Conservative Blogger
Monday, April 18, 2016
Top Obama doc Fauci to Congress on Zika funding: 'Act now'
Dr. Anthony Fauci, a top Obama administration doctor, urged Congress
on Sunday to promptly agree to appropriate an additional roughly $2
billion to fight against Zika -- the latest in the back and forth
between the White House and GOP-led House about funding against the
deadly virus.
“We have to act now,” Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told “Fox News Sunday.”
House Republican leaders have argued that the federal government has enough money now to fight the virus and that additional funding should come through the regular appropriations process this fall.
However, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers suggested last week that he would support immediate supplemental funding, with a White House request that includes a detailed spending plan.
“We can’t do it without the numbers,” the Kentucky Republican said Wednesday on Capitol Hill.
While Rogers also has tried to assure the public that Congress will not allow a public health crisis, he has suggested that the administration might not get all of the roughly $2 billion, which he has referred to as a “slush fund.”
“I disagree with that,” Fauci said, arguing the administration has presented Congress with a “project-by-project approach” and that it will also use money left from fighting the Ebola virus.
There has so far been no documented Zika infections in the United States from mosquitoes that carry the virus. But nearly 350 illnesses have been reported across all 50 states, each linked to travel to Zika outbreak regions, largely the Caribbean and Latin America. Thirty-two of the infected women were pregnant. The virus can also be spread through sex.
“The regular appropriations process takes too long,” Fauci said Sunday. “I don’t want to wait to have to develop a vaccine.”
The House agreed late last week on a bipartisan measure to speed up development of a treatment.
However, on Friday, Democratic Reps. Nita Lowey, N.Y.; Rosa DeLauro, Conn.; and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Fla., urged Rogers to hold a special meeting on the administration’s request for emergency supplemental funding.
Under the rules of the Appropriations Committee, three members may request the chairman convene a special meeting. If the chairman fails to schedule such a meeting within seven calendar days, a majority of the committee members may convene a special meeting on their own.
A Zika infection causes only a mild and brief illness in most people. But in the last year, infections in pregnant women have been strongly linked to fetal deaths and devastating birth defects, mostly in Brazil, where 1,113 cases of related microcephaly have been confirmed since October.
“We have to act now,” Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told “Fox News Sunday.”
House Republican leaders have argued that the federal government has enough money now to fight the virus and that additional funding should come through the regular appropriations process this fall.
However, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers suggested last week that he would support immediate supplemental funding, with a White House request that includes a detailed spending plan.
“We can’t do it without the numbers,” the Kentucky Republican said Wednesday on Capitol Hill.
While Rogers also has tried to assure the public that Congress will not allow a public health crisis, he has suggested that the administration might not get all of the roughly $2 billion, which he has referred to as a “slush fund.”
“I disagree with that,” Fauci said, arguing the administration has presented Congress with a “project-by-project approach” and that it will also use money left from fighting the Ebola virus.
There has so far been no documented Zika infections in the United States from mosquitoes that carry the virus. But nearly 350 illnesses have been reported across all 50 states, each linked to travel to Zika outbreak regions, largely the Caribbean and Latin America. Thirty-two of the infected women were pregnant. The virus can also be spread through sex.
“The regular appropriations process takes too long,” Fauci said Sunday. “I don’t want to wait to have to develop a vaccine.”
The House agreed late last week on a bipartisan measure to speed up development of a treatment.
However, on Friday, Democratic Reps. Nita Lowey, N.Y.; Rosa DeLauro, Conn.; and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Fla., urged Rogers to hold a special meeting on the administration’s request for emergency supplemental funding.
Under the rules of the Appropriations Committee, three members may request the chairman convene a special meeting. If the chairman fails to schedule such a meeting within seven calendar days, a majority of the committee members may convene a special meeting on their own.
A Zika infection causes only a mild and brief illness in most people. But in the last year, infections in pregnant women have been strongly linked to fetal deaths and devastating birth defects, mostly in Brazil, where 1,113 cases of related microcephaly have been confirmed since October.
Lewandowski says campaign understands delegate rules, calls Trump 'presumptive nominee'
Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski on Sunday dismissed
criticism about his team failing to understand GOP delegate rules and
declared his candidate the party’s “presumptive nominee."
Lewandowski told “Fox News Sunday” that the Trump campaign indeed comprehends the rules -- which vary among states and sometimes apply to conventions, not primaries or caucuses.
Nevertheless, he thinks the rules are not always fair.
“We understand what happens,” said Lewandowski, arguing primary challenger Texas Sen. Ted Cruz does better in state contests in which “party bosses pick the delegates,” not the voters.
He added: “There are people out there who don’t have the ability to write a check,” to become a convention-picked delegate.
Trump, Cruz or Ohio Gov. John Kasich will need 1,237 delegates to win the Republican Party nomination.
Trump leads with 744, followed by Cruz with 559 and Kasich with 144.
