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

Bernie Sanders Is Stuck Being A Regular Politician Now

$
0
0

Scott Eisen / Getty Images

CONCORD, New Hampshire — On Thursday, Bernie Sanders joined the Democratic Party when he officially signed up to appear on ballot for the first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

State party rules require Sanders to be a Democrat to run in the primary, and Sanders — who has long reveled in the fact that he’s not officially a member of any political party — is willing to do what it takes to keep his presidential bid moving forward.

But as he becomes a regular Democrat, Sanders is also becoming something else: a regular politician.

Five months in, the candidate’s pledge to run a different kind of campaign has collided with the realities of a competitive, two-person primary. He’s responded with the trappings of a traditional politician: His campaign hired a pollster, launched a debut television ad casting Sanders as the “honest leader” in the race, drew aggressive contrasts with Hillary Clinton in a key speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa, and in a sharp interview with the Wall Street Journal this week, Sanders himself raised the question of Clinton’s character regarding her recent opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Sanders’s aides say the shift is the natural next “phase” in the race. But outside the campaign, Democrats — including those who worked on Howard Dean’s 2004 effort that captured the progressive zeitgeist before falling back to earth — see a candidate losing grasp on his own best features.

Joe Trippi, the strategist who ran Dean’s bid, pinpointed the Jefferson-Jackson dinner as the turning point for the Sanders brand.

“They’ve made a big mistake in this whole get-tough strategy of theirs,” said Trippi. “It’s just backfiring. It came at exactly the wrong time in exactly the wrong place, and it was counter to his brand, which was the bigger problem. That’s what people liked about him.”

“So you’re going after somebody the Democrats like, and doing it in a way that erases or smudges everything they liked about you. Either one of those things is bad,” Trippi said. “But when you’re doing both of them — it’s not a good strategy.”

In an interview with BuzzFeed News on Thursday morning, senior strategist Tad Devine maintained that nothing has changed about Sanders and dismissed the idea that Sanders had become a “regular politician.”

“I do not see any fundamental change in Bernie in terms of his message. His message is still the same message,” Devine said, adding that the delivery remains “straightforward and blunt.”

"He is more willing to talk about these substantive differences in particular forums,” Devine allowed, but said that Sanders has “always” said that he’s willing to talk about policy differences with Clinton. “The gist of what he’s doing and where he’s going is what we’ve been doing.”

Aides from the Dean campaign identified a key lesson from 2004 for Sanders: Once you lose your hard-earned insurgent status, once you become a “regular politician,” you can’t come back. In the lead-up to the Iowa caucuses, Dean spent weeks beating back sustained attacks from Dick Gephardt, whose future in the race depended on the state. Voters expected Dean to fight back: The former Vermont governor was already perceived as scrappy — even too aggressive at times. But some former staffers said the protracted sniping, which played out on the trail and in ads, dulled Dean’s non-politician politician look.

“A contested back-and-forth over votes and character feels like politics-as-usual to voters,” said Ben LaBolt, a top Obama aide who worked on Dean’s campaign. “When you’re running as a different candidate who wants to start a revolution rather than effectively manage the political process, that does brand damage.”

“Sanders’s mistake was that he said he wasn’t going to run a negative campaign,” LaBolt said. “Now he looks like a hypocrite.”

Peter Kramer / Getty Images

Another top Dean aide, who declined to be named, echoed widespread surprise inside the Democratic Party at Sanders’s decision to debut a contrast message at last month’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner.

“We all say the same thing, which is you don’t go negative at the J-J in Des Moines,” the former Dean aide said. “That’s the place, for a significant amount of people, where it is time to see your wares. And when he made it about her, some would say it was a debacle.”

Privately, Sanders’s team has said it learned the lessons of Dean’s 2004 implosion. But there’s at least a perception that they are carrying on where Dean left off: The campaign’s pollster, Ben Tulchin, has been reported as Dean’s. (Paul Maslin, Dean’s pollster, said that Tulchin only worked with his firm at the time. “Ben helped me with some questionnaires,” Maslin said in an email. “He’s a good guy. But I did all of it. All the meetings, all the conference calls all the strategy in Burlington.”)

There are signs Sanders advisers recognize they’re walking a tightrope. While Sanders is quick to bash Clinton in national interviews these days — interviews are now full of bravado and warnings to Clinton not to go negative lest she find herself contending with the full force of what Sanders has to offer — actual voters who get facetime with Sanders get the same Sanders they got before the J-J and the new tone. In New Hampshire town halls last week, Sanders didn’t change his rhetoric at all, and he never mentioned Clinton by name.

On Wednesday, however, Sanders reversed his repeated promises to not make personal attacks on Clinton. The senator told the Journal that Clinton’s shift on trade policy “does speak to the character of a person.”

The reversal did not go unnoticed by the Clinton campaign. “It’s disappointing Sen. Sanders and his campaign strategists have chosen to change direction and engage in the type of personal attacks that they previously said he wouldn't do," said spokesman Josh Schwerin, who added that this “has and will remain a campaign about issues for Hillary Clinton, and that's what she'll continue to talk about on the trail.”

But Devine rejected the idea that the comment about Clinton’s “character” represented a change from before.

"Well, sure, I mean that’s their observation from a distance,” he said of the Dean aides who see Sanders making a key change. “It may also be their observation from a more partisan perspective — they may be more for Hillary, either publicly or implicitly. No, we’re not changing things. If we were running a big push-off campaign, we’d be running ads that push off."

Sanders also told the Journal that the FBI should continue its investigation into Clinton’s email setup, backing away from his bring-the-house-down moment in last month’s presidential debate. It was a line Sanders had clearly come to deliver: “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!” Sanders told the WSJ this week he didn't have enough time to respond on the emails. (A review of the transcript shows he had plenty of opportunity to talk about the investigation if he wished, choosing instead to tell debate moderators, "Enough of the emails. Let's talk about the real issues facing America.")

The moment was celebrated by supporters of both candidates, and used by both campaigns for fundraising purposes. A Sanders fundraising email sent while the debate was still going on included video of the “damn emails” exchange and called it “a special moment” on “the most important night of the campaign so far.”

On Thursday, Sanders’s campaign attempted to quash the notion that their candidate had shifted his position on the emails, pointing to an interview Sanders conducted with CNN right after the debate where he said the investigations should continue. "He said so before the debate, he said so on the stage immediately after the debate … and he basically said the same thing yesterday,” Devine said.

"There’s no ad about the emails in the can, we’re just not going there,” he said. “That’s not what the campaign is going to be about.”

And when it comes to the campaign’s first TV spot — the one that characterizes Sanders as an “honest leader” — Devine said the language emphasized Sanders’s strengths, in isolation from Clinton. Likewise, he categorized the campaign’s emphasis Sanders’s vote against the Iraq War as less a critique of Clinton than a testament to Sanders’s judgment. “Just because she voted the other way doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about it.”

“We’re not willing to walk away from those strengths because someone will say, ‘A-ha! you’re pivoting against her.’ That’s just giving up too much,” Devine said. “We can’t unilaterally disarm because someone might say, ‘Well, she’s got problem there and therefore you’re doing this.’”

The campaign stands behind this distinction between advancing their message — and that nothing has changed. Devine said he understands that the best way for Sanders to win is “not to have a drag-out fight with someone who is so well known, so popular, and so established” within the party.

“The best way to do that is to beat her because we have a better message and that message resonates more powerfully with voters,” he said.

In Concord, after signing the papers to run on the ballot, Sanders delivered a speech to supporters outside the capitol building about political revolution and taking on billionaires. He didn’t mention Clinton by name. But shifting between outsider iconoclast, hard-nosed politician, and back again, is easier said than done.

“They should come off of it. I’m not sure they have much chance anyway. Which may be the thing that they’re doing: We’ll lose if we stay positive, so we gotta go negative,” said Trippi. “That could be their logic. But I don’t think they have any chance of doing this the way they’re now doing it. So reversing is better than continuing at this stage.”


