March 8, 2017


News and Views


THE GOOD NEWS FIRST -- FEARLESS GIRL

http://www.adweek.com/creativity/why-mccann-dropped-a-statue-of-a-fearless-girl-next-to-wall-streets-charging-bull-overnight/
ADFREAK
Why McCann Dropped a Statue of a ‘Fearless Girl’ Next to Wall Street’s Charging Bull Overnight
New manifesto from State Street Global Advisors
By Tim Nudd | March 8, 2017

Photograph -- Sculpture: Kristen Visbal - Photo: Federica Valabrega

Pedestrians in lower Manhattan had a new piece of branded art to ponder on Tuesday morning, as McCann New York and client State Street Global Advisors conspired in the middle of the night to drop a statue in Bowling Green Park of a girl facing off against the famous Wall Street Charging Bull.

The stunt, timed to International Women’s Day on Wednesday, is meant to symbolize the power of women in leadership. More specifically, it’s part of a campaign by SSGA to emphasize that companies with women in top positions perform better financially.

The sculpture, titled “The Fearless Girl,” was made by Kristen Visbal and photographed by Federica Valabrega. The guerrilla aspect of the placement is in keeping with the Charging Bull itself, which was installed without permission by artist Arturo Di Modica in 1989. It was meant to be a symbol of the strength and power of the American people following the stock-market crash of 1987. Residents fell in love with it, and the city allowed it to remain.

McCann did get a permit for the girl statue. It will be up for at least a week, says the agency, which is negotiating with the city for it to become part of the art program so she can stay longer.

The new campaign also calls on more than 3,500 companies—the ones that SSGA invests in on behalf of clients—to take steps to increase the number of women on their corporate boards.

“We believe good corporate governance is a function of strong, effective and independent board leadership,” Ron O’Hanley, president and chief executive officer of SSGA, said in a statement. “A key contributor to effective independent board leadership is diversity of thought, which requires directors with different skills, backgrounds and expertise. Today, we are calling on companies to take concrete steps to increase gender diversity on their boards and have issued clear guidance to help them begin to take action.”

O’Hanley will detail the guidance today in a keynote speech at the Corporate Governance Symposium hosted by the University of Delaware’s Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance.

An MSCI study suggested companies with strong female leadership generated a return on equity of 10.1 percent per year, versus 7.4 percent for those without a critical mass of women at the top, SSGA said. Yet one in four Russell 3000 companies don’t have even one woman on their board, and nearly 60 percent of boards are less than 15 percent women.

CREDITS
Client: State Street Global Advisors
Agency: McCann NY

Tim Nudd
@nudd

Tim Nudd is creative editor of Adweek and founding editor of AdFreak, Adweek's daily blog. Tim oversees all of Adweek's coverage of creativity and is co-host of its weekly podcast, "Yeah, That's Probably an Ad."


PHYSICIANS, HOSPITALS AND THE AARP, ON GOP OBAMACARE REPEAL DEAL, ALL SAY NO!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ama-oppose-obamacare-repeal-bill_us_58c010c2e4b0d1078ca2a977?
AMA Joins Increasingly Loud Chorus Of Health Groups Opposing GOP Repeal Bill
Yesterday it was the hospitals. Today it’s the doctors.
By Jonathan Cohn
POLITICS 03/08/2017 09:52 am ET

The American Medical Association just announced that it “cannot support” the Republican bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The AMA announced its opposition in a letter Wednesday morning, hours before two House committees were set to mark up repeal legislation. It comes one day after a slew of patient advocacy and health industry groups including the American Hospital Association announced they were against the House GOP bill ― and it’s one more sign of political trouble for the Republican repeal effort.

“While we agree that there are problems with the ACA that must be addressed, we cannot support the AHCA as drafted because of the expected decline in health insurance coverage and the potential harm it would cause to vulnerable patient populations,” AMA chief executive James Madara said in the letter.

In the detailed letter, Madara raises objections to the key pillars of the Republican plan, including a rollback of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. “Medicaid expansion has proven highly successful in providing coverage for lower income individuals,” he said, making a point that a variety of public health researchers have.

