56 WORDS USED BY VOTERS TO DESCRIBE JEB BUSH

In the latest Quinnipiac poll, the pollsters asked a simple question of Americans: “What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Jeb Bush?”

The survey included responses from 1,563 registered voters nationwide including 666 Republicans and 647 Democrats.

Here is the full list of the top 56 words that voters chose to describe her followed by the numbers of times that voters chose that word.

1. Bush 136
2. family 70
3. honest 53
4. weak 45
5. brother 41
6. dynasty 40
7. experience 35
8. George 28
9. Florida 25
10. politician 24
11. republican 24
12. moderate 21
13. governor 20
14. establishment 16
15. conservative 14
16. father 14
17. legacy 13
18. nice 13
19. trustworthy 13
20. untrustworthy 12
21. decent 11
22. boring 10
23. competent 10
24. education 10
25. favorable 10
26. nepotism 10
27. war 10
28. idiot 9
29. immigration 9
30. unqualified 9
31. wishy-washy 9
32. corrupt 8
33. liar 8
34. mediocre 8
35. dumb 7
36. good 7
37. liberal 7
38. unfavorable 7
39. capable 6
40. fair 6
41. honorable 6
42. inexperience 6
43. leader 6
44. likable 6
45. RINO 6
46. crooked 5
47. entitled 5
48. incompetent 5
49. intelligent 5
50. loser 5
51. ok 5
52. questionable 5
53. smart 5
54. thoughtful 5
55. uncertain 5
56. wimp 5

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

The Democrats: Too Old and Too White?

Leftwingers’ taunts in 2008 and 2012 have come back to haunt them. 

In the jubilation of the Obama election victories of 2008 and 2012, the Left warned Republicans that the party of McCain and Romney was now “too old, too white, too male — and too few.” Columnists between 2008 and 2012 ad nauseam berated Republicans on the grounds that their national candidates “no longer looked like America.” The New York Times stable crowed that the Republicans of 2008 were “all white and nearly all male” — not too long before McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running-mate. In reaction to the defeats of McCain and Romney, Salon and Harper’s ran stories on the “Grand Old White Party” and “Angry White Men.”

For Democratic progressives, Hawaiian Barack Obama could not be of mixed ancestry and decidedly middle class, but simply “black” or “African American” — as if he had shared the Jim Crow experience of Clarence Thomas. Nor was there any allowance that race itself had become hard to sort into neat categories in a nation of immigration, intermarriage, and assimilation, in which millions of Americans were one-half this and one-quarter that. Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King proved that well enough by successfully constructing themselves as white for quite a long time. 

Liberals had reversed the vision of Martin Luther King Jr.: The color of our skin, not the content of our character, is what matters. Superficial appearance, the ossified politics of the tribe — the curse of the world outside the United States, where corpses have piled up in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Iraq — alone mattered. Identity politics dictated that a shrinking white insular conservative party lacked the Democrats’ “inclusiveness” and “commitment to diversity.” Icons like Barack Obama were what mattered.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

'Anchor Baby' Flap Shows Left Losing Grip

“You said that you have a big heart, and that you’re not mean-spirited,” queried ABC reporter Tom Llamas. “Are you aware that the term ‘anchor baby,’ that’s an offensive term? People find that hurtful.” The target for Llamas’s pique, of course, was presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Yes, “hurtful” and “offensive.” Llamas joined ABC less than a year earlier, but he had already mastered the rudiments of progressive patois, the language of victimization. As ABC’s designated Hispanic avatar, he felt free to spell out the left’s newly revised semantic codes to the insufficiently ethnic Trump.

“You mean [anchor baby] is not politically correct, and yet everybody uses it?” said Trump defiantly. “You know what? Give me a different term.” Llamas had swung at the wrong piñata.