Ja Rule On Ben Carson: "I Call Him 'Uncle Ben'... A New Name For 'Tom"

$
0
0

“I don’t have anything really against Ben Carson,” the rapper added.

"I call him 'Uncle Ben,'" rapper Ja Rule said on SiriusXM on Wednesday. "You what I'm saying, we 'bout to have a new name for 'Tom,' it's going to be 'Uncle Ben.'"

w.soundcloud.com

Carson, Sanders, And O'Malley To Hold Criminal Justice Forum With Black Leaders

$
0
0

Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls Ben Carson, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley will discuss criminal justice policy at a forum in Columbia, South Carolina later this month.

The 2015 Presidential Justice Forum is being organized by the 20/20 Leaders of America, a bipartisan group of black mayors, police officers, and other leaders. Each of the candidates vying for the Republican and Democratic nomination was invited to participate in the event, which will be held Nov. 21 at historically black Allen University. BET will livestream the forum, and Jeff Johnson will moderate.

Co-Chair Ashley Bell said the 20/20 Club felt that criminal justice was the "premier issue" in the black community heading toward the 2016 election. During the question and answer session, he said organizers hope to hear what sort of progress each candidate would commit to in their first term on issues such as the militarization of police and community policing.

"These issues have not gotten a fair shake in the public discourse," he said.

He added the group was continuing to talk to other candidates, including Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, about participating along with O'Malley, Sanders, and Carson.

"We're hoping the rest of the candidates follow their lead," Bell said.

Facebook is among the sponsors of the event, and anyone can submit questions on criminal justice and policing through the 20/20 Club Facebook page.

“The conversation about the 2016 election is happening on Facebook, and a huge part of that is a discussion of criminal justice issues,” Crystal Patterson, politics and government outreach manager at Facebook, said in a statement. “Facebook is pleased to be the title sponsor of the 2015 Presidential Justice Forum, not only to help bring more attention to the issue of criminal justice reform, but also to help connect voters around the country with the candidates participating in the event.”

He addd it was important for the group to invite candidates from both parties. By incorporating questions from Facebook, he said he hopes the candidates learn about the perspective of young black Americans.

"To the black community, this is not about partisan politics," he said. "It's bigger than that."

Last month, Black Lives Matter activists called on the Democratic National Committee to focus a debate on issues including police violence in black communities. Bell said the 20/20 Club has been working on their event for about six months, and he hoped it would draw attention from a broad section of the black community.

"We need all stakeholders at the table," he said.

The group focused on Allen University to host the event following the massacre at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. Three of the victims had ties to the university.

"This was a fitting place to have a conversation about race and politics in this country," Bell said.


Ben Carson Fights Back Against West Point Scholarship Report

$
0
0

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson on Friday fought back against a Politico report that he fabricated his story of being offered a full "scholarship" to West Point military academy.

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

For years, Carson has contended that he met the famed Gen. William Westmoreland and was offered a full scholarship to West Point, a story that he tells at great length in his memoir, Gifted Hands.

“He was introduced to folks from West Point by his ROTC Supervisors,” Carson campaign manager Barry Bennett wrote in an email to Politico. “They told him they could help him get an appointment based on his grades and performance in ROTC. He considered it but in the end did not seek admission.”

On the meeting with Westmoreland, Bennett concedes Carson "can’t remember with specificity their brief conversation."

Politico had checked Carson's story against the records at West Point. The academy has no record of Carson ever applying to the school.

On Friday, Carson told the New York Times, "It was, you know, an informal ‘with a record like yours we could easily get you a scholarship to West Point.'"

Carson wrote that on Facebook last month and in his book that he had not applied to West Point, though he has repeated that he was offered a full scholarship to West Point at various points.

In Gifted Hands, Carson recounts meeting Gen. Westmoreland at a Memorial Day parade in Detroit in 1969 and being offered a scholarship to West Point after having dinner with him.

West Point does not have tuition. Cadets attend the school, then serve in the military.

When the news broke on Friday, Donald Trump, who has been aggressively attacking Carson since the former neurosurgeon overtook him in the polls, took to Twitter to call out Carson's "many lies."

At an evening news conference, Carson once again defended his recollection of events, and pushed back hard against the media for piling onto what he said was an opposition smear campaign.

"I think what it shows, and these kinds of things show, is there is a desperation on behalf of some to try to find a way to tarnish me," Carson said. "Because they have been looking through everything. They have been talking to everyone I have ever known and everybody I have ever seen. There has got to be a scandal."

The public, he said, understands that "this is a witch hunt."

"All you guys trying to pile on is actually going to help me," Carson said.

Old Interview Shows How Carson Has Shifted Story About His Temper

$
0
0

Carson told CNN on Thursday, “unless you were the victim of that temper, why would you know? Just because you happened to know me? That doesn’t make any sense.” In an old interview, he said his temper was known “far and wide.”

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson has pushed back on a CNN report that his childhood friends and classmates do not remember him being particularly violent in his youth by saying that most examples of his temper were "private incidents."

"‎Why would anybody know about, you know, private incidents like that? You know, I was generally a nice person, it's just that I had a very bad temper," Carson told CNN on Thursday. "So unless you were the victim of that temper, why would you know? Just because you happened to know me? That doesn't make any sense."

In a 1987 profile of the then-practicing pediatric neurosurgeon, however, Carson said his temper was widely-known.

I was "known far and wide for my terrible temper," Carson said in the profile.

In his books and other interviews, Carson characterized his temper as "all-consuming" and described public outbursts of anger.

Carson wrote in his book Think Big, "One other factor played an important role in my development. I had always had a terrible temper, striking out at anyone who opposed me."

In Take The Risk, another Carson book, he wrote that his temper was "all-consuming" and made him a threat to those around him.

"My biggest stumbling block during the early years of my adolescence was anger," wrote Carson. "I struggled with an often intense and sometimes unmanageable temper. It erupted out of nowhere and became so all-consuming that it posed a threat not only to me, but to those around me."

Speaking with ABC News in 2002, Carson said his temper extended to school, where he attacked his fellow classmates.

"I mean, I had a hair-trigger temper. I mean, I would go after people with baseball bats. You know, I once hit a kid in the school who was trying to close my locker. I still had my lock in my hand, put a three inch gash in his forehead. Things like that. But, you know, he, he of course, fled in terror. I was more terrified than he is."

There's A New Ben Carson Music Video And It's Pretty Good

$
0
0

It’s titled “Breath of Fresh Air.”

The video features clips of the retired neurosurgeon and a catchy tune.

vimeo.com

It was tweeted out by Deana Bass, Carson's press secretary and partner at Bass Public Affairs.

Clinton Proposes Reducing Mandatory Minimums For Nonviolent Drug Offenders

$
0
0

Randall Hill / Reuters

WASHINGTON — As part of her expanding criminal justice platform, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is proposing to retroactively reduce mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses, a Clinton aide said Friday.

The latest proposals, part of Clinton's piece-by-piece disclosure of her plan on criminal justice, come as Clinton is set to take part Friday evening in a forum featuring the other two Democratic candidates for president, Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders.

On Saturday, she'll take part in a town hall with the South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus moderated by Roland Martin.

Clinton is proposing to cut in half mandatory minimum sentences of 5-20 years for nonviolent drug offenses. Those changes would apply retroactively to currently incarcerated inmates, "but only after a court balances public safety factors," according to the Clinton aide.

Clinton's proposals would also eliminate the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of crack cocaine, as well as make the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, apply retroactively.

Clinton also wants to lessen the number of offenses that count as a "strike" against individuals with a prior felony drug charge and increase the ability of judges to use their own discretion with it comes to applying mandatory minimums.

The proposals are very similar to a bipartisan criminal justice bill introduced in the Senate last month, which has the support of criminal justice advocacy groups across the political spectrum and the White House.