Madara also pointed out that the Republican bill would reorient federal financial assistance for people who buy private coverage on their own. Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government provides more money to people whose incomes are low or insurance costs are high ― in order to establish a guarantee of coverage. Republicans would instead introduce a system of flat tax credits, varying only by age, that would reduce subsidies ― sometimes dramatically ― for poor people and those with high insurance costs.

“We believe credits inversely related to income, rather than age as proposed in the committee’s legislation, not only result in greater numbers of people insured but are a more efficient use of tax-payer resources,” Madara said.

Republicans have suggested that their plan would improve access to health care, in part by stripping away regulations on insurance and thereby reducing premiums. But preliminary analyses of the GOP plan have suggested that it would cause millions to lose coverage and that the trade-off for lower premiums would be higher out-of-pocket costs ― in short, what Madara was saying in his letter.

The AMA is the nation’s largest organization representing physicians. And although it has traditionally promoted itself as an advocate for America’s patients, it is like any other interest group, and spends much of its time looking out for the financial interests of its members. But it’s not clear that, overall, repeal would hurt physician incomes in a meaningful way

The open opposition of so many health care organizations stands in stark contrast to their support of the 2009-10 reform effort that culminated in enactment of the Affordable Care Act.

One reason groups like the AMA supported that legislation was that Democratic leaders had spent more than two years working with them, going back to before the 2008 election, in order to build a coalition that could give reform the political resiliency it would need to pass Congress. The Republicans trying to repeal the law now did not do that.

Of course, there’s another reason the AMA and other groups endorsed reform in 2009. That was an effort to help give people health insurance, rather than take it away.

Suggest a correction
Jonathan Cohn
Senior National Correspondent, The Huffington Post


LOOK AT THIS PROPOSED REPUBLICAN PLAN FOR DISTRIBUTING INSURANCE PREMIUM FUNDS. IN THIS AS IN SO MANY OTHER WAYS, THE “CONSERVATIVES,” SEEM TO BE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO HURT THOSE WHO ARE LEAST CAPABLE OF PROTECTING THEMSELVES OR RECOVERING FROM THE INJURIES. COULD IT SIMPLY BE THAT, JUST LIKE ALL BULLIES, THEY DON’T WANT TO GO TO ANY TROUBLE IN GRABBING THEIR LAST FEW DOLLARS?


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/aarp-health-care-bill-gop/
By STEVEN PORTNOY CBS NEWS March 8, 2017, 1:47 PM
AARP opposes health care bill
Watch News Video

AARP announced its opposition to the Republican proposal that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), arguing that it would “weaken Medicare” and give special interests a “sweetheart deal.”

But the group’s primary concern is for people who haven’t yet reached retirement age, highlighting one of the biggest problems with the GOP’s plan to use tax credits in lieu of Obamacare subsidies. As proposed, the plan does not offer enough to help older people pay for what would become much more expensive coverage if the subsidies are scrapped and the GOP’s proposals to relax current age-based caps on premiums go through.

Under the Republican proposal to offer refundable tax credits, the older and poorer you are, the bigger the check you’ll get from the IRS. Someone who’s 64 -- too young for Medicare -- would be eligible for a $4,000 tax credit to buy a plan.

But AARP notes that the average premium for a person in his or her early 60s would be thousands of dollars more than that, if the current 3:1 “age rating” rules capping premiums for older participants are relaxed to 5:1. Under the ACA, older Americans can be charged no more than three times what younger participants with same kind of coverage are charged. The new plan would allow insurers to charge older Americans five times what they charge younger participants.

Comparing the GOP plan for tax cuts and a 5:1 age rating with the subsidies now offered under Obamacare, AARP estimates that an unmarried 64-year-old making $15,000 a year -- assuming they live in a state that has not expanded Medicaid -- would see their premiums go up $8,400 a year.

For this reason, AARP calls the bill an “unaffordable age tax,” and says it will have a disproportionately negative impact on poorer, middle-aged Americans.

Republican lawmakers are also drawing opposition from conservative advocacy groups.

Play VIDEO
Koch-backed group pressures Republicans to speed up Obamacare repeal

Heritage Action said of the House GOP proposal that it “not only accepts the flawed progressive premises of Obamacare but expands upon it.” And Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners, both Koch-affiliated groups wrote to House Speaker Paul Ryan to say that they “cannot support” what they referred to as “Obamacare 2.0.” Club for Growth slammed the bill for failing to offer “the critical free-market solution of selling health insurance across state lines” and called it a “warmed-over substitute for government-run health care.” If the bill remains unchanged, “the Club for Growth will key vote against it,” a statement from the group said.


