GOP governors talk immigration reform

Republican governors who gathered in Phoenix last week for their annual conference did their best to distance themselves from their congressional GOP counterparts and Capitol Hill political dysfunction.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie cited immigration reform as an example of Washington's failure to deal with major issues.

Speaking Thursday at a news conference at the Republican Governors Association meeting at the Phoenician resort, Christie said the broken U.S. immigration system "has an effect on the people of our states, on the economies of our states" and needs a solution.

Christie declined to endorse specifics of a legislative remedy, such as a pathway to citizenship for most of the estimated 11million undocumented immigrants who have settled in the United States. He said it is up to President Barack Obama and Congress to figure out a compromise, just as he has to do in dealing with the Democrat-controlled New Jersey Legislature.

"The inaction down there on this problem, a problem that we've all seen for years, is just unacceptable," Christie said. "They've got work to do. Get to work and start to fix the problems."

Christie, who earlier this month won a second term in his traditional blue state, is a top GOP presidential prospect for 2016. He was the focus of most of the media attention at the four-day RGA conference, which also included a surprise Thursday appearance by former President George W. Bush at a private governors lunch. Also on Thursday, Christie became RGA chairman for the 2014 election year, a role that will give him additional national exposure.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, whose parents came from India, shared Christie's sense of urgency about the immigration situation. The Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate this year passed a comprehensive bipartisan reform package, but it was declared dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Though House Republicans have talked for months about acting on a series of smaller immigration-related bills, none has come to the floor this year.

"At some point, D.C. needs to actually do something, say something," said Haley, who also did not offer an opinion on details such as a path to citizenship. "It is causing a divide across this country, the longer they put off making a decision."

Others at the Phoenix gathering offered varying views on immigration reform.

Some, such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, advocated for securing the border first, which for years has been a common Republican refrain.

"You could do a 21st-century, modern, guest-worker program without amnesty and solve the problem going forward for this country," added Pence, a former U.S. representative.

Perry, who unsuccessfully sought the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, predicted that the immigration-reform discussion will eventually resolve itself due to energy-policy reforms that he suggests will reinvent Mexico's economy. Mexicans now living without authorization in the United States will go home to better jobs, he said.

"Listen, I think the issue is you secure the border first and then you can have the conversation about immigration reform," Perry said Wednesday. "And, again, I think immigration reform is going to be very passé. It's going to be part of the past."

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, another possible 2016 candidate, complained that Republicans in Washington, D.C., too often are "defined as the party of 'no'" and called for the GOP to do a better job "offering detailed, principled solutions to the issues the American people care about."

When asked if the House Republicans missed an opportunity to offer a GOP immigration solution, Jindal said he won't participate in what he deemed "Republican fratricide." But he said "plenty of Republicans in D.C." are frustrated and agree they should be doing more on immigration and other big issues.

"You can get all sorts of Republicans to criticize other Republicans. I'm not interested in that," Jindal said. "I am interested in saying, and I do think, that absolutely, as the Republican Party, we need to be advancing solutions."

Christie and Haley both indicated that they would not hesitate to criticize Capitol Hill Republicans if criticism is merited.

"I think there are no saints in Washington right now," Haley said. "Republicans and Democrats have royally screwed this up."

For that reason, Haley said the next Republican presidential standard-bearer should come from the ranks of the governors, not Congress.

"What I always think is important are results, and it's really hard for somebody out of D.C. to prove results when they can't even stay open," she said, in an apparent reference to the recent partial federal government shutdown.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, another potential White House contender, also said the GOP's strength lies with the governors.

"You know, it's pretty interesting, isn't it, that people talk about the Republican brand and what people tend to forget is we've got 30 Republican governors," Kasich said Wednesday. "There's not a better way to figure out who people favor than to look inside the states."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who also is widely viewed as a possible 2016 GOP hopeful, did not attend the conference.

