Sanders calls Bill Clinton's affair 'totally disgraceful and unacceptable'

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said Friday night that former President Bill Clinton, now stumping on the campaign trail for wife Hillary Clinton, committed a “totally disgraceful” act in having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Sanders’ remark was in response to a question at an Iowa town hall meeting, not part of a speech.
However, the Vermont senator had until this point in the primary season largely avoided saying anything negative related to the front-running Hillary Clinton, expect to attack her on policy issues.
“Look, Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton," Sanders said Friday. “What Bill Clinton did, I think we can all acknowledge, was totally, totally, totally disgraceful and unacceptable. But I am running against Hillary Clinton. I’m not running against Bill Clinton.”
But Sanders continues to trail Clinton by roughly 20 percentage points in national polls and needs to at least compete with her in first-in-the-nation primary state Iowa, which votes Feb.1 and where he once led Clinton. And he needs a solid showing in New Hampshire, which votes Feb. 9 and where he now trails by about 4 points.
Front-running 2016 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and others have increasingly criticized Bill Clinton’s extra-marital past since his wife announced last month that he would stump for her starting in January. The Trump campaign has argued that its attacks are in response to the Clinton campaign accusing Trump of being sexist.
In Iowa, where Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, trails Clinton by rough 13 points, he nevertheless stuck Friday to his campaign strategy of distinguishing himself from Clinton and Republicans on the issues of income inequality and the so-called “disappearing middle class.”
“So what I am doing is contrasting my record with Hillary Clinton’s record, and they are very, very different records,” he said. “But I am not going to get into the personal stuff. … I’ve never run a negative TV ad in my life.”

