Is Sarah Palin thinking about bolting the GOP to help found a new conservative US political party? That’s sure what it sounded like on Saturday when the subject arose in the course of a Fox News interview. Via Twitter, a viewer asked her if she’d consider creating a “Freedom Party” with right-leaning radio host Mark Levin. Her reply was that, yes indeed, maybe it’s time for a revolt.
If Republican leaders continue to “back away from the planks in our platform” and the principles on which the party of Lincoln and Reagan was founded, then rank-and-file Republicans with a “libertarian streak” might strike out on their own, Ms. Palin said.
“I love the name of that party, the ‘Freedom Party,’ ” said the ex-Alaska governor.
RECOMMENDED: How well do you know Sarah Palin? A quiz.
Palin has long had problems with mainstream D.C. Republicans – her complaints about “crony capitalism” seem directed at both parties – but the particular item that’s now got her going is the immigration reform bill, and the support of some Republicans, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, for same.
On her Facebook page last week, Palin lamented Senate passage of the immigration “amnesty” measure and worried that the House might follow suit. She called it a “sad betrayal of working class Americans of every ethnicity who will see their wages lowered."
Republicans are rushing to appear more Hispanic-friendly, but it wasn’t lack of Hispanic supporters that kept Mitt Romney out of the White House, wrote Palin.
“It was the loss of working class voters in swing states that cost us the 2012 election, not the Hispanic vote,” she posted.
If the immigration reform bill becomes law, then both parties will have shown they are out-of-touch, arrogant, and dysfunctional, according to the former VP candidate. And if that’s the case, maybe it’s time to found a new party, she implied.
“Folks like me are barely hanging on to our enlistment papers in any political party,” Palin wrote.
Well, we’ve got a couple of thoughts here, unsurprisingly. The first is that, in this instance, it is way too easy to resort to a cheap “Going rogue?” segue or subhead. We won’t do it and anybody who does should be ashamed of themselves. Nor will we suggest “Mavericks” as a new party name. That’s already taken.
The second is that we doubt Palin will actually leave the GOP. She’s clearly more of a speechifier than an administrator, and she’ll get more Fox airtime with “GOP” as part of her tag line. Talking about dropping out is good, though – it brings attention.
Third is that she’s got a point there with the election analysis. An interesting recent series by RealClearPolitics senior analyst Sean Trende shows that the current conventional wisdom about the 2012 result, which emphasizes President Obama’s gains from black and Hispanic voters, is somewhat incorrect. The biggest reason Romney lost was a decline in white voters from 2008 to 2012, according to Mr. Trende’s analysis. And the missing white voters were generally downscale, rural Northern whites.
Supporting the passage of an immigration bill might help Republicans at the polls, or it might be good on its merits, but it isn’t a GOP must-do, Trende writes.
“It simply isn’t necessary for them to do so and remain a viable political force,” according to Trende.
Finally, yes, Sarah Palin was for immigration reform before she was against it. She supported something very like today’s bill as part of Sen. John McCain’s 2008 ticket.
But didn’t Mr. Obama used to oppose gay marriage? One person’s evolving position: It’s another person’s flip-flop.
RECOMMENDED: How well do you know Sarah Palin? A quiz.
President Obama and ex-President George W. Bush will make a joint appearance in Tanzania on Tuesday, according to the White House. They’ll participate in a wreath-laying ceremony at the site of the 1998 bombing of the US Embassy in Dar es Salaam that killed 11 people and wounded 85.
The presence of both men in Africa is a coincidence of sorts. Tanzania is the last stop of Mr. Obama’s Africa tour, and it’s also the site of a conference on aiding African women sponsored by the George W. Bush Institute.
Since the title of the conference is the “First Ladies Summit,” we’re pretty sure the White House arranged its schedule so that first lady Michelle Obama could attend the Bush-led meeting. White House officials have described the event as an important forum for promoting a larger role for women in Africa.
