Superintendent Robinson Speaks To Congress On Gun Violence

By Eliza Hallabeck

Audio: Superintendet Speaks Before House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee

Superintendent of Schools Janet Robinson spoke at a House of Representatives hearing on gun violence in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, January 16. 
The hearing, called “Gun Violence Prevention: A Call to Action,” was conducted by the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. Dr Robinson was one speaker on a panel for the hearing.
Dr Robinson began her speech by recounting the events of that “beautiful December morning,” and ended by asking for help to give the children of Sandy Hook Elementary School a better future.
On the morning of December 14, Dr Robinson said, nearly 500 elementary students filed into Sandy Hook School with the expectation that good things would be happening.
“In the first three classrooms in the front hallway, the little first graders’ coats were hung up, and the morning routines began with their circle time on the rug with their teacher,” Dr Robinson said. “There they discussed the calendar, the activities of the day along with an activity for Responsive Classroom.”
Dr Robinson went on to explain it was a typical routine for a school that “exudes caring, happiness, nurturing, from the moment you walk through the doors.”
“Sandy Hook Elementary School seemed like the safest place on earth,” said the superintendent, “in this quiet little suburban community. This school has been known for the superb education that students receive for over 50 years, and has been acknowledged as a Vanguard School.”
The school, Dr Robinson said, is an important piece of the fabric of the Newtown community.
Then Adam Lanza carried two guns, one an assault rifle, into the school after bypassing the school’s buzz-in security system at the school’s entrance by shooting his way in.
Dr Robinson detailed Mr Lanza’s steps that morning. First, he went into the school’s main office, where one secretary flew under a desk with a phone.
“Fortunately, he didn’t check [under the desk],” Dr Robinson said. “Then he went back out into the hall where he was confronted by the principal, Dawn Hochsprung, the lead teacher, Natalie Hammond, and the school psychologist, Mary Sherlach, who emerged from a meeting in a conference room. I can just picture Dawn’s indignation that someone would dare enter her school and put her babies at risk. It would be so like her to be the protective mother hen, and never think of her own safety. But only, of course, of making him stop right then and there.”
The bodies of Ms Hochsprung and Ms Sherlach were found there in that hallway, Dr Robinson recounted, where they had charged the shooter. Ms Hammond survived with serious injuries.
After that, Mr Lanza bypassed a first grade classroom and made his way to the second first grade classroom in the school, where he began shooting, Dr Robinson said, “killing the school’s permanent substitute teacher, Lauren Rousseau, and all but one child, who was clever enough to play dead and didn’t even whimper.”
By the time Mr Lanza made his way into Victoria Soto’s first grade classroom, Dr Robinson said the teacher had crammed as many children as possible in a bathroom and was trying to find hiding places for the others.
“Vicki Soto, who was so excited to finally reach her dream to be a teacher, threw herself in front of her students,” Dr Robinson explained, showing “such incredible bravery from such a young first grade teacher.”
Anne Marie Murphy, an educational assistant, also threw herself in front of her young charge, Dr Robinson said, and Rachel Davino, a behavior therapist at the school, did the same.
“None of these brave women were trained in combat,” said Dr Robinson. “They were elementary school educators dedicated to educating their young children. So their first response when confronted with this terror was to protect their children.”
The first responders, Dr Robinson continued, arrived within three minutes of the incident being reported to the town's dispatch center
“They saved innumerable lives as the shooter carried enough ammunition to have continued throughout the entire school,” said Dr Robinson.
Dr Robinson said the 20 beautiful children lost that day were no match for a troubled person with an AR-15.
“We are all forever changed,” Dr Robinson said later, after explaining the loss each death represents and before questioning the long-term needs of the surviving students.
Dr Robinson questioned how to let children freely be children and how to protect children without creating fortresses.
As her final message to the committee, Dr Robinson shared a letter from a fourth grade Newtown student she identified only as Ava S.
Part of the letter, as read by Dr Robinson, said, “What everyone in Newtown wants is for you to ban semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines, and to make everyone use guns safely. This is important so that a person cannot shoot many people at once, and or injure people badly. Semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines end lives and put lives at risk. This ban will help individuals, families, and communities from suffering the way we are now in Newtown.”

