Tag Archives: democratic

Mitch McConnell Digs Himself Deeper and Deeper Over Obamacare

Mother Jones

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

I don’t usually spend too much time on local horse race stuff, but Kentucky is a little different. After all, Mitch McConnell is the minority leader in the Senate, and his Democratic challenger this year, Alison Lundergan Grimes, is running a surprisingly strong campaign. So perhaps Kentucky deserves some extra special attention. Surprisingly, it turns out that Obamacare, of all things, is causing McConnell some serious heartburn.

You see, unluckily for McConnell, Kentucky has possibly the best, most popular Obamacare exchange in the country—though nobody calls it an Obamacare exchange, of course, since Obamacare is the work of Satan. It’s called Kynect. Everybody loves Kynect. So when McConnell was asked recently if he favored getting rid of Kynect, he had a problem. It’s Obamacare, and he’s on record favoring the root-and-branch repeal of Obamacare. But Kynect is popular. Nobody wants to see a root-and-branch repeal of Kynect. What to do?

So far, McConnell has taken a creative approach to this dilemma: He basically denies that Kynect has anything to do with Obamacare. McConnell remains in favor of total repeal of Obamacare, but says this wouldn’t cause any problems with Kynect. It would just keep motoring along without missing a beat.

Now, this is a little peculiar. Politicians tell whoppers all the time, but usually they do it cleverly enough that they can somehow defend themselves. This, on the other hand, is just a flat-out fantasy. Without Obamacare, there’s no exchange; there’s no federal funding; there are no subsidies; there’s no community rating; and there’s no mandatory coverage of people with pre-existing conditions. Kynect is dead, and everyone knows it. It’s hard to imagine even Fox News somehow twisting this to claim that McConnell is staking out a defensible position.

So far, Grimes has been a little tentative about attacking McConnell over this. After all, she has exactly the mirror-image problem: She wants to express her undying support for Kynect but without ever mentioning the dreaded word “Obamacare.” Greg Sargent says he feels her pain, but nonetheless thinks this is a good opportunity to tighten the screws on McConnell further:

As Joe Sonka points out in a good piece, McConnell is betting that press coverage won’t clearly explain to voters just how absurd his position really is. But perhaps now that Grimes is engaging on the issue — to some degree, at least — that could serve as a hook for top shelf reporter and commentator types to take a peek at what’s really going on here.

It should be self evidently newsworthy that the leader of Senate Republicans, who have based their entire 2014 strategy on the idea that Obamacare is a long term political disaster and massive repudiation of liberal governance, refuses to take a clear position of his own on the law’s future in the state he would represent, and on whether hundreds of thousands of his own constituents should continue to enjoy its benefits.

Well, we’ll see. McConnell is a crafty old survivor, and the odds remain pretty strongly in his favor even if he isn’t making any sense about Kynect. Still, stuff like this makes me wonder if Grimes has a better chance of beating him than I would have thought. There’s some real opportunity here if she can figure out how best to keep McConnell twisted into knots over this.

More – 

Mitch McConnell Digs Himself Deeper and Deeper Over Obamacare

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mitch McConnell Digs Himself Deeper and Deeper Over Obamacare

Someone Just Spent $1.5 Million on a GOP Senate Candidate. We’ll Probably Never Know Who.

Mother Jones

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

Arkansas is witnessing what may be the most expensive political ad campaign in state history: $1.5 million-worth of glowing TV spots hailing Tom Cotton, a Republican congressman who’s running against Democrat Sen. Mark Pryor.

The race could decide which party controls the Senate. But no one knows who’s paying for this giant ad buy—and that’s partly because the group behind those ads may have flaunted IRS law in order to conceal the identities of its donors.

A super PAC called the Government Integrity Fund Action Network is footing the bill for the six-week ad campaign, which is airing in three different television markets. But that group has reported only one source of funds in 2014—$1 million that a separate organization, the Government Integrity Fund, donated to it in mid-April. The Government Integrity Fund is based in Ohio and is registered with the IRS as a social welfare group, also known as a 501(c)(4). Its purpose, according to papers it filed with the Ohio secretary of state in 2011, is to “promote the social welfare of the citizens of Ohio.”

Political groups frequently organize as 501(c)(4)s because this type of tax-exempt organization is not required to disclose its donors. So no one in the public knows who gave the $1 million to the Government Integrity Fund that it passed to the Government Integrity Fund Action Network to underwrite these pro-Cotton ads.

If this seems complicated, it’s supposed to be. Political operatives on both sides raise and spend money through 501(c)(4)s and other tax-exempt groups with vague-sounding names to avoid disclosure. Watchdog groups maintain that this is a violation of IRS law. And the Government Integrity Fund already has a spotty record.

Continue Reading »

Excerpt from:  

Someone Just Spent $1.5 Million on a GOP Senate Candidate. We’ll Probably Never Know Who.

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, ProPublica, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Someone Just Spent $1.5 Million on a GOP Senate Candidate. We’ll Probably Never Know Who.

Is the World’s Most Powerful Military Defenseless Against Big Tobacco?

Mother Jones

Suppose you wanted to quit drinking, but all the AA meetings in your town were held in the back of a bar with $2 well drinks?

That’s basically the conundrum the US military faces when it comes to regulating tobacco. Smoking is a drain on the force, physically and financially, and over the years the brass has implemented all sorts of efforts to get soldiers and sailors to avoid it, with some success. But every time military officials make a move to stop offering cheap cigarettes to their personnel, they get shot down by the tobacco industry’s allies in Congress. In the latest skirmish, earlier this month, Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee launched a preemptive strike to prevent the Navy from ending tobacco sales on Navy and Marine bases and ships.

By age, education, demographics, and circumstances (high-stress situations interspersed with long periods of boredom), soldiers are an ideal market for tobacco products, which have historically been sold on military installations and ships for as little as half of what civilians pay. For decades, tobacco lobbyists have worked with friendly legislators to maintain the cheap supply. In the early 1990s, for instance, the industry jumped into action after the commander of the USS Roosevelt declared his ship smoke-free. Two Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee introduced an amendment to the defense funding bill requiring all ships to sell cigarettes, and the Navy caved.

