NEWS CLIPS

PREPARED FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

TO: THE SECRETARY AND SENIOR STAFF DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2012 5:30 AM EDT

TODAY’S EDITION

The Secretary In The News Mental Health VA Stands By Chief Of Staff In Spending Scandal (FCW) ...... 4 Traumatized Vietnam Vet Credits Service Dog With Saving His VA Won't Fire Official Over Resort Conferences (MILIT) ...... 5 Life (CHIT) ...... 17 Republican Lawmakers Call For Ouster Of Veterans Affairs Don’t Get Me Started (AS) ...... 18 Official (WASHBIZ) ...... 6 $10 Million Military Study Investigates If Fish Oil Reduces Republican Lawmakers Call For Ouster Of VA Official Who Suicide Risk (WASHEX) ...... 19 Approved Conferences (FEDNWSR) ...... 6 The Toll Of War: Service Members With PTSD Get Help, But Legislators Want VA Official Removed (FEDDAILY) ...... 7 More Is Needed (YAHOO) ...... 20 VA Execs Were Encouraged To Spend More On Wasteful Veterans With PTSD Use Music Therapy To Heal -- And Get Conferences (WASHEX) ...... 7 Back To Work (AOLJB) ...... 21 Senator Seeks Answers On Employee Bonuses Amid VA Music Therapy Helps Vets Control Symptoms Of PTSD Conference Scandal (FEDTIMES) ...... 8 (WNYC-FM) ...... 22 Collins Wants To Know Why VA Conference Planners Received Confessions Of A VA Nurse: Mending More Crushed Spirits Bonuses (FEDNWSR) ...... 9 Than Broken Bones (AOLJB) ...... 25 Federal Government Spends Over $1 Million On Souvenirs, Battling Bare: Military Wives Stripping Down To Battle PTSD Group Says (CALLER) ...... 9 (ABC) ...... 26 Veterans Town Hall Meeting Scheduled For Today (KATC) ...... 10 Military Wives Stripping Down To Battle PTSD (ABCRADIO) .... 27 Iraq/Afghanistan Vets Military Wives Bare Skin, Souls, To Fight PTSD (CNN) ...... 28 From Full-Time Jobs To Combat, Older Players' Experiences Healthcare (National) Helping Younger ACC Teammates (AP) ...... 10 Systems Made Simple Wins $11 Million Federal EHR Contract Soldiers Claim Illness After Guarding KBR In Iraq (AP) ...... 11 (MODHLT) ...... 28 Workshop Offers Advice For Better Treatment Of Returning Indian Health Service Solving E-Health Challenges With Help Veterans (SFARGUS) ...... 13 From VA (FEDNWSR) ...... 29 Veterans Employment Xenex Wins Right To Sell UV-light Disinfectant To VA Hospitals Sen. Schumer Calls For Extension Of Tax Credits For (SABIZJRNL) ...... 30 Companies That Hire Veterans (SYPS) ...... 13 Healthcare (Local) Schumer Fights To Keep Tax Credits For Veterans (WSYR) .... 14 Newington Housing For Homeless Vets A "Down Payment" Schumer Campaigns To Keep Tax Credits For Businesses That (HARTC) ...... 30 Hire Veterans (WSTM) ...... 14 Breast Cancer Walk At Fayetteville VA On Saturday (FAYOBS) 31 Sen. Schumer Campaigns To Help Unemployed Vets (YNN).... 15 Future Of Hot Springs Hospital Hot Topic With Veterans Nebraska Increases Push To Hire Veterans (AP) ...... 15 (SCOTSTAR) ...... 31 VRAP Trains Unemployed Veterans (WALB) ...... 16 Cherokee Indian Hospital Improving Health Access For Vets of other Eras Veterans (NCCHEROK) ...... 31 Basil Plumley, Veteran Of 3 Wars, Featured In "We Were Federal Review: Wade Park-Brecksville VA Consolidation Soldiers" Movie, Dies In Georgia (AP) ...... 16 Flawed And Costly (WCPN) ...... 32 Roane County Denied VA Hospital, Veterans React (WVLT) .... 33 Veterans Supporting Obama Started Statewide Rally In Charlotte (WSOC) ...... 33 VA News National News Allen Smith, Georgia College Student, Returns $690,000,000 Obama On Debate With Romney: 'I Had A Bad Night' (AP) ...... 49 VA Check (HUFFPOST) ...... 34 Obama: 'I Was Just Too Polite' (POLITCO) ...... 50 Love Of Country Inspires Rebecca King’s Commitment To End Team Obama Plays Up Accusations Of Mitt Romney Abortion Homelessness For America’s Veteran Families (FATHCH)34 Flip-Flop (NYDN) ...... 51 VA Hosts Assistance Event For Homeless Vets In Virginia...... 35 Obama Team Accuses Romney Of Downplaying Abortion (LAT) Department Of Veterans Affairs Holds Stand Down To ...... 51 Homelessness (WVIR) ...... 35 Obama Vows More Aggressive Debate Approach Against Homeless Veterans Get Support In Charlottesville (WCAV) ...... 35 Romney (WP) ...... 52 How Social Innovation Is Helping Homeless Veterans Obama And The L-Word (WSJ) ...... 53 (HARVBR)...... 36 Obama Campaign Tries To Quell Panic (FT) ...... 54 WNC Holds Outreach Day For Veterans (KRNV) ...... 37 Obama Sharpens Attacks On Romney’s Credibility, But Will It Work? (MCT) ...... 54 State VA News The Dividends Of Romney's Debate Victory (WSJ) ...... 55 Employee Lawsuit Pops Up In Walsh-Duckworth Race (CHIT) . 37 Sherrod Brown’s Lessons For Obama (WP) ...... 55 Missouri Veterans Home Awarded $343,000 For Additions Romney Campaign Looks To Capitalize On Image Voters Saw (JOPGLOB) ...... 38 In Debate (NYT) ...... 56 Research Romney Appears To Pivot On Abortion (WP) ...... 57 Use Of High-Cost Diabetes Drugs Varies Widely Across VA Romney Shifts To More Moderate Stances On Taxes, (USMED)...... 38 Immigration, Health Care, Education (WP) ...... 59 How Do Public Data About Heart Attack Treatment Change It? Mitt Romney’s Moderate Muddle (POLITCO) ...... 60 (NPR) ...... 39 Romney: ‘I’ll Be A Pro-Life President’ (WSJ) ...... 61 Romney Targets Planned Parenthood Funding (FT) ...... 61 News of Interest Romney Says Abortion Stance Unchanged, That He Remains DoD Must Reassess Military Health System Control Change, 'Pro-life' (LAT) ...... 61 Says GAO (FIERCEGOV) ...... 39 Romney Risks Base With An Appeal To Center On Abortion Editorial Roundup (BLOOM) ...... 62 Soldiers’ Mental Health: An Emergency (NYDN) ...... 40 Romney Camp Dismisses Charge Of Shifting Abortion Stance For Supporters Of Education And Veterans, Maryland's Dream (WT) ...... 63 Act Is A Two-Fer (BSUN) ...... 41 Democrats At The Deep End (NYT) ...... 65 The Problem With PPIs (INTNLMED) ...... 42 On ABC, Obama Talks Roe V. Wade, Debates (WSJ) ...... 66 The Problem With PPIs (FAMPRACT) ...... 42 President Says Mitt Romney Trying To 'Cloud' Abortion Stance Cheers & Jeers For Thursday, Oct. 11 (FAYOBS) ...... 43 (AP) ...... 66 Obama Fights Erosion Of Female Voters With Attacks On Briefly Noted Abortion (HILL) ...... 66 PTSD And Drones: Emotional Costs Far Away From The Romney Says He’s Pro-Life As Abortion Remark Stirs Reaction Battlefield (HUFFPOST) ...... 44 (BLOOM) ...... 68 HomeAid Luncheon Funds Female Veterans Hostel (HC) ...... 44 Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™ New Criteria Prompt Resubmission Of PTSD Claims (ARMYT) 45 (RASMUSSEN)...... 69 Federal Contract Summit Is Today (FAYOBS) ...... 45 Election 2012: New Hampshire President (RASMUSSEN) ...... 71 Veterans In Biloxi Are Stars Of Cruisin' On Tuesday Election 2012: Wisconsin President - Rasmussen Reports™ (BILOXISH) ...... 46 (RASMUSSEN)...... 71 Judge Who Closed Deadwood's Brothels Dies At 94 (RAPJOU)46 Election 2012: Pennsylvania President - Rasmussen Reports™ Michigan National Guard To Host Veteran's Job Fair In Lansing (RASMUSSEN)...... 72 (MIDDANE) ...... 47 Election 2012: New Mexico President (RASMUSSEN) ...... 73 Combat-Wounded Veterans Eligible For Mortgage Free Homes Obama Leads Romney In Home State Of Illinois, Poll Shows (SALINAS) ...... 47 (CHIT) ...... 73 Learn About Free Burials For Veterans At Holly Cemetery Obama Can't Win North Carolina, Virginia And Florida (ROYALOAK)...... 47 (HUFFPOST) ...... 75 Duke Realty Pays $36.3M For Broward County Veteran's Clinic Jamie Dimon: I Don't Mind Paying Higher Taxes To Help Solve (SFLBIZ) ...... 47 Economic Crisis (HILL) ...... 76 Manufacturer Helps Vets Turn Military Skills Into Jobs (CNBC) . 48 Jamie Dimon Speaks: The Financial Gospel According To Food Drive For Veterans (KCCO) ...... 48 JPMorgan Chase CEO (WP) ...... 77

2 Putting Fiscal Policies Under The Microscope (WSJ) ...... 78 Chris Christie, Mitt Romney Together In Ohio (POLITCO) ...... 110 The $5 Trillion Tax Cut That Isn’t (WP) ...... 78 Romney Moves To Center, Shows New Ease On Campaign Obama's Disappearing $5 Trillion (WSJ) ...... 78 Trail (HILL) ...... 110 This Election, A Stark Choice In Health Care (NYT) ...... 79 Obama, Romney Face Most Narrow Electoral Map In Recent Duckworth Lucky She Didn’t Take Walsh’s Bet (CHIST) ...... 81 History (WP) ...... 112 Medicare Penalties Don't Cut Hospital Infections (WSJ) ...... 81 In Race For Campaign Cash, Everyone Claims To Be Kodak To End Health-Care, Survivor-Benefits Program (WSJ) . 81 Outmatched (WP) ...... 113 Howard And Sykes: Medicaid Is Broken—Let The States Fix It Unions Struggle To Help Obama (POLITCO) ...... 114 (WSJ) ...... 81 Romney Tops Obama Ad Spending For First Time (WSJ) ...... 116 Clinton Condemns Attack On Pakistan Teen Activist (AP) ...... 81 The Marketplace Is Turning From Coal (WP) ...... 116 Shooting Of Pakistan Girl Activist Sparks Outrage (AP) ...... 82 Fed Survey: US Economy Expanded At Moderate Pace Since Pakistani Girl Still Unconscious After Surgery; Clerics Mostly Mid-August , Led By Housing Gains (WP/AP) ...... 117 Silent On Shooting (WP) ...... 83 Housing Is Bright Spot In Update On Economy (WSJ) ...... 118 Pakistanis Unite In Outrage Over Girl’s Shooting By Taliban Fed Survey Finds Modest US Growth (FT) ...... 118 (NYT) ...... 85 Analysis: Recovery Begins To Look Normal (USAT) ...... 118 Pakistani Taliban Call Girl’s Shooting "Obligatory," Saying She Fewer Homes Go Back To Banks (USAT) ...... 118 Spread Secular Ideas (MCT)...... 86 Weaker Earnings For Alcoa And Chevron Pull Stock Market The Taliban’s Cowardly Act (WP)...... 86 Lower; Toyota Sinks On Recall Woes (WP/AP) ...... 119 Malala Yousafzai’s Courage (NYT) ...... 87 Austan Goolsbee: Jack Welch Cooked My Quote (POLITCO) 120 A Girl’s Courage Challenges Us To Act (WP) ...... 88 Supreme Court Divided Over Affirmative Action In College Her "Crime" Was Loving Schools (NYT) ...... 89 Admissions (WP) ...... 120 Battle Eases Between Pakistani Government And High Court A Changed Court Revisits Affirmative Action In College (NYT) ...... 90 Admissions (NYT) ...... 121 In Afghanistan, Marine Gen. Dunford Is Expected To Take Ruling Out Race In College Admissions: How Far Will High Command Of Allied Forces (WP) ...... 90 Court Go? (LAT) ...... 123 Afghan Officials Denounce Western Group’s Report On Justices Clash Over Affirmative Action (WSJ) ...... 123 Country’s Future (NYT) ...... 91 Supreme Court Questions Texas Affirmative Action Plan Afghan Offers Bounty For Anti-Islam Filmmaker (AP) ...... 92 (WT/AP) ...... 124 Romney Sidesteps Questions On Detaining U.S. Citizens (WT) 92 Court May Challenge Colleges On Race (USAT) ...... 124 An Un-Dangerous Mind (NYT) ...... 93 Race-Conscious Admissions In Texas (NYT) ...... 125 Arrest In Grenade-on-plane Incident (USAT) ...... 94 Keep Schools' Right To Limited Use Of Race (USAT) ...... 126 Biden Expected To Be Aggressor In VP Debate (USAT) ...... 95 Opposing View: 'Racial Balancing' Ignores Inequalities (USAT)127 In VP Debate, GOP Looks To Boost Momentum, Dems Want Court Approves South Carolina Voter-ID Law But Delays It Until To Steady The Ship (MCT) ...... 96 For 2013 (WP) ...... 127 Gloves Off For Vice-presidential Debate (FT) ...... 97 Voter ID Validation (WSJ) ...... 128 At Debate, Joe Biden Faces Task Of Getting Obama Back On House Judiciary Chairman: Obama Should Fire Campaign Track (LAT) ...... 97 Staffers Facilitating Voter Fraud (CALLER) ...... 128 Paul Ryan Prepares To Face Joe Biden, His Toughest Debate Tennessee: Transcript Reveals Scott DesJarlais Urged Mistress Foe Yet (LAT) ...... 98 To Have Abortion (ROLLCALL) ...... 129 Biden’s Debate Aim: Reclaim Edge After Obama’s Subpar With Tapes, Authorities Build Criminal Cases Over JPMorgan Showing (WT) ...... 100 Loss (NYT) ...... 129 Vice Presidential Debate’s No. 1 Rule: If Chatter’s About Biden BP Close To Spill Settlement (WSJ) ...... 130 And Ryan, They’re Doing It Wrong (WP) ...... 101 Oil In New Gulf Slick Matches That Of 2010 Spill (WP) ...... 131 Media: Vice Presidential Debate Unlike Any Other (POLITCO) 102 Oil, Business Groups Sue SEC Over Disclosure Rule (HILL) .. 131 The No. 1 Rule When No. 2s Meet In Battle? Be Memorable. In Oil Industry Sues To Block Rule On Payments Abroad (WSJ) 132 A Good Way. (NYT) ...... 103 Lawmakers Question U.S. Abound Loan Despite Quality Issues Pew: Biden Viewed More Unfavorably Than Ryan (POLITCO) 104 (BLOOM) ...... 132 Right Defends Raddatz' Debate Role (POLITCO) ...... 105 IRS Says ‘tax Avoidance’ At Heart Of Solyndra Bankruptcy Plan ABC News Scrambles To Downplay Obama’s Attendance At (WT) ...... 133 VP Debate Moderator’s Wedding (CALLER) ...... 105 DeLay's Attorney: Money-Laundering Law Misconstrued (WSJ)134 As Debate Moderators, Will Women Get More Respect? (WP) 106 Al Gore Has Thrived As Green-tech Investor (WP) ...... 134 How Biden Can Win The Vice Presidential Debate (WP) ...... 108 Battle For Senate Control Rests In A Few States (USAT) ...... 138 Romney Tests Town-hall Format On The Stump (MCT) ...... 109 Brown, Warren Get Down To Issues (NORAND) ...... 140

3 Gloves Stay On In Debate (BOSH) ...... 142 French Police Find Arms Stash (WSJ) ...... 163 Lines Of Attack Clarify In Latest Scott Brown-Elizabeth Warren Syrian Conflict Grows On Two Fronts (WSJ) ...... 163 Debate (BOSGLOBE) ...... 142 Turkey Intercepts Syrian Plane As Tensions Mount (AP) ...... 164 Brown More Subdued In Third Mass. Senate Debate (HILL) ... 143 Turkey, Seeking Weapons, Forces Syrian Jet To Land (NYT) . 165 Brown, Warren Spar On Substance In 3rd Debate (POLITCO) 144 Turkey Forces Syrian Passenger Plane To Land (WP) ...... 166 Mr. Nice Guy Back, But Debate’s A Draw (BOSH) ...... 145 () 167 Warren Tries To Have It Both Ways (BOSGLOBE) ...... 146 West Is Foolish To Celebrate Iran’s Currency Crisis, Ayatollah Montana’s Tester Says He’s Not Obama’s ‘twin’ In Tight Senate Says (NYT) ...... 167 Race (WT) ...... 146 Egypt Releases Partial Draft Of New Constitution (WP) ...... 168 Election 2012: Nevada Senate - Rasmussen Reports™ Mubarak Loyalists Acquitted In Attack On Protest (AP) ...... 168 (RASMUSSEN)...... 147 Russia Won’t Renew Pact On Weapons With U.S. (NYT) ...... 170 Senate 5: A Sleeper In Pennsylvania? (POLITCO) ...... 148 Russia Says No To US-funded Disarmament Effort (AP) ...... 171 The Payoff Of Maryland’s Dream Act (WP) ...... 149 Russia No Longer Wants U.S. Aid On Nuclear Arms Security Who Cares About The House Of Representatives? (USAT) .... 149 (WP) ...... 171 The Wrong Way To Help The Poor (NYT) ...... 150 Moscow Court Frees 1 Of 3 Pussy Riot Members (AP) ...... 172 Obama’s Selective Defense Of The Constitution (WP) ...... 151 China Snubs Financial Meetings In Japan In Dispute Over State Dept. Acknowledges Rejecting Requests For More Islands (NYT) ...... 174 Security In Benghazi (WP) ...... 152 Smashed Skull Serves As Grim Symbol Of Seething Patriotism Security Cut Before Libya Raid (WSJ) ...... 154 (NYT) ...... 175 Former State Dept. Official: Prior To Libya Embassy Attack, Long Reliant On China, Myanmar Now Turns To Japan (NYT) 176 Taliban Was ‘on The Inside Of The Building’ (CALLER) . 154 US Revises Chinese Solar Cell Tariffs (FT) ...... 178 At Hearing On Libya Attack That Killed Envoy, Partisan Rift U.S. Sets Tariffs On Chinese Solar Panels (NYT) ...... 178 (NYT) ...... 154 Huawei’s U.S. Competitors Among Those Pushing For Scrutiny Partisan Squabbling Dominates Hearing On Benghazi Attack Of Chinese Tech Firm (WP) ...... 178 (WT) ...... 156 () 180 Assault Response Becomes Election Issue (FT) ...... 157 S&P Downgrades Spain’s Credit Rating 2 Notches To Lowest Partisan Fireworks At Libya Hearing (POLITCO) ...... 157 Investment-grade Level (AP)...... 180 White House Defends Initial Reaction To Libya Attacks (WT) . 158 Government Discord Derails Massive European Merger (WSJ)180 Testimony: Consulate In Libya Always At Risk (USAT) ...... 158 Ms. Merkel Goes To Athens (NYT) ...... 180 Libya Guards Speak Out On Attack That Killed U.S. A Conservative Split Over The Middle East (WP) ...... 181 Ambassador (LAT) ...... 159 US Counterterrorism Chief In Libya To Probe Attack (AP) ...... 161 Online Version Libya: Armed And Dangerous (FT) ...... 161 Visit www.bulletinnews.com/va for searchable archive, Botched In Benghazi (WSJ) ...... 162 interactive story index, and links to complete stories where Letting Us In On A Secret (WP) ...... 162 appropriate. Yemen Holds US Citizen For Suspected Al-Qaida Ties (AP) ... 163 Indonesia Warns Of New Bali Threat (WSJ) ...... 163

THE SECRETARY IN THE NEWS

VA Stands By Chief Of Staff In Spending Scandal (FCW) By Matthew Weigelt Federal Computer Week, October 11, 2012 The Veterans Affairs Department responded to lawmakers’ call for the removal of the VA Chief of Staff John Gingrich by saying the agency already has dealt with several senior and career employees in the wake of its conference spending scandal. In on Oct. 10 statement, a VA spokesman said VA Secretary Eric Shinseki has addressed Gingrich’s conduct involving the 2011 conferences – though no details were provided on the exact reprimand or steps taken. The VA paid roughly $6.1 million for two conferences, but the planning was marred by leadership failures and ethical lapses, the VA’s inspector general found. John Sepulveda, VA’s assistant secretary for human resources and administration, already stepped down from his post, and Shinseki put two career VA employees on leave pending review of their conduct. He is further investigating employees’ conduct as cited in the IG’s report released Oct. 1. 4

“As we said when this report was issued, any misuse of taxpayer dollars is unacceptable and that is why Secretary Shinseki took immediate action,” the spokesman said. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), however, believe the spending decisions point directly to Gingrich’s leadership lapses and dismissal of oversight. “The VA Chief of Staff cavalierly approved an exorbitant conference budget under the guise of a process meant to safeguard against” waste and overspending, the legislators wrote in an Oct. 9 letter to Shinseki. Burr is the ranking member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and Miller is the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee chairman. “Mr. Gingrich’s removal as chief of staff is the unequivocal way to deliver that message of accountability,” they wrote. In December 2010, Gingrich approved Sepulveda’s $8 million budget for three conferences, even though it had minimal details and requested authorization to train 3,000 people at a cost of more than $2,600 per person. In a statement to the IG, Gingrich acknowledged his mistakes. “I signed the thing authorizing the conferences,” he told the IG’s investigators. “So, I should have made sure the conferences were executed better. Now, I think people should have done more prudent work. But, it’s my signature upon that page. And, I take the full responsibility. And, I should have asked, probably, harder questions than I did.” Gingrich added, though, that many other senior executives have responsibilities for the execution as well. The IG recommended Shinseki confer with human resource officials outside VA’s central office and with attorneys in the General Counsel’s office to determine which action to take against Gingrich. The VA spokesman also said Shinseki has implemented policies that strengthen oversight, improve accountability and safeguard taxpayer dollars. VA Won't Fire Official Over Resort Conferences (MILIT) By Bryant Jordan Military.com, October 11, 2012 The Department of Veterans Affairs is rejecting lawmakers' calls to fire the official who OK'd training conferences at a Florida resort last year at a cost of $6.1 million. In a statement released late Tuesday, the agency said VA Secretary Eric Shinseki dealt with the authorizing officer, Chief of Staff Robert Gingrich, in a meeting where he told Gingrich he should have "asked more questions" about the conferences. In its report on the conferences, the VA's Inspector General recommended that Shinseki confer with human resources officials outside the VA's central office, as well as the agency's lawyers, "to determine the appropriate administrative action to take against Mr. Gingrich and ensure that action is taken." In a joint letter released on Tuesday, Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Sen. Richard Burr, R-NC, said Shinseki should remove Gingrich from the job for his failures in the conference scandal. Miller chairs the House Veterans Affairs Committee and Burr is ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. They noted in their letter that the IG specifically recommended that administrative action be taken against Gingrich. Shinseki's opting not to proceed further with Gingrich is one of the few times the VA secretary departed from the IG's list of 49 recommendations. The IG said the plans Gingrich signed off on were vague and that he should have questioned them more closely. He acknowledged as much in his interview with the IG, according to the report, though he also indicated there was plenty of blame to go around. "I signed the thing authorizing the conferences. So, I should have made sure the conferences were executed better," the IG quotes Gingrich as saying. "Now, I think people should have done more prudent work. But it's my signature upon that page. And I take the full responsibility. AndI should have asked, probably, harder questions than I did. … But I also think there is a bunch of senior executives, regardless of whether they are SES [senior executive service level] or above, that have responsibilities for the execution." The IG also found that VA employees accepted gifts from contractors that included spa treatments, tickets to a show by the Rockettes and helicopter rides. One senior VA official resigned days before the IG report was released on Sept. 30. Two others were placed on administrative leave pending a review. A number of other employees cited in the report for oversight and planning failures may still be subject to punishment, as Shinseki concurred with IG recommendations to appoint a panel to review evidence of wrongdoing.

5

These employees include Alice Muellerweiss, dean of Veterans Affairs Learning University, or VALU; Arthur McMahan, deputy dean of VALU; Tonya Deanes, deputy assistant secretary for the VA's Office of Human Resources Management, or OHRM; Jolisa Dudley, Deanes' executive assistant; and Thomas Barritt, a special assistant to Deanes. John Sepulveda, assistant secretary for human resources at the VA, resigned the post in late September, shortly before the IG released its report. Sepulveda provided the December 2010 memo outlining plans for conferences in 2011 that Gingrich signed off on. Republican Lawmakers Call For Ouster Of Veterans Affairs Official (WASHBIZ) Washington Business Journal, October 11, 2012 Republican lawmakers are calling for the removal of the Department of Veterans Affairs chief of staff following an internal report that blamed poor leadership for questionable conference spending, Federal News Radio reported. VA Chief of Staff John Gingrich signed off on the two training conferences held in Orlando, Fla., last summer, which cost $6.1 million, according to the Sept. 30 inspector general report. As much as $762,000 of the spending was wasteful or questionable, the IG found. Republican Lawmakers Call For Ouster Of VA Official Who Approved Conferences (FEDNWSR) By Jack Moore Federal News Radio, October 10, 2012 The top Republicans on the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees have called for the removal of the Veterans Affairs Department chief of staff, following an internal report that blamed poor leadership for questionable conference spending. VA Chief of Staff John Gingrich signed off on the two training conferences held in Orlando, Fla, last summer, which cost $6.1 million, according to the Sept. 30 inspector general report.As much as $762,000 of the spending was wasteful or questionable, the IG found, including more than $49,000 for a video parody of the 1970 film Patton and $112,823 for promotional items. "Accountability begins at the top," wrote Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), the chairman of the House committee, and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the ranking member of the Senate committee, in a letter to VA Secretary Eric Shinseki. "In this instance, the VA chief of staff cavalierly approved an exorbitant conference budget under the guise of a process meant to safeguard against that very occurrence. A message must be sent to all VA employees that perfunctory execution of so great a responsibility is inexcusable at any time, and at any level." 'Barely a permission slip' The IG report found Gingrich approved an initial $8 million conference budget — about $2,600 per attendee — despite receiving a memo with only "minimal detail" about the proposed conference. "That document is barely a permission slip, let alone a 'strong business case,'" Miller and Burr wrote. "To say he treated his responsibility casually is an understatement." Gingrich told the IG's office that he took "full responsibility" for the conferences, according to the report. "I signed the thing authorizing the conferences. So, I should have made sure the conferences were executed better," Gingrich told investigators. "Now, I think people should have done more prudent work. But, it's my signature upon that page. And, I take the full responsibility. And, I should have asked, probably, harder questions than I did." Appropriate administrative action The IG report commended the chief of staff "for his forthrightness and willingness to take responsibility," but said he should have done more to oversee costs. The IG recommended Shinseki consult with HR officials and legal counsel to take "appropriate administrative action" against Gingrich. However, in his response to the report, Shinseki did not indicate what action he planned to take against his chief of staff, if any. In their letter, Miller and Burr wrote: "With the utmost respect for Mr. Gingrich's service to the nation in uniform and in public service, we believe the appropriate administrative action is his immediate removal as VA chief of staff." Gingrich was not the only official singled out in the IG report for failing to provide proper oversight of conference spending. The report criticized Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration John Sepulveda for taking a "hand-off approach" and said he "abdicated his responsibilities" by failing to provide guidance to senior executives. He resigned the day before the IG's office published the report. On Tuesday, VA issued a statement addressing Miller and Burr's letter and the OIG report.

6

"Any misuse of taxpayer dollars is unacceptable and that is why Secretary Shinseki took immediate action consistent with the recommendations in the OIG report to implement policies that strengthen oversight, improve accountability, and safeguard taxpayer dollars," the statement said. "Assistant Secretary Sepulveda has resigned, Mr. Gingrich's conduct has been addressed by the Secretary, two career employees have been placed on leave pending review of their conduct, and a further review of other career employees' actions cited in the OIG report is underway." The statement went on to say VA has put in place a plan to "revise and strengthen polices and controls on the planning and execution of training conferences as recommended in the final OIG report." Legislators Want VA Official Removed (FEDDAILY) FederalDaily.com, October 11, 2012 Two Republican lawmakers are calling for the removal of Department of Veterans Affairs Chief of Staff John Gingrich for approving two conferences that a VA Inspector General investigation found to be rife with wasteful expenditures. House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee ranking member Richard Burr (R-N.C.) last week sent a letter to VA Secretary Eric Shinseki expressing concern over “the lack of leadership, lack of judgment and wasteful spending” detailed in a VA IG report on an investigation of two VA human resources conferences held in Orlando, Fla., in 2011. The report homed in on $762,000 in questionable expenses related to the conferences, including costs of $280,698—for audiovisual services, food, beverages and other miscellaneous items—in excess of VA’s contract with the Orlando World Center Marriott. Other expenses detailed in the report included $97,906 in costs associated with the purchase of “unnecessary promotional items”; $200,224 of unsupported expenses, including almost $154,000 in contractor travel paid by VA; $11,507 in “questionable miscellaneous expenses” for things such as signs, table banners, exhibit booths, janitorial services, and pocket organizers; and $49,516 in unauthorized costs associated with the production of a Gen. George S. Patton parody video. The report cited a statement from Gingrich: “I signed the thing authorizing the conferences. So, I should have made sure the conferences were executed better. Now, I think people should have done more prudent work. But, it’s my signature upon that page. And, I take the full responsibility.” While Gingrich may have assumed responsibility, the two lawmakers nonetheless took a tough stance in their letter to Shinseki. “We can only conclude that Mr. Gingrich’s role was merely to provide the appearance of oversight, nothing more,” the letter stated. “We believe that is precisely why the IG recommended the administrative action against him. With the utmost respect for Mr. Gingrich’s service to the nation in uniform and in public service, we believe the appropriate administrative action is his immediate removal as VA chief of staff.” VA Execs Were Encouraged To Spend More On Wasteful Conferences (WASHEX) By Mark Flatten Washington Examiner, October 11, 2012 Top Department of Veterans Affairs officials had incentives to spend money rather than control costs for two employee- training conferences that wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. Most of the $6.1 million spent on the conferences came from accounts that normally fund veterans' health care. Annual performance plans of the two highest-ranking executives in charge of the conferences made a top priority of spending as much as possible from VA's human resources training and recruitment accounts, according to the agency's Inspector General in a report issued last week. Nothing was said about controlling costs. As much as $762,000 was wasted on the two conferences held last year in Orlando, according to the IG. VA officials refused to comment for this story. Seventeen other VA employees involved in planning and conducting the conferences received more than $43,000 worth of bonuses and paid time-off for their work on the events. The bonuses ranged from $750 to $5,500. Several were even rewarded for things the IG condemned as wasteful, including production of a Patton parody video. The unidentified employee behind the parody got a $4,000 bonus. "I find it infuriating that VA would have the nerve to incentivize this type of waste when our veterans are continually struggling to receive care," said Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. "Apparently they are quick to reward irresponsible behavior."

7

Miller has called for the removal of VA Chief of Staff John Gingrich, the top official singled out for criticism by the IG. Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House veterans affairs panel, echoed demands for reform. VA Secretary Eric Shinseki should end the agency's "culture that does not question the expenditure of funds and cannot account for them once they are spent," Filner said in a written statement. John Sepulveda, VA's top human resources executive, resigned the day before the IG report was released last week. Sepulveda's top accomplishment, according to his 2011 performance review, was spending the entire $300 million budget of an agency training account, the IG said. Another senior VA executive, Alice Muellerweiss, was encouraged in a 2011 performance plan to spend at least 80 percent of a $284 million training account, with no mention of insuring efficiency. Such incentives likely encouraged wasteful spending, the IG said. Five unnamed VA employees who helped plan the conferences got bonuses for "keeping senior leadership aware of conference issues," according to the IG. Those bonuses contradicted post-conference claims by top VA officials that they weren't told by underlings about wasteful spending. Five other unnamed employees got bonuses for controlling costs. Muellerweiss approved at least some of the awards, according to the IG report. Funding for the Orlando conferences came through VA's ADVANCE program in the department's human resources office. The program funds things like training, recruitment and retention. But about 94 percent of the money for ADVANCE - $271.3 million - came from the Veterans Health Administration, the arm of the agency that provides health care to veterans, according to the IG. The VA's budget is $140 billion this year, with $53 billion for health care and $75 billion for veterans' pensions and disability payments. The department is battling a processing backlog of nearly 900,000 disability and pension claims, about two-thirds of which are older than 125 days, the agency's goal for completion. American Legion National Commander James Koutz told The Washington Examiner he does not begrudge the VA conferences, but he believes "the priorities are not in order." "We need to be more focused on maybe just having a meeting then getting back to work so we can stop this backlog of claims for our veterans," he said. Senator Seeks Answers On Employee Bonuses Amid VA Conference Scandal (FEDTIMES) By Stephen Losey Federal Times, October 11, 2012 Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, on Tuesday demanded that VA Secretary Eric Shinseki provide more details on VA employees who received bonuses for working on two scandalous conferences that took place in the summer of 2011 in Orlando, Fla. Collins said in a letter she wants to know why VA gave bonuses to five employees for keeping senior leaders aware of conference issues, even though those leaders were largely uninvolved in the conference’s financial and planning decisions. VA’s inspector general on Oct. 1 released a report that concluded the agency spent $6.1 million on the conferences and wasted $762,000 on video production, food and beverages, promotional items, audio-visual services, and awards given to employees who mismanaged the conferences. The scandal brought down the VA’s chief human capital officer John Sepulveda, who resigned Sept. 30. The IG report slammed VA’s leadership for taking a hands-off approach to managing the conference, and for its shoddy accounting and contracting practices. Collins said she wants to know what those employees did to keep top leaders informed, and what VA is doing to revoke those bonuses, which she said were improper. Collins also wants to know why VA awarded bonuses to an employee who worked on a $50,000 video parodying the movie “Patton” and another who bought a karaoke machine with his own money to use at the conference. Both those expenses were deemed improper by the IG. Collins said VA should have uncovered problems with the conferences after the Office of Management and Budget in September 2011 ordered all agencies to review their conference spending. She also asked for VA’s report to OMB. “These findings [in the IG report] are inexcusable, given the heroic mission the VA has to serve our nation’s veterans, but they are especially disappointing because they should have been preventable,” Collins said. 8

Collins gave VA an Oct. 31 deadline to respond. In addition, two other Republican lawmakers on Friday called for the Veterans Affairs Department to fire its chief of staff for approving the two training conferences. VA Chief of Staff John Gingrich abdicated his responsibilities by “cavalierly” approving a maximum $8 million budget for the human resources conferences last summer, said Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., in an Oct. 5 letter to Shinseki. “To say [Gingrich] treated his responsibility casually is an understatement,” said the lawmakers. “No one can conclude that the one-page document Mr. Gingrich signed to approve an $8 million budget … was an exercise of ensuring ‘prudent use and control’ of taxpayer resources. That document is barely a permission slip, let alone a ‘strong business case.’ ” Miller is chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and Burr is the ranking Republican on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee. The House committee posted the letter online Tuesday. VA said last week that Shinseki told Gingrich that his review of the conferences was inadequate and that he should have asked more questions before he authorized them. In a statement Tuesday, VA said, “Mr. Gingrich’s conduct has been addressed by the secretary.” Shinseki “took immediate action consistent with the recommendations of the [IG] report to implement policies that strengthen oversight, improve accountability, and safeguard taxpayer dollars,” VA said. Collins Wants To Know Why VA Conference Planners Received Bonuses (FEDNWSR) By Jack Moore Federal News Radio, October 11, 2012 Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, wants more details from the Veterans Affairs Department on whether the $762,000 in questionable spending on two training conferences last summer was "just the tip of iceberg." In an Oct. 9 letter to VA Secretary Eric Shinskei, Collins requested the agency disclose whether employees responsible for planning the two conferences held in Orlando, Fla., last summer, also worked on other conferences. In addition, Collins said she wants to know how much conference planners earned in bonuses and other awards for their work. The VA inspector general's office released its final report last week, finding the agency spent $6.1 million on the two conferences. While investigators concluded the events served a legitimate training purpose, their report detailed hundreds of thousands of dollars in questionable spending, including nearly $50,000 for a parody video and $112,000 for unnecessary promotional items. The IG cited a failure of top VA leadership to properly oversee conference spending and for remaining uninvolved in conference planning. Despite the poor communication between leadership and staff and the numerous instances of "excessive or unnecessary costs," VA awarded 17 employees cash awards for their management of the conference. Altogether, the awards totaled $43,000. In her letter, Collins said she wants VA to provide the documentation and the justification for these bonuses and whether VA is taking action "to recover these bonuses improperly given and received by the senior officials." Collins is also seeking an internal report (which predates the IG investigation) that she said "should have uncovered the wasteful spending that took place in Orlando before it was uncovered" by the IG's office. In September 2011, the Office of Management and Budget directed agencies to review their conference spending and report to OMB as part of the administration's Campaign to Cut Waste. Collins wants VA to provide a copy of the report it sent to OMB. Federal Government Spends Over $1 Million On Souvenirs, Group Says (CALLER) By Betsi Fores Daily Caller, October 11, 2012 A Washington-based government watchdog group has uncovered over $1 million spent by federal agencies on souvenirs over the course of the Obama administration. Items include yo-yos, water bottles and trophies. “Our investigation shows that a federal government culture of waste, fraud and mismanagement remains an unchecked liability throughout federal agencies,” Cause of Action executive director Dan Epstein said in a press release. “A cavalier attitude toward the efficient use of tax dollars permeates the executive branch.”

9

After the GSA scandal last November, President Obama issued an executive order saying that “[a]gencies should limit the purchase of promotional items (e.g., plaques, clothing and commemorative items), in particular where they are not cost-effective.” Cause of Action sent out 32 Freedom of Information Act requests in April seeking the production of documents disclosing information regarding spending on commemorative items. The initial responses from nine agencies, including the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Agriculture, turned up documents revealing $1,123,118 in spending. The investigation reveals Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service spent over $86,000 on commemorative items between 2009 and 2012, and the Department of Justice spent over $12,000 on commemorative items for a single conference. One office in the Agriculture Department even spent $38,870 on GPS systems, Nook 3G digital readers, Apple iPods, and Nikon Coolpix cameras for staff members. One of the largest budgets, the Department of Defense, told Cause of Action that they have no means for tracking promotional spending, making any type of accountability impossible. “While some agencies track their spending, revealing patterns of waste, others don’t even bother to document it,” Epstein said. “Just in the past year we’ve seen reports of the Government Services Administration and Veterans Affairs conference spending scandals, Secretary Sebelius’s Hatch Act violations, and conflict of interest violations by NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon,” Epstein continued. “It is clear that those in the current Administration with the responsibility to steward taxpayer dollars, the President included, are not taking their jobs, nor a commitment to ethics and transparency, seriously.” Veterans Town Hall Meeting Scheduled For Today (KATC) By Chris Welty KATC-TV Lafayette (LA), October 10, 2012 A town hall meeting is scheduled today for veterans looking to get answers as to when a VA Clinic could open in Lafayette. "The VA has been very difficult to work with. It's one of the most bureaucratic and incompetent departments," said Congressman Doctor Charles Boustany. Since 2008 Boustany, other politicians, and veterans have been pushing for a veterans clinic in Lafayette. Boustany like countless veterans is tired of the red tape and is ready to see results. "The VA is definitely behind the times when meeting the needs of vets in Louisiana to say the least," said Retired Air Force Captain Charles Trenchard. "Let's get it done. I can tell you I just sent another letter to General Shinseki urging him to move forward on this. Come down here and face our veterans. As a general who has served in the armed forces, he knows. I want him to come down here and face our veterans and explain what's going on and why we've had to deal with these incompetencies," said Boustany. So far there's no new update on which of the four possible locations could be home to the new VA clinic. Boustany is urging veterans to stay persistent until their goal is accomplished. "We will get a veterans clinic that will provide not only primary care, but good specialty services here." The town hall for veterans meeting is today at American Legion Post 69 on Surrey Street in Lafayette. An enrollment drive starts at 9:00 with the town hall at 11:30. IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN VETS

From Full-Time Jobs To Combat, Older Players' Experiences Helping Younger ACC Teammates (AP) Associated Press, October 11, 2012 RALEIGH, N.C. – Older players who have taken different routes to college football have become mentors in Atlantic Coast Conference locker rooms that are filled with teenagers who have known only football. The value of players like Clemson's Daniel Rodriguez or North Carolina's Sylvester Williams is about more than what they do on the field. They're the kind of players coaches want for their maturity and leadership regardless of whether they start every game or play sparingly.

10

Rodriguez served in Iraq and Afghanistan before walking on for the Tigers. Williams worked a factory job after graduation before deciding to give college football a try and becoming a starter for the Tar Heels. "They understand the real-life experiences," North Carolina State coach Tom O'Brien said. "Some of these guys right out of high school have no clue about what's out there or what's waiting for them if they don't get their degree or do what they're supposed to do. You have somebody that can say, 'Hey, listen, you don't know how lucky you have it being here.'" O'Brien has one in reserve defensive end McKay Frandsen, a married 24-year-old who went on a 2-year Mormon mission to Alaska before walking on at BYU then going to junior college to earn his way to N.C. State. Wake Forest's Alex Kinal, a 22-year-old redshirt freshman, spent three years working a construction job in his native Australia before getting a shot to play for the Demon Deacons. He's now their starting punter. At Florida State, there's offensive lineman Menelik Watson. The 23-year-old junior graduated from high school in England in 2006, played basketball in Spain and played a year of basketball at Marist. But with his 6-foot-7 frame, he grew interested in football, played at Saddleback College (Calif.) and transferred to be a starting lineman for the Seminoles. Boston College reserve quarterback Dave Shinskie, 28, spent seven seasons playing minor-league baseball. He started as a 25-year-old freshman and led the Eagles to eight wins, but lost his job the following year to current starter Chase Rettig. "That probably wouldn't sit well with a lot of people, but Dave is a great teammate and a great asset to our program," BC coach Frank Spaziani said. "We're very fortunate that he contributed to those wins and he's still helping to contribute in a different way. ... I attribute that to some of his maturity and what he's been through." Rodriguez, 24, spent 18 months in Iraq and a year in Afghanistan, where he was shot in the shoulder and wounded by shrapnel in a battle in October 2009. Rodriguez, who earned a Purple Heart and Bronze Star, had promised a friend who was killed in the attack that he would find a way to play college football if he made it home. He enrolled in a community college, then filmed his workout regimen in a video posted on YouTube that generated inquiries from about 50 schools — including Clemson. "I wasn't, obviously, brought here on my five-star capabilities," Rodriguez said. "But what I've been through as a man and what I can relate and pass to these guys that are younger than I, having my experience and the hardships I've gone through and overcome, it's definitely something that the guys look up to me for." Clemson coach Dabo Swinney said Rodriguez, who has one catch and has played primarily on special teams for the reigning ACC champions, is "inspirational." "He's been a sergeant of 20 or 40 men in real life and now he's in the locker room with a bunch of 18- to 22-year-old guys who don't really have life figured out yet," Swinney said. At North Carolina, Williams said he struggled in high school and did enough to graduate with his class. He then worked in a factory making radiator parts for large trucks before deciding it wasn't for him and that he would try to play football. There weren't many options — he had played only one year of high school football — and he ended up walking on at Coffeyville (Kan.) Community College armed only with his work ethic and the belief that "there was something more out there for me in life than there was at that factory." He thrived, became an all-conference pick and ended up at North Carolina as a starting defensive tackle with a team-high five sacks. Kareem Martin, one of Williams' line mates, said watching Williams has taught him a clear lesson: "You don't want to lose this opportunity." "I just kind of tell guys, a lot of guys got here, it was easy for them to get here because they went to the big-time high schools," Williams said. "... Everybody's not going to play in the NFL, just like not everybody's going to play Division I. But you're able to get a free education from the University of North Carolina. Just take advantage of it." Williams, who turns 24 next month, even recently pulled the UNC walk-ons aside, telling them he had been in their shoes and they could set themselves apart by working hard every day. First-year coach Larry Fedora hopes it's a message that sticks with them beyond college. "I've never been on a team where everybody has the same background, either economically or socially or anything," Fedora said. "And so that's the great thing about being part of a team or a football family: learning from others, learning from the mistakes of others, learning from the positive things of others. ... That's what the real world is all about." ___ AP Sports Writers Joedy McCreary in Chapel Hill and Pete Iacobelli in Columbia, S.C., and Associated Press writer Brent Kallestad in Tallahassee, Fla., contributed to this report. Soldiers Claim Illness After Guarding KBR In Iraq (AP) 11

By Nigel Duara Associated Press, October 11, 2012 A war contractor knew a critical southern Iraq oilfield plant was riddled with a well-known toxin but ignored the risk to soldiers while hurrying the project along, firing a whistleblower and covering up the presence of the chemical when faced with exposure, the soldiers' attorney said in opening arguments Wednesday in a federal civil suit. An attorney for the contractor, Kellogg, Brown and Root, fired back in his opening salvo of a trial expected to last weeks that the soldiers' injuries weren't a result of their exposure to the toxin, called sodium dichromate. Geoffrey L. Harrison argued that the company had no knowledge of the chemical's presence at the plant and when they found it, they promptly and repeatedly warned the military of the danger. A jury of six men and six women will decide whether the company is culpable for 12 Oregon National Guardsmen's exposure to the toxin, a known carcinogen, and whether that exposure led to their ongoing respiratory illnesses. The soldiers will also try to show that the fear of future illnesses is causing them to suffer emotional distress. The irony, said the soldiers' attorney, Mike Doyle, "is that every single one of these men had a chemical hazard suit they would have put on instantly if they had known." KBR tried to warn the U.S. Army about the dangers of sodium dichromate, Harrison said, but didn't go to the soldiers themselves because that wasn't the proper channel of communication. "That was appropriate," Harrison said. "That was not concealment." The suit dates to prewar Iraq, when the U.S. Army feared then-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein would react to an invasion by setting his own oil fields ablaze, as he had done in Kuwait after the Gulf War. Seeking to head off Hussein, in late 2002 the army contracted KBR and tasked them with assessing and repairing Iraqi oilfield installations. One of the most central - and critical to a continued supply of oil from the Gulf - was called Qarmat Ali. Qarmat Ali operated as a water treatment plant, injecting heavier, treated water into the ground to force oil to rise through wells to the surface. One of the chemicals Iraqi workers had been using was sodium dichromate, a substance long restricted in the U.S. over environmental and health concerns. What the Guardsmen found in late March or early April 2003 was a run-down plant, Harrison said, looted and stripped of copper wire. The ground, the soldiers allege, was contaminated with sodium dichromate. When they asked about the risks, the soldiers contend they were rebuffed or placated, and safety equipment wasn't ordered until they had been on site for months. The soldiers returned to the U.S. suffering from myriad respiratory problems, migraines and lung issues. They sued KBR in June 2009. The Oregon soldiers were joined by Guardsmen from Indiana and West Virginia, some of whom are also involved in suits against KBR. Harrison pointed to a U.S. Army medical evaluation of the soldiers from October 2003 that found that the soldiers' medical issues were likely a result of the conditions - dry desert air, other chemicals - or preexisting conditions, along with consumption of protein-heavy supplements and the presence of sodium dichromate. "At best, there's some possibility that some of their on-site symptoms could be related (to sodium dichromate exposure), but most likely, were not," Harrison said. Doyle said an attempt by a KBR employee in August or September 2003 to blow the whistle on the company's role in the alleged deception of the soldiers was met with the man's dismissal from the plant. Doyle said the company was seeking an incentive from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to finish the work quickly and would brook no complaint from employees about safety concerns. Harrison dismissed the whistleblower as a "disruptive force" at meetings who didn't know that KBR and the U.S. Army were already in talks about the toxin. In depositions taken of senior KBR officials, Doyle points to memory "black holes" that the officials say they suffer when trying to remember events from post-invasion Iraq. "Photographs also went into a black hole," Doyle said. "E-mails went into a black hole." Harrison told the jury that Doyle's assertions about the memories of KBR executives were "little sound bites that he hopes stick with you." "Some 200 people were deposed," Harrison said. "To get one person who doesn't remember everything from 8 (or) 9 years ago is not evidence." Doyle is expected to call at least 40 witnesses, from toxicologists to engineers and the soldiers themselves. "KBR had a responsibility," Doyle said. "They were full well aware from their assessment that sodium dichromate was present. "It's no surprise that they documented it existed since Day One." 12

Workshop Offers Advice For Better Treatment Of Returning Veterans (SFARGUS) By Jill Callison Sioux Falls (SD) Argus Leader, October 11, 2012 Jared Ageson remembers clearly the day in 2003 when his mail included a letter from his church. His delight at being remembered by his small home congregation soon turned to painful dismay. Because Ageson rarely attended church, the letter said, he was being taken off the congregation’s rolls. The fact that he was thousands of miles away, halfway through a 15-month deployment in Iraq, apparently hadn’t been noticed or appreciated. Veteran Rob Dickerson shared a similar story Tuesday morning at a workshop to help pastors care for soldiers who have come home. In his case, it happened after his return when he went to his pastor seeking help for issues that had led him to consider suicide. He returned with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; vertigo; injured neck, shoulders and lower back; pain in his hips; and a traumatic brain injury caused by a rocket that exploded 15 feet away. The pastor’s advice? “Suck it up.” It shouldn’t be that way, said JoAnn Lemme, a Veterans Administration chaplain who is ordained with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. That’s why Sioux Falls Seminary and the VA Healthcare System hosted the workshop. “We often think of evil as a concept, but they’ve lived with evil,” Lemme said. “The unknown factor and the evil that is out there that they’ve lived, it really causes a crisis of trust, faith, relationship with others, God and the environment. “They go through a lot. We’re really trying to encourage folks here to listen and reach out and support them, love them. Please.” The Rev. Matt Fjerkenstad, who works with young adults at First Assembly of God in Sioux Falls, is a veteran’s son. He took the workshop to be prepared for the day a veteran comes to him seeking help. “I talked to my dad before coming here, and he said that’s a great experience, because every time you talk to someone, you’ll have that experience and knowledge of where to send them,” he said. Ageson of Alvord, Iowa, recounted the struggles he went through after his return from deployment. That included turning to alcohol to relax and to sleep. “The army teaches you how to be a soldier,” he said. “But the army never teaches you how to be a civilian.” His drinking led to two DUIs before he sought treatment. Ageson, who has been diagnosed with PTSD, said he was dismissed from the Army National Guard when his superiors learned of his DUIs. “It’s a business, and I’m a liability,” he said. Neither Ageson nor Dickerson appreciates receiving attention on Veterans Day or Memorial Day. In part, it’s because they don’t consider themselves heroes. It’s also because neither man feels comfortable among civilians. In choosing a seat at the workshop, for example, Dickerson choose a position that allowed him to keep his eyes on the windows. Instead of having them stand up during a church service, they suggested something simpler: a potluck. But the potluck had a limited invitation list — only veterans who would understand what participants are going through were welcome. “There’s a lesson for the church in the power of that community,” said Doug Anderson, director of counseling education and clinical services for the seminary and Sioux Falls Psychological Services. “We have no concept of it at your level. We can learn from you.” VETERANS EMPLOYMENT

Sen. Schumer Calls For Extension Of Tax Credits For Companies That Hire Veterans (SYPS) By Rick Moriarty Syracuse (NY) Post-Standard, October 11, 2012 U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer called today for the extension of federal tax credits for companies and organizations that hire military veterans. Schumer, D-NY, held a press conference at Crouse Hospital in Syracuse to promote extension of the Returning Heroes and Wounded Warriors Tax Credits, which were enacted with bipartisan support in November 2011 but are set to expire at the end of this year. 13

Schumer said veterans spend years serving their country and “shouldn’t have to spend months or years on the unemployment line.” “We owe them a debt of gratitude, but we also owe them help in getting a job,” he said. He said the unemployment rate among veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is 16.7 percent in New York. There are 2,233 veterans out of work in Central New York alone, he said. Businesses and organizations that hire a veteran who has been unemployed for one to six months receive a $2,400 tax credit. Those that hire a veteran who has been unemployed for more than six months receive a $5,600 tax credit. And employers who hire a veteran with a service-connected disability receive a $9,600 credit. Schumer said no one in Congress has said they are opposed to extending the tax credits. But he said an extension is being held hostage by negotiations over other bills. “It’s caught up in all the other fights,” he said. Crouse officials said the hospital employs 100 veterans, about 10 to 15 of whom were hired since the tax credit program was enacted last year. Schumer Fights To Keep Tax Credits For Veterans (WSYR) WSYR-TV Syracuse (NY), October 11, 2012 Syracuse (WSYR-TV) -- It may soon be harder for our veterans to get jobs. Critical tax credits, which give businesses an added incentive to hire vets, are set to expire. Senator Charles Schumer is now pushing his fellow lawmakers to take action before it’s too late. Erwin Learned was an aircraft mechanic in the Navy. He learned skills he still uses every day while working at Crouse Hospital. “I work in quality improvement now and working on ejection seats. Quality is an important part of aviations, so that translated pretty well,” Learned said. As more and more veterans return home from war, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for many to find work. Right now, there are more than 2,200 unemployed veterans in Central New York. “Our veterans have risked their lives for us. We don’t want them spending months on the unemployment line,” Senator Schumer said. When companies do hire vets, they can be eligible for tax credits ranging from a couple, to nearly $10,000, but if Washington doesn’t take action soon, that money could soon be gone. Crouse employs more than 100 vets and plans to hire another half dozen. Schumer says the credits are an added incentive. “We are always going to hire the best candidate for the job, if we get a credit, it's a bonus. But we have had many veterans come out that have had the background that they need,” said Crouse’s Director of Human Resources John Bergemann. Crouse hired about a dozen veterans under the tax credit program. It was originally passed with bi-partisan support, but Schumer says it’s getting caught up again in Washington politics. Schumer also says that nearly 17 percent of veterans that return home to New York from the war in Iraq or Afghanistan are unemployed. Schumer Campaigns To Keep Tax Credits For Businesses That Hire Veterans (WSTM) By Alice Maggiore WSTM-TV Syracuse (NY), October 11, 2012 SYRACUSE -- In Central New York, more than 2200 veterans are unemployed. It's double the national average and the average in the state. Currently, hospitals and businesses get tax credit for hiring qualified veterans, but those incentives are set to expire at the end of this year, unless a tax extenders package is passed in the Senate. On Wednesday morning, New York Senator Schumer was at Crouse Hospital in Syracuse vowing to help unemployed war veterans. He's launching a campaign to save the credits and get our heroes back to work. "Our veterans have risked their lives for us. They spent months and years overseas. We don't want them to spend months and years when they come back home on the unemployment line," he says. Schumer says veterans often have a specific skill that sets them apart from other candidates.

14

"Here at Crouse, they can use people who are medics or nurses in the armed forces. If you've repaired a tank, you're probably pretty good at repairing a car. So, veterans have those kinds of skills, but they have other kinds of skills; teamwork, sense of duty, and courage," Schumer says. The returning heroes and wounded warriors tax credits provide up to $9,600 in tax breaks for employers. The exact amount depends on the length of time a veteran has been unemployed, and whether they have a service- connected disability. Right now, Crouse employs about 100 veterans. It's looking to add five to seven more. Sen. Schumer Campaigns To Help Unemployed Vets (YNN) YNN-TV Rochester (NY), October 11, 2012 SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- One lawmaker is continuing the push to hire the men and women who served our country. Senator Charles Schumer wants to keep a tax credit that motivates businesses and hospitals to hire more vets. He made a stop at Crouse Hospital in Syracuse to talk about the idea. Schumer thanked the hospital for already employing about 100 veterans. He is working to save the expiring tax credit that gives employers up to $9,600 per veteran hired. The senator believes vets should have a place to work when they return from months, even years, on active duty. "The unemployment of veterans who've come back from Iraq and Afghanistan is about double the national average and the New York State average, so we should go out of their way for them. No one wants people to hire a veteran who's not qualified, but our veterans have great skills," said Sen. Schumer. Schumer says some of these skills are in the medical field, with trauma and first aid. Other skills include repairing tanks and other equipment. Nebraska Increases Push To Hire Veterans (AP) Associated Press, October 11, 2012 LINCOLN (AP) — Nebraska officials are launching a new campaign to find jobs for military veterans, increase the state's population and help employers recruit quality workers, Gov. Dave Heineman said Tuesday. The effort includes a new series of Nebraska job fairs aimed at veterans, as well as a four-minute online video in which Heineman — a veteran himself — makes a personal sales pitch. "Nebraska hires veterans," Heineman said at a news conference. "We have the jobs that fit their skill sets, and employers who appreciate the quality that veterans bring to the work force." The campaign is targeting veterans who have recently left the military, most of whom are younger and willing to move to new places, said Catherine Lang, director of the Nebraska Department of Labor. The state has already helped organize a series of job fairs in Lincoln, Omaha and Norfolk that drew more than 600 veterans and 200 employers. The department also offers career assessment and counseling services, assistance with resume and interview preparations, and access to job-placement programs, Heineman said. Lang added that those programs are serving more than 8,000 veterans statewide. Heineman, a former Army Ranger, said veterans offer the work ethic, discipline and skill sets desired by employers. And with the nation's second-lowest unemployment rate, he said, more Nebraska employers are looking to hire. For example, he said, some businesses are willing to pay $60,000 a year as a starting salary for welders. "I feel very strongly as a veteran that it's our patriotic duty to help these men and women," Heineman said. "They've done so much for us. And secondly, we have the opportunities now." Heineman said campaign targets veterans with Nebraska ties, but also those who have traveled the world and are seeking a permanent home. The video, which cost $6,000, was produced by the Nebraska Department of Labor to attract job-seeking veterans to the state. Lang said more "Hiring Our Heroes" job fairs are scheduled for Alliance on Dec. 4, Papillion on Jan. 16 and Beatrice on Feb. 5. The program is co-sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Included in the video was TJ Chrastil, an Army National Guard veteran who spent a year in Iraq before returning to his native state. Chrastil, 28, works for News Link, a Lincoln-based business that produces company newsletters. "The economy's good here, and I can get good educational opportunities," Chrastil said. "When the country gets hit economically, Nebraska's usually pretty sound."

15

Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. VRAP Trains Unemployed Veterans (WALB) By Stephen Abel WALB-TV Albany (GA), October 11, 2012 THOMASVILLE, GA (WALB) - The Georgia Department of Labor is working with a south Georgia technical college to put veterans back to work. As part of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, select unemployed veterans can qualify for the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program. They'll receive training at Southwest Georgia Technical College for a high demand occupation. "We feel like it is important to help our veterans to get into the workforce. Not only the veterans that are going to be eligible for this VRAP, but for all veterans. The recent ones that are coming back from deployment and getting out of the service and trying to get adjusted back into everyday life," said VA Certifying Official Sondra Crawford. The college is hosting an informational workshop Thursday morning at 10 in room 132 of Building A. Information below provided by The United States Department of Veteran Affairs. The VRAP offers 12 months of training assistance to Veterans who: Are at least 35 but no more than 60 years old Are unemployed on the date of application Received an other than dishonorable discharge Are not be eligible for any other VA education benefit program (e.g.: the Post-9/11 GI Bill, Montgomery GI Bill, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Assistance) Are not in receipt of VA compensation due to unemployability Are not enrolled in a federal or state job training program VETS OF OTHER ERAS

Basil Plumley, Veteran Of 3 Wars, Featured In "We Were Soldiers" Movie, Dies In Georgia (AP) Associated Press, October 11, 2012 COLUMBUS, Ga. — Basil L. Plumley, a renowned career soldier whose exploits as an Army infantryman were portrayed in a book and the movie “We Were Soldiers,” has died at 92 — an age his friends are amazed that he lived to see. Plumley fought in World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam and was awarded a medal for making five parachute jumps into combat. The retired command sergeant major died Wednesday. Friends said Plumley, who died in hospice care in west Georgia, never told war stories and was known to hang up on people who called to interview him. Still, he was near-legendary in the Army and gained more widespread fame through a 1992 Vietnam War book that was the basis for the 2002 movie starring Mel Gibson. Actor Sam Elliott played Plumley in the film. Plumley didn’t need a Hollywood portrayal to be revered among soldiers, said Greg Camp, a retired Army colonel and former chief of staff at neighboring Fort Benning who befriended Plumley in his later years. “He’s iconic in military circles,” Camp said. “Among people who have been in the military, he’s beyond what a movie star would be. ... His legend permeates three generations of soldiers.” Debbie Kimble, Plumley’s daughter, said her father died from cancer after spending about nine days at Columbus Hospice. Although the illness seemed to strike suddenly, Kimble said Plumley’s health had been declining since his wife of 63 years, Deurice Plumley, died last May on Memorial Day. A native of Shady Spring, W.Va., Plumley enlisted in the Army in 1942 and ended up serving 32 years in uniform. In World War II, he fought in the Allied invasion of Italy at Salerno and the D-Day invasion at Normandy. He later fought with the 187th Airborne Infantry Regiment in Korea. In Vietnam, Plumley served as sergeant major — the highest enlisted rank — in the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment. “That puts him in the rarest of clubs,” said journalist Joseph L. Galloway, who met Plumley while covering the Vietnam War for United Press International and remained lifelong friends with him. “To be combat infantry in those three wars, in the battles he participated in, and to have survived — that is miraculous.”

16

It was during Vietnam in November 1965 that Plumley served in the Battle of la Drang, the first major engagement between the U.S. Army and North Vietnamese forces. That battle was the basis for the book “We Were Soldiers Once ... And Young,” written nearly three decades later by Galloway and retired Lt. Gen. Hal G. Moore, who had been Plumley’s battalion commander in Vietnam. In the 2002 film version, Mel Gibson played Moore and Elliott played Plumley. Galloway said several of Elliott’s gruff one- liners in the movie were things Plumley actually said, such as the scene in which a soldier tells the sergeant major good morning and is told: “Who made you the (expletive) weather man?” “Sam Elliott underplayed him. He was actually tougher than that,” Galloway said. “He was gruff, monosyllabic, an absolute terror when it came to enforcing standards of training.” That’s not to say he was mean or inhuman, Galloway said. “This was a man above all else who had a very big, warm heart that he concealed very well.” Plumley retired with the rank command sergeant major in 1974 at Fort Benning, his last duty station. He then took a civilian job doing administrative work for the next 15 years at Martin Army Community Hospital. Camp said Plumley remained strong until just a few weeks before his death. He helped open the Army’s National Infantry Museum at Fort Benning in 2009. Camp, who now works for the museum’s fundraising foundation, said Plumley helped him get Elliott to come narrate a ceremony dedicating the parade ground outside the museum. When Camp mentioned the actor’s name, Plumley handed him Elliott’s cellphone number. After Plumley became ill, Galloway mentioned his worsening condition on Facebook. Fans of the retired sergeant major responded with a flood of cards and letters. The day before he died in hospice, Camp said, Plumley received about 160 pieces of mail. “He was dad to me when I was growing up,” said Kimble, Plumley’s daughter. “We are learning every day about him. He was an inspiration to so many. He was a great person, and will always be remembered.” Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. MENTAL HEALTH

Traumatized Vietnam Vet Credits Service Dog With Saving His Life (CHIT) By Steve Dale Chicago Tribune, October 11, 2012 At what point is anecdotal evidence so overwhelming that it matches or exceeds scientific discoveries? Carol Borden, executive director and founder of Guardian Angels Medical Services of Williston, FL, says her non-profit has paired about two dozen service dogs with military veterans with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since 2010. She says that in every instance the veteran has benefited. Other organizations echo the same experiences. Ray Galmiche, 65, of Navarre, FL, served two and a half tours of duty in Vietnam. While in the combat zone, his PTSD symptoms were minimal, but they became increasing apparent after his retirement from the Army after 20 years of service. Among them were extreme nightmares accompanied by night sweats. Galmiche often suffered from sleep deprivation. When going out in public, which he rarely mustered the will to do, Galmiche felt overwhelmed and suffered panic attacks. Even the simple act of driving a car became a challenge, and potentially dangerous. Galmiche's wife realized this after he had a flashback while at the wheel. Ray had no idea where he was. His mind was on a jungle battlefield, re-living a firefight from years before. Luckily, no one was injured. Galmiche concedes that he began to push away from his family. "I was basically giving up," he says. "I just couldn't stand it anymore." In desperation, not wanting to lose her husband, Ray's wife pursued partnering him with a service dog. "I didn't know or understand what a dog might to do help," says Galmiche. "Besides, I didn't think I deserved a dog." Ray was paired with a German Shepherd named Dazzle. He tried to push the pup away. But some dogs just don't take no for an answer and Dazzle was determined to be Galmiche's best friend. "I just didn't have it in me, but Dazzle loved me anyway. I've never experienced anything like that," Ray recalls. Galmiche didn't understand why the nightmares and night sweats disappeared, and he was simultaneously annoyed that Dazzle might awaken him in the middle of the night. He soon realized the dog wasn't being a pest; he was awakening Galmiche just as the horrible dreams began.

17

"Maybe it's my body chemistry, but Dazzle doesn't allow me to have those nightmares," Galmiche said. Today, Ray can sleep through the night. Although Galmiche still has panic attacks, they're more infrequent and less severe. "I know Dazzle has my back," he says. "And if I get anxious, he knows it. He puts his head on my leg and I pet him. I think he enjoys it. And I begin to relax." Galmiche says he sometimes thinks about a friend also diagnosed with PTSD who committed suicide. "If he'd had a (service) dog, maybe he would be alive today," Ray says. "I wish the VA would have suggested a dog years ago. I don't know what would have happened to me if it wasn't for Dazzle." Galmiche adds that it's not too melodramatic to say that the service dog saved his life. Galmiche is hardly alone. The stats are nearly overwhelming: There are 400,000 ex-soldiers currently in treatment for PTSD, according to the VA (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs), and among that population, rates of divorce, substance abuse and unemployment exceed those in the general population. Their suicide rate is off the map, with 32 to 39 attempts daily and about half that many succeeding. Anecdotal evidence suggests a service dog dramatically lowers the suicide rate, even divorce numbers and chances of substance abuse among veterans with PTSD. With a four-legged partner, veterans don't require as many (if any) drugs for symptoms related to PTSD. And veterans are able to find jobs. Most importantly, all this improves quality of life for veterans.There's a significant savings to taxpayers. Aware of this evidence, some members of Congress tasked the VA to demonstrate scientifically the effectiveness of pairing veterans with PTSD and their families with service dogs. Fewer than two dozen dogs were enrolled in the study (nowhere near the 230 dogs recommended for the research). Recently, the study was abruptly suspended because of reported dog bites and a health problem with one dog, leaving members of Congress and organizations that train PTSD service dogs mystified. What's more, the VA announced recently that it will no longer support service dogs paired with veterans diagnosed with PTSD (and instead only support dogs partnered with veterans with visible disabilities). There's little doubt more scientific study would be helpful. Meanwhile, as Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) pointed out in an email to this reporter, as the wars wind down, more soldiers are returning home diagnosed with PSTD than ever before. To ignore an option that's clearly helpful to many soldiers is, in fact, at odds with the VA's own mission: "To serve America's veterans and their families with dignity and compassion and to be their principal advocate in ensuring that they receive the care, support, and recognition earned in service to this Nation." (Steve Dale welcomes questions/comments from readers. Although he can't answer all of them individually, he'll answer those of general interest in his column Send e-mail to PETWORLD(at)STEVE DALE.TV. Include your name, city and state. Steve's website is http://www.stevedalepetworld.com; he also hosts the nationally syndicated "Steve Dale's Pet World" and "The Pet Minute." He's also a contributing editor to USA Weekend.) Don’t Get Me Started (AS) By Harvey H Jackson The Anniston (AL) Star, October 11, 2012 Too late, I’m on a tear. First there was the news that the Veterans Administration would not cover the cost of service dogs trained to help our service men and women overcome the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. Despite many testimonials to the fact that a dog can help vets cope with combat-related disabilities, the VA says the plan “lacked research substantiating the efficiency of mental health service dogs.” Dang it, these guys and gals have served under conditions most of us can hardly imagine and all they are asking for is a doggie to help them deal with the effects of what they did so we wouldn’t have to. Give them one. OK, the dogs have to be trained. So train them. Is this too much to ask? If Congress ignores this, we need a new Congress. And while we are on dogs, did you know that thanks to the lobbying of a few vets of the veterinarian variety, the low-cost spay and neuter clinics around the state could be closed. Legislators let the bill that would keep the clinics open die in committee and then denied they did it. The loss of these facilities will end up costing Alabamians money and causing animals unnecessary suffering. If you are interested, go to www.alabamavotesforanimals.org . Now, I am not knocking veterinarians. Among them are some of the most caring folks I know. I took my old dog to one just the other day. She is in double digits, age-wise, losing weight, but she still eats, drinks and gets frisky between naps. It is hard to 18

watch an old friend fade away, but I had to check one more time to see if anything could be done. No. Kidney failure. But, the vet told me, if she is eating, drinking and not in distress, let her go on as long as she can. I told my sweet bride that when I reach my end, treat me the same way. Then came the news that the American Civil Liberties Union was suing the state of Georgia because it won’t let the Ku Klux Klan take part in a highway cleanup program. It is not that the ACLU particularly likes the KKK, but the ACLU (a group many love to hate) really cares about that little thing in the U.S. Constitution called “equal protection under the law.” If a group as despicable as the KKK can’t be free to clean up a stretch of Georgia road, then who will be the next denied that right? Once the ball starts rolling, where will it stop? Then I learned that that same state of Georgia was closing its state archives to the public because it can’t afford to keep it open — well, it can, but the person in charge would rather cut access to this important educational facility instead of cutting somewhere else or, dare I say it, raising taxes. Thus, Georgia became the only state in this union of ours without an archives open to the public. This really upset me. I virtually wrote my first book in the Georgia archives. Historians, genealogists (many from Alabama), reporters and legislators who need information use the archives’ resources. Like any archives, Alabama’s included, Georgia’s is one of that state’s principal educational institutions. The outcry was so great that Georgia Gov. Nathan “let’s-make-a” Deal has assured residents that it won’t happen, though not many are inclined to believe him — least of all the ones whose jobs are being cut. Georgia’s archives is a great facility. I was there a few weeks before the ax dropped and the place was buzzing with activity. Surely there is some way to get the money to keep it open. Which brings me around to a point my old buddy Jim, a professor at the University of Georgia and a blogger (www.cobbloviate.com), pointed out. If Georgia would quit subsidizing lung cancer and bring its cigarette tax up to the national average, then there would be more than enough money to keep the archives open with a lot left over for other educational activities. Which brings me around to Alabama, which has a state Legislature that refuses to raise the cigarette tax and use the money to help fund Medicaid. Come to think of it, raising the cigarette tax would also discourage smoking and reduce the health problems created by tobacco, problems that usually land in Medicaid’s lap. Cobb, Lord love him, suggested that by refusing to raise the cigarette tax, “truth in advertising requires that at the very least [the Georgia legislature] should issue special license plates proclaiming the state ‘Historically Ignorant, But a Great Place to Smoke.’” Alabama, by doing the same thing, could issue special plates of its own. Alabama, “Where you can smoke but you better not get sick.” Or, maybe one with a more positive message: “At least our archives is open — for now.” Harvey H. (“Hardy”) Jackson is Eminent Scholar in History at Jacksonville State University and an editorial writer and columnist for The Star. Email: [email protected]. $10 Million Military Study Investigates If Fish Oil Reduces Suicide Risk (WASHEX) By Johnny Kelly Washington Examiner, October 10, 2012 In August 2011, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry suggested that certain fish oil components had potent psychiatric benefits and suggested that taking an omega Military officials hope a new three-year, $10 million study of a substance found in fish oil can lower the rising suicide risk among veterans. The Medical University of South Carolina, the Veterans Administration and the National Institutes of Health announced the study of omega-3 fatty acids on Monday, which is being conducted for the U.S. Army. In the controlled study, veterans already receiving mental health services will be given smoothies high in omega-3s for a six-month period. Others will be given a placebo. "One of the questions this study hopes to address is do we see a clinical effect that is strong enough that the military would then consider providing supplements to all military personnel, not just those who are already experiencing depression," said Bernadette Marriott, a professor in the Institute of Psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina and the principal investigator in the study. Omega-3s are the main fats in the brain and essential for neural function and normal brain development, Marriott said. “Through other studies it’s been found that they can help improve depression significantly,” she said. 19

The Veterans Administration estimates that 20 percent of the suicides in the nation are committed by veterans and that the rate among vets is almost twice as high as in the general population. Omega-3 has been on under the microscope for more than a year as experts have tried to dissect the high number of military suicides. In August 2011, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry suggested that certain fish oil components had potent psychiatric benefits and suggested that taking an omega-3 supplement might help service members. That research, performed in part by the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, scanned through the medical records of 800 U.S. service members who took their own lives between 2002 and 2008, comparing those against the health files of 800 active-duty personnel who had not attempted suicide. The scientists found that service members with higher blood amounts of docosahexaenoic acid, an omega-3 fatty acid, were less likely to take their own lives. The Toll Of War: Service Members With PTSD Get Help, But More Is Needed (YAHOO) By Shari Roan, Takepart.com Yahoo! News, October 11, 2012 The young man had served in the Middle East and now, home from a harrowing deployment, was stricken with the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. He became a recluse, refusing to leave his house for months because of fears that he might suddenly snap. But then he was invited to a gathering of veterans who met regularly to work out. He went. "He started exercising, and he started feeling better," Elaine Miller-Karas, a therapist and expert on PTSD in the military, told TakePart. "What if he didn't get to that [event]? Mental-health counseling is one portal to help people with PTSD, but it's not going to help everyone. There have to be different portals of care." Karas, codirector of the Trauma Resource Institute in Santa Fe, NM, is among the experts who are strategizing ways to help military personnel and veterans get the care they need for PTSD. The problem is of growing significance as military and public health experts try to make do with limited resources. Between 13 percent to 20 percent of the 2.6 million U.S. service members who have been stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001, have PTSD, according to a report released earlier this year from the Institute of Medicine. PTSD is triggered by a specific traumatic event. Service members with PTSD often relive the event and become easily startled or upset. They have nightmares or flashbacks in which they remember the trauma and the feelings associated with it. People with the disorder are often jittery and on edge. Others become emotionally numb, avoiding thoughts, feelings or people that are associated with the trauma. Symptoms of PTSD typically start soon after the trauma. But sometimes the problem begins months or years later, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Other problems tend to go hand-in-hand with PTSD. Difficulties in relationships are common. Service members may have marriage troubles or are unable to get along with coworkers or supervisors at work. Depression, anxiety and feelings of hopelessness are common. Some service members drink heavily or use drugs. The risk of suicide rises dramatically. Several new approaches, however, are aimed at getting more service members effective help. In April, the VA announced an addition of 1,600 mental health professionals as well as nearly 300 support staff to its existing workforce of 20,590 to help meet the increased demand for mental health services. Since 2007, the VA has seen a 35 percent increase in the number of veterans receiving mental health services. Also this year the Army issued a revision in the definition of PTSD in order to urge more veterans and service members to seek help. Under the traditional definition, PTSD was diagnosed with criteria that included a description of the patient as responding to the trauma with "helplessness, horror and fear." But mental health experts in the military argued that veterans and service members typically do not act helpless or afraid, although they may be suffering from PTSD. Under the new Army guidelines, members who are still functioning can still qualify for a diagnosis and get treatment. And in June, the VA began a new online initiative called AboutFace to help veterans recognize PTSD symptoms and seek treatment. The AboutFace Web site has videos from veterans who talk about getting treated for PTSD. "We want veterans to recognize themselves in these stories and to feel optimistic that they can overcome their challenges with proper treatment," Dr. Robert Petzel, VA’s under secretary for health, said in a news release announcing the program. Despite these efforts, it's going to take entire communities and legions of public-health experts to meet the demand for services, Miller-Karas says. "Fortunately, there are many people working around the country in different avenues, such as the VA," she says. "But I think it's really important that it has to be a public-private partnership if we're going to try to impact the many men and women who need help." 20

For every service member or vet affected by PTSD, she adds, there are often family members who are suffering, too. "That's a lot of people who are impacted," she says. "I don't think we have a enough mental health providers to meet the need for everyone." A variety of treatments are used to treat PTSD. Medications, such as anti-anxiety drugs and antidepressants are often helpful. But the most effective treatment for the condition is cognitive behavioral therapy, which helps people cope with their symptoms and learn skills to change their thoughts and feelings. While that kind of therapy doesn't have to last for years, it still requires trained therapists. Instead, Miller-Karas favors greater use of programs that train peers to help each other. "There's an access problem," she says. "They just hired 1,600 new therapists around the country, but that is a drop in the bucket." And some service members simply won't go see a therapist. "They say, 'I don't want to be diagnosed as a nut case,' " she says. "The point is, not any one intervention is not going to help every service member." Miller-Karas has created a program she calls trauma resiliency in San Bernardino County in Southern California that offers peer-to-peer counseling. Veterans learn wellness skills, such as exercise, meditation, prayer or yoga, that they can teach to peers who have PTSD. By using these techniques, people can learn to recognize the anger, anxiety and hostility that is part of the illness and can interrupt the symptoms and train their nervous systems to stabilize. "They may do a program like this when they may not go see a therapist," Miller-Karas says. "One thing they say unequivocally is that talking to someone else who has been through [combat] is so helpful because they get them and they know what they've been through." Miller-Karas says she sees other promising alternatives to traditional PTSD counseling and therapy, such as complementary health practices. A study published last month in the journal Military Medicine found that healing touch and guided imagery reduced PTSD symptoms in combat-exposed active-duty service members. These complementary medicine strategies, when added to conventional therapy, seemed to improve the soldiers' quality of life and reduced feelings of depression. "There has been a lot of great support and creativity" in the VA, she says. "There is an attempt to expand our knowledge about what—outside of the traditional box—may be helpful to our vets and our active duty service members." Still, some people are falling through the cracks. Service members and vets in small or rural communities do not have access to as many resources, Miller-Karas notes. And some people who seek a PTSD diagnosis and structured therapy may still have to wait too long for care. She recalls one patient who was suicidal. She was instructed to refer the patient to a VA medical facility for emergency care. But, days later, the man's wife told Miller-Karas that the experience had been "dehumanizing." The couple waited for five hours to see a nurse-practitioner for a five-minute visit. The patient then had to wait three more days to get an appointment with a therapist. "You sometimes have to wait a long time for care, and that is a real barrier for some of these young guys," she says. "It's up to us, as the wider community, to ask what can we do to help these people." Shari Roan is an award-winning health writer based in Southern California. She is the author of three books on health and science subjects. Veterans With PTSD Use Music Therapy To Heal -- And Get Back To Work (AOLJB) By David Schepp AOL Jobs, October 10, 2012 A decade ago, former Army Sgt. Leo Dunson was a good-natured 18-year-old eager to serve his country and make a difference after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Serving in Iraq, Dunson soon found it difficult to sleep, worried that he might wake up in an insurgent's makeshift torture chamber. And there were other signs that the war was taking its toll. Once, he pressed a gun to an enemy's mouth; another time, he says, he joined fellow soldiers in taunting an Iraqi boy. Dunson also tried to kill himself, but was saved after the gun he put to his head failed to fire. "If I had died over there, I would have got a 21-gun salute, everybody would praise me like a king," he told The Associated Press. "What do I get now?" Like many who have returned from serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, Dunson, discharged from the Army in 2008, says that he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, a signature ailment of both conflicts, which has hampered many veterans from reintegrating into society.