While Trump also has won roughly 20 state contests with larger delegate pools, Cruz has been able to win a dozen or so delegates by essentially campaigning at the smaller-scale state and county conventions -- like those in Colorado and Wyoming on Saturday in which Cruz won all 14 delegates.
Ken Cuccinelli, Cruz’s delegate operations director, said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Trump campaign must stop accusing Cruz of not following the rules and using “hyperbolic rhetoric” about the issue that it cannot support.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said last week on Twitter that the nomination process has been known to all for more than a year and that the campaigns have a responsibility to understand the process.
“Complaints now?” he tweeted. “Give us all a break."
Trump, during a campaign event Saturday in Syracuse, N.Y., suggested the Republican establishment and others are going to have a “rough week” at the party’s nominating convention in July if he arrives with a large delegate lead and officials try to take it from him.
“That’s not what we’re about,” Lewandowski said Sunday, attempting to clarify Trump's remarks. “We’re supposed to be bringing this party together. If the party wants a nominee (who can win the White House), it needs to pick Donald Trump.”
Lewandowski also said Trump, a billionaire businessman, will do “very well” in the New York primary Tuesday in which 95 delegates are at stake, but declined to predict a sweep amid strong polling numbers.
However, he predicted Trump also will do well in upcoming mid-Atlantic state contests, including those in Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
“He’s going to be the presumptive nominee going forward,” Lewandowski said.
Paul Manafort, Trump's newly hired convention manager, told The Washington Post in a story Sunday the campaign’s goal is for Trump to be the presumptive nominee by mid-May.
Lewandowski also on Sunday said that he was happy that Palm Beach County (Fla.) officials decided last week not to proceed with charges that he allegedly assaulted a reporter by grabbing her arm.
He declined to apologize for the incident and for calling her “delusional” for saying he grabbed her. However, Lewandowski said he would speak privately with the reporter in an attempt to put the issue behind them.
Lewandowski has said he tried to call the reporter, Michelle Fields. She says he did not. Lewandowski told “Fox News Sunday” that police have phone records showing he did.
Lewandowski told “Fox News Sunday” that the Trump campaign indeed comprehends the rules -- which vary among states and sometimes apply to conventions, not primaries or caucuses.
Nevertheless, he thinks the rules are not always fair.
“We understand what happens,” said Lewandowski, arguing primary challenger Texas Sen. Ted Cruz does better in state contests in which “party bosses pick the delegates,” not the voters.
He added: “There are people out there who don’t have the ability to write a check,” to become a convention-picked delegate.
Trump, Cruz or Ohio Gov. John Kasich will need 1,237 delegates to win the Republican Party nomination.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
While Trump also has won roughly 20 state contests with larger delegate pools, Cruz has been able to win a dozen or so delegates by essentially campaigning at the smaller-scale state and county conventions -- like those in Colorado and Wyoming on Saturday in which Cruz won all 14 delegates.
Ken Cuccinelli, Cruz’s delegate operations director, said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Trump campaign must stop accusing Cruz of not following the rules and using “hyperbolic rhetoric” about the issue that it cannot support.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said last week on Twitter that the nomination process has been known to all for more than a year and that the campaigns have a responsibility to understand the process.
“Complaints now?” he tweeted. “Give us all a break."
Trump, during a campaign event Saturday in Syracuse, N.Y., suggested the Republican establishment and others are going to have a “rough week” at the party’s nominating convention in July if he arrives with a large delegate lead and officials try to take it from him.
“That’s not what we’re about,” Lewandowski said Sunday, attempting to clarify Trump's remarks. “We’re supposed to be bringing this party together. If the party wants a nominee (who can win the White House), it needs to pick Donald Trump.”
Lewandowski also said Trump, a billionaire businessman, will do “very well” in the New York primary Tuesday in which 95 delegates are at stake, but declined to predict a sweep amid strong polling numbers.
However, he predicted Trump also will do well in upcoming mid-Atlantic state contests, including those in Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
“He’s going to be the presumptive nominee going forward,” Lewandowski said.
Paul Manafort, Trump's newly hired convention manager, told The Washington Post in a story Sunday the campaign’s goal is for Trump to be the presumptive nominee by mid-May.
Lewandowski also on Sunday said that he was happy that Palm Beach County (Fla.) officials decided last week not to proceed with charges that he allegedly assaulted a reporter by grabbing her arm.
He declined to apologize for the incident and for calling her “delusional” for saying he grabbed her. However, Lewandowski said he would speak privately with the reporter in an attempt to put the issue behind them.
Lewandowski has said he tried to call the reporter, Michelle Fields. She says he did not. Lewandowski told “Fox News Sunday” that police have phone records showing he did.
Despite the angry attacks, Hillary and Bernie aren't far apart on the issues
The way that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were
savaging each other in Brooklyn, you’d think they were miles apart
politically.
But that’s kind of an illusion. They’re really not all that different on the issues.
