ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Republican National Committee

Election

RNC Chairman Says Republican Proposal For $10 Million Of Race-Baiting Anti-Obama Attack Ads Is Obama’s Fault

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus

In an interview on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley this morning, host Crowley asked RNC Chairman Reince Priebus about a widely-denounced proposal for a pro-Mitt Romney outside group to run millions of dollars in race-baiting attack ads highlighting controversial statement’s by President Obama’s former pastor.

Rather than denounce the proposal or the dangers of having a small group of rich outside donors and corporations free to spend as much as they want to influence elections, Priebus blamed Obama.

After lamenting that Romney and his party had to spend a day and a half dealing with the fallout from the Super PAC proposal, Priebus told Crowley:

I know how it works. It’s the Democrats and Barack Obama that want the story out there. He wants the story to play out in the media, because for every day that [Obama adviser] David Axelrod and this President don’t have to talk about their broken promises when it comes to jobs, the debt, and the deficit — the more time they can talk about hypotheticals that may or may not come true — is a day they want to win on. So, look, this president’s got a bigger problem and his problem is no matter what he puts out there, no matter what distractions he puts out there, he can’t change the truth and escape the reality of where we are in this American economy. And it’s no good.

Watch the video:

It was, of course, actually a Republican strategist with a long history of race-baiting ads who proposed these attack ads for a Super PAC led by a billionaire determined to defeat President Obama’s re-election.

And it was Mitt Romney who, back in February, made similar attacks on President Obama saying: “I don’t know what is worse, him listening to Rev. Wright or him saying that we must be a less Christian nation.” When asked this week about the comments, Romney told reporters “I’m not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was.” This, of course, the same Romney who repudiated the Super PAC proposal as “character assassination.”

Economy

RNC Chairman Responds To JPMorgan’s Massive Loss By Saying ‘We Need Less’ Financial Regulation

The news that JPMorgan Chase lost at least $2 billion on a single trade that went sour is not evidence that the industry needs to be more stringently regulated and is instead proof that Wall Street needs even less regulation, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Sunday.

Republicans, who fought efforts to pass new regulations in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and have helped weaken the regulations that ultimately passed, have largely remained silent amid widespread calls for stronger regulations since JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon announced the massive loss Thursday. Priebus, however, made it clear during an interview with NBC’s David Gregory yesterday that the GOP still opposes the sort of regulation that could have prevented the losses and protected taxpayers and the economy:

GREGORY: You think we need less financial regulation, rather than more?

PRIEBUS: I think we need less. I mean, the fact of the matter is, Dodd-Frank didn’t work. [...]

GREGORY: So, you’re satisfied with the way Wall Street operates, with the kinds of bets that were taken by JPMorgan Chase that led to this kind of loss. You don’t think that Washington regulators can remedy that?

PRIEBUS: Certainly Dodd-Frank didn’t remedy it.

Watch it:

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) made a similar call on Fox News Sunday, saying, “We need to make sure we get all facts before jumping to conclusions about the need for greater financial regulation.”

It’s hard to make sense of these claims. JPMorgan’s loss is hardly proof of Dodd-Frank’s failure — the Volcker Rule, which could have prevented the trade, hasn’t yet been finalized and implemented. And if Dodd-Frank “didn’t remedy” the problem that led to JPMorgan’s losses, it’s because of the efforts of Republicans and Wall Street lobbyists, who have watered down the rule and fought to insert a loophole allowing the sort of trade that cost JPMorgan billions of dollars. At a time when it’s painfully clear that Wall Street can’t manage its own risk or prevent its own failure — even with the lesson of 2008 fresh in its mind — Priebus still thinks the industry is too heavily regulated.

“I’m not a financial expert,” Priebus later told Gregory. At least he got something right.

