Presidential candidates tend to field all kinds of semi-personal questions on the campaign trail, which are usually intended to help the public get to know White House hopefuls beyond just policy priorities and positions.
So when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the only major Republican candidate to officially kick off a candidacy, was asked this week what kind of music he likes, most expected a pretty generic response. Adam Howard noted late yesterday, however, that the far-right senator took the opportunity to offer an unexpected response.
Politicians and pundits often say "9/11 changed everything." In Sen. Ted Cruz's case, it apparently even meant a change in his taste in music.
The Texas Republican, who announced Monday he would seek the GOP nomination for president in 2016, told the hosts of "CBS This Morning" on Tuesday that the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon turned him into a modern-day version of the John Lithgow character from "Footloose."
As the senator explained, "I grew up listening to classic rock, and I'll tell you sort of an odd story: My music taste changed on 9/11. I actually intellectually find this very curious, but on 9/11, I didn't like how rock music responded."
Cruz added, "Country music, collectively, the way they responded, it resonated with me. I had an emotional reaction that said, 'These are my people. So ever since 2001 I listen to country music."
Somewhere, Rudy Giuliani was no doubt watching and saying to himself, "I should have thought of that."
And while I don't doubt Cruz's sincerity -- if he says the political/social reaction to the terrorist attacks among entertainers actually changed his musical preferences, that's certainly his business -- his response did get me thinking.
The National Republican Congressional Committee, which focuses on electing Republicans to the U.S. House, originally asked Mitt Romney to headline its March fundraising event -- the committee's biggest fundraiser of the year. For whatever reason, the failed presidential hopeful declined.
And so, the NRCC moved on to its second choice: former Vice President Dick Cheney. The fallback plan seems to have worked out quite well.
The National Republican Congressional Committee brought in $17.5 million at its annual fundraising dinner featuring former Vice President Cheney, an NRCC source tells The Hill.
That take is larger than the election-year total NRCC brought in when it had former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a headliner last year.
Last year, of course, was an election year. At the NRCC's big event in 2014, the party raised $15 million to help elect House Republican candidates, and the fundraiser was considered a big success.
This year isn't an election year; the NRCC was stuck with a failed and unpopular V.P. as the headliner; and the party raised more than $17 million.
The Hill's report added, "The total shows the controversial former vice president is still a big draw in GOP circles." Yes, apparently so.
But it's also a reminder about why Republican officials continue to embrace Cheney as a national party leader, his catastrophic failures in office notwithstanding.
In recent years, Republican efforts to curtail voting rights have led to the largest voter-suppression campaign since the Jim Crow era, but there are some states pushing back against the tide. Oregon recently took creative new steps to expand voter registration, and policymakers in California yesterday said they're eager to follow suit. Vermont may soon do the same.
But in Republican-controlled "red" states, policies intended to prevent voter participation continue to proliferate. The Columbus Dispatchreports on the latest out of Ohio.
Dismissing Democrats' cries of voter suppression, majority legislative Republicans are poised to require those who register to vote in Ohio to also obtain state driver's licenses and vehicle registrations. [...]
Democrats tried to remove the provision, saying it constitutes a "poll tax" on out-of-state college students, who would have to spend $75 or more on license and registration fees within 30 days of registering to vote.
As the Dispatch article notes, current law in Ohio allows students, among others, to claim Ohio residency and vote while retaining out-of-state drivers' licenses. This change -- a "last-minute addition" to Ohio's transportation budget -- may force tens of thousands of young people to pay a fair amount of money to cast a ballot in the state they call home.
Republican proponents say the idea isn't related to blocking students' access to the polls. These are the same policymakers who, in recent years, have curtailed voter registration, made it harder for voters to receive absentee ballots, cut back early-voting opportunities, and scrapped Sunday voting altogether.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence, then, that GOP state lawmakers have also imposed a new hurdle on young adults who, it so happens, tend to vote Democratic.
With President Obama expressing support for the idea this morning, it's probably time to get up to speed on what may be House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) first real legislative accomplishment since getting the gavel in 2011.
President Barack Obama pronounced himself "ready to sign" a bipartisan "doc fix" Wednesday.
"I've got my pen ready to sign a good, bipartisan bill," Obama said at an event that amounted to a victory lap for the five-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act.
He said he loves to sign bipartisan legislation and hopes to see more efforts to work together, and said the health care law works, crediting it with saving lives while reducing health care cost growth and the deficit.
I suspect there are more than a few folks asking, "What's the 'doc fix'?" This gets a little wonky, but it's pretty important in health care circles, and given the way the solution came together recently, it's a breakthrough that's worth understanding.
Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* In his first day as an announced Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) raised $500,000. That's a decent haul, though it won't strike fear in the heart of Jeb Bush.
* In Florida, the latest PPP survey found that only 37% of voters statewide believe former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) should run for president. Sen. Marco Rubio (R) fares slightly worse among his constituents, 35% of whom want the senator to run for the White House.
* In Indiana, where Sen. Dan Coats (R) is retiring, his likely successors are wasting no time. Five Republicans from the U.S. House, Coats' state-based chief of staff, and the Speaker of the Indiana state House have all expressed interest in running.
* On a related note, among Democratic Hoosiers, former Rep. Baron Hill is clearly interested, though former Sen. Evan Bayh is the one most of the state is keeping an eye on.
* In Michigan, Rep. Dan Benishek (R) promised voters he'd stick to a self-imposed term limit of three terms. As is often the case, the congressman, recently elected for the third time, announced yesterday he's changed his mind and will run for a fourth term.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) spoke with Republican donors over the weekend in South Florida, urging them to be wary of presidential hopefuls who've flip-flopped on important issues.
Keep that in mind when considering the latest report on the unannounced presidential hopeful (thanks to my colleague Tricia McKinney for the heads-up).
Gov. Chris Christie said he would consider revisiting New Jersey's strict gun laws if he had a Republican-led legislature.
In response to a question about his support for the Second Amendment, the potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate said that New Jersey's Democrat-led Legislature has sent him only bills that further restrict these rights, many of which he has vetoed.
Asked about the Second Amendment at a town-hall meeting yesterday, the governor told voters, "Send me a Republican legislature. And with a Republican legislature you'll have a governor who will respect, appropriately, the rights of law-abiding citizens to be able to protect ourselves.... No rights are given to you by government. All our rights are given to you by God."
The theological reference was a bit odd under the circumstances. Even if Christie genuinely believes the Second Amendment creates a God-given entitlement to firearm ownership, it's up to policymakers -- humans, in positions of governmental authority -- to shape and place limits on this right.
In fact, the Garden State governor used to know that. As the Wall Street Journalnoted, Christie used to say he supports "strictly enforcing" New Jersey's existing gun-control laws -- policies the governor now seems ready to roll back with the help of GOP lawmakers.
What's more, this isn't the first time Christie has played political games with gun-safety measures.
It's been nearly three decades since President Reagan signed into law a gun-safety measure intended to restrict "cop killer" bullets. But under the law, some ammunition, including armor-piercing "green tip" bullets, was exempted because they were "primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes."
As we recently discussed, the argument at the time was pretty straightforward: these bullets couldn't be used in handguns, so there was no point in keeping them out of the hands of hunters.
But firearm technology has improved and there are now handguns that can fire these bullets. It led the Obama administration's ATF to take a fresh look at the 1986 exemption. Is it time to adapt federal regulations to improve public safety, most notably for law-enforcement officials?
A budget amendment offered Tuesday by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) would prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from placing new restrictions on bullets that are popular with hunters.
The far-right Oklahoman said his proposal is intended to "protect popular ammunition."
Remember, at this point, it doesn't appear as if "popular ammunition" needs much protection. Officials considered restrictions on "cop killer" bullets, but then backed off. It'll probably be a while before anyone even considers a similar effort to protect law enforcement from armor-piercing ammo.
But Inhofe's making this a priority anyway, just in case.
Politically engaged millionaires have developed certain expectations in recent years. Especially at the start of a presidential nominating race, when candidates routinely cultivate relationships with prospective donors, the wealthy donor class has come to believe it's entitled to personalized attention from those seeking national office.
The Washington Postreports today, however, that many of these millionaires are suddenly feeling neglected. Apparently, they're not quite rich enough anymore to warrant candidates' time.
At this point in the 2012 presidential race, Terry Neese was in hot demand. "Gosh, I was hearing from everyone and meeting with everyone," said Neese, an Oklahoma City entrepreneur and former "Ranger" for President George W. Bush who raised more than $1 million for his reelection.
This year, no potential White House contender has called -- not even Bush's brother, Jeb. The only e-mails came from staffers for two other likely candidates; both went to her spam folder.
"Staffers"? Politically engaged millionaires have been reduced to hearing from aides rather than the candidates themselves? The horror.
Evidently, in this new environment, with a proliferation of hyper-wealthy donors, mere millionaires don't receive the consideration and responsiveness to which they've grown accustomed. Neese told the Post that the major Republican presidential hopefuls are "only going to people who are multi-multi-millionaires and billionaires."
