Prayer zone for a better, empowering, inspiring, promoting, prospering, progressing and more successful life through Christ Jesus

Posts tagged ‘William Kristol’

McConnell Cools on Immigration Reform:

Image: McConnell Cools on Immigration Reform

By Elliot Jager

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said that differences between the House and Senate on immigration reform are too big to bridge in 2014, The Hill reported.

The Senate passed a comprehensive bipartisan immigration bill in June that would set a path to citizenship for the approximately 11 million people now in the U.S. illegally.

Latest: Do You Support Giving Illegals Citizenship? Vote Here Now 

McConnell said the differences between the Democratic-controlled Senate and the Republican-led House are “irresolvable,” the Hill reported.

“I don’t see how you get to an outcome this year with the two bodies in such a different place,” said McConnell.

McConnell is facing off against tea party opponent Matt Bevin in Kentucky’s GOP primary. Bevin has taken a hard-nosed anti-immigration stance.

Republican strategists including William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, and Erick Erickson, the editor-in-chief of RedState, have argued that this is not the time to tackle immigration. Doing so, they say, would call attention to divisions within the party and take attention away from the failures of President Barack Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act.

House Republican leaders led by Speaker John Boehner had issued a statement of principles on immigration, in conjunction with the recent House retreat, that would revamp the country’s immigration laws a little at a time and in a way that non-tea party conservatives could live with.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who helped to craft the principles, said he does not know if an immigration law can be passed. “That is clearly in doubt,” he told ABC’s “This Week” and depends on whether Democrats were willing to “secure the border,” and “agree to not having an amnesty,” The Hill reported.

Republican Rep. Jeff Denham of California who supports immigration reform, said that the House leadership has not given up,  according to Breitbart. 

“I think leadership’s focus and my focus is to get [immigration] done as early as possible. It’s part of our conference agenda right now. It doesn’t go on the agenda without scheduling bills and scheduling time on the floor,” Denham said.

Meanwhile, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, who backed the Senate immigration bill, said that McConnell was probably right about prospects for immigration reform.

“The Democrats want amnesty and the Republicans would like to solve this problem, but in the House they’re not about to give amnesty,” he said.

Editor’s Note: 5 Reasons Stocks Will Collapse . . . 

Related Stories

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

GOP Lining Up Against Boehner Immigration Plan.

Image: GOP Lining Up Against Boehner Immigration Plan

By Lisa Barron

The GOP House leadership has yet to unveil its new framework for immigration reform, but conservatives are already gearing up for a challenge.

House Speaker John Boehner is expected to release a plan to fellow Republicans at a three-day Chesapeake Bay retreat starting Wednesday that would give millions of  immigrants already in the country illegally a path to legal status; it would also offer a path to citizenship for immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children.

That has some of the party’s conservative strategists pushing back publicly.

“It’s one of the few things that could actually disrupt what looks like a strong Republican year,” William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, told The New York Times, calling the push “a recipe for disaster.”

National Review editorial on Monday  titled “Don’t Do It,” also argued against reform at this stage.

“The basic tactical reason not to act now is that the last thing the party needs is a brutal intramural fight when it has been dealt a winning hand on Obamacare,” the editors wrote.
“The other prudential reason not to act is that President Obama obviously can’t be trusted. Any immigration deal would have to trade enhanced enforcement for an amnesty. Since the president refuses to enforce key provisions of his own healthcare law, let alone provisions of immigration law he finds uncongenial, he obviously can’t be relied on to follow up on his end of any bargain,” they added.

Some legislators also are staunchly opposed to the plan. Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa believes that undocumented immigrants who are allowed to become citizens will eventually vote for Democrats, according to The Los Angeles Times.

“It’s political suicide for Republicans to do this,” he told the newspaper.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is expected to make his case for an overhaul of immigration policy in his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

“There are important economic consequences for passing immigration reform, from expanding economic opportunity to creating jobs, to reducing the deficit,” a senior administration official told The Los Angeles Times Monday, adding, “There are a whole lot of good reasons for the Congress to take action on this.”

Related stories:

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Kristol: Palin Can Rehabilitate Herself with Alaska Senate Win.

Image: Kristol: Palin Can Rehabilitate Herself with Alaska Senate Win

By Dan Weil

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin can get her political career back on track with a victory in the Alaska Senate race next year, says The Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol.

Palin quit as governor in July 2009, nearly 18 months before the end of her term.

“The way Palin would possibly resurrect herself, if that’s the right word, or rehabilitate herself I guess a better way of putting it, [is to] run for Senate in Alaska in 2014,” Kristol told ABC’s “This Week” program.

