Like most Americans, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie wanted to spend his July 4 weekend enjoying the nice weather and spending time with his family. After he shut down 11 miles of shoreline, many were frustrated that they wouldn’t be able to visit spots on the Jersey shoreline. But Christie decided that his job title gave him the privilege to hang out on the beach while barring taxpayers from doing the same.

Despite angrily closing the beaches, and other public services, over a budget disagreement with New Jersey Democrats, Christie spent July 2 calmly sunbathing with family when a photographer caught him.

Andy Mills, a photographer for The Star-Ledger, captured the pictures of Christie and his family members from a helicopter. After getting in a helicopter that morning to snap pictures of the long stretches of empty beach, Mills observed a large group set up on the beach in front of the governor’s beachside mansion, he said.

“As we came back up, I’m looking, I’m like, ‘That’s him,’ there’s no doubt in my mind that’s him,” Mills said. “When you make eye contact with someone, both you know and he knows what’s going on.”

At first, Christie chose to deny anything uncouth happened. “I didn’t get any sun,” he said.

Then, he chose to defend his actions. He responded that if people wanted to criticize his decision not to cancel his plans, they could run for governor and enjoy the same perks.

After Christie’s team was confronted with the evidence that contradicted Christie’s blatant lies, his office decided it was the right moment to make a dumb joke.

“He did not get any sun. He had a baseball hat on,” was the official statement from Christie’s spokesman, Brian Murray.

But people were unamused, especially since Christie’s antics began when he became governor in 2010. Residents who had to modify their July 4 plans were upset with their governor, and even Kim Guadagno, New Jersey’s lieutenant governor and the Republican nominee vying to replace Christie in November, lashed out.

It’s beyond words. If I were gov, sure wouldn’t be sitting on beach if taxpayers didn’t have access to state beaches https://t.co/VBtBpoUUkv

— Kim Guadagno (@KimGuadagnoNJ) July 3, 2017

One person who was bemused by the incident was author Brad Thor. When the 47-year-old author looked at Mills’ pictures he noticed something that very few others would have.

I think I’m the only one in America not mad at #ChrisChristie pic.twitter.com/PXPvjPUepn

— Brad Thor (@BradThor) July 3, 2017

Of course, this isn’t the first time Christie has been publicly shamed and mocked on the internet. There was “Bridgegate,” when the governor’s team intentionally created traffic problems on the George Washington Bridge to send a political message. And then there was the time he took a helicopter to his son’s baseball game.

And, most recently, there were the relentless memes after Christie stood behind President Donald Trump during the presidential election.

There’s just one question on Chris Christie’s mind. #SuperTuesday pic.twitter.com/sSDnCXgxBE

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) March 2, 2016

 

Chris Christie has Resting Hostage Face. pic.twitter.com/A6JxR99Fiw

— Caitlin S(cientist) (@Paleophile) March 2, 2016

Christie, who is finishing up his final term in office, already has a terrible approval rating, so this incident won’t ultimately have much of an impact. After reaching great highs during his reelection in 2012, only 15 percent of New Jerseyans currently view his performance positively, according to the Washington Post–and that was before his trip to the beach. Even his own party has turned on him, with fewer than half of Republicans viewing Christie positively.

Christie is already slated to go down as one of the least liked governors in American history, according to the Washington Post. So, his latest faux pas can’t lower his approval rating much more, and frankly it doesn’t matter since he’s out of office soon regardless. But for Christie, who was once a rising star for the GOP, and a potential presidential candidate, this is just another indication that his political career is going nowhere fast.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With “Beachgate,” Chris Christie’s Approval Ratings Take a Plunge appeared first on Law Street.

As Republican Senators prepared to release a version of their new health care legislation on Thursday, a group of protesters gathered outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. But many of them were eventually physically removed from the scene.

The rally was organized by ADAPT, a national disability rights organization, according to CNN. In their statement, the protesters said that they are “demanding [McConnell] bring an end to attacks on disabled people’s freedom which are expected in the bill.”

So, the majority of protesters were either advocates for those with disabilities or those directly impacted by a handicap, according to USA Today. Instead of calling their protest a “sit-in” they referred to it as a “die-in,” demonstrating their belief that the GOP health care bill would put many Americans in grave danger without dependable health care.

ADAPT’s statement also noted that the protest took place on the 18th anniversary of Olmstead v. L.C. – the Supreme Court decision that recognized disabled people’s right to live in communities rather than institutions.

After President Donald Trump took office and vowed to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Republicans have been trying to craft their own version of the bill. They faced harsh criticism from both sides of the aisle for their secrecy regarding the bill’s contents before unveiling it on Thursday.

Citizens nationwide were offended by both the process surrounding the creation of the bill and the contents of the bill itself. So, the protesters felt it was incumbent to voice their concerns to one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress.

While the protests remained mostly peaceful, Capitol Police were called in at some point and began to forcefully remove protesters despite their constitutional right to protest the government.

Capitol Police are physically removing protesters who are staging a “die-in” in front of McConnell’s office pic.twitter.com/8BU0dW63VI

— Andrew Desiderio (@desiderioDC) June 22, 2017

The police force ultimately arrested around 20 people, many of whom were either on respirators or confined to wheelchairs, according to the Huffington Post. Custodians also had to be sent to the hallway in order to clean up blood, according to Daily Beast reporter Andrew Desiderio.

The group took particular exception to the proposed cuts to Medicaid. At one point the crowd began chanting: “No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty!”

“No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty.” Group chants in front of @SenateMajLdr‘s office. pic.twitter.com/fVJpufMDgC

— Jessica Smith (@JessicaASmith8) June 22, 2017

The health care bill has to be voted on by the Senate and go back to the House, so it will likely be modified. But the violence that these protesters faced at the hands of Capitol Police is upsetting. Instead of having their voices heard, they had their free speech stymied and were physically injured.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Physically Removed from Outside Mitch McConnell’s Office appeared first on Law Street.

This morning, Florida Senator Marco Rubio took to Facebook to announce that he will support Rex Tillerson’s nomination for Secretary of State, despite the tough questions that Rubio had for Tillerson during his confirmation hearing.

Rubio’s long statement praises Tillerson’s patriotism and “impressive record of leadership,” but also highlights a number of concerns that Rubio brought up during the confirmation hearing, like Tillerson’s refusal to call Vladimir Putin a war criminal. However, at the end of his statement, Rubio states his support of Tillerson despite these concerns, saying that he must “balance these concerns with his extensive experience and success in international commerce” and that “it would be against our national interests to have this confirmation unnecessarily delayed or embroiled in controversy.”

Rubio’s support comes a day after Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham released a joint statement in support of Tillerson. In addition to Rubio, Graham and McCain were the two primary hurdles in the way of Tillerson’s confirmation.

“We need a Secretary of State who recognizes that our nation cannot succeed in the world by itself,” the joint statement reads. “The views that Mr. Tillerson has expressed, both privately and publicly during the confirmation process, give us confidence that he will be a champion for a strong and engaged role for America in the world.”

The main criticism that senators on both sides of the aisle have of Tillerson is his connection to the Russian government when he served as CEO of Exxon Mobil, having received the Russian Order of Friendship from Vladimir Putin. Tillerson also lobbied the White House to lift the sanctions that were imposed on Russia after the invasion of Crimea.

Upon the release of his statement, Rubio has been met with criticism aimed at his lack of political courage.

Marco Rubio is the same man who called Obama “weak” on Russia. https://t.co/b48AfTgtKk

— Terrell J. Starr (@Russian_Starr) January 23, 2017

We knew how @marcorubio’s tough talk about Tillerson would turn out, because we all knew how how his tough talk about Trump would turn out.

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) January 23, 2017

Marco Rubio just listed his spine for sale on Craigslist.

