Tag Archives: 2016 elections

No Money Left Behind: Education Entrepreneur Cashes in on Bush Family Ties

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In this week’s New Yorker, Alec MacGillis discusses Jeb Bush’s approach to education reform, the realm in which Bush, as Florida’s governor, had sought to make his biggest mark. In 1995, his efforts to improve the state’s public schools catalyzed his political career and, later, fueled competition with his brother George, who as president rolled out the No Child Left Behind Act:

Jeb Bush made it known that he thought his own approach superior, because it sought to grade schools on improvements in individual students’ scores, rather than just on schools’ performance in a given year. “There were lots of conversations about the work in Texas and how Florida had improved on that,” school superintendent Jim Warford said. According to education officials, Jeb’s team had little respect for Rod Paige, the former Houston schools superintendent whom George W. Bush had named Secretary of Education. “It was a little prickly in Florida,” Sandy Kress, who worked on the implementation of No Child Left Behind, said. “It was ‘We’re going to do it our way and can do it better.'”

Their sibling rivalry notwithstanding, the Bush bros have common ties to one particularly controversial educational entrepreneur. Starting in the late 1990s, Randy Best, whom I profiled at the end of George W. Bush’s second term, used his connections to the president to transform a virtually unknown for-profit education company, Voyager, into a “selling juggernaut” (in his words) that he unloaded in 2005 for $360 million.

Randy Best Steve Brodner

The key to Voyager’s success was the way it it used revolving doors in Bush’s Education Department to game the procurement process. Its dealings prompted a scathing DOE inspector general’s report in 2006 and a harshly worded Senate report the following year. “Many programs, including Voyager, were probably adopted on the basis of relationships, rather than effectiveness data,” G. Reid Lyon, who co-wrote the No Child Left Behind Act and later consulted for Best, told me in 2008. “I thought all this money would be great; it would get into schools. But money makes barracudas out of people. It’s an amazing thing.”

The controversy surrounding Voyager didn’t dissuade Best from starting another education company. Founded in 2005, Academic Partnerships persuades colleges to outsource to the firm their degree programs in subjects such as business and education, which it puts online in exchange for a hefty chunk of the profits. Nor did Voyager dissuade Jeb Bush from partnering with Best. Here’s MacGillis:

Best needed someone to lend credibility to the company. Florida had spent heavily on Voyager during Jeb Bush’s governorship, and, in 2005, when Bush was still in office, Best spoke with him about going into the education business. By 2011, Bush had joined Academic Partnerships as an investor and an adviser, and he became the company’s highest-profile champion. Best told the Washington Post that Bush’s annual salary was sixty thousand dollars, but he did not disclose the terms of Bush’s investment stake. For the first time, Bush was making money in an educational enterprise.

Last month, after announcing his intent to run for president, Bush resigned from Academic Partnerships and several other business affiliations. Yet if Bush’s family history is any guide, Randy Best 2.0 is just getting started.

Source article – 

No Money Left Behind: Education Entrepreneur Cashes in on Bush Family Ties

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No Money Left Behind: Education Entrepreneur Cashes in on Bush Family Ties

What We Still Don’t Know About Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

If Mitt Romney runs for president in 2016, he may have to confront a ghost that haunted him in 2012: his tax returns. Romney was hounded with requests to release detailed tax filings that would disclose the details of his fortune—which is at least in the hundreds of millions. Ultimately, he only revealed two years of information, and was roundly criticized for his lack of transparency. Jeb Bush reportedly plans to avoid a “Romney problem” by releasing 10 years of tax returns. If he runs, Romney will be under heavy pressure to do the same.

In 2012, Mother Jones pointed out that based on his two years of reports, the taxes Romney paid on his adjusted gross income didn’t fully cover all his wealth. Two years later, what do we still not know?