“KEY VOTE,” USED AS A VERB: ALL THE GOOGLE REFERENCES ON THIS TERM THAT I HAVE FOUND COME FROM CONSERVATIVE SOURCES. I THINK THIS MUST BE A FAIRLY NEW PHRASE, BECAUSE I’VE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE. I COULD FIND NOT ONE ACTUAL DEFINITION, WHICH LEADS ME TO THINK THAT IT IS NOT A REAL WORD AT ALL. IS THIS A LOOSELY HELD RIGHT WING SECRET TERM, OR A COCKTAIL PARTY MEME? READ THE FOLLOWING THREE ARTICLES. WITH OR WITHOUT A FORMAL DEFINITION, THESE CONCEPTS “KEY VOTE” AND “SCORECARD,” ARE INDEED TERMINOLOGY USED BY AND FOR “THE GREAT RIGHTWING CONSPIRACY,” AND IS THEREFORE "AGIN' MY RELIGION."

IT SEEMS TO BE USED, IN TWO OF THE CASES WHEN I SEARCHED, TO MEAN THAT A VOTE TO STOP PASSAGE OF A BILL OR REGULATION IS INVOLVED, IE. “THE PARTY OF NO.” IN THE ARTICLE BELOW THE MEANS OF STOPPING PASSAGE IS DEFINITELY AN OVERT THREAT TO ALL LEGISLATORS WHO DARE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

I WONDER IF THIS IS THE WAY REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN ENSURING PARTY LOYALTY AMONG THEIR RANKS ON VOTES, THUS STOPPING ALL OBAMA ACTIONS WHEN POSSIBLE. IS THIS A LEGAL TERM, OR JUST A POPULARLY BUT INFORMALLY USED PHRASE, SIMILAR TO “BLOC VOTE” AMONG CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS? THAT’S WHAT IT APPEARS TO ME TO MEAN HERE. THE USE OF THE TERM “SCORECARD,” ALSO FITS THAT DEFINITION. PERHAPS EVERY CONGRESSPERSON HAS A SCORECARD BEING KEPT AGAINST HIS NAME OR IN HIS FAVOR, ACCORDING TO HOW LOYAL TO THE GROUP HE IS. IT REMINDS ME OF THE DISGUSTING TERM “RINO,” USED TO MEAN A REPUBLICAN WHO DOESN’T ALWAYS FOLLOW THE PARTY’S DICTATES AND INSTEAD THINKS FOR HIMSELF AS A STATESMAN RATHER THAN A POLITICIAN. THIS IS ANOTHER GOOD REASON NEVER TO VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN. UNFORTUNATELY, THE 2016 DNC DECISION SHOWED THE DEMS TO HAVE BECOME CORRUPT IN THIS SAME WAY -- UNDEMOCRATIC AND MILITATING AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF GOOD LAWS RATHER THAN UNFAIR, UNHELPFUL OR EVEN DOWNRIGHT RIDICULOUS LAWS. DISCOURAGING.


http://thehill.com/policy/finance/297810-conservative-group-to-key-vote-gop-spending-bill
Conservative group presses GOP to vote against spending bill
BY SARAH FERRIS - 09/26/16 01:08 PM EDT

An influential conservative group is pressing Senate Republicans to vote down a short-term bill to fund the government.

Heritage Action for America said Monday it would “key vote” the funding bill on its scorecard, meaning a vote in favor will be held against a lawmaker. The initial vote on the bill will be held in the Senate Tuesday, with just four days left to avoid a government shutdown.

While the bill was crafted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Heritage said it “falls far short of conservative expectations.”

The bill, known as a continuing resolution, would fund the government through Dec. 9. That timeline that has been fiercely opposed by conservative groups like Heritage and Freedom Partners because they oppose any funding deals during a lame-duck session after the election.

“Throughout the summer and into the fall, conservatives said Congress should ensure the length of any continuing resolution did not require a post-election session of Congress,” Heritage wrote in a statement Monday.

The opposition by Heritage Action is the latest hurdle for GOP leaders seeking to clear a spending bill before the Sept. 30 deadline.