'Occam’s Razor': NY Rep. Israel's retirement explanation smells like a truth

“Occam’s Razor” isn’t some teenage slasher flick from the “Halloween” or “Scream” genre. It’s a philosophical, mathematical and scientific tenet that asserts that the simplest, most-obvious explanation of events is often the correct one.
Named after Middle Ages philosopher and Franciscan friar William of Ockham (despite the spelling difference), most people who toil on Capitol Hill probably wouldn’t recognize Occam’s Razor if it sliced a gaping wound in their forearm.
But that’s the nature of politics. Often the reasons for various Washington political phenomena are stacked with intrigue, Machiavellian skullduggery and conspiracy.
One can only imagine the torrent of political theories that filtered through the Capitol this week when Rep. Steve Israel -- a New York Democrat,  top lieutenant to House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi and potential candidate to succeed her or House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer down the road -- unexpectedly announced his retirement from Congress.
“It has been an incredibly humbling opportunity to serve my community,” Israel declared in a statement. “I will miss this place and the people I have had the privilege to serve.”
That’s the customary, bathos, boilerplate that accompanies many congressional departures.
But he also spoke of an opportunity to write a “second novel.” His previous book, “The Global War on Morris,” mocked the extremes of government surveillance. In a brief chat, Israel joked about replacing Daniel Murphy (who just signed with the Washington Nationals) at second base for his beloved New York Mets. Still, Israel says he’s fed up with fundraising and “call time.”
This is a peculiar but essential political liturgy in which lawmakers carve out wide swaths of their day to hunch over a telephone and dial for dollars. The ritual is necessary -- especially in a possible swing district like Israel’s in an expensive media market -- just to stay competitive.
There is no practice that lawmakers abhor more than call time. Members of Congress sometimes grouse about the enhanced interrogation methods that the United States uses on detainees at Guantanamo Bay. But call time is so brutal it surely rivals waterboarding as inhumane treatment under the Geneva Convention.
Israel took to the New York Times to pen an Op-Ed about the practice. He wrote that talking to customer service with a cable company is a more enjoyable version of call time than what members of Congress have to deal with.
But Israel’s station in Congress was a little different from most. Surely something more was afoot than call time when he announced he was quitting.
Israel was believed to have an inside track on navigating the House Democratic Caucus leadership ladder -- perhaps after the eventual retirement of Pelosi, California, and/or Hoyer, Maryland.
In 2009, Israel was just hours away from announcing a primary challenge to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. Then-New York Gov. David Paterson, also a Democrat, appointed Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Clinton who became secretary of State.
Fox was told at the time that Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer, N.Y., and Bob Menendez, N.J., asked President Obama to intervene to clear the field for Gillibrand in the primary.
Israel never ran against Gillibrand.
As a result, Israel settled back into the House. In late 2010, Pelosi tapped him to head the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the national organization charged with getting Democrats elected and reelected to the House.
After Democrats failed to win back the House in 2012, Pelosi told Democrats she would only stay on as leader if Israel would serve another term as DCCC chairman.
Much has been documented over the years about a rivalry between Pelosi and Hoyer -- two native Marylanders vying to lead Democrats in the House. When Pelosi became speaker, she contrived a position for another lawmaker from Maryland, Rep. Chris Van Hollen.
Pelosi made Van Hollen “assistant to the speaker.” Some viewed Pelosi’s move as a rebuke to Hoyer. And over the years, political observers estimated that she might have been engineering a course for Van Hollen to succeed her in the Democratic ranks, potentially leapfrogging Hoyer.
But that talk waned once Van Hollen decided to run for the Senate seat of retiring Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.
And much like Pelosi designing a special position for Van Hollen, she concocted a unique leadership post for Israel to hone the Democrat’s messaging.
Israel is 57. Pelosi is 75. Hoyer is 77.
With Van Hollen out of the picture, Pelosi’s maneuver seemingly gave Israel a special place in the Democratic ranks. Here was a roadway for Israel to perhaps succeed Pelosi or at least matriculate in leadership should vacancies eventually occur.
That’s what made Israel’s retirement announcement so vexing.
In a presidential year in New York, an incumbent Democrat like Israel would still have a decent shot to his seat this fall -- even though he underperformed Obama by nine points on the 2012 ballot. The 2018 midterm is another story.
Plus, it’s a real challenge for the Democrats to regain the majority in the House until after the 2020 census.
Israel’s abrupt retirement announcement Tuesday evening just as lawmakers jetted back into Washington for the first time this year launched shockwaves throughout the Capitol.
“I’m very surprised,” said House Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Rep. Joe Crowley, New York.
“It was unexpected,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Xavier Becerra, California. “Say it ain’t so, Joe.”
About the only member of the House Democratic leadership who wasn’t taken aback was Assistant Minority Leader Rep. Jim Clyburn, South Carolina.
“I’ve been watching his demeanor change the past few weeks,” Clyburn said. “I’m a very observant guy.”
It’s not unprecedented for lawmakers to return to Washington after the holidays and time with family and decide to cash it in, though Israel is said to have mulled this decision for months.
Just this week, two other senior lawmakers announced their retirements in addition to Israel: Reps. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga. But that post-holiday factor didn’t halt the congressional rumor mill from spinning into a frenzy to explain Israel’s decision.
Surely there was something more.
Some theories which reverberated through the building late Tuesday:
Was there scandal?
Maybe it’s his health.
Israel fell out of favor with Pelosi and needs the money from the book contract, suggested one senior aide.
Israel’s retirement means Pelosi is leaving.
Israel's retirement means Pelosi isn’t leaving.
There was no shortage of conjecture.
Not a lot is aboveboard on Capitol Hill. That’s why everyone in Congress goes all Grassy Knoll when an announcement like Israel’s explodes like a bombshell.
Or, in the case of Steve Israel, perhaps one can apply Occam’s Razor.
The simplest, most-obvious explanation is often the most accurate.
Maybe it just about the call time. The desire to write another book. And that’s that. Occam’s Razor doesn’t score a lot of credibility in a conniving joint like Capitol Hill.
Sure there could be a tough re-election in 2018 to say nothing of 2016. And maybe the fact that Pelosi and Hoyer don’t appear to be departing anytime soon amplifies the decision.

