Politics: Congress

Weiner: ‘Today I’m Announcing My Resignation’

Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
June 16, 2011, 10:37 a.m.

Con­duc­ted 9/30-10/5 by Mar­ist Col­lege; sur­veyed 829 RVs; mar­gin of er­ror +/- 3.4% (re­lease, 10/8).

Obama As POTUS

- All Dem GOP Ind Men Wom 9/16 6/24 3/29 2/3 12/7 Ap­prove 43% 74% 12% 35% 37% 49% 45% 44% 46% 44% 46% Dis­ap­prove 50 20 85 54 55 45 50 45 43 47 44

Fav/Un­fav

- All Dem GOP Ind 9/16 6/24 B. Obama 50%/47% 80%/16% 15%/83% 44%/53% 49%/48% 50%/43%

Do You Think Obama’s Ap­proach To Solv­ing The Prob­lems Fa­cing The Coun­try Should Be Giv­en More Time, Or Do You Think His Ap­proach Will Not Solve The Prob­lems Fa­cing The Coun­try?

- All Dem GOP Ind Men Wom Should be giv­en more time 51% 81% 20% 42% 47% 55% Will not solve prob­lems 45 15 76 54 50 41

Do You Think The Cur­rent Eco­nom­ic Con­di­tions Are Mostly Something Obama In­her­ited, Or Are They Mostly A Res­ult Of His Own Policies?

- All Dem GOP Ind Men Wom 9/16 In­her­ited 61% 86% 28% 60% 61% 62% 59% Policies 33 10 65 34 34 33 35

How En­thusast­ic Are You About Vot­ing In The Elec­tions In Nov.?

- All Dem GOP Ind Men Wom 9/16 Very en­thu­si­ast­ic 36% 28% 51% 32% 39% 32% 33% Some­what en­thu­si­ast­ic 34 41 29 31 34 34 40 Not too en­thu­si­ast­ic 21 22 12 27 19 23 19 Not en­thu­si­ast­ic at all 9 9 8 11 8 11 8

How Much Have You Heard About The Cong. GOP­ers’ Pledge To Amer­ica?

- All Dem GOP Ind Men Wom A great deal 13% 12% 17% 11% 14% 13% A good amount 22 18 27 21 26 17 Not very much 38 42 37 36 37 40 Noth­ing at all 25 26 17 31 22 29

Are You More/Less Likely To Vote For A Can­did­ate For Con­gress Who Sup­ports The GOP­ers’ Pledge To Amer­ica?

- All Dem GOP Ind Men Wom More likely 39% 15% 74% 37% 41% 37% Less likely 39 68 8 32 36 41 No dif­fer­ence 7 3 5 13 9 5

Do You Think The Way Things Are Done In Gov’t Need Ma­jor Changes/Need Minor Changes/Do Not Need To Be Changed?

- All Dem GOP Ind Men Wom Need ma­jor changes 74% 65% 79% 80% 75% 73% Need minor changes 17 27 13 9 16 18 Do not need to be changed 1 1 1 3 1 2

(For more from this poll, please see today’s Mc­CLATCHY-MAR­IST WH ‘12 story.)

It’s un­likely that same-sex mar­riage is go­ing to push the eco­nomy out of the dom­in­ant role in this elec­tion. In­deed, short of a ma­jor in­ter­na­tion­al in­cid­ent, it is un­likely that any oth­er is­sue will dis­place the eco­nom­ic ones. But gay mar­riage was the most dis­cussed is­sue last week. The most re­mark­able thing was not Pres­id­ent Obama’s an­nounce­ment that he would em­brace same-sex mar­riage, even if it wasn’t ex­actly pre­med­it­ated. In­stead, it was a memo from a very prom­in­ent and well-re­spec­ted Re­pub­lic­an poll­ster sug­gest­ing that his party should treat the is­sue with con­sid­er­ably more cau­tion than it has in the past.

(MAP: Where Is Same-Sex Mar­riage Leg­al?)

Jan van Lo­huizen worked for two of the three pi­on­eers, Lance Tar­rance and Bob Teeter, in Re­pub­lic­an polling (the oth­er was Dick Wirth­lin). In 1986, van Lo­huizen served as polling dir­ect­or for the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Sen­at­ori­al Com­mit­tee. He has long been Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­an Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell‘s poll­ster. He was also the prin­cip­al poll­ster for George W. Bush’s 2000 and 2004 pres­id­en­tial cam­paigns and was one of the key poll­sters in­volved in Mitt Rom­ney’s 2008 cam­paign. Only the most wired-in polit­ic­al op­er­at­ives and re­port­ers know him. That is not by ac­ci­dent. Van Lo­huizen has al­ways worked to keep a low pro­file. He doesn’t have a self-pro­mo­tion­al bone in his body and thus is far more giv­en to un­der­state­ment than to ex­ag­ger­a­tion.