Last week, seven Senate Republicans voted to oppose moving forward with the spending bill process: Dean Heller (Nev.), James Lankford (Okla.), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), David Perdue (Ga.), Ben Sasse (Neb.) and Ted Cruz (Texas.).

While some of the Senate Republicans could decide to support the bill now that the text has been released, other Republicans, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), say they'll remain firmly in opposition to the bill. Graham wants the bill to include a provision helping the Export-Import Bank.

Most Senate Democrats have also threatened to oppose the bill because it doesn’t include emergency funding for the lead-contaminated water crisis in Flint, Mich.

Heritage Action also criticized GOP leaders for not including several conservative riders, such as tighter rules for Syrian refugee, blocking the White House’s new overtime pay rules or protecting U.S. control over internet domain names.

The group also condemned the bill’s price tag, echoing a year-old argument against raising the current spending levels to $1.070 trillion — up from $1.040 trillion.


“KEY VOTE” AGAINST A BILL AND “SCORECARDS”

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/scorecards/
CONGRESSIONAL SCORECARDS

Each year the Club for Growth publishes a Congressional Scorecard that tracks how members of Congress vote on economic legislation. Throughout the year, the Club for Growth issues Key Vote Alerts urging Representatives and Senators to vote in favor of economic policies that strengthen our nation’s economy and shrink the size of the federal government. Similarly, Key Vote Alerts are issued when it is imperative that lawmakers strike down legislation that will raise taxes, increase harmful regulations, and grow our already massive government. At the end of the year, the Club for Growth tallies up how members of Congress voted on these key issues, along with other votes, and ascribes a score accordingly. This congressional scorecard is then shared with Club members, the press and with the public. It rewards free-market champions and exposes big-government, tax-and-spend politicians.


http://www.clubforgrowth.org/scorecards/scorecard-methodology/
THE 2015 SCORECARD METHODOLOGY

Club for Growth publishes this scorecard so our members and the public can monitor the actions and the voting behavior of Members of Congress on economic growth issues.

We conducted a comprehensive examination of each lawmaker’s record on pro-growth policies and computed an Economic Growth Score on a scale of 0 to 100. A score of 100 indicates the highest support for pro-growth policies. Those lawmakers scoring 90 or higher in 2015— and who also have a lifetime score of 90 or higher—receive the Defender of Economic Freedom award. These lawmakers’ names are highlighted in yellow.

The rating examines legislative actions that affect our immediate pro-economic growth policy goals, including:

Reduce income tax rates
Death tax repeal
Limited government through limited spending and budget reform, including a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution
Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts for younger workers
Expanding trade freedom (free trade)
End abusive lawsuits through medical malpractice and tort reform
Replacing the current tax code (flat tax, fair tax)
School choice
Regulatory reform and deregulation

Not all of these policy goals will come up for a vote in each session of Congress. In the 2015 Session, many of the votes were on bills that proposed laws that would directly harm these goals.

Whenever possible the Club sends a “key vote” alert to Capitol Hill prior to an expected roll call vote or pending legislative action that we plan to include in the scorecard. While the Club seeks to provide a “key vote” alert, it reserves the right to include any vote or action in the rating as votes often come up with little warning.

Legislative Actions Considered
The Club’s rating includes 28 House votes and 25 Senate votes.

Computation

Scores are computed on a scale of 0 to 100. Each vote or action in the rating is assigned a certain number of points depending on its relative importance. Absences are not counted against a Member, though we reserve the right to do so if, in our judgment, an absence was used to duck taking a position.

To provide some additional guidance concerning the scores, each lawmaker was ranked. Members with 0% scores are, by default, ranked #435 in the House and #100 in the Senate. Scores and ranks cannot be directly compared between the House and Senate as different votes were taken in each chamber. We have also provided a “Lifetime Score” for each Member of Congress. This is a simple average of the scores from 2015 and all previous years where the lawmaker earned a score in a Club for Growth rating.

In some cases a lawmaker was not present for enough votes for a meaningful score or ranking to be computed and in such cases “n.a.” for not applicable appears. In computing lifetime scores, years with “n.a.” listed instead of a score are not included. Some House and Senate members, noted with an asterisk next to their name, only voted on 50-75% of the weighted votes used for the scorecard. Please exercise caution when comparing their scores to other members.

