Joining today's show are Mike Barnicle, Mark Halperin, Nicolle Wallace, Richard Haass, Eugene Robinson, Chris Jansing, Mark Leibovich, Kasie Hunt, Thomas Sanderson, Sen. Joe Manchin, Ray Suarez, Brian Sullivan, Leigh Gallagher, Daniel Junge, Kief Davidson and more
Trump Leads, Bush Second in N.H. in Monmouth University Poll. Donald Trump has a 2-to-1 edge over his nearest rival, Jeb Bush, in Monmouth University Poll of likely New Hampshire GOP primary voters.
“The controversy over comments about John McCain’s war service do not appear to have slowed the Trump steamroller,” Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute says in statement
NOTE: Poll was conducted entirely after Trump’s July 18 comment that McCain is “not a war hero”; related story
When second choices are taken into account, Trump takes votes from nearly all his opponents, but appears to hurt Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz the most
Trump backed by 24% of likely voters, Bush backed by 12%
John Kasich at 7%, Scott Walker at 7%, Marco Rubio at 6%, Ben Carson at 5%, Rand Paul at 5%; others below 5%, 14% undecided
While candidates travel state to state collecting donations and giving speeches, Congress is still in session.
Some make a point of getting back to Washington to vote. Senator Rand Paul has only missed two votes since the beginning of the year and Senator Bernie Sanders just six, but other candidates haven't been quite as focused on their elected office.
However, this isn't just a Republican problem. During the 2008 campaign, Democrats also had trouble tending to their day jobs while running for president. In 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama missed nearly 80 percent of votes in September and October, according to a November 2007 report from CNN. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton missed 63 percent of senate votes during that same period.
The president's absentee record from his days in the Senate shows that missing votes does not appear to be a deal breaker with voters. So Rubio may be wise to prioritize fundraising and campaigning.
A new poll of voters likely to take part in the New Hampshire Republican primary shows Donald Trump with the biggest lead he has yet held in the GOP race. The Monmouth University poll, released Tuesday morning, has Trump at 24 percent -- double the support of the next-highest Republican, Jeb Bush, at 12 percent.
Scott Walker and John Kasich are tied for third at seven percent apiece -- a significant drop for Walker from recent months and a significant advance for Kasich, who announced his candidacy on June 21. Following are Marco Rubio, at six percent; Ben Carson and Rand Paul, five percent; Chris Christie, four percent; Ted Cruz and Carol Fiorina, three percent; and the rest of the field.
The survey suggests Trump's appeal is strong across the spectrum of voters likely to go to the polls in the New Hampshire primary. Among registered Republicans, his support is 21 percent. Among independents, who are allowed to vote in the GOP primary, his support is 29 percent. Trump leads among voters who call themselves very conservative, as well as among those who call themselves somewhat conservative. Only among moderate voters does Bush lead, and even among them, Trump is just four points behind.
Trump has a huge lead among voters under 50 years old -- 30 percent to Rand Paul's 12 percent. Trump also has a solid advantage among voters over 50 -- 21 percent to Bush's 13 percent.
Trump is still a divisive figure, but the new poll shows him in (barely) positive territory on the favorability question -- 47 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of Trump, while 44 percent have an unfavorable view. Trump's 47 percent favorable rating is the same as Bush's, although Bush has a lower (37 percent) unfavorable rating.
The poll, of 467 New Hampshire voters, was conducted from July 23 to July 26 -- after Trump's much-discussed July 18 attack on two-time New Hampshire primary winner John McCain's war record. "The controversy over comments about John McCain's war service do not appear to have slowed the Trump steamroller," said Patrick Murray, head of Monmouth University polling, in a statement accompanying the poll results. While the McCain comments could still damage Trump -- voter reactions almost always take longer to show up than the instant controversies that consume the political class -- at least so far, Trump is suffering no harm in New Hampshire.
Trump's statements on immigration have received a lot of attention, but the new poll suggests he is the current voter favorite on the basis of a wide range of issues. "When asked to choose the most important issue in deciding who they will support for the GOP nomination, New Hampshire primary voters select national security (25 percent) and the economy (23 percent) as their top concerns, followed by taxes and government spending (20 percent)," Monmouth reports. Immigration was fourth, with 13 percent, followed by social issues at eight percent.
Trump's 12-point lead is by far his largest so far in New Hampshire. In an NBC survey of state voters taken around the time of the McCain remarks, Trump led by seven points. In CNN and Suffolk polls released in June, Bush held leads of five and three points, respectively.
The new poll will do nothing to allay the concerns of Republican establishment figures who fear Trump is damaging the GOP brand among general election voters. (Trump is currently in second place in Iowa and leading in national surveys.) Many political strategists believe it is only a matter of time before the Trump bubble bursts, either by Trump's own hand or as a result from attacks by rival candidates. But the new Monmouth poll suggests that so far, the voters of New Hampshire are not going along.
Jewish groups react to Mike Huckabee’s ‘oven’ remarks. Jewish groups across the country reacted to Mike Huckabee’s comments, in which the GOP presidential candidate this weekend likened the Iran deal to the Holocaust, with one organization saying the remarks “may be the most inexcusable we’ve encountered in recent memory.”
The former Arkansas governor has for months condemned the deal between Iran and world powers that will limit Tehran’s nuclear program for 10 years in exchange for fewer sanctions. Huckabee previously compared the deal to giving a pyromaniac 10 gallons of gasoline and matches.
Huckabee pushed the boundaries even further this weekend when he called the deal “idiotic” and said that President Barack Obama will ultimately “take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.”
The National Jewish Democratic Council immediately called on members of the Republican Party to denounce Huckabee’s comments, saying it is “not only disgustingly offensive to the President and the White House, but shows utter, callous disregard for the millions of lives lost in the Shoah and to the pain still felt by their descendants today.”
