In a post on his Facebook page (duh) on Thursday, Mr. Zuckerberg wrote that the Net is the world’s shared space and that trust in its security is a necessary condition for keeping it strong. He said that’s why Facebook itself uses encryption and secure protocols, among other things, to try to protect user privacy.
“The US government should be the champion for the internet, not a threat. They need to be much more transparent about what they’re doing, or otherwise people will believe the worst,” wrote Zuckerberg.
After noting that he’d called the commander in chief personally to express these opinions, the social media billionaire added that he’s not optimistic he’ll get quick action.
“Unfortunately, it seems like it will take a very long time for true full reform,” Zuckerberg wrote.
Why this explosion of angst? Zuckerberg does not say so, but it’s possible he was reacting to a specific new report about the NSA and Facebook in The Intercept, the new journalistic endeavor of former Guardian writer Glenn Greenwald.
Citing documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the piece describes how the NSA has used fake Facebook servers to infect target computers with malware. Though the full extent of the use of this tactic isn’t known, the NSA is capable of hitting “millions” of users who believe they are logging into Facebook but are actually connecting to government-controlled computers.
More broadly, Zuckerberg surely knows Facebook risks becoming collateral damage of the public debate launched by Mr. Snowden’s activities. As the all-purpose go-to of social sites, its entire business model revolves around people using it to store and share sensitive personal information, notes Gregory Ferenstein at TechCrunch. If Facebookers think NSA techs are scrolling through their vacation pictures, the whole thing could come crashing down.
“Perhaps more than any of the other tech giants, Facebook depends on the premise of trust and privacy, even though the social network has a shaky past in those areas,” writes Mr. Ferenstein.
Ah, but will Zuckerberg’s complaints make any difference? That’s a juicy question in political terms.
Some label him somewhat hypocritical here, due to the “shaky past” referenced above. Facebook exists to suck up that personal information, package aspects of it, and market it to advertisers. In that sense, it may represent a new invasion of personal space in its own right.
“Zuckerberg, who has previously said that privacy is no longer a ‘social norm,’ makes an odd spokesman for the safeguarding of information,” writes Kevin Roose at New York magazine’s “Daily Intelligencer."
He is, however, a billionaire capitalist who can get the president of the United States on the phone. That sort of personal lobbying counts for something. Plus, he’s not really speaking just for himself and his company. Silicon Valley is surely nervous that the NSA revelations will rebound against US tech generally, with users perhaps seeking foreign-based alternatives to such firmly American brands as Google, Facebook, and so forth. That’s a huge growth industry for any country that wants to own the 21st-century economy.
Zuckerberg himself does not seem to line up with one party or the other. He has backed a pro-immigration reform group but also reportedly held a fundraiser for Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.
Still, he might be a good sort of person to approach a president who seems immersed in popular tech culture to the extent of appearing on a “Funny or Die” Web-based fake talk show.
“A Facebook post by a 20-something billionaire seems like the perfect place to call out the President Between Two Ferns,” writes right-leaning blogger Mary Katharine Ham on "Hot Air."
It’s another week, another sparkly poll for Hillary Rodham Clinton! In the latest example of her statistical dominance of the 2016 presidential pre-game, a Quinnipiac survey released Thursday finds former Secretary of State Clinton well ahead of any number of possible GOP rivals among voters in Iowa.
In a hypothetical Hawkeye State matchup between Clinton and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Clinton leads by 10 percentage points, according to Quinnipiac. She’s 16 points ahead of Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. Ex-Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida? She’s beating him by 14 points.
But the headline here is that Quinnipiac finds Clinton in front of Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey by 13 points. That’s a reversal of the same polling organization’s December results, in which Governor Christie led Clinton by 48 percent to 45 percent.
The flip seems driven by non-Republicans who previously liked Christie changing their mind due to the publicity surrounding the Bridge-gate scandal, in which the Christie administration is accused of creating traffic jams on the George Washington Bridge as political payback against the Democratic mayor of nearby Fort Lee, N.J.
Quinnipiac shows that Clinton now leads among self-proclaimed independent voters in Iowa by 46 percent to 32 percent. Back in December, independents broke for Christie by 44 to 35 percent.