Palin has said she is considering running.

If she won the Republican primary, she likely would face incumbent Democrat Mark Begich in the general election.

“I’m not urging” Palin to run, Kristol cautioned. “I’m just saying if I were her adviser I would say, ‘Take on the incumbent. You have to win a primary, then you have to beat an incumbent Democrat. It’s not easy.'”

But there would be a payoff if she’s successful, Kristol said.

“Suddenly, if she can imagine that, ‘Sarah Palin, freshman senator, Jan. 15, in Washington having beaten an incumbent,’ that would be pretty interesting.”

Palin has to overcome her mid-term departure as governor, Kristol said. She had become embroiled in ethical issues and said her entire day was spent fighting the claims. She said she did not intend to fight for a second term, which meant that if she stayed in office she would be a lame-duck governor.

“Stepping down as governor of Alaska was a big problem,” said Kristol. “People don’t like to see a governor, . . . absent some medical reason or whatever, just leave office early. And she’d been a good governor . . . until then.

“That, I think, is something she has to recover from in terms of being a serious leader in the party. She still has a lot of loyalty. She can still shape the debate. She has a great political touch.”

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Bill Kristol: ‘A Year Ago Obama Said al-Qaida on Run, Now It’s US on Run’.

Despite President Barack Obama’s words four years ago that al Qaida is “on the run,” it now appears that the United States is in that position, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“Four years ago President Obama gave a much heralded speech as outreach to the Muslim world,” Kristol said during a panel discussion. “And now, four years later we are closing embassies throughout the Muslim world. A year ago, the president said al-Qaida is on the run. And now we seem to be on the run.”

The administration closed 22 embassies throughout northern Africa and the Middle East on Sunday following intercepted communications of al Qaida operatives of possible coordinated attacks.

“I’m not criticizing the decision to close the embassies,” Kristol said. “That’s probably the right thing to do for the sake of trying to save American lives and others, but it’s a terrible thing. “That you know, just a year ago boasting al-Qaida is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.”

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

By Greg Richter

Santorum: Obama’s Failures After Benghazi Led to Current Threat.

Image: Santorum: Obama's Failures After Benghazi Led to Current Threat

By By Amy Woods and Audrey Hudson

Republican Rick Santorum on Sunday blamed President Barack Obama’s policies for creating the current terrorist threat that has closed more than 20 embassies around the world.

“I think it’s a huge deal, and I think it’s really the consequence of the policies of this administration,” Santorum said on NBC’sMeet the Press,” pointing to last year’s attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans.

“We’ve seen really nothing other than cover-ups,” said Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator and candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. “What we’ve seen is an administration that has refused to confront radical Islam, that has embraced the Muslim Brotherhood.

Other commentators echoed the theme on Sunday that the embassy closures are a result of the perceived weakness of President Barack Obama and America around the world.

“Four years ago President Obama gave a much heralded speech as outreach to the Muslim world, and now four years later we’re closing embassies throughout the Muslim world,” William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, said on “Fox News Sunday“.

“A year ago the president said Al Qaida is on the run, and now we seem to be on the run,” Kristol said. “I’m not criticizing the decision to close the embassies, that’s probably the right thing to do for the sake of trying to save American lives and others, but it’s a terrible thing. An unprecedented closure.”

The State Department closed the embassies and consulates for one day and also issued a worldwide travel warning to Americans for the month of August that Al Qaida might be planning an attack.

Former GOP Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who now heads the Heritage Foundation, said the threat is real but it is being fueled by observations of America’s foreign adversaries that the U.S. has been weakened.

“There is a perception of weakness of this administration,” DeMint said.

“The instability around the world is clearly related to at least a perception of a lack of resolve of the United States and a perception of weakness,” DeMint said.

“I’m not questioning what the president’s doing here, in fact I think he should probably be over-cautious rather than under-cautious after Benghazi, but I think what we’re seeing is a reaction to a perception that the United States does not have the will to act,” DeMint said.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Harman: Kristol Leading GOP on ‘Suicide Mission’.

Former California Democratic Rep. Jane Harman said Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol of leading the Republican Party on a “suicide mission” by opposing the Senate’s immigration bill.

Both appeared on “Fox News Sunday,” where host Chris Wallace brought up the fact that Kristol’s publication had issued a joint editorial with The National Review that said, “Passing any version of the Gang of Eight‘s bill would be worse public policy than passing nothing. House Republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake through its heart.”

Harman, seated right next to Kristol, said the Republican Party would suffer politically if it didn’t help pass immigration reform.