It’s in the nature of party primaries that the contenders have to exaggerate their differences. They need to portray their rivals as hopelessly wrong and misguided on a laundry list of subjects, or else the contest seems purely personal—and indeed, it’s gotten bitterly personal between these two Democrats.
But when you drill down, the distinctions that raised Bernie’s decibel level to 11 at the CNN debate turn more on nuance than matters of mighty principle.
Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Clinton also wants to raise the minimum wage, but to $12. So there’s a grand total of three bucks between them—and Hillary, who quickly said she sorta likes $15, has a more complicated plan (naturally) depending on local cost-of-living.
Both the Vermont senator and the former first lady say they want to rein in Wall Street. Sanders goes further rhetorically when it comes to breaking up the big banks, but (as Clinton pointed out) couldn’t tell New York’s Daily News what laws he would use. His main argument is that Clinton is too close to Wall Street big shots, with the infamous six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs, to have credibility on the subject. But when challenged by CNN, Sanders couldn’t name anything Clinton had done that was influenced by those ties.
Gun control is Clinton’s pivotal issue against
Sanders, but he has supported, for instance, an assault-weapons ban,
despite being from a rural state with no gun control laws. He does
differ from her on shielding gun manufacturers from liability suits. But
by and large, they are both in favor of tighter gun controls.
Fossil fuels? Clinton doesn’t accept money from the industry, as Sanders once charged, because that would be illegal. Her campaign has taken money from people who work in the industry, and the Sanders camp has taken a much lesser amount. Neither is exactly sympathetic to the oil and gas crowd.
One of the greatest debate clashes was over Israel. Sanders, taking an unusual step in a New York Democratic primary, spoke sympathetically about respecting the Palestinians (and criticized the Jewish state for a disproportionate response to provocations in Gaza). But as secretary of State, Clinton also pursued an administration policy that would ultimately lead to a two-state solution—just as her husband did, and as Sanders favors. And despite her pro-Israel rhetoric, no administration could orchestrate a peace deal without treating the Palestinian side with respect. Indeed, Clinton said at the debate she would try to “get an agreement that will be fair both to the Israelis and the Palestinians,” while protecting Israel’s security.
The list goes on. On issue after issue, Hillary and Bernie are, yes, liberal Democrats. They are light-years away from the Republicans on banking, minimum wage, gun control and other issues. There was a similar dynamic between Clinton and Barack Obama eight years ago. Sure, Sanders goes much further in promising, say, free college tuition, but even there Clinton decided to pitch a program of grants to the states that would allow students to avoid taking out loans.
And that is telling. While it looks virtually impossible for Sanders to win the nomination, he has basically won the argument, with Clinton sliding left on a whole host of issues, including the Pacific trade deal she once backed.
In the end, it shouldn’t be hard for Bernie supporters to back Hillary—except that many of them, who adore the 74-year-old lawmaker, are mad at her. And the two candidates are really fed up with each other. But that has far more to do with personality than ideology.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
But that’s kind of an illusion. They’re really not all that different on the issues.
It’s in the nature of party primaries that the contenders have to exaggerate their differences. They need to portray their rivals as hopelessly wrong and misguided on a laundry list of subjects, or else the contest seems purely personal—and indeed, it’s gotten bitterly personal between these two Democrats.
But when you drill down, the distinctions that raised Bernie’s decibel level to 11 at the CNN debate turn more on nuance than matters of mighty principle.
Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Clinton also wants to raise the minimum wage, but to $12. So there’s a grand total of three bucks between them—and Hillary, who quickly said she sorta likes $15, has a more complicated plan (naturally) depending on local cost-of-living.
Both the Vermont senator and the former first lady say they want to rein in Wall Street. Sanders goes further rhetorically when it comes to breaking up the big banks, but (as Clinton pointed out) couldn’t tell New York’s Daily News what laws he would use. His main argument is that Clinton is too close to Wall Street big shots, with the infamous six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs, to have credibility on the subject. But when challenged by CNN, Sanders couldn’t name anything Clinton had done that was influenced by those ties.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
Fossil fuels? Clinton doesn’t accept money from the industry, as Sanders once charged, because that would be illegal. Her campaign has taken money from people who work in the industry, and the Sanders camp has taken a much lesser amount. Neither is exactly sympathetic to the oil and gas crowd.
One of the greatest debate clashes was over Israel. Sanders, taking an unusual step in a New York Democratic primary, spoke sympathetically about respecting the Palestinians (and criticized the Jewish state for a disproportionate response to provocations in Gaza). But as secretary of State, Clinton also pursued an administration policy that would ultimately lead to a two-state solution—just as her husband did, and as Sanders favors. And despite her pro-Israel rhetoric, no administration could orchestrate a peace deal without treating the Palestinian side with respect. Indeed, Clinton said at the debate she would try to “get an agreement that will be fair both to the Israelis and the Palestinians,” while protecting Israel’s security.