At least nine African first ladies are expected to attend, according to the Bush Institute, as well as Cherie Blair, wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Africa is one subject on which Obama and his predecessor often agree. Obama may have run for the White House on a platform highly critical of Mr. Bush’s economic and war policies, but he has always praised Bush’s work on AIDS relief in Africa as a life-saving effort.
In fact, in some ways Bush’s Africa policies have been a tough act for Obama to follow. The former poured money into the effort while the latter has reduced funds for Bush’s President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Facing budget wars with Congress, the Obama administration proposed cutting funding for PEPFAR by $214 million last year, prompting criticism from AIDS activists that Obama is retreating on the Bush-era commitment.
“We think it sends a very positive message that both political parties in the United States share a commitment to this continent,” said Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes on Sunday.
That commitment also includes a military buildup. US Africa Command, one of nine unified combatant commands of the US armed forces, was established in 2007 per the recommendation of Bush security officials. Since then, it has grown to about 2,000 people, though it has little in the way of assigned military forces of its own.
As to the Dar es Salaam bombing, it occurred on Aug. 7, 1998, almost simultaneously with a bombing of the US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. Two-hundred-fifty-eight people died in the two attacks, most of them local workers. US intelligence fingered Al Qaeda’s East Africa leader Fazul Abdullah Mohammed as the mastermind of the attacks. He was killed in Somalia by Somali government troops on June 8, 2011.
Some high-profile Republicans have been drawn to the cause of marriage equality, perhaps most notably attorney Ted Olson, who represented the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case in California; US Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, whose son is gay; and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who recently announced after years in politics that he is gay.
But in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s landmark actions Wednesday overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissing an appeal brought by Prop. 8 defenders, many likely Republican presidential hopefuls are steering clear of commenting on either outcome. In what’s expected to be a crowded field of 2016 contenders, who first must woo their party's conservative base to emerge as the eventual GOP nominee, the collection of possible candidates has been largely mum.
Why? Because angry or hand-wringing remarks they make now could come back to bite them in a general election campaign, should they make it that far. And with the Republican Party struggling to court swing voters – young people and minorities, in particular – potential candidates might risk alienating potential backers.
The next presidential contest will be a test for a GOP facing a demographic challenge. Already, the immigration reform debate has created a fault line between those Republicans in favor and those against. Gay marriage is poised to do the same – not just among the candidates, but within the party, too.
So it is that the Twitter feeds of a string of possible contenders – Govs. Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley, Sen. Ted Cruz, and former Gov. Jeb Bush, among them – were notably devoid this afternoon of any weigh-in on DOMA or Prop. 8.
Call it cyber silence.
“My mother once told me, If you don't have anything to say nice, don't say anything at all. Maybe that's the tack they are taking,” says Republican strategist John Feehery.
“Seriously, we live in uncertain times when it comes to public perceptions of how the gay marriage thing will play out,” he adds. “For many possible presidential candidates, appearing too strident on this issue could hurt with fundraising and with appealing to young voters, so for them it makes sense to stay quiet.”
Democrats, on the other hand, were jubilant, and not shy about it.
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, widely believed to be considering a presidential run, tweeted: “I applaud #SCOTUS for striking down #DOMA & affirming that the way forward is always found through equal rights & respect for human dignity”
A potential Democratic rival, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York, also registered his support: “From #Stonewall 44 yrs ago this wk, to passage of #marriageequality, to today’s decision to overturn #DOMA (orig. from NY case) #NYS leading”
Governor Cuomo took the opportunity to remind the public that his state, under his leadership, has been a leader on the issue. “Today’s decisions by the Court are groundbreaking civil rights victories for the LGBT community and a major step forward in our efforts to achieve full marriage equality in this nation,” he said in a statement. “Two years ago, New York became the largest state to enact marriage equality, and since then we have seen a growing recognition across the country that all citizens deserve equal rights under the law, regardless of sexual orientation.”
Maryland, it’s worth noting, approved a same-sex marriage law last year via ballot initiative; Governor O’Malley was a key proponent.
