Government Executive - Authors - Rebecca Kaplan

Eric Holder in the Hot Seat as Lawmakers Probe Scandals

Rebecca Kaplan and Kristin Roberts, National Journal — Wed, 15 May 2013 09:18:41 -0400

Eric Holder comes to Capitol Hill on Wednesday for a show of fireworks that could be unlike any seen in this Congress so far.

And if he doesn’t offer the House Judiciary Committee more details on the scandals piling up at the White House’s doorstep than Jay Carney did on Tuesday, the Obama administration is in for another full news cycle of criticism from not only their adversaries on the right but their Democratic allies as well.

It’s a full committee hearing where members of the panel’s Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations Subcommittee will lead the questioning. Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte has outlined an agenda that covers the AP phone-records grab by the Justice Department, the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, agencies’ failure to share information that might have prevented the Boston bombings, and, as if that were not enough, allegedly lavish spending at DOJ under Holder’s watch.

“This administration is having more ethical lapses and what seems to fall under the heading of scandal than anything I've seen in a long time,” said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., a member of House Judiciary.

Holder tried to get out in front of the hearing, at least on the IRS, announcing that DOJ was opening a criminal inquiry. But on the AP phone records, so far, all the attorney general has offered is that he recused himself from that case.

“Here's what I'd like to see from the representatives of this administration, the cabinet members: Come to a hearing once with the intention of informing the committee,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa., who also sits on Judiciary. “His demeanor I think will be to stall and to weather the ordeal."

As congressional Republicans aim to fold three issues – IRS, AP phone records, and Benghazi – together, Democrats are trying to treat them separately. But cracks in the caucus’ unity on this approach already are starting to appear. (Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he had trouble defending the Justice Department’s decision to take AP’s phone records.

As Shane Goldmacher reports, how aggressively Democrats on House Judiciary go after Holder will be a strong indicator of whether that side’s lawmakers will continue to toe a party line that is still, for now, defined by the White House.

]]>

What Obama wants and what Congress will give him

Rebecca Kaplan and Stacy Kaper, National Journal — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:16:05 -0500

President Obama offered a passionate defense of a progressive agenda in his inaugural address Monday, laying out the legislative priorities for the next four years that will likely be echoed in his State of the Union address next month. That includes unfinished business from his first term, such as immigration (which has a future in Congress) and climate change (which doesn’t). There was a pledge to protect the rights of gay citizens to marry (which may be decided by the Supreme Court) and to reduce the waiting time to vote (which may be decided by the states).

The people who hold the key to the president’s vision are the members of Congress with whom he will have to work. Here’s a look at how they might respond to his legislative proposals:

Climate change and sustainable energy: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” Obama said, rehashing failed pieces of his first-term agenda. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms," he added. Obama tried to push a sweeping cap-and-trade climate bill through Congress in his first term, but it died in the Senate in 2010. Since then, cap-and-trade has become politically toxic and is considered dead on arrival in Congress. The only way Obama could take action would be by using his executive authority to roll out controversial environmental regulations that would cut carbon pollution from existing coal plants. But that would generate massive push-back from industry and Environmental Protection Agency critics on Capitol Hill. At least Obama acknowledged that the path to sustainable energy “will be long and sometimes difficult.”

Immigration reform: The president has made no secret of the fact that he is going to make comprehensive immigration reform a top priority of his second term. There is some bipartisan support, especially in the Senate, for legislation, but several sticking points remain. Lawmakers disagree on whether there should be a path to citizenship or merely legal status for illegal immigrants, and whether it should be presented as a comprehensive bill or several smaller pieces of legislation. And for immigration reform to pass in the House, Speaker John Boehner might have to violate the Hastert rule and bring legislation to the floor without the majority backing of his conference. Obama voiced support for one specific policy, arguing that immigration reform would be incomplete “until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.” Easing the path to citizenship for high-skilled workers enjoys broad bipartisan support in the House and Senate, but will get caught up in the debate about the size of legislation.

Equal pay for women: “For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts,” Obama said Monday. In 2009 Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, and with so much else on the agenda now, it’s hard to imagine the president expending much more energy on this issue in the next four years, let alone Congress. To wit, Republicans last year blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have beefed up protections for women in the workplace. The law has long been considered problematic in the business community because it would open employers up to lawsuits for situations that may not be well defined, like the definition of "fair pay."

Voting reform: Obama said that the country’s “journey” would not be complete "until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.” It’s also a pledge he made during his acceptance speech on election night, telling the voters who waited in long lines that “we have to fix that.” But the president is largely powerless to invoke change on this issue because the nitty-gritty of the voting process is the jurisdiction of state and local governments. Although some Democrats, including Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Chris Coons of Delaware, introduced legislation to address long wait times, those efforts are likely to be blocked by a generation of Republicans elected on the promise to protect the 10^th Amendment and states’ rights.

Gay rights: Obama said that his work would not be complete “until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law -- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” The administration will go head-to-head with Congress this year on the issue of gay marriage. Nearly two years ago, Obama ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Boehner announced shortly thereafter that the House of Representatives would take up defense of the law. A lawsuit, United States v. Windsor, has made its way to the Supreme Court, which has scheduled arguments for March. An affirmation of the administration’s position could pave the way for Obama to move more aggressively on gay marriage, which he now supports. If the courts do not back up his decision to no longer defend DOMA, he is unlikely to get sufficient support from Congress to repeal the law. Any further efforts to boost workplace protections for gays and lesbians in discrimination statutes have been blocked in Congress so far.

Unspoken agenda: The irony is that Obama spent more time talking about issues he will have a hard time moving the needle on than the issues sitting on his near-term agenda. Among them, several more rounds of fiscal battles that threaten to crowd out Obama’s second-term agenda won only passing reference. Obama said, “We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit” before defending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as commitments that strengthen the country. He offered perhaps one hint the he could be more likely to cut Medicare than insurance subsidies when he said, “we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.”

Also absent from Obama’s remarks was any mention of guns, although he did say that Americans' won’t be complete until all children, including those from Newtown, know they are cared for. Education and investments in infrastructure similarly got short shrift, and health reform received no explicit shout-out even though its implementation is likely to be among the most significant changes that occur during his second term.

One word that could dominate the first 100 days of Obama’s second term was not even mentioned once: debt.

Coral Davenport, Fawn Johnson, Margot Sanger-Katz, and Amy Harder contributed to this report.

]]>

Always a bridesmaid: The people Obama passes over for top jobs

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:03:28 -0500

They’ve risen to the top echelons of government bureaucracy and burned the midnight oil for President Obama, and as a result, have had their names floated for top administration positions. But by virtue of bad luck or timing, they have never received the ultimate honor. For some top advisors and politicians, the last four years have left them always playing the bridesmaid, never the bride.

It’s generally not because they have failed to distinguish themselves in their field. Rather, the person who was awarded the top job had something special they lacked. “There’s an unavoidable element of good luck or bad luck about this,” said former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, who is perhaps the ultimate bridesmaid of the Democratic Party. Bayh has been mentioned as a possible cabinet member or vice president of every Democratic presidential candidate since 1992, including the 2008 vice presidential pick. He lost out to Vice President Biden in what was described as a “coin toss” in The Audacity to Win, the 2008 campaign tome penned by White House Senior Advisor David Plouffe.

How does he cope? “Your spouse, children and dog usually still love you,” said Bayh, who retired from politics two years ago. “That’s a pretty good thing to focus on in the aftermath of some professional disappointment.”

He counseled patience for the perpetual bridesmaids, citing the case of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who was passed over as Al Gore’s vice president during the 2000 election, lost his own presidential bid in 2004 and then saw his dream job, secretary of State, go to Hillary Clinton in 2008. Finally, last month, President Obama nominated him for the position. There’s also White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, who waited through the terms of Ellen Moran and Anita Dunn before getting his job.

