebook, there were three times as many people talking about Clinton than Warren. But this month, during the three-day period around her heated speech against a provision pushed by Citigroup lobbyists, Warren’s total interactions exceeded Clinton’s twofold, according to data provided by a Facebook partnership with BuzzFeed News.

Given Warren’s following, a movement to draft her into the race, regardless of the outcome, happens to carry obvious advantages: list-building and fundraising.

Wikler, the MoveOn official, dismissed the idea that those realities motivated the campaign. “Ridiculous,” he said. Progressives who have worked with MoveOn agreed.

“They’re not that cynical,” said Rabin-Havt, the longtime progressive operative. “That’s a benefit. But there’s a legitimate belief on their part that they are doing this because they believe it’s a good idea. They can build lists and raise money without this.”

Elizabeth Warren knows how to use the media, so long as she can control it.

Even before her run for Senate, when she was still teaching bankruptcy law in Cambridge, Warren made a study of the press — the way a perfectly crafted line or a national television interview could affect lives across the country if executed just right.

She wondered in her memoir whether her 2003 taping on Dr. Phil McGraw’s syndicated talk show, viewed by millions, “might have done more good” than an entire year as a professor. “Maybe that was a better way to make a difference,” Warren writes.

But as she moved into the political arena, she grew cautious. In 2012, Warren gave an embarrassing interview about the Occupy Wall Street movement, and vowed thereafter to speak to reporters with discipline. “The old way of talking with the press — long conversations and lively discussions — was gone,” she writes in her book.

“Now I needed to change: I needed to measure every sentence.”

In the Senate, that’s what Warren does. She avoids unforced errors, evading reporters in hallways on the Hill. But when it works to her benefit, Warren seizes the spotlight.

Citing Warren’s media savvy, several progressives reasoned that she is unlikely to rule out a campaign completely — until it stops helping and starts hurting. (Warren has played along before: During her book tour this spring, inquiries about 2016 were included among pre-screened audience questions at several events.)

But Warren is now dealing with something she can’t control: a swirling, swelling coalition of progressives who could either raise her profile and buoy her legislative fights — or co-opt her platform and sidetrack her efforts in Washington.

Wikler, the MoveOn official, said the group would continue to support her Senate work as before. Warren’s spokesperson did not return a request for comment about whether the draft campaign would deter the senator from working with MoveOn.

Last weekend, after Warren delivered her Citigroup speech, MoveOn members made “thousands of calls to Congress” ahead of the House vote, according to Wikler.

Meanwhile, that same day in Washington, RootsCamp began, marking the unofficial start of the “Run Warren Run” campaign. It was proof, Wikler said, that a draft movement would only “amplify,” not divert from, the main attraction.

“The existence of a draft campaign strengthens her hand. Her candidacy would give her an even stronger hand. The presidency would give her the strongest-possible hand.”

But while Warren waged one of her biggest, most public fights in the Senate, headlines kept rolling about the 2016 movement developing downtown — where, inside the convention center, next to a table full of bumper stickers, one MoveOn member turned to another and whispered, “She’s acting so presidential this week!”

Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images