Low-polling GOP candidates insist there’s time for a turn-around

The GOP presidential field that rolled into the 2016 election cycle like a crowded bus already has dropped a few passengers, but the remaining 13 appear committed to staying on board at least through the next debates and the first two contests.
Just three of them have double-digit numbers in an average of national polls, with front-runner Donald Trump gobbling up more than a third of primary support. On the other end, candidates such as Rick Santorum and George Pataki have failed to garner even 1 percent.
Though Santorum has never been among the 2016 front-runners and did not compete in any of the five prime-time debates, he indicated Monday he’s thinking back to his 2012 performance – when he won the Iowa caucuses – as he approaches the same contest on Feb. 1.  
“I feel like I did four years ago,” the former Pennsylvania senator told FoxNews.com. “We’re headed to Iowa tomorrow to make contact with as many people as we can. … I don’t think that many people have made up their minds. We’re at a point now where serious people are going to make decisions about serious candidates.”
Santorum also said he’s on all the state ballots, has a solid national organization and a “good slate of delegates” across the country.
“I feel better about this year than I did at this time for 2012,” he said.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is in a similar situation -- having won Iowa in his 2008 presidential bid. But this time Huckabee, a social conservative like Santorum, is polling at about 2 percent, according to the RealClearPolitics average.
“Not one person in all of America has even voted,” Huckabee said Sunday, amid speculation over whether he and other low-polling candidates might drop out before the Iowa caucuses – or even the next GOP debate, set for Jan. 14 and hosted by Fox Business Network.
Huckabee, too, drew some inspiration from Santorum’s 2012 Iowa finish.
“Santorum won. He was in … sixth place out of the seven candidates, five days out from the caucuses,” he told “Fox News Sunday,” while pointing out that he still has campaign operations in all 99 Iowa counties. “This idea that this is all sewed up or fixed, I've been in that state enough to know it's just not quite like that yet.”
Still, Huckabee and many other candidates are essentially caught in the Trump vortex -- continuing to cede poll numbers to the media-savvy billionaire businessman, which forces them into the lesser-watched, second-tier debates, erodes their name recognition and diminishes fundraising power.  
The criteria for who gets onto the main stage in the upcoming FBN debate is based on national polls as well as polls in Iowa and in New Hampshire, which on Feb. 9 holds the second primary of the cycle.
The debate, sanctioned by the Republican National Committee, will be in South Carolina’s North Charleston Coliseum and Performing Arts Center and will focus on economic, domestic and international policy issues.
The prime-time debate will feature candidates who by Jan. 11 place in the top six in national polls or in the top five in Iowa or New Hampshire polls.
The remaining candidates will be invited to the early debate.
Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul, who has been in all of the televised, main-stage debates but continues to drop in the polls, says he will not participate if forced into the early Fox Business debate.  
GOP candidate and Ohio Gov. John Kasich suggested Sunday that his strategy is to have a respectable showing in Iowa, where social conservatives do well, then finish high in New Hampshire, where voters are more closely aligned to his moderate positions.
“I have to do well enough there,” he told ABC News. “And I think I will … catch fire. And if I catch fire, I think the sky is the limit.”
Poor showings in both or either of the first two primaries can doom a campaign.
Trump insists he’ll fight to the finish.
"I will never leave the race," he declared to The Washington Post earlier this month.
Trump is closely followed in the polls by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who leads slightly in Iowa, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
Both appear to have enough voter support and money to extend their campaigns well beyond New Hampshire, which is followed by the South Carolina and Nevada contests and then a swing across the South, where Cruz appears to be plotting a surge.
Cruz has about $65 million in campaign and outside money, compared with Rubio who has about $33 million in combined funds, according to OpenSecrets.org.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who was the early GOP favorite, now has roughly 4 percent in the national RealClearPolitics average. However, he leads the entire 2016 presidential field in fundraising -- $103 million in campaign money and $24.8 million in outside money, the OpenSecrets site shows.