Others look for professional success outside the administration, like Bill Burton. Burton helped foster Obama’s rise from senator to president on the campaign, and then served as the deputy press secretary for top spokesman Robert Gibbs. He was the heir apparent to the job of White House Press Secretary when Gibbs left in 2011, but saw the job go to former reporter Jay Carney instead. Burton left the White House to form Priorities USA Action, the preeminent Democratic Super PAC during the 2012 campaign. “While men and women are remembered for how they succeed, they are defined by how they fail. And by how they come back,” he told his alma mater, City Honors School in Buffalo, N.Y., during a commencement address last summer.

Here is a look at some of the others in the Obama administration who haven’t gotten the top job – at least not yet.

Michael Morell: He’s led the Central Intelligence Agency twice as acting director, but has yet to be permanently appointed to the top slot. His first stint came after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, then the director of the CIA, was promoted to his current job. Morell took over again in November after the next chief, Gen. David Petraeus resigned amid a scandal, but the top job went to counterterrorism advisor John Brennan. “This is no reflection on him,” said Bayh, who as a congressman, worked with Morell. “It’s that John Brennan is also phenomenal, and has developed a deep personal relationship of confidence and trust with the president.

Michele Flournoy: Flournoy led Obama’s transition team for the Defense Department but was appointed Under Secretary of Defense Policy rather than given the top job. She had stepped down from her Defense Department position in 2012 to help with the campaign, and buzz surrounded her name as an alternative to the much-maligned former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel. But Obama, not about to give up on this fight, didn’t nominate her to become the first female Defense Secretary

Bill Richardson: The former New Mexico governor was eager for a position in Obama’s first round of cabinet picks after the 2008 election. State, a natural fit for the former diplomat, went to Clinton, and it seemed likely for some time that the Commerce Secretary job would go to Penny Pritzker, a businesswoman and top fundraiser for Obama’s 2008 campaign. But after Pritzker said she was not a candidate, the nod went to Richardson. The problem: he had to withdraw his name just a few weeks later because of a federal investigation into potential pay-to-play practices in New Mexico

Ted Strickland: Although he initially backed Clinton in the 2008 election, the former Ohio governor lent his full support to Obama during the general election. He was a finalist for Democratic National Committee chairman in 2011, but the job went to Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Strickland was a national campaign co-chairman for Obama in 2012 and was once again floated as a possible DNC chairman, but the president asked Wasserman Schultz to stay on and his name has not come up as a serious contender for any other positions.

AT-RISK BRIDESMAIDS:

Ed Rendell: The former Pennsylvania governor has made no secret of his admiration for Clinton, a possible reason he was passed over for a cabinet post in Obama’s first term. He’s interested in replacing Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood if he leaves, but if that doesn’t happen, Rendell will likely never be a leading man in this administration.

Jennifer Granholm: Her name has come up a number of times: Energy Secretary or Auto Czar in 2008, DNC chair in 2011 (though she said she wasn’t interested). The former Michigan governor has spent the last few years teaching and hosting a show on Current TV, but she announced her departure after the network was sold to Al-Jazeera. Her name has been floated again as a possible cabinet pick following a well-received speech at the Democratic Party Convention, but if no nod comes, she’s probably out.

]]>

House Republicans' support for Plan B on fiscal cliff uncertain

Billy House, Rebecca Kaplan, and Elahe Izadi, National Journal — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:25:32 -0500

In reality, Republican vote counters were unsure if either approach would actually have the Republican support needed to pass the House. That includes a plan offered by Boehner, R-Ohio, himself Tuesday that would extend current lower tax rates enacted under former President George W. Bush for everyone making less than $1 million.

Boehner says passing such a measure would at least be a stopgap measure as he and President Obama continue negotiating a broader plan to deal with the fiscal crisis. He has panned the latest White House offer containing $1.3 trillion in tax increases, but just $850 billion in spending cuts, as not a balanced deficit-cutting plan.

The other measure would extend for a year the lowered tax rates for only those making annual incomes of $250,000 and below – an approach already passed by the Democratic-led Senate, but which has drawn just sparse public support among House Republicans. Boehner’s allowing a vote on that measure is described as intending to illustrate it would not pass in his GOP-controlled House.

Neither measure would address the huge across-the-board “sequester” spending cuts to military and other programs set to kick in Jan. 2.

And late Tuesday, Boehner was running into resistance from some of his own members for his own option. That uncertainty persisted even after a second closed-door meeting between Boehner and rank-and-file members, which was itself a follow-up on an earlier meeting in the day in which the speaker first unveiled his so-called “Plan B.” Having to hold two such meetings in one day to explain such a proposal is likely not a good sign for its chances.

However, some members said they would back Boehner’s plan. “I’m going to be for it, I kind of feel like I’m a lifeguard and there’s millions of Americans that are about to drown in a huge tax increase and I’m going to save as many as I can,” said Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Ohio.

But others wondered why -- with little chance the Senate will pass the Boehner alternative and since it comes with no spending cuts attached -- House Republicans should go on record as voting to raise income taxes on any earners.

“Once you cross that line and say it's OK for some people’s taxes to go up, I think it’s a mistake for the Republican Party, so I think that’s what a lot of members are struggling with,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

"Unfortunately there is no spending cuts. We don't even expect this to even be passed by the Senate...I have to question, why do we want to go on record as raising taxes on anybody…,” asked Rep. John Fleming, R-La. However, Fleming noted there was a “positive response” to another idea floated by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., during the Tuesday evening meeting. That is to have one bill with various amendments or various bills that separates out various tax brackets and allowed members to vote specifically for which ones they think can rise.

But as of Tuesday night, Republicans were finalizing the language to the two alternatives and scrambling to get them to the House Rules Committee, so they could be posted publicly by midnight. Both would be voted on as amendments to an unspecified already existing bill. But for such floor action to occur on Thursday – as Republicans say they are shooting for -- those amendments are technically supposed to be online and available for viewing for two days, and at least a part of a third day. There are emergency ways around this three-day requirement, however.

Some of this may be discussed on Wednesday during a scheduled Rules Committee meeting.
]]>

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan meet up in D.C.

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:16:00 -0500

"I remain grateful to Governor Romney for the honor of joining his ticket this fall, and I cherish our friendship," Ryan said in a statement released after the meeting. "I'm proud of the principles and ideas we advanced during the campaign and the commitment we share to expanding opportunity and promoting economic security for American families."

An aide to Ryan called the meeting a "constructive and positive conversation," and said the two men shared updates about their families, reflections from the campaign, and their "forward-looking conversation focused on resolving the critical fiscal and economic challenges ahead."]]>

Ryan: No mandate for Obama in election

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:13:00 -0500

“They also reelected the House Republicans, so whether people intended or not, we've got divided government," Ryan told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl in his first national interview since the loss (he also spoke with Wisconsin media outlets on Monday).

Had voters fully embraced the president -- and by extension, his call to raise taxes on top earners -- “they would have put Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House of Representatives,” Ryan said.

Democratic House candidates actually won more total votes than their Republican counterparts, according to Ian Millhiser at the liberal blog ThinkProgress. But the way districts are drawn allowed Republicans to maintain the majority they won in 2010.

Ryan, who is expected to receive the necessary waiver to remain the head of the House Budget Committee during the next term, returned to Congress on Tuesday to prepare for the lame-duck session. During the ABC interview, he said that politicians will have to ensure that divided government yields progress going forward, even though it “didn’t work very well in the last two years.”

Still, ahead of any deals being cut, Ryan is maintaining his opposition to any increase in tax rates, saying that closing loopholes will be “a better way” to raise government revenue.