"This is an important first draft, focusing on non-violent drug offenses," said activist DeRay Mckesson of Campaign Zero, which met with Clinton last month in hopes to influence her platform based on its own recommendations. "It will be important that Clinton's platform expands to address a host of other issues such as solitary confinement, alternatives to incarceration and decriminalization."

Earlier this year, Clinton began embracing calls for overhauling the criminal justice system and distancing herself from the tough-on-crime policies of her husband, former president Bill Clinton.

"Decisions were made in the '80s and '90s to deal with what was at that time a very high crime rate that was particularly affecting poor people, people of color in the cities," Clinton said in August. "I think that a lot was done that went further than it needed to go and so now we are facing problems with mass incarceration."

Santorum: I Run Into People All The Time Who Say, "I Didn't Know You Were Running"

$
0
0

“I get this all the time.”

Robyn Beck / AFP / Getty Images

Rick Santorum says he meets people all the time who don't even know he's currently running for president.

The former Pennsylvania senator, speaking on the Rose Unplugged radio program, attributed this to his exclusion from the primetime debates.

"I think it's really sad, and we had these discussions the other day, that the media has basically segmented the field, and the RNC, when, as you saw in the Kentucky election, the polls said the Republican is gonna lose and lose badly, and he won easily," Santorum said. "And that's one state that had intense polling, these national polls are notoriously inaccurate, 70-80% of the people who are answering these polls haven't made up their mind, and when we're using that to determine who has a legitimate campaign.

"And it's affecting the campaigns because if you're not — I get this all the time, I run into people all the time saying: 'Oh, I didn't know you were running!'

"And I go, 'what do you mean,' and she — 'I didn't see you at the debates!'

"You think that people, you know, pay attention," Santorum continued. "And some do. But most don't, and when they don't see you being covered or in the primetime debate, they, it has a huge impact on your campaign and the viability of your campaign. So, we're pushing hard to see if they can restructure these going forward, it's really been, it's been tough."

Santorum concluded, "This has been the first race where the establishment, using national polls, has been able to really marginalize candidates that are really a threat to them."


Ted Cruz Praises Jeb: Calls To Drop Out "Very Unfair"

$
0
0

“I like Jeb Bush, I respect him. I’ve always thought well of him.”

Steve Pope / Getty Images

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz praised former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Thursday and said calls for him to drop are "very unfair."

"I think those calls are very unfair," the Texas senator told The Mike Gallagher Show. "I like Jeb Bush, I respect him. I've always thought well of him. I think he did a good job as governor of Florida. And the entire Bush family I've respected for a long time. Jeb's son George P. Bush is a good friend of mine, he was one of my first supporters when I ran for the Senate. And I supported George P. when he ran statewide in Texas.

"You know, I think Jeb has faced a lot of criticism, and much of it has been less than fair, and some of it is just the nature of the media process, that it all becomes a horse race, where somebody's gotta be up, somebody's gotta be down," said Cruz. "You look in the debate, at the question that was asked of Jeb — I think it was the first or one of the first first questions of Jeb — 'ya know, gosh your poll numbers have really slumped, why are your poll numbers falling so far?'"

Cruz continued, "At this point, who cares about national poll numbers. Up a point, down a point, historically those have been largely irrelevant. I think a far better question for a candidate is, what is your record on a given issue? What is your vision on a given issue? How does your record and vision differ from the record and vision of the other candidates?"

Cruz said, at this point, some candidates who have "negligible support" should realize that it may not be their year.

"A number of candidates are getting really negligible support," he said. "And at this point you're not seeing any meaningful support nationally, any meaningful support in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, that starts to be a pretty significant warning sign that this may not be the year for you."

w.soundcloud.com

After Keystone, Bernie Sanders Is Already Leading The Next Climate Fight

$
0
0

Scott Eisen / Getty Images

ROCK HILL, South Carolina — Hours after inking their victory in the Keystone XL pipeline debate, climate change activists were already turning the page to the item on the environmental left’s wish list: a guarantee from lawmakers that fossil fuels buried beneath land owned by the government will stay where they are and never be extracted.

It’s a heavy lift, and an effort, like the Keystone push, where environmentalists are not likely to find any Republican allies. It’s also an area where, like Keystone, Democrats aren’t yet fully united. But activists do already have a presidential candidate who positioned himself to take the lead: Bernie Sanders. It’s an effort that could become divisive in the Democratic primary and a litmus test for backing from the well-organized green left.

In Washington this week, Sanders co-sponsored legislation with Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon that would ban new energy extraction leases for fossil fuels on land and offshore in public lands in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans along with the Gulf of Mexico. The bill will not pass the Republican-controlled Congress, but Merkley told Vox’s David Roberts the point is to “spur conversations,” pressure the White House to use executive actions to restrict fossil-based energy development, and insert the idea into the presidential election.

Climate activists say that by attacking the supply of new carbon-based energy, they’ll spur development of renewable energy sources. In short, if you can’t get power from the ground, you’re going to have to find it someplace else. The activists are not subtle on this point: The same green groups that united to fight Keystone have now formed the Keep It In The Ground coalition, whose goal is to reduce carbon emissions by reducing available carbon. Climate change activists have been frustrated by a resurgent domestic energy industry producing cheap carbon-based fuels and to some degree pushing talk of pursuing alternative energy out of the political spotlight. Since such a large percentage of energy extraction is done on public lands, the theory goes, banning it would make new energy sources a necessity.

“Keep it in the ground” is a position Sanders is ready to embrace. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, has been more circumspect, saying that a no-new-extraction policy shouldn’t be adopted “until there were ‘responsible alternatives’ in place to keep the economy moving,” according to MSNBC.

The keep it in the ground question was posed to Clinton at a contentious July town hall in New Hampshire as part of an organized effort to raise awareness of the issue run by 350 Action, a climate change activist group. 350 activists unfurled a banner at the town hall and asked Clinton to answer for past campaign donations from energy companies.

The founder of 350, Bill McKibben, was at the press conference announcing the Merkley bill. A former top aide at the group, Karthik Ganapathy, recently became a member of Sanders’s communications staff.

In an interview, Ganapathy said Sanders’s climate positions drove him to join the campaign. He said “keep it in the ground” would become part of Sanders’ environmental rallying cry — climate is always mentioned in Sanders’ hour-long stump speech on the trail, with Sanders warning that energy companies have used their money to make climate change policy all but impossible without his promised “political revolution.”

“I am a climate voter and that’s why I came to work on the Bernie Sanders campaign,” Ganapathy said. “He’s been on the right side of climate issue since before it was cool.”

The Sanders campaign has been happy to draw policy contrasts with Clinton lately, and the extraction ban is another place where Sanders can try to cast himself as the more reliable progressive.

Ganapathy said the campaign will make sure voters know Sanders is on the side of keeping it in the ground.

“Bernie Sanders has always been one of the absolute strongest voices on climate change in our government -- and bills like the Keep it in the Ground Act show he will continue to be,” he said. “We're going to make sure folks hear that story, and know that he held these beliefs long before they were politically popular or expedient.

3 Takeaways From The South Carolina Democratic Candidate’s Forum

$
0
0

Three interviews with Rachel Maddow in a row gave the candidates a moment in the spotlight. Here’s what they did with it.

Martin O’Malley Has A Line Of Attack Against Bernie Sanders

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

O'Malley is the last man standing among the Democratic also-rans not named "Clinton" or "Sanders." He tried to break into the top tier with a sharp attack on Sanders over the time in 2011 Sanders told a progressive radio show it would be a good thing for progressives if President Obama was primaried from the left. Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, told BuzzFeed News there was nothing to O'Malley's attack. "He was on a radio show, someone called in and asked if there should be a primary. He's long supported political competition," Weaver said. "He did not actively try to get someone to run against the president, as all of you who cover this know."

Bernie Sanders Is Just As Effective When He’s Not Grumpy

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

Sanders had fun with Maddow, a journalist he repeatedly praised and said he deeply respects. He was comfortable and he had a good time, joking his way through his standard fare of sharp attacks on the media, dire warnings about the outsized political power of the wealthy, and digs at Clinton for changing her positions on Keystone and other progressive issues Clinton has embraced on the 2016 trail. It was a side of Sanders voters and the press rarely see, but one that is definitely part of his political persona.