How much does he actually make? In 2010 and 2011, tax filings revealed that Romney made around $22 million each year. The vast majority of his income came from Romney’s capital gains and investment interests, and this amount presumably covered the reported total of $374,000 in speaking fees he received in 2010 and 2011. (The two years of tax filings he released did not specify exact sources of income.) Two years after the election, it’s unclear how much Romney earns annually, and it’s unknown exactly how much sits in his various accounts.

What does he actually pay? During the 2012 election, Romney was criticized for paying a relatively low tax rate: In 2010, he paid a rate of 13.9 percent, and in 2011, 15.3 percent. Those rates are far less than the 30 percent that the top 1 percent of earners pay, and his 2010 rate was even lower than the 14.2 percent a household making $64,500 per year pays. The gap between what Romney paid and earned is far greater than that of previous presidents.

“dataSourceUrl”:”//docs.google.com/spreadsheet/tq?key=0AswaDV9q95oZdGlQVnM1aFFBN0ZjRlRyZFp0VnVwTnc&transpose=0&headers=1&merge=COLS&range=A1%3AB18%2CD1%3AD18&gid=7&pub=1″,”options”:”vAxes”:”useFormatFromData”:true,”minValue”:null,”viewWindowMode”:null,”textStyle”:”color”:”#999999″,”fontSize”:12,”viewWindow”:null,”maxValue”:null},”useFormatFromData”:true,”titleTextStyle”:”bold”:true,”color”:”#000″,”fontSize”:16,”series”:”0″:”color”:”#cc0000″,”1″:”color”:”#93c47d”},”booleanRole”:”certainty”,”title”:”In a League of His Own”,”height”:371,”animation”:”duration”:500,”legend”:”top”,”width”:600,”hAxis”:”useFormatFromData”:false,”title”:”MotherJones.com”,”formatOptions”:”source”:”inline”,”prefix”:”$”,”scaleFactor”:”1000000″,”suffix”:” million”,”minValue”:0,”viewWindowMode”:”pretty”,”format”:”‘$’0.##’ million'”,”logScale”:false,”viewWindow”:”min”:0,”max”:15000000,”gridlines”:”count”:”4″,”maxValue”:15000000},”tooltip”:{},”isStacked”:false},”state”:{},”view”:{},”chartType”:”BarChart”,”chartName”:”Chart 1″}

Romney paid such a low rate mainly because the tax code is more generous with investment income than it is with income earned from working. However, Romney intentionally took fewer deductions to pay a higher rate in 2011 than he had to—presumably to provide less ammo to those who assailed him as a plutocrat. (Good news: He’s able to reclaim those deductions and get money back if he wishes.) Nevertheless, if Romney still pays around the same rate he did in 2010-11, it could pose a political problem for him if he mounts a third presidential bid. In 2012, Obama used Romney as an example of the unfairness of the tax code.

How much did he pay in taxes before 2010? The issue of what Romney paid in the years before 2010 was never settled. Sen. Harry Reid’s assertion that Romney paid “no taxes” for 10 years is likely inaccurate. But instead of releasing detailed pre-2010 tax returns, Romney’s camp offered an “average annual effective federal tax rate” of 20.20 percent for the years 1990-2009. That’s a little more in line with what top earners are meant to pay, but as the Washington Post pointed out, the method used to calculate that rate was fishy: It’s possible that, in some years, Romney earned more but paid a lower rate, which means the 20 percent figure may not be an accurate rendering of his tax burden.

How do offshore accounts fit into all of this? If Romney was hiding something by not releasing his tax returns, as the Obama campaign and plenty of others suggested, what might it have been? Some observers speculated it was the role of offshore tax havens in building and protecting his fortune. Romney’s limited filings did reveal that he had accounts in Switzerland, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands—all well-known havens where the enterprising rich have protected their money from US taxes for decades. And then there was Romney’s massive IRA: By using a Cayman device called a “blocker corporation” to protect his $100 million retirement fund, Romney would have been able to avoid the 35 percent tax on IRAs held in the United States.

