During a stop in Charlotte, North Carolina last week, presidential candidate Donald Trump laid out his plans to a predominantly white crowd, for what he is calling a “new deal for black America.”

His platform calls for better education, an increased police presence, proposed designation of “blighted communities” with a “disaster designation” to spark change and rebuild these communities with an emphasis on bringing back businesses.

Trump has said previously that black communities are at their worst in history, a comment that didn’t sit well with many people of color. At this rally he echoed those concerns, describing the cities as places where “you walk to the store to buy a loaf of bread, maybe with your child, and you get shot, your child gets shot,” but discussing it in a way that lumps all African Americans into one group.

He also prefaced his discussion on inner cities and African Americans by saying that “we’re going to work on our ghettos.”

Help me out there. Did Trump just say “we’re going to work on our ghettos” before mentioning inner cities, violence and African Americans? pic.twitter.com/v9KqZSLbh6

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) October 27, 2016

Some of his new proposals included tax holidays used to help cities, arguing for foreign companies to invest in these blighted communities, and bringing in direct funding to urban areas.

While discussing the need for more police patrolling the streets, Trump said that the problem is a lack of police for African American communities rather than too many police, connecting the former to a increase in murder rate in cities.

“Whether you vote for me or not, I will be your greatest champion,” Trump said. “We live in a very divided country, and I will be your greatest champion.”

Additionally, he blamed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for starting a “war on police,” but did not discuss the other side, police brutality, an issue that carries importance for black voters.

After 70yrs of ignoring our struggle, Trump’s got a “new deal” for African Americans?
Hmm.Let’s examine some old deals he/GOP have shared pic.twitter.com/E2YYJ5rvkw

— T. Fisher King (@T_FisherKing) October 27, 2016

In a recent CNN/ORC poll, Trump has attracted just 20 percent of the nonwhite vote. According to Gallup, in the 2012 election, Barack Obama garnered 95 percent of the black vote.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Unveils “New Deal for Black America” appeared first on Law Street.

AT&T’s $85.4 billion deal to buy Time Warner turned media consolidation into a campaign issue for both Democrats and Republicans this past weekend. 

The biggest deal of the year–announced just over two weeks before the November 8 U.S. election–received backlash from critics who believe the combination of AT&T’s millions of wireless and pay-television subscribers with Time Warner’s stable of TV networks and programming would reduce competition and hurt consumers.

Any merger would have to be reviewed and approved by federal antitrust regulators. The announcement caused a stir in Washington and led the candidates to criticize the status quo on antitrust and regulatory enforcement.

Donald Trump’s campaign has remained vocal about its distaste for the media and proposed merger did not sit well with the billionaire mogul.

“As an example of the power structure I’m fighting, AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” Trump said during a speech on Saturday.

The Republican candidate has been vocal about the “disgusting and corrupt” media. The campaign’s economic advisor Peter Navarro criticized the new media oligopolies for unduly influencing America’s political process.

“AT&T, the original and abusive ‘Ma Bell’ telephone monopoly, is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal because it concentrates too much power in the hands of the too and powerful few,” Navarro said in a statement on Sunday.

Trump said that if he is elected, he would look at breaking up the 2011 merger of Comcast and NBCUniversal. The Obama administration approved the merger with some restrictions in 2011.

Trump said of Comcast-NBCUniversal, “We’ll look at breaking that deal up, and other deals like that. This should never, ever have been approved in the first place.”

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hasn’t yet weighed in on the merger plan, but her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he shared “concerns and questions” raised by fellow Senator Al Franken, a Democrat representing Minnesota. Franken, a member of the antitrust subcommittee, said in a statement that huge media mergers “can lead to higher costs, fewer choices, and even worse service for consumers.”

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders joined the political opposition and urged the Obama administration to kill the deal. He tweeted:

The administration should kill the Time Warner-AT&T merger. This deal would mean higher prices and fewer choices for the American people.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) October 23, 2016

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The AT&T-Time Warner Deal Quickly Becomes a Campaign Issue appeared first on Law Street.

American distrust of the media has reached an all-time high. Maybe…after all, I’m writing this while sipping from a Hillary Clinton coffee mug, wearing a Donald Trump shirt, and cackling maliciously, so can you really trust me? But all jokes aside, Americans do trust the media less than they have in recent years–only 32 percent of Americans say that they trust the media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly,” according to a new Gallup poll.

That’s the lowest level of trust in the media since Gallup began asking the question in 1972, and this year was marked by an 8 percent drop–a pretty sharp one given that the percentage has been hovering at low-mid 40s since 2008. But splitting up that 32 percent by party lines gives us an even clearer picture into who doesn’t like the media right now–conservatives.

While 51 percent of Democrats say they trust the media, Independents are at 30 percent. But only 14 percent of Republicans trust the media. That sounds low, and it is, but even more shocking is how large of a drop that represents. Last year, 32 percent of Republicans trusted the media, meaning we saw an 18 percent drop in the course of a year.

So…what changed this year? While conservative perception of the media has long been low–“lamestream media” entered our lexicon sometime in the mid-2000s–this drop is too sharp to just be attributed to normal trends. Instead, it seems like Donald Trump, and his serious anti-media rhetoric may be to blame.

He has had a very aggressive stance against the media, from yanking the Washington Post’s press pass to actually saying that he’s running against the media in mid-August. At a rally in Connecticut, Trump stated: “I’m not running against Crooked Hillary. I’m running against the crooked media. That’s what I’m running against.”

Bloomberg compiled a pretty intensive and deep look at Trump’s attacks on the media via Twitter, showing that he did attack the media more than Clinton from June 2015-August 2016. Andre Tartar stated:

Searching Trump’s roughly 5,000 tweets and retweets since his June 2015 launch for mentions of 25 major media organizations (listed below), Bloomberg Politics found nearly 1,000 examples through Friday morning. Of those, 256 messages were critical, and together they garnered more than 875,000 retweets and 2.4 million likes. Over the same period, Trump sent just 140 tweets attacking Clinton. Those got more than 1.2 million retweets and more than 3.3 million likes.

The media is at an interesting crossroads right now–there’s a lot of questions that both journalists and the American public are now being required to confront on a regular basis. How much should opinion writing be weighted? How awful really is clickbait? How many cat gifs are too many cat gifs?

Spoiler: all cat gifs are relevant. via GIPHY

Media distrust is at an all time high. But is it deserved, or is it another by-product of what is by all accounts a totally insane election year?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Don’t You Like Us?: Media Distrust Hits All Time High, Thanks Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton announced her running mate on Friday, going with a safe candidate who is seasoned with experience in almost every level of government and thankfully lacks a scandalous background. Despite the fact that Tim Kaine is a white, Catholic male and an insider to politics, he can do a few things that the average politician cannot: he officiates weddings, plays the harmonica, and speaks fluent Spanish.

Kaine started his political career as a city councilman in Richmond, Virginia, where he later served as mayor. He was elected Governor of Virginia in 2006, and became a senator in 2012. He also served as chairman of the Democratic National Convention during the first years of the Obama administration. He currently serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Armed Services Committee.

Kaine has been in politics for 22 years and knows a thing or two about elections, except for one thing: losing. Kaine has never lost an election during his tenure in government. Another fun fact about the next possible vice president? He is the first senator to give an entire speech on the Senate floor in a language other than English (he recited a speech entirely in Spanish in 2013).

Critics have called Kaine boring, but maybe that’s what Clinton needs to get her the presidency in November. On the big issues dominating this election, where does he stand?

Gun Control

Kaine has a personal connection with the push for stricter gun laws— he was the governor of Virginia when the Virginia Tech shooting happened, and at the time, it was the most deadly mass shooting in history. He described it as the worst day of his life:

That was the worst day of my life, and it will always be the worst day of my life — comforting the families of the victims, talking to the first responders who went into a classroom where bodies littered the floor and who heard in the pockets of deceased students and professors cell phones ringing as parents who had seen it on the news were calling their kids, just knowing they were at Virginia Tech to ask them if they were all right — calls that would never be answered.

Although a proponent of the second amendment and a gun owner himself, Kaine said he “supports common sense legislation,” and would like to see expanded background checks, restrictions on assault-style weapons, and expansion for mental health services, according to a statement on his website.

“Hillary and I will not rest…until we get universal background checks and close loopholes.” —@TimKaine on preventing gun violence

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 23, 2016

Women’s Reproductive Rights

Kaine is a pretty fervent Catholic, but when it comes to abortion rights, he believes it’s a personal matter, not a political one. He has an impressive 100 percent pro-choice voting record on abortion issues in the Senate, which garners respect from groups like Planned Parenthood and National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.

Although Kaine does not personally agree with abortions, he said, “I deeply believe, and not just as a matter of politics, but even as a matter of morality, that matters about reproduction and intimacy and relationships and contraception are in the personal realm. They’re moral decisions for individuals to make for themselves. And the last thing we need is government intruding into those personal decisions.”

In August 2015 he voted against defunding Planned Parenthood, saying that for many women, “Planned Parenthood health centers are their only source of high quality health care.”

Planned Parenthood provides many critical, preventative services. Here’s just some #StandWithPP pic.twitter.com/TmPRd7GJ1X

— Senator Tim Kaine (@timkaine) December 2, 2015

Education 

Kaine was critical of No Child Left Behind from the get-go. When he was governor of Virginia in 2006, he said the education act was “wreaking havoc on local school districts.” He has scathed NCLB for putting so much pressure and focus on standardized testing.

The new act that replaced NCLB in December 2015, Every Child Succeeds, has parts that Kaine wrote that focused on promoting career and technical education.

Authorization of Military Force

Kaine is the father of a Marine, so creating policy that recognizes that soldiers put their lives at risk in order to protect national security is important to him. That’s why he has pushed for the Obama administration to get re-authorization from Congress in order to fight terrorist groups like ISIS. In September 2014, Kaine called on President Obama to seek authorization on the Senate floor:

During a time of war, we ask our troops to give their best even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. When compared against that, how much of a sacrifice is it for a President to engage in a possibly contentious debate with Congress about whether military action is a good idea? How much of a sacrifice is it for a member of Congress to debate and vote about whether military action is a good idea? While Congressional members face the political costs of debate on military action, our service members bear the human costs of those decisions. And if we choose to avoid debate, avoid accountability, avoid a hard decision how can we demand that our military willingly sacrifice their very lives?