Vice President Joe Biden, another possible 2016 hopeful, voted for DOMA in the 1990s, but has since given his full support for marriage equality. Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s husband signed DOMA in 1996 when he was president, but she endorsed same-sex marriage this year after leaving her diplomatic post.
The Clintons issued a joint statement Wednesday: “By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union,” they said. “We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California. We applaud the hard work of the advocates who have fought so relentlessly for this day, and congratulate Edie Windsor [the DOMA case plaintiff] on her historic victory.”
So who are those Republicans unafraid to chime in?
Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida suggests that the Supreme Court made “a serious mistake” and “should not have second guessed the will of the American people acting through their elected representatives without firm constitutional justifications.”
“The sweeping language of today’s majority opinion is more troubling than the ruling itself as it points to further interference by the Court in the years to come,” Senator Rubio said in a statement. “I recognize that the definition of marriage and the legal status of same-sex relationships is a deeply personal and emotional issue for Americans of a variety of viewpoints. These types of disagreements should be settled through the democratic process, as the Founders intended, not through litigation and court pronouncements.”
“I’m incredibly disappointed that the Supreme Court would continue a pattern of stepping in and making decisions that were very clearly left for the public and the Congress to make,” Mr. Santorum said during a Fox News interview.
And Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican, affirmed his belief that “traditional” marriage is between a man and a woman, Politico reports. He said as well that the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 effectively tosses the matter back to the states.
“They’re trying to say nothing, is what they’re trying to say, but in doing that the other side of the coin is there are 34 states that have decided in favor of traditional marriage,” Senator Paul said on Glenn Beck’s radio show. “Those are affirmed now. … The good side to this ruling is they have affirmed to states that this is a state issue and states can decide.”
It is Rubio’s lengthy statement, however, that inherently acknowledges the battle ahead for Republicans, like him, who – if they decide to seek the nation’s highest office – must convince voters that their opposition to same-sex marriage doesn’t reflect an underlying bias against gays and lesbians. His comments suggest that it will be difficult to plead for an expanded Republican tent while denying rights demanded by a large subset of Americans.
“My hope is that those of us who believe in the sanctity and uniqueness of traditional marriage will continue to argue for its protection in a way that is respectful to the millions of American sons and daughters who are gay,” Rubio said. “It is also my hope that those who argue for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage will refrain from assailing the millions of Americans who disagree with them as bigots.”
A new poll of battleground Ohio shows that potential Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton would run neck-in-neck there in 2016 against New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a possible Republican contender.
If the election were held today, and former Secretary of State Clinton and Governor Christie had secured their respective party nominations, they would deadlock at 42 percent each.
The news for Vice President Joe Biden, who has also teased his interest in succeeding President Obama, isn’t nearly as sunny. Mr. Biden would be bested by Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R), another lawmaker who is widely viewed to be considering a national candidacy. Christie tops Biden 50 percent to 32 percent in the poll; Senator Paul trumps Biden 49 percent to 40 percent.
Clinton, on the other hand, would beat back a Paul bid, 47 percent to 44 percent.
While the Quinnipiac poll tests these particular matchups, the list of other Republicans also quietly pondering a White House run is long and includes: Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina; Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
Ohio has voted for every White House winner since 1964, and in 2004, its voters lifted then-President George W. Bush over the required 270 electoral vote count required for victory. President Bush, of course, defeated then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (D) that year.
In the minds of those who make up the chattering class, it’s never too early to begin handicapping the next presidential contest. And with Clinton making her debut recently as an active private citizen by hitting the speaking circuit, announcing a new role via the Clinton family’s foundation, and joining Twitter, the buzz around her has grown louder. If she decides to run, it will be interesting to watch if and how she’ll clear a Democratic field that could include Biden, who has run twice previously himself, and has national name recognition and a platform of his own from which to launch a campaign.
Other Democrats waiting in the wings include New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.
