Former Romney Strategist Warns Technology Is Not the GOP’s Panacea

Poll: Large Racial Gap Marks Trust on Immigration

Mar 132013

John Gurzinski/Getty Images(NEW YORK) — Slightly more Americans trust Barack Obama than congressional Republicans to handle immigration, but neither side garnered a majority between whites and nonwhites in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Americans overall divide by 45-39 percent between Obama and the Republicans in Congress in trust to handle the issue; the rest are undecided or trust neither side. Whites favor the GOP over Obama on immigration by 47-36 percent, while nonwhites (blacks, Hispanics and others) prefer Obama by a broad 71-16 percent.

See a PDF with full results here.

There also are sharp partisan and ideological differences in trust on immigration in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. Democrats and Republicans each prefer their side’s approach by an identical 66 percentage points; independents divide closely between Obama and the GOP, 41-36 percent.

Very conservative Americans favor the Republicans on immigration by 65 points and those who say they’re somewhat conservative do so by 33 points. Moderates take Obama’s side by a 21-point margin, liberals by 61 points.

Obama has made immigration reform a second-term priority, having beaten Mitt Romney in last year’s election by 61 percentage points among the growing proportion of nonwhites overall and by 44 points among Hispanics, while losing whites by 20 points.

In step with the president’s policy direction, majorities in recent ABC/Post polls have supported a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. His approval rating on the issue in February, while just 49 percent, was the highest of his presidency and up 11 points since the summer.

Republicans Decry Obama’s Decision to Try Al Qaeda Suspects in Civilian Court

Mar 082013

Hemera/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) — The Obama administration’s decision to try Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law in federal court in New York City instead of a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay has reignited a debate over how to deal with suspected terrorists.

It also recalls one of the largest failures of President Obama’s presidency: His unfulfilled promise as a candidate in 2008 to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

As Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, pleaded not guilty to conspiring to kill Americans in New York Federal Court Friday, Republicans in Congress were criticizing the Obama administration for prosecuting a suspected al Qaeda terrorist in a civilian court just about a mile from the 9/11 memorial built over Ground Zero.

“Abu Ghaith has sworn to kill Americans and he likely possesses information that could prevent harm to America and its allies,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wrote in a statement. “He is an enemy combatant and should be held in military custody.”

The White House claimed there was a “broad consensus” across the federal government, from the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, to prosecute OBL’s son-in-law in civilian court.

“The intelligence community agrees that the best way to protect our national security interests is to prosecute Abu Ghaith in an Article III court,” Principal Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Friday.

“We’re able to question him as a part of the regular process in detaining individuals like this, but we’re also able to put him through Article III courts to ensure that he’s held accountable for his crimes,” Earnest added. “This is somebody who’s going to be held accountable for his crimes and … that will be done in accordance with the laws and values of this country, and it will be done so in a pretty efficient way.”

Still, McConnell said that the administration’s justification “makes little sense” and the intelligence community “deserve[s] the same access to intelligence and methods of defeating the enemy available to the team that found Bin Laden.”

“At Guantanamo, [Abu Ghaith] could be held as a detainee and fulsomely and continuously interrogated without having to overcome the objections of his civilian lawyers,” McConnell said.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said civilian court “is not the appropriate venue” and the administration “should treat enemy combatants like the enemy.”

“Al Qaeda leaders captured on the battlefield should not be brought to the United States to stand trial,” Rogers said. “The president needs to send any captured al Qaeda members to Guantanamo.”

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, who opposes closing Guantanamo and previously fought against efforts by the Obama administration to prosecute 9/11 suspects in New York City, said the speaker “agrees” with Rogers.

New York Republican Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., said he preferred that Abu Ghaith face trial in a military tribunal rather than civilian court, and he questioned what type of standard Friday’s hearing could set.

“While a federal court trial of Abu Ghaith in lower Manhattan would not present the same security issues as a trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I strongly believe as a matter of policy that military tribunals are the proper venue for enemy combatants,” said King, a member of the House committees on Intelligence and Homeland Security. “If the Abu Ghaith trial does go forward in federal court, it must not be used as a precedent for future enemy combatants who should be tried at Guantanamo.”

A spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., did not respond to requests for comment Friday, nor did New York Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler or Nydia Velazquez, the lawmakers representing downtown Manhattan.