There was no good answer to Trump’s question. Said Llamas lamely, “the American-born childs [sic] of undocumented immigrants.” This suggestion was so foolishly cumbersome even his fellow reporters snickered. Trump scoffed, “You want me to use that? Okay. I’ll use the word ‘anchor baby.'” Game, set, match -- Trump.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Is this woman the new Lois Lerner?

As some at the Federal Election Commission seek to broaden the power of the agency, critics are arguing that it's beginning to look increasingly like the Internal Revenue Service under Lois Lerner, who has been accused of using her office for partisan purposes.

They take special aim at the commission's Democratic chairwoman, Ann Ravel, who also served as chairwoman of California's equivalent to the FEC, the Fair Political Practices Commission, before coming to Washington in 2013. Ravel has lambasted the commission as "dysfunctional" because votes on enforcement issues have often resulted in ties, and she has said the commission should go beyond its role of enforcing election laws by doing more to get women and minorities elected to political office. She has complained that super PACs are "95 percent run by white men," and that as a result, "the people who get the money are generally also white men."

To remedy those problems, Ravel sponsored a forum at the FEC in June to talk about getting more women involved in the political process. She has also proposed broadening disclosure laws to diminish the role of outside spending, and suggested that the FEC should claim authority to regulate political content on the Web. She's also voiced support for eliminating one member of the commission in order to create a partisan majority that doesn't have tie votes, saying in an interview with Roll Call, "I think it would help."

Hans von Spakovsky, who served on the FEC from 2006-2008, takes issue with Ravel's effort to go beyond the traditional purview of the commission's functions. "The FEC has one duty, and one duty only — to enforce the existing campaign finance laws. It has no business trying to 'encourage' or 'discourage' folks to get involved in politics, no matter who they are, minority or otherwise," Spakovsky told theWashington Examiner.

Spakovsky also said it would be contrary to the function of the FEC to limit the number of commissioners. "The fact that any action by the FEC requires the votes of four commissioners, and thus bipartisan agreement, ensures that its investigations are based on enforcing the law evenly, without regard to the party a particular candidate is a member of. Ravel wants to end that, which would allow the FEC to be used for partisan political witch hunts," Spakovsky said.

Ravel did not respond to a request for comment.

The votes on which the commission ties often pertain to alleged violations by the third-party groups known as super political action committees. Super PACs have no contribution limit and no spending limit as long as they do not "coordinate" with the candidates for whom they are spending. The FEC defines this as "payment made in cooperation with, at the suggestion of, or per an understanding with a candidate." Critics of those groups say they often circumvent the law by straddling the definition of coordination.

Ravel co-signed a letter with fellow Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub in June, saying the spending that those groups engage in on behalf of candidates should count toward the spending limit for those candidates. "There is this basic notion that super PACs are supposed to be separate from the candidates," Weintraub has said. "[Voters] look at what's going on, and they say: 'This doesn't look separate. Where are the lines?'"

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board has compared Ravel to the IRS' Lerner, who's also been accused of using her office to push a political agenda. "We'll take our chances with donations freely given than with the arbitrary and partisan rulings of Lois Lerner at the IRS or Ann Ravel at the Federal Election Commission," the editorial board wrote.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading.....

[COMMENTARY] Trump's birthright stance

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump leaves New York state Supreme Court during a lunch break of his summons to jury duty, Monday, Aug. 17, 2015. Trump is taking a break from courting voters to go to court as a potential juror. He shook hands and fist-bumped bystanders as he reported for jury duty Monday at a Manhattan court. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR. | THE WASHINGTON POST

Some people believe that Donald Trump is a Democratic mole who is in the Republican presidential race to scare away voters from the GOP and torpedo otherwise-promising Republican contenders by getting them to co-sign crazy.

Those who believe that Trump is a Democrat in Republicans’ clothing will wince at the question that NBC News’ Kasie Hunt put to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker this week at the Iowa State Fair:

“Do you think birthright citizenship should be ended?”