In 2007, researcher Ruth Malone and her colleagues at the University of California-San Francisco published a study in the journal Tobacco Control detailing no less than seven failed attempts since 1985 by members of Congress and military officials to raise the price of military tobacco products to civilian levels. And while the Pentagon eventually succeeded in narrowing the price gap, military stores are still exempt from the hefty state and local tobacco taxes levied to discourage smoking. In a 2011 study comparing cigarette pricing on and off base, another research team determined that Marlboro Reds, which cost an average of $6.73 a pack at the local Walmart, went for just $4.99 at military installations. “The industry and its allies repeatedly argued—particularly in communications to service members—that raising commissary prices constituted an ‘erosion of benefits,'” wrote Malone et al.

The “benefits” argument, as well as the notion that it violates a soldier’s rights to have to buy smokes from an outside retailer, invariably arises whenever there’s talk of new military smoking policies. Consider the latest episode. On March 14, Jonathan Woodson and Jessica Wright, high-level Pentagon officials for health and personnel affairs, sent a memo to all of the military branches laying out some of tobacco’s downsides—diseases and fatalities, absenteeism, steep health costs, and the fact that wounded warriors who smoke tend to heal poorly. “Although we stopped distributing cigarettes to Service members as part of their rations, we continue to permit, if not encourage, tobacco use,” they explained. “The prominence of tobacco in military retail outlets and permission for smoking breaks while on duty sustain the perception that we are not serious about reducing the use of tobacco.”

Two weeks later, after military newspapers reported that the Navy was considering a ban on tobacco sales, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who enlisted in the Marines after the 9/11 attacks, wrote a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus opposing any such move. It would be an intrusion on “personal decision-making,” he said, and besides, the Navy and the Marines have bigger priorities. In early April, after a group of Democratic senators encouraged Mabus to take action, Hunter and two GOP colleagues, Reps. Richard Hudson (N.C.) and Tom Rooney (Fla.), wrote to the leaders of the House Appropriations Committee: “Given the current fiscal climate, the strain on the Navy to conduct global operations, the impending reduction to the size of the fleet and personnel, recent efforts to restrict access to tobacco products is a frivolous abdication of more urgent matters of national security.”

On May 7, as the House Armed Services Committee marked up the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, Rep. Hunter introduced an amendment forbidding any new military policy that “would limit, restrict, or ban the sale of any legal product category” currently for sale on bases or ships—the committee approved the amendment 53 to 9. (The Senate Armed Services Committee debates the defense bill this week.) “We sleep in the dirt for this country. We get shot at for this country. But we can’t have a cigarette if we want to for this country, because that’s unhealthy,” Hunter told his fellow committee members after San Diego-area Democrat Rep. Susan Davis opposed his amendment. (See video below.) “Well, I’ll tell you what. If you want to make us all healthy, then let’s outlaw war, because war is really dangerous.”

War is indeed dangerous, but cigarettes kill far more soldiers and citizens than war does. It’s not even close. More than 480,000 Americans die from smoking and secondhand smoke exposure every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—more than died on the battlefields of World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam combined.

The odds are particularly grim for military veterans, who make up about a quarter of the adult male population and smoke at significantly higher rates than nonveterans. In the 2007-2010 National Health Interview Survey, 36 percent of male vets ages 45 to 54 said they were current smokers, compared with 24 percent of men in that age range who never served.

Many of those vets got hooked as young men in the service. While less than 20 percent of civilians smoke, a 2011 military survey reported smoking rates of 24 percent for Navy personnel and 31 percent for Marines. (In addition, 32 percent of Marines said they used smokeless tobacco.) A 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee report requested by the military notes that smoking rates for soldiers returning from war zones are about 50 percent higher than rates for non-deployed personnel.

All of this puffing amounts to a massive medical bill, not just for the men and women dying horrible deaths from cancer and heart disease and emphysema, but for the taxpayers, too. In his letter to the Navy, Hunter noted that banning tobacco sales would mean a loss of profits for the Military Exchange Command. In reality, cigarettes are a net loss for the military. For every dollar of profit from selling tobacco to personnel, according to data from a 1996 Inspector General’s report, the Pentagon spent more than nine dollars on healthcare and lost productivity. And that doesn’t factor in veterans’ medical costs. In 2008 alone, according to the IOM, the VA shelled out $5 billion to treat vets for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which primarily afflicts smokers. “Tobacco use costs the DOD an estimated $1.6 billion annually in medical costs and lost work time,” Pentagon spokeswoman Joy Crabaugh told me in an email. “We estimate 175,000 current active duty service members will die from smoking unless we can help them quit.”

“The health care costs are astounding,” added Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who served in Vietnam, when asked about the issue recently. “Now, the dollars are one thing, but the health of your people, I don’t know if you put a price tag on that.”

From: 

Is the World’s Most Powerful Military Defenseless Against Big Tobacco?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is the World’s Most Powerful Military Defenseless Against Big Tobacco?

This GOP Senate Candidate’s Company Paid Millions to Women in Discrimination Cases

Mother Jones

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

With Republicans trying to avoid a repeat of 2012’s Todd Akin disaster and retake the Senate, the Georgia GOP establishment was happy to see David Perdue, a self-funded businessman, leading in the polls ahead of Tuesday’s Senate primary. Compared to gaffe machines such as Rep. Paul Broun, who has pushed personhood for zygotes, and Rep. Phil Gingrey, who defended Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment, the former Dollar General CEO seemed unlikely to introduce fraught gender issues into the general election—where Michelle Nunn, the likely Democratic nominee, is polling well against the GOP field.

But Perdue’s record on women’s issues—specifically, whether women are entitled to equal pay for equal work—is far from clean. In 2006, three years into Perdue’s four-plus years as Dollar General’s CEO, federal investigators at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that female store managers who worked for the company he ran “were discriminated against,” and “generally were paid less than similarly situated male managers performing duties requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility.” A year later, separate from that investigation, thousands of female managers who were paid less than their male counterparts joined a class action suit against the company—which Dollar General eventually settled, paying the women more than $15 million.