— Michael Blackman (@ParaComedian09) January 23, 2017

So Marco Rubio:

1) Grilled Rex Tillerson and tried to embarrass him about Putin

2) Is now voting to confirm Rex Tillerson

— Matt O’Brien (@ObsoleteDogma) January 23, 2017

Rubio garnered a wave of praise after his comments during Tillerson’s confirmation hearing, particularly for a line of questioning in which Rubio called for “moral clarity” and pushed Tillerson on his refusal to label foreign actors as sponsors of terrorism or in violation of international law.

“These were not obscure areas […] it should not be hard to say that Vladimir Putin’s military has conducted war crimes in Aleppo,” Rubio said. He added, “It is never acceptable, you would agree, for a military to specifically target civilians. I find it discouraging your inability to cite that, which is globally accepted.” The video below shows Rubio’s comments.

Rubio has a history of balking on his perceived strong stances, including his support of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee after calling him a “con man,” and running for Senate after repeatedly saying that he had no intention of running if he did not become president.

I have only said like 10000 times I will be a private citizen in January.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is expected to vote on Tillerson’s nomination sometime on Monday.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Marco Rubio Pledges his Support for Tillerson, Making Confirmation Likely appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump and Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence won the 2016 election last night.

Here are the fast facts:

Trump won 279 electoral votes, 9 over the threshold of 270.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Donald Trump won the electoral map.

Republicans retained control of the U.S. Senate, with 51 Senators. They also retained control of the House, with 236 Representatives.

Here’s a look at the current electoral map https://t.co/ga9QMGfB2l #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/JSbdnwuTQY

— Bloomberg (@business) November 9, 2016

For continued election coverage, stay tuned with Law Street Media, as we break down the ballot measures that passed and failed, and news in the coming weeks of transition.

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 Donald Trump Wins the 2016 Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

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.

A GOP office in Hillsborough, North Carolina, was vandalized and later destroyed by an apparent act of arson.

The Orange County Republican headquarters suffered damages caused by a substance thrown through one of the building’s front windows. The flammable material damaged the building’s interior before going out. The firebombing occurred at some point between Saturday night and Sunday morning. Graffiti and threatening words also marked the territory. An adjacent building was graffitied “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else” accompanied by a swastika.  No one was injured.

Hillsborough Mayor Tom Stevens released a statement and reminded people that elections should be an opportunity to become more democratic, rather than moving into acts of violence.

“This highly disturbing act goes far beyond vandalizing property; it willfully threatens our community’s safety via fire, and its hateful message undermines decency, respect and integrity in civic participation,” Stevens said. “I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of people who make Hillsborough their home: Acts like this have no place in our community. Our law enforcement officials are responding quickly and thoroughly to investigate this reprehensible act and prosecute the perpetrators.”

According to the town, “no damage estimates are available yet, and Hillsborough police are continuing to investigate the incident with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”

Governor of North Carolina Pat McCrory declared he will use every resource as governor to assist local authorities in the investigation. McCrory’s staff helped deliver new campaign materials to Orange County hours after the bombing.

“The firebombing of a local political headquarters in Orange County is clearly an attack on our democracy,” McCrory said in a statement. “Violence has no place in our society – but especially in our elections. … I will use every resource as governor to assist local authorities in this investigation.”

The firebombing of a local political headquarters in Orange County is clearly an attack on our democracy. pic.twitter.com/fr9FWGQUoG

— Pat McCrory (@PatMcCroryNC) October 16, 2016

Thank you for your thoughts & prayers, Sec. @HillaryClinton.

— NCGOP (@NCGOP) October 16, 2016

Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning @NCGOP

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 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 North Carolina GOP Office Firebombed: Trump Blames Democrats 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.

Former congressman and radio host Joe Walsh threatened Obama and Black Lives Matter supporters on Twitter late Thursday night. In a tweet that since has been deleted he said “this is now war,” before warning Obama to watch out and that the “real America is coming for you.”

Former GOP Rep, now radio host, @WalshFreedom, deleted this tweet last night after the #DallasPoliceShooting: pic.twitter.com/RzhzJmY1QW

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) July 8, 2016

Thursday night was the deadliest night for police officers since 9/11, leaving five officers dead after gunmen fired shots at police during a protest against police shootings. Republican Joe Walsh was very active on Twitter throughout the night posting several updates blaming Obama and liberals for the tragedy.

Obama says Cops are racist so 2 uneducated black thugs shoot 10 Dallas Cops tonight, killing 4.

Wake up silent majority. Stand w our Cops.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

BLM should be categorized as a hate group.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

Totally ignoring the recent shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, or for that matter all 136 black people that have already been killed by the police this year, Walsh had the guts to say it’s “time to stand against the cop haters.”

It's time 4 patriotic Americans to stand up & stand against all the Cop haters – from Obama to the thugs on the street.

It's way past time.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

10 Cops shot.

You did this Obama.

You did this liberals.

You did this #BLM.

Time to defend our Cops. Wake up. https://t.co/Zoc3x2xlMk

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

Finally he “explained” his tweets to the Chicago Tribune on Friday morning, saying that of course he didn’t call for violence against Obama or Black Lives Matter, because “It would end my career and it’s wrong. I would never say anything as reprehensible as that.”

Walsh was criticized by a lot of people, including activist and musician John Legend.

Joe Walsh needs to be arrested for threatening our President. STFU @walshfreedom

— John Legend (@johnlegend) July 8, 2016

A Racist History?

Walsh is from Illinois and has a history of making racist  and offensive statements.

In 2011 when Walsh was in Congress he expressed his thoughts on the reason for Obama’s election in an interview with Slate.

Why was he elected? Again, it comes back to who he was. He was black, he was historic […]a black man who was articulate, liberal, the whole white guilt, all of that.

At a meeting in 2012 Walsh talked about radical Islam as a threat “at home,” saying “It’s in Elk Grove, it’s in Addison, it’s in Elgin,” referencing various towns in Illinois and upsetting local Muslims.

In 2013 Walsh started hosting a radio show after losing his seat in Congress. Only a year later he came under fire for using racial slurs when talking about American football, including the n-word. He was shut off from his own show and appeared to have no idea why.

The station keeps cutting me off. I don't know why

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 19, 2014

And here comes to the General Manager. It appears I can say Redskins, which is supposedly offensive, but when I say other words, commercial

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 19, 2014

Walsh seems to be lacking self-censorship and social skills. Maybe he should just stay away from his Twitter account for now.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former Congressman Joe Walsh Tweets Threats about Obama and BLM appeared first on Law Street.

It is no large secret that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has had a tumultuous relationship with the issues of poverty and welfare: referring to the “culture problem” of “inner cities,” claiming America is divided into “makers” and “takers,” and making more controversial statements within the last few years.

But following a speech in March 2016 where he apologized for the hateful rhetoric, poverty has become one of his premier issues, especially as he revealed the first part of the House Republican policy brief A Better Way on Tuesday.

The 35-page brief has a simple and not particularly harmful premise; by embracing community-oriented solutions, encouraging work, and customizing welfare services, more individuals in poverty will be able to achieve social mobility. However, in these 35 pages, Ryan offers few policy solutions, poor research, and repackages Republican cut-back proposals under the guise of being “good” for impoverished people in America.

While the proposal includes what is expected of a House Republican brief on poverty–cutting and consolidating welfare programs, blocking grants to states, and tightening work requirements for welfare recipients–the sheer lack of quality research and policy proposals is underwhelming.

Though Ryan has no problem citing sources and statistics on such imperative topics as whether or not Americans believe welfare recipients should have to work, the brief states–without statistics or sources–that “recent data suggests many (SNAP recipients) are not working or preparing for work” and that “recent reports from independent government watchdogs reveal that welfare benefits are often paid to people who are not eligible.”