“Who said, ‘All politics is local’? Clinton is benefiting from the fallout after a traffic jam a thousand miles away,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
This finding is broadly consistent with other polls, which have found that independents and Democrats previously attracted to Christie due to his moderate image have moved to other candidates in the wake of Bridge-gate revelations. That may damage one of Christie’s main pitches to conservative Republicans: He’s electable, so they should get on board.
Two other aspects of this survey bear mentioning:
First, it’s fun to pit candidates directly against this one or other, but right now this sort of polling is a kind of theoretical March Madness match-up. The manner in which the big-party nominees clinch their primary victories will affect their prospects in the general election.
Of course, Clinton’s doing pretty well against her fellow Democrats, too. The RealClearPolitics average of major surveys puts her about 58 percentage points up on possible party rivals at the moment.
On the Republican side, the RealClearPolitics rolling average has Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee with a 1.7 point lead.
Second, Iowa? Yes, the Iowa caucus is the opening event of the real campaign season, so it’s notable in that way. The Quinnipiac folks were also polling for the Iowa US Senate race, so it’s not hard for them to tack on presidential questions.
Though Quinnipiac is a reputable pollster, these results are from one state in a national election that’s years away. Wrap all this together and you get the bottom line: Polls like these are kind of poli-tainment as much as truly indicative of what’s to come.
Would John F. Kennedy have appeared on “Between Two Ferns”? David Gergen doesn’t think so. The veteran presidential adviser and cable commentator tweeted on Wednesday that it is “unimaginable” that Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Reagan would have appeared on the satirical “Ferns” talk show on the Funny or Die website, as President Obama did this week.
“They carefully protected majesty of their office,” Mr. Gergen tweeted.
Well, maybe. It’s certainly true this bunch was clear about the demands of the office for a certain formality. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur for disrespecting the authority of the president. Eisenhower – an experienced leader – got furious with people who wasted his time. Kennedy wore expensive clothes and made speeches with rhetorical flourishes that sometimes seemed translated from Latin. Reagan wore a suit coat in the Oval Office as a sign of respect for the presidency itself.
Some of them would never have appeared on “Ferns” under Mr. Obama’s circumstances. Republicans Ike and Reagan wouldn’t have backed a new national health-care mandate, meaning they would not have needed to go on TV to push young people to sign up.
But c’mon, “majesty”? All modern presidents have known that they need to strike a balance between projecting strength and humanizing their office. And they are human, after all. Truman publicly threatened physical damage to a critic who ripped his daughter’s singing. Eisenhower appeared on “The Colgate Comedy Hour,” a pioneering TV show hosted by comedians Abbott and Costello, who themselves were no more dignified then “Ferns” host Zach Galifianakis.
Kennedy ... OK, we’re not sure he would have traded barbs with a star of “Hangover.” He’d have sent Frank Sinatra or Sammy Davis Jr. to do the job. The old movie and TV pro Reagan would have loved it, though, if it weren’t about expanding the government’s role in health care. He did comedy bits with his old pal Bob Hope after winning the Oval Office. And of course, he famously appeared with a monkey as a co-star during his Hollywood days.
What’s maybe more interesting about Gergen’s tweet is the fact that there are presidents he skipped. What about LBJ? Yeah, he’d have done it, but the host would not have gotten a word in edgewise. President Nixon’s not mentioned because he famously appeared on the sketch show “Laugh-In” during the 1968 campaign. He uttered one of the show’s signature lines: “Sock it to me.”
Bill Clinton talked about his underwear on MTV. Given that context, “Two Ferns” would have been just a morning’s work. George W. Bush appeared on the game show “Deal or No Deal,” hosted by that well-known policy analyst Howie Mandel.
We don’t mean to pick on Gergen here: Lots of others had the same opinion. On Fox News, Bill O’Reilly opined that Abe Lincoln would never have done what Obama did. During Tuesday’s daily press briefing at the White House, ABC News’s Jim Avila asked whether Obama had damaged “the dignity of the office.”
“No,” replied presidential spokesman Jay Carney. “We obviously assess opportunities that we have and look at whether or not they’re going to be successful and wise, and I think we made the right call here.”
President Obama on Tuesday appeared in an episode of “Between Two Ferns," actor Zach Galifianakis’ satirical talk show on the “Funny or Die” web site. This was perhaps the boldest – or most outrageous – example yet of the White House attempt to market the Affordable Care Act to young people using nontraditional media.