Clint Eastwood Joins Republicans for Gay Marriage, Highlighting Growing GOP Rift

Feb 282013

Mark Wilson/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) — A growing split in the Republican Party deepened Thursday when Clint Eastwood, the movie star who rocked the GOP convention by interviewing an invisible President Obama, joined the ranks of Republicans who are in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

The support for gay marriage by Eastwood and about 100 prominent Republicans, along with budding support within the party for immigration reform, is creating an obvious divide in the party. It pits moderate Republicans and party operatives on one side against conservative activists who drive turnout in the primary elections.

One of the four former Republican governors who signed the legal brief in favor of same-sex marriage is ex-New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, who says there are days she “absolutely” doesn’t feel like part of the party because she says the GOP is being “defined by the talking heads and they don’t for the most part represent me.”

Whitman said she signed the gay marriage brief because it’s important to be heard and it’s “an opportunity to get this issue behind us.”

“We are talking about family values, we are talking about commitment that so many people hold in such high regard it shouldn’t make a difference if it’s between a man and a woman or two men or two women,” Whitman said. “We are the party of family values and limited government. Getting out of the bedroom is a good first step.”

Whitman, who is also the former administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, said the purist conservatives are statistically a smaller number of people in the party, but are the loudest because of their role in the party’s primaries where voter turnout can be very low.

“It allows the most partisan people the first say in who your choices…and because they are the most partisan they are going to choose the most partisan people,” Whitman said. “They have influence beyond their numbers.”

Margaret Hoover, a GOP strategist and former George W. Bush staffer who signed the brief, agrees with Whitman, but said she always feels like a member of the party because she is “totally committed to changing it.”

“You can leave or you can change it and frankly we are having a lot of success changing it,” Hoover said. “We are making it truer to our principals and we are calling out the people who claim to be for individual freedom.”

Hoover said she thinks the people “gearing up for civil war” are the “social conservatives who insist on purity tests,” but there are “other elements of the party that are quickly trying to tamp that down and pivoting to, ‘No we are going to be the party of the big tent.’ We are going to get back to being a big tent party on social issues. We will be strict on fiscal issues.”

“It’s fair to say that increasingly behind the scenes Republicans are saying we have to be a big tent on social issues. Social conservative activists are going to hate that, [American Conservative Union president] Al Cardenas is going to hate that and his people are going to hate that, but that’s not the reality,” Hoover said.

Republicans Supporting Gay Marriage Write Supreme Court Amicus Brief

Feb 262013

iStockphoto/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) — The issue of same sex-marriage is dividing the Republican Party, as a group of more than 80 prominent members of the GOP, ranging from Dick Cheney’s daughter to four former governors, have signed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court advocating for the legalization of gay marriage.

One of the signers confirmed for ABC News the existence of the brief signed by the Republicans and said it would be submitted to the United States Supreme Court this week. The deadline to submit briefs is Thursday.

The document, known as an amicus or “friend of the court” brief, is being submitted in support of a lawsuit aiming to strike down Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that passed in 2008 banning same-sex marriage. The existence of the brief was first reported by The New York Times.

Republican-elected leadership, like House Speaker John Boehner, as well as the platform, are staunchly against same-sex marriage.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group who brought the California lawsuit challenging Prop 8, released a list of the signers Tuesday, including Cheney’s daughter Mary Cheney.

Signers included former congresswoman Mary Bono Mack of California, former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, and Meg Whitman, who supported Prop 8 when she ran for governor of California in 2010. Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, Richard Hanna of New York and former GOP national chairman Ken Mehlman also signed. In addition, three former Massachusetts governors — William Weld, Jane Swift, and Paul Cellucci — along with former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman are signers. The list also includes Republican attorney and Romney senior adviser Ben Ginsberg and other high-profile GOP leaders, strategists, consultants, and staffers.

Some big-name supporters of same-sex marriage who have not signed the brief include former Vice President Dick Cheney, former first lady Laura Bush, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The fight against Prop 8 already had a big-name conservative supporter in Theodore Olson, former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, who is one of the suit’s two lead attorneys along with David Boies.

The court will hear arguments next month in that case and another important gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Another one of the signers is Nicolle Wallace, Republican strategist and former George W. Bush aide and John McCain campaign adviser. Wallace said the beginning of the group took place in 2010 when Republicans supportive of same-sex marriage came together to fundraise for the legal effort.

She said the “power of the legal argument had a lot more to do with persuading the majority of Republicans on the brief than any political pressure.”

Wallace stressed that she believes this issue, unlike others, will not “ignite a civil war in the party” because so many people have gay friends, co-workers, and family members; even those who don’t agree with their stance have a lot of “respect” for the disagreement.