Poor research aside, let us not forget that House Republicans abhor bureaucracy, but only when it’s inconvenient to their goals. The brief relies heavily on the Work Participation Rate (WPR) as the measurement of TANF success. This is innately unsuccessful because it doesn’t differentiate between states with low WPRs and states where social service workers do not accurately and attentively track WPR. Thus, Ryan’s recommendation to require states to “engage TANF recipients in work” is largely a move to better document and regulate work involvement, despite persistent anti-bureaucracy sentiments throughout the brief.  

While this may be one of the most jarring contradictions Ryan offers, rest assured that it is not the only one. In a paragraph on strengthening higher education, he criticizes the strict academic-year timeline Pell Grant recipients are forced to take and proceeds to call the Pell Grant program unsustainable due to expansion.

Despite Ryan’s vague language, his attempts to criticize efforts such as the fiduciary rule–a Department of Labor proposal which would require retirement advisers to prioritize their clients’ best interests over profit–as well as the CFPB’s regulation of payday loans which have historically placed impoverished people in long-term debt traps, are quickly revealed as partisan interests snuck into a brief on “opportunity” for impoverished people in America.

In a more holistic way, the entirety of this brief is contradictory. Ryan espouses at one point that “this ‘spend more’ approach invests taxpayer dollars in bureaucratic programs without addressing the root cause of poverty.” However, in the brief, Ryan never assesses the root cause of poverty; to do so would invalidate his proposals to cut programs that help vulnerable people receive food and housing, and meet other basic human needs.

Ryan does seem to acknowledge that poverty extends beyond income poverty–that poverty is a culmination of societal forces suppressing social mobility. He is misled, though, in suggesting that services and work requirements can replace financial assistance. Strong community services and work enforcements alone do not feed people, do not pay the rent for their apartments, and to deny cash assistance is to be in denial of what poverty comes down to: not having the money and bargaining power in society to protect and empower oneself.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Ode to Paul Ryan’s Anti-Poverty Brief Mishap appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump has many talents: amassing large sums of money, ostensibly writing checks to charities, and provoking confrontations with the media. On Tuesday, at Trump Tower in New York, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee managed to show off all three of those skills in a 40-minute televised speech.

Trump said that he raised $5.6 million during a fundraiser for veterans held in January. He also rattled off the names of the charities that were presented donations from that chunk of change, after he received pressure from the media to reveal where the money raised ended up going. And he also responded to that pressure, spending a bulk of the speech deriding the media as being “unbelievably dishonest” and singling out ABC News’s Tom Llamas as a “sleaze.”

“But what I don’t want is when I raise millions of dollars, have people say, like this sleazy guy right over here from ABC,” Trump said, skirting eye contact with Llamas, but aggressively pointing at him while squinting into the cameras. “He’s a sleaze in my book. You’re a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well.”

The speech was a response to mounting pressure from the press about the particulars of the veterans’ fundraiser, which Trump held in lieu of attending a Fox News debate. The reporters’ questions were simple: how much money was raised, and to whom was it donated?

The confusion about the amount of money that was raised stemmed from contradictory statements by Trump and his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. Trump initially announced the event’s haul as being $6 million; Lewandowski told The Washington Post it was $4.5 million. On Tuesday, the real estate mogul cleared up the foggy figure, pinpointing the amount raised as $5.6 million and rising.

He explained the lengthy donation process as a result of making sure the charities poised to receive donations were properly vetted. All of the checks have been sent, he said, save for one to the Project for Patriots, a veteran housing group based in Sioux City, Iowa.

The largest of Trump’s contributions was made to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation for a purported amount of $1.1 million. A representative told Law Street: “Mr. Trump sent us a check last week for a million dollars.”

Whether that check was signed and sent amid the increased media attention thrust on the issue or after a drawn out vetting process is unclear. But Trump prefers his donations to fly under the radar, a shockingly different philosophy than how he has run his presidential campaign thus far: “I could have asked all these groups to come here and I didn’t want to do that. I’m not looking for credit.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Attacks Media, Calls Journalist a “Sleaze” During Tuesday Speech 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.

Good news everyone! In case you were worried or concerned (although, honestly, with this year’s presidential candidate pool, who isn’t concerned?) Paul Ryan has made it very clear that he will not be running for president. That’s right. You’ve heard it correctly. Paul Ryan will not be the next President of the United States, so don’t even think about voting for him.

In a weird press conference last week, Ryan announced his lack of desire for the presidential nomination and his refusal to accept the nomination if it comes down to that. Check out his refusal at the 30 second mark:

He made it very clear in this video that he does not want the delegates nominating him and that he believes only candidates who ran in the primaries should be considered by those delegates, should the nomination decision go to convention this July. “I should not be considered. Period. End of story,” Ryan says affirmatively, before he proceeds to again emphatically state that he is “not going to be our party’s [the republican party’s] nominee.” It’s okay Paul! Calm down! No one is going to force you to be president if you don’t want to be, buddy!

Why was Ryan being so oddly repetitive and assertive as he announced his non-candidacy for president? Well, if we think back to last fall, Ryan pulled the same stunt when there were rumors flying around of him stepping into John Boehner’s role as Speaker of the House. Time after time, Ryan denied any desire to be the Speaker. There was even Twitter evidence that Ryan was dead set on not accepting the Speaker position.

Ryan spox to NBC News: "Chairman Ryan appreciates the support he's getting from his colleagues but is still not running for Speaker."

— Alex Moe (@AlexNBCNews) October 9, 2015

And, what happened in that situation? Less than a month later, Ryan flopped and stepped into his new role as Speaker of the House, despite numerous attempts to convince the public he really did not want the job.

This sudden change in heart last fall makes it hard to believe Ryan’s current media pleas, no matter how earnest and heartfelt they seem. But, don’t worry America, not too many people are falling for this shenanigan Ryan has pulled–even “SNL” called Ryan out on his nonsense in a skit that parodied his not a campaign announcement.

This “anti-campaign ad,” which features Taran Killam as Paul Ryan, hams up Ryan’s not running for president shtick. What starts as Ryan claiming he will not be America’s next president, under any circumstances, quickly transforms into what is essentially a campaign ad. This hilarious spoof directly mirrors Ryan’s “not running” campaign announcement, where he began by claiming he wasn’t running and then basically gave a presidential campaign speech immediately following the announcement. It’s a brilliant example of why satire and parody really are the best kinds of humor.

Will he be the nominee? Won’t he be the nominee? It really is too hard to tell in the midst of Ryan’s broken “not running” promises and confusing not campaigning announcements. The one thing that is certain, is that the Republicans are gearing up for a Convention nominee because it’s looking like that’s what the end of the Republican race will require. And, even though Paul Ryan is “not running,” I think we all know he could be just what this country needs after months and months of watching the zodiac killer (read: Ted Cruz) and America’s biggest bully (read: Donald Trump) duking it out.

So, anyways, we get it Paul! You’re not running for president just like we’re all not voting for you and not sick of the rest of the Republican presidential candidates. Your secret is safe with us.

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 Paul Ryan is Not, Under any Circumstances, Running for President appeared first on Law Street.

Last night’s sort-of second Super Tuesday led to even more of a mess for the GOP than I think anyone thought possible just a few months ago. As of last night, Marco Rubio has officially bowed out of the race. Donald Trump is certainly doing well, but he hasn’t quite locked up the nomination yet. And John Kasich’s win in his home state of Ohio means that he’s still holding on. Then, with the chance that there’s a brokered convention, literally anything could happen at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland this summer. So…who’s still left in the race for the GOP nomination, and what’s next?

Donald Trump

Trump is, quite obviously, the man to beat. Trump is the only Republican candidate left in the race who has a realistic path to the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination before the convention–he currently has 646. While Kasich’s win in Ohio denied Trump 66 delegates, which certainly makes that path harder,  Trump is still in an enviable position.

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz is still in it, with 397 delegates. He’s positing himself as the only one who can beat Trump, and is seemingly trying to push Kasich out of the race to scoop some of those “absolutely never voting for Trump under any circumstances” voters. He’s also claiming that he’ll do well in closed-primary states that are coming up, where only pre-registered Republicans can vote. We’ll have to see if now that the field has narrowed a bit if Cruz can make good on those promises.

