SEARCH

Entries in This Week (41)

Sunday
Jul212013

Ted Cruz Dismisses Talk of 2016 Presidential Bid While in Iowa

Bill Clark/Roll Call(DES MOINES, Iowa) -- In an interview for This Week with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz dismissed talk of a potential 2016 White House bid, along with the question of whether he is ready to run for the highest office in the land after having been a senator less than a year.

“We are having a national debate about which direction the country should go…and what I am doing now is trying to participate in that national debate,” Cruz said Friday while in Iowa, a state frequented by those with White House ambitions. “I’m not focused on the politics…the last office I was elected to was student council. So this has been a bit of a whirlwind.”

Karl asked Cruz about his eligibility for the White House, which has been questioned given that he was born in Canada.

“My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen,” Cruz said.
“I’m not going to engage in a legal debate. The facts are clear,” he added. “I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage.”

Cruz has established himself as a staunch opponent of immigration reform that includes a so-called “pathway to citizenship,” for the millions of undocumented immigrants currently in the United States, which is a key component of the immigration bill fellow Republican Sen. Marco Rubio — a potential 2016 presidential primary opponent for Cruz — helped push through the Senate.

Cruz, who said that Rubio ”proceeded in good faith” in his efforts to advance immigration reform, nonetheless said he thought including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is unfair to those had have immigrated to the United States legally.

“I think a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who followed the rules,” Cruz said, adding that he does not think a bill with such a path can pass the House of Representatives.

During the interview with Karl, Cruz criticized President Obama for trying to advance gun control measures following the December massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut that left 20 children dead.

“I think he had a political agenda, which was to restrict the second amendment right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding citizens… They took advantage of that horrible, tragic shooting to push that agenda. And they didn’t focus actually on solving the problem,” Cruz said.

“I think the policies he was advancing were wrong and were dangerous,” he added. “And the point that I was finishing is I admire and respect him in that he fights for his principles, but I think his principles are profoundly dangerous.”

Karl also asked Cruz about arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court at age 32.

“Scalia, Ginsberg, the chief — it was 30 minutes of getting pounded. It was like a head of tuna being thrown to a school of sharks.” Cruz said.

“I will tell you, I have always liked the fact that I sit in my office and I look at a giant painting of me getting my tail whipped 9-0. And it is very good for instilling humility to look and see, ‘ok, that’s what it looks like to lose.’”

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Sunday
Jul142013

Spitzer Says Lead in Poll Shows Voters Wants ‘Independent Voice’

ABC News(NEW YORK) -- Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned from office due to a sex scandal, said Sunday that his early lead in New York City’s comptroller race shows that voters are beginning to warm to his candidacy.

“I don’t take polls and rely upon them, but the poll numbers reflect that the public is interested in having an independent voice in that position,” Spitzer told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on This Week. “That is what I promise I will be.”

Spitzer resigned in 2008 after he was caught patronizing a high dollar prostitution ring. He announced his candidacy for New York City Comptroller last week, which gave him only four days to collect 3,750 signatures in order to get on the ballot.

A Wall Street Journal poll this week showed Spitzer holding a 42 percent to 33 percent lead over his opponent Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer after only a few days in the race.

Yet Spitzer has been dogged by attacks from his political foes who say breaking the law by paying thousands of dollars for prostitutes disqualifies him from public office.

He dismissed the criticism Sunday.

“Opponents will say all sorts of things, the voters will make that determination,” Spitzer said. “When I talk to citizens and they’re saying: ‘Look, you’ve erred, you looked the public in the eye five years ago, and you said you believe in accountability. You stepped forward and accepted responsibility.’”

“And that is what I did and that is a fundamental point that I think the public should look at,” he added.
Citing his push for driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, advocacy for low wage workers, and outspokenness on corruption in Wall Street, Spitzer said voters should look at his record and not the scandal that forced his resignation five years ago.

“I have done a fair bit. It’s been five years. I’ve taught, I have written, I have hosted a few TV shows,” Spitzer said. “But I’ve asked the voters of the city for forgiveness, but I’ve also said, look at the totality of my record—the independence of my voice when it came to Wall Street, when it came to standing up for the environment, low wage workers, immigrants.”

Spitzer also called the “not guilty” verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, “a failure of justice.”