Trump does. Supposedly. Although since the real-estate tycoon is a master manipulator who has over the years changed position on a variety of issues, no one can be sure what Trump believes about anything.

The candidate’s nearly 1,900-word policy paper on immigration suggests hitting “delete” on the 14th Amendment to ensure that the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are no longer granted citizenship at birth.

Anyone who passed eighth-grade civics will know that changing the Constitution is nearly impossible because it involves getting the support of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states. Anyone who has followed the immigration debate will note the irony that many of those who consider U.S. citizenship sacred when denying it to the undocumented suddenly consider it less sacred when stripping it away from their offspring. And any lawyer who was not absent the day they taught law in law school will tell you that, if you want to pick a fight with the judicial branch, this is the wrong battle. The courts have defended birthright citizenship without fail.

Besides, conservatives always talk about how they want to protect the Constitution. So now we have to destroy the founding document in order to save it?

Trump’s immigration proposals are a hot mess that can be summed up as follows: Build a wall, enforce the law, and protect the jobs of Americans.

But who can be sure that any of this is real?

President Barack Obama promised to make immigration reform a top priority, tried to explain away record numbers of deportations by claiming that he lacked the executive power to halt them, insisted that his administration was only deporting dangerous criminals and not hardworking people looking for a better life, and pledged that thousands of women and children refugees from Central America would be treated humanely.

None of this was true. It was all one big con job intended to fool the Democratic base.

Likewise, Trump’s policy paper is a mixture of bluster, generalities and vagueness. You hear what you want to hear.

As when Trump tells Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “We’re going to keep the families together. But they have to go.”

This isn’t the same as declaring that you would forcibly remove entire families. One could do what Obama did: Deport undocumented parents, and hope their U.S.-born children follow.

Those on the right who take Trump at face value on immigration will likely be just as disappointed as those on the left who were taken in by Obama.

This brings us back to the idea of ending birthright citizenship, which is catnip to the nativist wing of the GOP.

So when NBC’s Hunt asked Walker if he wanted to jump onboard Mr. Trump’s Wild Ride, the governor said uncomfortably:

“Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here, we’re going to enforce the laws in this country.”

No one who has studied Walker’s multiple choice positions on whether we should give the undocumented legal status would agree that he has been “very clear” on immigration.

What is clear is that Walker and the other GOP contenders, would likely never have been dragged into the thorny debate over birthright citizenship if not for Trump. And now with his spineless “me-tooism,” Walker has disqualified himself from the race. Moderates won’t go near him, and the folks who agree with him are with Trump anyway. That’s a recipe for losing.

Republicans, beware of the Trump trap. Things are not what they seem. Every policy proposal is really a character test. And a presidential campaign is a terrible thing to waste.

Ruben Navarrette is a columnist for The Washington Post Writers Group.

Via: The Monitor

Continue Reading.....

[OPINION] #BlackLivesMatter Will Continue to Disrupt the Political Process

Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors writes that the Democratic Party has “milked” the votes of African-Americans

The Outrage Machine is a weekly opinion column by voices from the left and right on Washington. Want to write for us? Contact us at powerpost@washpost.com

My morning rituals are typical. I wake up yearning for a few extra moments of rest. I express gratitude to a higher power for the breath in my body and the blessings in my life. I shower. I dress. I eat breakfast. I exchange laughter and words with my beloveds, embracing each other as we say our daily goodbyes. As I stand at the threshold of my home, the liminal space between warmth and safety and the chaos of the outside world, my experience becomes explicitly Black. Everyday before I leave my house, I ask myself, will today be the day I am murdered by the police?

#BlackLivesMatter was created in 2013 after Trayvon Martin’s murderer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted for his crime, and dead 17-year old Trayvon was posthumously placed on trial for his own murder. Black Lives Matter is both a network and a movement. The network has 26 chapters and affiliate organizations globally. The movement is made up of Black folks and allies who are not necessarily a part of the network. We are decentralized — meaning we focus on local leadership and help build the capacity of those most impacted to fight and win victories for their communities. We understand the local is the national and we must utilize our resources as such. We support both international and local action and policy changes that empower the Black community.

