Correct The Record Wednesday September 10, 2014 Afternoon Roundup

From:burns.strider@americanbridge.org To: CTRFriendsFamily@americanbridge.org Date: 2014-09-10 16:06 Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday September 10, 2014 Afternoon Roundup

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday September 10, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:* *Tweets:* *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> worked to simplify the info provided by lenders, so students could easily understand their loans: http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-on-college-affordability/ … <http://t.co/QCTO8fGW1t> [9/10/14, 1:19 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/509752956317483010>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> worked with the Mexican President to successfully expand renewable energy #HRC365 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash> http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/02/184236.htm … <http://t.co/KnunfYgv7x> [9/9/14, 5:30 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/509453720048775168>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> successfully pushed for income-based student loan repayments, helping make college more affordable: http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-on-college-affordability/ … <http://t.co/QCTO8fGW1t> [9/10/14, 12:21 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/509738329001046017>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: NEW RECORD ANALYSIS: Hillary Clinton on College Affordability: http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-on-college-affordability/ … <http://t.co/5Ns0csaY6P> [9/10/14, 11:44 a.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/509729257367805952>] *Headlines:* *MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers come back down to earth” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-come-back-down-earth>* “Clinton allies say the former secretary of state is still strong, despite the drop in favorability rating. ‘Despite the fact that Republicans are resorting to misinformed and blatantly false attacks on Hillary Clinton’s record, poll after poll demonstrates that she continues to be one of the most admired leaders not only in America, but across the globe,’ said Adrienne Elrod of the pro-Clinton group rapid response group Correct the Record.” *Mother Jones: “How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World” <http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron>* “The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel.” *MSNBC blog: The Maddow Blog: “Benghazi creeps back into spotlight” <http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/benghazi-creeps-back-spotlight>* “Here’s a handpicked member of Gowdy’s panel, using the Benghazi investigation to help a local Republican Party, at an event in which that member referred to the president as an ‘enemy.’” *Huffington Post blog: Bill Schneider, senior fellow and resident scholar at Third Way: “Will the 2016 Presidential Race Be the ‘We Told You So’ Election?” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-schneider/will-the-2016-presidentia_b_5790826.html>* “While Romney would easily defeat Obama if there were a rematch right now, he would not do so well against Clinton.” *Brookings: “Obama, ISIS, and What a New War Means for 2016” <http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/09/10-obama-foreign-policy-speech-galston>* “If Secretary Clinton presents herself as a candidate for her party’s nomination, she will be able to run as the heir of a foreign policy that has moved sharply in her direction, and as the leader of a party whose major factions are in alignment.” *Bloomberg View: Francis Berry: “Hillary's Biggest Foe Is History” <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-10/hillary-s-biggest-foe-is-history>* “If Hillary Clinton runs for the White House and wins, she would make history -- not only as the first female president, but also as the first Democratic candidate since before the Civil War to win the presidency after a failed first run for the office.” *Huffington Post opinion: Peter Rosenstein: “The Inevitability of Hillary” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/the-inevitability-of-hill_b_5798352.html>* “There is an overwhelming feeling one gets from people in all walks of life and all political stripes that her time has arrived.” *Talking Points Memo: “No Fan Of Hillary, Bill Maher Says He Could Vote GOP In 2016” <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bill-maher-rand-paul-2016>* “Because of his lukewarm feelings toward Clinton, a huge favorite to claim the Democratic nomination in 2016, the HBO host said he's open to ‘considering the Republican product.’” *Articles:* *MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers come back down to earth” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-come-back-down-earth>* By Alex Seitz-Wald September 9, 2014 11:47 a.m. EDT Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings continue to tumble as she renters the political fray, with 43% of respondents now saying they view her positively, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, down from a high of 60% in 2009. But Clinton remains one of only two politicians polled whose favorability rating tops their unfavorable numbers (the other being her husband, former president Bill Clinton). Forty-one percent of respondents hold a negative view of the former first lady and potential 2016 presidential candidate, slightly fewer than those who hold positive views. Clinton’s numbers were likely destined to fall back to earth as she reentered domestic partisan politics. In recent months, she’s increasingly weighed in on hot-button issues like gun control, which is likely to blunt her support among non-Democrats who may have liked her as secretary of state or as a private citizen, but would never support her as a presidential candidate. George W. Bush’s ratings, for instance, have climbed since he left office. Her husband remains the most popular political figure surveyed, with 56% of respondents holding positive views of the former president and just 21% expressing a negative opinion. Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who is also eyeing a presidential bid, breaks even with the same number holding favorable and unfavorable views. Among other potential GOP presidential contenders, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has a net negative four point rating, Mitt Romney is down seven points, and Jeb Bush is down 11 points. There is somewhat more intensity against Clinton than for her, with 26% saying they hold “very negative” views of Clinton and 21% holding “very positive” views of the former first lady. Clinton allies say the former secretary of state is still strong, despite the drop in favorability rating. “Despite the fact that Republicans are resorting to misinformed and blatantly false attacks on Hillary Clinton’s record, poll after poll demonstrates that she continues to be one of the most admired leaders not only in America, but across the globe,” said Adrienne Elrod of the pro-Clinton group rapid response group Correct the Record. *Mother Jones: “How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World” <http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron>* By Mariah Blake September/ October 2014 ONE ICY MORNING in February 2012, Hillary Clinton's plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria's bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and "Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium. Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Depart­ment's lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania's parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria's eased its moratorium. The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials—some with deep ties to industry—also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves. GEOLOGISTS HAVE LONG KNOWN that there were huge quantities of natural gas locked in shale rock. But tapping it wasn't economically viable until the late 1990s, when a Texas wildcatter named George Mitchell hit on a novel extraction method that involved drilling wells sideways from the initial borehole, then blasting them full of water, chemicals, and sand to break up the shale—a variation of a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Besides dislodging a bounty of natural gas, Mitchell's breakthrough ignited an energy revolution. Between 2006 and 2008, domestic gas reserves jumped 35 percent. The United States later vaulted past Russia to become the world's largest natural gas producer. As a result, prices dropped to record lows, and America began to wean itself from coal, along with oil and gas imports, which lessened its dependence on the Middle East. The surging global gas supply also helped shrink Russia's economic clout: Profits for Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, plummeted by more than 60 percent between 2008 and 2009 alone. Clinton, who was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, believed that shale gas could help rewrite global energy politics. "This is a moment of profound change," she later told a crowd at Georgetown University. "Countries that used to depend on others for their energy are now producers. How will this shape world events? Who will benefit, and who will not?…The answers to these questions are being written right now, and we intend to play a major role." Clinton tapped a lawyer named David Goldwyn as her special envoy for international energy affairs; his charge was "to elevate energy diplomacy as a key function of US foreign policy." Goldwyn had a long history of promoting drilling overseas—both as a Department of Energy official under Bill Clinton and as a representative of the oil industry. From 2005 to 2009 he directed the US-Libya Business Association, an organization funded primarily by US oil companies—including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Marathon—clamoring to tap Libya's abundant supply. Goldwyn lobbied Congress for pro-Libyan policies and even battled legislation that would have allowed families of the Lockerbie bombing victims to sue the Libyan government for its alleged role in the attack. According to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, one of Goldwyn's first acts at the State Department was gathering oil and gas industry executives "to discuss the potential international impact of shale gas." Clinton then sent a cable to US diplomats, asking them to collect information on the potential for fracking in their host countries. These efforts eventually gave rise to the Global Shale Gas Initiative, which aimed to help other nations develop their shale potential. Clinton promised it would do so "in a way that is as environmentally respectful as possible." But environmental groups were barely consulted, while industry played a crucial role. When Goldwyn unveiled the initiative in April 2010, it was at a meeting of the United States Energy Association, a trade organization representing Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips, all of which were pursuing fracking overseas. Among their top targets was Poland, which preliminary studies suggested had abundant shale gas. The day after Goldwyn's announcement, the US Embassy in Warsaw helped organize a shale gas conference, underwritten by these same companies (plus the oil field services company Halliburton) and attended by officials from the departments of State and Energy. In some cases, Clinton personally promoted shale gas. During a 2010 gathering of foreign ministers in Washington, DC, she spoke about America's plans to help spread fracking abroad. "I know that in some places [it] is controversial," she said, "but natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel available for power generation today." She later traveled to Poland for a series of meetings with officials, after which she announced that the country had joined the Global Shale Gas Initiative. That August, delegates from 17 countries descended on Washington for the State Depart­ment's first shale gas