Mediaboss Marketing

Clinton was New Yorks senator for eight years, where Wall Street was a key constituency.

By Ben White and Maggie Haberman

04/28/14 05:04 AM EDT

NEW YORK The biggest parlor game on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms these days is guessing whether former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will run for president and save the GOPs old establishment base from its rising populist wing.

The second most popular game is guessing what happens if Jeb says no.

Story Continued Below

Two dozen interviews about the 2016 race with unaligned GOP donors, financial executives and their Washington lobbyists turned up a consistent and unusual consolation candidate if Bush demurs, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie doesnt recover politically and no other establishment favorite gets nominated: Hillary Clinton.

Most donors and Wall Street titans have not lined up with any candidate yet, waiting for the field to take shape after the midterms. But if Bush doesnt run, the list of Republican saviors could be short. Some donors fear Christie will never overcome the Bridgegate scandal. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin so far seems more inclined to stay in the House than to run for president. And to varying degrees, other candidates such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Govs. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio are either unknown or untrusted.

( PHOTOS: Whos talking about Hillary Clinton 2016?)

The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton, a familiar face on Wall Street following her tenure as a New York senator with relatively moderate views on taxation and financial regulation.

If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine, one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. We could live with either one. Jeb versus Joe Biden would also be fine. Its Rand Paul or Ted Cruz versus someone like Elizabeth Warren that would be everybodys worst nightmare.

Most top GOP fundraisers and donors on Wall Street wont say this kind of thing on the record for fear of heavy blowback from party officials, as well as supporters of Cruz and Rand Paul. Few want to acknowledge publicly that the Democratic front-runner fills them with less dread than some Republican 2016 hopefuls. And, to be sure, none of the Republican-leaning financial executives are so far suggesting theyd openly back her.

( Also on POLITICO: Jeb Bush: I'm 'thinking about' 2016)

But the private consensus is similar to what Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said to POLITICO late last year when he praised both Christie before the bridge scandal and Clinton. I very much was supportive of Hillary Clinton the last go-round, he said. I held fundraisers for her.

People close to Blankfein say the same calculus applies to a Jeb Bush-Hillary Clinton race as it would to a Christie-Clinton contest. Those would be two very good choices and wed be perfectly happy with them, a person close to Blankfein said. Blankfein is a self-described Democrat, but his comments about Christie and Clinton reflect the ambidextrous political approach that many Republicans and Democrats on Wall Street take.

There are, of course, other GOP candidates who could emerge as favorites of the financial industry after making their case over the next few months.

Rubio, even with his rocky start on immigration, has impressed many on Wall Street, including the Blackstone Groups Steve Schwarzman, during his forays to the city.

( Also on POLITICO: Warren hopes Clinton runs in 2016)

Both Walker and Ryan will be in New York on May 13, Walker for an Republican National Committee fundraiser and Ryan for a reelection event hosted by a wide range of major donors, including hedge fund magnates Cliff Asness and Paul Singer and New York Jets owner Woody Johnson. Walker also will be holding meetings in New York this week as the Wall Street primary continues. Kasich, a former Lehman Brothers managing director, is viewed as a candidate who might fit the consensus, center-right mold favored by Wall Street. But multiple GOP operatives and donors said they see few signs Kasich, who is in the midst of a reelection fight, is currently organizing for a run.

Instead, the donors, financial executives and Washington representatives offered a consistent refrain: If we cant nominate someone like Bush or Christie from the pro-business wing of the party, and if the GOP nominee is from the far right, then we will hold our noses and tolerate Clinton.

Most people in the industry find her approachable and have a track record with her, one Republican financial services executive said. They wouldnt align with her on every policy, but they wont view her as hostile to the sector. If it turns out to be Hillary walking away with it, there would not be any panic.

( Also on POLITICO: GOP preps as Christie stumbles)

Clinton, after all, was New Yorks senator for eight years, where the financial district was a key constituency. She had many Wall Street rainmakers as advisers and friends. Her family has continued to work that network to try to stock the Clinton Foundation with a $250 million endowment before a presidential run. And shes been out on the financial services speaking circuit, giving talks to Goldman Sachs and fireside-style chats with the heads of the Carlyle Group and the investment firm KKR.

Clinton warmed some hearts on Wall Street during a paid, closed-press speech to Goldman Sachs executives and other big donors last year when she said of the financial crisis, in essence: We all got into this mess together, and were all going to have to work together to get out of it. That line, as the people on hand interpreted her speech, reflects the feelings of many financiers. They know they played a role in the 2008 financial collapse but argue that many other factors did as well, including federal housing policy and irresponsible borrowers lying on mortgage documents. Wall Street sees in Clinton someone who would not look to score easy political points at its expense.