In State of Union, Obama to leave empty seat to honor gun victims, underscore gun control effort

President Obama will keep an empty seat next to the first lady on Tuesday when he gives his State of the Union address, to represent victims of gun violence, according to the White House.
Obama, who is trying to reduce gun violence by issuing a series of executive orders to tighten federal gun laws, announced the symbolic gesture Friday when talking on the phone with fellow supporters of more stringent gun-ownership laws.
A White House official said the president told the supporters the open seat in first lady Michelle Obama’s viewing box was for “the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice -- because they need the rest of us to speak for them.”
Presidents have long invited prominent individuals and average Americans to sit with the first lady, often as a way to underscore a theme.
Obama, in his final 11 months of office, says he’s using his White House powers to change gun laws because Congress has failed to act.
The State of the Union addresses are given in the House chambers. And as an apparent attempt to express his dissatisfaction with Congress, Obama also said the open seat should serve to “remind every single one of our representatives that it’s their responsibility to do something about this,” the official said.
Obama intends to tighten the guns laws with a 10-point plan that side-steps Congress and focuses on requiring small-scaler sellers to get a federal license and submit background checks on potential buyers.
His tried unsuccessfully to get Congress to pass comprehensive legislation to tighten gun-control laws in the wake of the 2012 shooting massacre at the Sandy Hook elementary school, in Newtown, Conn.
And his new effort is also facing strong opposition from Republicans, the National Rifle Association and even some Democrats who say it's up to Congress to enact new policies on firearms.
The other parts of Obama’s executive action include having the FBI hire 230 more employees to process background checks. He’s also directing federal agencies to research smart gun technology to reduce accidental shootings and asking Congress for $500 million for mental health care.
Obama also want to better track lost guns and prevent trusts or corporations from buying dangerous weapons without background checks.

obama heatlh care cartoon

Obama vetoes health law repeal bill

President Obama on Friday vetoed legislation to repeal most of his signature health care law, saying the bill would do “harm” to millions of Americans.
The move was widely expected, after Republicans for the first time succeeded in sending an ObamaCare repeal bill to the president’s desk. The legislation that Obama vetoed also would cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
While Congress may try to override, Republicans do not currently have the votes to do so.
Republicans, though, say they met two goals by passing the bill: keeping a promise to voters in an election year, and showing their ability to repeal the health law if a Republican wins the presidency.
“This is the closest we have come to repealing ObamaCare,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Thursday.
As the next step, Ryan wants to work on a proposal to replace the health care law. As he said in a statement Wednesday, the goal is to lay the groundwork for repealing and replacing the law should a Republican win the presidency this November.
“It clears the path to repealing this law with a Republican president in 2017 and replacing it with a truly patient-centered health care system,” he said. “We will not back down from this fight to defend the sanctity of life and make quality health care coverage achievable for all Americans.”
Though Republicans tried dozens of times to pass a full or partial repeal bill, they were only able to get this one to Obama’s desk because the Senate passed their version under special rules that protected it from a Democratic filibuster. The House followed suit this week.
Still, it takes a two-thirds threshold to override a presidential veto. In the House alone, Republicans are shy of that amount by nearly 50 votes.
In a lengthy written statement explaining his veto, Obama on Friday said the bill would “reverse the significant progress we have made in improving health care in America,” warning that it would increase the number of uninsured.
“Rather than refighting old political battles by once again voting to repeal basic protections that provide security for the middle class, Members of Congress should be working together to grow the economy, strengthen middle-class families, and create new jobs,” he said.
Republicans argue that the legislation is harming the economy, and wrongly forcing Americans to buy insurance.