Nowicki is The Republic's national political reporter.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Gay-rights advocates woo Flake, McCain

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain could be key in determining the fate of a bill that would ban employment discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender workers.

The Arizona Republicans are among six GOP senators being lobbied heavily by supporters of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The bill's supporters appear to be close to securing the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster. A vote to proceed to debate on the bill is scheduled for tonight, potentially setting up a vote to approve it later in the week.

On Thursday, Arizona volunteers delivered more than 3,200 postcards and letters to McCain's and Flake's Phoenix offices urging the senators to vote for the proposed law. Supporters said they also have made more than 1,100 phone calls to the senators. Their efforts will continue until the vote.

"Our goal is to really show that the support is there for this issue among Senator McCain's and Senator Flake's constituents," said Dan Rafter of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group.

The bill would bar employers from using a person's sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for hiring, firing, promotion or salary decisions.

Flake supported a narrower version of the bill in 2007 when he was serving in the House. That bill did not include transgender workers. It passed the House 235-184 in 2007 but died in the Senate.

This time, Flake said he will oppose the legislation.

"Unlike a 2007 version of this bill, which I supported, the Senate bill includes new provisions that will increase the potential for litigation and compliance costs, especially for small businesses," Flake said in a written statement. "For that reason, I oppose the Senate bill."

McCain has not yet decided how to vote, although an aide says he's leaning toward opposing the bill unless it is amended. The aide said McCain worries that the bill could lead to "lawsuit abuse by trial lawyers" and whether it adequately exempts religious schools and charities from having to hire gay employees if doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs.

A September poll by Republican pollster Alan Lundry indicated about 63 percent of Arizonans support the proposed law.

"One thing we've found in conversations is that Arizonans see this as sort of a matter of the golden rule -- treating others as you would want to be treated," Rafter said. "No one would want to lose a job because of who they are."

To tap into that sentiment, the bipartisan Americans for Workplace Opportunity coalition sent three full-time field organizers to Arizona to lead the postcard-writing effort and organize phone banks to lobby Flake and McCain. The field workers have been in the state since August, shortly after the measure was approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Arizona is one of seven states where the coalition has focused its efforts.

The challenge for the bill's supporters is that the Republican senators they are hoping to attract may worry about a challenge from the right in a GOP primary if they vote for the bill, said Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in California.

"There are social conservatives in the Republican Party who would oppose just about any gay-rights legislation, so there is a political cost," Pitney said. "On the other hand, non-discrimination laws do not generate as much opposition as same-sex marriage bills. There are conservative Republicans, both in the electorate and among politicians, who don't support gay marriage but do support non-discrimination. They are very different issues."

Pitney said Republicans who oppose the law risk losing the support of younger voters.

"Younger people -- even those who are conservative -- are much more likely to embrace gay rights than older people, particularly on the issue of non-discrimination," he said. "And as societal attitudes continue to change on the issue, Republicans could risk alienating voters in the general election if they oppose this law."

The Senate's 53 Democrats and two independents -- led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- have all come out in favor of the bill.

Two Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois -- also support the legislation. But two Republicans who voted for it in committee -- Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- have indicated that their support is now uncertain.

That leaves advocates for the law about three votes shy of the 60 votes they need to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

If it passes the Democrat-led Senate, though, the legislation would face steep odds in the Republican-controlled House.

In addition to Flake and McCain, the Republican senators the Human Rights Campaign and its allies have focused on are: Dean Heller of Nevada, Rob Portman of Ohio, Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.

Opponents of the bill say they also have been in touch with Flake,McCain and other key senators to try to convince them that the proposed law would hurt businesses and infringe on religious liberty.

"Business will be hit with more litigation costs if this bill passes," said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for public-policy research at the conservative Family Research Council, which opposes gay rights and abortion rights. "When you add a new protected category to the law, you are giving a license to sue to a whole group of people who didn't have it previously."

But advocates of the bill say there has been no significant increase in litigation in states that have passed anti-discrimination laws. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has adopted a "neutral" position on the legislation.