For his part, Christie has experienced a boost in national attention after making a very public appearance late last year with the president to review the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. That photo opportunity, airing days before the 2012 White House election, reinforced perceptions of Christie as a bipartisan actor from a blue northern state who might have wider appeal; the visual also helped to buoy Obama, looking ever presidential during a national emergency, over his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Christie’s star is on the rise; he recently slow jammed the news on ‘Late Night With Jimmy Fallon,’ showing a lighthearted side to himself and decent comic timing. His visibility – and seeming likability – has not been lost on Clinton or her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who invited the New Jersey governor to engage in a panel conversation during the Clintons’ recent family foundation summit in Chicago.
Perhaps the Ohio survey is missing the mark. Maybe Clinton and Christie won’t be rivals after all. Clinton could take a stab at crafting a doubly historic 2016 bid by inviting Christie to run with her. The first female president? The first unity ticket since Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson?
Just a thought. And certainly Christie might have other ideas.
The Ohio poll, meanwhile, provides other good news for Clinton. Her favorables crest the critical 50 percent mark, while Biden’s do not. Respondents say they have a favorable view of Clinton, 52 percent to 44 percent. Biden’s numbers are upside-down, 41 percent rate him favorably, while 48 percent register an unfavorable opinion.
A last key survey item that might give the Democrats some reason to pause as they look to the next White House contest – Obama’s support in Ohio has eroded.
“Ohio was the key state in both of President Barack Obama’s elections, and it was his strong showing among independent voters there that made the difference,” says Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, in a statement. “President Obama’s fortunes in the Buckeye State have turned. Since last December, he has lost 10 points among Democrats and 17 points among independent voters. He has gone from a 20-point approval margin to a 9-point disapproval margin among female voters.”
The survey, conducted June 18-23, polled 941 registered voters and had a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.
In Washington, there are informal rules governing whether former public officials should weigh in on urgent policy matters occupying the dockets of their successors.
Rule No. 1: Don’t, unless called upon.
But for former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, now a private citizen, the rules don’t necessarily apply. After all, she is pondering a 2016 presidential bid, and her every move and utterance are assessed in that light. And, well, she’s a Clinton, and therefore as powerful as anyone in politics today. She and her husband, the former president, usually dictate the hows, whens, and whats of their public statements.
And so with that in mind, or so it seems, she registered her strong feelings Monday night on the biggest foreign policy matter – crisis even – facing President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry: Edward Snowden’s international quest for asylum in the wake of his disclosure of classified government surveillance tactics.
"That kind of action is not only detrimental to the US-China relationship but it sets a bad precedent that could unravel the intricate international agreements about how countries respect the laws – and particularly the extradition treaties," the former secretary of State told an audience in Los Angeles.
Clinton’s remarks came during a 90-minute talk sponsored by the American Jewish University, according to the Associated Press. During the appearance she also said Mr. Snowden, the former Booz Allen Hamilton contractor, engaged in "outrageous behavior" in releasing details of the National Security Agency’s data collection program PRISM, which tracks citizens’ e-mails and phone calls in an effort to root out possible terrorist activity.
While Clinton is on message in a sense, echoing comments made by other administration officials, it’s not clear if she was given the go-ahead to comment. She hardly tiptoed into the broader national conversation about government surveillance and the public’s right to know. She used some seriously tough talk. Would the Obama administration suggest that what’s gone down with Snowden’s release from Hong Kong threatens to “unravel” key agreements between China and the United States?
A call to Secretary Kerry’s communications shop at the State Department was not returned.
Kerry, for his part, has indeed used some direct language of his own this week.
“It would be very disappointing if he was willfully allowed to board an airplane” from Hong Kong to Moscow, Kerry said of Snowden at a news conference in New Delhi yesterday, adding that he “would be deeply troubled” if Russia and China knew of Snowden’s plans, “and there would be, without any question, some effect and impact on the relationship and consequences.”
“I’d urge them to live within the law,” Kerry added. “It’s in the interest of everyone.”
Kerry said, too, that “people may die as a consequence” of what Snowden has revealed.