Additional Factors

A study of roll call votes on the floor of the House and Senate and legislative actions is just that. It can not account for a lawmaker’s work in committee, advocacy in his party’s caucus meetings, and effectiveness as a leader in advocating pro-growth policies.


HERE ARE SOME OTHER REFERENCES, SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THEM FURTHER IF YOU WISH. PERSONALLY, I’M STOPPING HERE.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS725US725&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition+%22to+key+vote%22&*

REGULATIONS: U.S. Chamber, conservatives plan to 'key vote' CRA ...
www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/01/stories/1060049336
Feb 1, 2017 - U.S. Chamber, conservatives plan to 'key vote' CRA roll calls .... meaning the courts have yet to define what "substantially similar" means.


NFIB to 'Key Vote' Seasonal Worker, Franchisee BillNFIB | NFIB
www.nfib.com/content/news/.../nfib-to-key-vote-seasonal-worker-franchisee-bill-736...
Apr 14, 2016 - NFIB to 'Key Vote' Seasonal Worker, Franchisee Bill ... In its ruling, the NLRB expanded the definition to include both indirect, direct, and even ...


THE NEWEST ON WIKILEAKS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/intel-sources-examining-wikileaks-cia-data-to-determine-authenticity/
Intel sources examining WikiLeaks data to determine authenticity of CIA leak
By JEFF PEGUES CBS NEWS
March 8, 2017, 2:13 PM

U.S. intelligence sources say the data released by WikiLeaks Tuesday is still being examined to determine the authenticity of the alleged leak, which contained thousands of documents purported to be CIA secret files detailing hacking tools the government uses to break into users’ computers, mobile phones and smart TVs.

Sources say there is an effort to sift through the data to see what is real. So far, the intelligence community is reacting to the data as if it is authentic and as if it’s yet another embarrassing security breach.

Intel community, public concerned after alleged leak of CIA hacking program
Play VIDEO
Intel community, public concerned after alleged leak of CIA hacking program

One key question for intelligence analysts now is the timing of the release. Why did Wikileaks release the information Tuesday? Investigators have pointed to other Wikileaks disclosures over the last eight months and note that they usually appeared to be timed to coincide with certain events during the 2016 campaign.

For example, some of the emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, were publicly posted on the same day that the “Access Hollywood” tape was released. On the tape, then-GOP candidate for President Donald Trump was captured on videotape making crude comments about women.

Wikileaks says the data was provided by a former U.S. government hacker or contractor, which suggests that this was an inside job. The investigation into the incident is expected to include the FBI, since there will likely be an examination into whether there was collusion between Wikileaks and others. At this time, the CIA is not commenting on the authenticity of the data nor is the spy agency prepared to announce that an investigation is “officially” underway. However, the effort to find the how, why and what has already begun.



FOR SHAME, CARSON, AND OBAMA ?? THIS DOES SADDEN ME.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-aide-defends-ben-carsons-comments-calling-slaves-immigrants/
Former aide defends Ben Carson's comments calling slaves "immigrants"
By EMILY SCHULTHEIS CBS NEWS
March 8, 2017, 12:38 PM

Photograph -- HUD Secretary-nominee and former Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson stands after meeting with Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., December 7, 2016. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts - RTSV4V5 REUTERS

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson has come under fire this week for referring to slaves as “immigrants” -- but his former adviser has come to his defense, saying former President Barack Obama used similar language in 2015.

In his first speech to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) staffers on Monday, Carson referred to “immigrants” who came to the U.S. in “slave ships.”

“There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less,” he said. “But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.”

Armstrong Williams, a former adviser and spokesman for Carson’s 2016 presidential bid, defended his former boss’s comments in an op-ed for The Hill, by saying Obama also had compared the experiences of immigrants and slaves in past speeches.

“The outrage was immediate, but President Obama made similar comments during a ceremony for newly naturalized U.S. citizens on Dec. 15, 2015,” Williams wrote.

He called Carson a “man of integrity” and said he knows Carson didn’t mean to belittle the experience of slaves coming to the U.S.