View Entire List ›

4 Things Jeb Still Needs To Fix

$
0
0

The beleaguered Bush campaign just wrapped up a relaunch tour dubbed “Jeb Can Fix It.” But there’s still lots of work to do if he wants a shot at a comeback.

Brian Blanco / Getty Images

SOMERSWORTH, New Hampshire — Jeb may be able to fix it, but he hasn't yet.

That fact was plainly evident at the final stop of Jeb Bush's meta comeback tour this week, as the besieged Republican candidate strained to persuade a modest roomful of voters here that his new campaign rallying cry — "Jeb can fix it" — stood for something more than too-cute sloganeering.

"I've seen some really interesting machines," Bush told the audience after touring a medical device manufacturing facility. "I bet they break down once in a while. Oh my god, you've gotta fix it. You've gotta transform. You've gotta get new customers. You have to retool and use the great skills that you have to be able to provide the highest quality service, or they'll go elsewhere. It's a challenging time for sure and you have to adapt."

He intended for this riff to serve as a metaphor for his problem-solving gubernatorial record in Florida, but the 2016 symbolism was hard to miss. Bush's presidential campaign is the broken-down machine — and he is now scrambling with adapt-or-die urgency to win back his fleeing "customers" before it's too late.

Yet, even after a week of uncharacteristically shouty campaigning ("We're gonna win this damn thing!" he proclaimed in Florida; "We're Americans dammit!" he yelled in New Hampshire), and even after baring his soul at length ("I've learned to accept ... that I'm imperfect under God's watchful eye," he mused to a bus full of reporters), many of the same crucial defects that have plagued his candidacy remain.

To achieve the "comeback narrative" he's been urging reporters to write, Bush will need to find a way to fix these problems soon.

The debate problem

The debate problem

Robyn Beck / AFP / Getty Images

Though Bush was already struggling in the polls when he arrived onstage at the GOP debate in Colorado last month, his badly botched attack on Marco Rubio in front of 14 million viewers was arguably the moment that commenced the campaign "death watch" in the eyes of the national press. The post-debate prognoses were swift and almost universally grim.

"Bush seemed gutted, pallid—a ghost rising spectrally from a car crash, looking down on the wreckage below," John Heilemann wrote at Bloomberg Politics.

"Jeb Bush can eat carbs now," Matt Drudge pithily pronounced on Twitter.

But Bush's onstage flub wasn't an outlier. He has been listless and inartful at every one of this year's unusually high-profile debates. For a politician who's been popularly characterized (unfairly or not) as the "smart Bush" for the better part of two decades, these performances have seemed especially underwhelming.

Bush's campaign is aware of this, which is why they hired media coach Jon Kraushar — a veteran image-maker and contemporary of Fox News chief Roger Ailes — to hone the candidate's TV chops. According to New York Magazine, however, some in Bush's orbit question how coachable he will be when it comes to the sort of superficialities in which the consultant specializes. (One small example: Bush has steadfastly refused to swap out his glasses for contact lenses, despite repeated encouragement from some advisers.)

Bush's aides and allies know it's unlikely that such trivial matters will change the shape of the 2016 race on their own; and no one is banking on a single breakout debate to turn things around for Jeb. But to escape the hamster-wheel of grueling news cycles in which he is currently stuck, the candidate will probably need to exceed expectations at next week's Fox Business Network debate.


View Entire List ›

Sanders: I Support Contested Elections But I Was "Vigorously" For Obama In 2008 And 2012

$
0
0

Don Emmert / AFP / Getty Images

COLUMBIA, South Carolina — As he tries to improve his standing with black voters in this southern primary state, Bernie Sanders rejected the idea that he was anything but a true blue Obama supporter in both 2008 and 2012.

Sanders faced questions about comments he made in 2011, when he suggested that a primary opponent against President Obama from the left would be good for the progressive movement. On Friday, Martin O'Malley raised those comments in a sharp criticism of Sanders.

"What actually happened was is I was on a radio show," Sanders said on Saturday, in response to a question about O'Malley's charge, "somebody called up and asked something about — I don’t remember exactly how response my response went — somebody called up and said, ‘Well, do you think there should be a primary against Obama?’"

"I think contested elections are not a bad thing, but the idea that I worked against President Obama is untrue," Sanders went on. "In fact, I vigorously supported him in 2008, he came to my state in 2006. I campaigned for him in 2008, I campaigned for him very hard in 2012, and I never made any effort to enlist a candidate against him.”

O'Malley, struggling to get any traction against Sanders or Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary fight, has increasingly made an issue of Sanders' past as an independent and, sometimes, proud separation from the Democratic political establishment.

"When President Obama was running for reelection, I was glad to step up and work very hard for him, while Sen. Sanders was trying to find someone to primary him," O'Malley told Rachel Maddow at a candidate forum in Rock Hill, South Carolina on Friday. "I am a Democrat. I'm a lifelong Democrat. I'm not a former independent. I'm not a former Republican."

("Former Republican" is a reference to Clinton, who was a member of the GOP in college.)

On the radio show in 2011, Sanders told a caller that Obama had taken positions that disappointed the left in part because he faced no primary opposition from progressives.

The whole moment, as clipped by Think Progress at the time:

SANDERS: Brian, believe me, I wish I had the answer to your question. Let me just suggest this. I think there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president; who believe that, with regard to Social Security and a number of other issues, he said one thing as a candidate and is doing something very much else as a president; who cannot believe how weak he has been, for whatever reason, in negotiating with Republicans and there’s deep disappointment. So my suggestion is, I think one of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him and I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing. […] So I would say to Ryan [sic] discouragement is not an option. I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.

Source: Ben Carson Is Endorsing Statehood For Puerto Rico Tomorrow On The Island

$
0
0

Alan Diaz / AP

Ben Carson will endorse statehood for Puerto Rico tomorrow at an event with Ricky Rosello, a gubernatorial candidate for the pro-statehood party on the island, according to a source close to Rosello's campaign.

The source said the condition for Carson speaking at the event was that he come out for statehood. A request for comment from Carson's campaign on the endorsement was not immediately returned.

The issue of statehood for Puerto Rico, a commonwealth of the United States, does not neatly breakdown along traditional Democrat and Republican lines on the island, which is also dealing with a financial and health care crisis.

Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have previously said they support statehood if Puerto Ricans vote for it. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush have endorsed bankruptcy protections for the island, but Rubio does not.

While Puerto Ricans can't vote in the general election, 23 delegates will be awarded on the March 13 primary. Presidential candidates also use the island's politics to signal to Puerto Ricans in the U.S., particularly in Florida where they are a fast-growing group, that they care about issues that matter to them.

Carson's support of statehood comes a week before 13 Republican candidates are set to appear at the Sunshine Summit in Orlando, where much of the Puerto Rican population growth is concentrated.

Clinton and the Obama administration have said they support bankruptcy protections and fiscal oversight that come short of a federal bailout. In senate testimony on October 22, Treasury counselor Antonio Weiss said Puerto Rico’s fiscal crisis is escalating. "Without federal action it could easily become a humanitarian crisis as well," he said.

Rossello, who is hosting the event Carson will attend, is a professor at the Metropolitan University of Puerto Rico running against the incumbent Alejandro Garcia Padilla, and has proposed a plan counter to the Obama administration. Writing in Forbes, he said he wants to dismantle the current government system, implement free market reforms and create an "independent mechanism" to manage the debt, a collaboration between Puerto Rico and the federal government.


Chris Christie On Ben Carson: Candidates Have To Back Up Personal Stories

$
0
0

Nati Harnik / AP

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says presidential candidates should be expected to back up their personal biographies.