conference. The media was barred from attending, and officials refused to reveal basic information, including which countries took part. When Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) inquired about industry involvement, the department would say only that there had been "a limited industry presence." (State Department officials have since been more forthcoming with Mother Jones: In addition to a number of US government agencies, they say attendees heard from energy firms, including Devon, Chesapeake, and Halliburton.) During the cursory press conference that followed, Goldwyn, a short, bespectacled man with a shock of dark hair, argued that other nations could avoid the environmental damage sometimes associated with fracking by following America's lead and adopting "an umbrella of laws and regulations." A reporter suggested that US production had actually "outpaced the ability to effectively oversee the safety" and asked how we could be sure the same wouldn't happen elsewhere. Goldwyn replied that attendees had heard about safety issues from energy companies and the Groundwater Protection Council, a nonprofit organization that receives industry funding and opposes federal regulation of fracking wastewater disposal. Goldwyn and the delegates then boarded a bus to Pennsylvania for an industry-sponsored luncheon and tour of some shale fields. Paul Hueper, director of energy programs at the State Department's Bureau of Energy Resources, says the tour was organized independently and that energy firms were only invited to the conference itself to share best practices. "We are very firm on this," he insisted. "We do not shill for industry." WHILE THE MEETING helped stir up interest, it wasn't until 2011 that global fracking fever set in for real. That spring, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its initial estimate of global shale gas, which found that 32 countries had viable shale basins and put global recoverable shale gas at 6,600 trillion cubic feet—enough to supply the world for more than 50 years at current rates of consumption. This was a rich opportunity for big oil and gas companies, which had largely missed out on the US fracking boom and were under pressure from Wall Street to shore up their dwindling reserves. "They're desperate," says Antoine Simon, who coordinates the shale gas campaign at Friends of the Earth Europe. "It's the last push to continue their fossil fuel development." The industry began fighting hard for access to shale fields abroad, and promoting gas as the fuel of choice for slashing carbon emissions. In Europe, lobbyists circulated a report claiming that the European Union could save 900 billion euros if it invested in gas rather than renewable energy to meet its 2050 climate targets. This rankled environmentalists, who argue fracking may do little to ease global warming, given that wells and pipelines leak large quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. They also fear it could crowd out investment in renewables. By early 2011, the State Department was laying plans to launch a new bureau to integrate energy into every aspect of foreign policy—an idea Goldwyn had long been advocating. In 2005, he and a Chevron executive named Jan Kalicki had published a book called Energy and Security: Toward a New Foreign Policy Strategy, which argued that energy independence was unattainable in the near term and urged Washington to shift its focus to energy security—by boosting global fossil fuel production and stifling unrest that might upset energy markets. Goldwyn and his ideas had played a key role in shaping the bureau, so some observers were surprised when he quietly stepped down just before its launch. When I approached Goldwyn following a recent speaking engagement in Washington, DC, to ask about his time at the State Department and why he left, he ducked out a side door, and Kalicki blocked the corridor to keep me from following. Goldwyn later said via email that he had simply chosen "to return to the private sector." Around the time of his departure, WikiLeaks released a slew of diplomatic cables, including one describing a 2009 meeting during which Goldwyn and Canadian officials discussed development of the Alberta oil sands—a project benefiting some of the same firms behind the US-Libya Business Association. The cable said that Goldwyn had coached his Canadian counterparts on improving "oil sands messaging" and helped alleviate their concerns about getting oil sands crude to US markets. This embarrassed the State Department, which is reviewing the controversial Keystone XL pipeline proposal to transport crude oil from Canada and is under fire from environmentalists. After leaving State, Goldwyn took a job with Sutherland, a law and lobbying firm that touts his "deep understanding" of pipeline issues, and launched his own company, Goldwyn Global Strategies. In late 2011, Clinton finally unveiled the new Bureau of Energy Resources, with 63 employees and a multimillion-dollar budget. She also promised to instruct US embassies around the globe to step up their work on energy issues and "pursue more outreach to private-sector energy" firms, some of which had generously supported both her and President Barack Obama's political campaigns. (One Chevron executive bundled large sums for Clinton's 2008 presidential bid, for example.) As part of its expanded energy mandate, the State Department hosted conferences on fracking from Thailand to Botswana. It sent US experts to work alongside foreign officials as they developed shale gas programs. And it arranged for dozens of foreign delegations to visit the United States to attend workshops and meet with industry consultants—as well as with environmental groups, in some cases. US oil giants, meanwhile, were snapping up natural gas leases in far-flung places. By 2012, Chevron had large shale concessions in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, and South Africa, as well as in Eastern Europe, which was in the midst of a claim-staking spree; Poland alone had granted more than 100 shale concessions covering nearly a third of its