“The judicial system is not perfect, and in this case it has failed,” said Spitzer, who formerly served as New York’s attorney general. “And before we get into a conversation of whether the prosecution was flawed that it should have handled it in a different way there is a simple reality here, an innocent young man is walking down the street, was confronted by a stranger with a gun and that innocent young man was shot.”

“The criminal justice system should be able to deal with situations like that,” he added.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Sunday
Jun302013

Brian Brown: Same-Sex Marriage Not Inevitable Nationally

ABC News(WASHINGTON) -- When asked whether same-sex marriage bans across the country will eventually be struck down following the landmark Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, that he didn’t think that it would be “inevitable.”

Despite this week’s rulings, which declared part of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and dismissed an appeal made by supporters of Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage in California, Brown downplayed the victories claimed by gay marriage supporters, saying that the Court did not establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case that considered the California ban passed in 2008.

“The court said, well, the proponents don’t have standing. It did not say that there was a constitutional right to redefine marriage,” Brown said on ABC’s This Week Sunday.

President of the Human Rights Campaign Chad Griffin also joined This Week and said he’s prepared to continue to “fight this battle on all fronts,” through referenda, state legislation and federal court cases to expand same-sex marriage rights further.

Brown said the precedent set in California, where state officials refused to defend Proposition 8 — a law passed by popular referendum — is “horrific for our republic.”

“If the governor and attorney general don’t to want defend that law, you’ve just gutted the initiative and referendum process. This is not an American value,” Brown said.

Brown called Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority decision in the DOMA case an “absolute travesty” and “incoherent.”

He added that Justice Kennedy “says something that is patently untrue,” that a person who believes “this truth, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is somehow motivated by animus and discrimination.”

Such an assumption, Brown said, “leads to discrimination against those of us who know that there’s something unique and special about husbands and wives, mothers and fathers coming together in marriage.”

“There will be a lot of attempts to use this decision to redefine marriage in other states. And we will stand for the truth wherever it is,” Brown said.

Griffin, an advocate of gay marriage whose wins this week prompted congratulatory calls from President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, spoke of the broader status of same-sex marriage across the United States.

“At the same time while we celebrate, we have to acknowledge that there are 37 states in this country that still don’t have equality,” Griffin said.

Asked if he thought gay marriage supporters will win victories to expand same-sex marriage to other states, Griffin said, “I have all expectation that we will.”

Griffin pointed to the history of social movements to predict the outcome of the same-sex marriage debate.

“This country has always moved historically — whether it was women’s rights, or the Civil Rights Movement of the 50′s and 60′s to today — we have always moved to greater inclusion and treating all of our citizens equally under the law,” Griffin said.

“We’re well on our way. We’re not there yet, but we’re well on our way,” he added.

 Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Sunday
Jun092013

Intelligence Committee Leaders Defend NSA Surveillance

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- The leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence committees defended the National Security Agency’s phone and internet surveillance programs revealed last week, saying that the programs are “within the law” and have been critical in thwarting potential terrorist attacks.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said on This Week Sunday that the NSA phone surveillance program revealed in reports last week is limited in scope to viewing phone records, not listening to private conversations, while reiterating that court orders are required for further information.

“The program is essentially walled off within the NSA. There are limited numbers of people who have access to it,” Feinstein said on This Week. “The only thing taken, as has been correctly expressed, is not content of a conversation, but the information that is generally on your telephone bill, which has been held not to be private personal property by the Supreme Court. If there is strong suspicion that a terrorist outside of the country is trying to reach someone on the inside of the country, those numbers then can be obtained. If you want to collect content on the American, then a court order is issued.”

“The National Security Agency does not listen to Americans’ phone calls and it is not reading Americans’ e-mails. None of these programs allow that,” added Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Both Feinstein and Rogers said that the phone and internet surveillance programs has been instrumental in stopping terrorist attacks, citing the 2009 terror plot by Najibullah Zazi, the Colorado resident who was arrested in Sept. 2009 after plotting to bomb the New York subway system. Feinstein said the program also helped to track the case of David Headley, a Pakistani-American who traveled to Mumbai to scope the Taj Mahal Hotel for an attack.

“I can tell you, in the Zazi case in New York, it’s exactly the program that was used,” Rogers said, later adding, “I think the Zazi case is so important, because that’s one you can specifically show that this was the key piece that allowed us to stop a bombing in the New York subway system.”

Feinstein said the shadow of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks still loom in her mind, and that strong intelligence from the type of surveillance conducted by the NSA is needed to prevent future attacks.