"Raising tax rates hurts economic growth. And of all things we need right now -- to prevent a fiscal cliff, prevent a recession, prevent a debt crisis -- is we need people to go back to work," Ryan told Karl. "There are other ways of getting more revenue into our government without damaging the economy, and that's the kind of thing we hope to achieve."

Ryan pledged to “continue to be a champion of ideas” (House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, calls him a “policy wonk”), but declined get more specific about what kind of deal might be reached with Democrats.

“I don’t want to get into negotiating with the media,” he said.

He had only kind words for Romney’s efforts, calling it "exactly the kind of campaign that I would have run” as the party’s nominee. Ryan said the election took him by surprise because the polls and data he had seen had given him a “pretty optimistic view.”

“It was a bit of a shock when we didn't win, but that's just the way these things go,” he said.]]>

Ryan: Government 'excesses' hamper upward mobility

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:27:55 -0400

According to excerpts released by his campaign staff, Ryan will say that “America’s engines of upward mobility aren’t working the way they should … It’s not just the abuses of government that undermine civil society – it’s also the excesses of government. Look at the road we are on, with trillion-dollar deficits every year. Debt on this scale is destructive in so many ways, and one of them is that it crowds out civil society by drawing resources away from private giving.”

Ryan planned to highlight the rarely told story of Romney’s time as a lay leader in the Mormon Church, during which he gained a reputation for going out of his way to help people.

“As for Mitt Romney, he not only understands the importance of community, he’s lived it,” Ryan will say, according to the excerpts. “He’s a guy who, at the height of a successful business, took the time to serve as a lay pastor for his church for 14 years, counseling people in Boston’s inner city neighborhoods, especially when they lost a job. He’s a man who could easily have contented himself with giving donations to needy causes, but everyone who knows him will tell you that Mitt has always given his time and attention to those around him who are hurting.”

Ryan may also criticize Obama for an administration proposal to allow states more flexibility in how they meet work requirements in the federal welfare program, a move that Republicans have said “guts” the 1996 welfare reform law. The Wisconsin congressman returned to Washington in late September to join House Republicans in voting to block the change.

As chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has written several austere spending blueprints that critics say would shred the social safety net. Polls show GOP nominee Mitt Romney on the losing end of questions about empathy and protecting the middle class.

The Ryan speech is clearly designed to bolster the ticket on that front. An aide said, however, that the points Ryan is making are not new. “Ryan has been delivering variants of this message for years,” the aide said, citing Ryan’s mentor, Jack Kemp, the former Republican congressman, housing secretary, and vice presidential candidate.

Before his speech, Ryan was scheduled to meet with Ohio community leaders for a roundtable discussion.]]>

Post-debate polls show Obama won

Rebecca Kaplan and Jonathan Miller, National Journal — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:34:19 -0400

A CNN/ORC poll showed 48 percent believed Obama won, while 40 percent believed Romney did. The poll showed Obama as the stronger leader, but had that the two tied on likability. It was conducted by telephone among 448 registered voters. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

The poll showed that Obama outperformed expectations for 59 percent of voters, while only 15 percent said he was weaker than expected and 23 percent said he performed on par with their expectations. The margin for Romney was much smaller, outperforming the expectations of 44 percent of respondents and performing weaker than expected in the eyes of 26 percent. Another 26 percent said he performed as expected.

In a CBS News instant online poll of 521 uncommitted voters – those who are either undecided or open to changing their vote – Obama bested Romney 53 percent to 23 percent, with 24 percent saying the debate was a tie. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

After the first debate, which revolved more around economic and tax policy, 46 percent of uncommitted voters in the CBS poll said Romney won the debate, versus 22 percent who said the same of President Obama. Thirty-two percent said it was a tie.

The uncommitted voters in the CBS poll gave Obama the lead on several specific metrics. They said Obama would do a better job in issues of terrorism and national security by a margin of 64 percent to 36 percent, and 71 percent said they trusted Obama to handle an international crisis versus 49 percent who said the same of Romney.

The issue of U.S. policy toward China ended in a draw with voters splitting evenly – 50 percent and 50 percent – on who would do a better job.

As Slate’s David Weigel notes, the CNN poll also had some results that could cheer Romney supporters. On the question, “Do you think Mitt Romney can or cannot handle the responsibilities of Commander-in Chief?” a majority of voters said yes, 60 percent to 38 percent.

The debate appeared to do little to move the conversation. Twenty-four percent of the registered voters in the CNN poll said it made them more likely to vote for Obama, 25 percent said it made them more likely to vote for Romney, but 50 percent answered “neither.”]]>

Obama ekes out a win in two post-debate polls

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:51:23 -0400

In a CBS News poll, 37 percent of 525 uncommitted voters who watched the debate declared Obama the winner, compared to 30 percent who said the same of Romney; 33 percent said it was a tie. A CNN ORC International poll of 457 registered voters gave the debate to the president by a 7 percentage point margin, 46 percent to 39 percent.

The CBS News poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points; the CNN poll's margin is 4.5 points.

Despite Obama’s slight edge overall, Romney was seen as better able to handle most issues.

The trend was most notable in the CNN poll: he had an 18-point edge among registered voters on the economy (58 percent to Obama's 40 percent ); a 3-point edge on health care (49 percent to 46 percent); a 7-point edge on taxes (51 percent to 44 percent); and, largest of all, a 23-point edge on the deficit (59 percent to 36 percent).

Obama’s only lead in the CNN poll was a slim one on foreign policy: 2 percent more of the registered voters who watched the debate said he would handle the issue better (49 percent to 47 percent for Romney).

In the CBS poll, 65 percent of respondents also said Romney would handle the economy better after the debate (though that decreased from 71 percent before the debate). Only 34 percent said Obama would handle the economy better, but that was a jump of 7 percentage points.

Personal metrics were split a bit more evenly. Forty-nine percent of those in the CNN poll said Romney was the stronger leader, compared to 46 percent for Obama. The president still had a lead on likeability by a margin of 47 percent to 41 percent. He was also perceived as caring more about the audience by a margin of 4 points, but also as spending more time on the attack by a 14-points one.

Among uncommitted voters surveyed in the CBS poll, 56 percent said the president would do a better job of helping the middle class, compared to only 43 percent who said the same of Romney.

Neither candidate won a majority when CNN asked if they offered a clear plan to solve the country’s problems, though Romney was closer: 49 percent said he did, and 50 percent said he did not. Thirty-eight percent of respondents said they thought Obama had a clear plan, but a full 61 percent said they did not.

The expectations game clearly favored Obama: 73 percent of the registered voters in the CNN poll said he did better than expected, 10 percent said he did worse, and 16 percent said he did the same as they expected. Thirty-seven people said Romney performed better, 28 percent said worse, and 33 percent said the same.

The final word from the CNN respondents? Twenty-five percent said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney, and 25 percent said the same for Obama.

In the CBS survey, 56 percent of uncommitted voters were not affiliated with a political party; 21 percent identified as Republicans, and 23 percent as Democrats.

The CNN poll included 33 percent each of registered voters who identified as Democrats and Republicans. The network noted the sample was about 8 percentage points more Republican than the general public in an average of CNN polls from 2012.

Instant polls conducted by both outlets after the first debate on Oct. 3 declared Romney the winner, with voters in the CNN instant poll giving the former Massachusetts governor a 42-point margin.

The CBS News poll surveyed a nationwide random sample of 525 uncommitted voters who watched the debate. The poll,was conducted online using GfK’s web-enabled KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population.