The Human Rights Campaign cites a 2013 report by the Government Accountability Office that showed "relatively few" employment-discrimination cases in the 21 states that have laws barring employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. On average, claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity were about 3 to 4 percent of the total number of employment-discrimination claims, the report said.

The Family Research Council doesn't believe that gays need to be protected from discrimination the way that racial minorities or women do, Sprigg said. "Most employers don't discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation because they have no way of knowing their orientation unless they declare it," he said. "It's an invisible characteristic; it's not like race or gender. For the vast majority of employers, they are not going to consider sexual orientation a relevant factor."

Those that do consider it relevant -- such as churches, Christian bookstores and other groups and businesses with religious affiliations -- should not be forced to hire gays, Sprigg said.

"While there is a religious exemption of sorts in this bill, we are not convinced that any exemption could be written in such a way that protects the rights of those who disapprove of homosexual conduct," he said.

But the bill's authors say they provide a broad exemption for religious organizations.

Any religious entity that is currently exempt from the employment-discrimination provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would also be exempt under the proposed law, the bill's supporters say.

"Americans understand that it's time to make sure our LGBT friends and family are treated fairly and have the same opportunities," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.,who is the bill's lead sponsor. "Now it's time for our laws to catch up. People should be judged at work on their ability to do the job, period."

Rafter said supporters of the bill believe a victory in the Senate could lead to action in the House. "The House is a little tougher, but we do see momentum there," he said.

In just the last few days, Rafter said, Republican Reps. Jon Runyan of New Jersey and Chris Gibson of New York joined three other Republican co-sponsors of the House bill.

Sprigg said he has heard that House Democrats may try to force a vote on the bill using a procedural tool called a discharge petition. If they can get 218 signatures -- which would require support from 18 Republicans -- they can bring the legislation to the House floor for a vote.

"If it does come out of the Senate, that will put more pressure on the House," Sprigg said. "We can't be 100 percent sure what's going to happen there."

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Farm bill offers test for D.C.'s politics, according to Vilsack

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Stalled negotiations over a farm bill threaten more than trouble for farmers and consumers, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says.

They're also a broader test of whether Washington can work.

The huge bill, which is more than a year overdue, is caught in a huge dispute between the House and Senate over how much to cut the food stamp program, among other issues.

Vilsack notes that failure to pass it before the end of the year could double milk prices for Americans, spark retaliatory tariffs from Brazil and leave livestock producers who have been hit by storms and drought without standard federal assistance.

Vilsack characterized the talks as a case study of an embattled government.

"This is a bill that should reignite what little DNA is left of bipartisanship in Washington, D.C.," he says.

"This has been a bill that's always been relatively easy for Congress to get done, and if we don't get it done, I think it sends another negative message to the country about the workings of government."

He sees passage starting momentum

On the other hand, passing the farm bill could be a tonic for what ails the capital, he argues, likening it to a stumbling football team that decides to change it's strategy and get back to basics.

"We (should) get back to blocking and tackling -- pass a bill, a major bill," he says. "When that happens, basically, relationships are formed, opportunities for success are created and I think it creates a momentum" that could boost prospects in Washington for a budget agreement and even immigration legislation.

He says "folks have been stuck" in House-Senate negotiations that missed a self-imposed deadline last week to agree on a framework so a bill could be passed before the end of the year.

He says Iowa would back Clinton in 2016

Vilsack, 62, a former two-term governor of Iowa, predicts Hillary Rodham Clinton would fare better in the Hawkeye State in 2016 than she did in 2008, when Barack Obama defeated her in the opening presidential caucuses.

"Let me just say that, from my perspective, Secretary Clinton didn't lose the Iowa caucus; the president won the Iowa caucus," says Vilsack, who supported Clinton. "His team did an enormous job of attracting new people to the system."

If Clinton decides to run again, "I'm reasonably confident that she'll receive a very good reception in Iowa," he says.