LGBT

RNC Chair Flip-Flops On Marriage Amendment, Opposes LGBT Workplace Discrimination

In an appearance on Meet The Press Sunday morning, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus attempted to clarify his party’s positions on same-sex marriage and also addressed the question of employment discrimination. Host David Gregory pressured Priebus about comments he made last week that states should make their own decisions about banning same-sex marriage, saying “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate,” — remarks noticeably out of step with Mitt Romney’s support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Priebus completely flipped on these “inartful” comments, aligning the party’s views with the candidate’s:

PRIEBUS: Well, first of all, I agree with the Governor.

GREGORY: Did you misspeak?

PRIEBUS: Perhaps it was inartful. [...]

GREGORY: The issue is: you said, “Don’t federalize it.” The nominee of the party says, “Federalize it,” a constitutional ban. Is that what the party believes?

PRIEBUS: Of course.

GREGORY: And it should be part of the platform?

PRIEBUS: It is part of the platform. And for the record, we do agree with the marriage amendment, and we do agree with DOMA, but as we sit today, we don’t have a federal mandate — excuse me, a federal — excuse me, a constitutional amendment.

Watch it:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Despite this flip against equality, Priebus did claim that gays and lesbians deserve “equal rights, in regards to say, discrimination in the workplace,” which raises new questions about where the Republican party stands on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.  House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) recently said he “hasn’t thought much” about ENDA, but Republicans like Reps. Allen West (FL), James Lankford (OK), Kenny Marchant (TX), and Sen. Mike Lee (UT) have all opposed the long-proposed bill, arguing the protections are unnecessary.

LGBT

Then And Now: Conservative Reactions To Marriage Equality Have Lost Their Verve

Pastor Leonard Cohen protesting in Boston, March 11, 2004.

President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality this week is a significant milestone in the inevitable arc toward its universality. Though conservatives have expressed outrage, their comments also reflect how much public opinion has shifted in even the last decade.

Consider the four comparisons below. In the left column is how various social conservative spokespeople responded in November, 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. In the right-hand column, see how they (or their successors) responded this week to Obama’s announcement:

Marriage Equality – Massachusetts Marriage Equality – President Obama
Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins (2003): “We must amend the Constitution if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction.” Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins (2012): “From opposing state marriage amendments to refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) to giving taxpayer funded marriage benefits to same-sex couples, the President has undermined the spirit if not the letter of the law.”
Focus on the Family’s James Dobson (2003): “The dire ramifications of what is happening in the United States and other Western nations cannot be overstated.” Focus on the Family’s Jim Daly (2012): “President Obama’s announcement that he has changed his position and now personally supports same-sex marriage is disappointing.”
Maggie Gallagher (2003): “To lose the word ‘marriage’ is to lose the core idea any civilization needs to perpetuate itself and to protect its children.” Maggie Gallagher (2012): “On the one hand, morally this is good because lying to the American people is always wrong. President Obama has come clean that he is for gay marriage. Politically, we welcome this. We think it’s a huge mistake.”
Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie (2003): Gay advocates are practicing “religious bigotry” and “intolerance” by demanding Americans condone same-sex marriage. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus (2012): “While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear. We support maintaining marriage between one man and one woman and would oppose any attempts to change that.”

The players may not have changed much, but the rules have. There are certainly some conservatives whose anti-gay screeds continue to be explosive, but in general, it seems that changing public opinion has forced them to tame their rhetoric. Less than a decade ago, marriage equality threatened the survival of society, but now it’s just “disappointing” and “a mistake.” It won’t be long before even these timid responses alienate voters who understand that marriage equality is good for communities, good for families, and good for everybody everywhere.

Election

Why Ronald Reagan Didn’t Have To Hold A Single Reelection Fundraiser

The Rise of the President's Permanent CampaignConservative media outlets have been abuzz this week with a misleading detail from a new book and the Republican National Committee (RNC) has been only too happy to add fuel to the fire.

“Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined,” the (UK) Daily Mail reported Sunday, based on Brendan J. Doherty’s new book The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign. The paper also observed that Ronald Reagan did not have a single fundraising event for his 1984 re-election.

Despite the GOP’s overt support for unlimited campaign fundraising, RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski blasted Obama for fundraising for his re-election:

It’s no surprise that the Campaigner-In-Chief has taken raising money for his re-election to a whole new level. The worst part is the American taxpayer has been footing the bill.

