Russia

White House backs off surgeon general nominee push amid Dem resistance

With the midterm elections looming, vulnerable Democrats may be moving even further from the White House by refusing to support yet another of President Obama's hand-picked nominees. 
The latest nominee facing trouble with Senate confirmation is Dr. Vivek Murthy, a Harvard Medical School physician and a strong political ally, tapped for the post of U.S. surgeon general.
The White House is still backing its controversial nominee but acknowledges that officials are “recalibrating” their strategy -- amid vocal GOP opposition, waning support from Senate Democrats and concern about back-to-back defeats. Earlier this month, the administration failed to win Senate support for its nominee to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division, Debo Adegbile.
Like Adegbile, Murthy is facing strong opposition on several fronts. The nominee is being targeted by the National Rifle Association for his support for gun control. Such opposition has created a tough situation for Senate Democrats facing re-election a year after the NRA led efforts to defeat Obama’s push for new firearms restrictions. 
As a result, the White House doesn’t want to create more problems for vulnerable Democrats by asking them to take a hard vote now. 
“Dr. Murthy is a dynamic, entrepreneurial practitioner who had dedicated a lot of time, energy and passion to health and wellness,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday. “But after the confirmation vote of Debo Adegbile, we are recalibrating the strategy around Dr. Murthy’s floor vote.” 
Adegbile had strong Democratic support before the vote earlier this month. But seven Senate Democrats joined all 44 Republicans in blocking the nomination, angering the White House.
The National Fraternal Order of Police led the effort to block the Adegbile nomination, mounting a campaign against him over his advocacy on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer.
There reportedly are 10 Senate Democrats who will not vote for Murthy because of the NRA opposition. 
Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, a lifetime NRA member seeking re-election this year, is on the record about his position.
"While the Senate has not yet scheduled a vote on Dr. Murthy, I have already told the White House I will very likely vote no on his nomination if it comes to the floor," Begich wrote constituents, according to his office.
Begich has also expressed concerns about the 36-year-old Murthy's political advocacy and inexperience as a practicing physician.
Murthy is backed by a long list of medical groups and if nominated would be the country’s first Indian-American surgeon general.
However, the NRA says his support for gun control, including a letter he sent to Congress last year following the fatal Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, raised questions about whether he is motivated by science or politics.
Murthy sent the letter as president of Doctors for America, a group he co-founded and that supported Obama's plans for health care reform.
Whether the White House will postpone the vote until after the November elections remains unclear.
“We will make assessments about how and when to move forward accordingly,” Carney said.

New York Senate rejects 'Dream Act' for illegal immigrant students

ALBANY, N.Y. –  The New York Senate rejected a bill Monday that would open up state tuition assistance to students in the country illegally, dashing long-held hopes of immigration advocates and prompting finger-pointing among rival Democrats.
The 30-29 vote was short of the 32 votes needed to pass, a rare defeat for a bill on the floor of the Senate. There are 63 seats, two are vacant, and two senators did not vote.
The Senate's ruling coalition of Republicans and breakaway Democrats brought the closely watched bill to the floor late in the day with little notice. Supporters of the measure said that was intentional.
"It certainly seems that it was bought up to fail, given the outcome," said Sen. Michael Gianaris, a Queens Democrat. He said the vote "made a mockery of a very important issue."
No Republicans voted for the measure, though all five of their coalition partners in the Independent Democratic Conference voted for it. All but one of the mainline Democrats in the minority voted for the measure.
The proposal includes a budget appropriation of $25 million to open up Tuition Assistance Program money for students who are in the country illegally but attend public or private colleges, paying up to $5,000 a year for undergraduates at four-year institutions.
Exactly how many would be eligible for the need-based assistance is unclear, but according to a report issued by state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, 8,300 such students in the CUNY and SUNY systems would qualify.
Since it was first introduced three years ago, opponents have argued that using taxpayer money to fund tuition assistance for people in the country illegally takes opportunity and funds away from students who are citizens. New York is among 16 states that already allow those students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges.
The Assembly passed the Dream Act last month. After the vote, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has indicated support for the bill, released a statement saying he was disappointed that the Senate had failed to pass the measure.
Opponents said the bill amounted to an improper use of taxpayer funds.
"I simply cannot justify spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars annually to pay for tuition for illegal immigrants when so many law-abiding families are struggling to meet the ever-increasing costs of higher education for their own children," said Sen. Mark Grisanti, a Republican from the Buffalo area.
Sen. Ted O'Brien, a Democrat from the Rochester area, was the only member in his conference to vote no on the bill. Advocates had looked across the aisle to Long Island Republican Sens. Jack Martins and Phil Boyle, both with a sizable Hispanic constituency. Martins voted against the bill and Boyle was not present to vote.
After the vote, Sen. Jeff Klein, co-sponsor of the bill and co-president of the chamber, said he was disappointed in the outcome.
"I think it's very difficult to not have a united Democratic conference, all Democrats, IDC and regular Democrats on such an important issue and then expect Republicans to support that piece of legislation," Klein said.
Texas, New Mexico, California and Washington state allow students who are in the country illegally access to state financial aid.

