How Trump’s ‘bullying’ would play against Clinton

Hillary Clinton has always been at her strongest when she has seemed most vulnerable. From her soaring popularity during the impeachment hearings of her faithless husband to her brief electoral comeback in the New Hampshire presidential primary in 2008 after misting up in a diner, one of the most battle-scarred figures in American life has proven again and again that she has the capacity to rouse voters’ empathetic instincts.

Now, as Super Tuesday’s results bring us closer to a general election between Clinton and Trump, two brash New Yorkers who do not shy from a fight, an unprecedented question looms. How does a man whose insults and old-school machismo only amp his popularity compete against a woman who has made an art form of turning the other cheek to such attacks?

In other words, how ugly will things get should Donald Trump run against Hillary Clinton? And how good — or bad — for each of them might that be?

“It will be a war,” says Rebecca Traister, who wrote a book, “Big Girls Don’t Cry,” about Clinton’s 2008 race, and has just published another, “All the Single Ladies,” about Clinton’s most important constituency this time around. “Trump is popular because he is channeling the anxiety of those who are losing power — white men, to those who are gaining it — women and minorities, and he is willing to say anything that expresses that hate.”

Certain conventions have been accepted about the political ground rules for running for office as a woman and for male candidates running against a woman, wisdom carefully accumulated over the decades by consultants working with focus groups.

Now, all of them are about to be upended.

Men are more analytical and women more emotional? Many voters see it the other way around this time. Men are traditionally seen as insiders while women are seen as outsiders? Those roles are flipped in the cases of Clinton and Trump. Women, arguably, are traditionally credited by voters with honesty and the ability to bring about change. Those are Clinton’s weakest areas, according to pollsters (though Trump doesn’t fare well on the honesty count, either).

And then there is a long list of things that men are supposed to avoid when running against a woman candidate: Never call her names, insult her looks, patronize her, act like a bully, encroach upon her physical space or appear physically threatening. (No, until this campaign, it wasn’t considered good strategy to do this to candidates of any gender, but there is an added menace perceived by voters when a man appears to demean or humiliate his female opponent).

Trump, though, has done most of these things to many people who have gotten in his way thus far in the campaign, including more than a few women. Megyn Kelly, for instance, who he called a “bimbo” and suggested she was hormonally unstable. Or Carly Fiorina, of whom he said, “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? She’s a woman, and I’m not supposed to say bad things, but really folks, come on! Are we serious?” He’s had choice words for Clinton already, too, calling the fact that she used the bathroom disgusting and turning a vulgar word for penis into a verb to describe her loss to Barack Obama.

 Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland resume the debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., after Hillary Clinton failed to return from a break on Dec. 19, 2015. 

When and if Trump becomes the Republican nominee, will he stop?

Not likely, says author Michael D’Antonio, who spent four years studying Trump for the book “Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success,” which was published last fall.

Future of U.S. solar threatened in nationwide fight over incentives

Los Angeles  - Two sun-drenched U.S. states have lately come to very different conclusions on a controversial solar power incentive essential to the industry's growth.

In California, regulators voted in January to preserve so-called net metering, which requires utilities to purchase surplus power generated by customers with rooftop solar panels. But neighboring Nevada scrapped the policy - prompting solar companies to flee the state.

The decisions foreshadow an intensifying national debate over public support that the rooftop solar industry says it can't live without.

"Without net metering, it just doesn't work," said Lyndon Rive, chief executive of top U.S. residential solar installer SolarCity Corp.

More than 25 of the 40 U.S. states with net metering policies are reconsidering them, according to the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center at North Carolina State University.

Opponents raise fairness concerns and argue that the industry no longer needs generous incentives, citing its rapid growth and solar panel prices that have fallen about 40 percent in five years.

Net metering credits solar users - at full retail rates - for any surplus power their panels generate above household usage. That means many customers pay no monthly utility bill or even rack up excess credits, which they can redeem later in months when their systems produce less power than their home uses.

For most customers, net metering and other incentives are essential to make solar power worth the steep upfront investment - between $17,000 and $24,000 for a typical system, according to data from research firm GTM Research. For systems that are leased, as most are, net metering creates a monthly savings over typical power costs.

Solar providers understand those consumer economics, which explains why SolarCity last month shed more than 550 jobs in Nevada after the public utilities commission in December voted to end net metering at retail rates. The commission plans to reduce credits and raise service charges for solar customers gradually over 12 years.

On Feb. 9, SolarCity blamed Nevada's move for a weakened 2016 outlook that subsequently sent its stock down nearly 30 percent. SolarCity rival Sunrun has also pulled out of Nevada.