The CNN poll surveyed 457 registered voters nationwide by telephone after they had watched the debate.]]>

Ryan says he backs term limits for Congress

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:48:18 -0400

“I’ve always supported that in Congress. That takes a constitutional amendment,” Ryan said. “What you don’t want to do is have a state do it to itself, and short-change its seniority and its clout in Congress, but I’ve always been a fan of term limits. I’ve always supported that. I’ve always believed that this should be something that you serve temporarily and not for an entire lifetime.”

The man at the town hall who asked if he favored term limits gave an example: two six-year terms for senators and six two-year terms for members of the House of Representatives, meaning no one would serve in Congress for more than 12 years.

Ryan began his response by saying that he cosponsored legislation to that end when he entered Congress, but a CBS News/National Journal examination of bills to which Ryan added his name did not find any relating to term limits.

During his initial run for the House in 1998, Ryan publicly backed the idea, according to The Huffington Post. "We need to return power to the people by taking it away from a growing political class," his campaign website stated at the time. "One way to do this is by passing a constitutional amendment that will limit the number of terms a congressman or Senator can serve. We have limited the number of terms the president can serve. The same should be done for legislators."

But Ryan refused to sign a three-term limit pledge because he thought it should have the backing of all members of Congress, The Huffington Post said. He also did not specify at the time what he thought the cap should be on reelections.

His position puts him in line with Mitt Romney’s, who endorsed term limits during a town hall in Hopkinton, N.H., last October. “Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had people who'd go to Washington for some period of time and then go home and get a real job again in the real economy? That would be a wonderful thing,” he said.]]>

Post-debate polls of voters declare Romney the winner

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 07:56:57 -0400

Among uncommitted voters, 46 percent said Romney won the debate, versus 22 percent who said the same of President Obama, according to an online poll of 523 uncommitted voters conducted after the debate by CBS News. That poll found 32 percent said the debate was a tie.

A CNN telephone survey of 430 registered voters who were questioned after watching the contest handed an even more decisive victory to Romney: 67 percent said he won the debate, compared to only 25 percent who said the same of Obama.

The CBS poll also showed Romney making clear strides in improving his likeability, with 56 percent of those surveyed saying their opinions of him had changed for the better. He saw a huge jump – 30 percent – in the number of uncommitted voters who said Romney cares about their needs and problems. Before the debate, 30 percent agreed with the statement. Afterward, that number rose to 63 percent. Sixty-nine percent of those surveyed said the same of Obama, up from 53 percent before the debate.

The CNN poll actually found Romney leading on likeability among the poll respondents, with 46 percent saying Romney was more likeable and 45 percent choosing Obama. Fifty-eight percent also deemed Romney the stronger leader, compared to 37 percent for Obama.

Romney also far exceeded expectations, while the opposite was true of Obama. Among registered voters surveyed by CNN, 82 percent said the former Massachusetts governor exceeded their expectations, but 61 percent said the president did worse than expected.

The one silver lining for the Obama campaign may be that nearly half of respondents in the CNN poll – 47 percent - said that the debate didn’t make them more likely to vote for either candidate. But Romney also won on that measure, with 35 percent saying the matchup made them more likely to vote for him. Only 18 percent said the same of the president.

Six in 10 respondents to the CBS News poll identify as independents, 22 percent say they are Democrats, and 18 percent identify as Republicans. The margin of error was four points for the CBS poll and 4.5 points for CNN.]]>

Paul Ryan won't call for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to resign

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:10:00 -0400

In an appearance on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham's show on Monday morning, Ryan said he wouldn’t “get into” whether Rice should resign, prompting an outburst from Ingraham suggesting that the Romney-Ryan campaign was ducking the issue.

"It’s a simple question. She goes out on five Sunday shows and she says it’s a spontaneous act when pretty much everyone and their dog knew it was a terrorist attack, seems to be a political objective for doing so, yet we can’t get a definitive answer. That, I think, is the kind of thing that kind of frustrates people out there," Ingraham said.

That prompted Ryan to draw a comparison between Rice and Attorney General Eric Holder, whom GOP nominee Mitt Romney and Ryan have said should resign over the Justice Department's handling of the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal. The difference, Ryan said, was that there had been an investigation into Fast and Furious and none yet on Libya.

"Look at what we know about Fast and Furious, look at what we now know, after thorough investigations, about the Justice Department with respect to their handling of Fast and Furious. That’s why we’re saying Eric Holder should resign. We don’t know all the facts about what that woman knew at the time she made those statements," he said of Rice.

"We do know that the administration has been extremely inconsistent, we do know that this is -- was a preplanned terrorist attack, and the point I'm trying to make is we need to get all the facts to prevent that from happening again,” Ryan added. “But also we need to acknowledge that this is indicative of a broader picture, which is the absolute unraveling of the Obama administration's foreign policy."]]>

Ryan lets his inner wonk flag fly

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:41:33 -0400

The phrase, common among staffers on Paul Ryan's campaign, is parlance for permitting the seven-term Wisconsin congressman to embrace his inner wonk, the side of his personality that led him to become the youngest House Budget Committee chairman in a decade as well as an intellectual force in his party.

And in recent days, as the GOP vice presidential candidate has settled into his role on the Republican ticket, he has delved distinctly more often into policy details. This is from a politician who told Fox News' Brit Hume, "I don't want to get wonky on you," not long after his selection was announced.

It came to a head on Saturday, when he stepped to the podium for a town hall at the University of Central Florida. In addition to a debt clock -- now a must-have prop at Republican political rallies -- Ryan was flanked by two large screens that projected a favorite tool of academics and businessmen: a PowerPoint presentation.

“I’m kind of a PowerPoint guy, so I hope you'll bear with me,” Ryan told the audience as he began clicking through four slides, which showed graphs depicting U.S. debt held by the public from 1940 to present, debt per person in the United States, percentage of debt held by foreign countries and a breakdown of federal spending. He then launched into a 10-minute monologue on the federal debt, throwing around terms such as “Congressional Budget Office” and “Treasury bills” to illustrate his point.

"It's simply another tool to highlight President Obama's failed leadership,” said his spokesman, Michael Steel, of the new addition to Ryan’s stump speech.

Talking more about the debt will almost certainly invite further criticism from Democrats, who often point out that Ryan helped vote for policies that exploded the debt during the last decade, including the Bush-era tax cuts and the war in Iraq.

“Congressman Ryan said that politicians in Washington are responsible for the nation’s debt. And he should know – he’s one of them," said Obama spokesman Danny Kanner after one of Ryan’s town halls in Dover, N.H., last week. "But Mitt Romney and Congressman Ryan refuse to ask for a dime from the wealthiest Americans to reduce the deficit.”

Dealing in harder facts and figures also may help Ryan rebut the charges of inaccuracy that have plagued some of his more vague rhetoric, such as his suggestion in his convention speech that Obama was responsible for the closure of a GM plant in Janesville that fact-checkers found was effectively shut down in December 2008 while George W. Bush was still president.

There are other signs of Ryan’s penchant for policy discussion bubbling to the surface after his weeks on the campaign trail, where attack-dog rhetoric is perceived as packing more of a punch than a discussion of CBO baselines.

After holding just one town hall during the first month of his time as a vice presidential candidate – a joint affair with Romney at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire – he has held three in the last two weeks. While these town halls are less intimate than they were when he conducted them as a congressman in his hometown of Janesville, Wis. (2,000 people packed a gymnasium at Central Florida University for the most recent one), they still allow Ryan to return to his format of choice.

He’s also dedicating more time and energy in his stump speech to defending himself against Democratic attacks on his proposal to turn Medicare into a premium-support system while retaining the traditional option for seniors. His opponents have said the system will raise costs for seniors by thousands of dollars a year and end Medicare as Americans know it today.

“That was rated the lie of the year last year,” Ryan said at the Orlando town hall, in reference to the line’s infamous status from the fact-checking website PolitiFact.