Scott Brown leaves Fox after bristling at questions about launching campaign

It’s been obvious for some time that Scott Brown is running for the Senate, even as he grew annoyed with speculation that he was doing just that.

Fox News announced Friday that it has terminated its contract with the former senator, right after he formed an exploratory committee to run in New Hampshire. And that was inevitable: you can’t be a candidate for office and a paid television pundit at the same time.

What’s odd is that Brown kept getting annoyed when journalists suggested he was moving in this direction. Even if he hadn’t made up his mind, he was clearly moving in that direction.
I happened to bump into him at Fox a couple of weeks ago, and he was still steamed over a Feb. 18 Boston Globe story that began like this:
“Former US senator Scott Brown, a frequent presence on Fox News, is no longer under contract with the widely watched cable station, a development sure to fan flames of speculation about his potential US Senate bid in New Hampshire.”
The piece seemed fair to me, because it quoted a Fox spokesman as saying: “He is currently out of contract with the network."
Brown felt it was irresponsible for the Globe to publish without checking with him, though the story said he did not respond to a voicemail seeking comment. Soon afterward, Fox renewed Brown’s briefly lapsed contract.
Early in March, Brown clashed with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren over the same issue. Greta had tweeted: “I am told this is certain: Scott Brown is going to run for US Senate in NH.”
Brown promptly gave this statement to Politico: “I am not sure who she talked to, but it was not me. I know what the timelines are and when I need to make a decision, one way or the other. I will make my decisions in due course. Until I announce or file with the FEC, it is all just speculation.”
Well, maybe, but it was informed speculation. Senate campaigns don’t materialize out of thin air.
Once Brown got serious about challenging Jeanne Shaheen, he had to lay the groundwork for hiring staff and courting support in New Hampshire. It was not unreasonable for journalists to report on this.
Brown did not respond to my request for comment. But he tweeted that “I’ve enjoyed being a part of the Fox family. Their analysis & insight has helped hold politicians accountable for their actions, especially on Obamacare.”
Fox has been a good platform for Brown since his 2012 defeat in Massachusetts, just as many aspiring and temporarily sidelined pols use cable news deals to maintain their visibility. But he sure waited till the last minute to cut the cord.
Palin’s new media venture
Speaking of Fox folks, Sarah Palin appears to have lined up a new gig. Fresh off her CPAC speech and before her reality show starts, she has found a new way to stay in the public eye.
Says Capital New York: “Fox News contributor and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin will be launching her own digital video channel, tentatively called ‘Rogue TV,’ a source familiar with the project told Capital.
“The channel will be available through Tapp, the digital video service founded by former CNN chief Jon Klein and former NBC Universal entertainment executive Jeff Gaspin.”