“I have known Dr. Carson for 25 years. His intent with his original comments was to shine a light on the values and aspirations that we share,” Williams wrote. “It was certainly not to offend anyone. As he noted later, the slavery experience and the immigrant experience could not be more different.”

While Armstrong is correct that Obama referred to the experience of immigrants and slaves in the same speech, the context was different than Carson’s comments -- Obama made it clear that slaves had no choice in the matter. “[T]hose of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily,” he said.

“It wasn’t always easy for new immigrants,” Obama said in that 2015 ceremony. “Certainly, it wasn’t easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves. There was discrimination and hardship and poverty.”

The HUD secretary has made the same point about slaves and immigrants in the past. The remarks he made in August 2015 were nearly identical on this anecdote to his telling this week, except for the inclusion of the word “involuntarily.” He said then that “other immigrants came here involuntarily in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they, too, had a dream that one day their great grandsons and great granddaughters might pursue freedom and prosperity in this land.”

Carson himself later revisited the topic in comments in a Facebook post, saying immigrants and slaves had “two entirely different experiences,” though he made no reference to his earlier remarks at HUD.

“Slaves were ripped from their families and their homes and forced against their will after being sold into slavery by slave traders,” he wrote. “The Immigrants made the choice to come to America ….The two experiences should never be intertwined, nor forgotten, as we demand the necessary progress towards an America that’s inclusive and provides access to equal opportunity for all.”



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-also-referred-to-slaves-as-immigrants/ar-AAnZBMG
USA TODAY
Jessica Estepa
March 8, 2017 3 hrs ago
© Provided by USA Today

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson caused a stir Monday when he referred to slaves as "immigrants" — but he wasn't the first person to do that.

In December 2015, then-President Obama made similar comments during a naturalization ceremony at the National Archives.

The president did not specifically say "slaves" during his speech, but instead mentioned "those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily" who "in their own way were immigrants themselves."

The full quote, per the Obama administration's archives:

"And perhaps, like some of you, these new arrivals might have had some moments of doubt, wondering if they had made a mistake in leaving everything and everyone they ever knew behind. So life in America was not always easy. It wasn’t always easy for new immigrants. Certainly it wasn’t easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily, and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves. There was discrimination and hardship and poverty. But, like you, they no doubt found inspiration in all those who had come before them. And they were able to muster faith that, here in America, they might build a better life and give their children something more."

The similarities between Carson's comments and Obama's speech were first reported by Breitbart News.



I AM, AS YOU ALL KNOW, ONE OF THOSE WHO FEEL THAT THE DEMS NEED A THOROUGH REFRESHING WITH GOOD COOL SPRING WATER AND MAKE WAY FOR THE PROGRESSIVES WHO, AFTER ALL, STARTED THE PARTY FOR THE PEOPLE, RATHER THAN FOR THE WEALTHY. THE TIME HAS COME, IN MY VIEW, AND IF I'M RIGHT THEY SIMPLY WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO WIN ELECTIONS IF THEY DON'T MOVE AWAY FROM THE KOCHS AND WALL STREET FORCES. PEOPLE MAY JUST BE HUNGRY ENOUGH TO PUSH THE OLD GUARD ASIDE.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-reemerging-national-stage-international-womens-day/
CBS NEWS March 8, 2017, 6:53 AM
After "soul searching," Hillary Clinton reemerging on national stage

Hillary Clinton is scheduled to mark International Women’s Day with a speech tonight at the Kennedy Center in Washington. It will be at a ceremony for Vital Voices, a women’s leadership group she founded.

She’s also slated to deliver this year’s commencement address at her alma mater Wellesley College. Her public schedule is sending a signal, perhaps, that she plans to remain involved in the issues she holds dear, reports CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford.

The former senator and secretary of state accepted an award Tuesday for her work advocating for women.

“I’ve had my ups and my downs. In the last months, I’ve done my share of sleeping. A little soul searching and reflecting,” Clinton said.

Longtime friend Mack McLarty said Clinton is working on a new book while pondering her next move.
“No one ever said that Hillary Clinton doesn’t have resilience, grit,” McLarty said.

McLarty served as chief of staff for Clinton’s husband. He said one of Clinton’s top moments was also her toughest – her concession speech.

“This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for, and I’m sorry that we did not win this election,” Clinton had said.