In his speeches, Ryan has opted to attack Obama for cutting provider payments through Medicare and only outlines his plan in broad terms. The partisan attacks haven’t ceased – on Saturday, he accused the president of being “complicit with [Medicare] going bankrupt” – but beginning in a speech to the seniors lobbying group AARP on Friday, he began rebutting the term "voucher," a word that often surfaces in Vice President Joe Biden's speeches.

“Let me explain: that’s a poll-tested word basically designed to scare today’s seniors," Ryan said. "Here’s what a voucher is: a voucher is you go to your mailbox and you get a check and you go buy something and you’re on your own. Nobody’s proposing that."

“The reason I’m so familiar with this idea is that it works like the plan I have as a congressman, as a member of the federal employee workforce. You get a list of guaranteed coverage options. You can’t be denied. You pick your plan and Medicare subsidies your premiums based on who you are,” he continued.

The shift in style comes as there has been some hand-wringing among Republicans that Romney’s more buttoned-up, cautious campaign style has rubbed off on Ryan instead of the other way around. In a Friday interview with radio host Charlie Sykes, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said, “I was enthused when Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, because I thought that was a signal that this guy was getting serious, he’s getting bold … I just haven’t seen that kind of passion I know that Paul has transferred over to our nominee, and I think it’s a little bit of some push-back from the folks in the national campaign. But I think for him to win, he’s gotta reveal that.”

The PowerPoint slides weren’t necessarily a response to the criticism; an aide said they had been in the works for some time and Ryan’s defense of his Medicare plan at the AARP speech was not part of his prepared remarks but rather an off-the-cuff answer during the Q&A portion of the event. But if the Orlando audience was any indication, the discussion of debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was like red meat to the crowd.]]>

Former Solicitor General Ted Olson plays Biden in Ryan debate prep

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:00:00 -0400

CLEARWATER, Fla. -- Attorney Ted Olson, who was solicitor general for President George W. Bush, is playing the part of Vice President Joe Biden in Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan's debate preparation, the Romney campaign announced Saturday.

Olson has extensive experience both in and out of government. He served as the assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel for President Reagan, and acted as private counsel for both Reagan and George W. Bush. He has argued 58 cases before the Supreme Court, three quarters of which have been decided in his favor. His third wife, Barbara, was killed in the 9/11 attacks; she was a passenger on the plane that flew into the Pentagon.

Time Magazine named Olson one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2010. His high profile cases have included the Bush v. Gore recount in 2000 and the 2009 lawsuit against Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Olson represented Bush in 2000, then partnered with his opposing counsel in that case, David Boies, to challenge the marriage ban.

While his unexpected involvement in the California case alienated some conservatives, others still speak highly of him. Former attorney general John Ashcroft, in a quote circulated by the campaign, said Olson would be “a strategic asset in any endeavor.” He said he and many other conservatives “welcome his increased participation in the Romney campaign.”

Olson has already participated in a debate preparation session with Ryan, the campaign said, but would not disclose the location. Ryan spent his first full day preparing for the Oct. 11 vice presidential debate last Sunday in Oregon.

“Joe Biden has been in elected office for more than 40 years. There are few people in politics with more experience debating the issues than Joe Biden, so we are taking this process seriously. Mr. Olson is one of the most skilled, intelligent, and successful litigators in America – just the kind of opponent needed to prepare the congressman for Mr. Biden," said Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck.

Olson is the last of the four debate rehearsal stand-ins for the presidential tickets to be announced. Ohio Sen.Rob Portman is playing President Obama for GOP nominee Mitt Romney, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry is playing Romney for Obama, and Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen is playing Ryan for Biden.

]]>

Ryan: Obama on notice to 'put up or shut up' with Defense cuts plan

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:09:00 -0400

Ryan was referring to the Sequestration Transparency Act, a bill that passed both the House and Senate by a bipartisan vote in late July. The president signed it earlier this month, although administration officials have said that Congress should devote its energy to avoiding the looming “fiscal cliff” instead of simply probing for details on the consequences.

“The president needs to show us how he plans on putting this in place if he is not going to help us pass legislation preventing it in the first place; so we’re now waiting for that answer,” Ryan said during a roundtable in Fayetteville, home to Fort Bragg.

The House Budget Committee chairman has made the defense cuts an increasingly frequent part of his stump speech, seeking to yoke Obama to the $550 billion in reductions that are scheduled to be implemented in January 2013 if Congress doesn’t reach agreement on other spending cuts to offset the increase in the debt ceiling from last summer.

Ryan has pointed to legislation he authored, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act, as a solution to offset the defense cuts, but his legislation received no Democratic support when it passed the House in late July. It also will not get through the Democratic-controlled Senate because it alters the food-stamp program and slashes Medicaid spending, as well as funding to implement the Affordable Care Act.

“When those budget negotiations were going on, it was the president and his party leaders that insisted on this makeup, this formula,” Ryan said during the roundtable, which included family members of soldiers killed in action and some retired generals. “Defense spending is not half of all federal spending but its half of the cuts approximately in the sequester. We disagreed with that then, and we disagree with it now.”

The Obama campaign was quick to castigate Ryan for seeking to lay all blame on the president.

“If Congressman Ryan were serious about avoiding the automatic defense cuts he decried in North Carolina today, he’d tell Mitt Romney and his fellow Republicans in Congress to work with the president to achieve balanced deficit reduction that includes asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share – as the plan President Obama has put forward does. But he’s not,” said Obama campaign spokesman Danny Kanner in a statement.

“Congressman Ryan voted for the agreement he criticized today.… Congressman Ryan and Mitt Romney should show some leadership to avoid these cuts instead of using our military budget to score a political point,” Kanner said.

Ryan voted for the Budget Control Act when it passed, calling it “a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy.” His staff insists he supported the deficit reduction in the law, not the defense cuts that are scheduled to take place because Congress has been unable to reach an agreement on further spending cuts or tax increases.

While Ryan did not express confidence that Congress would pass legislation to avoid the sequester during the lame-duck session (although he said he would try), he did lay out a plan to retroactively undo the cuts by passing his legislation in January after, he hopes, Romney is elected.

Ryan also sought to personalize the issue of defense cuts for the first time, echoing the strategy he has embraced on the campaign trail to convince voters he is committed to reforming Medicare.

During the event, he spoke of carrying a card with him that bears the names of his his constituents who have lost their lives in battle, as well as the name of a childhood friend who served in Afghanistan during the surge.

“It's our duty to preserve this legacy to support our voluntary force of men and women who volunteer to serve our nation and not let them be pawns in a political game, because this is messing with jobs and lives, right here in North Carolina,” Ryan said.

The emotional point of his argument in particular was underscored by the military family members on the panel such as Christina Kazakavage, whose son was killed in action in Afghanistan. “We've got to put both feet forward and stomp them in the ground as hard as we can and say, ‘Absolutely, I’m an American citizen, I’m an American citizen and I want to stay that way, thank you,’” she said.]]>

Ryan denies seeking stimulus money

Rebecca Kaplan — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:30:00 -0400

“I opposed the stimulus because it doesn’t work, it didn’t work. It brought us deeper into debt. It was about $1.1 trillion when you add the borrowing cost, it put us deeper in debt and further out of work,” Ryan told WCPO in an interview.

The Republican vice-presidential candidate said he had not seen reports that he had requested funds, but The Wall Street Journal published on Tuesday four 2009 letters from Ryan to Energy Secretary Steven Chu supporting grant applications for Recovery Act funds.

“I am writing to express my support for the grant application submitted by the Energy Center of Wisconsin and its partners for the Recovery Act – Training Program Development for Commercial Building Technicians, Building Operators, and Energy Commissioning Agents/Auditors,” Ryan wrote in one such letter. “I have reviewed the partners’ grant narrative, and I believe that they would make effective use of the funds they would receive from the DOE.”