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does Tim Kaine Stand on the Issues? appeared first on Law Street.

Georgia Representative John Lewis (D-Georgia) is currently leading a sit in on the House floor. Lewis is joined by dozens of other Democratic congressmen in a movement now dubbed #NoBillNoBreak, and they’re all vowing to stay seated on the House floor until the GOP allows a vote on gun control measures.

The sit in began after Lewis, a civil rights leader, delivered a fiery speech on gun control, saying:

For months, even for years, through seven sessions of Congress, I wondered, what would bring this body to take action? “We have lost hundreds and thousands of innocent people to gun violence. Tiny little children. Babies. Students. And teachers. Mother and fathers. Sisters and brothers. Daughters and sons. Friends and neighbors. And what has this body done? Mr. Speaker, not one thing.

Then, he took a seat on the floor, and was immediately joined by many of his colleagues.

Unlike so many events that take place on Capitol Hill, footage of the sit-in isn’t being streamed by C-Span’s cameras. Republicans in the House called a recess, essentially shutting off the cameras’ views into the protest. But thanks to social media we still know what’s going on–here are some scenes from the floor:

Time to occupy the House to demand action. #NoBillNoBreak #DisarmHate pic.twitter.com/C7BZpzNvxL

— Rep Donna F Edwards (@repdonnaedwards) June 22, 2016

You won’t see us on CSPAN but we are still here. #NoBillNoBreak pic.twitter.com/44HOBT25WQ

— Janice Hahn (@Rep_JaniceHahn) June 22, 2016

Proud to sit with @RepJoeCourtney and others demanding action. #GoodTrouble #NoBillNoBreak pic.twitter.com/SNMWlQ0ZfZ

— Rep. John Yarmuth (@RepJohnYarmuth) June 22, 2016

We’ve had almost all if not all of @HouseDemocrats. Currently @ least 3/4 of Caucus & many Senators. #NoBillNoBreakpic.twitter.com/70zlL8edLv

— Rep Donna F Edwards (@repdonnaedwards) June 22, 2016

One house member, Representative Scott Peters, is streaming the sit in live through periscope. 

There’s also been an outpouring of support on social media from other politicians, organizations, and individuals: 

Change only happens when people come together to say the status quo is unacceptable. We stand with you @HouseDemocrats. #NoBillNoBreak

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 22, 2016

I stand with those who Sit-In for gun control. #NoBillNoBreak #Enough

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) June 22, 2016

.@SenatorBoxer just arrived with granola bars. #NoBillNoBreak

— Tina Dupuy (@TinaDupuy) June 22, 2016

So I’m meeting with @keithellison. His scheduler walks in and hands him this note. Meeting ends #NoBillNoBreak pic.twitter.com/JwnusZKZuo

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) June 22, 2016

Keep going @HouseDemocrats ! No parent should have a grave site for a child. #NoBillNoBreak#DisarmHatepic.twitter.com/jTAomUHQRE

— Nelba Márquez-Greene (@apricotmamiof2) June 22, 2016

Lewis’s sit in comes just a week after Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) filibustered for a vote on a number of different gun control measures. Those measures were rejected by the Senate on Monday. But Lewis, and his fellow House Democrats, are showing that this fight isn’t over. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #NoBillNoBreak Sit in Started by House Democrats appeared first on Law Street.

As it becomes almost inevitable that Donald Trump will be the GOP’s nominee (given that every other candidate in the running has dropped out), many people aren’t happy. The “Dump Trump” and “Never Trump” movements are still alive and well. Ben Sasse, a Republican Senator from Nebraska, recently went particularly on the offensive against Trump–and the apparent Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton–calling for a third party candidate in a Facebook open letter that has now gone viral.

Sasse’s letter, while long-winded and in places somewhat thin on real substance and a bit heavy on rhetoric, is unabashedly honest about what his frustrations are with the party system. Some highlights:

I’ve ignored my phone most of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that ‘although Trump is terrible,’ we ‘have to’ support him, ‘because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.’ This open letter aims simply to ask, ‘WHY is that the only choice?’

…

I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln — and I will work to reform and restore the GOP — but let’s tell the plain truth that right now both parties lack vision.

…

In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two ‘leaders.’

…

I think there is room – an appetite – for such a candidate.

Despite the fact that the open letter was very much a call for a third party candidate to run in 2016, Sasse implied that he would not be willing to be that candidate, stating: “Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little kids.” That would, presumably, rule him out, given that he has three children.

Sasse has been very vocal about his opposition to Donald Trump, according to the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake: “Sasse is still the only sitting GOP senator to say he simply won’t vote for Trump under any circumstances.” Sasse also published a series of tweets about his open letter, mostly in the same vein.

Now that it looks like Trump is certain to be the  nominee, the rift in the Republican Party between the “never Trump” adherents and the “Trump, now, I guess” advocates threatens to widen. We’ll have to see if Sasse’s appeal attracts any viable third party candidates.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ben Sasse: Nebraska Senator Calls for 3rd Party Candidate appeared first on Law Street.

At this point, Hillary Clinton is for all intents and purposes the Democratic Party’s nominee. While there are still a few contests to go, Bernie Sanders has been all but mathematically eliminated from the race. Yet a lot of people are still upset about the fact that Sanders isn’t going to be the nominee–or maybe they’re just upset that Clinton will be. As a result, #DropOutHillary is trending on Twitter, and has been for the last few days. And while it’s certainly reasonable to use social media to vent about your preferred candidate, it may be time for some Sanders supporters to face the facts: Clinton will almost certainly be the nominee, and if we don’t want a Donald Trump presidency, it may be time to rally around her.

Here’s a sampling of some of the tweets, but they mostly either attack Clinton’s record, extol Sanders’, or bizarrely accuse Twitter of trying to suppress the hashtag:

#DropOutHillary You are being forced on us by #ElectionFraud, empty suit MSM, & corruption. We will rebel against this as profoundly as 1776

— Steven Wilson (@ibstevie) May 5, 2016

#DropOutHillary not allowed to trend after 500k tweets and no.1 worldwide? Why @twitter @Support ?

— Travis W Shores (@travisshores1) May 5, 2016

#DropOutHillary because the first woman president should be someone we can be proud of

— Diane Wald (@sleeperina) May 5, 2016

IS THIS REALLY A QUESTION ANYMORE???? @HillaryClinton @realDonaldTrump @BernieSanders #DropOutHillary #HillNo pic.twitter.com/pWDnrwLqlB

— J4D4BL00M (@mizt1f) May 5, 2016

#DropOutHillary because you’re a thief. You & the DNC have stolen our votes & disenfranchised us. #ElectionFraudpic.twitter.com/2l2OZPJleq

— Carol Leonard (@laughingcat2016) May 5, 2016

The anger against Clinton is palpable, particularly for some parts of the electorate. Fellow Law Streeter Sean Simon wrote an article about the hatred that many Americans have for Clinton (and Trump), pointing out that “if you don’t like one of them, chances are you really hate them.” That disgust for Clinton seems to be in full force right now, but as we get closer to the almost inevitable race between Trump and Clinton, it will be deeply problematic for the left if that kind of rhetoric doesn’t abate.

Clinton will be countering more attacks from Trump any day now, and if she has to deal with the same problems from the left, Trump’s jabs will hit even harder. Take the hashtag #DropOutHillary as an example–if you check news stories on the trending topic, a large chunk are by gleeful conservative outlets.

Public discourse should always allow us to vet, question, and debate our candidates. But calls for Clinton to drop out rather than discussing her platform in a constructive manner are unwarranted, unrealistic, and ultimately damaging. So for those advocating #DropOutHillary, is it really worth strengthening a Trump candidacy?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #DropOutHillary: Some on the Left Not Happy with Democratic Party’s Choice appeared first on Law Street.

Bad Lip Reading features one of the simplest yet most entertaining concepts on the internet. A Youtube channel run by an anonymous creator, it takes videos of celebrities, politicians, and movie trailers and dubs in ridiculous things for the speakers to say. Bad Lip Reading has long been spoofing this year’s crazy cast of presidential candidates, but its rendition of Bernie Sanders’ and Hillary Clinton’s last debate in New York is one of the best yet. Check it out below:

One of the highlights is when Bad Lip Reading graduates from just dubbing in silly things for Sanders and Clinton to say, and moves on to spoofing Sanders’ hand motions as well, by having him play a game of charades called “Time to Act.” Prompts included “you ask the waiter for the check” “you see a bee” “prostate exam” “timid Napoleon” and “your hand is a baby bird, your fingers are the beak.”

In the spot, which features more Sanders than Clinton (perhaps because of his more characteristic charisma and hand gestures) the Vermont Senator also takes a break from the debate to sing a quick song, “Why is it creepy to juggle in bed? When God gave us hands, and God gave us balls, and God gave us beds?”

Bad Lip Reading has certainly been having plenty of fun this election cycle, like with this interpretation of Republican hopeful Ted Cruz’s words:

Or this nonsensical version of the first Republican debate back in the summer of 2015:

As the primary contests yield nominees who will inevitably face off many times  before the general election, Bad Lip Reading will probably have even more fantastic fodder. I, for one, can’t wait.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bad Lip Reading Takes on Latest Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential elections are upon us and for some of us young folk, myself included, this is the first presidential election we will be voting in. It’s an exciting time! We’re fulfilling our civic duty for the first time, making choices that will impact our futures in this country, and taking part in the democratic process we hold so near and dear to our hearts in this country. So, why am I angry? Because, for the first year I get to have a say in who gets to be president, all of my choices feel like a bad joke.

Starting with everyone’s favorite front runner, Donald Trump, let’s take a look at why I just can’t buy into voting for these candidates in my first election.