He is less certain that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would be at all welcome in the state's Republican caucuses, which were won in 2012 by Rick Santorum.

If Christie runs, he'll need to take a page from Obama's book, Vilsack says.

"He's going to have to look at ways in which he can expand the base of caucusgoers, because it is a very conservative Republican Party right now."

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

He saw Ariz. schools undivided by racial prejudice of the time

e was an enlightened man in Arizona's dark ages.

Because Arizonans have faced tough obstacles for a long time, it's worth remembering our history of conquering problems. One man faced issues years ago and stood up for his beliefs.

Joseph H. Kibbey came to the Salt River Valley from Indiana, when Phoenix was still a remote settlement of dirt roads and deep ruts and the powerful musk of livestock reminded everyone this was very much a cow town.

The young lawyer had come to Territorial Arizona, specifically to Florence, to be a legal adviser to an irrigation firm, historian Jay J. Wagoner recounts. But very soon after, he would climb his career ladder to Arizona's highest rung.

If there was work of great import, Kibbey was the man to do it. He served as city attorney of Phoenix, territorial attorney general, territorial governor and county and state chairman of the Republican Party.

He is best known for so skillfully crafting Articles of Incorporation for the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association that they became a model of organization for many of America's later reclamation projects, according to the Salt River Project's history "The Taming of the Salt."

But his most extraordinary act was one of defiance: a defense of the public-school system and the few Black children it served.

The Arizona Territory in 1909 was very much a creature of its time, both reflexively and institutionally intolerant.

The Territorial Legislature passed a measure that year giving school districts the option to segregate their Black students from students of other races. The popular will was being expressed, and Kibbey, then territorial governor, would have none of it.

It is one thing to stand against racism in an enlightened age when there is broad agreement that such laws are despicable. It is radicalism to do it when virtually all of polite society, all of government, all of your friends and neighbors stand against you.

To his eternal credit, none of that deterred Gov. Kibbey. He leaned into those headwinds and eagerly vetoed the bill, historian Brad Luckingham writes.

"It would be unfair that pupils of the African race should be given accommodations and facilities for a common school education, less effective, less complete, less convenient or less pleasant … than those accorded pupils of the White race," Kibbey wrote.

Unmoved, the Territorial Legislature promptly overrode Kibbey's veto.

A year later, the Phoenix School Board began to segregate its schools.

Kibbey by then was no longer governor and back in private practice. Phoenix Blacks hired him to seek an injunction against the school board. A lawsuit was filed on behalf of Black leader Samuel F. Bayless to address the hardship created:

"Bayless had two daughters, six and 10 years old, who prior to segregation had walked five blocks to school. After Douglass School (for Blacks) opened, the girls were forced to walk two miles and to cross the tracks of both the Southern Pacific and the SFP&P, an act that imperiled life and limb," Luckingham writes.

The courts ultimately ruled against Kibbey and his Black clients. It would take another generation to right this wrong. Another generation before history's gavel would fall.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Are pleas by Obama hindering the push?

As President Barack Obama re-engages on immigration reform, some of his allies disagree about how big of a role he should take in the debate on Capitol Hill.

ONLINE

Follow the immigration-reform debate in Congress at immigration.azcentral.com.

In Thursday remarks at the White House, Obama reiterated his position that "common sense" immigration reform is a politically popular way to "grow the economy and shrink our deficits" while securing the U.S. border, modernizing the visa system and offering a pathway to citizenship for most of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants who have already settled in the United States.

Urging Congress to act this year, Obama also made it clear that he prefers the bipartisan approach of the Democratic- controlled Senate, which on June 27 passed a comprehensive package that has been languishing in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. House Democrats have offered similar legislation, but Obama added that "if House Republicans have new and different, additional ideas for how we should move forward, then we want to hear them."

The House has been working on its own series of smaller immigration-related bills but has yet to pass any. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has signaled that action on immigration is still possible, and several GOP lawmakers have indicated that they are exploring possible approaches to addressing the legal status of the undocumented population.