That’s because “Between Two Ferns” and Mr. Galifianakis are not “The Tonight Show” and Jimmy Fallon. On the show Galifianakis apes a bored, unprepared cable access host. With the president of the United States on, the actor made sure to establish this tone right away.
“Sorry I had to cancel a few times last week,” Galifianakis said. “My mouse pad broke. I had to get my great aunt some diabetes shoes.”
“No problem,” replied Obama. “When I heard that people actually watch this show, I was pretty surprised.”
Galifianakis went on to ask a series of “questions," such as what Obama has planned for follow-up after pardoning a turkey for 2013, and whether Hulk Hogan or Tonya Harding would be a better US envoy to Syria.
Obama replied in kind. They did a pretty good job of acting annoyed with each other. At least, we assume it was acting.
“What’s it like to be the last black president?” Galifianakis asked at one point.
“What’s it like for this to be the last time you ever talk to a president?” Obama shot back.
About half-way through the six-minute show, the president segued into Obamacare after the host sighed and asked what his (Obama’s) plug was.
Obama made the points the White House is trying to emphasized with young people – that health insurance costs less than their cell phone, and that they are not invincible in terms of health problems.
“Did you say ‘invisible?’ ” asked Galifianakis.
At the end, the set falls down, and it’s revealed that the show is being taped in the Diplomatic Room at the White House. Galifianakis says that’s where the show is always done.
“You’ve been filming here all these years, who gave you permission to do that?” asked Obama.
“Bush," says the “Hangover” movie star.
Will this accomplish White House goals? That will be easier to answer once final enrollment figures are in on March 31. If nothing else, the appearance shows how hard the administration is trying to attract the coveted young, healthier cohort of enrollees.
Some pundits enjoyed it.
“Best/Worst thing about #Obama’s schedule today is he’s already peaked,” tweeted veteran National Journal reporter Ron Fournier.
“I like esoteric comedy as much as the next guy, but this is effective outreach? POTUS has nothing better to do?” tweeted Mark Hemingway, senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
Maybe not, in terms of larger political outreach. The administration’s goal here could be selling the Democratic brand in general to young people as much as the Affordable Care Act in particular.
After all, the youngest voters of the Millennial generation do not lean Democratic, points out George Washington University political scientist John Sides, in “The Monkey Cage” blog. In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney won among voters age 18 to 20.
The explanation for this is that the political allegiance of generations coming of voting age is determined by the economic and political fundamentals of that time. And the youngest voters cast their first ballot at a time when Obama’s overall approval rating is low.
“A booming economy and a popular president will push young people toward the president’s party. A recession and an unpopular president will push young people toward the opposite party,” writes Professor Sides.
In this context, the untraditional marketing methods for Obamacare make sense on several levels. They may boost enrollment – and they may win back some wavering voters before they become committed to the GOP.
Will Edward Snowden affect the 2016 presidential race? Yes, it’s early yet, so in some ways the question appears very premature. But Snowden’s leaks about the extent of National Security Agency surveillance have launched a wide-ranging discussion about civil liberties in the US. And it’s already clear that the issue could play a part in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination in particular.
That’s because Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky is using civil liberties and NSA overreach as themes with which to frame his brand of libertarianism. This was on full display at the just-completed Conservative Political Action Conference in suburban Washington, D.C. Senator Paul’s speech was almost entirely about the NSA and what he sees as its infringement on the rights of Americans.
Paul said the American Revolution’s “sons of liberty” would “make a bonfire” of the secret orders that authorize NSA actions. In a reference to NSA monitoring of cell phone metadata, he said that “I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their [expletive] business.”
RECOMMENDED: Edward Snowden on the run: villain or hero?
Paul brought up the lawsuit he’s filed against the NSA for its activities, and said he was talking about electing “lovers of liberty,” not just Republicans.
“Don’t forget, there is a great battle going on for the heart and soul of America,” Paul said.
That was pretty tough stuff. The (seemingly) unending stream of revelations from documents made public by Snowden and his journalistic partners is what has made Paul’s approach possible. But the crowd at CPAC loved it. Paul won the meeting’s presidential straw poll for the second year running.
“Paul’s address ... unapologetically heavy with libertarian sentiment was far and away the best-received speech of the weekend,” concluded CNN national political reporter Peter Hamby.