Asked by radio host Michael Medved about a Politico story that raised questions about Ben Carson's claim that he was offered a "full scholarship" to West Point, Christie said, "I've been campaigning for the last two days, so I haven’t followed it as closely as I might have otherwise. But what I will tell you is we’re all responsible for our personal story, right? We put our personal story out there, we tell folks our history, that’s part of our candidacy. And we have to be able to back that up."

"So I’m sure that, you know, he’ll answer these allegations," Christie continued, adding that he thought Carson was a decent and honest man. "And if he answers them to satisfaction of the American people — not the media, the American people — if he does that, he’ll be fine.”

Earlier in the interview, Christie reiterated that he was not concerned about being relegated to the earlier of the two Republican primary debates next Tuesday, saying he was "willing to bet" that "they're gonna be talking on Wednesday about what I did on Tuesday night." He did, however, say he felt bad for former New York Gov. George Pataki and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who did not qualify for either debate.

"I think it’s horribly unfair that those two men, both of whom are friends of mine—I have great respect for both of them—are not gonna get an opportunity to stand on that stage and put their views out there," Christie said.

w.soundcloud.com


Sanders: Clinton's New Marijuana Policy Ignores The Real Problem With Current Marijuana Policy

$
0
0

Alex Wong / Getty Images

AIKEN, South Carolina — The Democratic presidential primary has become the host of the most vigorous, wide-ranging debate over marijuana politics in the recent history of the country.

The issue has become the latest policy divide between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, with Sanders saying an end to the federal prohibition on pot is a key component of creating a fairer criminal justice system, and Clinton taking a more cautious approach.

On Saturday, Clinton said it was time to reschedule marijuana, allowing for research into its medical properties that is currently banned.

"The problem with medical marijuana is there is a lot of anecdotal evidence about how well it works for certain conditions. But we haven't done any research. Why? Because it is considered that is called a schedule one drug and you can't even do research in it," Clinton said at a town hall in Orangeburg, South Carolina. "I would like to move it from what is called Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 so that researchers at universities, national institutes of health can start researching what is the best way to use it, how much of a dose does somebody need, how does it interact with other medications."

Clinton had not previously endorsed efforts to reschedule marijuana. Pro-marijuana activists generally see plans like Clinton's as missing the mark in terms of the difficulties in marijuana politics today, with some states having legalized the drug, others continuing to crack down on it and a federal government that has basically thrown up its hands. But activists reached by BuzzFeed News on Saturday generally praised Clinton's new stance, while also saying she didn't go nearly far enough.

Sanders shares that view.

“I am glad to see Secretary Clinton is beginning to address an issue that my legislation addressed,” Sanders said in a statement, “but her approach ignored the major issue. Secretary Clinton would classify marijuana in the same category as cocaine and continue to make marijuana a federally regulated substance."

“If we are serious about criminal justice reform and preventing many thousands of lives from being impacted because of criminal convictions for marijuana possession, we must remove marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act and allow states the right to go forward, if they choose, to legalize marijuana without federal legal impediments,” Sanders continued.

The Obama Campaign Remembers 2012 Very Differently Than Bernie Sanders

$
0
0

COLUMBIA, South Carolina — In 2008, Bernie Sanders stayed out of the contentious Democratic presidential primary until after the nominee had been chosen. Once Barack Obama became the party’s choice for president, Sanders ventured to a Democratic Party convention for the first time in his political career and called on independents like him to support Obama.

In 2011, Sanders said more than once that a challenge from the left might help President Obama get back on track after, Sanders said, the president had veered far to the right, selling out the left on issues like entitlement programs in the interests of cutting deals with Republican leaders. At one point, he Sanders said he was “giving thought” to encouraging a progressive to run against Obama, telling a radio caller, “I don’t want to tell you more than that, but this is an issue we are beginning to talk about a little bit.”

As he mounts his own bid for the Democratic nomination this year, Sanders is having to thread the needle of his past independence. In South Carolina on Saturday, Sanders rejected the idea that he was less than loyal to Obama in 2012 — something that Martin O’Malley, who is running in a distant third place in the nomination fight, suggested on Friday night and has this year on the trail. (O’Malley has his own problems casting himself as an Obama loyalist; he was among Clinton’s most fervent supporters in 2008.)

Sanders’s response on Saturday was unequivocal: He said he was a strong advocate for Obama’s election and reelection.

“I think contested elections are not a bad thing, but the idea that I worked against President Obama is untrue,” Sanders said at a press conference. “In fact, I vigorously supported him in 2008, he came to my state in 2006. I campaigned for him in 2008, I campaigned for him very hard in 2012, and I never made any effort to enlist a candidate against him.”

Senior officials on Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns did not remember the cycles the same way when it came to Sanders. BuzzFeed News talked to four senior officials from Obama’s campaigns, most of whom are unaligned in the 2016 primary.

Their take on Sanders’ role: In 2008, he got on board with Obama late. In 2012, he was either attacking the president from the left or doing little to get him elected. As for “vigorously” supporting him, they said, Sanders was not someone they thought of as a top surrogate.

“Every indication we had was that he was considering a primary challenge,” said one senior official from Obama’s 2012 campaign.

“Being annoying,” another said when asked to recall how they remembered Sanders in 2012.

A third senior Obama campaign aide from 2012 said Sanders was simply not often top of mind.

“Have no recollection of him being any kind of factor whatsoever, supporter or not,” the aide said in an email to BuzzFeed News.

The Sanders campaign declined to respond to the Obama campaign comments.

“I can't help you on what they remember or don't remember,” a Sanders adviser told BuzzFeed News.

Bernie Sanders casts his ballot in Burlington, Vermont, in November 2012.

Andy Duback / AP

On ABC News Sunday, Sanders called talk of Sanders endorsing an Obama primary challenge “media stuff.” But he spoke more about his past criticisms of the president than he did at the South Carolina press conference.

“The idea that I’ve worked against Barack Obama is categorically false,” he said. “I’ve worked very hard to see Barack Obama elected. He came to Vermont to campaign for me in 2006. I’ve worked for him in 2008. I’ve worked for him in 2012. And listen I think under incredible Republican obstructionism, Obama and Joe Biden have moved this country in a way that leaves a hell of a lot better than we were when Bush left office. Do I have disagreements with Barack Obama? Was I on the floor for 8.5 hours saying, no, we should not be giving any more tax breaks to the wealthy? Do I disagree with him on TPP? Yes, I do.”

“But Barack Obama is a friend of mine,” Sanders went on. “I think he’s been a very strong president and has taken this country extraordinarily difficult moment in history in a very positive way.”

In the wake of the 2010 midterm defeat, and Obama’s pursuing of a so-called “grand bargain” with newly powerful Republicans on a budget, more than one progressive in Washington began to regularly and publicly criticize Obama. Sanders was among them. He was among the most vocal in his criticisms of the White House.

In May 2012, The Hill listed Sanders as one of several “Dem thorns” still in Obama’s side as the reelection campaign spooled up. The paper cited Sanders’s support for the idea of a progressive primary against Obama, which was prevalent in national interviews with Sanders throughout 2011. In November 2011, Politico reported “liberals like Sen. Bernie Sanders are declining to give their unqualified support for the president.”

Sanders said this weekend he was just supporting contested elections, and backing a primary was never a serious idea. But Sanders did use talk of a progressive primary of Obama to send sharp criticisms his way in 2011. And at least once he said, “I am now giving thought to doing it.”

Asked who could primary Obama, Sanders responded this way on CSPAN’s Newsmakers program on Aug. 12, 2011:

I don’t know of anybody in mind, but I’m sure that there are smart people out there who can do it. Here’s the point: If you’re asking me, do I think at the end of the day that Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2012? I do. But do I believe that it is a good idea for our democracy, and for the Democratic Party — and I speak, by the way, as an independent — that people start asking the president some hard questions about why he said one thing during his previous campaign and then is doing another thing today on Social Security, on Medicare? I think it is important that that discussion take place.

The C-SPAN interview came after the July 22, 2011 appearance on the Thom Hartmann Program, a progressive talk show where Sanders first made headlines for embracing the idea of a primary opponent for Obama, and saying he was considering encouraging someone to get in.