On Aug. 8, 2015, as the Black community prepared to collectively mourn the anniversary of the murder of Mike Brown by Ferguson police, members of Black Lives Matter disrupted a Bernie Sanders rally in Seattle.  In the week since that disruption, at least nine Black people have been killed by state-sanctioned violence. Do we know the names of the nine people who faced a trial by fire? Do we know how the loss of their lives has impacted their families and communities? Or are we so collectively focused on the feelings of White presidential candidates that we have missed the essential purpose of the disruption? We as a movement will continue to disrupt the current political process until Black Lives Matter.

Agitating a perceived political ally to the Black community is strategic. For far too long, the Democratic Party has milked the Black vote while creating policies that completely decimate Black communities. Once upon a time, Bill Clinton was widely perceived as an ally and advocate for the needs of Black people. However, it is the Clinton administration’s Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act that set the stage for the massive racial injustice we struggle with in law enforcement today.

Let us recall: Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill provisions included $10.8 billion in federal matching funds to local governments to hire 100,000 new police officers over a period of six years, $9.7 billion allocated for the construction of new federal prisons, creation of 60 new death penalty offenses, mandatory minimums for crack cocaine possession and the decision to allow children as young as 13 to be tried as adults. The Clinton administration gave birth to the very era of mass incarceration that current Democrats are renouncing with great emotion and fervor. But these are ardent words with no concrete agenda.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading.....

Poll: Only 40% of Teachers Support Common Core

(CNSNews.com) – Less than half of Americans (49 percent) now say they support Common Core State Standards (CCSS). 

Public support dropped 4 percent since last year and 16 percent since 2013, when 65 percent of Americans were in favor of the national education standards, according to the ninth annual Education Next poll released Tuesday.

Only 5 percent of Americans say that Common Core has had a “strongly positive” impact on their local schools, with 19 percent characterizing the impact as “strongly negative.”

The greatest change in opinion was among teachers. Although 76 percent said they were in favor of the Common Core standards in 2013, that percentage “collapsed” to just 40 percent in 2015, a 36-point difference, pollsters reported.

“While support for standardized testing remains strong, the debate over the Common Core State Standards continues to divide both teachers and the general public,” according to the poll, which was conducted in May and June by Paul Peterson and Martin West of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

(See  ednext_2015_poll_1.pdf )

Among teachers and parents, the two groups most directly impacted by CCSS, “respondents who believe the standards have had a negative effect on schools (51%) exceed those who think they have had a positive effect (28%),” researchers noted.

Support for Common Core is down among both Republicans and Democrats. In 2013, 57 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Democrats said they supported CCSS. But by 2015, that percentage had dropped 20 points for Republicans (to 37 percent) and seven points for Democrats (to 57 percent).

Now exactly half (50 percent) of Republicans responding to the survey say they oppose Common Core, compared to just 16 percent of Republicans who were against it in 2013.

Among Democrats, who are the most likely to support Common Core, opposition over the last two years rose consistently, from 10 percent in 2013, to 17 percent in 2014, to 25 percent in 2015.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading......

Are Republicans Happier in Their Marriages Than Democrats?

Republicans are happier and more stable in their marriages than Democrats, according to a study released Monday.

W. Bradford Wilcox, a prominent sociologist at the University of Virginia, released the analysis finding that Republicans are more often married, less likely to be divorced, and happier in their marriages than Democrats.

Forty percent of Democrats between the ages of 20 and 60 are currently married versus 57 percent of Republicans in the same age range, according to evaluation of the national General Social Survey.

Among Democrats who have previously married, 47 percent have been divorced compared to 41 percent of Republicans who have previously married.