John Kasich

John Kasich somehow managed to stay alive last night by winning his home state, Ohio. However, Cruz and Trump are both promising that their delegate counts will keep him out of the convention. But Kasich may still see some room for himself at a contested convention. As Politico’s Kyle Cheney put it:

Kasich’s campaign foreshadowed its plans for a convention brawl late Tuesday, naming Stu Spencer and Charlie Black — two veterans of the last contested convention, the 1976 fight between President Gerald Ford and an insurgent Ronald Reagan — to his national strategy team.

Paul Ryan? Jeb! Bush?

With the prospect of a contested convention, there’s always the chance that another contender sneaks up through the side. In this case, all eyes would appear to be on current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Former Speaker John Boehner has stated:

If we get to the convention and we don’t have a nominee that can win on the first ballot, I’m for none of the above. They all ran, they all had a chance to win, none of them won, so I’m for none of the above.

Ryan himself doesn’t seem particularly in favor of the concept, but it sounds like he hasn’t totally ruled it out, either. He told CNBC:

You know, I haven’t given any thought to this stuff. People say, ‘What about the contested convention?’ I say, well, there are a lot of people running for president. We’ll see. Who knows?

Then there are people who say that Jeb! Bush could make a comeback at a convention, at least according to Rush Limbaugh.

The Ghost of Ronald Reagan?

Honestly, at this point, it may be one of the more plausible and palatable options.

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 Who Could Still End Up with the GOP Nomination? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been feeling inevitable for a little while now, but it’s looking even more and more likely that Trump will become the Republican nominee, and possibly even our next President. But laughter is the best medicine (particularly when the sickness is racism, xenophobia, and terror) so the good people of Twitter started weighing in on what the U.S. will be like if Trump is actually elected President. This isn’t the first time the hashtag #IfTrumpWins has surfaced, but the submissions this time around are particularly relevant. The hashtag was started by Chris Hardwick of Comedy Central’s “@midnight with Chris Hardwick.” Check out the best of #IfTrumpWins in the slideshow below:

#IfTrumpWins you better start getting in shape for the 1st Hunger Games

— Ethan Bradly (@Ethan_Bradly) March 9, 2016

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 #IfTrumpWins: Smiling Through the Pain 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.

Jeb! Bush makes me sad. He’s trying oh so hard, and failing oh so miserably to win the 2016 Republican nomination. Now, he’s done some truly awkward and bizarre things over the course of this election cycle–check out fellow Law Streeter Sean Simon’s roundup of the best Jeb! Bush moments–but one of the most bizarre ones actually happened last night. Jeb! tweeted out this photo:

America. pic.twitter.com/TeduJkwQF3

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) February 16, 2016

Obviously, we all know what Jeb! was getting at here–he’s a real, tough gun owner, just like the voters in South Carolina he’s trying to woo! He stands for the Second Amendment! He gets his name engraved on his gun, because nothing says tough like making sure your firearm matches your monogrammed bathrobe! He’s just like you! But, once the internet got its hands on the meme-worthy potential of this tweet, that message was utterly lost. Check out some of my favorite responses–some funny, some poignant–to Jeb!’s weird gun tweet in the slideshow below:

Yes @JebBush. America. pic.twitter.com/4Yhtdl2ygY — Éoin (@LabourEoin) February 16, 2016

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 Best Twitter Responses to Jeb! Bush’s Gun Tweet 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.

We are constantly bombarded with headlines talking about presidential candidate Donald Trump as the frontrunner of the Grand Old Party, and we often ask “why?” and “what are people thinking?” and “when is he going to go away?” You know, causal questions. We all see the percentages, but how many people across the county really like Trump?

Only 33 percent, apparently.

According to the most recent two-week average from Gallup, 33 percent of Americans surveyed nationwide had a favorable view and 60 percent had an unfavorable view of the businessman, who has risen in the polls and garnered a hefty amount of media attention because of his fiery attitude and defiance of political norms and correctness.

In Gallup’s findings, Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport explains that Trump, “has a higher unfavorable rating than any nominated candidate from either of the two major parties going back to the 1992” (1992 was the first year Gallup recorded favorability percentages).

While Trump’s number seems a bit extreme, some of the other candidates aren’t too far behind.

Across all Americans, Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable rating is at 52 percent; Jeb Bush, 45 percent; Chris Christie, 38 percent; Ted Cruz, 37 percent; Marco Rubio, 33 percent; Bernie Sanders, 31 percent; and Ben Carson, 30 percent.

Check out a graph of some of the other ratings (modern and historical) below:

Data courtesy of Gallup.

This puts Trump’s net favorability in the negatives at -27 percent, and according to Gallup, is higher than Clinton and Bush’s net -10 percent favorability.

“The bottom line is that Trump now has a higher unfavorable rating than any candidate at any time during all of these previous election cycles,” said Newport. “That conclusion takes into account the fact that unfavorable ratings tend to rise in the heat of a general election campaign as the barbs, negative ads and heightened partisanship are taken to their highest levels.”

In the 1992 election, Bill Clinton’s highest unfavorable rating was 49 percent, while opponent George H.W. Bush’s unfavorable rating was higher and closest to Trump’s at 57 percent. In 2008, Barack Obama’s unfavorable rating ratings maxed at 37 percent and in 2012 raised to 48 percent.

The moral of the story is that if we blame Obama for everything now and he still had lower unfavorable ratings then, who knows what the world will become if a man like Trump becomes president. So, don’t believe everything you read about how much everyone likes Trump–it’s not technically true. 

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 Donald Trump is the Most Unfavorable Presidential Candidate In Recent Years 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.

The Republican field is about to have its fifth (but feels like 275th) debate of the 2016 primary season, hosted by CNN. Given that the field is still depressingly crowded, the last debate of 2015 promises to be a contentious one. Here’s a rundown of what you need to know before tomorrow night’s debate:

Participants:

It’s no secret that the Republican field has been so crowded this time around that we’ve needed two debate stages to hold them all. CNN is following the format of the first four debates, with a “JV” table consisting of Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham ,and former New York Gov. George Pataki.

The main debate will feature nine presidential hopefuls–according to CNN:

Businessman Donald Trump, the front-runner for the nomination, will again be center stage flanked by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson on his right and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on his left, CNN announced Sunday. The six remaining participants in the prime-time contest will be Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

The moderator will be Wolf Blitzer, with CNN’s Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash joining Salem Radio Network talk show host Hugh Hewitt as questioners.

Seating Arrangements

The podium arrangement, which places higher-polling candidates front and center, will look like this:

.@CNNPolitics releases lineup, podium arrangement for final GOP debate of 2015 https://t.co/flm7OnriN0pic.twitter.com/ke1uPuRo2s

— Allison Wisk (@allisonwisk) December 13, 2015

Where’s the debate?

It’s going to be held in Las Vegas, at the Venetian hotel. It’s hosted by CNN, so if you want to stream it from the comfort of your own living room while playing a drinking game (no judgment) check out CNN.com’s live stream.

Will there be any feuds?

Given that we’re getting closer and closer to primary votes–the Iowa caucuses will be held in February–candidates are starting to get a bit nastier with each other. For example, Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz–two of the frontrunners, are almost certain to attack each other, most likely on foreign affairs issues. Cruz is painting Rubio as a centrist who can’t be trusted, while Rubio’s gripe with Cruz is that he’s weak on security-adjacent concepts like surveillance.

We may also see some squabbles between Cruz and Donald Trump. Trump has gone after Cruz hard in recent days. On “Fox News Sunday” Trump called Cruz a “little bit of a maniac” when discussing his career in the Senate. Cruz’s response was surprisingly even-tempered, as he tweeted a reference to “Flashdance” at Donald Trump:

In honor of my friend @realDonaldTrump and good-hearted #Maniacs everywhere: https://t.co/KOPIi4XTVt

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 13, 2015

Whether or not Cruz will take the bait on the stage remains to be seen. 