The list goes on. On issue after issue, Hillary and Bernie are, yes, liberal Democrats. They are light-years away from the Republicans on banking, minimum wage, gun control and other issues. There was a similar dynamic between Clinton and Barack Obama eight years ago. Sure, Sanders goes much further in promising, say, free college tuition, but even there Clinton decided to pitch a program of grants to the states that would allow students to avoid taking out loans.
And that is telling. While it looks virtually impossible for Sanders to win the nomination, he has basically won the argument, with Clinton sliding left on a whole host of issues, including the Pacific trade deal she once backed.
In the end, it shouldn’t be hard for Bernie supporters to back Hillary—except that many of them, who adore the 74-year-old lawmaker, are mad at her. And the two candidates are really fed up with each other. But that has far more to do with personality than ideology.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
Clinton looks beyond New York as Sanders attacks, Trump works for big Tuesday
Hillary Clinton appeared increasingly confident this weekend about her position as the Democratic presidential front-runner -- downplaying the sharp exchanges with rival Sen. Bernie Sanders as typical, late-campaign rhetoric; focusing her attacks on GOP front-runner Donald Trump and even campaigning in California ahead of Tuesday’s big New York primary.
“At the end of a campaign that is certainly hard fought, there are going to be a lot of charges and all kinds of misrepresentations,” Clinton told ABC’s “This Week,” avoiding a question about high-dollar campaign support and instead talking about the rival campaigns’ positions on increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
“Let's look at what's really at stake here,” she continued. “We're having a vigorous back and forth about raising the minimum wage, which we both support. And the Republicans don't want to do that at all. In fact, Donald Trump has said that American workers are paid too much.”
Clinton has a double-digit lead over Sanders in New York, while Trump has a nearly 20-point lead over challenger Ohio Gov. John Kasich and a more-than-30-point lead over Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, second to Trump in the delegate count, according to the RealClearPolitics poll average.
Clinton talked to ABC after a big weekend of campaigning in California, which does not hold its primary until June 7, the last day of the primary season but with 475 delegates at stake.
She attended two fundraisers hosted by Hollywood star George Clooney -- one in San Francisco and the other in Los Angeles. And she held a rally at Southwest College, in the Los Angeles area.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
A $353,400 contribution, which will go to a variety of Clinton and Democratic Party-related efforts, was requested for some tickets, an amount Clooney called “obscene.”
Clinton was back in New York on Sunday, as was Sanders, who had just returned from Rome where he attended a Vatican conference at which he briefly met with Pope Francis.
“I have become a little bit tired of being beaten up by the negativity of the Clinton campaign. And we're responding in kind,” Sanders said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” about his TV debate last week with the former secretary of state and the increasing negativity in the Democratic primary.
The Vermont senator and self-described democratic socialist then launched into his criticism about Clinton’s Wall Street ties, support for the war in Iraq and the minimum wage issue.
Clinton leads Sanders 1758-to-1076 in the delegate count with 247 at stake in New York. Sanders faces long odds in surpassing Clinton and getting 2,383 delegates to secure the nomination before the party’s July convention.
However, he has beaten Clinton in seven of the last eight contests, and his campaign remains optimistic about at least perhaps challenging Clinton for so-called super-delegates at the convention in Philadelphia.
“I think we have real shot to win on Tuesday if there is a large voter turnout,” Sander said Sunday. “I think a lot of these super-delegates are going to conclude that Bernie Sanders is the candidate to prevent what must not be allowed to happen, and that is Donald Trump becoming president.”
Trump has now taken to calling Clinton “crooked Hillary,” in an apparent effort to damage her like he did by referring to Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as “Little Marco.”
Clinton told ABC: "What I’m concerned about is how he goes after everybody else. … He can say whatever he wants to say about me, I really could care less.”
On Sunday, Trump and his campaign also continued to criticize the Republican Party’s delegate-awarding process, which they say relies too much on party “bosses.”
“I think we’re going to make it without (relying) on the bosses,” Trump said at a rally in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. “I spent practically less money than anybody else, and I’m in first place by a lot. Don’t you want that for your president?”
Cruz has been able to out maneuver the Trump campaign for super-delegates and has taken the roughly dozen or so delegates in such states as Colorado and more recently Wyoming, which hold nomination conventions instead of caucuses or voter primaries.
Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told “Fox News Sunday” that Cruz does better in state contests in which “party bosses pick the delegates,” not the voters.
He added: “There are people out there who don’t have the ability to write a check,” to become a convention-picked delegate.
Trump, Cruz or Kasich will need 1,237 delegates to win the Republican Party nomination. Trump leads with 744, followed by Cruz with 559 and Kasich with 144.
Ken Cuccinelli, Cruz’s delegate operations director, told ABC that the Trump campaign must stop accusing Cruz of not following the delegate rules and using “hyperbolic rhetoric” about the issue that it cannot support.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said last week on Twitter that the nomination process has been known to all for more than a year and that the campaigns have a responsibility to understand the process.