21

PTSD is so common, in fact, that the Institute of Medicine recommended in July that troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan be screened for the condition at least once year and called for the federal government to investigate the effectiveness of existing treatments. In the meantime, some veterans are finding relief from PTSD symptoms through music. They include Dunson, who turned to rap as a way to express his disappointments and build a new life. Music, he told the AP, is keeping him alive. Diagnosed by the military with PTSD, the Nevada-resident says that he has refused counseling or treatment at the local VA hospital. The divorced father of a daughter has made five albums in the past four years, the lyrics of which include violent images and words to describe his wartime service. "I'm back and forth in my head and I don't know what's wrong," he raps in "PTSD." "At nights I shake. I feel like a stranger is in my home. Me and my wife can't get along." In putting his words to music, Dunson hopes to helps other veterans confront their PTSD, even as he struggles with it himself. Across the country, government doctors in several states, including Wisconsin, California and New Jersey, have begun experimental music therapy programs that rely on different, more soothing styles of music -- classical and acoustic -- to help veterans heal. At a Veteran Affairs clinic in southern New Jersey, Dr. Mary Rorro frequently plays the viola during outpatient therapy sessions as a way to help Vietnam veterans open up and talk about their war experiences. Known as the "Violin Doc," Rorro, a psychiatrist, knows the symptoms of PTSD among veterans all too well. "They suffer from recurrent intrusive memories," Rorro told public-radio station WNYC during a recent interview. Combat veterans' nightmares can be very vivid and real, disrupting sleep and result in night sweats, she said. "Some of them even now feel like they could be back in Vietnam, even though they know that they're back in safe country." Research suggests that alternative therapies, such as the use of music, can help veterans to talk about the disturbing memories they have by reducing the amount of anxiety related to such thoughts. "At times, music can serve as a springboard during discussion," Rorro said, though not everyone responds to the same type of music. During a recent therapy session with 15 veterans, Rorro got a request for "anything by The Dead." But music with spoken words or lyrics often agitates PTSD patients. Instead, she played "Amazing Grace," "Anchors Away," and "Memory" from the musical, "Cats." One of the patients, 62-year-old Charles Browne, said the music took him back to his youth. "Music has always been a respite for me," said Browne, who was drafted into the Army at age 20 and earned a Purple Heart for his service as an infantryman. When Browne returned to civilian life, he suffered from anxiety that caused him to withdraw into himself. Four years ago, he started going to the VA clinic and began feeling better and sleeping longer at night. Before he began therapy, Browne slept as little as an hour a night, but now typically sleeps five with the help of music played at bedtime, a suggestion Rorro gave him. "[T]o me there's nothing better than music," he told WNYC. "It's very important to me. It brings back good memories to me." Music Therapy Helps Vets Control Symptoms Of PTSD (WNYC-FM) By Abbie Fentress Swanson WNYC-FM New York, September 4, 2012 The khaki colored Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic in southern New Jersey doesn’t look extraordinary from the outside. The parking lot’s too small and the building isn’t impressive either—just a simple one-story structure with a utilitarian blue awning to keep veterans out of the elements as they enter and exit the James J. Howard Outpatient Clinic. But inside, there’s some groundbreaking healing going on, specifically in the psychiatry ward. This morning, 15 Vietnam War veterans are in the group therapy room. They all have their eyes on a woman in a deep red skirt suit and pumps known around the clinic as “The Violin Doc.” The lady in red is Dr. Mary Rorro and to be accurate, the 41-year-old’s getting ready to play her viola, not a violin. The viola is deeper in tone than the violin but higher in pitch than the cello. Charles Browne is one of the group’s participants awaiting his doctor’s performance. She’s a staff psychiatrist, but today she’s playing music to him and his fellow vets so they can relax and talk openly for the next hour about how they’re doing with their Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD. “People talk about their Vietnam experiences and a lot of times people talk about, you know, reacting to loud noises and stuff,” says Browne, a 62-year-old retired Army infantry platoon leader and company commander. Browne served in Vietnam 22

from 1969 to ’70. “I never had those issues. But for 20 years or so I slept like one hour a night. And I would say, you know, that’s the only residue I have from Vietnam…that I just don’t sleep.” Getting veterans like Browne back on their feet once they’ve returned from the war zone is becoming an increasingly urgent goal for the VA and for President Barack Obama. In his remarks to the nation this week on the final American combat troops returning from Iraq, the president promised more money would be allocated to the VA for medication and psychotherapy to treat the country's vets with PTSD and traumatic brain injury. PTSD has been around for centuries, and in the past was called Soldier’s Heart, Battle Fatigue, Shell Shock, and Vietnam Syndrome. It was not until the ‘80s that the medical community officially recognized the disease and began to hammer out a treatment plan. There’s still no known cure, but treatment has progressed. Medication, conversation, and therapy can help veterans manage the disorder. But in recent years, the VA has acknowledged that the number of vets with the disorder has become a serious problem. In its last fiscal year, the VA diagnosed around 400,000 vets with PTSD, almost twice as many as it counted five years ago. Another surprising trend is the large number of Vietnam veterans just coming forward now with previously undiagnosed and untreated PTSD. “They have been averse to treatment because of shame or stigma,” Dr. Rorro says. “They're not able to access services until they’re at a turning point in their lives.” One key way the VA is helping these veterans to control their PTSD—and other conditions, including substance abuse, Parkinson’s Disease and head trauma injuries—is through music therapy. In the last five years, the VA has more than doubled the number of music therapists at its clinics. And with more PTSD cases on the way from Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, Dr. Mary Rorro and others have their work cut out for them. The Violin Doc knows the symptoms of PTSD all too well. Video by WNYC's Richard Yeh “They suffer from recurrent intrusive memories,” Dr. Rorro says. “Nightmares that can be very vivid, and very real, and startle them and awaken them at night producing some night sweats. Some of them even now feel like they could be back in Vietnam even though they know that they’re back in safe country.” There’s no consensus yet in the medical community about whether or not music therapy works. Opponents of the treatment argue that music’s healing power has no scientific backing, and that there’s no clear link between music and the brain’s chemistry and activity. But recent findings from McGill University’s Neuropsychology department suggest that specific parts of the brain are activated when patients listen to music which they like. And when the nucleus accumbens and the caudate nucleus, which are part of the reward, motivation and emotion systems, get jazzed up, a person starts feeling better. These same circuits release powerful chemicals when someone falls in love, eats good food, does drugs or has sex. "So if you can think about a song that you absolutely love," says Dr. Connie Tomaino, who has run a music therapy clinic in the Bronx for over 30 years, "you'll be able to think about times when you’ve heard that piece of music. And, at the opening notes of that piece, you immediately, immediately without even thinking about it, have that association, those deep feelings, the connection to that person, you might have visual images of that person. That's how well connected that music is to who we are and those past experiences." Scientists say certain pieces of music can arouse forgotten memories the same way smelling warm chocolate chip cookies can take you back to your grandmother’s kitchen. Similarly, or maybe conversely, music therapists try to use pleasurable sounds to make it easier for PTSD patients to talk about unpleasant and painful memories. When patients hear music they like, there’s also research that shows that it can inhibit activity in the brain’s amyglada, which regulates the negative emotion system. That could mean that music clears a path to talk about trauma because it produces a sense of contentment or happiness and brings down fear and anxiety. “At times, music can serve as a springboard during discussion,” Dr. Rorro says. “You can feel the weight of some of the emotional state of the group.” Dr. Rorro is not a certified music therapist. Veterans who need more focused treatment are admitted to VA hospitals where they can work with therapists in depth, playing music themselves or listening to their therapists play. Good therapists can link music to a veteran’s psycho-emotional state by using a song with which the patient connects. The patient can then begin to cope with traumatic triggers and other PTSD symptoms. Not everyone responds to the same kind of music. Although Dr. Rorro gets a request for “anything by The Dead” in today’s session, music with spoken words or lyrics often causes agitation when it’s played to PTSD patients. Sounds played on lower- pitched instruments, like Dr. Rorro’s viola, tend to be more soothing than higher-pitched flutes and drums. Live music with a slower, steady beat is also preferable to recorded music. Individual choice of song is important for one-on-one treatment, and therapists do song preference tests to find out what music best connects with individual veterans in treatment.

23

For this group, Dr. Rorro has chosen to begin with “Amazing Grace,” “Memory” from the Broadway hit "Cats," and the Irish folk song “O’ Danny Boy.” First, she whips her viola to her chin and plays a few bars of the Navy fight song “Anchors Aweigh,” a request from a former midshipman. A few minutes later, the previously rowdy group of vets falls quiet when they hear her play “Amazing Grace,” which was written by a British Royal Navy man in 1779. One veteran gets choked up by the velvety sounds of the viola. Others are lost in thought. Charles Browne says Dr. Rorro’s music takes him back to his youth. “Music has always been a respite for me,” he says. “I grew up in a household of jazz lovers. So there was always jazz in the house.” That was before he was drafted into the Army at age 20. Browne was an infantryman in Vietnam assigned to search and destroy missions and to keep his men alive. “You’re either in a fire or in an ambush or reacting to an ambush.” He got a purple heart for his efforts. But when he came back, Browne says his anxiety problems began. “Road rage. I was very quiet and into myself. I don’t really socialize. I tried to go back to college and I couldn’t deal with the things important to college students. So you kind of go deeper into a shell.” A friend referred him to the VA four years ago and Browne says that was when he started to feel things were getting better. Now he sleeps five hours, rather than one, a night. Browne says Dr. Rorro advised him to play music to help him sleep. “And to me there’s nothing better than music. It’s very important to me. It brings back good memories to me.” The VA may be relying more on music therapy these days, but the idea behind the treatment is far from new. Since the early 19th century, music therapy has been practiced in the U.S., according to the American Music Therapy Association. It was during World War II that doctors paid serious attention to the beneficial effects that music had on wounded soldiers’ morale. They noticed speedier recoveries after local musicians performed at VA hospitals. The first music therapy program was then developed at the Topeka, Kan., veterans’ hospital. Music therapy became a university discipline in 1944 at Western Michigan University. It’s unclear why the VA waited so long to bring music therapy back as a treatment. But Joseph Hammond, whose PTSD was diagnosed in 2001, is just glad it did. “I’m into classical music,” the retired Army mechanic says. Hammond served in Vietnam for 20 months, beginning in 1967. “To get through the night, I would listen to classical music—sometimes rock and roll, but it was too loud and bouncy. Classical music actually did help me to calm down and get through the night without too much problem.” Hammond says he first killed a person during the Tet offensive, a military campaign that began in Vietnam in 1968. After he got back, Hammond says he had suicidal thoughts, uncontrollable rage, and couldn’t keep a job. Civilian hospitals didn’t know what to do for him so they prescribed drugs that led to weight gain but didn’t help his anxiety. “One time I was down in the kitchen and I was just so frustrated I took it out on a toaster,” Hammond says. “With my fist…right in the middle of the toaster. It just caved right in.” Another time, he remembers talking to his wife in the bathroom when another spell hit. “I grabbed ahold of the vanity and I wanted to tear it off the wall.” Hammond’s wife thought he was mad at her. “I said, ‘No, it happens a lot, you just happened to be there…’” Hammond has flashbacks regularly while talking about Vietnam, though it was more than 30 years ago. “I mean a lot of people, they don’t see a wound on the outside. So [they say] how can there be something wrong with you?” the burly 62-year-old says. “But they don’t understand the mental part of it. There’s memories. There’s things that you’ve seen over there that you don’t want to discuss with anybody.” Hammond looks forward to the group therapy sessions. He says they’re comic relief and that’s just the kind of progress Dr. Rorro is hoping for. “The music has been just wonderful for them,” she says. “It’s very evocative of different things. So I play...and they get a lot of benefit out of it.” Dr. Rorro’s penultimate song for today is the “Marines’ Hymn,” the oldest military song in the book, and it’s usually sung at attention. The music from the song is taken from the comic operetta Genevieve de Brabant by Romantic cellist and composer Jacques Offenbach. “Now we gotta stand,” one of the veterans says when she starts playing. She ends with the last movement of Ludwig van Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. It’s usually set to “Ode to Joy,” Francis Schiller’s 1785 poem. It’s a good one to end on. Dr. Rorro double-stops while playing the song, which is when two strings are played simultaneously. Her finale is Randall Remington’s favorite. “Kinda takes you away from the bad things,” says Remington, another vet in the room. “It puts you in a different frame of mind [from] getting shelled, rocket attacks, things like that.” When the concerto is over, the veterans give Dr. Rorro a rousing send-off. The mood in the room is light and the vets act as though they’ve forgotten why they’re here and the PTSD they acquired while serving their country more than 30 years ago. Before Dr. Rorro leaves, the group even gives her a little good-natured ribbing. “Are you related to Charlie Daniels?” one vet asks, referring to the white bearded, country music fiddler from North Carolina. “Amazing how you get some of the sounds of that,” says another. “Saving up for the Stradivarius?”

24

“Yeh, this is a copy,” The Violin Doc says as she makes her exit. And that’s the end of today’s viola therapy, a program she’s begun to call “A Few Good Notes.” She encourages any hospital worker to take five minutes of their day to pick up an instrument and play for veterans or simply sing them a song. “I do it to show appreciation for their services, and in addition, for the therapeutic effects,” Dr. Rorro says. “The music can be comforting and fill some with melancholy. But that's good because you want to have them process that as well.” Dr. Rorro credits the combination of listening to music, coupled with one-on-one psychotherapy and carefully administered medication, with enabling many of her patients to get a handle on their PTSD. But therapists say soldiers coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan these days have a different kind of PTSD than that of the Vietnam vets. Severe memory loss from brain “blast” injuries—from being run over by tanks or deadly bomb explosions in close proximity—are common in this recent wave of soldiers. Because music therapy relies heavily on memory for healing, it’s not clear if techniques developed while treating Vietnam vets will help thousands of damaged war veterans coming home. Confessions Of A VA Nurse: Mending More Crushed Spirits Than Broken Bones (AOLJB) By Claire Gordon AOL Jobs, September 13, 2012 For years, a young woman in the Black Hills of South Dakota would sit by the phone from midnight to noon. Around once a week, she'd get a call that would make her heart race. It was a veteran, so distraught, so panicked, so depressed, that the young woman thought he might kill himself. TJ Wilcox-Olson, 33, (pictured above) worked in patient mental health for 3½ years in the VA Black Hills Health Care System, which serves veterans across a huge swath of the rural West, including parts of Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana. Now, she's the patient safety manager, responsible for making sure patients don't harm one another, or themselves. She also serves on the board of the Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs. Wilcox-Olson always knew that she wanted to be a Veterans Affairs nurse; her mother had been one for 33 years. "I saw the life it gave her," says Wilcox-Olson. Having earned a bachelor's degree in psychology before getting her nursing degree, she sees nursing as a way to heal veterans' less visible wounds. "Most people think of nurses as changing dressings," she says. "But these people have other parts broken." She works with veterans with post traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse problems, veterans who are depressed and homeless, veterans who live in the facility because they need full-time care. When it comes to the costs of war, Wilcox-Olson is on the front lines. An unprecedented 45 percent of post-9/11 veterans are filing for disability benefits, reported The Associated Press, many of them for mental health issues. In a study of almost 300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan vets, 37 percent received a mental health diagnosis, usually post traumatic stress disorder or depression. While an increased awareness of mental health may be partly responsible for the uptick, Wilcox-Olson says that it also speaks to the changing nature of war. Active duty always requires servicemen to train their minds in particular ways, and "for the guys now, it's much more of a mental game." With more and more women fighting in wars, there are also far more incidences of sexual trauma. Wilcox-Olson never refers to her patients as patients; they're always veterans. At first she was hurt when they refused to share experiences of active duty with her. "You don't know anything," some would tell her. "You're not a veteran." "I had to learn not to take that personally," she says. This is part of the struggle of providing care for returning troops. When someone suffers mental health problems due to an illness, a divorce, or the death of a loved one, a nurse has at least a conceptual starting point to understand the person's trauma. But that isn't true for a VA nurse who hasn't been in battle. "I don't know what they saw or where they're coming from, the experiences they've had," says Wilcox-Olson. "I'm not sure how to help them -- I wasn't there. I don't know what they're thinking about." Wilcox-Olson remembers one veteran who was facing a wall, terrified, and wouldn't respond when she called his name. She shouted and shouted, but he didn't register her voice at all. When the man finally came out of it, he was shaking. Another veteran was working in the on-site greenhouse as part of a work therapy program, but the smell of dirt triggered something in him. "That was quite eye-opening for me," she says. "The everyday things we take for granted." More: Confessions Of A Male Nurse: Dealing With Nasty Jokes, Sexual Propositions And when Wilcox-Olson was working the night shift, a veteran would call up at least every other day. Usually they were just lonely, she says. But around once a week, she'd send someone to the caller's home, to make sure the veteran didn't hurt himself.

25

Working in mental health has several added challenges, like the fact that many veterans are hesitant to accept her care at all. Although things have improved a lot in the last couple of decades, mental health problems still carry a stigma. That's especially true for those on active duty, who may worry that any record of mental issues could derail their career. "I've had veterans come in and ask, 'How do I tell my kids why I'm here? Why I've been admitted to the hospital?'" Wilcox- Olson says. "It's just like any other hospital," she replies. "You came to the hospital to get help." Despite all the trauma she sees, Wilcox-Olson doesn't sound worn down. On some tough days she'll go home to her husband, and pet the cat for comfort. But overall, she's grateful. "I'm lucky that I can leave it here at the facility before I go home," she says. And while mental health work can be frustrating -- as addicts relapse, and conditions prove complex and intractable -- it gives Wilcox-Olson that same energy of purpose that she saw in her mother. "It's amazing," she says, "how you can really affect someone's life by caring for their mind." Battling Bare: Military Wives Stripping Down To Battle PTSD (ABC) By Kevin Dolak ABC News, October 11, 2012 Military wives across the country are stripping down for their soldier husbands to draw attention to what they see as the rampant problem of post traumatic stress disorder. They say they want to create awareness of the anxiety syndrome and help soldiers and families get support. Ashley Wise of Fort Campbell, Kentucky launched Battling Bare this April to provide a network of support for the soldiers she struggling with PTSD after military service. The project provides an environment for spouses, children and families to share stories and raise awareness of post traumatic battle stress. "Nobody had an outlet to communicate," said Wise in an interview with ABC News. "Many, many women are very good at putting on this image of perfection when it was a war zone inside their homes. We need to make sure they're getting the help that they need." Wise, 29, said that her husband, Robert Earl Wise, an E-6 Staff Sergeant who did three tours in Iraq, suffered a traumatic brain injury in an IED explosion in Iraq in 2004. Though he received a purple heart, she says that he never received a brain scan. Prior to his service in Iraq, Staff Sgt. Wise, 38, had completed eight years with the Marines. While deployed to Somalia, he had been stabbed in the spine. Later, while stationed overseas on his second tour, Wise also saw six people die, and was eventually placed on death notification detail. His wife says that after years of combat duty, he began to withdraw. "He has never gotten rid of the Marine Corps hard-ass mentality. His solution was to drink Crown Royal whisky and pass out," she said. Last October, as he and Ashley were beset with financial problems and a promotion that hadn't materialized, Wise decided to take all four of his guns and two cases of beer and check into a hotel room. Thinking quickly, Ashley tracked him down through online transaction records when he didn't show up for a meal, and soon spoke with her despondent husband in the hotel room. "He said, 'Life is really hard right now.' He'd never said anything like that," she said. Ashley decided that she needed to get him the help that he needed, and called his chain of command and got him to sober up. Soon he was on the road to recovery. But in March he took a turn for his the worse when Robert Bales, who was in the same company and with whom he did multiple missions during his first tour, allegedly murdered 16 Afghan civilians. Ashley recalls her husband having an immediate reaction as the news of Bales' alleged rampage ran on TV. "He quickly logged onto Facebook, and Bobby's page was down," she said. "By the time I walked into the office he was white, in shock -- 'It's Bobby. He's a good dad. How could this have happened?'" A few weeks later, when another friend ended his life, Wise took another sharp turn for the worse. "He would sit up in the bedroom and stare at the wall. He was edgy. I found little bottles of coke, filled with whiskey in random places," Ashley said. In April she and her husband went to Military & Family Life Consultants, and the Army Substance Abuse Program, but the couple felt that they were not addressing the source of the problem -- the post traumatic stress that was causing her husband's withdrawal and drinking. At one point Staff Sgt. Wise's condition became so bad that while having a flashback he broke Ashley's nose. She said he tells her that he can still smell the body odor of someone he thought was an Iraqi soldier, but turned out to be his wife. Ashley's frustration with how the Army dealt with PTSD peaked when he was charged with assault after she went to the Army's Family Advocacy Program for help.

26

"I was very p***ed off, so I started sharing with other wives," she said. "'This is ridiculous,' I'd say. April was the height of suicides at Fort Campbell. I felt like streaking the general's lawn, or the 101st Airborne Command building, but that would end my butt in jail." She says she was talking to a fellow military wife on her porch when the idea suddenly hit her. She went into the garage, grabbed her husband's M4, and quickly wrote up her pledge to support her husband. She then gave her friend a diagram of how to write it up on her back. After snapping a photo, she immediately uploaded it to Facebook. Within hours she was contacted by Military Minds, which helps soldiers suffering from PTSD, who suggested she increase her social media efforts and offered to promote her efforts. A week after Battling Bare became public, its Facebook page had 1,000 fans. Now, the page has over 35,000. Today, Wise says that over 600 women have sent photos to Battling Bare. It is even getting submissions from kids writing about their fathers on their arms. The organization's website also provides a forum for military families to share their personal stories and find support. "The online forums have blown my mind. To be able talk with other families, it's so freeing, because they don't feel creepy," she said. "I thought I was going crazy -- I was told I'm fighting a losing battle by my family. We know who our soldiers are on the inside. We don't want to leave. We don't want to give up on them." The site has also been helpful for soldiers, helping them connect with civilian programs to get help that they need, and link them with people who can help them deal with their emotional wounds. As Battling Bare grows, Wise says she plans to launch a fundraising calendar, eBooks, a global T-shirt contest. Wise also plans to promote the effort through smaller events in her community. Her next project, she says, will be to help female soldiers who have been raped while performing military service. But for now, she's amazed at how Battling Bare has grown in only six months. "It's been hugely successful and the people have really been sharing stories," she said. "They felt there was no place for them to go." Military Wives Stripping Down To Battle PTSD (ABCRADIO) By Jeanette Torres ABC News Radio, October 11, 2012 (NEW YORK) -- Military wives across the country are stripping down for their soldier husbands to draw attention to what they see as the rampant problem of post traumatic stress disorder. They say they want to create awareness of the anxiety syndrome and help soldiers and families get support. Ashley Wise of Fort Campbell, Ky., launched Battling Bare this April to provide a network of support for the soldiers struggling with PTSD after military service. The project provides an environment for spouses, children and families to share stories and raise awareness of post traumatic battle stress. "Nobody had an outlet to communicate," said Wise in an interview with ABC News. "Many, many women are very good at putting on this image of perfection when it was a war zone inside their homes. We need to make sure they're getting the help that they need." Wise, 29, said that her husband, Robert Earl Wise, an E-6 Staff Sergeant who did three tours in Iraq, suffered a traumatic brain injury in an IED explosion in Iraq in 2004. Though he received a purple heart, she says that he never received a brain scan. Prior to his service in Iraq, Staff Sgt. Wise, 38, had completed eight years with the Marines. While deployed to Somalia, he had been stabbed in the spine. Later, while stationed overseas on his second tour, he also saw six people die, and was eventually placed on death notification detail. His wife says that after years of combat duty, he began to withdraw. "He has never gotten rid of the Marine Corps hard-a** mentality. His solution was to drink Crown Royal whisky and pass out," she said. Last October, as he and Ashley were beset with financial problems and a promotion that hadn't materialized, Robert decided to take all four of his guns and two cases of beer and check into a hotel room. Thinking quickly, Ashley tracked him down through online transaction records when he didn't show up for a meal, and soon spoke with her despondent husband in the hotel room. "He said, 'Life is really hard right now.' He'd never said anything like that," she said. Ashley decided that she needed to get him the help that he needed, and called his chain of command and got him to sober up. Soon, he was on the road to recovery. But in March he took a turn for the worse when Robert Bales, who was in the same company and with whom he did multiple missions during his first tour, allegedly murdered 16 Afghan civilians. Ashley recalls her husband having an immediate reaction as the news of Bales' alleged rampage ran on TV. 27

"He quickly logged onto Facebook, and Bobby's page was down," she said. "By the time I walked into the office he was white, in shock -- 'It's Bobby. He's a good dad. How could this have happened?'" A few weeks later, when another friend ended his life, Staff Sgt. Wise took another sharp turn for the worse. "He would sit up in the bedroom and stare at the wall. He was edgy. I found little bottles of coke, filled with whiskey in random places," Ashley said. In April, she and her husband went to Military & Family Life Consultants, and the Army Substance Abuse Program, but the couple felt that they were not addressing the source of the problem -- the post traumatic stress that was causing her husband's withdrawal and drinking. At one point Staff Sgt. Wise's condition became so bad that while having a flashback he broke Ashley's nose. She said he tells her that he can still smell the body odor of someone he thought was an Iraqi soldier, but turned out to be his wife. Ashley's frustration with how the Army dealt with PTSD peaked when he was charged with assault after she went to the Army's Family Advocacy Program for help. "I was very p***ed off, so I started sharing with other wives," she said. "'This is ridiculous,' I'd say. April was the height of suicides at Fort Campbell. I felt like streaking the general's lawn, or the 101st Airborne Command building, but that would end my butt in jail." She says she was talking to a fellow military wife on her porch when the idea suddenly hit her. She went into the garage, grabbed her husband's M4, and quickly wrote up her pledge to support her husband. She then gave her friend a diagram of how to write it up on her back. After snapping a photo, she immediately uploaded it to Facebook. Within hours she was contacted by Military Minds, which helps soldiers suffering from PTSD, who suggested she increase her social media efforts and offered to promote her efforts. A week after Battling Bare became public, its Facebook page had 1,000 fans. Now, the page has over 35,000. Today, Wise says that over 600 women have sent photos to Battling Bare. It is even getting submissions from kids writing about their fathers on their arms. The organization's website also provides a forum for military families to share their personal stories and find support. Military Wives Bare Skin, Souls, To Fight PTSD (CNN) CNN.com, October 6, 2012 Broken by battle Wounded by war My love is forever To you this I swore I will quiet your silent screams Help heal your shattered soul Until once again my love You are whole Ashley Wise become desperate trying to find help on base for her husband who was suffering with PTSD. "I felt like streaking on the general’s lawn," she tells Julie Bruck of HLN affiliate WSMV, "because maybe then a naked woman would get attention." Instead she started a photo campaign, taking a photo of herself with the pledge you see above written on her naked back and posting it online. Now over 26,000 people have liked the Battling Bare facebook page, and new images like the one Ashley took are being submitted every day. Wise says her mission is to ensure, "that the stigma of PTSD goes away, and people talk about it. In talking there’s healing." To learn about submitting a picture of your own to Battling Bare visit: facebook.com/BattlingBare. HEALTHCARE (NATIONAL)

Systems Made Simple Wins $11 Million Federal EHR Contract (MODHLT) By Joseph Conn Modern Healthcare, October 11, 2012

28

Systems Made Simple, an information technology contractor based in Syracuse, N.Y., has been awarded a one-year contract valued at more than $11 million to provide management and technical support to the proposed Integrated Electronic Health Record program, a joint effort to achieve interoperability of the clinical systems of the Veterans Affairs and Defense departments, the company has announced. “The iEHR initiative will modernize existing VA and DoD legacy health systems and data stores to streamline the overall healthcare package available to millions of people and hundreds of thousands of practitioners,” Ron Fishbeck, CEO and co- founder of Systems Made Simple, said in a news release. The company will work with the Interagency Program Office, the joint agency overseeing the project, and other contractors to provide management and strategic planning, technical expertise, hardware and software integration, systems deployment, testing, maintenance and documentation services, according to the statement. Indian Health Service Solving E-Health Challenges With Help From VA (FEDNWSR) By Sean McCalley Federal News Radio, October 9, 2012 The Indian Health Service's electronic health records system is getting an upgrade. And it's following the same joint EHR plan as the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Defense Department. "The IHS has had a very long collaborative process with the Veterans Administration," said Howard Hays, the acting chief information officer of IHS, on Federal News Radio's Agency of the Month show. "Our health information system at IHS is in large part based on the VA's system. We've been very fortunate over the years to leverage the VA development in the VistA system to provide the core functionality for [our resource patient management system] (RPMS)." The Indian Health Service will appropriate the tools used by the VA to apply to its RPMS throughout the country. The trick is finding the resources and applying those best practices to federal offices that sometimes aren't equipped with modern Internet access. An agency of extreme demands IHS is a unique agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. Providing health care services to American Indian tribes and Native Alaskan populations, the IHS is an agency caught between two extremes. "[It's] a fairly small agency within the HHS, about a $5 billion annual budget," said Hays. "And it's the only HHS agency to provide direct health care services on a wide scale." That includes health care facilities across 35 states. IHS manages 45 agency-run tribal and federal hospitals, and several hundred clinics. Those range in type from large mutli-specialty clinics to small Alaskan village clinics. "We're very widely distributed, we're very rural, and we have a population that has a lot of health challenges," said Hays. "We have an important mission to improve health care and delivering that mission across the entire country, basically on a very modest budget, is a significant challenge." Those challenges make the technology infrastructure of IHS inconsistent across the country. When it comes to electronic health records, many offices and clinics still run on a T1 Internet service platform. A T1 line is one of the lowest tier commercial Internet lines. Most large organizations use much faster fiber optic cables. "The IHS electronic health system is, at present, a locally deployed client-server type of application," said Hays. "It's difficult to get beyond that in some of these places because if you try to have an externally hosted solution you're not going to have the connectivity to allow it to stay up and stay reliable." This means IHS has difficulty implementing the health IT standards passed down by HHS and other departments. Their challenges are unique depending on where offices and clinics are located, the technology patients have access to and, simply, the money allocated to the agency. Because the IHS works intimately with non-federal organizations (tribal organizations, local communities, etc.), the agency has to weigh federal requirements for online privacy with what's available from outside partners. The agency runs on a federal Wide Area Network (WAN), and often supports tribal communities and helps them adhere to federal privacy standards. "We continue to enforce policies as well as software development best practices to ensure that the records are safe," said Hays. Like any medical facility, IHS has policies that apply all the way down to the user level. Even as the federal government continues to develop the nationwide Health Information Network, privacy and policy requirements will be incorporated into the IHS model. "We have to apply to the policies and protocols of those systems as well," said Hays. "And we do. We know what we need to be doing and we enforce it."

29

Xenex Wins Right To Sell UV-light Disinfectant To VA Hospitals (SABIZJRNL) By James Aldridge San Antonio Business Journal, October 11, 2012 Xenex Healthcare Services has won a General Services Administration contract that will allow the company to sell its room disinfection system to federal agencies, including Veterans Affairs hospitals. San Antonio-based Xenex has developed a pulsed xenon UV light disinfection system as an alternative to bleach to clean hospital rooms. The company estimates that hospital infections are the fourth-leading cause of death in the United States and cost more than $30 billion each year. The company announced it was relocating its headquarters and manufacturing operations from Austin earlier this year. HEALTHCARE (LOCAL)

Newington Housing For Homeless Vets A "Down Payment" (HARTC) By Christopher Hoffman Hartford (CT) Courant, October 11, 2012 NEWINGTON –— Veterans constitute 10 to 15 percent of Connecticut's homeless, meaning about 950 former servicemen and women are living on the state's streets, according a recent Veterans Administration survey. "Everyone feels like the numbers should be going down," said Laurie Harkness, director of recovery services at VA-CT Healthcare System. "They're not." On Wednesday, the VA took a major step toward addressing this persistent problem when it and a partner officially broke ground on 74 apartments for homeless and at risk veterans and their families. The development, named Victory Gardens, is on the VA's Newington campus and will offer life skills, medical and other services to help get veterans back on their feet. "Most importantly, this project will serve people who have made great sacrifices for our country," said Dara Kovel, chief housing officer for Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, one of the project's backers. U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who attended the event, called the rate of homelessness among veterans "an indictment of our society." Victory Gardens is "a down payment" on repaying the debt America owes its veterans, he said. "I'm so proud to be here today," Blumenthal said. "The beauty and tranquility of this place is something these veterans immensely deserve." The VA is partnering with the nonprofit Women's Institute for Housing and Economic Development to build the $28 million development. The project includes 50 apartments – a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units -- in seven townhouse-style buildings. An empty VA building will be renovated to house another 24 single-bedroom units. The project is part of a national VA effort to wipe out veteran homelessness by 2015, VA officials said. The effort taps under-utilized land – in the Newington VA's case about 11 acres – for housing aimed at homeless veterans, they said. Loni Willey, executive director of the Women's Institute for Housing and Economic Development, said the project is the most ambitious in her organization's history. "We're so excited to be standing before you today having broken ground on Victory Gardens," Willey said. "For the women's institute, this is a huge undertaking. We're privileged and honored by your support." Already, people have contacted the VA about moving into the housing, which is scheduled to begin accepting tenants in April and be fully rented by the end of next year, Harkness said. That comes as no surprise to Richard Linnon, service officer of American Legion Post 117 in Newington, who helps veterans during weekly visits to a Hartford outreach center. "I'd say some of the people I see there are candidates for living here," Linnon said. K. Robert Lewis, the American Legion's service officer for Connecticut, said that veteran homelessness is longstanding and persistent problem. It's easy for servicemen and women to end up without a place to live as they transition to civilian life, he said. "Homelessness for any veteran is inexcusable," Lewis said. "It's not unforeseeable. This is a prime location for (housing for homeless veterans). We look forward to working with the veterans." Also attending Wednesday's groundbreaking were Newington Mayor Stephen Woods, state Sen. Paul Doyle and state Rep. Sandy Nafis. "My job is to tell you, you are now a Newington resident," Woods said. "We will do whatever we possibly can to make you as comfortable as we can. We look forward to a wonderful, long-term relationship." 30

Also helping finance the project are Webster Bank, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston and the state Department of Economic and Community Development. Breast Cancer Walk At Fayetteville VA On Saturday (FAYOBS) Fayetteville (NC) Observer, October 11, 2012 FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. – The Fayetteville VA Medical Center will host a Breast Cancer Walk at the medical center walking trail on October 12. The walk starts at 12 noon and welcomes Veterans, staff and their families to wear pink and attend festivities following the walk. A breast cancer survivor celebration will begin after the walk inside the medical center auditorium located at 2300 Ramsey Street, Fayetteville, NC 20301. Attendees can register for mammograms, listen to jazz music provided by the Soul DeCree band and hear the keynote address by Elizabeth Goolsby, medical center director. “We encourage Veterans to talk to their primary care provider and schedule a mammogram to ensure early detection,” said Elizabeth Goolsby, director Fayetteville VAMC. “Mammogram screenings save lives and are available at the medical center to all eligible Veterans. If Veterans need help enrolling for health care benefits, we can provide assistance at the medical center health benefits office.” -30- To learn more about how the VA leads the nation in breast cancer screening, talk to your primary care provider about your risk for breast cancer and visit www.womenshealth.va.gov or to learn about male breast cancer visit http://www.cancercenter.com/breast-cancer/types/male-breast-cancer” Future Of Hot Springs Hospital Hot Topic With Veterans (SCOTSTAR) By Chabella Guzman Scottsbluff (NE) Star-Herald, October 10, 2012 Congressman Adrian Smith listened to concerns from area veterans during a visit to the Western Nebraska Veterans Home in Scottsbluff on Tuesday. Many of the issues that the audience brought up included the sequester of the military in the current federal budget. Recently, Democrat Norm Dicks, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, said that defense spending could be cut by an additional $5 billion. “What they (Congress) have put forward are unreasonable cuts,” Smith said. “They didn’t get the job done so we are left with it.” He added that new ways of dealing with the cuts should be looked at. Another topic of importance among the audience was the fate of the VA Medical Center in Hot Springs, S.D. Scotts Bluff County Veterans Service Director John Brehm asked Smith what was going on with the center and when they would know more about its fate. He noted that the VA Medical Center in Fort Meade, S.D., is advertising for staff when the Hot Springs center desperately needs staff and is not hiring. Brehm asked if they were going to “strip down” the Hot Springs center before making the decision. Several other members of the audience agreed that services they were able to get at the Hot Springs location were now no longer available. Smith said he continues to work on the situation and is working with Congresswoman Kristi Noem. It was brought up that some veterans would like to go to the Cheyenne, Wyo., VA Medical Center, but would be unable to, since they would have to change all their information over. “Flexibility is what is needed from the centers for the veterans,” Smith said. He added that for many, Hot Springs is closer than Cheyenne, but veterans should have the flexibility to use any facility where they could receive the best care and treatment. Cherokee Indian Hospital Improving Health Access For Veterans (NCCHEROK) Cherokee One Feather, October 11, 2012 In 2004, the Cherokee Indian Hospital and the Charles George Veterans Administration Medical Center formed a partnership and sharing agreement with the goal to improve access to health care and services for veterans of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Home Based Primary Care is a program of the Charles George VA Medical Center in Asheville, NC for Veterans. The Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) provides monitoring of medical needs, routine health assessments, coordination of care, and 31

prevention or early detection of worsening conditions. HBPC serves as the primary care provider for veterans with complex chronic diseases in their homes. In other words, instead of the Veteran having to see the doctor at the hospital or clinic, the “doctor” or primary care provider comes to the Veteran’s home to provide medical care. The program uses a health care team who work together to create a plan of care specific to each Veteran. The team is made up of a nurse practitioner, registered nurse, rehabilitation therapist, social worker, dietitian, psychologist, and a pharmacist, and is under the direction of a physician. The goal of this program is to help improve their quality of life and restore health to the Veteran. It works to reduce emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and the length of stay in the hospital. Another goal is to provide support for caregivers who choose to keep their loved one at home. The goal for many elderly Veterans is to remain at home for as long as possible. For example, Everett “Ed” Cucumber, is an 80 year old Cherokee male that has multiple chronic illnesses that make it difficult for him to receive his medical care in the community. Cucumber was referred to the Home Based Primary Care Program by his nephew who learned about the HBPC program at a Veteran service organization meeting. Cucumber enrolled in HBPC more than two years ago after a lengthy hospital stay. The HBPC program has provided much needed medical equipment for him such as a motorized scooter, hospital bed, etc., which has allowed him to live as independently as possible in his own home. Cucumber looks forward to the regularly scheduled home visits by HBPC team members who provide ongoing medical monitoring. When asked about the HBPC program, he smiled broadly and said, “Yes, I like it…they are really good to me.” Also, HBPC is able to provide some of the latest, most innovative assistive technology devices available, along with nursing services, social work, and nutritional support. Moreover, HBPC staff can assist Veterans to obtain home modification grants to build handicapped accessible bathrooms, widen door entrances, etc. The VA Medical Center also provides in-home assistance, which helps with bathing and other personal care. This type of support allows the veteran to remain at home with his family. The Home Based Primary Care has office space provided by Cherokee Indian Hospital and is available in this area to provide services to Veterans. If you would like more information about the Home Based Primary Care program for you or for a veteran you know, please contact Penny James at (828) 231-8679. - Cherokee Indian Hospital Federal Review: Wade Park-Brecksville VA Consolidation Flawed And Costly (WCPN) WCPN Cleveland, October 11, 2012 With all the political news crowding out other coverage, one story that slipped by our desk deserves some attention - even if we are a bit late. We're speaking of the report issued a little over a week ago from the U.S. Inspector General's Office that blasted Veterans Administration in Cleveland. Specifically, the IG faulted the decision to merge the VA's Wade Park and Brecksville medical campuses. The consolidation was part of a massive VA construction project that the federal government's watchdog agency says resulted in less space, jeopardized the security of employees and patients, and will result in $500-million in unnecessary leasing expense over the next two decades. Federal scrutiny began last year when the project's private contractor, Michael Forlani, was indicted by a grand jury and accused of corruption tied to the VA project and other deals. This week ideastream's Brian Bull caught up with Maureen Regan, counselor to the Inspector General for the Department of Veterans Affairs. She says the VA has only itself to blame for what the IG calls "poor decisions". Regan: “They didn’t look back, they didn’t do a proper analysis of cost, they did not look for other options, as “Do we need an administrative building there? Or could it be some place else at a better cost? Could we renovate part of the Brecksville campus, not the whole thing?” Those things I believe VA officials were responsible for the excessive cost. They were sort of at the mercy of Mr. Forlani’s company, Veterans Development, by the time everything was signed.” Bull: Who’s the winner here, and who lost out? Regan: “The winner…Veterans Development and Mr. Forlani. The loser? The taxpayers and the veterans. Because cost savings is what goes into better care for veterans, you have more services you can offer, because you have more resources.” Bull: Space, security, cost, maintenance, and energy were just some of the issues raised with this merger. And now by your projections it’s going to cost taxpayers almost $500 million over the next two decades. Who approved this project, and where did they get their money from?

32

Regan: “Well, VA approved the project, the money came from appropriations. They would put this type of project into their appropriations in order to pay this. VA would put costs of this in a request to Congress, then they would pay this out of appropriations they get each fiscal year.” Bull: Do taxpayers have any recourse right now, or are they simply stuck with the bill? Regan: “We had asked VA to look at this early on. That was one of the intents of our first meeting when Mr. Forlani was indicted. We’re not in a position to provide legal conclusions as to whether or not they can cancel the agreement or anything else.” Bull: How would you like this report to be used? Regan: “I believe the recommendations in report were our recommendations to the department of things to look at both now and in the future. Now some things have changed a bit, as the Enhanced Use Lease authority—statutory authority—expired December 31st 2011. It’s been reinstated to a certain degree, but some of the things we saw in this particular Enhanced Use Lease, can’t take place in the future, namely because they can no longer take in kind consideration, it has to be in cash. So that would limit some of the problems that we saw. “It’s possible that Congress would look at the report, and look at other changes, legislation they may need to protect the taxpayer in the future. And as far as VA’s concerned, we were hoping that they would use the information either to cancel the agreement or to renegotiate parts of the agreement to make it more cost effective.” Bull: I really appreciate your time and information, thank you. Regan: “Thanks! `Kay, bye.” Bull: Alright, bye. ======Veterans Administration officials in Cleveland did not respond to ideastream’s efforts to discuss the IG report with them. However, The Plain Dealer quotes a spokeswoman saying the Inspector General’s report contained miscalculations and inaccuracies and that the VA still believes veterans are better served by the consolidation. Roane County Denied VA Hospital, Veterans React (WVLT) WVLT-TV Knoxville (TN), October 11, 2012 HARRIMAN, Tenn. (WVLT) -- Despite their best efforts, veterans, congressmen and a good deal couldn't persuade the Department of Veterans Affairs to bring a VA hospital to Roane county. But the fight for the hospital is far from over. The hope was to locate the VA hospital in what's currently the Roane County Medical Center. The center is moving to a new location in February, and the City of Harriman offered to lease the building to the VA for just a dollar. Back in July, hundreds of veterans rallied to show their support for the plan - the nearest other VA hospitals are in Murfreesboro and Johnson City. "It's very important because when you're sick, or you feel bad or you're nursing a wound, then a travel of 3 hours or more for care is just worse than inconvenient," said Steve McBay, who served in the US Army. Local Congressmen and US Senator Lamar Alexander are also on board, but the VA sent a letter to Senator Alexander's office denying their request since the number of veterans living in the 12 county area is dropping. "We've been working with Roane County to try to make their best case for the new veterans hospital facility - we want veterans to have the best possible care they can. And apparently at this stage it doesn't look very promising," said Senator Alexander. Harriman Mayor Chris Mason said according to the 2010 census, more than 100,000 veterans live in the area.He questions the VA's stats and said he can't believe it turned down the city's offer. "The Harriman City Council kind of went out on a limb and offered a great building for a dollar. And it just bothers me that they never even came down to take a look at what we had to offer," said Mason. The fight isn't over: Steve McBay is urging everyone to write to their congressmen , while Mason said he's hoping to fill a bus and rally in Washington, DC. Mayor Mason said he's still hopeful he'll be able to convince officials with the Department of Veterans Affairs to come and tour the hospital. He said the building is in great shape and would only need minor repairs and said he wants the VA to check it out in person. Veterans Supporting Obama Started Statewide Rally In Charlotte (WSOC) By Linzi Sheldon WSOC-TV Charlotte (NC), October 11, 2012

33

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Veterans supporting President Barack Obama started a statewide rally Wednesday. The veterans told Eyewitness News they believe former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney would implement a voucher system that would limit the benefits veterans could receive. The veterans stood outside a Veterans Affairs clinic in north east Charlotte, holding signs and handing out flyers to drivers. They say they want the VA system to remain protected, and are supporting Obama. The Romney campaign said that the group has gotten the wrong information. They said Romney has no voucher policy in place. Romney once commented on the idea, but they said he has since come out strongly against it and wants to improve veterans' access to services. The protesters said Wednesday they don't believe it and don't believe Romney is prioritizing veterans' care. Obama's campaign said the president has boosted the VA budget. VA NEWS

Allen Smith, Georgia College Student, Returns $690,000,000 VA Check (HUFFPOST) By Sarah Medina Huffington Post, October 11, 2012 Allen Smith received quite a shock when his monthly check from Veteran Affairs showed up. It wasn't for the usual amount of $650 but a whopping half a billion dollars, instead. "He immediately, immediately went to the VA officer at Fort Benning -- not the local person for the State of Georgia -- and turned in the check," Smith's mother, Patricia, told WTVM. Smith, 22, receives a monthly VA dependency check for college expenses from the US Treasury Department because his father served in the U.S. Air force. This month, however, was different -- the check showed a staggering $690,000,000. Patricia Smith told WISTV that she is proud of her son for turning the check in and knows his father is smiling down on him. "I have talked to the general inspector VA. He is going to make sure that check gets back to where it belongs," she added. Inspectors at Veteran Affairs aren't sure what happened with the hefty check. According to KLTV, it could have either been a misprint, or the system could have been hacked. Love Of Country Inspires Rebecca King’s Commitment To End Homelessness For America’s Veteran Families (FATHCH) Fatherhood Channel, October 11, 2012 This year, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs awarded nearly $100 million in funding through the Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program, SSVF, to 151 private non-profit organizations and consumer cooperatives that provide services to very low-income Veteran families living in — or transitioning to — permanent housing. Those community organizations provide a range of services that promote housing stability among eligible very low income Veteran families, including: outreach, case management, assistance in obtaining VA benefits and assistance in getting other public benefits. Grantees can also offer temporary financial assistance on behalf of Veterans for rent payments, utility payments, security deposits and moving costs. This is the program’s second year. Last year, VA provided about $60 million to assist 22,000 Veterans and family members. Operation Sacred Trust, OST, is a South Florida collaboration of leading nonprofit community agencies — Carrfour Supportive Housing, PAIRS Foundation, Henderson Behavioral Health, and Neighborhood Housing Services — funded under the SSVF grant. In its first year, the program helped hundreds of homeless and at-risk Veteran families in Broward and Miami- Dade counties move into permanent affordable housing. Family Support Specialist Rebecca King says Veteran homelessness is often a result of job loss, family breakdowns, and service-related medical conditions. Fatherhood Channel.com is pleased to profile the OST professionals on the frontline of ending homelessness for America’s Veteran families. What inspires you to serve Veterans? I have always been a patriotic person, proud to be an American, the whole enchilada. Although I was unable to serve my country through the military, I am proud to serve my country by supporting those who have and continue to serve.

34

What is an experience serving a Veteran family that stands out for you? My first client at OST was a couple with a teenage daughter. The Veteran and his girlfriend lost their jobs and apartment, but not their hope. They were forced to move into a room and eventually into a U-Haul before they were placed into permanent 30% housing. Despite the hardships, they never lost hope and were so grateful for everything they had been given. What’s your hope for the impact your work at Operation Sacred Trust has on the lives of the Veterans you serve? I hope that our Veterans not only make it through their crisis and develop resiliency to prevent future ones, but also come to know there are people who truly care for and respect them and their families for their service and sacrifice in the name of our country. What personal connection do you have to the military, Veteran or homeless community? I am a very proud military wife. My husband and one of my two brothers currently in the military are both Wounded Warriors from their OEF/OIF deployments. I also grew up in a very unstable environment not always knowing if there was enough food to eat, if we would have power in cold northern winters, or if we were going to sleep in a bed or my father’s van. What’s a lesson you’ve learned from your work helping end homelessness for Veterans? Veterans are people, and people can make poor choices; however, it is usually not the result of poor choices that lead the Veterans I serve to OST. More often, it’s the result of job loss/cut hours, family breakdowns, and medical conditions (often as a result of their service) that lead to homelessness. The strength and determination of the majority of my Veteran clients is second to none! VA Hosts Assistance Event For Homeless Vets In Virginia. WVIR-TV Charlottesville, VA (10/10, 6:18 p.m. ET) broadcast that on Wednesday, VA “hosted a ‘Stand Down to Homelessness’ event...at The Crossings near downtown Charlottesville,” so that homeless vets could “connect with a variety of resources, like health checks, social services, and veterans benefits.” At Wednesday’s event, VA “brought along its mobile health unit to provide routine health screenings for veterans. The vehicle makes the rounds through rural areas in central Virginia to help educate and care for veterans in need.” Department Of Veterans Affairs Holds Stand Down To Homelessness (WVIR) By Ed Sykes WVIR-TV Charlottesville (VA), October 11, 2012 Statistics show almost a quarter of all homeless people are also military veterans. That is why the Department of Veterans Affairs hosted a "Stand Down to Homelessness" event Wednesday at The Crossings near downtown Charlottesville. It was a chance for homeless veterans to connect with a variety of resources, like health checks, social services, and veterans' benefits. Raymond Patterson of Healthcare for Homeless Veterans said, "It's an opportunity for them to understand the local resources, both the Virginia resources and community-based resources." The Department of Veterans Affairs brought along its mobile health unit to provide routine health screenings for veterans. The vehicle makes the rounds through rural areas in central Virginia to help educate and care for veterans in need. Homeless Veterans Get Support In Charlottesville (WCAV) WCAV-TV Charlottesville (VA), October 11, 2012 Veterans make up about seven percent of the Charlottesville homeless population. Two weeks ago, Vickie Short was part of that statistic. "I think the hardest thing to do when you're a homeless veteran is to keep your self motivation, to get up every morning and want to change the way it is," Short said. "And that's what I've been doing, and my patience and persistence actually paid off." Short now has a roof over her head and is back in school. As more veterans in our area have no place to live, the Department of Veterans Affairs is trying to create more success stories with a resource fair. The Health Care for Homeless Veterans and Virginia Supportive Housing, along with other service providers, met with homeless veterans Wednesday at The Crossings at Fourth and Preston in Charlottesville. "We're hoping to link them to concrete services," said HCHV outreach coordinator Raymond Patterson. "We're also hoping to, because this is outreach, to meet them and begin the process of working with them toward meeting their housing needs." In the last few weeks, veterans advocate Lettie Bien has helped three Charlottesville veterans off the streets. One of them was Short. Bien said being homeless has a ripple effect. "When you think about it, how do you then get dressed in the morning, shower and then go to a job interview?" said Bien. "All of those things are compounded by the fact that there's not a roof over your head." Advocates said they can only do so much. It's the homeless veterans that have to make the first move. 35

Veterans advocate Ruben Armond said, for some veterans, their pride gets in the way of their need. "We are hoping that we can circumvent that by having events such as this to let them know, you're not being judged," Armond said. "You have more backing and support than you realize." Ben Shaw is a veteran peer specialist for the Virginia Wounded Warrior Program. He knows firsthand how difficult it can be to make the transition after serving. "It's like having a big, dark room with a gigantic rock, and every time you try to move around the room, you keep running into that rock," Shaw said. He said good treatment, services, therapy and a community of support can make all the difference. "What happens is, we turn those lights on a little bit, and that rock, you can see it now. It's still there, but you're not running into it." How Social Innovation Is Helping Homeless Veterans (HARVBR) By Ron Ashkenas And Nadim Matta Harvard Business Review, October 11, 2012 Creative approaches that businesses use to develop new products can also be channeled toward solving long-standing and intractable social issues. A case in point is the recent effort to house chronically homeless veterans in the U.S., as thousands of soldiers return to civilian life after extended tours overseas. Back in 2009, U.S. Veteran Affairs (VA) Secretary Eric Shinseki sparked these efforts by challenging federal agencies and communities to end veteran homelessness by 2015. Since that time, leaders at the VA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Interagency Council on Homelessness and other agencies have been experimenting with ways to help communities respond to the challenge. At the Rapid Results Institute, a nonprofit spin-off of our firm, Schaffer Consulting, we recently joined the 100,000 Homes Campaign (on the Community Solutions team) to help federal agencies organize Rapid Results Housing Boot Camps in San Diego, Orlando, and Houston. During these Boot Camps, teams from 4-5 cities set "unreasonable" 100-day goals to accelerate the pace of housing chronically homeless veterans. Most of these teams included case managers and homeless program managers from the local VA, HUD field officers, and representatives from the Public Housing Authority, the local NGOs working on ending homelessness, and the Mayor's office. And as the New York Times recently reported, the outcome has been dramatic. In New Orleans for example, the team worked to simplify paperwork needed to process a veteran's application for subsidized housing, and unified the process across several regional and local agencies. In Detroit and Houston, teams set up a one-stop shop for homeless veterans, so their requirements for receiving support are completed in one day. In Atlanta, the team set up a competition among VA case managers to incentivize them to focus their efforts even more sharply on the most vulnerable veterans. Nine of the thirteen participating cities made dramatic gains; and four of them set a new benchmark for housing chronically homeless veterans — averaging more than one veteran housed each day during the 100-day period. The program's success indicates that they're innovating — and executing on that innovation — the right way. And corporate and social organizations alike have something to learn from this surge in performance: First, innovation requires the mobilization of an ecosystem. Most organizations are structured to perform today's work, and not designed to do something radically different. This means that innovative results require action on a large scale: bringing together the right people and completely reconfiguring resources and assets. In the work with veterans, plans invariably involved close collaboration and coordination between federal agency leaders, their field staff, local housing authorities, city officials, local NGOs, and other stakeholders. In several communities, for example, the teams got authorization to co-locate agency reps to improve communications and act as envoys for veterans to more easily navigate the system. The ecosystem also included private sector foundations, including Chase, Starr, and Home Depot that joined forces to enable the teams to come together. However, bringing together people who haven't previously worked together is tricky territory. That's why it is critical to have a common goal that different parties can own and rally around. The 100-day time frame created a sense of urgency — and it also made it easy for team members to temporarily suspend some of the assumptions and mental models that held them back in the past. This spurred a flurry of rapid experimentation with new solutions and new ways of working with each other — and with political leaders. For example, at the Boot Camps each team mapped out the maze of procedures that a chronically homeless veteran has to navigate to get housed, and decided how they would simplify these steps to achieve their goal. They also actively coordinated their outreach and targeting efforts so they could locate chronically homeless veterans, and more importantly win their trust, so veterans would feel comfortable giving the official system a try. Most of these decisions were put to the test in the first 30 days of the implementation period - and they were adjusted several times during the 100 days. The teams also had to persist during the 100-day implementation period — in spite of the difficulties they encountered — sustaining a momentum of results, creative energy, and collaboration. They did this by harnessing the power of peer pressure and peer support — through cross-learning, emulation and competition across all thirteen teams. Various mechanisms were used 36

to deliberately build this into the journey of the Rapid Results teams, including organizing team leaders into small learning cohorts that shared experiences with each other every two weeks. Innovation in any setting isn't easy. But if the experience with veteran homelessness is any guide, then mobilizing the ecosystem, rallying around challenging and exciting goals, and harnessing the power of peer groups are three key factors for making it happen. Ron Ashkenas is a managing partner of Schaffer Consulting and a co-author of The GE Work-Out and The Boundaryless Organization. His latest book is Simply Effective. This post was co-authored with Nadim Matta, a managing partner in Schaffer Consulting and president of the Rapid Results Institute. WNC Holds Outreach Day For Veterans (KRNV) KRNV-TV Reno (NV), October 10, 2012 CARSON CITY, Nev. (KRNV & MyNews4.com) -- The Veterans Administration is expected to host an outreach event and BBQ for local veterans and their families today. The event is meant to give veterans the opportunity to learn about the various resources available to them through the VA. The event runs from 2:00pm-6:30pm at the Western Nevada College Carson City campus. STATE VA NEWS

Employee Lawsuit Pops Up In Walsh-Duckworth Race (CHIT) By Monique Garcia And Duaa Eldeib Chicago Tribune, October 11, 2012 The latest kerfuffle in a hotly-contested northwest suburban congressional race centers on a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by two state veterans affairs workers. Republican U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh brought up the issue during Tuesday night's raucous 8th District debate, saying Democratic foe Tammy Duckworth, who once led the state veterans agency, is being sued by two employees for wrongful termination. Duckworth responded that's "not true," which led Walsh to accuse his opponent of lying. A look at the lawsuit reveals it's not classified as a wrongful termination suit. The complaint is about allegations that Duckworth and a colleague violated the state's ethics act and inflicted intentional emotional distress. And the two workers still have their jobs. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office is representing Duckworth, and has filed to have the case dismissed. The matter had already been tossed out of a federal court. A state court also dismissed the matter, but a judge allowed attorneys to update and re-file the suit, which is pending. For her part, Duckworth notes that it is not uncommon for heads of state agencies to face these types of lawsuits. She dismissed the case as "generic" and accused Walsh of using the matter to "distract voters from the real issues." The suit stems from Duckworth's time at the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs, which she led from December 2006 until early 2009, when she left for a federal veterans affairs post under President Barack Obama. In the suit, two workers at the Anna Veterans' Home in far southern Illinois claim they received poor evaluations and were targets of harassment after filing complaints against the facility's acting director, Patricia Simms, who is named as a defendant with Duckworth. Christine Butler, who was responsible for budget matters, claims that Simms took over the facility in August 2006 and told other employees that she was going to put Butler "in her place" and that she wanted her "gone." Butler also contended that Simms allowed nonresidents inside the home to pass out campaign literature and provide care for residents without being properly screened. Butler sent emails to higher-ups against Simms, but said there was retaliation when Simms listed her performance as "unacceptable" on an employee review. The ranking meant Butler was ineligible for various raises and bonus pay. Denise Goins, who was a human resources secretary, complained that Simms improperly reassigned some of her job duties and forbade her from reporting problems to officials in Springfield. Goins also received an employee review, on which Duckworth signed off, listing her performance as "unacceptable."

37

Eventually, Duckworth traveled to Anna to try to settle the dispute by meeting with Butler, Goins and Simms. In the suit, Butler claims Duckworth fired her on the spot, saying she had been "insubordinate." A few days later, Butler said, Duckworth rescinded her termination and instead placed her on paid administrative leave. Meanwhile, Goins said Duckworth told her in a meeting, "If you do your job and keep your mouth shut and concentrate on job duties, you will keep your job." Duckworth declined to discuss specifics of the case Wednesday. Reached by phone, Simms denied any wrongdoing and said she and Duckworth were being targeted by disgruntled employees. "Made-up stories go a long way," Simms said. "It's my word against theirs, and it's two against one. They wanted to get rid of me, and they eventually did." Attorney Matthew Ferrell, who is representing Butler and Goins, said his clients simply wanted to make sure the veterans home was running properly but instead became victims. Ferrell said he eventually hopes to take Duckworth's deposition as the case moves forward. Duckworth brought up that Walsh has been sued by both a former campaign manager, who said he was owed $20,000, and his ex-wife, who claimed Walsh owed more than $100,000 in overdue child support and interest. Both cases have been settled. Walsh spokesman Justin Roth wrote in an email that "to compare Ms. Duckworth's abuse of power while in a taxpayer-paid government position, to Mr. Walsh's family issue that was privately resolved months ago, is a sign that Ms. Duckworth will say and do anything to deflect attention away from this case." Missouri Veterans Home Awarded $343,000 For Additions (JOPGLOB) By Roger McKinney Joplin (MO) Globe, October 11, 2012 MT. VERNON, Mo. — The Department of Veterans Affairs has awarded the Missouri Veterans Home $343,000 to add a solarium to its dining room and more space for rehabilitation equipment. The home is one of seven around the state operated by the Missouri Veterans Commission. James Dennis, administrator of the Mount Vernon location, said the solarium will add dining room space and have other benefits. “It also will allow more natural light to come in,” he said. The rehabilitation addition will allow for larger equipment and more space for people in wheelchairs to maneuver. He said he didn’t know when construction would start. “We’re excited,” Dennis said. “We’re ready for it.” Copyright 2012 The Joplin Globe, Joplin, MO. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. RESEARCH

Use Of High-Cost Diabetes Drugs Varies Widely Across VA (USMED) By Brenda L. Mooney US Medicine, October 11, 2012 Despite a tightly managed national formulary, the use of high-cost drugs to treat diabetes shows “substantial” variation across the VA healthcare system, according to a new research letter. The VA-funded report, published online by the Archives of Internal Medicine, notes that the adjusted percentage of patients with diabetes receiving oral medications who used a thiazolidinedione ranged from 1.4% at the lowest-using of 139 facilities to 25.4% at the highest. In addition, the adjusted percentage of patients receiving insulin who used long-acting analogues ranged from 4% percent to 71.2% across the VA. Those results were surprising because, according to a research letter summary, “The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the largest integrated health care system in the United States, may serve as a model of efficient use of prescription drugs. It consistently ranks among the top of all US health care systems in objective ratings of quality of care for chronic diseases,and it does so with low medication costs. The VA negotiates steep price discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers and engages in robust formulary management using a national formulary.” The authors, led by Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, of the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, noted that while formularies "may exert powerful effects on medication choice," they "can only go so far in standardizing healthcare delivery."

38

Researchers looked at two classes of diabetes drugs -- thiazolidinediones including rosiglitazone (Avandia) and pioglitazone (Actos) and long-acting insulin analogs such as detemir (Levemir) and glargine (Lantus) – and their use in 900,000 patients at VA clinics in 2009. Those patients received about 6.2 million prescriptions for type 2 diabetes during that time period, and researchers focused on drugs with relatively high cost and low certainty for improved outcomes. According to the study, median use of thiazolidinediones was 8.2%, and median use of long-acting insulins was 40.6%. The authors wrote that the variations are "likely driven by local physician norms or preferences about the use of newer drugs, which we were not able to measure." An invited commentary from Timothy Wilt, MD, MPH, of the Minneapolis VA, and Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, of the American College of Physicians, said the findings show that there are "considerable challenges" to overcome in order to improve diabetes care. How Do Public Data About Heart Attack Treatment Change It? (NPR) By Scott Hensley National Public Radio, October 11, 2012 Measurement has long been a cornerstone of quality improvement, whether it's on the factory floor or the hospital ward. And making the quality scores of doctors and hospitals publicly available is central to the idea that health care can become a service that patients shop for intelligently. The results can also ratchet up professional peer pressure for improvement. But does public reporting lead doctors and hospitals to game the system by withholding care from the sickest patients? Some researchers turned to Medicare data to compare treatment of acute heart attack patients using angioplasty and stents. They looked at three states that have led the way on public reporting with other states that don't report the results. The upshot: New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts had lower rates of angioplasty — about 20 percent lower — than other nearby states that didn't publicly report the findings. Overall, the death rates at a month after treatment were no different, however, and the rates of bypass surgery for heart attack treatment were comparable. Outcome scores typically include factors to account for the condition of patients, but some doctors have questioned whether those adjustments for sicker people are adequate. But the biggest drop in treatment was seen for some of the very sickest patients, those with a so-called STEMI heart attacks, cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock in the reporting states. The results appear in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association. Now there are a couple of possible explanations for the findings, but the study, which looked backward at patients treated between 2002 and 2010, can't prove exactly what's happening. One possibility is that doctors, patients and their families chose to forgo futile treatment or treatment that wasn't necessary. It's also possible that doctors skipped appropriate treatment of patients who were at the highest risk of dying to avoid the possibility of a lower quality score. Adjustments to the measures are supposed to take care of that problem, but the formulas have their limitations. "The concern has been that if you don't give people credit for how sick their patients are, you might be penalizing hospitals of last resort," cardiologist Karen Joynt, lead author of the study tells Shots. She accepts that measurement and public disclosure are here to stay. "We can't improve without measuring our quality," says Joynt, who works at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and the Veterans Administration Medical Center in West Roxbury. But public reporting could have unintended consequences. "We need to understand just how this policy is playing out — not just in policy world — but in clinical world," she says in a video accompanying the study. Something that looks good on paper may not be so great in the hospital. NEWS OF INTEREST

DoD Must Reassess Military Health System Control Change, Says GAO (FIERCEGOV) By Geoff Whiting Fierce Government, October 11, 2012 The Defense Department hasn't sufficiently analyzed its own proposed changes to the Military Health System, says the Government Accountability Office report (.pdf) published Sept. 26.

39

The DoD seeks congressional approval of a significant change to the MHS structure that would put more authority under the Defense Health Agency in an attempt to curb escalating medical costs. The department's fiscal 2013 budget request for health care is $48.7 billion, and the GAO cites estmates that annual costs could reach $95 billion by 2030. The DoD wants to create a shared services platform under DHA control that would consolidate common services such as medical logistics, acquisition, and facility planning. The agency would assume responsibilities of the TRICARE Management Activity and manage shared services while leaving the traditional chain of command unchanged. The individual military services would maintain their surgeons general, which the DoD says would allows them to maintain the best operational care as services train in different environment-specific scenarios. Jonathan Woodson, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, toldStars and Stripes earlier this year that 25 percent of on-base hospitals and clinics are underutilized and a greater DHA role should keep patients from shifting to the more costly TRICARE network. Congress initially blocked a June 2011 proposal of this restructuring, asking for a full report on all governance plans studies. The departmenal report produced as a result lacks key factors such as implementation costs, comprehensive cost savings analysis, a business case to support its choice, and uses potentially flawed estimates for personnel costs, the GAO says. "DoD could have provided more information on cost implications and strengths and weaknesses in its report," the report says. The GAO also expresses concern over the DoD's methodology in places, such as not using representative salaries to estimate and project personnel savings, and not balancing qualitative expert analysis with quantitative data in the same criteria. According to the report, the DoD agrees with the need to develop a business case analysis but does not concur with other GAO recommendations, "stating that further analysis would not alter its conclusions." The GAO warns that the DoD's continued use of "interim steps" and "incremental changes" will put the department on the path to an uncertain final governance system without having a clear understanding of final costs, strengths, or weaknesses. Read more: DoD must reassess Military Health System control change, says GAO - FierceGovernment http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/dod-must-reassess-military-health-system-control-change-says-gao/2012-10- 10#ixzz28xWWpT4l Subscribe: http://www.fiercegovernment.com/signup?sourceform=Viral-Tynt-FierceGovernment-FierceGovernment EDITORIAL ROUNDUP

Soldiers’ Mental Health: An Emergency (NYDN) By Arnold Fisher And Bill White New York Daily News, October 10, 2012 Anyone who believes that our country’s methods are adequate for helping veterans re-adapt to society as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down need look no further than at the following data: In the year 2012, 211 members of the United States Armed Forces took their own lives. At least 53 of them committed suicide in July and August. That is more than the total number of battlefield deaths in those months. This is a crisis that has gone largely unaddressed in this political cycle, and it’s unacceptable. The numbers are a devastating wake-up call to a healthcare emergency that demands leadership and a new approach. Military brass, medical experts and elected officials are well aware of one cause of this epidemic: severe mental illnesses caused by Post-Traumatic Stress, often stemming from the unseen wound of this war, Traumatic Brain Injuries. TBI occurs when the brain is subject to one or a series of concussive waves, such as those given off by a detonated roadside device, the most frequent attack against our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The trauma suffered by the soldier’s brain results most often in personality-altering depression, leading to a host of extreme mental health problems. The solutions — investments in research, proper diagnostic methods and evolving treatment measures — are well known. What’s missing is leadership. Yes, both campaigns have indicated knowledge of a problem. During a recent campaign swing through the veteran- and military-rich state of Virginia, Mitt Romney pledged to reverse proposed cuts in defense spending and enhance the budget for greater psychological treatment for service members. President Obama addressed TBI directly while campaigning in July. He also made the crises facing service members, from unemployment to the suicide epidemic, a part of his convention speech. But neither candidate to date has put forth a concrete plan to immediately allocate the time and resources needed to save the lives of those who serve and have served this nation in uniform.

40

We are calling for leaders to immediately convene the Defense Department and others in the executive branch with legislators, medical researchers and providers, active duty service members, veterans and their families, to establish new protocols for research, treatment and diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress. Funding must follow: Congress should expedite the allocation of at least $1 billion as a baseline. We have spent over a trillion dollars on these two wars. It’s time to now spend on those who risked their lives in battle. This is not simply government’s problem. The private sector stands at the ready to help, mindful of patriotism, responsibility and the fact that we live in a time of critical budget shortfalls. Several national non profits and private foundations have already raised billions in private sector dollars towards much-needed medical research, healthcare and social services for our veterans and active duty service members and their families. Much more is needed. As we approach the final weeks of the presidential campaign, it is critical the candidates move beyond speeches to a new phase: action. The horrifying psychological impacts of these wars mean that, according to the RAND Corporation, a staggering 600,000 of the 1.7 million service members returning from active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering, their lives in danger. If our leaders don’t act now and we do not hold them accountable by demanding solutions, then we’re losing a different kind of war — one that is entirely winnable. Each campaign must provide leadership, not words. Action. Our soldiers can’ t wait another day. Fisher is honorary chairman of the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (fallenheroes.org), which is building medical facilities at military installations to treat Traumatic Brain Injuries. White is the CEO of Constellations Group. For Supporters Of Education And Veterans, Maryland's Dream Act Is A Two-Fer (BSUN) By Dan Rodricks Baltimore Sun, October 11, 2012 It hasn't received much attention, but there's a provision in the Maryland Dream Act, up for your approval or rejection on the November ballot, that extends a benefit to veterans. Voters ought to take note of it, because if we vote down the college tuition break for young adults who came here as undocumented immigrants, we'll be saying nay to a generous provision for men and women who served in our military, too. Says right there, in the last phrase of Question 4 on the statewide ballot: The Dream Act "extends the time in which honorably discharged veterans may qualify for in-state tuition rates." According to a legislative summary of the Dream Act, veterans of the U.S. armed forces currently have one year after an honorable discharge to apply for the in-state tuition rate at Maryland's public colleges and universities. The new law extends that opportunity by three years. In Maryland, we are already pretty generous when it comes to educational benefits for members of the military and veterans. Under state law, someone on active duty and stationed here gets the in-state rate on college tuition. So do that person's spouse and any dependent children. Honorably discharged veterans get the same benefit, even if they lose their Maryland residency status while on duty. To qualify, a veteran has to document attendance at a Maryland high school for at least three years and graduation (or an equivalent diploma) from a Maryland high school. The veteran also has to apply for the benefit — and file the proper documentation — within one year of discharge. What we're being asked to do, by voting for the Dream Act, is extend that benefit by another three years. And that's a good thing. Let's face it: Few Americans want to deny benefits — or, in this case, the extension of eligibility for a specific benefit — to men and women who've served the country in the military. Now, I know what you're thinking. If you oppose the Dream Act, you're thinking, "Why is a benefit to veterans, something I can support, packaged with something I despise: a benefit to illegal immigrants?" Hey, that's how things are often worked out in the Maryland General Assembly. The military benefit was an amendment to the Dream Act when it percolated through the legislature toward passage in 2011. This kind of thing is not unusual. In fact, another question on the November ballot asks us to approve the addition of a sixth casino in Maryland while approving table games at all casinos. I've heard from many people who think those things should be separated. These are voters who support table games at the five casinos we authorized at the polls in 2008 but who oppose the sixth casino slated for Prince Georges County. Come Nov. 6, however, we'll vote the all-inclusive casino measure up or down. There's no line-item voting. Same with the Dream Act. 41

If you support the Dream Act, I'm guessing you're like me and fine with the whole thing — opening wider the eligibility window for veterans to receive the in-state college tuition rate while extending the same benefit to illegal immigrants. These young adults, many of whom came into the country with their parents, have been educated in Maryland public schools and received diplomas from Maryland high schools. They have asked that they be allowed to attend our community colleges and universities at the in-state tuition rate. They want the same level of affordability that their citizen-peers get as they further their education. It's a relatively modest request with a potential for a big return — an inclusive initiative that helps us build a better-educated workforce for the future. Maybe some day, Republicans and Democrats will come together and straighten out the nation's immigration mess. In the meantime, these kids deserve a decent society's support, especially if they declare their intent to become citizens and their parents file tax returns, as the Dream Act requires. It's in our long-term economic interest to make these young people feel welcome and make their higher education affordable. Veterans, especially those who served in the all-volunteer Iraq-Afghanistan era, deserve our support, too, and even more so. Many of them have had a tough time finding jobs; a college degree will increase their chances of not only landing a job, but one that pays at least a middle-class wage. So, if you oppose the Dream Act because of what it does for the undocumented immigrant, you might have to bite the bullet because of what it does for the honorably discharged veteran. The rest of us have it easy — it's a two-fer. The Problem With PPIs (INTNLMED) By Jon O. Ebbert Internal Medicine News, October 11, 2012 Most of us can recall medical innovations that fundamentally changed the way we practice and prescribe. Important revolutions do not need to be dramatic, such as the discovery and widespread use of low-molecular-weight heparin or the MRI, for us to be forever converted. For me, it was the discovery and widespread use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). In the 1970s, evidence emerged that the proton pump in stomach parietal cells was the last step in acid secretion. At the same time, preanesthetic screenings pointed to the antisecretory effects of a compound called timoprazole. Creative chemistry and side-chain substitutions led to the launch of omeprazole in 1990. The rest, as they say, is history. PPIs are currently the third most commonly sold drugs in the Unite States, in large part because they transformed the care of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia in a remarkable way. In the early days, clinicians seemed inclined to start patients on the histamine receptor antagonists as first-line therapy, reserving PPIs for more recalcitrant cases. With time, however, clinicians reached for PPIs earlier in the course of therapy to more quickly eradicate symptoms. As the obesity epidemic spread, so too did the epidemic of GERD and PPI use. What we seem to have lost sight of is that patients are being continued on these medications indefinitely. But at what risk? Dr. Neena S. Abraham of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston, and her colleagues, recently reviewed the literature on the long-term adverse health consequences of PPI use. She reported that the strongest evidence supports an increased risk for the development of Clostridium difficile infection and bone fracture. The mechanism of bone fracture relates to acid suppression and the "triple effect" of impairing the absorption of vitamin B12, which decreases osteoblastic activity; decreasing calcium absorption; and hypergastrinemia, which increases the release of parathyroid hormone contributing to bone resorption (Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 2012 [Epub ahead of print]) Dr. Abraham challenges us to prescribe PPIs only for "robust indications." We need to challenge ourselves to take the time to try tapering or discontinuation trials among patients who have been on them for a prolonged period of time. Informing patients of the long-term risks will arm us for what might be, with many patients, difficult discussions. Jon O. Ebbert, M.D., is professor of medicine and primary care clinician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. He reports having no conflicts of interest. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author. The Problem With PPIs (FAMPRACT) By Jon O. Ebbert Family Practice News, October 11, 2012 Most of us can recall medical innovations that fundamentally changed the way we practice and prescribe. Important revolutions do not need to be dramatic, such as the discovery and widespread use of low-molecular-weight heparin or the MRI, for us to be forever converted. For me, it was the discovery and widespread use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

42

In the 1970s, evidence emerged that the proton pump in stomach parietal cells was the last step in acid secretion. At the same time, preanesthetic screenings pointed to the antisecretory effects of a compound called timoprazole. Creative chemistry and side-chain substitutions led to the launch of omeprazole in 1990. The rest, as they say, is history. PPIs are currently the third most commonly sold drugs in the Unite States, in large part because they transformed the care of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia in a remarkable way. In the early days, clinicians seemed inclined to start patients on the histamine receptor antagonists as first-line therapy, reserving PPIs for more recalcitrant cases. With time, however, clinicians reached for PPIs earlier in the course of therapy to more quickly eradicate symptoms. As the obesity epidemic spread, so too did the epidemic of GERD and PPI use. What we seem to have lost sight of is that patients are being continued on these medications indefinitely. But at what risk? Dr. Neena S. Abraham of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston, and her colleagues, recently reviewed the literature on the long-term adverse health consequences of PPI use. She reported that the strongest evidence supports an increased risk for the development of Clostridium difficile infection and bone fracture. The mechanism of bone fracture relates to acid suppression and the "triple effect" of impairing the absorption of vitamin B12, which decreases osteoblastic activity; decreasing calcium absorption; and hypergastrinemia, which increases the release of parathyroid hormone contributing to bone resorption (Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 2012 [Epub ahead of print]) Dr. Abraham challenges us to prescribe PPIs only for "robust indications." We need to challenge ourselves to take the time to try tapering or discontinuation trials among patients who have been on them for a prolonged period of time. Informing patients of the long-term risks will arm us for what might be, with many patients, difficult discussions. Jon O. Ebbert, M.D., is professor of medicine and primary care clinician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. He reports having no conflicts of interest. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author. Cheers & Jeers For Thursday, Oct. 11 (FAYOBS) Fayetteville (NC) Observer, October 11, 2012 Cheers to Sean Johnson for all he did to get the streets paved in our neighborhood. Besides keeping us all safe, he's a real asset to the community. - Mike Davis, Fayetteville Cheers to Detective Day of the Hope Mills Police Department for working so hard and doing whatever it took to find the person responsible for multiple break-ins. We need more officers like you. - Bonnie Harmon, Fayetteville Cheers to Nelson & Nelson Chiropractic, Dr. Scott and his staff on Ramsey Street, and also Dr. Drake and his staff at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center. We need more people like them. - Allen Holmes, Fayetteville Cheers to an anonymous, and honest, stranger. I recently had written a check to a young couple at my church for their newborn baby. They lost the check, but someone else - a stranger - found it and took it to the Sheriff's office. My husband picked it up, and we were able to return it to the couple. I hadn't written in the couple's name, so anyone could have used it. Thanks for your honesty. - Ruby Lucas, Hope Mills Cheers to my nurse, Nicole, who was exceptional and gave me the best care I've ever had in my life. I was recently at Cape Fear Valley Medical Center, where I was being treated for paralysis. - Carolyne Howard, Fayetteville Cheers to Jevon Smith at Best Buy. My laptop crashed, just when I needed it. I had a partial warranty and was so fortunate to be helped by Mr. Smith. He was very professional and worked fast. He was able to recover the documents I thought were lost. Thanks again, Jevon. - Tommy Rains, Fayetteville Cheers to Tommy Anglin. I was broken down for several hours in the Overhills community near Food Lion on a recent Saturday evening. Tommy pulled up and offered his help to get me moving. Tommy even spent his own gas bringing me a floor jack and running back and forth to get materials needed for the repair. He even offered drinks if I needed one. Because of his time and effort I was able to get home after a very trying afternoon. The world is a much better place because of men who make sacrifices like Tommy did for me. Thanks again, Tommy. - Kenneth Lamm, Wade

43

Cheers to Beverly Hall, owner of Salon 360, and her wonderful staff for hosting Blindness Awareness Day recently. We appreciate Mayor Pro Tem James Arp Jr. for the proclamation on behalf of the city and the kind words, and Michael Macias for the musical entertainment. Thanks to all for making the community aware of blindness in our community. - Terri Thomas, Fayetteville Cheers to DentalWorks in Hope Mills. The entire staff made me feel very comfortable and at ease. It is amazing how a good experience can totally change your outlook on visiting the dentist. I'd also like to say a special thank you to Cassie. You guys rock. - Lori Hanes, Hope Mills Cheers to Mr. and Mrs. Bledsole for volunteering every day at our school. They assist with the media center and special events. Just wanted to let you know that you are appreciated and the C. Wayne Collier family thanks you very much. - Chad McLamb, Fayetteville BRIEFLY NOTED

PTSD And Drones: Emotional Costs Far Away From The Battlefield (HUFFPOST) Huffington Post, October 11, 2012 Post-traumatic stress disorder among soldiers returning from the battlefield is well-documented. But when drone pilots run missions from a world away, combat stress is just as serious. HuffPost Lives Ahmed Shihab-Eldin spoke with several experts on the subject, discussing the likelihood of PTSD among drone pilots and how they are effected by the combat stress. According to a recent survey of 900 drone crew members, 46 percent of active duty pilots reported high levels of stress. Dr. Wayne Chappelle of the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine described the symptoms of PTSD during the segment, noting that there are very clear markers -- including hyper-vigilance, avoidance and re-experiencing -- that must be met in order for the disorder to be considered PTSD. While drone pilots are not directly threatened during combat missions as soliders on the ground are, "that doesn't mean that they're immune to the other aspects of war," Col. Kent McDonald of the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine said. "Killing in and of itself is difficult for any warrior to go through." HuffPost's Andrea Stone, Fred Gusman of the Pathway Home, Levi Newman of the Veterans United Network and New School Professor Peter Asaro also appeared on the segment. Check it out for yourself in the clip above. HomeAid Luncheon Funds Female Veterans Hostel (HC) Houston Chronicle, October 11, 2012 The guests who attended HomeAid Houston's HALO luncheon, a fund-raising event held at Lakeside Country Club, Sept. 27, heard about Mary G., an Iraq war veteran and current resident at Santa Maria Hostel in Spring Branch. She shared the challenges she faced as one of a handful of women on the front lines, as well as her struggles recovering from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina upon her return. Guests heard about her journey to Santa Maria as a homeless female veteran a year ago, and her new-found strength and hope for a brighter future. Kay Austin, executive director at Santa Maria, spoke about the female vet issues she and her staff work through at the shelter. "Mary's story captivated everyone at the luncheon," said Bette Moser, executive director of HomeAid Houston, a Greater Houston Builders Association charity. "We were all moved by her strength and desire to rise above situations most of us will never have to experience in our lifetime. She was the face of the many female U.S. vets who are returning home with nowhere to go." HALO, which stands for HomeAid's Amazing Ladies Organization, was created to bring Houston's building industry professionals together to learn about HomeAid, to share ideas and to help raise funds to support the HomeAid mission - To build dignified housing where homeless families and individuals can rebuild their lives. Funds raised at the third annual HALO luncheon will be used for the Red, White and Blue project, a remodel of the Santa Maria community rooms used by resident female veterans. Toy Wood, CEO of the Greater Houston Builders Association was the underwriter for the luncheon.