So the newly minted secretary of State hasn’t exactly been absent from the administration’s efforts to advise world leaders who might be pondering whether Snowden should be extradited to the US. Clinton isn’t filling a void there, but with the spotlight she draws with every appearance and declaration, she risks eclipsing Kerry.
Still, for her long-term purposes, she’s likely reminding folks, in case they’d already forgotten, that she knows a thing or two about the complicated relationship with China and that she has something to say about our national security policies.
Meanwhile, Clinton has made more of her own news of late, stoking speculation that she’s prepping for a White House bid. She joined Twitter to much discussion. She gave a policy speech in Chicago outlining her renewed effort via the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation to tackle economic equity issues for women and launch an early childhood development initiative. And she told an audience in Toronto that she’d like to see a woman in the Oval Office.
"Let me say this, hypothetically speaking, I really do hope that we have a woman president in my lifetime," Clinton said last weekend. "And whether it's next time or the next time after that, it really depends on women stepping up and subjecting themselves to the political process, which is very difficult."
But she’s not president yet, and she’s no longer secretary of State, though one could be forgiven for forgetting that in recent days.
First Ed Snowden, then Rusty the red panda. They were both on the lam Monday, and like everything else connected to Washington, there was a political angle.
At the National Zoo, Rusty the red panda – not to be confused with his more famous zoo-mates, the giant pandas – was last seen at 6 p.m. Sunday. By Monday morning, the zoo had put out an all-points bulletin, alerting the public and warning that if found, to exercise caution. If cornered, Rusty could bite.
At 2:24 p.m. Eastern time, the zoo tweeted out that Rusty had been captured safe and sound, put in a crate and was heading back to the zoo. Turns out he had made it all the way to 20th and Biltmore Streets NW, in the nearby neighborhood of Adams Morgan, according to The Washington Post.
RECOMMENDED: Bronx Zoo cobra: her top 4 tweets
Mr. Snowden, the former government contractor charged with leaking top secret national security information, is still at large, presumably somewhere in Russia, after boarding a flight Sunday from Hong Kong to Moscow. He had been booked onto a flight to Cuba on Monday, but was a no-show.
And for a few hours Monday, Snowden was the perfect foil for Rusty the red panda. In a flash, Rusty became the second most famous fugitive on the planet.
“Snowden isn’t the only one on the run,” tweeted Mary Bruce, ABC News White House producer.
“What does @RustyRedPanda know, and when did he know it?” tweeted David Clinch, executive editor at Storyful, suggesting maybe Rusty was up to no good.
In another tweet, Mr. Clinch fueled the Rusty-as-Snowden meme: “Has anyone photo-shopped picture @RustyRedPanda into 17a on Aeroflot flight yet?” – referencing the seat that was reserved for Snowden on the Moscow-Havana flight.
Predictably, famous zoo-lover Newt Gingrich chimed in: “In response to red panda charges, I have an alibi,” the former House speaker and presidential candidate tweeted. “Callista and I were feeding our pet elephant all evening (just a joke) help find panda.”
And like all good Washington stories, Rusty made the White House’s daily briefing.
“Anything on the red panda?” a reporter asked Jay Carney in the final question of the day, sparking laughter.
Even though Rusty has been found, we will probably never know the full story – like how he got out and what route he took to get to 20th and Biltmore. And why? Why did he bolt? Rusty came to the National Zoo only in late April from a zoo in Lincoln, Neb. The zoo here plans to breed him with its female red panda, Shama, according to the Post.
Maybe it wasn’t working out between the two. Just like Snowden’s girlfriend, who got left behind when he fled to Hong Kong.
The latest tweet from the zoo, posted at 3:24 p.m., reports that Rusty is at the zoo’s vet hospital getting checked out.
As for Snowden, stay tuned.
RECOMMENDED: Bronx Zoo cobra: her top 4 tweets
Hanging over the Washington battle about immigration reform is the dicey question of how the issue might affect the White House hopes of those Republicans supporting the legislation. Namely, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and former Sunshine State governor Jeb Bush.