That doesn’t mean he’s assured of the nomination, of course, or even a front-runner. CPAC’s audience skews young and male, a demographic for which libertarianism is attractive.
But Paul’s hammering on the NSA issue does separate him from his fellow GOP contenders. In particular it draws a distinction with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, another contender for the backing of tea party groups and adherents.
Senator Cruz, for his part, emphasized over the weekend that he does not agree with Paul’s non-interventionist views on foreign affairs. He’d be more hawkish on the Ukraine crisis, for instance. Cruz has signed on to a Senate effort to enact more economic sanctions in Iran, while Paul has not.
“I’m a big fan of Rand Paul. He and I are good friends. I don’t agree with him on foreign policy,” Cruz told ABC News' Jonathan Karl for the Sunday talk show "This Week."
The question is whether Paul’s NSA emphasis can trump traditional GOP hawkishness with primary voters. Edward Snowden himself has said that he believes “libertarian millenials” such as him are a coming trend in US politics. The upcoming GOP race may show whether that generation has become a significant presence in the Republican Party.
“It’s clear that libertarians are becoming a vocal faction within the Republican ranks,” writes Jamie Fuller of the Washington Post on “The Fix” political blog.
RECOMMENDED: Edward Snowden on the run: villain or hero?
Should Rep. Darrell Issa (R) of California lose his committee chairmanship because he cut off the microphone of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) of Maryland? The Congressional Black Caucus thinks so. The group has written House Speaker John Boehner demanding that Representative Issa be punished for his disrespect of Representative Cummings, who is African-American.
Issa’s action was “deplorable” and violates the rules of the House, according to the CBC letter.
“Mr. Issa is a disgrace and should not be allowed to continue in a leadership role,” wrote CBC chair Rep. Marcia Fudge (D) of Ohio.
RECOMMENDED: So you think you know Congress? Take our quiz.
Well, don’t buy an outfit for Issa’s going-away party. Speaker Boehner has already said he thinks Issa was within his rights to do what he did. On Thursday, the House declined to censure the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a party-line vote.
Issa himself has apologized to Cummings. He called and said he was sorry about cutting off the Maryland Democrat at the end of an abbreviated hearing into alleged abuses by the Internal Revenue Service. Cummings has accepted this outstretched hand, saying in a statement, “My sincere hope is that as we move forward, we will respect the opinions of all members of the committee.”
Let’s hope that happens. But the fact of the matter is that the IRS investigation is flammable material into which Issa has thrown a match. Partisan disagreements will arise again soon on this committee, and the subject of the dead mike could well arise again. Our prediction: There will be shouting.
In part, this is because Issa has handed Democrats an issue with which to call into question his IRS assertions. For months, Issa and Republicans have been looking into the question of whether the IRS unfairly targeted for extra scrutiny conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Democrats say the probe is a witch hunt – that liberal groups were targeted, too, and that the committee has no evidence that higher officials or even the White House ordered a crackdown on right-leaning organizations.
Former IRS official Lois Lerner is a potentially key witness in this regard. She ran the office that did the vetting; presumably she’d know if it was done because of administration pressure. But she has clammed up, claiming Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. She did so again on Wednesday, after which a frustrated Issa attempted to end the hearing, Cummings attempted to speak, and Issa pulled the plug.
In that moment, Issa may have undermined his own credibility. Even some House Republicans are frustrated with his actions, according to a report in The Hill.
“Every chairperson has their own way of working with the minority," Rep. Frank Lucas (R) of Oklahoma, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, told The Hill. "Clearly, Darrell has his own unique style.” (To be clear, Representative Lucas was not directly criticizing his colleague’s actions.)
But now, some of the spotlight here has shifted from Ms. Lerner to Issa himself. And she will be back, or at least, the subject of what to do about her will return. Republicans believe she waived her right to Fifth Amendment protection by making an opening statement during her initial committee appearance.
The Oversight Committee could vote on a contempt resolution for Lerner soon, perhaps even next week. If it does, expect Democrats to try to deflect attention onto what they claim is Issa’s autocratic and unpredictable leadership – and bring up the mike incident as evidence of their assertions.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) spoke at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference in suburban Washington on Thursday, and his remarks seemed reasonably well received by the crowd. That’s good news for Governor Christie, of course. He needs conservatives on his side to have a shot at winning the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
Well, maybe he doesn’t have to have them on his side so much as he needs them to not be in front of him, pushing back. The right has long been wary of Christie, seeing him as a moderate who is too eager to work with Democrats and questionable on social issues.