44

HomeAid's vision for HALO is to inspire women within the industry to join the challenge in giving hope to Houston's homeless community by making HomeAid Houston their personal charity of choice. For more information about HALO, contact Bette Moser, executive director of HomeAid or Toy Wood, CEO of the GHBA at 281-970-8970. New Criteria Prompt Resubmission Of PTSD Claims (ARMYT) By Jim Tice Army Times, October 11, 2012 FORT KNOX, Ky. — Retirees who have been denied claims related to post-traumatic stress disorder are being encouraged to submit their claims again because the Army is using new, and more refined, criteria to assess those claims. The new criteria affect claims made under the Combat Related Special Compensation program. CRSC is a special entitlements program established in 2003 to provide tax-free monthly payments to eligible retirees who received combat-related injuries when they were in service with the active or reserve components. The program restores military retirement pay that is offset when a retiree receives compensation from the Veterans Affairs Department for a disability or condition attributed to a combat-related event. Eligible retirees can simultaneously receive an amount equal to or less than their length-of-service retired pay and their VA disability compensation, if the injury was combat-related. Under the new assessment criteria, the Army is not tying PTSD claim approvals to a specific event, said Krista Selph, chief of the Special Compensation Branch here at Human Resources Command. “PTSD is something that takes place over time,” Selph said. The Army’s CRSC review board meets weekly to assess claims and, in recent months, has applied refined criteria for evaluating claims based on PTSD. Selph urged applicants who have had PTSD-related claims denied to resubmit their claims. “In terms of our refined evaluation criteria, the branch is approving PTSD claims for eligible retirees who present a valid piece of combat evidence paired with medical evidence,” Selph said. Combat evidence Eligible combat evidence includes, but is not limited to: • A combat tour, or tours, highlighted by orders, a DD Form 214, Enlisted Record Brief or other official military document. • Combat awards, such as the Purple Heart, Combat Action Badge or Combat Infantry Badge. • Line of duty investigations. • Performance evaluation reports specifying combat experience. • Any official Army documentation indicating a claimant served in a combat specialty, in actual combat or as an instrumentality of war. Medical evidence Eligible medical evidence includes but is not limited to: • Treatment records following the combat tour that indicate the claimant sought assistance for PTSD. • Physical or medical evaluation board proceedings that specify that PTSD was incurred in combat or while serving as an instrumentality of war. • Separation or retirement orders indicating that the retirement was due to a disability incurred in combat or while serving as an instrumentality of war. • Evaluation reports from medical and/or mental health practitioners. A review of recent actions shows that, in July, the Special Compensation Branch processed 321 CRSC claims for PTSD. Of those claims, 289 were approved, and 32 disapproved, for an approval rate of 90 percent. In August, the branch processed 435 claims and approved 391, for an approval rate of about 90 percent. Federal Contract Summit Is Today (FAYOBS) By April Dudash Fayetteville (NC) Observer, October 10, 2012 Local businesses and government officials are convening in Wilmington today for the North Carolina Federal Construction & Infrastructure Summit. The annual meeting focuses on contracting opportunities, changes to the federal marketplace and networking. More than 700 people are planning to attend, and more than 85 businesses will take part as exhibitors.

45

The event is organized by the North Carolina Military Business Center, which is headquartered at Fayetteville Technical Community College. About 57 government construction and contracting officials will attend, including representatives of Fort Bragg, Marine Corps Installations East and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Speakers will include Maj. Gen. Todd Semonite, deputy commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, and Rear Adm. Douglas Morton, commander of Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic. "The Fedcon Summit is the premier annual federal construction event in North Carolina," Scott Dorney, executive director of the N.C. Military Business Center, said in an email. "Businesses that want to engage in this market, or grow in this market, need to be there.'' For more information about the summit, go to ncmbc.us. Veterans In Biloxi Are Stars Of Cruisin' On Tuesday (BILOXISH) By Tammy Smith Biloxi (MS) Sun Herald, October 10, 2012 BILOXI -- The only clouds in the sky at the Biloxi VA property Tuesday were puffs of aromatic smoke wafting from barbecue grills as Cruisin' The Coast paid its annual tribute to veterans. Participants and car enthusiasts enjoyed hamburgers, floats and soft drinks on the grounds of the property, shaded by Live oaks dripping with Spanish moss. "It's wonderful to see the Spanish moss back. It wasn't here for a long time," said Colleen Kershaw, site manager. Cruisin' has made a special effort to honor veterans for 11 years, she said. In 2002, a nurse in the Alzheimer's unit had called to ask if cruisers could make a trip through VA property. Security had blocked the cars in the past, but a few calls led to permission to have a few vehicles come in. "We got a procession together, a mini-cruise," Kershaw said. The small line of cars circled the Gulfport VA and as they were about to leave, they were asked to make the circuit one more time. Meanwhile, somebody else had heard about the cars and asked if they could cruise by the back of the property. "They wound up being there for a few hours," she said. "Word kept spreading that they were there. There was one man there who was an Alzheimer's patient, and he hadn't spoken since he had been there, but when he saw one of the cars, he called out the year and make of the car. It was a very moving experience." The Biloxi property now is one of the popular destinations, and some cruisers even make an informal, unofficial trip to the Armed Forces Retirement Home to visit the residents there. The former Gulfport VA site, now called Centennial Plaza, is Cruise Central for the seven days of the event. As of Tuesday afternoon, the registration total was 5,339. Cruisin' continues today with more registrations at Cruise Central in Gulfport, and the Biloxi Block Party in downtown Biloxi. The Cruise into Coast Sock Hop featuring Louis Prima Jr. will be at the Beau Rivage tonight, along with more entertainment and a champagne brunch at the IP Casino Resort's Chill. On Tuesday, John Ludlow of Woolmarket was enjoying the outdoor music, including an Elvis impersonator. A 26-year veteran of the Marine Corps and Army, he entered the service "just after Korea," he said. "I come every year here for it," he said of Cruisin' The Coast, and he comes for the cars. "I like the old ones, the antique ones. And I don't consider them antique unless they're older than me," he said with a laugh. "My dad was a veteran of World War I. I remember riding in Model T's with him. He was born in 1892 and saw man go to the moon." Ludlow got to see some of his preferred vehicles Tuesday. "My favorite is the Model A Ford. I saw a couple today," he said. Judge Who Closed Deadwood's Brothels Dies At 94 (RAPJOU) Rapid City Journal, October 11, 2012 A South Dakota state judge who shut down Deadwood's last brothels in 1980 has died. Judge R.E. "Ed" Brandenburg died Oct. 5 at age 94. His remains are to be buried in Black Hills National Cemetery in the spring, according to Black Hills Funeral Home and Cremation Services. Brandenburg was an 8th Circuit Judge when he declared the houses of prostitution in Deadwood a public nuisance and closed them down, Belle Fourche lawyer and Deadwood history buff Michael Trump told the Rapid City Journal ( http://bit.ly/UHtKSz). Prostitution had operated for a century in the gambling town with the tacit approval of law enforcement but was targeted by federal officials investigating organized crime activity, possibly including a murder. "He maybe had kind of an affinity for the way Deadwood was, but he followed the law," Trump said.

46

Brandenburg found himself at the center of a political controversy when the state moved to close the brothels, much to the surprise of many Deadwood residents who had long tolerated them as a source of economic activity for the town, said Brandenburg's son, Scott. "He would get letters in the mail that said, `Please don't close them, because I really have a lot of fun when I go to Deadwood.' I remember him saying ... the law was already on the books," Scott Brandenburg said. "It was the law. He had to uphold the law. It was a cut-and-dried decision." After raids by federal and state agents in May 1980, Brandenburg issued a temporary closure order in June and made the shutdown permanent in October of that year, when he issued a permanent injunction preventing landlords from renting to the late Pam Holliday, the proprietor of Pam's Purple Door, and other Deadwood madams. Michigan National Guard To Host Veteran's Job Fair In Lansing (MIDDANE) Midland (MI) Daily News, October 11, 2012 In collaboration with more than 60 companies, the Michigan National Guard is hosting a veteran’s job fair Nov. 7-9. “Our servicemen and women need to know that America values them not simply for what they can do in uniform, but for what they can do when they come home,” said Maj. Gen. Gregory Vadnais, the director of the Michigan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs and the adjutant general of the Michigan National Guard. The job fair will operate between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. on Wednesday through Friday, Nov. 7-9, inside Michigan National Guard Joint Forces Headquarters Lansing, 3411 N. Martin Luther King Blvd. The event is free and open to any veteran and or their spouse. Dress is business casual and veterans should bring several copies of their resume for employers. Some employers will interview and hire on the premises. Combat-Wounded Veterans Eligible For Mortgage Free Homes (SALINAS) Salinas Californian, October 11, 2012 The California Department of Veterans Affairs has learned Military Warriors Support Foundation is currently accepting applications online from combat-wounded veterans and unmarried Gold Star Spouses of OIF/OEF for newly-renovated, 100% mortgage-free homes in Bakersfield, Crescent City, Riverbank, Sacramento and Stockton. Applicants must be honorably retired or separated from the military and must not currently have a mortgage. Active service members with compelling situations, who are less than 90 days from retirement or separation, may be considered. The homes are donated by the Military Warriors Support Foundation. Besides the homes donation program, the Foundation’s programs include employment assistance and outdoor recreational activities. The homes donation program, Homes4WoundedHeroes, has awarded more than 150 mortgage-free homes across the continental U.S. since its inception in late 2010. The homes come with a free 3-year financial and family mentorship that helps the families understand the fundamentals of home ownership. For more information about Military Warriors Support Foundation and to learn about the homes currently available (new homes are added frequently), go to www. http://www.militarywarriors.org/openhomes. Learn About Free Burials For Veterans At Holly Cemetery (ROYALOAK) Royal Oak (MI) Daily Tribune, October 11, 2012 ROYAL OAK — Rick Anderson, the director of Great Lakes National Cemetery, Holly, says the free service offered there is one of the least-understood benefits for military veterans and their families. To build awareness, William Sullivan & Son Funeral Directors will conduct another free bus trip to the cemetery on Oct. 17. Veterans and their guests will board the bus at the funeral home, 705 W. 11 Mile Road, at 9 a.m. and will return at 2 p.m. The funeral home will provide a free lunch during the trip. Attendees will learn there is no charge for veterans, their spouses or dependent children to be buried at the cemetery. Urns may instead be placed in the columbarium wall. Burial benefits include the grave itself, grave opening and closing, perpetual care, grave liner, a headstone or marker, a burial flag and a Presidential Memorial Certificate. Spouses’ and dependents names and dates of birth and death also will be inscribed on the veteran’s headstone at no cost to the family. To reserve a seat on bus, call 248-541-7000. Duke Realty Pays $36.3M For Broward County Veteran's Clinic (SFLBIZ) 47

By Oscar Pedro Musibay South Florida Business Journal, October 11, 2012 Duke Realty has paid $36.3 million for the Broward County VA Outpatient Clinic, according to public records. The seller of the property at 9800 W. Commercial Blvd. was a company operating as Sunrise VA Medical. Public records indicate the manager of Sunrise VA Medical is White Plains, N.Y.-based Seavest, a real estate investment and management company with a healthcare division. Manufacturer Helps Vets Turn Military Skills Into Jobs (CNBC) By Heesun Wee CNBC, October 11, 2012 Advanced Technology Services, a company that maintains manufacturing plant equipment, has fashioned a unique way to fill their vacant jobs—specifically recruit and hire America's returning veterans. Turns out soldiers trained in handling guns, radios and other kinds of equipment possess the ideal skills to work in America's manufacturing plants. "They have all these great skills and manufacturing is a perfect place for them to transition into," said Holly Mosack, director of military recruiting for Advanced Technology Services, based in Peoria, Ill. Whether U.S. manufacturing can thrive again is a perennial question. But recent economic data suggests sector improvement. The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) last week said the manufacturing sector expanded in September— shaking off three months of weakness as new orders and employment edged higher. Advanced Technology Services helps factories improve productivity and profitability. Their clients include Caterpillar [ CAT Loading... ( ) ], Honeywell [ HON Loading... ( ) ], Eaton and Textron. Advanced Technology Services began focusing on military hiring in 2006. That emphasis was ramped up last year as more vets began returning home from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But transitioning from the battlefield to private-sector work is challenging, as jobs data shows. The unemployment rate for veterans—who served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces at any time since September 2001—was 12.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said earlier this year. (Read more: Veterans Face New Battle in Private-Sector Job Market) Applying for the wrong jobs Mosack said she noticed vets applying for the wrong jobs. "They were going for positions they were under or over qualified for." Other veterans need help on basic skills such as how to address supervisors. Some veterans "feel silly asking, 'What am I supposed to call my boss?' " she said. Advanced Technology Services' program helps veterans navigate these dilemmas and other tasks they've never managed before such as health-care forms and 401(k)s. Roughly 25 percent or 650 of the company's 2,600 U.S.-based employees are veterans. Brian Aschenbrenner, a former Air Force officer is among them. A military communications officer, Aschenbrenner handled radios, radars, satellites and other communication equipment at Air Force bases and in Iraq, Jordan and Qatar. After nearly 24 years in the military, Aschenbrenner found himself looking for a civilian job for the first time in his life a few months ago. Advanced Technology Services caught his attention. "Looking into what they did, I could see the relationship to maintaining factory equipment," he said. Aschenbrenner now supervises maintenance activity on plant industrial equipment in Oklahoma. "The military is full of guys, who have a variety of technical skills."Email us at and follow us on Twitter @SmallBizCNBC. © 2012 CNBC.com Food Drive For Veterans (KCCO)

48

KCCO-TV Grand Junction (CO), October 11, 2012 Grand Junction, Colo. (KKCO) - No one should go hungry, especially those who have sacrificed for their country. You can help our local veterans by participating in an annual food drive this weekend. The food drive starts Saturday, and kicks off with a motorcycle ride starting at 10 a.m. at the Grand Junction Vet Center. This drive, which is collecting canned and non-perishable food items, runs through Dec. 3. Organizers say the 3rd Annual Food Drive to Support Local Veterans has been very successful in helping to feed struggling veterans and their families. The Grand Junction Vet Center provides free re-adjustment counseling and outreach to all vets and their families. The GJ Vet Center is located at 2472 F Road, Unit 16 in Grand Junction. NATIONAL NEWS

Obama On Debate With Romney: 'I Had A Bad Night' (AP) By David Espo, Associated Press Associated Press, October 11, 2012 SIDNEY, Ohio (AP) — President Barack Obama conceded Wednesday he did poorly in a debate last week that fueled a comeback by his rival in the race for the White House. Mitt Romney barnstormed battleground Ohio and pledged "I'm not going to raise taxes on anyone" in a new commercial. A perennial campaign issue flared unexpectedly as Romney reaffirmed he is running as a "pro-life candidate and I'll be a pro-life president." He spoke one day after saying in an interview he was not aware of any abortion-related legislation that would become part of his agenda if he wins the White House. Romney and Obama maneuvered in a race with 27 days to run as Vice President Joe Biden and Republican running mate Paul Ryan looked ahead to their only debate, set for Thursday night in Danville, Ky. Whatever the impact of the Biden-Ryan encounter, last week's presidential debate boosted Romney in the polls nationally and in Ohio and other battleground states, to the point that Obama was still struggling to explain a performance even his aides and supporters say was subpar. "Gov. Romney had a good night. I had a bad night. It's not the first time I've had a bad night," Obama said in an ABC interview. Asked if it was possible he had handed the election to Romney, the president replied: "No." "What's important is the fundamentals of what this race is about haven't changed," he said. "You know, Gov. Romney went to a lot of trouble to try to hide what his positions are," he said, referring to abortion as an example. Despite the presidential display of confidence, public opinion polls suggested the impact of last week's debate was to wipe out most, if not all, of the gains Obama made following both parties' national conventions and the emergence in late summer of a videotape in which Romney spoke dismissively of 47 percent of Americans whom he said pay no income taxes. They feel as if they are victims, he said, adding they don't take personal responsibilities for their lives. Eager to capitalize on his newfound momentum, Romney told more than 7,000 packed into a western Ohio rally: "We can't afford four more years of Barack Obama." The Republican challenger made three public appearances in Ohio on Wednesday and will spend two of the next three days in the state. "Ohio could well be the place that elects the next president of the United States," he said. "I need you to do that job. We're going to win together." Romney's new television commercial was an appeal to voters' pocketbooks — and also a rebuttal to Obama's claim that Romney had a plan to cut taxes by $5 trillion on the wealthy that would mean higher taxes for the middle class. "The president would prefer raising taxes," Romney is shown saying in an exchange from last week's debate. "I'm not going to raise taxes on anyone. ... My priority is putting people back to work in America." Unemployment and the economy have been the dominant issues in the race for the presidency, and while Romney gained from the debate, last week's drop in the jobless rate to 7.8 percent gave Obama a new talking point for the Democratic claim that his policies are helping the country recover, however slowly, from the worst recession in decades. Romney also sought to lay any abortion-related controversy to rest as he campaigned across Ohio, a battleground with 18 electoral votes and one of the places where he has gained ground since last week's debate.

49

"I think I've said time and again that I'm a pro-life candidate and I'll be a pro-life president," he said, renewing his promise to cut off federal aid for Planned Parenthood and implement a ban on the use of foreign aid for abortions overseas. But by the time he spoke, Obama's aides had already jumped on comments from an interview with The Des Moines Register in which Romney said "there's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, told reporters on a conference call that Romney was "cynically and dishonestly" hiding his positions on women's issues. "We're not saying he's changed his mind on these issues. We're saying he's trying to cover up his beliefs," she said. For entirely different reasons, one prominent anti-abortion group agreed that he shouldn't. As if to remind Romney of his previous statements on the issue, the head of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List distributed an article he wrote last summer vowing to prohibit federal funding for Planned Parenthood and to support legislation that would "protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion." "We have full confidence that as president, Gov. Romney will stand by the pro-life commitments," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group's president. Vice presidential encounters rarely make a significant difference in a White House campaign, although aides engage in the same sort of attempt to shape public expectations as when the men at the top of the ticket are ready to face off. For Ryan's camp, that meant whispering that the 42-year-old Wisconsin congressman and House Budget Committee chairman was comfortable discussing spending issues and domestic policy, but might not be able to hold his own on foreign policy, a Biden strong suit. The vice president's side let it be known that Ryan is smart and wonky, a man who knows the budget better than anyone — but it's a version that omits mention of Biden's nearly four decades of experience in government and his role as Obama's point man in budget negotiations with Republicans on an elusive deficit-reduction deal. Romney's wife, Ann, took a turn as guest host on ABC's "Good Morning America" and spoke candidly about experiencing depression after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis 14 years ago. She said horses helped her recover her mental health. "I was very, very weak and very much worried about my life, thinking I was going to be in a wheelchair as well. Turned to horses, my life has been dramatically different," she said. "They gave me the energy, the passion to get out of bed when I was so sick that I didn't think I'd ever want to get out of bed." Mrs. Romney is part-owner of a horse that competed this summer in the Olympic sport of dressage, the equine equivalent of ballet. Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Obama: 'I Was Just Too Polite' (POLITCO) By Donovan Slack Politico, October 11, 2012 President Obama, in his lengthiest remarks to date about his disastrous debate performance, vowed "a little more activity" next time. "I mean, you know, the debate, I think it’s fair to say I was just too polite, because, you know, it’s hard to sometimes just keep on saying, 'And what you’re saying isn’t true,'" he told Tom Joyner in an interview Tuesday. "It gets repetitive. But, you know, the good news is, is that’s just the first one... And, you know, I think it’s fair to say that we will see a little more activity at the next one." (Also on POLITICO: Full coverage of the Colorado presidential debate) Polls show the president lost considerable ground to Mitt Romney after the debate, with some now showing Romney in the lead. The president said that supporters should not be alarmed, that it always was going to be a close race. And he suggested that stumbles by Romney in recent months may have lulled them into a false sense of security. "Governor Romney kept on making mistakes month after month so it made it look artificially like this was, might end up being a cakewalk," he told Joyner. "But we understood internally that it never would be. That it was going to [be] tight, it tightened over the last three or four days, but it could have tightened after the convention if they hadn’t had such a bad convention." He likened the race to a seven-game series in basketball, in which his team was up two to zero and then lost the third game. (See also: POLITICO's polling center) "Yeah, but you had the open shot and you didn’t take it," Joyner said, according to a transcript from TJMS. 50

"Yeah, I understand, but you know, what happens, though, is that when people lose one game, you know, this is a long haul," Obama replied. "And I think that it’s very important for folks to just make sure that they understand that as long as people stay focused we will win this thing." Obama outlined a host of issues that he said would put voters on his side, from health care and student loan program reforms to ending the war in Iraq and tax policy. "You know, across the board these are issues that matter to people day in, day out," he said. "And so we’re just going to, we’ve got four weeks left in the election. And we’re going to take it to him." Read more about: Presidential Debates 2012, Colorado Presidential Debate 2012 Team Obama Plays Up Accusations Of Mitt Romney Abortion Flip-Flop (NYDN) New York Daily News, October 11, 2012 Team Obama accused GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney Wednesday of flip-flopping on one of the most contentious social issues cleaving the country — abortion. Our Corky Siemaszko and I report: Eager to regain the lead they lost after President Obama’s disastrous debate in Denver last week, Obama’s supporters pounced after the self-proclaimed pro-life Romney suddenly declared he wouldn’t pursue anti-abortion legislation if he was elected president in November. “We now know that the real Mitt Romney will say anything to win,” deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter told reporters. “With just 27 days left before the election, he's cynically and dishonestly hiding his real positions, but voters shouldn't be fooled and won't be fooled.” Riffing off remarks Romney made to the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Cutter said “he didn't tell the truth about his extreme position on abortion and then got fact-checked by his own campaign.” Romney has been trying to broaden his appeal and cut into Obama’s lead with women voters by moderating the conservative positions he staked out during the raucous Republican primary battle. “He's trying to hide his real position, but there's no hiding when you are President,” Cutter said. “And on this issue and so many others, women simply cannot trust Mitt Romney.” During the meeting with the Register, Romney raised eyebrows by breaking with the harsh anti-abortion rhetoric he used to woo conservatives during a contentious primary fight. “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney said. The remarks seem to contradict the candidate’s past positions including a promise to end federal funding of Planned Parenthood. He has also said he hoped the Supreme Court would overturn Roe versus Wade. And, he chose a running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, who co-sponsored legislation that would ban abortions even in cases of rape and incest. Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul quickly walked back Romney’s remarks. “Governor Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections of life,” she said. Obama Team Accuses Romney Of Downplaying Abortion (LAT) Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2012 Mitt Romney turned down the volume on abortion as a priority for his campaign this week, but supporters of President Obama said he is falsely downplaying the issue with voters who don't like his opposition to reproductive rights. In an interview with the Des Moines Register published Tuesday, Romney said there is “no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” On Wednesday morning, a top Obama campaign official charged that the former CEO is trying to soften his views in an attempt to "close the deal, just like he did in the boardroom.” “He’s trying to soften his image,” said deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter, “not just with women voters but with all voters.” The Romney campaign pushed back against the early reaction to the Register interview, saying there has been no change in the position Romney staked out in the Republican primary. Romney is "proudly pro-life and will be a pro-life president," a spokeswoman said Tuesday. PHOTOS: Mitt Romney’s past

51

Responding to Cutter’s remarks Wednesday, Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg dismissed her critique as a sign of desperation. "As Barack Obama said in 2008, 'If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from,'” Henneberg said. “Americans are tired of the same old politics as usual, and they won't be fooled by a flailing campaign's manufactured outrage.” Never slow to raise Romney’s position on abortion whenever it gets the chance, the Obama campaign is also sending Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation, out to talk about that issue in particular. PHOTOS: President Obama’s past Running for Massachusetts governor in 2002, Romney said he would "preserve and protect" a woman's right to choose abortion. In his race for president, he says he supports abortion only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. "He not only has trivialized this issue, but is being incredibly dishonest about where he stands,” Richards said Wednesday. “Women just can’t trust Mitt Romney ... to be honest and direct about where he stands.” Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook [email protected] twitter.com/cparsons Obama Vows More Aggressive Debate Approach Against Romney (WP) By Scott Wilson And David Nakamura Washington Post, October 11, 2012 President Obama is promising a more aggressive approach in his debate next week with Mitt Romney and is offering some clues about how he intends to blunt his Republican rival’s momentum and reassure jittery Democratic supporters. The president and his proxies have rolled out a sharper-edged message in the week since his lackluster first debate, hammering Romney over his changing positions on such central issues as tax cuts, health care and education. The Democratic argument has been that Romney lied about his plans on the stage last week in front of 68 million television viewers in a way that disguises their potential impact on middle-class families. In recent campaign advertising and in the president’s post-debate stump speeches, the outlines of Obama’s new approach are visible — and appear to reflect the lines of argument and rebuttal that he failed to make onstage in Denver. The strategy may become even more visible Thursday night, when Vice President Biden debates Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan in their only face-to-face encounter. Obama has tested some catchy phrases in recent days. “That’s not leadership — that’s salesmanship,” the president said of Romney at a Tuesday campaign rally at Ohio State University, employing the kind of one-liner that his advisers had dismissed as un-presidential before the first debate. In a radio interview Wednesday, Obama said he had been “too polite” onstage last week with Romney. It was the latest of several defenses the campaign has offered up since his performance in Denver; earlier, aides had said Obama was simply too stunned by Romney’s deceit to reply adequately. Either way, Obama vowed to respond more energetically at their next matchup, at Hofstra University in New York on Tuesday. “It’s fair to say we will see a little more activity at the next” debate, Obama said on the “The Tom Joyner Morning Show,” a nationally syndicated radio program. “We have four weeks left in this election, and we’re going to take it to them and make sure everyone understands what’s at stake.” Romney advisers have called Obama’s questions about their candidate’s honesty evidence that the president is unable to defend his record on job creation, health care and the management of the deficit. Romney has sought to press his post-debate advantage in recent days, even taking on Obama’s foreign policy record, once seen as the incumbent’s strength. In the radio interview, Obama said he expected the race to turn back his way, beginning Thursday night with the vice- presidential debate. He also dismissed the Democratic angst that has followed his performance in Denver as the same misplaced doubts that dogged his campaign four years ago. “By next week, I think a lot of the hand-wringing will be complete because we’re going to go ahead and win this thing,” Obama said. “You were around in 2008. How many times were people saying we weren’t going to win?” In a separate interview with ABC News’s Diane Sawyer on Wednesday, Obama said of the debate: “Governor Romney had a good night. I had a bad night. It’s not the first time I’ve had a bad night.”

52

But he denied the debate might have handed the election to his rival. “What’s important is the fundamentals of what this race is about haven’t changed,” Obama said, according to a transcript released by ABC News. “You know, Governor Romney went to a lot of trouble to try to hide what his positions are.” Polls tighten Since the debate, the Democratic mood has darkened, with a marked tightening in national and swing-state opinion polls that has thrown the election into question with less than a month to go. Worried supporters are hoping Biden, an experienced debater, delivers a well-argued defense of the administration’s record and a pointed critique of the Romney-Ryan candidacy that Obama largely failed to do last week. “They had a strategy last time — a failed strategy,” former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell (D) said of the Obama campaign, whose advisers counseled the president not to be overly aggressive, for fear of looking petty onstage. “They changed strategies. But if I were advising them, I’d say don’t just turn this into a negative campaign. Talk about what you’ve done and your plans for the future.” Obama will travel to Williamsburg, Va., on Saturday for three days of preparation with the same team that advised him last week, including Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who has played Romney in mock debates with Obama; White House adviser David Plouffe; campaign adviser David Axelrod; and communications consultants Anita Dunn and Ron Klain. Campaign officials have been largely silent on specifics of the preparation and Obama’s intent. But since the debate in Denver, the president and his proxies have offered a road map for what new to expect. On Wednesday, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter and Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards blasted Romney for seeming to back away from his anti-abortion position by suggesting in an interview with the Des Moines Register that he would not actively pursue legislation that would outlaw abortions. The conference call underscored the Obama campaign’s concern over its lost edge with female voters, a once-sizable advantage that has largely evaporated since the Denver debate. “With 26 days to go, he’s trying to soften his image,” Cutter said, referring to Romney. “We’re going to hold him accountable.” Swing-state blitz During visits to four swing states, including two visits to Ohio, after the last debate, Obama has sought to make the case that Romney misled viewers last week. In addition, the Obama campaign and an auxiliary super PAC have reinforced the message with specific critiques of Romney’s debate statements in those states, plus several others now more in play after Obama’s performance in Denver. Three days after the debate, the Obama campaign began broadcasting an ad called “Dishonest” in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. The spot focuses on Romney’s debate contention that he does not have a $5 trillion tax-cut plan, something Obama has said he has been campaigning on for months. “If we can’t trust him to be honest now, how can we trust him in the White House?” the ad asks. On Tuesday, the campaign released another ad in swing states that accuses Romney of repeatedly raising nursing-home fees during his tenure as Massachusetts governor and threatening Medicaid, an important way middle-class families pay to place elderly parents in nursing homes. “We have a president who won’t let that happen,” the ad notes. Priorities USA, the super PAC supporting Obama’s reelection, has echoed the danger-to-the-middle-class message as part of a $30 million advertising blitz in the final month before the election. In an ad running in a half-dozen swing states, the group argues that Romney intends to cut public school funding to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, ending with the line: “If Mitt Romney wins, the middle class loses.” Neera Tanden, president for the liberal Center for American Progress, acknowledged that the race is tightening. But she said Obama has plenty of time to regain control if he is more willing to confront Romney directly about his changing positions. “The president has an obligation not to be aggressive, but to say with a smile and point out to the American people that when a candidate says ‘A’ six months ago and ‘Z’ a month before the election, is he going to say ‘M’ when he’s president?” Tanden said. For his part, Obama is projecting an air of confidence, making reference during the radio interview to an Internet meme featuring his photo with a superimposed slogan. “As some of those e-mails going around with my picture on it say, ‘I got this,’ ” the president said. Obama And The L-Word (WSJ) 'Liar' is potent and ugly—with a sleazy political pedigree. 53

By Daniel Henninger Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Obama Campaign Tries To Quell Panic (FT) By Richard McGregor In Columbus, Ohio Financial Times, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Financial Times are available to FT subscribers by clicking the link. Obama Sharpens Attacks On Romney’s Credibility, But Will It Work? (MCT) By By David Lightman, Mcclatchy Newspapers McClatchy, October 11, 2012 The Obama campaign’s relentless effort to paint Mitt Romney as a dishonest, soulless snob is a risky strategy. For months, Democrats have been running ads and issuing statements with the same, persistent themes: Romney’s pushing a tax cut plan that would send the already huge national debt soaring, while making the rich richer. He’s hiding something in the tax returns he won’t release. He doesn’t care about the middle class or the needy. For this kind of offensive to succeed – and it sometimes does – Romney has to fit the image when most of the public finally pays attention. If not, the tactic boomerangs, and the aggressor can look mean and less presidential. So far, polls show the affable Romney has benefited because he didn’t fit the scary profile when an estimated 67 million people watched the Oct. 3 presidential debate. The former Massachusetts governor’s favorability hit 50 percent in an Oct. 4-7 Pew Research Center poll, up 5 percentage points since last month, while Obama’s rating fell 6 percentage points, to 49 percent. But the Obama campaign has persisted. Saturday, its ad called Romney’s tax cut claims “dishonest.” Sunday, Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith asked, “What does Mitt Romney have against the truth?” after the GOP nominee spoke in Florida. Tuesday, the beat went on. “Mitt Romney looked straight into the crowd tonight and told downright falsehoods,” said Obama campaign spokesman Danny Kanner after a Romney speech in Ohio. Wednesday, following a Romney appearance in Mount Vernon, Ohio, Kanner called the remarks “a barrage of head- spinning falsehoods.” Despite his gains last week, Romney’s favorability rating is not all that high, and Pew said that only 39 percent found the Republican “honest and truthful.” Demonizing does sometimes work, even for an incumbent president. “We did quite a number on John Kerry,” said Curt Anderson, a veteran Republican strategist, recalling the negative campaign in 2004 when the Democratic senator from Massachusetts was the party’s standard-bearer. The anti-Kerry group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, raised questions about his Vietnam War service. But Kerry, said Anderson, forgot another rule of political combat. “You win elections by effective counterpunching,” he said. Romney is fighting back. He says his tax plan would not cost $5 trillion over 10 years, as the Obama campaign insists – an assertion hard to prove or disprove, since Romney won’t provide more specifics. The independent Tax Policy Center said the plan would cost about $480 billion in 2015. But, it added, “Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden.” Romney is also counterpunching by raising questions about the administration’s handling of the crisis in Libya, where four Americans died, including the U.S. ambassador. An email released earlier this week said the State Department withdrew U.S. security personnel from Libya just weeks before suspected Islamist extremists attacked the American consulate, despite warnings from the U.S. Embassy that the Libyan government could not protect foreign diplomats. Romney has criticized the White House for calling the attack a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video on the Internet, then later maintaining it was a terrorist operation possibly tied to al Qaida. The White House says that its statements were based on U.S. intelligence assessments at the times they were made. The Obama campaign’s other tactic is to portray Romney as a cunning politician whose views change depending on his electoral needs, and is howling at what it sees as Romney’s slow march toward the center in recent days.

54

In a debate in January during the Republican primary campaign, Romney said that illegal immigrants should “self-deport,” and later said only that he’d look at the issue. But on Oct. 1 he told The Denver Post that he wouldn’t overturn Obama’s June directive making it easier for certain children of illegal immigrants to stay in this country legally. Last week, Romney seemed to soften even more, telling Fox News’ Sean Hannity that his assertion that 47 percent of Americans are “victims” overly dependent on government was “completely wrong.” This week he talked about abortion, telling the Des Moines Register editorial board on Tuesday: “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” But he did say he would ban by executive order federally funded international nonprofits from providing abortions in other countries. And the campaign sent a statement to the National Review saying “Governor Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life.” “We know the real Mitt Romney will say anything to win,’’ said Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager. “Voters shouldn’t be fooled. . . . Women simply cannot trust Mitt Romney.” Republicans are hoping the Obama script becomes a rerun of 1980, when President Jimmy Carter tried similar tactics against Ronald Reagan. “You’ll determine whether or not this America will be unified or, if I lose this election, whether Americans might be separated, black from white, Jew from Christian, north from south, rural from urban,” Carter said. Then the candidates debated. “When his attempt to demonize Reagan failed – Reagan’s cool, relaxed presidential demeanor in the debate had buried that effort once and for all,” political analysts Jack Germond and Jules Witcover wrote, "Jimmy Carter was politically naked.” The Dividends Of Romney's Debate Victory (WSJ) More Republicans than Democrats are registering and voting early in several battleground states. By Karl Rove Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Sherrod Brown’s Lessons For Obama (WP) By E.j. Dionne Jr. Washington Post, October 11, 2012 MORELAND HILLS, Ohio If anyone can testify to the problem of giving really rich people a chance to tilt the political playing field, it’s Sen. Sherrod Brown. A proud labor-populist, Brown seems to invite the hostility of wealthy conservatives and deep-pocketed interest groups. The amount they have spent to defeat him topped $20 million this week. Brown can live with that. His uncompromising advocacy on behalf of workers, toughness on trade, and progressive policies on a broad range of other issues have allowed the Democrat to build a formidable organization across Ohio, and a large cadre of small donors. “That organization is there,” he said in an interview before he spoke at a fundraiser in this Cleveland suburb, “because they have a candidate who stands for something and fights for something.” Brown has stayed ahead in his race against Republican state Treasurer Josh Mandel , although the polls tightened this week. I spoke with Brown a few days after President Obama’s unfortunate first debate, and the contrast between Brown’s approach and the president’s was striking — even though Brown, a loyal Obama supporter, did not bring it up himself. Brown is not the sort to let down his guard in a debate. Indeed, his analysis of why Democrats were routed in 2010 combines a clear-eyed view of the condition of the country at the time — “There was no evidence by the 2010 elections that things were getting better” — with a belief that his party must always be prepared to make its case. Leading into 2010, he said, “we let them get away with too much.” That’s not a bad description of how Democrats felt about Obama’s first debate with Mitt Romney. It’s also why their expectations of Vice President Biden in Thursday’s encounter with Rep. Paul Ryan are so high. Democrats want Biden to put their side back on offense, and Brown’s view of the argument Biden has to make was characteristic. Ryan, Brown said, has “dressed up trickle-down economics and wrapped it in an Ayn Rand novel.” The vice president, Brown added, should highlight the Republicans’ desire to privatize both Medicare and Social Security, reflected in Ryan’s own

55

record and Republicans’ attempts to do so whenever they thought they had the votes. “It’s clear they want to go there,” Brown said. Democrats, including Obama, have to get over that first debate, but it does contain useful lessons that the president learned once and cannot forget again. Obama began his political recovery after the 2011 debt-ceiling fiasco only when he acknowledged the need to confront the radicalism of the new Republican agenda. He put forward a clear alternative philosophy rooted in government’s obligation to check the abuses of the market, to invest in public goods the market won’t finance, and to offset growing inequalities. Both winning the election and governing successfully require Obama to remain unflinching in his insistence that conservatism in its current form cannot provide an adequate basis for either economic renewal or social fairness. Ironically, Romney is unintentionally lending support to this view by trying to abandon his recent right-wing positions with the speed of a NASCAR driver. And in the midst of all the hand-wringing among Democrats, Sen. Charles Schumer offered a refreshing moment of principle this week that should also guide the president. In plain language, the New York Democrat stood up to challenge a truly foolish piece of Washington conventional wisdom, that a post-election budget deal should use tax reform as a way of cutting the income tax rates of the very wealthy. “It would be a huge mistake,” Schumer said in a speech laying down a policy marker, “to take the dollars we gain from closing loopholes and put them into reducing rates for the highest income brackets, rather than into reducing the deficit.” At a time when revenue has to be part of any sane budget deal and when income and wealth gaps are widening, why should Congress be so attentive to the wishes of the most privileged? There may be an answer in the furious efforts of the conservative billionaires to unseat Sherrod Brown. He asks the obvious questions: “Why this money? Who are these people? Why are they spending it in Ohio?” As it happens, the same folks are also trying to beat Obama. It would behoove the president (and Biden, too) to join Brown in reminding voters that this election will determine whose interests will be represented after the ballots are counted — and whose will be ignored. [email protected] Romney Campaign Looks To Capitalize On Image Voters Saw In Debate (NYT) By Michael Barbaro And Ashley Parker New York Times, October 11, 2012 BOSTON — Inside Mitt Romney’s campaign headquarters over the past few days, the data pouring in was unmistakable. Aides scouring the results of focus groups and national polls found that undecided voters watching the presidential debate in Denver seemed startled when the Republican candidate portrayed all year by Democrats — the ultraconservative, unfeeling capitalist — did not materialize. The voters, they discovered, consistently reserved their highest marks for moments when Mr. Romney sounded bipartisan and moderate, two themes he has long played down on the campaign trail but seemed to take pains to showcase this week with centrist-sounding statements on taxes, abortion and immigration. But the appearance at this late stage of a modulating Mitt Romney risks reopening a long-running debate about his authenticity, given that he has described himself as “severely conservative,” dismissed 47 percent of voters as government dependent, and picked a bold conservative as his running mate. Behind the new efforts by the Romney campaign to soften his conservative edges and showcase his personal story was a realization by his political team — borne out by reactions to his performance at the debate — that with the economy showing improvement their best shot at victory is to aggressively defy the negative perceptions that have dogged him throughout the race. In interviews, those advisers described a strategy to capitalize on Mr. Romney’s upswing in the final stretch by highlighting his record of bipartisanship, his time as governor of Massachusetts and history of personal generosity — relying on television advertising, appearances by high-profile supporters and speeches by the candidate himself. Russ Schriefer, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney, said that four years ago Obama voters “liked the idea of him being a bipartisan president.” “And just because they’ve given up on him,” he said, “they haven’t given up on the idea of someone being bipartisan and working across the aisle to get things done.” How aggressively the campaign will pursue this approach on the campaign trail and over the airwaves is an open question. Since the debate, Mr. Romney has not entirely remade his stump speech to emphasize those messages. And the commercials

56

released by the campaign on Wednesday focused on the economy, not bipartisanship as governor — a notion that some Massachusetts lawmakers hotly dispute. What they are envisioning represents a high-stakes wager that voters can be persuaded by a version of Mr. Romney that they have scarcely seen — a version that is, in many ways, at odds with how Mr. Romney campaigned throughout the Republican primary season, when he emphasized his conservatism on social and economic issues. The perils of such a shift became evident on Wednesday when conservatives expressed wariness about remarks in which Mr. Romney seemed to again muddle his position on abortion. In an interview with the editorial board of The Des Moines Register, which has supported abortion rights and usually endorses Democrats in general elections, Mr. Romney said, “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” Steve Deace, a conservative radio host in Iowa, told listeners on Wednesday, “I’m running out of fingers and toes to count the number of positions he has taken on abortion.” The Obama campaign pounced. It accused Mr. Romney, who has previously said he would like to see the Supreme Court overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, of “cynically and dishonestly” misleading voters about his views on abortion. Mr. Romney’s aides said he was responding to a specific question about his agenda in Congress, not a broader inquiry about abortion. Even so, they felt compelled to quickly assure religious conservatives that his position had not changed, reaching out to leaders like Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an advocacy group that vigorously opposes abortion. By Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Romney told reporters after a campaign event in Ohio: “I’m a pro-life candidate. I’ll be a pro- life president.” Mr. Romney set off similar confusion last week when he declared that he would not cancel two-year deportation deferrals for illegal immigrants granted by the Obama administration, a position that distanced him from conservative orthodoxy. But a few days later, his campaign clarified that Mr. Romney intended to halt the program after he took office and would not issue any new deferrals. The changes are sometimes subtle. Mr. Romney, who has long extolled the virtues of two-parent families, offered words of praise for single mothers at a rally in Ohio on Wednesday, including them in a list of people “who live for things bigger than ourselves.” The Romney campaign, which once winced at the mere suggestion that he had changed a position and hounded journalists who used the word “flip-flop,” seemed largely unbothered by claims that he is reorienting himself for a general election audience. “Those concerns have receded,” said Gary Marx, executive director of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and a former Romney counselor on conservative issues. “He is being intentional about reaching out to a broader cross-section of voters on these issues.” He added: “He is delivering multiple messages to different groups. That is a sophisticated campaign at work late in the game.” The strategy is both a reaction to a changing campaign landscape and the fruit of long-running internal debates over how to sell Mr. Romney to a sometimes skeptical electorate. After a year of focusing relentlessly on President’s Obama’s stewardship of the economy, and resisting pressure to offer a three-dimensional portrait of Mr. Romney as a father, husband, businessman and governor, the campaign realized that it needed to switch gears. The Obama campaign had filled the void through advertising and news releases, leaving many voters with strongly negative views of Mr. Romney by the time he became the Republican nominee. The new approach was trotted out haltingly at first and was overwhelmed for a time by a leaked video of Mr. Romney talking about “47 percent” of voters who do not pay taxes. But it finally seemed to break through during the first presidential debate. Republican political operatives said there was already proof in the polls that playing up Mr. Romney’s inclination toward pragmatism and problem-solving is resonating with voters. “Barack Obama has been out there for months saying that Mitt Romney is this scary beast that will eat your children and throw Grandma out in the snow,” said Alex Castellanos, a veteran Republican operative who worked for Mr. Romney in 2008 but is not aligned with any candidate this year. “And all of a sudden this very practical businessman showed up in the debates, and he’s just not the guy Obama has been painting.” Jeff Zeleny contributed from reporting from Sidney, Ohio. Romney Appears To Pivot On Abortion (WP) 57

By Nia-malika Henderson Washington Post, October 11, 2012 Mitt Romney, buoyed by recent polls that show him ahead of President Obama after a strong debate performance, appears to have modified his stance on abortion, a key issue among social conservatives, a voting bloc that has been skeptical of the Republican nominee in the past. In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Romney seemed to back away from his antiabortion position, suggesting that he would not actively pursue legislation that would outlaw abortions, a key objective among social conservatives. “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney told the paper’s editorial board. “One thing I would change however which would be done by executive order and not by legislation is that I would reinstate the Mexico City policy which is that foreign aid dollars from the United States would not be used to carry out abortion in other countries.” Later, Romney, who spent the day in Ohio, appeared to back away from his remarks, saying: “I think I’ve said time and again that I’m a pro-life candidate and I’ll be a pro-life president.” Romney’s comments come as the race for the White House tightens and as both candidates look to ensure base turnout in key swing states, such as Iowa, yet also look for ways to appeal to undecided, more centrist voters in states such as Ohio and Virginia. During and after the debate last week, Romney has shifted and softened his earlier statements on several issues in moves apparently aimed at the center. In addition to Tuesday night’s comments on abortion, Romney has recently changed his tone and message on immigration, saying that he would not revoke the status of young illegal immigrants granted a two year deportation reprieve under an Obama order, yet still would end the program. He also backed completely away from earlier comments captured in an undercover video that 47 percent of Americans were government freeloaders. A Pew poll shows that Romney has gained significant ground among women voters since the debate, making up an 18- point deficit and now drawing even with Obama. And as much as Romney needs to perform well among women, he also needs to perform well among social conservatives in states like Iowa, if he is to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to capture the White House. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist Poll showed Obama with an eight point edge, 50 percent to 42 percent, among likely Iowa voters. But the Sept. 20 poll was taken before Romney’s dominant performance in the first debate. In 2008, Obama won Iowa by eight points. Bush won the state in 2004, by about 13,000 votes. Social conservatives are hugely important to Romney’s chances in Iowa and with his recent statements on abortion he is highlighting a long-standing rift that has yet to be fully repaired according to some conservatives. “I’m running out of fingers and toes to count the number of positions he has taken on abortion,” said Steve Deace, a conservative radio host in Iowa. “This is someone who does not have a deep or abiding position on this issue either way, and I think what it does is it puts pro-life leadership in America in a difficult position. I don’t know anybody in the pro-family movement who is not for sale who trusts him. People want to know who the person is that they are voting for at their core. I just don’t think he cares.” Democrats, who have consistently run ads in states like Virginia that highlight Romney’s more conservative statements on abortion, seized on Romney’s seeming shift, yet said that he wasn’t flip-flopping, only hiding his real views on the issue. “We are not saying he’s changed his mind. We are saying he’s trying to cover up his beliefs. He’s been running for president for six years, and every step of the way he’s been anti-choice, against Roe v. Wade, promised to appoint justices,” said Stephanie Cutter on an Obama campaign conference call with reporters. “Now he’s trying to soften his positions. He has not changed his mind, he’s just trying to hide them. That’s the difference here. He’s suddenly trying to hide because the positions are not working for him.” Romney’s positions on abortion have run the gamut since a 1994 Senate race against then Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) . “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate,” he said in a 1994 debate. “I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for twenty years that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.” That same year, in an interview with The Boston Herald, Romney said: “[Roe v. Wade] has been the law of the land for over 20 years, and I do not want to change it, overturn it, reverse it,” he said. “I want it to remain the law of the land.” Romney later changed his position, saying he would support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, “because it is bad law and bad medicine,” in a 2011 interview with the National Review. 58

Deace said Romney’s changing positions could hurt him among social conservatives, particularly in Iowa. “You don’t see Obama looking for ways to spit in the eye of his own base,” Deace said. “You don’t have to offend that many people to affect the outcome. I hope Democrats push him on this. I hope Obama presses this issue because people deserve to know. This is a fundamental issue.” But other conservatives continued to express support for Romney. “Romney is on record on the issues socially conservative voters care about: Obamacare, religious liberty, unborn life, and marriage. The contrast between him and Obama on those issues could not be starker,” said Ralph Reed, who heads the Faith and Freedom Coalition. “The election is largely about jobs, the economy, and health care, and we recommend that candidates focus on those issues. But when social issues come up — and they always do — Romney needs to be clear about where he stands and lean into it.” Romney Shifts To More Moderate Stances On Taxes, Immigration, Health Care, Education (WP) By Karen Tumulty Washington Post, October 11, 2012 The final weeks of the presidential campaign are bringing Mitt Romney full circle, back to the question that has tugged at him for nearly two decades: What does he really believe? Although he declared himself “severely conservative” during the Republican primaries, the former Massachusetts governor has been sounding more moderate in recent days. There may be room for argument as to whether Romney’s positions are changing. But the emphasis and tone with which he describes them unquestionably is — on issues that include immigration, taxes, education and health care. On Tuesday, the candidate who has repeatedly vowed that he would be “a pro-life president” told the Des Moines Register editorial board that “there’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” In an interview with ABC News on Wednesday, President Obama said the comment was “another example of Governor Romney hiding positions he’s been campaigning on for a year and a half.” What remains to be seen is which Romney voters will judge as the real one. Will they consider his flexibility disturbing evidence that he lacks principles, or a reassuring signal that he would not govern as an ideologue? At a rally in Las Vegas, former president Bill Clinton mocked Romney’s shifts, saying they were evident in last week’s presidential debate, which was almost universally regarded as a win for the Republican. “I had a different reaction to that first debate than a lot of people did,” Clinton said, laying it on with his buttery Arkansas drawl. “I thought, ‘Wow, here’s old moderate Mitt. Where ya been, boy? I miss you all these last two years.’ ” He added: “It was like one of these Bain Capital deals, you know, where he’s the closer. So he shows up, doesn’t really know much about the deal and says, ‘Tell me what I’m supposed to say to close.’ Now, the problem with this deal is the deal was made by severe conservative Mitt.” Of course, a second-half pivot is a time-honored maneuver in the political playbook. In a primary campaign, a candidate must play to the passions of the base; as he moves toward the general election, the sensibilities of swing voters become paramount. Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom telegraphed as much in an instantly famous interview on CNN in March, when he said, “I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.” However, Romney did not begin making those moves until shortly before the first debate, when polls suggested that a win might be slipping out of his reach. Obama’s campaign strategists say they have suspected all along that Romney would try to disentangle himself from the more strident positions that he has taken since starting his first presidential campaign in 2007. That is the reason they have been keeping a record of them. “Governor Romney has been catering to the right wing and taking extreme positions for the six years he’s been running for president,” said Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager. “Fortunately, it’s all caught on videotape, so cynically and dishonestly trying to hide those positions in the last 26 days of the campaign won’t work.” Romney’s team, meanwhile, insists that there has been no real change in the candidate — or any lack of consistency between his conservative beliefs and his more measured comments. “Governor Romney has been talking all year about his record as a successful governor in a blue state, working with an 85 percent Democratic legislature to pass 19 tax cuts, balance the state’s budget and raise its credit rating, and bring down

59

unemployment,” strategist Ed Gillespie said. “You can be a principled conservative and still get bipartisan results. It’s not a question of ideology; it’s a question of leadership.” Still, Romney has sounded a different note of late on a growing list of issues. During last week’s debate with Obama, for instance, Romney insisted that he would not reduce “the share of taxes paid by the wealthy.” At an earlier exchange against his fellow Republicans in February, he declared, “We’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent.” Last week, he said: “I reject the idea that I don’t believe in great teachers or more teachers. Every school district, every state should make that decision on their own.” But in June, he had criticized Obama for saying that “we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. . . . It’s time for us to cut back on government.” Since Obama announced in June a policy that allows some young illegal immigrants to stay in the country, Romney criticized it and said he would end it. But more recently he added that he would not revoke the deportation reprieves of those who were granted permission to stay. On health care, Romney boasted during the debate: “I do have a plan that deals with people with preexisting conditions.” That sounded like an embrace of one of the more popular elements of Obama’s health-care law. But Romney aides confirmed after the debate that his proposal would not cover those whose insurance had lapsed — a significant detail that could affect tens of millions of uninsured and that the GOP nominee did not mention. And Romney renounced his suggestion that the 47 percent of Americans who do not pay income taxes are government- dependent freeloaders only after a raft of polls made clear how damaging those words had been. “I said something that’s just completely wrong,” Romney told conservative talk show host Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel late last week. His initial response, however, was to stand by the comments. After the secretly recorded video of his remarks at a fundraiser became public, Romney said his sentiment was “not elegantly stated,” but he did underscore an important difference between him and Obama. “The president believes in what I’ve described as a government-centered society where government plays a larger and larger role, provides for more and more of the needs of individuals,” Romney said. “And I happen to believe instead in a free enterprise, free individual society where people pursuing their dreams are able to employ one another, build enterprises, build the strongest economy in the world.” Among some conservatives, Romney’s shifts have resurrected misgivings about a candidate who began his political career in liberal Massachusetts in the 1990s as a moderate on issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun control. “I’m running out of fingers and toes to count the number of positions he has taken on abortion,” said Steve Deace, a conservative radio host in Iowa. “I don’t know anybody in the pro-family movement who is not for sale who trusts him. People want to know who the person is that they are voting for at their core.” But others suggest that they are not concerned — especially when they consider the alternative. “Romney is on record on the issues socially conservative voters care about: Obamacare, religious liberty, unborn life and marriage,” said Ralph Reed, who heads an organization that seeks to mobilize religious conservatives. “The contrast between him and Obama on those issues could not be starker.” Nia-Malika Henderson and Philip Rucker contributed to this report. Mitt Romney’s Moderate Muddle (POLITCO) By Edward-isaac Dovere Politico, October 11, 2012 For the third time in a week, Mitt Romney has taken a prominent U-turn on something that’s supposed to be a matter of fundamental principles. This time, he tacked back to the center on abortion — risking reviving the original and potentially most damaging rap against Romney: He stands for nothing. He first tested how far he can stray from party orthodoxy on taxes and health care by dangling the promise of being able to beat President Barack Obama. Then, on Tuesday, Romney told The Des Moines Register that “there’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” At a time when Romney’s family is urging his campaign to “let Mitt be Mitt,” the rush of recent reversals suggests that moderate Mitt is the one he’s most comfortable with — as conservatives long feared — a problem for a candidate who spent a year and a half taking hard-line stances he needed to win the Republican nomination. (Also on POLITICO: Mitt’s unusual in-house ad strategy)

60

So far, at least, conservatives don’t seem to care. Just as they cheered his debate performance, they’re happy now because he’s looking more like he can win. But the recent shifts raise the danger that Romney will once again be battling the charge that he doesn’t stand for anything. Already, the Obama campaign is resurrecting the attack — largely abandoned earlier this year — that Romney lacks a core. They’ve had ample material to work with this past week. First, there was Romney’s tax plan. He explained at the debate that the deduction he favored ranged from “make up a number” to following “Bowles-Simpson as a model and take deduction by deduction and make differences that way.” The day before, he’d suggested capping deductions at $17,000 — a proposal that would hit the wealthy. That apparently wasn’t the plan either, according to aides who rushed to point out that this would go along with a movable personal exemption. Then there was Romney’s defense of his health plan. He argued that he would cover pre-existing conditions and let people younger than 26 stay on their parents’ insurance — ideas that his senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom immediately shot down in the post-debate spin room, explaining that the plan would actually leave the market-shaping decision up to the states. Romney also made the insurance claim last month on “Meet the Press,” with The Wall Street Journal editorial board responding that he was demonstrating that his “pre-existing political calculation seems to be that he can win the election without having to explain the economic moment or even his own policies.” He took to the microphone himself for a quickly convened press conference to explain that he stood by his comments about the 47 percent, leaving staff and surrogates to soften and couch his point — until the night after the debate, when he took it all back and said he was wrong. Romney: ‘I’ll Be A Pro-Life President’ (WSJ) By Sara Murray Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Romney Targets Planned Parenthood Funding (FT) By Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Washington Financial Times, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Financial Times are available to FT subscribers by clicking the link. Romney Says Abortion Stance Unchanged, That He Remains 'Pro-life' (LAT) By Seema Mehta Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2012 DELAWARE, Ohio — Mitt Romney clarified Wednesday that he remains opposed to abortion and would take action if elected president to reduce the number of abortions that are performed in this country and around the world. “I think I've said time and again. I'm a pro-life candidate. I'll be a pro-life president,” Romney told reporters while greeting supporters at Bun’s Restaurant here. “The actions I'll take immediately are to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget. And also I've indicated I'll reverse the Mexico City position of the president. I will reinstate the Mexico City policy,” which does not allow American tax dollars to fund abortions overseas. Romney’s position on abortion came into question because of a statement he made about abortion and his campaign’s muddled response Tuesday. “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney told the Des Moines Register. Later, his campaign put out clarifying statements that Romney remained pro-life and would “of course” sign legislation that protected life. PHOTOS: Mitt Romney’s past Some conservatives have questioned how committed Romney is to opposing abortion, in part because as Massachusetts governor, he initially supported abortion rights. Now he would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest and to save the mother’s life. In recent years he has said he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would “hopefully” overturn Roe vs. Wade and that he would be “delighted” too sign a bill banning abortion. The campaign reached out to prominent conservatives after Romney’s statement was published, according to Talking Points Memo. The website reported that campaign officials called Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and assured him that Romney’s position on abortion has not changed and that he remained committed to anti-abortion legislation, such as a House bill that would make permanent a budget amendment that bans federal spending for abortion. 61

Democrats seized on the matter, which arises at a crucial time in the presidential contest as both campaigns aggressively court female voters. Romney “not only has trivialized this issue, but is being incredibly dishonest about where he stands,” Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation, told reporters during a conference call Wednesday. “Women just can’t trust Mitt Romney ... to be honest and direct about where he stands.” PHOTOS: Memorable presidential debate moments And in an unusual move, First Lady Michelle Obama weighed in. In a round table with reporters where she was asked about what Democrats have called the Republicans’ “war on women,” Obama said she would personally fight for women’s reproductive rights and that the issue should drive young people to the polls. “It is the rare instance where we take a deep dive backwards, where rights and freedoms are allowed to be taken away,” she said, according to the Huffington Post. “I just don't believe women will not fight tooth and nail to make sure that we continue to progress. I'm not going let it happen, whether I'm [in the White House] or not.” Romney Risks Base With An Appeal To Center On Abortion (BLOOM) By Margaret Talev And Lisa Lerer Bloomberg News, October 11, 2012 Republican presidential candidateMitt Romney pledged to be “a pro-life president,” a day after an interview in which he said he doesn’t intend to pursue anti- abortion legislation if elected. “I’ve said time and again, I’m a pro-life candidate, I’ll be a pro-life president,” Romney told reporters today in response to a question as he campaigned at Bun’s Restaurant in Delaware, Ohio. He also said he’d eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood in his proposed federal budget and re-impose a policy banning use of U.S. foreign aid to fund abortions abroad. Romney’s remarks a day earlier to the Des Moines Register’s editorial board played into his efforts to moderate his positions as the Nov. 6 election approaches. “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the former Massachusetts governor told the newspaper yesterday before an event in the swing state of Iowa. President Barack Obama and abortion-rights advocates jumped on Romney’s remark, accusing him of trying to obscure his previous stance on the issue in an attempt to win over women, a crucial constituency for both candidates. “This is another example of Governor Romney hiding positions he’s been campaigning on for a year and a half,” Obama said in an interview today with ABC News. “When it comes to women’s rights to control their own health care decisions, you know, what he has been saying is exactly what he believes,” Obama said. Romney “thinks that it is appropriate for politicians to inject themselves in those decisions.” Romney, in yesterday’s newspaper interview, didn’t specify what he would do if a Republican-controlled Congress passed abortion legislation and sent it to him to sign into law. His running-mate, Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, sponsored a bill during the last Congress that would deem a fetus a person and effectively criminalize abortion without exceptions, including for rape victims. While Romney’s remarks to the editorial board had the potential to widen his appeal among independent female voters, they also risked raising questions among other independents about where he stands on the issue and depressing turnout among Republican abortion foes who already had misgivings about his past positions. His comment “certainly indicates that he is out of touch with the conservative base and is turning his back on America’s women and children,” Jennifer Mason, spokeswoman for Personhood USA, a group that wants to ban abortions, said in a statement. The Romney campaign reached out to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, making clear the candidate wasn’t shifting his positions on abortion, council spokesman J.P. Duffy told Bloomberg News. The website Talking Points Memo quoted Perkins as saying there were “no alarm bells” about Romney from his perspective. The potential confusion raised by Romney’s abortion remarks came as he attempts to accelerate his campaign’s momentum coming out of his first debate with Obama. “I need your vote,” Romney said today at a town hall rally in Mount Vernon, Ohio. “Because if you vote for me and you get some people to do the same thing, Ohio is going to elect me the next president of the United States.” The state, which has 18 electoral votes, has backed the winner in the past 12 presidential elections. Gallup polling suggests a settling of the bounce for Romney following his performance in the Oct. 3 debate.

62

The daily tracking survey of likely voters taken Oct. 3-9, starting with the day of the debate, shows the race tied at 48 percent support for each candidate. Romney led, by 49 percent to 47 percent, in Gallup’s first survey of likely voters released yesterday. Its survey of registered voters today reports Obama ahead, by 50 percent to 45 percent, up from 49 percent to 46 percent a day earlier. The margin of error for each sample group is plus or minus 2 percentage points. In the ABC interview, Obama said he remains confident because the “fundamentals” of the race haven’t changed. He said his poor performance in the Denver debate didn’t hand the advantage to Romney, according to excerpts released by the network. “Governor Romney had a good night. I had a bad night. It’s not the first time I’ve had a bad night,” Obama said. Socially conservative Republicans made limiting abortion rights part of the party’s platform, which proposes a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure. Ryan also co-sponsored an act trying to narrow the definition of rape to curtail abortions. Only in cases of “forcible rape,” according to the measure, would a woman be eligible to have her abortion covered under insurance. “I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” Ryan told the Weekly Standard magazine in 2010. Other Republicans stood by Romney today, saying they still believed the candidate would advocate for policies limiting abortion rights. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the anti-abortion advocacy group Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement that she has “full confidence that as president, Governor Romney will stand by the pro-life commitments he laid out,” to prohibit federal funding for Planned Parenthood and “advocate for a bill to protect unborn children capable of feeling pain.” Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin was “happy to see the clarification,” Akin spokesman Rick Tyler said today referring to a statement last night by Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul that the candidate was “proudly pro-life.” Akin, who made national headlines in August for saying a rape exception to a ban on abortion was unnecessary because “legitimate rape” rarely results in pregnancy, was confident that Romney “would govern as a pro-life president,” Tyler said. Akin is running against Democrat Claire McCaskill. Stephanie Schriock, president of Emily’s List, which raises money for female candidates who support abortion rights, said in a statement that Romney “is weaving back and forth between versions of himself faster than his spokeswoman can keep up.” While seeking the Republican nomination, Romney regularly promised to limit abortion funding. In September, he said he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established a woman’s right to abortion. “It would be my preference that they reverse Roe v. Wade and therefore they return to the people and their elected representatives the decisions with regards to this important issue,” he said at the time on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” In Mount Vernon today, Romney cast himself as more eager to use economic and diplomatic pressure than military action to influence events in the Middle East, tempering the muscular foreign policy tone he’s taken in past appearances. “We should play an active role,” he said. “That doesn’t mean sending in troops or dropping bombs but it does mean actively participating in a place like Syria.” That approach, he said, doesn’t conflict with his promises to increase military spending. “I want a military that’s so strong that we don’t have to use it,” he said. To contact the reporters on this story: Margaret Talev in Columbus, Ohio, at [email protected] Lisa Lerer in Delaware, Ohio, at [email protected]; To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at [email protected] Romney Camp Dismisses Charge Of Shifting Abortion Stance (WT) Says position hasn’t changed By Dave Boyer And Seth Mclaughlin, The Washington Times Washington Times, October 11, 2012 DELAWARE, Ohio — With President Obama losing his advantage among women voters, his campaign aides Wednesday attacked Republican nominee Mitt Romney on abortion and women's rights, claiming he is deceiving women about his true positions. Mr. Romney is pro-life but doesn't emphasize his position on the campaign trail, preferring to focus on economic issues. The swiftness of the Obama campaign's attack, calling in Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards as well to criticize Mr. Romney, underscored the concern in the president's camp about the shifting attitudes of female voters since the first presidential debate on Oct. 3, in which the president performed poorly. 63

Viewers of the debate rated Mr. Romney as the undisputed winner, and even some single women who make up a key part of the president's support favored the Republican. A month ago, Mr. Obama enjoyed an 18-point advantage over Mr. Romney among women voters in a Pew Research Center poll, 56 percent to 38 percent. But in a Pew survey conducted after the debate, Mr. Obama's lead among women had evaporated, with both candidates tied at 47 percent in the eyes of female voters. Given those developments in the past week, the president's surrogates seized Wednesday on a comment that Mr. Romney gave in an interview with the Des Moines Register, in which he said "there's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." "We're not saying that he's changed his mind on these issues," said deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter. "We're saying he's trying to cover up his beliefs. Women simply cannot trust Mitt Romney." Ms. Richards accused Mr. Romney of hiding his positions on abortion. "This isn't about flip-flopping, this is about distancing himself from positions he's taken repeatedly," she told reporters in a conference call arranged by the Obama campaign. Ms. Richards said she has taken a temporary leave from Planned Parenthood to campaign for the president's reelection. At a campaign stop in Delaware, Ohio, on Wednesday, Mr. Romney defended his remarks in the Des Moines newspaper and said he hasn't changed his stance. "I think I've said time and again. I'm a pro-life candidate," Mr. Romney said. "I'll be a pro-life president. The actions I'll take immediately are to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget. And also I've indicated I'll reverse the Mexico City position of the president. I will reinstate the Mexico City policy." The president also weighed in, telling ABC News' Diane Sawyer Wednesday that his opponent's interview in the Des Moines paper "is another example of Governor Romney hiding positions he's been campaigning on for a year and a half." "Is it a lie?" Ms. Sawyer asked. "No, I actually think ... when it comes to women's rights to control their own health care decisions, you know, what he has been saying is exactly what he believes," Mr. Obama said. "[Romney] thinks that it is appropriate for politicians to inject themselves in those decisions." Mr. Romney campaigned during the GOP primary on a pro-life platform, and a campaign spokeswoman reiterated Wednesday that Mr. Romney hasn't changed that position. "Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life, and he will be a pro-life president," campaign spokesman Andrea Saul said. Surrogates for Mr. Romney rushed to his defense Wednesday, saying he's more focused on putting Americans back to work. "The reality is, it's no surprise that President Obama would want to talk about anything but the economy," said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal at a campaign stop in Virginia. The remarks came after Mr. Jindal and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell visited a barbecue restaurant in Chester. Mr. McDonnell said that Mr. Romney was sending a message that his presidential agenda "isn't focusing on social issues." "Having read those comments from Governor Romney," Mr. McDonnell said of the Register interview, "what he was saying is, his overwhelming priority is going to be creating jobs, getting the economy back on track." The former Massachusetts governor generally doesn't talk about a pro-life agenda in his campaign rallies. Mr. Romney's position on abortion has evolved over his political career, starting in 1994 with his failed U.S. Senate bid against Democrat Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. At the time, Mr. Romney said he personally opposed abortion, but he said that his commitment to keeping abortions legal stemmed from having a relative who died from an illegal abortion. "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country," Mr. Romney said at the time. "I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it." He touted a similar message during his 2002 gubernatorial bid, vowing to "preserve and protect a woman's right to chose" and saying that he is "devoted and dedicated to horning my word in that regard." However, his stance changed in 2005 after he announced in a Boston Globe editorial that he is "pro-life" and said that he supports a reversal of Roe v. Wade. The shift haunted Mr. Romney in this year's GOP primary, where he was on the receiving end of attacks from former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and struggled to win over evangelical voters who questioned his pro-life credentials. A fight over female voters is one of the last battles that Mr. Obama's advisers thought they would be waging this late in the campaign. Women voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 by a margin of 56 percent to 43 percent over Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Unmarried women went for the president in an especially lopsided result, 70 percent to 29 percent. Married mothers gave Mr. Obama a slight edge.

64

But in a Bloomberg News poll released Wednesday, married mothers in the crucial battleground states of Ohio and Virginia gave Mr. Romney the edge, saying they preferred the Republican for dealing with the nation's economic challenges, even though they side with the president on reproductive rights. Married moms in Ohio supported Mr. Romney 50 percent to 44 percent for the president; in Virginia they favored Mr. Romney by 50 percent to 45 percent. In Ohio, the Bloomberg poll found that married mothers backed Mr. Romney although 55 percent favored the federal government's auto bailout, which Mr. Romney opposed. They said they believe Mr. Romney also will do a better job than the president on handling gas prices and reviving the housing market. There are two-and-a-half times as many single women than married mothers in the U.S., and Mr. Obama continues to hold an advantage with them. Democrats At The Deep End (NYT) By Gail Collins New York Times, October 11, 2012 It’s a tough time to be a Democrat. When Democrats run into each other in elevators, they exchange glances and sigh. Or make little whimpering sounds. They read post-Denver bloggers like Andrew Sullivan (“Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion.”) and find themselves spending their evenings watching “House Hunters International.” The real estate market in Cuzco, they note, is sort of intriguing. Democrats walk around repeating the comeback lines they would have given if they had been debating Mitt Romney in Colorado. (“Maybe you need a new accountant? Yeah, and a new calculator, and a new ...”) They tell each other that now it’s all up to Joe Biden. They wander around the neighborhood, buttonholing perfect strangers, demanding the name of one — one! — tax loophole that Mitt Romney has actually said he’d close. Democrats are going bipolar. Half the time they are grabbing at random bits of hopeful information. (An Esquire/Yahoo poll shows most Americans would rather go on a road trip with Obama!) Half the time they are in total despair. Nothing makes them happy. Show them that cute picture of the lioness befriending the orphan baby antelope that’s gone viral, and they will point out that the only reason the antelope is an orphan is because the lioness ate its mother. Before falling asleep, they think about how smart Joe Biden is when it comes to foreign affairs. Everything reminds them of the election. They hear Diane Sawyer talking about people who’ve gotten meningitis from steroid injections and they do not think about alternate therapy for back pain. They start yelling at the TV: “Yeah! Let’s not have overreaching federal regulation of those compounding companies! Let the states do it. The states are great at this stuff!” Democrats spend all their waking hours thinking about the swing states. If Wisconsin starts looking wobbly, their day is ruined. They leap out of bed in the morning and race to the computer to see where the trend lines are going in Colorado. Calm down and leave Colorado alone! Also, stop talking about getting into a bus and going door to door in Ohio. Research shows that undecided voters are most likely to be swayed by their friends and neighbors. East Coast Democrats, no one in Zanesville is going to believe you are their neighbor. Democrats miss Seamus. Yes, those were the days. When the very mention of “Mitt Romney” would instantly lead to a discussion of the dangers of transporting an Irish setter to Canada on the roof of a station wagon. “Has Seamus peaked too early?” a worried Democrat asked me in Texas a while back. At the time, I thought that anybody who is a Democrat in Texas had so many things to worry about, it was a miracle he could even remember the dog’s name. But now it’s clear that he was totally right. Seamus was so June. All Democrats have now is Big Bird. Plus worrying about whether they’re talking too much about Big Bird. Plus Joe Biden, who has a very nice smile. You have to calm down, Democrats. Romney hasn’t turned into some new supercandidate. You were just underestimating him during September. He’s the same old Mitt. This week in Des Moines, he told an editorial board that he doesn’t have any plans for pushing anti-abortion bills if he’s elected. (“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”) Meanwhile, back at headquarters, his spokeswoman was assuring National Review that he “would, of course, support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life.” Maybe this will come up in the vice-presidential debate. Do you remember how well Joe Biden did against Sarah Palin?

65

Things haven’t really gone off the deep end for the Obama campaign. They’ve gone back to normal. You knew that the Obama-is-going-to-win-by-10-points euphoria wasn’t going to last. When did anybody ever win a presidential race by 10 points? Don’t tell me about Ronald Reagan. When Ronald Reagan was president, gas was 90 cents a gallon and I was writing on a Kaypro. Maybe Democrats should try to be more like the Republicans, and reduce stress by blaming all bad news on incorrect information, cooked up by cabals of political partisans. Although you can’t be overly sensitive about it. Jack Welch, who has been famous for his tender spirit ever since he ran General Electric, was outraged when he ran into flak for claiming that the “Chicago guys” had cooked the unemployment statistics. “Imagine a country,” Welch wrote indignantly in The Wall Street Journal, “where challenging the ruling authorities — questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters — would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel ‘embarrassed’ and labeling you a fool, or worse.” Perhaps we should all work on feeling sorry for Jack Welch. On ABC, Obama Talks Roe V. Wade, Debates (WSJ) By Jared A. Favole And Carol E. Lee Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. President Says Mitt Romney Trying To 'Cloud' Abortion Stance (AP) Associated Press, October 11, 2012 President Barack Obama says Mitt Romney's recent remark about not having abortion on his agenda is an attempt "to cloud" his rival's position on the issue. Obama says he had a "bad night" in last week's debate with Romney but says the fundamentals of the election did not change. Obama offered his critique of Romney and his reassurance about the election in an interview with ABC News. Romney told The Des Moines Register this week that he would not pursue abortion-related legislation if elected president. Obama says Romney's answer was an example of Romney, in Obama's words, "hiding positions he's been campaigning on for a year and a half." The president adds that Romney believes it is appropriate for politicians to inject themselves into women's health care decisions. Obama Fights Erosion Of Female Voters With Attacks On Abortion (HILL) By Niall Stanage, Amie Parnes And Jonathan Easley The Hill, October 11, 2012 Faced with a sudden erosion of female support in recent opinion polls, President Obama sought Wednesday to bolster his standing by blasting Mitt Romney on abortion rights. In an interview with ABC News, Obama accused Romney of trying to “cloud” his views. The president's attack on his rival over the issue of abortion was the culmination of a battery of criticisms on the issue that Team Obama kept up throughout Wednesday. The apparent purpose is to claw back the support of female voters, which plunged in the wake of Obama's weak performance in last week's first presidential debate. “This is another example of Governor Romney hiding positions he's been campaigning on for a year and half,” Obama told host Diane Sawyer. Obama was referring to Romney’s comment in a meeting with the Des Moines Register's editorial board on Tuesday, in which the Republican said: “There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” Romney later sought to reassure conservatives and anti-abortion-rights groups that he was solidly with them, saying during a campaign appearance in Ohio that he would be a “pro-life president.” Obama’s comments were in line with an earlier conference call by his deputy campaign manager, who made it clear the campaign was determined on Wednesday to use Romney’s comments on abortion to blunt any momentum the Republican had with female voters. Deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter accused Romney of trying to “cynically and dishonestly” hide his views, and insisted that during the Iowa interview “he didn’t tell the truth about his real position on abortion.” 66

In his own interview on ABC, Obama demurred when asked by Sawyer whether Romney was lying about his position: “No, I actually think ... when it comes to women’s rights to control their own healthcare decisions, you know, what he has been saying is exactly what he believes.” Romney, he asserted, "thinks that it is appropriate for politicians to inject themselves in those decisions.” The Romney campaign responded to the president's message. “On a day when the Obama Administration raised more questions than it answered about whether or not it deliberately misled the American people, President Obama is more focused on making things up about Mitt Romney," Amanda Hennebrg, spokeswoman for the Romney campaign, told The Hill. "As Barack Obama said in 2008, 'if you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.' Four years later, that’s all he has left. The American people deserve more from their president.” If there was some desperation in the Obama campaign’s efforts, it reflected the importance for the president of wining women’s votes. Exit polls in the 2008 race found that Obama defeated Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by a full 13 percentage points among female voters, dwarfing his 1-point edge among men. But, on Monday, a poll from the Pew Research Center found Obama leading by a mere 3 points among women. That finding was all the more striking because the same organization had found Obama holding an 18-point edge the previous month. The reversal in the president’s fortunes is almost certainly traceable to his widely panned performance in the first presidential debate last week. Some observers have suggested that the lack of prominence given to gender-based issues at the debate might have hastened the crumbling — temporary or otherwise — of the president’s advantage among women. “Romney had such a strong performance in general, people were willing to give him a second look,” said Democratic strategist Karen Finney, who is also a columnist for The Hill. “Because some of those key issues — ‘war on women’ issues — weren’t part of the conversation, there wasn’t the opportunity for people to hear him talk about that.” But Michael Dimcock, associate director of research at Pew, told The Hill there wasn’t one specific trait or issue that women identified as the reason for the shift in his organization’s poll. Instead, he said it was based on an “across-the-board” rise in appeal for Romney as a presidential candidate. “We looked at all the traits, leadership, connecting with people, particular issues like jobs, Medicare and healthcare,” Dimcock said. “But the shift in Romney’s image seemed consistent across all of those issues. One that sort of stood out ... was that he connects well with ordinary Americans, which has been his weak spot.” Cutter said during Wednesday’s conference call with reporters that Romney had always portrayed himself as anti-abortion and was “trying to be that severely conservative candidate that he promised to be” during the GOP primaries. “[His abortion stance is] bad for his presidential prospects and now he's trying to cover it up,” Cutter said. Romney's political history would not suggest that he supports wholesale changes to abortion law, but he came under pressure during the GOP primaries to take a harder line. He has promised to support fetal pain legislation, which bans abortion after 20 weeks. The comments to the Des Moines Register suggest Romney is trying to appeal to centrists as he enters the home stretch of the presidential campaign. At the same time, Romney sought to reaffirm his anti-abortion-rights credentials during his Ohio campaign appearance on Wednesday. In Ohio, Romney promised to end public health funding for Planned Parenthood — a group conservatives oppose because it provides abortions — and to bar U.S. foreign aid from funding abortions. Obama’s campaign is trying to mobilize potential voters on the issue of abortion rights. Finney, who also serves on the national board of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the organization had undertaken a project earlier this year identifying some 336,000 women voters living in battleground states it characterized as potential “Obama defectors.” Finney said that NARAL was undertaking “micro-targeting” of these women, in the belief that highlighting the differences between Obama and Romney on abortion rights would bring them back to the president’s side. “They want a person who is pro-choice, period,” Finney said. But such a gambit, whether from the Obama campaign or its allies, carries dangers of its own, critics say. “The idea that Democrats are trying to woo women voters based only on issues related to reproduction is insulting,” said Sabrina Schaeffer, executive director of the right-leaning Independent Women’s Forum. “Sure, there are many women who are ready and willing to play identity politics. But many woman do not want that at all.” 67

—Elise Viebeck contributed to this story. Updaed at 7:25 p.m. Romney Says He’s Pro-Life As Abortion Remark Stirs Reaction (BLOOM) Bloomberg News, October 11, 2012 Oct. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney pledged to be “a pro-life president,” a day after an interview in which he said he doesn’t intend to pursue anti- abortion legislation if elected. “I’ve said time and again, I’m a pro-life candidate, I’ll be a pro-life president,” Romney told reporters today in response to a question as he campaigned at Bun’s Restaurant in Delaware, Ohio. He also said he’d eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood in his proposed federal budget and re-impose a policy banning use of U.S. foreign aid to fund abortions abroad. Romney’s remarks a day earlier to the Des Moines Register’s editorial board played into his efforts to moderate his positions as the Nov. 6 election approaches. “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the former Massachusetts governor told the newspaper yesterday before an event in the swing state of Iowa. President Barack Obama and abortion-rights advocates jumped on Romney’s remark, accusing him of trying to obscure his previous stance on the issue in an attempt to win over women, a crucial constituency for both candidates. ‘Hiding Positions’ “This is another example of Governor Romney hiding positions he’s been campaigning on for a year and a half,” Obama said in an interview today with ABC News. “When it comes to women’s rights to control their own health care decisions, you know, what he has been saying is exactly what he believes,” Obama said. Romney “thinks that it is appropriate for politicians to inject themselves in those decisions.” Romney, in yesterday’s newspaper interview, didn’t specify what he would do if a Republican-controlled Congress passed abortion legislation and sent it to him to sign into law. His running-mate, Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, sponsored a bill during the last Congress that would deem a fetus a person and effectively criminalize abortion without exceptions, including for rape victims. While Romney’s remarks to the editorial board had the potential to widen his appeal among independent female voters, they also risked raising questions among other independents about where he stands on the issue and depressing turnout among Republican abortion foes who already had misgivings about his past positions. ‘Out of Touch’ His comment “certainly indicates that he is out of touch with the conservative base and is turning his back on America’s women and children,” Jennifer Mason, spokeswoman for Personhood USA, a group that wants to ban abortions, said in a statement. The Romney campaign reached out to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, making clear the candidate wasn’t shifting his positions on abortion, council spokesman J.P. Duffy told Bloomberg News. The website Talking Points Memo quoted Perkins as saying there were “no alarm bells” about Romney from his perspective. The potential confusion raised by Romney’s abortion remarks came as he attempts to accelerate his campaign’s momentum coming out of his first debate with Obama. “I need your vote,” Romney said today at a town hall rally in Mount Vernon, Ohio. “Because if you vote for me and you get some people to do the same thing, Ohio is going to elect me the next president of the United States.” The state, which has 18 electoral votes, has backed the winner in the past 12 presidential elections. Polls Shift Gallup polling suggests a settling of the bounce for Romney following his performance in the Oct. 3 debate. The daily tracking survey of likely voters taken Oct. 3-9, starting with the day of the debate, shows the race tied at 48 percent support for each candidate. Romney led, by 49 percent to 47 percent, in Gallup’s first survey of likely voters released yesterday. Its survey of registered voters today reports Obama ahead, by 50 percent to 45 percent, up from 49 percent to 46 percent a day earlier. The margin of error for each sample group is plus or minus 2 percentage points. In the ABC interview, Obama said he remains confident because the “fundamentals” of the race haven’t changed. He said his poor performance in the Denver debate didn’t hand the advantage to Romney, according to excerpts released by the network. “Governor Romney had a good night. I had a bad night. It’s not the first time I’ve had a bad night,” Obama said. Republican Platform 68

Socially conservative Republicans made limiting abortion rights part of the party’s platform, which proposes a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure. Ryan also co-sponsored an act trying to narrow the definition of rape to curtail abortions. Only in cases of “forcible rape,” according to the measure, would a woman be eligible to have her abortion covered under insurance. “I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” Ryan told the Weekly Standard magazine in 2010. Other Republicans stood by Romney today, saying they still believed the candidate would advocate for policies limiting abortion rights. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the anti-abortion advocacy group Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement that she has “full confidence that as president, Governor Romney will stand by the pro-life commitments he laid out,” to prohibit federal funding for Planned Parenthood and “advocate for a bill to protect unborn children capable of feeling pain.” Akin Reaction Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin was “happy to see the clarification,” Akin spokesman Rick Tyler said today referring to a statement last night by Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul that the candidate was “proudly pro-life.” Akin, who made national headlines in August for saying a rape exception to a ban on abortion was unnecessary because “legitimate rape” rarely results in pregnancy, was confident that Romney “would govern as a pro-life president,” Tyler said. Akin is running against Democrat Claire McCaskill. Stephanie Schriock, president of Emily’s List, which raises money for female candidates who support abortion rights, said in a statement that Romney “is weaving back and forth between versions of himself faster than his spokeswoman can keep up.” While seeking the Republican nomination, Romney regularly promised to limit abortion funding. In September, he said he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established a woman’s right to abortion. Romney’s ‘Preference’ “It would be my preference that they reverse Roe v. Wade and therefore they return to the people and their elected representatives the decisions with regards to this important issue,” he said at the time on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” In Mount Vernon today, Romney cast himself as more eager to use economic and diplomatic pressure than military action to influence events in the Middle East, tempering the muscular foreign policy tone he’s taken in past appearances. “We should play an active role,” he said. “That doesn’t mean sending in troops or dropping bombs but it does mean actively participating in a place like Syria.” That approach, he said, doesn’t conflict with his promises to increase military spending. “I want a military that’s so strong that we don’t have to use it,” he said. --With assistance from Greg Giroux and Mark Silva in Washington. Editors: Don Frederick, Robin Meszoly To contact the reporters on this story: Margaret Talev in Columbus, Ohio, at [email protected] Lisa Lerer in Delaware, Ohio, at [email protected]; To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at [email protected] Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™ (RASMUSSEN) Rasmussen Reports, October 11, 2012 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. Eight percent (8%) of Republicans and unaffiliated voters currently are undecided or plan to vote for some other candidate. Only two percent (2%) of Democrats are uncommitted to one of the major party candidates. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Our daily Swing State update is released at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. For the second straight day, Romney is slightly ahead in the 11 key swing states. This is a significant change. For virtually the entire campaign, Obama has done better in the swing states than in the national averages. It remains to be seen whether this is a lasting change in the race or merely a temporary aberration. The race between Obama and Romney is tied in Nevada. Republican Dean Heller is narrowly ahead in the Nevada Senate race. In Connecticut, the president has a six-point lead. In the Connecticut Senate race, Democrat Chris Murphy is up five.