One broader political narrative in play is that the GOP must make a move to woo the nation’s growing Hispanic voter population – and that if lawmakers stand in the way of reform, they’re further alienating citizens who have already shown a deepening allegiance to the Democratic Party. Hispanics twice backed Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
But in key early caucus and primary states, Iowa in particular, Republican primary voters are socially conservative, largely white, and prone to supporting firebrands who rail against abortion, for example, and to courting Evangelicals. They wrap themselves in the flag. Often effectively.
So for Republicans, there’s an obvious tension in positioning around the immigration issue. Should GOP hopefuls aim to win 2016 primary contests with an anti-immigration reform stance that could potentially turn off valuable general-election swing voters? Think potential White House wannabes Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas, who have made clear their views against reform and for a stronger border.
Or is it perhaps more politically astute to think long, carve out some middle ground on the issue, and seek compromise with Democrats?
“Pro-reform candidates could have a hard time in the caucuses and primaries, but let’s remember there are other issues that drive activists, too,” says David Yepsen, a longtime Des Moines Register political reporter. “Electability in November and likability on the stump are two.”
After two White House losses, Republicans will be “hungry” to win come November 2016, says Mr. Yepsen, now director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. One consideration: If immigration reform passes soon, that leaves at least two years before a presidential primary campaign gets going in earnest. Voters are likely to turn their attention to other issues by then. In other words, the fervor over this debate might fade.
“If a candidate puts together a package that’s attractive overall, some hard-liners may overlook a single issue in favor of getting a candidate who might actually stand a chance of winning,” Yepsen says.
In New Hampshire, where Democrats hold the governor’s office and three of four congressional assignments, the immigration reform issue doesn’t read as it might in more-conservative states, says Dante Scala, an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire in Durham.
The state, which holds America’s first primary, is typically “less isolationist, more internationally oriented,” Professor Scala says. It’s not primarily a white, working-class state; manufacturing jobs have dried up. Instead, the Granite State tends to boast a strong high-tech industry and well-educated residents. Many in the business community have weighed in favorably in support of immigration reform. All reasons, among others, that the state’s lone congressional Republican – Sen. Kelly Ayotte – is on board.
“Look at the last two New Hampshire [primary] winners – [John] McCain, Romney: They’re much more center-right Republicans, and inasmuch as immigration reform is becoming an acceptable mainstream Republican position, people who are outside and make a point of it, I think that might damage people’s enthusiasm” for candidates with such views, Scala says.
The national numbers themselves tell an important story for candidates as they begin to think about how to distinguish themselves from what is expected to be a crowded pack of Republican aspirants. Among Latinos in 2012, Mr. Obama bested his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, 71 percent to 27 percent. And the number of registered Latino voters is on the rise: Between the 2008 and 2012 contests, it increased by 26 percent.
So perhaps Senators Paul and Cruz and other like-minded Republicans with their eyes on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue should heed GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham’s caution. He hails from South Carolina, which holds the third contest for the presidential nomination and whose primary voters skew decidedly conservative. Earlier this month, Senator Graham said the GOP is in a “demographic death spiral.”
"If we don't pass immigration reform, if we don't get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn't matter who you run in 2016," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press.”
A border-security compromise struck by two Republican senators and the authors of the Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform bill is not only winning over perhaps a dozen or more Republicans to the cause: It’s also made an immigration reform believer out of Fox News host Bill O’Reilly.
“It is time for the USA to pass immigration reform,” Mr. O’Reilly said on his show, "The O’Reilly Factor," Thursday night. “For years I’ve called for a more secure Southern border, you know that. And now it looks like the secure border is in reach, at least somewhat. So I hope this bill does become law.”
O’Reilly and other conservative pundits have been getting an earful from Sen. Marco Rubio (R) of Florida, among other conservative immigration reform proponents in Congress, in an attempt to win over the television and radio personalities who play a pivotal role in conservative politics.