“I flew over World Trade Center going to Senator [Frank] Lautenberg’s funeral, and in the distance was the Statue of Liberty. And I thought of those bodies jumping out of that building, hitting the canopy,” Feinstein said. “Part of our obligation is keeping Americans safe. Human intelligence isn’t going to do it, because you can’t – it’s a different culture. It is a fanaticism that isn’t going to come forward.”

Feinstein said she would be open to public hearings on the surveillance programs, and said that the Senate Intelligence Committee has made information on the programs available to all senators. But she noted the difficulty of being fully public without disclosing classified information.

“The instances where this has produced good – has disrupted plots, prevented terrorist attacks – is all classified, that’s what’s so hard about this,” Feinstein said. “So that we can’t actually go in there and, other than the two that have been released, give the public an actual idea of people that have been saved, attacks that have been prevented, that kind of thing.”

“If you tell our adversaries and enemies in the counterterrorism fight exactly how we conduct business, they are not going to do business the same ever again,” Rogers added. “It makes it more difficult.”

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., who has raised warnings about the domestic surveillance methods in recent years, said he hopes the released information will spark debate over the NSA’s methods, and will lead to re-opening the Patriot Act to limit the NSA’s abilities.

“I think it’s an opportunity now to have a discussion about the limits of surveillance, how we create transparency, and above all, how we protect Americans’ privacy,” Udall said this morning on This Week. “My main concern is Americans don’t know the extent to which they are being surveilled… I think we ought to reopen the Patriot Act and put some limits on the amount of data that the National Security Administration is collecting.”

Udall said he did not believe the right balance is being struck currently between privacy and security.

“We do need to remember, we’re in a war against terrorists, and terrorism remains a real threat, but I also think we have to cue to the Bill of Rights, and the Fourth Amendment, which prevents unlawful searches and seizures, ought to be important to us,” Udall said. “It ought to remain sacred, and there’s got to be a balance here. That is what I’m aiming for.”

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Sunday
May262013

Retired General John Allen Recalls Toll of Petraeus-linked Investigation

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Martha Raddatz on This Week, retired Gen. John Allen discussed the toll the Pentagon investigation into emails he exchanged with a Tampa socialite took on him and his wife, Kathy – who was suffering from auto-immune health issues.

“Every phone call was pretty grim. And they were getting worse by the minute…For many years, I had told– Kathy, as we had dealt with these issues, that– the day that this becomes too big, I will drop my letter the next day. She wasn’t going to tell me, but I was afraid where this would all end up [with her health]. And I finally made the decision it was time to go home,” Allen said.

The investigation into Allen, which concluded with him being completely cleared of any wrongdoing, took place after emails between him and Jill Kelley came to light during an investigation into exchanges between then CIA director David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell, his biographer. Petraeus later resigned after his affair with Broadwell became public.

Allen told Raddatz the investigation led to personal reflection as he led coalition forces in Afghanistan. He retired last month turning down a NATO command. He now advises Secretary of Defense Hagel on Middle East peace talks.

“I had to reflect on whether I could– I believed I could remain in command. And I believed I could. In fact, I felt an obligation to a duty to remain in command…I had to deal with– the realities of something that was going on back here. I won’t– tell you that– that there wasn’t a lot of pressure in that regard. But my sense of duty to the war effort, and more importantly, my sense of duty to the troops demanded that I remained focused on that,” he said.

“Any time you’re investigated…and you have to remember back across three years– I hadn’t– I didn’t have any concerns about what was in the content of the e-mails…I was just interested in putting it behind me as quickly as we could,” he said.

Kathy Allen expressed surprise over the investigation into emails between her husband and Kelley, who she also was in communication with as well.

She also discussed her concern about the pressure the investigation would place on her husband.

“When someone shares an e-mail with her husband, you know, I thought, ‘Is somebody thinking this is a little odd that, you know, they’re taking this so seriously?’…I have a lot of faith in him. I have a lot of faith in our relationship…My biggest concern was for him because I thought, I don’t know how he can run a war and then have this added pressure,” she said.

Allen later invited Petraeus to his retirement party – saying he couldn’t retire without Petraeus and his wife present given the close relationship between the families.

“Dave and Holly Petraeus are like family…given all that he and I had experienced together, and our families had had together, I couldn’t retire without asking for Dave and Holly Petraeus to be present, ” he said.

Allen added that said he has not discussed the investigation with Petraeus.

“It doesn’t require that we have a conversation about it,” he said.

During the interview with Raddatz, Allen also addressed the current state of affairs in Iraq.

“My fear is that we could see a polarization of the principle elements in Iraq…the increase in violence for all of us that served there, in particular those of us who served in the Anbar Province, which was a really violent area…We don’t want to see it return to that.”

Raddatz asked Allen if the country would be more stable today had the United States kept a military presence in the country.

“I don’t think there’s any question,” Allen said.

 

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Sunday
May122013

Sen. John McCain Asserts Benghazi ‘Cover-Up’

Mark Wilson/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., described the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi controversy as a “cover up,” following exclusive reporting by ABC News that showed the State Department was involved in editing the CIA’s Benghazi talking points used in the days after the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Libya last year.

“I’d call it a cover-up,” McCain said Sunday morning on ABC’s This Week. “I would call it a cover-up in the extent that there was willful removal of information which was obvious.”

McCain criticized White House spokesperson Jay Carney for his characterization of the edits to the talking points, which were eventually used by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on five Sunday talks shows the weekend after the Benghazi attack.

“For the president’s spokesman to say, that, ‘Well, there was only words or technical changes made in those emails’ is a flat-out untruth,” McCain said. “That’s just not acceptable.”

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., disputed McCain’s assertions, saying it was “absolutely not” a cover-up, and that the talking point revisions reflected efforts to form a “consensus document that avoided all of the difficult issues.”

“I think this was the classic issue of interagency’s battle about who will say what,” Reed said this morning on This Week.

McCain also singled out former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who he suggested would have been aware of the State Department’s emails requesting changes to the talking points.

“I think the secretary of state has played a role in this,” McCain said. “She had to have been in the loop some way, but we don’t know for sure.”

McCain said Clinton should return to Capitol Hill to testify again, calling for a Congressional select committee to further investigate the issue.

“We need a select committee that interviews everybody,” McCain said. “I don’t know what level of scandal, unquote, this rises to, but I know it rises to the level where it requires a full and complete ventilation of these facts… We’re still uncovering information which frankly contradicts the original line that the administration took.”

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Sunday
Apr072013

Dan Pfeiffer: President Obama Won’t Enact ‘Romney Economic Plan’

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza(WASHINTON) -- Reacting to an early rejection of the expected details of the White House’s budget proposal by Speaker John Boehner, President Obama’s senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer pushed back this morning on ABC's This Week, saying that the president would not enact “the Romney economic plan.”

“What this president will not do is, come in, right after getting re-elected, and enact the Romney economic plan, which is what the Republicans in the House are proposing,” Pfeiffer said.

The White House is expected to release details of a budget proposal this week that includes cuts to Social Security and Medicare, which are unpopular among some Democrats.

But Pfeiffer said those entitlement cuts would only happen on two conditions.

“One, it’s part of a balanced package that includes asking – closing tax loopholes that benefit the wealthiest, and two, that it has protections for the most vulnerable, including the oldest seniors,” he said.

The news of those details in President Obama’s budget was met with a swift statement from the House speaker indicating that raising taxes was a non-starter.

“When the president visited the Capitol last month, House Republicans stated a desire to find common ground and urged him not to make savings we agree upon conditional on another round of tax increases. If reports are accurate, the president has not heeded that call,” Boehner said in a statement Friday. “If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there’s no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes. That’s no way to lead and move the country forward.”

Pfeiffer also addressed the ongoing negotiations over a possible bill that would address gun violence in light of the shooting in Newtown, Conn. last year that left 20 children dead. At this point, only a bill that includes new rules on background checks is likely. Pfeiffer scolded Republican members of the Senate for insisting on a filibuster, recalling the president’s most recent State of the Union address.

“Every member of Congress stood up and applauded when the president called for an up or down vote on these measures. Now that the cameras are off and they are not forced to look the Newtown families in the face, now they want to make it harder and filibuster it,” Pfeiffer said.

Finally, the president’s senior adviser addressed tensions between the United States and North Korea. Pfeiffer said the administration would not be surprised if the secretive communist regime conducted another missile test.

“We wouldn’t be surprised if they did a test. They’ve done that in the past. Like I said, this is something that’s been going on with North Korea for many, many years, long before President Obama came to power,” Pfeiffer said.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Sunday
Mar242013

Karl Rove: ‘I Could’ Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriage

ABC News(NEW YORK) -- Fox News contributor and former Bush deputy chief of staff Karl Rove said Sunday morning on This Week that he can imagine the next Republican nominee for the White House supporting gay marriage.