Read more:
Wall St. Republicans' dark secret - POLITICO

President Obama signed the historic health care bill into law today, but Republicans are still fighting back with promises of lawsuits and heated rhetoric, including a shot from one GOP governor who blasted what he called Obama's "nanny nation approach" to government.

Republicans across the country are specifically challenging the mandate in the health care bill that requires every individual to have health insurance, charging that it is unconstitutional.

Pawlenty said he sent a letter to Minnesota's Democratic attorney general arguing against the constitutionality of the mandate.

"They've taken it to this big, federalized, bureaucratic, government-run, kind of nanny nation approach," Pawlenty said. "I don't think defending the Constitution and individual's rights under the Constitution, and the relationship between states and the federal government under the Constitution is a frivolous matter."

Senior White House adviser David Axelrod dismissed the lawsuits, saying the Obama administration is very confident the health care bill "will withstand those legal challenges.

Watch live coverage of President Obama signing the health care bill at 11:15 a.m. ET on ABC News network or streamed live on ABCNews.com.

Under the health care bill, by 2014 most Americans would be required to have health insurance or pay a fine, with the exception of low-income Americans. Employers would also be required to provide coverage to their workers, or pay a fine of $2,000 per worker. Companies with fewer than 50 employees, however, are exempt from this rule.

Like many of his GOP counterparts, Pawlenty assailed the partisan nature of the health care bill. The legislation did not garner one single Republican "yes" vote in the House, which passed the bill Sunday night.

"There were 10 or 15 really good reforms that both sides could've agreed on," Pawlenty said. "They [Democrats] were more interested in achieving that ideological or political goal rather than working with Republicans to get something done."

Republicans are regrouping and gearing up to use the health care bill against their Democratic opponents in November's midterm elections. Ads blasting Democrats who were going to vote "yes" for the health care bill filled the airwaves well before the bill was even passed.

The Obama administration, however, believes the passage of the health care bill will actually help Democrats in the midterm elections.

"I think the heavy political lift would've been is if this bill went down," Axelrod said. "The reality of this bill is so much different than the caricature they've [Republicans and insurance companies] painted."

As the two parties prep for tight races across the country, Democrats are likely to spin the argument in a way that reflects those who voted against the bill are voting against insurance reforms that would benefit Americans, such as the removal of lifetime caps on coverage or denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

"Ultimately this is not about the politics of November. It's about the security of Americans now and for future generations," Axelrod said. "But I also think the politics will work out much better because we did the right thing. ... Every Democrat who campaigns on this will be able to campaign proudly."

After signing the bill, the president made remarks at the Department of Interior in what was mainly a celebratory event. In the audience were lawmakers who voted for the bill, and people whose stories the president has used in the long fight to get the bill passed.

Even after the president signs the sweeping health care legislation into law this morning, the work on health care is not over. Later this week, the president will return to the stump in Iowa to explain to the public how changes in the health care system will affect them.

The White House picked Iowa City because Obama delivered his first major speech on health care reform as a presidential candidate at the University of Iowa May 29, 2007.

The Senate also has to pass "fixes" to the bill, and Democrats are gearing up for a spate of procedural face-offs with Republicans. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, introduced bills Monday to repeal the health care bill, and GOP lawmakers are vowing to fight the bill tooth and nail.

Some Republicans say their party made a mistake by not making more of an effort at bipartisanship, now that the bill is becoming law.

"A lot of the things Republicans said are going to be discredited. It is going to be a very painful and difficult situation for Republicans to work their way out of," said David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush who is now a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Frum dubbed the passage of the health care bill as the GOP's Waterloo.

"If you lose something as important as this, and you pick up some seats in 2010, great, maybe you lose them in 2014," Frum said. "This bill will still be there. This bill will still be there forever."

The Congressional Budget Office predicted the bill would cost $938 billion -- mainly through a mix of tax increases and reduction in Medicare spending -- and would reduce the federal deficit by $142 billion in the first 10 years. The health care bill would extend insurance to 32 million more Americans.

Some components of the health care bill will take effect right away, including helping older Americans pay for prescription drugs and preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to children based on pre-existing conditions. Others, such as the individual mandate and more stringent regulations on insurance companies barring them from placing lifetime caps on coverage, or denying adults based on pre-existing conditions, won't take effect until 2014.

ABC News' Jake Tapper contributed to this report.

Read the original:
Obama Signs Health Care Bill Into Law as Republicans ...