Where do you even begin when it comes to Trump–that he’s a big bully? Whether it’s attacking other candidates with rude remarks, threatening to ban Muslims from the U.S., or refusing to denounce the KKK, Trump has been a misogynistic, racist candidate since day one. One thing that’s certain is that he wouldn’t stop this abhorrent behavior as president. Whether you think his policy plans to build a wall in between the U.S. and Mexico are funny or just think it would be hilarious to elect this man president, think about exactly what Trump as a leader would mean for America before you cast that ballot–it’s not a great thought, folks.

If you just aren’t quite willing to jump aboard the TrumpTrain, it looks like Ted Cruz might be your next viable option, right? Wrong.

If Cruz is right about one thing, it’s that the Democrats sure are laughing at this pool of Republican nominees. Aside from rumors that Cruz may be the zodiac killer–which he hasn’t denied yet–and viral videos of how uncomfortably he acts around his children, what are Cruz’s actual plans for running the country? Well, he’s an active supporter of gun rights in our country, despite the fact that we’re currently plagued with firearm deaths. He also plans to increase deportation of immigrants, which is slightly better than building a gigantic wall between the US and Mexico. At the end of the day, the biggest hesitation when it comes to Ted Cruz is the fact that his facial expressions always just kind of look like he is struggling to escape an unsettling situation. There’s just something so unappealing about the thought of having to spend the next four years feeling uncomfortable everytime you look at the leader of your country’s face.

Next up on the chopping block, Marco Rubio.

Now, Rubio is one of the less outwardly mockable candidates of this year’s election. Other than his weird water drinking habits and some odd Nazi metaphors, Rubio has managed to stay pretty gaffe free, so, why not vote for Rubio? For starters, he’s basically out of the race. Even Rubio’s campaign has acknowledged how much of an underdog he is at this point.

The media may treat me like an underdog, but I’m an underdog that can win. https://t.co/i9gFxAgwK3

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 2, 2016

But even with the underdog point aside, Rubio’s staunch conservative social views are pretty off-putting and he certainly doesn’t hesitate to bring them up at every event he can. Plus, in case you hadn’t heard, Marco Rubio can’t even manage to do the job he has right now, with a very low voting rate in the Senate. Sure, campaigning and being a representative at the same time may be tough but come on, Rubio.

And finally, John Kasich.

Kasich might be alright if it weren’t for all the foot-in-his-mouth comments he manages to make on a daily basis. Some of the best? Most recently, his wonderful commentary on women:

How did I get elected? Nobody was — I didn’t have anybody for me. We just got an army of people and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up for me.

No woman should be “leaving her kitchen” to head out to the polls and vote for Kasich this primary season. Making sure that pie comes out as perfect as possible is way more important than giving another misogynistic male candidate validation.

There are also two contenders left on the left: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Compared to some of the Republican nominees, these two seem like saints for the most part, but they each has their flaws.

Bernie Sanders, on one side, is pretty much a socialist.

While it’s easy to side with Bernie on so many issues–like so many American youths have–his plans to accomplish his goals may not be what this country really needs. His tax plans, which would be great for evening out economic inequality, could cause serious economic problems in our country overall. There’s a lack of acknowledgement of the real world implications of a lot of his policies and, without that acknowledgment, his liberal plans feel a lot like a fairytale that could never come true.

What’s so wrong with Hillary Clinton?

Much like this gif suggests, she’s boring. Clinton has a history of flip-flopping on key issues and seems like she cares about things just to attract voters who care about the same issues. She’s also known to be hawkish on foreign policy, has not taken a strong stance against fracking, and will always have Bill Clinton’s scandals and policies looming over her. All in all, Clinton may be the best pick for president, but it’s because she’s the lesser of so many evils–is that really the way people should feel when they’re picking our next president?

Maybe I’m just too picky, or maybe the presidential candidate field really isn’t that great–who knows. It just feels a little underwhelming and infuriating that the first time I get to decide who to put in the White House, it’s going to be based on a “pick the person you hate the least” type strategy. I really wanted someone who I could stand behind unabashedly, but that may just be asking a little bit too much of today’s bipartisan mess of a political system. At the end of the day, the important thing is staying informed and making sure you know your facts before heading to the voting booths this November. And, until the dream presidential candidate appears out of thin air, here’s to whoever can beat Trump!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Angry About This Year’s Presidential Candidates? You’re Not Alone appeared first on Law Street.

The votes are in, Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton are the official winners of the Iowa caucuses, and the 2016 primary season is officially underway. Now that political commentators have some results to talk about the speculation will likely hit unprecedented levels, but what should we learn from Monday night? Let’s take a quick look at what happened, why it happened, and what we should take away from Iowa.

1. Trump didn’t meet expectations

At the end of the night, Donald Trump was not Iowa’s choice for the Republican nominee. In fact, he almost came in third after a surprise showing from Marco Rubio. How big of a blow this will have on the Trump campaign remains to be seen, but given that the phenomenon surrounding him didn’t quite meet expectations, we can expect to see some less Trump-centric discussion in the rest of the primaries. Trump still maintains a wide lead in New Hampshire so barring any massive shifts in the next week he will likely win there. But his image as a self-proclaimed “winner” was tainted a little last night.

Unlike Trump, Rubio ended up beating expectations with a third place finish. While most polls showed Rubio coming in third, he closed a lot of distance between the two frontrunners in the brief time leading up to the caucus. If you watched his speech Monday night it almost seemed like he won the whole thing, but for the Rubio campaign, a close third finish is a lot like winning.

2. Clinton and Sanders (basically) tied

It took until Tuesday afternoon to come up with the final tally for the Democratic side, but in the end, Hillary Clinton eked out a victory, though just barely. But for all intents and purposes, this race was more or less a tie. The Democrats have 44 delegates at stake here and they will likely be almost completely split between the candidates. Although to be fair, the Democrats have a very confusing process of allocating Iowa’s delegates–Iowan Democrats have their own county, district, and state conventions to determine the delegates to send to the national Democratic Convention where the winner will ultimately be chosen. Republicans, on the other hand, base delegates on the percentage of votes cast for each candidate.

Delegate weirdness aside, the results of caucus voting essentially determine the state’s winner. What’s more, Iowa’s 44 delegates are only an extremely small fraction of the total number of delegates needed to win the actual nomination (Democratic candidates need at least 2,382 of the 4,763 total delegates and Republicans need 1,237 of 2,472). The takeaways from the Iowa caucuses tend to be more momentum or narrative-based than an actual edge in the election. For this reason, you can interpret the results in many ways, but when you consider Iowa’s role in delegate allocation Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are basically tied going into New Hampshire next week.

3. Look at the demographics

To fully understand the outcome in Iowa, it is important to look at the demographics of the Iowa electorate, which put simply, does not look all that much like the rest of the country. The population and voting system in Iowa was ideal for Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders. Caucuses tend to attract fewer voters than primaries and those voters are more likely to hold extreme views. This means that Ted Cruz, who is arguably the most conservative candidate in presidential election history, and Bernie Sanders who bills himself as a democratic socialist, were uniquely benefited by the typical Iowan caucus-goer.

New York Times reporter Nate Cohn, has a nice explanation as to why the tie in Iowa might not be enough for Sanders. Given that Sanders is the underdog in the Democratic race, a tie in Iowa could be spun as a significant achievement, but it is also important to note that Iowa and New Hampshire are considerably more favorable to him than other states might be. In terms of population, Iowa is considerably whiter than the rest of the country. According to the 2014 census, the United States as a whole is about 77 percent white, but over 92 percent of Iowans are white and that’s even more so the case in New Hampshire. So far, Hillary Clinton has managed to maintain her support among black voters, an extremely large part of Democratic Party. In some upcoming primary states, like South Carolina, black voters make up a much bigger portion of the electorate, which is part of the reason why Clinton holds a much stronger lead there. 

In Ted Cruz’s case, the high number of evangelical Christians in Iowa helped Cruz push his way to the top. According to exit poll data, 64 percent of Republican caucus voters identified as evangelicals. Tred Cruz won 34 percent of those voters’ support while Donald Trump came in second with 22 percent. Cruz also won the support of voters who identify as “very conservative” by a very wide margin, earning 44 percent of the votes from that cohort.

4. Don’t forget about turnout

It’s also important to recognize how few people vote in caucuses. Monday night’s caucus broke a record for turnout among Republicans, yet just over 185,000 people voted. Even fewer voted in the Democratic caucus, which had just over 171,000 people vote. To put this in perspective, there are over 2.2 million Iowans who are eligible to vote, and 1.5 million registered voters.

Based on the number of people who are eligible to vote, last night’s caucus had a turnout rate of just 15.7 percent. That’s important to keep in mind when talking about the Iowa caucuses, particularly when you couple that with the fact that so few delegates are actually up for grabs. While they may be important for momentum or winnowing the field, the Iowa caucuses involve a particularly small number of Americans.

5. We lost two candidates

By the end of the night, two candidates had officially suspended their campaigns: Martin O’Malley and Mike Huckabee. While this might be a good sign for those who are hoping to see the field trimmed, it’s probably still too early to call it a trend, particularly in an election cycle when more people have hung around despite abysmal polling numbers.

Also of note, while Ben Carson did not say he was suspending his campaign, he did announce that he is taking a break…but only to change his clothes. Yes, you heard that right, the campaign released a statement saying, “After spending 18 consecutive days on the campaign trail, Dr. Carson needs to go home and get a fresh set of clothes.” I’m not sure how much to read into that, but it does come amid a challenging time for Carson’s campaign. Unfortunately, we’ll just have to wait and see how long it takes for the field to narrow even further.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Five Takeaways from the Iowa Caucuses appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, is evidently considering an independent run for President in 2016. According to sources close to the politician and media mogul, he “sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg’s views.” While nothing is definite yet, the moves that Bloomberg and his people are making indicate that he is seriously considering that third-party bid.