In the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll on the topic from November a slim majority of Americans support gay marriage, 51-47 percent, but amongst Republicans it is only 31-67 percent.

Brian Donahue, a Republican strategist who did not sign the brief, believes that because the list includes so many prominent Republicans it represents a “significant step” for the party.

“It’s a sign that there is a growing interest in the party to take steps to broaden its reach in defining what’s acceptable to be part of this party,” Donahue said. “It’s healthy for members of the party to express their beliefs and opinions even when they may not be favorable by party leadership. It’s healthy for the party to examine how it affects the lives of all Americans and it’s a healthy discussion that’s taking place within the party to say, ‘What do we stand for?’”

Some Republicans fear the amicus brief could badly split the Republican Party. Hogan Gidley, a GOP strategist who has worked on the presidential campaigns of both Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, says the Republican tent should be “very broad,” but this move by the group of Republicans will widen the schism in the party.

“I don’t want Republicans to be lazy and say, well Latinos are flocking to Democrats in droves so we should do amnesty,” Gidley said. “The homosexual community is flocking to Democrats in droves so we should legalize gay marriage. The marijuana advocates are flocking to Democrats in droves, we should legalize drugs. To me that is a little bit reactionary, but also a little bit lazy.”

Gidley said that he would “hate for anybody to sell their convictions in the hopes they get more votes.”

Constitutional law experts say that while amicus briefs do not traditionally decide cases, they can be very influential.

Stanford constitutional law professor Jane Schacter says in this case she believes it could be an “influential brief” because it “telegraphs to the court that there is an increasing number of people who support same sex-marriage and that it is no longer a partisan issue to the extent that it was.”

“When this number of Republicans are saying it’s an issue where there should be equality it changes the way it looks to the justices,” Schacter said.

Former Romney Strategist Warns Technology Is Not the GOP’s Panacea

Feb 252013

Mark Wilson/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) — It’s not over yet — the 2012 presidential campaign, that is. At least not if you ask Mitt Romney’s former top strategist, Stuart Stevens, who has been writing and talking a lot about blame lately.

“There seems to be a desire to blame Republicans’ electoral difficulties and the Romney campaign’s loss on technological failings,” Stevens wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday. “I wish this were the problem, because it would be relatively easy to fix. But it’s not.”

Stevens went on to argue that it was a generation and message gap that ailed the GOP last year and ultimately paved the way for President Obama’s victory over Romney. The Democrats’ superior technology — and Republicans’ weaknesses in this area — was only part of the problem, he wrote.

Stevens, who along with a handful of other strategists helped guide the Romney campaign throughout the election cycle, has been re-litigating the campaign in op-eds as well as in interviews, like his recent conversation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl on This Week and another one with CNN’s Howard Kurtz, host of Reliable Sources.

Of Romney’s loss last November, Stevens told Kurtz that he takes “full responsibility.”

“Just blame me,” he said in an interview that aired on Sunday. “That’s fine. And let’s move on.”

But Stevens did reserve some criticism for the new social media environment — exemplified by Twitter — that he says has led to a strained relationship between political operatives and the press. Reporters, he said, “need a news story every two hours, and that’s a great pressure.”

“It creates, I think, an environment that is very conducive to the creation of news, the invention of news,” he added.

As for Twitter, Stevens acknowledged that he has an account (which he says he checks “obsessively”) but he does not tweet himself. “It’s a great thing and it’s a very dangerous thing,” he said.

And in an interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl earlier this month, he underscored his analysis in Monday’s Washington Post op-ed that technology is only part of the prescription for his party.

“It would be a great mistake if we felt that technology in itself is going to save the Republican Party,” he told Karl in an interview on Feb. 17. “Technology is something, to a large degree, you can go out and purchase, and if we think there’s an off-the-shelf solution that you can [buy] with the Republican Party it’s wrong.”

Even so, Republicans have dispatched national party chairman Reince Priebus to California this week to tackle the GOP’s technology gap. According to Roll Call’s David Drucker, Priebus plans to visit the San Francisco Bay Area, meeting with technology executives as well as representatives from Facebook. He will also reportedly head to Seattle for meetings aimed at improving Republicans’ early voting efforts.

And we’re about to get a chance to hear from Romney himself about what went wrong in 2012 — and where the GOP should go from here. The former Massachusetts governor and his wife, Ann, are set to appear on Fox News Sunday next weekend. It will be the former Republican presidential hopeful’s first major interview since the election. One week later, he is scheduled to address the annual Conservative Political Action Conference outside Washington, D.C.

Older Entries