The Hartmann show pulled the clip at the time and posted it to YouTube under the headline “A Primary Challenger For Obama?

youtube.com

Sanders was asked multiple questions about a primary opponent for the president.

“Bernie, if you won’t run for president, and I really wish you would consider it, how can we get this country back on track? How can we get a government that calls balls and strikes and quits running the country like a for-profit machine? How do we do it?

Sanders’s response:

Ryan, believe me, I wish I had the answer to your question. Let me just suggest this. I think that there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president, who believe that with regard to Social Security and a number of other issues, he has said one thing as a candidate and is doing something very much else, who cannot believe how weak he has been — for whatever reason — in negotiating with Republicans, and there’s deep disappointment. So my suggestion is, I think, you know one of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him. And I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing.

A second caller asked, “Who out there would you suggest? Who are you talking to? Are you encouraging anyone?”

Sanders said he had not yet reached out, but told the caller to stay tuned.

At this point, I have not, but I am now giving thought to doing it. You know the names out there as well as I do. And I think the American people have got to be engaged, it’s not just me or anybody else here in Washington. There are a lot of smart, honest progressives who I think can be good presidents. One of the reasons President Obama has moved as far to the right as he has, is he thinks he can go all the way and no one will stand up to him. So, Tim, I don’t want to tell you more than that, but this is an issue we are beginning to talk about a little bit.”

Sanders eventually backed Obama in 2012. In March, he and other Vermont leaders spoke before the president at a rally on the University of Vermont campus, where Obama called Sanders and his fellow Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, “outstanding.” In his remarks, Sanders credited Obama with saving the country from economic disaster.

“We are going to do everything that we can to reelect Barack Obama as president of the United States,” Sanders told the crowd. “The election this November is of monumental importance.”

Months later, though, Sanders was quick to criticize Obama when things went awry on the campaign trail. After Obama’s disastrous first debate with Mitt Romney in October of 2012, Sanders appeared on CNN and went after the president hard for, he said, failing to draw a stark enough line with his opponent.

"The truth of the matter is, Mitt Romney right now is the head of a right-wing extremist party called the Republican Party," Sanders said. "And if the president cannot differentiate himself clearly from right-wing extremism, we have a lot of problems as a nation and he has a lot of problems as a candidate running for re-election."

The story of Sanders as Obama surrogate is one of an independent who expressed deep respect and support for Obama while also keeping his distance. In 2008, while the Democratic Party was roiled by the primary fight between Obama and Hillary Clinton, Sanders stayed on the sidelines. He told the Burlington Free Press he knew both candidates well, and called them both "moderate to liberal."

"As an independent, I will not endorse a candidate in the Democratic primary, but I will campaign vigorously for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton after one of them becomes the nominee,” Sanders said in a February 2008 statement.

In August of that year, after Obama sewed up the nomination and Clinton dropped out, Sanders attended his first Democratic Party convention. He told Gannett he was finding common ground with Democrats there.

"We respect each other, and we work together for the common good while maintaining our differences," Sanders said.

The Most Ambitious Effort Yet To Abolish The Death Penalty Is Already Happening

$
0
0

Death penalty opponent Joyce Engle holds a sign as she sits on the stairs of St. Francis Xavier College Church during a vigil hours before the scheduled execution of Missouri death row inmate Russell Bucklew on Tuesday, May 20, 2014, in St. Louis.

Jeff Roberson / AP

Henderson Hill and Rob Smith are the odd couple shepherding a collaborative effort to end the death penalty in America at the most significant moment for that movement in decades.

As talk of mass incarceration, racial disparities, and criminal justice legislation has permeated the public debate on both sides of the political spectrum, another effort has taken shape under the radar: the laying of the groundwork for a Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty is unconstitutional, a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

When Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, raised the prospect this June of the Supreme Court revisiting the constitutionality of the death penalty — using a key part of Smith’s work as evidence — the ground shifted overnight, and discussions went from hypothetical to hyperdrive.

In the wake of that change, two of the death penalty’s most strident abolitionists sat down with BuzzFeed News to make their case not only for ending the death penalty in the United States — but for doing so in the next few years. The effort, as with so many focused on the Supreme Court, ultimately comes down to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The 8th Amendment Project, which Hill and Smith run, is a centralized effort to advance death penalty abolition research, raise issues of legal system accountability, and help capital defense efforts — all with the Supreme Court in mind. It has a $1 million budget and six full-time staff members this year. It is part of a national effort backed by the Themis Fund, a donor collaborative dedicated to ending the death penalty in America, the fund’s director told BuzzFeed News. The Themis Fund was launched as an initiative of the progressive Proteus Fund in 2007, when a broad array of opponents of capital punishment — from litigators to funders — came together to figure out a way to end capital punishment in the country.

As death sentences and executions slowed down across the country — and some states got rid of it altogether — the Themis Fund donors decided to ramp up their efforts. In 2014, Hill, a 59-year-old black lawyer who began his career decades ago as a public defender, was made the head of the project, giving it its current name. He has since brought on Smith, a 34-year-old white law professor who graduated from law school in 2007, to serve as the project’s litigation director.

Hill first started defending prisoners on death row back in the 1990s. Smith left his job as a tenure-track professor at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Law to join the project.

The first goal of the 8th Amendment Project is to solidify the foundation for a Supreme Court challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty. It will do so, Hill explained, by focusing on providing evidence relating to three main areas: The death penalty is being imposed and implemented less and less often; the few counties that do so highlight fundamental problems with system itself; and the people who end up on death row are not “the worst of the worst” but are, instead, “the weakest of the weak.”

The 8th Amendment Project’s “ultimate mission,” though, is to support lawyers who actually bring cases to the Supreme Court that are aimed at ending the death penalty. This second goal, moreover, is already underway. The project is providing support in potential cases out of Louisiana and Texas, BuzzFeed News has learned.

"The criminal court system happens in the dark, and most people are just not aware of it."

As Hill put it, “That's who we are: We illuminate what the death penalty looks like when you look at the system up close, and we provide support to our partners and friends who seek to end the death penalty through a victory at the Supreme Court.”

Hill and Smith come at the issue from different worlds — and with subtly different aims — but their visions come together at the singular goal of getting a Supreme Court decision, within the next few years, that ends the death penalty.

“I think there’s a lot of optimism and confidence that the court’s close to declaring the death penalty unconstitutional,” Hill said. “And, I think that excitement helps to generate support for a [project] to coordinate efforts and to support efforts that are strategic and might help things along.”

Hill doesn’t take credit for getting the movement where it is — or even for what is happening now.

“It’s a diverse community, of dozens and dozens of organizations, that have been around and in the fight for 30 years that the attention is appropriately focused on,” he said. “I’m not representing a single client — and that’s the first time I’ve been able to say that in 35 years,” adding that he credits today's focus on race and the criminal justice system to the lawyers on the ground, people working in state legislatures, and researchers who have been doing the work.

Talking at length, though, with Hill and Smith provides a good picture of an aggressive arm of the abolition movement that sees the potential to end to the death penalty in America in the near future. After toiling for decades, this group believes, the effort is reaching its moment of truth.

As David Menschel, a prominent funder of and lawyer within the movement, said, “It’s time for the movement to be thinking about how it might bring a case to the Supreme Court — to hear what Breyer was saying.”

This is the story of how the death penalty abolition movement got here, and how — from Hill and Smith’s vantage point — they plan to win.

Henderson Hill in court in a capital case in 2008 in Atlanta.

John Spink / AP Photo

THE PAST: “I was 15, 16 years old, I was thrown to the ground spread-eagle by a cop in a criminal investigation. I’m in a suit and tie,” said Hill, in a light sweater and jacket, over dinner in September. “If it wasn’t for some white lady that came out and said, ‘This kid had nothing to do with anything,’ I’d have a mugshot.”