Solar energy makes up less than 1 percent of U.S. electricity generation in part because of its high cost compared to coal and natural gas. But the industry has grown quickly in states where high power prices and generous solar incentives have made it financially attractive to homeowners.

The federal government offers a tax credit worth 30 percent of the cost of solar panels and installation. In December, the U.S. Congress extended that policy for another five years. It had been scheduled to drop to 10 percent for commercial systems and expire entirely for residential systems at the end of this year.

Such public support helped push U.S. installations to 7.2 gigawatts worth of photovoltaic panels last year - more than eight-and-a-half times the amount installed in 2010, according to GTM Research. That growth, in turn, has brought increased scrutiny of continued public support.

"None of this would be much of an issue today if solar hadn't been so incredibly successful," said Benjamin Inskeep, who tracks state solar policies for the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center.

Utilities have argued that solar subsidies benefit more affluent homeowners at the expense of everyone else. With solar users buying less power - or even selling it, through net metering - that leaves fewer ratepayers to share the cost of traditional power generation, utilities say.

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc is the owner of NV Energy, the Nevada utility that proposed the state’s move away from net metering. In his annual letter to shareholders last week, Buffett warned that “tax credits, or other government-mandated help for renewables, may eventually erode the economics of the incumbent utility.”

Solar supporters counter that the costs of the traditional grid should fall with the rise of solar because utilities will eventually need fewer power plants and transmission lines.

Net metering, solar companies argue, fairly compensates owners for energy they feed back into the grid - so it should be a permanent policy, not a temporary boost to get the industry going.

"Net metering doesn't need a replacement," said Sunrun spokeswoman Lauren Randall. Sunrun leads The Alliance for Solar Choice, the coalition of solar installers that has been most aggressive in lobbying to preserve net metering. If such policies are rolled back, solar users may decide to disconnect from the grid entirely once emerging battery storage options become more available and affordable, Randall said.

For now, net metering - or its absence - has a major impact on solar adoption. Salt River Project, an Arizona utility, effectively halted installations in its territory last year after enacting less generous rates.

The industry is gearing up for another battle over solar rates in that the state, one of the leading solar markets. The public utilities regulator there is considering the request of a small rural power company, UniSource Energy Services, to reduce net metering rates and add a series of charges for solar users.

The utility, a unit of Canada's Fortis Inc, said in a regulatory filing last year that residential usage per customer declined 4 percent between 2012 in 2014, in part because of the rise in solar installations.

How the Arizona Corporate Commission rules on UniSource's rate case is expected to signal how it will approach rate cases from five other state utilities seeking changes to how solar customers are compensated - including the state's largest utility, Arizona Public Service.

Net metering is also being reviewed in smaller venues, such as Maine and New Hampshire, and in traditionally solar-friendly markets such as Massachusetts and New York.

In some states with fledgling solar markets, officials have tended toward less generous net metering policies. Mississippi approved a plan last year that pays solar users below retail rates for their excess power. Maine is expected to introduce a bill this year calling for gradual rate reductions over time, said Sara Gideon, the Maine legislature's assistant majority leader.

The Maine policy, she said, aims for fair rates while also giving solar users certainly over their costs for years to come.

The debate has already made waves in Hawaii - where 23 percent of households have solar, far more than any state. The high concentration raised concerns about grid reliability and questions of fairness for the 77 percent of households shouldering traditional power costs. As a result, the state last year cut net metering rates to half of retail value.

In California, about 3 percent of ratepayers have solar systems. The state's regulators in January preserved net metering in a narrow 3-to-2 vote but also added fees on solar users. The dissenters favored a less generous framework.

The narrow victory in such a pro-solar state was telling, according to a consultant to utility trade group Edison Electric Institute, which has vigorously opposed net metering.

"That tells you," said Ashley Brown, executive director of the Harvard Electricity Policy Group, "that the opinion is beginning to change."

Rubio falters again as Trump extends his lead

MIAMI – Marco Rubio jumped on to a stage in front of a few thousand wildly cheering supporters at an open-air equestrian center Tuesday night, pumped his right fist twice, and bragged that he has been rising in the polls since he started aggressively going after Donald Trump.

“We are seeing in state after state his numbers going down. We are seeing in state after state, our numbers going up,” Rubio said.

The boast came about as close to ignoring reality as a politician can get. Eleven states held primary elections or caucuses Tuesday night, and Rubio lost all but one. He gained his first victory of the entire primary process so far in the Minnesota caucuses, a result announced an hour before midnight.

Now, with one-third of the total delegates that determine the GOP’s nominee awarded, the 44-year-old U.S. senator from Florida trails Trump and fellow Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in the delegate race. But far more pressing for Rubio is his momentum problem. He has almost none, and worse, Tuesday marked the third time in the primaries that he has appeared to have some wind in his sails, only to run aground when the votes are cast.