John Boehner Suggests Wait-and-See Approach to Obama's Gun Control Wish List

By Josh Voorhees

Posted Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013, at 12:47 PM ET

Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner, R.-Ohio, returns to his office after a vote on the House floor Jan. 15, 2013, on Capitol Hill Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

Now that President Obama has unveiled his package of gun control proposals, the scene shifts to Capitol Hill, where the administration will have to convince enough lawmakers in both chambers to take action. The biggest and most obvious hurdle is in the House, where Republicans have a clear majority and have shown little desire to work with the president.

House Speaker John Boehner didn't immediately attack the president over his gun control proposals, which in the current political climate is noteworthy. Still, his spokesman made it pretty clear that the speaker and his fellow Republicans are in no hurry to take up the issue anytime soon.

"House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations," spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement to reporters. "And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that."

House Republican retreat gives GOP a chance at a fresh start

By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – Thu, Jan 17, 2013

 

 

• Boehner again sworn in as House speakerCBSTV Videos  1:02Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, swears in House …

There is much to discuss at this year's winter retreat for House Republicans in Williamsburg, Va., and members are encouraged to speak freely in their quest for party unity after a lame duck session that was plagued by a series of grueling legislative battles.

Republican lawmakers are spending the three days before the inauguration of a president they fought hard to defeat at a charming golf resort about three hours south of the nation's capital, holding a private strategy and motivational summit. The meeting offers these tired soldiers emotional and physical respite after a finish to the last congressional session that dragged into the New Year's holiday as lawmakers raced to find a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff.
That battle is behind them, but memories still linger over how President Barack Obama succeeded in raising taxes, an exercise Republicans vowed never to take part in. Many of them played along anyway to avoid an even more severe tax increase, but the result left part of the caucus fractured after conservatives urged their colleagues to hold their ground.
In revenge, a handful of rogue conservatives attempted a coup of House Speaker John Boehner. Their efforts fell flat, and the public act of defiance did not bode well for unity.
Then, faced with immense public pressure to provide federal relief (aka billions of taxpayer dollars) to regions hit hardest by Superstorm Sandy, members battled among themselves over whether to offer the money without first matching the emergency spending with cuts elsewhere. Those calling for a clean bill without the offsets triumphed, leaving the hardline conservatives 0 for 2.

But the fiscal cliff and arguments over Sandy were merely a preview of things to come. Looming ominously in the future are a series of fresh fights with Democrats, and it will take a united Republican front to hold them off. Looking ahead, the president has vowed to aggressively pursue gun control and immigration reform, emotional issues on which even Democrats don't universally agree. Congress also will soon be asked to approve an increase in the debt ceiling so the federal government can meet its spending obligations.

In a race for message control, it's not a fair fight in the least. The president will have the benefit of a streamlined message machine and a bully pulpit; the House has hundreds of separate members, each angling for TV time. While the Republicans need not agree on every detail, they do need to know where the party is headed and how the differing coalitions within the caucus plan to tackle the battles ahead. This week's conference will be a good first step.

Aided by motivational speakers and seasoned advisers, there may be moments—safely guarded in a private resort swarming with armed security—of healing, and perhaps even reconciliation. The healing could be preceded by internal fights, but hopefully for Republicans, they will be the constructive kind where you hug it out afterward. The retreat will give Boehner the opportunity he needs to take the temperature of his caucus, and give his members the time they need to make themselves heard.

Ryan Returns to Spotlight at House Republican Retreat
By ASHLEY PARKER
Published: January 18, 2013

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — When House Republicans arrived from the nation’s capital in the colonial capital this week, they were greeted by a brigade in traditional garb. Men in tri-cornered hats twittered away (on the fife), and three founding fathers — Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and George Washington — stopped by to give speeches.

Over two and a half days that ended Friday, Republicans holed up at the stately Kingsmill Resort for their annual retreat tried to game out the year. The resort bills itself as a “golf, spa and luxury hotel,” but few of the members had much time for pleasure; as the majority in the House staring down a Democratic-led Senate and Democratic White House, there was work to be done. Even Speaker John A. Boehner, an obsessive golfer, was unable to slip away for a round. (The chilly damp weather, with a light dusting of snow Thursday evening, didn’t help).