It was a series of decisions — before law school, after law school, all the way back to that day when he was a teenager, thrown on the ground — that transformed Hill into one of the leading advocates fighting against the death penalty.

He became a public defender in Washington, D.C., after graduating from Harvard Law School in 1981 — taking the path of defending clients who couldn't afford a lawyer because, as he said, he had seen the “the abuse of the criminal justice system, how it’s visited on folks of color.” But he didn’t take on the crusader role he’s since assumed. Hill was just another young lawyer working in D.C. “I was not one of those public defenders who went down South to take on a habeas while I was working on my caseload. That was not me. I wrote checks, small checks.”

About 10 years into his career, though, something changed. He had watched friends, like prominent NAACP Capital Litigation Project lawyer George Kendall, wage a battle against the death penalty. In 1976, the Supreme Court had restored capital punishment in the United States in Gregg v. Georgia, following legislative changes implemented after the court ruled in 1972 that the death penalty was unconstitutional.

“I thought I was as good a trial lawyer as there was — and if it was a shortage of qualified trial lawyers that were adding to our death row, that was something I was in a position to do,” Hill said. “And the need that I saw was the need that I’d been avoiding for 10 years.”

He moved to North Carolina in 1990 when he was named director of the North Carolina Resource Center, a project funded by the federal government to help improve the quality of representation for inmates on death row. In 1995, the center became its own nonprofit, the Center for Death Penalty Litigation. After working in the state for nearly a decade, two things changed. First, two of Hill’s clients were executed in 1999. “These were men that I’d worked with since I came to the state,” he said. “They had become friends of mine.”

Second, in 1999, death penalty policy conferences were organized, in part, to get Illinois Gov. George Ryan to place a moratorium on more executions. The effort, ultimately successful, came in the wake of the exonerations of prisoners in the state who had been on death row and evidence of wrongdoing by government officials. “[L]ooking at a justice system that was just corrupt in its use of investigative procedures, its use of police procedures, I think it had an impact of shocking the conscience and taking away the confidence,” Hill said.

It was then that Hill decided to change his focus. “This is a bizarre system. Litigation isn’t and wasn’t going to answer all of these questions,” he said. “There was a political fight that had to be engaged.”

Rob Smith

Courtesy of Rob Smith

Hill’s colleague at the 8th Amendment Project also went to Harvard Law School — but chose the path of a professor, not a trial lawyer. Smith, who admits he cares about the questions involved in an “almost naive” way at points, has a more philosophical approach.

“The government is supposed to be restrained,” he said. “If punishing serves some purpose … then we need to do that, but I think the government has this obligation to everybody to do so with a minimum level of dignity.”

And that dignity, he believes, hasn’t been upheld in the current environment. Over the past two years, botched executions in 2014, increased scrutiny on the actions of prosecutors that people like Smith characterize as being out of control, ongoing questions about the role of race in jury selection, and the larger focus on the criminal justice system all come together to make this a key moment.

“People are starting to pay attention — courts and legislatures and executives and just everyday people — and saying, ‘What are we doing? It’s too harsh, it’s not serving a purpose, and it’s counterproductive?’” he said. “The people on the receiving end of that excessiveness don’t have a lot of options to go and fix those problems for themselves.”

Hill has been working to fix those problems for decades, and yet voices the sense of helplessness that he felt as a witness to the execution of David Junior Brown, who became known as Dawud Abdullah Muhammed, in 1999.

“The notion that I’m sitting with their families, and every last appeal has failed, and there’s nothing that you can do, and all you can do is sit in this chamber next to the people whose Brady violations and misconduct led to handcuffing the court’s opportunity to sort out facts of both guilt and the appropriateness of punishment,” he said, referring to claims that government officials withheld evidence that harmed his client’s case at trial and sentencing. “They’re sitting in the front row, and I’m sitting holding his daughter’s hand?”

Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer

Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP Photo

THE DISSENT: Four hours away from North Carolina’s execution chamber, the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court hear last-minute requests to halt executions on a near-weekly basis. Earlier this year, though, the Supreme Court took up one of those cases, bringing the court’s deep dive on the issue out into the open — and creating an enormous opening for the 8th Amendment Project.

The court announced in January 2015 that it would be hearing a case brought by death row inmates in Oklahoma, challenging the state’s use of the sedative midazolam in its execution protocol. The drug had been used in the state’s botched execution of Clayton Lockett in early 2014, who sat up in the gurney and called out — after having been declared unconscious, leading the state’s director of corrections to call off the execution. Lockett died of a heart attack. Midazolam was used in two other problematic executions in 2014, one in Ohio and the other in Arizona.

The Supreme Court case turned on the specifics of the drug and whether its use created an “unacceptable risk of severe pain.” Additionally, in challenging the use of midazolam, there was an unresolved question about whether inmates needed to provide an alternative method of execution that was less likely to create such an unacceptable risk.

At the oral arguments in the case in April, and even more so when the Supreme Court’s decision came down in June, it was clear that the court is increasingly split on both the implementation of the death penalty in America and the broader question of the constitutionality of capital punishment.

During the arguments, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan aggressively questioned Oklahoma’s lawyer, but it was Justice Samuel Alito who made headlines by accusing death penalty opponents of waging a “guerrilla” war that left states unable to obtain previously used execution drugs and forced into trying new drugs like midazolam in executions.

Alito’s comments stirred up advocates like Hill, who said that while capital punishment opponents certainly are trying to figure out as many ways as possible of countering the death penalty, “[i]t just seemed way underneath the dignity of the court” to suggest that lawyers’ arguments “are not reflective of their clients’ needs or legitimate constitutional rights and are instead shills for some ‘guerrilla movement,’ some nefarious movement out there.”

Bottles of the sedative midazolam at a hospital pharmacy in Oklahoma City.

Uncredited / AP Photo

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court upheld Oklahoma’s use of midazolam in June, making clear that, yes, inmates challenging a method of execution must provide an alternative means. The result in Glossip v. Gross was not a big surprise, but what was completely unexpected was the dissenting opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, an opinion joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Rather than try to patch up the death penalty’s legal wounds one at a time, I would ask for full briefing on a more basic question: whether the death penalty violates the Constitution,” Breyer wrote.

“In 1976, the Court thought that the constitutional infirmities in the death penalty could be healed; the Court in effect delegated significant responsibility to the States to develop procedures that would protect against those constitutional problems,” he continued. “Almost 40 years of studies, surveys, and experience strongly indicate, however, that this effort has failed. Today’s administration of the death penalty involves three fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3) unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty’s penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within the United States have abandoned its use.”

Breyer spent the next 39 pages laying out that case, concluding that “the death penalty, in and of itself, now likely constitutes a legally prohibited ‘cruel and unusual punishmen[t].’”

Advocates had not been expecting the move. Dale Baich, one of the federal public defenders who worked on the Glossip Supreme Court case, said that the dissent was surprising, in part, “because our approach to the case was to keep it very narrow. ‘This is just about midazolam.’” Yet, with Breyer’s dissent, that became the story — with even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia saying several times since June that he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the court ended up striking down capital punishment.

Death penalty opponents have seized the possibility of the moment. Capital punishment in the U.S. is “an increasingly well-documented disaster,” argues Cassandra Stubbs, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union Capital Punishment Project. And now, Breyer was on their side.

“That was about as comprehensive and deliberate a consideration of the problems that have plagued this punishment for 40 years since the reenactment,” Hill said.

Breyer’s dissent, Hill said, is nothing less than “a road map” for getting the court to end the death penalty. “It’s not like we’ve got to struggle and identify what would be sufficiently problematic to this court that it should lose confidence,” he said.

Those supporting the 8th Amendment Project say Breyer’s dissent also sent another key message, one about the possibility of getting Justice Kennedy’s vote in a challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. As a leading criminal defense lawyer, Ben Cohen with the Justice Center in Louisiana, put it: “Breyer wouldn’t have written that if he didn’t think there was a chance."

The scene outside of the Supreme Court on Monday, June 29, 2015.