What will they talk about?

Unlike the last few debates, tomorrow’s doesn’t have a specified theme. So, what the candidates will talk about could encompass a wide range of issues, but there are a few topics that it’s very safe to bet will be discussed. For starters, national security will be a hot topic. A lot has happened since the last debate on November 10, most visibly the horrific terrorist attack in Paris, France, that sparked conversations about the fight against ISIS, Syrian refugees, terrorism, and the status of Muslims in the United States. Additionally, the shooting in San Bernardino, California set many Americans even more on edge, leading to calls from Trump to stop allowing Muslims into the United States. Questions about gun control may also come up, as well as the economy and Planned Parenthood. 

Law Street readers: are there any topics you want to see discussed? Let us know the in the poll below:

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 What Do You Want to Hear About in the Next Republican 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.

A Florida newspaper is really pissed with Senator Marco Rubio.

In a scorching op-ed published Tuesday evening, the Sun Sentinel’s Editorial Board accused Rubio of “ripping off voters” with his constant absences in Congress. Rubio, who is currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination, has missed more votes than any other senator this year. The Sentinel blasted Rubio saying,

Your job is to represent Floridians in the Senate. Either do your job, Sen. Rubio, or resign it.

The op-ed comes in response to Rubio’s interview with CNN Sunday, where he justified missing roughly one third of Senate votes this year by saying, “I’m not missing votes because I’m on vacation. I’m running for president so that the votes they take in the Senate are actually meaningful again.” Rubio went on to explain,

If there is a vote where my vote is going to make a difference or an issue of major national significance and importance, we’d do everything possible to be there. But I am going to miss votes, I’m running for president…When I miss a vote, it’s not because I’m out playing golf. We’re out campaigning for the future of America where I believe I can make more of a difference as president than I could as a senator.

Watch Rubio’s CNN Interview Below

The Sentinel’s editorial board’s response:

Sorry, senator, but Floridians sent you to Washington to do a job. We’ve got serious problems with clogged highways, eroding beaches, flat Social Security checks and people who want to shut down the government.

If you hate your job, senator, follow the honorable lead of House Speaker John Boehner and resign it.

It got harsher when they wrote,

Let us elect someone who wants to be there and earn an honest dollar for an honest day’s work. Don’t leave us without one of our two representatives in the Senate for the next 15 months or so.

Then they accused him out for essentially defrauded tax payers with his salary saying,

You are paid $174,000 per year to represent us, to fight for us, to solve our problems. Plus you take a $10,000 federal subsidy — declined by some in the Senate — to participate in one of the Obamacare health plans, though you are a big critic of Obamacare.

You are ripping us off, senator.

And they do have a point. According to a tally by Politico, Senators Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders have been able to juggle both their senatorial duties and presidential campaigns, missing only seven and four votes respectively. Rubio on the other hand has shown an unmistakable unwillingness to help govern his state my missing staggering total of 59 votes. But to be fair Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham aren’t too far behind him with absences from votes totaling 57 and 39.

Even though the Florida newspaper is hardly the first to point out Rubio’s poor attendance record, its critique probably stung the most. At a time when campaign debate rhetoric relies so heavily on politicians showboating and examples of how candidates were able to “revolutionize” their states with their policies, having constituents publicly rebuke a contender is a huge political blow.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Newspaper to Marco Rubio: “Do Your Job or Resign it” 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.

Last week, Governor Scott Walker became the first candidate to drop out of the running for the Republican presidential nomination. His departure from the primaries has led to a wide range of reactions, from utter shock, to great relief, to unoriginal jokes. No matter your opinion on this small town Colorado native turned runner up student government president turned college dropout, there is no doubt that he was a solid candidate. An exciting one? No, but a solid one. His position on some of the most important issues to Republican primary voters were almost uniformly in line. He held tenure for three terms as governor in a swing state while only being recalled one little time. Moreover, his position on the core issue of this recall, bargaining rights for public unions, made him a conservative hero, and thrust him onto the national stage. Perhaps most importantly, Walker rides Harley Davidson motorcycles and is a good Midwestern Christian. So how did this walking, talking embodiment of rice cakes become the quickest failed campaign in modern politics?

Well, people watched him talk. If you were to describe Scott Walker as a candidate, he would appear to be one of the strongest candidates. Unfortunately, as we watched him drowned out by bigger voices in two straight debates, it was hard to see such strengths. The constant coverage of these two debates ensures that voters do not forget about his dismal performances. Due to the incredibly long span of time in which primaries are held, candidates must hold on to the excitement and support that they originally garnered. Just ask Hillary Clinton about how hard that is.

In addition to their length, primary campaigns require millions of dollars, which means many devoted supporters and maybe a billionaire donor here and there. In any other election season, with these issues still remaining, Scott Walker would be a candidate who sticks around until the end of the primaries. Unfortunately for him, this election’s primary voters have no interest in a run-of-the-mill establishment governor. This is a group of voters who have dealt with eight years of a wildly liberal Obama administration intent on limiting religious liberty, weakening America’s stance in the world, and involving government in every facet of our lives. Or at least that’s what many primary voters feel has been the case. Changing the course of this country would require someone who is willing to think outside the box and speak his mind. Scott Walker didn’t seem to fit the bill for those voters.

Scott Walker’s exit from the Republican primaries is a case study in everything wrong with American politics. In the age of a 24-hour news cycle intent on telling its viewers who is winning at every moment in primaries that run for over a year, require millions of dollars in funding, and are decided by radical primary voters who reward borderline racist and Islamophobic speech with huge campaign donations and poll boosts, solid candidates become unelectable. And that is how a candidate who was originally the front-runner at his announcement abruptly spiraled into dismal poll numbers and eventually dropped out. Here’s to hoping Scott Walker finds more success as a bedtime audio book narrator. Or maybe a NyQuil spokesperson.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did Scott Walker Really Drop Out of the Presidential Race? appeared first on Law Street.

Scott Walker has officially dropped out of the race to become the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. In such a crowded field, it’s not surprising that the herd is starting to thin itself, at least a little bit. But what is surprising is the reasoning that Walker gave–his announcement contained what was clearly a not-so-veiled jab against frontrunner Donald Trump.

Walker’s brief, but powerful, statement is below:

He began with comments about Ronald Reagan’s optimism, a characteristic he noted was lacking from the stage at the debate last Wednesday, which it just so happens was hosted at the Ronald Reagan presidential library in California. Walker parlayed that statement about lack of optimism into an indictment on how the primary race has been progressing so far, and then his announcement that he will be suspending his campaign.

He stated:

Today, I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the field in this race so that a positive, conservative message can rise to the top of the field. With this in mind, I will suspend my campaign immediately.

I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive, conservative alternative to the current front-runner. This is fundamentally important to the future of our party, and, more important, the future of the country.

The “current front-runner” is really the crucial part here–Walker is clearly referencing business mogul Donald Trump, who soared to the front of the polls despite his consistently racist, sexist, petty, and inappropriate rhetoric.

This sudden burst of patriotism and a desire to fight Trump obviously isn’t the only reason that Walker is dropping out–this isn’t a purely altruistic move. Walker burst onto the scene as a potential frontrunner when he declared his candidacy this summer, but quickly stagnated after a lukewarm performance in the first debate, and hasn’t done much to stand out since then. In fact, dropping out of the race is by far the most interesting and news-worthy thing that Walker has done since he declared his presidency. Given Scott’s stagnating campaign, money was apparently slow coming in, and his campaign allegedly was having a hard time paying his bills. There were also allegations that his campaign wasn’t built up properly, or was mismanaged.