Though the news media were not allowed to attend the official retreat, and were sequestered in a restaurant clubhouse on the property (more on that later), here’s a look at what went on:

And He’s Back

When Representative Paul D. Ryan’s vice-presidential bid ended in November, he returned to Congress but receded into the background, giving few interviews and, save for a high-profile vote in favor of the “fiscal cliff” deal, keeping his head down. But for those wondering about Mr. Ryan’s next act, the answer came into relief Thursday, when he addressed journalists as something of the official spokesman for his conference.

“We think the worst thing for the economy, for this Congress and this administration would be to do nothing to get our debt and deficits under control,” Mr. Ryan said. “We know we have a debt crisis coming. This is not an ‘if’ question, it’s a ‘when’ question.”

There had been some suggestion that Mr. Ryan might be considering a presidential bid in 2016 and despite his perch as Budget Committee chairman, was going to pull a rope-a-dope, allowing the House leadership to shoulder the responsibility on coming fiscal fights. But he took a front-and-center role at the retreat, both in public and behind the scenes.

Mr. Ryan was one of only two legislators officially trotted out before the gathered reporters to speak on the record, and he was the one who gave his fellow members a dose of bitter medicine, warning, “We also have to recognize the realities of the divided government that we have.”

He was also the first to publicly mention that his conference was open to the idea of a short-term extension of the debt limit, which ultimately became the biggest news out of the retreat.

If Williamsburg marked the premiere of the 113th Congressional House Republicans, Mr. Ryan apparently intends to take a starring role.

Debt Limit, Debt Limit

The Republican retreat is meant to be an opportunity for members to discuss the coming year. But the most important strategic decision, it seemed, involved only the first 90 days.

So what does the first quarter of 2013 hold? A possible short-term extension of the debt ceiling, which emerged as a proposal on which nearly the entire conference was able to come to rare consensus. But other than the fiscal wrangling to come, Republicans still trying to get their bearings after the November elections did not seem to delve too deeply into the other big issues they are certain to confront.

When Representative John C. Fleming of Louisiana wandered over to the clubhouse to chat with reporters Thursday afternoon, he said that gun control and immigration — two of three major issues on the White House’s plate — had not even come up.

Another participant later clarified that gun control had been discussed, albeit briefly. The verdict: “In terms of legislation, the Senate will almost certainly act first,” the official said.
 
 Full Cry

Though House Republicans have struggled to marshal the majority of their majority on two big-ticket votes, the bare 218 required to pass legislation is no longer sufficient to satisfy Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the majority whip.

He wants the “full cry.”

The term “whip,” Mr. McCarthy explained, derives from a fox hunting expression. A “full cry,” he added, is the call made when the dog catches the scent of the fox.

When a “full cry” comes, all of the other dogs — in the case of this metaphor, presumably, the House Republicans — fall into line, pursuing the prey with unified vigor. And this “full cry” is exactly what Mr. McCarthy hopes for from his whip team and conference.

On the first night of the retreat, he even presented members of his whip team with sleek new black jackets — with the “full cry” slogan emblazoned on the sleeve in white letters.

To the Stocks

While the House Republicans were treated to colonial festivities (and breakout session after breakout session), the news media were banished to the stocks, confined to a single room in the clubhouse. When several reporters tried to go to an adjoining room to sit by the fire, they were promptly scolded and told they could leave only to eat or use the bathroom. Meanwhile, a lectern — with five American flags — had been set up for the possibility of televised news conferences, but on Friday morning, the official word came: There would be no briefings, the House leadership would not be holding a news conference after all. At that point, the assembled reporters began beating a retreat of their own — back to the nation’s capital for the presidential inauguration.

Hostages, Militants Reported Dead After Assault Ends Standoff

by Melisa Goh

January 19, 2013 9:40 AM

The four-day standoff in the Algerian desert came to a bloody end Saturday morning when Algerian forces stormed the gas plant where Islamist militants were holding foreign hostages.
Seven hostages were killed in the assault, as were 11 militants, Algeria's state media reported. In total, 32 militants and 23 other people died in the conflict, the Algerian interior ministry said in a statement.
British, U.S. and French governments have responded with reserved support for Algeria's response to the crisis, despite initial criticism that Algeria turned down offers of support and advice from other nations.