Chicago mayor cuts Cuba vacation short to address weekend police shooting

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced Monday he plans to cut his family vacation in Cuba short and return to the city to work on reforming the Chicago Police Department in wake of another deadly police shooting in which one person was killed by accident when police responded to a domestic disturbance call.
Kelly Quinn, a spokeswoman for the mayor, said in a statement to the Chicago Tribune Emanuel left for Cuba on Dec. 18 and wasn’t’ expected to return until Saturday but decided to return on Tuesday after officers responding to a domestic disturbance shot and killed Quintonio LeGrier, 19, and Bettie Jones, 55. Police said Jones was “accidentally” shot.
While Mayor Emanuel has been in constant contact with his staff and Interim Superintendent (John) Escalante, he is cutting his family trip short so that he can continue the ongoing work of restoring accountability and trust in the Chicago Police Department," Quinn said in a statement.
The shooting deaths take place days after the Justice Department opened a civil-rights investigation into Chicago police practices. It was the first deadly police shooting since the release of the video footage showing Officer Jason Van Dyke shooting and killing 19-year-old Laquan McDonald in 2014.
The pressure has increased on Emanuel ever since the release of the McDonald video. Protests calling for his resignation have occurred daily since November, with critics alleging that Emanuel didn’t release the video over political reasons. McDonald was reelected as the city’s mayor in April.
The mayor has responded with a flurry of activity to stem the outcry, mixing short-term changes and long-term promises, according to The Wall Street Journal.
“The changes we have made in recent weeks are just a beginning—not an end,” Emanuel has said.
One of the most vocal critics of Emanuel has been Rev. Al Sharpton who said it was “unbelievable” that Emanuel didn’t return immediately to Chicago after the most recent shooting this past weekend.
“I think he’s gone beyond the point where he can even govern with the trust of the people,” Sharpton said on MSNBC’s “The Morning Joe.” Sharpton also called for Emanuel’s resignation, echoing almost daily protests around the city.
In the last month, Emanuel has fired his police chief and the head of the group that investigates police shootings in Chicago and formed a group to look at how to reform the department.
Emanuel, in all likelihood, will have three more years to get things right in Chicago, despite the out pour of anger in the city. The Wall Street Journal reported the city doesn’t have a process to recall him.
The mayor’s former political director, Thomas Bowen, told the Journal Emanuel is responding to the growing concerns of residents and people see him taking action.
“They see their political figures responding to the problem,” Bowen added.

Oregon bakery owners pay more than $135G in damages over refusal to make cake for gay wedding

The owners of an Oregon bakery who denied service to a same-sex couple have paid more than $135,000 in state-ordered damages – months after refusing to do so – according to state officials Monday.
Aaron Klein, co-owner of Sweet Cakes, by Melissa, dropped a check off for $136,927.07, according to the Bureau of Labor and Industries. The payment includes interest. Klein also paid $7,000 earlier this month.
Damages were award in July for emotional suffering caused by the bakery which refused to make a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer more than two years ago. The bakers said they refused to make the cake because of their religious beliefs.
The dispute goes back to January 2013 when Bowman-Cryer came into the shop with her mother for a cake-tasting appointment. However, Aaron Klein told the women that the bakery didn’t do cakes for same-sex weddings. The women filed complaints with the state and triggered a national debate over claims of religious beliefs against anti-discrimination laws.
Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian awarded the damages nearly six months ago, saying the owners had violated the women’s civil rights by discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibited them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.
Aaron and his wife Melissa filed an appeal of the ruling and were defying the order to pay the damages before Monday. Tyler Smith, an attorney representing the Kleins, told The Oregonian that his clients have not abandoned their appeal of Avakian’s order. Smith said it was in their clients’ best interests to pay now rather than wait for the appeal date, which is slated for next year.
The Oregonian reported the state has received a total of $144,000 from the Kleins. Charlie Burr, an agency spokesman, told the paper the payment might be more than what they owe.
"We have been in touch with their lawyers throughout the process," Burr said. The amount might differ because of the accruing interest, according to the paper.
A 2007 Oregon law protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations. The state ruled it also bars private businesses from discriminating against potential customers.

John Kasich Cartoon

Huckabee, Kasich: Campaigns will continue, amid persistently low polls numbers

Mike Huckabee and John Kasich on Sunday dismissed suggestions that they would end their struggling Republican presidential campaigns before having to compete in a second-tier debate or suffer a big loss in the upcoming Iowa primary vote.
“Of course I’m not,” Huckabee responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “Not one person in all of America has even voted. … It's never settled this far out.”
Huckabee, a social conservative and former Arkansas governor, won the Iowa caucus in his 2008 presidential bid. But this time he’s ranked eighth in the GOP field of 12 and has only 1.8 percent of the primary vote, according to a RealClearPolitics averaging of polls.
Social conservatives historically do well in Iowa, which holds its first-in-the-nation vote Feb. 1. However, Huckabee’s path toward a 2016 victory has been narrowed by fellow GOP contender Ted Cruz, the like-minded and firebrand Texas senator. Cruz is now leading overall GOP frontrunner Donald Trump in Iowa, some polls show.
Ohio Gov. Kasich suggested Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that he’ll continue his campaign at least through the Feb. 9 primary in New Hampshire, in which voters are less conservative and where he thinks he can do well.
“I have to do well enough there,” said Kasich, who is polling at 2 percent according to the RealClearPolitics average. “And I think I will … . I'll catch fire.  And if I catch fire, I think the sky is the limit."
Poor showings in both or either of those first two primaries can doom a campaign.
The next debate is being hosted by Fox Business and is on January 14.
Kasich express optimism that he’ll be in the main-stage debate and declined to comment on fellow GOP candidate Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul saying he won’t compete in the second-tier contest if demoted as a result of FOX Business criteria, which involves rankings in national, Iowa and New Hampshire polls.
“I think we'll make the main stage,” Kasich said. “I'm hopeful that we'll be on the stage and be able to participate.”
Kasich has been on the main stage for the first eight debates. Huckabee’s polls numbers have put him in the second-tier debates in two of the last four.

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.