“Complaints now?” he tweeted. “Give us all a break."
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Insurgent Dem threatens to upset Pelosi ally in Md. Senate battle
Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a big ally of Nancy Pelosi and other
top Washington Democrats, was expected to have a clear path to the
state’s open Senate seat. But fellow Maryland congressman Donna Edwards
and her insurgent campaign is poised for an upset victory -- in a
contest often being defined by race and gender politics.
As part of House Democratic leadership, and with enough name recognition to raise millions, Van Hollen was almost a sure thing when Elijah Cummings, another Maryland Democratic congressman, and a presumptive frontrunner, decided in February not to run.
However, the under-funded and lesser-known Edwards has run a resilient campaign, with a message of economic hope and prosperity for the work-class that is resonating with women and black voters.
“She is out of the populist wing,” says Nathan Gonzales of the non-partisan Rothenberg and Gonzales Political Report. “There’s some real value now in delivering that message in a primary. There’s a similar divide in the presidential primaries. Look at Bernie Sanders. … Being part of the establishment and leadership is no longer what it once was for voters.”
An NBC News/Maryland Marist poll released Wednesday shows Van Hollen with a 44-to-38 percent lead over Edwards, a black, single mother whose former struggles to afford health insurance has become part of her campaign.
The poll follows one released in late-February by The Washington Post that showed Van Hollen leading by just 4 percentage points and one by The Baltimore Sun in mid-March that showed him trailing Edwards by as many as 10 points.
The Post poll also showed Edwards leading Van Hollen
among likely female voters, now the biggest voting bloc in recent
presidential election years, and black voters, who make up two-thirds of
registered Maryland Democrats.
State Sen. Delores Goodwin Kelley, a Baltimore County Democrat, said Wednesday that the contest being thrust into the framework of race and gender politics is “kind of sad,” considering it’s more about voter demographics.
Nevertheless, Kelley, a black female, is voting for Van Hollen.
“If you really want to get the job done, you have to pick the best person,” said Kelley, who served roughly 12 years in the state legislature with Van Hollen. “When one person is clearly more knowledgeable, works better with others, is willing to do the heavy lifting, now is not the time to make an historic statement.”
As proof of Van Hollen’s fundraising prowess, he reported on Friday raising $1.8 million in the first three months of this year.
To keep pace, Edwards has gotten some huge help from EMILY’s List, the liberal group dedicated to getting pro-choice women elected to office. A PAC supporting the group has reportedly spent roughly $2.4 million so far on the Edwards campaign.
The winner of the April 26 primary will in November likely take the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski, considering 56 percent of registered Maryland voters are Democrats, more than double the number of registered Republicans.
Early primary voting started this week.
Edwards certainly has a natural advantage, considering her Prince George’s County-centric congressional district has a large black population, compared to Van Hollen’s Montgomery County-based district, also in suburban Washington, which is made up of more white and affluent voters.
However, the race could potentially be decided by who performs best in Baltimore City.
Edwards has at times been criticized for being difficult in Congress, across the aisle and compared to Van Hollen, a member of House Minority Leader Pelosi’s leadership team and the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
“She’s such a purist about who she will talk to and work with that it’s almost paralyzing,” Kelley said.
Edwards campaign spokesman Ben Gerdes said this week that his candidate “doesn’t shy away” from being who she is, which includes a being a single parent and black female lawmaker.
“Who she is has shaped the type of legislation she supports,” Gerdes said. He also said Edward’s closing strategy will be the same as what got her to the threshold of a potential upset victory.
“People care about the same things -- good jobs, good schools, getting rid of the heroin epidemic,” Gerdes said.
Key issues like Social Security and more recently gun control have helped define the race, in which the two progressive candidates are ideologically close.
Edwards has tried to suggest Van Hollen would cut Social Security to reduce the federal deficit. But Pelosi and others have defended him as a strong supporter of entitlements for the poor and elderly, and for ObamaCare.
Edwards and supporters are also now using ads to try to tie Van Hollen to the National Rifle Association because he led efforts on a 2010 bill to create more transparency in campaign finance reporting that included exemptions -- or “carve outs” -- for the NRA, in an apparent attempt to garner more support.
Van Hollen has fought back by arguing that Cummings and President Obama supported the legislation, which failed in the Senate, and points to his long political career of being tough on guns.
"We're confident that Chris's proven track record of getting results and vision for the future are what Marylanders want in their next U.S. senator,” Van Hollen spokeswoman Bridgett Frey said Friday. “Congresswoman Edwards has focused her campaign on false and misleading attacks because she's trying to hide her record of ineffectiveness. But Maryland families want a progressive leader who turns values into action.”
As part of House Democratic leadership, and with enough name recognition to raise millions, Van Hollen was almost a sure thing when Elijah Cummings, another Maryland Democratic congressman, and a presumptive frontrunner, decided in February not to run.