That’s why his May 11 memo to party of­fi­cials is all the more re­mark­able. Van Lo­huizen starts off by re­view­ing the state and dir­ec­tion of polling on same-sex mar­riage. He points out that sup­port grew at about 1 per­cent­age point a year up to 2009 but has “ac­cel­er­ated” to a 5-per­cent­age-point growth rate since 2010, point­ing to the late-Feb­ru­ary/early-March NBC News/Wall Street Journ­al poll that shows sup­port­ers out­num­ber­ing op­pon­ents by 49 per­cent to 40 per­cent. (A USA Today/Gal­lup poll found 50 per­cent say­ing same-sex mar­riages should be val­id and 48 per­cent say­ing they should not). Van Lo­huizen notes that sup­port for gay mar­riage has in­creased across the board, al­though ob­vi­ously Demo­crats are more sup­port­ive than Re­pub­lic­ans. While young­er voters are more sup­port­ive than older ones, he points out that “all age groups are re­think­ing their po­s­i­tions.” Van Lo­huizen em­phas­ized: “This is not about a gen­er­a­tion­al shift in at­ti­tudes; this is about people chan­ging their think­ing as they re­cog­nize their friends and fam­ily mem­bers who are gay or les­bi­an.”

(PIC­TURES: Timeline of Obama’s Chan­ging Views on Same-Sex Mar­riage)

The memo ar­gues that ma­jor­it­ies of Re­pub­lic­ans and Re­pub­lic­an-lean­ing voters “sup­port ex­tend­ing ba­sic leg­al pro­tec­tions to gays and les­bi­ans.” Such sup­port in­cludes “pro­tect­ing gays and les­bi­ans against be­ing fired for reas­ons of sexu­al ori­ent­a­tion; pro­tec­tion against bul­ly­ing and har­ass­ment; re­peal of “˜don’t ask, don’t tell’; right to vis­it part­ners in hos­pit­als; pro­tect­ing part­ners against loss of home in case of severe med­ic­al emer­gen­cies or death; leg­al pro­tec­tion in some form for gay couples wheth­er it be same-sex mar­riage or do­mest­ic part­ner­ship (only 29 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans op­pose leg­al re­cog­ni­tion in any form).”

Van Lo­huizen urges GOP can­did­ates to un­der­stand that “people who be­lieve in equal­ity un­der the law as a fun­da­ment­al prin­ciple, as I do, will agree that this prin­ciple ex­tends to gay and les­bi­an couples; gay and les­bi­an couples should not face dis­crim­in­a­tion, and their re­la­tion­ship should be pro­tec­ted un­der the law. People who dis­agree on the fun­da­ment­al nature of mar­riage can agree, at the same time, that gays and les­bi­ans should re­ceive es­sen­tial rights and pro­tec­tions, such as hos­pit­al vis­it­a­tion, ad­op­tion rights, and health and death be­ne­fits.”

Go­ing fur­ther, van Lo­huizen ar­gues, “This is not about giv­ing any­one ex­tra pro­tec­tions or priv­ileges; this is about mak­ing sure that every­one — re­gard­less of sexu­al ori­ent­a­tion — is provided the same pro­tec­tions against dis­crim­in­a­tion that you and I en­joy.”

He goes on to say that this is con­sist­ent with con­ser­vat­ive prin­ciples: “As people who pro­mote per­son­al re­spons­ib­il­ity, fam­ily val­ues, com­mit­ment, and sta­bil­ity, and em­phas­ize free­dom and lim­ited gov­ern­ment, we have to re­cog­nize that free­dom means free­dom for every­one. This in­cludes the free­dom to de­cide how you live and to enter in­to re­la­tion­ships of your choos­ing, the free­dom to de­cide how you live without ex­cess­ive in­ter­fer­ence of the reg­u­lat­ory force of gov­ern­ment.”

The poll­ster is not ar­guing mor­al­ity or pub­lic policy. He is, however, sug­gest­ing his party re­cog­nize that it has staked out po­s­i­tions on this con­stel­la­tion of is­sues that fly in the face of rather rap­idly chan­ging pub­lic at­ti­tudes. Not un­like warn­ings from oth­er strategists about Re­pub­lic­an po­s­i­tions and rhet­or­ic that have hurt them badly with the grow­ing Latino vote, the GOP here risks be­ing on the wrong side of an is­sue where the world is mov­ing in a dif­fer­ent way.

To be sure, polit­ic­al parties are not sup­posed to be weath­er vanes, chan­ging whenev­er the wind  blows in a new dir­ec­tion. When they choose to fly in the face of evolving pub­lic at­ti­tudes, though, they need to think about it long and hard; they need to de­cide if it’s really worth it and con­sider that times might have changed.

What We're Following See More »
ANOTHER NUCLEAR OPTION?
Byrd Rule Could Trip Up Health Legislation
19 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”

Source:
ONE WEEK
Senate Votes To Fund Government
21 hours ago
BREAKING
ON TO SENATE
House Passes Spending Bill
22 hours ago
BREAKING

The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.

PRESIDENT CALLS MEDICAID FUNDS A “BAILOUT”
Puerto Rico Another Sticking Point in Budget Talks
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."

Source:
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN?
Democrats Threaten Spending Bill Over Obamacare
1 days ago
BREAKING

Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.

Source:
×
×

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.

Login