The Conservative Political Action Conference isn’t a definitive gathering of the right wing of the Republican Party. Its attendees skew young and male, and libertarian. Three of the past four years, libertarian champion Ron Paul has won the CPAC presidential straw poll, the announcement of which caps the conference.
That said, it’s closely watched by other conservatives for trends and draws a big crowd of Washington-based media. Last year, Christie wasn’t invited, and the snub was big political news. This year he was, perhaps on the theory that Bridge-gate has made him a target of the mainstream media, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc.
In that context, Christie gave the crowd some of the attack lines they came for. He hit the media, saying the GOP shouldn’t let them define what the party is. He did his best to define himself as a conservative.
“We need leaders who are willing to say not only we are against Obamacare – which we are – [but] that we’re against higher taxes, we’re against bigger government,” Christie said.
Christie touted his own fiscal conservatism, saying New Jersey now has 6,000 fewer state employees than when he took office. He hit back at the Democrats' emphasis on economic inequality, saying, “We don’t have an income inequality problem, we have an opportunity problem in this country because government’s trying to control the free market.”
He also praised Republican governors for getting things done and said that he’s the only antiabortion governor elected in New Jersey for decades. He said the GOP has allowed speakers in favor of abortion rights at its national conventions, but the Democratic Party has not allowed the reverse.
“Tell me, sir, the last pro-life Democrat who was allowed to speak at a Democratic convention? By the way, don’t strain yourself, because there’s never been one. They’re the party of intolerance, not us,” Christie said.
Strictly speaking, this isn’t accurate. Antiabortion Democrats have been on the convention podium as recently as 2008, though it’s true they’re not exactly swamping the agenda.
Still, the “party of intolerance” remark is the kind of red meat the CPAC audience loves. While attendees were respectful of Christie at the start, they seemed to grow warmer as he went on and ended by giving him a standing ovation.
Christie “came to CPAC in need of a reception like that, and the party faithful delivered,” writes Eliana Johnson of the National Review.
How the reception at CPAC would translate into performance in 2016 primaries remains to be seen. There’s some evidence that Christie’s troubles with the Fort Lee bridge scandal have cut into his support across the board.
A new Washington Post poll finds that 38 percent of self-described conservatives say they “definitely would not vote for” Christie, for instance. Among Republicans as a whole, 30 percent say they definitely oppose the New Jersey governor.
That’s just one survey, and poll questions about future choices aren’t always truly indicative. But it still hints at a little voting problem for Christie if he decides to run.
It isn’t that the GOP thinks the analogy overdrawn or approves of Putin’s occupation of the Crimea in any way, shape, or form. It’s that the 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner was at the center of the Obama administration’s attempt to “reset” US-Russia relations when she was secretary of State.
If Putin’s Hitler, why try to make friends?
“Was Mitt Romney right then in labeling Russia our greatest geopolitical foe?” asks right-leaning (and Romney fan) Jennifer Ruin in her Washington Post “Right Turn” blog.
In case you missed it, this contretemps began on Tuesday when former Secretary Clinton, addressing a private fundraiser in California, said that Putin’s actions in regards to Ukraine were similar to those undertaken in Europe by Adolf Hitler prior to the outbreak of World War II. Hitler made a lot of noise about protecting enclaves of ethnic Germans in such places as the Sudetenland, and used that as an excuse to seize territory adjacent to Germany itself. Putin’s excused his move into the Crimea by saying he needs to protect ethnic Russians who are under attack by “ultra-nationalist mobs."
Putin is a leader “who believes his mission is to restore Russian greatness," said Clinton, according to an account of the talk in the Long Beach Press Telegram.
Republicans looking to build a case that Clinton’s foreign policy leadership was not great have seized on this as an unfortunate comparison. If Putin is Hilter, who is Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister whose appeasement of the German leader did nothing to stop the onset of war? Would it be ... Obama? Or Clinton herself?
“This ... invites obvious attacks on the Secretary of State, who long ago bragged of ‘resetting’ relations with Russia,” writes Mary Katharine Ham on the conservative Hot Air site.