Wilcox said this is potentially because Republicans are more likely to embrace a “marriage-mindset,” which views marriage as the best way to “anchor” a relationship and a family. He said this mindset also emphasizes marriage as a binding commitment, which makes people more likely to invest themselves into the institution.

“If you value an institution and if you value a relationship, you’re more likely to give that person and institution the benefit of the doubt,” he said.

Wilcox and his co-author Nicholas Wolfinger also explored marital quality, finding that among those who are married, 67 percent of Republicans say they are “very happy” in their marriages. Sixty percent of Democrats say the same, marking a seven-point gap.

This disparity shrank to 3 percent when the researchers controlled for demographic and cultural differences between each party.

>>> Index of Culture and Opportunity: Social and Economic Trends That Shape America

White and religious Americans, who are more likely to identify as Republicans, were also more likely to report they are “very happy” in their marriages. Education did not play a significant role.

Wilcox and Wolfinger wrote in their report for the Institute for Family Studies that while race and religiosity account for more than half of the “Republican advantage” in marital quality, the remainder may be explained through attitudes.

“Perhaps Republicans are more optimistic, more charitable, or more inclined to look at their marriages through rose-colored glasses,” they wrote.

Wilcox said this blend of optimism and charity along with the tendency of conservatives to view marriage more favorably could explain why Republicans perceive their marriages more positively.

Wilcox said he began investigating the link between partisanship and marriage following the rise of the 2010 book “Red Families v. Blue Families,” which argued that blue regions cultivate stronger and more stable families because of liberal emphasis on education and the tendency to delay marriage and parenthood, all of which are linked to lower divorce rates.

Wilcox said his study shows that the “presumption” that blue families are stronger and more stable “doesn’t hold water in many important respects” and, in fact, “suggests the contrary.”

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading.....

Calling in the God squad [AL SHARPTON] to save the Iran deal

The White House campaign to save the Iran nuclear deal is getting a boost from the God squad.

Faith-based groups, many of them increasingly nervous about the well-funded push by opponents of the deal, are intensifying their lobbying of lawmakers ahead of an important congressional vote on the agreement

Over the weekend, the Rev. Al Sharpton called on black churches to mobilize in support of the nuclear deal. On Monday, a group of 340 rabbis from multiple strands of Judaism released a letter, urging lawmakers to vote for the agreement. And plans are in the works for a coordinated rollout of endorsements by a number of religious groups next week, an organizer said.

The campaign is led largely by Catholic and Quaker groups, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and it reflects many of the organizations’ traditional anti-war stances. It also comes as themes of anti-Semitism and Islamism have risen in the debate.

Some of the undecided lawmakers being targeted, among them prominent Democrats, have Jewish constituents and donors who fear the agreement will empower Iran, whose Islamist leaders are avowedly anti-Israel and have even questioned the Holocaust. (Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson recently suggested in much-criticized remarks that President Barack Obama was anti-Semitic for pursuing negotiations with Iran.)

The campaign against the deal is being led by groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Republican Jewish Coalition, and as much as $40 million or more is believed will be spent by the opposition on ads and other efforts, including sponsoring town halls to confront wobbly lawmakers.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from New York, is feeling pressure from every side but particularly from his Jewish constituents. He has attended two town halls in the past week, the first hosted by AIPAC and other groups which local news reports described as tense. During the second gathering, hosted by Jeffries himself, a woman in the crowd compared a former State Department official who spoke in favor of the deal to supporters of Adolf Hitler.

Via: Politico

Continue Reading.....

[GUEST EDITORIAL] Chasm ahead for Social Security

Social Security’s retirement system is like a speeding train full of happy passengers. It’s a comfy ride for the current leg of the journey. But the passengers may be clueless — or maybe don’t care — that a bridge is out just over the next rise.

Absent changes to the system, Social Security is headed into a chasm for the next generation. Baby boomers who’ve paid into the system for decades have begun drawing money out in big numbers, but there will be too few working Americans to keep the retirement fund in the black beyond 20 more years. The math just doesn’t work.