Ryan similarly denied requesting stimulus money in a 2010 interview with WBZ’s Nightside with Dan Rea, The Boston Globe reported.]]>

Romney's VP choice brings budget leadership experience

Rebecca Kaplan and Nancy Cook, National Journal — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:36:59 -0400

In the weeks before Rep. Paul Ryan released his latest budget blueprint this year, he urged all of the presidential candidates to follow his fiscal lead. He critiqued GOP front-runner Mitt Romney’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference as “pretty good,” but cautioned that all of the candidates needed to take bold policy stances. “We need to have an election with a mandate, so we can fix these problems,” he said at a breakfast with reporters in mid-February.

He was equally noncommittal about his allegiances weeks later, when he praised both Romney and Rick Santorum for broaching the topic of entitlements on the campaign trail. “Their specifics have jived perfectly well with what we’ve been saying,” he told National Journal. “We’re all saying the same thing, and that’s very good in my opinion.”

And, when his big budget was finally unveiled in late March, the chairman of the House Budget Committee dared the GOP candidates to not follow suit. “I expect the Republican nominee to offer the country the legitimate choice that they deserve,” Ryan, of Wisconsin, said. “I expect our nominee to propose how to get us out of a debt crisis.”

How’s that for warm and fuzzy collaboration among the Republicans?

But, contrary to this tough-minded public stance, Republican aides, lobbyists, and Ryan’s own staff say that Ryan and likely Republican nominee Romney have developed a strong, working rapport—so strong in fact that Ryan’s name shot to the top of the list of potential vice presidential running mates. On Saturday, Romney is expected to officially announce Ryan as his pick.

Though Ryan may initially seem like a person unlikely to play second fiddle given his own large aspirations, sources say that the two men share a similar analytical mindset and a love of data, an ability to pivot on their messaging and framing of key issues, and the patience and persistence needed to take the long view in the pursuit of victory. In Ryan’s case, he’s spent years honing an ideology about the country’s fiscal trajectory that has become the House Repubicans’ dominant message, while Romney has shown similar steadfastness in the years he’s spent chasing the presidency.

“They connect on the fact that Ryan is one of the idea guys in our party,” said former New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg, who knows both men. “Romney likes people who think out of the box, who are capable of bringing substance.”

]]>

Romney picks Ryan for VP slot

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:16:04 -0400

NORFOLK, Va. – Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the newly appointed running mate for presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, on Saturday stressed that his background in Congress will work to Romney's benefit.

“I believe my record of getting things done in Congress will be a very helpful complement to Governor Romney’s executive and private sector success outside Washington. I have worked closely with Republicans as well as Democrats to advance an agenda of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and job creation,” Ryan will tell the audience of more than 1,000 who came to see the announcement of his selection, according to advanced remarks released by the campaign.

Ryan, who was announced as Romney’s running mate early Saturday morning, is best known for his work as the chairman of the House Budget Committee, where he authored a controversial budget that makes steep cuts to taxes, spending and entitlements. Though the budget passed the House in 2011 with the backing of 235 of the chamber’s 239 Republicans, every single Democratic opposed it. His budget already has played a dominant role in several House special-election races, most notably a contest in which Democrat Kathy Hochul scored a stunning upset in New York's GOP-dominated 26th District.

The 42-year-old congressman also sought to portray himself as a politician who represents a broad cross-section of America. He urged supporters not to accept weak economic growth, blaming President Obama for failed policies.

“I represent a part of America that includes inner cities, rural areas, suburbs and factory towns. Over the years I have seen and heard from a lot from families, from those running small businesses, and from people who are in need. But what I have heard lately troubles me the most. There is something different in their voice and in their words. What I hear from them are diminished dreams, lowered expectations, uncertain futures,” Ryan will say. “I hear some people say that this is just ‘the new normal.’ High unemployment, declining incomes and crushing debt is not a new normal. It's the result of misguided policies.”

He will describe Romney as the leader with the necessary skills, background and character needed to fix the economy.

The selection of Ryan came despite considerable speculation that Romney would select Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a veteran of George W. Bush's White House. Portman issued a statement calling Ryan's selection "a great choice. He is an accomplished public servant and a leading voice on the most pressing issues facing our country."

]]>

Romney steps up criticism of Obama on leaks

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:34:00 -0400

"This conduct is contemptible. It betrays our national interest. It compromises our men and women in the field. And it demands a full and prompt investigation, with explanation and consequence,” Romney said of the leaks in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. “It is not enough to say the matter is being looked into, and leave it at that. When the issue is the political use of highly sensitive national security information, it is unacceptable to say, ‘We’ll report our findings after the election.’”

The former Massachusetts governor drew on remarks by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who said that the White House appears to have been the source of some of the leaks. The leaks included highly classified details of the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Feinstein’s office, however, released a statement following Romney’s speech that said she was “disappointed” by Romney’s statements and that she does not believe Obama leaked classified information.

Romney also argued that Obama appointees who answer to Attorney General Eric Holder – a favorite punching bag for Republicans -- should not be allowed to investigate the source of the leaks.

At the same time, he sought to yoke Obama to a set of steep upcoming defense cuts, which were scheduled as part of a bipartisan agreement last summer between the president and Congress to raise the debt ceiling. He said the cuts would impair the nation's ability to fend off threats.

"Don’t bother trying to find a serious military rationale behind any of this, unless that rationale is wishful thinking. Strategy is not driving President Obama’s massive defense cuts," Romney said. "These cuts would only weaken an already stretched VA system and our solemn commitment that every veteran receives care second to none. I will not allow that to happen."

Obama also brought up the defense cuts in his own speech to the VFW on Monday, though he blamed Congress for sacrificing defense spending in order to avoid raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans through the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

"Instead of making tough choices to reduce the deficit, they'd rather protect tax cuts for some of the wealthiest Americans, even if it risks big cuts in our military. And I've got to tell you, VFW, I disagree,” he said in his speech.

Romney, in an interview with CNBC on Monday, said he would extend the tax cuts. He has advocated his own defense buildup, including an increase in the size of the U.S. Navy and the addition of 100,00 active duty troops, but has not specified how he would pay for either expenditure aside from articulating a broad assumption that his policies would improve the economy and raise revenue.

Much of the VFW speech followed in that fashion as a broad critique of the president’s policies. One of the lone new policy proposals detailed in the speech was a call for Iran to fully suspend any uranium enrichment.

“There is no greater danger in the world today than the prospect of the ayatollahs in Tehran possessing nuclear weapons capability. Yet for all the talks and conferences, all of the extensions and assurances, can anyone say we are farther from this danger now than four years ago?” Romney asked, though the sanctions cleared by the president at the end of March were intended to sharply reduce Iranian oil exports.

The Obama campaign, in a tweet during Romney’s speech, argued that the sanctions are “the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history…and they’re working.”

Romney spent just a few minutes of his speech discussing his policy for ending the war in Afghanistan. He offered the same broad overview of how he would prosecute the remainder of the war – by listening to the advice from commanders on the ground.

Even though he has criticized Obama’s announcement that he would transfer security responsibilities to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014 and the decision to withdraw 30,000 surge troops by September, Romney reiterated in his speech that he plans to complete the same transition in that time frame.

His lack of specificity was a source of attack for Obama in his speech, when he told the audience, “When you’re commander in chief, you owe the troops a plan. You owe the country a plan.”

Vice President Joe Biden pursued that same line of attack in a statement issued following Romney's speech. “Today, Governor Romney had an opportunity to fulfill a long-standing promise by laying out his foreign policy vision and agenda. He had a chance to say how he would lead as commander-in-chief. Instead, all we heard from Governor Romney was empty rhetoric and bluster. He reflexively criticizes the President’s policies without offering any alternatives."