Though many on the right have gleefully repeated that President Obama has had more fundraising events than his five predecessors, they ignore something very important: context. President Obama is stuck spending so much time raising money for his re-election campaign for two major reasons.

First, the nation’s public financing system for presidential candidates, which went into effect in 1976 and was used by Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush for their re-elections, has fallen apart. The maximum $91.2 million available for the major parties’ nominees is insufficient for the costs of a modern national campaign. Neither Obama nor Mitt Romney will participate in the system this year. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who lost his presidential bid after accepting the funds and associated limits, said that “no Republican in his or her right mind is going to agree to public financing. I mean, that’s dead. That is over.” Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the 2004 loser, strongly discouraged his party’s 2008 nominee from accepting the grants, noting that it was insufficient to “adequately fund the campaigns.”

But this was not always true. The five previous presidents needed to raise money for only their primary campaign, as public financing would kick in for the general. Reagan, meanwhile, was able to avoid raising any money entirely because he faced no primary and thus automatically received the Republican nomination and the the public financing that came with it. (Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also escaped re-nomination contests, but opted to use some primary funds to boost their standing for the general.)

Second, President Obama is the first president to run for re-election in the post-Citizens United world. While other Presidents ran against opponents whose fundraising was limited by individual contribution limits, Obama has to keep pace with not just the Romney campaign, but also with outside groups that can raise and spend unlimited sums of money raised from wealthy donors and big corporations, which on balance support Republicans. Karl Rove’s American Crossroads Super PAC and Crossroads GPS 501(c)(4) alone may have $200 million or more to spend on television attack ads, and numerous other right-wing organizations are also getting into the act.

Also, unlike most of his predecessors and Mitt Romney, Obama has vowed to not accept PAC money, accept donations from lobbyists, or allow any registered lobbyists to “bundle” contributions for his campaign. That leaves fundraising from generous donors as the only way to afford a modern presidential campaign.

Justice

RNC Relies On Doctored Audio In Anti-Health Care Ad

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli

Shortly after Solicitor General Donald Verrilli began his arguments in defense of the Affordable Care Act’s insurance coverage requirement on Tuesday, he momentarily had trouble speaking, took a single sip of water, and then resumed his presentation. I know this because I was sitting directly behind Verrilli in one of the seats reserved for members of the Supreme Court bar when it happened, and Bloomberg news verifies it by examining the argument transcript and the genuine audio of the exchange.

Nevertheless, a Republican National Committee attack ad released shortly after the argument tampers with the audio of Verrilli’s brief pause to give the impression that he was so feckless that he spent nearly 20 seconds unable to utter a coherent word. Watch it:

Of course, the entire case against the Affordable Care Act is based on falsehoods — false claims that the Constitution does not allow the United States to “regulate commerce,” false claims that upholding health reform would destroy the existing rules preventing much non-economic federal regulation, and false claims that judges are free to simply ignore the Constitution’s text. So it probably isn’t surprising that the RNC decided to add yet another falsehood into the mix.

NEWS FLASH

All The GOP Wants For Valentine’s Day Is Tar Sands | The Republican Party is celebrating Valentine’s Day with a love letter to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. GOPValentine, a Republican National Committee website, allows people to send an e-card with the message, “The only stone we want this Valentine’s Day is Keystone,” featuring clip art of two men in hard hats. Another e-card mocks the height of Dennis Kucinich. In Congress, Republicans are giving a real valentine to the tar sands, with an amendment to the transportation bill that would force construction of the pipeline.

NEWS FLASH

RNC Distances Itself From Israel-Palestine One-State Resolution | After news broke that the Republican National Committee (RNC) passed a resolution at its winter meeting to seemingly abandon the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, spokesman Sean Spicer distanced the group from the resolution. He told BuzzFeed the resolution, which passed unanimously, was a non-binding, symbolic act. He pointed to the Republican Party Platform as “the only thing that matters.” The 2008 platform calls for a two-state solution to the conflict. BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith wrote that the resolution indicates a Republican grassroots support for “a far more maximal Israel position than that held by any but the most hawkish Israeli parties.”