That’s the not-so-happy birthday message as Social Security celebrates its 80 anniversary this month.

The good news is that there is enough time to avert major pain if Washington takes steps early enough. It would take the kind of bipartisan bargain that the Obama White House and GOP leaders in Congress could only yak and fantasize about.

The time is now — during the 2016 presidential campaign — to lay the groundwork for that politically dicey bargain.

Some in the Republican presidential field would bring common-sense reforms to the table. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, for example, say they’d gradually boost the retirement age for younger people. Christie gets specific, saying full retirement eligibility should be delayed two years. He’s specific, too, on whether wealthy people should draw from the system. Christie says no, multimillionaires with retirement income over $200,000 don’t need monthly government checks to sustain them.

It’s hard to see how Social Security solves its math problems without these kinds of bold strokes. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Ross Perot don’t need government to keep them out of poverty, which was the original intent of the Social Security system.

Meanwhile, the presidential field contains many defenders of the status quo on Social Security, both Democrat and Republican. On the GOP side, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee would build a wall around Social Security as part of sweeping tax reform. That stance is not far from the recent statement from Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton: “We don’t mess with it.”

Even less realistic was a position outlined by 71 congressional Democrats in a letter to President Barack Obama last month; they asked his support to “expand Social Security benefits for millions of Americans.” The signees were joined by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who’s challenging Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Nowhere did the letter say how proponents would fund more generous benefits. It’s delusional and irresponsible to ignore the math like that. The facts are these: In 1960, five workers supported every Social Security recipient. Today, it’s fewer than three. In 20 years, it’ll be about two.

The financial stress will be enormous on people in the next generation, and it’s up to today’s leaders to make sure they don’t get crushed.

Via: Rome News Tribune

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Facts Are Facts: This Is The Best Case Against Hillary You'll Hear, Hands Down

When it comes to Hillary Clinton’s crimes, she thinks it’s a big joke. What’s more, she told a group at the Iowa Democratic Wing Ding Friday that all of this talk over her emails and private servers and Benghazi is a bunch of hogwash. Republicans are just “playing politics,” and she refuses to sink so low.

“And you know what, it’s not about emails or servers, either,” she said. “It’s about politics.”

“I won’t play politics with national security or dishonor the memories of those we’ve lost. I won’t pretend that that is anything other than what it is — the same old partisan games we’ve seen so many times before.”

And she would know ALL about oldness. And playing partisan games.

Cue Judge Jeanine Pirro.

On Saturday night, Pirro slammed Hillary and explained the legal case against her in detail, fact by fact. She goes as far as listing off the statutes that Hillary may have violated, including the one that prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus.

Hear her case below. It’s pretty compelling to anyone with a brain.

“I’ve got news for you. We don’t need intent,” she said. “It is a federal crime to negligently handle classified information.”

We can't let Hillary NEAR the White House. She’s a terrible human being and unfit for the presidency. Fact. 

Via: Chicks on the Right

Continue Reading...

Democrats Courting ‘Gold Standard’ to Unseat Young in Iowa

Democrats may be getting a candidate in Iowa’s only tossup congressional election — just not the one they’re ready for.

Iraq war veteran Jim Mowrer told CQ Roll Call on Friday that he’s “very seriously considering” challenging freshman Rep. David Young in the 3rd District and that he’s going to make a decision and an announcement “very soon.” Democrats in Iowa confirmed that he’s expected to announce his candidacy as early as next week.

If Mowrer’s name sounds familiar it’s because he ran in 2014 — in the 4th District, where despite impressive fundraising he lost to seven-term Rep. Steve King by 23 points.

Democrats aren’t altogether unhappy with Mowrer.

“There’s a lot of goodwill toward him for taking on King,” one Democrat with extensive knowledge of Iowa politics said.