Bloomberg’s concerns about the nominees extend to both parties–he reportedly doesn’t want to see a race that comes down to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz on the Republican side vs. Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side. Edward G. Rendell, the former Governor of Pennsylvania and a past DNC chair told the New York Times that he believes:

Mike Bloomberg for president rests on the not-impossible but somewhat unlikely circumstance of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz versus Bernie Sanders. If Hillary wins the nomination, Hillary is mainstream enough that Mike would have no chance, and Mike’s not going to go on a suicide mission.

However, as much as he may dislike Donald Trump, Bloomberg’s campaign would take a page out of the Republican front-runners book–he would allegedly self-finance his campaign with the $37 billion he has acquired from his media businesses.

If Bloomberg were to join the race as an independent, he would be almost certain to take votes away from whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee. While Bloomberg has bounced around from party to party over his time in politics, many of his positions are significantly more attractive to Democrats than they are to Republicans. For example, he has long been a supporter of stricter gun controls, has donated money to Planned Parenthood, and worked to combat climate change. While he has also held some positions that are more moderate-right leaning, such as support for the financial services industry, it’s presumed that should he run as an independent, he’d draw voters more from the Democratic base than Republican.

Many are saying that the fact that Bloomberg is even considering a run is bad news for Hillary Clinton, who has seen her poll numbers take quite a bit of a hit in recent weeks. But, the primaries still haven’t even officially started, so there’s still quite a long road to go, and probably a while before Bloomberg would make any official moves.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Michael Bloomberg Jump in the 2016 Fray? appeared first on Law Street.

Tonight will be the first Republican primary debate of the new year, and the seven candidates that made it on to the big stage are expected to talk about a whole wide range of issues. But one issue that has been notably absent from the debates so far has been science–particularly climate change. These are issues that are going significantly affect future generations, and that’s why a non-profit called ScienceDebate.org has rallied some kids to request that the 2016 presidential candidates talk about science:

The fantastic ad was created by ScienceDebate.org, a nonprofit which features a petition asking the candidates for president (and other elected offices) to debate and talk about science, medicine, technology, and climate change in their campaigns. The petition reads:

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for public debates in which the U.S. presidential and congressional candidates share their views on the issues of science and technology policy, health and medicine, and the environment

The nonprofit argues that the American people support hearing about scientific issues in the debate. According to ScienceDebate.org and Research!America, in a recent national poll:

87 percent of likely voters think the candidates for president ought to be well versed on science issues. 91 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Independents also said the presidential candidates should participate in a debate to discuss key science-based challenges facing the US.

Those stats are interesting, because it does seem like Americans want to hear politicians talk about science almost across-the-board. However, it’s kind of unclear exactly what aspects of science they want actually discussed. Climate change, for example, remains a huge point of contention in American politics–according to a ABC/Washington Post poll conducted in late November, 36 percent of Americans don’t think that climate change is a big problem, and 51 percent think scientists disagree on climate change, despite the fact that a vast majority do not disagree.

That being said, regardless of how you feel about climate change (and other scientific issues) it is important to know where the candidates stand. I’d like to see the Republican candidates talk about it tonight (as would the kids from from the above video), but given their track record to date, it’s probably not likely.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Will the Presidential Candidates Talk About Science? appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was the third Democratic debate of 2015. Amidst a data-breach scandal and threats from Bernie Sanders’ campaign to sue the DNC, contentious back-and-forth about how to deal with ISIS, and a still messy Republican field, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Governor Martin O’Malley all had some shining moments on stage. But they also all had some awkward, and funny moments. Check out the top five below:

Hillary’s Gratuitous “Star Wars” Reference

A lot of Americans were pretty excited about the release of the new “Star Wars” film earlier this week. So, at the end of the debate, Clinton played into that hype,

That’s a wrap at the #DemDebate. Now go see Star Wars. https://t.co/2uyOmzf4ST pic.twitter.com/Kcb9bdLlgG

— POLITICO (@politico) December 20, 2015

Since then, there’s been a lot of speculation that her shout out may have been a reference to donor J.J. Abrams, or she may have just been trying to play to young voters who are gravitating more toward Bernie Sanders. Either way it was cute, but seemed a bit forced and camp-y.

Martin O’Malley Calls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Old

Martin O’Malley, who is the youngest of the three contenders by about two decades, pointed out the age difference at one point, stating: “can I offer a different generation’s perspective on this,” while talking about the situation in Syria. It was a cheap shot–but not an unfounded point. If elected, Sanders would be the oldest U.S. president ever, Clinton would be the 2nd oldest if she’s elected.

An Awkward Question About Spouses

This was a “laugh because it’s awkward” kind of funny moment, brought to us by the moderators. Martha Raddatz, an ABC News journalist, asked:

Secretary Clinton — first ladies, as you well know, have used their position to work on important causes like literacy and drug abuse. But they also supervise the menus, the flowers, the holiday ornaments and White House decor. You have said that Bill Clinton is a great host and loves giving tours but may opt out of picking flower arrangements if you’re elected. Bill Clinton aside, is it time to change the role of a president’s spouse?

It was a condescending question to subject any of the presidential candidates to, especially when there are way more important issues to talk about. Some commenters pointed out that there were no questions about abortion, and the stupid spouse question got as much time as systemic racism.

Just the Moderators in General

There were just a lot of awkward and funny interactions between the candidates and the moderators last night, including the candidates, at various times, talking over the moderators. Additionally, they started the debate without Hillary Clinton at one point, while she was in the bathroom, which gave us this hilarious moment:

.@HillaryClinton was late to the podium after a commercial break https://t.co/p7fumApIDe pic.twitter.com/y2jdWLn3dk — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) December 20, 2015

Accidental Innuendo from Clinton

This list wouldn’t be complete without some accidental innuendo from one of the candidates–in this case, Hillary Clinton. While discussing internet security, she made a reference to the concept of backdoors–essentially ways for the government to gain access to confidential, encrypted information. But the way she phrased it was “maybe the back door isn’t the right door,” leading to lots of giggles from less mature members of the audience.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Five Funniest Moments from the Third Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

After a long battle, the Louisiana governor’s race has been decided. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, defeated Republican David Vitter. The runoff election was held yesterday, and ended with Edwards winning 56 percent of the vote. It was a big surprise, given a consistent trend over the last few election cycles that have shown Democrats not faring well in state-wide or local elections. So what exactly happened in Louisiana?

The answer to that question isn’t simple, but there are certainly some clear things that the Vitter campaign did poorly, and some things the Edwards campaign did very well.

Let’s start with the current political environment in Louisiana, for example. Current Governor Bobby Jindal isn’t particularly well liked there–a recent poll found that he only had a roughly 20 percent approval rating overall, and even worse, 55 percent of Republicans in the state don’t approve of his job performance. So, painting Vitter as a successor to Jindal was a good move for the Edwards campaign–failing to distance himself from Jindal was something that Vitter did poorly.

The recent debate over the Syrian refugee crisis also didn’t play well for Vitter and and gave Edwards an advantage, as Edwards was able to attack Vitter on the fact that he had missed key hearings on the situation in Syria as a senator. While Vitter tried to spread fear about Syrian refugees in Louisiana, that tactic didn’t fare so well as the example he used of a Syrian refugee fleeing the state was quickly debunked.

Finally, there were the candidates themselves. Before running, Edwards was relatively unknown, but compared to scandal-plagued Vitter, that was a good thing. But what was known about Edwards played well in Louisiana–according to the New York Times he’s:

A Catholic social conservative from a family of rural law enforcement officers who graduated from West Point and served eight years of active duty in the Army.

In contrast, Vitter was still fighting to bury a prostitution scandal from 2007, when his name was included on a list of clients of the infamous “D.C. Madam.”

So, is the race in Louisiana a lesson for Democrats who are struggling to win statewide offices? Maybe–Edwards’ campaign certainly was a success. But whether or not it was a replicable success is difficult to ascertain. Many of the factors that helped Edwards be successful–Jindal’s notable unpopularity, the current Syrian refugee controversy, and the two candidates’ relative backgrounds–uniquely fit together to spell success for Edwards. So, while this is great news for the Democrats in Louisiana, statewide races are still going to be tough for the left to win.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democrat John Bel Edwards Wins Louisiana Governor’s Race, Beats David Vitter appeared first on Law Street.

It’s true–the Syrian refugee crisis is a tough situation to handle. There are a lot of questions, few answers, and overall there’s a lot of work that needs to be done. But there have also been some truly horrifying responses from Republicans on the issue (and a Democrat as well), from state level politicians, to governors, to current presidential contenders. Check out the top five most terrifying Republican responses to the Syrian refugee crisis below:

Senator Ted Cruz: Let’s Only Allow in Christian Refugees, No Muslims

Somewhat uniquely, Ted Cruz does say that he would let refugees in, but only if they are Christian. He backs up this startling show of intolerance by saying that it’s only Christians who are being persecuted by ISIS and in Syria.

Christians are being persecuted by ISIS, there’s no doubt about that. But so are Shiite Muslims, and so are Yazidis, and so are a whole bunch of other people. In fact, pretty much anyone who doesn’t agree with ISIS is being persecuted–and that includes a whole bunch of Muslims as well. There are a lot of other things wrong with Cruz’s plan when it comes to Syrian refugees as–including the fact that he’s used completely incorrect facts about the demographics of refugees in Europe–but blatantly mischaracterizing the situation in Syria is probably the worst.

Senator David Vitter: Using Lies About a Missing Refugee for Cheap Political Points

David Vitter, who is currently running for governor of Louisiana (and losing) is now using total fear-mongering to attempt to get a bump in the polls. This week, the Louisiana Republican Party sent out an email and in support of Vitter, slamming Obama’s approach to dealing with the refugees, which Vitter tweeted about as well. The message was also posted on the LA GOP’s website. It read:

Just yesterday, David Vitter had to notify the Obama Administration that a Syrian refugee who had been living in Baton Rouge has gone missing. What kind of accountability is that? There is an unmonitored Syrian refugee who is walking around freely, and no one knows where he is.

Republicans also claimed that the refugee was “heading to Washington D.C.” Let’s just set the disgustingly xenophobic language aside, if only because it’s a common thread running through all of these examples, and point out that the Syrian refugee wasn’t actually ever “missing” or “unmonitored.” The Louisiana police knew exactly where the refugee was–he was moving to DC because his family lived there and had to fill out many, many forms in order to be able to do so, including filing paperwork with the federal government. Fantastic job, David Vitter.