One former Bush Ranger complained, "What about when I get to the convention? Last time, I was sitting in a box. This time, I may not even get a ticket!"
And just think: even if he or she gets a ticket to the Republican National Convention, the former Bush Ranger may have to sit with the riff raff.
In the context of the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton's critics have raised legitimate questions about her use of a private email account during her tenure as Secretary of State. The problem has been that many of those same critics are vulnerable to the exact same questions -- many Republican White House hopefuls used private accounts to conduct official business and/or shielded communications from public scrutiny.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee thinks questions about Hillary Clinton's emails as secretary of state "will linger" throughout the 2016 presidential race. "If the law said you had to maintain every email for public inspection, that's what you got to do," he recently told ABC News. Huckabee also suggested that the missing emails might shed new light on the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya in 2012.
Huckabee, who is considering a second run for president himself, is probably right that the issue of secrecy will dog Clinton's campaign going forward. But he might not be the best man to make that case. As Mother Jones reported in 2011, Huckabee destroyed his administration's state records before leaving office in 2007.
Email was, of course, a common tool used during Huckabee's tenure, but when the Arkansas Republican left office, according to his successor's chief legal counsel, all of the computers used by the GOP governor and his aides were removed. What's more, all of the hard drives were "physically destroyed."
The former governor has not yet explained why it was necessary to keep these materials hidden.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), meanwhile, was already facing questions for criticizing Clinton despite his own controversial email policies, and overnight, an Associated Press report made matters just a little more complicated: "As Florida governor, Jeb Bush used another, previously unreported email address, records show -- the newest wrinkle in an evolving debate over public officials' use of private email accounts."
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Rules Committee, has earned an unfortunate reputation. The six-term congressman and former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee just doesn't seem overly interested in substantive details.
About a year ago, for example, Sessions seemed to forget what a "witch hunt' is. The year before, Sessions said he believes it's "immoral" to extend jobless aid to "long-term unemployments [sic]." Around the same time, the congressman said the House should stop worrying about governing and focus exclusively on "messaging."
In an apparent miscalculation, House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) claimed Tuesday that ObamaCare will cost $5 million per person.
Precisely how Sessions arrived at that calculation during House floor debate on the budget is unclear.
Yes, on the House floor yesterday, the GOP lawmaker not only failed to do his math homework before speaking, he presented his false argument in a surprisingly condescending way for someone who didn't know what he was talking about.
"If you just do simple multiplication," Sessions said, "12 million [consumers] into $108 billion, we are talking literally every single [ACA] recipient would be costing this government more than $5 million per person for their insurance. It's staggering.... $108 billion for 12 million people is immoral. It's unconscionable."
Let's take Sessions' advice and "do simple multiplication."
Political hypocrisy can be a tricky thing. A few years ago, for example, Republicans condemned President Obama's stimulus package, the "Recovery Act," even while pleading for stimulus funds for their states and districts.
This was not, strictly speaking, hypocrisy -- GOP lawmakers opposed the endeavor that rescued the economy, but concluded that if the resources were available, they might as well take advantage. The problem was that Republicans said Recovery Act dollars were incapable of boosting the economy, unless the dollars were spent on their constituents -- an intellectually dishonest posture.
All of which leads us to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and his embrace of an unexpected label: Obamacare customer.
Just one day after Ted Cruz launched his bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination with another attack on President Obama's signature health care law, the Texas senator made a second, more surprising announcement: He's signing up for Obamacare.
"We will presumably go on the exchange and sign up for health care and we're in the process of transitioning over to do that," Cruz told The Des Moines Register on Tuesday.
Apparently, the senator and his family have enjoyed coverage through his wife's private-sector employer, but because she's taking an unpaid leave of absence, the Cruzes will do what millions of other Americans have done: take advantage of benefits available through the Affordable Care Act.
And on the surface, there's nothing wrong with that. Like the Republicans who foolishly condemned Obama's stimulus initiative, Cruz does not believe ACA benefits should exist, but so long as they do, the right-wing presidential candidate is comfortable receiving those benefits in order to help himself and his family.
Whether or not this constitutes hypocrisy is debatable. But either way, we're left with the awkward realization that Ted Cruz wants the Affordable Care Act to stop helping your family and start helping his own family.
Rachel Maddow reports on the visit by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to the U.S. to thank U.S. service members and taxpayers for the war effort, and shows how distorting the timetable for a U.S. draw-down makes actual withdrawal less likely to happen. watch