Romney foreign policy advisor Rich Williamson, a diplomat in the George W. Bush administration, said on a campaign conference call before the speech that the Obama administration was simply demanding details as a way of distracting from the president’s own “spotty and ineffective” record.

Other policy details offered in a fact sheet provided by the campaign, but not mentioned in Romney’s speech, include a policy to condition the $1.3 billion in U.S. military assistance to Egypt on maintenance of the country’s peace agreement with Israel. The fact sheet also says that an additional $250 million in economic assistance, $1 billion in debt cancellation pledges and $1 billion in OPIC loan guarantees will be dependent on good governance and peace in the region.

Romney did not mention the conflict in Syria, the most high-profile foreign policy crisis at the moment, aside from critiquing the Russian government for supporting Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

The speech was Romney’s last event in the United States before he departs on a weeklong foreign policy trip that will take him to England, Israel and Poland. His advisors, clearly seeking to challenge Obama on his foreign policy credentials, noted that Romney had made many visits abroad over the course of his life and that many foreign leaders had sought meetings with him.

A Gallup/USA Today Poll released Tuesday found that while most voters rated Romney ahead of Obama on economic issues, 52 percent of those surveyed found the president to be better on foreign policy issues, compared to Romney’s 40 percent.
]]>

Romney: Feds don’t get how hard it is to run a business

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:09:24 -0400

COSTA MESA, Calif. – With the presidential race reverting to its regular course following the hiatus imposed by last week’s Colorado shootings, Mitt Romney on Monday attacked President Obama for failing to understand the business environment or meeting more frequently with his jobs council.

Speaking to a group of business owners in Southern California, Romney said that career government bureaucrats cannot understand the challenges that those in the private sector face.

"I happen to think that for people who have spent their entire livelihood working in government, they sometimes don't appreciate just how hard it is to start a business, grow a business, maintain a business so that you can maintain employees and pay them better wages and better benefits,” Romney said. “And I hear it time and again -- people say, as you did, that they think business is the enemy or that business is getting a free ride. And there's a sense that some of you are bad guys. I see you as the good guys."

Obama’s reelection campaign actually returned to politics before Romney’s. Earlier on Monday, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod sent out a tweet rebuking the former Massachusetts governor for failing to release tax returns as well as other documents from his past. “When it comes to secrecy, Mitt takes the gold!” Axelrod wrote.

At Romney’s event, the group of business owners and Romney sat in front of a sign reading, “We Did Build It,” a reference to Obama’s recent remark to business owners that “you didn’t build that.” The president was suggesting that business owners benefitted from government-led investments such as roads and bridges.

The Romney campaign has seized on the comment, but noted in the biographies of the roundtable attendees that at least three have benefitted from contracts with the federal government. His campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment about this fact.

Romney also used his meeting with the group to reiterate the fact that the president has not met with this Jobs Council in more than six months while holding more than 100 fundraisers during that period.

“I would suggest between the fundraisers, get together with the jobs council and learn from people who are working hard to create jobs,” said Romney, who had just come from a fundraiser of his own in Irvine, Calif.

During a two-days swing in the state, the candidate will raise $10 million from seven finance events, split between the Bay Area and Southern California.

At the Irvine fundraiser, Romney again conveyed his sadness at the mass shooting in Colorado. He suggested that instead of looking for government to play a role for the government to play in the aftermath of the tragedy, people must reach out to their neighbors.

“Our heritage as a nation is when there are problems, people respond to them and people solve them, and so at a time like this, we're inclined to look elsewhere,” Romney said. “But perhaps we should say, how can we make a difference in the lives of people around us?

And obviously we're not going to be able to go to … Aurora, Colorado, rather, and salve the wounds of those who have been injured so severely. But we can look around us in our own communities, and if there is someone that we know who can't find work right now, having them in your home for dinner and just finding out what's going on in their life might make a difference.”

]]>

Veep Watch: Who could top Biden in debate?

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:49:00 -0400

The speech is the easy part. But if Romney wants to be absolutely confident in the debating abilities of his partner, there’s only one choice: Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, the king of GOP debate prep.

Portman has played Al Gore for George W. Bush, John Edwards for Dick Cheney, and, most recently, Barack Obama for John McCain. Each time, he has studied hours of videotape and devoured briefing materials on their positions to perfect his portrayals in debate rehearsals.

Steve Schmidt, who was the senior strategist for McCain’s 2008 campaign, said Portman is “a major league presence” on the GOP debate scene and would be formidable against Biden. Another Republican strategist, who insisted on anonymity to speak freely, called Portman “everything that Joe Biden is not. Rob is not flip -- Joe Biden can be flip at times. He is not angry -- sometimes Biden gets angry. He’s very measured, very intelligent, he has an in-depth knowledge of issues … [and] he understands the viewpoint from which Biden would argue, which is a huge advantage.”

Each of the other top veep contenders has a debate-related flaw, or at least a big question mark next to his name. For former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, it was his performance in a June 2011 GOP presidential primary debate. After coining the term “Obamneycare” just before the debate, he refused a moderator’s invitation to use it against Romney – thereby passing up the chance to cement a link between Romney’s Massachusetts health care law and the federal law.

Some Republicans say that the Obamneycare moment was not a fatal flaw. “Normally you don’t want to make a strong attack like that in a debate, and I’m pretty sure that some of his advisers said he must do it and some of them said he shouldn’t,” said Charlie Black, a longtime Republican strategist and informal adviser to the Romney campaign. “Usually, voters that are watching the debate want to hear polite criticism, or humorous criticism, or friendly banter over issues. They don’t want to see somebody up there with a scowl on their face.”

Schmidt said that Pawlenty will have learned from the costly error during the primary campaign and will now be better suited for the national debate stage.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal made an unfortunate national debut in 2009, when his response to President Obama’s State of the Union address was widely panned by critics. He’s had more practice since then but still isn’t completely error free. On a Republican National Committee call a few weeks ago to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the health care reform law, Jindal nearly called the law Obamneycare -- even though it was an attack term he had never used before.

Republicans point to Jindal’s intellectual prowess and wonky policy knowledge as factors that could save him in the debates. That, and low expectations -– the same thing that benefited former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in 2008.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is a party star respected for a budget proposal, embraced by Romney and congressional Republicans, that cuts spending and entitlements and makes major changes in the Medicare program. That budget is a top Democratic target -– meaning Ryan would be on the defensive about his own proposals throughout a debate with Biden.

“You want the race to be about Mitt Romney, not about the Paul Ryan budget, so the degree to which you get a vice presidential candidate who forces the terms of the debate away from where you want them to be would be a problem,” Schmidt said.

Jindal, Pawlenty, and Ryan are all well versed in domestic policy, but they do not have foreign-policy backgrounds. That would put them at a distinct disadvantage against Biden, who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before becoming Obama’s running mate. “It would be pretty easy to show that weakness of the whole ticket on that,” said a Democratic strategist who asked not to be named for professional reasons.

What of Biden’s own strengths and weaknesses? The vice president is an experienced debater but is far from a perfect orator. No Scrooge with his words, he was famously asked in a 2007 Democratic primary debate if he could contain his rhetorical excesses.

“Yes,” he replied. That was all.

Biden was diligent about his own preparation for the vice presidential debate in 2008, even though Palin was expected to be a weak opponent. “He was more open than many politicians I’ve worked with to constructive suggestions,” said the Democrat, who was familiar with Biden’s preparation for that debate. "He was really thinking, 'Well, what is my opponent going to say and what do I want to say for that?' Which is, I think, one of the hardest things that someone has to learn in order to be a good debater."