Most recently, there are rumors that Walker’s campaign is coming to an end as a result of some sort of scandalous story that’s due to break in the next few days. Buzzfeed has claimed that there’s a rumor being passed around by top donors about Walker’s campaign manager, Rick Wiley, but did not explain what the rumor concerned. A former campaign worker, Liz Mair, has mentioned the possibility of a scandal, but what it could be about is still very much unknown.

So, why exactly Walker dropped out is incredibly unclear, but he did choose a monumental and effective way to do so. While he probably could have lasted a little while longer, dropping out when Trump is still in the lead by quite a bit gave a powerful credence to his comments. Given that Walker wasn’t polling particularly well, who knows where his share of the voters will end up, but he certainly made some pretty powerful points about coalescing against a candidate who can take down Trump.

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 Scott Walker Suspends Campaign, Gives Trump a Metaphorical Middle Finger appeared first on Law Street.

The second Republican primary debate of the year was aired last night by CNN and took place at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. It was a three hour debate that left me with more questions than answers–for example, did they really all go that entire stretch without having to use the bathroom? But, tradition dictates that we boil down those three hours into some gifable snapshots, so without further ado, check out the top ten moments from the second Republican debate.

10. Mike Huckabee Appealed to Millennials with a Reference from the ’80s

Mike Huckabee referred to the Republican field as the “A Team” and decided that Donald Trump was Mr. T, saying:

I think we are in fact The A-Team. We have some remarkable people. We even have our own Mr. T, who doesn’t mind saying about others, ‘you’re cool.’

Pop culture references are a great way to appeal to the masses–and if he had picked something less than 30 years old (we’re not counting the horrible 2010 remake) it might have been successful.

9. Marco Rubio Made a Fun Reference

One of Marco Rubio’s early introductions to the national stage was when he gave the Republican response to the State of the Union back in 2013. During the speech he took a fantastically awkward sip of water:

But last night, Rubio paid homage to that really awkward moment by bringing his own water to the debate. It was a sweet and dad-joke like, but I’m not sure how much of a splash it made.

We’re entering the next phase of the #GOPdebate. Anyone need refreshments? http://t.co/tdQhhyEBDb pic.twitter.com/ki3fr601BE

— Guardian US (@GuardianUS) September 17, 2015

8. Donald Trump Proves his Mature Rhetorical Mastery

Trump, on immigration: “First of all, I want to build a wall-a wall that works. We have a lot bad dudes, from outside, in this country.” So eloquently put, Trump, although I do have to admit “bad dudes” is a bit more PC than calling swarths of the population “rapists.”

7. Carly Fiorina Makes Things Up

Carly Fiorina went on a weird, grisly rant about Planned Parenthood that would have been strategically powerful if it was in any way true. She stated–presumably in reference to the much-edited Planned Parenthood hit videos created by the Center for Medical Progress:

I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.

The videos were disturbing to be sure, even though they were patently fiction. But at no point did those videos even come to close to portraying a fully formed fetus kicking its legs–Fiorina at this point was over-exaggerating exaggerations in an incredibly upsetting way. It’s one thing to be anti-choice, it’s another thing altogether to use lies and fear-mongering to prove your point.

6. Everyone Got Handsy with Donald Trump

Donald Trump was flanked on stage by Ben Carson and Jeb Bush, and at various points he exchanged really awkward high fives/handshakes with each of them. First was Ben Carson, who was very reluctant to get involved in the entire situation: But Jeb Bush got a little too enthusiastic, and actually appeared to make Trump flinch: 

Here you go Twitter pic.twitter.com/9wfzAQGftg — Brandon Wall (@Walldo) September 17, 2015

5. Winner of the Happy Hour Debate (Literally): Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham had my favorite quote of the earlier happy hour debate, which featured the candidates who aren’t polling well enough to make it to the main stage. Graham, who has his priorities in order, stated: “That’s the first thing I’m going to do as president. We’re going to drink more.”

He was referring to Ronald Reagan’s tradition of drinks with Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, but it still makes for an awesome one-liner, and I wholeheartedly approve.

4. Chris Christie Gets Fed Up

Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina got into a spat back-and-forth about their business records, and Christie got really damn tired of listening to it. He eventually said:

 The fact is that we don’t want to hear about your careers. Back and forth and volleying back and forth about who did well and who did poorly. You’re both successful people. Congratulations. You know who is not successful? The middle class in this country who’s getting plowed over by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Let’s start talking about those issues tonight and stop this childish back and forth between the two of you.

While I’m normally not a Christie fan, and I don’t agree with the claims in his comment, here’s some well-deserved applause for shutting up that annoying Trump and Fiorina spat:

3. Jeb Bush Tries to Prove He’s a Cool Kid

Jeb Bush attempted to get some street cred in the lamest way possible–by admitting he had smoked  marijuana 40 years ago and his mom doesn’t approve:

So, 40 years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it. I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did.

 

2. Fiorina Takes Down Trump

You can watch this one yourself:

.@CarlyFiorina responds to @realDonaldTrump‘s comment about her face #CNNDebate http://t.co/jcEf6bW9ja #GOPDebate http://t.co/m0eDU5NvhT

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 17, 2015

Ok, now we actually do have a bad ass over here.

1. Some Really Lame Answers to the “Which Women You’d Put on the $10 Bill Question”

As a fun, easy question toward the end, the moderators asked each of the debaters “Which woman would you put on the $10 bill?” Some answers were fine–Susan B. Anthony,  Rosa Parks, Clara Barton, and Abigail Adams are all admirable American women. But some of them were flat-out ridiculous. For example, three of the candidates–Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson–all cited female family members. Huckabee chose his wife, Donald Trump chose his daughter, and Ben Carson named his mother. While those are nice answers and may have been good responses to “who inspires you,” they’re also total cop-outs and a bit insulting. Women have done so many great things for this country and none are included on our paper currency–yet three of the eleven candidates couldn’t even name one.

Then, Jeb Bush gave arguably the weirdest answer all night–put Margaret Thatcher on the $10 bill. Alright Jeb Bush, please do remember that if you want a fighting chance, some American women will have to vote for you. Although at this point, I haven’t the foggiest why we would.

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 10 Moments from the Second Republican Debate 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.

Republican Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz got into a back-and-forth with actress and LGBTQ rights advocate Ellen Page on Friday. She confronted him at a barbecue he was hosting before a religious freedom rally in Iowa as part of a show she’s working on with Vice. Page was clad in a hat and oversize sunglasses, so Cruz clearly didn’t recognize her as the actress who starred in hits like “Inception” and “Juno.” Watch the lively exchange below:

Page, who came out last year, particularly focused her questioning on protections for LGBTQ people, bringing up issues like the fact that gay and trans employees are legally able to fired by their employers in many places. However throughout the exchange, Cruz showed a dogged unwillingness to acknowledge that protections for LGBTQ individuals could be improved, instead focusing almost unilaterally on the concept that Christians are being persecuted in the United States for their faith. He stated: “Well, what we’re seeing right now, we’re seeing Bible-believing Christians being persecuted for living according to their faith.”

While Cruz probably isn’t used to being confronted by popular young actresses, the answers he gave are consistent with a point of view that he (and some of the other candidates) have been sticking to resolutely–the idea that the conversation about LGBTQ protections should take a backseat to one about religious persecution of Christians. Now that acceptance of LGBTQ Americans has reached an all-time high, and gay marriage has been legalized via Supreme Court decision, arguments about “religious freedom” appear to be the new hot topic that only narrowly disguises the disgust Cruz has for LGBTQ protections.

But it’s a ridiculous argument. No one is arguing that Christians should be “persecuted” for not supporting LGBTQ rights–unless you define persecution as ridiculously narrowly as Cruz does. At the “Rally for Religious Liberty” he hosted after the barbecue where had the run in with Page, he featured various citizens who had supposedly had their religious liberties trampled upon by the government. These included couples who were fined amounts like $1000 or $5000 for not serving gay couples at their businesses. There’s also the case of a fire chief who was forced to step down in Georgia after he self-published a book calling homosexuality a “sexual perversion,” although the mayor pointed out that it was his overall conduct–including the fact that he didn’t have the permission to publish the book–that led to his termination.