“It may be the most inexcusable we’ve encountered in recent memory,” the organization added in a statement.
The Anti-Defamation League, a group that fights antisemitism, said that while they are wary of the deal, Huckabee’s comments are “completely out of line and unacceptable.”
“To hear Mr. Huckabee invoke the Holocaust when America is Israel’s greatest ally and when Israel is a strong nation capable of defending itself is disheartening,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, in a statement.
This isn’t the first time the former Arkansas governor has cited the mass genocide of Jews by the Nazi regime: He previously said abortion was worse than the Holocaust.
Huckabee is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who condemned the deal and said it gave Iran a “sure path to nuclear weapons.” The presidential candidate has relentlessly slammed the agreement, and it was one of the big talking points of his presidential announcement.
The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) criticized Huckabee’s word choice, but said the threat of a nuclear weapon is real. “His remark about marching the Israelis to the door of the oven was a poor choice of words but reflects his understanding that Iran has threatened to annihilate Israel and this deal could give them the means to carry out that threat,” the group’s executive director, Mitchell Bard, said in a statement to msnbc.
President of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation, Jerry Klinger, told msnbc that “if you take a historic view on Huckabee’s comments, he’s right.”
Acknowledging the former governor’s close ties with Netanyahu, Klinger said “why should this be different when you have your neighbor threatening to exterminate and kill you.”
Huckabee doubled down on his comments Sunday, tweeting an image with the headline-grabbing “door of the oven” quote, urging Americans to “tell Congress to do their constitutional duty & reject the Obama-Kerry #IranDeal,” with a link to his campaign website.
While on a trip in Africa Monday morning, Obama scolded Huckabee, saying the comments “would be considered ridiculous if it wasn’t so sad.” The Republican candidate fired back in a statement emailed to msnbc saying that “what’s ridiculous and sad is that President Obama does not take the Iran threats seriously.”
Members of Congress last week began a 60-day review of the deal, which several Republicans are hoping will result in blocking the agreement. Should Congress pass a resolution of disapproval, Obama vowed to issue a veto.
At least Mike Huckabee's comments have taken the attention away from the Donald trump campaign.
2024 Olympics: Boston Won't Pursue Bid to Host Games.
Boston's controversial bid for the 2024 Olympic Games is over before it even got off the ground.
The organizers confirmed the decision Monday via Twitter, while an Associated Press report stated the U.S. Olympic Committee would explore a bid with a new city, with Los Angeles being the "best bet."
"L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti released a statement saying that his office hadn't had any recent conversations with the USOC but he'd be happy to have them," the AP report stated.
Los Angeles, which finished second behind Boston in the competition to win the bid, "would be ready and willing to mount a bid on short notice," according to David Wharton of the Los Angeles Times.
The USOC originally chose Boston over Washington D.C., San Francisco and Los Angeles as the U.S. bid representative in January. Despite an initial push from politicians within the city, Boston residents soured on the Olympic bid almost from the moment it became official. In April, an NPR poll found 50 percent of Boston-area residents were opposed to the city hosting the Olympics, with most citing the onerous burden on taxpayers.
The push to withdraw a bid altogether has been cresting in recent days, with Mayor Martin J. Walsh saying Monday he was not ready to make taxpayers responsible for cost overruns.
"I cannot commit to putting the taxpayers at risk," Walsh said, per Mark Arsenault and Andrew Ryan of the Boston Globe. "If committing to sign a guarantee today is what's required to move forward, then Boston is no longer pursuing the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games."
An organization called No Boston Olympics has been among the most vocal in denouncing the Games. It cites studies showing the lack of economic growth in cities that host the Olympics, the massive cost (roughly $15 billion) and the number of public services that could be improved with the money.
The United States has held the most Olympic Games with eight, three more than any other country. However, it has not played host to a Summer Games since 1996. Boston pulling out may guarantee the U.S. will top the three-decade mark between Summer Games, a surprise given the nation's sports-crazed culture.
The USOC now must decide whether to award the bid to another city or withdraw from the process entirely.
Any city willing to host must submit its official application to the International Olympic Committee by Sept. 15, according to the AP. That gives the USOC less than two months to readjust its strategy following Boston's withdrawal. Follow Tyler Conway (@tylerconway22) on Twitter.
Jen Welter hired by Cardinals; believed to be first female coach in NFL. In March, Arizona Cardinals coach Bruce Arians was asked when the NFL would have a female coach.
Five things to know about new Arizona Cardinals assistant coaching intern Jen Welter, who is believed to be the first female coach in NFL history.
The Cardinals hired Jen Welter as an assistant coaching intern for training camp and the preseason to work with inside linebackers. She is believed to be the first female coach of any kind in the NFL.
"Someone asked me yesterday, 'When are we going to have female coaches?'" Arians said. "The minute they can prove they can make a player better, they'll be hired."
Welter took to Twitter after the announcement.
Welter, 37, has been making history throughout her career. In February, she became the first female coach in a men's professional football league when she was hired by the Texas Revolution of the Indoor Football League to coach linebackers and special teams. The Revolution's general manager is Hall of Fame wide receiver Tim Brown. In February 2014, she became the first female to play a non-kicking position in a men's professional football league when she played running back and special teams for the Revolution.
Welter played professional football for more than 14 years as a linebacker, mostly with the Dallas Diamonds of the Women's Football Alliance. She helped lead them to four championships.
Jen Welter will work with inside linebackers during training camp and the preseason. Courtesy Texas Revolution
She will join linebackers coaches Bob Sanders, Larry Foote and recently hired Levon Kirkland.
A news conference is scheduled for Tuesday.
Speaking to azcardinals.com on Monday, Arians said: "Coaching is nothing more than teaching. One thing I have learned from players is 'How are you going to make me better? If you can make me better, I don't care if you're the Green Hornet, I'll listen.'"
"I really believe she'll have a great opportunity with this internship through training camp to open some doors for her,'' Arians said.
It's the second such barrier to be broken in the NFL this year. The league announced in April that Sarah Thomas would be the first woman to be a full-time NFL official.
Information from The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Here are five things to know about new Arizona Cardinals assistant coach Jen Welter, who is believed to be the first female coach in the NFL:
Welter, 37, was hired by the Texas Revolution of the Indoor Football League in February to coach linebackers and special teams.
At 5-foot-2, 130 pounds, she became the first woman to play a non-kicking position in a men's professional football league in 2014 when she suited up as a running back and special teams player for the Revolution.
Welter has a master's degree in sports psychology and a Ph.D in psychology.
She won gold medals in 2010 and 2013 as a member of Team USA at the IFAF Women's World Championship.
She played rugby at Boston College and played professional football for more than 14 years in women's leagues. She helped the Dallas Diamonds of the Women's Football Alliance win four titles.
Plans for La Guardia Airport to be remodeled is starting up next year.
Sepp Blatter deserves Nobel Prize, says Vladimir Putin. Fifa president Sepp Blatter deserves a Nobel Prize, says Russian president Vladimir Putin. World football's governing body is engulfed in a corruption crisis, including an investigation into the award of the 2018 World Cup to Russia.
"People like Mr Blatter or the heads of big international sporting federations, or the Olympic Games, deserve special recognition," said Putin.
"If there is anyone who deserves the Nobel Prize, it's those people."
Blatter announced he would be stepping down on 2 June following the arrest of seven Fifa officials as part of a United States investigation that saw 14 people indicted on corruption charges.
A separate criminal investigation by Swiss authorities into how the 2018 and 2022 World Cups were allocated is also under way.
Blatter, 79, has said he has a "clear conscience", and is planning to remain in office until Fifa holds an extraordinary congress to elect his successor next February.
"We all know the situation developing around Mr Blatter right now," added Putin in an interview with Swiss television.
"I don't want to go into details but I don't believe a word about him being involved in corruption personally."
Obama to become first US leader to address African Union. US President Barack Obama is due to address the African Union in Ethiopia's capital Addis Ababa, on the last day of his trip to East Africa.
He is the first US leader to deliver a speech at the 54-member body, with security and action against terrorism likely to dominate the agenda.
On Monday, Mr Obama praised Ethiopia as an "outstanding partner" in taking on militant Islamists.
He said Ethiopia had weakened al-Qaeda-linked al-Shabab group in Somalia.
The US president was speaking after talks with Ethiopia's PM Hailemariam Desalegn, during the first ever visit by a US president to the East African state.
He also called on Mr Hailemariam to improve Ethiopia's record on human rights and good governance.
"I don't bite my tongue too much when it comes to these issues," he said at a joint press conference in the capital, Addis Ababa.
Some rights groups have criticised Mr Obama's visit, warning that it could lend credibility to a government accused of jailing journalists and critics.
A legal case currently being fought through the US courts alleges that agents of the Ethiopian government eavesdropped on the internet activities of a man in the US state of Maryland.
The man, born in Ethiopia and now a US citizen, works for a political opposition group outlawed in his home country.
Addressing the media, Mr Obama described the Ethiopian government, which won all parliamentary seats in May's election, as "democratically elected".
Opposition group have said the poll was rigged.
Mr Obama flew to Ethiopia after a two-day visit to Kenya where he had discussed trade and security but also called for greater human rights and warned of the dangers of corruption.
In International News, Turkey conflict with Kurds: Was approving air strikes against the PKK America's worst error in the Middle East since the Iraq War? Kurdish guerrillas have killed two Turkish soldiers in an ambushin south-east Turkey as fighting resumes between Turkish security forces and Kurdish militants, ending a two-year-old ceasefire. The attack came after Turkish aircraft heavily bombed bases of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in the Qandil Mountains in northern Iraq.
In a sign that the PKK has resumed military operations against the government, a Turkish army vehicle on a road near Diyarbakir, the largest Kurdish city, was hit by bomb blasts followed by rifle fire, according to the army. A further four soldiers were wounded in the attack.
The attack came in response to a heavy air raid by Turkish aircraft on PKK bases in the Qandil Mountains in northern Iraq on Saturday – ostensibly part of a new Turkish offensive against terrorist groups, said also to be aimed at Isis.
But it came as the US was accused by Kurds of tolerating a renewed Turkish government assault on its Kurdish minority as the price for permission for US aircraft to use Turkey’s Incirlik air base against Isis jihadists for the first time.
“The Americans are not very clever in calculating this sort of thing,” said Kamran Karadaghi, an Iraqi Kurdish commentator and former chief of staff to the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani. “Maybe they calculate that with Turkey involved on their side, they don’t need the Kurds.”
The US denies giving the go-ahead for Turkish attacks on the PKK in return for American use of Turkish air bases, or of any link with Turkish action against Isis fighters and volunteers, who were previously able to move fairly freely across Turkey’s 550-mile border with Syria.
But whatever America was hoping for, initial signs are that the Turkish government may be more interested in moving against the Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iraq than it is in attacking Isis. Ankara has previously said that it considers both the PKK and Isis to be “terrorists”.
Meanwhile, Turkish police have stepped up suppression of all types of dissent – using water cannon against everybody from activists to members of the heterodox Shia Alevi sect, who number several million and claim they are discriminated against. Over the weekend, 1,000 people who demonstrated in Ankara for peace were detained, their wrists held together by what were said to be especially tight and painful plastic handcuffs.
The result is that the US may find it has helped to destabilise Turkey by involving it in the war in both Iraq and Syria, yet without coming much closer to defeating Isis in either country. If so, America will have committed its biggest mistake in the Middle East since it invaded Iraq in 2003, believing it could overthrow Saddam Hussein and replace him with a pro-American government.
On Sunday night, the Turkish foreign ministry announced that it had called an extraordinary council meeting of Nato, of which Turkey is a member, on Tuesday to discuss its operations against both the PKK and Isis, “in view of the seriousness of the situation after the heinous terrorist attacks in recent days”. It said Turkey would inform allies of the measures it was taking following last week’s Isis suicide bombing near Turkey’s border with Syria that left 32 people dead, and an Isis attack on Turkish forces that killed a soldier.
The move to involve the alliance in discussion of the threat to Turkey came under Article 4 of Nato’s founding Washington Treaty, which allows countries whose security is threatened to consult with the other 27 members.
Turkey has become increasingly unstable and violent over the past two years as President Recep Tayiip Erdogan has tried to consolidate his grip on power, even as his AKP party lost its parliamentary majority in last month’s general election.
A possible interpretation of the Turkish government assault on Isis, PKK and other opposition groups is that Mr Erdogan intends to win the new election expected by many later this year if no governing coalition with other parties can be formed in the meantime. He would then try to win a majority on the back of a wave of anti-Kurdish and anti-terrorist nationalism, fuelled by revulsion against attacks by the PKK and Isis.
America’s problem is that its most effective ally against Isis in Syria so far has been the PYD, the ruling political party of the 2.2 million Syrian Kurds, who are concentrated in three enclaves just south of the Turkish border. The PYD and its paramilitary forces, known as the People’s Protection Units or YPG, are the Syrian branch of the PKK. Helped since last year by US air support, they have repelled Isis from its siege of the city of Kobani and have won a series of further victories against the jihadist group. including the capture of an important border crossing at Tal Abyad.While allying itself with the Kurds in Syria, the US denounces their mother organisation, the PKK, as “terrorists”. The White House spokesman, Ben Rhodes, said: “The US, of course, recognises the PKK specifically as a terrorist organisation. And, so, again Turkey has a right to take action related to terrorist targets.”
He did not add that the US had been supplying Turkish intelligence with information about PKK bases in Iraq since 2007.
This is a peculiarly Machiavellian form of realpolitik since members of the YPG often gained military experience fighting in the PKK against the Turks, explaining why they have had more success against Isis than other groups. In fact, Isis may benefit from the US switch in alliances because some PYD fighters in Syria will now return to fighting the Turkish army.
Omar Sheikhmous, a veteran Syrian Kurdish leader living abroad, believes that when it comes to the fight against Isis, “on balance the involvement of Turkey may be more important than that of the Kurds for the Americans”.
But how far Turkey will really engage against Isis in Syria is unclear. It says it wants to declare a buffer zone, cleared of Isis fighters, west of Kobani, but at the same time the Deputy Prime Minister, Bulent Arinc, said at the weekend that Turkey was “not thinking” of committing ground troops.
Turkey is arresting Isis activists, many of whom, Turkish opposition parties note, were previously living untroubled by the Turkish security forces. Halis Bayancuk, the reputed Isis leader in Turkey, has been arrested just as he was a year ago – on which occasion he was soon released, and the police who detained him sent to prison instead. The shift by America towards Turkey and against the Kurds may have further ramifications for the balance of power in the region.
The US will undoubtedly be able to strengthen its air offensive against Isis, enabled to keep more planes in the skies above the self-declared caliphate because the Incirlik base is only 60 miles from the Syrian border. On the other hand, about 400 US air strikes were unable to prevent Isis capturing Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, on 17 May.
There may be other repercussions from the new Turkish-American alignment. One reason for the Turkish action was that Ankara did not like the way the Syrian Kurds were becoming a favourite US ally. They were also concerned that the US-Iran nuclear deal with Iran risked making Tehran more important than Ankara in Washington’s calculations.
It is likely that America will tolerate Turkish action against the PKK in Qanduk and Turkey but block any Turkish army moves to push into the Kurdish enclave in north-east Syria. But the PKK may, meanwhile, seek support from Iran and from the Syrian government in Damascus, with which it formerly had close relations.
China stocks fall again, despite government efforts. Chinese shares sank on Tuesday, a day after Shanghai's steepest one-day slide in eight years, defying renewed government vows of support that analysts warned were not enough to soothe nervous investors. The fresh losses, in a volatile session, came despite an unprecedented effort by the government of the world's second largest economy to shore up prices following a month-long rout.
The recent turmoil followed a stock boom encouraged by the authorities, and their willingness to intervene in the market has raised questions about their commitment to economic reforms.
The Shanghai Composite Index fell 1.68 percent, or 62.56 points, to 3,663.00 on turnover of 685.1 billion yuan ($112.0 billion) after falling as much as 5.0 percent and rising up to 0.93 percent during the day.
The Shenzhen Composite Index, which tracks stocks on China's second exchange, ended down 2.24 percent, or 48.39 points, at 2,111.70 on turnover of 618.8 billion yuan.
Some of China's legions of small investors -- who dominate the market, unlike most exchanges worldwide, where institutions are the largest stockholders -- say they are heading for the exits.
View galleryThe losses came despite an unprecedented effort by …
The losses came despite an unprecedented effort by the Chinese government to shore up prices followi …
"I sold 90 percent of my stocks since I saw several reports saying that the market is due for a correction," said Ling Lihui, a manager at a market research company, who sold last week.
Monday's 8.48 percent fall in Shanghai was the biggest drop since February 27, 2007 and sent tremors through global bourses.
After the market closed on Tuesday, the securities regulator warned it would investigate Monday's "abnormal" fall, blaming it in a statement on "concentrated" selling of shares. It gave no further details.
Although Chinese equity markets are relatively closed to outside investors, there are worries about the health of the underlying economy, which is a key driver of global growth.
On Wall Street the Dow fell 0.73 percent on Monday while London, Paris and Frankfurt also lost ground on China worries. Asian markets mostly fell again Tuesday but Hong Kong closed up 0.62 percent.
After Monday's collapse the China Securities Regulatory Commission said it would continue to "stabilise" prices.
The state-backed China Securities Finance Corp., tasked with supporting the market, would increase its shareholdings, the commission said in a statement. Infrastructure-linked stocks fell in Shanghai. Longjian Road and Bridge plunged by its 10 percent daily limit to 6.77 yuan while Offshore Oil Engineering slumped 7.94 percent to 11.25 yuan.
But banking shares rose on expectations they are the target of government buying. In Shanghai, China Minsheng Banking rose 4.11 percent to 9.11 yuan, China Construction Bank added 3.19 percent to 6.15 yuan and Shanghai Pudong Development Bank gained 2.21 percent to 15.24 yuan.
Analysts warned that regulators' comments might not be enough without concrete action.
"The government’s current intervention was not able to stop the market's slide and only delayed the decline," Castor Pang, head of research at Core-Pacific Yamaichi Hong Kong, told Bloomberg News.
Beijing initially stepped in after the market plunged more than 30 percent in just under four weeks from mid-June, having risen more than 150 percent in the previous 12 months.
Early efforts failed to change sentiment, until the government banned shareholders with more than five percent stakes from selling stock and launched a police crackdown on short-selling.
The China Securities Finance Corp., previously a largely unknown institution which helped provide financing to brokerages, has also amassed a war chest of funds to buy stocks, media reports say.
The interventions contrast with pledges by the Communist party two years ago to allow the market to play a "decisive role" in the economy. Analysts said economic and social stability outweighed such considerations.
Experts fear the turmoil will delay China’s pledged moves to open its capital markets further to the outside world and make its yuan currency freely convertible.
The market had rallied for six sessions until Friday, when an independent survey of manufacturing activity hit a 15-month low in July.
Some analysts believe the market rout has yet to become a crisis for the banking system, but warn it could have an impact on economic growth.
China's economy expanded 7.4 percent last year, the weakest pace since 1990, and slowed further to 7.0 percent in each of the first two quarters this year.
"We do not regard price movement in the equity market (as) a financial crisis," ANZ said in a research report on Monday. "The equity market rout provides room for the PBoC (People's Bank of China) to ease monetary policy."
Senate Resurrection of Export-Import Bank Goes to Divided House. In a rare and fiery weekend session, the Senate voted on Sunday to resurrect the federal Export-Import Bank, handing the Republican Party's most conservative wing a major defeat and setting up a showdown this week with House leaders divided over the moribund export credit agency. The bipartisan vote, 67 to 26, broke a filibuster and allowed supporters to attach a measure to a three-year highway and infrastructure bill that would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. That bill is expected to pass the Senate early this week.
The agency's authorization expired on June 30, halting all new loan guarantees and other assistance to foreign customers seeking to purchase goods from American companies. The agency continues to service existing loans.
A clear majority in the House supports resurrecting the agency, but it will be up to House leaders to decide whether the chamber will get a vote, or whether to allow the bank's powerful opponents — led by the House majority leader, the majority whip, the Ways and Means Committee chairman and the Financial Services Committee chairman — to stand in the way.
The agency has become the subject of a kind of proxy war between the Republican Party's ideological conservatives, who have called the bank an unnecessary bastion of crony capitalism, and its pro-business wing, which sees it as vital to American exporters competing against foreign governments that routinely support their industries.
Influential conservatives like Charles and David Koch and the Club for Growth political action committee have made opposition to the bank, known as Ex-Im, a litmus test for their financial support, persuading all but one Republican presidential candidate, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, to advocate the bank's demise.
But Sunday's session showed that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers still hold some sway in a Republican Party increasingly willing to buck business lobbies.
"With more than 60 export credit agencies enabling our foreign competitors to seize opportunities away from workers, it's critical that Congress restores this important tool for American exports," Jay Timmons, the president of the manufacturers' association, said on Sunday.
The Sunday session to hasten action on the highway bill, called by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, came as tensions rose between Republican leaders and rank-and-file conservatives, intensified by the presidential candidacies of four Republican senators — Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida and Mr. Graham.
On Friday, after Mr. McConnell scheduled the Ex-Im vote, Mr. Cruz took to the Senate floor to say that Mr. McConnell had assured him that he had made no deal to bring the bank to a vote.
"Not only what he told every Republican senator, but what he told the press over and over and over again was a simple lie," Mr. Cruz said.
That brought the most senior Senate Republicans to the floor on Sunday to rebuke Mr. Cruz.
"Squabbling and sanctimony may be tolerated on the campaign trail, but not in here," said Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the most senior Republican. "We are not here on some frolic or to pursue personal ambitions. We are here because the people of the United States have entrusted us with the solemn responsibility to act on their behalf."
"It is a sacred trust in which pettiness or grandstanding should have no part," he added.
Unrepentant, Mr. Cruz responded, "It is entirely consistent with decorum and with the nature of this body traditionally as the world's greatest deliberative body to speak the truth."
"Not only what he told every Republican senator, but what he told the press over and over and over again was a simple lie."
The Senate then beat back a novel effort by Mr. Cruz to break Senate legislative rules and force a vote on an amendment he hoped to attach to the highway bill. That amendment would have blocked the lifting of sanctions on Iran — part of a broad deal to curb Iran's nuclear program — until Tehran recognized the State of Israel and released American prisoners from its jails.
On Friday, the lawmaker presiding over the Senate at the time, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, had ruled Mr. Cruz's amendment out of order. He had hoped to get a simple majority to reject that ruling, a "nuclear option" that Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican, said would usher in "chaos."
Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, then joined Mr. Cruz, moving to amend the highway bill with a measure to defund Planned Parenthood. When that was ruled out of order, he too asked the Senate to vote to disregard that ruling. Again, most Republicans refused to back him up. But the rift between conservatives and the Republican leadership has been most acute with respect to the Ex-Im Bank. Conservative groups like Heritage Action, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation, and the Kochs' Freedom Partners saw a chance to deal a blow to President Obama, after losing fights to defund the Affordable Care Act and reverse Mr. Obama's executive orders on immigration.
They hoped that if they could make sure Congress did nothing to save the bank, its future lending operations would go dark this summer.
Their problem has been strong support for the bank by Democrats, coupled with deep divisions among Republicans. On Sunday, 24 Republicans, nearly half the Senate Republican Conference, voted with Democrats to revive the bank. By contrast, opposition to Ex-Im has become almost automatic on the Republican presidential campaign trail.
"A vote against reauthorization is nothing more than a shameless attempt to garner the affection of the Koch brothers," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said on the Senate floor Sunday. "After all, opposition to the Export-Import Bank is a prerequisite for any Republican running for president."
But in Congress, lawmakers have proved more sensitive to companies in their district that have lobbied hard, saying the demise of the bank would cripple their export business or at least put them at a disadvantage against foreign competitors.
"We are one step closer to keeping American jobs here in America and not lost to countries like China," said Senator Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois and one of the most endangered incumbents up for re-election next year.
The Senate vote does not assure that the bank will begin new lending operations, however. The House passed a short-term highway bill this month that would replenish the federal highway trust fund until mid-December as lawmakers work to finance a longer-term infrastructure measure. Mr. McConnell, backed by Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, is pressing for an infrastructure bill that would set policy for roads, bridges, trains and transit for six years, although with funding to last only about three years.
If the House rejects the Senate's highway bill before members leave town on Thursday for August recess, the Ex-Im Bank will be left to languish. The Senate then may have no choice but to take up the House's five-month "patch" to ensure that federal highway funding does not run out at the end of this week.
"Jobs are on the line," Mr. McConnell said on Sunday. "We've got to get this done."
House Benghazi panel says State Deptartment to hand over documents today. The U.S. House of Representatives committee investigating the 2012 attacks on an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, said the State Department has pledged to hand over 5,000 new pages of documents related to the incident on Tuesday. "The State Department has informed the Committee it will make a production of approximately 5,000 pages tomorrow - the second largest production the Committee has received and the largest since last summer," Republican Representative Trey Gowdy, the committee's chairman, said in a statement on Monday.
The documents are not expected to include emails involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has been embroiled in a controversy over her use of a private email account while she was America's top diplomat.
At least four emails out of some 30,000 from Clinton's private account contained classified information, according to a government inspector's letter to Congress last week.
Clinton, who is the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, was secretary of state when Islamic militants attacked the Benghazi compound on Sept. 11, 2012, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
The State Department has provided the committee with thousands of documents, but Gowdy has repeatedly said he is looking for additional records relating to some of Clinton's staff as well as the former secretary.
The South Carolina lawmaker says he wants all relevant documents before Clinton testifies to the committee. Her campaign has said she would testify in October, but the committee said the timing was not set.
In exchange for receiving the documents on Tuesday, Gowdy said, the committee had granted a request from Secretary of State John Kerry's chief of staff, Jon Finer, to postpone a hearing set for Wednesday at which Finer was scheduled to testify.
"As a condition of postponing the hearing, we made the reasonable request for a significant production of documents,” Gowdy said.
Republicans on the committee had been expected to grill Finer about what they considered the State Department's slow pace in handing over documents.
"If the State Department does not fulfill this production, or if production continues to be anemic and underwhelming, we will move forward with scheduling a compliance hearing before the Committee," Gowdy said. (Reporting by Eric Beech; Editing by Sandra Maler and Mohammad Zargham)
The New York Times reports that Hillary Clinton Lays Out Climate Change Plan.
Setting ambitious goals for producing energy from the sun, wind and other renewable sources, Hillary Rodham Clinton seized on an issue Monday that increasingly resonates with Democratic voters and sets up a stark contrast with the Republican presidential field.
With many Republican candidates saying they do not believe that climate change is a threat or requires government intervention, Mrs. Clinton assailed their logic, saying, “The reality of climate change is unforgiving no matter what the deniers say.”
She set a goal to produce 33 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, up from 7 percent today — a higher goal than the 20 percent that President Obama has called for by 2030.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
Hillary Rodham Clinton at a campaign event at Iowa State University in Ames on Sunday.First Draft: Hillary Clinton Unveils Far-Reaching Climate Change PlanJULY 26, 2015
Hillary Rodham Clinton at the United Nations in 2010. She has called herself “an emphatic, unwavering supporterHillary Clinton on the IssuesAPRIL 12, 2015
Mrs. Clinton’s strategists see climate change as a winning issue for 2016. They believe it is a cause she can advance to win over deep-pocketed donors and liberal activists in the nominating campaign, where she is facing Democratic challengers to her left on the issue. It is also one that can be a weapon against Republicans in a general election. Polls show that a majority of voters support candidates who pledge policy action on the warming climate.
Continue reading the main story
Who Is Running for President?
Mrs. Clinton called for installing a half-billion solar panels by 2020, a sevenfold increase from today, and to generate enough energy from carbon-free sources within 10 years of her inauguration to power every home in America.
Republicans criticized the proposal as an “energy poverty” agenda that could raise utility bills and lead to blackouts. Policy analysts said it could be tough for Mrs. Clinton to follow through on such ambitious goals.
While Mr. Obama’s climate change goals, driven by regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, would lift the nation’s renewable power to about 20 to 25 percent, according to E.P.A. estimates, the rest of the increase, experts said, will be impossible without new laws requiring renewable power. Congress has failed over the past decade to pass such laws.
The Clinton campaign emphasized that her targets cleared a bar set last week by the billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, who spent $74 million on political races in 2014. He announced that for candidates to receive his support in 2016, they must offer policies that would lead the nation to generate half its electricity from clean sources by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050.
Former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who has made climate change the center of his Democratic presidential campaign, laid out a plan last month that meets the criteria, winning Mr. Steyer’s blessing. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has called for a tax on carbon emissions, draws thunderous applause at rallies by promising bold action to combat climate change.
Although Mrs. Clinton has emphasized fighting global warming as a priority in earlier speeches, the role of a single large donor, Mr. Steyer, in apparently influencing the details of her proposal was suggested by her press secretary, Brian Fallon. On Twitter he said, “Counting nuclear, as Steyer does, she exceeds his 50 percent goal” for 2030.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
But Mrs. Clinton showed some limits to how far she would go to address climate change by refusing to say, once again, if she opposed the Keystone XL pipeline — a litmus test for grass-roots environmentalists. The pipeline would deliver oil from the oil sands of northern Alberta in Canada to Texas.
Recusing herself because she had played a role as secretary of state in evaluating the pipeline, Mrs. Clinton said the decision was in the hands of the Obama administration. Mr. Sanders and Mr. O’Malley oppose the pipeline.
Just as liberal Democrats have tried to pull Mrs. Clinton to the left on economic issues, environmental groups have sought stronger statements from her opposing hydraulic fracturing, oil trains and drilling in the Arctic.
Anti-Keystone protesters have greeted Mrs. Clinton on the campaign trail in New Hampshire and even outside a May fund-raiser for her at Mr. Steyer’s home in San Francisco overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge.
“Hillary Clinton is just half the way there,” said Bill McKibben, head of the group 350.org, which has led the grass-roots movement calling for Mr. Obama to reject the Keystone pipeline. “This is a credible commitment to renewable energy, and a recognition that the economics of electricity are changing fast. Now, we need Clinton to show she understands the other half of the climate change equation — and prove she has the courage to stand up against fossil fuel projects like offshore and Arctic drilling, coal leasing in the Powder River basin, and the Keystone XL pipeline.”
Continue reading the main story
First Draft Newsletter
Subscribe for updates on the 2016 presidential race, the White House and Congress, delivered to your inbox Monday - Friday.
Without offering specifics, Mrs. Clinton promised that in coming months she would unwrap additional climate policies, including aid to workers in coal-producing regions who suffer economic harm.
“I am going to set ambitious goals, and I am going to have a real plan that will enable us to meet those goals,” Mrs. Clinton said.
Her campaign put the cost of her clean electricity initiatives at about $60 billion over 10 years, which it said would be offset by ending tax breaks for oil and gas producers.
“We’ll stop the giveaways to big oil companies and extend, instead, tax incentives for clean energy, while making them more cost-effective for both taxpayers and producers,” Mrs. Clinton said.
Experts said there would be more practical challenges.
“It’s an ambitious goal. It will be a big lift to get there,” said Anthony Paul, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan research organization.
Mr. Paul suggested that in order to meet Mrs. Clinton’s goals, Congress would have to mandate production of renewable power, or to tax greenhouse gas pollution — both proposals that have floundered on Capitol Hill.
Republicans were quick to criticize the proposals. “Hillary Clinton’s energy plan is to raise more taxes and double down on President Obama’s E.P.A. overreach, which held down wages and cost American jobs,” said Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, was the architect of Mr. Obama’s signature climate change policy, a set of E.P.A. regulations to cut carbon emissions from power plants. Mrs. Clinton’s new plan appears explicitly designed to build on that plan.
While running for re-election in the 2012 campaign, Mr. Obama almost never mentioned climate change. But Democratic strategists say they now see it as a resonant campaign issue.
A January poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and Resources for the Future found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change.
“This issue now polls better than any other issue for Democrats,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former top climate change official in the Clinton administration. “It’s in Clinton’s interest to talk about the issue, both for primary voters and to highlight Republican vulnerabilities in the general election.” Trip Gabriel reported from Des Moines, and Coral Davenport from Washington.
And, Mark Halperin and Bloomberg reports that Hillary Clinton's Bernie Sanders Problem Is Bigger Than Anyone Realizes. Let’s all please stop asserting that Bernie Sanders can’t beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nomination race. Pundits and journalists galore have been declaring (alleged margin of error: zero) that the Vermont senator will lose to his party’s front-runner. Sure, his odds are long, but so far he’s shown substance, grit, and surprising appeal. Why not let the voters decide who will accept the torch in Philadelphia next summer?
Clinton is, without doubt, still the odds-on favorite to win, with plenty of support, cash, and ballast for the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is more germane to ask: What impact might Sanders have on the former secretary of state in the nomination fight? And, if Sanders doesn’t win his party’s nomination, what impact might he have overall on Clinton’s chances of becoming the next president of the United States?
Sanders’ surprising success has already influenced Clinton’s conduct and fortunes, and there is every reason to believe that he will continue to challenge her, influence her, and create significant problems for her as the race continues. There are plenty of recent examples of underdog candidates in both parties who “couldn’t” win the nomination in the estimation of the chattering class but who nonetheless had an outsized influence on the contours and, indeed, outcome of the race. These include Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich in 2012 against Mitt Romney; Pat Buchanan in 1992 against George H.W. Bush; and Jesse Jackson in 1988 against Michael Dukakis. Based on how things are shaping up so far, Sanders has the potential to adversely affect Clinton in numerous ways, echoing the underdogs who ran before. Romney, Bush, and Dukakis, not coincidentally, all lost the White House.
Here, then, are seven ways Sanders can weaken Clinton in the general election, perhaps fatally, even if he doesn’t manage to beat her for the nomination.
1. Pulling her to the left
Clinton has already taken various positions on economic and social issues that are clearly a reaction to the Sanders’ threat from the far left (and, to a lesser extent, to that of former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who also has been trying to outflank Clinton on the liberal side). In recent months, Clinton’s political and rhetorical message has boiled down to an Old-Democrat, big-government, Pelosi-Reid-AFL-CIO-pleasing stew that a skillful Republican nominee could exploit, shoving Clinton out of the vital political middle in the general election.
2. Exposing her biggest weaknesses
Even some of Clinton’s staunchest backers will tell you that she comes off to many voters as personally inauthentic and politically calculating, lacking a genuine, heartfelt message. Even some of Sanders’ biggest detractors will tell you that he is exactly the opposite. Sanders has become such a prodigious performer on the stump and in TV interviews in part because he gives Democrats an unvarnished and passionate view of his ideas, his soul, and himself. Recently, at a major gathering of Iowa Democratic activists, almost every Clinton supporter I talked to expressed admiration for Sanders’ authenticity and policy agenda, and many said that if they followed their heart, they would vote for the underdog. If Clinton's main four-point agenda sounds like it is the product of extensive research by her polling and focus-group teams, well, that is because it is. A lot of voters grasp that calculation intuitively, and find it a turnoff. Clinton’s perceived lack of personal and political sincerity may not cost her the nomination, but it won’t help her image with general-election voters already skeptical about her character and relatability.
3. Forcing her to go negative
When front-runners are threatened, their usual move is to kneecap the opponent, and before too long, Clinton may feel she has no choice but go on the attack against Sanders. Such a move might be effective, but it would hold peril. First, as Sanders himself has eschewed negative politics throughout his career, potent political martyrdom could ensue. Second, Clinton could look like a hypocrite, since she has been regularly railing against negative attacks from the GOP. Third, it could unleash even more vigorous Republican assaults, with far less concern about public or media backlash.
4. Playing a losing expectations game
Clinton faces a daunting expectations game. Even if she heads into Iowa and New Hampshire with solid polling leads, simply winning will not be enough. She has to finish far enough ahead of Sanders to prevent the press from treating a win like a loss. Between now and early February, polls will rise and fall, and what will constitute a win for Clinton will change. But rest assured the media will give her zero benefit of the doubt in this regard. Even if Clinton wins Iowa, say, 66 percent to 33 percent in an historic landslide, some news organizations would likely headline their stories “One Third of Iowa Democrats Reject Clinton.” Clinton will thus have to spend a great deal of time and money in the two early states (which demographically and ideologically are among Sanders’ strongest), leaving her vulnerable in some of the later-voting states and hindering the timely formulation of a general-election strategy or message.
5. Beating her in early states
If Sanders continues to build his momentum and cut into Clinton’s lead, and she gets sidetracked by controversy (typically a given when a Clinton is on the ballot), it is not inconceivable that Sanders could win one or both of the two first states. That would instantly throw the party into a second-guessing panic, especially since it would be too late for another establishment candidate to get on the ballot in many of the delegate-rich states. Panic, needless to say, would not help Clinton look like a general-election juggernaut.
6. Forcing her to invest in caucus states
As a hedge against early losses, and with the memory of being outfoxed by Team Obama in 2008, Clinton’s campaign is going to pour resources into the post-Iowa caucus states, where Sanders’ grassroots enthusiasm allows him to compete fiercely. Once again, this dynamic means Clinton has to continue to take left-wing positions and to devote precious resources to targeting small numbers of activists, rather than building a general-election machine.
7. Forcing her into an extended nomination fight
If Sanders has early success, the press and the left (not to mention the GOP) will be eager to see how far he can go. That will mean the Clinton campaign will have to continue to allocate resources away from a general-election fight. The longer Sanders stays alive, the greater the aforementioned party panic would be. Bill Clinton dealt with this dynamic in 1992, when, amid scandal, he struggled to put away Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown. As the conventional wisdom refrain declares, Hillary Clinton does not have her husband’s political skills—it would be more difficult for her to quash a widespread party freakout. And it wasn’t easy for Bill. Recall how party leaders beseeched Lloyd Bentsen or Dick Gephardt to get in the race, despite expired filing deadlines and the hazards of a potential brokered convention. The rogue e-mail server, the Clinton Foundation questions, and assorted other family controversies could dovetail with Sanders’ success and create a toxic and perhaps untenable situation for Hillary.
Now, of course, these are mostly speculative scenarios. But none is impossible or even improbable. All derive directly from Sanders’ manifest strengths, Clinton’s manifest weaknesses, and the dynamics and realities of the Democratic Party’s nomination process. Not long ago, few would have imagined that Sanders could have posed any sort of threat to Clinton’s political fortunes. Sanders might lose in the end, but his successes thus far and going forward make it more likely that Clinton will lose in the end too.
Regardless of it all on this incredible amount of news on this news day, stay in touch. I am gone the rest of the week which is evidently going to be the hottest week of the summer according to Bill Karins, and I won't be back until next Tuesday. I will be seeing Phish down south for the next week and so again, have a great week and again, please stay in touch!