69

Post-debate polling shows that Romney and the president are within two points of each other in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Colorado. All remain Toss-Ups in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. In the Senate Balance of Power projections, Democrats have the edge 49-45 with six states as toss-ups. (Presidential Job Approval Data Below) A president’s job approval rating is one of the best indicators for assessing his chances of reelection. Typically, the president’s job approval rating on Election Day will be close to the share of the vote he receives. Currently, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty percent (50%) at least somewhat disapprove (see trends). We have reached the point in the campaign where media reports of some polls suggest wild, short-term swings in voter preferences. That doesn’t happen in the real world. A more realistic assessment shows that the race has remained stable and very close for months. Since last week’s debate, the numbers have shifted somewhat in Romney’s direction, but even that change has been fairly modest. Still, in a close race, a modest change can have a major impact. Over the past 100 days of tracking, Romney and Obama have been within two points of each other 72 times. Additionally, on 89 of those 100 days, the candidates have been within three points of each other. See daily tracking history. Rasmussen Reports polling tends to show smaller swings than other polls for a variety of reasons. In 2008, we showed virtually no change during the final 40 days of the campaign. Then-candidate Obama was between 50% and 52% in our polling every single day. He generally held a five- or six-point lead, occasionally bouncing up to an eight-point advantage and only once falling below a four point-lead. This stable assessment of the race is consistent with the reality of what we know about voter behavior. Obama won the election by a 53% to 46% margin. Other polls use methodologies that sometimes show larger swings. It’s also important to remember that polling theory suggests one out of every 20 polls will have results outside the margin of error. In some cases, media reports exaggerate the movement as well by referencing the most extreme polls in either direction. When evaluating polls, it is best to look for the common ground rather than just picking the one that is best for your candidate. In recent days, there are two bits of common ground. First, the numbers have shifted in Romney’s favor. Second, the president’s support is between 45% and 49%. That suggests a close race as we have been reporting for months. Scott Rasmussen’s weekly newspaper column notes that Obama May Need a Reagan Comeback if he wants to keep his job. If you’d like Scott Rasmussen to speak to your organization, meeting or conference, please contact Premiere Speakers. Rasmussen Reports is a media company whose work is followed by millions on a wide variety of platforms. In addition to the new TV show, we regularly release our work at RasmussenReports.com, through a daily email newsletter, a nationally syndicated radio news service, an online video service and a weekly newspaper column distributed by Creators Syndicate. Platinum Members can still see the more detailed numbers along with demographic breakdowns, and additional information from the tracking poll on a daily basis. To get a sense of longer-term Job Approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis. (Approval Index data below) Intensity of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently, 34% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -9 (see trends). During midterm elections, intensity of support can have a tremendous impact on turnout. That was demonstrated in 2010 when Republicans and unaffiliated voters turned out in large numbers to express opposition to the Obama administration’s policies. However, in presidential election years, there is a smaller impact on turnout. (More below) Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology). Pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have cited our "unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy." During Election 2008, Rasmussen Reports projected that Barack Obama would defeat John McCain by a 52% to 46% margin. Obama was 53% to 46%. In 2004, Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project the vote totals for both candidates within half a percentage point. Learn more about the Rasmussen Reports track record over the years. Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full

70

sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members. Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information. We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter, the Rasmussen Report on radio and other media outlets. Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on Election 2012, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. To learn more about our methodology, click here. Election 2012: New Hampshire President (RASMUSSEN) Rasmussen Reports, October 11, 2012 Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are now tied in the swing state of New Hampshire. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in New Hampshire shows both candidates earning 48% of the vote. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and one percent (1%) is undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Win an IPad: Take the Rasmussen Challenge. This week's entries will be accepted until 11:59pm ET tonight. This New Hampshire survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted on October 9, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. Rasmussen subscribers can log in to read the rest of this article. OR Become a member and get full access to all articles and polls starting at $3.95/month. Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information. We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter, the Rasmussen Report on radio and other media outlets. Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on Election 2012, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. To learn more about our methodology, click here. Election 2012: Wisconsin President - Rasmussen Reports™ (RASMUSSEN) Rasmussen Reports, October 11, 2012 President Obama maintains a slight edge over Mitt Romney in Wisconsin. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Badger State finds Obama with 51% support, while Romney picks up 49% of the vote. (To see survey question wording, click here.) In September, Obama held a 49% to 46% advantage over his Republican challenger. In surveys since October of last year, the president has earned 44% to 52% support in the state, while Romney’s support has ranged from 41% to 49%. Obama defeated Senator John McCain in Wisconsin in 2008 56% to 42%. Wisconsin remains one of 10 Toss-Up states in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. Nationally, the candidates remain virtually tied in the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

71

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Wisconsin voters are certain of how they will vote. Among those who are certain, 51% favor the president, while 49% support Romney. Both candidates earn overwhelming support from members of their own party. Among voters not affiliated with either political party, Obama has a 55% to 43% lead. Win an IPad: Take the Rasmussen Challenge (Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook. This Wisconsin survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted on October 9, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters in the state now at least somewhat approve of the job Obama is doing as president, while 51% disapprove. This includes Strong Approval from 32% and Strong Disapproval from 43%. These findings are similar to the president's job approval ratings nationally. Romney is viewed favorably by 50% and unfavorably by 50%. This includes Very Favorables of 37% and Very Unfavorables of 37%. Wisconsin voters are evenly divided over which candidate they trust more to handle the issues of the economy and national security. However, voters in the state are slightly more confident in economic improvement under a Romney presidency and a GOP- ed Congress. Forty-seven percent (47%) say if Romney is elected president and Republicans win control of Congress, the nation’s economy will get better. That compares to 41% who feel that way if Obama is reelected and Democrats regain control of Congress. Forty-four percent (44%) say the economy will get worse under Obama, compared to 37% who say the same if Romney takes over. Overall, just 14% of likely voters in the state rate the U.S. economy as good or excellent, while 37% describe it as poor. While 38% say economic conditions are getting better, slightly more (39%) think they are getting worse. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Wisconsin voters rate their personal finances as good or excellent, while eight percent (8%) think they are in poor shape. Thirty percent (30%) say their finances are getting better, but just as many (30%) think their finances are getting worse. Along with Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia are Toss-Ups. Obama is ahead in California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington. Romney leads in Arizona, Indiana, Montana, Nebraska and North Dakota. Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only. Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news. This Wisconsin survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted on October 9, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information. We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter, the Rasmussen Report on radio and other media outlets. Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on Election 2012, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. To learn more about our methodology, click here. Election 2012: Pennsylvania President - Rasmussen Reports™ (RASMUSSEN) Rasmussen Reports, October 11, 2012 72

President Obama still earns more than 50% support against Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Pennsylvania Voters shows the president with 51% of the vote to Romney’s 46%. One percent (1%) likes another candidate, and another one percent (1%) remains undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Take the Rasmussen Challenge for a chance to win an IPad. This week's entries will be accepted until 11:59pm ET tonight. (Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook. This Pennsylvania survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted on October 9, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. Rasmussen subscribers can log in to read the rest of this article. OR Become a member and get full access to all articles and polls starting at $3.95/month. Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information. We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter, the Rasmussen Report on radio and other media outlets. Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on Election 2012, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. To learn more about our methodology, click here. Election 2012: New Mexico President (RASMUSSEN) Rasmussen Reports, October 11, 2012 President Obama continues to hold an 11-point lead over Mitt Romney in New Mexico. The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of New Mexico Likely Voters shows the president with 54% of the vote to Romney’s 43%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and two percent (2%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Win an iPad: The Rasmussen Challenge! This week's entries will be accepted until 11:59pm ET tonight. This New Mexico survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted on October 8, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Fieldwork for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. Rasmussen subscribers can log in to read the rest of this article. OR Become a member and get full access to all articles and polls starting at $3.95/month. Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information. We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter, the Rasmussen Report on radio and other media outlets. Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on Election 2012, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. To learn more about our methodology, click here. Obama Leads Romney In Home State Of Illinois, Poll Shows (CHIT) Chicago Tribune, October 11, 2012

73

With national surveys showing the contest between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney tightening, a new Tribune/WGN-TV poll shows the home-state president retains a comfortable advantage in Illinois even though the economy has drained some of the enthusiasm. Obama scored 55 percent support to 36 percent for Romney, virtually identical to a similar poll in February before Romney had clinched the nomination. So far, Obama is short of replicating his victory margin of four years ago, when he accepted the presidency at a huge Grant Park rally after claiming 62 percent of the Illinois vote. While the president is racking up huge support in Chicago and winning the suburbs, Romney holds a lead Downstate. That's where three hard-fought congressional races are playing out, indicating Obama's coattail effect may be limited despite a map Democrats drew to wipe out Republican gains of 2010. The post-Great Recession economy has been the focus of the presidential campaign, and the poll found slightly more Illinois voters approve of Obama's overall job performance than they do his handling of the economy. Downstate has been hit hard, and a majority of voters there disapprove of Obama's efforts to spark a recovery. More think Romney would do a better job fixing the economy. At the same time, independent voters statewide are almost equally split between which of the two candidates would fare better on the economy. The president did well with this important voting bloc in the 2008 election. This time out, Republicans are asking the seminal question of whether families are better off now than they were four years ago. In Illinois, 28 percent of voters said they were better off and the same number said they were worse off. About 4 in 10 said they were about the same. Those doing better or about the same favored Obama's re-election, but those worse off economically backed Romney. The latest survey of 700 voters, which has an error margin of 3.7 percentage points, was conducted Oct. 4-8. Questioning began one day after the first presidential debate. A Romney win in that campaign event served as the catalyst for the Republican closing the gap on Obama in various national polls, including in key swing states. Longer-term tracking polls for the presidential race have raised questions whether Romney's post-debate bounce was short-lived. In Illinois, a deeper look into the poll numbers shows areas of unease — perhaps not enough to trouble Obama's chances of taking the state's 20 electoral votes on Nov. 6, but of larger concern to Democrats who had hopes of reversing the 11-8 Republican advantage in the state's congressional delegation. The survey found Obama leading 79 percent to 12 percent over Romney in Chicago, with narrower advantages of 57 percent to 34 percent in suburban Cook County and 54 percent to 41 percent in the collar counties. Among voters in the state's remaining 96 counties, Romney led Obama 46 percent to 41 percent. Romney has made gains among white voters this year. In February, whites favored Obama over Romney 48-41. The latest survey shows that group almost evenly split — 46 percent for the former Massachusetts governor and 45 percent for the president. Part of that trend can be attributed to Obama's slipping support among white suburban women. The voting group, which is considered politically moderate, favored Obama 63 percent to 30 percent eight months ago. Now Obama's backing has fallen to 50 percent, with 43 percent backing Romney. African-American support for the nation's first black president remained strong at 95 percent. The president's job approval remained almost unshaken from February. A majority of statewide voters — 53 percent — approve of Obama's handling of the presidency, while 39 percent disapprove. Digging deeper, however, Obama's job approval rating lagged among Downstate, white and independent voters. Outside the Chicago region, 51 percent disapproved and 40 percent approved. Among whites, 48 percent disapproved compared with 43 percent who approved. Independent voters who decide close elections were split — 44 percent approved and 43 percent disapproved. The president's numbers dip in those same demographic groups when it comes to Obama's handling of jobs and the economy. Statewide, 51 percent of voters approved and 41 percent disapproved. But a majority of Downstate voters — 53 percent — disapproved, as did 51 percent of white voters. Independents clocked in at a 47 percent disapproval rate, with 41 percent approving. Still, Obama's statewide economic approval rating is better than two years ago, when a September 2010 survey showed 47 percent disapproved while only 42 percent approved. When it comes to how Obama is viewed in his home state, 55 percent of voters said they have a favorable perception of the president compared with 35 percent who look at him unfavorably. In contrast, just 35 percent of Illinois voters viewed Romney favorably, while 49 percent have an unfavorable view.

74

Obama supporters are more intense in their support. The poll found 86 percent of Obama backers say they are voting for the president and only 12 percent said they are voting against Romney. In contrast, only 64 percent of Romney voters said they are voting for him, while 33 percent >said they are voting against Obama. The poll also included a gut-check question asking respondents which candidate cares more about "people like you." On that score, 56 percent sided with Obama while only 29 percent cited Romney. That identification with Obama crossed all geographic, racial and gender lines, perhaps reflecting the success of the president's campaign in trying to paint Romney as too wealthy and out of touch to engage the middle class. That's why Mohammad Khan, a computer analyst from Des Plaines, said he's leaning toward voting for Obama. Khan, 40, said he thinks Obama cares about middle-class families, a big issue for him with three young children. The hesitation, Khan said, is that his family is financially worse off now than it was in 2008. "Things are more expensive across the board, and instead of getting ahead financially, I'm getting behind," said Khan, a poll respondent. "I was very much an Obama supporter when he came in, but I find myself thinking twice now." Retired businessman Elmer Kuech said Romney's philosophy on small-business growth is more aligned with his views. "I've seen this country go through recessions in my 74 years, and none has been so anemic," said Kuech, a poll respondent of Homewood. "I guess we didn't read the fine print on the 'hope and change' promised in the last election." As the nation prepares for Thursday's vice presidential debate, the poll found Democratic Vice President Joe Biden viewed favorably by 43 percent of Illinois voters compared with 35 percent with an unfavorable view. Opinions of Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP running mate from Janesville, Wis., were split: 34 percent had a favorable opinion and 33 percent an unfavorable viewpoint. While the presidential result in Illinois is fairly certain, the question of how big Obama's coattails will be remains unclear. Democrats drew the state's new congressional map with an eye toward picking up four or five seats toward the party's goal of a net gain of 25 to retake the House. The poll asked a generic congressional support question. In Chicago and suburban Cook County, large majorities of voters said they would vote for an unspecified Democratic candidate for Congress. Even in the Republican-rich collar counties, 48 percent of voters said they'd side with a Democrat compared with 41 percent for a GOP contender. That dynamic could help Democrats in three suburban contests: the northwest and west suburban 8th District, where Democrat Tammy Duckworth is challenging freshman Republican Rep. Joe Walsh, the north suburban 10th District where Democrat Brad Schneider is pitted against freshman GOP Rep. Robert Dold, and the far west and southwest suburban 11th District, where former Democratic Rep. Bill Foster is running against veteran Republican Rep. Judy Biggert. Chicago TV is full of millions of dollars in attack ads as interest groups try to sway voters. But there also are three hard-fought congressional contests Downstate. Outside the Chicago region, 48 percent of voters said they'd side with a generic Republican, compared with 42 percent who preferred a Democrat. That lay of the land could help Republicans retain two seats and pick up a third now held by a retiring Democrat. Tribune reporter Bridget Doyle contributed. [email protected] Twitter @rap30 Obama Can't Win North Carolina, Virginia And Florida (HUFFPOST) Huffington Post, October 11, 2012 With a little less than a month until the election, one pollster says the race in three battleground states is over for President Barack Obama. “I think in places like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida, we’ve already painted those red," David Paleologos, the president of Suffolk University Political Research Center told Fox host Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday. "We’re not polling any of those states again. We're focusing on the remaining states.” Facing limited resources, outlets are selective in their polling, and some argue that other swing states such as Ohio, Nevada and Iowa might prove better election predictors. In an email to The Huffington Post, Paleologos said it was an issue of prioritization. "With just 5 statewide polls left in 3 1/2 weeks, the choice of which states to poll is always shifting," he wrote. "As of last night, there were at least five other states that we felt we must poll, many of which have higher head-to-head numbers (49 percent) for Barack Obama and which are more critical to deciding the national election." While such calculations aren't rare, it's more unusual to publicly write-off closely fought states before an election. Paleologos' initial comments came as a surprise to other pollsters active in those states.

75

"I think he’s totally wrong about Obama’s prospects in those states, particularly Florida and Virginia, and I just think it’s really strange you’d go on national TV and make those declarations without having fresh polling in hand showing Romney ahead in those states," said Tom Jensen, director of the democratic firm Public Policy Polling. "But nuance doesn’t count for much on primetime cable ..." Doug Usher, the director of a swing state poll conducted by public affairs firm Purple Strategies, said stopping polls in those states was "counterintuitive." "Those three states are clearly still in play," Usher said. "We're not sure how much more polling that we are going to do this cycle, just because it's a cost question for us, but if we were, we would absolutely be polling all three ... So, I just don't know what factors he takes into account that would lead him to believe that they're unwinnable for Obama." Paleologos said that Obama has consistently polled at 47 percent of the vote in the three states, making a win for him "not impossible, but highly improbable," especially in North Carolina. The state, which Obama carried in 2008, is currently trending red, and several pollsters agree that it's one of the strongest battleground states for Romney. But Kenneth Fernandez, director of the North Carolina-based Elon University Poll, cautioned against making any quick decisions. "We’ve seen the lead changes in North Carolina a dozen times and results have almost always been within the margin of error. I don’t think you will see many well-funded polling organizations pulling out of North Carolina, Florida, or Virginia," he said. Fernandez noted that pollsters with limited time and money might choose to focus on different states, but "it seems premature to make a methodological decision based on a single campaign event and poll change," he said. Fernandez pointed to 1948, when Gallup stopped polling two weeks before the election and predicted that Thomas Dewey would defeat Harry Truman. "When you make such a decision with incomplete information, you are increasing your chances of being wrong, very wrong." Other polling outlets said they would continue surveys in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. Roanoke College plans more polling in Virginia, and the Marist Institute, which conducts polling for NBC and The Wall Street Journal, also will keep polling in all three states. Paleologos said he would consider resuming polling in Florida or Virginia if other outlets showed Obama winning 49 percent or more of the vote. "[W]e would certainly revisit, if time and resources allow," he said. "However, we have to make decisions about the numbers immediately before us, as much planning takes place for each poll." Mark Blumenthal contributed reporting. Also on HuffPost: Jamie Dimon: I Don't Mind Paying Higher Taxes To Help Solve Economic Crisis (HILL) By Peter Schroeder The Hill, October 11, 2012 JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon on Wednesday accused Washington of completely mishandling the looming fiscal cliff — and said he'd be happy to pay higher taxes to avoid an economic crisis. The head of the nation's largest bank said he is "barely" still a Democrat. But he threw his support behind Democrats in saying he would be fine paying more taxes to help resolve the economic threat to the country. "I don't mind paying 39.6 percent in taxes," Dimon told the Council on Foreign Relations. "I want a society which is always getting more equitable." President Obama wants to let Bush-era tax rates expire for higher-income earners and impose a minimum tax rate on people making more than $1 million a year. Dimon added that he would not oppose higher taxes on capital gains, an idea that has also been pushed by Democrats. However, Dimon also called for a broad overhaul of the corporate tax code, calling it broken. Dimon said that the fiscal cliff — the combination of automatic spending cuts and expiring tax cuts set to occur in January — is not quite as dire a threat as the debt-ceiling battle of last August. But he said it is still hugely irresponsible that Washington has not reached a deal to solve the problem. The uncertainty driven by the political standoff over how to adjust the policy is beginning to push businesses to the sideline, and will only get worse as time passes, Dimon warned. "It's going to happen now and right after the election," he said. "Don't hire, don't build, don't buy. Wait and see ... well, that is a recession, and let's not do that to ourselves." The outspoken banker backed the Simpson-Bowles deficit plan, saying the fiscal improvements it would provide could ignite the U.S. economy. 76

"I believe, had that been done a year ago or whatever, this economy would be booming. Booming," he said. If the U.S. does not improve its fiscal course, Dimon said it is a matter of when — not if — the market begins to punish American borrowing. But the most immediate threat to the U.S. economy, which is still on tenuous ground, is the fiscal cliff, he said. It is "virtually assured" that investors will begin demanding rapidly increasing rates in exchange for Treasury bonds at some point if the nation remains on its current fiscal path, Dimon said. "It will happen. It is a matter of time. The United States can't borrow indefinitely," he warned. "We are going to have fiscal discipline. It is going to be imposed upon us, or we do the right thing and we do it to ourselves." Jamie Dimon Speaks: The Financial Gospel According To JPMorgan Chase CEO (WP) By Danielle Douglas Washington Post, October 11, 2012 JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon is rarely without an opinion on...well anything. And the leader of the nation’s largest bank was true to form speaking at a Council on Foreign Relations event on Wednesday. On regulation... Dimon, who has crusaded against increased regulation on Wall Street, said the current regulatory environment has created a lot of confusion with “overlapping jurisdictions, no way to adjudicate disputes.” “When people make mistakes, they’re attacked by 17 different agencies as opposed to the old days it would be just the one that’s responsible” for oversight of the company, he said. “We need good policy: clarity, simplicity.” Dimon anticipates that overhead costs from new domestic and international regulations will hit more than $1 billion a year. A bank of JPMorgan’s size can easily absorb such costs, but Dimon said smaller institutions will struggle to contend with compliance expenses. On the economy... In what could only be described as economic cheerleading, Dimon stressed that the country is not in decline, but remains a world power with the “widest, deepest, most transparent” capital markets, immense innovation and work ethic. Corporations, small businesses, consumer and the housing market are all in better shape, Dimon said. The problem, he said, is the uncertainty around taxes, policy and fiscal cliff is “a huge wet blanket” on an otherwise improving economy. “We have this constant anti-business, not just sentiment, but regulatory, attorney generals...We’re shooting ourselves in the foot,” he said. “Get rid of that wet blanket and this thing will take off.” Asked whether he believes the bond markets will move against the U.S., Dimon said it is simply a matter of when, as the country “can’t borrow indefinitely.” “We are going to have fiscal discipline. It will either be imposed on us or we’re do the right thing and do it ourselves the right way,” he said. Had Congress acted on the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission, Dimon insisted “this economy would have been booming.” “It would have shown that we have the ability. America knows the way, we don’t have the will,” he said. The deficit commission’s budget plan would have created “a more efficient tax system, much more certainty among a whole bunch of policy. It’s still doable. We need the leaders to say ‘we are going to do it.’ ” On ‘London Whale’ trading loss... In one of his last visits to Washington, Dimon faced a barrage of questions from members of Congress about JPMorgan’s $6 billion “London Whale” trading loss in the spring. While Dimon remains contrite about the loss, he insists lawmakers overreacted. “We made a stupid error,” he said. “Businesses make mistakes, they learn from it and get better. Only when I come to Washington do people act like making a mistake should never happen. Only with academics and politicians is it not allowed.” On Bear Stearns... JPMorgan is still contending with lawsuits and write-downs stemming from its acquisition of beleaguered Wall Street giant Bear Stearns. Dimon said JPMorgan has lost upwards of $10 billion between all the litigation and unwinding Bear’s troubled business. New York’s attorney general last week filed a civil lawsuit to hold the bank accountable for allegations that Bear Stearns deceived investors buying mortgage-backed securities. “Would I have done Bear Stearns again knowing what I know today? It’s real close,” he said. “What I know today is if they called me again to do something like that again, I couldn’t do it, my board wouldn’t allow me.”

77

Putting Fiscal Policies Under The Microscope (WSJ) By David Wessel Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. The $5 Trillion Tax Cut That Isn’t (WP) By Robert J. Samuelson Washington Post, October 11, 2012 Let’s review again the math of Mitt Romney’s proposed tax cuts to show why — contrary to the rhetoric from President Obama’s campaign — they do not amount to a $5 trillion tax cut for the rich. We all understand that campaigns involve self- serving exaggerations, simplifications and partial truths. But if politics is to retain any integrity, a line must be drawn at statements and innuendoes that are demonstrably false. That’s happened here. The Obama campaign has distorted the results of a study by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group, and created a fictitious $5 trillion tax cut. Some news organizations have embraced the distortion. The TPC should issue a statement saying its results have been twisted, leaving no doubt. News organizations that bought into the fabrication should retract their previous reporting. Topping the list is NBC News, which is in the awkward position of having one of its broadcasts inserted in an Obama TV spot. Let me emphasize that my criticism of Obama’s campaign is not an endorsement of Romney’s tax plan, many of whose features I oppose. Among other items, I dislike his proposals (a) to continue taxing “capital income” (dividends and capital gains) at lower rates than labor income; (b) to abolish taxes on capital income for taxpayers with incomes less than $200,000; (c) to eliminate the estate tax. Ditching these proposals might make it possible to achieve a simpler income tax system with a top rate of 30 percent. The Tax Policy Center report concluded that Romney can’t cut tax rates 20 percent while raising the same amount of tax revenue and not increasing taxes on the middle class. Something would have to give, the TPC said, because Romney has put too many loopholes for the rich off-limits. But even if the TPC is broadly correct — as I think it is — it does not follow that Romney plans a $5 trillion tax cut for the rich. The $5 trillion figure never appears in the report. Rather, the report estimates the cost of Romney’s plan for 2015. Altogether in 2015, his proposed rate cuts would reduce tax revenues by $456 billion, the TPC reckons. Multiplying that by 10, and assuming some inflation and economic growth, gives a roughly $5 trillion estimate for a decade. Here’s why this isn’t a $5 trillion cut for the rich. Start with the $456 billion in 2015. Only $360 billion of that reflects reductions in individual tax rates. The rest involves the corporate tax and isn’t analyzed by the TPC. The study assumes — perhaps implausibly — that any lost revenues from lower corporate rates would be offset by fewer corporate tax breaks. Over a decade, that’s slightly more than $1 trillion of the $5 trillion off the table. It’s true that most individual rate reductions would go to wealthier taxpayers, because the wealthy pay most federal taxes. (In 2012, the 4 percent of taxpayers with incomes exceeding $200,000 paid nearly 45 percent of federal taxes, the TPC says.) Still, Romney’s proposed rate cuts also benefit those with incomes of $200,000 or less; that’s one dividing line between upper- middle class and wealthy. The TPC estimates that these rate cuts are worth $109 billion for 2015. Over a decade, that’s slightly more than another $1 trillion not going to the rich. The remaining rate cuts for the wealthy equal about 60 percent of the $5 trillion over a decade, or $3 trillion. Romney contends that closing existing tax breaks would recoup lost revenues. Not so, says the TPC. There aren’t enough. Still, the TPC estimates that two-thirds of the lost revenues might be offset by fewer tax breaks. If so, this eliminates another $2 trillion over a decade available for tax cuts for the rich. The remaining $1 trillion is still a lot of money, and Romney can be harshly criticized for making more promises than he can keep. Which ones would he break? In the first debate, he was emphatic. He wouldn’t propose any tax cut that increased the deficit or the middle class’s tax burden. One way to keep these pledges is to pare back rate cuts for the rich or attack some tax preferences put off-limits by Romney. Then, the net tax cut for the rich would be zero. The TPC never claimed to find a $5 trillion giveaway to the rich. News organizations peddling this line have unwittingly enlisted in the Obama campaign. Obama's Disappearing $5 Trillion (WSJ) The President's advisers concede 80% of Romney's tax-cut math. Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 78

Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. This Election, A Stark Choice In Health Care (NYT) By Abby Goodnough And Robert Pear New York Times, October 11, 2012 Joyce Beck, who runs a small hospital and network of medical clinics in rural Nebraska, is reluctant to plan for the future until voters decide between President Obama and Mitt Romney. The candidates’ sharply divergent proposals for Medicare, Medicaid and coverage of the uninsured have created too much uncertainty, she explained. “We are all on hold, waiting to see what the election brings,” said Ms. Beck, chief executive of Thayer County Health Services in Hebron, Neb. When Americans go to the polls next month, they will cast a vote not just for president but for one of two profoundly different visions for the future of the country’s health care system. With an Obama victory on Nov. 6, the president’s signature health care law — including the contentious requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance or pay a tax penalty — will almost certainly come into full force, becoming the largest expansion of the safety net since President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through his Great Society programs almost half a century ago. If Mr. Romney wins and Republicans capture the Senate, much of the law could be repealed — or its financing cut back — and the president’s goal of achieving near-universal coverage could take a back seat to Mr. Romney’s top priority, controlling medical costs. Given the starkness of the choice, historians and policy makers believe this election could be the most significant referendum on a piece of social legislation since 1936, when the Republican Alf M. Landon ran against Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal programs. (Nearly eight decades have passed, but the debate sounds strikingly familiar: Landon described the Social Security Act, passed in 1935, as “the largest tax bill in history” and called for its repeal.) “It is very rare for a political party to pass a social program of this magnitude and then to face the possibility of a rollback or repeal in a presidential election,” said James A. Morone, a professor of political science at Brown University who has studied the history of health policy. For Medicare and Medicaid, the government health programs for older Americans, low-income people and the disabled, the candidates have sharply different visions as well. Mr. Romney’s proposals call for fundamental changes in the structure of the programs, placing more emphasis on private-sector solutions and much less on government regulation. Mr. Obama would expand Medicaid to cover millions more people; Mr. Romney would effectively shrink it, giving each state a fixed amount of federal money to cover its disadvantaged population with more control over eligibility and benefits. Mr. Romney would eventually give each Medicare beneficiary a fixed amount of federal money to pay premiums for either the traditional Medicare program or private insurance. Mr. Obama would preserve the structure of Medicare but try to rein in costs, in part by trimming payments to health care providers. Passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 was, to many, Mr. Obama’s most significant legislative accomplishment. But the law proved so divisive that undoing it has become a central rallying cry of Republicans seeking to retake the White House. Julian E. Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton, said that Mr. Obama “has not embraced his own record with as much enthusiasm, passion and confidence” as either Roosevelt or Johnson. But the president has, in recent weeks, responded more aggressively to the critics. He has even embraced the derisive term “Obamacare,” saying: “I do care. That’s why we passed the bill.” Armed with data suggesting that the law is popular with crucial groups of voters — including young people, women and Hispanics — Mr. Obama plans to run more television commercials and distribute fliers taking credit for popular provisions of the 2010 health law and asserting that Mr. Romney would take away Medicare’s “guaranteed benefits.” As seen in last week’s presidential debate, the health care discussion has become a dizzying flurry of numbers, bold claims and counterclaims. But the outlines of what might happen under a Romney administration or a second Obama administration go something like this: If Romney Wins Even though he helped develop the landmark 2006 law that required most Massachusetts residents to have health insurance — a model for the Obama law — Mr. Romney has said repeatedly that he believes that requiring Americans to buy health insurance as national policy is the wrong approach. The focus should not be on increasing the number of insured Americans, his advisers say, so much as on controlling health costs by fixing the dysfunctional insurance market. Mr. Romney has been less specific about what he will put in place if the law is repealed. But most of his ideas are aimed at bolstering market forces. One of the biggest problems, he says, is that people who get health insurance through their employers 79

receive a tax break — the value of employer contributions to their premiums is not counted as income — while people who buy coverage in the individual insurance market generally get none. Mr. Romney says he would level the playing field by creating tax breaks for people who buy insurance on their own — a measure that might encourage even those with the option of employer- sponsored coverage to buy their own plans instead. “As a result,” Mr. Romney said in a summary of his health care proposals in The New England Journal of Medicine, “they will be price-sensitive, quality-conscious, and able to seek out the features they want.” Mr. Romney believes that if more people buy coverage on their own, insurers will compete harder for their business, thus presumably lowering costs. And if insurance is separated from employment, the Romney campaign says, people will be able to keep their coverage if they lose or change jobs. Paul Fronstin, an economist at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonpartisan organization, said the proposal would work only if Mr. Romney made additional efforts to bring down the cost of health care. In the past, he said, advocates of such proposals typically offered tax credits ranging from about $1,500 to $2,500 a year for an individual — not necessarily enough to make coverage affordable. “Will other things bring down premiums to make those tax credits more meaningful?” Mr. Fronstin asked. “That’s an open question.” The new health care law prohibits insurers from turning people away or charging them more because they are sick, and Mr. Romney says he will guarantee access to insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. But his guarantee would extend only to people who have maintained coverage without a significant gap. That means millions could still be rejected. Mr. Romney says many of them could get coverage through health plans known as high-risk pools. Many states have such pools, but the coverage they offer can be prohibitively expensive. If Obama Wins If Mr. Obama is re-elected, he would step up efforts to carry out the health care law. Given the controversy over the law and the logistical challenge of setting up state insurance “exchanges” where people can shop for coverage, the transition will probably be rocky. But many doctors, hospitals and insurance companies are determined to make it work. On Jan. 1, 2014, the requirement that most Americans have medical coverage takes effect. Private health plans will start enrolling people in October 2013. The result, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is that 30 million uninsured people will eventually gain coverage. To help them afford it, the federal government would subsidize private insurance premiums for people with incomes up to four times the federal poverty level ($92,200 for a family of four). And it would expand Medicaid to cover more poor people, including many adults without children. Mr. Obama and Democrats in Congress have beaten back efforts to change the law before its major provisions take effect. But after the election, Congress will be under intense pressure to rein in deficits and debt, and lawmakers will focus anew on the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and the new health care law, which together could account for one-third of all federal spending in 2022. Paul B. Ginsburg, president of the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change, said that a willingness to compromise might help Mr. Obama persuade Republicans to accept the health care law if he wins a second term. For example, Mr. Ginsburg said, the president and Congressional Democrats might agree to delay the biggest, most expensive parts of the law for a year, giving the administration and states more time to prepare and saving a substantial amount of money. He also suggested that to help with deficit reduction, Mr. Obama and Congress might reduce the size of the federal subsidies meant to help middle-income people buy insurance. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama often told voters that he would lower premiums by $2,500 a year per family “by the end of my first term as president.” It has not happened, though the White House says the law has slowed the growth of premiums, in part by establishing new procedures to review proposed rate increases. Some provisions of the law may tend to increase premiums in 2014. Insurers and health policy experts say young adults could face higher premiums because of a provision that limits how much rates can vary based on a person’s age. Whether Mr. Obama’s law will slow the overall growth of health care costs remains to be seen. Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group, said a few provisions — such as a new tax on high-priced health insurance plans, to take effect in 2018 — could help rein in costs. In the meantime, people like Sarah L. Moseley of Birmingham, Ala., are simply hoping that the next president and Congress will guarantee coverage at more affordable rates. Ms. Moseley, who has ovarian cancer, said she had been denied commercial insurance and was paying more than $600 a month for limited coverage in the state’s high-risk pool. “I don’t have much longer to live,” she said.

80

Duckworth Lucky She Didn’t Take Walsh’s Bet (CHIST) By Natasha Korecki, Political Reporter @natashakorecki Chicago Sun-Times, October 11, 2012 Turns out, U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh probably would have won the bet. Democrat Tammy Duckworth didn’t take up the Republican congressman on a wager he laid out at a Tuesday night debate — but had she, it sounds like she would have lost. The proposed bet involved Chicago Prime Steakhouse in Schaumburg. Walsh insisted that the restaurant owner was concerned about how “Obamacare” affected his business. Duckworth said she also talked to the restaurant owner and heard a different story. She accused Walsh of talking too much and not listening. On Wednesday, the managing partner of Chicago Prime Steakhouse made it abundantly clear in an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times that he didn’t have anything against either candidate. “They’re both welcome in my restaurant,” he said. “There’s no question, both of them have a sincere interest in understanding what is happening to me. They both were very, very adamant about it. They wanted to understand.” But after getting besieged with media calls Wednesday, Andy-John G. Kalkounos said he thought he should release a statement to respond to the “high volume of reporters” from everywhere from Washington newspapers to the Huffington Post. “If I haven’t taken 30 calls here, they just keep writing notes down,” with phone messages, he said. Kalkounos said that speaking as a businessman, he does have concerns about how Obama’s health care plan would affect his business. The issue came up at the Tuesday night debate in Rolling Meadows where Walsh and Duckworth gave different takes on their conversations with the owner. Walsh challenged Duckworth to sit down with Chicago Prime next week to settle the matter, and if he was wrong, he would donate $2,500 to her campaign. Duckworth declined, saying she would not “grandstand,” with him. “Based purely as a business owner, the [Affordable Health Care Act] would impose a significant added expense without contributing any added revenue,” Kalkounos said. “As it relates to AHCA, you ask me if my business is better off before it or after, the answer is obviously before.” Still, Duckworth wasn’t conceding a loss on the bet she declined to make. Her spokesman said when Duckworth sat down with Kalkounos, the restaurant owner wanted a specific provision of Obama’s health care law fixed. That had to do with a provision that now levels huge penalties against small business owners who have more than 50 employees. For those who have just more than 50, Duckworth supports a sliding scale and would work to lessen the impact on small businesses, her spokesman said. Walsh said he would work to repeal Obamacare all together. Medicare Penalties Don't Cut Hospital Infections (WSJ) By Anna Wilde Mathews Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Kodak To End Health-Care, Survivor-Benefits Program (WSJ) By Nathalie Tadena Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Howard And Sykes: Medicaid Is Broken—Let The States Fix It (WSJ) Block-granting Medicaid is the best way to deliver better, cost-effective care to the most vulnerable Americans. By Paul Howard And Russell Sykes Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Clinton Condemns Attack On Pakistan Teen Activist (AP) By Matthew Lee, Associated Press Associated Press, October 11, 2012

81

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is condemning the shooting in Pakistan of an outspoken 14-year old Pakistani advocate for girls' education. She says the attack should serve as a call to action for those promoting the rights of women and girls. Speaking Wednesday, Clinton said the shooting of Malala Yousufzai should galvanize support for "brave young women ... who struggle against tradition and culture and even outright hostility, and sometimes violence" to pursue their rights. She blamed the attack on extremists who are threatened by girls' empowerment. The Taliban has taken responsibility for Monday's shooting in Pakistan's volatile Swat Valley. Clinton said the "attack reminds us of the challenges that girls face, whether it is poverty or marginalization or even violence just for speaking out for their basic rights." Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Shooting Of Pakistan Girl Activist Sparks Outrage (AP) By Rebecca Santana And Riaz Khan, Associated Press Associated Press, October 11, 2012 ISLAMABAD (AP) — Schools shut their doors in protest and Pakistanis across the country held vigils Wednesday to pray for a 14-year-old girl who was shot by a Taliban gunman after daring to advocate education for girls and criticize the militant group. The shooting of Malala Yousufzai on Tuesday in the town of Mingora in the volatile Swat Valley horrified Pakistanis across the religious, political and ethnic spectrum. Many in the country hoped the attack and the outrage it has sparked will be a turning point in Pakistan's long-running battle against the Taliban, which still enjoys considerable public support for fighting U.S. forces in neighboring Afghanistan. Top U.S. officials condemned the attack and offered to help the girl. A Taliban gunman walked up to a bus taking children home from school and shot Malala in the head and neck. Another girl on the bus was also wounded. Pictures of the vehicle showed bloodstained seats where the girls were sitting. Malala appeared to be out of immediate danger after doctors operated on her early Wednesday to remove a bullet lodged in her neck. But she remained in intensive care at a hospital in the northwestern city of Peshawar, and Pakistan's Interior Minister said the next 48 hours would be crucial. Small rallies and prayer sessions were held for her in Mingora, the eastern city of Lahore, the southern port city of Karachi and the capital of Islamabad. In newspapers, on TV and in social media forums, Pakistanis voiced their disgust with the attack, and expressed their admiration for a girl who spoke out against the Taliban when few dared. Even the country's top military officer — a man who rarely makes public statements — condemned the shooting and visited the Peshawar hospital to check on the teenager. "In attacking Malala, the terrorist have failed to grasp that she is not only an individual, but an icon of courage and hope who vindicates the great sacrifices that the people of Swat and the nation gave, for wresting the valley from the scourge of terrorism," Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said in a statement. In Washington, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said US officials "strongly condemn" the shooting and called it "barbaric" and "cowardly." He said U.S. has offered any assistance to Malala, mentioning possible air ambulance transport to a facility suitable for her treatment if it becomes necessary. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton praised the young Pakistani girl. "She was attacked and shot by extremists who don't want girls to have an education and don't want girls to speak for themselves, and don't want girls to become leaders," she said. At the United Nations, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the attack on Malala, calling it a "heinous and cowardly act," U.N. spokesman Nartin Nesirky said. Malala is admired across Pakistan for exposing the Taliban's atrocities and advocating girls' education in the face of religious extremism. At the age of 11, she began writing a blog under a pseudonym for the BBC about life under the Taliban in the Swat Valley. After the military ousted the militants in 2009, she began publicly speaking out about the need for girls' education, something the Taliban strongly opposes. The group claimed responsibility for Tuesday's attack, vowed to target her again.

82

Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik said authorities have identified her attackers and know how they got into the valley, but no arrests have been made. The news that surgeons were able to remove a bullet lodged in Malala's neck was greeted with relief by many. But even with such an outpouring of grief and outrage in Pakistan over the young girl's shooting, it was unclear whether it would indeed trigger a shift in public opinion against the Taliban. Many in Pakistan view the group as waging a noble fight against U.S. troops that invaded another Muslim country, Afghanistan, and they argue that the Taliban problem within Pakistan will fade once American forces leave. They argue that Taliban attacks against targets in Pakistan aim to punish the government in Islamabad for its alliance with Washington. "Pakistan society is polarized on who is doing terrorism," said Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a political analyst in Lahore. He said that divide has been evident even in the public condemnations of the attack, with some people speaking out strongly against the Taliban while others have criticized the government for failing to protect Malala. Omar R. Quraishi, the editorial pages editor at Pakistan's English-language Express Tribune newspaper, questioned whether the public outrage had reached such a critical mass that it would indeed mark a turning point. He said Kayani's strong statement in support of the girl may be an attempt to gauge whether there is enough public outrage to support a sharp response from the army against the Taliban. The general, said Quraishi, doesn't want to be in a position where people are asking: "Why are you fighting America's wars?" The Pakistani military has been waging a deadly fight in the tribal regions against militants at a cost of about 4,000 soldiers killed. But critics, especially in the U.S., accuse the army of going after militants that attack the Pakistani state while cultivating others that it feels will be useful someday in Afghanistan. Still, there is a precedent in Pakistan of Taliban excesses provoking public outrage, which the military has then capitalized on to move against the militants. In 2009, after a video surfaced of militants publicly whipping a woman, purportedly in the Swat Valley, triggered a wave of public revulsion, the army felt empowered enough to launch a major offensive against the Taliban in the area. Government forces flushed the militants out of the scenic valley, but failed to capture or kill the movement's senior leaders. ___ Santana reported from Islamabad. Associated Press writer Sherin Zada in Mingora, Munir Ahmed in Islamabad and Adil Jawad in Karachi contributed to this report. Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Pakistani Girl Still Unconscious After Surgery; Clerics Mostly Silent On Shooting (WP) By Richard Leiby And Michele Langevine Leiby Washington Post, October 10, 2012 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Doctors have removed a bullet lodged near the spine of Malala Yousafzai, the 14-year-old Pakistani girl gunned down on her school bus by the Taliban, officials said Wednesday. Yousafzai’s chances of survival improved after the surgery, but she remained unconscious and in critical condition. Police said they had identified a shooting suspect but had not yet apprehended him. Akbar Khan Hoti, chief of police for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, where Yousafzai lives, told a TV news channel that the attacker had traveled from eastern Afghanistan. The provincial administration, meanwhile, announced a $100,000 reward for information leading to the suspect’s capture. As schoolchildren throughout the nation held prayer vigils for the teenage education activist, many Pakistani political leaders and international figures expressed revulsion over the assassination attempt in the volatile Swat Valley region. But religious parties and mosque leaders were largely silent, highlighting the grip that right-wing clerics hold on this increasingly conservative, majority-Muslim country. Religious leaders here rarely denounce suicide bombings or sectarian attacks for fear of provoking the Taliban. “These religious parties have strong ideological links to the Taliban. Conceptually, there is not much difference between them. They want to control the state and take up jihad against the West,” said Ijaz Khattak, a professor at the University of Peshawar who knows Yousafzai and her father, an educator and a member of Swat’s peace jirga, or tribal council. The Pakistani Taliban said it had dispatched a gunman to kill Yousafzai, a ninth-grader, because the militant group considered her a pro-Western symbol of “infidels and obscenity.” If she survives, a spokesman for the group said Tuesday, it will try to kill her again.

83

But mainstream Pakistanis view Yousafzai, whose advocacy of girls’ education won global recognition, as a symbol of hope in a country long beset by violence and despair. Pakistan’s top military official, Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, visited Yousafzai on Wednesday morning at the military hospital in Peshawar where she is being treated for gunshot wounds to the head and neck. Kayani, arguably Pakistan’s most powerful man, called the shooting a “heinous act of terrorism.” “The cowards who attacked Malala and her fellow students have shown time and again how little regard they have for human life and how low they can fall in their cruel ambition to impose their twisted ideology,” Kayani said, according to a news release issued by the military’s information office. “. . . They have no respect even for the golden words of the prophet . . . that ‘the one who is not kind to children, is not amongst us.’ ” Pakistan’s army has lost thousands of soldiers and officers in its war against the Taliban, which has stepped up its attacks in the western tribal areas and frequently beheads captured troops. In his statement, Kayani sought to draw a sharp line between Islam and the Taliban, saying that “Islam guarantees each individual — male or female — equal and inalienable rights to life, property and human dignity.” “We refuse to bow before terror,” Kayani said. “We will fight regardless of the cost. We will prevail, insha Allah [God willing].” Yousafzai was 11 when she gained notice in early 2009 for writing a diary under a pen name for the BBC’s Urdu service about Taliban atrocities. She lives in Mingora, the largest city in the Swat Valley, where Taliban insurgents imposed harsh Islamic law for two years before being routed by a major military operation in May 2009. Today, the army promotes Swat as a tourist destination — it sponsored a festival there in July, trying to restore the region’s reputation as the Switzerland of Pakistan. Tuesday’s daylight attack demonstrated the Taliban’s ability to infiltrate the area, which adjoins Pakistan’s insurgency-plagued tribal belt. Two months ago, Taliban gunmen shot and seriously injured the president of Swat’s hotel association in Mingora and vowed further attacks on those it considers pro-government. Yousafzai and her father, Zia Uddin Yousafzai, who runs the girls’ school his daughter attended, were vocal in their anti- Taliban views. In 2011, the Pakistani government awarded the teenager a national peace prize and 1 million rupees ($10,500). She also was a finalist last year for the International Children’s Peace Prize, awarded by a Dutch organization that lauded her bravery in standing up for girls’ education rights amid rising fundamentalism when few others in Pakistan would do so. Pakistan has banned some pro-Taliban extremist groups and parties. But the militants nonetheless stage rallies to rail against Pakistan’s U.S.-allied government, which is dominated by the liberal People’s National Party. Many right-wing clerics support the Afghan Taliban, which, like the Pakistani Taliban, supports the imposition of sharia law. “The religious right considers the main political parties to be too soft, and collaborating with the state,” said Khattak, the Peshawar professor. “If the Taliban is successful in disrupting the state . . . these political parties can take hold of the state.” The only statement from a religious group condemning the attack came from the Majlis-e Wahdat-e Muslimeen, a Shiite party that holds seats in Parliament. “Firing upon innocent students and injuring them was blatant terrorism, and the perpetrators behind this vile act should be swiftly brought to justice,” Allama Raja Nasir Abbas, secretary general of the party, said Wednesday. On Tuesday, Pakistan’s prime minister and U.S. officials were quick to condemn the attack. “We have to fight the mind-set that is involved in this. We have to condemn it,” Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf told the Pakistani Senate. “Malala is like my daughter and yours, too. If that mind-set prevails, then whose daughter would be safe?” U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland called the shooting “barbaric” and “cowardly.” School was over for the day, and the bus was a few hundred yards from school grounds when the attack occurred, said Kamran Khan, a local administrator. “A masked man stopped the school van, while another jumped in the rear asking for Malala,” Khan said. The driver tried to speed off, but the gunman succeeding in shooting the teenager, jumping off and escaping. A seventh-grader who was on the bus with Yousafzai was shot in the leg. Ihsanullah Ihsan, chief spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, said in calls to the news media that the militant group targeted Yousafzai because she generated “negative propaganda” about Muslims. “She considers President Obama as her ideal leader. Malala is the symbol of the infidels and obscenity,” Ihsan said. The Pakistani Taliban has bombed hundreds of schools, mostly for girls, in the tribal regions and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. After being forced out of Swat in 2009, Pakistani Taliban fighters relocated to the Afghan border region near the eastern Afghan provinces of Konar and Nurestan. They are blamed for attacks on Pakistani forces from across the border.

84

In her diary, Yousafzai wrote about her fears and the growing Taliban influence. One morning, she wore her favorite pink dress. “During the morning assembly we were told not to wear colorful clothes as the Taliban would object to it,” she wrote. In another entry, she wrote: “On my way from school to home I heard a man saying, ‘I will kill you.’ I hastened my pace and after a while I looked back if the man was still coming behind me. But to my utter relief he was talking on his mobile and must have been threatening someone else.” Haq Nawaz Khan in Peshawar, Pakistan, contributed to this report. Pakistanis Unite In Outrage Over Girl’s Shooting By Taliban (NYT) By Declan Walsh New York Times, October 11, 2012 KARACHI, Pakistan — Doctors on Wednesday removed a bullet from a Pakistani schoolgirl shot by the Taliban, as Pakistanis from across the political and religious spectrum united in revulsion at the attack on the 14-year-old education rights campaigner. A Taliban gunman singled out and shot the girl, Malala Yousafzai, on Tuesday, and a spokesman said it was in retaliation for her work in promoting girls’ education and children’s rights in the northwestern Swat Valley, near the Afghan border. Ms. Yousafzai was removed from immediate danger after the operation in a military hospital in Peshawar early Wednesday, during which surgeons removed a bullet that had passed through her head and lodged in her shoulder, one hospital official said. The government kept a Boeing jet from the national carrier, Pakistan International Airlines, on standby at the Peshawar airport to fly Ms. Yousafzai to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, for emergency treatment if necessary, although senior officials said she was too weak to fly. “She is improving. But she is still unconscious,” said Mian Iftikhar Hussain, the provincial information minister, whose only son was shot dead by the Taliban in 2010. He said Ms. Yousafzai remained on a ventilator. Mr. Hussain announced a government reward of more than $100,000 for information leading to the arrest of her attackers. “Whoever has done it is not a human and does not have a human soul,” he said. Across the rest of the country, Pakistanis reacted with outrage to the attack on the girl, whose eloquent and determined advocacy of girls’ education had made her a powerful symbol of resistance to Taliban ideology. “Malala is our pride. She became an icon for the country,” Interior Minister Rehman Malik said. The army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, visited the Peshawar hospital where Ms. Yousafzai was being treated; in a rare public statement he condemned the “twisted ideology” of the “cowards” who had attacked her. Her parents and a teacher from her school remained at her side in the hospital. Imran Khan, the cricket star turned opposition politician, offered to pay for her treatment, while officials from his party parried accusations that they were soft on the Taliban. Last weekend Mr. Khan led a motor cavalcade of supporters to the edge of the tribal belt as part of a demonstration against American drone strikes in the area — a theme that, until now at least, has frequently been a more concentrated focus of public anger than Taliban violence. Even Jamaat ud Dawa, the charity wing of the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which follows a different strain of Islam from the Taliban, condemned the attack. “Shameful, despicable, barbaric attempt,” read a message on the group’s official Twitter feed. “Curse b upon assassins and perpetrators.” The anger was amplified by the Taliban’s brazen claims of responsibility for the shooting, and by avowals that the group would attack Ms. Yousafzai again if it got a second chance. Reports circulated that the Taliban had also promised to target her father, Ziauddin Yousafzai, who privately appealed to neighbors from Swat not to visit the hospital in case of a second attack. In the Swat Valley, private schools remained closed in protest over the attack. Some commentators wondered whether the shooting would galvanize public opinion against the Taliban in the same way as a video that aired in 2009, showing a Taliban fighter flogging a teenage girl in Swat, had primed public opinion for a large military offensive against the militants that summer. “The time to root out terrorism has come,” Bushra Gohar of the Awami National Party, which governs Swat and the surrounding Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, told Parliament. But no military drive is in the works in Swat for the moment, officials say — in fact, a large army contingent has occupied the picturesque mountain valley since 2009, which contributed to alarm by the prospect of a Taliban resurgence in the area. Among some commentators, there was a sense that rage was redundant: that unless Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders drop all equivocation about Islamist extremism, the country is likely to suffer further such traumas. 85

“We are infected with the cancer of extremism, and unless it is cut out we will slide ever further into the bestiality that this latest atrocity exemplifies,” read an editorial in The News International, a major English-language daily. Ismail Khan contributed reporting from Peshawar, Pakistan. Pakistani Taliban Call Girl’s Shooting "Obligatory," Saying She Spread Secular Ideas (MCT) By Saeed Shah McClatchy, October 11, 2012 Doctors treating a 14-year-old girl shot in the head by Islamist militants because she dared to advocate schooling for girls said Wednesday that they hoped she would make a full recovery from her wounds after nightlong surgery to remove the bullet. Pakistan rallied around the girl, Malala Yousafzai, who’d become a national heroine in 2009 for defying the Pakistani Taliban’s rule in the tourist district of Swat. Prayer vigils were held throughout the country, television channels gave blanket and emotional coverage to developments, and politicians across the spectrum denounced the shooting. Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, arguably the country’s most powerful official, made an unusual trip to be at Malala’s bedside, afterward issuing a statement whose final lines were spelled out in capital letters for emphasis. “WE REFUSE TO BOW BEFORE TERROR. WE WILL FIGHT, REGARDLESS OF THE COST, WE WILL PREVAIL, INSHA ALLAH (God willing),” the statement read. Malala’s attackers were unrepentant, however, with Taliban spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan issuing a detailed and chilling justification for the assault, which targeted the girl as she sat in a van waiting to be taken home from school Tuesday afternoon. Relying on references to the Quran, Islamic history and Shariah – Islamic law – the statement, in English and containing eccentric capitalizations, misspellings and grammatically awkward phrases, left no doubt about the wide gulf that separates the Taliban from the mainstream of Pakistani thought. “It’s a clear command of Shariah that any female that by any means plays (a) role in war against mujahideen (holy warriors) should be killed,” the statement said. “Malala Yousafzai was playing a vital role in bucking up the emotions of Murtad (apostate) army and Government of Pakistan, and was inviting Muslims to hate mujahideen.” The statement cited passages from the Quran that the Taliban said justified the killing of children as well as women, and it said that killing someone engaged in rebellion against Islamic law was not just a right but “obligatory in Islam.” “If anyone thinks . . . that Malala is targeted because of education, that’s absolutely wrong, and a propaganda of (the) Media,” the statement said. “Malala is targeted because of her pioneer role in preaching secularism and so called enlightened moderation. And whom so ever will commit so in future too will be targeted again by TTP.” Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan is the largest faction making up the Pakistani Taliban. Malala gained fame as an 11-year-old in 2009 when she defied the Islamist militants who then governed her hometown, Mingora, first in a diary that became the basis for a series of reports on life under the Taliban carried by the BBC’s local Urdu language service, and then in television appearances in which she decried the Taliban’s efforts to limit schooling for girls. The Taliban had seized control of Swat, the district where Mingora is located, in 2007. The Pakistan army launched an offensive in 2009 that supposedly pushed the Taliban out of Swat. On Tuesday, an assailant approached a school van loaded with children and asked which one was Malala. When another student pointed her out, the assailant opened fire. Malala was taken by helicopter to a military hospital in the provincial capital, Peshawar, where doctors operated through the night after she developed swelling in her brain. They removed a bullet lodged close to her spinal cord, doctors told reporters, and she was place in intensive care, still unconscious. Two other girls were injured in the attack, one of whom reportedly was in critical condition. Police arrested the driver of the school van and a school security guard, along with dozens of others, but those detentions appeared to be a general roundup, rather than a breakthrough in the case. Meanwhile, Malala’s father, Zia-ud-Din Yousafzai, told the Reuters news agency that he had turned down a government offer of security guards for the girl, citing the traditions of his Pashtun ethnic group that forbids unrelated men around females. Her father, who was the headmaster of the school Malala attended and was one of the few people brave enough to speak to foreign journalists about the Taliban when they ruled over Swat, added: “We did not want her to be carrying her schoolbooks surrounded by bodyguards. She would not have been able to receive education freely.” “I never imagined that this could happen because Malala is a young, innocent girl,” her father said. “Whenever there were threats, relatives and friends would tell Malala to take care, but Malala was never fearful.” The Taliban’s Cowardly Act (WP)

86

Washington Post, October 11, 2012 ON TUESDAY, Pakistani Taliban thugs tried to assassinate a 14-year-old girl. You read that correctly: Masked gunmen from the ultra-purist Islamist group stormed a van full of schoolchildren in an effort to kill Malala Yousafzai, who has won international acclaim for going to school in defiance of Taliban edicts against educating girls in her home region of Swat. With chilling pride, a Taliban spokesman announced that the attack was revenge for Malala’s having generated “negative propaganda” about Islam; he called her an “obscenity.” That strikes us as an apt description of the attack itself; if anything is causing a negative view of Islam around the world, it is the Taliban’s attempts to impose a medieval social order on Pakistan and Afghanistan. At last check, Malala, though critically wounded, was expected to survive. The larger question, of course, is whether the progress she both embodied and sought to extend will prove lasting. The Taliban struck this brave youngster at least in part because it knows that she may represent the wave of the future. She enjoyed significant popularity in Pakistan, as shown by the condemnation that rained down on the Taliban from the highest levels of the government and from the country’s media. For all its woes, Pakistan has shown measurable progress in educating girls. Pakistani females ages 15 to 24 were half as likely as males to be literate in 1990; in 2009, that ratio had improved to three-quarters, according to the United Nations. Alas, the greatest obstacles to girls’ schooling exist in rural areas where the Taliban and other extreme groups maintain a presence. A similar drama is playing out across the border in Afghanistan. In May, the Ministry of Education said that 550 schools in 11 Taliban-plagued provinces had been forced to close their doors. And in 2011, 150 girls fell ill at a school near Kabul, in an apparent mass poisoning by foes of female education. The Obama administration has repeatedly said that it is open to a negotiated settlement to the Afghan conflict — but only if the Taliban agrees to abide by Afghanistan’s constitution, including its protections of women’s and minority rights. So far, of course, talks have not even begun. Taliban hard-liners seem content to wait until after 2014, when the United States is scheduled to finish withdrawing from Afghanistan. In December, Vice President Biden publicly summarized the administration’s rationale for negotiations, noting that “the Taliban per se is not our enemy.” This was reasonable, to the extent Mr. Biden was simply saying that the United States could deal with the Taliban, or elements of it, that agrees to repudiate al-Qaeda and respect the constitution. The vile attack in Pakistan, though, reminds us that enmity is a two-way street, and the Taliban still hates the United States and everything it stands for — whether we like it or not. According to the Taliban spokesman, one of Malala’s worst sins was to “consider President Obama as her ideal leader.” It might never be possible to strike a deal with such people. It should always be possible for the United States to help protect innocents from them. Malala Yousafzai’s Courage (NYT) New York Times, October 11, 2012 If Pakistan has a future, it is embodied in Malala Yousafzai. Yet the Taliban so feared this 14-year-old girl that they tried to assassinate her. Her supposed offense? Her want of an education and her public advocation for it. Malala was on her way home from school in Mingora, Pakistan, in the Swat Valley, on Tuesday when a Taliban gunman walked up to the school bus, asked for her by name and shot her in the head and neck. On Wednesday, doctors at a military hospital removed the bullet that lodged in her shoulder. She is in critical condition. Malala was no ordinary target. She came to public attention three years ago when she wrote a diary for the BBC about life under the Taliban, which controlled Swat from 2007 to 2009 before being dislodged by an army offensive. Last year, she won a national peace prize. The Pakistani Taliban was quick and eager to take credit for the attack. Malala “has become a symbol of Western culture in the area; she was openly propagating it,” a spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan, told The Times’ . “She considers Obama as her ideal leader.” If she survives, the militants would try again to kill her, he vowed. Malala has shown more courage in facing down the Taliban than Pakistan’s government and its military leaders. Her father, who once led a school for girls and has shown uncommon bravery in supporting his daughter’s aspirations, said she had long defied Taliban threats. Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, envisioned a democratic and moderate Muslim nation. But extremism is engulfing the country and too many people are enabling it or acquiescing to it. This attack was so abominable, however, that Pakistanis across the ideological spectrum reacted with outrage, starting with the president and prime minister. Even Jamaat ud Dawa, the charity wing of the militant Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which waged its own violent campaigns against India, couldn’t stay silent. “Shameful, despicable, barbaric attempt,” read a message on the group’s official Twitter feed. “Curse be upon assassins and perpetrators.” 87

The attack was an embarrassment for the Pakistani army, which has boasted of pushing the Taliban from Swat. The army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, visited the hospital where she was being treated and in a rare public statement condemned the “twisted ideology” of the “cowards” who had attacked her. Words only have meaning if they are backed up by actions. What will he and other leaders do to bring Malala’s attackers to justice and stop their threat to ordinary citizens and the state? In recent years, the Taliban destroyed at least 200 schools. The murderous violence against one girl was committed against the whole of Pakistani society. The Taliban cannot be allowed to win this vicious campaign against girls, learning and tolerance. Otherwise, there is no future for that nation. A Girl’s Courage Challenges Us To Act (WP) By Laura Bush Washington Post, October 11, 2012 On Tuesday afternoon, Malala Yousafzai was a 14-year-old girl riding home on a school bus. Now, after a masked gunman apparently boarded her bus, asked for her by name and shot her in the head and neck, she is fighting for her life. Malala was targeted by the Pakistani Taliban because for the past three years she has spoken out for the rights of all girls to become educated. After this despicable shooting, a Taliban spokesman said that his organization considers Malala’s crusade for education rights an “obscenity” and accused her of “propagating” Western culture. If she survives, the group promises to try again to kill her. Eleven years ago, America awoke to the barbaric mind-set of the Taliban. Its regime in Afghanistan was dedicated in part to the brutal repression and abject subjugation of women. Women were not allowed to work or attend school. Taliban religious police patrolled the streets, beating women who might venture out alone, who were not dressed “properly” or who dared to laugh out loud. Women could not wear shoes that made too much noise, and their fingernails were ripped out for the “crime” of wearing nail polish. Today, the Taliban has been pushed back, but it still operates in parts of Afghanistan and in the northern and western regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border. The city where Malala was shot, Mingora, is in Pakistan’s Swat province, which has been on the front lines of the battle against Taliban extremists. In 2007, the Taliban gained control of Swat, only to be largely pushed out in the summer of 2009 by a Pakistani military offensive. During its time in power, the Taliban closed and destroyed girls’ schools, leaving behind little more than piles of rubble; enforced its own interpretation of sharia law; and banned the playing of music in cars. At age 11, to protest what was happening in her homeland, Malala began to write about her experiences, producing a blog for the BBC’s Urdu-language service. She described wearing plain clothes, not uniforms, so that no one would know she was attending school and wrote about how she and other girls “hid our books under our shawls.” Nonetheless, after the Taliban forced the closure of her school, Malala had no choice but to stay home and suspend her education. In another blog entry, she wrote: “Five more schools have been destroyed, one of them was near my house. I am quite surprised, because these schools were closed so why did they also need to be destroyed?” A few weeks later she wrote, “I am sad watching my uniform, school bag and geometry box” and “hurt” because her brothers could go to school while she could not. Malala had dreamed of becoming a doctor, but recently she became interested in politics and speaking out for the rights of children. In 2011, Malala was a nominee for the International Children’s Peace Prize, which lauded her bravery in standing up for girls’ educational rights amid rising fundamentalism at a time when few adults would do the same. Last year, she was awarded Pakistan’s first National Youth Peace Prize. These are the accomplishments of the young girl who so terrified the Taliban. Condemnations of the attempt on Malala’s life have been swift and powerful. The U.S. government called it “barbaric” and “cowardly.” Pakistan’s prime minister said, “Malala is like my daughter, and yours too. If that mind-set prevails, then whose daughter would be safe?” And the Pakistani army’s chief general said that the Taliban has “failed to grasp that she is not only an individual, but an icon of courage.” Speaking out after an atrocious act, however, isn’t enough. Malala inspires us because she had the courage to defy the totalitarian mind-set others would have imposed on her. Her life represents a brighter future for Pakistan and the region. We must speak up before these acts occur, work to ensure that they do not happen again, and keep our courage to continue to resist the ongoing cruelty and barbarism of the Taliban. Malala Yousafzai refused to look the other way. We owe it to her courage and sacrifice to do the same. Malala is the same age as another writer, a diarist, who inspired many around the world. From her hiding place in Amsterdam, Anne Frank wrote, “How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” Today, for Malala and the many girls like her, we need not and cannot wait. We must improve their world. 88

Her "Crime" Was Loving Schools (NYT) By Nicholas D. Kristof New York Times, October 11, 2012 Twice the Taliban threw warning letters into the home of Malala Yousafzai, a 14-year-old Pakistan girl who is one of the world’s most persuasive advocates for girls’ education. They told her to stop her advocacy — or else. She refused to back down, stepped up her campaign and even started a fund to help impoverished Pakistani girls get an education. So, on Tuesday, masked gunmen approached her school bus and asked for her by name. Then they shot her in the head and neck. “Let this be a lesson,” a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, Ehsanullah Ehsan, said afterward. He added that if she survives, the Taliban would again try to kill her. Surgeons have removed a bullet from Malala, and she remains unconscious in critical condition in a hospital in Peshawar. A close family friend, Fazal Moula Zahid, told me that doctors are hopeful that there has been no brain damage and that she will ultimately return to school. “After recovery, she will continue to get an education,” Fazal said. “She will never, never drop out of school. She will go to the last.” “Please thank all your people who are supporting us and who stand with us in this war,” he added. “You energize us.” The day before Malala was shot, far away in Indonesia, another 14-year-old girl seeking an education suffered from a different kind of misogyny. Sex traffickers had reached out to this girl through Facebook, then detained her and raped her for a week. They released her after her disappearance made the local news. When her private junior high school got wind of what happened, it told her she had “tarnished the school’s image,” according to an account from Indonesia’s National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. The school publicly expelled her — in front of hundreds of classmates — for having been raped. These events coincide with the first international Day of the Girl on Thursday, and they remind us that the global struggle for gender equality is the paramount moral struggle of this century, equivalent to the campaigns against slavery in the 19th century and against totalitarianism in the 20th century. Here in the United States, it’s easy to dismiss such incidents as distant barbarities, but we have a blind spot for our own injustices — like sex trafficking. Across America, teenage girls are trafficked by pimps on Web sites like Backpage.com, and then far too often they are treated by police as criminals rather than victims. These girls aren’t just expelled from school; they’re arrested. Jerry Sandusky’s sex abuse of boys provoked outrage. But similar abuse is routine for trafficked girls across America, and local authorities often shrug with indifference in the same way some people at Penn State evidently did. We also don’t appreciate the way incidents like the attack on Tuesday in Pakistan represent a broad argument about whether girls deserve human rights and equality of education. Malala was a leader of the camp that said “yes.” After earlier aspiring to be a doctor, more recently she said she wanted to be a politician — modeled on President Obama, one of her heroes — to advance the cause of girls’ education. Pakistan is a country that has historically suffered from timid and ineffectual leadership, unwilling to stand up to militants. Instead, true leadership emerged from a courageous 14-year-old girl. On the other side are the Taliban, who understand the stakes perfectly. They shot Malala because girls’ education threatens everything that they stand for. The greatest risk for violent extremists in Pakistan isn’t American drones. It’s educated girls. “This is not just Malala’s war,” a 19-year-old female student in Peshawar told me. “It is a war between two ideologies, between the light of education and darkness.” She said she was happy to be quoted by name. But after what happened to Malala, I don’t dare put her at risk. For those wanting to honor Malala’s courage, there are excellent organizations building schools in Pakistan, such as Developments in Literacy (dil.org) and The Citizens Foundation (tcfusa.org). I’ve seen their schools and how they transform girls — and communities. One of my greatest frustrations when I travel to Pakistan is that I routinely spot extremist madrassas, or schools, financed by medieval misogynists from Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. They provide meals, free tuition and sometimes scholarships to lure boys — because their donors understand perfectly that education shapes countries. In contrast, American aid is mainly about supporting the Pakistani Army. We have tripled aid to Pakistani education to $170 million annually, and that’s terrific. But that’s less than one-tenth of our security aid to Pakistan.

89

In Malala’s most recent e-mail to a Times colleague, Adam Ellick, she wrote: “I want an access to the world of knowledge.” The Taliban clearly understands the transformative power of girls’ education. Do we? Battle Eases Between Pakistani Government And High Court (NYT) By Salman Masood New York Times, October 11, 2012 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A longstanding legal battle between the Pakistani government and the country’s assertive Supreme Court appears to have run its course after both sides came closer to a face-saving settlement on Wednesday. A five-member Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, on Wednesday approved the draft of a letter to be written to the authorities in Switzerland that could theoretically revive corruption cases against President Asif Ali Zardari dating from the 1990s in that country. The Supreme Court has pressed the government since 2009 to write the letter, also known here as the Swiss letter, and until September the governing Pakistan Peoples Party showed absolute defiance to the court pressure. The bitter standoff resulted in the firing of former Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani by the court in June after he refused to write the letter, citing international immunity for the president. The conflict further threatened to throw Pakistan’s fragile democracy into turmoil. But a reversal in the government’s position, and an accommodative response by the court, has diluted the prospects of more perilous infighting between the two institutions, analysts here said. Last month, Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf told the court that the government was willing to obey its order and tasked the law minister to write a letter to the court’s liking. Farooq H. Naek, the Pakistani law minister, announced the court’s approval of the letter after a hearing Wednesday morning in the white marbled court building in Islamabad, the capital. A beaming Mr. Naek told reporters that Mr. Zardari would not face a trial in Switzerland as there were no case against him back in the country. Officials in Switzerland have been quoted as saying that cases against Mr. Zardari would be revived there only if corruption cases against him were under way in Pakistan. Swiss legal experts say that the recent expiration of a statute of limitation on the charges in Switzerland and Mr. Zardari’s presidential immunity, the chances of a new prosecution are slim, at least while Mr. Zardari remains in office. “There was no case there in the past, there is no case now and nor will there be any case there in the future; hence a trial is out of the question,” Mr. Naek said. He said the government would send the letter to Swiss officials in four weeks and apprise the court about developments in the next hearing of the case, scheduled for Nov. 15. In Afghanistan, Marine Gen. Dunford Is Expected To Take Command Of Allied Forces (WP) By Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post, October 11, 2012 A Marine general with extensive combat experience in Iraq who sped up the ranks upon returning to the Pentagon has been nominated by President Obama to lead U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, who has not served in Afghanistan, would replace a fellow Marine four-star general, John R. Allen, who has been selected as the next supreme allied commander in Europe. Both moves, which are expected to occur early next year, require confirmation by the Senate and the North Atlantic Council, the principal decision-making body within NATO. Speaking before a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta called Dunford “an exceptionally gifted strategic leader.” If confirmed, Dunford will preside over the war in Afghanistan at a challenging juncture. Although allied forces have improved security in some parts of the country, the Taliban insurgency remains resilient. Efforts by the U.S. military and its NATO partners to train the Afghan army and police have been hampered by a wave of attacks on allied forces by members of the Afghan security forces, many of which are the result of Taliban infiltration. Dunford, who would be the fifth top allied commander in Afghanistan in five years, almost certainly would have to deal with a further reduction of U.S. and NATO forces. The specific number of U.S. troops to be withdrawn next year will depend, in part, on who wins the presidential election next month, but military leaders are expecting a substantial drawdown to meet U.S. and NATO commitments to end conventional combat operations by the close of 2014. The United States has about 68,000 combat troops in Afghanistan.

90

If confirmed, Obama said in a statement, Dunford “will lead our forces through key milestones in our effort that will allow us to bring the war to a close responsibly as Afghanistan takes full responsibility for its security.” Dunford is the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. In 2003, he led a Marine regiment in the invasion of Iraq. He later served as a chief of staff and as an assistant commander of the 1st Marine Division in Iraq. After serving as the Corps’s director of operations, he vaulted from a one-star brigadier general to a three-star lieutenant general in less than three months — a highly unusual move — when he was selected for a senior Marine Corps job by then- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. A year later, in May 2009, he was given command of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, but in less than 12 months, he was promoted again — to the assistant commandant post. The change of top commanders in Kabul is not the result of any dissatisfaction with Allen at the White House or Pentagon. Allen, who arrived in Kabul in July 2011, has had a grueling schedule and often sleeps less than four hours a night. The move to Europe is seen as a promotion. The selection of another Marine general to lead the war had led to grumbling among some top Army officers, who wanted one of their own, Gen. David M. Rodriguez, to get the assignment. But senior White House and Defense Department officials concluded that Rodriguez, who has spent more than three years in Afghanistan in senior command roles, lacked Dunford’s strategic acumen. Rodriguez is expected to be nominated to lead the military’s Africa Command next year, according to military officials. Afghan Officials Denounce Western Group’s Report On Country’s Future (NYT) By Alissa J. Rubin New York Times, October 11, 2012 KABUL, Afghanistan — The Afghan government and some politicians and local news outlets denounced Western research organizations and news media, blasting them as spies and political agents in the wake of a report that suggested it was possible the Afghan government would collapse after 2014. Setting off the firestorm was a paper released Monday by the International Crisis Group titled “Afghanistan: the Long, Hard Road to the 2014 Transition.” In it, the group, which is based in Brussels and Washington, detailed obstacles to holding the next presidential election in a way that would satisfy a majority of the people; the report outlined several chains of events that could lead to disarray and civil war. Under a photograph of the group’s senior analyst in Afghanistan, Candace Rondeaux, the headlines in the newspaper Weesa screamed: “The head of the International Crisis Group in Kabul is doing espionage here.” The paper is supported by expatriate Afghans, and its editor, Mohammad Zubair Shafiqi, describes himself as independent. In the upper house of Parliament, lawmakers on Tuesday denounced the group. “The I.C.G. report is shameless interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, and they want to start a psychological war against our people,” said Senator Gulalai Akbari from Badakhshan Province in the country’s north. Some lawmakers demanded an apology from the organization; another said that “the hands working behind the scenes to devastate and destroy Afghanistan must be cut off,” according to a rough transcript of the session by the United Nations. While the group’s report was bleak in tone, it was hardly different from other reports that have been released over the years that trace the enormous difficulties that the Afghan government needs to overcome for the country to hold together. A report released in September by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, titled “Waiting for the Taliban in Afghanistan,” predicted at least as desolate a future, including the return of Taliban control in large swaths of the country and the likelihood they soon would be able to muster substantial forces and wrest control of some district centers from the government. Many diplomats and Westerners were scratching their heads on Wednesday, trying to figure out why the International Crisis Group’s report had set off such outrage right now. “We’re trying to play it very low-key here,” said one Western diplomat, who said his government had considered putting out a statement that disagreed with the report’s conclusion but then decided it was best to deal with it privately. Others saw it as potentially menacing. “It will be important to see if this kind of vitriol is only targeted against Western media and Westerners, or will it be targeted against any government critics or opposition,” said a diplomat in Kabul. “Is this part of a wider problem of trying to control criticism in the run-up to the elections?” Comments by cabinet ministers that were endorsed by President Hamid Karzai and reported by Afghan news agencies made clear that the most proximate concern for the government and especially Mr. Karzai is the negotiation of a bilateral security agreement with the United States for after 2014. The Afghan government appears to believe that there is a plot by the United States to weaken Afghanistan’s standing in order to gain leverage in the negotiations.