Donald Trump: Creating a Muslim Registry

While this one is only tangentially related–Trump actually calls for a complete refusal of Syrian refugees–it’s been worked into the overall debate enough I had to include it. Donald Trump, a man who is leading some Republican polls, said that he would support the creation of a registry with which to keep track of our nation’s Muslims. Although there’s been some arguments over what exactly he did mean–in one of the most damning clips he at one point appears to think he’s talking about border security–he didn’t flat out deny the proposal when asked a question about it, and that’s scary in and of itself. He was given the opportunity to clear up any confusion (if there was any) when asked how a registry of America’s Muslims would be different than the registration of Jews under Nazi Germany. But as the New York Times pointed out:

Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, ‘You tell me,’ until he stopped responding to the question.

Here’s the full clip, if you want to watch for yourself:     Bonus points: Trump has also said that we have no choice but to close certain mosques earlier this week.

Ben Carson Compares Refugees to Dogs

   Ben Carson compared some refugees to “rabid dogs.” Do I even have to explain why this is offensive? Carson’s point–that we need good screening–is fine, but was there really a need to compare refugees to “mad dogs?” Not only is that dehumanizing, it implies that the refugees are diseased and have no autonomy over their own actions. But, what else can we expect from the man whose campaign is so messy that it actually misplaced New England earlier this week?

.@RealBenCarson‘s campaign redraws its map of the U.S. https://t.co/rGCSZDhG8c via @GregJKrieg pic.twitter.com/qCPzydrZCC — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) November 18, 2015

A Whole Bunch of People Suggesting Internment Camps

This is a fun one, because I get to highlight stupidity from multiple different people! Let’s start this with a history lesson: remember that time during World War II when we rounded up a bunch of Japanese-Americans and put them in internment camps? And if you paid attention in middle school, remember how we now view that a massive human rights failure and total usurpation of their Constitutional rights? Remember how in 1988 the Civil Liberties Act was signed, compensating those Japanese-Americans who were held in internment camps and offering a formal apology? Here’s what Ronald Reagan (the president who so rightfully signed that bill) said:

The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese-Americans of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained. Yet no payment can make up for those lost years. So, what is most important in this bill has less to do with property than with honor. For here we admit a wrong; here we reaffirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law.

Now, some people want to create similar camps for the Syrian refugees.

Let’s actually start with a Democrat–after all, ignorance and stupidity is certainly bipartisan: Roanoke Mayor David Bowers. After Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe said that Virginia is open to refugees, Bowers called for all local government agencies to stop assisting refugees. He stated:

I’m reminded that President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt compelled to sequester Japanese foreign nationals after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and it appears that the threat of harm to America from Isis now is just as real and serious as that from our enemies then.

So Bowers apparently missed history class. Who else?

State Senator Elaine Morgan of Rhode Island made a similar suggestion, saying that if we have to take refugees in: “we should set up refugee camp to keep them segregated from our populous.”

Great! Any more?

Sure–there’s also Tennessee GOP Caucus Chairman Glen Casada who suggested using the National Guard to round up any refugees allowed in Tennessee and sending them back to the ICE Detention Centers.

Great work all around–I’m super proud to be an American today.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Five Most Horrifying Republican Responses to the Syrian Refugee Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and current Democratic Presidential frontrunner, took a day off from the campaign trail to testify in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. She testified for a grueling 11 hours about the security present at the embassy in Benghazi, Libya, the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and the controversy over the email accounts she used while at the State Department. As an inquiry that has been mired with controversy, both sides had something to prove with the hearing. Clinton had to prove that she could be a strong and ethical world leader; House Republicans had to prove that this wasn’t just a partisan witch hunt. While the 11-hour hearing was certainly grueling, for the most part Clinton came out on top–possibly in ways that will boost her seemingly tired campaign.

Clinton did exactly what she needed to do at the hearing yesterday–she appeared calm, collected, and a strong leader during the 11 hours of probing questions. Her testimony was littered with strong sound bytes. For example, Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) questioned her on why the Obama administration had originally attributed the attack on the embassy in Benghazi to an anti-Muslim video. Clinton explained that after the attack, what exactly had happened was unclear, and she did her best to update the American people as more information was obtained. After a back and forth, Clinton eventually responded: “I’m sorry that it doesn’t fit your narrative, congressman. I can only tell you what the facts were.” It’s a quotable moment that will make her sound strong and ethical when push comes to shove in this campaign.

The press has, by and large, declared her the clear winner. This even includes certain facets of conservative media. The Atlantic collected a number of conservative writers, pundits, and thinkers complimenting Clinton on her performance–although to be fair, some of those mentions condemn House Republicans more than they applaud Clinton.

Clinton is also reaping financial benefits from the hearing. After the much-lauded marathon performance yesterday, her donations have been increasing. Jennifer Palmieri, her director of Communications, stated that from 9 PM to 10 PM last night, Clinton’s campaign had the best hour of online donations yet. She stated that those donations appear attributable to the Benghazi hearing, stating: “My point isn’t ‘wow, we brought in a lot of money.’ The point is that it moved people.”

Clinton’s campaign has had a shockingly slow start in many ways, but she’s had a damn good couple weeks. She gave a strong performance in the first Democratic debate. Then, this week Vice President Joe Biden, who many thought was going to jump into the race, elected not to. Given that he probably would have siphoned off her supporters, this was good news for Clinton. She wrapped this week up with a strong performance in the Benghazi hearing. Clinton certainly isn’t guaranteed the nomination yet, as there’s still a lot of buzz about Senator Bernie Sanders. But if Clinton keeps moving the way she is now, Sanders may not be able to catch up.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Benghazi Hearing: Just the Latest Win for Hillary Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

Vice President Joe Biden shocked many, and validated the predictions of many others, when he announced he will not be seeking the Democratic nomination for President. Regardless of the emotion you’re experiencing–sadness, joy, or somewhere in between–Biden has officially answered a question that dragged on for a very long time. Check out some of the best and most entertaining Twitter reactions to Biden’s announcement in the slideshow below:

Remember the Hologram of will.i.am?

CNN now beta-testing a hologram of Biden to use in debates

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) October 21, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Twitter Reactions to Joe Biden’s Announcement He Won’t Be Running for President appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was the first Democratic debate of the 2016 primary elections. Unlike the Republican field, which had to be split into two parts in order to accommodate the insanely large group, the Democrats have a small collection of political veterans vying for the nomination. There’s Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner; Bernie Sanders, the surprise challenger; Martin O’Malley, the other normal candidate that everyone keeps forgetting; Lincoln Chaffee, the weird metric system guy from Rhode Island; and Jim Webb, who probably exists.

In a lot of ways the Democratic debate felt a little flat, and a little too early. While there were some really great moments of legitimate and important discourse, the Democratic field is just a bit more subdued and unified on a lot of key issues than its Republican foil. But, that didn’t keep some funny, wtf, and badass moments from sticking out. In fact, here are the top five moments from last night’s Democratic debate.

Best Shot on Donald Trump: Martin O’Malley

Donald Trump, the inexplicable Republican frontrunner, received a pretty sharp jab from O’Malley, who called Trump “that carnival barker in the Republican party…”

Given the flashiness and “look-at-me” attitude that Trump has used to gain supporters, this classification isn’t that far off, and made a powerful point about his attitude toward immigrants.

Best One Word Answer: Hillary Clinton

It wasn’t surprising, but one of the biggest criticisms against Hillary Clinton to stick so far–the kerfuffle over her emails while she was Secretary of State–was a point of contention at last night’s debate. Lincoln Chaffee made a not-so-veiled reference to the email scandal, saying “I think we need somebody with the best and ethical standards as our next president. That’s how I feel.” Clinton was asked if she wanted to respond, and her answer was short, sweet, and made it clear she was tired of political grandstanding over the issue: “No.”

Second Most Uncomfortable Moment: Lincoln Chafee and Anderson Cooper

Cooper, who was by all accounts, a strong and fair moderator, went after Lincoln Chafee on his earliest Senate vote–the Glass-Steagall Act. Chafee gave a weird answer: it was his first vote after being appointed to his recently deceased father’s spot. Cooper followed up–asking if he wasn’t defending his vote because he was saying he didn’t understand what he was voting for. That led to really awkward exchange, that certainly could have been handled better by Chafee.

It also wasn’t the only moment where Chafee struggled to defend his record as a Senator–questions about his vote for the Patriot Act also seemingly tripped him up.

Most Uncomfortable Moment: Jim Webb’s Enemy

Jim Webb, who served during the Vietnam War, was asked what enemy he’s the most proud to have made. While his competition gave fun predictable answers such as Republicans and the NRA, Webb focused on his military experience, saying the enemy he’s most proud of making was “enemy soldier that threw the grenade that wounded me, but he’s not around right now to talk to.” While Webb was an incredibly impressive and heroic soldier, sans important context and with awkward delivery, the entire thing came across very strangely.

Best Moment Overall: Bernie Sanders and Clinton’s Emails

Sanders said exactly what we were all thinking the umpteenth time that Hillary’s emails came up last night: enough is enough. It’s time to talk about the real issues. And he was damn right.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Moments From the First Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Is Vice President Joe Biden going to be a candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination? It’s a question that’s been bouncing around for a while now. Despite widespread speculation, a multitude of op-eds commenting on his chances, and an emotional ad released by a Super PAC dedicated to his potential candidacy, no one really seems to have any idea whether he’ll join the race.

The Democratic field right now is remarkably thin, especially in comparison to the current Republican array of candidates, which is so large that they can’t all fit on the stage at the same time. Currently there’s heavily criticized frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who despite having a commanding lead in the polls has gotten bogged down by email servers and gefilte fish. Then there’s Senator Bernie Sanders, who has a remarkable pull among young people, but is lacking necessary national visibility. People keep forgetting about Governor Martin O’Malley, and Senator Lincoln Chaffee is best known for really liking the metric system. So, the field is ripe for another valid contender–and Joe Biden supporters are hoping that he’ll be it.