But none of those things are strictly persecution. Persecution is defined by the International Criminal Court as “the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.” While fines and firings are unfortunate, they don’t appear to fit the definition of Christian persecution.

As Rick Unger wrote in a Forbes op-ed:

In truth, even the most ardent evangelical should be able to summon the logic required to realize that using the Constitution to resolve disagreements and conflicts between Christian beliefs and the belief structures of their fellow Americans who think differently is hardly an act of persecution. Rather, these efforts are simply an act of fealty to our founding document and the men who wrote it—most of who were, themselves, Christian believers.

Yet religious persecution remains what Cruz is so worried about, to the point that he couldn’t even have a sensical argument with Page without bringing it up. We should strive to ensure that religious liberty is always protected; regardless of whether you think it’s currently under attack right now. But it’s not a mutually exclusive conversation. Other aspects of the debate over LGBTQ rights that Cruz brought up to Page, such as ISIS’s execution of gay people, deserve recognition. But until Cruz recognizes that we can talk about religious freedom and LGBTQ rights without sacrificing either, there’s going to be a lot more awkward barbecues.

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 Ted Cruz vs. Ellen Page: Argument Over Religious Freedom and LGBTQ Rights appeared first on Law Street.

It’s only May 2015 and already the Republican field vying for the 2016 presidential nomination feels awfully crowded. In anticipation of this very crowded field, various outlets that host the presidential debates are already taking steps to limit the number of candidates who will be able to participate in the nationally televised debates. Given the notoriety and celebrity status required to win the nomination in this day and age, this could sink some candidates’ campaigns before they even really begin.

In terms of candidates who have already declared, we have Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. There’s also former Governor Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson, and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina. It’s also speculated that some combination of former Governor Jeb Bush, former Governor Rick Perry, former Senator Rick Santorum, Governor Scott Walker, Senator Lindsey Graham, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor John Kasich, and business mogul Donald Trump will declare at some point relatively soon. At my count that could be well over a dozen candidates, and I’m sure there are at least a few I’m missing or who will come out of the woodwork to declare.

In light of this potentially huge field, both Fox News and CNN, who are hosting debates in August and September, respectively, have declared that they’re only going to allow the top ten candidates on stage to duke it out for the GOP nomination.

Those announcements, of course, raised plenty of questions, because there’s no good way to determine who the “top ten” candidates are before a single vote is even cast. According to Fox News, the candidates have to “place in the top ten of an average of the five most recent national polls, as recognized by Fox News.” CNN has announced that it will be using a slightly different metric:

The first ten candidates—ranked from highest to lowest in polling order from an average of all qualifying polls released between July 16 and September 10 who satisfy the criteria requirements … will be invited to participate in ‘Segment B’ of the September 16, 2015 Republican Presidential Primary Debate.

Either way, Fox and CNN are both taking steps to ensure that the candidates that they allow on stage for the debates are ones who have a fighting chance–although when considering the crowdedness of the field, this may come down to a few percentage points between candidates who make the cut and those who don’t.

With that in mind, apparently CNN has also announced that it’ll give candidates who don’t make the cut for the main debate but who are polling about 1 percent in three national polls the opportunity to speak in a different segment of the September debate.

Given the sheer craziness that was trying to watch the Republican debates in 2012 and the Democratic debates in 2008, both of which had plenty of candidates (although less than 10), it makes sense that the news outlets want to limit the amount of candidates speaking. If they were to go above ten, there would be hardly enough time for each candidate to be able to say anything useful about his or her platform. That being said, missing out on national exposure will end up hurting the lesser-known candidates, and could end up culling the field on the earlier side than past election cycles.

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 You’re Not Invited: Republican Candidates Vie for Debate Spots appeared first on Law Street.

Get excited everyone! The 2016 presidential campaign is beginning to take shape, with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Hillary Clinton all formally throwing their names into this election’s version of the Goblet of Fire. But let’s talk about the newest candidate to submit his bid for office–the 43-year-old Republican Junior Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio. His fresh face and conscious appeal to younger voters has already garnered comparisons to a young Barack Obama, but his shorter resume compared to his peers makes him a less familiar face for many voters.

That’s why I decided to compile some interesting facts about our newest Republican candidate that demonstrate just how “hip” with our generation he really is. So without further adieu here are the three facts millennials should know about presidential hopeful Marco Rubio.

He’s Meme Friendly

One thing we millennials love is our memes, and Rubio tapped into that love of combining photos with witty commentary when he gave us the awkward sip seen around the world. If you haven’t seen the sip, it happened during his turn at the GOP rebuttal to Obama’s State of the Union in 2013. Rubio took an uncomfortable pause in the middle of the speech for a questionably timed water break that managed to creep out many viewers.

.@marcorubio: He reaches for water, but we’re breaking out the Arbor red. pic.twitter.com/O6ATmGumkE

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) April 13, 2015

His nervous lip smacking combined with uncomfortably direct eye contact proved to be the perfect recipe for an instant viral meme. That sip alone generated at least 15 different parody Twitter accounts and instantly earned Rubio 13,000 new followers. With those kinds of gains in followers, Rubio could take this election one sip at a time.

Picked up over 13,000 new followers on #twitter since last night! Im going to start drinking #water in the middle of all of my speeches! — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 13, 2013

He Loves Rap Music

In a December 2012 interview with GQ magazine, Rubio transformed into an old school music lover out of nowhere, sharing his affinity for Afrika Bambaataa, Public Enemy, and Tupac, and earning some instant street cred. When it comes to music Rubio prefers intensity over “party anthems” calling Eminem his favorite artist and “the only guy that speaks at any sort of depth.” When asked by GQ if he had a favorite song to play to psych him up before a Senate vote Rubio laughed saying:

..in terms of psyching yourself up, I don’t have time for that. You know you can’t put on earphones and the storm the floor and vote.

If you ever wondered what Rubio is currently jamming out to, he was kind enough to share his public Spotify playlist, but sadly it lacks Rubio’s favorite tracks which include: “Straight Outta Compton” by N.W.A., “Killuminati” by Tupac, and Eminem’s “Lose Yourself.”

He’s Social Media Savvy…Or at Least He Thinks He is

Rubio began his presidential campaign by first asking supporters to add him as a friend on Snapchat. Yes, Snpachat, the quick deleting photo/video sharing app that’s usually known for less than wholesome uses.

I’m now on @Snapchat. My username is marcorubio16. Please add me. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) April 13, 2015

However, his “story” making skills still need some work. His first posts consisted of a lot of clapping and name chanting from his presidential campaign announcement, as well as him being driven away in a super sexy gold minivan. I’m hoping he’ll step his selfie game up soon, or if all else fails just videotape himself taking more awkward sips from tiny water bottles. But till then I still want to know if Rubio is team follow back or nahh?

hi @marcorubio are you team follow back or what pic.twitter.com/l2KzeLAp35 — Marisa Kabas (@MarisaKabas) April 13, 2015

Why you gotta be so rude pic.twitter.com/HlAlqnnlQq — Marisa Kabas (@MarisaKabas) April 13, 2015

Since announcing his candidacy last night, Rubio has already begun to try to spin his inexperience and youngest contender status–both of which are concerns for the American people–to his advantage. Whether his plea to millennials will help him actually connect with younger voters will have to be seen.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marco Rubio: Going After Millennials for 2016 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.

Saira Blair is an 18-year-old West Virginia University freshman majoring in economics. She’s also believed to be the youngest elected lawmaker in the United States.

At 17, Blair actually beat a 66-year-old Republican incumbent in a primary, and on Tuesday she beat a 44-year-old Attorney, Democrat Layne Diehl. She will represent a district of just under 20,000 people located in the West Virginia panhandle, close to Maryland, as one of 100 members of the Virginia House of Delegates.