91

“The U.S., by using the press, is waging a psychological war to attain the security agreement, and the published report and views of the International Crisis Group is part of this effort, and it is fully against existing realities in the country,” said a report on the cabinet comments by the semiofficial government news service Bakhtar. The cabinet believes that Western news and research organizations “are aiming at creating concern and distrust among the people of Afghanistan,” the Bakhtar report said. A former spokesman for Mr. Karzai, Waheed Omar, said that many ministers believe that “the Western media is a tool of their governments’ foreign policy and that the I.C.G. is not independent and that they are depicting Afghanistan’s situation as grim so as to put the Afghan government in a position where it has to accept a security agreement that is more in America’s interest than in the interest of Afghanistan.” The tone echoed Mr. Karzai’s news conference last week, in which he made similar accusations. These reports in part are seen by Mr. Karzai as an affront, and that narrative has been taken up by many others in the government, Afghan and Western analysts said. It is also an expression of frustration with the West’s frequent criticism of the Afghan government. Martine Van Bijlert, one of the directors of the Afghanistan Analysts Network, a research organization based in Kabul, said: “The reports basically say, ‘You are presiding over a country that cannot take care of itself.’ And beyond that, there is the feeling from some Afghans that, ‘We are just fed up with being told we cannot take care of ourselves and we are not accepting that anymore.’ ” Some Afghan analysts said they thought the government was overreacting rather than taking concrete steps to try to avert the worst predictions. “I don’t think that this or any other report which follows it will have any negative impact on the self-confidence of the people of Afghanistan,” said Jawid Kohistani, a political analyst in Kabul. “The Afghan people already knew about the things which are described in the I.C.G. report,” he said. “Unless the Afghan government brings the necessary reforms and gets a national and international agreement on peace talks, the transfer of power and elections, Afghanistan will descend into chaos.” Afghan Offers Bounty For Anti-Islam Filmmaker (AP) Associated Press Associated Press, October 11, 2012 KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A religious cleric in western Afghanistan said Wednesday he is offering a $300,000 bounty to anyone who kills the maker of an anti-Islam film that has angered Muslims around the world. Mir Farooq Hussini, a cleric and the spokesman for an organization representing about 450 religious schools in Herat province, made the latest bounty offer. U.S. federal prosecutors said Mark Basseley Youssef, 55, an Egyptian-born Christian who is now a U.S. citizen, is behind the film, which portrays Islam's Prophet Muhammad as a religious fraud, womanizer and child molester. The film led to violence last month, causing the deaths of more than 50 people, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. In a telephone interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, Hussini called the movie maker a "dirty person." At least three names have been associated with Youssef in the past several weeks. U.S. court documents show Youssef legally changed his name from Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in 2002, but never told federal authorities, who used that as part of the probation violation case against him. Youssef used a third name, Sam Bacile, in association with the film. Last month the Pakistan Taliban offered a bounty of $100,000 for killing the filmmaker. A Pakistani Cabinet minister made a similar offer, but it was disavowed by his government. Also, a former Pakistani legislator put forth a $200,000 reward. Hussini said he also is offering a $500,000 reward for the killing of Mehdi Daneshmand, a cleric in Yazd province in neighboring Iran. Hussini has alleged that the cleric insulted Muhammad's wife. Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Romney Sidesteps Questions On Detaining U.S. Citizens (WT) By Seth Mclaughlin, The Washington Times Washington Times, October 11, 2012

92

MOUNT VERNON, Ohio — Mitt Romney sidestepped questions Wednesday about whether he would have signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that authorizes the indefinite detention of terror suspects, including American citizens, saying he didn't have enough information on the law. Responding to a question at a town hall style meeting at a large manufacturer here, the Republican presidential nominee said he will take a look "at that particular piece of legislation" and said that when it comes to the issue of indefinite detention he would try to strike a balance between protecting personal liberties and protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. The NDAA, passed by Congress and signed by President Obama late last year, includes a provision, Section 1021, that free speech advocates have challenged in federal court, arguing the law is a dramatic expansion of executive power that would allow any president to threaten critics. "I will not do things that interfere with the rights of our citizens and their freedoms," the former Massachusetts governor said. "At the same time, I support efforts like the Patriot Act and others to secure our nation from those who would attack us." Mr. Romney also said that he would use every source of intelligence and every element of the country's security apparatus to safeguard Americans against attacks similar to the the recent attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, which led to the deaths of the U.S. ambassador there and three of his staffers. "As to that specific piece of legislation, I'm happy to take a look at it, but I don't believe that this is a time for us to be pulling back from our vigilance protecting America and keeping us safe from the kinds of threats we face around the world," Mr. Romney said. Mr. Romney, though, said in a debate during the GOP primary this year that he would have signed the NDAA as written — despite opposition from Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, and others who argued the law is unconstitutional. "Yes, I would have," Mr. Romney said. "And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don't have a right to join a group that is killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That's treason." The question about the NDAA was one of several that Mr. Romney fielded during a stop here Wednesday with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The man who asked about the NDAA came prepared and read his question from a piece of paper. "It's not every day I talk to the future president, so I figured I'd better prepare," the man told Mr. Romney after he stood with a piece of paper to ask him about the NDAA. "Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act gives the president the explicit power to detain via the armed forces any person including us, U.S. citizens, for an indefinite period of time, without trial. Given that the NDAA determines the actual budget for the military, it's kind of politically risky to veto it. Would you have vetoed it because of that part of the bill that says 'Hey we can detain you no matter what,' and sent it back to Congress or would you have signed it?" An Un-Dangerous Mind (NYT) By Stephen N. Xenakis New York Times, October 11, 2012 Washington LATE last month the American military flew a man named Omar Khadr from the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where he had been a detainee since 2002, back to Canada, the country of his birth. Mr. Khadr’s repatriation was part of an informal agreement between the two countries after his 2010 guilty plea for murdering an American soldier. Mr. Khadr, who now sits in a maximum-security facility in Canada, was supposed to be moved out of Guantánamo in October 2011. But the Canadian government voiced concerns over his potential threat, and his transfer was delayed for another year. While he will certainly spend more time in prison, the Canadian government has yet to announce how long, or when he will be eligible for parole. Is Omar Khadr a threat to national security? These questions, and the way his case has been handled, reveal a great deal about the way we approach national security and detainees. Some of the Guantánamo detainees, as we know, are dangerous men. Others, like Omar Khadr, are emphatically not. I served 28 years in the United States Army and had the privilege of commanding thousands of troops as a brigadier general before I retired. I am also a psychiatrist who, as an expert on post-traumatic stress disorder and concussion, was asked to evaluate Mr. Khadr. I have spent hundreds of hours with him since 2008 and have thoroughly reviewed the findings of my colleagues as well as the interviews and reports by the prosecution’s experts. From my first involvement in this case, I have kept America’s national security interest foremost in my thinking and integrated it into my assessment as a psychiatric expert. 93

There was no question that Mr. Khadr suffered life-threatening injuries, as well as concussions, in a firefight that led to his capture, in 2002, at a compound in Afghanistan. He was 15 years old and had been sent there by his father to translate for Libyans training Afghan fighters on how to make improvised explosive devices. As a result of wounds received from a grenade blast during the attack, an American soldier died 10 days later. Mr. Khadr was the only one of the compound’s residents to survive, and he was charged with throwing the grenade (even though it was an American-made weapon and unlikely to be in the enemy’s arsenal). Mr. Khadr arrived at Guantánamo in January 2002 and spent the next 10 years there, until his transfer. In 2003 Pakistani forces killed his father, who had allegedly been helping to finance operations by Al Qaeda. Mr. Khadr’s younger brother was partially paralyzed in the same attack. In 2010 Mr. Khadr pleaded guilty to the murder charge before a Military Commission tribunal. Canadian authorities have cited that plea as a reason for considering him a national security threat. And yet in one of the most bitter ironies of the case, he has supposedly been influenced by radical jihadist thinking while at the Guantánamo detention camps. The psychiatrist for the prosecution, testifying during Mr. Khadr’s sentencing, depicted him as “marinating” in jihadist thinking while at Guantánamo and, therefore, still a security threat. Clearly, no one assumes that Guantánamo is for rehabilitation. But the Canadian government asserts that given this combination of nature and nurture, Mr. Khadr could be a leader for Al Qaeda or other radical terrorist groups. It had asked for the video of the psychiatrist’s interview before deciding to accept him in transfer. Surprisingly, the Canadians never contacted my colleague or me to discuss our reports to the Canadian minister of public safety. We sent these reports in March 2011 and disagreed with the findings of the prosecution’s experts. One would think that an objective assessment of an individual’s threat to security would entail gathering all expert opinions and analyzing them before making a decision. That’s not what happened here, which leads me to believe that the questions over Mr. Khadr’s threat to Canadian security are more about partisan politics then actually protecting the safety of the country’s citizens. A corollary to the question of whether Mr. Khadr is a terrorist threat is how effective the American and Canadian counterterrorism programs are. Both countries have dedicated immense resources to the effort since 9/11. It is no secret that intelligence agencies have infiltrated radical groups and Muslim organizations, despite the objection of these communities. As a result, Omar Khadr can expect to be closely monitored for the rest of his life. Even the slightest step he takes to affiliate with radical or terrorist groups will evoke a quick reaction from governmental authorities. All of this is, however, somewhat beside the point of Mr. Khadr’s peculiar case. He is labeled a “murderer” for an act he allegedly committed when he was 15 years old. Plain common sense, as well as neuroscience, says that his attitudes and conduct are far different today than they were when he was a young adolescent. After spending hundreds of hours with Mr. Khadr, I am confident that he firmly disavows interest in political and military issues and wants no involvement in any such activities. He affirms his intent to lead a normal life as a Canadian citizen, have a family and work in the health care field, if he can. Branding Mr. Khadr as a radical jihadi plays into the fear factor of partisan politics. That is not good for the peace and stability of our communities and citizens; exploiting fear and prejudice does not make for strong national security. Mr. Khadr has become the poster child for many in the world who have been unjustly victimized. The better option is to expeditiously prepare him to make the transition to society and get on with his life. Stephen N. Xenakis is a psychiatrist and a retired brigadier general in the United States Army. Arrest In Grenade-on-plane Incident (USAT) By Bart Jansen, @ganjansen, Usa Today USA Today, October 11, 2012 washington — The Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday that it was working with its counterparts in South Korea to determine how a passenger got on board a jetliner with a smoke grenade in his checked luggage that was only caught when the plane landed in Los Angeles. The security lapse raises questions about why the passenger, Yongda Huang Harris, who was wearing a bulletproof vest and had weapons in his checked luggage, wasn't scrutinized more thoroughly before arriving in the U.S. last Friday. It remained unclear Wednesday why Harris was wearing the gear and bringing in the weapons. The department said it didn't appear he was trying to bring down the plane.

94

The Transportation Security Administration, which screens passengers domestically, requires overseas airports that serve as the last point of departure for the U.S. to meet its stringent security standards, said Matt Chandler, spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. "TSA will review, in concert with aviation security officials in Korea, how a prohibited item was able to travel in checked baggage and implement any necessary changes," he said. Rich Roth, an aviation security consultant, said the smoke grenade would have appeared like an explosive during X-ray screening and should have been examined. "That never should have made it on the plane, no way no how," Roth said. "It is troublesome." Harris, 28, got on an Asiana flight in Seoul that had originated in Osaka, Japan, and was ultimately headed to Boston. When the plane landed Friday in Los Angeles, a Customs and Border Protection officer noticed his bulky jacket and flame- retardant pants beneath a trench coat and notified Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Besides the smoke grenade, investigators found suspicious items in his checked luggage including: knives, leather-coated billy clubs, a hatchet, body bags, a biohazard suit, handcuffs and leg irons, according to an affidavit filed in the case by Anne Walsh, a special agent with homeland security investigations. The smoke grenade from Commando Manufacturers is classified by the Transportation Department as an explosive, so it's prohibited aboard passenger aircraft. If ignited, it could have caused a fire, according to Walsh's affidavit. Harris was charged with transporting hazardous materials, which carries a five-year prison sentence if convicted. He is being held pending a Friday court hearing. Biden Expected To Be Aggressor In VP Debate (USAT) By Gregory Korte And Aamer Madhani USA Today, October 11, 2012 Both sides expect Vice President Biden to be on the offensive when he shares a Kentucky stage with GOP candidate Rep. Paul Ryan in the one and only televised vice presidential debate Wednesday night. "He's got to go right at Ryan and shake him from the very beginning," said Chris Kofinis, a Democratic strategist. "He's got to put him on the defensive from the get-go." Ryan himself told Detroit radio station WJR on Monday that he expects Biden to come at him like a "cannonball." As Biden prepared for Thursday's debate, the pressure was on him to stop, or at least slow, the momentum that the Mitt Romney-Ryan ticket has enjoyed since last week's presidential debate. Even President Obama has acknowledged he had an off- night at the debate, allowing Romney to seize the initiative. "I think it's fair to say I was just too polite," the president told radio host Tom Joyner on Wednesday. "Because, you know, it's hard to sometimes just keep on saying 'and what you're saying isn't true." Since then, Romney has rebounded in the polls — leading Obama by 1 percentage point in the national polling RealClearPolitics average for the first time in a year. "Some of what Romney said in terms of changing positions, denying things he believed in before, or his lack of specificity … I think it is important that we make sure it is challenged in a way that it wasn't challenged last week," said Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, a Democrat who is a surrogate for the Obama campaign. Rep.Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who has been playing the role of GOP vice presidential nominee during debate preparation with Biden, charged that "it is an open question if Congressman Ryan will lay out anything that stands the scrutiny of the fact checkers." Ryan spokesman Michael Steel said the Republican ticket expects that line of attack, and is well prepared to defend the facts and statistics that Ryan -- wonkish by reputation -- will lay out. "There's always an emphasis on making sure everything is factually correct," Steel said. "This is the kind of attack you expect from politicians who can't run on their record." "I think what you saw last week is an Obama campaign that's uninspiring. His campaign doesn't have a message," said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. "I like where we're sitting right now in the campaign. I don't think anyone's looking for a walk-off grand slam." In the well-worn tradition of managing expectations, both sides portrayed their opponent as a worthy debater. Markell said Ryan is "a very bright guy and he has communicated very effectively what he believes." Priebus, exaggerating slightly, told USA TODAY that Biden has "150 years" of experience. "To somehow believe he's going to be a gaffe-machine at the debates, that's not going to happen."

95

One indication of the importance of the debate is the amount of time each candidate has spent preparing. Ryan began shortly after the Republican convention helping to write and edit the policy binders, Steel said. There has been at least eight or nine days spent in practice sessions, Steel said: three days in Virginia and a day and a half in Florida last month; two days in Washington, D.C., and one in Wisconsin with sparring partner Ted Olsen last week; and Ryan plans to spend another day preparing Thursday in Kentucky, home to debate host Centre College in Danville. Biden huddled over three days in his hometown of Wilmington, Del., with longtime adviser Ted Kauffman, his chief of staff Ron Klain, and Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod ahead of the debate. The group reviewed videos of old Ryan speeches while running through mock debates with Van Hollen standing in as Ryan. Vice presidential debates are usually proxy wars for the men at the top of the ticket, said Joel Goldstein, a law professor at St. Louis University and an expert on the vice presidency. "If you find yourself spending a lot of time talking about the person across the stage from you, you're probably making a mistake," he said. In VP Debate, GOP Looks To Boost Momentum, Dems Want To Steady The Ship (MCT) By Lesley Clark, Mcclatchy Newspapers McClatchy, October 11, 2012 Vice President Joe Biden will take the stage Thursday to debate Rep. Paul Ryan in a matchup that Democrats hope will restore some of the momentum they’ve lost since President Barack Obama’s widely panned performance in last week’s debate. Republicans, meanwhile, want to bolster their own standing, which polls indicate has improved since nominee Mitt Romney’s strong showing against the president. Thursday’s debate will be the only contest between the two men, but it could be critical for the Obama campaign, which finds its numbers falling in key battleground states since the first debate. “There’s some thinking in conservative circles that (Mitt) Romney did so well and Obama did so poorly that a really good showing by Ryan could firmly establish a trend of momentum for the Republicans,” said Keith Appell, a Republican consultant who advises conservative groups. Even Democrats acknowledge that the stakes are higher now for Biden to deliver a solid performance. “For Democrats, it’s an opportunity to start the comeback narrative,” said Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster. “It’s a chance to restart, to acknowledge that we had a tough debate, but we’ve had some improving jobs numbers and we’ve got momentum heading into the next round.” The 90-minute faceoff at Centre College in Danville, Ky., which starts at 9 p.m. EDT, will focus on foreign and domestic issues. Martha Raddatz, chief foreign correspondent for ABC News, will moderate. Though Ryan has little foreign policy experience, Biden does. But Ryan is likely to push Romney’s charge that the administration has mishandled events in the Middle East, particularly the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. Expect Biden eager to cast himself as a champion of the working class and to portray his opponent as a far-right conservative and a member of the unpopular House of Representatives. He’ll look to tie Ryan to his budget plan, which cuts into popular programs, and charge that he wants to radically change Medicare and cut taxes for the wealthy. Ryan will likely portray Biden as partner in a presidency that has failed to fix the economy and improve conditions for millions of jobless Americans. While the campaigns might view this debate as critical, analysts say that it’s just as likely to be forgotten as soon as Tuesday, when Obama and Romney meet for a second time. They will take questions from undecided voters in a town-hall style encounter in New York. Their final debate will be Oct. 22 in Florida. The vice presidential debate “rapidly becomes fairly irrelevant” by the time the next presidential matchup occurs, Charlie Cook, an independent political analyst and editor and publisher of The Cook Political Report, said at a post-presidential debate briefing last week held by the National Journal. “I’m thinking maybe vice presidential debates should carry a disclaimer: ‘This debate is for entertainment purposes only,’” he said. Analysts point in particular to the 1988 debate between the vice presidential contenders when the patrician Democratic Texas senator, Lloyd Bentsen, memorably took apart his younger Republican counterpart, Dan Quayle, with a withering quip about how the young Indiana senator was “no Jack Kennedy.” But Democrats still lost handily that year. Still, a good performance by Biden would be a tonic to the Obama campaign, and a strong showing by Ryan in his first national debate would undoubtedly further energize Republicans and add to Romney’s momentum. 96

Biden came off the campaign trail nearly a week ago to prepare, with mock debates using Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland playing the Ryan role. Van Hollen serves on the House Budget Committee with Ryan, its chairman. The campaign has even dispatched Obama’s chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, to Biden’s debate preparation – a move the campaign insisted had been in the works even before the first debate. Ryan has spent five days on debate preparation. Standing in for Biden was attorney Ted Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, who successfully argued the contested 2000 presidential contest before the U.S. Supreme Court. A new poll suggests that neither has much of an edge with voters and both are less popular than Biden and his 2008 opponent, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, were when they debated. Just 39 percent of voters viewed Biden favorably in the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, while 44 percent viewed Ryan favorably. Ryan enjoys a slight edge in the expectations game, which both sides have – predictably – been trying to lower. Republicans have cast Ryan as a rookie debater and Biden as a pro. Romney told CNN that his running mate “may have done something in high school,” while Biden’s camp notes that Ryan is a 14-year veteran of Congress and chairman of one of its most powerful committees. Gloves Off For Vice-presidential Debate (FT) By Anna Fifield, Washington Financial Times, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Financial Times are available to FT subscribers by clicking the link. At Debate, Joe Biden Faces Task Of Getting Obama Back On Track (LAT) President Obama's lackluster performance in his first debate elevates the role of Vice President Joe Biden in his debate with Paul Ryan, for which he has been preparing for months. By Michael A. Memoli, Washington Bureau Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2012 WASHINGTON — Until President Obama's weak debate performance last week, Joe Biden's job in the sole vice presidential debate was to hold his own with his opponent, Wisconsin Rep. Paul D. Ryan, and avoid a misstep that could knock the campaign off stride. With the campaign already off stride and needing to land some blows, Biden now finds his role elevated after months of low-profile campaigning. "He'll make sure that we set the record straight," said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, an Obama campaign co- chairman. For running mates, the vice presidential debate is one of just two spotlight moments, along with the convention acceptance speech. Otherwise, the candidates tend to attract wide attention only for off-message moments of the sort Biden has produced on occasion this year. So Biden's preparation for Thursday's meeting has been months in the making. Even before Ryan's selection this summer, Biden was studying detailed briefing materials on Romney's issue positions. "It's like you write a 400-page book and memorize it," one aide said this summer. After Ryan was tapped in August, Biden began studying videos of his speeches and interviews to become more familiar with his speaking style and to anticipate possible points of attack. The vice president also told reporters he was closely studying Ryan's own policy positions, because "I don't want to say anything in the debate that's not completely accurate." Since Friday, Biden has been off the campaign trail, returning to his home in Delaware and holding mock debates at a Wilmington hotel. Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Ryan's Democratic counterpart on the House Budget Committee, is standing in as the opposition player. Underscoring the debate's importance, top Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod and senior White House counselor David Plouffe have joined longtime Biden aides Ted Kaufman and Mike Donilon in preparing the vice president. Ron Klain, Biden's communication director for his first two years of the administration, is also participating. Aides deny that Obama's low-key debate showing has put new pressure on Biden and say the mood is light. The vice president planned to host his team for a homemade lasagna dinner at his home Wednesday after their final sessions. Thursday marks Biden's second high-profile debate, after his vice presidential showdown in 2008 with Sarah Palin. The then-Alaska governor's status as the GOP's first female vice presidential nominee reinforced the need for a traditional approach

97

on Biden's part. Lest he seem to be badgering a woman, Biden targeted the rival party's presidential nominee, not his counterpart on the stage. Jennifer Granholm, then the governor of Michigan, served as Palin's stand-in for three days of practice with Biden. She said they held morning strategy sessions to discuss potential questions and answers before an afternoon mock debate with 90 minutes of uninterrupted Q&A to simulate the ultimate encounter. It paid off: Instant polls showed that a majority of viewers thought Biden had won. Plouffe credited him for staying "relentlessly on message." "He never took Palin's bait and never engaged with her directly — he kept his focus squarely on Obama and [John] McCain and their differences in agenda and leadership," Plouffe, the Obama 2008 campaign manager, recalled in his 2010 account of the race, "The Audacity to Win." For Biden, debates play on a characteristic strength and weakness of his political persona: an outspokenness that strikes some as authentic and others as overly loquacious. He had only a bit part in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary debates, losing speaking time to leading candidates Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, but he produced some of the most memorable lines. When moderator Brian Williams quoted a Los Angeles Times editorial calling him a "gaffe machine" and questioned whether he had the discipline to lead on the world stage, Biden brought down the house with a one-word retort: "Yes." At another debate, he turned the focus away from Democratic infighting to focus on the GOP front-runner at the time, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani: "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence — a noun, a verb and 9/11." Given the campaign's need for an aggressive turn, a similar approach to Ryan may be in the works. Granholm suggested that Ryan's popularity within his party gave Biden a chance to drive a wedge between the two Republicans on the ticket. "Mitt Romney is now trying to Etch-a-Sketch his way to the middle, and yet he picked Paul Ryan as a way of demonstrating to the base that he was attached to the conservatives. So which is it?" she said. "It's an opportunity for the vice president to ask, which is the real ticket?" Biden played an important role for the reelection campaign in its early stages, delivering a series of "framing speeches" in battleground states laying out its view of the contrast with Romney on key issues: the auto industry rescue package, entitlement programs, national security and taxes. But his profile has been far lower since May, when in his last major national interview he declared his support for same-sex marriage, before Obama had done so. His penchant for gaffes resurfaced in August when he told a partly black audience in Virginia that Romney wanted to "put y'all back in chains" by repealing Wall Street reforms. At the three-day Democratic convention, Biden spoke before Obama, while former President Clinton took the night-before spot usually accorded the vice president. Since being named to the ticket, Ryan has done nearly 200 local and network interviews, while Biden has taken only a handful of media questions, largely in informal settings. But he has had four years to defend the policies that he helped formulate in the White House. And this week, the president professed confidence that Biden would deliver. "I guarantee you," Obama told radio host Tom Joyner on Tuesday, "Biden, I think, will be terrific." [email protected] Paul Ryan Prepares To Face Joe Biden, His Toughest Debate Foe Yet (LAT) The congressman has never been seriously challenged in his House races, but now aides are downplaying expectations as he preps for a showdown with the vice president. By Robin Abcarian Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2012 ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Paul D. Ryan's first debate performance was nothing like his opponent expected. It was 1998, and Ryan was a 28-year-old Wisconsin congressional aide with powerful Washington mentors. Lydia Spottswood was a nurse and president of the Kenosha City Council, who thought helping her community was fun. "I had naive ideas about how it worked," said Spottswood, now 61, whose loss to Ryan 14 years ago started him on an unimpeded political career that has led to Centre College in Danville, Ky., where Thursday night he will meet Vice President Joe Biden in their only debate. "I thought, 'It's ladies and gentlemen running for Congress,'" Spottswood said Sunday. What she got, she said, was "shock and awe." This time, Ryan expects to be the target. 98

"We think he's going to come at me like a cannonball," Ryan told Wisconsin radio host Charlie Sykes on Saturday after three days of debate preparation in a resort at the foot of Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains. To the Weekly Standard, Ryan added, "He'll be in full attack mode and I don't think he'll let any inconvenient facts get in his way." As in 2008, where Sarah Palin had to convince voters that she was ready for the demands of the vice president's office, the stakes in this debate are also unusually high. Polls in the last few days show that President Obama's lackluster performance against Mitt Romney altered the race, with states that were assumed to be leaning comfortably toward Democrats, such as Ohio and perhaps even Michigan, starting to look more favorable for Romney. Ryan's job will be to keep the Republican momentum going until Obama and Romney meet for their second debate Tuesday. The Ryan camp, not surprisingly, is pushing down expectations. An oft-repeated sentiment from Ryan and his staff: Biden might suffer from foot-in-mouth disease, but the debate stage effects a magical, if temporary, cure. "He doesn't produce gaffes in these moments," Ryan told Fox News on Sept. 30. Romney told CNN on Tuesday that he thought this would be Ryan's first debate. "He may have done something in high school," Romney said. "I don't know." (Ryan has debated his Democratic opponents, often more than once, in each of his seven House campaigns.) In the last few days, as he hunted for votes in Milwaukee, suburban Detroit and Toledo, Ohio, Ryan, 42, seemed unruffled by the pending showdown. With journalists and Secret Service agents in tow, he took his children to a pumpkin patch in southeast Wisconsin and shopped for spices for his homemade venison sausage at a favorite Italian deli in Kenosha. He wandered to the back of his plane at least three times to greet journalists traveling with him and engage in innocuous, off-the- record chitchat about tattoos and rock lyrics. Earnest and congenial, he never uttered a newsworthy word. Unlike Biden, 69, he's a talking-point stickler who has yet to be pried off message, which could present a challenge to Biden and debate moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News. Ryan has become adept at talking around the one question that comes at him every day, in interviews and from supporters at town hall meetings: Which loopholes and deductions would he and Romney eliminate to pay for their proposed, across-the- board 20% federal income tax reduction? Asked about the plan repeatedly by Chris Wallace in a Fox News interview last month, Ryan said, "It would take me too long to go through all of the math." The question is almost certain to be lobbed at him by Raddatz or Biden. Also, given Biden's and Raddatz's deep experience with foreign affairs, there will be questions about America's role in the world, seen by the Obama team as a Ryan vulnerability. Ryan's senior aides bristle at the idea that he is unschooled in foreign affairs, and point out that Ryan's budget committee handles allocations for the departments of State and Defense. "He's voted to send men and women to war," Ryan spokesman Michael Steel said. "He's visited Afghanistan and Iraq, and Walter Reed [Army Medical Center]. He's attended the funerals of men and women from his district who have lost their lives." Apart from Ryan's first congressional race, he has never faced a truly threatening debate opponent, said a Wisconsin political scientist who has followed Ryan's career. "To be blunt, Ryan's never had a candidate here except for Lydia Spottswood that he had to be combative for," Carthage College professor Jeff Roberg said. Ryan's challenger in four races from 2000 and 2006, physician Jeff Thomas, didn't raise money or run ads. "He was a terrible candidate," Roberg said. In 2008, Ryan faced a new challenger, Marge Krupp, a chemical engineer. Ryan massively outspent her and won 64% of the vote. "You really have to have your ducks in a row to anticipate what kind of baloney he will come up with," Krupp said Monday. She believed she won the first of her three debates with Ryan, but Roberg, who was the moderator, remembered it as "one of Ryan's finer moments." An audience member critical of Obama vociferously pressed Krupp to denounce the then-presidential candidate, Roberg said. The moment became increasingly tense, he recalled, until Ryan intervened: "He said, 'We are not here to defend the national ticket. Let's keep this on our level.'" Last week, Ryan and his aides were holed up with Ryan's sparring partner, Theodore B. Olson, 72, a former solicitor general and appellate lawyer who is one of the country's foremost litigators. 99

A senior Ryan advisor said Olson was well aware that the vice president was "absolutely a charming man and capable of those flashes of wit and humor and grace that people remember from debates." When Olson is in character, said the aide, "he goes on at length." Though the vice presidential candidates get but one encounter, Ryan has other debate opportunities before Nov. 6. Ryan is also running for reelection in Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District, where his Democratic opponent, Rob Zerban, a well-funded former catering company owner, has launched a petition drive urging Ryan to debate. About 53,000 of the district's approximately 435,000 registered voters, Zerban said, have signed the petition, which was delivered to Ryan's Janesville office Monday. Ryan, whose seat is considered safe, has demurred. [email protected] Biden’s Debate Aim: Reclaim Edge After Obama’s Subpar Showing (WT) By Susan Crabtree, The Washington Times Washington Times, October 11, 2012 With President Obama looking to an unpredictable and gaffe-prone Joseph R. Biden to get his campaign back on track in Thursday's debate, the pressure on the vice president couldn't be greater. Vice presidential match-ups usually don't have the power to change the course of the election, but this year could be different. Mr. Biden is acutely aware that Mr. Obama's dismal performance in his first faceoff with Republican rival Mitt Romney largely erased Mr. Obama's lead in several key battleground states, ratcheting up the stakes for his performance Thursday night at Centre College in Danville, Ky. As Mr. Obama's No. 2, Mr. Biden doesn't have the burden of looking presidential, so can bare some teeth and punch hard against Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Romney's running mate. But getting too loose and looking angry against Mr. Ryan, a budget expert 27 years his junior, could easily backfire on the vice president, leading him to veer off script and reminding viewers of Sen. John McCain's grumpy 2008 debate performance against Mr. Obama, who remained calm and collected. With this in mind, Mr. Biden has been assiduously preparing for his prime-time clash with Mr. Ryan. Holed up for much of the week in a hotel in Wilmington, Del., the vice president has been scrutinizing videos of Mr. Ryan's speeches and interviews, and holding mock debates against Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat, who is playing Mr. Ryan in debate preparation, as well as David Axelrod, a senior adviser in the Obama campaign. Mr. Biden's frequent gaffes on the campaign trail have given Republicans plenty of campaign fodder, but the vice president seemed keenly focused on trying to keep his tongue in check Thursday. "I don't want to say anything in the debate that's not completely accurate," he told reporters late last week. Though Mr. Biden has created a few headaches for Mr. Obama throughout the election, Mr. Biden is a seasoned debate veteran who has run for president twice and delivered a strong performance against then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in 2008. Relatively untested, Mr. Ryan is more of a blank slate. His aides say he has participated in a debate only once — when he first ran for Congress 14 years ago. Mr. Ryan also has been hunkered down in debate preparation over the past week, spending days at a resort in the Blue Ridge Mountains 150 miles southwest of Washington, where he was joined by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who played the role of Mr. Biden in mock debates. Four years ago, Mr. Biden approached the debate against Mrs. Palin cautiously, careful not to get too rough with the newcomer to the national stage. But after Mr. Obama's lethargic showing last week, Mr. Biden is expected to come out swinging. "I expect the vice president to come at me like a cannonball," Mr. Ryan told reporters earlier this week. "He'll be in full attack mode, and I don't think he'll let any inconvenient facts get in his way." If what Mr. Biden has been saying on the campaign trail is any indication, he will likely try to force Mr. Ryan to defend Mr. Romney's proposals on taxes and spending — and seize any opportunity to tie Mr. Romney to Mr. Ryan's Medicare plan, which includes caps on future spending and a plan to partially privatize it. Just last week, Mr. Biden and Mr. Ryan sparred over the Democrats' desire to let the Bush-era tax rates for households making $250,000 and up expire at the end of the year. Even though the call for a tax hike on top earners wasn't new, Mr. Biden's blunt language admitting that he and Mr. Obama want a $1 trillion tax increase gave Mr. Ryan an opportunity to go on the attack. Campaigning in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Mr. Biden said Mr. Romney and other Republicans often say, "'Obama and Biden want to raise taxes by a trillion dollars.' Guess what? Yes, we do, in one regard: We want to let that trillion-dollar tax cut expire so the middle class doesn't have to bear the burden of all that money going to the super-wealthy. That's not a tax raise. That's called fairness where I come from." Mr. Ryan pounced on the quote at a campaign stop in Virginia last Thursday.

100

"What we don't need is a trillion-dollar tax increase," he said. "What we don't need is a tax increase on our successful job creators that will cost us 700,000 jobs in just two years." When Mr. Romney picked Mr. Ryan, Medicare became a major issue in the campaign, and Mr. Biden is likely to do everything he can to score points on the topic during the debate. Polls have given Mr. Obama the edge when it comes to handling Medicare. The most recent CNN survey had Mr. Obama leading Romney-Ryan on Medicare, 53 percent to 44 percent, and ABC News had Mr. Obama up 4 points on the issue. In early September, while campaigning in Mr. Ryan's home state of Wisconsin, Mr. Biden said the Romney-Ryan ticket would turn Medicare into "voucher-care." "We are for Medicare. They are for voucher care," he said. "It's basic." But Mr. Ryan has not tried to run away from the Medicare issue, memorably joined by his 78-year-old mother, Betty Douglas, when he delivered a speech on Medicare reform in The Villages, Fla., a large retirement community in mid-September. During the address, he accused Mr. Obama of siphoning off hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare to pay for his 2010 health care overhaul. "Medicare should not be a piggy bank for Obamacare," he said, reassuring seniors that he is committed to protecting the Medicare guarantee for current seniors and for generations to come. It's a line Mr. Romney used repeatedly during last week's debate against Mr. Obama, pointing out that Mr. Obama is responsible for shifting $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for his health care law. But after the debate, Democrats said Mr. Ryan protected those cuts in his budget and fact-checkers have deemed the charge that Mr. Obama robbed Medicare of the amount as "mostly false" — a point Mr. Biden will undoubtedly try to hammer home Thursday night. Vice Presidential Debate’s No. 1 Rule: If Chatter’s About Biden And Ryan, They’re Doing It Wrong (WP) By David A. Fahrenthold Washington Post, October 11, 2012 The dark art of the vice presidential debate begins with a single rule: If everybody’s talking about you, you’re doing it wrong. Since 1976, there have been eight televised face-offs between vice presidential nominees. The ninth will come Thursday, when Vice President Biden debates Republican Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) in Danville, Ky. By now, both parties have worked out tactics to fit this odd ritual. They require the barbed wit of an insult comedian and the humility of the hind legs in a two-man horse costume. Candidates are told: Talk up your running mate. Zing your opponent. But avoid letting your career, or your policy ideas, become the focus. On the biggest night of your political life, it’s not about you. On Thursday, the stakes will be unusually high, and the job of playing second banana especially tough. Biden spent 36 years in the Senate. Ryan crafted his own plan for remaking the entire government. Now, the proud, successful men will have to insist — convincingly — that they’d rather talk about somebody else. “Whatever you stood for, you stand for the team” now, said Samuel Popkin, who helped coach Democrats in debates and now is a professor at the University of California at San Diego. Popkin said the task might be especially touchy for Ryan, because Romney has said he would not adopt Ryan’s famous budget plan in full. “You need his goal in life to be power now, not power later,” Popkin said. “The only way I can see you do that is to get Ryan to say, ‘Romney’s budget is better than what I started with.’ ” By tradition, the vice presidential debates have been like the vice presidency itself. Well-publicized, but largely inconsequential. At the polling firm Gallup, researchers recently analyzed survey results before and after every running-mate debate since 1976 (except 1980, when there was no debate). “We really don’t see any statistical change in any of ’em,” said Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor in chief. But this year, both parties hope, could mean much more. Democrats hope that Biden can make up for Obama’s tentative, defensive performance in the first presidential debate last week. That would mean attacking Ryan for Romney’s plans about taxes, Medicare and the budget, and pointing out where Romney’s ideas conflict with Ryan’s. Republicans, by contrast, think the numbers-focused Ryan will extend his party’s win streak to two. Ryan began his debate preparations a month ago, holding three mock debates, with former U.S. solicitor general Ted Olson playing Biden. He then spent three days last week huddled in “debate camp” in southwest Virginia. 101

Neither of these men, however, has ever faced a challenger like the other. Biden played two different roles in the past presidential campaign cycle: In the Democratic debates, he was the loose, bomb-throwing long shot. During the general election season, Biden faced not a wonk but a political neophyte, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), in the vice presidential debate. Biden’s job was to be polite, repeat talking points about Palin’s running mate, Sen. John McCain (R- Ariz.), and stay out of the way. He did. Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, has sparred with Democrats before on issues of taxes and spending. He often uses a genial, prodding demeanor, which suggests he is saddened by opponents’ missteps but hopeful that his challengers can reform. But a TV interview this week suggested that Ryan may have little practice handling what he is likely to get from Biden: criticism on issues beyond the budget. A local reporter in Michigan asked Ryan whether the country had a gun problem. Ryan’s answer wandered, but it wound up with the argument that economic development, not gun control, would be the cure for urban violence. “You can do all that by cutting taxes, with a big tax cut?” the reporter asked. “Those are your words, not mine,” Ryan said. Then a press aide cut off the interview. On Thursday, Biden and Ryan will participate in a ritual that, despite looking like a standard presidential debate, has its own peculiar set of traditions. This is a big one: Vice presidential debates are rarely “won” in any meaningful way. A smart, polished performance by any running mate is usually forgotten after the next presidential debate. But a vice presidential debate can certainly be lost — in a way that haunts the campaign or the even the career of the running mate who lost it. “I recall pretty distinctly saying, ‘You can’t compare . . . yourself to Kennedy,’ ” said Kenneth Khachigian, a longtime Republican debate adviser, remembering his advice to then-candidate Dan Quayle in the run-up to the 1988 debate. Quayle liked the analogy: He and former president John F. Kennedy had similar experience in Congress. But Khachigian said no: “You’re comparing yourself to a memory.” Quayle did it anyway. Across the aisle, Democrat Lloyd Bentsen had been waiting. “I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine,” he said, looking like it pained him to point this out. “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” In fact, the highlights of vice presidential debates have usually been lowlights, when a running mate stumbles so badly that it makes the top of the ticket look bad. Sometimes, those errors are unforced: In 1992, Ross Perot’s vice presidential pick might have provided the best evidence that Perot’s campaign was not ready for the big time. “Who am I?” said retired Adm. James Stockdale. “Why am I here?’ ” In other instances, the job was done a single well-timed put-down. “I’m up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they’re in session,” Vice President Richard B. Cheney told then-Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) in 2004. “The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.” That turned out not to be true. But for Edwards, it still hurt. In 1976, the most memorable line of the first vice presidential debate was probably an insult from Democrat Walter Mondale. Republican Bob Dole had been hard-edged in his criticisms, at one point lumping Vietnam, Korea, World War II and World War I together as “Democrat wars.” “Senator Dole has richly earned his reputation as a hatchet man,” Mondale said. Even in the moment, he knew he had done something: “I think that stuck a little bit. Because he was off his game, no question about it,” Mondale said in an interview this month. Afterward, “he did seem sort of insecure to me.” For Biden and Ryan, debate experts say, the way to avoid this kind of personal zinger is not to talk about yourself in the first place. And, if the other candidate makes you the issue, return the favor. It will make him as uncomfortable as you. “What’s good for goose number one is good for goose number two,” Khachigian said. He suggested that if Biden criticizes Ryan over his budget, Ryan should respond by dredging up Biden’s past positions as a senator. “I’d be lying in wait for that to happen, and I’d have Biden’s 10 most outrageous positions.” Media: Vice Presidential Debate Unlike Any Other (POLITCO) By Mackenzie Weinger Politico, October 11, 2012 102

Many in the media say Thursday’s Joe Biden-Paul Ryan vice presidential debate is all about one word: pressure. Pundits and reporters told POLITICO that the pressure’s on Biden to deliver the aggressive performance President Barack Obama failed to have at last week’s debate. And the pressure’s on Ryan to keep up the momentum his running mate Mitt Romney created just a week ago in Denver. Vice presidential debates are often seen as an October sideshow — an entertaining albeit mostly unimportant aspect of the presidential race — but it’s now a different ballgame, according to those in the media. Thanks to the overwhelming feeling that Romney won and Obama lost the first debate, some say this face-off will be an important factor in determining where the momentum of the race shifts in the minds of voters. “I think that increases the pressure on both of them, Ryan and Biden — and certainly on the vice president to show up because I’m not sure Obama did show up for his debate,” Current TV’s liberal talk show host Bill Press told POLITICO. “Biden needs to show up and be aggressive and assertive and sort of take charge. I think it also increases the pressure on Paul Ryan to put in a good performance, to match the good performance his running mate put in.” In Danville, Ky., Biden is faced with the task of delivering “the debate performance Obama didn’t,” MSNBC host and Salon senior political writer Steve Kornacki said. “Every criticism that Democrats had about Obama’s performance, about his refusal, unwillingness, inability, whatever it is, to engage Romney — all the claims Romney was making, all the attacks he was leveling, all of the specifics he wasn’t providing — it’s on Biden, I think, to go after Ryan in those ways and to try to corner him on all these vulnerabilities,” Kornacki said in an interview. “And beyond that, to show some life. Show that he actually has some blood in his veins. The good news if you’re a Democrat is that you know Biden does have some blood in his veins. The risk of that obviously is that whole reputation for being gaffe-prone.” Although the night matches up Ryan and Biden, what really matters is how the two VP picks pitch the men at the top of their respective tickets to undecided voters, Daily News columnist and MSNBC host S.E. Cupp said. “Obama needs a good night,” Cupp said. “And Romney needs his ticket to look strong and competent. Both teams will be speaking to those undecideds and soft Obama voters who may be disappointed and looking for a reason to stay or go.” And after a week in which the media focused on the president’s poor performance, “this really is the first opportunity, certainly for the Obama campaign, to change the terms of the debate, so to speak, to change the chatter,” ABC News political director Amy Walter said in an interview. The No. 1 Rule When No. 2s Meet In Battle? Be Memorable. In A Good Way. (NYT) By John Harwood New York Times, October 11, 2012 LEXINGTON, Ky. — Near the end of the first debate ever of vice-presidential candidates, Senator Bob Dole remembered his White House-prepared briefing materials on war casualties under various administrations — and used them. “If we added up the killed and wounded in the Democrat wars in this century, it would be about 1.6 million Americans, enough to fill the city of Detroit,” Mr. Dole, a Kansas Republican, said on Oct. 15, 1976. Walter F. Mondale, his Democratic rival, was ready. His briefers had anticipated the attack. “Senator Dole has richly earned his reputation as a hatchet man tonight,” said Mr. Mondale, who instantly concluded that the exchange had made him the debate’s winner. By now, Mr. Dole suspects that, too. The debate “should have been canceled,” said Mr. Dole, as sardonic as ever at age 89. Given the tinted lenses through which partisans view debates, some Republicans nevertheless thought he had held his own. “I thought Dole did great,” recalled Dan Quayle, who was running for a Congressional seat from Indiana that year. Mr. Quayle won, even as President Gerald R. Ford and Mr. Dole lost to Jimmy Carter and Mr. Mondale. Mr. Quayle is living testimony to how vice-presidential debates can leave lasting impressions. In. 1988, as the Republican Party’s 41-year-old vice-presidential nominee, he defended his qualifications by noting, “I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency.” That line set up the most famous smackdown in debate history. “I served with Jack Kennedy,” his 67-year-old Democratic opponent, Lloyd Bentsen, responded coolly. “Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” Jubilant Democrats erupted inside the Omaha Civic Auditorium.

103

As difficult as the moment was for Mr. Quayle — “uncalled-for,” he glumly told Mr. Bentsen — he was elected vice president the next month when his running mate, George Bush, trounced the Democratic nominee, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts. “It was a good line for him,” Mr. Quayle recalls now. “Did it move the needle? No.” Vice-presidential debates rarely do have a significant impact on the outcome of elections. At best, observed Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist, they can increase momentum for a ticket considered to have won the first debate of the presidential nominees, or serve as “a circuit breaker” for the ticket that lost. That is precisely what President Obama hopes his experienced vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., can do in his debate in Danville, Ky., on Thursday against Mitt Romney’s youthful running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan. Eight years ago, Vice President Dick Cheney showed how it is done. Mr. Cheney — the chief of staff in the Ford White House that gave Mr. Dole those ill-fated 1976 briefing materials — faced off in Ohio against a first-term senator, John Edwards. His boss, President George W. Bush, had been throttled a few days before in his first debate with the Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry. Projecting calm and gravitas, Mr. Cheney rebutted the Democrats’ attacks while casting Mr. Edwards as a lightweight. Citing Senate votes the young North Carolinian had missed, the vice president observed cuttingly, “The first time I ever met you was when you walked on stage tonight.” Mr. Devine, then a top Kerry adviser, said, “He sort of stopped the bleeding for Bush.” He does not remember the event as fondly as the vice-presidential debate in 1988, when he served as Mr. Bentsen’s campaign manager. More commonly, voters (and comedy writers) recall vice-presidential debates for clever or amusing flourishes that proved less consequential. “Who am I? Why am I here?” mused the retired Adm. James B. Stockdale, who was the independent candidate H. Ross Perot’s running mate in 1992. Mr. Perot’s own solid debate performances that year helped him garner 19 percent of the vote as Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas defeated the first President Bush. In the next election, Jim Lehrer, the moderator, invited the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Jack Kemp, to open the debate by discussing President Clinton’s ethics. “Wow, in 90 seconds? I can’t even clear my throat in 90 seconds,” Mr. Kemp replied, adding, “Jim, Bob Dole and myself do not see Al Gore and Bill Clinton as our enemy.” That was not exactly the tone that Mr. Dole, having led the attack for President Ford two decades earlier, wanted from his running mate. “He could have been a little tougher,” said Mr. Dole, whom Mr. Clinton defeated handily four weeks later. In 2000, Joseph I. Lieberman, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, led off his debate with Mr. Cheney by vowing, “I’m going to be positive tonight.” His performance failed to stem the progress that Gov. George W. Bush of Texas had begun in his first debate with Vice President Al Gore. Even the most electric vice-presidential candidate of recent years, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, did not deliver any line more memorable than when she greeted Mr. Biden at the 2008 debate with “Hey, can I call you Joe?” Vice-presidential candidates, Mr. Quayle argued, need to ignore their debating partners and relentlessly go after the top of the opposing party’s ticket. Despite Mr. Bentsen’s brutal riposte, he said, he helped Mr. Bush assail Mr. Dukakis in 1988 and Mr. Clinton in 1992. He has discussed the role with Mr. Ryan, but insisted that Republicans should not underestimate the challenge Mr. Biden could pose. “He’s basically smart,” Mr. Quayle said of his onetime Senate colleague. “Where he makes his mistakes is when he goes out and freelances. He won’t be freelancing on Thursday night.” Mr. Dole cautioned against concluding that the event will not matter, whoever performs better. “Ryan is going to be hard to beat on facts and figures,” he said, but “I imagine Joe’s going to come out fighting, and he’s not going to let up.” In such a close race, Mr. Dole concluded: “It might make a difference. Not much, but enough to measure.” Pew: Biden Viewed More Unfavorably Than Ryan (POLITCO) By Donovan Slack Politico, October 11, 2012 A new Pew survey released ahead of tomorrow's debate finds that registered voters are not that hot on Vice President Biden. Of the 90 percent who expressed an opinion, 51 percent view him unfavorably. His GOP counterpart, Paul Ryan, on the other hand fared a lot better. Only 40 percent of the 84 percent who expressed an opinion viewed him unfavorably. 104

The poll also found that Republicans are more confident that Ryan will win the debate than Demcrats are about Biden's chances. "Nearly eight-in-ten (78%) Republican voters say Ryan will do the better job in the debate," Pew wrote in its analysis. "Fewer Democrats (62%) expect Biden to do better." The lower expectations could make it easier for the vice president to exceed them, but with his boss's lackluster performance last week, Biden may have to do a lot better than exceed them to reset the race in Obama's favor. Right Defends Raddatz' Debate Role (POLITCO) By Katie Glueck Politico, October 11, 2012 Prominent conservative commentators on Wednesday largely dismissed a story that suggested ABC News’ Martha Raddatz will be a biased moderator of Thursday’s vice presidential debate because President Barack Obama attended her wedding two decades ago. Conservative outlet The Daily Caller accused the network of trying to “downplay” that Obama attended Raddatz’s 1991 wedding to Julius Genachowski, whom the president later named to head the Federal Communications Commission (and to whom Raddatz is no longer married). The story, which led Drudge Report on Wednesday afternoon, noted that Obama and Genachowski worked together on the Harvard Law Review. ABC News dismissed the implication of bias as “absurd” and the Commission on Presidential Debates has “not given a moment’s thought” to the situation. Many conservatives — though not all — seem to agree. Carol Platt Liebau, who writes at Townhall.com and worked at the Harvard Law Review with Obama and Genachowski, was quoted in the Daily Caller story talking about Raddatz’s relationship with Genachowski — she recalled that it was “quite public,” and has written that she would be “shocked if she hadn’t met Obama at some point.” But she issued a follow-up post after the story ran, saying she didn’t think the wedding revelation would “prevent” Raddatz “from doing her job.” “For the record, I want to clarify that I do not believe these connections prevent Ms. Raddatz from doing her job well tomorrow night,” she wrote. “I do think they are relevant and that Americans have a right to know about them when they evaluate her fairness and her performance. That’s why I have written about them in the past.” The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, in a tweet to POLITICO, wrote that “this whole mini flap was obnoxious, dumb.” “I have no memory of who attended my 1997 wedding to my ex-wife and I’d like to keep it that way,” tweeted John Podhoretz, the conservative New York Post columnist and editor of “Commentary” magazine. “I bet Martha Raddatz is the same.” (Separately, he confirmed to POLITICO that he has no problem with Genachowski’s connection to Obama.) Jim Geraghty of National Review quipped on Twitter, “Raddatz won’t be easy on [Vice President Joe] Biden because Obama was at her wedding. She’ll be hard on him, because Obama gave her a cassette of his speeches.” ABC News Scrambles To Downplay Obama’s Attendance At VP Debate Moderator’s Wedding (CALLER) Daily Caller, October 11, 2012 President Barack Obama was a guest at the 1991 wedding of ABC senior foreign correspondent and vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, The Daily Caller has learned. Obama and groom Julius Genachowski, whom Obama would later tap to head the Federal Communications Commission, were Harvard Law School classmates at the time and members of the Harvard Law Review. After TheDC made preliminary inquiries Monday to confirm Obama’s attendance at the wedding, ABC leaked a pre- emptive statement to news outlets including Politico and The Daily Beast Tuesday, revealing what may have been internal network pressure felt just days before Raddatz was scheduled to moderate the one and only vice-presidential debate Thursday night. Both Politico and The Daily Beast jumped to ABC and Raddatz’s defense. The Huffington Post, a liberal news outlet, joined them shortly thereafter, while calling “unusual” ABC’s attempt to kill the story before it gained wide circulation. Genachowski — called “Jay” at the time of his wedding, sources told TheDC — and Raddatz would go on to have a son together before their divorce in 1997. They have both since remarried to other people. A source who attended the 1991 wedding told TheDC that Obama was also a guest there, and remembered that a man by the name of “Barry Obama” was among the guests dancing at the reception. (RELATED: Marital, personal ties link Obama administration to Commission on Presidential Debates) 105

In August, The Daily Caller first connected Genachowski, an Obama appointee, to Raddatz following her selection as the vice presidential debate moderator by the left-leaning Commission on Presidential Debates. That debate, between Congressman Paul Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden, will take place Thursday night at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. Carol Platt Liebau, a political commentator who was a Harvard Law Review colleague of Genachowski and Obama, wrote that “despite being a year below both men on the Review and not close personal friends with either of them,” she remembered Genachowski and Raddatz’s relationship as “quite public” during those days, and that “Raddatz visited Boston frequently.” Genachowski’s friendship with Obama would continue through the campaign trail in 2008 and into the White House: He aggressively fundraised for Obama in 2008 as a campaign bundler, and served on the presidential transition team before winning his appointment to chair the FCC. On Monday evening ABC spokesman David Ford grudgingly confirmed Obama’s attendance at the wedding, after shielding Raddatz in August by declining to comment when The Daily Caller first reported the story. “This is absurd,” Ford said, in the same statement now circulated by ABC’s media allies on the left. Obama, Ford wrote, “attended their wedding over two decades ago along with nearly the entire Law Review, many of whom went onto successful careers, including some in the Bush administration,” he said without providing a specific number of Harvard Law Review members to verify the statement. When pressed further on Tuesday for a specific number of Harvard Law Review members in attendance at the wedding, Ford could offer none, despite circulating the same unverified approximation through sympathetic media outlets earlier that day in order to discredit The Daily Caller’s reporting. Ford also could not provide The Daily Caller with a specific number of Harvard Law Review members who worked with Obama and Genachowski during that year. A photo taken of the Harvard Law Review during Obama and Genachowski’s final year of law school contains 70 people. The ABC spokesman’s assertion that “nearly the entire Law Review” attended the wedding cast doubt on the significance of Obama’s attendance. But Ford’s unwillingness to document that claim now suggests that Obama was among a close circle of fewer Harvard classmates who were personal friends of Raddatz and Genachowski. Instead, Ford maintained his ambiguity in subsequent statements to The Daily Caller, identifying only one other Harvard Law Review classmate of Obama and Genachowski who attended the wedding. When TheDC asked Ford via email Tuesday night for further specifics on actual numbers, he did not respond with any. The FCC, the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign also did not respond to The Daily Caller’s request for comment. David Martosko contributed reporting. UPDATE: Michael Steel, a spokesman for Paul Ryan, told Fox News’ Joy Lin that he has “no concerns” about Raddatz’s conflict of interest. Follow Josh and Follow David on Twitter URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/abc-news-scrambles-to-cover-up-barack-obamas-attendance-at-vp- debate-moderators-wedding/ As Debate Moderators, Will Women Get More Respect? (WP) By Paul Farhi Washington Post, October 11, 2012 The candidates weren’t kind to Jim Lehrer in the first presidential debate. The veteran moderator was talked over, interrupted, cut off and ignored. Would they dare to do the same thing to a woman? Voters and viewers are about to find out. Women, rarely seen in the moderator’s chair, will be refereeing the next two debates. Martha Raddatz of ABC News will moderate Thursday night’s vice-presidential face-off; CNN’s Candy Crowley will be the moderatoron Tuesday when President Obama and Mitt Romney square off a second time. The past doesn’t offer many clues. Only one woman, Carole Simpson, then of ABC News, has moderated a presidential debate — and that was 20 years ago. Two others, PBS’s Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill, have moderated vice-presidential debates. But here’s a guess from some people who know something about men, women and conversation: Don’t expect a whole lot of restraint. “I don’t think the candidates will be more deferential to a woman,” Simpson says. “In fact, they may be tougher.” Simpson says much has changed since she moderated the 1992 debate among George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. 106

“There was a time . . . when men were afraid to say certain things to women for fear of being charged with sexual harassment or being rude. They were timid. But today, you can see evidence of a backlash to women’s success in many fields. . . . Men have no hesitation taking on a woman who disagrees with him. They don’t use sexual innuendo as much. They attack verbally. And unfortunately, it seems neither women or men care. What I see now is, ‘Game on.’ ” Isn’t equality grand? For the record, Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul says the candidate “has a great deal of respect for both Candy Crowley and Martha Raddatz as professional journalists.” Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter had a similar take: “I’m pretty certain that gender won’t play a role in any of this.” Deference (if any) to a female moderator may be less about respect than about votes. With millions of voters, particularly women, tuning in, appearing rude or abrupt to the moderator might be taken as evidence of hostility, a political statement in itself. The stakes may be even more elevated this year by the Democrats’ promotion of the notion that Republicans are waging a “war on women” designed to limit their reproductive rights and choices. On the other hand, talking over a woman might be viewed as something else: typical male behavior. Deborah Tannen, a Georgetown linguistics professor who studies conversational dynamics, says studies repeatedly show that men regularly interrupt or cut off women. People noticed Obama’s and Romney’s dismissive treatment of Lehrer in part, she says, because it was unusual; men at such high and visible levels rarely converse like that. “You might conclude that if a [female] moderator was treated that way, people won’t notice as much,” she says, “because it’s business as usual.” What’s more, Raddatz and Crowley may fare poorly in viewers’ eyes if they attempt, as Lehrer did, to move the debate along. “Many people feel more negative toward a woman cutting off a speaker than a guy,” Tannen says. “If a woman talks that way, she’s disliked. [People say,] ‘She’s so aggressive, she’s so intrusive.’ ” This, of course, has not stopped the career ascent of a great number of female interlocutors, including (to name a dozen) Ifill, Woodruff, Barbara Walters, Christiane Amanpour, Cristina Saralegui, Connie Chung, Greta van Susteren, Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, Diane Rehm, and Crowley and Raddatz. And, oh yeah, Oprah. The identity of the debate moderator certainly matters to the candidates, says Dee Dee Myers, Clinton’s former press secretary and an adviser on his debate strategy. As part of their preparation, the candidates consider who will be asking the questions and what those questions might be, she said. A surrogate, playing the role of the moderator in mock debates, tries to ape the questioner’s style, be it Lehrer’s no- nonsense approach or Tom Brokaw’s more folksy tone. “A different person with a different personality could produce a different result,” she said. Before the 1992 debate, Clinton knew Simpson “a bit” and was comfortable with her, Myers says. Gender dynamics played a small role in the outcome, though not because of Simpson. When a female audience member asked Bush how the recession had affected him personally, he replied in general terms. Clinton, on the other hand, asked the woman if she knew people who’d lost their jobs; she said yes. He then replied: “In my state, when people lose their jobs, there’s a good chance I’ll know them by their names. When the factory closes, I know the people who ran it.” It demonstrated, Myers says, “differing abilities to connect.” Rehm, who has hosted a daily interview program on public radio for more than 30 years, says the moderator’s gender won’t matter in the debates. “I think the questions matter,” she says. “I think who poses them and how they get posed matters. Whether it’s a male or female is the least important part of it.” Had a woman been in the same situation as Lehrer last week, she says, “the same thing would have happened.” Rehm says she believes she has been rudely treated by a guest because of her gender only twice in her career. Novelist Tom Clancy gave monosyllabic answers to her questions until a caller berated him on the air for being rude and arrogant to “our Diane.” A recorded interview with Tony Randall in the early 1980s was so demeaning that Rehm declined to put it on the air. Like Rehm, van Susteren says, Raddatz and Crowley are tough, experienced journalists who won’t back down easily. She regrets, however, that Crowley will moderate a town-hall-style debate, a format in which the moderator directs questions from the audience rather than initiating them. Simpson said she moderated such a debate in 1992, reducing her “to the lady holding the microphone.” Van Susteren, a Fox News host, said via e-mail that the format “diminishes a bit [Crowley’s] opportunity to do the questioning. That feels a tad bit like they thought because she is a woman that she could not do the ‘heavy lifting’ of asking all the questions and perhaps she got the ‘girl’s debate’ where others ask questions to ‘help her.’ ”

107

Van Susteren says that hasn’t been a problem for her. In her years on TV and in 12 years before that as a prosecutor, she says she’s never felt patronized. “The trick? Do your homework.” How Biden Can Win The Vice Presidential Debate (WP) By Matt Miller Washington Post, October 11, 2012 Sorry, Democrats, but someone has to say it: Talking about what a “liar” Mitt Romney is may feel good right now, but if that’s what Joe Biden focuses on Thursday night, he’ll blow the vice presidential debate just as President Obama blew the first one. No, if Biden wants to help the ticket make up for ground lost since the Denver debacle, he needs a different approach. An approach that doesn’t assume his listeners already agree with him. He needs to walk people through some political realities the way he’d explain them to a small roomful of independent or undecided voters. “My friends,” Biden should say, “we can’t be sure at this point what Mitt Romney’s ‘real’ philosophy and values are. He governed Massachusetts as a centrist Republican and did things that I applaud — like enacting a universal health plan with the support of Ted Kennedy. That plan became a model for the president’s national reform. “But then Governor Romney sold his soul to the right wing of his party to get the nomination – and adopted extreme conservative positions on taxes, immigration, health care, women’s rights and more. “Did Romney call for well-off Americans to contribute nothing to deficit reduction — or for hard-working high school graduates to be deported, though they were brought here as children – or for millions of poor workers to be stripped of basic health coverage – because he really believes in this pinched vision of America? Or did he do it because he thought that’s what it took to win the nomination? “I have no idea, my friends. And neither does anyone else. “That’s the point. It’s impossible to know Mitt Romney’s real values. But it’s entirely possible to understand the conservative forces Romney has pandered to and empowered in his thirst for office. They’re the same extremists who will be calling the shots if you send him to the White House. “The selection of Paul Ryan was part of Governor Romney’s strategy to court the right wing. The key thing I want to persuade you of tonight, then, is why Congressman Ryan’s values, and those of today’s congressional Republicans who stand with him, are out of step with America’s best traditions and current needs. “Let me be clear: I’ve worked with Republicans over my entire 40-year career. You can’t accomplish anything in Washington if you don’t. But something a little crazy has gotten into the water the GOP has been drinking these last few years. Too many Republicans today won’t support the policies we need to renew America’s middle class and assure opportunity and security in a global age. “Let me also stipulate that Paul is a hard-working young man and has a lovely family. My critique isn’t personal. But Paul is skilled at wrapping his ideas in a pleasant-sounding package that I’ll ask you to look beyond tonight. “Here are three things you need to understand about my opponent and the congressional Republicans who share his views. “First, on taxes: The single highest priority of Mr. Ryan and Republicans in Congress has been to cut taxes on America’s top earners — even though we’ve been at war for a decade and have huge deficits to shrink. This is the first time in our history that America has cut taxes for top earners at a time of war. Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans think we should let other people’s children fight our wars, and let other people’s children pick up the tab for them later. The president and I believe this is wrong. “Second: Paul Ryan and the Republicans are NOT ‘fiscal conservatives.’ Fiscal conservatives pay for the government they want. Ryan’s budget, which his party endorsed, doesn’t balance the budget until the 2030s and adds $14 trillion to the national debt along the way. The fastest-growing program in Ryan’s budget is interest on the debt. What kind of ‘conservative’ has a 25- year plan to balance the budget? The president has a balanced approach to tame the deficit in the next decade while still making critical investments in education, research and infrastructure. “Finally, Ryan has said that programs like Social Security and Medicare have become ‘a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.’ I’m not saying this view makes him evil. But it’s deeply misguided. It’s an ideological stance that could only be taken by someone who hasn’t thought about, or is perhaps personally insulated from, the challenges faced by millions of Americans every day. It suggests a readiness to return life in America to its rougher state a hundred years ago, before both parties came together to assure basic health care and retirement security for seniors.

108

“My opponent sees these programs as breeding ‘dependency.’ We’ve heard Governor Romney say much the same thing behind closed doors. This may have been a legitimate debate...in the 19th century. But shredding our safety net is not what America needs at a time when global competition and rapid technological change are leaving Americans increasingly vulnerable. “There’s more we’ll get into – especially on jobs, where Republicans killed the president’s plan that would have created 2 million new jobs and left unemployment tonight below 7 percent. And of course Medicare, where our differences are profound. “But these three areas show that the army of extreme conservatives Mitt Romney would bring with him to power are not what they pretend to be. I look forward to explaining this tonight, so at this critical juncture America can choose to move forward...” Matt Miller is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and a contributor to MSNBC. His e-mail address is [email protected]. Romney Tests Town-hall Format On The Stump (MCT) By By William Douglas And Anita Kumar, Mcclatchy Newspapers McClatchy, October 11, 2012 Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney deviated Wednesday from his usual well-choreographed campaign rally for a flying- without-a-net Oprah-style town hall in which audience members asked questions. The question-and-answer session at the Ariel Corp. manufacturing plant appeared to be a warm-up for next week’s presidential debate between Republican nominee Romney and President Barack Obama. The debate will use a town-hall format with an inquisitor audience. Through seven questions from a friendly sparring partner of an audience at the manufacturing plant, which makes natural gas compressors, Romney carried a microphone among listeners and touched on the key themes of his campaign – repealing the Affordable Care Act, taking China to task over its currency and trade tactics, cutting taxes and blasting Obama as weak on foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. “We have to have a strategy in the Middle East and other parts of the world so that we are helping shape events as opposed to just living at the mercy of events,” said the former Massachusetts governor. “That doesn’t mean sending in troops or dropping bombs, but it does mean actively participating in a place like Syria to assure that (President Bashar) Assad goes and reasonable and responsible government follows.” But one question showed the potential danger of the town-hall format for a candidate. When a man asked Romney whether he would have vetoed “Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act,” which “gives the president the explicit power to detain, via the armed forces, any person, including us, U.S. citizens, for an indefinite period of time without trial,” the candidate paused. The questioner was referring to bill passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama in December 2011 that allows the military to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial, even if they’re U.S. citizens. Romney said, “I can assure you when I become president . . . I will not do things that interfere with the rights of our citizens and their freedom,” then sidestepped whether he would have vetoed the bill if he were president. “As to that specific piece of legislation, I’m happy to look at it, but I don’t believe that this is the time for us to be pulling back from our vigilance to protecting America and keeping us safe from the kinds of threats we face around the word,” he said. But when Romney was asked in January, during a Republican presidential primary debate in South Carolina, whether he would have signed the National Defense Authorization Act as written, he responded with a firm, “Yes, I would have.” “And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaida,” he said to a smattering of boos from the Myrtle Beach audience. Romney only occasionally employs the unpredictable town-hall format, preferring to stick to the well-scripted traditional campaign events, where he usually gives a brisk 15- to 20-minute stump speech. “We’ve done them before, and we view them as a good opportunity to greet voters and talk to them directly about some of the concerns they have about how important issues are affecting their community,” Kevin Madden, a Romney senior adviser, said of the town halls. Still, opening himself to questions presents some risks for Romney. He is sometimes prone to gaffes or straying off message when speaking off the cuff. Such a moment happened Tuesday in an interview with the Des Moines Register, in which he said regulating abortion would not be part of his legislative agenda if elected president. “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” he told the paper’s editorial board.

109

The Register reported that Romney “by executive order, not legislation,” would reinstate the so-called Mexico City policy that bans U.S. foreign aid dollars from being used to perform abortions. Obama ended the George W. Bush-era policy shortly after taking office. On the campaign trail and during the Republican primaries, Romney said he is against legalized abortion. At an Ohio campaign stop Wednesday, Romney told reporters, “I think I’ve said time and again, I’m a pro-life candidate. I’ll be a pro-life president. The actions I’ll take immediately are to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget.” Some social conservatives have been wary of Romney on the issue because of his previous support for legalized abortion. During a Massachusetts gubernatorial debate in 2002, Romney vowed, “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.” As Massachusetts governor, Romney vetoed a bill that would provide access to emergency contraception to women. He declared himself “pro-life” in a Boston Globe opinion/editorial piece in 2005 and defended his conversion on the issue during a Republican presidential primary debate in November 2007. Obama’s campaign on Wednesday seized upon Romney’s “legislation” remarks, accusing him of trying to hide his “extreme” views in the final weeks before the Nov. 6 election. “We know the real Mitt Romney will say anything to win,” said Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager. “Voters shouldn’t be fooled. . . . Women simply cannot trust Mitt Romney.” Chris Christie, Mitt Romney Together In Ohio (POLITCO) By Emily Schultheis Politico, October 11, 2012 MOUNT VERNON, Ohio — When a voter at Mitt Romney’s town hall meeting here Wednesday asked him a question about how he would deal with China, Romney looked to the other man onstage with him: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. “Gov., I didn’t let you answer after that last question, so I’m going to let you answer after both these,” Romney said to Christie, then telling the crowd: “I’m not used to having another person onstage with me — I like it, though, this is good!” The New Jersey governor, who has been a frequent fixture on the campaign trail for Romney, is helping the GOP presidential nominee capitalize on his post-debate momentum and aiding him in his appeal to working-class voters in the must- win state of Ohio. Christie’s presence is both energizing voters and putting Romney at ease during his day-and-a-half swing through the Buckeye State. Christie was an early Romney endorser, and has been campaigning with and for the former Massachusetts governor since the start of the GOP primaries. He delivered the keynote speech at the Republican convention in Tampa this summer. His time on the trail with Romney may also be a precursor of things to come: he’s often mentioned as a potential candidate for national office in 2016 and he was just named the vice chairman of the Republican Governors Association. The New Jersey governor joined Romney for three campaign events across the state this week: a Tuesday night rally, then a town hall and stop at a local restaurant on Wednesday. Each man seemed to enjoy the other’s company, speaking about each other warmly and occasionally joking back andforth. “I’m thrilled to call him my friend,” Christie said of Romney when he introduced him outside Bun’s Restaurant in Delaware, Ohio. “We’ve been traveling all across Ohio together for the last day-and-a-half or so, seen so many wonderful folks.” Romney, too, mentioned Christie’s presence on the trail and thanked him for being here. “Chris Christie [came] all the way here from New Jersey,” Romney said. “Isn’t that amazing?” Romney Moves To Center, Shows New Ease On Campaign Trail (HILL) By Justin Sink The Hill, October 11, 2012 Mitt Romney has taken a more centrist stance on the campaign trail recently, a move that coincides with the GOP nominee giving speeches that are more personal in nature and showing a new-found confidence to voters. Confusion over Romney's stance on abortion, which the candidate clarified during a stop at an Ohio restaurant — joined recent moves on immigration, financial reform, tax policies and healthcare toward the center, a more natural habitat for the former Massachusetts governor. The move to the middle has had a twofold effect for Romney: first, it puts President Obama on his heels by thwarting planned attack lines designed to make Romney's policies look unreasonable and far-right, and second, it gives the Republican

110

nominee more leash than he had during the GOP primary, where questioning conservative dogma could have proven fatal to Romney's campaign. And it’s a message that has appeal to independent and swing voters who could decide the election. But it also has its dangers, leaving Romney open to charges of flip-flopping. Democrats have already begun previewing attack lines that could show up in Romney’s next debate with Obama. The GOP nominee, however, appears much more comfortable in this role. Romney's new ease has been apparent during his recent campaign swing through Ohio, with the candidate telling jokes on the stump, speaking passionately about some of his life experiences — including, on Wednesday, his wife Ann's brush with breast cancer — and generally seeming far more invigorated than just a week before. The GOP nominee has handed out hamburgers to his traveling press corps, pulled his motorcade over at a school to chat with students, sat down at restaurants to talk to voters, and generally shown a new confidence on the campaign trail. Some of that ease is undoubtedly thanks to his confidence-building victory in last week’s debate, and a recent surge in the polls that has shown Romney pull to a national lead for the first time since clinching the nomination. “There’s nothing more satisfying in politics than winning a debate, apart from winning an election,” said Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak. “He really overcame some low expectations, and really preformed in a high pressure environment — just a tremendously personally satisfying experience. It’s picked up his spirits, his morale, his energy level, and has made a tremendous difference for his campaign.” But Romney is also returning to the campaign identity that helped him win the governor’s office in heavily-Democratic Massachusetts. Republican strategist Ford O’Connell says Romney is now finding traction by presenting himself as “principled, but practical and willing to work across party lines.” “He’s trying to address the middle by giving a little bit of wiggle room on things that are seen as conservative issues,” O’Connell said. “Conservatives want to see Barack Obama out. And as such, they’re going to give him the leeway to throw the kitchen sink at the president as long as he doesn’t give the farm away. “ The consensus among conservatives is that it’s important enough to replace Obama that they can be forgiving on minor centrist shifts, with the hope that a conservative Congress would keep a President Romney in check. Romney has taken advantage of that freedom in recent weeks, signaling shifts on a bouquet of issues to improve his prospects with swing voters: Abortion. In an interview with the Des Moines Register on Tuesday, Romney said there was “no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” a comment seized on by Democrats who accused Romney of attempting to obfuscate the hard-line anti-abortion-rights stance he had taken during the Republican primary. By Wednesday, Romney said he was “a pro-life candidate” and that he would reinstate the Mexico City policy and remove all federal funding for Planned Parenthood; conservative leaders rallied to his defense. Immigration. Last week, Romney announced that he would not revoke deportation visas granted under the president’s program that shielded some illegal immigrants who came to the United States when they were children, telling the Denver Post he wasn’t “going to take something that they've purchased.” Financial reform. During Wednesday’s debate, Romney repeated attacks on the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation as harmful to the economy, but also said some parts “make all the sense in the world,” and said he would replace the bill with new reforms. Romney had previously railed against Dodd-Frank without emphasizing to the same extent his belief that leverage limits and greater transparency requirements should remain. Healthcare. In Romney’s debate on Wednesday, he argued “pre-existing conditions are covered under my [health care] plan.” In fact, Romney’s plan would not guarantee individuals with pre-existing conditions who did not have health coverage, or allowed it to lapse, would be able to get insurance — a point corrected after the debate by his own campaign. Romney also argued late Tuesday night that his Massachusetts healthcare plan, which he has insisted he would not implement on a federal level, was proof of his “empathy.” Tax plan. Obama has challenged Romney’s pledges of a 20 percent reduction on taxes across the board, protection of effective tax rates on the middle class, and a plan that is deficit neutral, arguing that the Republican nominee can’t make the math add up. Romney has said he could by limiting deductions for the wealthiest Americans — an idea that could raise effective rates on the rich. Democrats believe Romney’s new centrist lean is ripe for the attack, arguing that the Republican nominee is “Etch A Sketching” the positions he carved out during the GOP primary.

111

“Here’s old moderate Mitt,” former President Clinton said during a campaign stop Tuesday in Nevada. “Where have you been, boy? I missed you all these last few years.” “The problem with this deal is the deal was made by ‘severe conservative’ Mitt. That was how he described himself for two whole years,” Clinton continued. Obama has also joked at recent campaign stops that he didn’t recognize the “spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney” at the debate last week. But Republicans defended Romney, saying his apparent rhetorical shifts represented a tailoring of messaging to independent and swing voters rather than a change in position. “He’s getting better at sensing what works and what doesn’t, and is tapping into a deeper sense of who he is and how to reflect it,” said Mackowiak. “As you get down to an election, you have to move a little to the middle, and he’s choosing his spots to do that.” Obama, Romney Face Most Narrow Electoral Map In Recent History (WP) By Amy Gardner Washington Post, October 11, 2012 Despite an apparent bounce for Mitt Romney in recent weeks, the fundamental dynamic of the electoral map appears to be locked in for now — with both campaigns focused on the nine states that have dominated for most of this year, according to interviews with strategists on both sides. The Republican presidential nominee has enjoyed some momentum after a winning performance in the first debate that has seemingly put previously written-off states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan back in the mix, according to polls out this week. But the Romney campaign appears to be resisting pressure from supporters to broaden the fight and is not expanding their path to 270 electoral college votes — at least for now. That leaves Romney with a very narrow path to victory, one that likely requires him to win large battlegrounds such as Florida, Virginia and Colorado along with Ohio, a swing state so critical that he is making four stops there in two days this week. Romney’s advisers acknowledge that he still has work to do in Ohio. Just days ago, Romney moved five campaign workers from Pennsylvania to Ohio, one aide said. And though the Ohio race has grown more competitive — with Romney drawing within 5 percentage points of Obama, according to a new CNN/ORC International poll released Tuesday — the president still holds a lead in a state no Republican has ever won the presidency without. If the narrow electoral map for Romney remains relatively fixed, the same appears true for President Obama, whose advisers say they are committed to the handful of states they targeted months ago. When Obama appeared to hold a commanding lead across numerous states early last week, his strategists said they would not make a concerted play for some that appeared almost within reach, such as Arizona. Now that the race is closer, they say they are fortifying their existing borders, which allow him several options for getting to 270. “What you’ve seen is a stable map for a very long time,” Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, said in an interview Tuesday. The result is the smallest, most rigid playing field in recent history: One that excludes 41 states. Locked up states Both campaigns agree that 36 states are not competitive this year, with 22 of them expected to vote for Romney and 14 for Obama. That number is misleading, though, because the Obama states are more populous; when tallied according to electoral votes, those states give Obama 197 electoral votes and Romney 169. Both Obama and Romney have spent the bulk of their money and attention this year in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin. Beyond those nine, another six are not being heavily contested but nor do the two campaigns agree that their outcome is certain. No state illustrates the narrowness of this year’s playing field more than Ohio, where the candidates are spending more time than anywhere else. Even with Romney’s uptick in national polls, his path remains virtually nonexistent without Ohio. He could win Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada and still lose without the Buckeye State. If anything, his bounce has pushed him to redouble his efforts within the existing map rather than thinking about expanding it. For Obama, there is no movement toward expanding the map because he doesn’t need any more states to win. His advisers also say there is no need, at least yet, to rejigger resources in the existing arena because they have been investing heavily all along. Ohio is a case in point: Obama employs a paid staff of 700 on the ground there, and his advertising spending, though even with Romney now, has dwarfed his rival for much of the year.