Obama faces new criticism on refugee program after 2 terror arrests

The arrest of two Iraq-born refugees on terror-related charges has recharged Capitol Hill calls for the Obama administration to pull back on plans to welcome thousands more refugees from Middle East warzones. 
“It is disturbing, though not surprising, that terrorists have succeeded in exploiting our refugee system to come to the U.S. and aid ISIS,” Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Friday.
Officials announced the arrests on Thursday, in California and Texas; it’s unclear if they’re related.
One of the criminal complaints accused 23-year-old Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, of Sacramento, Calif., of traveling to Syria to fight alongside terrorist organizations and lying to government investigators about it. He originally came to the U.S. from Syria in 2012. Investigators said he discussed plans to return, and wrote that he was "eager to see blood."
Almost simultaneously in Houston, authorities announced the arrest of Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24, on charges of attempting to provide material support to ISIS.
Republicans, in Washington and on the campaign trail, seized on the arrests to renew their push for immediate security changes to minimize the risk of ISIS and other fighters exploiting the expanded refugee program.
“While I commend the FBI for their hard work, these arrests heighten my concern that our refugee program is susceptible to exploitation by terrorists,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said in a statement. He touted House-passed legislation that would require top security officials to certify to Congress that every refugee accepted is not a security threat.
Smith proposed going further, and temporarily halting “all admission and resettlement of refugees until we can verify that every single ‘gap’ in our security screening has been addressed.”
Smith also is pushing legislation to protect states that refuse to participate in the resettlement program, and to halt the resettlement entirely until the administration submits reports on safety and costs to Congress.
On the campaign trail, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was quick to cite the arrests in calling for changes.
Speaking in Iowa, he called for a retroactive review of all refugees who have come to the United States from what he calls "high-risk countries."
“We need to systematically examine the national security threats,” the Republican presidential candidate said.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, while saying he could not discuss the specifics of the two latest terror-related cases, on Friday defended the refugee program as secure.
“No one’s allowed to short-circuit this system,” Earnest said, adding that refugees are subject to the “most rigorous screening” of anyone entering the U.S. He said this includes a “careful review of biographic and biometric information,” in-person interviews and other steps.
The Paris and San Bernardino terror attacks last year already had complicated the administration’s plans to take in more refugees, particularly from Syria.
Obama wants to accept at least 10,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. in 2016 – the decision followed mounting international pressure for the U.S. to do more to shoulder the burden of the refugee crisis that has spilled into countries like Lebanon and Jordan, and nations across Europe. Heart-breaking images of children and families struggling to flee the violence in Syria fueled those calls – but U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have voiced concerns about whether the government can properly vet applicants, particularly from war-torn Syria where effective background checks are difficult to conduct.
Officials at the state level also have tried to fight back against the administration’s plans, and revived their concerns after the two latest arrests.
"This is precisely why I called for a halt to refugees entering the U.S. from countries substantially controlled by terrorists," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said. "I once again urge the President to halt the resettlement of these refugees in the United States until there is an effective vetting process that will ensure refugees do not compromise the safety of Americans and Texans."
According to the complaint, Al-Jayab traveled to Syria from Chicago via Turkey in November 2013. He remained in Syria until the following January and fought alongside several terror groups, including Ansar al-Islam, which merged with ISIS in 2014 after Al-Jayab had returned to the United States. He settled in Sacramento following his return to the U.S.
U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner said in a statement that while Al-Jayab posed a potential safety threat, “there is no indication that he planned any acts of terrorism in this country.”
In the Texas case, the indictment of Hardan states that beginning in May 2014, Hardan "did unlawfully and knowingly attempt to provide material support and resources ... training, expert advice and assistance, to a foreign terrorist organization, namely the Islamic State of Iraq."
The indictment claims that Hardan, who arrived in the U.S. in 2009 and became a legal permanent resident in 2011, concealed his association with ISIS on his citizenship application in August 2014 and lied about receiving machine gun training when he was interviewed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Fox News Poll: Sanders up by 13 points in New Hampshire

Bernie Sanders is ahead of Hillary Clinton by a 50-37 percent margin among New Hampshire Democratic primary voters.
That’s according to the latest Fox News poll, released Friday.
Martin O’Malley receives three percent.
CLICK TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
Sanders has increased his advantage over Clinton since mid-November, when he was up by just one point (45-44 percent).
The senator from neighboring Vermont continues to do well among the younger crowd.  Voters under age 45 pick him over Clinton by a 24-point margin (55-31 percent).
Men back Sanders by 23 points, while women give him the edge by seven.
In addition, Democrats in the Granite State would be much more satisfied with Sanders as the party’s nominee: 85 percent would be satisfied with him, while 68 percent would feel the same if Clinton wins.
While 79 percent of Clinton supporters would be happy with Sanders as the nominee, only 56 percent of his supporters would feel that way about a Clinton win.
The Fox News Poll is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). The poll was conducted January 4-7, 2016, by telephone (landline and cellphone) with live interviewers among a sample of 800 New Hampshire registered voters selected from a statewide voter file.  Results based on the sample of 386 Democratic primary voters have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points. 