Biden’s opponent this time around will no doubt be advised to try to knock him off script, perhaps by goading or otherwise baiting him. “Off message he’s proven that he can make mistakes,” the Republican strategist said of Biden.

So the advantage once again goes to Portman, who proved in 2008 that he can needle with the best. His portrayal of Obama was so effective that he got under McCain’s skin multiple times. The experience was so memorable that McCain recently joked to The New York Times, “I hate him still.”]]>

Ron Paul suspends active campaigning

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Mon, 14 May 2012 17:57:41 -0400

Rep. Ron Paul said on Monday that he will no longer be actively campaigning in the GOP presidential primaries but won't formally suspend his campaign. Instead, the libertarian candidate’s organization will continue to accumulate delegates to send to the Republican National Convention.

“Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future,” said a statement from the Texas legislator that was distributed by his campaign. “Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have."

Paul’s advisers and his campaign itself had wavered in recent months about what they were hoping to achieve by remaining in the 2012 race despite not having won a single primary state.

In March, campaign manager Jesse Benton said he was hoping for a brokered convention in Tampa, but it was a goal Paul rejected in a recent interview with CNN. He may be working to build a base for his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Ron Paul currently has 104 delegates to presumptive nominee Mitt Romney's 966, according to the Associated Press.

In a news release, Paul’s campaign promised that there will more information coming about the campaign’s “fruitful delegate-attainment strategy.” Paul’s supporters have claimed the vast majority of delegates in states like Maine and Nevada where Romney won the popular vote during the primary.

“In the coming days, my campaign leadership will lay out to you our delegate strategy and what you can do to help, so please stay tuned,” Paul told supporters.

]]>

Priests pan GOP budget

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:05:03 -0400

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., argued on Thursday that his Catholic faith guided the budget he authored for the Republican Party, addressing criticism from Catholics who charge that his budget unfairly targets the poor at the expense of the rich.

“The work I do as a Catholic holding office conforms to the social doctrine as best I can make of it,” Ryan said. “What I have to say about the social doctrine of the Church is from the viewpoint of a Catholic in politics applying my understanding to the problems of the day.”

Ryan delivered the Whittington Lecture at Georgetown University, a Jesuit school. Ninety Georgetown priests and faculty members sent him a letter on Wednesday accusing him of authoring a budget that “decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few.”

“In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” the letter read. “Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.”

But Ryan disavowed the philosopher in an interview with the National Review published on Thursday. “I reject her philosophy,” he said. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts, and it is antithetical to my worldview.”

In his speech at Georgetown, Ryan defended the key points of his budget and argued that his personal thinking has been guided by the Catholic principles of “solidarity” and “subsidiarity.” The latter principle emphasizes the importance of placing the duties of governing at a local level.

“Our budget offers a better path, consistent with the timeless principles of our nation’s founding and, frankly, consistent with how I understand my Catholic faith,” Ryan said. “We put our trust in people, not in government. Our budget incorporates subsidiarity by returning power to individuals, to families, and to communities.”

The Georgetown priests and faculty members rejected this, however, arguing that Ryan was “profoundly misreading Church teaching.” Subsidiarity, they said, calls for solutions to be enacted at a community level when possible but also requires that the government step in when communities and local governments “face problems beyond their means to address such as economic crises, high unemployment, endemic poverty, and hunger.”

As Ryan spoke, about a dozen students who identified themselves as members of Occupy Georgetown gathered in the balcony of the school’s Gaston Hall holding a large banner that read, “Stop the war on the poor.” Outside, another dozen members of Catholics United, a nonprofit charitable organization, protested with a banner that asked, “Were you there when they crucified the poor?”

Father Thomas Reese, one of the authors of the Georgetown letter, said he was unconcerned about setting a possible precedent of clergy members telling politicians what to do. “Catholic bishops don’t run for political office. Catholic priests don’t endorse candidates or endorse political parties," Reese told reporters after the speech. "But I think we have an obligation, like the prophets in the Old Testament, to talk, to challenge people to be concerned about the widows and the orphans and the poor.”

]]>

Romney pins GSA scandal on Obama but gives him a pass on Secret Service

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:16:00 -0400

Mitt Romney tried on Wednesday to pin a federal agency's Las Vegas spending spree on the Obama administration, but gave the president a pass on the widening scandal involving members of the Secret Service and military who allegedly hired prostitutes while on assignment in Colombia.

“The president has confidence in the head of the Secret Service as do I, and I believe the right corrective action will be taken there,” Romney said on WTVN in Columbus, Ohio. “Obviously everyone is very, very disappointed in these stories, very uncharacteristic of the service, and I think it will be dealt with in as aggressive a way as is possible given the requirements of law.”

The marks were a contrast to Romney’s assertion that the administration “obviously is embarrassed” by the revelation that the General Services Administration hosted an $823,000 conference near Las Vegas in 2010. He said top GSA official Jeff Neely was pleading his Fifth Amendment rights as an “excuse” to not have to testify in the case.

Speaking more generally about government corruption including the GSA scandal, the Secret Service scandal, and the Justice Department's botched "Fast and Furious" gun-tracking operation, Romney said he would “clean house” if he were president.

“The right thing to do is to remove people who have violated the public trust and have put their playtime and their personal interest ahead of the nation,” Romney said in an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. “You’ve got to make an assessment of those individuals, and where people have failed and where you think they have not got the level of care and caution that is necessary, you replace them.”

On WTVN, Romney also fielded questions about his vice presidential pick. He declined to provide a short list, but did talk about a “debt of gratitude” for help he had received in the Ohio primary from Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who is widely perceived as a top possibility.

“I think his strength and his endorsement and his campaigning with me across the state really made a difference. That kind of a victory in Ohio was one of the things that propelled me to become the presumptive nominee. So I’m in a great debate of gratitude to Rob Portman and recognize that yeah, he makes a difference in Ohio but he would make a difference on a national ticket as well. He’s a great guy and a very capable person,” Romney said.

Matthew Shelley contributed to this report.

]]>

Santorum argues for religion in government

Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:53:22 -0500

KALAMAZOO, Mich. -- On the eve of the Michigan primary, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told an enthusiastic crowd at a Christian school that not only was the separation of church and state not absolute, there is a role for religious faith in the federal government.

Building on statements he first made over the weekend, Santorum said that the definition of the separation of church and state does not appear verbatim in the Constitution. “What does [appear] is the term 'the free exercise of religion.' Those words do appear, so religion is to be freed from the dictates of government. But … the government is not to be free of the influence of faith and people of faith,” he said.

Speaking to an audience of about 300 people at the Heritage Christian Academy, an elementary school, the former senator from Pennsylvania said that discussion of religious faith should extend to the public square. “We have an opportunity to paint another vision, one that is a welcoming … that says to people of faith, any faith, ‘Come on in, talk about it. Make your case. Make your argument to the people. I don’t have to agree with you, but I respect the fact that you’re here and you know what? Just because you have a different opinion than me doesn’t mean that you hate me, or I hate you. That’s what America’s about,' ” Santorum said.

Santorum’s blurring of the line between religion and government has raised eyebrows, including at The Washington Post, which published an editorial on Monday asking, “Does Mr. Santorum really understand the difference between talking about a policy and imposing his views?”

The crowd gave Santorum prolonged applause throughout his speech. Organizers said tht hundreds of people had been turned away when the school filled up, evidenced by the hordes of residents trudging away from the school in the chilly night before the event started.

Santorum told the crowd that liberals are the real bigots in the debate over same-sex marriage because, he said, they argue that conservatives oppose gay marriage because of “hatred and bigotry.” He cited a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that California’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, and that the ban “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

Santorum said this was tantamount to the court saying, “If you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, it is either because you are a hater or a bigot.”

]]>