112

“Ohio is a couple of things: It’s winnable, it’s expensive and it’s volatile,’” said Liz Brown, daughter of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and the head of the state Democratic Party’s coordinated campaign, a joint get-out-the-vote effort of the party and the candidates. “The last few weeks we’ve gone from ‘Obama’s won Ohio’ to ‘Oh, cr--, he gave a less-than-optimistic debate performance.’ This up and down of the narrative around Ohio doesn’t change those three facts. The strategy from the beginning has been a larger investment per capita in Ohio.” Certainly, Romney could still be tempted to make a more aggressive play for Pennsylvania or Michigan, long labeled battlegrounds — but states that, in reality, have tilted heavily toward the Democrats in recent elections. And Obama, when he held a solid lead in virtually every swing state, was encouraged by some fellow Democrats to extend the range of his ads into Arizona, Missouri and Indiana. Romney political director Rich Beeson said he doesn’t rule out an expansion of the map in the final month. He cautioned that the movement of staff from Pennsylvania to Ohio is not a concession in Pennsylvania, but a function of how important early voting is in Ohio. The personnel will probably return to Pennsylvania before Nov. 6, he said. Beeson also noted that more states are closely contested at a late date in the cycle than in past years. “There are a lot of states out there moving,” he said. But unlike some past election cycles — such as in 2000, when George W. Bush swooped into long-shot New Jersey right before ballots were cast — the Obama and Romney campaigns are showing unusual restraint by sticking to their long-standing electoral strategies. “A lot of it’s just got to do with the polarization of the country,” said Phil Musser, a Republican strategist helping the Romney campaign. “The states that are purple are relatively few in number. The states that are red and blue are relatively large in number. Presidential contests are directly correlated to where you have split population centers that produce mixed results.” Demographics, voter info A few factors explain how small and unchanging the playing field is this year. First are demographic changes that have taken past battlegrounds off the map. New Mexico, for instance, was in the red column just eight years ago, when President George W. Bush won the state and his second term. Since then, it has been judged by both sides as irreversibly blue. Similarly, Indiana, which Obama won four years ago, was deemed out of reach for him early on because its conservative electorate does not favor his policies. Even TV ads that have wafted into northeastern Indiana from several Ohio markets haven’t moved the needle. The same is true for northwest Arizona, where households have been inundated with TV ads from Las Vegas stations without changing polling numbers. “There’s no evidence of spillover,” said Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster who recently helped conduct the Howey/DePauw Poll in Indiana. “Obama is losing by big margins.” Another influence is the rise in data about where voters are, who they are and whether they can be persuaded to vote a certain way. Through commercial databases, polling, phone-banking and door-knocking, campaigns know more about voters than ever before. They know who is persuadable and who is not. They know how many contacts it takes to reach a voter, how much that would cost, and whether that cost is worthwhile given how liberal or conservative — how winnable — a state is. Some states drift in and out of that competitive zone. At the outset of this election cycle, advisers from both parties thought Arizona, New Mexico, Pennsylvania or Michigan might drift into play. Additionally, outside groups have aired ads in a wider field that has included Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Michigan. But those lists have shrunk more recently. A confluence of circumstances — including growing Latino populations and the popularity of Obama’s auto-industry bailout — have given this year’s playing field its uniquely narrow borders. It’s possible the field could narrow further, but only if Obama decides to pull out of states he decides he can’t win or doesn’t need. North Carolina is the best example of this — a state that has been rated by most pollsters a likely win for Romney but where Obama has invested heavily, perhaps if only to force Romney to do the same. If that was the strategy, it worked: Republicans have spent tens of millions on the airwaves in North Carolina to match Obama’s investment, and Romney is scheduled to travel there for a campaign appearance Thursday. Romney, conversely, holds few such options. He needs more of the swing states to win overall, meaning he can’t afford to pull out of any of them without looking like he’s conceding the race. Dan Keating contributed to this story. In Race For Campaign Cash, Everyone Claims To Be Outmatched (WP) By Dan Eggen Washington Post, October 11, 2012 113

You’d think that Jim Messina would have been in a pretty good mood last Saturday, when President Obama’s reelection campaign reported that it was close to raising $1 billion for 2012. But before long, Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, was sounding the alarm bell. “Outside groups are flooding the airwaves with negative ads trashing President Obama and everything we’ve accomplished together in the past four years,” Messina wrote in an e-mail announcing the impressive fundraising haul. “Over the course of the next week alone, these groups are planning an unprecedented negative ad blitz in battleground states across the country.” In the race for campaign cash, it seems, everyone is an underdog. Both Obama and his challenger, Republican nominee Mitt Romney, are certain to surpass the $1 billion mark in resources between their campaigns, parties and outside allies. The benchmark will easily make Obama and Romney the two most formidable political fundraisers in U.S. history. Yet both sides routinely cast themselves as paupers in danger of being outspent by a monied opponent. In fundraising pleas, supporters are told that another $5 or $13 or $25 is all that stands between the candidate and victory in November. “One billion dollars,” began a fundraising e-mail on Monday from Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades. “For the first time in history, a political campaign will hit the billion-dollar mark.. . . Liberals will not give up their power easily, so it’s imperative that we all come together to stand up against them.” In reality, neither side is hurting much for money. Even if the two candidates ceased all fundraising today, 2012 would rank as the most expensive presidential general election ever, largely because both have opted out of a public financing system used by previous candidates. The Obama campaign says it raised $181 million in September with the Democratic National Committee, marking the best fundraising month of the cycle. The total is just shy of the record $193 million collected by Obama and the DNC in September 2008. The bounty puts Obama and the Democrats on a path to exceed $1 billion raised for 2012, which is more than they raised in 2008. The main difference this time is that Obama has not raised as much cash directly for his own campaign as he did in 2008, relying more on larger checks collected by the DNC. Romney has yet to release his September fundraising total, but he had raised about $640 million with the Republican National Committee through the end of August, disclosure records show. Although he has brought in less overall than Obama and the Democrats, Romney raised more in May, June and July and nearly matched Obama in August. But Romney’s key advantage comes from outside his campaign, where a well-funded network of conservative groups has been able to collect unlimited checks to pay for a barrage of television ads. The combination has put Romney’s side at rough parity with Obama and his allies in spending so far, according to disclosure records and advertising estimates. Yet the hard sell continues. Rich Beeson, Romney’s political director, told supporters this week that “the billion-dollar Obama juggernaut won’t go down without a fight.” Vice President Biden, meanwhile, warned that the GOP was in the midst of “a $23 million week-long ad blitz attacking Barack in 10 battleground states.” “Our organizing depends on budgets and those budgets depend on you, right now,” Biden continued in a fundraising e- mail. “This campaign needs to make critical decisions this week, and with just 28 days to go, there’s no ‘I’ll get to it later.’ If you’ve been waiting for the right moment to chip in, now is the time.” Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, said that “saying you’re threatened is a proven way to raise money” in politics. He noted that by approaching $1 billion, each of the presidential candidates will spend about as much as all major U.S. Senate candidates spent in 2008 and 2010 combined. “It strikes me that President Obama and Governor Romney each will spend more than enough to be heard,” Malbin said. “I do not know if there is ever a point of complete saturation, but we’re clearly in the land of diminishing returns.” For more Influence Industry columns, go to washingtonpost.com/fedpage. Unions Struggle To Help Obama (POLITCO) By Dave Levinthal And Tarini Parti Politico, October 11, 2012 Organized labor is playing “Moneyball” this fall, and President Barack Obama isn’t winning. Four years ago, organized labor came out early and often for Obama, from major endorsements in the primary to multimillion-dollar ad buys later in the year. Continue Reading Now, with smaller memberships, less excitement and a languishing economy, unions aren’t guaranteed to be the help they once were. It doesn’t help that Obama has at times disappointed labor on issues ranging from trade to environmental regulations to the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall vote. 114

(PHOTOS: 2012 mega-donors) Despite the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opening the door to direct and unlimited union (and corporate) contributions, several high-ranking union officials and Democratic operatives confirm that labor’s overall presidential race spending will likely be down from four or eight years ago. The Center for Responsive Politics found at least $206 million in political spending from unions in 2008, although that figure is incomplete because not all spending has to be disclosed. As a result, unions are taking a Moneyball-like political approach to maximize the effect of the money and muscle they do have. That may mean money goes to a congressional race or ballot initiative rather than to Obama. It also means that instead of spending big on TV ads like the outside groups helping Republican Mitt Romney, unions are preaching old-school political fundamentals: phone banking, door-knocking, member-to-member outreach. Some unions have even turned to contests and gimmickry to cultivate their grass-roots. AFL-CIO’s super PAC Worker’s Voice launched an incentive program called RePurpose, where volunteers earn points from phone banking, canvassing and other activities. For example, for 25,000 points, volunteers will be able to create their own “friends and neighbors” phone bank, and for 700 points, they can place online ads supporting Obama. National Education Association members can earn T-shirts and other swag for contacting Facebook friends. “There’s certainly less enthusiasm,” said Bret Caldwell, spokesman for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, “but working families understand the difference in policies between Obama and Romney is much greater than the difference between Obama and John McCain.” AFL-CIO spokesman Jeff Hauser said the union has to educate members in a “nuanced way” because it’s difficult to excite them when their families still face economic troubles. (Also on POLITICO: Unions deny Dems convention cash) “The need for education is to provide some context for the economy,” Hauser said. “Working people are aware that the economy is not where it needs to be. But the trajectory is progress. The alternative under John McCain would have been depression.” But unions can’t do everything at once, Caldwell said. “There’s an endless array of priority campaigns. Everything is equal priority to close the gap in the House, keep the Senate and to reelect the president.” The AFL-CIO spent $53 million in 2008 to help elect Obama, but is changing things up this year. It already redeployed money away from Obama earlier this year, and is trying to concentrate cash and staff in six states — Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — that it considers crucial in presidential races, have big union membership, contested down ballot races and changing demographics. The Communication Workers of America is dividing resources among numerous races in 30 states and homing in on ballot initiatives in California and Michigan. Overall, spokesman Chuck Porcari said, it’s spending more than ever before during an election cycle — just spreading its cash far and wide. Continue Reading The International Association of Fire Fighters is training its pro-Obama outreach on swing states and, often, specific cities such as Dayton, Ohio, and Roanoke, Va., where its membership base is strong, General President Harold Schaitberger said. It plans to begin airing pro-Obama, anti-Romney TV ads starting Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and pump another $400,000 into online spots. But much of its $20 million estimated political outlay will go toward member-to-member programs with an eye on congressional races, state-level contests and ballot measures. “We’re not the Koch brothers,” he said. “But we’re doing what we can.” That alone is a major shift from last year, when the 300,000-member firefighters’ union briefly broke up with the Democrats, saying they were unhappy with the response to GOP anti-union legislation, including attempts to cut collective bargaining rights. It’s difficult to put an overall dollar amount on union efforts because not all spending has to be disclosed. Most use vehicles other than political action committees and super PACs, which must report their finances, and spend on grass-roots efforts and volunteering directly with campaigns. But the spending drop seems to match the continuing decline in the number of organized workers. Last year, about 11.8 percent of all wage and salary workers — 14.8 million in all — belonged to a union, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. In 1983, the first year the bureau collected such statistics, 20.1 percent of workers, or about 17.7 million people, reported union membership. But union officials roundly reject the notion that a smaller overall union force translates into some kind of slide from political powerhouse to bit player. The National Education Association boasts one of the most robust pro-Obama get-out-the-vote efforts this election, which National Political Director Karen White, while not volunteering an exact dollar figure, says is about equal in size to that of 2008. 115

White counts about 500,000 members who are volunteering for Obama for America. About one in 78 Americans is an NEA member, she added, meaning the union has the potential to reach tens of millions of people. “And the more Mitt Romney talks about public education, the more enthusiastic our members get,” White said. Continue Reading In June, the Service Employees International Union launched the biggest political push in its history, focusing on grass- roots efforts pushing for Obama’s reelection in states including Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. SEIU has also hit the airwaves with Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting Obama and run by a pair of former Obama staffers. Through Tuesday, SEIU had spent about $9.5 million on advertisements and other mass communications promoting Obama or attacking Romney, federal records show. By this one political measure among many, it leads all unions. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has spent about $2.9 million on ads, the AFL-CIO about $1 million. While that may seem like big money, the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future alone as spent about $48 million this cycle on ads, and the Karl Rove-linked Crossroads groups have together spent about $46 million. Many labor unions’ traditional political action committees, which may donate limited amounts of money directly to candidates, are also off their pace from recent elections. AFL-CIO’s PAC spent $297,560 as of Aug. 31, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. About two months away from the election, it’s on pace to spend a fraction of the $1.7 million it spent on the 2008 election and the $778,897 it spent in 2010. The NEA’s PAC had spent about $2 million as of Aug. 31. It spent $7 million in 2010 and $5.4 million in 2008. Even the PAC for the United Auto Workers, the group present in large numbers at the Democratic National Convention to tout Obama’s success in saving the auto industry, isn’t spending as much. Its PAC had spent $3.7 million as of June 30, on pace to fall short of the $13.1 million it spent during the 2008 cycle. Meanwhile, the United Mine Workers of America is skipping out on Obama altogether this year after endorsing Obama in 2008. It’s instead focusing on Senate and House races in West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania. The union won’t endorse anyone in the presidential race this year. “The current EPA has not been coal friendly, and we don’t think a pending Romney EPA will be any different,” said UMWA spokesman Phil Smith. Romney Tops Obama Ad Spending For First Time (WSJ) By Laura Meckler And Danny Yadron Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. The Marketplace Is Turning From Coal (WP) Washington Post, October 11, 2012 “I LIKE COAL,” Mitt Romney declared during last Wednesday’s presidential debate. Both candidates have catered to coal-state voters, but Mr. Romney has been particularly full-throated in his pandering. Not only did he back the “clean coal” myth last Wednesday; in August he promised Ohio coal miners that he would save their jobs. “We have 250 years of coal,” Mr. Romney said then. “Why in the heck wouldn’t we use it?” His explanation for trouble in coal country is that President Obama has a wayward obsession with regulating the economy, resulting in an unnecessary “war on coal,” a term that popped up again last month in one of his campaign advertisements. Mr. Romney is wrong on almost every point. The coal industry cannot and should not continue operating as it has, and Mr. Obama is not the reason. Cheap natural gas has gutted the economic case for burning coal. Climate change and coal-related pollution explain why that’s a good thing. Natural gas is coal’s primary competitor, and with the increasing use of hydraulic fracturing to extract gas trapped in subterranean shale formations, its price has plummeted. Power companies used to dispatch gas-fired electricity last because it was the most expensive. Now the chief executive of Duke Energy, the country’s largest electric power holding company, says his firm uses coal as a last resort. A study from the Brattle Group finds that coal use is more sensitive to the price of gas than to new government regulations. It projects that 59,000 to 77,000 megawatts of coal-fired power will come offline over the next five years, more than its 2010 estimate, despite the fact that, under Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency’s coal-plant regulations turned out to be more

116

lenient than the researchers had expected. The power plants’ reason: low electricity demand and low natural gas prices. Brattle also calculates that a $1 drop in the price of gas would double the magnitude of coal-plant closings over the next five years. Even if the price of natural gas rises somewhat, it will still be a major component of any rational, medium-term climate- change policy, since the transition from coal to gas is technologically easy and coal is particularly dirty. Part of the reason the EPA has written so many rules affecting coal is that burning it produces many types of pollution — not only carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to warming but also a noxious mixture of fine particles and gases, encouraging heart attacks, asthma and other ailments, which tax the economy in hospital costs, sick days and early death. When the economics of energy help to redress environmental and public-health problems, the country’s leaders should cheer. They also should help those who depend on the industry prepare for transition, not tell them fairy tales. Fed Survey: US Economy Expanded At Moderate Pace Since Mid-August , Led By Housing Gains (WP/AP) By Associated Press Washington Post, October 11, 2012 WASHINGTON — Stronger housing markets helped boost economic growth at the end of the summer in nearly every region of the United States, according to a Federal Reserve survey released Wednesday. The Fed said growth improved in 10 of its 12 regional banking districts from mid-August through September, while leveling off in one region and slowing in another. Rising home sales helped lift home prices in most districts. The report, known formally as the Beige Book, also cited an increase in auto sales in most parts of the country. Still, consumer spending was flat or up only slightly in most districts. Manufacturing activity was mixed, with half of the districts reporting slight improvement since the previous Fed report. And hiring was unchanged in most districts. Sal Gauatieri, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, said the August report represents a subtle shift in the central bank’s outlook. The economy improved to growing “modestly,” he noted, from growing only “gradually” in the previous report. The Beige Book provides anecdotal information on business conditions around the country. The information collected by the Fed’s 12 regional banks will be used as the basis for the Fed’s policy discussion at the Oct. 23-24 meeting. Economists expect no major moves at the meeting because the Fed adopted aggressive new policies in September. The Fed is buying mortgage bonds to lower longer-term rates, which could spur more borrowing and spending. And the Fed plans to keep short-term interest rates near zero until at least mid-2015, even after the recovery shows signs of strengthening. By making borrowing cheaper, the Fed hopes to fuel the modest housing recovery. When home prices rise, people tend to feel wealthier and spend more freely. Consumer spending drives nearly 70 percent of economic activity. The Fed report noted that oil production hit a record high in South Dakota, while the Minneapolis, Kansas City and Dallas districts also saw robust gains in energy production. The Atlanta and Richmond districts reported record levels for port activity in their regions. The drought continued to weigh on farm activity in the Chicago, Minneapolis, Kansas City and Dallas districts. Dallas and Chicago reported that recent rains had improved the outlook in those districts. Businesses remain cautious about investing and hiring. Many are worried that Congress will stay deadlocked on a budget deal and the economy will go over a “fiscal cliff.” If that happens, a combination of tax increases and spending cuts would kick in in January that could send the country back into a recession. Consumers have also been cautious this year, which has contributed to slower growth. The economy grew at a lackluster 1.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter, down from the 2 percent rate in the first three months of the year. Economists expect growth to hover near 2 percent for the rest of the year. That’s typically too weak to create enough jobs to rapidly bring relief to more than 12 million unemployed Americans. The job market is looking a little better. The unemployment rate fell last month to 7.8 percent, down from 8.1 percent in August. It was the first time in more than 3 ½ years that the rate fell below 8 percent. And it fell because of a huge increase in the number of people who said they found jobs. There have been some other encouraging signs. Auto sales rose in September by 13 percent from a year earlier to nearly 1.2 million. Home sales have been posting solid gains. And consumer confidence jumped in September, according to two closely watched surveys. Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

117

Housing Is Bright Spot In Update On Economy (WSJ) By Kristina Peterson And Jeffrey Sparshott Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Fed Survey Finds Modest US Growth (FT) By Robin Harding, Washington Financial Times, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Financial Times are available to FT subscribers by clicking the link. Analysis: Recovery Begins To Look Normal (USAT) By Tim Mullaney, @timmullaney, Usa Today USA Today, October 11, 2012 The Federal Reserve's latest "beige book" report on the economy is notable for the increasingly conventional picture it paints of a halting economy, where lingering -- and now nearly resolved -- problems in housing have stopped the recovery from ever really taking off. The best thing about the beige book is how ordinary its description of the recovery is. For years, economists have said that recoveries from recessions induced by financial panics were different. Housing probably couldn't lead the recovery, because consumers owed too much money, and until a years-long process of paying down debt was mostly complete not much would happen. But consumer debt is lower, and housing is improving. And six years after housing peaked, the beige book paints a picture of a recovery led by the classically cyclical factors of improving housing markets, better car sales and stronger credit quality. "Residential real estate showed widespread improvement since the last report," the central bank said in Wednesday's report. "New home sales and construction were more mixed but still mostly improved." The language the Fed used wasn't really much different than in its Aug. 29 beige book. The report, a closely watched roundup of interviews that Fed staffers conduct with business people and other contacts in the 12 Federal Reserve bank districts nationwide, is always vaguely worded and mostly non-quantitative. But the slightest nuance in language is jumped upon by investors and policymakers to bolster their view of the economy's health. In August, the Fed said improvements in the economy were "modest" or "moderate," depending on the region. This time, improvements were characterized overall as "modest." In particular, the news is good, the report says, on housing, auto sales and the credit availability and loan demand that drives them. "Overall loan demand was steady to stronger in most districts," the Fed reported. Now, none of this means the economy is about to stage a sharp recovery that will remind anyone of 1983-84. Households still owe far more than they did in the early 1980s, when very low debt helped accelerate the recovery. And housing is a much smaller percentage of the economy than it was in the mid-2000s: Builders only constructed about 587,600 homes last year, the second-fewest since the 1950s. An uptick in housing alone just won't have the same effect it would have had coming out of past recessions. Indeed, there are still clouds out there. Most economists expect growth to slow in the fourth quarter, as businesses and consumers pull back while they wait to see if Congress and the president can get through the end of the year without triggering a recession. The risk comes as a series of major tax cuts are set to expire and by law more than $1 trillion in federal spending must be cut. The beige book underscores that business investment, while improving, is weaker than it should be now in the expansion, and jobs in many industries that depend on it aren't materializing, but they should come along if consumers begin to spend. The benign scenario is that an improving housing market, coupled with a slowdown in state and local government budget cuts, gives the economy enough of a boost to offset Washington's mandated budget restraint, Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi said this summer. Moody's forecasts the economy will grow 2.1% next year, as Congress delays most of the tax boosting and spending cuts. The picture the beige book paints, in its own muted way, would allow that prediction to come true. And then the most- unconventional tale of this downturn, from near-collapse to a protracted and slow recovery marked by the Fed pouring trillions of dollars into the economy, may prove to have a fairly ordinary ending. Fewer Homes Go Back To Banks (USAT)

118

By Julie Schmit, @julieschmit, Usa Today USA Today, October 11, 2012 Foreclosure activity hit a five-year low in September, further lessening fears that lenders might flood markets with foreclosed homes and curtail price gains. Market researcher RealtyTrac reports today that 180,427 properties received foreclosure filings in September, down 16% from a year ago. Foreclosure activity has been dropping for nine consecutive quarters. There were expectations it would pick up this year following a mortgage servicing settlement earlier this year between big lenders and federal and state officials. That hasn't happened. Instead, home prices have been rising, up 4.6% in August from a year ago, CoreLogic says. "We've been waiting for the other foreclosure shoe to drop," says Daren Blomquist, RealtyTrac vice president. Instead, it's "being carefully lowered to the floor." Foreclosure activity has dropped for numerous reasons, including: •An improving economy. Nationwide, almost 7% of U.S. home loans in August were 30 or more days delinquent but were not in foreclosure. That's down almost 11% from a year ago, says mortgage tracker Lender Processing Services. •More short sales. Short sales occur when lenders agree to a home sale for less than what's owed on the property. In the first five months of this year, short sales were up 18% from last year, RealtyTrac data show. In some states, they were up much more. California saw a 39% year-over-year jump that occurred before the first foreclosure filing went out. •More restrictions. Nevada, Oregon and California have passed legislation in the past year that require lenders to take more steps to foreclose, RealtyTrac notes. Such measures may be slowing the process in those states, Blomquist says. Foreclosure filings include default notices sent to homeowners, auctions and bank repossessions. Despite the national slowdown in foreclosure activity, not all states are clearing markets of distressed properties at the same pace. In about two dozen states where foreclosures go through courts, including New Jersey and New York, there are still more distressed homes, LPS data show. In August, 6.5% of homes in judicial foreclosure states were in the foreclosure process, vs. 2.3% of homes in states where courts are not involved, LPS says. Weaker Earnings For Alcoa And Chevron Pull Stock Market Lower; Toyota Sinks On Recall Woes (WP/AP) By Associated Press Washington Post, October 11, 2012 NEW YORK — Downbeat reports from Alcoa and Chevron at the start of corporate earnings season pulled stock indexes lower for a third straight day Wednesday. The Dow Jones industrial average slumped 128 points, its steepest loss since late June. Alcoa, the aluminum producer, beat Wall Street’s earnings estimates on Tuesday night but said it expects a slowdown in China to weaken demand for aluminum. Its stock fell 42 cents Wednesday to $8.71. The company is often used as a weather vane for the global economy. “And judging by Alcoa’s massive inventory of aluminum, it seems pretty anemic,” said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank. Chevron, the country’s second-largest oil company, warned late Tuesday that slumping oil prices and production would cause earnings to be “substantially lower.” It blamed Hurricane Isaac for disrupting production at a Mississippi refinery. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court also refused to block a $19 billion judgment levied against Chevron by an Ecuadorian court for polluting the Amazon. Chevron’s stock sank $4.91 to $112.45. The Dow fell 128.56 points to close at 13,344.97, just shy of 1 percent, its fourth straight drop and the largest point decline since June 25. Chevron alone pulled the Dow down 38 points. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index fell 8.92 points to 1,432.56. Alcoa and Chevron’s results were an unpromising start to the third-quarter earnings parade, said JJ Kinahan, chief derivatives strategist at Ameritrade. “It’s beginning to look like we might have a lot of gloom-and-doom earnings calls this quarter,” he said. Of the 10 industry groups within the S&P 500, all but financials fell. Energy and materials stocks, whose fortunes hinge on economic growth, slumped the most. Bank stocks ended the day flat. In other trading, the Nasdaq lost 13.24 points to 3,051.78. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury slipped to 1.68 percent, down from 1.71 percent late Tuesday.

119

In one of the few economic reports out Wednesday, the Federal Reserve said the U.S. economy “expanded modestly” from mid-August through September. The survey, known as the Beige Book, pointed to improvements in housing car sales, manufacturing and the housing market. Employment and consumer spending, however, remained mostly flat. Wal-Mart Stores surged $1.28 to $75.42, and earlier touched an all-time high of $76.81. The president of its U.S. division told Wall Street analysts that the retail giant plans to open more small-scale stores, including its Express chain, to compete with discount retailers and drugstore chains. Alcoa’s earnings report marks the unofficial start to the quarterly earnings season, expected to be the worst in three years. Analysts project that companies in the S&P 500 will say third-quarter earnings shrank 1 percent compared with the same quarter of last year. Ablin said investors need solid reasons to buy stocks now, given the stock market’s strong run this year. “My sense is that, with these downbeat earnings announcements, there’s not much around right now,” he said. Concerns over the global economy helped knock the Dow down 110 points on Tuesday. The International Monetary Fund trimmed its forecast for worldwide growth, saying that trouble in Europe and other developed regions has spread to faster- growing developing countries. The day before, the World Bank cut its estimate for growth in China, the world’s second-largest economy behind the U.S., and countries across Asia. For the week, the Dow and S&P 500 have each lost 1.9 percent, and the Nasdaq has lost 2.7 percent. Among other companies making big moves Wednesday: — Yum Brands jumped 8 percent, the top stock in the S&P 500 index. The parent of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and other fast- food chains said results from China stores should remain strong, even as the Chinese economy slows. Yum gained $5.28 to $70.99. — FedEx gained 5 percent, or $4.41 to $89.99. The world’s second-biggest package delivery company unveiled a restructuring plan Monday aimed at raising profits by $1.7 billion within three years. FedEx promised to shed jobs and underused aircraft. — Costco posted stronger sales and earnings than forecast as more people signed up to buy the company’s diapers and groceries in bulk. Costco’s stock gained $1.92 to $101.56. — Toyota Motor Corp. dropped $1.56 to $74.50 after the carmaker recalled a total of 7.4 million vehicles worldwide for a for a faulty power-window switch, the latest in a series of recalls for Toyota. The recall announced Wednesday affects more than a dozen models produced from 2005 through 2010. Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Austan Goolsbee: Jack Welch Cooked My Quote (POLITCO) By Katie Glueck Politico, October 11, 2012 Austan Goolsbee, formerly the chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, called out Jack Welch on Wednesday for having “mis-cited” an article Goolsbee wrote about unemployment figures. “Jack, you completely mis-cited my piece,” Goolsbee tweeted. “Go read it. It was about both parties’ policy in congress not Admin chging #s @jack_welch.” Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, made waves last week by suggesting the Obama administration manipulated the latest unemployment figures. Writing in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, Welch said Goolsbee, too, had once said “the government has cooked the books.” “I’m not the first person to question government numbers, and hopefully I won’t be the last,” he wrote. “Take, for example, one of my chief critics in this go-round, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers. Back in 2003, Mr. Goolsbee himself, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op- ed: ‘the government has cooked the books.’” On Twitter, Goolsbee shot back, “You are deliberately ignoring the immediately preceding sentence.” Welch, from his account, tweeted out a link to the story in question. The “immediately preceding sentence” reads, “But the unemployment rate has been low only because government programs, especially Social Security disability, have effectively been buying people off the unemployment rolls and reclassifying them as ‘not in the labor force.’” Supreme Court Divided Over Affirmative Action In College Admissions (WP)

120

By Robert Barnes Washington Post, October 10, 2012 The Supreme Court seemed deeply divided Wednesday over the future of affirmative action in college admissions, with liberals defending a university’s right to assemble racially diverse student bodies, and conservatives worrying about the constitutional rights of those who are denied admission because of their race. As expected, the justice who emerged as most likely to decide the issue was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The veteran justice has never approved of an affirmative action plan that has come before the court but has agreed that campus diversity is the kind of compelling government interest that can sometimes license the use of race in admission decisions. The case comes from the University of Texas at Austin, which draws about 75 percent of its freshman class based on their graduation rankings from Texas high schools. For the remaining students, it uses a “holistic” evaluation that includes race as one of many factors. A white applicant named Abigail Fisher says those attempts to boost the number of African American and Hispanic students cost her a spot in the freshman class of 2008. The court since 1978 has recognized that promoting diversity on the nation’s campuses allows a limited consideration of race that normally the Constitution would not countenance. As recently as 2003, in a case called Grutter v. Bollinger, the court held that universities may consider race when striving toward reaching a “critical mass” of diversity that benefits all. Liberals on the court noted that the majority said then that it expected no such racial considerations would be needed in 25 years. “I know that time flies, but only nine of those years have passed,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said. What has changed, though, is the court’s composition. The 5 to 4 Grutter decision was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has been replaced on the court by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Alito has proven to be a fierce opponent of race- specific government policies. The change was underscored when O’Connor entered the courtroom a little after the nearly 11 / 2-hour argument began and took a seat on the front row, where retired justices normally sit to watch proceedings. Fisher’s attorney, Bert Rein, did not ask the court to overturn Grutter. He said UT had failed to narrowly tailor its examination of race and said it had not shown the necessity for racial considerations that Grutter demanded. UT, he said, had become one of the nation’s most diverse universities because of the policy of admitting the top 10 percent of each Texas high school, which yield a diverse crop of students because the schools are often heavy with one race. UT should be using racial considerations as a last resort, Rein said, but is using them “as a first resort.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Rein was not proposing to overturn Grutter but “to gut it.” When Washington lawyer Gregory G. Garre rose to defend UT’s plan, he faced rapid questioning from the conservatives, who wanted to know how they were supposed to judge whether UT’s plan was narrowly tailored when it had no standard of what constituted the “critical mass” of diversity that Grutter allowed. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. pursued Garre relentlessly on the question. Garre said that he could not provide specific goals — those would be like quotas, which are not allowed. He said there should be deference to university officials, who would know from student surveys and other indications whether they had created a campus with an accepting racial climate, a place where there was enough diversity that minority students did not feel like spokespeople for their race. Roberts suggested that the university was downplaying its reliance on race, saying it is the only factor listed on the front of every applicant’s file. Alito was scornful of UT’s argument that it wanted “diversity within diversity,” a point made in UT’s brief about wanting to be able to admit the black or Hispanic child of parents with professional careers who had not made the top 10 percent in a competitive high school. “I thought the whole purpose of affirmative action was to help the disadvantaged,” Alito said. That prompted Kennedy to tell Garre, “What you’re saying is race counts above all.” Garre disputed that, saying UT only wanted to ensure all sorts of diversity. The case was heard before only eight justices. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, presumably because she worked on it as President Obama’s solicitor general. Her successor, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., told the court that it should uphold UT’s plan and that making sure the nation’s top universities produce diverse leaders is a “vital interest” of the United States. If the justices deadlock on the policy, it would be upheld without setting a precedent. A Changed Court Revisits Affirmative Action In College Admissions (NYT) 121

By Adam Liptak New York Times, October 10, 2012 WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a major affirmative action case, with the justices debating the nature and value of diversity in higher education and the role of the courts in policing how much weight admissions officers may assign to race. The questioning was exceptionally sharp, but the member of the court who probably holds the decisive vote, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, tipped his hand only a little, asking a few questions that indicated discomfort with at least some race- conscious admissions programs. He told a lawyer for the University of Texas at Austin, which was challenged over its policies, that he was uncomfortable with its efforts to attract privileged minorities. “What you’re saying,” Justice Kennedy said, “is what counts is race above all.” He asked a lawyer for Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was denied admission to the university, whether the modest racial preferences used by the university crossed a constitutional line. Then he proposed an answer to his own question. “Are you saying that you shouldn’t impose this hurt, this injury, for so little benefit?” he asked. Justice Sonia Sotomayor summarized the central question in the case. “At what point — when — do we stop deferring to the university’s judgment that race is still necessary?” she asked. “That’s the bottom line of this case.” The last time the Supreme Court heard a major affirmative action case about admission to public universities, in April 2003, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was at the court’s ideological center. And it was she who wrote the majority opinion in the court’s 5-to-4 ruling allowing race to be considered in admission decisions, as one factor among many. Now all eyes are on Justice Kennedy, who dissented in the 2003 decision, Grutter v. Bollinger. More important, he has never voted to uphold an affirmative action program. There is thus reason to think the earlier decision is in peril. On the other hand, Justice Kennedy has occasionally parted ways with the more categorical approach of the court’s four- member conservative wing, and has indicated that some modestly race-conscious programs may pass constitutional muster. The parties in the new case, Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345, certainly seem to believe they must have Justice Kennedy’s vote to win. They each cited him by name about 20 times each in their main briefs. Justice O’Connor, who retired in 2006, wrote in the Grutter decision in 2003 that she expected it to stand for 25 years. Changes in the court’s personnel since then, notably her replacement by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., may speed up that timetable. “I know that time flies,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said on Wednesday, “but only nine of those years have passed.” Ms. Fisher, 22, recently graduated from Louisiana State University and works as a financial analyst in Austin, Tex. Her lawyer, Bert W. Rein, was questioned closely by the more liberal justices about whether she suffered the sort of injury that gives her standing to sue. They also pressed the point that the Texas program is very similar to the one endorsed in Grutter. “It seems to me that this program is no more aggressive than the one in Grutter,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. “In fact, it’s more modest.” Three-quarters of applicants from Texas are admitted under a program that guarantees admission to the top students in every high school in the state. That program is not directly at issue in the case. Students from Texas who missed the cutoff, like Ms. Fisher, and those from elsewhere are considered under standards that take account of academic achievement and other factors, including race and ethnicity. The case concerns that second aspect of the admissions program. The Supreme Court has four basic options. It could decline to decide the central issue in the case at all if it credits the university’s argument that Ms. Fisher did not suffer the sort of injury that gives a plaintiff standing to sue. It could uphold the Texas program as constitutional. It could say that race-conscious admissions may not be used where race-neutral ones, like the one used to select the bulk of the class in Texas, have produced substantial diversity. Or it could overrule Grutter and say race may not be used in admissions decisions at all. A decision forbidding the use of race at public universities would almost certainly mean that it would be barred at most private ones as well under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids racial discrimination in programs that receive federal money. Justice Elena Kagan has disqualified herself, presumably because she had worked on the case as solicitor general. That leaves open the possibility of a 4-to-4 tie, which would have the effect of affirming a lower-court decision upholding the Texas program. Justice Sotomayor told Mr. Rein that she sensed an agenda. “You don’t want us to overrule Grutter,” she said. “You want us to gut it.”

122

Ruling Out Race In College Admissions: How Far Will High Court Go? (LAT) By David G. Savage Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2012 WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative justices seemed inclined Wednesday to strike down a University of Texas affirmative action plan, but did not make it clear how far they might go in outlawing the use of race in admissions at all colleges and universities. In his opening question, Chief Justice John G. Roberts noted that applicants to the University of Texas must check a box to certify their race or ethnicity. Roberts asked whether a student who is one-fourth Hispanic would qualify as a minority. When the attorney for Texas said the student could decide for himself, Roberts asked: How about one-eighth? The chief justice made clear throughout the argument that he is troubled by the use of race as a deciding factor in public policies. Since 2006 the court has had five justices who are skeptical of affirmative action. But Wednesday marked the first time since then that the high court has heard a constitutional challenge to affirmative action in higher education. Justice Samuel Alito, who replaced the retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006, said he was surprised to learn that the Texas university seeks black and Latino students who grew up in affluent families with professional parents. Alito said he assumed affirmative action was designed to give a preference to students from “underprivileged backgrounds,” not for minority students from wealthy families. He was referring to a passage in the University of Texas brief that said the university may wish to give a preference to a black student with professional parents and from a good Dallas area high school over a black or Latino student who earned top grades at an “overwhelmingly” black or Latino high school. Under the “top 10%” law adopted by the Texas Legislature, the university must admit the top graduates from all of its high schools. That policy has succeeded in steadily raising the percentage of Latino and black students. But the university decided in 2004 to adopt a new affirmative action policy and to seek qualified minority students who did not graduate in the top 10% of their high schools. Alito said he did not understand why the university would give a preference to the minority student from a wealth family over a white or Asian student with good grades and test scores but who came from a middle-class family. Gregory Garre, the Washington attorney for the University of Texas, said the minority student from an integrated suburban high school could contribute more to the diversity on campus. “You are saying what counts is race above all else,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is likely to cast the decisive vote in the case. Joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Kennedy and the court’s conservative bloc could write an opinion that strikes down the Texas approach and puts new limits on affirmative action in colleges and universities. But the hourlong argument gave little hint as to how far the opinion would go. In the past, Kennedy has agreed with universities' need to seek racial diversity on campus, but he also said they should use “race neutral” policies whenever possible. Bert Rein, the attorney for Abigail Fisher, a rejected white student, sounded that theme. He said there was no need for a race-based affirmative-action policy at the University of Texas since about one-fourth of its new students are Latino or black as a result of the “top 10%" law. Using race as an admission criteria “should have been a last resort, not a first resort,” Rein said. And since Texas has achieved considerable diversity on campus, it did not need to adopt an extra affirmative action policy, he argued. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. cautioned the justices about reversing course on affirmative action. He said colleges and universities have adopted admission policies that allow for a limited consideration of race based on the court’s past rulings. College officials should be allowed the “flexibility” to design admissions policies that bring a diverse group of students to their campuses, he said. But Rein countered that college officials think they have a “green light” to pick students based on their race. It is time, he said in his concluding comments, for the court to stop “the unchecked use of race” in university admissions. It will probably be several months before the court hands down an opinion in the case of Fisher vs. University of Texas. Only eight justices will decide, since Justice Elena Kagan withdrew. The three liberal justices spent part of the argument time suggesting the court should thrown out Fisher’s case because she had already graduated from Louisiana State University. Justices Clash Over Affirmative Action (WSJ) By Jess Bravin And Brent Kendall 123

Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Supreme Court Questions Texas Affirmative Action Plan (WT/AP) By Mark Sherman, Associated Press Washington Times, October 11, 2012 WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices sharply questioned the University of Texas' use of race in college admissions Wednesday in a case that could lead to new limits on affirmative action. The court heard arguments in a challenge to the program from a white Texan who contends she was discriminated against when the university did not offer her a spot in 2008. The court's conservatives cast doubt on the program that uses race as one among many factors in admitting about a quarter of the university's incoming freshmen. Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be decisive, looked skeptically on Texas' defense of the program. "What you're saying is what counts is race above all," Kennedy said. Twenty-two-year-old Abigail Fisher was among the hundreds of spectators at the arguments. Also in attendance was retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote the majority opinion in a 2003 case that upheld the use of race in college admissions. Justice Samuel Alito, O'Connor's successor, has voted consistently against racial preferences since he joined the court in 2006 and appears likely to side with Fisher. Among the liberal justices who looked more favorably on the Texas admissions system was Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She told Bert Rein, Fisher's Washington-based lawyer, that he was looking to "gut" the nine-year-old decision. The federal appeals court in New Orleans upheld the Texas program, saying it was consistent with the 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Alito raised repeated objections to the affirmative action plan. Roberts wanted to know how the university would determine when it had a "critical mass" of diversity on campus that would allow it to end the program. Near the end of the session, he complained, "I'm hearing a lot about what it's not. I would like to know what it is." The university says the program is necessary to provide the kind of diverse educational experience the high court has previously endorsed. The rest of its slots go to students who are admitted based on their high school class rank, without regard to race Opponents of the program say the university is practicing illegal discrimination by considering race at all, especially since it achieves significant diversity through its race-blind admissions. After the argument concluded, Fisher read a brief statement outside in which she said she hoped the court would rule that race or ethnicity "should not be considered when applying to the University of Texas." Justice Elena Kagan is not taking part in the case, probably because she worked on it at the Justice Department before joining the court. • Associated Press writer Jesse J. Holland contributed to this report. Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Court May Challenge Colleges On Race (USAT) By Richard Wolf USA Today, October 11, 2012 washington — The use of racial preferences in college admissions appears to be in jeopardy -- at least at the University of Texas, if not nationwide. With the author of the last landmark affirmative action case, retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor, seated in the front row, the Supreme Court openly struggled Wednesday with this central question: How much racial favoritism is enough? Programs used by university admissions offices nationwide to achieve diversity hung in the balance as the court took up the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, the latest in a long string of affirmative action cases that until now have upheld the limited use of race in college admissions.

124

As the justices peppered questions at lawyers for the university and Abigail Fisher, the 22-year-old Texan who says she was denied admission to the school's flagship campus in Austin because she is white, it became clear many want a new standard. The court's conservatives, who may command five votes, appeared dissatisfied with the current goal of achieving a "critical mass" of minority students. "What's the logical endpoint?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked. "When will I know that you've reached a critical mass?" The lawyers focused heavily on Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, who dissented from O'Connor's 2003 opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan case that upheld a limited use of racial preferences. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, defending the university's use of affirmative action, directed much of his argument directly to Kennedy. "There's no quota" in the school's use of racial preferences, he said. "Everyone competes against everyone else." Kennedy said the school's effort to get students of varying backgrounds, even within races and ethnic groups, shows that it's putting race first. "You want underprivileged of a certain race and privileged of a certain race," Kennedy said. "So that's race." The case hearkens back to 1950, when the Supreme Court backed Heman Sweatt's effort to be enrolled at the University of Texas. Four years later came the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education outlawing public school segregation. Attorneys for the university argued that race is never considered alone, only as part of a holistic approach that takes a variety of factors into consideration. They said, however, that one goal is to increase the percentage of black students on campus. The school uses a plan in which students in the top 10% of their high school graduating classes are automatically admitted to the state university of their choice. That has helped schools boost racial diversity, primarily because most of the state's public high schools are segregated by race and ethnicity. Because that does not create a "critical mass" of racial groups, the school also considers race in filling out the rest of the class. As a result of that policy, enacted after the Michigan decision, black enrollment grew only slightly, from 4% to about 6%. Conservatives who have backed Fisher's case are hoping the court won't just throw out Texas' system but overrule the 2003 decision and eliminate racial preferences in college admissions. The court also could strike it down in a more narrow fashion that does not affect other schools. Proponents of affirmative action, including many University of Texas students who traveled to Washington for a rally outside court, hope the school's program will be upheld. Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case, presumably because she was involved while serving as solicitor general in 2009-10. Outside court, Fisher spoke just one sentence before turning questions over to her lawyer, Bert Rein. "I hope the court realizes that a student's race and ethnicity should not be considered," she said. Rein praised Fisher, who has since graduated from Louisiana State University, for having the "courage and perseverance to stand up for what was right." He said she suffers the consequences of not having a degree from Texas' top public university. "It is critical to be a University of Texas graduate in Texas," he said. "She can't have that back." Race-Conscious Admissions In Texas (NYT) New York Times, October 11, 2012 Affirmative action provokes conflicting views about what equal protection means under the law. Does the Constitution permit race-conscious programs that provide minorities with opportunities, even though it prohibits programs that exclude minorities because of their race? For more than three decades, the Supreme Court has said yes — that the Constitution allows academic programs to consider race as one factor in admissions, provided the program meets certain hurdles: it must serve a compelling state interest and be as limited as possible. Affirmative action is largely a voluntary commitment by leading institutions that are convinced it is in their self-interest to enlarge opportunities for historically disfavored groups, because it helps fulfill their missions. It would be a travesty for the court’s conservatives to reverse or weaken longstanding legal precedent on this issue. The harm they would inflict in doing so would be felt in education, business, national defense and many areas of American life. The justices — for no compelling reason — chose to reconsider affirmative action principles in Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin, argued before the court on Wednesday. They focused on two central questions: how the university uses race in admissions and whether the university’s goal of achieving a “critical mass” of minority students is sufficiently limited and defined to pass constitutional muster.

125

The university admits about 80 percent of its students by automatically taking the top 10 percent of students from every high school in the state. The rest are admitted by individual assessments, taking account of grades, activities and many other factors, including race. Texas maintains that its aim is to have a sufficient amount of racial diversity on campus to enrich the education for all students. And to reach that goal, it was necessary to consider race as one factor to help increase minority enrollees by a modest number. A lawyer for the plaintiff, Abigail Noel Fisher, argued that the university cannot define what it means by “critical mass” without setting a target for the number of minority students. But that would be the equivalent of creating a quota, which the court has said is unconstitutional. The conservative justices expressed suspicion that what Texas is doing with its admissions is somehow illegitimate. But it is using an approach approved in a 2003 Supreme Court case, Grutter v. Bollinger, that explicitly allowed race to be considered as long as it was not the determining factor. As the Grutter case noted, universities occupy a “special niche” in America’s “constitutional tradition,” and should be given considerable freedom to make judgments about what education entails—and that includes making admissions decisions in putting together a class of students who can learn from each other. The Roberts court’s suspicion should come as no surprise, though. Since the Grutter decision, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito Jr., both vehement critics of race-conscious programs, have joined the court. Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the Grutter opinion. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who opposed the Grutter ruling, is likely to be the decisive vote in this case (Justice Elena Kagan is recused, presumably because of her involvement as solicitor general). He seemed eager to get the university’s counsel to say its admission program does treat race as determinative, though it does not: “So what you’re saying is that what counts is race above all.” The court has received many briefs from former military leaders, major corporations and colleges and universities, all beseeching it not to limit them in using race-conscious policies as a means to increase diversity in their institutions. If Justice Kennedy joins in rejecting the Grutter principles in this case, the court will turn back the clock on improvements that took a generation to achieve. Keep Schools' Right To Limited Use Of Race (USAT) USA Today, October 11, 2012 The Supreme Court's conservative majority has made little secret of its disdain for affirmative action plans in education. That's true whether they're used to help integrate K-12 schools or to decide who gets into colleges and graduate schools. In a 2007 case, Chief Justice John Roberts famously wrote that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That's more glib than helpful, given this country's long and painful struggle with racial inequity. But it's a window into the way the court's conservative majority thinks about the issue. The justices made the point clear again Wednesday as they heard a case that could end 35 years of court approval for the limited use of race in admissions policies. The case grew out of a lawsuit filed by Abigail Fisher, a white student who said the University of Texas unfairly rejected her application in 2008 while admitting minority students who were less qualified than she was. The university said she wouldn't have been admitted in any case, and defended its policy of using race as one part of an admissions process designed to produce a diverse student body with a "critical mass" of minority students. The conservative justices peppered the attorney for UT with questions designed to show the policy is silly and unworkable. Roberts: Would someone who's a quarter Hispanic check the "multiracial" box on the application form? Justice Antonin Scalia wondered whether school officials trolled through classrooms looking for diversity, and asked whether someone who looks one- thrity-second Hispanic would qualify. The justices tried to spring a trap, asking the university's attorney to define "critical mass." Tricky ground: The Supreme Court bans use of numbers, including racial quotas or giving minority students extra points in the admissions process. It permits non-numerical ways of achieving diversity, but how to measure that without any numbers? Catch-22. Two points are worth making. One is that schools routinely use preferences to build diverse student populations, including admittance for musicians, academically weak athletes and children of alumni donors. Race is just one more. The larger point is that university officials should have the latitude to assemble vibrant and diverse student populations, because students learn from each other and form views that they'll carry into society when they graduate. It's invaluable for white, black, Hispanic and Asian peers to shed stereotypes by hearing each others' views face-to-face in classrooms or dorms. Previous Supreme Court majorities have found this to be sufficient reason to approve race-conscious practices — with notable restrictions. 126

Given the contentiousness of race, it would be preferable if schools could put together diverse student populations with race-neutral methods. And ironcially, Texas has been a leader in doing just that. It guarantees admission to the top 10% of students at each of the state's high schools, filling three-quarters of the seats in its public universities. This helped increase diversity and won wide endorsement, including ours. But it's important that universities be free to use the slots not taken up by the Top 10 program or other preferences to attain the student mix that fulfills their goals. That's why Abigail Fisher, a non-Top 10er, was even considered. As college applicants know, all selection systems are discriminatory. They're not just about test scores or grades but a matter of judgment. To blame race for missing the cut misses the point, and the practices, of higher education. Opposing View: 'Racial Balancing' Ignores Inequalities (USAT) By Stuart Taylor Jr USA Today, October 11, 2012 We value diversity, too. But colleges and universities should not cast aside other values by using very large racial preferences in an obsessive pursuit of racial head-count targets, as almost all do. That's why the Supreme Court should rule for Abigail Fisher, the white student who brought suit after she was turned down by the University of Texas. The university, along with the vast majority of selective colleges and professional schools, systematically create glaring racial double standards in pursuit of "racial balancing," which the court has rightly declared unconstitutional. These schools show every intent of perpetuating preferences for many generations, despite the court's 2003 assertion that they should be phased out by 2028. These are reasons enough to rule for Fisher. But it gets worse: The current racial-preference regime shamefully neglects socioeconomic diversity and aggravates economic inequality by favoring children of wealthy black and Hispanic professionals over many Asian and white students who are both less affluent and much better qualified. It gets worse still: An outpouring of social science evidence shows that large preferences set up many supposed beneficiaries to fail, even though they could do well — and actually learn more — at somewhat less competitive schools. We call this the mismatch effect. Recipients of large admissions preferences — athletes, wealthy donors' kids, and most black and Hispanic students — on average fall behind, get low grades, give up on becoming scientists, lose intellectual self-confidence, and fail the bar exam at more than twice the total white rate. The justices could remedy the problems Fisher raises by requiring that racial preferences be no larger than preferences for working-class and low-income kids. The court could also require that universities fully disclose the size, operation and effects of their racial preferences. Such transparency would help preferred-minority students make better-informed choices and help courts enforce constitutional limits. We think it would be too drastic a change now simply to outlaw racial preferences, which could send minority enrollment at top schools plunging. The reforms we propose might also better curb abuse. They are at least worth a try. Court Approves South Carolina Voter-ID Law But Delays It Until For 2013 (WP) By Del Quentin Wilber Washington Post, October 11, 2012 A South Carolina voter identification law does not discriminate against African Americans but must be delayed until next year because it would cause too much confusion at polling places so close to Election Day, a federal court ruled Wednesday. In a unanimous ruling , a special three-judge panel found the law, which requires voters to display one of five types of photo identification, would not harm African Americans and was not enacted with discrimination in mind. “South Carolina’s new voter ID law is significantly more friendly to voters without qualifying photo IDs than several other contemporary state laws that have passed legal muster,” wrote Brett M. Kavanaugh, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He was joined in his opinion by U.S. District Court judges Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and John D. Bates. Although they determined the law was not discriminatory, the judges blocked it from being implemented until at least 2013, citing “the potential for chaos” if officials tried to enforce it during the presidential election Nov. 6. It is the second recent ruling by a federal judicial panel weighing the legality of new voter-ID laws under a provision of the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge court in August struck down a Texas voter-ID measure, saying it would impose “strict, unforgiving” burdens on minorities. The South Carolina law, passed last year, requires voters to present one of five forms of photo identification to cast a ballot: a South Carolina driver’s license, a state photo ID, a passport, a military ID, or a new form of free photo card obtained from a

127

county election office. The law provides a caveat, known as the “reasonable impediment” provision, that allows voters to cast a ballot after signing an affidavit that explains why they did not obtain an ID. Rick Hasen, an election-law specialist at the law school of the University of California at Irvine, said the judges’ ruling turned on how South Carolina officials have modified their interpretation of the law in a way that is less onerous to voters. For example, state officials said they would err on the side of voters who raise a “reasonable impediment” objection to obtaining photo ID. “The law became much less strict and was one that all three judges could sign on to,” Hasen said. The Justice Department in December rejected the South Carolina law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires federal approval of voting changes in states or localities that have a history of discrimination. South Carolina then sued the department, arguing that it needed the statute to deter voter fraud and to boost confidence in the electoral process. South Carolina’s attorney general, Alan Wilson, hailed the ruling as “a major victory for South Carolina and its election process.” The Justice Department issued a statement saying it was pleased that the court blocked the law for the coming election and “welcomes the court’s agreement that South Carolina’s law required broad modifications in order to respond to the serious concerns raised by the Attorney General that the law as written would exclude minority voters.” The department said it intends “to monitor its implementation closely to ensure compliance with the court’s order.” New stricter voter ID laws have set off intense political and legal skirmishes across the nation. Republicans have pressed for the adoption of such measures, saying they are needed to deter fraud; Democrats and civil rights groups have argued that there is little evidence of such problems and that the laws are designed to depress turnout among minority voters who tend to support their candidates. A dozen states have adopted such measures in the past two years, though some have been successfully challenged in court. Last week, a Pennsylvania judge ordered the state not to impose its tough voter-ID law in next month’s elections; state judges in Wisconsin stopped a similar statute there. The Justice Department this year has approved less-onerous voter ID laws in Virginia and New Hampshire, which are also covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Voter ID Validation (WSJ) The critics go zero for two. Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. House Judiciary Chairman: Obama Should Fire Campaign Staffers Facilitating Voter Fraud (CALLER) Daily Caller, October 11, 2012 House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that he thinks the staffers for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign caught on camera telling an activist how to vote twice should be fired immediately. “It is an outrage that Obama campaign staffers appear to be encouraging voters to engage in voter fraud,” Smith said in a statement. “But even more outrageous is that this is happening at the same time that the Obama administration is blocking state laws enacted to prevent voter fraud. Several states, including Texas, enacted commonsense voter ID laws that require voters to show a valid form of identification before they vote. But the Obama administration has challenged these laws in court, preventing them from being implemented before the November elections.” “Contrary to the statements of the Obama campaign staffer, voter fraud is neither ‘cool’ nor ‘hilarious,’” Smith added. “It is a very serious crime that undermines the integrity of our electoral process and threatens the future of our democracy. Obama campaign staffers who encouraged voters to violate the law and cast fraudulent ballots should be fired. And rather than seeking to block commonsense voter ID laws, the Obama administration should support efforts by states to ensure the integrity of our elections.” Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse hasn’t answered why the Democratic National Committee continues to pay the salary of Stephanie Caballero – the regional field director for Obama’s Organizing For America in Houston. According to Federal Election Commission records, the DNC pays Caballero’s salary. Ben LaBolt, Obama’s campaign spokesman, hasn’t answered questions on the behavior Caballero and other campaign staffers and volunteers exhibited in the videos.

128

Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler hasn’t answered either, on whether Attorney General Eric Holder plans to do anything about the potentially illegal behavior on display in the video, taken by conservative activist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Tennessee: Transcript Reveals Scott DesJarlais Urged Mistress To Have Abortion (ROLLCALL) By Neda Semnani Roll Call, October 11, 2012 Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) was at work on Capitol Hill today despite the media firestorm that was unfolding around him. According to parts of a transcript from a more-than-decade-old phone call published by the Huffington Post, DesJarlais, then a doctor, urged a pregnant mistress to get an abortion. The woman was a patient of the conservative anti-abortion doctor- turned-lawmaker. “You told me you’d have an abortion, and now we’re getting too far along without one,” DesJarlais says at one point. He also suggests heading to Atlanta to “solve” the issue. “Well, we’ve got to do something soon,” he says. “And you’ve even got to admit that because the clock is ticking right?” According to the report, it was DesJarlais who recorded the call in September of 2000. He defeated then-Rep. Lincoln Davis (D) in 2010, and details of his messy 2001 divorce came to light during that campaign. The Congressman’s campaign released a statement in response to the transcript, calling it election-year gutter politics. The statement did not deny the call took place or the content of the transcript. “Desperate personal attacks do not solve our nation’s problems, yet it appears my opponents are choosing to once again engage in the same gutter politics that CBS News called the dirtiest in the nation just 2 years ago,” the statement said. DesJarlais is on Capitol Hill today attending the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s hearing on the security failures in Benghazi, Libya, last month. Stay tuned for whether he answers any questions from the media, who will no doubt be looking to talk to him when it’s over. With Tapes, Authorities Build Criminal Cases Over JPMorgan Loss (NYT) By Ben Protess And Azam Ahmed New York Times, October 11, 2012 Federal authorities are using taped phone conversations to build criminal cases related to the multibillion-dollar trading loss at JPMorgan Chase, focusing on calls in which employees openly discussed how to value the troubled bets in a favorable way. Investigators are looking into the actions of four people who previously worked for the team based in London responsible for the $6 billion loss, according to officials briefed on the case. The Federal Bureau of Investigation could make some arrests in the next several months, said one person who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry was ongoing. The phone recordings, which were turned over to authorities by JPMorgan, have helped focus the investigation, the officials said. Authorities are poring over thousands of conversations, in English and French. They are also relying on notes that employees took during staff meetings, instant messages circulated among traders and e-mails sent within the group. Authorities are examining how some traders in the chief investment office influenced market prices as their bets began to sour. Investigators are also looking into whether records were falsified to hide the problems from executives in New York. Based on those records, JPMorgan submitted inaccurate financial statements to regulators, another area of focus for investigators. The scope of the inquiry suggests that the problems were isolated to a handful of executives and traders in an overseas division, and did not reflect a fundamental weakness with the bank’s culture and leadership. The investigation does not appear to touch the upper echelons of the executive suite, notably Ina Drew who oversaw the chief investment office. The findings could insulate JPMorgan and its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, from further fallout. Five months into the investigation, attention is centered on four people: Javier Martin-Artajo, a manager who oversaw the trading strategy from the bank’s London offices; Bruno Iksil, the trader known as the London Whale for placing the outsize bet; Achilles Macris, the executive in charge of the international chief investment office; and a low-level trader, Julien Grout, who worked for Mr. Iksil and was responsible for marking the trading book. The people briefed on the matter said the investigation was in the early stages, and federal prosecutors in Manhattan had not made a decision about whether to file charges. None of the current or former employees have been accused of wrongdoing. If they decide to bring charges, prosecutors will face significant challenges. Financial cases are notoriously difficult to prove in court. The intricacies of Wall Street, which are often central to such matters, can be difficult to explain to jurors. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, authorities have brought few cases against individual employees.

129

Complicating matters, some of the JPMorgan employees are from France, which does not extradite its citizens. Mr. Iksil has already returned home to France after leaving the bank, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Mr. Grout, also a French citizen, has been suspended from the bank but remains in London, said another person briefed on the situation. Prosecutors would also have to prove that employees intentionally masked losses by mispricing the positions. It is a high bar. In some derivatives markets, traders are allowed to estimate the value of their positions because actual prices may not be readily available. Some people close to the investigation say the significance of the mismarked positions may be overstated since they represented a tiny fraction of the overall trades. They also cautioned that authorities could easily take an incriminating sentence from a single phone call out of context, and that many conversations took place in person at the London office. “Mr. Martin-Artajo is confident that when a complete and fair reconstruction of these complex events is completed, he will be cleared of any wrongdoing,” his lawyer, Greg Campbell, said in a statement. “There was no direct or indirect attempt by him at any time to conceal losses.” Lawyers for Mr. Macris and Mr. Grout declined to comment. A lawyer for Mr. Iksil did not respond to requests for comment. Spokesmen for the United States attorney’s office in New York, the F.B.I. in Manhattan and JPMorgan declined to comment. The trading loss could get further scrutiny on Friday when JPMorgan is set to report third-quarter earnings. Since the blowup was first disclosed in May, the losses have increased to about $6 billion, from $2 billion. As the bank continues to unwind the bet, investigators have held multiple meetings with lawyers representing people ensnared by the matter. Authorities plan to interview Mr. Macris this month in his native Greece, according to people briefed on the matter. Such discussions could provide a more detailed account of the employees’ actions and alter the course of the investigation. Some of the former employees could also cooperate with authorities. JPMorgan is also under investigation by civil regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is examining whether the bank misled investors about the severity of the losses. British authorities have also recently opened inquiries into the matter, according to the officials. The investigations center on the chief investment office in London. The group was created to invest JPMorgan’s own money and offset potential losses across the bank’s disparate businesses. For example, Mr. Iksil bought and sold derivative contracts — financial instruments tied to the value of corporate bonds and other investments — in an effort to protect the bank from market fluctuations. By early 2012, the London team increased its risk. In response to adverse moves in the markets and regulatory changes, the group made a series of aggressive derivatives trades, betting on the strength of companies like American Airlines. As these bets started to sour, the London team decided to double down instead of getting out, according to the bank. From late 2011 to March 2012, the bank’s net exposure to such contracts more than doubled to nearly $150 billion. Authorities are examining whether the large positions improperly influenced market prices. The phone calls, which are taped as part of JPMorgan’s routine practices, suggest that traders tried to limit the losses, according to people briefed on the matter. In some phone recordings, Mr. Martin-Artajo encouraged Mr. Iksil to record the value of certain trades in an optimistic fashion, the people said. Their boss, Mr. Macris, was also involved in valuation discussions, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The chief investment office was also trying to downplay the potential risk. Some employees told top JPMorgan executives that the situation was “manageable” and that the position might even produce a slight gain in the second quarter of 2012. But the estimates proved inaccurate. This summer, JPMorgan restated its first-quarter earnings downward by $459 million, conceding errors in the valuations. At the time, the bank said that the traders in the chief investment office “generally” valued the holdings within a reasonable range. But JPMorgan also pointed to the potential for deeper problems. “The restatement is really based upon recent facts that we’ve uncovered regarding the C.I.O. traders’ intent as they were marking the book,” Douglas L. Braunstein, the bank’s chief financial officer, said at the time, according to a transcript. “As a result, we questioned the integrity of those trader marks.” BP Close To Spill Settlement (WSJ) Multibillion-Dollar Deal With U.S. Would Combine Civil, Criminal Liabilities By Daniel Gilbert Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link.

130

Oil In New Gulf Slick Matches That Of 2010 Spill (WP) By Steven Mufson And Joel Achenbach Washington Post, October 11, 2012 The oil in a slick detected in the Gulf of Mexico last month matched oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill two years ago, the Coast Guard said Wednesday night, ending one mystery and creating another. “The exact source of the oil is unclear at this time but could be residual oil associated with the wreckage or debris left on the seabed from the Deepwater Horizon incident,” the Coast Guard said. The Coast Guard added that “the sheen is not feasible to recover and does not pose a risk to the shoreline.” One government expert said the thin sheen, just microns thick, was 3 miles by 300 yards on Wednesday. Some oil drilling experts said it was unlikely that BP’s Macondo well, which suffered a blowout on April 20, 2010, was leaking again given the extra precautions taken when it was finally sealed after spilling nearly 5 million barrels of crude into the gulf. BP declined to comment. But a BP internal slide presentation said the new oil sheen probably came from the riser, a long piece of pipe that had connected the drilling rig to the well a mile below the sea surface. The presentation said that “the size and persistence of this slick, the persistent location of the oil slick origin point, the chemistry of the samples taken from the slick ... suggest that the likely source of the slick is a leak of Macondo ... oil mixed with drilling mud that had been trapped in the riser of the Deepwater Horizon rig.” But Ian MacDonald, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University and a spill expert, cautioned said that the origin of the new oil remains uncertain. “The jury is out here,” he said, adding that it was too early “to rule out that this is oil freshly released from the reservoir.” The sheen, located about 50 miles off Louisiana’s shore in the Mississippi Canyon block 252 where the Macondo well was drilled, was detected in satellite images taken on Sept. 9 and Sept. 14. The Coast Guard said the size of the sheen has varied with weather conditions. Samples of the crude were collected and sent to a Coast Guard laboratory in New London, Conn. On Tuesday, the Coast Guard told BP and Transocean, owner and operator of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that caught fire and sank, that the oil from the sheen and spill matched. In a meeting Wednesday, the Coast Guard told the companies to come up with a plan of action for determining the source. “No one’s 100 percent as to where it’s coming from,” said Frank Csulak, scientific support coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Since the disaster in 2010, which killed 11 workers, the wreckage of the massive rig, the crumpled riser and some hardware used in the attempt to kill the well have remained on the gulf floor. T An August 2011 investigation, which came after oil blobs were observed on the surface and which included a visit to the wellhead by a remotely operated vehicle, turned up no sign that the well was leaking. That inspection was conducted by BP with federal government officials observing the process. Nonetheless, there have been persistent rumors and allegations on blogs that Macondo is not truly dead, and that it is continuing to spew oil into the gulf. Marcia McNutt, director of the U.S. Geological Survey, said a rough calculation showed that the riser, if full of oil, could hold about 1,000 barrels of oil. Because it’s open on two ends it is unlikely to have that much oil, she said. McNutt said it’s unlikely that oil came from the deep reservoir. The well was plugged from both the top and the bottom, and has a mile of cement crammed into it. “With what we did to it, it’s pretty hard to imagine, ” McNutt said. Oil, Business Groups Sue SEC Over Disclosure Rule (HILL) By Ben Geman The Hill, October 11, 2012 Oil industry groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are asking a federal court to overturn new Securities and Exchange Commission rules that will force oil, gas and mining companies to disclose their payments to foreign governments. The lawsuit, filed Wednesday with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, escalates a battle between industry and human rights groups over controversial transparency rules required under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. The American Petroleum Institute (API), U.S. Chamber and other groups say the regulators failed to justify what they call burdensome rules, and allege they will force companies to publicly disclose sensitive information.

131

“The rule as written would impose enormous costs on U.S. firms and put them at a competitive disadvantage against government-owned oil giants not subject to the rule,” said API President Jack Gerard in a statement. The rule forces SEC-listed oil, natural gas and mining companies to reveal payments to governments related to projects in their countries, such as money for production licenses, taxes, royalties and other aspects of energy and mineral projects. It’s aimed at increasing transparency to help undo the “resource curse,” in which some impoverished countries in Africa and elsewhere are plagued by high levels of corruption and conflict alongside their energy and mineral wealth. The rules have been championed by an array of anti-poverty and human rights groups, and backers range from Bono to Bill Gates to George Soros. But the rules have faced pushback from companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell. The oil industry argues the rule will put SEC-listed companies at a disadvantage when competing against state-owned companies such as Russia’s Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Co. [Click here, here, and here for more of E2-Wire’s coverage of the battle over the rules.] The lawsuit cites the SEC’s estimate that the rule will bring roughly $1 billion in initial industry compliance costs, and ongoing compliance costs in the $200 million to $400 million range. “The rulemaking record shows that the costs will actually be far greater, as U.S. oil and mining companies are forced to allow competitors access to sensitive commercial information, and to abandon projects to foreign state-owned companies in countries that forbid the disclosures or that simply refuse to do business with U.S. companies because they do not wish the disclosures to be made,” the lawsuit states. The lawsuit drew quick criticism from Global Witness, which noted the Dodd-Frank provision “was intended to shine a light on billions in payments to governments from oil, gas and mining companies and to decrease opacity in this industry.” “Secrecy around payments enables corrupt government officials and political elites to siphon off or misappropriate revenues for personal gain, rather than development. It has been said that 'sunshine is the best disinfectant' – this lawsuit begs the question, what are oil companies trying to hide?,” said Jana Morgan, assistant policy adviser with Global Witness. The Independent Petroleum Association of America and the National Foreign Trade Council joined the suit against the SEC, which approved the rules in a split 2-1 vote in August. Gerard said the industry supports transparency, citing work with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). It’s a voluntary collaboration that brings together nations, companies and nongovernmental groups aimed at ensuring government revenues from energy and mining projects provide public benefits. “We’ve been working hard to increase transparency for a decade, but this rule could interfere with ongoing efforts by making U.S. firms less competitive against state owned firms in China and Russia that have no interest in transparency,” he said. But advocates of the rules say the Dodd-Frank law is intended to go further than EITI. The new lawsuit alleges the SEC’s rule is illegal for several reasons. The industry groups claim that the regulators “misread” the Administrative Procedure Act by requiring public disclosure of company’s reports. The lawsuit also claimed the rule is “arbitrary and capricious” because it doesn’t define “project” as activities in a “geologic basin or province.” “This definition would have protected U.S.-listed companies from potentially billions of dollars in compliance costs, by providing certainty in application and by permitting companies to aggregate innumerable individual payments made under various contracts as long as they all related to extraction of a particular resource in a particular geologic area,” it states. It also challenges the SEC’s decision not to allow exemptions from the rules when foreign governments bar such disclosure; claims the regulators failed to properly analyze whether the rule creates burdens that are “necessary and appropriate” to further Congress’s goals; and that the SEC’s cost analysis was flawed. An SEC spokesman defended the regulation. “While we are still reviewing the suit, we believe our legal interpretation and economic analysis are sound, and we look forward to defending the rule that Congress directed us to write,” SEC spokesman John Nester told The Wall Street Journal. Oil Industry Sues To Block Rule On Payments Abroad (WSJ) By Jessica Holzer Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Lawmakers Question U.S. Abound Loan Despite Quality Issues (BLOOM)

132

By Jim Snyder Bloomberg News, October 11, 2012 House Republicans want more information about a $400 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Energy Department to Abound Solar Inc., citing reports that significant “technological difficulties” with the company’s solar panels were known before the aid was approved. Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and two other Republicans on the panel wrote Energy Secretary Steven Chu seeking documents his department used to review the application from Abound, which later went bankrupt. In the letter, Upton suggests Energy Department officials should have known about problems with the Loveland, Colorado-based company’s solar panels prior to issuing the guarantee, which was part of the same program that financed Solyndra LLC. The Fremont, California, company also later failed. An engineering report given to the department two months before it closed on the guarantee indicates that “Abound’s panels were already experiencing significant efficiency and technological difficulties,” the letter states. One customer reported “major performance shortfalls” with Abound’s panels, the letter states, quoting the engineering report given the Energy Department. The letter, which was dated today, continues Republican criticism of the $16 billion clean-energy loan program that was funded by the 2009 economic stimulus. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said President Barack Obama erred in directing the money to risky renewable-energy projects. Administration officials have defended the program, saying the failure rate has been lower than anticipated by Congress. Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, referred a request for comment about the investigation to an earlier blog posting on the Department’s website that cited allegations Chinese companies were unfairly undercutting market prices for solar panels, putting additional pressure on U.S. manufacturers. “In such an intense competition and with the price declining 47 percent last year alone, not every company, nor every investment, will be a success -- but America will be stronger and more competitive if we continue to support and build a thriving solar industry here at home,” LaVera wrote in the June 28 post. In an e-mail, LaVera also said the department had already provided the committee engineering and market analyses of Abound’s loan application. Abound borrowed about $70 million from the U.S. before the Energy Department stopped payments. The Energy Department has said taxpayers may lose $40 million to $60 million on the loan after Abound’s assets are sold and a bankruptcy proceeding concludes. The company stopped operations in June, prompting more criticism from Republicans who had said Solyndra’s earlier failure after receiving a $535 million loan guarantee showed the problems of trying to pick “winners and losers” in the market. Republican and Democrat lawmakers from Indiana also supported Abound’s loan, as the company sought to build one of its plants in the state. Craig Witsoe, Abound’s chief executive officer when it closed, blamed “aggressive price-cutting from Chinese competitors” for the company’s collapse. Besides the $70 million from the U.S., Abound also attracted about $300 million in private investment. The House Energy and Commerce Committee refused to release the engineering report allegedly showing early technical difficulties with Abound’s solar panels. To contact the reporter on this story: Jim Snyder in Washington at [email protected] To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at [email protected] IRS Says ‘tax Avoidance’ At Heart Of Solyndra Bankruptcy Plan (WT) By Jim Mcelhatton, The Washington Times Washington Times, October 11, 2012 The Internal Revenue Service urged a bankruptcy judge to reject solar panel maker Solyndra's bankruptcy plan Wednesday, saying it amounts to little more than an avenue for owners of an empty corporate shell to avoid paying taxes. "The undeniable conclusion is that tax benefits drive this plan," attorneys for the IRS wrote in a bankruptcy pleading. Arguing that the bankruptcy court ought not confirm a plan "whose principal purpose is tax avoidance," attorneys said in filings in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware that the tax breaks would be worth more money than funds set aside for creditors. Taxpayers are on the hook for more than a half billion dollars after the company filed for bankruptcy last year, just two years after winning a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.

133

What's more, government attorneys said that as far back as 2010, Solyndra owners had "planned meticulously" to be able to use Solyndra's net operating losses to offset future tax liabilities. "The only reason for the shell corporation to exist post-confirmation is to enable its owners to exploit these tax attributes, which would be lost in liquidation," the IRS argued in court papers. One owner valued the so-called tax attributes at $150 million, dwarfing the $7 million to $8 million set aside by the reorganization plan for unsecured creditors, according to the government's objection, which was filed by the Justice Department on behalf of the IRS. Under Solyndra's reorganization plan, two big investors in the company, Madrone Partners LP and Argonaut Ventures, would together own nearly all of a shell company in the wake of Solyndra's bankruptcy reorganization. But the IRS said in court papers there was little reason for the shell company to exist other than to help the owners avoid taxes. Argonaut is the investment arm of a family foundation headed by Oklahoma businessman George Kaiser, a fundraiser for Mr. Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. Madrone has ties to the family that owns Wal-Mart. Even as company officials negotiated a restructuring deal with the Energy Department to keep Solyndra afloat, the company's owners were "intently focused" on how to preserve their ability to use net operating losses as they privately prepared for the possibility that Solyndra would go broke, according to the government attorneys. In one email, dated Dec. 7, 2010, Steve Mitchell, a managing director at Argonaut who served on Solyndra's board, told lawyers there was a "decent likelihood" that Solyndra would go bankrupt within 10 days. Mr. Mitchell devoted much of the rest of the email to "the need to preserve an estimated $750 million of NOLs in Solyndra," referring to net operating losses, according to the court filing. "We need to discuss appropriate course of action in the event of filing and trustee appointment," Mr. Mitchell told the lawyers. "The company has a significant NOL, potentially as high a (sic) $750 million, and George [Kaiser] has a high interest in understanding any manner in which we can preserve the NOLs." A spokesman for Mr. Kaiser was not immediately available Wednesday. The government lawyers said that while the reorganization plan had "some marginal benefits," there was no doubt that the most important priority was to "preserve a shell corporation to be able to reduce future tax liabilities by hundreds of millions of dollars." In a deposition taken after Solyndra's bankruptcy, Mr. Mitchell was asked whether the survival of Solyndra's net operating losses was "an intended outcome," according to a transcript included in the court filings. "You know, if I have stock for 363 days, and if I decide to sell it three days later so I can take advantage of that situation, it's not the reason I sold the stock, but it's an outcome right?" Mr. Mitchell replied. "Why wouldn't I get capital gains in a situation where money was lost," he said. "It's an asset there. We're paying these dollars to deal with other situations, which is to deal with the liabilities. But the asset is there, why not preserve it?" In a separate deposition, Jamie McJunkin, a managing director with Madrone, answered "no" when asked if one of the key components of the Solyndra restructuring was to preserve the company's net operating losses. At the same time, he said he didn't see a reason why the operating losses would be destroyed. "They do have potential value at some point in the future," Mr. McJunkin said. "Size unknown." Once a poster child of the Obama administration's stimulus program and Mr. Obama's efforts to encourage clean energy, Solyndra turned into a big political headache after its bankruptcy. Republicans have seized on Mr. Kaiser's political ties to Mr. Obama, but administration officials have said politics played no role in the loan deal and that investment decisions were made on the merits. DeLay's Attorney: Money-Laundering Law Misconstrued (WSJ) By Russell Gold Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Al Gore Has Thrived As Green-tech Investor (WP) By Carol D. Leonnig Washington Post, October 11, 2012 Before a rapt audience, Al Gore flashed slides on a giant screen bearing the logos of 11 clean energy companies he predicted could help slow climate change.