territory. When the nation lit its first shale gas flare atop a Halliburton-drilled well that fall, the state-owned gas company ran full-page ads in the country's largest newspapers showing a spindly rig rising above the hills in the tiny village of Lubocino, alongside the tagline: "Don't put out the flame of hope." Politicians promised that Poland would soon break free of its nemesis, Russia, which supplies the lion's share of its gas. "After years of dependence on our large neighbor, today we can say that my generation will see the day when we will be independent in the area of natural gas," Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared. "And we will be setting terms." But shale was not the godsend that industry leaders and foreign governments had hoped it would be. For one, new research from the US Geological Survey suggested that the EIA assessments had grossly overestimated shale deposits: The recoverable shale gas estimate for Poland shrank from 187 trillion cubic feet to 1.3 trillion cubic feet, a 99 percent drop. Geological conditions and other factors in Europe and Asia also made fracking more arduous and expensive; one industry study estimated that drilling shale gas in Poland would cost three times what it does in the United States. By 2013, US oil giants were abandoning their Polish shale plays. "The expectations for global shale gas were extremely high," says the State Department's Hueper. "But the geological limitations and aboveground challenges are immense. A handful of countries have the potential for a boom, but there may never be a global shale gas revolution." The politics of fracking overseas were also fraught. According to Susan Sakmar, a visiting law professor at the University of Houston who has studied fracking regulation, the United States is one of the only nations where individual landowners own the mineral rights. "In most, perhaps all, other countries of the world, the underground resources belong to the crown or the government," she explains. The fact that property owners didn't stand to profit from drilling on their land ignited public outrage in some parts of the world, especially Eastern Europe. US officials speculate that Russia also had a hand in fomenting protests there. "The perception among diplomats in the region was that Russia was protecting its interests," says Mark Gitenstein, the former US ambassador to Romania. "It didn't want shale gas for obvious reasons." Faced with these obstacles, US and European energy companies launched a lobbying blitz targeting the European Union. They formed faux grassroots organizations, plied lawmakers with industry-funded studies, and hosted lavish dinners and conferences for regulators. The website for one industry confab—which, according to Friends of the Earth Europe, featured presentations from Exxon Mobil, Total, and Halliburton—warned that failure to develop shale gas "will have damaging consequences on European energy security and prosperity" and urged European governments to "allow shale gas exploration to advance" so they could "fully understand the scale of the opportunity." US lobbying shops also jumped into the fray. Covington & Burling, a major Washington firm, hired several former senior EU policymakers—including a top energy official who, according to the New York Times, arrived with a not-yet-public draft of the European Commission's fracking regulations. In June 2013, Covington staffer Jean De Ruyt, a former Belgian diplomat and adviser to the European Commission, hosted an event at the firm's Brussels office. Executives from Chevron and other oil and gas behemoths attended, as did Kurt Vandenberghe, then one of the commission's top environmental regulators. These strategies appeared to pay off: The commission's recently released framework for regulating fracking includes recommendations for governments but not firm requirements. "They chose the weakest option they had," says Simon of Friends of the Earth Europe. "People at the highest level of the commission are in the industry's pocket." Goldwyn was also busy promoting fracking overseas—this time on behalf of industry. Between January and October 2012, his firm organized a series of workshops on fracking for officials in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Ukraine, all of them funded by Chevron. The events were closed to the public—when Romanian journalist Vlad Ursulean tried to attend the Romanian gathering, he says Goldwyn personally saw to it that he was escorted out. Goldwyn told Mother Jones that the workshops featured presentations on technical aspects of fracking by academics from the Colorado School of Mines and Penn State University. Chevron, he maintains, had "no editorial input." But all of these countries—except Bulgaria, which was in the midst of anti-fracking protests—would later grant Chevron major shale concessions. In some cases, the State Department had a direct hand in negotiating the deals. Gitenstein, then the ambassador to Romania, met with Chevron executives and Romanian officials and pressed them to hand over millions of acres of shale concessions. "The Romanians were just sitting on the leases, and Chevron was upset. So I intervened," says Gitenstein, whose State Department tenure has been bookended by stints at Mayer Brown, a law and lobbying firm that has represented Chevron. "This is traditionally what ambassadors do on behalf of American companies." In the end, Romania signed a 30-year deal with Chevron, which helped set off massive, nationwide protests. When the government began weighing a fracking ban, it didn't sit well with Gitenstein, who went on Romanian television and warned that, without fracking, the nation could be stuck paying five times what America does for natural gas. He added that US shale prospectors had "obtained great successes—without consequences for the environment, I dare say." The proposed moratorium soon died. A FEW WEEKS LATER, Chevron was preparing to build its first fracking rig near Pungesti, a tiny farming village in northeastern Romania. According to a memo from the prime minister's office, a Romanian official