Hillary Clinton: A life in pictures

“I think all of us, most Americans, and most people around the world, admire and recognize when someone is dealing with adversity with strength and courage and faith,” McLarty said.

Clinton has remained largely out of sight, though social media posts have captured her hiking in the woods, going shopping, dining out and catching some Broadway shows.

Recent runners-up have handled their presidential defeats in different ways. John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2008 continued their work as U.S. senators. After the 2012 race, Mitt Romney went back into business, re-emerging four years later as a contender for Mr. Trump’s secretary of state.

Al Gore reinvented himself after the 2000 campaign. His documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” won an Oscar, and his environmental efforts earned him the Nobel Peace Prize.

“I think that that does speak to the fact that there are other chapters, there are other opportunities out there,” Washington Post national political correspondent Karen Tumulty said.

But she said the opportunity has likely passed for the Clintons to remain a dominant force in their party.

“In some ways, people see them as a roadblock,” Tumulty said. “A lot of Democrats would like to see the Clintons move aside and give some oxygen for some new voices to emerge.”

That said, Chelsea Clinton has recently spoken out. Since the election, she’s sent a number of feisty political tweets. This week she described the president’s immigration policy as “disturbing” and suggested the Republican health care plan is “not moral.”



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-polls-have-mixed-news-for-trump/
New polls have mixed news for Trump
CBS NEWS March 8, 2017, 1:34 PM

Photograph -- WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 20: U.S. President-elect Donald Trump arrives on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2017 in Washington, DC. In today’s inauguration ceremony Donald J. Trump becomes the 45th president of the United States. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) WIN MCNAMEE, GETTY IMAGES

President Donald Trump appears to becoming more popular, although one new poll still has his deep under water.

A USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Tuesday has 47 percent of Americans saying they approve of Mr. Trump’s performance, versus 44 percent who do not. The survey, which was conducted last week in the days around his well-received address to Congress, gives Mr. Trump particularly good reviews when it comes to his leadership abilities.

However, a whopping 60 percent of Americans say they disapprove of the president’s temperament, according to the poll, versus 30 percent who approve of it. And they don’t particularly like his use of Twitter, either, with only 28 percent saying that the medium is a good way for him to communicate.

White House insists Trump has nothing to prove in wiretap claim
Play VIDEO
White House insists Trump has nothing to prove in wiretap claim.

Another bright spot for Mr. Trump is that 46 Americans now say that America is moving in the right direction, a 12-point shift since the poll was last taken in December. Additionally, 52 percent of Americans believe the economy is recovering, which the poll notes is a high number rarely seen since the 2008 crash.

But not all polls are so rosy for Mr. Trump. A Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday, for example, has only 41 percent of Americans approving of Mr. Trump’s performance, versus 52 percent that do not.

Half the respondents likewise said that Mr. Trump does not have good leadership qualities, versus 47 percent who say he does. A majority of respondents – 55 percent – also said Mr. Trump is dishonest, although 64 percent said he is intelligent.

The big piece of good news for Mr. Trump in the Quinnipiac poll is that his standing has improved since the last Quinnipiac poll, which was taken in mid-February. That survey left him with an anemic 38 percent approval rating, versus 55 percent who disapproved. That’s a six-point swing in Mr. Trump’s direction, even as the new poll continues to find him struggling.

“Vigorously self-billed as a uniter, President Donald Trump is seen instead as a divider less than two months after his inauguration,” said Tim Malloy, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac poll.

The Quinnipiac poll was conducted among 1,283 voters nationwide from March 2nd to March 7th. It has a margin-of-error of +/- 2.7 percentage points. The USA Today Suffolk poll was conducted from March 1st through March 5th among 1,000 voters. It has a margin-or-error of +/- 3 points.



GAY RIGHTS GROUP EXCLUDED

MAYBE THE SUPREME COURT CASE DECISION HERE SHOULD BE REVISED. ALL THE LGBTQ GROUPS SHOULD GET TOGETHER AND PUSH FOR THAT. TO ME, PROHIBITING THE PARTICIPATION OF PEOPLE IN THE LARGER GROUP IS ANTI-AMERICAN, AND UNEDUCATED. OF COURSE, IN THIS CASE, THIS IS BOSTON, WHICH IS THE UNOFFICIAL CAPITAL CITY OF IRISH CATHOLICISM THIS COUNTRY, WHICH IS KNOWN FOR ITS' RESTRICTIVE BEHAVIOR, AS IS "CONSERVATISM" AS A WHOLE. TO ME, TO SAY THAT A PERSON IS "CONSERVATIVE" IS JUST A WAY OF SAYING THAT THEIR MIND IS TIGHTLY CLOSED.