Cruz, a 45-year-old first-term senator, won the surprise contest of the night, beating Trump 34 percent to 28 percent in Oklahoma, with Rubio finishing at 26 percent. In addition to winning his home state of Texas, Cruz emerged as the winner of the ongoing sweepstakes to be the alternative to Trump.

World War II veteran from Joliet receives awards decades after service

CREST HILL – Through hearing World War II stories from her grandfather over the years, Jody Woodley learned there was one particular medal that U.S. Army veteran Robert Barcus never received for his service.

It was the European African Middle Eastern Theater Ribbon – presented to servicemen who served five campaigns or major battles over the course of service.

Barcus, now 96, talked about it often – so often that he brought it up to Woodley on Saturday on his way to a surprise awards ceremony at the Willow Falls Senior Living Community in Crest Hill.

“Every time I see my grandpa, he asks me, ‘Do you think we’re going to get that medal?’ Just before we came down here, he asked me, ‘Do you think we’re going to get that medal?’ ” Jody Woodley said. “Well, grandpa, with a little bit of research, letter-writing and help from a senator, I’m proud to finally tell you that we did it.”

U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, presented Barcus with the medal Saturday surrounded by Barcus’ many family and friends. Even Barcus’ wife, Sylvia, who was in the hospital at the time, was able to watch him receive his medal of honor through live video stream on FaceTime.

“Bob, I’m here to honor your service because you saved America. You hit the beach at Omaha and fought at the Battle of Hürtgen Forest and the Battle of the Bulge,” Kirk said. “Like many in your generation, you didn’t collect all your medals. ... We looked up your record, and it’s outstanding.”

Kirk pinned the medal to Barcus’ badge and thanked him for his service.

Barcus, who donned his WWII uniform Saturday, is a longtime Joliet resident. For more than 50 years, Barcus worked on the Rock Island railroad before retiring from Metra.

Barcus has two children, Mary Ann Fabbre and BJ Barcus, according to his family. He also has seven grandchildren and five great-grandchildren.

Before the ceremony, Kirk and Barcus talked about his time in World War II. Barcus said he lost friends in combat and misses the men he fought with the most.

“You miss the guys you were with. You lived and died together,” Barcus said.

On Saturday, there wasn’t a dry eye in the room when Barcus finally received the award he had waited years to receive.

“We got that medal that you’ve been waiting for,” Woodley said.

Arizona man kills parents, siblings, shot dead by police

PHOENIX (Reuters) - A 26-year-old man shot his parents and two sisters to death at a house in Phoenix early on Tuesday before he was killed by police who entered the residence as it was on fire, law enforcement officials said.

Alex Buckner was shot and killed after he raised a weapon at a special assignment unit officer in the split-level home, said Sergeant Trent Crump, a spokesman for the Phoenix Police Department.

Shooting victims found at the home were identified as Buckner's parents Vic Buckner, 50, and Kimberly Buckner, 49, and his sisters, Kaitlin Buckner, 18, and Emma Buckner, 6.

"We have no idea what the motive is, or what sparked this," said Crump, adding that neighbors heard an argument between the alleged suspect and his father about 30 minutes before the shootings.

Crump said police were called to the scene at about 4:45 a.m. (0645 ET) after receiving a 911 call from a female inside the home about a shooting. Arriving officers saw heavy smoke and heard gunfire, he said.

Officers donned fire gear and breathing apparatus as they entered the still-burning home believed to have been set ablaze by the alleged gunman, Crump said. They were able to remove the 18-year-old sister, who later died at the hospital.

Officers then fatally shot Alex Buckner and removed the parents’ bodies before officers were forced to flee the house after it re-ignited, Crump said.

The six-year-old girl was found after the blaze was extinguished and she was later pronounced dead at a local children’s hospital, he said.

Crump said that three officers were treated for smoke inhalation.

Images from the scene showed firefighters on the roof of the residence as thick gray smoke billowed out and then as a fireball erupted through an opening in the structure. Three firefighters were forced to flee from the flames.

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton lauded the heroic efforts of police and firefighters in responding to an “unspeakable domestic violence tragedy” as it unfolded on the city’s northwest side.

Apple is losing the PR war with the FBI

The tech giant’s intensifying standoff with the FBI, over whether to unlock an iPhone used by the San Bernardino man who, along with his wife, is accused of killing 14 people last year, has an unmistakable element of theater. The government, which is investigating hundreds of crimes involving locked iPhones, apparently chose the San Bernardino case as its stalking horse against Apple (AAPL) because it believed the public would be sympathetic to its argument. Apple, normally secretive about its plans and strategies, posted a detailed response to the FBI online. Both sides will have their say in court on March 22.

But public opinion matters too, and Apple may be heading for a setback before it ever gets to the courtroom. Some family members of the San Bernardino massacre victims, for example, are siding with the FBI in asking Apple to unlock the phone. A new poll by Pew Research shows 51% of Americans agree with the FBI on the matter, while just 38% back Apple. Prominent law-enforcement officials, such as New York police commissioner William Bratton, are mounting common-sense arguments for why Apple should give in. Even Donald Trump weighed in, calling for an Apple boycott until it assists the FBI.

The complicated case puts Apple in a position it’s not accustomed to: playing defense. Here’s why: The FBI’s argument is simple and straightforward. Syed Rizwan Farook, who pledged loyalty to the Islamic State terrorist group, was part of a husband-wife team that murdered 14 people at an office party on Dec. 2. Farook’s iPhone might contain information on how the team carried out the plot, and perhaps reveal other terrorists. The FBI needs Apple’s help to see what’s on the phone. Without it, the data will either be deleted or permanently locked away.

If it weren’t an encrypted smartphone, the government’s request would be uncontroversial. As a society, we’ve basically accepted the government’s right to access private information when it’s part of a criminal investigation, or necessary for national security. Law enforcement agents have been searching homes, pulling bank records and tapping phones for a long time. Objections arise when the government seems to exceed its authority, but not when it’s doing what it’s supposed to do.

Apple has decided to tackle the unenviable job of convincing the public that protecting the privacy of terrorists and criminals is somehow in the public interest. Apple might very well be right; there are many instances in which we tolerate problems because the rules required to prevent them would exact a cost we deem too high. That’s basically the argument gun-rights advocates make when they say banning guns would impede Constitutionally guaranteed rights, even if it would lead to a reduction in violence. A less provocative example might be the requirement for a unanimous jury verdict in federal court cases, which lets some crooks off the hook but also safeguards civil liberties.

The problem for Apple is that it’s relying on a nuanced technical argument in an era of blunt-force populism. In his public response explaining Apple’s choice to fight the court order instructing Apple to unlock the iPhone, CEO Tim Cook said, “We have no sympathy for terrorists.” Then he explained how encryption works and why it’s important—drifting way over the heads of most iPhone users--followed by an enlightening passage on the All Writs Act of 1789. His basic conclusion: The feds are asking Apple to “hack our own users.”

Let’s say Cook is right (even though a lot of people feel he’s not). Compare his argument with one made by Bratton in a New York Times op-ed, in which he referenced the case of a 29-year-old Baton Rouge woman who was murdered when she was eight months pregnant. Police think the identity of her killer might be contained on her iPhone, but Apple says it can’t unlock the phone, citing the same reasons it gives in the San Bernardino case.

Which story is more compelling? And how many more stories of crimes hidden on iPhones will surface as law enforcement gangs up on Apple, sensing now is the time to demand cooperation? Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance says his office has 175 locked iPhones seized as part of criminal investigations that it can’t access. That count seems sure to rise as other prosecutors join the fray.

It doesn’t help Apple that all this is occurring as fears of terrorism are hitting the highest levels since 2001, the year of the 9-11 attacks that killed more than 3,000 Americans. With attacks in Paris and Islamic State beheadings online for everyone to see, it’s not a fortuitous time to stick up for the privacy rights of terrorists with iPhones.

Apple has the money, the brand power and possibly the determination to see this case through to the end, if it fights the whole way. The case could end up at the Supreme Court, though that would probably take several years. If it got that far, that would be several years of Apple trying to convince people that the “greater good” principle applies to the cherished iPhone, that the benefit of airtight encryption for ordinary users outweighs the cost of a few missed criminal leads. Apple might win in the courts. Thing is, that’s not where people buy iPhones.

Nevada Entrance Poll Analysis: Trump Rides Wave of Anger to Projected Victory

 A new high in desire for an outsider candidate vaulted Donald Trump to a sweeping victory in the Nevada Republican caucuses, completing a three-contest hat trick for the New York billionaire – first New Hampshire, then South Carolina, now Nevada.

Six in 10 caucus-goers in entrance poll results said they were looking for someone from outside the political establishment, compared with about half in previous contests. And a smashing 71 percent of them voted for Trump, a record for his populist campaign among outsider voters.

Six in 10 also described themselves as angry at the way the federal government is working, compared with four in 10 in the previous three states to hold nominating contests this year. Trump won half of these angry voters in Nevada, slightly more than previously. That said, he also easily won voters who were dissatisfied rather than angry – a sign of his broad strength in the state.