Our Original Post:

Algerian special forces stormed a gas installation where militants were holding several hostages on Saturday, according to Algeria's state media. The reports, which could not be verified by NPR, say 11 militants and seven hostages were killed during what is being described as a final assault to end the four-day standoff.
The Algerian Press Service quotes a "security source" saying the hostages were killed by the militants, but it did not give the nationalities of the dead. As throughout this crisis, there is still much unknown about what's been happening on the ground there. The AP is reporting:

"There was no official count of how many hostages were still being held by the final group of militants holed up in the gas refinery on Saturday, but the militants themselves had reported they were still holding three Belgian, two Americans, a Japanese and a Briton."

Whether those were the seven hostages killed is unclear. There are reports of hostages freed, too. Al Jazeera says a "source close to the crisis" said 16 foreign hostages, including two Americans, two Germans and one Portuguese were freed.
One American worker has been confirmed dead, as we reported on Friday; the U.S. State Department identified the man as Frederick Buttaccio from Texas, but didn't give further details.
This crisis began on Wednesday, when Islamist militants seized dozens of hostages, including foreigners, at the In Amenas gas field near the country's border with Libya. Hundreds of workers reportedly escaped when Algeria's military moved on the installation Thursday, but several hostages and many of their captors were also allegedly killed in the operation.
Algeria has handled the situation as an internal affair, turning down advice and offers of support from other countries, including the U.S. The Algerian government continues to keep tight control over the information being released, making details of the story nearly impossible to verify.

 

British Defense Minister Philip Hammond (left) and U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta hold a joint press conference on the Algerian hostage crisis Saturday in London.

Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images

Yet, as NPR's Eleanor Beardsley reports, a picture of what happened on Wednesday is being pieced together from hostages who did escape the facility:

"[An] Algerian engineer interviewed on French radio says the militants struck at 5 a.m. Wednesday during a shift change and plunged the facility into darkness. He describes shooting and explosions and says the Islamists roared through the camp's living quarters, rounding up Westerners."

Update at 11:10 a.m. ET: Defense Secretary Panetta: 'We Know That Lives Have Been Lost'

Much about the situation remains "sketchy," U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said at a joint news conference with his British counterpart in London on Saturday. "We know that lives have been lost," he said.
British Defense Minister Philip Hammond called the loss of life appalling and unacceptable. The AP reports the two defense chiefs "blamed the militants who seized the natural gas complex in the Sahara and not Algeria's government for its rescue operation."
"It is the terrorists that bear the sole responsibility," Hammond said.

Update at 2:41 p.m. ET: The 'Final' Death Toll

After Saturday's assault, the hostage crisis is now widely reported to be over. The Algerian interior ministry says 32 militants and 23 other people died in the conflict, adding that 685 Algerians and 107 foreigners were freed.
After speaking with Algeria's Prime Minister Abdelmalek Sellal by phone, British Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed that the standoff had ended, the BBC reports.
The BBC also notes that five Brits and five Norwegians are still unaccounted for, and the AFP quotes Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as saying "he had received 'severe information' about 10 of his country's nationals who were still unaccounted for."
Algerian forces are now sweeping the gas plant and surrounding area for mines laid by the militants, state media says.

Update at 4:24 p.m. ET: Reserved Support From Western Countries

Leaders from France, Britain and the U.S. expressed some support for Algeria's handling of the situation on Saturday. As the AFP reports:

"The response by Algiers was 'the most appropriate' given it was dealing with 'coldly determined terrorists ready to kill their hostages,' said [French President Francois] Hollande.
"[U.S. Defense Secretary Leon] Panetta added: 'They are in the region, they understand the threat from terrorism. ... I think it's important that we continue to work with [Algiers] to develop a regional approach.' "

Initially, nations had expressed quiet frustration when Algeria turned down their offers of assistance in the crisis. Algeria fiercely defends its sovereignty, however, and its aggressive response is no surprise to those familiar with the nation's history.
As The Guardian's Ian Black recounts, Algeria sunk into years of brutal violence after the army canceled parliamentary elections in 1991. Those were the years that gave rise to militant groups that are still active today. One of those groups, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb led by Mokhtar Belmokhtar, is allegedly behind this week's assault.