However, the under-funded and lesser-known Edwards has run a resilient campaign, with a message of economic hope and prosperity for the work-class that is resonating with women and black voters.
“She is out of the populist wing,” says Nathan Gonzales of the non-partisan Rothenberg and Gonzales Political Report. “There’s some real value now in delivering that message in a primary. There’s a similar divide in the presidential primaries. Look at Bernie Sanders. … Being part of the establishment and leadership is no longer what it once was for voters.”
An NBC News/Maryland Marist poll released Wednesday shows Van Hollen with a 44-to-38 percent lead over Edwards, a black, single mother whose former struggles to afford health insurance has become part of her campaign.
The poll follows one released in late-February by The Washington Post that showed Van Hollen leading by just 4 percentage points and one by The Baltimore Sun in mid-March that showed him trailing Edwards by as many as 10 points.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
State Sen. Delores Goodwin Kelley, a Baltimore County Democrat, said Wednesday that the contest being thrust into the framework of race and gender politics is “kind of sad,” considering it’s more about voter demographics.
Nevertheless, Kelley, a black female, is voting for Van Hollen.
“If you really want to get the job done, you have to pick the best person,” said Kelley, who served roughly 12 years in the state legislature with Van Hollen. “When one person is clearly more knowledgeable, works better with others, is willing to do the heavy lifting, now is not the time to make an historic statement.”
As proof of Van Hollen’s fundraising prowess, he reported on Friday raising $1.8 million in the first three months of this year.
To keep pace, Edwards has gotten some huge help from EMILY’s List, the liberal group dedicated to getting pro-choice women elected to office. A PAC supporting the group has reportedly spent roughly $2.4 million so far on the Edwards campaign.
The winner of the April 26 primary will in November likely take the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski, considering 56 percent of registered Maryland voters are Democrats, more than double the number of registered Republicans.
Early primary voting started this week.
Edwards certainly has a natural advantage, considering her Prince George’s County-centric congressional district has a large black population, compared to Van Hollen’s Montgomery County-based district, also in suburban Washington, which is made up of more white and affluent voters.
However, the race could potentially be decided by who performs best in Baltimore City.
Edwards has at times been criticized for being difficult in Congress, across the aisle and compared to Van Hollen, a member of House Minority Leader Pelosi’s leadership team and the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
“She’s such a purist about who she will talk to and work with that it’s almost paralyzing,” Kelley said.
Edwards campaign spokesman Ben Gerdes said this week that his candidate “doesn’t shy away” from being who she is, which includes a being a single parent and black female lawmaker.
“Who she is has shaped the type of legislation she supports,” Gerdes said. He also said Edward’s closing strategy will be the same as what got her to the threshold of a potential upset victory.
“People care about the same things -- good jobs, good schools, getting rid of the heroin epidemic,” Gerdes said.
Key issues like Social Security and more recently gun control have helped define the race, in which the two progressive candidates are ideologically close.
Edwards has tried to suggest Van Hollen would cut Social Security to reduce the federal deficit. But Pelosi and others have defended him as a strong supporter of entitlements for the poor and elderly, and for ObamaCare.
Edwards and supporters are also now using ads to try to tie Van Hollen to the National Rifle Association because he led efforts on a 2010 bill to create more transparency in campaign finance reporting that included exemptions -- or “carve outs” -- for the NRA, in an apparent attempt to garner more support.
Van Hollen has fought back by arguing that Cummings and President Obama supported the legislation, which failed in the Senate, and points to his long political career of being tough on guns.
"We're confident that Chris's proven track record of getting results and vision for the future are what Marylanders want in their next U.S. senator,” Van Hollen spokeswoman Bridgett Frey said Friday. “Congresswoman Edwards has focused her campaign on false and misleading attacks because she's trying to hide her record of ineffectiveness. But Maryland families want a progressive leader who turns values into action.”
Report: Saudis vow to sell US assets if Congress decides gov was involved in 9/11
 |
| Saudis Blackmailing American Government? |
Saudi Arabia has reportedly told the Obama administration and
congressional leaders that it will sell billions of dollars in U.S.
financial assets if Congress passes a bill to make the Saudi government
legally responsible for any role in the 9/11 attacks.
The administration has tried to stop Congress from passing the legislation, a bipartisan Senate bill, since Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir last month told Washington lawmakers his country’s position, according to The New York Times.
Al-Jubeir purportedly informed the lawmakers during a trip to Washington that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell as much as $750 billion in Treasury securities and other American financial assets on the world market, fearing the legislation could become law and U.S. courts would then freeze the assets.
The revelations about the Saudis’ ultimatum come several days after reports that President Obama will soon decide whether to declassify 28 pages of sealed documents suspected of showing a Saudi connection to the deadly 9/11 terror attacks.
Former Florida Democratic Sen. Bob Graham told Fox News on Tuesday that the White House told him a decision on whether to declassify the documents would be made within 60 days.