Fox News Poll: Trump, Cruz top GOP race nationally

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz lead the pack in the GOP nomination race.  They are also the two candidates Republicans think would be best at reversing Barack Obama’s agenda.
Here are the numbers from the latest Fox News national poll on the 2016 presidential election.
Trump leads with 35 percent among Republican primary voters.  Next is Cruz with 20 percent support -- his personal best in the Fox News poll.
CLICK TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
Marco Rubio is third at 13 percent, while Ben Carson is at 10 percent.  Jeb Bush gets four percent, Carly Fiorina three percent, and Chris Christie, John Kasich and Rand Paul each get two percent.
Last month, it was Trump 39 percent, Cruz 18 percent, Rubio 11 percent, and Carson 9 percent (December 16-17, 2015).
Cruz (33 percent) has the advantage over Trump (26 percent) among self-described “very” conservative voters.
The race is much closer among white evangelical Christians: Trump 28 percent vs. Cruz 26 percent.
Almost half of GOP primary voters think Trump (48 percent) would be most effective at reversing Obama’s policies.  That’s more than twice as many as the 21 percent who say the same about Cruz.  Again, Rubio comes in third at nine percent.
Priorities of GOP primary voters have flipped since the Paris and San Bernardino attacks.  Now 43 percent say national security issues will be most important in deciding their vote for the nomination, followed by economic issues at 27 percent.  The last time the question was asked, before those attacks, voters prioritized economic issues over national security (38 percent and 26 percent respectively).
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton commands 54 percent support for the nomination among Democratic primary voters, far outperforming Bernie Sanders at 39 percent.  Martin O’Malley gets 3 percent.
While most Democratic primary voters are satisfied with their candidate choices (62 percent), many wish they had other options (38 percent) -- including 42 percent of Sanders supporters, and even 33 percent of Clinton supporters.
If the two current front-runners were to prevail as their respective party’s nominees, voters would watch both with a high degree of suspicion:  62 percent say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, and 55 percent think the same of Trump.
Democratic primary voters want the next president to be someone “who knows how to get things done in Washington” (70 percent) rather than someone “who is ready to shake things up in Washington” (28 percent).
Views among Republican primary voters are more divided:  51 percent get things done vs. 45 percent shake things up.

Hypothetical head-to-head matchups
Clinton currently ties or trails the Republicans in each of the possible 2016 matchups tested.
Rubio (50-41 percent) and Cruz (50-43 percent) perform best against the presumptive Democratic nominee.  Rubio has a nine-point advantage and Cruz is up by seven.
Trump tops Clinton by three points (47-44 percent) and Bush ties at 44 percent each.

Pollpourri
Trump accused former President Bill Clinton of having a “terrible record of women abuse.”  Trump claimed that nobody has more respect for women than he does.
Voters don’t see it that way.  By a 50-37 percent margin, voters think Bill Clinton is more respectful of women than Trump.  Women say Clinton is more respectful by 55-31 percent.
Eighty-five percent of Democrats think Clinton is more respectful, while 68 percent of Republicans say Trump is -- including 66 percent of Republican women.  Among independents, 41 percent say Clinton, 34 percent say Trump and another 20 percent think there’s no difference.
Overall, voters are twice as likely to say Bill Clinton’s sex scandals have done more to hurt Hillary’s political career:  46 percent say hurt vs. 21 percent help.  Another 29 percent say they haven’t made a difference.
Men and women are about equally likely to say the scandals have done more to hurt than help.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cellphone interviews with 1,006 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from January 4-7, 2016. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters, and 5 points for the Democratic primary voter sample (360) and 4.5 points for the Republican primary voter sample (423).