met with Chevron executives and an embassy-based US Commerce Department employee to craft a PR strategy for the project. They agreed to organize a kickoff event at Victoria Palace in Bucharest. As a spokesman, they would tap Damian Draghici, a charismatic Romanian lawmaker who was a "recognized personality among the Roma minority," which had a "considerable presence" around Chevron's planned drilling sites. "It was really extraordinary—the level of collaboration between these players," says Ursulean, who has written extensively about Chevron's activities in Romania. "It was as if they were all branches of the same company." The strategy did little to soothe the public's ire. When Chevron finally did attempt to install the rig in late 2013, residents—including elderly villagers who arrived in horse-drawn carts—blockaded the planned drilling sites. The Romanian Orthodox Church rallied behind them, with one local priest likening Chevron to enemy "invaders." Soon, anti-fracking protests were cropping up from Poland to the United Kingdom. But Chevron didn't back down. Along with other American energy firms, it lobbied to insert language in a proposed US-EU trade agreement allowing US companies to haul European governments before international arbitration panels for any actions threatening their investments. Chevron argued this was necessary to protect shareholders against "arbitrary" and "unfair" treatment by local authorities. But environmental groups say it would stymie fracking regulation and point to a $250 million lawsuit Delaware-based Lone Pine Resources has filed against the Canadian province of Quebec for temporarily banning fracking near a key source of drinking water. The case hinges on a similar trade provision. Despite the public outcry in Europe, the State Department has stayed the course. Clinton's successor as secretary of state, John Kerry, views natural gas as a key part of his push against climate change. Under Kerry, State has ramped up investment in its shale gas initiative and is planning to expand it to 30 more countries, from Cambodia to Papua New Guinea. Following the Crimea crisis, the Obama administration has also been pressing Eastern European countries to fast-track their fracking initiatives so as to be less dependent on Russia. During an April visit to Ukraine, which has granted concessions to Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell, Vice President Joe Biden announced that the United States would bring in technical experts to speed up its shale gas development. "We stand ready to assist you," promised Biden, whose son Hunter has since joined the board of a Ukrainian energy company. "Imagine where you'd be today if you were able to tell Russia: 'Keep your gas.' It would be a very different world." *MSNBC blog: The Maddow Blog: “Benghazi creeps back into spotlight” <http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/benghazi-creeps-back-spotlight>* By Steve Benen September 10, 2014, 10:30 a.m. EDT The deadly attack on a U.S. outpost in Benghazi two years ago has been investigated by seven congressional committees, each of which concluded that the conspiracy theorists are wrong. House Republicans nevertheless concluded that it’s time for an eighth committee to launch a probe, which its chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), insists won’t be the least bit political. And yet, consider what Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) said over the weekend. “U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Grantville) addressed the Benghazi investigation and terrorist organization ISIS among other topics Saturday morning at the Cobb County GOP breakfast at its headquarters. […] “‘I’m not going to stand here and confirm or deny anything,’ Westmoreland told the crowd. ‘Our job is to figure out the truth.’ “Westmoreland spent much of his speech criticizing Democrats. ‘I think our enemy stands on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,’ Westmoreland said to loud applause.” Oh good, we’re reached the point at which elected lawmakers publicly describe the president of the United States as an enemy.” According to the report in the Marietta Daily Journal, Westmoreland went on to say that “it’s hard” for congressional Democrats “to be bipartisan.” Said the guy who considers the president his “enemy.” Remember, Westmoreland isn’t just some random conservative – the Georgia Republican was one of only seven House Republicans to be named to the new GOP Benghazi committee. In May, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said Westmoreland has “no business” joining the select committee, calling it “inappropriate” for the far-right lawmaker to serve on the panel while also overseeing political strategy for the National Republican Campaign Committee. With the benefit of hindsight, Lewis’ concerns appear well grounded. Igor Bobic added, “Admission for the Marietta, Georgia, event was $10. The Cobb County GOP touted the event as a ‘very unusual breakfast’ where its supporters would receive an ‘update on the Benghazi investigation.’” Trey Gowdy recently said he hopes to avoid a media “circus” with his investigation. “If you take the approach ‘Are we doing this to learn more and better ourselves as a people? And be respectful of their sacrifice?’ then you won’t let it become a circus,” he said. And yet, here’s a handpicked member of Gowdy’s panel, using the Benghazi investigation to help a local Republican Party, at an event in which that member referred to the president as an “enemy.” As for the larger context, with Gowdy’s committee poised to hold its first hearing next week, msnbc’s Alex Seitz-Wald noted last week, “After several mercifully Benghazi-free months, the 2012 attack on the diplomatic compound in Libya is about to be thrust back into the spotlight around its September 11 anniversary.” Fox News, naturally, is getting increasingly invested, repackaging old news as new fodder, while again pushing discredited theories. *Huffington Post blog: Bill Schneider, senior fellow and resident scholar at Third Way: “Will the 2016 Presidential Race Be the ‘We Told You So’ Election?” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-schneider/will-the-2016-presidentia_b_5790826.html>* By Bill Schneider September 9, 2014, 10:50 a.m. EDT It would be the "We told you so" election: Mitt Romney versus Hillary Clinton in 2016. The campaign would look like an effort to roll back the calendar and say, "Let's get it right this time." There's plenty of buyers' remorse in the electorate right now. At a time when the world is beset by crises, President Obama's legendary coolness makes him seem weak and detached. The president's careless statements have only amplified that impression, including remarks that "we don't have a strategy yet" for dealing with ISIS and our goal is to reduce Islamic extremism to "a manageable problem." A recent CNN poll offered voters a redo of the 2012 election. The result: Romney would now beat Obama by a decisive margin (53 percent to 44 percent). Romney encouraged the speculation in a backhanded way when he told a radio talk show host there's "one in a million" chance he will run in 2016: "Let's say all the guys that were running [for the Republican nomination] came together and said, 'Hey, we've decided we can't do it, you must do it.' That's the one in a million we're thinking about." Romney's comment stirred some excitement among Republicans. They are keenly aware of the country's buyers' remorse. A USA Today poll of Iowa Republican caucus participants raised a lot of eyebrows last month when it showed Romney, at 35 percent, far ahead of all the other contenders. That's partly name recognition and partly Republicans' desire for a do-over. It also reflects the fact that no other Republican contender has caught fire. In three different national polls of Republicans this summer, no potential contender got more than 13 percent support (Romney's name was not offered). The Republican Party establishment is worried. All their potential standard-bearers -- Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Rick Perry -- have significant problems. That's why the party elite is fantasizing about either Romney or Jeb Bush. At the same time, Tea Party activists and evangelicals are warning the party not to nominate another establishment candidate like John McCain or Mitt Romney. "The Republican base will not tolerate another candidate foisted upon us as a guy who can win," said Gary Bauer, a leading figure in the religious right. It has become rare for a party to renominate the candidate who lost the previous election. It didn't work for Democrats with Adlai Stevenson (1952 and 1956) or for Republicans with Thomas Dewey (1944 and 1948). Both got a smaller share of the vote the second time. Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan three times (1896, 1900, and 1908). Bryan's share of the vote went down each time. Bryan was a populist. So in 1904, Democrats took a different tack and nominated a conservative, Alton B. Parker. That didn't work either. Parker did worse than Bryan. It did work when Republicans nominated Richard Nixon a second time in 1968. But Nixon had to wait eight years. In between, Republicans suffered the catastrophe of Barry Goldwater's candidacy in 1964. Given the fact that Nixon lost in 1960 by what is still the closest vote in U.S. history (a popular vote margin of 0.2 percent), renominating Nixon did not look like such a big risk. Romney seems aware of the risk the party would take by renominating him. "I have looked at what happens to anybody in this country who loses as the nominee of their party," Romney has said. "They become a loser for life." But he lost to Obama, and widespread dissatisfaction with President Obama is causing Republicans to fantasize about bringing Romney back to life. "In many ways, it looks like 2016 will be a referendum on Obama in the same way 2008 was a referendum on [George W.] Bush," Romney's former chief strategist told Politico. That would certainly be the case if Vice President Joe Biden were the Democratic nominee. But Hillary Clinton? She also lost to Obama. Democrats, too, are longing to go back to the future and redo the 2008 primaries. Clinton loyally served in the Obama administration for four years. That leads many Republicans to believe she would represent a third term for Obama. But the fierce 2008 primary campaign established Clinton's identity. She has her own distinctive record, plus that of her husband, to run on. President Clinton's economic record stands in sharp contrast to Obama's. While Romney would easily defeat Obama if there were a rematch right now, he would not do so well against Clinton. The CNN poll shows Clinton leading Romney by an even larger margin, 55 percent to 42 percent. That's pretty good evidence that voters do not see the prospect of a Clinton presidency as a "third term for Obama." *Brookings: “Obama, ISIS, and What a New War Means for 2016” <http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/09/10-obama-foreign-policy-speech-galston>* By William A Galston September 10, 2014, 12:00 p.m. EDT As President Obama prepares to address the nation this evening, Americans with some grey in their hair have seen this movie before. In May 1977, President Jimmy Carter gave a speech at Notre Dame rejecting what he termed the “inordinate fear of communism.” Less than three years later, he confessed that the invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 had taught him more about the Soviet Union than he had learned previously in his entire presidency, and he initiated tough new anti-Soviet policies, including a covert campaign to arm the Afghan resistance. In October 2011, President Barack Obama announced the full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by year’s end. “The tide of war is receding,” he declared, and “America’s war in Iraq is over.” Tonight, Mr. Obama will announce his strategy for defeating a fanatical army that has seized a large swath of Iraqi territory. The rise of ISIS is to the Obama presidency what the invasion of Afghanistan was to the Carter presidency: the refutation of a central premise of the administration’s foreign policy. Mr. Obama’s pivot back to the Middle East has domestic political consequences as well. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), an undeclared candidate for his party’s presidential nomination, has had the wind in his sails as he has advocated a libertarian-tinged policy of restraint abroad. ISIS’ beheading of two Americans has moved Republican sentiment back toward its longstanding hawkishness, boosting the prospects of neo-Reaganites such as Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio and complicating Sen. Paul’s path. As for the Democrats, there was restive grumbling among liberals as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became more open about her disagreements with Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, notably on Syria. But now, as the president toughens his stance in the Middle East, the breach is narrowing. If Secretary Clinton presents herself as a candidate for her party’s nomination, she will be able to run as the heir of a foreign policy that has moved sharply in her direction, and as the leader of a party whose major factions are in alignment. It is likely that the 2016 presidential election will focus on the economy rather than foreign policy. Still, Americans know that presidents have the power to place their sons and daughters in harm’s way. That is why the reverberations from tonight’s speech are likely to be long-lasting. *Bloomberg View: Francis Berry: “Hillary's Biggest Foe Is History” <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-10/hillary-s-biggest-foe-is-history>* By Francis Barry September 10, 2014, 11:07 a.m. EDT If Hillary Clinton runs for the White House and wins, she would make history -- not only as the first female president, but also as the first Democratic candidate since before the Civil War to win the presidency after a failed first run for the office. Hubert Humphrey (1968), George McGovern (1972) and Al Gore (2000) all ran for president at least once before securing the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination -- and all lost in general elections. Lyndon Johnson won the presidency in 1964 after losing out on the party’s nomination at the 1960 convention, but he was a sitting president in 1964, not an aspirant. The last non-incumbent Democrat to come back from a losing bid to win the presidency was James Buchanan (the bachelor president) in 1856, four years after a divided convention denied him the nomination, settling instead on a compromise candidate, Franklin Pierce. Does this bit of trivia doom Clinton’s chances in 2016? Of course not. But it does tell us something about Democratic presidential voters in general: They tend to like fresh faces. Six of the last seven non-incumbent Democrats to be nominated for president (Barack Obama, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter) have been first-time candidates, as were John Kennedy, Adlai Stevenson and Franklin Roosevelt. On the Republican side, the situation is reversed: Since 1944, only four Republicans have won the party’s nomination without having previously sought it, and each either held national office (Richard Nixon in 1960 and Gerald Ford in 1976) or had national name recognition (war hero Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and presidential scion George W. Bush in 2000). All other Republican nominees -- Thomas Dewey, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney -- won the party’s nomination on their second or third try. Republican voters, it would seem, aren’t as eager as Democrats to take chances on newcomers. That makes sense: They’re more conservative. In 2016, however, there will be no Republican candidate holding national office. Only one rumored candidate, Jeb Bush, is a national name, and he will not have as clear a path to the nomination as his brother did in 2000, given his vulnerabilities with the party’s base. At least two possible contenders have previously sought the White House (Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry), but both have real weaknesses and could join the list of Republicans who have run multiple times (Steve Forbes, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul and others) without winning the nomination. If Bush runs, some first-time aspirants may take a pass on the race. They should think twice. Republican and Democratic primary voters could flip roles in the 2016 primaries, with Republicans voting for fresh blood. If they do, it would be the first time since Wendell Willkie in 1940 that Republicans nominate a first-time candidate who is not a national figure. No matter who wins the nomination, first-time Republican candidates will have an opportunity to introduce themselves to voters, gaining a familiarity that -- if history is any guide -- will be helpful to them in 2020 or 2024. As with the Democrats, there is no reason to think that Republican voters won’t return to their usual modus operandi in future elections. So a word of advice to the increasingly long list of potential first-time Republican presidential candidates: Run. And to those eyeing a primary run against Clinton: In the Democratic Party, patience can sometimes be a virtue. *Huffington Post opinion: Peter Rosenstein: “The Inevitability of Hillary” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/the-inevitability-of-hill_b_5798352.html>* By Peter Rosenstein September 10, 2014, 12:40 p.m. EDT One can only imagine the sound, something like air being let out of a helium balloon, should Hillary Rodham Clinton announce in the beginning of 2015 that she isn't running for President. Most can't for a moment fathom that scenario playing out. One who can't is the new host of Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, who said on his inaugural show, "She's running". Maybe he's connected to her by a soup can like in the Progresso commercial. The only luminary on the Meet the Press panel who thought she wouldn't run was Joe Scarborough and he often likes to be obstinate. The press has had a love-hate relationship with Hillary since she first appeared on the scene giving the graduation speech at Wellesley in 1969. But