Trump plots big TV ad blitz that could change campaign landscape

When Donald Trump and his team were planning his presidential campaign, they drew up a budget of $25 million for television advertising in the third quarter of this year.
They wound up spending zero for the rest of 2015.
That is about to change. Sources in the Trump camp say they will soon launch a major ad blitz that could cost at least $2 million a week, and possibly several times that.
The initial wave of ads will focus on Trump’s vision and his stance on key issues—no bio spots necessary for the celebrity candidate—but that could change if any GOP rivals target him with negative commercials. “If you attack Trump, he will attack you 10 times as hard,” an adviser says. “We will not allow any attack to go unanswered.”
The Trump camp is working with a Florida-based advertising firm, as widely reported, but also with several other media companies, some of which are well-known in the political community, the sources say.
Their advantage, in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond, is that the bombastic billionaire can just write a check for the TV campaign. Some pundits have expressed skepticism that Trump really wants to dig deeply into his personal fortune, but these sources insist he is ready to do just that—perhaps as much as $100 million for advertising overall. “Our Super PAC,” says the adviser, “is Donald Trump’s bank account.”
The original plan was to saturate the airwaves so that the real estate mogul could define himself before his GOP rivals did it for him. But Trump says he had no need to do that because he generated such saturation coverage, all of it free.
If Trump pours big bucks into an ad campaign—and no budget has been set—he could again confound the prognosticators. While Trump enjoys a 20-point lead in national polls and dominates many state polls, he and Ted Cruz have been trading the lead in Iowa, where a win could give the Texas senator momentum and let some air out of the Trump invincibility balloon. A Gravis poll just before Christmas had Trump and Cruz tied in Iowa at 31 percent.
Journalistic skeptics also question whether Trump is doing what it takes in the ground game and whether his voters, some of them new to politics, will actually show up. The New York Times recently reported that “Mr. Trump has fallen behind in the nuts and bolts of organizing. A loss in Iowa for Mr. Trump, where he has devoted the most resources of his campaign, could imperil his leads in the next two nominating states, New Hampshire and South Carolina, where his get-out-the-vote organizations are even less robust.”
In the early  caucus state of Nevada, says the Wall Street Journal, “the Trump campaign has just four aides working out of campaign offices in Las Vegas and Reno. And they are playing catch-up with other campaigns.”
Trump advisers dispute such reports, citing the hiring of 17 paid staffers in Iowa and 15 in New Hampshire.
But let’s assume what once seemed unthinkable for the pundit class, that Trump wins the Republican nomination. The new conventional wisdom is that he’ll get creamed in the general election.
But could the political soothsayers be wrong about this as well?
Trump himself tweeted over the weekend, “The same people that said I wouldn't run, or that I wouldn't lead or do well (1st place and leading by 21%), now say I won't beat Hillary.”
Still, the polls suggest that Trump could have a tough time, especially with Hillary Clinton holding a built-in Electoral College advantage against any Republican challenger.
Trump has a 68 percent unfavorable rating among women, according to last week’s Quinnipiac poll—which is one reason Clinton fired back that his recent comment about her being “schlonged” in 2008 suggests sexism.
In a Q poll out in early December, Trump had an 87 percent unfavorable rating among blacks, and 84 percent of Hispanics had an unfavorable view of him. Such a cataclysmic outcome would push ever higher the percentage of white voters that Trump would need to win.
Back in September, though, a SurveyUSA poll found Trump with 25 percent support among African-Americans. It seems unlikely that Trump would more than double the black vote that George W. Bush won in his 2004 reelection. But anything significantly higher than the 6 percent of blacks that Mitt Romney won against President Obama would be an improvement. 
Trump advisers argue that his unconventional candidacy could change the electoral map—particularly his appeal to blue-collar workers who are Democrats and independents. They believe his street-tough persona could put such industrial strongholds as Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania in play. He takes some moderate positions for a Republicans, such as not touching Medicare and Social Security.
Trump’s say-anything style could certainly create headaches for Clinton, an essentially conventional politician despite her ground-breaking gender. And there are two other sets of numbers to consider.
Trump has a daunting 59 percent unfavorable rating in the most recent Q poll, but Hillary’s unfavorable, at 51 percent, isn’t much better.
And in the latest CNN survey, Clinton beats Trump by only 49 to 47 percent in a hypothetical matchup, within the margin of error. He fares worse in other polls, trailing Hillary by 7 points in Quinnipiac and 11 points in the latest Fox poll.
Still, for a political neophyte running against a former first lady, senator and Cabinet member, those are the kind of deficits that can be made up in a long campaign. A July CNN poll found only 51 percent of Republicans viewing Trump favorably; by this month the figure had risen to 72 percent.
It’s entirely possible that Trump will get shellacked if he wins the Republican nomination. But if the pundits’ awful track record is any indication, all bets could be off.