134

“We can’t wait. . . . We have a planetary emergency,” the former vice president told industry leaders and scientists at the 2008 conference. “Here are just a few of the investments that I personally think make sense.” Today, several of those clean tech firms are thriving, including a solar energy start-up and a Spanish utility company that has dotted rural America with hundreds of wind turbines. Al Gore is thriving, too. The man who was within sight of the presidency 12 years ago has transformed himself, becoming perhaps the world’s most renowned crusader on climate change and a highly successful green-tech investor. Just before leaving public office in 2001, Gore reported assets of less than $2 million; today, his wealth is estimated at $100 million. Gore charted this path by returning to his longtime passion — clean energy. He benefited from a powerful resume and a constellation of friends in the investment world and in Washington. And four years ago, his portfolio aligned smoothly with the agenda of an incoming administration and its plan to spend billions in stimulus funds on alternative energy. The recovering politician was pushing the right cause at the perfect time. Fourteen green-tech firms in which Gore invested received or directly benefited from more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks, part of President Obama’s historic push to seed a U.S. renewable-energy industry with public money. Over the course of his metamorphosis, Gore became an environmentalist hero with release of his award-winning film and book warning of carbon emissions dangerously overheating the planet. He founded an investment firm devoted in part to backing green-minded companies and later partnered with a leading venture capital firm to invest in clean energy start-ups. “We have work to do!” Gore recently exhorted an audience while showing his trademark slide show about melting polar ice caps and the urgent need to stop burning so much oil and gas. That declaration, his friends say, captures his obsession — he’s unable to rest in his self-appointed mission to save the planet. “Maybe there’s someone as knowledgeable and passionate about climate change. I just haven’t met that person,” said Orin Kramer, a leading New York hedge fund manager, friend of Gore and top Democratic campaign bundler. “His schedule is intensely busy, and my sense is he lives a life that profoundly reflects his values and passions.” In building his new career, Gore’s name has become ensnared in a broader criticism from Republicans, who put him among political allies they say the Obama administration has unjustly enriched with stimulus and clean-energy funding. In last week’s presidential debate, Romney criticized the $90 billion that went to promote green technology, saying a number of businesses owned by Obama campaign contributors were winners. Gore declined to be interviewed, but spokeswoman Betsy McManus said he had not asked the administration for support for any companies in which he had invested. “For almost 40 years, he has consistently advocated for the rapid deployment of renewable energy and other sustainability technologies,” she said. “His investments are consistent with his beliefs.” White House officials have rejected charges of favoritism. “These are merit-based decisions made by professionals with the relevant policy expertise,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. One of the rare times Gore addressed the questions, at a congressional hearing in 2009, Republicans had suggested that Obama’s agenda appeared destined to help him become the nation’s first “carbon billionaire.” Gore bristled when Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) asked if he stood to profit from his investments and political connections. “I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it,” he said. “And, congresswoman, if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.” Gore 2.0 Gore, 63, divides most of his time now between his home in Nashville and a St. Regis tower apartment in San Francisco, where he can visit his West Coast investment partnership and see his new girlfriend, an environmental activist. (He and his wife of 40 years, Tipper, separated two years ago. She lives in the $8.9 million mansion they bought in 2010 outside Santa Barbara.) His schedule includes international travel as well, often delivering speeches for fees that have reached as high as $175,000. It is a huge shift from a decade ago, when Gore was considered a Washington lifer. The Tennessean was largely raised in the nation’s capital as the son of a U.S. senator. As his father had hoped, Albert Arnold Gore Jr. went on to serve in office for 24 years: 16 years in Congress and eight as vice president under President Bill Clinton. His loss to George W. Bush in 2000 was personally devastating, and Gore went into a kind of mourning, friends say. 135

“The way he coped with the 2000 disaster was to throw himself into this new work,” said Elaine Kamarck, a former Clinton aide and friend of Gore who was chief policy adviser on his 2000 campaign. “He just didn’t lick his wounds and go away.” Gore eventually turned the painful experience into a punchline. He didn’t miss a beat when a conference organizer in 2008 confessed it “hurts” to think of the environmental agenda that could have been, if only Gore had won. “You have no idea,” he said in a deep baritone of mock grief. By then, Gore had won a Nobel Prize and Oscar for his 2006 book and movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Supporters had begun hailing him as the single most effective spokesman on the threat of climate change. With his prize winnings, Gore created the Alliance for Climate Protection, an advocacy group that ran ads warning of looming climate change. In the process, he gained high-placed admirers and business associates in Silicon Valley. Gore entered the investment world full time by co-founding Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm. He was the type of high-profile partner sought by Goldman Sachs executive David Blood, who had headed Goldman’s $325 billion asset management division and was looking to start a new firm. The pair launched GIM in 2004 to back companies focused on sustainability, including clean energy, water scarcity and poverty. GIM also invested in established companies such as Colgate Palmolive and John Deere, as well as medical technology, Internet and other businesses. Within three years, the firm was managing $1 billion. Gore also found himself to be a sought-after star among elite Silicon Valley investors. In late 2007, he became a senior investment partner at one of the world’s most successful venture capital firms, Kleiner Perkins. He was combining forces with longtime friend John Doerr in a joint mission to spur clean tech. Doerr had won legendary status at Kleiner by betting early on the meteoric rise of Internet start-ups Google and Amazon. But by 2007, he had switched his bets to green energy and vowed to raise $500 million to invest in what he called the next “mother of all markets.” Gore and Doerr began comparing notes about start-ups with promise in renewable energy, including biofuels, advanced batteries and solar. His friends and colleagues say Gore is relishing his new role and has remarked that he feels lucky to be doing something he loves and enjoying financial success. Kramer, who serves on Gore’s climate change advocacy group, said he has watched with amazement as Gore debates obscure research with a room full of scientists. “He knows the studies they’re citing and the three other studies which shed a different light on it,” Kramer said. Washington ties Eight years after losing the presidential race, with Bush in the final stretch of his administration, Gore was working hard to build support in Washington for his cause. By then a rising green investor, he was keenly focused on shaping policy should a Democrat win in 2008. Before the election, Gore launched a public campaign known as “Repower America,” aimed at encouraging the public and the next administration to support government investments in clean energy. His Alliance for Climate Protection was running numerous ads, and he delivered speeches laying out his goal that, within 10 years, 100 percent of the nation’s electricity should come from clean energy. “The future of human civilization is at stake,” Gore said in a 2008 speech, stressing that such projects would create jobs. At the same time, Gore’s venture partner, Doerr, had been raising money for Democrats to take back the White House, holding big-check receptions with Silicon Valley investors. He and fellow Kleiner partners and spouses donated more than $800,000 to Democrats, much of it for Obama and state efforts to get out the vote. At GIM, five of Gore’s principals, including co-founder David Blood, wrote $130,000 in checks to aid Obama’s bid, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. As Obama was preparing to take office, it was clear his public agenda supporting clean energy aligned with Gore’s personal agenda. Obama held a highly publicized meeting with Gore at transition headquarters in Chicago to talk about energy policy. Later, Obama closely echoed several of Gore’s talking points and his plan for public investment in clean energy. Obama even adopted Gore’s campaign catchphrase for the effort, “Repower America.” “This is a matter of urgency and national security,” Obama said. “We have the opportunity now to create jobs all across this country in all 50 states to repower America, to redesign how we use energy and . . . make us competitive for decades to come — even as we save the planet.” Gore’s orbit extended deeply into the administration, with several former aides winning senior clean-energy posts. Among them were Carol Browner, a former Gore political operative who became the president’s climate change czar, and Ron Klain, Gore’s former chief of staff who went to work for Vice President Biden overseeing the stimulus. 136

Those connections were underscored in October 2009, when Jonathan Silver, under consideration to head the $38 billion •clean-energy loan program, hosted a party to help Gore raise money for the Alliance for Climate Protection. Silver invited the Department of Energy’s chief financial officer, days before the official was scheduled to meet Silver to discuss the job. “At the risk of seeming presumptuous, I want to mention that my wife and I are holding a small event for Al Gore at our home this coming Thursday evening,” Silver wrote in an e-mail. “I expect there will be about 40 people or so, generally folks we know who are interested in this issue and have the capacity to write significant checks and a couple of others with professional involvement in the topic.” Help for a portfolio Gore’s investments coincided with the government’s largest investment in clean tech. A full 10 percent, estimated at $80 billion to $90 billion, of the 2009 stimulus package was devoted to clean energy. Like thousands of other companies, those Gore invested in entered the competition for a piece of the pie. (An administration official said more than 80 percent of applicants the first year were turned away.) Several companies in Gore’s portfolio emerged as winners. Of the 11 companies he mentioned in his 2008 slide show, nine received or directly benefited from stimulus or clean energy funding. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee and is a leading critic of clean tech funding, said Gore’s portfolio “is reflective of a disturbing pattern that those closest to the president have been rewarded with billions of taxpayer dollars . . . and benefited from the administration’s green bonanza in the rush to spend stimulus cash.” Department of Energy officials have noted that many of the funds that went to companies Gore invested in were available to all eligible firms, and some had won funding from the Bush administration. “Decisions about the competitively awarded grants and loans were made on the merits by career civil servants after a careful review of the applications,” said Dan Leistikow, director of public affairs at the Department of Energy, which administered the awards. Gore appeared well-positioned. Generation Investment Management saw its earnings quadruple from 2008 to 2009, although there is no way to know how much can be tied to federal support. GIM reported earnings of $51 million in 2009 available to Gore and his nine partners. But some of the firms in Gore’s portfolio have struggled since winning federal funds. For others, the money was a major boon. Iberdrola Renovables, a wind subsidiary largely owned by the Spanish electricity giant Iberdrola, received $1.5 billion for 20 wind farms it built across the United States. The company benefited from a program that had been reshaped by the Obama transition team to award cash grants to defray construction costs for renewable energy plants. The grants, available to any eligible builder, replaced tax credits that had become worthless in the financial crisis. With early warning from the Obama team, Iberdrola and other developers could time construction and qualify for the cash for some plants largely built in 2008 — before Obama took office. GIM had invested modest amounts in Iberdrola Renovables in early 2008 but began dramatically increasing its holdings in early 2009, eventually owning 4.2 million shares. GIM officials declined to comment, citing their policy not to publicly discuss investment strategies. Iberdrola spokeswoman Jan Johnson credited the Obama program as a savior that came “just in time,” helping the company avoid halting construction that was underway in 2008. The company now has 40 renewable energy plants operating in the United States, and its parent is the world’s largest provider of wind energy. GIM also invested in Johnson Controls, a long-established Milwaukee company that in August 2009 won the largest award — $299 million — in a $2.4 billion program Obama had launched to help firms making electric car batteries. Gore’s investment firm had earlier invested modestly in the company, then ramped up its holdings in late 2008 and held 5.6 million shares by 2009. The grant to Johnson Controls was meant to help retrofit one plant and build another. But the company has dramatically scaled back, after executives concluded demand for electric cars was far lower than the administration forecast. The factory outfitted with stimulus funds is nearly idle, and plans to build a second plant have been postponed. Johnson Controls Vice President Alex Molinaroli stressed that the company has tapped just half of the funds it was awarded. He said the program helped build the foundation for a U.S. electric battery industry that could compete internationally when demand picks up. “We’ll have to wait a long time to see if this was a good investment or not,” Molinaroli told the Post in 2011. 137

The company’s decision to pull back, however, will not affect GIM’s portfolio. When the investment firm doubled its holdings, shares were as low as $9; GIM sold them from April to December 2009, with prices running from $21 to $26. Gore’s support for companies that also won federal funds is a natural alignment of interests, his friends and partners said. Gore chose to invest in firms with promising technologies, they said, and it makes sense that the administration would choose some of the same firms in hopes of backing successful companies. “Is he better than average” at picking the best companies, Kamarck asked. “Of course he is. Why is that a surprise? He’s spent his life studying this sector.” Alice Crites contributed to this article. Battle For Senate Control Rests In A Few States (USAT) USA Today, October 10, 2012 Surrounded by firefighters supporting her campaign, Elizabeth Warren stood on a street corner in South Boston and hit at Republican Sen. Scott Brown where it hurts. His pickup truck. "It's not about what truck you drive," the Democratic candidate said, reiterating a popular sound bite dismissing Brown's storied truck. The vehicle has featured prominently in Brown's two Senate campaigns as a symbol of his ability to relate to the state's working-class voters who helped elect him. "I'm in this race because I believe in working families," she said. Brown lobbed his own offensive at Warren a day earlier outside of Boston's South Station, casting her as a "hired gun" for corporate interests, following media reports about her previous legal work in the 1990s, when she assisted a steel company in a fight over making payments into a health care fund for retired coal miners. "That's an issue of honesty and character," Brown said, trying to undermine Warren's image as a consumer advocate. The brawling, personal nature of the Massachusetts race has intensified in the closing weeks of a campaign that could decide control of the Senate. Warren and Brown are competing intensely for working-class voters in very blue Massachusetts who helped Brown win a surprise 2010 special election to replace the late Democratic icon, Ted Kennedy. Now, Warren needs them back if she is to win next month. "Certainly we can relate more to Scott with the pickup truck and the jeans and the jacket and the beer at the Erie Pub, but this isn't about that," said Bob McCarthy, 67, a retired captain from Watertown Fire Department who supports Warren. "This isn't about who's going to be your best friend, this is about who's going to be supporting you down in D.C." Democrats, who control the chamber 53-47, initially faced tough odds for maintaining control because they are defending 23 of the 33 seats up for re-election. But a combination of competitive candidates, presidential politics and Republican missteps is giving the party a narrow edge in the closing weeks of the races. Brown has proven to be a resilient GOP candidate in a reliably Democratic state, but Warren has methodically eroded his double-digit advantage and is now tied or beating him in opinion polls. The race remains too close to be predictive, but state observers and national strategists put a thumb on the scale for Warren because of the difficulty Brown faces in having enough cross-ballot appeal to blunt President Obama's coattail effect. Obama carried the state by 26 points in 2008 and current polls give him a similar double-digit advantage against Mitt Romney. "I'm worried for him with it being tied or her slightly ahead going into October in a presidential year. The numbers are just really tough," said Rob Gray, a veteran Massachusetts GOP strategist who is not affiliated with the Brown campaign. In a signal of what's to come in the home stretch, Brown's campaign recently launched its first negative ad, highlighting a controversy over Warren describing herself as Native American on employment forms during her academic career at Harvard University. Warren responded in an ad of her own where she maintains her family has Native American ancestry. "As a kid, I never asked my mom for documentation when she talked about our Native American heritage," Warren says in the ad, "Let me be clear. I never asked for or never got any benefit because of my heritage." The Obama effect Like Warren in Massachusetts, Democrats in Virginia and Wisconsin are narrowly breaking away from Republicans in recent polls, aided by a positive Obama effect in the three states. In Virginia, former governor Tim Kaine has led former GOP senator George Allen in every poll taken since mid-September by one to eight points. Virginia is a presidential battleground where Obama had been leading Romney until the first presidential debate. Romney has since tightened the race, but Kaine has maintained his advantage. While Republicans had hoped the addition of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan to the GOP ticket would make his home state more competitive, Obama maintains an advantage there, where Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin has taken the lead over former governor Tommy Thompson, who was bruised in a combative GOP primary.

138

Republicans, who are trying to hold onto their seat in Massachusetts, see Virginia and Wisconsin as pickup opportunities because both seats are held by Democrats. If all three are in Democratic hands in November, the chances wither for a Republican takeover. Democrats have also been able to make surprisingly competitive bids in North Dakota and Indiana. In North Dakota, former state attorney general Heidi Heitkamp is within single digits of GOP Rep. Rick Berg in a state that has been largely inoculated by the economic downturn and unemployment is just 3%. "Really no one gave us a chance in North Dakota until Heidi got in that race," said Guy Cecil, the executive director of the Senate Democrats' campaign operation. "It seems to be really resistant to what's happening in the presidential election." Polls show Obama far behind in North Dakota. Indiana looks like a red state this year, but Democrats are hoping conservative Richard Mourdock, who ousted six-term Sen. Richard Lugar in Indiana's GOP primary in May, will prove too far right for the state. Missteps by Mourdock and an aggressive ad strategy by Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly has upgraded this race by non-partisan election forecasters, including the Cook Political Report, to a tossup. Republicans also appear to be walking away from New Mexico — the party recently pulled reserved ad time from the airwaves — where they had high hopes for former GOP representative Heather Wilson. She has failed to close the gap against Rep. Martin Heinrich in a state that's also leaning toward Obama. Similarly, Republicans eyed an upset in Obama's native Hawaii where former GOP governor Linda Lingle has run a strong campaign but may not have enough cross-ballot appeal to win in a state where Obama has a very strong edge. Efforts to pick up Democratic seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida likewise seem to be falling short, as Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Bill Nelson of Florida are now favored for re-election in polls and by election forecasters. Democrats can lose no more than three seats and hold the majority if Obama wins re-election and the vice president is the tie-breaker in a 50-50 Senate. Larry Sabato, a veteran political analyst at the University of Virginia, estimates a 49-45 Democratic edge, with six races in real contention: Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota and Wisconsin. That means Republicans will have to run the table in all six to win outright, or win five and hope that Romney is elected so his vice president can break a tie. GOP silver linings Republicans are not abandoning hopes of a takeover. "No one on our side ever thought that winning back the majority would be easy and certainly there have been unexpected developments for both parties this cycle, but with four weeks to go Republicans are well positioned in a range of key races across the country. We believe Republicans will make gains and certainly a path to the majority still exists," said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. A shifting national landscape has put at least one previously unexpected pickup of a Democratic seat within striking distance. Connecticut Republican Linda McMahon, best known as the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, has run an aggressive, well-funded bid against Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy, who has failed to recover yet from a steady stream of attacks over two past lawsuits against him for nonpayment of rent on an apartment in 2003 and a home foreclosure in 2007. The matters were settled quickly when Murphy paid his debts, but the political fallout has lingered. McMahon, who lost in 2010 to Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, has also done a better job selling her personal story about rising out of bankruptcy to become a successful businesswoman and highlighting her more moderate views in a Democratic state — she supports abortion rights, for instance. "McMahon has run a great race," said Jennifer Duffy, a non-partisan analyst with the Cook Political Report. Duffy said McMahon has excelled at recasting herself to voters, while painting a negative portrait of Murphy. "People thought she was just a rich lady who invented wrestling." The tightening opportunities for the GOP has forced Republicans to take a second look at the unusual Maine Senate race, where former governor Angus King, running as an independent, has taken a hit in the polls despite being the early favorite. Congressional Republican leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., expect him to caucus with Democrats if he wins. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, after initially walking away from the state, has gone in with weeks of statewide negative ads. Its strategy is to drive down King in hopes of driving his supporters to little-known Democrat Cynthia Dill. If Dill can peel away enough of the vote, it could give Republican Charles Summers a narrow victory in a three-way race. "This is a small needle, and they know it, but I can't blame them for trying," Duffy said. Republicans are also holding their own in two of the tightest races: Montana and Nevada. Polling averages compiled by the political Web site RealClearPolitics give incumbent GOP Sen. Dean Heller a 1.6-point lead over Democratic Rep. Shelley 139

Berkley, who has been hurt by an ongoing ethics probe into allegations she used her office to boost her husband's medical practice. Berkley, however, has two powerful allies in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who does not want to see a Democrat lose in his back yard, and Obama, who is leading Romney. Montana is a state where Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg is hoping the Romney coattail effect will give him the boost he needs to oust Democratic Sen. Jon Tester. The race's importance has grown as Republican hopes have faded elsewhere. Republicans are also hopeful that an uphill battle by wealthy businessman Tom Smith to oust Casey in Pennsylvania will offer a late-breaking opportunity, but analysts are skeptical. "Casey is awake now and focused, so I suspect he stems Smith's momentum," Duffy said. The biggest blow to Republicans came when the Missouri Senate campaign of Republican Rep. Todd Akin nose-dived in August after he made controversial comments about "legitimate rape." Party leaders and outside groups withdrew from the race and called on Akin to quit. Akin's determination to stay in may prompt the GOP to get back in to the race in the closing weeks if Akin can keep the race competitive. National Republican Senatorial Committee executive director Rob Jesmer released a carefully worded statement in late September that suggested the party could re-engage. "As with every Republican Senate candidate, we hope Todd Akin wins in November and we will continue to monitor this race closely in the days ahead," he said. Supporting Akin also carries with it risks of making it an issue in other competitive races. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who runs the Senate Democrats' campaign operation, made clear that if party leaders throw Akin a lifeline, Democrats will seek to make it an issue in every remaining competitive race. "All Republican candidates across the country are now going to have to answer for their party's support of Akin," she said. Back in Boston Each race has its own unique contours, and in Massachusetts the pitch to working-class voters is at its core. Brown won his election upset by making overtures to working-class voters and stressing his common background. Warren has become a celebrated liberal activist for her work to advance consumers' rights and her harsh takedown of Wall Street since the financial collapse. Warren, 63, has never held political office but the Oklahoma-born candidate has ties to the state through nearly 20 years teaching at Harvard University. Her involvement in national politics escalated during the financial crisis when she was tapped by Congress to serve on an oversight panel to monitor bank bailouts. She was also a pivotal advocate for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010, but her nomination to run the new agency was opposed by financial institutions and blocked by Senate Republicans who found her too partisan. Her aggressive language against Wall Street was captured in prime time at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte when she declared: "People feel like the system is rigged against them. And here's the painful part: they're right. The system is rigged." National Democrats have touted Warren as one of the party's top recruits. Murray told reporters recently that Warren is a key reason Democrats have a reasonable chance at holding the Senate. "The reason we are where we are today is because of people like Elizabeth Warren," she said, adding that candidates like her "helped put us in a good place." Brown has a high profile for a freshman senator because of his historic 2010 upset in the race for Kennedy's seat. His likeability and centrist voting record have made Brown a tough Republican to beat in a heavily Democratic state. Brown is the third most liberal Republican senator, according to annual vote ratings compiled by National Journal, which place him square in the center of the U.S. Senate. Brown has also highlighted Warren's Ivy League pedigree. In their debates, he almost exclusively refers to her as "Professor Warren." Asked at their most recent debate if she believes he was trying to cast her as an elitist, Warren dismissed it. "I worked very hard for this and it does not bother me," she said. Poor and blue-collar workers make up just over a quarter of the state. Romney at the top of the ticket has punctuated the divide, as Democrats repeatedly try to tie Brown to the former wealthy governor, who is unpopular. For many voters, it's working. "Scott Brown, he's like Mitt Romney localized on steroids," said Joseph Flynn, 27, a Charlestown native who works two jobs in construction and security and said his family has had a hard time making ends meet. He and his wife were forced out of their apartment when he was injured and temporarily couldn't work his construction job. They are currently living with family. "I'd like to see more hard-working people like me get ahead," he said. "Things are hard for people like ourselves." His wife, Tammy, is currently unemployed and said her vote for Warren will be only the second time she's voted in her lifetime. She's 37. "She's for the people, I believe in her," she said. Brown, Warren Get Down To Issues (NORAND) By John Toole 140

North Andover (MA) Eagle Tribune, October 11, 2012 SPRINGFIELD — Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown and his Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren fought yesterday over who would be better at creating jobs, cutting taxes, holding down the federal deficit and protecting Medicare during their third debate in Massachusetts’ closely-watched Senate race. The meeting at Springfield’s Symphony Hall stuck mainly to the issues and steered clear of much of the personal sniping between the candidates that has marked the campaign to date. A recurring theme in the debate was Warren’s assertion that Brown was protecting millionaires at the expense of average Americans, countered by Brown’s insistence that any increase in taxes would hurt the economy. Warren supports allowing Bush-era tax cuts to expire on Dec. 31 for the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers, as part of what she called a balanced approach to erasing the federal deficit. Brown believes the cuts should be continued for all taxpayers and that tougher spending controls are needed. Warren began the debate by faulting Brown for voting against a series of Democratic-sponsored jobs bills, while also noting Brown has vowed to repeal the 2010 federal Affordable Care Act if re-elected. Brown cited higher taxes as the reason he opposed the jobs bills and said that while he supported Massachusetts’ landmark health care bill, he opposes the federal version because it also included tax increases. Brown referred to what he called “Obamacare” as a “jobs crushing bill” and warned seniors that it would cut Medicare spending by nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars. Warren said the law would not cut benefits by “one penny.” Warren also criticized Brown for opposing the so-called Buffett rule, which would require those earning $1 million a year or more to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. “Senator Brown voted with the billionaires, not with the secretaries,” said Warren, who also criticized Brown for signing conservative anti-tax activist Grover Norquist’s no-new-tax pledge. Brown said there needs to be a “top-to-bottom review” of the federal tax code rather than a reliance on additional tax increases. “I’m not going to be raising taxes on anyone in Massachusetts or anyone in the United States,” Brown said, who also warned that taking away oil subsidies could push up the cost of gas at the pump. On women’s issues, Warren said she would be the stronger of the two. Warren faulted Brown for supporting an amendment, which was defeated, that would have let employers or health insurers deny coverage for services they say violate their moral or religious beliefs, including birth control. She also criticized Brown for voting “against a pro-choice woman from Massachusetts to the U.S. Supreme Court” — a reference to Elena Kagan. “I want to go to Washington to be there for all of our daughters and all of granddaughters,” Warren said. Brown said he supported the amendment because “I am not going to be pitting Catholics against their faith,” and opposed Kagan because of her lack of judicial experience. Brown also described himself as “pro-choice” and said he and Warren “both support Roe v. Wade.” The candidates agreed on some foreign policy goals. Both said Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime has to go given the thousands of individuals killed since the uprising began. “The citizens there are being slaughtered,” Brown said. Both also agreed Iran has to be prevented from developing nuclear weapons. “It’s destabilizing to the world,” Warren said. Brown at one point turned around one of Warren’s pet phrases, her assertion that the middle class was getting “hammered.” “Professor Warren, I suggest you put down the hammer,” Brown said. “It’s your regulations and your policies ... that are going to be hurting middle class families and all classes of families in the United States.” But the Republican also had some praise for Warren, commending her for helping create a consumer federal protection agency in Washington. But when Brown then took credit for casting a decisive vote in favor of a financial reform bill, Warren quickly attacked him for supporting measures that would weaken the law and for accepting campaign donations from Wall Street interests. The two also sparred on higher education. Brown noted Warren’s nearly $350,000 annual salary as a Harvard Law School professor, which he said adds to the cost of education. Warren replied that she went to public colleges — the University of Houston and Rutgers University — adding that the country needs to reinvest in higher education to help other students get ahead. One notable topic that failed to surface was the controversy surrounding Warren’s claims of Native American heritage that led off the first two debates. 141

Brown said after the debate he didn’t raise the issue because, unlike the first two debates, he wasn’t asked about it. Wednesday’s debate was their first and only one held in western Massachusetts and was carried live by local television and radio stations. The candidates appealed to voters in the region with frequent references to local communities, businesses and military bases. Gloves Stay On In Debate (BOSH) By Hillary Chabot Boston Herald, October 11, 2012 SPRINGFIELD — U.S. Sen. Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren have only one more chance to score knockout debate blows in their neck-and-neck race after they both largely kept the kid gloves on in last night’s genteel Western Massachusetts faceoff. The controversy over Warren’s Cherokee heritage claims, which has come up in prior debates, was completely absent from the showdown — so instead Brown used one of Warren’s well-known lines against her on middle-class issues. “When you talk about getting hammered, Professor Warren, I suggest you put down the hammer, because it’s your policies that are going to be hurting middle-class families,” Brown said. “It is about whose side you’re on, it is about fighting for the middle class, and I want to continue to do that.” With a tight showing in the polls and only a small number of undecided voters to sway, neither candidate made news or shook up the race despite sparring for an hour over women’s issues, job growth and who would fight harder for the middle class. The next debate, Oct. 30, comes roughly a week before the election. Warren, who seemed more comfortable with the largely supportive audience, went on offense early, pushing to tie Brown to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, tax-foe Grover Norquist and even former U.S. Speaker Newt Gingrich. “Senator Brown says that he will cut health care,” said Warren, adding that Brown referenced the same study that Romney did during his debate against President Obama last week. “Same page out of Gov. Romney’s playbook from a week ago tonight, it was wrong then and it’s wrong now.” She also gained solid footing on women’s issues, hitting Brown for his votes against electing Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Paycheck Fairness Act. “He has a lot of excuses for standing on the other side, but when it came down to it in critical votes he was not there for women,” Warren said. “Massachusetts women deserve a senator they can count on all of the time.” Brown was booed when he tweaked Warren about creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, saying his vote in support of the Frank-Dodd bill also helped start the bureau. “I commend you for that and I’m glad I could help put it into place,” Brown said. He kept his focus on his efforts to protect military funding and keep taxes low. “If there is anybody listening who thinks my opponent is a tax-cutter, let me get rid of that myth,” Brown said. Lines Of Attack Clarify In Latest Scott Brown-Elizabeth Warren Debate (BOSGLOBE) By Glen Johnson Boston Globe, October 11, 2012 Senator Scott Brown and his Democratic challenger, Elizabeth Warren, had some of their most spirited debate exchanges yet on Wednesday night, but beyond the sound and fury, two simple, substantive lines of attack emerged. Brown, the Republican incumbent, cast himself as the guardian of lunch-bucket and other middle-class voters, as he accused Warren of viewing tax increases as a panacea for all the country’s ills. “The one thing we can’t be doing right now, in the middle of this 3 1/2-year recession, is by taking more money out of people’s hard-working pocketbooks and wallets and giving it to the federal government,” the senator said. “They’re like pigs in a trough up there. They just take and take and take and take.” For Warren, a Harvard Law School professor, her goal was to highlight votes she said broke faith not just with middle-class voters, but women in particular. In perhaps her most polished answer of any of the tandem’s three debates so far, Warren aimed to accomplish both tasks at once. “He has gone to Washington and he has had some good votes,” the Democrat opened, “but he has had exactly one chance to vote for equal pay for equal work. And he voted no. He had exactly one chance to vote for insurance coverage for birth control and other preventive services for women. He voted no. And he had exactly one chance to vote for a pro-choice woman,

142

from Massachusetts, to the United States Supreme Court. And he voted no. Those are bad votes for women. The women of Massachusetts need a senator they can count on, not some of the time, but all of the time.” The debate comes at a pivotal moment in the race. The first showdown between the candidates, on Sept. 20, was largely a draw. Each made cases sure to appeal to their respective bases. Their second meeting, on Oct. 1, tilted toward Brown’s favor, with him aggressively attacking Warren. Since then, polls have shown a tightening in the race. Brown was 4 points ahead of Warren in a WBUR-MassINC survey with a 4.4 percentage point margin of error, a statistical dead heat. Warren, meanwhile, held a five-point edge over Brown - just outside that survey’s margin of error - in another poll by the Western New England University Polling Institute and Springfield Republican newspaper. In their only meeting in a part of the state that often feels ignored by statewide candidates, Brown took a local tack in reaching out to voters. He made his first comment of the night a thank-you to former Springfield Mayor Charles Ryan, who has endorsed him. The senator brought that up again in his closing statement. In between, he talked about eating lunch at nearby Milano’s restaurant and complained that Warren’s call for defense cuts would harm two local institutions: Westover Air Reserve Base in Chicopee and Barnes Air National Guard Base in Westfield. “You know, the ‘millionaires’ and ‘billionaires’ and all the ‘Buffett Rule’ are great sound bites, but when you’re talking about our military personnel, you have to get serious, and I’ve been doing that for 2 1/2 years, working to protect the Westover, Hanscom, and all of our military bases,” the senator said. “As ranking member of Armed Services, I’ve visited there, I’ve spoken with the leadership. I know what the missions are, and it would be devastating to lose those services in Massachusetts.” Brown is the ranking member, or top Republican, on a Senate Armed Services subcommittee . While Brown localized his argument, Warren sought to nationalize the race, underscoring that the partisan balance in the US Senate could hinge on the outcome of their race. She repeatedly tried to link Brown to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, with whom the senator shares political advisers but rarely mentions on the stump. “You know, he raises the same old argument that there will be more than $700 billion taken out of Medicare. That’s the same playbook that Mitt Romney used a week ago tonight,” Warren said at one point. “It was wrong then, it’s wrong tonight.” At another, Warren said: “I just want to say, I’m really glad to support President Obama as commander in chief and I don’t want to see Mitt Romney in that job.” When it came time to defend herself against Brown’s principal attack, Warren tried to undercut any portrayal of her as a tax- and-spend liberal. “What I believe is that everybody pays a fair share. And that means the millionaires, that means the billionaires, that means the big oil companies. And then we make those investments in the future,” she said. “Senator Brown doesn’t want to talk about his voting record, he just wants to launch attacks.” Brown’s rebuttal to Warren’s attacks on his voting record was two-fold: He accused her of misrepresenting the true nature of the votes she cited, and he highlighted media rankings labeling him one of the least partisan members of the Senate. “We can’t be pinning people against each other, it needs to be done in a truly bipartisan manner,” he said in talking about overhauling the federal tax code. “And as somebody who’s the second most bipartisan senator in the US Senate, I’ve done and I continue to do, and I’m proud to be that way.” The candidates have one final debate on Oct. 30 in Boston. Brown More Subdued In Third Mass. Senate Debate (HILL) By Sterling C. Beard The Hill, October 11, 2012 Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and professor Elizabeth Warren (D) squared off in front of a divided and lively crowd Wednesday for the third of four debates in the nationally watched race for one of Massachusetts’ two U.S. Senate seats. As Brown and Warren sparred over taxes and infrastructure spending, women’s rights, and cuts to the military, a lively crowd at Symphony Hall in Springfield, Mass., repeatedly interrupted the sparring candidates with boos and cheers. Moderator Jim Madigan of WGBY-TV was forced to remind the audience that the interruptions only served to shorten the candidates’ time to answer, but his requests failed to silence the boisterous audience. Notably, Brown was less aggressive than he had been in the previous two debates and did not bring up the subject of Warren’s heritage, a sign that perhaps Brown had received some pushback on his previously tough attacks on Warren’s

143

character. Though he did not soften his attacks on Warren’s legal clients, Brown sought to stress his bipartisanship, and blunt Warren’s attacks on his Senate voting record. Warren won the coin toss and fielded the first question on unemployment. She used the opportunity to hit Brown on his voting record, specifically arguing that he had voted against jobs bills in Washington in order to protect millionaires and billionaires. In the long term, Warren said, it was important for Massachusetts to make investments in education and research. Brown countered that the bills he voted against were jobs bills “in name only,” and were rejected in a bipartisan manner. His voted, he said, to keep Washington from taking money out of the economy and spending it. The second question, on healthcare, saw Brown tout his work in the state Senate on the state’s healthcare system and criticize Warren’s support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which he said institutes 18 new taxes and cuts three-quarters of a trillion dollars from Medicare. Warren accused Brown of taking a page from former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney’s debate playbook, arguing instead that the ACA helped strengthen Medicare by removing waste, fraud, and insurance subsidies. Brown’s argument was “wrong then, it’s wrong tonight,” Warren said to applause. Brown countered that the federal government would be dumbing down what the state had already done, calling the ACA a “jobs crushing bill.” When asked what they would do to address the cost of college debt, Warren said that the state needed a well-educated workforce. Though there isn’t a magic bullet, she said, it was about priorities, and accused Brown of twice voting to let student loan interest rates double. Brown parried by pointing out that he recently had a daughter graduate from college, and drew applause when he brought up that Warren was paid about $350,000 to teach a single course at Harvard, in addition to a zero- interest loan, housing and other perks. The fourth question asked the candidates how they’d help local schools. Brown went first, saying that he had never voted for an unfunded mandate from the federal government. Warren sought a contrast by arguing that local schools needed a “good federal partner” in Washington. When discussing the economy, Brown took the opportunity to undercut Warren’s status as a fighter for the middle class. He referred to Warren’s work as a lawyer defending corporate clients, then shifted gears to portray himself as a defender of middle- class pocketbooks. “The one thing we can’t be doing right now,” Brown said, “in the middle of this three-and-a-half year recession is by taking more money out of peoples’ hard-working pocketbooks and wallets and giving it to the federal government. They’re like pigs in a trough up there, they will just take and take and take and take.” Brown’s remark drew immediate applause, causing Madigan to comment that he was “losing control.” Warren countered that she believed in everyone paying their fair share. “That means the millionaires, that means the billionaires, that means the big oil companies,” she said, drawing applause of her own. The two candidates also traded blows on women’s rights. Brown explained that he had always been supportive of women’s rights. Warren commented that Brown had “some good votes,” but slammed him on voting against a slew of other bills. She would be there not just some of the time for Massachusetts’s women, she said, but all of the time. In the evening’s penultimate question, the candidates found some common ground on Iran and assistance to Syria. Their disagreements on defense came in regards to the budget, with Warren saying cuts in the military were necessary to avoid across-the-board cuts. Brown argued that cuts to the military would result in reductions to military bases in Massachusetts. Brown, Warren Spar On Substance In 3rd Debate (POLITCO) By David Catanese Politico, October 11, 2012 Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren drew bright contrasts on taxes, spending and regulations Wednesday night during a high-paced Massachusetts Senate debate that focused mostly on fiscal issues. Brown repeatedly called Warren a typical tax-and-spend liberal whose first impulse is to turn to the government trough to solve the country’s economic hardships. Warren countered by charging Brown as walking in lockstep with GOP orthodoxy by keeping tax cuts for millionaires to the detriment of the middle class. The hour-long debate in Springfield, Mass. was the least personally biting and most substantive of their three faceoffs so far. Neither candidate scored an unequivocal victory, and the contours of the race are likely to remain unchanged as a result. Warren hammered Brown for opposing three jobs bills and took aim at his promise to try to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law. She repeatedly mentioned Mitt Romney, who is expected to lose the Bay State to the president by double-digits. 144

“He raises the same old argument that there will be $700 billion taken out of Medicare. That’s the same playbook Mitt Romney used a week ago tonight. It was wrong then, it’s wrong tonight,” Warren said to applause. Brown said “Obamacare” would be one of the first laws he’d work to repeal to slash the deficit. He retorted that Warren offers the same boilerplate solution to a litany of problems. “Her constant criticism of me is that I don’t want to raise taxes on any Americans, on any people from Massachusetts,” the freshman incumbent said. Warren twice reminded viewers that the race could decide control of the Senate, an argument that’s become a regular part of her playbook against Brown. While polls show the Senate race is a single-digit contest, a majority of Bay State voters prefer that Democrats keep the upper chamber. “I want to make clear that if Republicans take over control of the United States Senate, they’ve made it pretty clear that in order to pay for tax cuts for the richest Americans, they’re going to need cuts elsewhere,” Warren charged, going on to outline potential reductions in infrastructure, education and research spending. Asked to name two programs they would seek to cut, Warren cited agricultural subsidies and the military, but pledged she would not touch Medicare or Social Security. “I also believe we have to raise revenues,” she conceded, a soundbite that could be seized on by the Brown campaign to slam Warren as a tax hiker. Brown said he would save $2 trillion by repealing “Obamacare” and gain savings by selling off unused federal property and instituting a top-to-bottom review of every federal program. “If there’s anyone who is listening who thinks my opponent is a tax cutter, let me get rid of that myth,” Brown said. He also pounced on her proposed cuts to the Defense Department, touting his advocacy on behalf of veterans as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Throughout a debate that touched on financial regulatory, education and tax policy, Warren attempted to find ways to tether Brown to unpopular GOP figures. She blasted Brown for votes that allowed student interest rates to double because he couldn’t stomach closing the “Newt Gingrich loophole” used by millionaires. She also skewered him for taking the Grover Norquist anti-tax pledge. “Republicans have a vision: Cut taxes on the top and let the chips fall where they may for everybody else,” she charged. “I think we can do better.” Brown — who refrained from attacking Warren’s Native American heritage and past legal work, as he has recently — still couldn’t resist a jab at her most recent employment. He noted that she pulls a $350,000 salary at Harvard University to teach one course and receives housing and other perks, while lamenting the cost of higher education. “It is about whose side you’re on. When you talk about getting ‘hammered’ professor,” Brown said in a later exchange, “I suggest you put down the hammer.” Their final debate is scheduled for Oct. 30 in Boston. Mr. Nice Guy Back, But Debate’s A Draw (BOSH) By Margery Eagan Boston Herald, October 11, 2012 Scott Brown recovered his nice guy, regular guy mojo. There was little dissing of Elizabeth Warren last night. He called her “professor” only a half-dozen times compared to 21 times in the first debate, and uttered just one “there she goes again.” For the first time, Elizabeth Warren wasn’t asked to explain her Cherokee heritage, perhaps because last night’s event was hosted by a more gentle Jim Madigan from Springfield’s WGBY public television station, with questions submitted by the public. But she managed, again, to work in at least 10 “millionaires” and “billionaires.” And for a woman who’s struggled in polls with likability, Warren seemed very likable last night — and comfortable, believable, quick and better than Barack Obama at attacking Mitt Romney’s record, which she called “wrong then and wrong now.” Twice. Who won? To me it was one more draw. Scott Brown hammered home over and over that he would not raise anybody’s taxes. They’re “like pigs in a trough up there (in Washington), they’ll just take and take and take.” Answering a question about the high cost of college he again went after Warren’s “$350,000 to teach one course and her zero-interest loan from Harvard.”

145

He did his best one-of-the-guys routine, twice mentioning Bob Cousy, the ex-Boston Celtics [team stats] great who just made an ad for him and was in the audience last night. And he out-Springfield-ed her, mentioning his lunch at Milano’s Pizzeria as well as The Big E, Friendly’s, Mass Mutual, and Westover Air Reserve base. Warren, however, stumbled over “The Knowledge Corridor,” the area between Springfield and Hartford that’s dense with colleges. “Takes me a second but I’ll get there,” she said. But she went after him on oil subsidies and Republicans cutting taxes “for those at the top.” “Instead of working for people of Massachusetts, he’s taken a pledge to work for Grover Norquist,” the GOP’s favorite anti- tax czar. And she became particularly passionate when she talked about women’s rights. “This is about how the senator votes,” she said. “We should not be fighting about equal pay for equal work and access to birth control in 2012.” My big complaint about all these debates so far: Moderators don’t step in to straighten out facts. Warren and Brown went back and forth and back and forth about who’s undermining Medicare more, the GOP or Democrats. Warren was right, but the listening public may have had no idea, and that serves nobody well. Warren Tries To Have It Both Ways (BOSGLOBE) By Jeff Jacoby Boston Globe, October 11, 2012 About 20 minutes into Wednesday’s debate between Senator Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren, moderator Jim Madigan asked the candidates for examples of federal spending they would cut if they win next month’s election. Warren was ready with two ultra-safe answers: She would vote to slash agricultural subsidies and the defense budget. For a liberal Democrat running for office in deep-blue Massachusetts, where amber waves of grain are about as common as crowded military recruiters’ offices, those are easy cuts to endorse. Yet within half an hour, Warren’s line had shifted. Perhaps it was hearing Brown’s repeated references to his connections to the Barnes Air National Guard base in Westfield and the Westover Air Reserve Base in Chicopee, or perhaps it had dawned on her that even in Massachusetts some voters serve in uniform, but suddenly defense cuts weren’t such a terrific idea. Asked about support for a national base-closing commission, Warren not only declared her opposition to across-the-board reductions in defense spending, but swore to protect Massachusetts military installations from the loss of a dime. “You said before that you’re for defense cuts,” Brown retorted. “You can’t have it both ways.” Ah, but of course she could. Would Warren support repealing the mortgage-interest tax deduction, the moderator asked? Absolutely not, she replied. Yet, on other occasions, Warren has given quite a different answer. Instead of an unequivocal “No,” she has insisted that no deductions should be off the table — none, not even the deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving, should be labeled sacrosanct. Continue reading below It was a sharp, focused, fast-moving encounter. Warren and Brown blazed away, and when it was over, the stage was littered with mangled facts, outrageous accusations, and barbed talking points. The dynamics of the Senate race didn’t change. Neither did the odds that whoever wins on Nov. 6 will raise the tone of debate in Washington. Try BostonGlobe.com today and get two weeks FREE. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @Jeff_Jacoby. Montana’s Tester Says He’s Not Obama’s ‘twin’ In Tight Senate Race (WT) By Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times Washington Times, October 11, 2012 President Obama hasn't visited Montana in years, but he's casting a long shadow over Democratic Sen. Jon Tester's re- election chances. In a race marked by jostling over which candidate is the most politically independent, the freshman Democrat has been slammed by accusations that he's too willing to dance to Mr. Obama's tune. His opponent, Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg, has all but printed up T-shirts stating that Mr. Tester votes with the president 95 percent of the time. "One of the big themes of this race is, Who's the real Montanan? Who's more independent? Who's willing to buck his party?" said Robert Saldin, a political scientist at the University of Montana. "That's what this is all about: Is Jon Tester a real Montanan, or is he doing the White House's bidding?"

146

Being linked to the president might not be a big drawback in some states, but it could be the kiss of death in Montana. Voters in Montana didn't show much love for Mr. Obama in 2008, and they like him even less now: A Real Clear Politics average of the latest poll numbers shows Republican nominee Mitt Romney leading the race by 10.3 percentage points in the state. The two-peas-in-a-pod strategy was the inspiration for what may be the most memorable campaign ad of 2012. Called "Twins," it features middle-age Montana natives and twins Linda and Marsha Frey citing the similarities between Mr. Tester and Mr. Obama. "Jon Tester and Barack Obama: They may not be twins, but they might as well be," chime the identically dressed sisters, teacups in hand. Even so, the Senate race remains a tossup, with Mr. Rehberg leading by a hair in most polls. Fortunately for Mr. Tester, Montanans aren't sticklers for party loyalty: The state boasts a Democratic governor and senior senator in Brian Schweitzer and Max Baucus, but in 2010 elected an overwhelmingly Republican state legislature. "That suggests that Montanans are able to make distinctions. They're not going to vote the party line up and down the ticket," said David Parker, who's writing a book on the Senate race tentatively entitled "Battle for the Big Sky." "On the one hand, we look like a red state in some respects, but on the other hand, there's more to the story." Geographic divide Montana's political history includes a pro-labor populist streak and a divide between the eastern part of the state, with its reliance on the oil and gas industries, and the western part, with its emphasis on conservation and tourism. The combination of a tight Senate race, a small population and inexpensive media markets has made Montana a magnet for outside political advertising. Groups unaffiliated with the campaigns have spent about $12 million on ads, or more than the two candidates combined, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. Anti-Rehberg ads posted by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee say the congressman "is out for himself, not us," while spots by the Karl Rove-run conservative Crossroads GPS assert that after six years, "Jon Tester's gone Washington." Deciding which candidate is the most authentic Montanan could require a DNA test, given the candidates' deep roots in the state. The 56-year-old Mr. Tester is a farmer and third-generation Montanan, while Mr. Rehberg, 57, is a rancher who can trace his family's state ties back five generations. Mr. Tester has responded to the charge that he's too pro-Obama by emphasizing his own independent streak. In Monday's debate at Montana State University at Billings, he stressed his work in favor of delisting the Canadian gray wolf as a protected endangered species and support for the Keystone XL pipeline, both of which put him at odds with large segments of his party. "The point is, Congressman, you're running against me," said Mr. Tester told Mr. Rehberg at one point. "He can try to morph me into Barack Obama because that's who he wants to run against, but look at the record." Countered Mr. Rehberg, "I don't need to morph you into Barack Obama. You did it to yourself." Mr. Tester, who defeated GOP Sen. Conrad Burns by 3,562 votes in 2006, has gone on the attack by pointing to his 2012 opponent's personal fortune. In addition to his ranch, Mr. Rehberg owns a real-estate development business and was listed by the CRP as the 25th richest member of Congress. "It's not the multimillionaires like yourself that create the jobs. It's the working families out there that create the manufacturing," said Mr. Tester at the debate. "The fact is the folks that are making millions and millions and millions of dollars ought to be contributing to the coffers." Courting farmers Both candidates are fighting for the all-important agriculture vote. Mr. Tester has blamed House Republicans like Mr. Rehberg for failing to pass an extension of the economically vital federal farm bill, while the congressman has highlighted his support for eliminating the inheritance tax, a critical issue for farmers. "Tester's saying, 'Rehberg's a millionaire, he doesn't get you,' and Rehberg's saying, 'Tester may look like a farmer, but he's not voting the way you would,'" said Mr. Parker, an associate professor at Montana State University at Bozeman. Oddly enough, Mr. Tester's status as the incumbent is almost a non-factor. This is only his second bid for statewide office, while Mr. Rehberg, the former lieutenant governor and a six-term congressman in a state with one district, has run statewide nine times. "They're both equally well known," said Mr. Parker. "Probably most Montanans have met them at least once." Election 2012: Nevada Senate - Rasmussen Reports™ (RASMUSSEN) Rasmussen Reports, October 11, 2012 Incumbent Republican Dean Heller still holds a small lead over his Democratic challenger, Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, in Nevada’s hotly contested U.S. Senate race. 147

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Nevada Voters shows Heller earning 48% support to Berkley’s 45%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) This Nevada survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted on October 8, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Fieldwork for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. Rasmussen subscribers can log in to read the rest of this article. OR Become a member and get full access to all articles and polls starting at $3.95/month. Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information. We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter, the Rasmussen Report on radio and other media outlets. Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on Election 2012, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. To learn more about our methodology, click here. Senate 5: A Sleeper In Pennsylvania? (POLITCO) By Scott Wong And David Catanese Politico, October 11, 2012 POLITICO’s daily afternoon scorecard of the five biggest developments in the battle for the Senate. Claire McCaskill unleashes Todd Akin’s worst nightmare, it’s debate night in Massachusetts and a judge could spring an October surprise on Denny Rehberg. Wednesday’s Senate 5: 1. RAPE SURVIVORS CONDEMN AKIN — Republican Rep. Todd Akin learned today how difficult it will be to change the narrative in a race defined by his own fateful remarks. Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill went up with three devastating TV ads featuring female rape survivors condemning Akin’s opposition to emergency contraception for victims of sexual abuse. The ads show rape survivors looking directly into the camera as they recount their attacks and shame Akin. One of the women notes she is a Republican, another describes herself as a “pro-life mother and a survivor of an extremely violent sexual assault.” “As a woman of faith, I must forgive Todd Akin,” a woman named Joanie says in one ad, “but as a voter it’s not something I can forget.” Akin adviser Rick Tyler said it was no coincidence McCaskill’s campaign released the ads the day after it was disclosed her husband’s businesses have received $40 million in federal subsidies that she voted for. But after these powerful, emotional testimonials, it will be hard for women — even conservative ones — to stand with Akin. 2. THE PENNSYLVANIA SLEEPER — A Susquehanna Polling & Research survey out Wednesday shows self-funding Republican Tom Smith trailing Sen. Bob Casey by just 2 percentage points. Democrats squabbled about the sampling: “It shouldn’t be surprising that a GOP poll is the outlier,” responded Casey spokesman Larry Smar. But it’s clear that Casey’s comfortable double-digit margin in the Keystone State has shrunk over the past month in the wake of Smith’s TV blitz, which allowed him to pound the airwaves in Philadelphia for weeks largely unanswered. His latest salvo dubs Casey “the invisible senator.” The in-state press corps is beginning to notice. Yesterday, the Allentown Morning Call blared on its front page: “Suddenly, Casey vs. Smith A Battle.” This is a second-tier contest that likely ends up in the blue column due to top of the ticket forces, but will the tightening scoreboard force the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to blink? 3. THE MASSACHUSETTS MAIL WAR — As Sen. Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren ready to take the stage in Springfield, Mass., for their third of four televised debates tonight at 7 p.m. EDT, a covert battle is taking place not on television — but in mailboxes. While their Super PAC agreement bars outside groups from throwing rhetorical bombs during your favorite evening sitcom, it doesn’t prohibit putting those same lines of attack on paper with postage. The League of Conservation voters announced Wednesday it would devote an additional $200,000 to a mail program highlighting Brown’s ties to oil companies. The Associated Press reports Brown is also receiving an assist in the ground war, with the creation of a new PAC that will devote hundreds of thousands of dollars on “social media, website videos and mailers.” 148

The Payoff Of Maryland’s Dream Act (WP) Washington Post, October 11, 2012 IT’S NOT EXACTLY surprising news that the public benefits of providing a college education for thousands of ambitious students, even after factoring in state and local subsidies for tuition, net out to many millions of dollars annually. Nonetheless, a solid new study confirms that proposition, and the timing is useful. It comes just weeks before Maryland voters will determine the fate of a ballot measure on the state’s Dream Act, which would provide in-state college tuition rates to children of undocumented immigrants — children who graduate from Maryland high schools and fulfill a list of other conditions. The report by the Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research at the University of Maryland Baltimore County totes up the Dream Act’s projected costs and benefits. The conclusion: Maryland would get an incredibly good deal by subsidizing college educations for the children of undocumented immigrants who were brought to America at a young age. How good a deal? At a conservative estimate, the study’s authors estimate that each year’s class of the students in question — specifically, those who go on to college, enticed by the same tuition subsidy granted to their American-born classmates — could eventually yield $66 million (in 2011 dollars) in economic benefits to society. That includes not only increased lifetime earnings for the students themselves but also higher sales, income and property tax payments as well as public savings from a lower rate of incarceration from a better-educated citizenry. Of that amount, the annual net benefit to local, state and federal government coffers is estimated at about $24 million — $18 million for the federal government and $6 million for the state and local governments. Those findings are all the more impressive given that relatively few students are estimated to be likely beneficiaries of the Dream Act. About 1,300 undocumented young people would be enrolled in state community colleges or universities at any one time — just 0.6 percent of Maryland’s overall enrollment in public colleges and universities. Maryland’s Dream Act makes all the more sense in light of the Obama administration’s recent move to grant temporary work permits for the children of undocumented immigrants who have finished high school and have no criminal record. Together, those measures provide the beginnings of an institutional structure that Dream Act youngsters with drive and talent might use to fulfill their potential and contribute to the country where many have spent the great majority of their lives. It is self-defeating folly for Maryland, or any other state, to educate students through high school, as they are required to do by law, then deny even the most promising among them further opportunities. Marylanders hardly need an academic study to explain the benefits of a more highly educated citizenry. As long as they have such a study, though, it should settle any lingering debates about the merits of the Dream Act, a surefire investment in the state’s economic prospects. Who Cares About The House Of Representatives? (USAT) USA Today, October 11, 2012 From local diners to talk radio stations, Americans are fixated on the presidential election — the Super Bowl of politics. The winner, we are told, will chart the nation's future. But that's not altogether correct. The House of Representatives has plenty of power, too. It is the one President Obama blames for halting his agenda in Congress. But House races don't get equal billing. Mostly, they get a yawn. Voters' indifference is revealed by incumbency rates. Since 1998, the re-election rate for House incumbents has dipped below 94% just once. After being elected to the House, most members seem to stay there as long as they want. Perhaps that is because few voters know or care what their representative is up to. Each of the 435 House members "represents" an average of 710,767 persons. Such massive numbers would have been unthinkable to the generation that drafted our Constitution. Section 2 of Article I states, "The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000." In other words, no district should be smaller than 30,000 individuals, but the Constitution is unfortunately silent on how large a district can be. Lost in the crowd Opponents of the Constitution were concerned that one representative for every 30,000 people was insufficient to foster a true representative body. In the Virginia ratifying convention, Anti-Federalist George Mason observed that "to make representation real and actual," the number of representatives needed to be adequate to allow the representatives "to mix with the people, think as they think, feel as they feel" and be "thoroughly acquainted with their interest and condition." In the main, the pro-Constitution Federalists did not disagree with the Anti-Federalist on this matter. "It is a sound and important principle that the representative ought to be acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents," wrote James Madison. Madison assured Anti-Federalist critics that "the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution." 149

Madison estimated that within 50 years, the House would have 400 members. It didn't turn out that way. There were only 242 in 1839. That slower growth meant that even as the number of representatives grew, their distance from the people grew as well. After the 1910 Census, with the population over 92 million, the number was increased to 435 from 394, with the average district then including more than 210,000 people. Stuck in 1910 But there the growth stopped. In 1929, Congress permanently fixed the number of representatives at 435, where it remains today even though our population now exceeds 300 million. Each representative now has nearly three-quarters of a million constituents. Large districts with hundreds of thousands of residents make it impossible for most people to rub shoulders with their congressional representative and make it less likely that the representative can truly identify with his or her constituents. Defenders of the House's size contend that significant enlargement would make it too unwieldy. Such an objection assumes that meaningful debate takes place on the floor of Congress. In reality, however, most of the work is done in committees and by committee staff. Expansion of the House would have little effect on the process. Moreover, technology makes casting ballots easier and could speed Congress' work, even with increased membership. With a computer, Internet access and a phone, members of Congress could do as other Americans do: telecommute. In other countries By way of comparison, many other countries with representative government have larger representative bodies, with far more favorable ratios: Sixty-two million people in the United Kingdom elect 650 members of Parliament, one for every 95,000 residents. Japan's 127 million people elect 480 representatives, one for every 264,000. France's National Assembly has 577 members each representing 118,000 people. Expansion of Congress would help in other ways. It would be easier for third-party candidates to compete in elections because in smaller districts, the price of reaching voters would drop. To effectively campaign in districts of 710,767 people, politicians need a sizable war chest, but retail politics matters more in small ones. Lower costs mean less influence for those big donors. It's time to make our representative body representative again. One House member for every 710,767 residents is not representative government. It's a sham, and a shame. The public knows it, and that's why they tune out. William J. Watkins is a fellow with The Independent Institute and author of Judicial Monarchs: Court Power and the Case for Restoring Popular Sovereignty in the United States. In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. The Wrong Way To Help The Poor (NYT) By Gary E. Macdougal New York Times, October 11, 2012 Chicago THIS evening, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Representative Paul D. Ryan will meet in their only vice-presidential debate. Without a doubt they’ll square off on jobs, taxes and Medicare. But in all likelihood, one key issue will be lucky to merit even a passing remark from either side — the question of how to lift 46 million Americans out of poverty. It’s an issue crying out for serious debate. Each year, American taxpayers spend nearly $1 trillion trying to help the poor, according to a recent study by the Cato Institute. It’s easy to miss that headline number, though, because the money flows into and out of scores of federal, state and local government programs. In April, Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at Cato, a libertarian research group, compiled a list of 126 federal programs for low-income Americans, which together spend $668 billion of taxpayer money annually. State and local governments allocate an additional $284 billion, he estimated. To be sure, some of these programs, though focused on low-income Americans, extend a hand to more than just “the poor.” Roughly a quarter of this trillion-dollar outlay is devoted to Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for poor and disabled people, including many elderly. Other programs have a broader impact on society as well. One might argue, for example, that Pell grants, which make it easier for 10 million young men and women to go to college, are more focused on promoting education than stemming poverty.

150

But for now, let’s use that $1 trillion figure to ask a broader question: Are we spending this money in truly the best way to help the poor? Consider a thought experiment: Divide $1 trillion by 46 million and you get around $21,700 for each American in poverty, or nearly $87,000 for a family of four. That’s almost four times the $23,050 per year federal poverty line for that family. It’s intriguing to think about converting all of this to a cash payment that would instantly lift everyone in poverty up to the middle class. For a variety of reasons, of course, that’s not possible, either logistically or politically. But a middle path might resemble what Mr. Ryan has proposed for Medicaid — converting the behemoth program to block grants for each state, an idea that in some ways parallels the successful welfare reform plan of the Clinton era. Most Americans agree that it’s in all of our interest, for both humane and economic reasons, to help people move from dependency to self-sufficiency. The challenge is how to do it effectively while minimizing waste. Currently, our various antipoverty efforts are both fragmented and overlapping. A study by the Institute for Educational Leadership, for example, identified 7 Senate committees and subcommittees, 11 House committees and subcommittees, 7 cabinet departments and 8 other agencies that had a hand in overseeing one antipoverty program or another. The authors described a typical family eligible for 20 separate programs, each with its own set of complex eligibility forms and often managed by separate government offices. While some fragmentation for special needs is desirable, and room should be provided for flexibility, it’s clear that our scattershot efforts are hobbled by bureaucracy and duplication, even as they let too many needy people slip through the cracks. The help most families need should be provided with a holistic one-stop approach at the local level. For example, if an element like transportation, job placement, child care or substance-abuse treatment is missing, much of the rest of the taxpayer investment is often wasted. Another factor is the natural reluctance of advocates, Congressional staffers, think tanks and providers of services for the poor to see their favorite programs cut or consolidated. Few are willing to give up authority over their piece of the program pie. Even without converting all of our federal antipoverty dollars to state block grants, however, we can still do more to combat this fragmentation and zealous protection of fiefs. We can start by measuring outcomes (results) rather than inputs (how much money can we throw at the problem). Our effectiveness should be assessed, in part, by the per-person cost of moving individuals from dependency to self-sufficiency. Most Americans understand that people enter poverty for many reasons and that we have an obligation to help them get out of it. A “conservative” path of just slashing budgets isn’t going to meet that obligation, but neither is the “liberal” path of embracing every program and spending more on each. We need a third way. The changes to spending on human services and Medicaid in Mr. Ryan’s budget proposal, if not a perfect template, could be a catalyst for starting the conversation. If only it would come up at tonight’s debate. Gary E. MacDougal, a former business consultant and executive, advised Gov. Jim Edgar of Illinois, a Republican, on welfare reform and is the author of “Make a Difference: A Spectacular Breakthrough in the Fight Against Poverty.” Obama’s Selective Defense Of The Constitution (WP) By George F. Will Washington Post, October 11, 2012 “The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” — The Constitution, Article II, Section 2 “ ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ” — Lewis Carroll, “Through the Looking Glass” When on Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama swore to defend the Constitution, he did not mean all of it. He evidently believes that the provision quoted above merely expresses the Framers’ now anachronistic anxieties about abuses of executive power. (Jefferson’s lengthy catalogue of George III’s abuses is called the Declaration of Independence.) So on Jan. 4, 2012, Obama simply ignored the Recess Clause. He was in his “We can’t wait!” — for Congress and legality — mode, as he was when he unilaterally rewrote laws pertaining to welfare, immigration and education. On Jan. 4, he used recess appointments to fill three seats on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), even though the Senate said it was not in recess. Obama’s cheeky Humpty Dumpty rejoinder was: I decide what “recess” means. Now a court must decide whether the Constitution means what it says. 151

In 2011, the Noel Canning company, which bottles soft drinks in Yakima, Wash., was negotiating a labor contract with Teamsters Local 760. The union says it and the company reached a verbal agreement. The company disagrees. An administrative law judge sided with the union. On Feb. 8, after Obama’s disputed appointments, the NLRB upheld that decision and asked a federal court to enforce it. Noel Canning is asking the court to declare that the NLRB’s intervention in the dispute was unlawful because the board lacked a quorum until Obama made the recess appointments, which were invalid because the Senate was not in recess. In support of the company, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and 41 members of his caucus have filed a brief arguing that the recess appointments “eviscerated” two of the Senate’s constitutional powers — to “determine the rules of its proceedings” and to reject presidential appointments. The Recess Clause says the president’s power extends only to vacancies that “happen” while the Senate is in recess. This does not describe the NLRB vacancies — or many vacancies filled by recess appointments by many presidents since George Washington made the first ones in 1789. It does, however, describe the problem the Framers addressed: Until the Civil War, travel was slow and arduous, so Senate sessions usually lasted only three to six months. The Framers wrote the Recess Clause to give presidents very limited authority to fill important posts, while preserving the Senate’s absolute veto over presidential nominations. For more than a century, it was generally accepted that recess appointments could fill only vacancies that occurred between sessions, not in recesses during sessions. Of late, however, presidents of both parties have made many recess appointments during short adjournments — as short as 10 days. To limit this, both parties when controlling Congress have adopted the practice of conducting pro forma sessions so the Senate is not in recess even while most senators are away. It was holding such sessions every three days when Obama abandoned the settled policy of presidents respecting this practice. He treated the Senate’s unwillingness to act on his NLRB nominations as an inability to act, and said this inability constituted a de facto recess. He disregarded the Senate’s express determinations on Jan. 3 and 6 that it was in session. And the fact that twice in 2011 the Senate, while in such pro forma sessions, passed legislation, once at Obama’s urging. Because the Constitution unambiguously gives the Senate the power to regulate its proceedings, Obama’s opinion that the Senate was not in session when it said it was, and his assertion that it was in recess even though it held sessions on Jan. 3 and 6, has no force or relevance. And although he is a serial scofflaw, not even he has asserted the authority to make recess appointments during adjournments of three days or fewer. The constitutional guarantee of congressional self-governance, combined with the Senate’s determination that it was in session Jan. 4, destroys Obama’s position, which is that he can declare the Senate in recess whenever he wishes to exercise what the Framers explicitly denied to presidents — a unilateral appointments power. Consider this episode when deciding whether on Jan. 20, 2013, he should again have a chance to swear to (only selectively) defend the Constitution. [email protected] State Dept. Acknowledges Rejecting Requests For More Security In Benghazi (WP) By Anne Gearan Washington Post, October 11, 2012 The State Department acknowledged Wednesday that it rejected appeals for more security at its diplomatic posts in Libya in the months before a fatal terrorist attack in Benghazi as Republicans suggested that lapses contributed to the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. Republicans also tried to use a congressional hearing to poke holes in the Obama administration’s public explanations for what happened in Benghazi on Sept. 11, accusing the White House of playing down the possibility that the incident was a successful al-Qaeda assault. The highly charged congressional oversight session, titled “Security Failures of Benghazi,” included sharp accusations from Republicans that the State Department was more interested in presenting a picture of an improving situation in Libya than in ensuring the safety of its staff there. The session had the feel of a courtroom prosecution as Republicans bored in on inconsistencies and suggested a coverup. The hearing produced few new revelations about the attack, but it underscored the administration’s political vulnerability over the Benghazi episode four weeks before the presidential election. Security officials on the ground “repeatedly warned Washington officials of the dangerous situation” in Libya, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in his opening statement. “Washington officials seemed preoccupied with the concept of normalization.”

152

Democrats on the committee defended the administration, saying Republicans had voted to cut some of the very funding for security that they suggest was lacking in Libya. The Democrats also accused the Republicans of running a secretive and overly partisan investigation leading up to the hearing. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the committee, called on House GOP leaders to support a supplemental funding bill to restore diplomatic security resources. Little clarity Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other government employees were killed when militants attacked two U.S. compounds in the eastern Libyan city. In the days after the assault, administration officials said it appeared to grow out of a protest outside the main compound over an anti-Islamic video. More recently, the administration has described the attack as a premeditated terrorist assault and acknowledged that earlier incidents and warnings about threats had not led to beefed-up security in Benghazi. President Obama sought to explain the shifting narrative in an interview Wednesday on ABC News. “This has all been well- documented and recorded: As information came in, information was put out,” he said. “The information may not have always been right the first time. And as soon as it turns out that we have a fuller picture of what happened, then that was disclosed. But the bottom line is that my job is to let everybody know I want to know what happened, I want us to get the folks who did it, and I want us to figure out what are the lessons learned and ask the tough questions to make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Committee Democrats provided the lead witness at the hearing, Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, an opportunity to explain the evolving accounts of the attack. Kennedy provided little clarity, saying that although he had called the attack an act of terrorism the week it happened, multiple and perhaps conflicting “threads” of intelligence complicated efforts to learn what happened. In a briefing for reporters Tuesday, the State Department said for the first time that it had never concluded that the attack was the result of a protest over the video. But none of the witnesses Wednesday was so definitive. Kennedy took pains to defend Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, from intense Republican criticism of her initial account of the attack as the outgrowth of a protest in television appearances on Sept. 16. “The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point,” Kennedy said. “As time went on, additional information became available.” In a heated exchange with Kennedy, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) declared: “This was never about a video. It was never spontaneous. It was terror.” Although Issa praised Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for the department’s cooperation in the ongoing inquiry, the deaths in Benghazi represent a blemish on her tenure. Clinton did not appear at Wednesday’s hearing, but she is expected to address the issue in a talk Friday at a Washington think tank. Tense questioning The committee released a copy of a diplomatic cable written by Stevens on the day he died in which he catalogued concerns about rising violence and Islamist influence in eastern Libya but did not specifically ask for more protection. The committee also released earlier messages from other diplomatic staff members in Libya that were clear in their requests for more help. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb, who helps oversee diplomatic security, fumbled to explain how the requests were evaluated. But she said there was the right level of protection in Benghazi the night of Sept. 11. Republicans pounced, saying the deaths of four Americans proved that there was not enough security on hand. White House spokesman Jay Carney seemed to agree, telling reporters later Wednesday that in hindsight “there is no question that the security was not enough to prevent that tragedy from happening.” The hearing took an unusual detour over images on large easels set up behind Lamb. As she delivered her prepared remarks, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) objected to the display, which he said contained classified information. Issa at first agreed with State Department officials that the material was unclassified, then directed that it be taken down. Lamb said she opposed a request to extend the term of a special supplemental security team comprising mostly military personnel that had assisted Stevens and other diplomats from February until August. The team was based in Tripoli and “would not have made any difference in Benghazi,” Lamb said. Under tense questioning, she acknowledged that she had told the top security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, not to bother asking for additional help when the military team was sent home. That officer, Eric A. Nordstrom, was sitting uncomfortably beside her at the hearing. Nordstrom said he interpreted Lamb’s refusal as “there was going to be too much political cost.” But in his written statement, he acknowledged that the “ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service. 153

Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra-half dozen guards or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault.” Nordstrom sounded a forlorn note when he said, “The takeaway from that, for me and my staff: It was abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. And the question that we would ask is, again, ‘How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?’ ” In a sharply worded opening statement, Chaffetz said the attack in Benghazi could have been averted with a small amount of additional resources. He said an earlier bombing at the Benghazi post was a test by terrorists that went unaddressed by authorities. “I believe we could have and should have saved the life of Ambassador Stevens and the other people who were there,” Chaffetz said. The investigation of the deaths has moved slowly in Libya. The White House said John O. Brennan, Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, discussed the progress Wednesday with Libya’s president and other officials in Tripoli. Brennan “urged Libya to take full and timely advantage of specific offers of assistance from the United States and other international partners,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said. Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this report. Security Cut Before Libya Raid (WSJ) By Jay Solomon And Dion Nissenbaum Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Former State Dept. Official: Prior To Libya Embassy Attack, Taliban Was ‘on The Inside Of The Building’ (CALLER) Daily Caller, October 11, 2012 Former Department of State Libyan Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom told a House committee that his request for additional security at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, made prior to the attack that claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, was denied. He recalled telling Bureau of Diplomatic Security Regional Director Jim Bacigalupo that he felt the Taliban was “on the inside of the building.” “Actually had that conversation when I came back on leave, and for training in February, and I was told by the regional director for Near Eastern affairs that there had only been one incident involving an American, where he was struck by celebratory fire. It was one of Colonel Wood’s employees,” Nordstrom told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday. “The takeaway from that for me and my staff: It was abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. And the question that we would ask is, again, how thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?” Former State Department Site Security Team Commander Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood said “we were fighting a losing battle,” adding that his team “couldn’t even keep what [the security] we had. We were not even allowed to keep what we had.” “I told the same regional director in a telephone call in Benghazi after he contacted me when I asked for 12 agents,” Nordstrom said. “His response to that was, you’re asking for the sun, moon and the stars and my response to him — his name’s Jim — I said, ‘Jim, you know what makes — most frustrating about this assignment? It’s not the hardships, it’s not the gunfire, it’s not the threats,’” Nordstrom said. “’It’s dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me,’ and I added it by saying, ‘For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.’” At Hearing On Libya Attack That Killed Envoy, Partisan Rift (NYT) By Michael R. Gordon New York Times, October 10, 2012 WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Wednesday accused the State Department of shortchanging security at the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, as the first Congressional hearing into the attack there last month quickly took on a partisan tone. Democratic members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee suggested that a vast majority of the security requests had been met.

154

With less than a month before Election Day, the hearing had highly charged political overtones. Republicans have charged that the Obama administration has played down the significance of the attack and what they say are the policies that allowed it. Democrats have responded that Republicans are trying to politicize the episode. In his opening statement, the committee chairman, Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, said that “on a bipartisan basis,” the committee would try to reassure Americans serving overseas that they were protected. He also praised Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for cooperating with the committee. But the committee’s ranking Democrat, Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, challenged that assertion. In his statement, he said Republicans had withheld documents and had not made witnesses available for interviews. He also called on the House to restore what he said was “hundreds of millions of dollars” it had cut from embassy security financing in recent years. The squabbling among the committee members at times appeared to overshadow the testimony of the State Department officials called as witnesses. At one point, Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, objected to a photograph that the State Department displayed of the diplomatic mission and the area surrounding it because he thought it was classified. Mr. Cummings asked if the photo could be found on Google, and the panel accepted that the State Department had the authority to declassify its own materials. Under questioning from Republicans, Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, and Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management, acknowledged that they had never visited Libya. The State Department official responsible for security for American diplomats in Libya, Eric A. Nordstrom, said in his opening statement that he believed the committee would conclude that department officials “conducted themselves professionally” in providing security for the mission before the attack, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. “I had not seen an attack of such ferocity and intensity previously in Libya nor in my time with the Diplomatic Security Service,” said Mr. Nordstrom, who cautioned against overreacting to the episode. He said that the answer to “a new security reality” should not be “to operate from a bunker.” In his written testimony, Mr. Nordstrom suggested that only a substantial increase in security could have prevented the attack. “Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra half-dozen guards or agents, would not have enabled us to responded to that kind of assault,” he wrote. Mr. Nordstrom did not read that part of his testimony but said in response to a question that he stood by it. As a regional security officer, Mr. Nordstrom served in Libya from Sept. 21, 2011, to July 26, 2012, six weeks before the attacks. The number of American diplomatic security agents at the Benghazi compound at the time it was attacked was a persistent issue during the hearing. Mr. Nordstrom made it clear that he thought three was the minimum number that was needed and that he wanted one or two more. Ms. Lamb said there were five at the time of the attack, three of whom were stationed at the mission and two who came with Ambassador Stevens. “In terms of armed security personnel, there were five Diplomatic Security agents on the compound on Sept. 11,” Ms. Lamb said, adding, “There were also three members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade” – a reference to the Libyans hired to guard the American compound. Another witness, a National Guard officer who was temporarily deployed to the embassy in Tripoli as the site’s security officer, said that he became increasingly concerned about what he described as the “weak” security he saw in Benghazi on two visits there last spring and summer. “The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there,” said Lt. Col. Andrew Wood of the Utah National Guard, who left Libya in August, about six months after he was deployed to the embassy. “The situation remained uncertain, and reports from some Libyans indicated it was getting worse.” The site security team that Colonel Wood commanded consisted of 16 members and was withdrawn in August. Mr. Nordstrom testified that the State Department’s diplomatic security office was reluctant to support its continued presence. The State Department has asserted that it found other ways to provide security once the team was withdrawn Mr. Issa began the hearing by referring to a briefing for reporters held Tuesday night by the State Department at which a spokesman discussed for the first time the details of the Benghazi attack. “Yesterday, the State Department began the process of coming clean,” he said. The account provided by a State Department official, whom the agency declined to identify, differed from the initial Obama administration reports in some important respects. Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, had said that the attack on the mission began with an angry protest about an anti-Islamic film that was “hijacked” by extremists.

155

But the new account provided by the State Department made no mention of a protest. In this account, Mr. Stevens met with a Turkish diplomat during the day of the attack and then escorted him to the main gate of the mission around 8:30 p.m. At that time, there were no demonstrations and the situation appeared calm. Little more than an hour later, there was gunfire and explosions. American agents, watching the compound through cameras, saw a large group of armed men moving into the Benghazi compound. The barracks for a local militia that was protecting the compound was set on fire, and the attack began to unfold. Seeking to defend the State Department against charges of lax security, the official suggested to reporters that it could not have been anticipated. “The lethality and the number of armed people is unprecedented. There had been no attack like that anywhere in Libya — Tripoli, Benghazi or elsewhere — in the time we had been there,” he said. “It would be very, very hard to find a precedent for an attack like that in recent diplomatic history.” For all the detail the State Department provided, some key questions were not answered. The official declined to say how many security personnel were sent from the embassy in Tripoli to Benghazi on the night of the attack to try to restore order, how many security personnel were based in Tripoli at the time and how long it took the reinforcements to arrive. On Tuesday, committee members engaged in a series of partisan attacks. Democrats and Republicans said that the other party had shown scant interest in dealing with the broader issues of intelligence warnings and security matters, and had focused instead on trying to show that their party was better equipped to address volatile and shifting national security challenges. “Never in all of my years in Congress have I seen such a startling and damaging series of partisan abuses,” Mr. Cummings said. “The Republicans are in full campaign mode, and it is a shame that they are resorting to such pettiness in what should be a serious and responsible investigation. We should be above that.” Mr. Chaffetz, chairman of the panel’s subcommittee on national security issues, said the Democrats’ strategy was to “blame it on politics rather than addressing the nature of the issue.” “They can blame it on politics,” Mr. Chaffetz said, “but we are concerned about the more than a hundred embassies and thousands of Americans abroad.” Partisan Squabbling Dominates Hearing On Benghazi Attack (WT) By Guy Taylor And Shaun Waterman Washington Times, October 11, 2012 Partisan bickering overshadowed Wednesday's opening of a congressional hearing on last month's fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, had tried to set a bipartisan mood when the panel's top Democrat accused him of violating House rules by withholding "documents that were provided to the committee." Mr. Issa also "effectively excluded Democrats from a congressional delegation to Libya this past weekend," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the committee's ranking Democrat. "It's a shame that they are resorting to such petty abuses in what should be a serious and responsible investigation of this fatal attack." In a tense exchange moments later, Mr. Issa told Mr. Cummings: "You didn't name a particular rule that you say I violated. Do you have a rule that you believe I violated?" "We will provide you with that," Mr. Cummings said. "We want to get on with the hearing, but I promise you I will provide you with it." Both men praised Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for taking steps in recent days to cooperate with Congress in an effort to transcend partisan mudslinging over the Libya attack. But their opening back-and-forth set the stage for others to politicize Wednesday's hearing. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said committee Democrats were given the same opportunity as Republicans to travel to Libya over the weekend, adding that Mr. Cummings "was absolutely wrong." Mr. Chaffetz then grilled a group of State Department officials at the hearing and asserted that the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, was preventable and should have been foreseen by officials monitoring violent incidents in Benghazi before the attack. "With more assets, more resources, just meeting the minimum standard, we could have and should have saved the life of Ambassador Stevens and the other people that were there," he said, noting that during the months before the attack, terrorists had detonated a homemade bomb that blew a hole in the wall outside the consulate compound in Benghazi.

156

"It was a test by terrorists, and it was successful," Mr. Chaffetz said. "We didn't respond fully and adequately. We didn't acknowledge it. We didn't talk about it. We pretended it didn't happen. It was a terrorist attack on a U.S. asset in Libya, and it was never exposed." When the terrorists returned to the compound last month, "they were even more successful, killing four Americans," he added. The assault, which coincided with the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., occurred as protests were raging in cities across the Muslim world against a U.S.-made movie that denigrates Islam's Prophet Muhammad. For more than a week following the events in Benghazi, administration officials were unclear whether the attack had resulted from an angry protest. In particular, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said in televised interviews on the Sunday after the attack that initial reports suggested it resulted from spontaneous outrage over the video. Patrick J. Kennedy, undersecretary of state for management, defended Mrs. Rice, telling lawmakers that Obama administration officials "have always made clear that we are giving the best information we have at the time." "That information has evolved," he said. "If any administration official, including any career official, were on television on Sunday, Sept. 16, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said. "The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point," Mr. Kennedy said. "As time went on, additional information became available. Clearly, we know more today than we did on Sunday after the attack." Assault Response Becomes Election Issue (FT) By Geoff Dyer, Washington Financial Times, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Financial Times are available to FT subscribers by clicking the link. Partisan Fireworks At Libya Hearing (POLITCO) By Seung Min Kim Politico, October 11, 2012 Partisan fireworks erupted Wednesday at a House hearing on the Benghazi attacks that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya dead and vaulted the issue of national security to the forefront of the presidential campaign. Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sharply criticized the Obama administration for its fluctuating explanation of the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three diplomatic personnel. Cummings defends administration “Any reasonable person …. had to come to the conclusion that it was tumultuous at best,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said of the security situation in Libya. “We now know that, in fact, it was caused by a terrorist attack that was reasonably predictable,” said the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). Wednesday’s highly anticipated hearing came as the State Department disclosed for the first time that it never concluded that the consulate attack was fueled by furor over an anti-Islam video circulating on YouTube — an explanation that congressional Republicans have long publicly doubted. In recent weeks, Republicans have ramped up pressure on administration officials for more clarity on details surrounding the Benghazi assault, which came on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and has turned into a political issue. Coming under a barrage of criticism was Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who said in the days immediately following Stevens’s death that the attacks appeared to be a “spontaneous” protest of an anti-Muslim video, rather than a premeditated terrorist attack. One top House Republican — Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) — is demanding Rice’s resignation. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) asked Issa to call Rice as a witness at a future hearing. “I’d like to have another hearing where we can ask Ambassador Rice, under oath, ‘Who told you what, when?’” Gowdy said. “… I want to know why we were lied to.” Issa said the panel plans to pursue issues raised at the hearing and elsewhere, including how Rice could have said what she did on TV after the attacks. A top State Department official came to Rice’s defense at the hearing.

157

”If I or any other senior administration official … would have been on that television show other than Susan Rice, we would’ve said the same thing because we were drawing on the same intelligence information,” said Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary for management at the State Department. Last week, Issa and Chaffetz released a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, detailing 13 security threats to U.S. diplomatic officials in Libya and how requests for additional security were rejected, according to the lawmakers. But despite previous threats in Libya, one security official testified that additional security may not have helped. State Department officials testified that there were five diplomatic security agents on the Benghazi compound during the attacks, along with three Libyan security officials. “The ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service,” said Eric Nordstrom, a regional security officer at State. “Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra- half dozen guard or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault.” Democrats have had their own criticisms in the fallout from the attack. Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings accused Issa of leading a one-sided investigation, alleging that Issa withheld documents and refused to give Democrats access to a key committee witness. Cummings said Democrats could “not even get [the witness’] phone number.” “It’s a shame that they are resorting to such petty abuses in what should be a serious and responsible investigation of this fatal attack,” Cummings said in his opening remarks. White House Defends Initial Reaction To Libya Attacks (WT) By Dave Boyer Washington Times, October 11, 2012 President Obama's spokesman said Wednesday that the White House was not avoiding a politically damaging admission when officials resisted describing the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that killed four Americans as the work of terrorists. "From the beginning, we have provided information based on the facts that we knew," White House press secretary Jay Carney said. State Department officials acknowledged for the first time Tuesday night that the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, did not involve any anti-American protests over a film disparaging Islam that was produced in the United States. For more than a week after the attack on Sept. 11, Mr. Carney and others in the administration portrayed the violence as a result of the film. But the government now acknowledges that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed as part of a deliberate, planned attack on the U.S. diplomatic post by terrorists using heavy weaponry such as mortars and rocket- propelled grenades. Mr. Carney said the president described the attack on Sept. 12 as an act of terror, when he said in the White House Rose Garden, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." But the president has refrained in his comments since then from describing the assault in Benghazi as terrorism. Even after some administration officials acknowledged on Sept. 19 that the U.S. had suffered a terrorist attack, Mr. Obama gave a speech to the United Nations on Sept. 25 in which he talked at length about the movie but never mentioned the word "terrorism." Mr. Carney said the administration was relaying reliable information to the public as quickly as possible, and he denied that there was a political motive in the midst of the president's re-election campaign. "We're focused on the facts as we get them," he said. "Efforts to rush to a conclusion are not helpful." Testimony: Consulate In Libya Always At Risk (USAT) By Donna Leinwand Leger, Usa Today, USA Today, October 11, 2012 washington — A former U.S. security official in Libya testified Wednesday that the State Department withdrew security officers from the country as violence from armed militia groups grew worse over the summer. "The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there," Army Lt. Col. Andrew Wood said in testimony at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Republican-led committee was meeting to investigate the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on Sept. 11 at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Among the testimony's revelations was that Stevens had requested additional security because of the danger and, according to a former chief of security, was denied. "The security conditions in Libya remains unpredictable, volatile and violent," Stevens wrote.