love her or hate her, they can't get enough of her. Whether on TV or in print they know that talking about her will get them airtime or a front page story. Since she was a young woman what Hillary says gets attention. There is an overwhelming feeling one gets from people in all walks of life and all political stripes that her time has arrived. She will finally overcome the haters and doubters because enough people recognize she is the real thing. Her in-depth understanding of both the United States and the world will leave no one questioning that she is the right person, as a TV ad once claimed, "to answer that 3am phone call". Hillary wrote a sobering piece on the state of the world in her Washington Post review of Henry Kissinger's new book, World Order. While complimenting Kissinger she made clear it was on his understanding of the world as it is today, very different from when he was Secretary of State. She wrote, "It's no wonder so many Americans express uncertainty and even fear about our role and our future in the world. In his new book, "World Order," Henry Kissinger explains the historic scope of this challenge". She continued, "His analysis, despite some differences over specific policies, largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century." Hillary presents herself as one who won't back away from the challenges the United States faces and understands that as the only remaining superpower in the world we can't allow the new isolationists in our country to keep the United States from acting to protect our homeland and make the world a safer place. She clearly defines what she means by acting when she describes her view of 'Smart Power". She makes clear it is not always rushing in with troops but using all the levers a President has at her disposal with military action being the last resort. But one understands she wouldn't shy away from using military force when necessary. A few days before the review appeared in the Washington Post Hillary keynoted Senator Harry Reid's (D-NV) energy conference in Las Vegas. One can often judge the correctness of her ideas by those who attack them. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) chastised her for correctly saying, "Climate Change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and world and the data is unforgiving no matter what the deniers try to assert." Paul, who shows a lack of understanding of global and world issues, attacked her for this on Fox news saying, "I don't think we really want a Commander in Chief that's battling climate change instead of terrorism." Paul, one of the leading lights of today's Republican Party doesn't understand what the role of President is which may be because he can't actually see himself in the role. One in which as the saying goes, 'you must be able to walk and chew gum at the same time'. All we need do is read the headlines of the past few weeks from ISIS, to Israel, to Syria, to the drought in California, to Ferguson, MO, to the Ebola epidemic; to understand that our next President will have to focus on a myriad of issues at the same time, all of them usually presenting as a crisis. We need someone who not only understands that but is up to the challenge. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated she is ready on both counts. Over the next few months Hillary will do what she has said all along she needs to do before announcing and that is bring into focus her vision for the future which she will do in a series of speeches and appearances across the nation. She will stand side-by-side with Democratic candidates who are running in 2014 and will shine a light on them. The pundits must be careful not to judge the result of the vote for a candidate she stands with purely based on her having been there. Hillary will help to draw attention to them but we know in the end people vote for the person they trust and trust has always been difficult to transfer. Bill Clinton managed to make a difference for President Obama in 2012 with his brilliant Convention speech but in the end it was Barack Obama who had to make the case for himself. The Republican Party already understands when Hillary is the candidate in 2016 she will make that winning case for herself. She will share her vision for a better future for America and show that she has the wealth of knowledge and experience to make it a reality. There isn't anyone in the Republican Party that has even been hinted at as a potential nominee that can match her in the scope of her experience or brain power. As we move toward early 2015 it appears that a Hillary Rodham Clinton candidacy for President is becoming inevitable. *Talking Points Memo: “No Fan Of Hillary, Bill Maher Says He Could Vote GOP In 2016” <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bill-maher-rand-paul-2016>* By Tom Kludt September 10, 2014 9:51 a.m. EDT Bill Maher made a hefty donation to bolster President Obama's re-election bid in 2012, but the liberal comedian says he's open to going the other way the next time around. And there's one Republican in particular who intrigues him. “Rand Paul is an interesting candidate to me. Rand Paul could possibly get my vote,” Maher told The Hill. Maher has never hidden his affinity for the Paul clan. He told The Hill that he admired the Kentucky senator's father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), for having "the guts to say we should end the American empire, pull the troops home, stop getting involved in every foreign entanglement." Earlier this month, Maher told Syracuse.com that he has admiration for Rand Paul for occasionally going "against his own tribe." Maher donated $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC in 2012, but he told The Hill that he won't do the same for Hillary Clinton in 2016. "First of all, I’m not as big a fan of Hillary as I am of Obama," he said. "So we’ll see who’s running. I’m not even committing to being for Hillary.” Because of his lukewarm feelings toward Clinton, a huge favorite to claim the Democratic nomination in 2016, the HBO host said he's open to "considering the Republican product."