America seems like it might be open to a Biden candidacy as well. Currently, he’s polling as the most trustworthy of the possible candidates in the crucial swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Other polls have him beating most of the Republican candidates in head-to-head match-ups. While those numbers may not stay so cheery if Biden does join the race and he’s subjected to negative media attention and attack ads from the other candidates, they are solid evidence that he’d be a strong contender to beat Clinton in the primaries.

There was also a particularly heavy commercial just released by a group called “Draft Biden”–a Super PAC that aims to get Biden to run.

The ad featured photos of Biden from when he and his children were younger, and audio from the commencement speech he gave at Yale University earlier this year. In it, Biden reflects on the tragic car crash that killed his first wife and his daughter. The speech’s poignancy is magnified by the fact that his oldest son, Beau Biden, passed away just a few days later after a battle with brain cancer. The ad is touching, but also ties into the fact that some of Biden’s struggle over whether or not to run for President comes from his grief over his son’s death.

But all of those reasons to run come from other people. What is Biden actually saying and doing? Some speculation has been born out of the fact that he himself leaked to Maureen Dowd that Beau told him to run while he was on his deathbed. It’s a sign that Biden may have been testing the waters–although there’s been speculation about a possible 2016 bid from the VP for a while, the piece that Dowd released on August 1 really added fuel to that fire. But at the end of the day, it’s really not certain what Biden is going to do. While it seems likely that he’s certainly considering a race, right now nothing is certain.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Joe Biden Run for President? appeared first on Law Street.

Well hello there strangers! Long time no see. It has been a busy few months for me, but I’m happy to be back and contributing to Law Street once again. Especially as we are well into presidential campaign season, and that provides endless fodder for social commentary–which of course I enjoy watching and participating in from the safety of my desk.

Given that it is 2015 and the Internet plays a larger role than ever in the day-to-day lives of American voters, it is no shock that the 2016 election will be one for the history books. That fact is already evident, as the front-runners on either side of the political divide are a woman, a Democratic Socialist, and a hairpiece!

Don’t even get me started on him.

Heated political debates run rampant across social media platforms, as they always do, but are joined by viral videos, .gifs and even memes of candidates that are strategically released to try and sway voters one way or another.

The key word here, of course, is “voters,” and if you are over 18 and a United States citizen–that means you! You, the person sitting on their couch watching Netflix, who shared that video of Bernie Sanders on “Late Night with Seth Myers,” or followed the Texts from Hillary Clinton tumblr account. You, weighing the pros and cons of jumping in a Facebook comment feed about the difference between Socialism and Communism. You, an average American citizen, who might not be a Democrat or a Republican, but falls somewhere in between.

It does not matter who you support or what you believe in; if you don’t back those beliefs up by using your right to vote at caucuses, primaries or general elections, you are missing out on a huge opportunity to make a difference. I know it sounds cliche to say this, but it is not a lie that every vote counts.

Now, I have to back up my “go vote!” message with a word of caution: do your research. Since the Internet is such an enormous tool for the 2016 elections, it follows that NOT EVERYTHING YOU READ ONLINE IS TRUE.

I know, shocking. *Calls for smelling salts.*

Beware before you share, my friends. Take a closer look at that website with the article called “PROOF!  [insert candidate name here] IS A NAZI!”. Does it also have a bunch of other articles about conspiracy theories with no actual facts backing it up? If you search for it on Snopes.com, does it say “FALSE” in big red letters? Exactly. Instead of searching for inflammatory information on candidates you dislike, focus on the candidates you do like, and don’t believe everything your Facebook friends post. What issues are the most important to you? Which candidates support your opinion on those issues most thoroughly? These are the types of questions you must ask yourself. Being an educated voter is just as important as being a voter in the first place.

So go, register, and enjoy your right to have a say in who runs our country. I certainly will.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If You Don’t Vote, Your Opinion Won’t Matter appeared first on Law Street.

Bernard “Bernie” Sanders, self-described Democratic Socialist, is a 73-year-old senator from Vermont, the longest serving independent in Congressional history, and a Presidential candidate. He’s been described as “one of the few elected officials who is fundamentally devoted to dealing with the plight of poor and working people” and he’s gaining ground in the polls on the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sanders polled within 8 percentage points of Clinton in New Hampshire last week, a pretty big deal since the New Hampshire primary comes first in the series of nationwide party primary elections. From social justice and climate change to trade agreements and health care, Bernie’s got some all-inclusive views that I can definitely get on board with. Here are 10 reasons why you’ll want to #FeelTheBern in 2016.

1. #SocialistBern: Bernie wants to provide a free college education for everyone.

Rather than cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, Bernie wants to cut military spending and put that money towards education. That means that public colleges and universities in the country would be tuition-free.

 Say goodbye to college debt with #TheBern.

2. #ProgressiveBern: He wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Disposable income FTW.

3. #CivilRightsBern: He marched with MLK.

Bernie Sanders is one of two sitting senators to have attended the March on Washington in 1963 to hear MLK’s I Have A Dream Speech.

If only The Bern could still move like this…

4. #HappyBern: He’s never run a negative advertisement in over 30 years.

He has stated, “I’ve never run a negative political ad in my life…I believe in serious debates on serious issues.”

 He who hath not bitched on my TV hath mine vote.

5. #DemocracyBern: He wants to make Election Day a national holiday.

“In America, we should be celebrating our democracy and doing everything possible to make it easier for people to participate in the political process. Election Day should be a national holiday so that everyone has the time and opportunity to vote. While this would not be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment to create a more vibrant democracy.”

Get ready for your new favorite holiday.

6. #FlowerBern: Bernie loves the environment.

The Bern serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he’s focused on global warming. He introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies that immorally get huge tax breaks.

Peace, Love, and Bernie Sanders for President.

7. #PeacefulBern: He opposed entering the war in Iraq.

No further commentary needed.

8. #99PercentBern: He wants to reform the campaign finance system that allows “billionaires” to “buy elections and candidates.”

GOP better take its money and run.

9. #EqualityBern: He’s a feminist.

Bernie believes birth control should be provided through all health care plans. He’s also stated that all women who rely on the military healthcare system should have access to contraception coverage and family planning counseling.

Finally, a man who speaks to my uterus’s needs.

10. #TheRealBern: He released a folk album.

In 1987, as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, The Bern recorded a folk album.

He’s a cool Mayor.

Feel the Bern in 2016…

And move it like Bernie to the Democratic Primaries…

So we can #BernTheHouseDown.

Jennie Burger also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ten Reasons to #FeelTheBern This Election Season appeared first on Law Street.

In 1858, then-Senator Abraham Lincoln made one of his most famous speeches. In this particular speech he referenced the bible in stating, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” At that time, of course, Lincoln was referring to the schism that divided the nation, namely should we be a free country or a slave-owning country? While the slavery question has been answered, the idea of a divided nation has continued and seemingly grown as time passed. The problem now is not over any singular issue, but the conduct of various branches of the government. In short, what effect does public disagreement over foreign policy issues have on the United States in presenting a unified front when trying to implement some type of cohesive strategy?

History of Disagreement

With the two most recent high-profile episodes of dissension in federal government–the Senate Republicans’ letter to Iran and the House Republicans’ invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress without executive consent–it may appear as though these events were particularly egregious; however, disagreement between members of the government is certainly not something new. For that matter, this level of disagreement is not even that extraordinary. In fact, at various times throughout the nation’s history members or former members of the government have engaged in literal duels where one of the parties was actually killed. Of course those are the extreem examples of disagreement, but they are part of our history nonetheless.

The 1980s seemed like an especially appropriate time to publicly undermine the president and his foreign policy, as evidenced by two specific events. In 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy allegedly secretly conspired with the then-premier of the USSR to help him defeat Ronald Reagan and win the presidency. Just a year later, in 1984, Democrats wrote a letter to the leader of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua that was critical of the president and forgave the rebel regime’s many atrocities.

Another episode occurred in 1990 when former president Jimmy Carter wrote to the members of the United Nations Security Council denouncing President Bush’s efforts to authorize the Gulf War. In 2002, several democratic senators went to Iraq on a trip financed by late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and actually actively campaigned for his government. This was also aimed at undermining support for the second president Bush’s Iraq War. And the most recent example came in 2007 when newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Basher Assad. Even before he had launched a civil war on his own people, Assad had already made enemies of the Bush Administration by supporting insurgents in Iraq.

This is the context in which Congress’ most recent acts of defiance should be considered. When Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to congress without the consent of the president, he knew perfectly well that Netanyahu would come to urge the use of force in preventing a nuclear armed Iran. This strategy is the complete opposite of the one pursued by the Obama Administration, which has centered on negotiation, give and take. The video below explains why this invitation was so controversial.

The second most recent act of dissent also comes in relation to a nuclear deal with Iran. In this case, 47 senators signed a letter to Iran stating that any agreement between President Obama and the Ayatollah will be considered as an executive agreement only and subject to being overturned when a new president is elected. The video below explores the ramifications of the letter.

Taken alone these efforts by Republicans appear outrageous and indeed even treasonous. But they are actually just two more in a series of moves from both parties to undermine the other. The main difference this time is that it was the Republicans doing the undermining of a Democratic President.

Roles in Foreign policy for Each Branch of the Government

The three branches of the government–the judicial, legislative, and executive branches–each play a role in determining foreign policy. While the courts are instrumental in determining the constitutionality, and therefore legality, of agreements, the legislative and executive branches are the real driving forces behind United States’ foreign policy. So what then are their roles?

Executive

As the saying goes, on paper the President’s foreign policy powers seem limited. According to the Constitution, he is limited to his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and nominating and appointing officials. However, the president has several unofficial powers that are more encompassing. First is the executive agreement, which basically allows the president to make an accord without the consent of Congress. This is what Obama did, for example, in relation to immigration in Fall 2014, as well as the situation to which Republicans referred in their letter to Iran.