Update at 5:52 p.m. ET: White House Condemns Attack:

In a statement, President Obama said the U.S. had been in constant contact with Algerian officials during the crisis and that the White House would stay in touch with the Algerian government to understand exactly what took place "so that we can work together to prevent tragedies like this in the future." He said the attack is "another reminder of the threat posed by al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups in North Africa."

Republicans Retreat To Reassess and Figure Out How to Talk to Negroes and People With Lady Parts

by Abby Zimet

Republican lawmakers have gathered in Williamsburg, Virginia to consider their political past (not so rosy) and future (probably ditto), discuss topics from the debt ceiling and gun control to how to game the electoral college, and attend seminars titled "What Happened and Where Are We Now?" (good question!), "How Is America Changing?" and "Successful Communication with Minorities and Women" - the last held in the Burwell Plantation Room, so named for a fine old slave-owning family, and located in the tony Kingsmill Resort, site of another fine old slave plantation. Presumably, breakout sesssions will include do's and dont's on nappy hair and how to distinguish from illegitimate, oh-really-it's-nothing rape and actual, maybe-this-is-not-so-okay rape-rape, which the three white men and two women on the panel can hopefully figure out.

President, Vice President Participate in National Day of Service

President Obama and First Lady Speak at Service Day Event (right-click to copy direct link)

Washington, DC
Saturday, January 19, 2013

President Obama, Vice President Biden and their families participate in a national day of service on Saturday. Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton led a rally on the National Mall for Service day.
The National Mall event also features service projects hosted by organizations from across the country, opportunities to get involved right away, and special programming throughout the day.
The President and First Lady traveled to a school in DC to participate in a service day event and speak to the volunteers there. Vice President Joe Biden and his family helped pack care packages for soldiers and first responders.
Chelsea Clinton is the national chair of the national day of service, which includes events in all 50 states. President Obama also held a national day of service on the Saturday before his first inauguration.

Updated: 31 min. ago

Video Playlist

• President Obama and First Lady Speak at Service Day Event
• President Obama and First Lady at Service Day Event
• Vice President Biden and Family Participate in Service Event
• National Day of Service Rally: Chelsea Clinton, Eva Longoria, Beau Biden
• Chelsea Clinton Talks With Children at the National Day of Service
• National Day of Service Rally: Rep. Duckworth, Ben Folds, Star Jones
• National Day of Service Rally: Mayor Michael Nutter, Valerie Jarrett, World Children's Choir

Valerie Jarrett for the defense

By: Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei
January 18, 2013 04:42 AM EST


President Barack Obama, with a second-term team built for fight not compromise, has made it clear that he plans to change very little. No new faces in his innermost circle. No revolution in how he courts Congress. No new love for the permanent Washingtonians who feel a persistent chill from 1600 Pennsylvania. And so far, no new women in key positions in a West Wing some have long felt suffers from excess testosterone.

Many Obama insiders were embarrassed last week when the front page of The New York Times carried a photo, which had been released by the White House, showing Obama meeting in the Oval Office in December with 10 white men from his senior staff — with Valerie Jarrett’s leg, jutting from behind one of the guys, as the only sign of female input. Jarrett, in a 45-minute interview Thursday in the West Wing office that once belonged to Hillary Clinton and Karl Rove, argued that this was a case where “one picture really didn’t say a thousand words.”

(PHOTOS: Obama's second-term Cabinet)

“The reality is that this president has been surrounded by strong women his entire life,” she said. “Early on, women who had not been a part of the campaign came and worked in the White House, and they don’t know the president. … What the president wants is for people to come in and fight for their ideas — not so that they win, but because he will make better decisions if they’re advocating and telling him what they think. … So, I say, ‘Speak up! Speak up!’ ”

(PHOTOS: 39 great photos from Obama’s first term)

On her wall is a birthday gift from her boss – a frame containing the original petition to give women the vote in 1866, and the final resolution passed by Congress in 1919 – 53 years later. “Valerie,” Obama wrote. “You are carrying on a legacy of strong women making history! Happy Birthday, Barack Obama.”

Jarrett takes on the complaints of women who have worked in the West Wing head on, particularly the notion that you have to be able to shoot hoops, or play golf or talk shop or be a poker shark to gain the president’s confidence. “I don’t play golf. I don’t play basketball. I don’t really like cards,” she said. “I don’t think anybody questions whether or not I have a role to play here. And so I think it is irrelevant whether the president wants to do that in some of his free time. What’s really important is when we have something to say, does he listen to us? And he does.”