Although O’Reilly denied claims he had already given his assurances privately to GOP senators that he would back the bill (a claim made in a recent piece in The New Yorker), it is the border-security compromise – worked out by Sens. Bob Corker (R) of Tennessee and John Hoeven (R) of North Dakota with a handful of the Senate bill’s authors, known as the “Gang of Eight” – that finally paved the way for his support.
That compromise, still being finalized as of Friday afternoon, would do the following before any of the nation’s estimated 11 million undocumented people can obtain permanent legal status:
- Offer a “border surge” of some 20,000 new border patrol agents along the US-Mexico divide (doubling the number of agents there).
- Order up a slew of technological and infrastructure improvements.
- Require 700 miles of border fencing to be completed.
Those requirements come in addition to two other “triggers” that must be met before illegal immigrants can become permanent residents: Entry- and exit-tracking procedures have to be improved at all seaports and airports, and a nationwide system of employment verification known as E-Verify must be in place.
Senator Corker said he hopes the compromise, which also extends to a handful of non-border-security issues key to winning the support of other GOP senators, will produce more than a dozen conservative votes for the legislation. Two Senate Republicans – Dean Heller of Nevada and Mark Kirk of Illinois – said on Thursday they would almost certainly support the bill with the Corker-Hoeven amendments.
O’Reilly said he “supports immigration reform, even though I well understand the new law will be somewhat chaotic and will be a magnet for even more people to come here illegally, which is why we need stepped-up security along the border.”
While noting the immigration issue was a difficult one for conservative Americans “because reform would reward bad behavior – illegal entry into the USA,” he contended that the federal government and businesses that profited from cheap labor had played a key role in attracting illegal migrants.
Yet the political stakes are also high, O’Reilly said.
“The Republican Party has a lot to lose here. If it doesn’t compromise, many Hispanic voters will reject the GOP entirely, pretty much dooming the party in the future,” he said. “That’s the reality.”
The amendments, which will probably come up for a vote next week as the Senate moves to pass the overall bill before the Fourth of July recess, aren’t winning over all pundits on the right, however.
The Corker-Hoeven package “may give political cover to Republican senators who want to vote for this bill anyway and are looking for something to be able to say when they go back home – ‘we really toughened up that border security,’ ” said William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, on Fox News Thursday.
“I don’t believe there’s a lot of policy analysis behind this. I missed all the hearings and the documents that show why we need 20,000 more border-security agents as opposed to 5,000," he said. "I don’t think it should change anyone’s fundamental attitude toward the bill as a matter of public policy, as it’s not a serious public-policy proposal.”
A majority of Americans believe Edward Snowden should be criminally prosecuted for leaking classified information about government surveillance programs, according to a new national poll. But you might be surprised by the unlikely grouping of cohorts who suggest the information he has revealed is in the public interest.
First off, 54 percent of Americans say the government should pursue a criminal case against Mr. Snowden, the former Booz Allen Hamilton contractor who has fled to Hong Kong, according to a new Pew Research Center and USA Today survey. But digging into the numbers, it’s interesting to note that tea party loyalists, liberals, and young people suggest the National Security Administration leak outlining extensive phone and e-mail monitoring programs is in the public interest.
People who identify themselves as tea partyers believe the release of this information is in the public interest by a 56 to 39 percent margin. An almost identical segment of liberals – 57 to 38 percent – say the same.
RECOMMENDED: Quiz: How much do you know about terrorism?
Meanwhile, the 18-to-29-year-old set feel even more strongly – 60 percent to 34 percent – that American citizens are well-served by the knowledge Snowden has provided. And a minority of young people, 44 percent, believe he – or as the survey frames it, “the person responsible for leaking the classified information” – should face criminal charges.
What unites these subsets of the population? Former President George W. Bush might call them freedom lovers.
“We saw the same pattern with the Patriot Act,” says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. “This pattern was particularly acute in the West. These issues unite the people who dislike government interference and believe in ‘black helicopters’ with liberals who since Vietnam dislike and distrust government in many of its war and terrorist activities.”