“Dollar General has set up a pay system which permits stereotypes about men and women to be used in judging their pay, performance, and salary needs,” female Dollar General managers claimed in sworn statements. “This includes stereotypes about men being the breadwinner, head of the household, or just more deserving because they are men.”

The case began on March 7, 2006, when Janet Calvert, the former manager of a Dollar General in Alabama, sued the company for paying her less than male managers. Dollar General, which was still under Perdue’s leadership, tried and failed to prevent other female employees from joining Calvert and suing as a class. By 2008, more than 2,100 current and former employees had joined a certified a class open to women who worked as store managers for Dollar General between November 30, 2004 and November 30, 2007. (Perdue was CEO from April 2003 to summer 2007.)

Continue Reading »

Read the article:  

This GOP Senate Candidate’s Company Paid Millions to Women in Discrimination Cases

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, Green Light, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This GOP Senate Candidate’s Company Paid Millions to Women in Discrimination Cases

Anger at the Plutocracy Isn’t Strong Enough to Make a Big Difference in November

Mother Jones

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

Greg Sargent writes today that the Democratic strategy of going after the Koch brothers isn’t about the Kochs per se, but “a gamble on what swing voters think has happened to the economy, and on the reasons struggling Americans think they aren’t getting ahead”:

Dems are making an argument about what has happened to the economy, and which party actually has a plan to do something about it. Today’s NBC/WSJ poll finds support for the general idea that the economy is not distributing gains fairly and is rigged against ordinary Americans….The Democratic case is that the all-Obamacare-all-the-time message is merely meant to mask the GOP’s lack of any actual affirmative economic agenda, and even reveals the GOP’s priorities remain to roll back any efforts by Dems to ameliorate economic insecurity.

….I don’t know if the Dem strategy will work.

I think Sargent’s skepticism is warranted. The problem is that the NBC/WSJ poll he mentions doesn’t find an awful lot of evidence for seething anger. Here are the basic results:

Those are not really huge margins. The first question in particular is one they’ve been asking for two decades, and 55-39 is a very typical result, especially during times of economic weakness.

Given this, and given the extreme difficulty of a party in power taking advantage of economic discontent, will the Democratic strategy of bludgeoning Republicans over their plutocratic leanings work? I doubt it. Specific agenda items like a higher minimum wage, health care success stories, and universal pre-K seem more likely to work. At the margins, a bit of Koch bashing and a few high-profile Wall Street indictments might help a bit too, but only as an added fillip.

Oh, and a nice, short, decisive war against some minor global bad guy would also do wonders. In October, maybe.

See the original article here: 

Anger at the Plutocracy Isn’t Strong Enough to Make a Big Difference in November

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Anger at the Plutocracy Isn’t Strong Enough to Make a Big Difference in November

Donald Sterling Is a Registered Republican

Mother Jones

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

Does it really matter whether racist LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling is a registered Democrat? Or a Republican? Or a member of the Pirate Party of Russia?

Well, according to multiple conservative media outlets, yes, it does matter. On Sunday, National Review ran a blog post originally titled, “Racist Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Is a Democrat.” The post breathlessly noted a handful of contributions he made in the early 1990s to Democratic politicians, including California politician Gray Davis and Sen. Bill Bradley, who had played in the NBA. (Sterling has owned his NBA team since the early 1980s.) The headline has since been changed to “Racist Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Has Only Contributed to Democrats,” with an update reading, “his official party affiliation is not known.” Still, the Donald-Sterling-Is-a-Democrat meme already took hold within right-wing media:

“Report: Clippers Owner Caught In Racist Rant Is A Democratic Donor” — Fox Nation.

“NBA Sterling is a Democrat…” — Matt Drudge.

“Race Hate Spewing Clippers Owner Is Democratic Donor” — the Daily Caller.

“Media Ignoring Dem Donations of LA Clippers’ Owner, Allegedly Caught on Tape in Race-Based Rant” — NewsBusters.

“LA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling is a Racist Democrat” — the Tea Party News Network.

Politico piggy-backed on this flood of Sterling-triggered liberal-shaming with a softer headline: “Donald Sterling made donations to Dems.”

Not that Sterling’s broader political views or party affiliation have much to do with the controversy over his insanely racist comments, but here’s a news flash for those conservatives eager to bring up the topic: He’s a Republican.

On Sunday, Michael Hiltzik, a Los Angeles Times columnist, tweeted that local voter records show Sterling to be a registered Republican “since 1998.” We followed up on that, and a search of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s website for Sterling’s name, date of birth, and address confirmed that he’s registered as a Republican:

Screenshot: lavote.net

There’s little reason to get excited about Sterling’s political affiliation. But if you choose to do so, you ought to get it right.

See the original article here – 

Donald Sterling Is a Registered Republican

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Sterling Is a Registered Republican

Rand Paul Apparently Thinks Republicans Controlled Congress in 1978

Mother Jones

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

Over at the mother ship, David Corn has assembled a bunch of clips of Rand Paul being less than reverential toward Ronald Reagan. Here’s an example from 2009:

People want to like Reagan. He’s very likable. And what he had to say most of the time was a great message. But the deficits exploded under Reagan….The reason the deficits exploded is they ignored spending. Domestic spending went up at a greater clip under Reagan than it did under Carter.

Ouch! That’s not just a hit on Reagan, it’s a direct suggestion that his fiscal policy was worse than Jimmy Carter’s. Jimmy Carter’s!

David has a bunch more along these lines. But here’s my favorite part:

After this article was posted, Paul’s office sent this statement from the senator: “I have always been and continue to be a great supporter of Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and the millions of jobs they created. Clearly spending during his tenure did not lessen, but he also had to contend with Democrat majorities in Congress.”

Um, didn’t Jimmy Carter also have to contend with Democratic majorities in Congress? Bigger ones, in both houses? Or am I thinking about a different Jimmy Carter?

More: 

Rand Paul Apparently Thinks Republicans Controlled Congress in 1978

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rand Paul Apparently Thinks Republicans Controlled Congress in 1978

Obama delays Keystone decision — again

Obama delays Keystone decision — again

Public Citizen

Stop me if you think that you’ve heard this one before: The Obama administration is delaying a decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

But this is different from all those past delays. This is a brand new delay — and it might push the final determination past the midterm elections. As Politico notes, “A delay past November would spare Obama a politically difficult choice on whether to approve the pipeline, angering his green base and environmentally minded campaign donors — or reject it, endangering pro-pipeline Democrats such as [Sen. Mary] Landrieu, who represents oil-rich Louisiana.”

The Washington Post explains the reasoning behind this latest delay:

The Obama administration has — again — postponed a decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline by giving eight different agencies more time to submit their views on whether the pipeline from Canada’s oil sands to the Texas gulf coast is in the national interest.

The 90-day period for interagency comments was supposed to end May 7, but the State Department extended that deadline, citing “uncertainty” created by a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling that could lead to changes in the pipeline route.

The State Department, which must make the final decision on the permit because it crosses an international boundary, said it would use the additional time to consider the “unprecedented number” — 2.5 million — of public comments that were submitted by March 7.

Queue the predictable outcry from pipeline supporters. That includes not just Republicans (though outcrying is their specialty) but also the 11 Democratic senators from red and swing states who recently wrote Obama a letter calling on him to quickly approve the project. “This decision is irresponsible, unnecessary and unacceptable,” said Landrieu, who organized the letter writers. She vowed to use her new position as chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to force approval. (Good luck with that.)

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski from the oil-loving state of Alaska called the delay “a stunning act of political cowardice” and said that “the timing of this announcement — waiting until a Friday afternoon during the holy Passover holiday in the hope that most Americans would be too busy with their families to notice — only adds further insult.”

Keystone opponents are of two minds. Billionaire climate hawk and campaign funder Tom Steyer called it “good news on Good Friday.” The League of Conservation Voters went further and called it “great news.” The Natural Resources Defense Council seems to agree:

The State Department is taking the most prudent course of action possible. … Getting this decision right includes being able to evaluate the yet-to-be determined route through Nebraska and continuing to listen to the many voices that have raised concerns about Keystone XL. The newly extended comment period will show what we already know: the more Americans learn about this project, the more they see that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in the national interest.

But 350.org slammed the administration for its procrastination. “It’s disappointing President Obama doesn’t have the courage to reject Keystone XL right now,” the group said in a release. “It’s as if our leaders simply don’t understand that climate change is happening in real time — that it would require strong, fast action to do anything about it.” Still, the group claimed a partial victory: “this is clearly another win for pipeline opponents.”

Anti-Keystoners will, of course, keep fighting the proposal. On Earth Day, April 22, they’ll kick off a Reject and Protect protest on the National Mall. “The encampment will feature 15 tipis and a covered wagon, and begins on Tuesday with a 40-person ceremonial horseback ride from the Capitol down the National Mall,” says 350. “Ranchers from Nebraska, tribal leaders from Nebraska, Minnesota and the Dakotas, actor Daryl Hannah, the Indigo Girls, environmental and social justice leaders, and others will take part at the encampment over the week.”

And Steyer has promised to help fund political candidates who oppose the pipeline. Politico reports that he “pledged Thursday to leverage his largely self-funded super PAC to support members of Congress who come under attack for their opposition to the proposed Canada-to-Texas pipeline.”

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

View original post here:  

Obama delays Keystone decision — again

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama delays Keystone decision — again

Is New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez the Next Sarah Palin?

Mother Jones

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

Illustration: Dale Stephanos

As she likes to tell anybody who’ll listen, Susana Martinez, the governor of New Mexico, didn’t start out a Republican. She and her husband, Chuck, like most everyone else in Las Cruces, had always been Democrats. But she’d long dreamed of running for office, and when word got out that she had her eyes on the district attorney’s seat, two local Republican activists asked her to lunch. At the meeting, the story goes, her suitors didn’t talk about party affiliation or ideology. They zeroed in on issues—taxes, welfare, gun rights, the death penalty. Afterward, Martinez got into the car, turned to her husband, and said, “I’ll be damned, we’re Republicans.”

It’s a tidy little anecdote, and Martinez has put it to good use. During her prime-time speech at the 2012 Republican National Convention, the biggest stage of her 18-year political career, the I’ll be damned punch line brought the crowd to its feet, getting more cheers than anything said by the party’s presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

It’s not hard to see why the story is appealing: It suggests that Republican ideas can win over voters, perhaps especially voters who look like Martinez. If only those voters saw through pesky Democratic talking points like the “War on Women” and recognized what the Republican Party actually stands for, the logic goes, they would embrace the party. Just like Susana Martinez and her husband did.

These are trying times for Republicans in search of inspiration. Sure, it looks like they have a shot to take back the Senate. But if the escalating civil war between the establishment and the “wacko bird” tea party wing doesn’t tear the GOP in two, changing demographics threaten to push it toward extinction. Every four years, the party turns in poor showings with young people and cedes more ground among unmarried women and Latinos—the fastest-growing parts of the country’s population. In the 1988 presidential election, minorities made up just 15 percent of voters; by 2012, that number had risen to 28 percent, and they supported Obama by a 62-point margin. “Devastatingly,” the party’s 2012 post-mortem concluded, “we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us.”

No wonder, then, that many see Martinez, who turns 55 in July, as the party’s future. Fox News host Greta Van Susteren touts her “great resume”: America’s first Latina governor. Former district attorney of a border county. Guardian of her mentally disabled sister. Tax cutter, gun owner, daughter of a sheriff’s deputy. The Koch brothers invited her to speak at one of their secretive donor enclaves. Karl Rove singled her out in Time‘s list of last year’s 100 most influential people as a “reform-minded conservative Republican.” The Washington Post put her at the top of a list of likely 2016 vice presidential candidates; Romney has boosted her as a presidential contender. “She plugs every hole we’ve got as a party, and she’s got a record to match,” says Ford O’Connell, an adviser to the 2008 McCain campaign.

In the media, Martinez is often compared to Sarah Palin—”Susana Barracuda” read the title of a recent profile—a sassy small-town politician with national aspirations, an anti-Washington message, and an everywoman appeal (she loves Taco Bell, shops at Ross Dress for Less, and watches Dancing With the Stars). Her dead certain, with-me-or-against-me governing style draws comparisons to another Southwestern governor who made the leap from the statehouse to the White House, George W. Bush.