Graham helped lead a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks.
The Bush and Obama administrations have refused to unseal the documents, arguing their release would jeopardize national security.
Critics claim the reluctance is a calculated move to hide Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the al Qaeda terror attack that killed almost 3,000 people on U.S. soil on Sept. 11, 2001.
Obama had come under renewed pressure to release the documents ahead of a scheduled trip next week to Saudi Arabia for a summit of Persian Gulf leaders.
Economists are purportedly skeptical about the Saudis making good on their vow to sell the assets, considering such a move would be difficult to execute and could severely hurt that country’s economy, which depends on the U.S. dollar.
The separate 9/11 Commission essentially found no evidence that the Saudi Arabia government supported the attacks.
However, the commission’s narrowly worded finding about having “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization” has skeptic suggesting that lesser officials government operatives or were involved.
The administration has tried to stop Congress from passing the legislation, a bipartisan Senate bill, since Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir last month told Washington lawmakers his country’s position, according to The New York Times.
Al-Jubeir purportedly informed the lawmakers during a trip to Washington that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell as much as $750 billion in Treasury securities and other American financial assets on the world market, fearing the legislation could become law and U.S. courts would then freeze the assets.
The revelations about the Saudis’ ultimatum come several days after reports that President Obama will soon decide whether to declassify 28 pages of sealed documents suspected of showing a Saudi connection to the deadly 9/11 terror attacks.
Former Florida Democratic Sen. Bob Graham told Fox News on Tuesday that the White House told him a decision on whether to declassify the documents would be made within 60 days.
Graham helped lead a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks.
The Bush and Obama administrations have refused to unseal the documents, arguing their release would jeopardize national security.
Critics claim the reluctance is a calculated move to hide Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the al Qaeda terror attack that killed almost 3,000 people on U.S. soil on Sept. 11, 2001.
Obama had come under renewed pressure to release the documents ahead of a scheduled trip next week to Saudi Arabia for a summit of Persian Gulf leaders.
Economists are purportedly skeptical about the Saudis making good on their vow to sell the assets, considering such a move would be difficult to execute and could severely hurt that country’s economy, which depends on the U.S. dollar.
The separate 9/11 Commission essentially found no evidence that the Saudi Arabia government supported the attacks.
However, the commission’s narrowly worded finding about having “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization” has skeptic suggesting that lesser officials government operatives or were involved.
Battle over Obama immigration actions lands before Supreme Court
 |
| Illegal immigrants forcing Americans to accept them. |
The impassioned election-year debate over President Obama’s immigration executive actions lands Monday before a short-handed Supreme Court, where justices will consider a fundamental question: how much power does the president truly have?
The justices plan to hold 90 minutes of oral arguments dealing with Obama’s bid to spare millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.
A coalition of states calls it an executive power grab. "President Obama's executive action is an affront to our system of republican self-government," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who supports those states.
But the White House contends the president’s authority is clear, and the policies humane and reasonable. Obama has promoted his program as a plan to "prioritize deporting felons not families."
It’s a case that will be closely watched in an election season where Republican front-runner Donald Trump has made immigration enforcement a centerpiece of his campaign. The outcome also could have considerable bearing on Obama’s legacy, potentially determining whether his lame-duck bid to go around Congress is upheld or ruled an overreach.
At issue Monday is whether as many as 5 million illegal immigrants can be spared deportation -- including those who entered the U.S. as children, and the parents of citizens or legal residents. The programs -- known as Deferred Action for Parents of American Citizens and Permanent Residents (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) -- effectively went around the Republican-led Congress.
Opponents, including 26 states and GOP members of Congress, say the plan exceeds constitutional power.
A federal appeals court earlier had struck down DAPA, which has yet to go fully into effect. The Justice Department then asked the high court for a final review, in what could be a key test of Obama's executive powers his last year in office.
The decision to review the case was welcome on both sides of the aisle.
"The Constitution vests legislative authority in Congress, not the president,” said Hatch, urging the justices to rule against the administration.
But the White House voiced confidence the policies would be upheld.
"Like millions of families across this country -- immigrants who want to be held accountable, to work on the books, to pay taxes, and to contribute to our society openly and honestly -- we are pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to review the immigration case," spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said.
The issue of illegal immigration has taken a center-stage role in the Republican primary battle, as Trump calls for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico and candidates spar over who is toughest on the issue.
The immigrants who would benefit from the Obama administration's plan are mainly parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. said in a court filing that allowing the past rulings to stand would force millions "to continue to work off the books.”
Besides immigration, Obama has used his unilateral authority to act on such hot-button issues as gun control, health care and global warming.
However, as with other high-profile Supreme Court appeals this term -- on ObamaCare, abortion rights and affirmative action -- the outcome here likely will be affected by death in February of Justice Antonin Scalia, which left a 4-4 bench split along conservative-liberal lines.