The poll also shows a partisan shift in feelings about personal privacy since Mr. Bush held office. In 2006, 77 percent of Democrats said they would feel their personal privacy was violated if they learned the government was collecting their personal data, while just 28 percent of Republicans agreed. In the latest survey, those numbers reverse – 68 percent of Republicans said they would feel violated, while 53 percent of Democrats agree.
Perhaps these changes in sentiment have something – everything? – to do with who holds the White House and is ultimately overseeing sensitive intelligence programs. If respondents supported the incumbent at the polls, they’re more likely to trust his motivations and give him the benefit of the doubt.
At least for a time. President Obama has seen his approval numbers take a nose dive in recent days, in particular those young people who twice helped him get elected are showing their discontent with the latest batch of scandals plaguing the administration, Snowden’s included. Mr. Obama’s overall rating with those ages 18 to 29 has declined 17 points and is at 48 percent, according to a recent CNN/ORC poll.
As for Snowden, who is making the very most of his more than 15 minutes of fame via web chats and interviews, opinions are deeply divided.
Though the Pew/USA Today poll shows a majority believe he should be charged, a Reuters survey indicates more view him as a patriot than a traitor.
"I'm neither traitor nor hero. I'm an American," Snowden told the South China Post, an English-language newspaper in Hong Kong, last week.
RECOMMENDED: Quiz: How much do you know about terrorism?
Sen. Claire McCaskill’s announcement Tuesday that she is endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton for president should come as no surprise – aside from the fact that the 2016 election is 3-1/2 years away. And the first nominating caucus is probably about 2-1/2 years away. And the former secretary of State isn’t close to announcing that she’s actually running.
But no matter. The 2016 race is well under way, at least among the politically addicted, which includes those thinking of running and the people who love them (and/or want to work for them). So it also comes as no surprise that there’s already a well-established "super political action committee" – Ready for Hillary – encouraging former Secretary Clinton to run. Former Bill Clinton political guru James Carville is on board, as is former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) of Michigan.
Senator McCaskill (D) of Missouri is the first sitting member of Congress to climb on board, which takes the super PAC’s prestige up a notch. For McCaskill herself, the decision to endorse early may represent a bit of atonement for her early endorsement of then-Sen. Barack Obama over then-Senator Clinton in the 2008 cycle.
But McCaskill puts forth another reason to back Clinton early.
“Hillary Clinton had to give up her political operation while she was making us proud, representing us around the world as an incredible Secretary of State, and that’s why Ready for Hillary is so critical,” McCaskill said in her announcement. “It’s important that we start early, building a grassroots army from the ground up, and effectively using the tools of the Internet – all things that President Obama did so successfully – so that if Hillary does decide to run, we’ll be ready to help her win.”
The idea that Clinton is the inevitable nominee if she decides to run has become an article of faith. In fact, “the only ‘news’ a top Democratic official can make now about 2016 is announcing their intention NOT to support Clinton,” notes NBC’s “First Read” political sheet. “At this point, announcing support for her is not exactly NEWS.”
Well, we think it’s a modest news point, at least worthy of a blog item. And it reminds us that in these early days of the 2016 presidential cycle, the Democrats are behaving like Republicans and vice versa. For the past many cycles, the Republicans have settled reasonably early on a candidate – often the runner-up from the previous cycle (see Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney), almost always someone who has run before, or, in the case of George W. Bush, the scion of an American political royal family.
Now, it’s the Democrats who are doing that. If Hillary Clinton runs, she effectively clears the field. The Republicans, in contrast, have at least a dozen serious people gearing up to run or thinking about it, and several strong prospects, but no clear front-runner.
So which party is in better shape? There are reasons to say the Democrats, but the fact that they have an obvious next-nominee-in-waiting may not be one of them. Remember, Republicans say, their model hasn’t worked so well of late. In the last six elections, the Republican nominee has won the popular vote only once. Sometimes, it appears, a vigorous, wide-open competition can be just what a party needs. The best is allowed to rise to the top.