Not so fast, replied Clinton on Wednesday, in essence. In remarks at UCLA, she said that she was simply stating a fact of history, not drawing a larger comparison between Russia’s leader and the most infamous tyrant of the age.
After all, any newspaper reader in the 1930s would have known Hitler did indeed use ethnic Germans as an excuse for his territorial ambitions. In 2014, Putin’s talking the same way.
“I just want everybody to have a little historical perspective. I’m not making comparisons, but I am recommending that we can perhaps learn from this tactic that has been used before,” said Clinton.
If nothing else this flaplet shows how seriously Republicans are taking the threat of Clinton’s candidacy. In parsing her every word, they’re treating her almost as if she has won her party’s nomination. Either that or they are doing their best to dissuade her from running at all.
Also, she’s not the only one using “Hitler” in the same sentence with “Putin." Among those who have agreed with her sentiments? The GOP’s 2008 nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, and 2016 Republican hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who this week agreed there are “similarities” between Hitler’s and Putin’s geopolitical actions.
A House Oversight Committee hearing on whether the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeted conservative political groups for scrutiny degenerated into near-chaos Wednesday as a key witness refused to testify and the Republican panel chairman cut off the microphone of the ranking Democrat as he attempted to speak.
Shouting ensued, some of it electronically amplified, some not. Eventually committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R) of California left the room and held a press conference just outside, drawing the crowd with him.
“Mr. Chairman, what are you hiding?” said the visibly agitated Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) of Maryland as Rep. Issa walked away.
RECOMMENDED: IRS 101: Seven questions about the tea party scandal
Wow, why the anger? Yes, Congress is polarized, but most committee hearings don’t end this way. Lawmakers generally disagree without the whiff of actual fisticuffs hanging in the air. What happened?
Long story short, the IRS investigation is a highly fraught subject. And Wednesday’s hearing frustrated both sides for different reasons.
It began with former IRS official Lois Lerner invoking the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and refusing to answer committee questions. Ms. Lerner is the former head of the unit of the IRS that investigated applications for tax exempt status for political groups, and thus a key figure in the investigation.
She took the Fifth at a May hearing as well, but she also delivered a statement defending herself before refusing to answer questions. GOP committee members think it’s an open question as to whether this statement constituted a waiver of her Fifth Amendment rights, and there was some talk in congressional halls that she’d testify at Wednesday's hearing. But she didn’t, and now the Republican House leadership may up the pressure.
Speaker John Boehner said Wednesday he would wait for a report on the issue but that “she has to testify or she should be held in contempt” of Congress. That could lead to a court ordering her to speak.
Republican members of the committee were particularly frustrated because they think they’ve got some documentary evidence that establishes a motive for Lerner’s office to unfairly target conservative groups applying for tax exempt status under section 501 (c) 4 of the tax code.
Investigators have obtained IRS e-mails that show Lerner was very concerned about the impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling on political spending, according to a report in Politico.
Republicans think Lerner may have wanted to limit the political activity of conservative groups to level the political field. Lerner’s lawyer has called that assertion “fiction,” and the text of the e-mails made public so far don’t seem to indicate any party bias on Lerner’s part.
“My object is not to look for political activity – more to see whether self-declared c4s are really acting like c4s,” she wrote at one point, according to the Politico story.
Without Lerner’s testimony that may be as far as the trail leads, said Issa after the contentious hearing.
“At this point, roads lead to Ms. Lerner,” he said. “It may dead-end at Ms. Lerner” if she does not talk at some point.
This apparent dead end has led some conservatives to wonder why the committee does not just do what Lerner’s lawyer wants, and give his client immunity from prosecution in return for her testimony.
“Maybe Issa and the GOP are worried that conservatives will be angry with them if they let Lerner walk. That’s a small price to pay, though, if she has incriminating info on others up the chain,” writes right-leaning Allahpundit at the Hot Air site.
Democrats, for their part, say Issa has spent years on open-ended investigations of alleged Obama administration wrongdoing and has little to show for it. They’re frustrated by what they say is the autocratic way he conducts committee business. That’s what finally appeared to put Representative Cummings, a liberal whose district includes half of Baltimore, over the edge.