US quietly maneuvers to cut UN dues

The U.S. is locked once again in a back-room struggle with developing nations over how much of the United Nations tab Washington will pick up over the next three years, especially the bill for peacekeeping activities.
There is cautious hope among diplomats that the U.S. can chip away at least marginally at the U.N.’s “scale of assessments”-- a dues system loaded in favor of many poor and not-so-poor countries that pay less than their fair share, and saddle the small number of rich countries -- especially the U.S. -- with the difference.
In broad terms, the bottom line will remain the same: the U.S. will continue to pay billions more than everyone else. Last year, the U.S. handed over $3 billion toward the U.N.’s so-called “regular” Secretariat budget and its peacekeeping forces, though the full amount of U.S. contributions to the U.N. system -- the Obama administration does not divulge them -- was much more.
The last official tally of overall U.S. contributions, in 2010, was about $7.6 billion, and that was widely considered a low-ball figure.
The basis of U.S. giving is the U.N. assessments scale -- currently set so that the U.S. pays 22 percent of the so-called “regular” U.N. Secretariat  annual budget (about $2.8 billion in 2015), and 28.36 percent of its peacekeeping budget, which has ballooned in the past few years to $8.47 billion in 2014-2015.
The bigger the overall bills, the bigger is the share in dollar terms the U.S. must pay because of its outsized dues percentages.
The next-biggest percentage payee, Japan, forks over 10.83 percent of both the U.N.’s regular budget and peacekeeping spending, and as a result signed a check for about $1.23 billion -- about 40 percent of the U.S. total. Powerhouses like Germany fall even further behind.
The U.S. peacekeeping tab is more than the tally for the other four veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council -- France, the United Kingdom, China and Vladimir Putin’s Russian Federation --combined.
On the other hand,  the least-paying 176 countries at the world organization -- and there are only 193 in the U.N. system -- coughed up in toto little more than Japan-- some $1.4 billion for both their peacekeeping and “regular” dues, according to figures compiled by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Taken separately, the peacekeeping tab for the Bottom 176 is even worse: about 10 percent of the bill, or roughly $848 million, again less than Japan’s share.
This year, however, a few factors are favorable to change, starting with the fact that the annual cost of U.N. peacekeeping appears, for the first time in a decade, to be going down rather than up.
Peacekeeping is currently estimated to cost U.N. member states about $8.27 billion in 2015-2016. (Typically for the U.N.’s spaghetti-tangled system of bookkeeping, peacekeeping budgets are calculated from mid-year to mid-year, while “regular” U.N. budgets are calculated on a January-to-December basis -- but biennially.)
One cause: A small number of expensive U.N. missions, including that in Haiti, for example, have shrunk considerably, and some are likely to shrink more.
The other reason for a difference is that some of the biggest economies in the so-called developing world -- China, Russia, Korea, not to mention Brazil and Argentina -- are likely facing hikes in their U.N. percentage tabs due to rising local Gross Domestic Product, producing increases in their “regular” dues rates of 30 percent or more.
In some cases, notably Argentina’s, the hike will still be hard to spot: that country’s share of regular U.N. dues actually rose dramatically in the past two years -- from 0.0574 percent to .432 percent. 
A further catch in the budget process is that many countries actually receive a discount from their regular dues for peacekeeping, which the five veto power countries in the U.N. Security Council are expected to pick up as a “premium” that ticks upward from their baseline “regular” budget dues in exchange for their veto-wielding status.
Outcome: the U.S. once again gets hosed worse than other members of the veto club, even though the percentage increase in its “premium” rate is the same as for other nations that don’t pick up anywhere near as much of the U.N.’s “regular” tab, because of its higher baseline, bringing its peacekeeping share to the current 28.36 percent level.
“When the math [of discounts] was created, perhaps the dynamic was not clearly understood,” says a U.S. official.
This year, American effort is aimed, according to the official, at ways “to get the discounts streamlined, and eliminate those for the wealthiest countries.”
Among the countries targeted for persuasion are Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab states, and prosperous mini-states like Singapore.
Saudi Arabia, for example, had an oil-inflated GDP of 746.25 billion in 2014, its highest level ever. But its share of the U.N. regular budget was a measly 0.864 percent, and its peacekeeping share, due to discounts, even lower: 0.518 percent.
Spain, with twice the GDP of Saudi Arabia, but a much larger population -- which means its per-capita wealth is significantly less -- pays more than three times as much as the Saudis for the regular U.N. budget, and nearly six times as much for peacekeeping.
Will the U.S. effort pay off?
“The situation is fluid,” a U.S. diplomat told Fox News. “I can’t say we have clarity.”
In other words, no one is likely to be sure until somewhere around Christmas Eve, if then.