“I think my friend, Bill, is leading his party on a suicide mission,” she said, noting that many Republicans are pushing for reform.

“Good luck winning any presidential election in any near century,” she said, turning to face Kristol.

“Kristol shot back, “I think we’ll do just fine in the next presidential election and in the Senate elections in 2014.”

Obama had 60 senators and huge majority in the House during his first two years in office, but took no action on immigration, Kristol said.

“Did he move an immigration bill to deal with this pressing problem?” an animated Kristol said. “The tragedy of these people in the shadows? I missed that.”

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

By Greg Richter

Bill Kristol: Rubio ‘Should Walk Away’ From Immigration Bill.

Image: Bill Kristol: Rubio 'Should Walk Away' From Immigration Bill


By Lisa Barron

Conservative journalist Bill Kristol is advising Sen. Marco Rubio to abandon the bipartisan immigration bill he helped write and push through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday against heavy odds.

“He should walk away from it. He should say, ‘I made a good faith effort, but you know what, this is not a piece of legislation,'” Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, said Tuesday on the Laura Ingraham radio show.

Calling the bill drafted by the so-called Gang of Eight a “big government, liberal piece of legislation,” Kristol said it will never work and that Congress could do better addressing immigration “issue by issue” in separate bills.

“Think of the trust you have to have in bureaucracy to make all this work. There’ll be certifications and border security, there’ll be tests of whether people paid back taxes,” he said.

“If you like Obamacare, you should like this immigration bill. I honestly think conservatives should oppose it on those grounds alone,” Kristol said.

“I couldn’t vote for this bill,” he added. “I just don’t think it’s good conservative governance, and I don’t think there’s any need to compromise with [New York Democratic Sen.] Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama at this point. There’s no crisis.”

Kristol called on Rubio and other lawmakers not to act on impulse and think that doing something “is better than doing nothing.”

“Because once you legalize, you legalize. “It’s done . . . Once you cross the bridge, you can’t get back,” he said.

Kristol advised Republicans not to tackle immigration reform until the party has a larger majority in Congress or until there’s a Republican in the White House, perhaps in 2017.

“If you have to live with the status quo for a few years, then let’s live with the status quo for a few years,” he said.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Group buys to oppose Defense appointment.

A group critical of President Barack Obama’s choice of Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense on Monday purchased the Web site domain to oppose the former Nebraska senator’s nomination.

The Emergency Committee for Israel, an advocacy group led by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, is sponsoring the new site and has already produced television ads against Hagel’s nomination.

The site highlights Hagel’s Senate votes on the United States’ relationships with Israel and Iran.

“Chuck Hagel has sought to distance the United States from Israel, blame Israel for Palestinian terrorism, pressure Israel to surrender territory and retreat to indefensible borders, and has consistently attempted to increase pressure on Israel and reduce it on Israel’s foes,” the site reads.

The group plans a Google ad buy so the site will appear as a top result on the company’s search engine every time a user searches for “Chuck Hagel.”

Obama is set to announce his choice of Hagel to helm the Defense Department Monday afternoon. Hagel would replace Leon Panetta, who is stepping down.


By  | The Ticket

Don’t worry, Joe: It ain’t so. Why Obama won’t run with Hillary Clinton.

Not even if you see an airborne swine. Not even if they’re driving a Zamboni in Hades.
When you read a rumination–or recommendation, or prediction–that President Barack Obama will replace Vice President Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket–the odds are overwhelming that its creator was inspired by two thoughts:
1. My deadline is an hour away.
2. I got nothing.
Yes, the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol correctly notes that Clinton’s favorability ratings are very high–higher than those of Obama, Joe Biden, and Mitt Romney. And we should not lightly dismiss the predictive powers of Mr. Kristol, who asserted on Dec. 17, 2006: “Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I’ll predict that right now.”
Yes, the White House is all but publicly grousing about the way the vice president forced the president’s hand on gay marriage.
And yes, Biden has proven to be a much juicier target for the late-night comedians than the more phlegmatic President. (Jason Sudeikis’ flannel-mouthed glad-handing veep trumps Fred Armisen’s Obama).
But grab yourself a cup of decaf and ask yourself two simple questions:
First, when have presidents who are up for re-election dumped their vice-presidents, and why have they done it? The difference between the reality and the Hillary-for-Joe fantasy can be measured in light years.
Second, if Obama were to attempt this, how would he explain it? Trying to answer this question with a straight face is the best way to understand why (assuming accident or illness does not intervene) it’s not going to happen.