158

The hearing followed assertions Tuesday by the State Department that it never concluded that the attack arose from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam. Even so, administration official U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice gave a series of interviews five days after the attack in which she asserted the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the film. White House spokesman Jay Carney also blamed the video days after the incident. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland also refused for days afterward to say the assault on the compound was a terror attack, saying the matter was still being investigated. The administration now says it was a terrorist attack. State Department officials said that security levels at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were adequate but that the compound was overrun in an "unprecedented" attack by dozens of heavily armed extremists. "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11," said Charlene Lamb, the deputy secretary of State for diplomatic security in charge of protecting American embassies around the world. Five security agents were on the compound Sept. 11, Lamb said. Noting that four Americans were killed, Carney said Wednesday that in hindsight, "there is no question that the security was not enough to prevent that tragedy from happening." According to documents made public at the hearing, Stevens sent a cable Aug. 2 to the State Department asking for 11 additional bodyguards to be added to the roster of 24 to replace temporary-duty officers who would be leaving within the next month. "Due to the level of threat in regards to Crime, Political Violence and Terrorism, Post feels this is an appropriate number of LES security personnel needed to further Embassy diplomatic outreach missions," Stevens wrote. "Violent security incidents continue to take place due to the lack of a coherent national Libyan security force and the strength of local militias and large numbers of armed groups," Stevens wrote. "Host national security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment." Wood, the former head of a 16-member U.S. military team in Libya, testified that the attack was "instantly recognizable" to him as terrorism. A former Special Forces soldier who commanded the Site Security Team in Libya from Feb. 12 until Aug. 14, Wood said the attacks on the nearby British Embassy and International Red Cross made it apparent that "we were the last target on their list." "The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there," Wood said. "The RSO (regional security officer) struggled to obtain additional personnel there but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with." Eric Nordstrom, the former chief security officer for U.S. diplomats in Libya, testified that it was clear when he arrived in Libya that the government was too weak and fragmented to provide consistent diplomatic security. The State Department, he said, recognized this weakness. "Libyans wanted to help, but they had very limited capabilities to do so," Nordstrom said, adding that his pleas for more security were ignored. Nordstrom said his requests for more security were blocked by a department policy to "normalize operations and reduce security resources." Nordstrom said he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but he received no responses. He said Lamb wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low even as the State Department recognized the increasing hazards. Libya Guards Speak Out On Attack That Killed U.S. Ambassador (LAT) Two Libyan militiamen guarding the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi deny aiding the attackers. They say they initially fought back but fled when outnumbered. By Shashank Bengali Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2012 BENGHAZI, Libya — Face down on a roof inside the besieged American diplomatic compound, gunfire and flames crackling around them, the two young Libyan guards watched as several bearded men crept toward the ambassador's residence with semiautomatic weapons and grenades strapped to their chests. "We are finished," one of the guards says he remembers thinking. Both are veterans of the ragtag revolutionary forces that toppled Moammar Kadafi. Over the last year, while assigned by their militia to help protect the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the pair had been drilled by American security personnel in using their weapons, securing entrances, climbing walls and waging hand-to-hand combat. 159

They were the "quick reaction force" for a compound that was also protected by about five armed Americans and five Libyan civilians hired through a British firm and equipped only with electric batons and handcuffs. But nothing, they say, had prepared them for this. They had practiced for an attack by 10 or 15 people; now there were scores of professional-looking militants who moved methodically and used well-practiced hand signals. To make matters worse on the night of Sept. 11, instead of four militiamen who were supposed to be on guard, there were only two inside the compound. The militiamen say they initially fought back, but when one attacker lobbed a grenade into their bungalow near the compound's entrance, they fled to the roof without their radios and with only one magazine of ammunition between them. The American security officers were nowhere in sight. As the raid continued — eventually killing Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and another American inside the facility, and two other Americans at a separate location hours later — the two Libyans say that they survived by lying on the roof silently for about an hour, too stunned, scared and overmatched to fight back. "We were not expecting such a massive attack," the guard says. "We were not ready for it." The two militiamen, who spoke to The Times in separate interviews in the last week in Benghazi and Tripoli, the capital, say they are telling their story publicly for the first time in part because FBI investigators are raising questions about their role. One of the militiamen and a civilian guard say investigators asked them why the guards didn't fight "to the death," and were looking for signs that the attackers had collaborators within the militia. The militiamen flatly deny supporting the assailants but acknowledge that their large, government-allied force, known as the Feb. 17 Martyrs Brigade, could include anti-American elements. American officials have declined, as a matter of protocol, to discuss security arrangements at the outpost in eastern Libya . But the attack — the worst to strike a U.S. diplomatic mission since 1998 — grimly underscored the chaos in post-revolutionary Libya, where an array of heavily armed but unevenly trained militias is serving as a sort of substitute army and is responsible for virtually all security, including at diplomatic outposts. The Feb. 17 brigade is regarded as one of the more capable militias in eastern Libya. The assault also raised questions about why Stevens, a high-value target who was known to venture into the streets, would have spent the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks at the Benghazi mission instead of the more fortified embassy in Tripoli. The guards bristle at accusations that they shrank from the fight and say they had repeatedly warned American officials about flawed security arrangements. "They called me a liar. They said we didn't see you on the [security] cameras fighting," says the second militiaman, who was questioned by the FBI recently in Tripoli and who, like others interviewed for this story, asked not to be identified out of fear for his safety. "I told them that we fired our weapons in the beginning but when we got to the roof, there were 100 enemies and two of us. We could do nothing." Under an agreement with U.S. officials — who describe the post in Benghazi as a "special mission" and not a consulate, as it's often been called — four Feb. 17 fighters were supposed to be posted at the compound around the clock. They trained and worked closely with a rotating cast of American security personnel and slept in the sand-colored bungalow closest to the main entrance and the ambassador's residence. But commanders still hadn't replaced one of the four who left his post for personal reasons about a month before the attack. A second was patrolling outside the compound when the attackers arrived, and it's unclear whether he engaged in the battle. The militia members as well as two civilian guards employed by Blue Mountain, a British firm that in May was awarded a $783,000 State Department contract to help secure the compound, say in interviews that the facility was vulnerable. Consisting of four single-story bungalows arrayed around two large courtyards, the compound is surrounded by 9-foot-high walls topped with security wire. But the three metal entrance gates had no security wire. One long wall abuts an unoccupied lot that the guards often worried could be a prime hiding spot. Another lies just off of a busy road, close to passing traffic. Bright lights positioned on top of the walls shone into the compound, which the guards say made it difficult to see outside. The lights sometimes left footage from night security cameras either obscured by glare or pitch black, the Libyans say. "It did not seem like a good location for a sensitive building," says Abdelaziz Majbiri, a 29-year-old civilian guard for Blue Mountain, who was shot in the leg in the attack. The Feb. 17 guards say that when they discussed their concerns with U.S. security officers, they were sometimes told that this was a political mission, not a full-fledged embassy, implying that security requirements were less stringent. 160

The Libyans' account of the attack matches that of U.S. intelligence officials who have called it an act of terrorism unconnected to an anti-Islam film produced in the United States. Earlier that day, demonstrations over the film had turned violent at the U.S. Embassy in neighboring Egypt, but the guards in Benghazi say U.S. personnel hadn't told them of the film or the protests — or to be on alert for the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In the hours before the raid, the compound was lazily quiet, the Libyans say. Stevens, who had arrived the day before for a five-day visit, met with the Turkish consul general and chatted briefly with the guards in Arabic before retiring to his residence. A regional security officer tossed a football around the courtyard. Around 9:30 p.m., the guards heard cries of "Allahu akbar!" — "God is great" — three times from outside the walls. Then a voice called out in Arabic: "You infidels!" and the attackers raced inside. In their bungalow, the militiamen say, they quickly strapped on their flak jackets and grabbed their weapons. The American voices on the radio sounded chaotic, and the Libyans couldn't make out instructions. Five assailants entered the bungalow. The guards say they hid behind a bedroom door and fired shots. It's unclear whether they hit anyone, although video taken shortly after the attack shows blood on the floor. Then, when the grenade was tossed, the Libyans say, they fled to the roof, where they watched another group of attackers head toward Stevens' residence. Below them, cars had been set ablaze. They presumed that the American guards had rushed to save Stevens, although he would later be found alone on the floor of the safe room in his villa, apparently asphyxiated. The two guards didn't come down until militia reinforcements arrived and forced the attackers to withdraw. FBI agents also questioned the Libyan militiamen about why it took so long for backup to arrive, and why certain units of the militia appeared not to have responded. Hamad Bougrain, a spokesman for the Feb. 17 brigade, defends the response, saying that reinforcements arrived as quickly as possible and "fought bravely." At times, the militiamen say, the FBI agents' questioning was hostile. At one point, one agent suggested to one militiaman that if he didn't tell the truth, U.S. forces would invade Libya to avenge the attack. "The Marines could enter your country, and then you'd have a lot of problems here like in Iraq and Afghanistan," says the militiaman, who was interviewed in Tripoli. Neither he nor his comrade were injured in the attack, but he is traumatized. He laments the death of Stevens, whom he admired. And he says that two days after the attack, men riding in a car without license plates drove through his neighborhood asking for him by name. For now he's decided to stay in Tripoli, worried that if he returns to Benghazi he will be targeted for working with Americans. But the Americans don't seem to have any use for him anymore. "I'm caught between two hells," he says. [email protected] US Counterterrorism Chief In Libya To Probe Attack (AP) Associated Press, October 10, 2012 TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — President Barack Obama's counterterrorism chief has discussed last month's killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya with the country's leaders. John Brennan is in Tripoli as part of the investigation into the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last month, where Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed along with three other Americans. Brennan met Wednesday with interim President Mohammed el-Megarif and Foreign Minister Ashour bin Khayal. Omar Humidan, spokesman for Libya's General National Council, said all agreed the investigation should be secret. The U.S. has blamed militants linked to al-Qaida for the consulate attack. It erupted as Muslims protested a film that insulted Islam's Prophet Muhammad. The U.S. declared later that militants linked to the international terror network were involved. Obama's Republican opponents have criticized his handling of the affair. Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Libya: Armed And Dangerous (FT) By Borzou Daragahi Financial Times, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Financial Times are available to FT subscribers by clicking the link.

161

Botched In Benghazi (WSJ) New evidence on the Libya debacle and false White House spin. Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Letting Us In On A Secret (WP) By Dana Milbank Washington Post, October 11, 2012 When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIA’s cover. The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi last month of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. But in doing so, the lawmakers reminded us why “congressional intelligence” is an oxymoron. Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was the first to unmask the spooks. “Point of order! Point of order!” he called out as a State Department security official, seated in front of an aerial photo of the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, described the chaotic night of the attack. “We’re getting into classified issues that deal with sources and methods that would be totally inappropriate in an open forum such as this.” A State Department official assured him that the material was “entirely unclassified” and that the photo was from a commercial satellite. “I totally object to the use of that photo,” Chaffetz continued. He went on to say that “I was told specifically while I was in Libya I could not and should not ever talk about what you’re showing here today.” Now that Chaffetz had alerted potential bad guys that something valuable was in the photo, the chairman, Darrell Issa (R- Calif.), attempted to lock the barn door through which the horse had just bolted. “I would direct that that chart be taken down,” he said, although it already had been on C-SPAN. “In this hearing room, we’re not going to point out details of what may still in fact be a facility of the United States government or more facilities.” May still be a facility? The plot thickened — and Chaffetz gave more hints. “I believe that the markings on that map were terribly inappropriate,” he said, adding that “the activities there could cost lives.” In their questioning and in the public testimony they invited, the lawmakers managed to disclose, without ever mentioning Langley directly, that there was a seven-member “rapid response force” in the compound the State Department was calling an annex. One of the State Department security officials was forced to acknowledge that “not necessarily all of the security people” at the Benghazi compounds “fell under my direct operational control.” And whose control might they have fallen under? Well, presumably it’s the “other government agency” or “other government entity” the lawmakers and witnesses referred to; Issa informed the public that this agency was not the FBI. “Other government agency,” or “OGA,” is a common euphemism in Washington for the CIA. This “other government agency,” the lawmakers’ questioning further revealed, was in possession of a video of the attack but wasn’t releasing it because it was undergoing “an investigative process.” Or maybe they were referring to the Department of Agriculture. That the Benghazi compound had included a large CIA presence had been reported but not confirmed. The New York Times, for example, had reported that among those evacuated were “about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors.” The paper, like The Washington Post, withheld locations and details of the facilities at the administration’s request. But on Wednesday, the withholding was on hold. The Republican lawmakers, in their outbursts, alternated between scolding the State Department officials for hiding behind classified material and blaming them for disclosing information that should have been classified. But the lawmakers created the situation by ordering a public hearing on a matter that belonged behind closed doors. Republicans were aiming to embarrass the Obama administration over State Department security lapses. But they inadvertently caused a different picture to emerge than the one that has been publicly known: that the victims may have been let down not by the State Department but by the CIA. If the CIA was playing such a major role in these events, which was the unmistakable impression left by Wednesday’s hearing, having a televised probe of the matter was absurd. The chairman, attempting to close his can of worms, finally suggested that “the entire committee have a classified briefing as to any and all other assets that were not drawn upon but could have been drawn upon” in Benghazi. 162

Good idea. Too bad he didn’t think of that before putting the CIA on C-SPAN. Yemen Holds US Citizen For Suspected Al-Qaida Ties (AP) By Ahmed Al Haj, Associated Press Associated Press, October 11, 2012 SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Yemen's security forces have detained a U.S. citizen suspected of having links to al-Qaida, a Yemeni official said Wednesday. Authorities arrested the suspect Monday in a hotel in the southern city of Shabwa, which was an al-Qaida stronghold until a military offensive earlier this year pushed the militants into the surrounding mountains, the official said. The man was carrying two U.S. passports and a German one, and had been shuffling from one mosque to another in the nearby eastern city of Marib before moving on to Shabwa, according to the official. U.S. Embassy spokesman Louis Fintor said the mission was aware of the report. "We are aware of the reports and seeking further information from Yemeni authorities regarding the individual's citizenship and identity," he said. The Yemeni official said security forces transferred the man on Tuesday to the capital, Sanaa, where he was being questioned by intelligence officers. He added that the suspect told officials he had been "spreading religious awareness" in Saudi Arabia before moving to Yemen few months ago. The official declined to give further details. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press. Yemeni authorities have detained a number of Westerners, Asians, and other foreigners over alleged links to al-Qaida, suspecting that any foreigner who visits cities such as Shabwa that were until recently under the control of al-Qaida-linked militants could have ties to the terrorist network. Yemen's government has been locked in a fierce battle with the militants, who took advantage of the country's recent political turmoil to seize control of a large swath of territory in the country's south. The military pushed the militants out of a string of cities and towns in a bloody offensive in June, although al-Qaida-linked fighters have retained training camps in mountainous areas surrounding the cities and have continued to carry out suicide attacks targeting top intelligence, military and security officials in the south. On Tuesday, Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi was in Shabwa for a series of meetings with tribal leaders. In video of the meeting aired on state TV, Hadi he urged the tribes to unite with the government in the fight against al- Qaida. He also warned them against providing shelter to militants, saying the government "will not tolerate anyone who helps al- Qaida." The same day, authorities discovered three decapitated bodies that had been dumped in an open-air market in the eastern province of Marib. Local media reported that CDs found next to the bodies showed the men confessing to being government informants against al-Qaida and placing tracking devices on cars that became targets for U.S. drone strikes. One of the men said he worked for a tire repair shop and used to plant chips in militants' vehicles while replacing their tires. The killings could deal a blow to the government's efforts to build trust with local tribesmen in the fight against al-Qaida. Washington, which considers Yemen's al-Qaida branch to be the terror network's most dangerous offshoot, has launched dozens of drone attacks targeting the group's leaders. Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Indonesia Warns Of New Bali Threat (WSJ) By Eric Bellman Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. French Police Find Arms Stash (WSJ) Custody of 12 Terror Suspects Is Extended a Day After Bomb Materials Are Discovered By Sam Schechner And Inti Landauro Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Syrian Conflict Grows On Two Fronts (WSJ) 163

Turkey Forces Damascus-Bound Jet Suspected of Carrying Arms to Land; U.S. Confirms Military Team on Jordan Border By Julian E. Barnes, Stephen Fidler Andjoe Parkinson Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Turkey Intercepts Syrian Plane As Tensions Mount (AP) By Suzan Fraser, Associated Press Associated Press, October 11, 2012 ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Turkish jets on Wednesday forced a Syrian passenger plane to land at Ankara airport on suspicion that it might be carrying weapons or other military equipment, amid heightened tensions between Turkey and Syria that have sparked fears of a wider regional conflict. The Syrian Air jetliner was traveling from Moscow when it was intercepted by F16 jets as it entered Turkish airspace and was escorted to the capital's Esenboga Airport, the state-run TRT television reported. Hours later, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said the Airbus A320 with 37 passengers and crew would be allowed to leave, but its cargo had been confiscated. "There are elements ... that are not legitimate in civilian flights," the state-run Anadolu Agency quoted Davutoglu as saying. He did not provide details but said authorities continued to examine the cargo. Davutoglu earlier told Turkey's TGRT television that the plane was intercepted on suspicion it was carrying illicit cargo to Damascus. "If equipment is being carried under the guise of civilian flights or if they are not being declared, then of course we'll inspect it," he said. "We are determined to stop the flow of weapons to a regime that carries out such ruthless massacres," Davutoglu added. "We cannot accept that our air space be used for such aims." Hurriyet newspaper's website, citing unidentified intelligence officials, said communications equipment, wireless sets and jammers were found on board. NTV television reported that authorities found "missile parts." Syrian Information Minister Omran Zuabi declined comment. Davutoglu said Turkish authorities had also declared Syria's airspace to be unsafe and were stopping Turkish aircraft from flying over the civil war-torn country. The move comes as tensions between Turkey and Syria are running high. The countries, which were once close allies, have been exchanging artillery fire across the volatile border for days. Earlier Wednesday, Turkey's military chief vowed to respond with more force to any further shelling from Syria, keeping up the pressure on its southern neighbor a day after NATO said it stood ready to defend Turkey. Gen. Necdet Ozel was inspecting troops who have been put on alert along the 565-mile (910-kilometer) border after shelling from Syria killed five Turkish civilians in a border town last week. Turkey has reinforced the border with artillery and also deployed more fighter jets to an air base close to the border region. "We responded and if (the shelling) continues, we will respond with more force," the private Dogan news agency quoted Ozel as saying during a visit to the town of Akcakale. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Wednesday that Washington has sent troops to the Jordan-Syria border to help build a headquarters in Jordan and bolster that country's military capabilities in the event that violence escalates along its border with Syria. The revelation raises the possibility of an escalation in the U.S. military involvement in the conflict, even as Washington pushes back on any suggestion of a direct intervention in Syria. In Syria's largest city, Aleppo, regime troops and rebel fighters exchanged fire for several hours in and around the historic 13th-century Umayyad Mosque, said local activist Mohammed Saeed. He said rebels were trying to drive out regime troops holed up in the downtown place of worship, and that by nightfall the shooting had stopped. The mosque is one of the landmarks of Aleppo, along with its medieval covered market, or souk, which was largely gutted last month in a huge fire sparked by the fighting. Rami Abdul-Rahman of the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said local activists told him fighting was restricted to the area near the mosque, but that no fighters entered the site itself. The Observatory relies on reports from a network of activists in Syria.

164

Aleppo has been the scene of intense fighting, particularly since rebels launched a new offensive two weeks ago to try to dislodge regime troops. The fighting has devastated large areas of the city of 3 million, Syria's former business capital. Earlier, Syrian activists also said the rebel units of the Free Syrian Army took control of Maaret al-Numan, a strategic city along the main highway in Idlib province that connects the central city of Homs with Aleppo to the north and the capital Damascus. Abdul-Rahman said the rebels took control of the city late Tuesday. He said the rebels control the western entry into the city, while the military is massing troops along the eastern outskirts for a possible counter offensive. Fadi Yassin, an activist in Maarat al-Numan, told The Associated Press on Skype that rebels were in control of the city, although fierce fighting continued around the military barracks on Wednesday, three days after the opposition launched a "liberation battle." "The city has been liberated," Yassin said. "All liberation battles start with small cities and then move on to the major cities." Holding onto Maaret al-Numan would be a significant achievement for the rebels, enabling them to cut the army's main supply route to Aleppo and Homs, both of which came under bombardment from the regime's helicopters and artillery on Wednesday, according to activists. The Anadolu news agency reported fighting between Syrian rebels and forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime around the town of Azmarin, in Idlib province, across from the Turkish border. It said Syrians were fleeing homes in the Azmarin region, some crossing into Turkey by boat over the Orontes River, which runs along the border. Footage from Anadolu showed women, children and elderly men being transported from Syria to Turkey on makeshift rafts and boats. Private NTV television reported that explosions and automatic weapon fire could be heard in Turkey's Hatay province, coming from Azmarin. It said rebels were clashing with some 500 Syrian government soldiers, and that at least 100 rebels had been injured, some of whom had been brought to Turkey for treatment. Some 99,000 Syrians, mostly women and children, have sought refuge in Turkey since the start of the conflict. Also on Wednesday, state-run news agency SANA said Assad appointed Sattam Jadaan al-Dandah as Syria's new ambassador to Iraq. The report did not say when al-Dandah would travel to Baghdad. His predecessor, Nawaf Fares, defected in July, becoming the most senior diplomat to abandon Assad's regime during a bloody 18-month uprising that has morphed into a bloody civil war. Meanwhile, the U.N. envoy on Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, arrived in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on Wednesday on the first stop of his diplomatic tour of the Middle East. His spokesman Ahmad Fawzi said Brahimi would "hold wide-ranging talks on the prolonged crisis in Syria." ___ Barbara Surk and Zeina Karam in Beirut and Frank Jordans in Istanbul contributed to this report. Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Turkey, Seeking Weapons, Forces Syrian Jet To Land (NYT) By Anne Barnard And Sebnem Arsu New York Times, October 11, 2012 BEIRUT, Lebanon — Turkey sharply escalated its confrontation with Syria on Wednesday, forcing a Syrian passenger plane to land in Ankara on suspicion of carrying military cargo, ordering Turkish civilian airplanes to avoid Syria’s airspace and warning of increasingly forceful responses if Syrian artillery gunners keep lobbing shells across the border. NTV television in Turkey said two Turkish F-16 warplanes had been sent to intercept a Syrian Air jetliner, an Airbus A320 with 35 passengers en route from Moscow to Damascus, and had forced it to land at Esenboga Airport in Ankara, the capital, because it might have been carrying a weapons shipment to the Syrian government. Inspectors confiscated what NTV described as parts of a missile and allowed the plane to resume its trip after several hours. The Turkish authorities declined to specify what had been found. “There are items that are beyond the ones that are legitimate and required to be reported in civilian flights,” Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said in remarks reported by the country’s semiofficial Anatolian News Agency. “There are items that we would rate as troublesome.” There was no immediate comment from Syria. Turkish transportation authorities said earlier in the day that all Turkish aircraft should avoid flying over Syrian territory, possibly in anticipation of retaliatory action by Syria.

165

The steps taken by Turkey added ominous new tensions to its troubled relationship with Syria, where a nearly 19-month-old uprising against President Bashar al-Assad has evolved into a civil war and threatened to touch off a regional conflict. Turkey is the host for main elements of the anti-Assad insurgency and for roughly 100,000 Syrian refugees, who have been fleeing in greater numbers as violence has increased along the 550-mile border in recent days. Several mortar rounds have landed on Turkish soil, prompting Turkish gunners to return fire. News reports on Wednesday described intensified fighting close to Azamarin, a Syrian border settlement, with mortar and machine-gun fire clearly audible from the Turkish side. Wounded civilians, some in makeshift boats filled with women and children, could be seen crossing the narrow Orontes River, which demarcates part of the Syrian border with Hatay Province in Turkey. The Turkish chief of staff, Gen. Necdet Ozel, who visited parts of the border area on Wednesday, was quoted by Turkish news media as saying that military responses to Syrian shelling would be “even stronger” if the shelling persisted. The rising tensions between Turkey and Syria are seen as especially troublesome because Turkey is a member of NATO, which considers an attack on one member an attack on all, and this implicitly raises the possibility that NATO will be drawn into a volatile Middle East conflict. On Tuesday, the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, emphasized that NATO had “all necessary plans in place to protect and defend Turkey if necessary.” The fighting in Syria has touched all other neighbors of the country as well, with fighting reported recently in villages near a border crossing to Lebanon in the west, while in the east, Syrian authorities have lost control of some crossing points on the border with Iraq. Tens of thousands of Syrians have sought refuge in Lebanon and Jordan, straining resources in those countries. Last month several mortar shells fired from Syria landed in the Golan Heights near Israel’s northern border. Skirmishes have been reported between Syrian troops and Jordanians guarding their northern border, and Jordan is worried that the porous frontier could become a conduit for Islamic militants joining the anti-Assad struggle. At the same time, Mr. Assad’s government appears to have hardened its position over the already remote possibility of a truce with the rebels. On Wednesday the government rejected a proposal made a day earlier by Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, that Mr. Assad take the first step by declaring an immediate unilateral cease-fire, to be followed by a matching step from his armed opponents. Jihad Makdissi, a spokesman for the Syrian Foreign Ministry, said in response that the insurgents must stop shooting first. In a statement reported by the official Syrian Arab News Agency, Mr. Makdissi said his government had told Mr. Ban he should send emissaries to the countries arming the insurgents, and urge them “to use their influence to stop the violence from the other side, then informing the Syrian side of the results.” Anne Barnard reported from Beirut, and Sebnem Arsu from Hatay, Turkey. Reporting was contributed by Christine Hauser and Rick Gladstone from New York, Alan Cowell from Paris, and Hwaida Saad from Beirut. This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: October 10, 2012 Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this article misspelled the given name of Turkey’s foreign minister. He is Ahmet Davutoglu, not Ahmed Davutoglu. Turkey Forces Syrian Passenger Plane To Land (WP) By Liz Sly Washington Post, October 11, 2012 BEIRUT — Turkish fighter jets forced a Syrian passenger plane to land in Ankara on Wednesday amid suspicions that it may have been carrying arms, exacerbating already high tensions with Syria that have raised fears that a wider war may be imminent. The fears have prompted the United States to dispatch 150 troops to Jordan to help the authorities there formulate contingency plans for the crisis next door in Syria, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said at a news conference in Brussels. Turkish officials said the civilian Airbus 320 with 30 passengers on board was intercepted by F-16s as it entered Turkish airspace and was escorted to the capital’s Esenboga Airport shortly after 5 p.m. Hours earlier, Turkey had ordered all Turkish civilian aircraft to cease flights through Syrian airspace, apparently to prevent Syria from taking reciprocal action. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told Turkish television network TGRT that the plane had been forced down because it was carrying “non-civilian cargo” and “banned material.”

166

“There is information that the plane had cargo on board that does not meet the requirements of civil aviation,” he said in the interview in Athens. The Today’s Zaman newspaper later reported that Turkish authorities found military communication equipment and “parts that could be used in missiles” on the plane. Russia, one of Syria’s staunchest allies, has in the past acknowledged supplying the Damascus regime with weapons and has blocked several efforts at the United Nations to impose an arms embargo. Ankara and Damascus, long at odds over the bloody revolution in Syria, lurched closer to war a week ago after several Syrian shells exploded in a Turkish border village, killing five civilians and prompting Turkey to retaliate with barrages of mortar fire against Syrian targets. Syria refused to apologize and instead denounced Turkey for allowing rebels battling the regime led by President Bashar al-Assad to transport weapons and funds across its border. Although mortar rounds fired during battles had accidentally strayed into Turkey on several previous occasions, Turkish officials said the incident last week was different, because five shells struck a residential area almost simultaneously. Over the next five days, at least five more Syrian shells exploded in Turkey, increasing suspicions that Syria was deliberately needling its neighbor in an effort to undermine Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey reciprocated by firing mortar shells into Syria on each occasion, and it has reinforced its southern border with extra troops, artillery and fighter planes. Earlier Wednesday, Turkey’s top general warned of harsher retaliation if more Syrian mortar shells land in Turkish territory. “We responded, but if it continues, we will respond with greater force,” Chief of General Staff Necdet Ozel told Turkish media during a visit to the southern town of Akcakale, where the five civilians were killed. The dispatch of the U.S. force to Jordan, reported by the New York Times on Wednesday, marks the first American military deployment directly associated with the nearly 19-month-old Syria crisis, which has swamped neighboring states with refugees and risks igniting a regional conflict. The Local Coordination Committees, an opposition group, said 173 people were killed in Syria on Wednesday. Most of the 150 troops are Army special operations forces, and some have been in Jordan for several months, Panetta said. They are helping Jordan monitor Syrian chemical and biological weapons sites and develop its own military capabilities “so that we can deal with all of the possible consequences” of the Syria war, he said. () Center For Strategic And International Studies, *** ERROR [HY000] [MySQL][ODBC 5.1 Driver][mysqld-5.5.16]Data too long for column 'source' at row 1 *** West Is Foolish To Celebrate Iran’s Currency Crisis, Ayatollah Says (NYT) By Rick Gladstone New York Times, October 11, 2012 Iran’s supreme leader spoke out publicly for the first time on Wednesday about the country’s foreign-exchange problems, describing the mass protest in Tehran last week over the plummeting Iranian currency as an anomaly that the West had gleefully but foolishly misinterpreted as a harbinger of crisis. In a speech reported by Iranian news services, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also exhorted Iranians not to fear the intensifying regimen of Western sanctions over Iran’s disputed nuclear program. Many outside economists have said the sanctions — which have targeted Iran’s oil and banking sectors — have played an important role in weakening the rial, the national currency. The rial has lost roughly 40 percent of its value against the dollar this month and is down 80 percent against the dollar for the year. “The issue of sanctions is not a new issue and has existed since the victory of the Islamic Revolution,” the ayatollah said in his speech in North Khorasan Province. “But the enemies are making efforts to blow the issue of sanctions out of proportion, and, unfortunately, certain people inside are assisting them.” The remarks by Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the final word on affairs of state, appeared to reinforce his policy of absolute defiance in the face of Western pressure, and offered a hint that some officials in Iran are ambivalent about that strategy. The ayatollah has long insisted that sanctions would never force Iran into suspending its uranium enrichment program, which Western nations suspect is a guise for developing nuclear weapons capacity. Ayatollah Khamenei and his subordinates contend that Iran is enriching uranium to produce energy and for medical purposes, and that sanctions are a form of economic warfare.

167

But it was not until Wednesday that he expressed an opinion about the Oct. 3 confrontation in Tehran between the police and Iranians trying to sell rials to black-market money traders for dollars and other foreign currencies. The panicky selling had been one of the most visible signs of worsening inflation and a lack of economic confidence. The ensuing violence was said to lead to at least two dozen arrests and galvanized thousands to march to the capital’s politically influential Grand Bazaar. Many of the merchants there closed for the day to express their anger over the rial’s plummeting value. The protest over the rial crisis was widely interpreted in the United States and Europe as signaling a profound new problem for the Iranian leadership, which has since cracked down on foreign-exchange speculators but does not appear to have a longer- term solution. Ayatollah Khamenei said the protest was nothing more than a pretext to disturb the peace. “For about two or three hours, a number of people set some garbage cans on fire on two Tehran streets, and immediately officials of certain countries flouted diplomatic protocol and childishly expressed delight,” he said. Addressing Western countries, he said, “Your problems are much more complicated than Iran’s problems because your economy has stagnated.” He dismissed Western leaders’ suggestion that the sanctions would be eased if Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment. “Now they claim that if the Iranian nation ignores its nuclear energy, the sanctions will be lifted,” he said. “They are telling a lie. They make decisions against the Iranian nation due to their long-cherished hostility.” Egypt Releases Partial Draft Of New Constitution (WP) By Abigail Hauslohner Washington Post, October 11, 2012 CAIRO — The committee tasked with writing Egypt’s new constitution released an unfinished draft to the public Wednesday and encouraged Egyptians to start debating it. But the document left out several key sections, reflecting the ongoing disputes that have dogged the drafting of Egypt’s first constitution since a popular uprising ended the 30-year rule of Hosni Mubarak last year. A 100-member constituent assembly has been tasked with writing the new charter, after the 1971 constitution was suspended when Mubarak stepped down in February 2011. But the process of translating the values of the new Egypt into codified law has proved so contentious that members of the Islamist-dominated panel said that Wednesday’s incomplete draft was intended largely to build public support for the process while they continue to spar over the specifics. “It’s to alleviate the pressure,” said Gamal Gad Nassar, a constitutional law expert and a member of the assembly. He said the committee had not voted on the draft and that the material that was released was a collection “of the many drafts and readings the assembly has discussed.” Missing from the draft are crucial sections that would define the nature of Egypt’s new system of checks and balances, as well as the future role for its military after the first democratic presidential election in the country’s history ended six decades of military rule. “This is obviously a work in progress,” said Nathan Brown, a professor of political science at George Washington University. “Will the cabinet have no oversight responsibilities over parliament? There’s a lot of ambiguity in there.” The draft left Article 2, which stipulates that Islam is the religion of the state and that Islamic law is the principal source of legislation, intact. But it included a new article that limits gender equality to the extent that it interferes with “the rulings of the Islamic Sharia” — a provision that has sparked a backlash and threats of a mass walk-out by liberals and rights groups. Another controversial article that had been previously leaked but did not appear in Wednesday’s draft would give Al-Azhar, the country’s highest Islamic authority, unprecedented powers to review forthcoming laws. Mohamed el-Beltagi, an assembly member from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice party said the draft marks the launch of the assembly’s “Know your constitution” campaign. “It is the right of every Egyptian in and outside of Egypt to review the draft [and] suggest articles that are even better than what is already in there,” he told reporters Wednesday at a press conference where copies of the draft were handed out. Committee members are hoping to finalize the document and put the new constitution to a national referendum by the end of the year. Ingy Hassieb contributed to this report. Mubarak Loyalists Acquitted In Attack On Protest (AP)

168

By Sarah El Deeb, Associated Press Associated Press, October 11, 2012 CAIRO (AP) — An Egyptian court on Wednesday acquitted 24 loyalists of ousted President Hosni Mubarak who had been accused of organizing one of the most dramatic attacks on protesters during last year's uprising, the "Camel Battle," in which assailants on horses and camels charged into crowds in Cairo's Tahrir Square. The 24 were found innocent on charges of manslaughter and attempted murder. The defendants included some of the biggest names of Mubarak's regime, including the former parliament speaker and the head of the now-dissolved ruling party, along with government ministers and businessmen. A 25th defendant died during the course of the trial. The Feb. 2, 2011 assault left nearly a dozen people killed and was a major turning point in the 18-day wave of protests that led to Mubarak's downfall. It came a day after Mubarak spoke on national television, saying he would eventually step down. The emotional speech won him sympathy and drained the numbers of protesters in a days-long sit-in in Cairo's Tahrir Square, the heart of the uprising. But then the attack came. A crowd of Mubarak supporters waded into the young activists at the sit-in. Amid the melee, a number of men on horses and camels swept in, trying to beat and trample protesters. The assault, widely aired on TV, turned into an all-out battle that lasted two days, with more protesters flooding into the square to defend it in clashes that saw the two sides pelting each other with stones, bricks and firebombs. In the end, the Mubarak supporters were driven away. The attack and the images of young protesters fighting back reversed sympathies and galvanized the uprising. Many Egyptians who were sitting on the fence saw it as a desperate last ditch attempt to crush the revolt, and many accused Mubarak officials and pro-regime businessmen of paying thugs to carry out the attack. The wave of protests grew and on Feb. 11, 2011, Mubarak was forced out. The judges still are to issue a detailed explanation of their verdict, clearing the 24. The defendants' lawyers had asked for an acquittal because they said there was not enough evidence incriminating their clients. An official in the prosecutor general's office said an attorney has been commissioned to review the reasons for the verdict, a sign it will likely appeal. A senior figure in the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed el-Beltagi, said in comments published on its party's online newspaper that the acquittal is a "farce" and called on Egypt's new president, the Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi to intervene to retry the defendants. Gamal Eid, a human rights lawyer whose center was involved in the case, said some evidence presented to the court was not taken into consideration and other evidence was tampered with. Some witnesses in the case changed their testimony from what they had given earlier to investigators, Eid said, blaming pressure from still powerful ex-regime loyalists. Activists are planning a large rally on Friday criticizing Morsi's 3-month-old rule, and the acquittals of some of the most hated figures of Mubarak's regime are likely to fuel calls for justice. Nearly 1,000 protesters were killed in the uprising against Mubarak, mostly during clashes with security forces in the early days of the protests, which began on Jan. 25, 2011. But almost none of the officials and policemen brought to trial for the deaths have been found guilty. Most were released for lack of evidence and poor investigation. Mubarak was sentenced to life in prison for failing to stop the violence. Lawyers and activists have questioned the impartiality of the investigations into the killings, which were conducted in the days following the uprising by Mubarak-era officials who still held their posts and by police officers embittered by the protests. The multiple acquittals have fueled calls for reforming the judiciary, which is still made up of judges appointed under Mubarak. Morsi has promised to hold new trials on new evidence and appointed a new fact-finding mission to investigate the deaths of protests. Ahmed Ragheb, a human rights lawyer who is participating in the fact-finding mission, said Wednesday's verdict was not a surprise, considering numerous flaws in the procedures leading up to the trial and reported pressures on witnesses and investigating judges from ex-regime officials. "The acquittal doesn't mean this didn't happen or that so and so did not commit the crime. It means the evidence is not enough," he said. "This is the case in most of the other trials concerning the killing of protesters, because the police, who are accused in the killings, are the ones collecting evidence." Ragheb said the fact-finding mission has collected new evidence, but that anything short of an overhaul of the judicial system would not mete out justice for the protesters. "The current judicial system is not qualified to try the state. It is part of it," he said. "We need a new justice system that can protect the revolution," and implement a system of transitional justice to bring former regime officials to trial. Chief among the defendants in the "Camel Battle" trial was Safwat el-Sherif, one of Mubarak's most trusted aids and secretary-general of Mubarak's National Democratic Party, and Fathi Sorour, who served for decades as speaker of parliament. 169

Last year, a government-appointed commission investigating the Feb. 2 events released findings, based on testimony from 87 witnesses. The commission said el-Sherif masterminded the attack, making phone calls to ruling party lawmakers and their supporters and telling them to "curb anti-Mubarak protests in Tahrir Square with violence." "The eyewitnesses said that there was a specific assignment to clear the square by any means," the report said. Sorour paid thugs anywhere from 50 to 500 Egyptian pounds ($9 to $90) and provided them with meals and drugs to attack the crowd, the commission said. Witnesses told the investigators they saw ruling party members among the assailants, inciting them against the protesters, and even some on the camels and horses, the report said. "Snipers also took positions on rooftops of residential buildings overlooking the square and they opened fire at protesters." Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Russia Won’t Renew Pact On Weapons With U.S. (NYT) By David M. Herszenhorn New York Times, October 11, 2012 MOSCOW — The Russian government said Wednesday that it would not renew a hugely successful 20-year partnership with the United States to safeguard and dismantle nuclear and chemical weapons in the former Soviet Union when the program expires next spring, a potentially grave setback in the already fraying relationship between the former cold war enemies. The Kremlin’s refusal to renew the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program would put an end to a multibillion- dollar effort, financed largely by American taxpayers, that is widely credited with removing all nuclear weapons from the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus; deactivating more than 7,600 strategic nuclear warheads; and eliminating huge stockpiles of nuclear missiles and chemical weapons, as well as launchers and other equipment and military sites that supported unconventional weapons. “The American side knows that we would not want a new extension,” a deputy foreign minister, Sergey Ruabkov, told the news agency Interfax. “This is not news.” In a statement on its Web site, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that the Obama administration had proposed renewing the arrangement but that Washington was well aware of Russia’s opposition. “American partners know that their proposal is not consistent with our ideas about what forms and on what basis further cooperation should be built,” the statement said. Russian officials, meanwhile, noted that their country’s financial situation is far improved from the days after the collapse of the Soviet Union, raising the possibility that Russia would be willing to continue initiatives started under the Nunn-Lugar agreement, but with its own financing and supervision. The Foreign Ministry, in its statement, noted that Russia has increased its budget allocation “in the field of disarmament.” American officials, including one of the original architects of the program, Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, have said they still have hope of reaching some form of new agreement with Russia. But the prospects seem bleak. President Vladimir V. Putin, while expressing a willingness to cooperate on nonproliferation issues, has said that a more pressing priority is to address Russia’s opposition to United States plans for a missile defense system based in Europe. President Obama has shown little willingness to make any concessions, other than to offer repeated reassurance that the system is not intended for use against Russia. And the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, seems even less likely to compromise on the missile defense issue. The plan to end the Nunn-Lugar program appears to be the latest step by the Russian government in an expanding effort to curtail American-led initiatives, and especially the influence of American money, in various spheres of Russian public policy. Last month, the Kremlin directed the United States Agency for International Development to halt all of its operations in Russia, which similarly entailed two decades of work, but in support of nonprofit groups like human rights advocates and civil society and public health programs. The Russian government had made no secret of its unhappiness with some programs financed by the Agency for International Development, like Golos, the country’s only independent election-monitoring group, which helped expose fraud in disputed parliamentary voting last December. Mr. Lugar, who is leaving the Senate at the end of this year, visited Moscow in August to begin pressing for renewal of the program and found Russian officials resistant. “The Russian government indicated a desire to make changes to the Nunn-Lugar Umbrella Agreement as opposed to simply extending it,” he said Wednesday. “At no time did officials indicate that, at this stage of negotiation, they were intent on ending it, only amending it.” 170

But Mr. Lugar, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, lost a primary election this year in his bid for a seventh term, and he has acknowledged that there are few lawmakers who seem willing to carry on his efforts, which began in partnership with Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat of Georgia. During his August visit to Moscow, Mr. Lugar said he hoped that the United States and Russia could use their past successes as a basis for expanding their efforts to reduce the threat of unconventional weapons in other countries. He raised the idea of trying to eliminate chemical weapons in Syria. Russian officials, however, seem increasingly unwilling to let the United States set the agenda in global diplomacy — blocking demands, for example, for more aggressive intervention in Syria. Russia Says No To US-funded Disarmament Effort (AP) By Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press Associated Press, October 11, 2012 MOSCOW (AP) — Russia said Wednesday it had no intention to automatically extend a 20-year old deal with the United States helping secure the nation's nuclear stockpiles, a move that comes amid a growing isolationist streak in Kremlin policy. Under the 1992 program initiated by Sens. Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, the U.S. has provided billions of dollars in equipment and know-how to help Russia and its ex-Soviet neighbors deal with Soviet nuclear legacy. The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program provided reinforced rail cars to carry nuclear warheads, high-tech security systems for storage sites and helped pay for the dismantling of mothballed nuclear submarines and other weapons. It played a major role in preventing the deadly weapons from falling into the wrong hands while the Russian government was facing a severe money crunch amid an economic meltdown and political turmoil that followed the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russian Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that it wouldn't accept a U.S. offer to extend the deal that expires in 2013 without a major overhaul. "American partners know that their proposal doesn't correspond to our ideas about what forms and what foundation we need to develop further cooperation," it said in a statement. "For that, we need, in particular, a different and more modern legal framework." While the ministry wouldn't elaborate further on the motives behind Moscow's decision, or spell out its demands, representatives of Russia's top military brass have long complained that the Nunn-Lugar program gives the U.S. too much access and information about the nation's military technologies and weapons sites. Lugar said in a statement that during his trip to Russia in August, Russian officials told him that they would like to make changes in the original agreement instead of simply extending it. "At no time did officials indicate that, at this stage of negotiation, they were intent on ending it, only amending it," he said. He added that Russia's space agency officials also welcomed prospects for future work during his visit to a facility dismantling mothballed missiles. Moscow's move follows its decision last month to end the U.S. Agency for International Development's two decades of work in Russia. Moscow explained that decision by saying that the agency was using its money to influence elections — a claim the U.S. denied. President Vladimir Putin, who was re-elected to a third term in March despite massive demonstrations in Moscow against his rule, has permeated his campaign with anti-American rhetoric, accusing Washington of fomenting protest. Following Putin's inauguration in May, the Kremlin-controlled parliament quickly rubber-stamped a series of repressive laws that sharply hiked fines for taking part in unauthorized protests, recriminalized slander and required non-government organizations that receive foreign funding to register as foreign agents. Yet another bill under discussion expands the definition of treason to include handing over information to international organizations. Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Russia No Longer Wants U.S. Aid On Nuclear Arms Security (WP) By Will Englund Washington Post, October 11, 2012 MOSCOW — Russia has told the United States that it will not extend the Nunn-Lugar weapons reduction and security agreement after it expires at the end of May, saying it no longer needs to receive foreign aid and is concerned about leaks of nuclear security information.

171

The 21-year-old cooperative program was designed to help secure the nuclear and chemical weapons arsenal of the Soviet Union after the bloc’s collapse. At a cost of about $500 million a year, it has ensured the shipment of nuclear weapons out of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, deactivated more than 7,600 nuclear warheads, destroyed 902 intercontinental ballistic missiles and 33 submarines and secured 24 nuclear weapons storage sites. Russia has become increasingly uncomfortable in the role of a nation that receives outside assistance, and conservatives in the United States have pointed out that the program frees up Russian money that can be spent on new armaments. The Foreign Ministry indicated that Russia is not abandoning efforts to secure weapons of mass destruction, saying in a statement issued Wednesday evening that the country wants to create a new framework for nuclear security. “We have received an offer from the American side for the next renewal of the 1992 agreement,” the statement said. “Our American partners know that their proposal is not consistent with our ideas about what forms and on what basis further cooperation should be built. To this end, in particular, we need another, more modern legal framework.” The move comes just a few weeks after Russia announced it was expelling the U.S. Agency for International Development, the American foreign-aid program. Earlier this week, UNICEF also announced that it will wind up its operations in Russia by the end of the year. On Wednesday evening, Interfax quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying there was no connection between the shutdown of the aid programs and the end of the weapons agreement. But the Kremlin has been hewing to a distinctly anti-American tone as it attempts to portray its domestic opponents as agents of the United States. At the same time, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has called Russia America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe.” Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), one of two sponsors of the 1991 bill that created what is formally called the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, was defeated by a conservative Republican in this year’s Indiana Senate primary, thus removing its principal advocate from office. His co-sponsor, former senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), issued a statement Wednesday noting how much had been accomplished under the pact and adding: “I hope and expect that the U.S.-Russian partnership will be strengthened by any changes to the program.” The Nunn-Lugar program also targets chemical weapons and has established monitoring facilities for the detection of biological weapons. Russia says it has no biological arms. In the past decade, the program was expanded beyond the former Soviet Union and was put to use in aiding Albania to destroy its stockpile of chemical weapons. Moscow Court Frees 1 Of 3 Pussy Riot Members (AP) By Nataliya Vasilyeva, Associated Press Associated Press, October 11, 2012 MOSCOW (AP) — One jailed member of the punk band Pussy Riot unexpectedly walked free from a Moscow courtroom, but the other two now head toward a harsh punishment for their irreverent protest against President Vladimir Putin: a penal colony. The split ruling by the appeals court Wednesday added further controversy to a case that has been seized upon in the West as a symbol of Putin's intensifying crackdown on dissent. All three women were convicted in August of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred and sentenced to two years in prison. They argued in court on Wednesday that their impromptu performance inside Moscow's main cathedral in February was political in nature and not an attack on religion. The Moscow City Court ruled that Yekaterina Samutsevich's sentence should be suspended because she was thrown out of the cathedral by guards before she could remove her guitar from its case and thus did not take part in the performance. If the Kremlin's plan was to create a rift in the trio by letting just one band member go, it didn't seem to work. The two other defendants squealed with joy and hugged Samutsevich before she was led from the courtroom to be mobbed by friends and journalists waiting outside on the street. Dressed in neon-colored dresses and tights, with homemade balaclavas on their heads, the band members performed a "punk prayer" asking the Virgin Mary to save Russia from Putin as he headed into a March election that would hand him a third term. "If we unintentionally offended any believers with our actions, we express our apologies," said Samutsevich, who along with Maria Alekhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova spoke in court Wednesday from inside a glass cage known colloquially as the "aquarium."

172

Both the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church would like to see an end to a case that has caused international outrage, but they would hate to be seen as caving to pressure. As much as anything, the release of Samutsevich is viewed as a reward for her decision this month to drop defense lawyers who had antagonized the Kremlin with their politicized statements. "The idea of the protest was political, not religious," Samutsevich said. "In this and in previous protests we acted against the current government of the president, and against the Russian Orthodox Church as an institution of the Russian government, against the political comments of the Russian patriarch. Exactly because of this I don't consider that I committed a crime." Rights groups were frustrated by the appeals court decision. "To see these two women sent to a Russian penal colony for the crime of singing a song undercuts any claim that Putin and the Russian government have to democracy and freedom of expression," Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said Wednesday in a telephone interview from Washington. "It's a very cold climate for human rights in Russia right now," Nossel said. Putin recently said the two-year sentences were justified because "it is impermissible to undermine our moral foundations, moral values, to try to destroy the country." Defense lawyers said his remarks amounted to pressure on the appeals court. The appeal was postponed from Oct. 1 after Samutsevich fired her lawyers, a move prosecutors criticized at the time as a delaying tactic. Her father said the appointment of the new lawyer was decisive in securing the suspended sentence. "This is a great happiness to me," Stanislav Samutsevich said. "But I feel sorry for other girls. They did not deserve such cruel punishment." His daughter, a computer programmer and artist, said she would campaign for the release of the other Pussy Riot members. "Of course, I will, naturally. They are my friends and companions in arms," Samutsevich, who at 30 is the oldest of the three, told journalists outside the courtroom. "As to the decision, I don't know why, you need to ask the court. I think this was thanks to the defense's ironclad arguments." Her new lawyer, Irina Khrunova, said the reason for Samutsevich's release was clear: "She did not participate in the actions the court found constituted hooliganism." Members of the original defense team, who have been outspoken in their fierce criticism of the Kremlin, said they suspected political maneuverings. "We are dealing with a political game that could be about splitting Pussy Riot," defense lawyer Mark Feygin said. Pavel Chikov, who like Khrunova is a member of an association of lawyers known for their work on rights cases, said the defense appeared to have two choices — either create a scandal and accept a harsh verdict, or work for the lightest punishment. "The girls chose the former," he wrote on Twitter. The Russian Orthodox Church had said the appeals court should show leniency if the three women repented. But the defendants said Wednesday that they could not repent because they harbored no religious hatred and had committed no crime. Their protest, they said, was against Putin and the church hierarchy for openly supporting his rule. Patriarch Kirill has expressed strong support for Putin, praising his leadership as "God's miracle." He described the punk performance as part of an assault by "enemy forces" on the church. The judge repeatedly interrupted the defendants when their statements turned to politics, but they persisted in speaking their minds. "We will not be silent. And even if we are in Mordovia or Siberia (regions where prisoners in Russia are often sent to serve out their terms) we won't be silent," Alekhina said. Defense attorney Nikolai Polozov said the two women would receive copies of their sentences within two weeks and then transported to a penal colony; the location was as yet unknown. Once convicted, all Russian prisoners serve time in penal colonies. A lawyer representing cathedral staff, Alexei Taratukhin, urged the court to uphold the verdict because the women's actions "had nothing to do with politics, democracy or freedom." Five members of Pussy Riot entered the vast and nearly empty Christ the Savior Cathedral on Feb. 21. After Samutsevich and her guitar were bundled out, only four of them were left to dance on the pulpit and shout out the words to their song before they too were ousted by security guards. The band members were wearing their trademark balaclavas, which may have made it more difficult for police to identify them. The three women were arrested in March, and the group said the two others have since fled the country. Pussy Riot later produced a video that included footage of a previous performance in a smaller church and had a dubbed soundtrack. This video, which became an Internet hit, was what most angered Russian Orthodox believers. Tolokonnikova appealed to Russians for understanding: 173

"I don't consider myself guilty. But again I ask all those who are listening to me for the last time: I don't want people to be angry at me: Yes, I'm going to prison, but I don't want anyone to think that there is any hatred in me." The court refused the defense lawyers' request to take into consideration that Tolokonnikova and Alekhina both have a young child. ___ Mansur Mirovalev, Max Seddon and Lynn Berry contributed to this report. Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. China Snubs Financial Meetings In Japan In Dispute Over Islands (NYT) By Martin Fackler New York Times, October 11, 2012 TOKYO — Two top Chinese officials will not attend international financial meetings in Tokyo this week, in an apparent snub aimed at showing China’s displeasure with Japan’s handling of a dispute over islands claimed by both Asian nations. The last-minute cancellation, confirmed by Japanese officials on Wednesday, came as a Japanese news agency reported that Tokyo may try to defuse the standoff by officially acknowledging for the first time that China also claims the uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, known as the Senkaku in Japanese and Diaoyu in China. The decision by China not to send its finance minister or central bank chief to the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank is the latest sign of how the highly volatile territorial dispute is beginning to damage the huge economic relationship between China and Japan, the world’s second- and third-largest economies respectively. Tensions began rising after the Japanese government bought three of the five islands last month from their owner, a Japanese citizen. The move touched off a wave of violent street demonstrations across China, in which Japanese businesses and even Japanese-brand vehicles and their owners were attacked. The stakes are particularly high for Japan, whose long stagnant economy has become increasingly reliant on China as both a manufacturing base and a high-growth market for Japanese goods. On Wednesday, Japan’s leading stock index fell 2 percent after Japanese automakers reported a large drop in sales in China, the result of consumer boycotts of Japanese products. Japanese officials had said that they expected the Chinese finance minister, Xie Xuren, and the governor of the People’s Bank of China, Zhou Xiaochuan, to attend the meetings in Tokyo, which have drawn top finance leaders from 180 nations. They said that the Chinese suddenly informed them earlier this week that the Chinese delegation would instead be headed by two lower-level officials, a deputy central bank governor and a vice finance minister. Executives from four of China’s largest state-owned banks, including the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and the Bank of China, also skipped the meetings in Tokyo, the officials said. They said they did not know why the Chinese officials had canceled, refusing to say whether the decision was linked to the islands row. Still, Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba called the decision “very disappointing.” “I don’t think it will be a plus for China when you think about how the international community may interpret such action,” Mr. Gemba told reporters. Political analysts in Japan said the cancellation was an effort by China to use its growing financial clout to pressure Japan’s prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, to back down. They said China has shown itself increasingly willing to use economic pressure since two years ago, when it forced Japan to release a Chinese trawler captain arrested near the islands by cutting off exports of rare earths, a key raw material used by Japan’s electronics industry. “China is linking the territorial issue to financial issues in an effort to manipulate Japan,” said Koji Murata, a professor of international relations at Doshisha University in Kyoto. “China’s message is that it is prepared to use its presence in the international financial arena to pressure Japan.” China has also kept up another form of pressure by sending unarmed surveillance ships into waters near the disputed islands on almost a daily basis since last month. Japan has responded by sending dozens of coast guard ships to patrol the islands, which lie between Okinawa and China. While the islands are little more than rocky outcroppings, the seabed around them is believed to hold potentially rich deposits of oil and natural gas. Recovering the islands has become a popular patriotic cause in China, which says Japan wrongfully seized them as it embarked on brutal empire-building that led to the 1930s invasion of China itself. Japan purchased the islands last month in an effort to reduce tensions by keeping the islands out of the hands of Tokyo’s nationalist governor, who also sought to buy them. However, the action was interpreted in China as an effort to enforce Japanese control. 174

In what might be a sign that Tokyo could soon move to reduce tensions, Japan’s Kyodo News Agency reported on Wednesday that the Japanese government may ease back from its official refusal to recognize that a territorial dispute even exists, a stance that has long angered Chinese officials. The report said that while Japan will continue to deny the existence of a dispute, it will make a subtle concession by acknowledging that China also makes a claim to the islands, something that it has previously refused to do. Japanese officials refused to comment on the report, which did not give sources or details. Such anonymous leaks are sometimes used in Japan as trial balloons to test public reaction to policy shifts. When asked about the Japanese media reports during a regularly scheduled briefing on Wednesday in Beijing, Hong Lei, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, signaled some willingness by China to negotiate. “Japan should face reality, acknowledge the dispute, correct its mistakes and come back to a solution to the issue through negotiation,” he said. Keith Bradsher contributed reporting from Hong Kong. Smashed Skull Serves As Grim Symbol Of Seething Patriotism (NYT) By Amy Qin And Edward Wong New York Times, October 11, 2012 XI’AN, China — In the heart of one of China’s famed dynastic capitals, now a modern metropolis of eight million, Li Jianli lay partially paralyzed on a hospital bed with his skull smashed in and his speaking ability reduced to a few simple phrases — “yes,” “thank you” and so on. Only recently has Mr. Li begun to regain his ability to move and talk. The recovery has been slow and painful and tenuous, his relatives said. Then there is the emotional trauma. When Mr. Li was asked on a recent afternoon to talk about the events that led to his hospitalization, his wife quickly stepped in to change the topic. “Even now, when he talks at length about the events of that day, he gets upset and begins to cry,” she said later in the hallway. She asked to be identified only as Ms. Wang. What happened to Mr. Li, 51, was the ugliest known episode among anti-Japanese protests that convulsed cities in China last month after a longstanding dispute over an island chain erupted into fury. Mr. Li’s only offense, apparently, was driving a Japanese car. He ended up the victim of a mob that stopped the car on a wide boulevard in the middle of Xi’an. Now, even as anti-Japanese sentiment remains strong, Mr. Li has become a symbol for many Chinese of what can go wrong when latent nationalism spins out of control. “These protests could be a very important turning point in China’s democratic politics,” Bai Yansong, a prominent commentator on state television, said on his program, “1+1.” “Just because you have a just cause doesn’t mean that the process can be illegal.” He added, “They’re using the outer clothing of patriotism, but in fact they’re committing a crime.” The violence done to Mr. Li by one protester who beat his head was vividly captured by a bystander in a video that has become an Internet phenomenon. The police in Xi’an, the capital of Shaanxi Province, began a manhunt for the attacker and asked people around the country for help. Last week, the police announced that a man had been arrested. Xinhua, the state news agency, said the suspect could face the death penalty if convicted. With the territorial conflict between Japan and China over the Diaoyu Islands — called the Senkaku by Japan — still simmering, another diplomatic flare-up could prompt more protests and riots. During the rallies last month, Ai Weiwei, the dissident artist, shot a video of protesters outside the American Embassy in Beijing attacking a sedan carrying Ambassador Gary Locke. Many Chinese have attributed the Japanese government’s recent purchase of the islands to an American conspiracy. In a sign of continuing hostility, Japanese automakers announced Tuesday that sales of Japanese-brand vehicles in China had plummeted in the last month. In Xi’an, a slogan on a billboard by the airport expressway says, “The Diaoyu Islands belong to China.” Today, there are barely any signs of the protests in central Xi’an. Witnesses said it took a few days for city workers to clean up a pool of Mr. Li’s blood, but the street is back to normal. People looking closely at cars, though, can see that there are now small Chinese flags affixed to many of them, in particular those of Japanese make. Many liberal Chinese and foreigners have been asking whether the central government stoked the protests, or at least allowed them to go on unabated for too long. At the protests in Xi’an, which were among the most violent, the police were out in force, but some officers did not try to stop rioters from overturning police cars of Japanese make, several witnesses said. The attack on Mr. Li took place within 500 feet of a police station.

175

Mr. Li was driving home with his wife on Sept. 15 in a white Toyota Corolla after they had spent the morning looking at construction materials for their son’s new apartment, Ms. Wang said. Not far from the western gate of the ancient city wall, they encountered a crowd of protesters waving Chinese flags, chanting slogans and smashing cars. Protesters quickly encircled the Corolla and used batons, bricks and bicycle locks to smash the car with the couple inside. The two stepped out of the car to plead with the protesters to stop. Details of what happened next are murky, but the Internet video shows a heavyset man leaping at Mr. Li and delivering four blows to the back of his head with a bicycle lock. In the video, the sharp sound of metal whacking against skull can be heard above the din of the crowd. Ms. Wang screamed for help as she sat on the ground trying to stop the blood flowing out of her husband’s wound. As protesters continued to smash the car, one bystander yelled: “Can we first save this guy? We are all Chinese. Have you started to take him for a Japanese?” With the help of a few bystanders, Ms. Wang dragged her husband across the street and flagged down a taxi. At a hospital, Mr. Li underwent brain surgery. “It was complete chaos; my heart was thumping,” Ms. Wang said. “How could they be so heartless?” She added: “We heard that at the time the police did not dare to intervene. If they intervened, the situation would have become even more chaotic.” Last week, Mr. Li was able to walk a few steps for the first time since he was hospitalized. He is scheduled to have another surgery in six months. Doctors say he may never fully recover. Ms. Wang said Mr. Li had been the main provider for the family. “This is the kind of thing we see on television,” she said. “We never thought it could happen to us.” Amy Qin reported from Xi’an, and Edward Wong from Beijing. Long Reliant On China, Myanmar Now Turns To Japan (NYT) By Thomas Fuller New York Times, October 11, 2012 YANGON, MYANMAR — On a street in central Yangon the final moments of Kenji Nagai’s life were captured in a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, an image that exemplified the brutality of military rule in Myanmar. Mr. Nagai, a Japanese journalist, was shot five years ago during a crackdown on protesters by security forces, and his death was a low point in relations between Myanmar and Japan. Now, as Myanmar seeks to shed its authoritarian past, a much different picture is emerging. Japan is rapidly ramping up its presence in the country with a heavyweight deployment of government assistance and corporate heft reminiscent of the large investments at the height of Japan’s global economic power in the 1980s. One block away from the spot where Mr. Nagai was killed, on the fourth floor of City Hall, two dozen Japanese engineers are drawing up a master plan to remake the roads, telephone and Internet networks, water supply and sewage systems of Yangon, the country’s long-neglected commercial capital. With the attention to detail they are famous for, Japanese engineers are measuring traffic patterns in Yangon, inspecting 70-year-old water pipes and poring over maps and blueprints. “Myanmar is saying, ‘Welcome! Please help us,”’ said Ichiro Maruyama, the deputy chief of mission at the Japanese Embassy in Yangon. President Thein Sein, who traveled to Tokyo earlier this year to plead for help, is outsourcing crucial parts of his drive to redevelop the country to the Japanese. In addition to the makeover for Yangon, a Japanese consortium has been tasked with building a large industrial zone and satellite city on Yangon’s outskirts. The totality of Japanese assistance has stunned those who watch the country closely. “I’ve been somewhat astonished by the extent of the Japanese involvement and alacrity with which they’ve moved,” said Sean Turnell, an expert on Myanmar’s economy at Macquarie University in Sydney. By choosing Japan for these crucial projects, Myanmar is diversifying away from China, its largest foreign investor in recent years. Myanmar has become a sort of strategic battleground between Asia’s two economic titans, China and Japan, Mr. Turnell said. “This is a competition for pre-eminence and influence in Asia,” he said. China and Japan have diverging interests in the country. Japan is eager to tap into Myanmar’s cheap labor force and extend its massive network of factories spanning Thailand and Indochina. China is more focused on extracting Myanmar’s natural resources like natural gas, gems, timber and rubber as well as electricity from hydroelectric dams.

176

The impression that China is robbing the country of these resources has led to an anti-China backlash, including recent protests against a copper mine near the central city of Monywa and the suspension last year of the Myitsone hydroelectric dam. John Pang, the chief executive of CARI, a research organization based in Malaysia, says the Myanmar government’s pivot toward Japan “is not so much an attraction to Japan as much as a revulsion against the Chinese.” “It’s a game the Chinese gave away,” he said. The Japanese, Mr. Pang said, “come across as nonthreatening” and have managed to build up trust with Myanmar’s leaders. Many other governments have sought to upgrade relations and business contacts with Myanmar — South Korean and Singaporean companies are very active in the country — but Japan has been far more comprehensive in its approach. Japan’s overall strategy is to deploy the full force of what used to be called Japan Inc. Some of the country’s largest conglomerates — Mitsubishi, Marubeni and Sumitomo — are working in cooperation with the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry. “We haven’t had any project like this in at least 20 years,” said Masahiko Tanaka, the chief representative of Japan’s International Cooperation Agency, which will provide financing for the projects. The Japanese government says it is willing to lend Myanmar money for the projects on terms that are near-giveaways: loans with 0.01 percent interest payable over 50 years and with no payments due for the first 10 years. While the cheap money is no doubt attractive to the cash-strapped nation, Mr. Thein Sein appears to be counting on something else: help in winning the next election, scheduled for 2015. “They are requesting that the project be finished before 2015,” said Mr. Maruyama, the Japanese deputy chief of mission, referring to the industrial zone, which is called Thilawa and which will also include banks, schools, hospitals and other amenities of a city built from scratch. He jokingly calls the timetable “mission impossible.” Yohei Sasakawa, the chairman of the Nippon Foundation, a Japanese charity that focuses its assistance on areas where impoverished ethnic minorities live, says the government is very aware that the population will want to see a “democracy dividend” — tangible benefits from the transition away from military rule. “Every single person in the country will want the fruits of democratization,” Mr. Sasakawa said. Mr. Thein Sein has requested that the Nippon Foundation give priority to projects that can be completed quickly, like the construction of primary schools in remote areas, Mr. Sasakawa said. Japan’s plans for the makeover of Yangon stretch the meaning of the word ambitious. Large parts of the city’s infrastructure were built during the British colonial days, which ended in 1948. Train cars on British-built tracks ride on rotting railway ties. Yangon sidewalks are scarred by deep and treacherous crevices. A dilapidated sewage system covers only the central area, and pipes meant to deliver clean water are a Swiss cheese of leaks. “Leakage control is an urgent problem,” said Masaru Matsuoka, one of the engineers sent to fix the water system. In his native city of Fukuoka, in southern Japan, 2.6 percent of tap water leaks from the system. In Yangon, the figure is more than 40 percent. Equipment has been dispatched from Japan that will help pinpoint leaks underground, Mr. Matsuoka said. Much of Yangon’s infrastructure is held together with Band-Aid fixes. At a reservoir on the edge of the city, workers have jury-rigged strips of bamboo as a filtration system to prevent fish, foliage and trash from entering the pumping station. (Japanese engineers working on the project recommend against drinking the city’s tap water.) The Japanese government is also studying plans for mass transit systems, the rehabilitation of four power plants that provide electricity to Yangon, the construction of a second bridge over the Bago River and the addition of six berths to the port near Yangon that will serve the Thilawa project. The Japanese government says it will have a better idea about the cost of the projects once feasibility studies are completed at the end of the year. But it is sure the price tag will be in the billions of dollars. It has already reached a deal that would forgive or reschedule Myanmar’s outstanding debt to Japan. While Japan’s interest in Myanmar is partly geostrategic, for some older Japanese the re-engagement by Japan also cements a longstanding — and checkered — relationship between the two countries. Aung San, the country’s independence hero (and father of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who is now leader of the opposition in Parliament), trained in Japan before leading efforts to oust the British from the country. By helping main figures of the Burmese independence movement, the Japanese see themselves as the having been “midwives” of Burmese independence from the British, according to Mr. Turnell. The subsequent Japanese occupation of Burma during World War II was brutal. But the two nations developed a kind of kinship of former foes, something akin to the United States and Vietnam today.

177

The sentimentality that many Japanese have toward Myanmar may be in part because of a popular 1956 film, “The Burmese Harp,” in which a Japanese soldier dons the robes of a Buddhist monk and remains behind after the war. For Mr. Sasakawa of the Nippon Foundation, re-engaging with Myanmar is personal. He remembers eating rice shipped from Burma in the lean years after the war in Japan. “We are really late in repaying our obligation,” he said. “We are passionately looking forward to paying back the kindness of Myanmar.” US Revises Chinese Solar Cell Tariffs (FT) By Alan Beattie Financial Times, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Financial Times are available to FT subscribers by clicking the link. U.S. Sets Tariffs On Chinese Solar Panels (NYT) By Diane Cardwell And Keith Bradsher New York Times, October 11, 2012 The Commerce Department issued its final ruling Wednesday in a long-simmering trade dispute with China, imposing tariffs ranging from about 34 percent to nearly 47 percent on most manufacturers of solar panels and cells imported from the country. For most of the Chinese manufacturers, the penalties are somewhat higher than those announced by the Obama administration earlier this year, when the government determined that Chinese companies were benefiting from unfair government subsidies and were selling their products below the cost of production, a practice known as dumping, on the American market. For the biggest panel maker, Suntech, the duties are significantly higher, moving to almost 47 percent from about 33 percent. The trade case stemmed from a legal filing nearly a year ago by a coalition of manufacturers, led by SolarWorld, a German company with considerable manufacturing in the United States. The coalition contended that Chinese companies, which dominate global sales with a two-thirds market share, were competing unfairly in the American market. At the same time, the European Union began the world’s largest anti-dumping case, covering solar panel imports from China that totaled $26.5 billion last year. European solar panel companies have asked officials in Brussels to open an anti- subsidy case as well. Wholesale prices have declined by nearly three-quarters since 2008 as Chinese companies expanded capacity and production much faster than the growth in worldwide demand. When China began the rapid expansion of its solar industry several years ago, many in the global industry expected that further technological breakthroughs would result in additional cost reductions. But Chinese companies have driven costs down mainly through greater economies of scale from building ever-larger factories to produce conventional solar panels. About a dozen panel makers in the United States, as well as a similar number in Europe, have gone bankrupt or closed factories since the start of last year. The trade case has divided the American solar industry, with some manufacturers and installers siding with SolarWorld and others strongly opposing the tariffs. The opponents argue that the duties will make it more expensive for American families and companies to install solar systems and will slow economic development in communities where Chinese companies have established manufacturing plants. American manufacturers of factory equipment and raw materials have also expressed concern that trade measures could imperil their sales to China, whose government began its own investigation into whether American and South Korean manufacturers of polysilicon, the main ingredient in the solar panels, were selling the material below cost. Although the Commerce Department’s decision is final, the tariffs cannot go into effect unless the International Trade Commission finds that the Chinese pricing practices have actually harmed or threatened to harm the American industry, a determination that is not expected until November. But the commission issued a preliminary ruling that such injury has occurred and reversals are uncommon, particularly if the domestic industry is in trouble. This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: October 10, 2012 A Breaking News headline posted online in advance of this article misstated the range of tariffs, and an earlier version of the article referred to the range imprecisely. It is 34 percent to 47 percent, not 31 percent to 47 percent, on most manufacturers of solar panels and cells imported from China. Huawei’s U.S. Competitors Among Those Pushing For Scrutiny Of Chinese Tech Firm (WP) By Cecilia Kang 178

Washington Post, October 11, 2012 Companies in the cutthroat field of telecommunications received a remarkable marketing document recently, one aimed at causing suspicion about one of their biggest competitors, the Chinese firm Huawei. “Fear of Huawei spreads globally,” the report reads. “Despite denials, Huawei has struggled to de-link itself from China’s People’s Liberation Army and the Chinese government.” The paper’s author was Huawei’s main U.S. rival, the California-based company Cisco Systems. The marketing campaign got a boost this week when a report from Congress said much the same thing, raising national security concerns about Huawei’s alleged use of its technology to help the Chinese government expand its overseas spying operations. U.S. suspicions surrounding Huawei have presented a business opportunity for Cisco and other firms in the hyper- competitive world of telecom. Senior Hill staffers at three separate congressional offices say an array of American tech firms have lobbied them to increase scrutiny of Huawei, using language similar to Cisco’s campaign. Some analysts say the efforts to discredit Huawei illustrate a wariness among U.S. firms of highly successful, low-priced competitors from China that are roiling telecommunications — once a distinctly American industry. China has complained that the hurdles faced by Huawei in particular have amounted to the kind of arbitrary trade barrier that the United States has complained about on behalf of its companies around the world. No charges have been formally brought. And any evidence of whether Huawei is a threat to national security has been locked in a classified report that can be viewed only by a select few in government. That has created an ideal environment for U.S. businesses to gain an upper hand. U.S. lawmakers have warned companies to stop doing business with Huawei and ZTE, another Chinese telecom equipment provider. In recent years, U.S. officials have thwarted two attempts by Huawei to buy U.S. firms. In April 2011, lawmakers sent a letter to President Obama, criticizing the Agriculture Department’s contract with Huawei. In November 2010, Sprint Nextel chief executive Dan Hesse was asked by then-Commerce Secretary Gary Locke to reject bids from Huawei. “Huawei has been extremely successful and disruptive around the world, but the one market it hasn’t been able to penetrate is the U.S.,” said Mark Fabbi, a vice president of research at Gartner. “And that’s mainly because of politics and lobbyists pushing really, really hard to put up barriers.” The seven-page September 2011 presentation distributed by Cisco was obtained by The Washington Post from a person familiar with Cisco’s sales strategy who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. Titled “Huawei’s & National Security,” the document was used to lure clients away from Huawei, the person said. Cisco did not respond to requests for comment about its lobbying activity or the sales document. Spokesman John Earnhardt said, “In the last couple years, 18 months or so, we’ve taken a more competitive stance against competitors including HP, Huawei and Juniper.” Publicly, the company, which makes equipment that manages the flow of data on the Internet, has not been shy about going after Huawei. Huawei is our biggest “long-term threat,” Cisco chief executive John Chambers said in media interviews earlier this year. He added that the firm does not always “play by the rules.” By offering equipment sometimes at half the price of rival products, Huawei grew quickly after it entered the U.S. market in 2001, planting its U.S. headquarters in Plano, Tex. It has four research plants and employs about 1,700 workers in the United States. Huawei counts Leap Wireless and Clearwire as customers, as well as several small rural companies. It sold $1.3 billion in gear and devices to U.S. firms last year, about 4 percent of its overall sales. The House intelligence committee outlined its concerns in a report this week that could tilt the network equipment industry in favor of Cisco, Juniper and Hewlett-Packard in the United States, analysts say. The firms are all big suppliers of gear to U.S. wireless carriers that are racing to build out lightening-speed networks that will service smartphones and tablets around the country. “China is cyberattacking us every day, and we had real concerns about the role of Huawei and its connection to the Chinese government,” Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said in an interview. He said Cisco representatives have not met with him personally. “That coupled with the fact that Huawei wanted to expand their market share in the U.S. and grow” caught my attention, he said. For business rivals, the worrisome ascent of Huawei has fortuitously coincided with growing fears of China’s economic clout, some analysts say.

179

“What happens is you get competitors who are able to gin up lawmakers who are already wound up about China,” said one Hill staffer who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. “What they do is pull the string and see where the top spins.” But some experts say these concerns are exaggerated. These experts note that much of Cisco’s own technology is manufactured in China. Doug Guthrie, dean of the George Washington University Business School, said the reaction to Huawei harks back to the fear in the 1980s of Japanese companies that were overtaking the U.S. auto industry and buying up iconic pieces of real estate, such as the Rockefeller building in New York. The decline of U.S. automakers and the rise of foreign competition hit a nerve for Americans. “It was long thought that we were the number-one economy and China just supplied cheap labor,” Guthrie said. “Now it is clear that China has a lot to offer in terms of innovation and industrial policy and state investment, and now people are scared.” () Center For Strategic And International Studies, *** ERROR [HY000] [MySQL][ODBC 5.1 Driver][mysqld-5.5.16]Data too long for column 'source' at row 1 *** S&P Downgrades Spain’s Credit Rating 2 Notches To Lowest Investment-grade Level (AP) Associated Press, October 11, 2012 NEW YORK — Standard & Poor’s downgraded its rating on Spain’s debt Wednesday by two notches, leaving it on the cusp of junk status. A grinding recession, high unemployment and social unrest are limiting the government’s options for stemming the country’s financial crisis, S&P said. The credit-rating agency now rates debt issued by Spain BBB-, its lowest investment-grade status. It had been BBB+. S&P also assigned a negative outlook to the rating, saying it could be further downgraded if Spain’s economic conditions erode further. “Overall, against the backdrop of a deepening economic recession, we believe that the government’s resolve will be repeatedly tested by domestic constituencies that are being adversely affected by its policies,” S&P said. It also cited difficulty in predicting the extent to which other countries in the 17-nation eurozone would come to Spain’s aid. It had previously assumed a key European bailout fund would help recapitalize the country’s shaky banks without piling more debt on the central government in Madrid. But now any recapitalization plan will likely add more debt, S&P said. Investors are worried that Spanish banks could collapse under the weight of an imploding real-estate market. Tensions between Spain’s indebted regional governments and the central government were also cited by S&P for its downgrade. S&P estimates Spain’s economy will contract by 1.8 percent in 2012 and another 1.4 percent in 2013. Spanish unemployment is near 25 percent. Last month, the European Central Bank agreed to buy unlimited amounts of debt by struggling European countries like Spain to help lower their borrowing costs. But the governments first need to apply for bailout. Spain has not applied for a bailout yet. Instead, the government has introduced a series of austerity and labor measures in a bid to bring down its deficit and convince investors it can manage its finances without outside help. The interest rate, or yield, on 10-year Spanish bonds was 5.78 percent on Wednesday, near a six-month low. That was down from a July 24 peak of 7.54 percent, near the level that forced Greece, Portugal and Ireland to seek international bailouts. Government Discord Derails Massive European Merger (WSJ) By Daniel Michaels, David Gauthier-villars, Dana Cimilluca And Marcus Walker Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2012 Full-text stories from the Wall Street Journal are available to Journal subscribers by clicking the link. Ms. Merkel Goes To Athens (NYT) New York Times, October 11, 2012 Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, visiting Athens this week at the invitation of Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, got a chance to see the suffering and anger of Greeks firsthand, brought about by budget policies imposed in exchange for a European Union bailout in the debt crisis. She acknowledged the sacrifices Greeks have already made, yet she insisted that only more austerity can lead to better days. She could not be more wrong. 180

As the European Union’s dominant economic policy maker, Ms. Merkel has arguably exercised more power over Greece’s fortunes during the past three years than any Greek prime minister. Three years of spending cuts imposed largely at her insistence have reduced Greece’s gross domestic product by a staggering 25 percent and wrecked its mainstream political parties. Tens of thousands took to the streets on Tuesday to protest Ms. Merkel’s policies. At a joint news conference with Mr. Samaras, Ms. Merkel struck a conciliatory tone, but the policy substance was unchanged, even though the evidence refutes her position. Severe spending and public service cuts have failed to significantly reduce budget deficits or lower Greece’s debt burden as a percentage of its fast shrinking G.D.P. Economic contraction has taken a huge bite out of tax revenues and forced much of the labor force into involuntary idleness. A country that is not working cannot pay off its debts and cannot offer much hope for the future. Official unemployment is now 24 percent and 50 percent for young people. Following Germany’s lead, the official lenders — the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund — now insist on a package of more than $17 billion in new tax increases and spending cuts and a new round of politically difficult market reforms before releasing the next $40 billion installment of bailout money. Unless it receives that payment next month, Greece could be forced to default. The budget cuts and market reforms the European institutions are now demanding could prove explosive in Athens. Greek voters are fed up with a scandal-plagued Greek political establishment that votes to impose sacrifices while using political influence to shield itself. They have been deserting the moderate center parties in growing numbers, flocking instead to radical alternatives on the extreme left, like Syriza, now the main opposition party, and the street thugs of Golden Dawn on the extreme right. There are more palatable ways to help Greece achieve its deficit reduction targets, like giving it four years instead of two to meet those targets and negotiating debt write-downs on Greek loans from official institutions, as was earlier done with private lenders. Either tactic might give Mr. Samaras a little more breathing room. But what is really needed is abandoning the idea that austerity alone can ever extricate the euro zone from recession and debt. Ms. Merkel may not want to spend much time reflecting on Greece’s economic and political breakdown. But without wiser German leadership, the future of the euro, and the European Union itself, looks increasingly bleak. A Conservative Split Over The Middle East (WP) By Fareed Zakaria Washington Post, October 11, 2012 Mitt Romney’s speech on foreign affairs this week was surprisingly moderate. Rhetorically it was full of sound and fury but, on closer examination, it signified no major change of policy. Romney affirmed the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan; he did not propose sending troops back into Iraq and did not advocate military strikes on Iran. He pledged to work toward a two-state solution in the Middle East. He even left out the belligerence toward China that had been a staple of his speeches in recent months. Romney proposed one policy shift, toward Syria. But even there — in a carefully worded, passive construction — he did not announce that as president, he would arm the Syrian opposition, merely that he would “ensure they obtain the arms they need.” The “they” is “those members of the opposition who share our values.” So, Romney’s sole divergence from current policy is that we should try harder to find non-Islamists among the Syrian rebels and encourage Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to give them more arms. Romney’s moderation is partly a continuation of his pivot to the center. But it also reflects the lack of consensus among conservatives on what to do about the turmoil in the Middle East. Romney’s most spirited rhetorical attack was against President Obama’s policies in the wake of the Arab Spring. Referring to the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi, Romney asserted that “the attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East.” The problem is, conservatives are deeply divided about this struggle. Recently, Intelligence Squared, a feisty forum in New York, held a debate on the proposition “Better Elected Islamists Than Dictators,” referring to the choices the United States confronts in the Middle East. The lead speaker for the proposition was a prominent conservative intellectual, Reuel Marc Gerecht. The lead speaker against was . . . a prominent conservative intellectual, Daniel Pipes. That’s a reflection of the state of conservative thought on the issue. On the one hand, we see commentators such as Romney adviser John Bolton and TV anchor Sean Hannity, who believe that the Obama administration should have tried to keep Hosni Mubarak in power in Egypt. Last month Hannity described the emerging democratic system in Egypt as “the rise of violence, hate, Islamic extremism, madness and death.” On the other hand, 181

we see Paul Wolfowitz and others celebrate the fall of Arab tyrannies, wishing only that Obama had been quicker to support the transition to elections. This debate is important. Over the next few decades, the Middle East could become home to the rise of “illiberal democracy” — countries with many elections but few individual rights — or to a gradual evolution toward pluralism and the rule of law. But as Hannity’s comments suggest, this discussion is being superseded on the right by a visceral reaction to Islam and Islamism that is neither accurate nor helpful in understanding what is happening in the region. The heart of the problem in the Arab world is that the old order was highly unstable. Repressive regimes such as Egypt’s had, over decades, created extreme opposition movements. That opposition often became violent and attacked the United States for supporting those dictatorships. In other words, U.S. support for Mubarak, the Saudi monarchy and other such regimes fueled the terrorist groups that attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001. Al-Qaeda understands that if the Arab world democratizes, it loses the core of its ideological appeal — which is why al- Qaeda’s leader, Ayman Zawahiri, wrote a book condemning the Muslim Brotherhood’s decision to support and participate in Egypt’s democratic process. We might despair over a particular statement or policy from the new Egyptian president. But the larger reality is that the Arab world now has elected leaders with real legitimacy — and many of them have denounced al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups and are trying to reconcile Islam and democracy. Should we oppose them? That’s why Romney, in the end, proposes that we work with elected governments of Libya and Egypt and try to push them in the right direction. There is one place where a resolutely secular dictatorship is in trouble — from an opposition movement that has within it radical Islamic forces. So, those who truly believe that it is better to back secular dictators than to gamble on the prospects of political Islam should be supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. [email protected]

182