King says terror threat coming from mosques, calls for better surveillance

New York GOP Rep. Peter King on Sunday called again for better surveillance of mosques in the U.S., suggesting Islamic terrorists visit them and said that critics can “cry all they want” about the tactic amounting to a civil liberties violation.
King, a member of the House’s Homeland Security and Select Intelligence committees, told “Fox News Sunday” that “99 percent” of Muslims in the United States are good people and that he’s friends with people of the Islamic faith.
“But the fact is, (mosques are) where the threat is coming from,” King said.
He also argued that some Americans have a “blind political correctness” on such issues and that civil libertarians and other critics of better mosque surveillance can “cry all they want.”
King pointed out that one of the so-called Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was told to leave a local mosque following two outbursts, yet members declined to warn authorities.
“If they had known that in advance, you combine that with the fact that the Russians had already told us to be on the lookout for him, we could have possibly prevented the … bombing,” King said.
Tsarnaev and younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed three race spectators and injured as many as 264 others in the April 2013 attack.
Mosque members reportedly said Tsarnaev did nothing to suggest he would plot, then lead such an attack.
King’s call for better surveillance follows GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump calling for similar efforts, following the deadly Dec. 2 shootings in San Bernardino, Calif., in which a Muslim husband-wife team killed 14 and wounded 22 others.
He also said the Islamic State terror group’s intentions to attack on U.S. soil “has become clear” to intelligence officials over “the last several months.”
King, a 12-term congressman and former chairman of the lower chamber’s Homeland Security committee, also suggested that he agrees with Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi saying in a purported video this weekend that the roughly 16 months of U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria have done little damage to the terror group.
“I would expect al-Baghdadi to say that,” King said. "We've had some impact, but unfortunately overall he is probably right. … ISIS is stronger.”
King said the group now has more territory under its control and is making “great inroads” in Afghanistan.
He also said the Transportation Security Administration’s plan to now conduct full-body scans on some airline passengers is in part a response to the San Bernardino attack and the Paris bombing attacks weeks earlier in which 160 people died and for which the Islamic State has claimed responsibility.

Trump, Grand Rapids, Mich.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gave new perspective on Russian President Vladimir Putin speaking favorably about him. When he mentioned allegations the Russian president killed reporters, Trump said it's awful and said he would "never kill reporters but I hate them - such lying, disgusting people".
He told the crowd in Grand Rapids, Mich. that the current U.S. approach towards Russia isn’t working. “It would be so great if we could get Russia on our side and knock the hell out of ISIS, right, so stupid, just knock the living hell out of them?”
Trump weighed on Hillary Clinton saying ISIS is using videos of the GOP front-runner as a recruitment tool. “It turned out to be a lie and the last person she wants to run against is me”.
He also reacted to S.C. Sen. Lindsey Graham dropping out of the 2016 race. In what seemed to be a sarcastic remark, Trump said the news was “extremely sad” and added, “he was nasty to me, everybody who goes against me is then gone”.
Then knocking his other GOP rivals, Trump said “ask Jeb bush if he enjoys running against me, ask Lindsay graham did he enjoy running against me … do they enjoy it, I enjoy it”.
He attacked Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, accusing him of being controlled by outside money. “Politicians are controlled by special interests and lobbyists, companies pay them millions of dollars and they get in, look I don't' want to get involved, Rubio, then this one and this one.”
The businessman talked a good portion of his remarks about the car industry with Michigan being the home state to Ford, G&M, and Chrysler.
“You have your closed plants and you're looking for jobs it's a disgrace, and I'll tell you the one thing that really helps me is that you're really making great cars now,” he told supporters.
Trump proposed imposing 35 percent tax on “ever car truck and part” that comes from outside the country.
At what has become the norm at Trump rallies, protestors nearly a dozen times during his speech interrupted the GOP candidate. He tried to downplay their significance saying they look so young or calling them losers.  One protestor called Trump a “bigot” before being escorted outside the venue. 