Obama's remarks earned applause in the immigrant community, but some observers said they want the president to move beyond prodding Congress and use his executive authority to halt deportations.

Other reform supporters, particularly in the business world, worry that his high-profile stand risks further alienating conservative House Republicans, many of whom are still nursing bruised egos from the recent government shutdown and debt-ceiling fight.

Immigration-reform advocates have considered 2013 their best opportunity to pass a comprehensive bill since the last serious effort failed in 2007, but time is running out.

The push is on to finish immigration reform in the next few months because by early 2014, Congress will be overshadowed by midterm-election politics. Those partisan atmospherics make bipartisan cooperation less likely, although some analysts and reform supporters are hopeful there may be another window of opportunity once primary-election ballots are set and Republican incumbents don't need to worry about challenges from conservatives who oppose "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants.

"It doesn't make sense to have 11 million people who are in this country illegally without any incentive or any way for them to come out of the shadows, get right with the law, meet their responsibilities and permit their families then to move ahead," Obama said during his speech at the White House, where he was joined by Vice President Joe Biden and reform supporters.

"It's not smart," Obama said. "It's not fair. It doesn't make sense. We have kicked this particular can down the road for too long."

Growing support

For most of this year, Obama has kept his distance from the legislative action, giving the Senate's bipartisan "Gang of Eight" of four Democrats and four Republicans the time they needed to craft their bill. The group included Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

Because of the delicate political dynamics of the House, Obama's increasing presence in the immigration debate gives anxiety to some pro-reform business leaders who traditionally have a good rapport with Republicans. The fear is that some GOP partisans who might otherwise support reform could balk if they feel Obama is muscling them.

"It hurts more than it helps," said Glenn Hamer, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who, with other business leaders, will travel to Washington next week to lobby lawmakers to pass immigration reform. "We understand and we appreciate that this is a big issue for him. It's a big issue for the country. This would be a good time for the House of Representatives to really pass out its vision for immigration reform."

In his Thursday statement, Obama acknowledged that his support could provoke new antagonism from his conservative critics, but he emphasized that immigration reform -- the top domestic priority of Obama's second term -- has broad-based political appeal and historically has attracted support from Republicans, including former President George W. Bush.

"I know that there are some folks in this town who are primed to think, 'Well, if Obama is for it, then I'm against it,'" Obama said. "But I'd remind everybody that my Republican predecessor was also for it when he proposed reforms like this almost a decade ago, and I joined with 23 Senate Republicans back then to support that reform. I'd remind you that this reform won more than a dozen Republican votes in the Senate in June."

He added: "I'm not running for office again. I just believe this is the right thing to do."

One leading national champion of immigration reform dismissed the idea that Obama should defer to House Republicans who dislike him.

Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro- reform organization America's Voice and an expert in immigration politics, said the restraint that Obama has shown thus far is testament to how badly the president wants a bill passed.

For example, Obama has refrained from trying to punish Republicans politically for holding it up, he said.

"Come on, he's the president. He gets to use the bully pulpit to try to set the agenda," Sharry said. "Obviously, it's only going to happen if the House Republicans decide to do it. Everybody in the world knows that everybody wants to get it done except for the divided House GOP. They have to decide whether they want to be the party of responsible governance or the party of confrontational nihilism. So, it's their call."

Another immigrant advocate called on Obama to show more leadership by curtailing his administration's "outrageous number of deportations," which affect many people who could benefit from reform, although such a step also could rile House Republicans.

Some GOP lawmakers already have suggested they don't trust the Obama administration to properly enforce any new immigration or border- security laws that might be passed.

"From our perspective, the president is definitely a big stakeholder and player in getting immigration reform done," said Cristina Jimenez, managing director of the immigrant-youth network United We Dream.

"We don't believe that for the president to step up and push Congress to get this done undermines the efforts," she said. "But we also believe that the president himself could do more."