Security

Did The Republican Party Formally Abandon The Two-State Solution?

RNC resolution sponsor Cindy Costa with Mitt Romney at a 2008 fund-rasier (CNN)

The Republican National Committee (RNC), at their winter meeting in New Orleans, unanimously adopted a resolution that appears to support a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Journalist Mitchell Plitnik broke the story on his blog that the RNC passed the resolution, authored by a supporter of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. The full text can be found at Plitnik’s post, but the relevant section reads thusly:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.

The RNC had not promoted the resolution in the media, so Plitnik wrote to confirm its authenticity. RNC National Committeewoman from South Carolina Cindy Costa sponsored the resolution, so Plitnick wrote to her to confirm the authenticity of the resolution. Here’s the exchange between Costa — who just yesterday endorsed Romney — and Plitnik, who published the e-mails on his blog:

Me: Dear Ms. Costa,
[...] I just wanted to check with you that this was in fact an officially adopted RNC resolution. Can you please let me know? Thanks.

Costa: Yes it was adopted unanimously by the RNC last Friday at our winter meeting in New Orleans. Cindy

As Plitnik notes, the resolution endorses “one law for all people.” “So,” Plitnik writes, “there is no interpretation possible other than that the RNC is also advocating complete Israeli annexation of the West Bank, including granting citizenship to the Palestinians living there.”

The RNC resolution “confirms the decades long bipartisan consensus on a two-state solution is shattered,” J Street tweeted today.

A two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the official U.S. policy of the Clinton, W. Bush and Obama administrations. The Center for American Progress has more on the importance of the two-state solution here.

Justice

Republican National Committee Files Brief Seeking To Allow Corporate Funding Of Campaigns

One of the few remaining limits on corporations’ power to buy and sell American elections is that corporations are not allowed to give money directly to federal candidates. Citizens United frees them to spend billions of dollars running ads or otherwise trying to change the result of an election to suit their interests, but corporations cutting checks directly to candidates or to political committees such as the Republican National Committee is one of the few things the Supreme Court’s conservatives have not yet imposed upon the country.

If the RNC gets its way, however, that will soon change. In a brief filed yesterday in the Fourth Circuit, the RNC argues that the federal ban on corporate donations is unconstitutional in large part because it applies across the board to all corporations:

Most corporations are not large entities waiting to flood the political system with contributions to curry influence. Most corporations are small businesses. As the Court noted in Citizens United, “more than 75% of corporations whose income is taxed under federal law have less than $1 million in receipts per year,” while “96% of the 3 million businesses that belong to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have fewer than 100 employees.” While the concept of corporate contributions evokes images of organizations like Exxon or Halliburton, with large numbers of shareholders and large corporate treasuries, the reality is that most corporations in the United States are small businesses more akin to a neighborhood store. Yet § 441b does not distinguish between these different types of entities; under § 441b, a corporation is a corporation. As such, it is over-inclusive.

This attempt to make mom and pop stores — as opposed to Halliburton — the face of the RNC’s argument is clever, but it does not change the implications of their argument. If a court accepted the RNC’s argument, it would have to strike down the entire federal ban on corporate donations — leaving Exxon and Halliburton free to give money to any candidate they’d like. Congress might be able to restore part of this ban by enacting legislation. But, of course, that would require any such bill disadvantaging corporations to survive John Boehner’s House and Mitch McConnell’s filibuster.

Moreover, if the court accepts the RNC’s argument, it will effectively destroy any limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals or corporation can give to candidates. In most states, all that is necessary to form a new corporation is to file the right paperwork in the appropriate government office. Moreover, nothing prevents one corporation from owning another corporation. For this reason, a Wall Street tycoon who wanted to give as much as a billion dollars to fund a campaign could do so simply by creating a series of shell corporations that exist for the sole purpose of evading the ban on massive dollar donations to candidates.

Older

Switch to Mobile