Mowrer ran in the 4th District in 2014. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

It’s just that Democrats think they’ve got stronger potential candidates who some of them think should have right of first refusal.

“If he were to cool his jets, and let other candidates pass, then I think there’d be a Mowrer movement,” one Iowa Democratic operative said.

Meanwhile, Nick Klinefeldt, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, is the “gold standard in terms of a candidate,” the first source said.

Earlier this summer Klinefeldt suggested he was not going to run, but some Iowa Democrats are eagerly trying to convince him to get in, especially now that Mowrer seems to be going ahead with his candidacy.

“The door is cracked. It’s not open, but it’s certainly not closed,” the Iowa Democratic operative said of Klinefeldt’s consideration of the race, adding that his U.S. attorney tenure will soon be coming to a close.

With no voting record and a compelling record as a U.S. attorney, Democrats think Klinefeldt paints an easy contrast to Young. A one-time aide to former Sen. Tom Harkin, who recommended him for U.S. attorney, Klinefeldt has close ties to Harkin’s inner circle.

If he were to call donors and say, “I’m in,” the Iowa Democratic operative said, “those would not be cold calls.”

“If I were the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee], I’d clone him then run him in a bunch of other places,” the same operative added.

His future political prospects, the operative said, may be part of what’s giving Klinefeldt pause about running.

“He will run for something, and he will be a star. So ‘when and where am I going to engage’ is what he’s trying to figure out.”

Although Mowrer was, by all accounts, a formidable candidate in the 4th District last cycle, he only moved into the 3rd District this spring (he bought a house there in 2007.)

“It was more of a personal decision with my family,” Mowrer said of his district-switching.

Among some Democrats, there’s a fear that Mowrer might not be able to raise the same kind of money he did in 2014 when he challenged King, a nationally known (and loathed by the left) Republican.

But Mowrer maintains that he has support where he needs it, including at the national level.

“I’ve got a great relationship with folks at the DCCC from my previous experience,” he told CQ Roll Call. “I’ve always been in touch with them in the last couple years, including recently. I will continue to have that relationship and continue to chat.”

“I think Young won in a fluke in 2014,” Mowrer said, chalking his loss up to the GOP wave. “There are a lot of things that I learned,” he said, adding that this cycle, he has an “even better idea of what it takes.”

But there’s another Democrat in the state who could shake things up. For a long time, it seemed former Gov. Chet Culver, despite alienating parts of the labor community during his tenure, would be the Democrat to beat given his high name recognition and ability to raise money. Three Democratic sources with knowledge of Iowa said that if Culver decided to get in, that could still be the case.

The problem is that Culver hasn’t made a move in one direction or the other (“He’s gone radio-silent,” one Democrat said), and that’s frustrating the party. He wasn’t included in a recent DCCC poll of the district that both Klinefeldt and Mowrer were.

“He’s squandered his window of opportunity,” the same Democrat added.

But “the rules don’t apply to him,” another Democrat said, suggesting that there’s no point at which it’d be too late for Culver to get in and possibly still clear the field.

Democrats have been slow to recruit in the 3rd District, where both parties consider Young vulnerable. The former chief of staff to Sen. Charles E. Grassley won by more than 10 points last November, but his district went for President Barack Obama by single-digit margins in 2008 and 2012. That’s enough to earn him a spot on the National Republican Congressional Committee’sPatriot Program and to get Democrats enthused about picking up his seat in a presidential year.

Earlier this week, state Sen. Matt McCoy, whom Democrats had tried to discourage from running, announced that he would not launch a bid.

Multiple Democratic sources said that the one Democrat who has declared his candidacy, businessman Desmund Adams, is not competitive.

“This is why the DCCC is boxed in,” said an Iowa Democrat in reference to the party’s delicate recruiting dance.

“Mowrer stepping up is a good thing — unless he chases one or two candidates out,” he said.

Correction 5:40 p.m.

An earlier version of this article misspelled Desmund Adams’ name.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading...