White House

Pakistan Friend or Foe? Cain Says We Don’t Know

Nov. 12, 2011, 3:29 p.m.

House Min. Lead­er John Boehner said in a speech at the AEI 9/30 that if GOP­ers “take con­trol in the midterm elec­tion, he will try to fun­da­ment­ally change the way the House is run to give both parties a fair hear­ing while mak­ing their do­ings more trans­par­ent.”

Boehner said he would re­quire “that the en­act­ment of any new pro­gram be ac­com­pan­ied by at least an equi­val­ent cut­back in an­oth­er pro­gram” in the same bill.

Boehner: “The House finds it­self in a state of emer­gency. This in­sti­tu­tion does not func­tion, does not de­lib­er­ate and seems in­cap­able of act­ing on the will of the people.”

Boehner “placed both” GOP­ers and Dems “in the cross hairs, ar­guing that both parties had en­gaged in the sins of ear­mark­ing, over­reach­ing and par­tis­an pet­ti­ness.”

DCCC spokes­per­son Ry­an Rudom­in­er: “John Boehner has about as much cred­ib­il­ity talk­ing about re­form­ing the sys­tem as Bernie Madoff does talk­ing about smart in­vest­ing” (Stein­hauer, New York Times, 9/30).

Boehner: “Mem­bers shouldn’t have to vote for big spend­ing in­creases at the Labor De­part­ment in or­der to fund Health and Hu­man Ser­vices. … What are we so afraid of? The more we do to avoid risk and pro­tect our mem­bers from tough votes, the more in­ef­fect­ive and po­lar­ized the in­sti­tu­tion be­comes” (Dinan, Wash­ing­ton Times, 9/30).

Not­ably, the speech lacked any ref­er­ence to Pres. Obama or Speak­er Nancy Pelosi.

Not So Fast

“Boehner ref­er­enced” Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and the “No Child Left Be­hind” act, which they worked on to­geth­er, “cit­ing it as ex­ample of how” he “would work across the aisle as Speak­er.” Boehner “has made this ref­er­ence to Miller on sev­er­al oc­ca­sions now. … Miller is hav­ing none of it.”

Miller: “Sadly, noth­ing could be fur­ther from the truth. Our work to­geth­er on No Child Left Be­hind was one mo­ment in time that has it­self been left be­hind. In fact, our work to­geth­er on that bill il­lus­trates an en­tirely op­pos­ite point than what the Minor­ity Lead­er would have us be­lieve. … The fact is, the only bi-par­tis­an mo­ment Rep. Boehner can point to is work­ing with me nine years ago on a bill Pres­id­ent Bush had made a pri­or­ity. Everything since has been par­tis­an op­pos­i­tion to is­sues of great im­port­ance” (Vorder­brueg­gen, Oak­land Tribune, 9/30).

Rep. Mi­chael Bur­gess (R-TX), on ABC’s “Top Line” 9/30, “said it would be ‘pre­ma­ture’ for mem­bers of his caucus to line up be­hind Boehner” for Speak­er “par­tic­u­larly when there’s likely to be so many new” GOP­ers com­ing to Con­gress.

Bur­gess: “Let’s see what hap­pens. Right now I’ll com­mit for vot­ing for a con­ser­vat­ive speak­er of the house. I’m go­ing to try to pick the most con­ser­vat­ive can­did­ate that’s out there, and we’ll see what hap­pens” (Klein, ABC News, 9/30).

The Happy Hour Di­vide

A new Gal­lup poll re­leased 9/30 un­der­scored the pos­sib­il­ity that the ‘12 GOP pres. primary could di­vide the GOP along the same lines of class and edu­ca­tion that defined the ‘08 race between Obama and Sec/State Hil­lary Clin­ton.

The poll shows a sharp edu­ca­tion­al di­vide between the sup­port for ex-MA Gov. Mitt Rom­ney (R) and ex-AK Gov. Sarah Pal­in (R). Among po­ten­tial GOP primary voters without a col­lege de­gree, Pal­in ran about even with Rom­ney, but Rom­ney lead Pal­in among those with a four-year col­lege de­gree and those with post-gradu­ate de­grees, the lat­ter group by al­most 3-to-1. Edu­ca­tion rep­res­en­ted a clear fault line in Pal­in’s ap­peal. His­tor­ic­ally, such a fis­sure along edu­ca­tion­al lines, between “wine track” and “beer track” can­did­ates, has oc­curred more reg­u­larly in the Dem than the GOP.

One seni­or strategist for an­oth­er likely ‘12 GOP con­tender says the grow­ing pres­ence of pop­u­list, so­cially con­ser­vat­ive, blue-col­lar GOP voters is en­lar­ging the op­por­tun­ity for a can­did­ate like Pal­in to win the nom­in­a­tion.

An­oth­er GOP strategist sym­path­et­ic to Rom­ney agreed that the cur­rent in the party this year is run­ning to­ward out­sider can­did­ates with the sort of anti-elit­ist ap­peal that Pal­in has em­phas­ized. But, he said, by 2012, that could change.

The strategist: “What we have seen over the last few cycles is that every two years we see the elect­or­ate go on one course and then there is a cor­rec­tion. … The cor­rec­tion could be back to­ward, ‘we’ve got­ten that out of our way and what about the elect­ab­il­ity and com­pet­ence and who is go­ing to be the Mr. Fix It and can of­fer some kind of ex­pert­ise on get­ting things done or chan­ging things’” (Brown­stein, Con­gress­Daily, 10/1).

Keep­ing Fear (Of Con­ser­vat­ives) Alive

Na­tion­al Journ­al’s Starobin writes: The Rad­ic­al Right is back. The move­ment has re­turned, if not to the cen­ter of Amer­ic­an polit­ics, then to some wor­ri­some place not all that far from the main­stream.

Ar­gu­ments that Obama is some­how un-Amer­ic­an, a Muslim and a So­cial­ist are, if any­thing, in­tensi­fy­ing. Such sus­pi­cions about Obama are part of a wider and swell­ing cluster of anxi­et­ies of a tra­di­tion­al nat­iv­ist type, re­flec­ted in an earli­er age by cit­izens wor­ried about the in­flux of Cath­ol­ic im­mig­rants in big cit­ies in the North. The core nat­iv­ist ques­tion, a staple of the mod­ern Rad­ic­al Right, is al­ways the same: Who is a real Amer­ic­an? For a new gen­er­a­tion of politi­cians, “ex­trem­ism in the de­fense of liberty” is again no vice.

An eco­nom­ic re­cov­ery, if and when it ar­rives in full force, can be ex­pec­ted to take the edge off nat­iv­ist at­ti­tudes. But it is very un­likely that re­cov­ery will al­to­geth­er stanch such sen­ti­ments. In the first place, the 9/11 at­tacks re­main as a root source of Amer­ic­an fears of the “oth­er,” fed by the plaus­ible pos­sib­il­ity of new at­tacks.

On top of the na­tion­al se­cur­ity and eco­nom­ic wor­ries, a third real­ity is stir­ring anxi­et­ies among some on the Right. The US is in the midst of a demo­graph­ic trans­ition in which non-His­pan­ic, white Caucasi­ans — tra­di­tion­ally the base of the Rad­ic­al Right — are de­clin­ing as a share of the total pop­u­la­tion. The evol­u­tion is stok­ing con­cerns that white people, once the main source of ra­cism, will be­come the tar­get.

It’s im­port­ant to note that nat­iv­ist sen­ti­ments are by no means con­fined to the GOP or parts of the con­ser­vat­ive move­ment. In­deed, the GOP has the great­er his­tor­ic­al claim as the party of tol­er­ance, with its found­ing on an anti-slavery plat­form in the 1850s. In re­cent dec­ades, however, nativ­ism has been evid­ent largely in vari­ous pre­cincts of the Right.

Today Obama; to­mor­row, well, how about Rom­ney? He is a Mor­mon — and as such, a mem­ber of a church that some Amer­ic­ans, not­ably some evan­gel­ic­al Prot­est­ants, have long viewed as a cult and not au­then­tic­ally Chris­ti­an. Polit­ic­al writer Lee Har­ris, not­ing the im­port­ance of the Re­li­gious Right con­stitu­ency in the GOP: “I find it amaz­ing that people think Rom­ney is go­ing to get any­where.”

If the Cold War era is any guide, at some point the Rad­ic­al Right will bring forth a Rad­ic­al Left — a re­ac­tion to a re­ac­tion. But at this junc­ture, the fever is mainly on the Right. At some point, the fever will break; it al­ways does. The only ques­tion, as ever, is what wreck­age it will leave be­hind (10/2).

BREAK­ING NEWS: Spe­cif­ics

House GOP­ers’ Pledge to cut $100B “from the fed­er­al budget next year would slash spend­ing for edu­ca­tion, can­cer re­search and aid to loc­al po­lice and fire­fight­ers.”

“Keep­ing the midterm-cam­paign prom­ise would re­quire” GOP­ers “to cut” 21% of the $477B “ear­marked for do­mest­ic dis­cre­tion­ary spend­ing. … Dems warn that the prom­ised cuts would lead to dra­mat­ic re­duc­tions in so­cial ser­vices across the board.”

Rep. Rob An­drews (D-NJ): “This would have sig­ni­fic­ant real-world con­sequences. I don’t see any way there isn’t a hit on col­lege stu­dents,” he said. “I don’t see any way there isn’t some hit on loc­al po­lice and fire.”

Pro­grams on a po­ten­tial fir­ing range: A 21% “cut across the board would take about” $15B from edu­ca­tion. A 21% “cut in Pell Grants would take al­most” $5B from stu­dent tu­ition. The same cut at the NIH “would take about” $6B “from health re­search.” Po­lice could lose $400M.

But with such a large de­fi­cit and the GOP push­ing an ex­ten­sion of the Bush tax cuts for those mak­ing over $250K, Dems and GOP­ers fear “that spend­ing cuts alone won’t bal­ance the budget” (O’Con­nor, Bloomberg, 10/1).

An­oth­er Mil­lion

News Corp con­trib­uted $1M this sum­mer to the US Cham­ber of Com­merce, fol­low­ing an­oth­er $1M dona­tion to the RGA in June. “In the past,” News Corp has “spread its dona­tions between can­did­ates of both parties.” The gifts raise “ques­tions among some me­dia crit­ics about wheth­er News Corp” has “crossed over an in­ap­pro­pri­ate line for a me­dia com­pany.”

News Corp spokes­per­sons “de­clined to com­ment on the cham­ber con­tri­bu­tion, or on wheth­er Fox chief Ro­ger Ailes… had a role in it,” a claim they denied in con­nec­tion with the earli­er RGA dona­tion (Smith, Politico, 9/30).

Don’t Be Such A Nancy

The House GOP camp op­er­a­tion is doub­ling down on their anti-Pelosi ef­forts in the fi­nal weeks of the cam­paign, bet­ting that (her) high neg­at­ives can serve to gal­van­ize an already aroused con­ser­vat­ive voter base.

In the past two weeks alone, the NR­CC has re­leased TV ads in 22 House races “either ty­ing” the Dem “can­did­ate to the speak­er or us­ing un­flat­ter­ing im­ages.” GOP “op­pon­ents are also high­light­ing Pelosi in at least two Sen­ate races where House Demo­crats are seek­ing statewide of­fice,” in­clud­ing Rep. Brad Ell­s­worth (D-IN) and Rep. Joe Ses­tak (D-PA).

Dem poll­ster John An­za­lone “dis­missed the strategy, say­ing that it didn’t work for” Dems “in the past and won’t work” for GOP­ers now.

An­za­lone: “I al­ways re­mind people that we didn’t win a damn race as Demo­crats try­ing to do the same thing against Newt Gin­grich in 1996 and 1998” (Dav­is, Na­tion­al Journ­al, 10/2).

A Long Time Ago, We Used To Be Friends

Rep. Paul Ry­an (R-WI) “is rap­idly emer­ging as a top” Dem “bo­gey­man on the” camp trail. Already Dem at­tacks, in­clud­ing a new web ad “Meet The Young Guns — They Want To Privat­ize So­cial Se­cur­ity and Medi­care” put out by Amer­ic­ans United for Change, “are tak­ing a toll. GOP chal­lengers are back­ing away from the road map’s spe­cif­ics.”

Mont­gomery Coun­cilor Martha Roby (R-AL) “who said earli­er this year that” Ry­an was “‘of­fer­ing real solu­tions,’ now has a page on her web­site de­voted to op­pos­ing the privat­iz­a­tion of So­cial Se­cur­ity.” Ir­aq vet. Jesse Kelly (R-AZ) ini­tially backed the road map and fo­cused on re­form­ing the pro­gram, but now says he “would work to pro­tect” it.

Though Ry­an may be “the brain” be­hind the Young Guns’ op­er­a­tion, “they didn’t use any of his ideas in their new ‘Pledge to Amer­ica’ — and he didn’t at­tend its rol­lout last week” (Co­hen/Hunt, Politico, 10/1).

De­Min­ted Lo­gic

Sen. Jim De­Mint (R-SC) “said this week he has no aver­sion to ac­cept­ing” dona­tions from PACs, “des­pite a 1998 pledge against it, be­cause of the need to be ‘com­pet­it­ive’ in statewide races.” De­Mint “has raised” nearly $1.8M from PACs since ‘05 “in­clud­ing more than” $1M “this year alone.”

De­Mint, in his ‘98 camp plat­form: “Spe­cial in­terest PAC money cor­rupts our polit­ic­al sys­tem be­cause it al­lows spe­cial in­terest groups to con­trol elec­tions and our rep­res­ent­at­ives. Jim De­Mint will not take any PAC money and will fight for re­forms that al­low only in­di­vidu­al con­tri­bu­tions to cam­paigns.”

De­Mint said that “the no-PAC-money pledge ap­plied only to his House race.”

De­Mint: “I didn’t take PAC money the whole time I was in the (House), but when I ran for the Sen­ate, in or­der to be com­pet­it­ive statewide, I needed to ac­cept money from the as­so­ci­ations and groups that sup­port me. So yeah, it wasn’t a change in mind from my House race, be­cause I could be com­pet­it­ive, but on a statewide race I couldn’t” (Rush­ing, The Hill, 9/30).

Get­ting Fiesty

NR­SC chair John Cornyn “pre­dicted big GOP gains in the Sen­ate,” 9/30, “say­ing the party has got­ten past its in­fight­ing and ten­sions between Tea Party act­iv­ists and party lead­ers.”

Cornyn “stopped short of say­ing he ex­pects a ma­jor­ity, though he did of­fer a mock­ing ap­prais­al of Demo­crats’ chances - tick­ing off state after state where that party’s nom­in­ee is strug­gling.”

Cornyn: “I pre­dict that the stormy weath­er we’ve seen in some of the Re­pub­lic­an primar­ies will lead to a tsunami on Novem­ber the 2nd” (Gill­man, Dal­las Morn­ing News, 10/1).

Tail­in’ Pal­in

RNC says Pal­in will hold 2 “Vic­tory 2010 fun­drais­ing ral­lies”: 10/16 in Ana­heim, CA and 10/23 in Or­lando, FL. “Con­tri­bu­tions for the events range from $25 per per­son to at­tend one of the ral­lies to $30,400 per couple for a private meet­ing and re­cep­tion with Pal­in and party lead­ers” (Shaw, Or­lando Sen­tinel, 9/30).

Oh Snap!

RNC chair Mi­chael Steele’s “Fire Pelosi Bus Tour” stopped in Fort Collins, CO 9/30.

Steele urged the 100 GOP­ers present at the rally “to sup­port” GOV nom­in­ee/busi­ness­man Dan Maes and SEN nom­in­ee/Weld Co. DA Ken Buck, “but failed to even men­tion” state Rep. Cory Gard­ner (R), a “Young Gun” “the party is count­ing on” to win a ma­jor­ity in the House. Gard­ner “has cri­ti­cized Steele’s lead­er­ship” and “didn’t at­tend the rally held a few doors from his” camp hq “be­cause of a pre­vi­ous com­mit­ment to at­tend an ed­it­or­i­al board meet­ing at the Long­mont Times-Call.

A Gard­ner spokes­per­son “de­clined to com­ment on Steele’s vis­it.” A Steele spokes­per­son “said the fail­ure to men­tion Gard­ner…. was an over­sight” (Moore, Fort Collins Col­or­adoan, 10/1).

That’s One Scary Duck

Ex-Maj. Lead­er Tom Delay, on the lame-duck ses­sion: “This lame-duck is very, very dan­ger­ous, par­tic­u­larly with the kind of pres­id­ent we have right now, who wants to get some things done. And what is go­ing to be the back­lash of the Demo­crats — all those Demo­crats who are go­ing do lose their seats? And they don’t want to ex­tend the tax rates for those mak­ing over $250,000, be­cause they want that $700 bil­lion to spend” (“Your World,” FNC, 9/30).

It’s Teatime Again

Na­tion­al Cap­it­al Tea Party Pat­ri­ots’ Doug Main­war­ing writes, for Wash­ing­ton Times: “The Tea Party is the lead­ing edge of a ‘Great Awaken­ing’ in Amer­ica. In many ways, it ap­pears to have the force and vi­tal­ity of one of the re­li­gious awaken­ings that have oc­curred throughout our na­tion’s his­tory. … It is a liv­ing ex­pres­sion of bed­rock truth about hu­man­ity’s rights and our own hu­man nature - that men and wo­men have a yearn­ing to be free and to self-gov­ern while par­ti­cip­at­ing in and en­joy­ing civil so­ci­ety” (9/30).

Ex-House Maj. Lead­er Dick Armey, on the Tea Party’s al­li­ance with the GOP: “So the big ques­tion of this elec­tion is — has been, Will the Re­pub­lic­an Party get back in step with our con­sti­tu­tion­al found­a­tions, or will they con­tin­ue to be, as they have been, un­hap­pily, an un­happy echo of the Demo­crat Party? That party has com­pletely vi­ol­ated and aban­doned the found­a­tion prin­ciples of our coun­try to our Con­sti­tu­tion, and the Re­pub­lic­an Party needs to either dis­cov­er wheth­er they’re go­ing to be a re­sponse to that or con­tin­ue to emu­late the Demo­crats. If they go back to emu­lat­ing the Demo­crats, they will prob­ably go back to los­ing elec­tions. As it stands right now, they have a chance of win­ning some sig­ni­fic­ant elec­tion vic­tor­ies this fall” (“On the Re­cord,” FNC, 9/30).

Phil­adelphia In­quirer’s Pol­man writes: “The Re­pub­lic­an Party and the Tea Party will ef­fec­tu­ate a polit­ic­al mar­riage that fig­ures to be as volat­ile as the le­gendary uni­on of Liz Taylor and Richard Bur­ton” (10/1).

What We're Following See More »
Trump Blocks Federal Funding to Groups that Make Abortion Referrals
3 hours ago

"The Trump administration took aim at Planned Parenthood Friday, issuing a rule barring groups that provide abortions or abortion referrals from participating in the $286 million federal family planning program — a move that is expected to direct millions toward faith-based providers."

House Expects Tuesday Vote to End National Emergency
6 hours ago

"The House plans to vote Tuesday on legislation to formally block President Donald Trump’s attempt to circumvent Congress to fund his border wall, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Friday. The privileged resolution to stop Trump’s emergency declaration — which has 226 co-sponsors, including one Republican — is expected to easily pass the House. It then will be voted in the Senate within 18 days."

Trump Signs Border Deal
1 weeks ago

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Trump Declares National Emergency
1 weeks ago

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
1 weeks ago

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.