This power is perhaps the most important as the president is able to pursue his agenda without needing Congressional support, which is often hostile to his ambitions. Along this same track, the president has the ability to determine the foreign policy agenda, and by doing so making it the agenda for the entire nation.

The executive branch also controls the means to carry out foreign policy through its various agencies. Of particular importance are the Department of State, which handles foreign affairs, and the Department of Defense, which is in charge of military operations. The intelligence community is also a key cog in this branch of government.

Legislative

The role of this branch has traditionally been three-fold: advising the president, approving/disapproving the president’s foreign policy agreements, and confirming appointments to the State Department. Recently these powers have come under challenge as Obama himself has conducted military actions in Libya without getting war powers consent from Congress first.

Like everything else, the roles taken on by the particular branches with regard to foreign policy have expanded far beyond those originally outlined in the Constitution. Nevertheless, because the president, as mentioned previously, serves as both the face of policy and its catalyst, it is generally assumed that he will take the lead in those matters. However, a certain gray area still exists as to specifically who has the right to do what. This role was supposed to be more clearly defined through legislation, namely the Logan Act; however, perpetually changing circumstances, such as the role of the media, have continued to make the boundaries for conduct less clear.

What Happens Next

So what is to be done about these quarrelsome representatives and senators? When Pelosi made her infamous trip to visit Assad in 2007, the Bush Administration was extremely angry and reacted accordingly, deeming her actions as criminal and possibly treasonous. If this rhetoric sounds familiar that is because these are the same types of phrases being hurled at the Congresspeople who invited Netanyahu to speak and condemned Iran with their signatures.

The Logan Act

The real issue here is with who is conducting foreign policy as opposed to who is supposed to, according to the Logan Act. The act was passed in 1799 in response to its namesake’s efforts to single-handedly end the quasi-war with the French by engaging in a solo journey to the country. The basic outline of the act is that no unauthorized person is allowed to negotiate on behalf of the United States with a foreign government during a dispute. Thus, while in theory this was meant to resolve the issue as to who was qualified to represent U.S. foreign policy, the video below explains that is far from what actually occurred.

Along with the damning words being thrown about, critics of the Republican actions also call for their prosecution under this relatively obscure law; however, no such indictments are likely to take place as no one has even been charged under it, not even the man for whom it was named. In addition, the language itself is unclear. For example, wouldn’t congresspeople be considered authorized persons? These threats of prosecution, along with the strong language being thrown about hide another important factor in this whole mess: the role of the media.

Media’s Role

In the tumult following the Iranian letter, a somewhat important piece of evidence has been overlooked. While the senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, indeed signed a letter, the letter was not actually sent anywhere. In fact, after getting 46 other senators to sign the letter, Senator Cotton posted it to his own website and social media accounts. Similarly with the Netanyahu speech, while it is odd for a foreign leader to speak to Congress without approval of the president, the significance of the whole thing can be attributed as much to the stage it was broadcast on as its peculiarity.

There is a history of government officials undermining the White House’s foreign policy. However, in 2015 there are so many avenues to openly and very publicly express dissent that when it does occur it is a bigger deal now than ever. Information is so accessible now, thus when someone posts something to social media anyone all over the world can see it. This is different than if something were broadcast 20 years ago on network news.

Conclusion

In 1951, President Truman removed General MacArthur from command in the Korean War. While MacArthur was one of the most renowned war heroes of WWII, his threats to invade China and expand the war undermined Truman’s efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict. While Truman was able to dismiss MacArthur, this is not true for the current case of branches of government undermining others.Unlike MacArthur who was a general and beholden to the president, these representatives and senators are beholden to the people and cannot be as easily removed. Nor should they, not only because the precedent for this type of disagreement has been set, but also because the president should not have the ability to dismiss everyone who disagrees with him. People voicing their opinions after all, is the whole idea behind representative government.

While recent Republican actions can certainly be termed at least as ill-advised, the question of illegality is much less clear. The Iranians for their part took the letter as well as can be expected, acknowledging its obvious political nature.

Sources

Washington Examiner: 5 Times Democrats Undermined Republican Presidents With Foreign Governments

Foreign Policy Association: How Foreign Policy is Made.

Politico: John Boehner’s Bibi Invite Sets Up Showdown With White House

Intercept: The Parties Role Reversal on Interfering With the Commander-in-Chief’s Foreign Policy

Politico: Iran, Tom Cotton and the Bizarre History of the Logan Act

National Review: The Cotton Letter Was Not Sent Anywhere, Especially Not to Iran

LA Times: Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress Has Politics Written All Over it

The New York Times: Iranian Officials Ask Kerry about Republicans’ Letter

CNN: Did 47 Republican Senators Break the Law in Plain Sight?

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. Government: A House Divided on Foreign Policy appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Joni Ernst may be a newcomer to Washington D.C., but she’s already making a big splash. She was just selected by the Republican Party to give its response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. That’s a pretty good thing for which to be chosen–the last few years the spot of responder has included Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Paul Ryan. Ryan, of course, ran for Vice President last year, and Rubio’s name keeps popping up on the list for possible 2016 contenders.

But what does this choice actually mean? When I said that Ernst is a newcomer, I really meant newcomer–before running for Iowa’s Senate seat, she was in the Iowa State Senate. So, she’ll only have been in Washington for about a month before speaking for the entire GOP in response to the President. She in some ways ran her campaign on the fact that she was a Beltway outsider–her most talked-about ad of the 2016 elections involved her discussing castrating pigs as a child.

Honestly, it’s probably that outsider status that inspired the GOP to pick her as the responder. President Barack Obama and, by extension, the Democrats have run the Executive Branch since 2008. The GOP is probably going to paint them as tired, crony-filled, and too nationally focused to look out for the average American. On the other hand, Ernst is pretty much the definition of a fresh face. She’s also a woman, which given the gender gap that has made or broke some recent national elections, probably appeals to the Republican Party. For those reasons, this is a pretty good strategic choice on the GOP’s part.

On the other hand, she’s also a risky choice. She’s untested on the national stage, and she’s said some weird things in the past. For example, she subscribes to the conspiracy theory that Agenda 21, a sustainable environmental plan created by the United Nations, is a secret drive to force Americans off their land. Last November, she stated:

All of us agreed that Agenda 21 is a horrible idea. One of those implications to Americans, again, going back to what did it does do to the individual family here in the state of Iowa, and what I’ve seen, the implications that it has here is moving people off of their agricultural land and consolidating them into city centers, and then telling them that you don’t have property rights anymore. These are all things that the UN is behind, and it’s bad for the United States and bad for families here in the state of Iowa.

It’s a relatively popular Tea Party idea–but coming out against the U.N. is…extreme, to say the least.

It’s definitely a good position to be in for your first few months in Washington, but whether or not Ernst will be able to rise to the occasion will have to be determined. No matter what, one thing is certain: it will be an interesting speech to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator Joni Ernst Chosen to Give GOP Response to State of the Union appeared first on Law Street.

I am a Libertarian.

Well, I think I’m a Libertarian, and I believe that this is in the same sense that I used to think I was a feminist. (I am definitely a feminist.) But everyone’s idea of what being a Libertarian actually means is still evolving.

The other day, I made this confession of politics to my roommate who is very much a Democrat. (My other roommate is a self-proclaimed Communist–it’s a very interesting household.) He responded, “Oh, so you’re one of those people who doesn’t give a shit what anybody does as long as it doesn’t affect you?” We laughed because he was joking, but it did make me think.

I’ve heard people use the word Libertarian as a replacement for Tea Party (um, no) and in association with Ron Paul (um, yes!). That’s pretty much it for references in daily life, other than the stray notion during the 2012 election that there was this mysterious third party on the fringes of society that could maybe be something someday but probably not because two-party system AM I RIGHT?

So let’s have a chat about what this term really means.

And I’ll go ahead and place my disclaimer here: I’m still learning about Libertarianism (as I think the vast majority of society is). Just as there are nuances for Republicans and Democrats (yes there are), what I think about this party won’t align perfectly with every party member.

Wanting this to be more than what the party means to me, I started where everyone seems to start in 2014–a quick Google search. The first result was the party website. Okay, I thought, this is an excellent sign. If they didn’t have a website, I might have to rethink some things.

The first thing I saw on the website was the party slogan (who knew?), which is “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom.” Even though these are my beliefs in a grossly oversimplified form, I still started to panic. Is this crazy? Is this a viable point of view? Then, I panicked a little more when I saw the link to a quick political quiz, which asked, “Are you a Libertarian?” I… I don’t know anymore. Am I? Is my whole system of belief a sham? (I imagined the website asking me in an intimidating, booming voice. I don’t know why.)

Well, I took the quiz and easily landed in the little Libertarian sector. My results didn’t show perfect 100 percent Libertarianism, but that wasn’t what I was expecting. (Side note: The quiz is literally ten questions, I highly recommend it just because it’s interesting.)

Having reaffirmed my party choice, I started to explore its values. First, let’s revisit the slogan. While to me “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom” sounds heavy-handed, “We Should Reduce the Size of Government so Citizens can Have the Utmost Freedom and Control Over Their Own Lives Except When They Need to be Protected from Unjust Harm” just doesn’t have the same snappy ring to it. I would consider “Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative” a strong contender, but it’s probably a bad idea to create a party identity that relies on other parties’ definitions.

Then they have this excellent little table that shows the differences between Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans; however, it’s a little smart-ass-y and doesn’t go into further details, so I’ll explain a few of these that I think exemplify key Libertarian traits.

On education: “Return control to parents, teachers, and local communities.” Essentially, Libertarians believe education shouldn’t be standardized (or, in my belief, as standardized) so a teacher can find what works for his or her classroom. In addition, not all teaching responsibility should be laid on the school system, as learning starts at home. I realize that one can’t count on all parents to value their child’s education (which is a sentence that makes my heart sad), but right now we’re talking about party ideals, not the complexities of execution.