A 4-4 ruling would effectively scuttle the issue until after Obama leaves office in nine months, and mean at least a temporary setback to his domestic policy legacy -- even if the justices punt, and choose to reargue the case when Scalia's replacement is sworn in. The justices also could rule narrowly on procedure, finding a compromise on a technical issue not directly related to the larger policy questions.
On the legal side, the GOP-controlled House filed an amicus brief supporting the states, telling the high court, "the Executive does not have the power to authorize -- let alone facilitate -- the prospective violation of the immigration laws on a massive class-wide scale."
Supporters of the administration vow this issue will resonate in an election year.
"There are millions of families of U.S.-born citizens that live under the fear of separation and deportation," said Ben Monterroso, executive director of Mi Familia Vota, an Hispanic advocacy nonprofit. "Our community is watching and will hold accountable those who have stood on the way of our families through the ballots in November."
MFV and other immigrant rights advocates plan to march at the Supreme Court around Monday's arguments.
The case is U.S. v. Texas (15-674). A ruling is expected by late June.
Cruz takes all 14 delegates at Wyoming GOP convention, NY primary next
Ted Cruz on Saturday won all 14 delegates in the Wyoming GOP
convention -- a relatively small number but enough for the Texas senator
to declare victory and keep GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump
from securing the nomination.
“We are likely to have a battle in Cleveland to decide who is the nominee,” Cruz told party members before they picked the delegates. “If you don’t want to see Donald Trump as the nominee, … then I ask you to please vote for the men and women on this slate.”
The Wyoming process mirrored that of Colorado, which was engulfed by political controversy after hosting a similar convention last week.
Cruz’s campaign ran circles around the Trump operation there, prompting Trump to slam the multi-tiered caucus system as “rigged.”
Cruz was expected to do well in Wyoming because his campaign had been lining up support there for months, too.
“The ground game is starting early and starting at your most local, smallest enclave,” said Ed Buchanan, Cruz’s Wyoming chairman.
After being tapped by Cruz in February, Buchanan
started drafting activists across the state. His efforts were bolstered
by two days of Cruz campaign stops in Wyoming last August.
Trump did not actively campaign in either state, while Cruz put in face-time in both.
“You are going to hear this from me more and more: We have to bring our country together. We are a divided nation,” Trump said at a rally in upstate New York, ahead of the state’s primary Tuesday in which 95 GOP delegates are up for grabs.
Before Saturday, Trump had 742 delegates, followed by Cruz with 529 and Ohio Gov. John Kasich with 143. The winner needs 1,237 delegates to win the nomination. (Kasich is running second in the New York primary, according to polls.)
Senior Trump adviser Alan Cobb said about Colorado and Wyoming: "Candidates that have allies that are party insiders have advantages in states that have a pyramid process of selecting their delegates. These folks have worked this process for years."
Mindful of potential accusations, Wyoming GOP leaders are ready. Their message: The rules were set long before anyone announced their candidacy.
“Every presidential candidate for the last 40 years has managed this process and has worked through this process and has followed the process that we have in Wyoming,” state GOP Chairman Matt Micheli said in an interview with Fox News. “We are simply following the rules that are in place and that have been in place for a long time.”
“We are likely to have a battle in Cleveland to decide who is the nominee,” Cruz told party members before they picked the delegates. “If you don’t want to see Donald Trump as the nominee, … then I ask you to please vote for the men and women on this slate.”
The Wyoming process mirrored that of Colorado, which was engulfed by political controversy after hosting a similar convention last week.
Cruz’s campaign ran circles around the Trump operation there, prompting Trump to slam the multi-tiered caucus system as “rigged.”
Cruz was expected to do well in Wyoming because his campaign had been lining up support there for months, too.
“The ground game is starting early and starting at your most local, smallest enclave,” said Ed Buchanan, Cruz’s Wyoming chairman.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
Trump did not actively campaign in either state, while Cruz put in face-time in both.
“You are going to hear this from me more and more: We have to bring our country together. We are a divided nation,” Trump said at a rally in upstate New York, ahead of the state’s primary Tuesday in which 95 GOP delegates are up for grabs.
Before Saturday, Trump had 742 delegates, followed by Cruz with 529 and Ohio Gov. John Kasich with 143. The winner needs 1,237 delegates to win the nomination. (Kasich is running second in the New York primary, according to polls.)
Senior Trump adviser Alan Cobb said about Colorado and Wyoming: "Candidates that have allies that are party insiders have advantages in states that have a pyramid process of selecting their delegates. These folks have worked this process for years."
Mindful of potential accusations, Wyoming GOP leaders are ready. Their message: The rules were set long before anyone announced their candidacy.
“Every presidential candidate for the last 40 years has managed this process and has worked through this process and has followed the process that we have in Wyoming,” state GOP Chairman Matt Micheli said in an interview with Fox News. “We are simply following the rules that are in place and that have been in place for a long time.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