It started just after Lerner declined to speak. Issa, who appeared frustrated, tried to adjourn the hearing. He stood up as if to depart.
Cummings said he had a procedural question. “Mr. Chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. You cannot do this. We’re better than that as a country. We’re better than that as a committee.
At that point Issa leaned over and switched off Cummings’ mike.
“If you will sit down and allow me to [ask] the question, I am a member of the Congress of the United States of America, I am tired of this,” an unplugged Cummings bellowed into the room.
Afterward, Cummings said that as far as he is concerned, Lerner has not waived her Fifth Amendment rights. Nor has the investigation shown any political motivation by IRS agents, or any links to anyone in higher office, including the White House, said the Democratic lawmaker.
RECOMMENDED: IRS 101: Seven questions about the tea party scandal
It’s alive! On Tuesday the Bush family political dynasty returned from wherever it has been lately as George P. Bush, nephew of ex-President George W. Bush, won the Republican nomination for Texas land commissioner.
The victory was not a surprise – it’s long been clear that Mr. Bush’s name and personal political skills would carry him to victory in the Texas GOP primary. In the red Lone Star State, he’ll almost certainly win the general election in November as well, vaulting him into a statewide office that’s been the starting point for several prominent politicians.
So who has a brighter future: George P., or his father, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush? Get ready to hear subject-starved pundits chew on that ad infinitum. Yes, Jeb has long been the Bush-in-waiting, thought to be next in line for an Oval Office run if he so chooses.
But "P" (can we call him that already?) has some advantages over his dad. He’s part-Hispanic, as his mother, Columba, was born in Mexico. He speaks Spanish fluently at a time the GOP is struggling to figure out how to reach this fast-growing constituency. He has also continued the Bush family trek away from its preppy patrician roots. He has called himself a “movement conservative,” as opposed to uncle W’s “compassionate conservative” Texas tag.
And he’s young, but not that young. At 37, P is one year older than John Kennedy was when the latter was elected to the US Senate. JFK was president at 43. Just noting that for the record.
OK, maybe that’s enough irresponsible speculation. The fact is that in comparison to his dad, Jeb, P lacks experience and a certain gravitas – and national-level opponents would be sure to point that out. His time may be coming, but it is not yet. The real question is whether Jeb’s time is coming, or whether it disappeared when brother "W" won the top job.
As Sean Sullivan of The Fix political blog at the Washington Post wrote earlier this year, Jeb remains the single biggest question mark in the 2016 presidential invisible primary. That’s the stage when potential candidates gauge their strength with donors and party elites, and it’s going on now.
No other Republican has the power to scramble the race as much as Jeb does, according to Mr. Sullivan.
“No other top tier Republican has broadcast as much genuine uncertainty about his plans,” he writes.
If anything, Mr. Bush may now be feeling more pressure to run. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s star has fallen as a result of Bridge-gate, meaning the establishment GOP may lack an obvious candidate. Many Mitt Romney donors have expressed an interest in supporting Bush, for what that’s worth. It’s possible that Bush is uniquely positioned to unite the party’s warring establishment and conservative factions.
It’s also possible that another candidate named Bush will drive tea party adherents nuts. Many see W as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) who supported increased government spending, after all. Jeb’s numbers in early voter polls are OK but not great for somebody with his name recognition. In the RealClearPolitics rolling average of major surveys of Republican primary voters, he ranks behind former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Governor Christie, and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
And his mom is still not helping. Matriarch Barbara Bush was on "Fox & Friends" Wednesday and once again said bad things about the prevalence of US political dynasties.
Mrs. Bush said that, when it comes to political dynasties in a country the size of the United States, there should be “more than three families,” apparently referring to the Bushes, the Clintons, and the Kennedys.
“I mean we’ve got great governors, other people, I just don’t understand it,” she told Fox’s Steve Doocy.
She did add that she feels Jeb Bush is the best-qualified person in the country for the Oval Office. “Put me down as saying that,” Mrs. Bush said.
Of course, in pure voter appeal there might be another older-generation Bush who surpasses Jeb. That would be her. Barbara Bush’s favorability ratings while her husband was in office are the highest for any recent first lady, a recent Gallup poll notes. She had 77 percent approval in that period. In contrast, Michelle Obama’s average approval rating during her husband’s presidnecy is 66 percent.