Both Sen. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson sent emails to their supporters on Thursday seeking donations to help combat what the candidates portrayed as liberal bias in the mainstream media.

"Friend, I am declaring war on the liberal media, and I need to ask a personal favor from you. We need your immediate help to fight back -- do that by clicking here to donate $35, $50, or $1,000," the letter from Cruz begins.

Carson's solicitation, which cites "ridiculous 'gotcha' questions" and "repeated attempts to get the candidates to fight each other," directs backers to a donation page where they're asked what changes they would like to see in the debate format.

Cruz and Carson have been among the most vocal critics of the mainstream media. The Texas Senator won thunderous applause from the debate audience in Boulder, Colorado, after accusing CNBC of trying to instigate a "cage match" between the candidates, while Carson told reporters Thursday that he intended to demand format changes for future debates.

Other candidates, including New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Donald Trump, also slammed the CNBC moderators on Wednesday night.

RELATED: 2016 Republicans vs. the media

The Republican National Committee, which said it was "disappointed" by the debate, has also launched a petition to "put the mainstream media on notice" and asking for supporters' email addresses, allowing the RNC to build its distribution list.

"CNBC should be ashamed. Biased questioning by CNBC moderators was a disservice to our candidates and to YOU the voters," the RNC's letter reads. "The RNC won't stand for it. We will fight to protect our candidates."

"Let's put the mainstream media on notice," it continues. "Send a clear message to moderators of upcoming debates that any bias won't be tolerated. Add your name to join the fight."

In addition to building its Rolodex, the RNC may also be seeking to warn future debate sponsors to ensure more controlled and substantive debates. The next Republican primary debate takes place November 10, and will be hosted by Fox Business Network.

Meanwhile, Christie, who won applause for his own attacks on the media Wednesday night, launched a separate fundraising effort on Thursday in repsonse to a New York Times editorial that called for him to drop out of the race.

"The New York Times is at it again. While pundits, outlets and voters have praised Christie's 'strong' and 'articulate' debate performance, The New York Times couldn't help being outdone by CNBC and show their true liberal bias," read Christie's letter, which directed readers to donate to his campaign.

It continued, "Republicans need someone tough enough, strong enough, and tested enough to stand up to the repeated attacks of the mainstream media and take on Hillary Clinton next fall."

Read more from the original source:
Republicans cash in on CNBC debate - CNNPolitics.com

Published October 27, 2015

House Republicans on Tuesday introduced a resolution to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, accusing him of making "false statements" under oath and failing to comply with a subpoena for evidence.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and 18 other committee members introduced the resolution to begin impeachment proceedings. In doing so, they followed through on a threat first made over the summer, when Republicans accused the IRS leader of making inaccurate statements to Congress regarding the Tea Party targeting scandal and its aftermath.

"Commissioner Koskinen violated the public trust," Chaffetz said in a statement Tuesday. "He failed to comply with a congressionally issued subpoena, documents were destroyed on his watch, and the public was consistently misled.

"Impeachment is the appropriate tool to restore public confidence in the IRS and to protect the institutional interests of Congress."

The IRS issued a statement later Thursday saying, "The IRS vigorously disputes the allegations in the resolution. We have fully cooperated with all of the investigations."

The announcement of the impeachment resolution comes on the same day Koskinen testified before the Senate Finance Committee, and after the Justice Department on Friday decided to close its investigation of the targeting scandal without pursuing criminal charges.

Koskinen took over in late 2013, after the scandal broke over IRS agents subjecting conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status to additional scrutiny.

But he faced questions over statements he made in the course of various investigations. The resolution containing articles of impeachment accused him of "high crimes and misdemeanors" over the following allegations:

Pursuing impeachment against an agency leader is exceedingly rare, and a step beyond contempt charges, which is the tool House Republicans tried to use against both Lerner and former Attorney General Eric Holder in past disputes.

While impeachment is often thought of as a congressional weapon reserved for presidents, it can apply to "all civil officers of the United States," on the grounds of treason, bribery or other "high crimes and misdemeanors."

There was one case, more than a century ago, when articles of impeachment were brought against War Secretary William Belknap -- in 1876.

He resigned amid the proceedings.

Fox News' Doug McKelway contributed to this report.

Visit link:
House Republicans introduce measure to impeach IRS ...

The two-year agreement, which would raise domestic and defense spending by $80 billion and lift the national borrowing limit until March 2017, could be voted on by the House as soon as Wednesday -- the same day the GOP is expected to nominate Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, to replace retiring Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, as House speaker. The deal prompted a tense session among House Republicans Monday night in the basement of the Capitol.