Since Blair won, I’ve seen an interesting mix of reactions, ranging from impressed to disgusted. I want to address those, but first I feel the need to point out that I probably disagree with Blair on every fundamental issue. From what I’ve seen of her platform, she is extremely fiscally conservative, in favor of Voter ID laws, pro-life, pro-gun, and opposed to gay marriage. I don’t think I agree with her on anything, but that does not stop me from being proud and impressed by this young woman.

The idea of democracy is that we choose who best represents us. If I were a voter in Blair’s district, I probably wouldn’t have voted for her because she does not represent me. But it’s hard to fault those who did. She may be young and naive, I don’t know her. But I have a hard time buying that her age automatically disqualifies her from being representative of the people of her district.

She’s legally an adult. Barely, but she is. Which means that she could just as easily be at war, fighting for this nation. We have multiple members of Congress who are in their early thirties; the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, 30-year-old Congresswoman-elect Elise Stefanik, just won on Tuesday in upstate New York. I think it’s difficult to make a cut-off that prescribes how young is too young. Would I have been comfortable representing people at 18? No, probably not. But that’s not to say that there’s a magical day when everyone becomes mature enough to be in that kind of position.

She may be young, and who knows, she could be pretty naive. There’s also something to be said for the fact that her father is a State Senator and he’s probably had a strong influence on her.

Does that make her less qualified than someone old and cynical? God knows that our normal bevy of older, male politicians certainly have many faults. While I don’t agree with Blair’s perspective, it’s almost certainly going to be unique. And who’s to say that it won’t be representative of those who voted to elect her. I can’t imagine that she’s automatically under-qualified for office simply because of her age, when we consistently have elected officials who have affairs, are indicted for various kinds of fraud, and the like. With regard to the fact that she comes from a political family…well that’s not a particularly original criticism either. While she might not be the most qualified candidate, it’s her prerogative to run, and if the voters truly feel that she is a good representation of their beliefs, I don’t see how it’s any different than any other elected official.

I applaud Blair’s tenacity, and while I certainly would not have voted for her, that’s purely because of her politics. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, fewer than five percent of state legislators are under 30; and women in general make up just 24 percent of state legislators. If for no other reason than the fact that Blair has the opportunity to be an excellent role model, and proof that both women and young people have a rightful place being represented in our government, I applaud her.

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 Saira Blair Youngest Elected Official in America: Snaps for Her appeared first on Law Street.

Gay marriage is now legal in the majority of American states. The Supreme Court declined to take on cases in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin in which lower courts struck down the gay marriage ban. Given that the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and West Virginia fall under the purview of the same appeals courts, gay marriage essentially has been legalized there as well.

Most Americans now live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal http://t.co/7XbvlUuirz pic.twitter.com/DPbAoZUf5T

— Conrad Hackett (@conradhackett) October 6, 2014

The speed with which the legalization of same-sex marriage has spread through the United States is nothing short of remarkable. The first state to legalize gay marriage was Massachusetts in 2004. Back then, it was pretty much revolutionary. The Defense of Marriage Act still existed, states were voting to ban same-sex marriage by droves, and sodomy laws had only just been struck down.

In just ten years the trajectory has changed dramatically. In 2004, less than a third of the American population supported legalizing same-sex marriage, now a clear majority does.

With the opinion on gay marriage shifting so dramatically, it’s easy to wonder what role the debate will play in the 2016 election. Will it even be a topic of conversation? Or is this a done deal — states are going to continue to legalize same-sex marriage, probably slowly, until we get to the point where same-sex couples can marry no matter where they are in the United States. Ten years ago, Massachusetts was almost revolutionary, now the practice is common place. In another ten years, will prohibiting gay marriage seem as archaic as the ban on interracial marriage?

Those questions, especially what will happen in 2016, are difficult to answer. There’s a chance that it will still be a topic of conversation, after all, GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz had a strong reaction to the news of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday. He took issue with the court, saying:

This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislature.

Ted Cruz essentially said that it should be to the voters to decide whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. He won the straw poll at the Values Voters Summit, held in Washington D.C. just a few weeks ago. The Values Voter Summit this year apparently focused heavily on anti-Muslim and anti-ISIS rhetoric, but there was still some LGBT-rights bashing as well. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was present, and it worked hard to try to convince attendees that the fight against same-sex marriage was by no means over. And some of the speakers did wax poetic about traditional marriage — Rick Santorum, for example, made an appearance.

But the question is, is the Values Voter Summit still representative of a large chunk of the Republican Party? And that’s not just a question that I, as an observer, am trying to answer. It seems to be a question that the Republican Party itself is having difficulty with.

The Republican Party is in a tough place — an issue that it’s worked on for a very long time is no longer really an issue. While it’s tough to tell whether or not the Party will still put any focus on the issue in the 2016 elections, it’s a choice that it is going to have to make for itself. But as more states move toward legalizing gay marriage and more Americans show their support, it will be a difficult choice to make.

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 Same-Sex Marriage Legal in Most States: What Does the GOP Do Now? 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.

Hey y’all!

I like to keep an open mind about our government and how different states run differently, but there are some things that I feel like would make more sense if every state did them the same way. Maine’s Governor, Paul LePage (R), has reinstated a policy that would make people have to work for food stamps. No more sitting around on your ass waiting for that welfare check to come in, nope, you have to actually work for the money.

“People who are in need deserve a hand up, but we should not be giving able-bodied individuals a handout,” LePage said in a statement. “We must continue to do all that we can to eliminate generational poverty and get people back to work. We must protect our limited resources for those who are truly in need and who are doing all they can to be self-sufficient.”

I think that this is one of the greatest ideas ever, but I also wonder why they have to reinstate such an idea, and why aren’t other states doing the same thing? Wasn’t the original idea of food stamps and welfare just to help people who are down on their luck and trying to find a job? When did we allow welfare to become a way of life? In fact, when did we start allowing people on welfare to become lazy and just accept a handout without having to work for it? I can’t say  that I remember a time when everyone understood the value of a dollar and what a good work ethic is because I’ve never lived in a time where that held true, but I know that at one point in this country our citizens knew what they had to do in order to get by. Nowadays you can pop out a couple of kids, get on welfare, and just sit around waiting for that money to be deposited in your account. You don’t have to actively look for a job, volunteer, or commit to attend a workforce program. You can just say you need the money and the government will hand it on over, the more kids you have the more money you get.

I am no stranger to the ways in which some people have found to manipulate the system. I’ve heard stories of people who will get on food stamps or welfare, take the government’s money, and buy themselves a brand new iPhone or a new pair of Jordans or any other material thing that you don’t need when you are living off of welfare. Do you know where that “government money” is coming from? That money is coming from my pocket. That money is coming from the guy who works a 50-hour work week on minimum wage trying to make ends meet because he understands what hard work and supporting his family are really all about.

Do people not realize that when it comes from the government it’s actually coming from the people!? That’s why we pay taxes, so our government can supplement the many things that we need as a nation, and part of that goes to supporting those who are on welfare. If you are an able-bodied person who can work and is on welfare then there should be a stipulation that says you have to be doing something rather than sitting at home watching Real Housewives of New Jersey or hanging out with your friends. Why not volunteer or participate in a skills training program? Be an active member of society, be a part of your community in a positive way, and teach your kids that a handout is something to be ashamed of. Teach your kids good work ethic and respect for our government.

Under Maine’s new policy people capable of working would be limited to three months of food stamp benefits over a three-year period unless they work a minimum of 20 hours a week, volunteer a certain number of hours for a community agency, or participate in a state skills-training program. This was the point of welfare: to help you out until you can get back on your feet and support yourself and your own family again. Reinstating this policy is something that all states should think about doing (if they aren’t already)!

Way to go Governor LePage and good luck to the people of Maine!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Hopson via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Actually Have to Work for Food Stamps in Maine appeared first on Law Street.