But perhaps the best comparison is to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Both are former prosecutors and Republican governors in blue states. They serve side by side on the money-raising juggernaut known as the Republican Governors Association (RGA), and they campaigned together during Christie’s 2013 reelection campaign; “Is This Your 2016 Republican Ticket?” was a typical headline.

Martinez’s 2010 campaign slogan was “Bold Change,” an appeal straight out of the Obama playbook. Jason Reed/Reuters

Their public personas, however, differ in an important way. Christie has made Jersey brashness central to his presentation; Martinez, on the other hand, “doesn’t posture, doesn’t engage in harsh rhetoric,” as one of her fundraisers put it. Since her election in 2010, she and her team have meticulously cultivated the image of a well-liked, bipartisan, warm-hearted governor by avoiding tough interviews and putting her in photo ops greeting veterans, reading to kids, or cutting ribbons. “This administration is very disciplined,” says New Mexico pollster Brian Sanderoff.

Despite numerous requests, the governor and her aides declined to comment for this piece. But previously unreleased audio recordings, text messages, and emails obtained by Mother Jones reveal a side of Martinez the public has rarely, if ever, seen. In private, Martinez can be nasty, juvenile, and vindictive. She appears ignorant about basic policy issues and has surrounded herself with a clique of advisers who are prone to a foxhole mentality.

Martinez doesn’t look like any of the governors who came before her, and members of her inner circle sometimes feel that she has been subject to unfair attacks. Jay McCleskey, her closest aide, once sent a text message complaining about an opponent’s negative mailing: “They’re trying to keep the brown girl down!!!”

Still, interviews with former Martinez aides, state lawmakers, Democratic and Republican officials, fundraisers, and donors show a governor whose prosecutorial style and vindictiveness have estranged her from leaders in her own party and from the Democratic lawmakers she must work with to get anything done. Martinez and her staff, they say, have isolated themselves in her fourth-floor office inside the modest state capitol known as the Roundhouse. As one major Republican donor in New Mexico puts it, “They’ve got this Sherman’s march to the sea mentality, burning everything in sight until they get to the finish.”

Martinez grew up among fighters. Her father, Jake, boxed in the Marines, served as a deputy sheriff in El Paso, and later started his own private security company. Her mother was a telephone operator and bookkeeper. Susie, the youngest of three, worked for her dad as a teenager, patrolling the parking lot and guarding the register at church bingo nights. The .357 Smith and Wesson Magnum she packed was, she once said, “bigger than the hip bone I was carrying it on.”

The Martinezes were Democrats, and Jake was active in El Paso politics (though his daughter proudly notes that he voted for Reagan). He and Susie volunteered on campaigns, stuffing envelopes and walking precincts. When a teacher at Riverside High School asked about Susie’s career dreams, she mentioned one day running for mayor. “Well, why not president?” her teacher replied.

The politicians Martinez saw on the nightly news all seemed to be lawyers, she once told an interviewer, so after getting her degree in criminal justice from the University of Texas-El Paso, she enrolled at the University of Oklahoma’s law school, where she became president of her second-year class. In 1986, fresh out of school, she went to work for Doug Driggers, the Democratic district attorney for Doña Ana County in southern New Mexico. He hired her as the only female prosecutor in his office, and Martinez quickly carved out a reputation for handling tough cases involving sexual and child abuse. She was an aggressive prosecutor with an unwavering sense of right and wrong, Driggers recalls, a woman who saw the world in black and white and often won. In one case, she told the same interviewer, a father who had drowned his two-year-old in front of his four-year-old brother testified that he’d only held the boy down for a minute. Martinez kept the court in silence for one long, agonizing minute to make her point. “She could sing to the jury,” says Michael Lilley, a criminal defense attorney in Las Cruces.

When voters tossed Driggers out in 1992, his replacement, a local defense attorney named Greg Valdez, fired Martinez after she was asked to testify against him in an internal grievance case. She sued for wrongful termination—in the process, she says, she learned that Valdez had put a note in her personnel file complaining Martinez was a poor dresser—and settled out of court for about $120,000. In 1996, she ran against him on the Republican ticket. Local pols remember her as a skilled campaigner with a knack for pressing the flesh, and she won by 18 points.

As district attorney, Martinez displayed the kind of hard-driving tactics that would come to define her. She was known for demanding harsh penalties, and didn’t hesitate to lock up defendants awaiting trial. (In 2012, the county said that Martinez’s office was partially responsible for an incident in which a mentally ill man named Stephen Slevin was left in solitary confinement for nearly two years without trial, and later agreed to pay a $15.5 million settlement.)

In 2002, the kind of case that makes celebrities out of DAs landed on Martinez’s desk. Five-month-old Brianna Lopez had been raped, bitten, dropped, and abused to death by members of her family in one of the worst child abuse cases in state history. “Baby Brianna” dominated the headlines for months, and Martinez ultimately secured convictions sentencing Lopez’s father to prison for 57 years, her uncle for 51, and her mother for 27. Believing that the existing statute wasn’t strong enough, Martinez lobbied the state Legislature for three years until it passed a law permitting life sentences for child abuse resulting in death.

People who worked with Martinez or squared off against her in the courtroom praise her conviction and commitment, especially on behalf of the most vulnerable. “But if you ran afoul,” says Darren Kugler, a state judge who once worked as a prosecutor under Martinez, “you were pushed off into purgatory or oblivion or Siberia. If you cross a certain line, you’re beyond redemption.”

It wasn’t long before the zealous, popular prosecutor caught the state party’s eye. In 2001, McCleskey, the New Mexico GOP’s executive director and a canny Republican operative with a record of scorched-earth wins, gathered a group of Republicans to talk about improving the party’s Latino outreach. But when Martinez stood up to speak, she blasted Gov. Gary Johnson’s push to relax penalties for minor drug infractions. “The way we attract Hispanics is we don’t talk about legalizing heroin and cocaine,” McCleskey recalls her saying.