Romney strongly denied using any kind of tricky instruments during the campaign, saying, “There was no reduction, not one dollar of reduction in taxes, by virtue of having an account in Switzerland or a Cayman Islands investment.” There is no proof that Romney’s offshore accounts are a smoking gun. But former George H.W. Bush Treasury Department official Michael Graetz called Romney an “Olympic-level athlete at the tax avoidance game.”

Link:  

What We Still Don’t Know About Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What We Still Don’t Know About Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns

Marco Rubio Has the Hots for Uber

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) obligatory presidential aspirant book, American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone, is out this week. National Review has published an excerpt in which Rubio draws on his experience as a part-time college professor teaching political science at Florida International University to make the case that the car service app Uber is America’s best argument for deregulation. He writes:

The students in my class were genuinely intrigued by this innovative service and wondered why they didn’t have it in Miami…Politicians, I said, had passed rules to stifle competition that might threaten their constituents and supporters in the existing taxi and sedan-service industry…As my progressive young students listened to me explain why government was preventing them from using their cell phones to get home from the bars on Saturday night, I could see their minds change.

Rubio, realizing that he’d converted “a bunch of 20- and 21-year-old anti-regulatory activists,” goes on to claim that government regulation too often stifles innovative “little guys” like Uber—”little guy” being a relative term, in this case, when referring to a company that worth a reported $40 billion.

Other Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, have voiced support for Uber, but Rubio has been the GOP’s most vocal and prominent Uber advocate. Last spring, Rubio gushed praise for the company while touring its DC offices. Following the senator’s lead, the Republican National Committee released a petition last August asking people to support “innovative companies like Uber” against bullies in the government and taxi unions. “I can’t overstress the importance of finding a real-life example for us to contrast what we believe in with what the other party believes in,” RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski told Townhall about the petition effort. The implication was clear: Democrats want to choke the life out of the sharing economy by overregulating services like Uber and Airbnb, while Republicans want to see them thrive.

Republicans certainly have an incentive to align themselves as the official party of the sharing economy. They see it as a chance to win back the tech-savvy young voters who’ve spurned much of the GOP platform in the past. Democrats, unsurprisingly, see it as “pandering.”

The strategy ignores some Uber realities. Without tougher regulations on driver background checks, for example, the already lengthy list of violent and abusive behavior by Uber drivers could grow longer. Some low points from the past two years: An Uber driver with a prior felony conviction was charged with battery of a passenger, another one took a Los Angeles woman 20 miles out of the way to an abandoned parking lot, and another driver beat a passenger in San Francisco—with a hammer. In response to concerns over safety, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick pushed for more thorough background checks for drivers—a dreaded regulation for Uber that might be popular among some of Rubio’s former students.

But even if Uber remains a symbol of free enterprise and entrepreneurship, it’s close to becoming seen as an enemy of free speech and the press. Last November, Uber senior vice president Emil Michael suggested digging up dirt—“your personal lives, your families”—on journalists who produced coverage critical of the company. Some argued the issue was overblown, but ultimately the incident earned Uber a few enemies within the press. The company made a sharp U-turn after it was criticized, saying later that it was not going after journalists, but rather against its opponents in the taxi business.

Uber’s rapid expansion from tech upstart to indisputable giant could present a catch-22 for Rubio. In its quest to stave off regulation, Uber has hired a legion of lobbyists—including former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe—to achieve its goals. “More often than not, big business co-opts big government—and vice versa—and they work together,” Rubio writes in his book. He’s referring to how regulations help entrenched interests, but his argument can apply to Uber’s push for deregulation too. “After all,” he writes, “big corporations can afford to influence government, and the little guys can’t.”

See original:  

Marco Rubio Has the Hots for Uber

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Marco Rubio Has the Hots for Uber

Mitt Romney Is Going to Run for President Again? WTF?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I’m sort of slowly catching up on things I missed over the past couple of days, and most of it at least makes sense. Wall Street panicked over a single bad economic report. Check. Boko Haram massacred another village in Nigeria. Check. Tea partiers still control the Republican agenda in Congress. Check. Mitt Romney is going to run for president again. Ch—

Wait. Mitt Romney is going to run for president again? Seriously? That’s insane, isn’t it? Can anyone aside from Romney’s overpaid team of advisors and consultants actually make a good case that he can win?

I’m still a little woozy, so I’m not up to the job of trying to figure this out. But there’s just no way. Parties don’t rally around losers, and Romney is now a two-time loser. Ann Romney may still be nursing a planet-sized grudge about the way Mitt was treated in 2012, but that buys no votes. Besides, he’ll be treated the same way this time around. Once a plutocrat, always a plutocrat. Maybe that’s fair, maybe it’s not, but nobody ever said life was fair.

So I guess I’m caught up. Except for this one thing. What the hell is Romney thinking?

Continue at source: 

Mitt Romney Is Going to Run for President Again? WTF?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mitt Romney Is Going to Run for President Again? WTF?

8 Romney GIFs That Will Make You LOL

Mother Jones

1. Mitt

New York

2. Mitt Romney

Huffington Post

3. Mitt Romney is

Giphy

4. Mitt Romney is running

Giphy

5. Mitt Romney is running for

Giphy

6. Mitt Romney is running for Spiderman

Buzzfeed

7. Mitt Romney is running for Spiderman president

Giphy

8. Mitt Romney is running for Spiderman president (probably)

Giphy

Link:  

8 Romney GIFs That Will Make You LOL

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 8 Romney GIFs That Will Make You LOL

Rick Perry Is One Lucky Dude

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From James Pethokoukis:

The energy sector gives, and the energy sector takes. The stunning drop in oil prices looks like bad news for the “Texas Miracle.” (Texas is responsible for 40% of all US oil production — vs. 25% five years ago — and all of the net US job growth since 2007.) This from JPMorgan economist Michael Feroli: “As we weigh the evidence, we think Texas will, at the least, have a rough 2015 ahead, and is at risk of slipping into a regional recession.”

Man, Rick Perry is one lucky guy, isn’t he? It’s true that the “Texas Miracle” may not be quite the miracle Perry would like us to believe. As the chart below shows in a nutshell, the Texas unemployment rate has fared only slightly better than the average of all its surrounding states.

Still, Texas has certainly had strong absolute job growth. However, this is mostly due to (a) population growth; (b) the shale oil boom; and (c) surprisingly strict mortgage loan regulations combined with loose land use rules, which allowed Texas to escape the worst of the housing bubble. Perry had nothing to do with any of this. And now that oil is collapsing and might bring the miracle to a sudden end, Perry is leaving office and can avoid all blame for what happens next.

One lucky guy indeed.

Original article: 

Rick Perry Is One Lucky Dude

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rick Perry Is One Lucky Dude

Meet the Fortune 500 Companies Funding the Political Resegregation of America

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Over the past four to five years, the United States has been resegregated—politically. In states where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans and presidential races can be nail-biters, skillful Republican operatives have mounted racially-minded gerrymandering efforts—the redrawing of congressional and state legislative districts—that have led to congressional delegations stacked with GOP members and yielded Republican majorities in the state legislatures.

In North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, to name just three, GOPers have recast state and congressional districts to consolidate black voters into what the political pros call “majority-minority districts” to diminish the influence of these voters. North Carolina is an especially glaring example: GOP-redistricting after the 2010 elections led to half the state’s black population—1.1 million people—being corralled into one-fifth of the state legislative and congressional districts. “The districts here take us back to a day of segregation that most of us thought we’d moved away from,” State Sen. Dan Blue Jr., who was previously North Carolina’s first black House speaker, told the Nation in 2012.

A major driving force behind this political resegregation is the Republican State Leadership Committee, a deep-pocketed yet under-the-radar group that calls itself the “lead Republican redistricting organization.” The RSLC is funded largely by Fortune 500 corporations, including Reynolds American, Las Vegas Sands, Walmart, Devon Energy, Citigroup, AT&T, Pfizer, Altria Group, Honeywell International, Hewlett-Packard. Other heavyweight donors not on the Fortune 500 list include Koch Industries, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the US Chamber of Commerce. At the same time these big-name firms underwrite the RSLC’s efforts to dilute the power of black voters, many of them preach the values of diversity and inclusion on their websites and in corporate reports.

As part of its Redistricting Majority Project—which, tellingly, is nicknamed REDMAP—the RSLC, starting in 2010, poured tens of millions of dollars into legislative races around the country to elect new GOP majorities. Next it provided money and expertise to state officials redrawing political boundary lines to favor the Republican Party—and to shrink the clout of blacks, Hispanics, and other traditionally Democratic voters. Unlike its Democratic equivalent, the RSLC has vast sums at its disposal, spending $30 million during the 2010 elections, $40 million in 2012, and $22 million in 2014.

Here is a partial list of RSLC donors—how much they donated to the group in the past four years and what they each have had to say about their own efforts to foster diversity. (All the companies on this list did not respond to requests for comment except for Altria Group, Citigroup, and Reynolds American, which declined to comment.)

Altria Group
$2,682,350
“We foster diversity and inclusion among our workforce, consistent with our leadership responsibilities and core values.” (Source)

AT&T
$922,993
“AT&T’s 134-year history of innovation is a story about people from all walks of life and all kinds of backgrounds coming together to improve the human condition. It is our diversity, coupled with an inclusive culture that welcomes all points of view, which makes us who we are: a great place to work, a desired business partner and a committed member of the communities we serve.” (Source)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield
$4,655,322
“Let’s get there together—with one perspective we can go far, with many perspectives we can move beyond all limits. Join an organization that values diversity.” (Source)

Citigroup
$764,328
“We see diversity as a source of strength.” (Source)

Comcast
$598,053
“We recognize, celebrate, and support diversity and inclusion, which is at the very heart of our culture.” (Source)

Devon Energy
$1,450,000
“Devon believes diversity, the collective mixture of similarities and differences of our employees, is a valued asset.” (Source)

Reynolds American
$3,419,781
“Reynolds American and its operating companies have long recognized, valued and enjoyed the many benefits that diversity brings to both our employees and our businesses. Our commitment to diversity is a strong demonstration of the core values that our companies share.” (Source)

US Chamber of Commerce
$9,077,760
“Diversity and inclusion programs can provide valuable resources to recruit and retain a strong employee base that will generate novel ideas.” (Source)

Walmart
$979,429
“Diversity has been at the core of our culture since Sam Walton opened our doors in 1962…We can only help our associates, customers and partners live better if we really know them. And that means understanding and respecting differences and being inclusive of all people.” (Source)

Continued:

Meet the Fortune 500 Companies Funding the Political Resegregation of America

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, Honeywell, Honeywell International, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet the Fortune 500 Companies Funding the Political Resegregation of America

Why Scott Walker Might Be Our Next President

Mother Jones

In 2012, I basically considered Mitt Romney a shoo-in for the Republican nomination. I figured that he’d hoover up most of the moderate votes—and despite all the breathless press accounts, moderates still account for at least half of GOP voters—plus a share of the tea partiers, and that was that. The rest of the field would destroy each other as they fought over their own sliver of the tea party vote, eventually leaving Romney battered and unloved, but triumphant.

Sure enough, that’s what happened. But I don’t see a strong moderate in the field right now. I suppose Jeb Bush and Chris Christie come the closest, but even if they run, they strike me as having some pretty serious problems. Romney was willing to adopt tea party positions across the board, even as he projected a moderate, adult persona, but neither Christie nor Bush will kowtow in quite that way. That’s going to cause them problems, and Christie’s fondness for showy confrontations is going to be an additional millstone around his neck. Either one might win, but neither seems like an especially likely nominee to me.

All this is a long way of explaining why I think Scott Walker is the frontrunner. He has a record of governance. His persona is relatively adult. He doesn’t say crazy stuff. Relatively speaking, he’s attractive to moderates. But at the same time, the tea partiers love him too. The big strike against him, of course, is that he’s lousy on TV. He’s a terrible public speaker. And he’s just boring as hell. However, Ed Kilgore perfectly explains why this doesn’t make him another Tim Pawlenty or John Kasich:

This is why Walker is so very commonly compared to Tim Pawlenty in 2012; the Minnesotan was perfectly positioned to become the most-conservative-electable-candidate nominee in a large but shaky field. And he wound up being the first candidate to drop out, before a single vote (other than in the completely non-official Ames Straw Poll) was cast. His sin was congenital blandness, and the defining moment of his campaign was when he all but repudiated his one great zinger: referring to the Affordable Care Act as “Obamneycare.”

But TPaw’s demise does point up one big difference between these two avatars of the Republican revival in the Upper Midwest: nobody suspects Scott Walker may be too nice for his party. He may be bland, and a bad orator, but his bad intent towards conservatism’s enemies is unmistakable. He’s sorta Death by Vanilla, or a great white shark; boring until he rips you apart. I think Republican elites get that, and it excites them. But how about voters?

Mitt Romney managed to base nearly his entire campaign on hating Barack Obama more than anyone else. It worked. Whenever someone started to score some points against his sometimes liberalish record in Massachusetts, he’d just launch into an over-the-top denunciation of Obama and the crowd would go wild. Walker can do the same thing, but without the artifice. Unlike Romney, he really has been fighting liberals tooth and nail for the past four years, and he has the scars to prove it. This will go a long, long way to make up for a bit of blandness.

Besides, it’s worth remembering that people can improve on the basics of campaigning. Maybe Walker will turn out to be hopeless. You never know until the campaign really gets going. But if he’s serious, he’ll get some media training and start working on developing a better stump speech. A few months of this can do wonders.

Predictions are hard, especially about the future. But if he runs, I rate Walker a favorite right now. If his only real drawback is midwestern blandness—well, Mitt Romney wasn’t Mr. Excitement either. Walker can get better if he’s puts in the work. And if he does, he’ll have most of Romney’s upside with very little of the downside. He could be formidable.

Read More: 

Why Scott Walker Might Be Our Next President

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Scott Walker Might Be Our Next President

Backstabbing in Hillaryland: Here We Go Again

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

We’ve seen this movie before, and it doesn’t end well.

On Friday, ABC News published a story about a email listserv maintained by two Democratic operatives: Robby Mook, a former Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton campaign aide, and Marlon Marshall, an Obama White House staffer. The story’s title—”EXCLUSIVE: Read the Secret Emails of the Men Who May Run Hillary Clinton’s Campaign”—promised a juicy exposé. In reality, the substance of what members posted on this 150-member “secret” listserv, dubbed the “Mook Mafia,” was far from explosive. The phrases “smite Republicans mafia-style” and “punish those voters” read badly out of context. But then, who hasn’t dashed off a snarky email to friends that you wished you could take back and touch up a little?

The real news isn’t that Mook and Marshall had a listserv for fellow Democratic operatives. It’s that someone on the listserv leaked its contents in an effort to hurt Mook’s chances of becoming the manager of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. In other words, the Clinton ’16 effort has yet to officially launch and already the backstabbing and infighting has begun.

It’s shades of Hillary ’08 all over again.

Internal battles notoriously plagued Clinton’s first presidential run. A Washington Post story in March 2008 described the “combustible environment within the Clinton campaign, an operation where internal strife and warring camps have undercut a candidate once seemingly destined for the Democratic nomination.”

The story went on:

Many of her advisers are waging a two-front war, one against Sen. Barack Obama and the second against one another, but their most pressing challenge is figuring out why Clinton won in Ohio and Texas and trying to duplicate it. While chief strategist Mark Penn sees his strategy as a reason for the victories that have kept her candidacy alive, other advisers attribute the wins to her perseverance, favorable demographics, and a new campaign manager. Clinton won “despite us, not because of us,” one said.

The Post published this story after Clinton had won the crucial Ohio and Texas primaries. That is, even in victory, the Clinton camp was divided, its top aides in conflict with one another.

In response to the Post story, Clinton adviser Bob Barnett wrote an email that was later published by The Atlantic:

STOP IT!!!! I have held my tongue for weeks. After this morning’s WP story, no longer. This makes me sick. This circular firing squad that is occurring is unattractive, unprofessional, unconscionable, and unacceptable…It must stop.

Neither Mark Penn nor Clinton’s first choice of campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, lasted the entire campaign. Penn left the campaign after the Wall Street Journal reported that he had lobbied in support of a trade deal with Colombia that Clinton opposed. Solis Doyle was once so close to Clinton that she liked to say, “When I speak, Hillary is speaking.” But by the time of her firing, Solis Doyle and Clinton were on such bad terms that Clinton let her go by email.

Even after Penn’s departure, as the Atlantic story illustrated, the acrimony continued:

Geoff Garin, the new leader, soon encountered the old problems. Obama remained the front-runner, and Clinton’s communications staff disagreed on how to turn back the tide of tough stories. Garin was appalled at the open feuding and leaking. “I don’t mean to be an asshole,” he wrote in an e-mail to the senior staff. “But…Senator Clinton has given Howard Wolfson both the responsibility and the authority to make final decisions about how this campaign delivers its message.” On the strategic front, Garin sided with the coalition opposed to Penn’s call to confront Obama, and he had numbers to support his reasoning. Polls showed that a majority of voters now distrusted Clinton.

The strategic leaking of Mook’s and Marshall’s listserv emails wouldn’t have been at all out of place during Clinton’s ’08 campaign, as her aides bickered and backstabbed their way to defeat against a more cohesive—or at least functional—Obama campaign.

Over the past few years, I have interviewed a number of folks who have worked on various campaigns with Mook, dating back to Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential bid. I heard nothing but admiration and respect for someone routinely described to me as a smart and honest operative who kept his head down and disliked publicity. He and Obama organizing guru Jeremy Bird helped create Dean’s pioneering volunteer-powered ground game in New Hampshire—a model Mook took with him to Clinton’s ’08 bid and Bird applied to Obama’s first presidential run. And in 2013, Mook, using part of the Obama playbook, helped longtime Democratic fundraiser Terry McAuliffe win a tough fight for governor in Virginia. This victory, which impressed the Democratic political class, got people talking about Mook helming a Clinton campaign. But obviously not everyone is keen on that.

It’s not known who was behind the Mook email dump. But for Democrats this prankish move raises a troubling question: Is it possible to avoid conflict within Hillaryland? In 2008, Clinton demonstrated she could not head a cohesive, effective, and drama-free operation. Democrats who yearn for her to do better this time might be forgiven for looking at this episode and wondering, here we go again?

Link:  

Backstabbing in Hillaryland: Here We Go Again

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, Bunn, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Backstabbing in Hillaryland: Here We Go Again

The Making of the Kochtopus

Mother Jones

The John Birch Society likes to point out that its members were tea partiers before the tea party existed. And indeed, some of today’s conservative fears—from a socialist president to a United Nations-driven “one-world government”—wouldn’t have sounded out of place in the early 1960s, when Birch Society leader Robert Welch commanded a right-wing movement that Republican establishmentarians viewed as a mortal threat.

The connective tissue linking the Birchers of the past to today’s tea partiers meanders through the libertarian movement of the 1960s and 1970s, and detours into the tobacco wars of the 1980s and the Hillarycare battle of the 1990s. At the nexus of this throughline is the Koch family, which for more than six decades has helped to finance and cultivate the ideological uprising that has now, at long last, established itself at the very heart of Republican power.

Also read: “Koch vs. Koch: The Brutal Battle That Tore Apart America’s Most Powerful Family”

Patriarch Fred Koch—a leader of the successful effort to make Kansas a right-to-work state in the late 1950s—was a founding member of the John Birch Society. Fred was in the room the day in 1958 when Welch addressed a small group of prominent conservatives to plan a movement that would place its weight on “the political scales in this country as fast and as far” as possible. Charles Koch, a Birch Society member like his father, would later join a group of fellow Birchers committed to growing the Freedom School, a Colorado-based educational center founded by a controversial libertarian guru named Robert LeFevre.