“I could,” Rove said on the This Week roundtable.

Rove’s comments came days after Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman, whom Mitt Romney considered as a running mate in the 2012 election, announced that he had shifted his position and supported gay marriage. The vast majority of Republicans in Congress do not support same-sex marriage. Portman is the only sitting senator in the GOP to support same-sex marriage.

The Powerhouse Roundtable also addressed gun violence-prevention measures now being discussed in Congress. Rove said that universal background checks would not have stopped the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary that left 20 children dead in December.

“Let’s be clear about this, this was prompted by the Sandy Hook murders.  Those guns were legally purchased with a background check,” Rove said. “This would not have solved something like that.  Let’s be very careful about quickly trampling on the rights of people.”

Former Obama 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina pushed back, arguing the importance of background checks.

“Look, 40 percent of all gun sales currently don’t go through background checks.  The background checks have stopped two million people from getting guns they shouldn’t get,” Messina said. “But we know there are loopholes all over the place. And Karl, just saying no, which is what the NRA and your party is doing right now, isn’t moving us forward.”

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Sunday
Mar102013

Jeb Bush Calls Media ‘Crack Addicts’ for Politics

Paul Morigi/WireImage(WASHINGTON) -- Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the media “crack addicts” Sunday after he was asked who is more likely to end up in the White House one day — him or Sen. Marco Rubio, his fellow Floridian for whom Bush served as political mentor.

“Man, you guys are crack addicts. You really are obsessed with all this politics. Marco Rubio’s a great guy,” Bush said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

“You know, I’ve been called a lot of things,” host David Gregory said.

“OK, heroin addict. Is that better?” Bush said. “Put aside the politics for a moment. We’ve got big challenges, and Marco Rubio, to his credit, is working on those. And he deserves a lot of credit for it, and I’m very proud of him.”

The relationship between Bush and Rubio came to the spotlight earlier this week after the former Florida governor released a book that did not support a path to citizenship in immigration reform — a point Rubio is promoting in his Gang of Eight proposal.  One day later, Bush changed direction and said he would endorse a path to citizenship.

Bush later pointed out Rubio did not support the measure when he was writing the book.

“When we were working on this, Marco Rubio wasn’t for a path to citizenship,” Bush told the Washington Post.

In an interview with Time magazine last month, Rubio said his conversation with Bush regarding immigration reform while the former governor was writing the book amounted to a text message.

Bush told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos Sunday that he now supports the bipartisan group of senators on immigration reform.

“Senator [Lindsey] Graham and I talked.  He was responding to concerns that were expressed before the book was actually published,” Bush said on ABC News’ This Week. “I told him that I support his efforts and I applaud what he’s doing.  And he concluded, after he heard what the thesis of the book is, that we’re in sync. We’re on the same — on the same path.”

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Sunday
Feb172013

Newt Gingrich: ‘I’ll Take a Paul Ryan Position’ on the Possibility of a Political Run

ABC/Donna Svennevik(NEW YORK) -- Former House Speaker and 2012 GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich discussed his relationship with the Clintons, the battle over the sequester, and the possibility of him running for office again in a web exclusive interview after his appearance on ABC’s This Week roundtable Sunday.

Gingrich holds a lasting legacy in the House of Representatives, where he represented Georgia for 20 years until 1999, before his run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. But speculation swirled recently about Gingrich pursuing a position on the other side of the legislative branch, after Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss announced he would not seek re-election in 2014. While fellow Georgia native Gingrich’s name was quickly mentioned as a possibility, his spokesperson announced via Twitter that Gingrich would not be a candidate for the seat.

But does that mean Gingrich has completely ruled out another political run? When ABC News’ Jonathan Karl asked whether Gingrich was open to another run for office, he first responded firmly, “Yeah, I don’t think I’ll run for office, no.”

But Gingrich then revised his statement by poking fun at Rep. Paul Ryan’s attempts to dodge the same question earlier on This Week. “It strikes me as unlikely – I’ll take a Paul Ryan position, it’s not on my current list,” Gingrich said.

When Ryan was asked about his 2016 presidential ambitions on Sunday, he responded, “Will I or won’t I? I don’t know… I’m not foreclosing any opportunity. I may or I may not.”

 

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio







ABC News Radio