On the war on drugs: “End it! Release non-violent prisoners. Allow medical cannabis.” Why are we spending taxpayer dollars incarcerating someone who wanted to smoke a little weed? Plus, there’s a grievous sentencing disparity in drug-related crimes. Ignoring the racial aspect of drug arrests (because that’s a whole other blog post), punishment for drug offenses is often just plain excessive. As of January of this year, at least 25 people were serving or had served life in prison for selling pot–and not all were at the top of distribution, either. Life. In. Prison. For a nonviolent crime. While rapists and murderers get released. Let me tell you, I would much rather have someone try to sell me drugs than rape or murder me. And that goes for my hypothetical children, too (since the default argument is always “think of the children”). In addition, if medical marijuana can ease a patient’s discomfort (especially in terminal or very series cases), why would we say no? All pharmaceutical drugs used to treat patients come with risks, too. Quite frankly, I’m a little surprised the chart doesn’t just say legalize marijuana use, but maybe that’s still just a little too radical to put on an entire party’s platform.

On military spending: “Reduce spending dramatically. Defense, not offense.” It’s worth noting that these idealistic cuts in military spending come with cuts pretty much across the board. Libertarians aren’t antimilitary, they just aren’t imperialists. Let’s stay out of other countries unless invited or needed to ensure our own welfare. I agree this gets tricky when atrocities are happening abroad, and I’m all for lending a helping hand in theory, but it’s also not quite kosher to storm another country in the name of help at the cost of hundreds or thousands of lives that get caught in the crossfire.

On taxes: “End the income tax. Abolish the IRS. Never raise taxes.” I realize a good portion of readers just rolled their eyes, and I get it, I really do. I’m not sure if we could ever even get to a point where the IRS could be abolished. But I do firmly believe that our tax system is broken, quite possibly beyond repair. And I think if we can’t end the income tax, it should at least be drastically reduced. I would be a lot more comfortable giving my money to the government if they could manage it responsibly, but they just haven’t proven that yet.

This was a central idea Ron Paul expressed when he came to my alma mater, the University of Missouri — Columbia. I wish I could quote him directly, but it was in 2012. Although this was a nearly spiritual experience for me because it was the first time I heard a politician speak and my views aligned accordingly, I can’t quote the Bible, either. However, Ron Paul did a great interview with Charlie Rose in which he defines Libertarianism as nonintervention.

Note: During the video they make the association with the Tea Party again. I still deny this. Maybe there’s something I don’t get about the Tea Party, but these are still two distinctive groups as I understand them. Maybe the Tea Party is the more socially conservative cousin of Libertarianism?

Now, just because I love Ron Paul doesn’t mean I agree with 100 percent of what he says, but I thought this video contained a lot of really good explanatory moments, as well as a few that would need to be elaborated on or revised completely.

I would say one of the biggest concerns about Libertarianism is that it is idealistic. In an ideal world, people wouldn’t need to be policed. But we don’t live there, and I get that. That’s where compromise comes in. I am all for having some standards in education, and I think even if it’s a personal choice to do meth, there are a lot of social, environmental, and safety risks to its production and use. To me, the point of Libertarianism is pushing the government out of where they aren’t needed and reforming the areas where the government is needed to heal a broken system. Stop creating laws to repeal laws–just abolish the unnecessary or archaic ones. Simplify taxes to where an average human can understand them. Don’t tell a group of people they can’t get married so you don’t have to justify your values to your children.

Maybe this third party is just a way for me to rebel against an infuriating system, but maybe the system as it stands is something worth rebelling against.

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I’m a Libertarian, and You Just Might Be Too appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re looking for a weird political race to follow during the 2014 elections, I have a suggestion for you: Kansas. There are actually multiple weird political races to watch there, so get ready to keep your eyes focused on the Sunflower State come November.

It’s important to point out that Kansas is a solidly red state. So red in fact, that until fairly recently, it was pretty much assumed that a Republican was going to win both the gubernatorial and senatorial races. Let’s face it, the last Democratic Senator from Kansas was a man named George McGill, who stopped serving in 1939. But the assumed Republican domination isn’t looking so certain now.

Let’s start with the current Senate race, because there’s been a lot of news there in the last 24 hours. Up to this point in the race there have been three candidates: current Republican Senator Pat Roberts, Democratic challenger Chad Taylor, and Independent Greg Orman. Pat Roberts is pretty conservative — socially, economically, and diplomatically. He’s also not that popular. He’s been a Senator from Kansas for three terms now, and has been accused of being out of touch with the average voter. He doesn’t even have a residence in the state anymore. He narrowly defeated a primary challenge from a tea partier named Milton Wolf, and after that primary he had an approval rating of 27 percent. He also hasn’t been running a very good campaign, probably because he’s never really needed to before. In 2008, he beat his Democratic challenger by more than 20 points; in 2002 he had no Democrat challenger and won with 82 percent of the vote. Through his three terms in the Senate, and three in the House of Representatives, he’s never won an election by less than 60 percent.

But now, things are getting weird. Taylor has been faring surprisingly well. The real standout start though, is Orman. He’s a good candidate — moderate, pro-business, and he’s been running a solid campaign. He has a real shot to win this race. Taylor even announced yesterday that he was stepping down, which watchers assumed would up Orman’s chances even more, given that Democratic voters are way more likely to rally around him than Roberts.

Complicated and weird enough for you, yet? Well I hope not, because there’s more fun ahead. The Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach has said that Taylor can’t remove himself from the ballot. He claimed that after reviewing Taylor’s request, his team had not found “sufficient evidence” to show that Taylor would be incapable of serving the duties of the office. This is good news for Roberts — now the liberal vote will remain split between Taylor and Orman.

So, the Democrats are suing the Republicans to get the Democrat off the ballot in order to give the Independent candidate a good chance. Yes, it’s as complicated as it sounds. And that right there is the state of politics in Kansas right now.

In comparison, Kansas’s weird gubernatorial race seems almost calm. Here’s a great in-depth look into what’s happening, but long story short, a Democrat named Paul Davis is doing pretty well against Tea Party-backed uber-conservative Sam Brownback. He’s wildly unpopular, and Davis is capitalizing on the Republican split between Tea Party and establishment. He’s received the endorsement of many prominent Republicans in the state who don’t want to see Brownback receive another term and damage the Republican reputation even more.

Only one thing is certain: Kansas will definitely be fun to watch this November.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sean Ganann via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kansas’ Topsy-Turvy Election Year appeared first on Law Street.

After nearly six years of legal battles, Teresa Wagner was just granted a new trial against the University of Iowa College of Law. Wagner alleges she was looked over for a promotion because of her political beliefs. She first sued then Iowa Law Dean Carolyn Jones in 2009. She insisted that she was not considered fairly for a legal writing position at the law school due to the fact that she is a conservative, an open advocate of anti-abortion efforts, and a supporter of the nation’s largest pro-life organization, the National Right to Life Committee.

The evidence provided by Wagner’s attorney featured a statement by the Associate Dean, Jonathan C. Carlson, to former Dean Jones. Carlson stated, “frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it.)”

Of course, it’s a horrible thought that a prospective employee was discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, skin color, or any other reason. As a fervent pro-choice advocate myself, I must say I’d be appalled I was looked over for a job because of my political views. It’s absolutely Wagner’s right to be considered based on merit, and merit alone. In addition to the comment from Carlson, the video of Wagner’s interview with the faculty was suspiciously erased shortly after their decision not to hire her. Jones, however, contended that Wagner was passed over because she had “preformed miserably in a presentation.”

Wagner’s case seemed to be doomed from the onset. Her original lawsuit against Jones, first filed in 2009, was met with indecision from the jury. While they agreed that Jones was clear of the political discrimination charge, the jurors admitted they could not decide if Wagner’s equal protection rights had been breached. Therefore, the judge ruled the second count a mistrial, but only after reassembling and questioning the jurors thoroughly. An appeals court review decided that the reassembly was considered improper questioning by the judge, seeing as the jurors had had the opportunity to be influenced during the short break through high speed technology like smart phones. As a result, Wagner will now have a new trial.

This technical back-and-forth seems to have clouded the real issue at the core of Wagner’s case. This case highlights the huge disparity in political representation among law school faculty. At the time of Wagner’s application for the legal writing job there was just one registered Republican on an Iowa Law faculty of about 50. This trend doesn’t seem to be specific to the University of Iowa. In 2005, the Georgetown Law Journal actually released a report claiming that “81 percent [of law school professors] gave wholly or mostly to Democrats, while 15 percent gave wholly or mostly to Republicans.” For some reason, law schools seem to favor liberal professors, or at the very least attract them. But why has this trend been able to fly under the radar, despite research on the issue? Institutions of higher learning, including the University of Iowa, have entire departments dedicated to “diversity,” but in what capacity? It seems to me that they have allowed themselves to be restricted by a narrow definition of racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity. Although I agree that these things are vital to incorporate in an education, what about diversity of thought?

Fortunately for employment-seeking conservative law profs, there are advocates speaking out on their behalf, and raising awareness about the lack of right-leaning voices in legal academia. Organizations, such as the Federalist Society, help combat the, “orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society” that they believe is dominating the legal profession and higher education. One of the ways it endeavors to shorten the gap is through its extensive network of conservative and libertarian intellectuals in the legal community.

An alternative possible solution could be a sort of affirmative action focusing on political affiliations. But as with the original concept of racial affirmative action, this idea invites the possibility that quotas eventually takes precedence over merit, effectively reversing the effects the law would seek to reform. Though this case brought up the lack of political diversity among law school faculty, this solution seems less than viable. Most can agree that reform is needed, but not to the point that courts have more of a say in the qualification of certain applicants than experienced university administration. Hiring processes need to be made more transparent while also retaining fair policies.

Like any hot-button political issue, there’s no easy solution. Differing views are, in academia, usually a good thing. Our nation’s law students have the right to be able to be exposed to viewpoints different than their own, debate the issues, and if needed, disagree with their instructors. Regardless of the outcome of Wagner’s new trial, I’m glad that this case has ignited a conversation about ideological diversity in legal education.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Dave Jones-one of many via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iowa Law Legal Battle Sheds Light on Academic Diversity appeared first on Law Street.