The final details were ironed out late into the night Monday, including cuts to the Social Security disability program and to Medicare. But the deal was the product of weeks of negotiations led by Boehner, who is furiously trying to take the divisive fiscal issues off the plate for Ryan before his successor takes office. If the deal passes, Ryan could have a clear path to do his job without the fiscal brinksmanship that damaged Boehner's speakership.

Still, the private talks and the frantic effort to push the measure into law only prompted sharp criticism from many House and Senate Republicans, who contended that Boehner gave away too much in the name of getting a deal.

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, strongly objected to the deal.

"We're not just here to take commands," Amash said. "People back home expect us to participate in the process. I hope that Paul Ryan will let us know how he feels about the process."

Ryan, who is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, deliberately took a low profile and refused to weigh in on the deal, declining to comment to reporters and not saying a word about it during a private meeting with fellow House Republicans.

At that meeting, however, the tension was rife.

Ryan will face 'monumental obstacles' as speaker

Louisiana Republican Rep. John Fleming told reporters Boehner essentially "threw committee chairmen under the bus" and suggested this big deal was being dropped on members now because the committees failed to do their work.

But, in Fleming's telling, House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Georgia, pushed back, saying that he was in fact working on fiscal reforms but was told by leadership to stand down.

Roughly 10 House conservatives got up and complained in the meeting about the process of cutting a major deal and rushing it to the floor without going through regular order, lawmakers said.

Rep. Walter Jones, a conservative from North Carolina, said he still was waiting on the details -- but added that he "would not be blackmailed" into voting for a debt limit increase.

Across the Capitol, the complaints were just as sharp.

Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina said, "It's too early to tell (but) I'm leaning no" on the budget deal.

"I'm not necessarily in a position where I think it's in the best interest of our country," he said.

Ryan on budget talks: 'I think the process stinks'

Senate GOP Whip John Cornyn, the No. 2 in his conference, added: "It's a mixed bag, there is no question about it. I don't think you'll hear anybody popping any champagne corks."

While there is consternation in the ranks, many expect there will still be ample support from Democrats -- and a large enough number of Republicans -- to pass the deal later this week. That's largely because the bill would increase defense spending to alleviate the pain felt by across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration, enough to win the backing of the sizable number of GOP defense hawks.

But Sen. John McCain says he will support the deal, even though it is $5 billion short on defense funding in 2016 and more than that in 2017.

"I think it is saleable," he told reporters after leaving a Senate GOP Conference meeting.

The product was the result of weeks of negotiations between Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The bill would raise spending caps by $80 billion -- $50 billion in the first year and $30 billion in the second year -- divided equally between defense and domestic programs.

Even though Ryan's fingerprints aren't on the deal -- a deliberate move by the presumptive speaker and Boehner -- the framework of the agreement is very similar to the two-year budget deal he crafted in 2013 when he chaired the budget panel with his Democratic counterpart, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington.

The new spending under the accord would be offset by sales from the strategic petroleum oil reserve, use of public airwaves for telecommunications companies and changes to the crop insurance program among other measures.

Moreover, the deal would spread out increases in Medicare premiums over time so beneficiaries don't feel them acutely. It would extend the 2% cuts scheduled for Medicare to extend an additional year.

It would also overhaul the Social Security disability trust fund in an attempt to prevent a 20% reduction in cuts to benefits. The $5 billion in savings would come from redistributing payroll benefits, not cutting them, sources said.

The plan includes more money for the Pentagon's overseas contingency account, and it would repeal a provision in Obamacare forcing workers to automatically enroll in employer-sponsored health care.

Despite the GOP concerns, if Pelosi agrees to back the package, and Boehner can deliver a large segment of his conference, it could be enough to overcome opposition from conservative factions.

Opinion: How Ryan can outlast the House Freedom Caucus

Rep. Richard Hudson, R-North Carolina, said that "big broad strokes" were presented to members Monday night "that all sounded wonderful and maybe even too good to be true."

Indeed, many GOP lawmakers in both sides of the Capitol were disappointed that party leaders couldn't get more from the White House by making such a huge concession -- to raise the national debt limit for longer than a year -- especially since this issue has been so contentious during Boehner's nearly five years as speaker.

"I have some concerns," said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio. "You hope that in a debt limit context that you actually reduce spending. That's the idea to -- as you raise the debt limit, deal with the underlying debt crisis that we have."

But the deal may ultimately pass because lawmakers realize they have little choice as they stare at a potential default next week.

"It's better than no deal at all," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia.

Read the original:
White House, Congress reach budget deal - CNNPolitics.com