Limited influence

Other observers, including Arizona's two members of the Senate Gang of Eight, suggested that Obama's powers of persuasion probably are limited with regard to many House Republicans.

"I don't know if it helps or hurts, to be honest with you," McCain said Tuesday when asked about a more active Obama role. "I think that the Republican Party understands the majority of Americans want this issue resolved. There are many members of Congress that represent districts where the majority do not support immigration reform, and we understand and respect that."

John J. "Jack" Pitney Jr., a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California, also said rank-and-file House Republicans are more likely to take their cues on immigration reform from their conservative base than from Obama or even the national GOP leaders who want to improve the party's image with Latino voters.

"For the average House Republican, the Number 1 concern is his or her own district, and most Republicans are not getting much clamor for the liberalization of immigration laws in their own districts," Pitney said. "You can argue that it's in the party's long-term interest to address the issue, but 'long-term interest' doesn't get a vote in primaries and general elections."

Flake, who served 12 years in the House before moving to the Senate, said time appears to be immigration reform's biggest enemy. "The president saying it isn't going to make it happen," Flake said. "Let's face it: The calendar is going to be tough this year."

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Christie's race covers political present, future

WAYNE, N.J. — WAYNE, N.J. With the governor election less than a month away, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is telling voters that he might not serve out his full second term if elected.

The admission might hurt any other candidate.

But for Christie, it underscores his popularity as a straight-talking Republican in a Democratic state. And it highlights what's at stake in New Jersey's looming governor election -- a contest as much about Christie's presidential aspirations as the governor's race.

He did not laugh off a question about his political future when asked during his first re-election debate Tuesday.

"I am not going to declare tonight … that I am or I'm not running for president," Christie said.

He later quipped: "I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can do this job and also deal with my future. And that's what I will do."

That's exactly what Christie is doing as he uses his governor election to make the case for a higher office.

Buoyed by polls suggesting he has a commanding lead in his re-election bid, Christie's team is assembling a broad coalition of supporters -- groups of Democrats, union workers, women and minorities that Republican candidates elsewhere struggle to attract. He says his re-election campaign offers a road map of sorts for beleaguered Republicans across the nation as the party works to expand.

"We've got to win elections again. And that's what we're going to show the whole country in New Jersey on Nov. 5," Christie said of his party.

"I thought that the Republican Party was put into effect to win elections. I didn't think we were some debating society or some group of academic elites that sit around and talk about big ideas but don't do anything about them," he continued.

Christie's philosophy aligns him with Republican pragmatists pushing the GOP to embrace political moderation. Despite detailed recommendations by the Republican National Committee to do just that, the pragmatists are losing the debate as the GOP's more conservative wing drives the national discussion in Washington.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

SCHIEFFER

(PNI) They said it

"Presidents change and directors change -- you can keep changing the showbiz side, the names on the marquee -- but the ways, needs, demands, imperatives, secrets and strategies of The Agencies stay pretty much the same, except for one thing: They always want more."

Peggy Noonan,

Wall Street Journal

"But wait, the president can explain. It's not what we think. People won't have the same insurance -- they will have better insurance, administration officials assure. That's not the way some of the people receiving these letters see it. The president's original promise was so ironclad and repeated so often that any explanation now sounds like dissembling."

John Dickerson,

Slate

Top tweets

Bob Schieffer

@bobschieffer

Many people have received Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism, not sure anyone appreciates it more than I do. Thanks @Cronkite _ASU!

Constantin Querard

@CQuerard

So much media coverage of how @JohnMcCain could face a "tea party challenger" if he runs again. It will be a Republican Party challenger.

Joe Arpaio

@RealSheriffJoe

If I were ever going to don a Halloween costume, it would be…The Lone Ranger.

Barrett Marson

@barrettmarson

If Landrum Taylor doesn't run for SOS, who will? Dems don't have a bench. Heck, they don't even have a footstool.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here