White House rejects results of Crimea referendum as Obama, Putin talk again

President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke after residents of Ukraine’s Crimea region on Sunday voted in favor of seceding to Russia, with the White House saying it would reject the results of the referendum held “under threats of violence and intimidation.”
More than 95 percent of Crimea voters, who are largely ethnic Russians, approved splitting off and joining Russia, with more than 50 percent of the ballots being counted, the referendum committee said late Sunday.
The expected results came as Obama told Putin that a diplomatic solution can still be achieved but only if Russian military forces end their incursions into Ukrainian territory.
Obama also said the referendum would “never” be recognized by the international community and that the United States and its European partners are prepared to “impose additional costs” on Russia for its actions, according to the White House.
Hours earlier, the White House rejected the referendum results before the final tally, which was no surprise. But the message that Russia had intimidated voters was remarkable in its force and clarity, especially after weeks of criticism that Obama was being outmatched by Putin on the world stage.
“Russia’s actions are dangerous and destabilizing,” said the White House, in a statement from the Office of the Press Secretary.
The remarks were echoed across Washington, which is shifting its focus to deterring possible Russian military advances elsewhere in Ukraine.
Putin sent troops into the neighboring region days after Ukraine's pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted last month in a political uprising.
“The United States has steadfastly supported the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine since it declared its independence in 1991,” the White House also said Sunday. “The international community will not recognize the results of a poll administered under threats of violence and intimidation from a Russian military intervention that violates international law.”
In addition, U.S. officials warned that any Russian moves on east and south Ukraine would be a grave escalation requiring additional responses.
Secretary of State John Kerry called on Moscow to return its troops in Crimea to their bases, pull back forces from the Ukraine border, halt incitement in eastern Ukraine and support the political reforms in Ukraine that would protect ethnic Russians, Russian speakers and others in the former Soviet republic that Russia says it is concerned about.
Obama had already talked twice by phone to Putin, saying his movements in Crimea are in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, words the White House said he repeated Sunday.
Putin says he is trying to protect his country’s economic and other interests in the region.
In a call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Kerry urged Russia "to support efforts by Ukrainians across the spectrum to address power sharing and decentralization through a constitutional reform process that is broadly inclusive and protects the rights of minorities," the State Department said.
It was their second call since unsuccessful talks Friday in London.
Kerry expressed "strong concerns" about Russian military activities in the southern Ukrainian region of Kherson, just north of Crimea where Russian troops appeared Saturday, and about "continuing provocations" in cities in east Ukraine, the department said.
A senior State Department official said Lavrov's willingness to discuss Ukraine political reforms was positive. But the official stressed that the Russian military escalation was of "greatest concern" and must be reversed. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation.
White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Russia faces penalties that would hurt its economy and diminish its influence in the world if Putin didn't back down.
U.S. and European officials have said they plan to announce sanctions against Russia, including visa bans and potential asset freezes, on Monday if Putin does not shift course.
On Capitol Hill, members of Congress said they were prepared to enact tough sanctions on various Russian leaders, but $1 billion in loan guarantees to help the Ukrainian economy is on hold while Congress is on a break.
California GOP Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, called the referendum “phony” and “a throwback to the Soviet era.”
“No vote occurring under military occupation deserves to be treated as legitimate,” he said. “This referendum is clearly unconstitutional.”
Royce also called on the administration to start “working overtime to help break Putin’s energy grip on Ukraine and eastern Europe.”
Washington officials also said the Crimea vote was not necessary, considering the new Ukrainian government has made clear its willingness to discuss increased autonomy in that region.
Russia has so far rejected the offer and the request to allow international monitors into the region to ensure that the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine are being upheld.
The White House said Obama asked again Sunday.
Earlier Sunday, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee accused the Obama administration of showing “wishy-washiness” toward Putin.
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker said Secretary of State John Kerry is sending the wrong message by saying Putin’s military troops taking control of facilities in the Crimea peninsula was “not a threat” and “nothing personal.”
“Our administration has created an air of permissiveness,” Corker told “Fox News Sunday.” “We have to show more resolve. It’s not helpful. It shows wishy-washiness.”
New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee, told Fox News that the United States has to be more firm with Putin because he has “started a game or Russian roulette … and he will see how far he can go.”
The EU is also taking steps to increase sanctions against Russia over what many believe is a planned annexation of Crimea, as Moscow has changed from a wary partner to a diplomatic adversary in the space of a few months.
EU foreign ministers will decide on Monday whether to impose asset freeze and visa sanctions and, if so, who to target.
EU diplomats were working feverishly over the weekend to set up a list of Russian and Moscow-leaning officials from Ukraine who have been involved in pushing for the southern peninsula's secession and possible annexation. 

Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops

In his final address to Afghanistan's parliament Saturday, President Hamid Karzai told the United States its soldiers can leave at the end of the year because his military, which already protects 93 percent of the country, was ready to take over entirely.
He reiterated his stance that he would not sign a pact with the United States that would provide for a residual force of U.S. troops to remain behind after the final withdrawal, unless peace could first be established.
The Afghan president has come under heavy pressure to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement, with a council of notables that he himself convened recommend that he sign the pact. The force would train and mentor Afghan troops, and some U.S. Special Forces would also be left behind to hunt down Al Qaeda.
All 10 candidates seeking the presidency in April 5 elections have said they would sign the security agreement. But Karzai himself does not appear to want his legacy to include a commitment to a longer foreign troop presence in his country.
Karzai was brought to power in the wake of the 2001 U.S.-led invasion and subsequently won two presidential elections ---- in 2004 and again in 2009. But he has in recent years espoused a combatative nationalism, with his hour-long speech Saturday no exception.
"I want to say to all those foreign countries who maybe out of habit or because they want to interfere, that they should not interfere," he said.
Karzai said the war in Afghanistan was "imposed" on his nation, presumably by the 2001 invasion, and told the United States it could bring peace to Afghanistan if it went after terrorist sanctuaries and countries that supported terrorism, a reference to Pakistan.
Pakistan has a complicated relationship with the Taliban. It backed the group before their 2001 overthrow, and although now it is at war with its own militants, Afghan insurgents sometimes find refuge on its territory.
Karzai told parliament, which was holding its opening session for this term, that security forces were strong enough to defend Afghanistan without the help of international troops.
Karzai steps down after next month's presidential elections. Under Afghanistan's constitution, he is banned from seeking a third term.
He came to power in December 2001 following an international agreement signed in Bonn, Germany, and was confirmed by a Loya Jirga or grand council that selected a transitional government to rule while preparing for nationwide elections. He subsequently won two presidential elections.
Relations between Karzai and the United States have been on a downward spiral since his re-election in 2009, in which the United States and several other countries charged widespread fraud. Karzai in turn accused them of interference.
In his speech Karzai again urged Taliban insurgents to join the peace process, while accusing Pakistan of protecting the Taliban leadership. He suggested that Pakistan was behind the killing earlier this year of a Taliban leader who supported the peace process. No one has taken responsibility for the attack.
Throughout his speech Karzai spoke of his accomplishments over the last 12 years, saying schools were functioning, rights were being given to women, energy projects were coming online and the Afghan currency had been stabilized.  Karzai said that when he first took power his country was isolated and nothing was functioning.
"I know the future president will protect these gains and priorities and will do the best for peace in the country and I, as an Afghan citizen, will support peace and will cooperate."
Afghanistan's current parliament plans to tackle a number of key issues, including a controversial law on the elimination of violence against women.
Meanwhile the Taliban released two Afghan army personnel, captured during last month's deadly raids on two military check points, the Ministry of Defense said in a statement Saturday. The men were freed after elders in the region interceded on their behalf and the military agreed to hand over to the Taliban the bodies of their colleagues left behind on the battlefield.
The attacks on Feb. 23 left 21 Afghan army personnel dead. Several insurgents were also killed.

US plans to give up oversight of web domain manager

Like a lot of things Obama has done since he has been president, this act shows how stupid him and his buddies in the U.S. Government are.(Bailey)
The U.S. government plans to give up control over the body that manages Internet names and addresses, a move that could bring more international cooperation over management of the Web, but will make some U.S. businesses nervous.
The Commerce Department said Friday it plans to relinquish its oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, which manages a number of technical functions that serve as signposts to help computers locate the correct servers and websites.
The action is viewed as a response to increasing international concern about U.S. control over the Internet's structure, particularly in light of the recent disclosures about surveillance by the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.

"If you hand over domain-name registration to someone who doesn't want certain classes of domains registered, then you're setting up a censorship structure"

Other governments have complained that the department's contract with Icann gives the U.S. unique influence over the Web, which it could use for a wide variety of purposes. In response to those concerns, the Obama administration is convening a process to create a new oversight structure for Icann when the current contract runs out in September 2015.
Alan Marcus, senior director of the World Economic Forum, said "the NSA tarnished the U.S. stewardship" of the Web. Mr. Marcus said the U.S. needs to relinquish control over the Web before new leadership can emerge. "There are real issues that get clouded" by U.S. leadership, he said.
The action had been debated among technologists and policy makers, but the prospect of the U.S. relinquishing control concerns some businesses because of the potential for censorship.
"If you hand over domain-name registration to someone who doesn't want certain classes of domains registered, then you're setting up a censorship structure," said Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents businesses.

Tom Steyer