THEY FEAR, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT RECONSIDERING ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED TO BELIEVE WILL SHOW THEM TO BE WEAK. TO ME, IT WOULD SHOW THEM TO BE CREATIVE, INTELLIGENT, AND JUST. IN A RIGID, UNSYMPATHETIC, RACIALLY/RELIGIOUSLY/ETHNICALLY BIASED SOCIETY THOSE THINGS ARE HATED AND FEARED, OF COURSE. “A LITTLE BIT OF LEARNING IS A DANGEROUS THING, YOU KNOW.” THAT’S WHY IT WAS ACTUALLY ILLEGAL IN SOME PARTS OF THE SOUTH TO TEACH A SLAVE TO READ. SOMEWHERE IN OUR THINKING WE NEED TO SEE THE POINT AT WHICH THE DEVIL HAS STEPPED IN AND PUSHED GOD OUT OF THE PICTURE.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uproar-after-gay-veterans-group-denied-spot-in-boston-st-patricks-day-parade/
CBS/AP March 8, 2017, 2:42 PM
Uproar after gay veterans group denied spot in Boston St. Patrick's Day parade

Photograph -- Members of OutVets, a group of gay military veterans, hold a banner and flags as they march in the annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade, Sunday, March 20, 2016, in Boston’s South Boston neighborhood STEVEN SENNE, AP

BOSTON -- A gay veterans group said Wednesday it has been denied permission to march in this year’s Boston St. Patrick’s Day parade just two years after organizers made the groundbreaking decision to allow gay groups to participate for the first time.

OutVets, which marched in Boston’s 2015 St. Patrick’s Day parade after decades of resistance from organizers, said on its Facebook page that the reason for the denial to this year’s parade is unclear, but “one can only assume it’s because we are LGBTQ.”

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh says he won’t be marching in the parade if the group is excluded, CBS Boston reports.

“I will not tolerate discrimination in our city of any form. We are one Boston, which means we are a fully inclusive city,” Walsh said in a statement Wednesday morning. “I will not be marching in the parade unless this is resolved. Anyone who values what our city stands for should do the same.”

The South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, the parade’s organizer, voted 9-4 Tuesday to keep the group out of the March 19 parade. Emails and phone messages seeking comment on the reasoning were not immediately returned Wednesday morning. OutVets and parade organizers are planning to meet at City Hall on Wednesday afternoon, CBS Boston reported.

Ed Flynn, a member of the council, says he voted to allow OutVets to participate. The Navy veteran said he is “saddened and outraged” that the council “voted to turn back the clock on equality.”

Mass Fallen Heroes Executive Director Dan Magoon said in a statement he was withdrawing as chief marshal of the parade this year because he can’t support the council’s decision.

“The freedom that we possess to hold such an event as the St. Patrick’s Parade, is due to the men and women who have spilled their blood in defense to this great nation, regardless of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation,” he said.

A parade of history on St. Patrick’s Day
Play VIDEO
A parade of history on St. Patrick’s Day

Republican Gov. Charlie Baker also said he would not participate, while Democratic U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton called for a boycott of the parade. Moulton, who served four tours of duty in Iraq, has marched with OutVets previously.

A spokesperson from Anheuser-Busch told CBS News the company is “re-evaluating our participation in this event.”

“We are disappointed to learn that the OUTVETS, who have proudly served this country, have been denied entry to the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day parade,” the company said.

Restricting a veterans group from marching in a parade that honors veterans “doesn’t make any sense to me,” Baker said.

The vote left OutVets leadership stunned.

“It’s disgusting and disgraceful that they would do this to their own, because we are veterans like them,” said Bryan Bishop, an Air Force veteran who founded OutVets.

The South Boston Allied War Veterans Council’s legal battle to keep gay organizations out of the parade went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in its favor in 1995.

“This is a black eye on South Boston,” Bishop said.