McCleskey was smitten. He kept in touch with Martinez, nagging her every election cycle about running for higher office. Martinez didn’t bite, even as the Baby Brianna case and standout speeches at campaign rallies for Bush in 2004 and McCain in 2008 elevated her statewide profile. Then, on July 14, 2009, she celebrated her 50th birthday and decided to run for governor. Almost from the start, national Republicans backed her, quietly providing her with support her primary opponents could only have dreamed about, sending her policy briefings and polling data and giving her access to advisers to major party figures like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Still, Martinez struggled to stand out. Her fundraising was mediocre, and she lacked the wealth to self-finance like her main rival, a former Marine colonel and state party chairman named Allen Weh. Weh believed the job was his, according to an email McCleskey sent to campaign staffers, and at one point suggested Martinez was better suited for lieutenant governor. “What a narcissistic grandiose ‘tool’!” she replied.

But things began to turn around as major party figures from outside the state put their weight behind Martinez. In May 2010, Texas megadonor Bob Perry and his wife, Doylene, cut the first of several checks that would eventually total $450,000, making them her biggest individual donors by far. And then, on a Sunday morning just two weeks before the primary, Sarah Palin rolled into Albuquerque at the behest of the RGA. As “Start Me Up” pumped out of the hotel ballroom speakers, Palin walked onstage with Martinez and declared to a crowd of 1,300 screaming fans, “You have a winner right here.” The endorsement got more press than anything Martinez had said or done in the race to that point. “This event was a grand slam,” McCleskey wrote to the campaign that night. “Let’s get some rest tonight and then fix bayonets at sunrise.”

Martinez easily won the Republican primary in June, and then money began pouring in. Over the summer and fall, according to a copy of the 2010 campaign calendar obtained by Mother Jones, her usual diet of small-town meet and greets made way for fundraisers in Austin, Los Angeles, New York City, and DC. She flew on private jets and met executives at Fortune 500 companies (Intel, UnitedHealth Group, ExxonMobil) and powerful corporate lobbyists.

In the general election, Martinez ran as the clean-government advocate who would do away with everything New Mexicans disliked about her predecessor. Once hugely popular, Bill Richardson had been dogged by grand jury investigations, corruption allegations, rumors of sexual misconduct, and growing disenchantment over his perennial presidential aspirations. Martinez’s campaign slogan (“Bold Change”) was straight out of the Obama playbook, and it was all the more cutting given that her Democratic opponent, Diane Denish, had spent eight years as Richardson’s lieutenant governor.

On policy, Martinez drew on borrowed ideas (her education plan largely came from Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education) and flashy initiatives such as repealing a law allowing undocumented immigrants to get state driver’s licenses.

Internal campaign records and interviews with former aides suggest that she didn’t dig too deeply into the details of her own proposals: “Aren’t we the ONLY state in the US that provides a NM drivers license to illegal aliens?” she asked in a November 24, 2009, email. (At the time, seven other states had similar policies.)

In another email, in August 2009, she asked an aide, “What is podash? Or ashpod? WIPP?” Potash mining is a multibillion-dollar business in New Mexico, and WIPP refers to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the nuclear waste storage site for the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which has been a topic of statewide controversy for decades.

AUDIO: Listen to Martinez’s team bash the commission.

During an October 2010 campaign conference call, Martinez said she’d met a woman who worked for the state’s Commission on the Status of Women, a panel created in 1973 to improve health, pay equity, and safety for women.

“What the hell is that?” she asked.

“I don’t know what the fuck they do,” replied her deputy campaign manager, Matt Kennicott.

“What the hell does a commission on women’s cabinet do all day long?” Martinez asked.

“I think deputy campaign operations director Matt Stackpole wants to be the director of that so he can study more women,” Kennicott said.

“Well, we have to do what we have to do,” McCleskey chimed in, as Martinez burst out laughing. (As governor, she would line-item veto the commission’s entire budget.)

AUDIO: Hear Martinez call her opponent “that little bitch.”

Listening to recordings of Martinez talking with her aides is like watching an episode of HBO’s Veep, with over-the-top backroom banter full of pique, self-regard, and vindictiveness. As Martinez and her campaign staff rewatched a recent televised debate, Martinez referred to Denish, her opponent, as “that little bitch.” After Denish noted that the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce had given her an award, McCleskey snapped, “That’s why we’re not meeting with those fuckers.”

AUDIO: A Martinez aide says a Democratic politician “sounds like a retard.”

In a September 2009 email mentioning one of Martinez’s 2010 primary opponents, a former state representative named Janice Arnold-Jones, McCleskey wrote: “I FUCKING HATE THAT BITCH!” And in yet another debate prep meeting, Kennicott mocked the language skills of Ben Luján, a former state House speaker and a political icon to New Mexico Latinos: “Somebody told me he’s absolutely eloquent in Spanish, but his English? He sounds like a retard.”

Martinez’s crew saw enemies everywhere. A former staffer recalls the campaign on multiple occasions sending the license plate numbers of cars believed to be used by opposition trackers to an investigator in Martinez’s DA office who had access to law enforcement databases. In one instance, a campaign aide took a photo of a license plate on a car with an anti-Martinez bumper sticker and emailed it to the investigator. “Cool I will see who it belongs to!!” the investigator replied.

AUDIO: Martinez slams teacher salaries.

PLUS: Martinez’s team talks about how they might avoid accusations she deceived voters.

The campaign emails and audio recordings also show how Martinez and her team strategized to maintain her straight-shooting image while avoiding actually being up-front with the public. Throughout the campaign, Martinez praised teachers and insisted she’d “hold harmless” funding for public education. In private, Martinez implied teachers earned too much: “During the campaign, we can’t say it, I guess, because it’s education, but…they already don’t work, you know, two and a half months out of the year.” She and McCleskey acknowledged that cuts to education could well be necessary, so her aides plotted about how to respond if they were ever called out for it once elected: “Put up a YouTube video that no one will ever see where you talk about making everyone feel the pain,” McCleskey suggested. “And when you win, we say, ‘See, we said this shit the whole time. What are you guys talking about?'”

“It’s on YouTube,” Kennicott said. “C’mon, bitches.”

On January 1, 2011, a subzero wind gusted through the 400-year-old Santa Fe Plaza, a setting befitting the inaugural speech of the country’s first Latina governor and the descendant of a Mexican revolutionary. Ringed with shops and offices built in the Pueblo and Spanish styles, the plaza marks the end of several pioneer-era trails and lies near some of the West’s oldest buildings, relics of Spain’s once formidable North American holdings. Icicles dangled from the snow-covered roof of the bandstand where Martinez was to deliver her speech before a crowd of bundled-up supporters. She pledged to fight corruption and cronyism, to “shine a light into the dark corners of state government.” To the lawmakers in attendance, Democrats and Republicans alike, she said, “Let us be brave together.”

Like many in the Roundhouse, Bill O’Neill began the new year eager to work with the new governor. O’Neill, a Democrat, had just won a 163-vote squeaker to take a state House seat representing a GOP-leaning swing district in northeastern Albuquerque, where many lawns bore both O’Neill and Martinez signs. When Martinez said she’d work with legislators from both parties to get New Mexico back on track, he believed her.

The good will didn’t last long. One of the Legislature’s first acts was an attempt to make good on Martinez’s pledge to revoke driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. Within hours of the bill being voted down in committee, O’Neill and another legislator who opposed it found their districts hammered with hard-hitting robocalls, and the governor’s campaign committee flooded statewide radio with ads blasting her opponents for “protecting a bad law.”

Martinez immediately began purging state government of any trace of Bill Richardson. She sold the state plane (Richardson’s “personal air taxi,” she called it), fired his chefs and reassigned his security officers, and was even rumored to have ordered his name removed from the lead car of the Albuquerque-to-Santa Fe commuter train he’d helped create. She showed little interest in tradition, canceling a customary dinner with the state’s bishops on multiple occasions. Allen Sanchez, the executive director of the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops, says he was told McCleskey advised her not to attend.

Before long, McCleskey was known as the shadow governor. Even though he never took a job in her administration nor played a formal role on Martinez’s transition team, she told a former aide that “Jay is going to be calling all the shots from behind the scenes.” Martinez has surrounded herself with McCleskey friends and clients—her chief of staff is Keith Gardner, a former state representative and client of McCleskey, and Gardner’s deputy, Scott Darnell, worked with McCleskey on the Bush 2004 campaign. McCleskey even kept a desk in “a hidden, closet-like antechamber” in the governor’s office suite, according to National Journal. The running joke inside the four-story Roundhouse is that there’s a secret fifth floor where McCleskey goes to work pulling the strings.

Political consultant Jay McCleskey is so close to Martinez that he’s been called “the shadow governor.”Pat Vasquez-Cunningham/Albuquerque Journal/ZUMA

McCleskey occupies a peculiar, if enviable, position: shaping the administration’s message on the inside, and getting rich off Martinez’s success on the outside. Since Martinez became governor, campaign finance records show that nearly $1.1 million has flowed from her political committees into McCleskey’s consulting firm, McCleskey Media Strategies; Public Opinion Strategies, where his wife, Nicole, works; and McCleskey-affiliated entities called CD Productions and M3 Placement.

McCleskey’s influence on Martinez’s administration has roiled state government. In her resignation letter, deputy tourism secretary Toni Balzano cites allegations that McCleskey called her “a Democrat Terrorist Al Qaeda member, a Richardson girlfriend, a spy poised to take down the administration.” And Martinez’s first appointee to run the influential department of finance and administration, Richard May, found himself cut out of budget meetings; he served just eight months before being pushed from his post after clashing with his deputy, an ally of McCleskey and Gardner.

Prominent Republicans around the state have blamed McCleskey for devising a political strategy that’s left the Martinez administration estranged from its natural allies. In a 2012 state Senate election, the governor endorsed a primary challenge to a Stetson-wearing rancher named Pat Woods, whom Martinez and McCleskey didn’t like; they bankrolled their candidate, Angie Spears, with money from SusanaPAC. In an unprecedented move, Martinez herself traveled to Woods’ district to campaign for his opponent. The plan backfired: Woods made the campaign about McCleskey, a “slick…Albuquerque political consultant” meddling with local politics, and won easily.

The Woods-Spears race infuriated members of the New Mexico GOP. State Rep. Anna Crook, a Republican whose district overlaps with Woods’, wrote in the local newspaper that the “nastiness, misinformation, innuendo, slanderous mailings, robocalls, and, in some cases, flat-out lies have created a toxic political environment the likes of which I have never seen before.” Without naming them, Crook pointed the finger at Martinez and McCleskey: “Even worse, it appears this kind of politics is being driven by outsiders—people who do not live here, don’t work here, and don’t raise their children here.”

As the state GOP prepared to elect a new chairman in December 2012, Martinez informed Republican activists that if they didn’t support her preferred candidate, John Rockwell, she wouldn’t raise money for the party. He lost, and Martinez sent a letter that, according to two party operatives who have read it, threatened to sue the New Mexico GOP if it used her name or image to solicit money. While she has headlined events for Republicans in Florida, Ohio, and Texas, she has not since attended a single fundraiser for her own state party. Martinez’s office hired away much of the state GOP’s staff after Rockwell’s loss, a move that some Republicans saw as an effort to gut the party.

Janice Arnold-Jones, the former state representative who lost to Martinez in the 2010 primary, knows Martinez’s vindictiveness firsthand. In 2012, Arnold-Jones was the party nominee in a tough but winnable race to represent an Albuquerque-based congressional district. But Martinez not only didn’t campaign for her—according to Arnold-Jones, the governor told donors not to give to her campaign. Arnold-Jones says that late one night, a month after she’d lost, Martinez called her out of the blue to explain, in a meandering ramble, that she’d withheld her support because Arnold-Jones’ campaign had hired staffers that Martinez felt were her enemies. “How sad is that?” Arnold-Jones told me.

On the eve of the 2012 elections, Harvey Yates, a former state GOP chair and éminence grise of local Republican politics, gave Martinez a 10-page letter critiquing her tenure and advising her to cut ties with McCleskey. The letter described Martinez’s administration, in the words of a National Journal reporter who talked to Yates, as “tone-deaf, exclusionary, and unnecessarily ruthless.” Yates blamed Martinez for relying too much on her top aide: “Not many voters remember voting for Jay McCleskey for governor,” he wrote.

What had Yates especially concerned was the growing evidence of business as usual from a governor who’d campaigned as a good-government reformer. In late 2011, the state awarded a 25-year lease worth an estimated $1 billion to a company largely owned by a pair of major Martinez backers, the Downs at Albuquerque, to operate a racetrack and casino at the state fairgrounds. To hear critics tell it, the bidding was rigged: Martinez met with the donors privately during the campaign and again during the selection process. The governor-appointed bid committee was stacked with McCleskey allies, and leaked files show the Downs’ attorney emailing with administration staffers to secure votes on the fairgrounds commission. Andrea Goff, a former Martinez fundraiser, has said McCleskey pressured her to get her father-in-law, who served on the commission, to switch his vote. “Everything about the whole process was controlled by the governor’s office,” Charlotte Rode, a Martinez appointee to the commission, told me.

Martinez has had some key legislative accomplishments: In 2011, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed a bill to grade New Mexico’s public schools on an A-to-F scale, a pillar of Martinez’s education reform plan. She signed a tax reform bill lowering the rate for corporations to 5.9 percent from 7.6 percent and increasing tax incentives for TV shows that shoot in New Mexico. She also signed off on an expansion of Medicaid and the creation of a state-run health insurance exchange. Martinez says both decisions illustrate her bipartisan bona fides. Her critics counter that Martinez had no choice: New Mexico is the sixth-poorest state in the nation, with the third-highest rate of uninsured citizens, and expanding health coverage was wildly popular.

One day in early 2013, Allen Sanchez, the Catholic bishops official, sat next to Martinez at the bishops’ annual legislative breakfast. The archbishop read a letter from a teenage boy thanking him for backing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. Without them, the boy wrote, his parents couldn’t have driven him to St. Jude’s in Tennessee for cancer treatment. The boy, Cesar Quesada, had since passed away. Martinez, Sanchez says, turned to him and said, “Give me a break. He’s going to read a bleeding-heart letter? What the hell am I doing here?”

Like any smart state pol with national aspirations, Martinez deflects any mention of running for higher office. She says she’s “focused on New Mexico,” and stresses that as the guardian of her mentally disabled sister, Leticia, it would be a challenge for her to leave the state. Yet all signs point to a bigger stage for Martinez. She was elected to the Republican Governors Association’s executive committee and attends plenty of out-of-state fundraisers and speaking gigs. She’s also agreed to co-chair the “2014 Future Majority Project,” a party initiative to elect 150 women and 75 “diverse candidates.”

Despite the growing discontent among New Mexico party leaders, Martinez enjoys approval ratings in the high 50s and low 60s—among the highest of any Republican governor. Her advisers seem keenly aware of how those numbers could help her achieve higher office, and appear determined to maintain them. Martinez’s aides have closely guarded her travel schedule and her media appearances, protecting her from tough and unflattering questions. Unlike such popular Republican governors as Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and Ohio’s John Kasich, Martinez has for more than three years largely avoided the Sunday talk shows; the lone national news figure to get substantial time with her is Fox’s Van Susteren. As she runs for reelection this fall with a full war chest and no strong contender among the Democrats challenging her, Martinez is well positioned to shape the debate and control her own image.

Yet Democrats and Republicans alike wonder if she has what it takes to succeed at the national level. A major postelection interview with Latina magazine became a punch line after Martinez asked her interviewer to “remind me” what the DREAM Act was. Like Richardson, she could end up with a bit of legal baggage: The FBI has interviewed witnesses about the Downs deal, and a case involving a former aide intercepting emails between members of the governor’s inner circle could go on trial this summer, with the embarrassing prospect of Martinez having to take the stand.

The question on everyone’s mind is this: Can Susana Martinez overcome all these shortfalls should 2016 come calling? There’s still time for her to harness the charisma and keen strategic instincts that won over both juries and voters, and to curb her worst impulses and rid herself of the advisers who have indulged them. Can Martinez follow the path of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, two governors who rose from provincial acclaim to national stature—or will her ascent end more like Palin’s?

Source:  

Is New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez the Next Sarah Palin?

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Casio, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Northeastern, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez the Next Sarah Palin?

Millennials Shunned Hillary in 2008. Her Shadow Campaign Won’t Let It Happen Again.

Mother Jones

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

When Hillary Clinton narrowly lost the Democratic nomination in 2008, there was one key voting bloc that derailed her presidential bid: college students and young adults, who threw their support behind Barack Obama. Ready for Hillary, the primary super-PAC paving the way for a Clinton 2016 campaign, is already hard at work to make sure history doesn’t repeat itself should she decide to enter the race.

The group brought in former Obama campaign youth vote coordinator Rachel Schneider to oversee outreach to voters ages 16 to 30, with a particular focus on those still in school. Schneider has spent the last few months traveling around the country to set up satellite organizations on college campuses with the goal of attracting all of the best student organizers to Clinton’s side before any other Democrat launches a presidential campaign. Earlier this year, she swung through Missouri and South Carolina. Last week, Schneider toured New Hampshire’s main colleges, and she’s scheduled to visit Iowa next week, where she’ll meet with students from the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, Drake University, and the University of Northern Iowa.

There are now 33 Students for Hillary groups nationwide. So far they’re recruiting the most die-hard activists to prepare for next fall, when they’ll blitz new students during orientation to build Hillary’s army. “I’ve been focused on identifying students on campuses who are interested in being part of this movement from the ground floor,” Schneider says. For Democratic-leaning students interested in a career in politics it’s a no-brainer: leading a Students for Hillary group will position them as prime contenders for low-level jobs in Clinton’s actual campaign.

“It’s pretty neat to sort of rally around this person even without them having stated intentions to run,” says Monica Diaz, president of the Iowa State University College Democrats, who’s in discussions with Schneider about setting up a Students for Hillary group at her school. “I hope we can rally up enough people to push her to run, and by starting this early, I think we can.”

Continue Reading »

Originally posted here: 

Millennials Shunned Hillary in 2008. Her Shadow Campaign Won’t Let It Happen Again.

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Millennials Shunned Hillary in 2008. Her Shadow Campaign Won’t Let It Happen Again.