Jacquelyn Martin / AP

How A Conservative Radio Host Inspired Ben Carson To Apply To Yale

$
0
0

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Ben Carson told reporters a story on Friday that he has written about several times: as a high school senior, he could only afford to apply to one college, and he decided he would apply to the school that won a face off in the General Electric College Bowl, a quiz-show competition.

"I decided to apply to the college that won the grand championship in College Bowl, and that year, the grand championship was between Harvard and Yale," Carson told reporters in a combative press conference to address questions about his claims that he was offered a full scholarship to West Point. "You can go back and find the records and see that in fact it was between Harvard and Yale, and that Yale demolished Harvard."

Yale did indeed defeat Harvard in November of 1968, the fall of Carson's senior year in high school (This date has varied in Carson's tellings: in Gifted Hands the gameshow took place in "late spring," inTake the Risk it was in "the summer before my senior year in high school," and in The Big Picture it took place "during the spring of my senior year in high school"). There similarly was no such thing as "grand championship," as team's could only play five times before being forced off the show. In Yale and Harvard's case, it was a one-time showdown.

As it turns out, popular conservative radio host Michael Medved, then a stand out student at Yale, led the school's team to victory. Medved regularly interviews Republican presidential candidates, including Carson.

"I still recall that College Bowl experience of nearly 47 years ago as one of the most enjoyable and triumphant moments of my life. The fact that Ben Carson remembers that televised trivia duel as a life-changing event for him, that set him on the path to Yale and glory, only serves to burnish the memory further," Medved told BuzzFeed News in an email.

Medved added he "just spoke with Dr. Carson about it a few weeks ago! I was thrilled to find out that he was influenced by my ability to recall snippets of history and literature, or to identify Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony after less than a bar (yes, that was the music identification they used on the NBC broadcast)."

Medved, much like Carson, had grown up a huge fan of the program, but as he notes in his memoir, Right Turns, Yale and Harvard had refused to participate until 1968 and even then, did so only once (an assertion backed up by records from the two school's newspapers).

"Since the launch of GE College Bowl in 1959, Yale and Harvard had refused to participate in the show, with these two prestigious powerhouses believing they had everything to lose and nothing to gain by sending teams to a TV studio to compete with less celebrated institutions," wrote the radio host. "But NBC producers finally devised a way to overcome the schools' reluctance: rather than featuring teams that officially represented the two mighty universities, the show would invite special squads made up of staff members from their student newspapers, the Yale Daily News and the Harvard Crimson, in a one-time-only face-off to be aired the weekend of the famous Yale-Harvard football game."

Medved wrote that Yale actually fudged who was on the paper and who was not, allowing him, a stand out student, to participate because he had written letters to the editor. The day before the competition, Yale ended up tying football game to Harvard in a major upset.

"Our Yale College Bowl team took away some of the sting: we crushed the Harvard Johnnies 230 to 80. It wasn't quite as lopsided as Dr. Carson remembered, but it felt that way: we did beat them nearly 3 to 1," Medved wrote to BuzzFeed News.

"Actually, modesty should forbid but honesty counts more: I did answer more than half of the questions and was described, afterward in the Yale Daily News as 'the Brian Dowling of the Yale College Bowl team' — with reference to our star quarterback on the gridiron."

Here's an ad for the competition from the Nov. 22, 1968 edition of the Yale Daily News:



For Now, The Big GOP Groups Are Spending In Senate Races — Instead Of Against Clinton

$
0
0

Scott Olson / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Major GOP outside groups are still quiet on the airwaves when it comes to attacking their biggest target: Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

And Senate Republicans are the ones inadvertently benefiting from the free pass.

Sources close to big-money groups expected to spend millions going after Clinton on the airwaves told BuzzFeed News they haven’t had to shell out early money on the presidential race yet because they think Clinton’s favorability is still low. Some have launched digital ad campaigns focused on the former secretary of state, but they have so far stayed away from TV and radio ads.

A new outside group called Future 45 started airing an ad last week focused on Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state — but the buy was only worth $65,000, according to the Associated Press. Another ad aired by Stop Hillary PAC ahead of Clinton's testimony before the Benghazi Select Committee only ran during the Democratic debate, and some GOP candidate-specific super PACs have mentioned Clinton in their ads.

But overall, major conservative outside groups are still sitting on the sidelines.

Instead, they have spent big going up early in battleground Senate races, as Republicans face a difficult election ahead in trying to defend their majority in the upper chamber. Before the airwaves get saturated with presidential ads and airtime gets more expensive, outside groups are spending millions on positive spots to drive up incumbents favorability or attack Democratic challengers early in the election cycle.

“(Clinton’s) difficulties have clearly allowed outside groups to save money that would have most likely been spent detailing her shortcomings,” said a GOP strategist affiliated with an outside group. “On the face of it, it’s a glaring omission, but her shortcomings have allowed the money to be spent elsewhere.”

Koch-backed Americans For Prosperity has already spent a combined $2.4 million on ad buys in Ohio against Democrat Ted Strickland and in New Hampshire against Gov. Maggie Hassan. The ad against Strickland specifically urges viewers to vote against him — the first time the nonprofit has done such an ad on the Senate level. (The ad in New Hampshire was an issue ad focusing on the budget under Hassan.)

“This is the earliest we have run this type of ad by months,” said Tim Phillips, president of AFP, adding that expressly advocating against Strickland in Ohio has been “an unprecedented effort" for the group. The spending began in August.

GOP strategist Karl Rove’s group Crossroads GPS spent an additional $75,000 on radio ads against Hassan in June. Another Rove-affiliated group, One Nation — which is specifically focused on Senate races — has spent about $5 million in states like New Hampshire, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and North Carolina.

One Nation, which is set up as a nonprofit, could have received money transferred from the main Crossroads outfits, which haven't spent against Clinton on ads. The nonprofit doesn’t have to disclose its donors.

A spokesman for the group declined to comment on any transfers from Crossroads to One Nation, but said the group’s fundraising has been strong as donors realize winning the White House won’t be as much of a victory if Republicans lose the Senate.

Concerned Veterans for America, another Koch-backed group, launched a $1.5 million TV, digital, and direct mail campaign back in July thanking Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Pat Toomey, who is up for re-election, for his work on veteran’s issues. They group has even sent direct mail targeting vulnerable Democratic senators who aren't up for re-election until 2018. But so far, their recently launched campaign against Clinton is digital only.

Although significant spending against Clinton hasn't started yet, the Clinton campaign is well aware that next year will be very different.

"The Koch brothers and their friends have promised to spend close to a billion dollars and have already started attacking Hillary Clinton because they know she will stand up to their ideological agenda and fight for hardworking families, not just the people at the top," said Josh Schwerin, spokesman for Clinton's campaign.

Part of the reluctance to spend money on TV ads against Clinton is rooted in a provision in the tax code that limits how much money nonprofits can spend on overtly political spending. These nonprofits typically use issue ads to attack candidates, but since Clinton isn’t in office — unlike President Barack Obama in 2011 — it’s harder for them to air ads.

But Republicans affiliated with outside groups also point to the email scandal, which has brought Clinton some negative attention in recent months, and the former secretary of state’s high unfavorability as the main reason for not having to spend against her.

Of the the latest national polls, Quinnipiac University found that 52% of those surveyed had an unfavorable view of Clinton compared to the 42% who have a favorable view. The same poll also found that Clinton had lowest rating for honesty among all candidates with 60% percent saying she is not honest and trustworthy. And another released by NBC/WSJ found that 47% had either a "somewhat negative" or "very negative" view of Clinton.

"Everybody was quick to write the comeback story after one good week in six months,” said Ian Prior, spokesman for Rove’s outside groups. “It certainly has helped Clinton in her primary run… but it hasn’t translated to any bump in the polls in the general election. Her unfavorables are still high and people still don’t trust her.

“I think we can allow her to continue to sink herself with independents and other general election voters without having to spend money at this point."

Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images

<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>
<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596344.js" async> </script>