Japan says armed Chinese coast guard ship violates its waters off disputed islands

TOKYO –  Japanese authorities say an armed Chinese coast guard vessel has for the first time entered its territorial waters off islands claimed by both countries.
Japan's coast guard says the ship, armed with what appeared to be four gun turrets, was one of three Chinese coast guard vessels spotted Saturday inside Japanese waters in the East China Sea. It was the only one that was armed.
Chinese vessels regularly sail around the disputed islands, known as the Senkaku in Japanese and the Diaoyu in Chinese. But Japan's coast guard said it was the first time an armed Chinese vessel had been sighted in Japanese waters.
The vessels have since left the area.
The armed ship also was spotted Tuesday, but Japan said it didn't infiltrate Japanese waters at the time.

Hillary puts 'secret weapon' Bill on campaign trail, fueling 'sexism' feud with Trump

Faced with a tight battle in two, fast-approaching primaries, Hillary Clinton will bring husband Bill Clinton onto the campaign trail, a move already escalating the acrimony between her and GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Clinton said after last weekend’s Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire that husband and former President Clinton would join the campaign trail in January and called him her “not-so-secret weapon.”
“We’re going to cover as much ground in New Hampshire as we possibly can, see as many people, thank everyone who’s going to turn out and vote for me to try to get some more to join them,” she said.
Clinton is the clear Democratic frontrunner but remains in a close race with primary challenger Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in Iowa, which holds the first-in-the-nation balloting Feb. 1, and in New Hampshire, where voters go the polls eight days later.
She leads Sanders by 25 percentage points nationally but by just 6 points in New Hampshire, according to a RearClearPolitics averaging of polls.
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta recently told supporters that his candidate was in a “dog fight” in New Hampshire, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The former president has already been on the 2016 trail for his wife, appearing on stage with pop star Katy Perry in late October before a key fundraising dinner in Iowa.
But he has largely remained behind the scenes, raising money and offering campaign advice to the former New York senator and secretary of state.
Though polls show Bill Clinton is still one of the most popular political figures in American politics, his efforts during Hillary Clinton’s failed 2008 White House bid were occasionally criticized -- including his suggestion that race was a factor in eventual-winner Barack Obama defeating his wife in the South Carolina primary.
And Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinski while president will almost certainly become an attack line for the front-running Trump, whom Hillary Clinton accuses of being sexist.
Trump on Wednesday tweeted in response: “Hillary, when you complain about ‘a penchant for sexism,’ who are you referring to. I have great respect for women."
He also wrote in capital letters, “BE CAREFUL!”
And Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson has suggested that the campaign will make an issue of Bill Clinton’s past behavior if his wife continues with the sexist accusations.
“Hillary Clinton has some nerve to talk about the war on women and the bigotry toward women when she has a serious problem in her husband,” Pierson said on CNN.

Peyton Manning slams report linking him to HGH use

Peyton Manning is vehemently refuting a report set to air on Al Jazeera that contends the Denver Broncos quarterback received human growth hormone through his wife during his recovery from neck fusion surgeries in 2011 in Indianapolis.
In a statement Saturday night, Manning said: "The allegation that I would do something like that is complete garbage and is totally made up. It never happened. Never."
He added, "I really can't believe somebody would put something like this on the air. Whoever said this is making stuff up."
The allegations surfaced in an Al Jazeera undercover probe into doping in global sports that is set to air Sunday and was shared in advance with the Huffington Post.
The report claims Manning received HGH from an Indianapolis anti-aging clinic in 2011 while he was still with the Colts. It said the drug, which was banned by the NFL in the 2011 collective bargaining agreement, was delivered to his wife, Ashley, so that the quarterback's name was never attached to the shipments.
Liam Collins, a British hurdler, went undercover and spoke with Charlie Sly, an Austin, Texas-based pharmacist who worked at the Guyer Institute, the Indiana-based anti-aging clinic in 2011. Sly allegedly names Manning and other high profile athletes as having received HGH from the clinic.
However, Sly backtracks in a subsequent statement to Al Jazeera, saying Collins secretly recorded his conversations without his knowledge or consent.
"The statements on any recordings or communications that Al Jazeera plans to air are absolutely false and incorrect," Sly said. "To be clear, I am recanting any such statements and there is no truth to any statement of mine that Al Jazeera plans to air. Under no circumstances should any of those recordings, statements or communications be aired."
The NFL and players union added human growth hormone testing to the collective bargaining agreement signed in 2011 but the side didn't agree to testing terms until 2014. Nobody has tested positive, which would trigger a four-game suspension.
Manning, who joined the Broncos in 2012, has been sidelined since Nov. 15 by a left foot injury. Brock Osweiler makes his sixth consecutive start in Manning's place Monday night when the Broncos (10-4) host the Bengals (11-3).