In more-or-less modern times, presidents have dumped their veeps three times.
Franklin Roosevelt did it in 1940. His two-term vice-president, the former House Speaker John Nance Garner, was far more conservative than his president, and had broken with him on issues like the packing of the Supreme Court. The Democratic Party’s liberal wing despised Garner. At a Congressional hearing, labor leader John L. Lewis called him “a labor-baiting, poker-playing, whiskey-drinking, evil old man.” When Garner showed signs that he might challenge FDR’s nomination for a third term in office with his own presidential candidacy, the Democrats replaced him on the ticket with Henry Wallace, the secretary of agriculture. (Garner retired to Texas, his place in history assured by his famous aphorism–often censored–that the job he held was “not worth a bucket of warm piss.”
Four years later, it was Wallace’s turn to walk the plank. His liberal views on race and social justice, along with a very sympathetic attitude toward the Soviet Union, unsettled Democrats who were well aware that FDR might not survive his fourth term. Out went Wallace, in came Harry Truman. Wallace got the consolation prize of secretary of commerce, until his increasingly open hostility to Truman’s Cold War policies got him booted. In 1948, he ran for president as a member the very-left Progressive Party; he got 2.4 percent of the vote, but the 8 percent he captured in New York likely cost Truman that state, and he surely made the results in California and Ohio far closer than they otherwise would have been.
The only other example came in 1976, when Gerald Ford was facing a strong challenge to his re-nomination from Ronald Reagan. Ford had to have the support of prominent conservatives such as Strom Thurmond–and the price of their support was the dumping of Vice President Nelson Rockefeller. To help Ford, Rockefeller fell on his own sword by taking himself out of the running early–in November, 1975–saying, “I didn’t come down (to Washington) to get caught up in party squabbles which only make it more difficult for the president in a very difficult time, when the problems of the country require his fullest possible attention.” He left the political stage dramatically, caught on camera giving the middle-finger salute at a campaign rally; and left life even more dramatically, having given up the ghost while engaged in intercourse–perhaps social, perhaps otherwise–with a woman 45 years his junior.
[Related slideshow: Obama speaks at Joplin high-school graduation]
(Unelected running mates have been tossed as well: George McGovern jettisoned Tom Eagleton as his running mate in 1972 after news of Eagleton’s history of depression–including electroshock therapy–emerged. And “The Passage to Power,” the new volume of Robert Caro’s Lyndon B. Johnson biography, suggests JFK might have turned elsewhere in 1964 because LBJ was no longer able to deliver a Southern state, and because journalists and Senate investigators were in hot pursuit of Johnson’s shady finances).
All of these examples, unlike Biden’s situation, involved a vice president who became anathema to a significant segment of his party. Other veeps have been retained even though they were polarizing figures: Spiro Agnew in ’72, Dan Quayle in ’92, Dick Cheney in ’04.
Which brings us to the second question.
Imagine the press conference where President Obama has to explain his decision to replace Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton. It is, to put it mildly, not likely that the press will accept at face value a Biden announcement that he has decided to step down to run Amtrak, or to retire to his beloved Scranton, Pa.
So what would the president say? That he made a mistake the first time? That he is tired of clicking on yet another website to read, “Biden later explained…”?
The one thing he could not say is what everyone with a pulse will believe: ‘I’ve concluded that my re-election will be much more likely if I run with Hillary Clinton.”

A Biden-for-Clinton switch would stamp Obama as a president who is acting just like any other politician. This perception is already eating away at the most potent appeal of his first run for the White House: that he was different from the standard political mold.  Of all the poll numbers that smother the landscape, the most troubling for Obama was the CBS/New York Times finding that–by a huge margin of 67 percent to 24 percent–voters believe he changed his position on gay marriage for political reasons. (Never mind what that tells us about how remarkably the ground has shifted on that issue).
Without question, most folks believe that anything and everything a candidate says is shaped by tactical considerations. But the public manifestly does not want to hear a candidate admit that. Remember what happened to Arlen Specter, who switched parties in 2009, explaining that becoming a Democrat would make it easier for him to be re-elected as senator from Pennsylvania? That video clip was one big reason why Specter lost the 2010 Democratic primary to Rep. Joe Sestak. For Obama to take such a momentous step to strengthen his chances for survival would, paradoxically, do him significant damage.
There’s one way to know if I’m wrong about this. If sometime in the next month or two Biden comes out for an antiabortion amendment to the Consitution, the end to collective bargaining for public employee unions, and the cutoff of all aid to Israel, it means he’s decided to give his boss the running room he would need to make the switch.


By Jeff Greenfield.

Tag Cloud