Through the Freedom School—which taught free-market dogma and whose leader postulated that any rights the government conferred, it had first robbed you of—passed many of the luminaries who founded the modern libertarian movement, not least of them Charles and David Koch. Together, the brothers would go on to play a pivotal role in bringing the libertarian ideology (a “radical philosophy,” Charles readily admitted) to the masses.

Both Charles and David were major funders of the Libertarian Party, and in 1980 David agreed to be its vice presidential candidate—in part because, by spending part of his own fortune on the race, he could sidestep campaign contribution limits. But in the aftermath of that election, when the party grew too quixotic for their tastes, the Kochs distanced themselves from the movement and set out to affect the political process directly. With their top strategist Richard Fink, later a Koch Industries executive and board member, the brothers formed Citizens for a Sound Economy, a free-market advocacy group that specialized in rallying the grassroots around the pet issues of corporations, including Big Tobacco.

The group was at the vanguard of the fight to scuttle the Clinton administration’s BTU tax and health care initiatives. But in the early 2000s, an acrimonious internal feud pitted the Kochs against key members of its leadership, including former House Majority Leader Dick Armey. The Armey faction ended up forming FreedomWorks, while the Koch contingent rebranded as Americans for Prosperity. Both groups were key players in providing the financial and organizational support that launched the tea party.

To bankroll Americans for Prosperity and other outfits that advance their ideological agenda, the Kochs built a political machine that in size, scope, sophistication, and fundraising prowess rivals the Republican Party itself. The Center to Protect Patient Rights—run by a political consultant employed by the Kochs—initially served as a pass-through for contributions from the network of elite political donors who take part in Koch-sponsored seminars.

Later, the Kochs formed a business league—members must pay at least $100,000 in annual dues—called Freedom Partners, which was set up under a section of the tax code that could allow donors to write off political contributions as business expenses. The group’s president is Marc Short, a former vice president at Koch Companies Public Sector, the division of Koch Industries that oversees lobbying, public relations, and legal affairs.

The brothers’ representatives often go out of their way to minimize their role in the politics outfits they fund. They also insist that there is an arm’s length relationship between Koch Industries and the brothers’ political endeavors. But past and present Koch employees occupy key roles in the political organizations, and, before Freedom Partners assumed this responsibility, it was Koch Industries that organized the famous biannual donor conferences where tens of millions are raised to influence politics.

The five-member board of Freedom Partners exemplifies how closely intertwined the Kochs, their company, and their political activities truly are. It includes Freedom Partners president Marc Short, the former Koch executive; current Koch Industries general counsel Mark Holden, who is also a board member of Americans for Prosperity; Kevin Gentry, a Koch vice president who serves as one of the brothers’ chief fundraisers; and Wayne Gable, a former managing director of government affairs at Koch who once served as the president of Citizens for a Sound Economy and later as an Americans for Prosperity board member. (The fifth member is Nestor Weigand, one of Charles’ closest friends.)

Through the John Birch Society, Fred Koch tried and failed to convert the country to his way of thinking, a hardline ideology that saw the tentacles of socialism slowly choking the life out of the American self-reliance and free enterprise. His sons have carried forward the torch, and where their father and his allies were dismissed by fellow conservatives as reactionaries, the Koch brothers have risen to become Republican powerbrokers.

Their newfound influence comes thanks to their sprawling political network, a many-tentacled apparatus that has only grown in breadth, scope, and complexity since the Koch’s libertarian allies dubbed it the “Kochtopus” in the 1970s. Building on the research for my Koch brothers biography Sons of Wichita, we’ve mapped the key organizations the brothers have founded, bankrolled, or had a major influence on.

Read the article: 

The Making of the Kochtopus

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Making of the Kochtopus