Graham leaving GOP puts key evangelical vote at risk for Republican presidential candidates

The Rev. Franklin Graham quitting the Republican Party poses a significant blow to the GOP’s 2016 White House aspirations, especially if other evangelical pastors follow suit and their millions-plus congregations stay away from the polls.
Graham suggested earlier this week that the last straw was congressional Republicans funding Planned Parenthood in the recently passed, $1.8 trillion tax-and-spending package, despite revelations about the group harvesting fetal tissue.
However, he made clear Wednesday night that the funding was only part of the reason he left the GOP to become an independent.
"It's not just that,” Graham said on Fox News’ “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.” “It's the way the bill was passed. It came down so quickly. And it didn't seem like anybody tried to fight it. It was just, 'Let's get home for Christmas.' "
Graham, the son of evangelical leader Billy Graham, also expressed disappointment with GOP and Democratic leaders but insisted he’s not trying to lead a GOP exodus.
“I'm not here to hurt the Republican Party,” he said, adding that the GOP appears to have “some good candidates” in the 2016 White House race.
Earlier in the day, the Rev. Wilfredo De Jesus, head pastor for the New Life Covenant Church, in Chicago, expressed similar concerns.
“People already know how evangelicals feel about the sanctity of life,” he told FoxNews.com. “That’s a continual fight. But the government spending also speaks to us. That was the disappointment and frustration you heard in brother Graham’s tone.”
De Jesus, popularly known as Pastor Choco, said only time will tell whether other evangelical leaders will follow Graham and potentially take voters with them.
“Many evangelicals are still vetting,” he said. “It’s too early. … But hope is in the kingdom of God, not in the political system.”
While evangelical Christians have long been a key part of the Republican base, their support in the 2016 presidential election cycle appears even more critical as black voters remain overwhelming loyal to Democratic presidential nominees and Hispanics now go to the polls in record numbers for Democrats.
Hispanics, in fact, voted for President Obama over 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney 71 percent to 27 percent, according to an analysis of exit polls by the Pew Research Center.
“We cannot afford to stand on the sidelines as our Christian values are continually trampled,” Jack Graham, pastor of the Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas, said in October, before a forum with the Faith & Freedom Coalition for 2016 White House candidates.
Graham did not return a request for comment for this story.
White evangelical support for Republican presidential nominees has been largely consistent for at least the past three election cycles, amid assertions that Romney, a Mormon and a moderate, lost in part because millions of evangelical voters stayed on the sidelines.
Some political observers argue at least 3 million Republican voters stayed home, which could have given Romney wins in swing states Florida or Ohio.
However, the Pew analysis shows Romney got 79 percent voter support from white evangelical Protestants, matching George W. Bush in 2004 and exceeding John McCain’s 73 percent in 2008.
The analysis also shows that voting bloc was in 2012 about the same size that it was in the previous two cycles, amid speculation the number was declining.
Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz -- a top-tier GOP presidential candidate courting the evangelical vote -- said in March that roughly half of born-again Christians aren’t voting, which resulted in questions about his methodology.
“They’re staying home,” he said at Liberty University, in Virginia. “Imagine instead millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values."
Cruz’s campaign did not respond Wednesday for a request for comment. Fellow GOP candidates Carly Fiorina and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul declined though spokespeople who said their respective candidate was spending time with family over the Christmas holidays.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, elected relatively late in this year’s budget process, has vowed to revisit the issue of Planned Parenthood funding when Congress returns next month. But that might be too late for Graham and other evangelicals.
“Republicans always have a reason for not doing something that they say they would,” Bret Bozell, founder of the conservative-leaning Media Research Center, said Wednesday.
He suggested that evangelicals will likely support Cruz and Donald Trump in the primaries but expressed less certainty about the general election.
“Ask John McCain,” he said.