(PHOTOS: 18 defining Obama moments)

Besides diversity, the other big rap on Obama’s senior staff is insularity. The president has taken the comfort-food approach to his second-term team, with promotions for guys who have been with him going back to the ’08 campaign, and many fewer departures than even his own staffers had expected. To those who think he needs change of his own, his message since the election has amounted to: “It’s not me — it’s you.” We read Jarrett an email from a former West Wing colleague who said: “They really just need new people. Everyone is so dead tired. They need new energy, new life, new ideas.”

“That’s from somebody who left?” Jarrett asked. “Well, they probably left because they were tired. I think the people who are left behind are energized. I don’t get the sense of fatigue at all. … So, it sounds like somebody who probably needed a rest, and there’s no harm in that. … These are hard jobs, and people do burn out.”

Her title is White House senior adviser, but it’s Jarrett’s 21-year friendship with the president and Michelle Obama that gives her more power than arguably any other aide in government. On paper, Jarrett’s portfolio includes the White House Office of Public Engagement; the Council on Women and Girls; and the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, which works with local officials, mayors and governors. In reality, her clout stems from unlimited, almost mystical, access to the Obamas. Jarrett has been subject to extremely harsh press over the years and has rarely been asked bluntly about the slams. We ticked off several of them, and she didn’t flinch.

“Look, it’s a tough town,” she said. “Chicago is, too. I come from a tough town; this is a tough town. I’m always trying to improve. I think I take criticism constructively. I cannot erase a 21-year friendship, nor would I want to. And I try very hard to make sure that I am available to people here — particularly, I think, women often come to me. I am older than most of the people here, so I try to be a resource.”

(PHOTOS: Obamas attend Jarrett family wedding)

“I’m kind of old to change,” added Jarrett, 56. “But if somebody were to come to me and say, ‘You know what, Valerie? I think if you were to do this it would be more helpful,’ of course I would listen to that.”

Has anyone ever done that? She thought about it a second. “Actually not so much,” she said. “Not so much. But that [would be] very different than [an] anonymous quote in a profile. You know?”

There has been one clear change in Obamaworld since the president was resoundingly reelected on Nov. 6 and it comes from Jarrett’s cluster of issues. Business leaders in D.C. and New York, who felt this White House alternated between ignoring and alienating them, say they have been invited to the White House more in the past two months than they had in the past four years.

The White House says there has not been a single day post-election, including weekends, that Obama or his senior staff has not reached out to business leaders — in person, over the phone or via email. Obama has spoken to more than 50 CEOs, financial-services executives and small-business leaders since Election Day, and the White House has hosted meetings with 300 small-business owners from more than 30 states.

Jarrett was close to business in Chicago — chair of the Board of the Chicago Stock Exchange, and a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. But you’d never know that from the belly-aching by CEOs who are convinced her liberal leanings make her hostile to free markets, and to them.

“I don’t take it personally at all,” she said. “I don’t think it was ideological. … We have been more aggressive in our engagement, but I also think our country is in a different place than it was four years ago. Dodd-Frank was controversial. I think the banks obviously spent a lot of money lobbying against it. So that was a source of friction. I think if you were to leave it up to some folks, they might have said, ‘We will self-regulate. .. We understand we made a mistake — we get it now.’ … Because the stakes were so high and the bailout numbers were so great, what the president said is, ‘I’m just not willing to take that chance. I think the American people deserve better protection than that.’ So, I think that was a big source of tension.”

Now, she says, the administration has more of an “alignment of interest” with the business community. “We are now in a position where the president wants to really focus on a growth agenda which will create jobs, which requires us to invest strategically in ways that are going to be helpful for businesses to expand and hire people,” she said. “The business community very strongly agrees with us that one should not negotiate over the debt ceiling. … And if you look at our second-term agenda — whether it’s immigration reform or furthering our energy policies or investing in infrastructure, corporate tax reform — there are many issues where we are completely aligned with the business community, because it’s a growth agenda and they want to grow.”

Broad tax reform looks like it’ll be a victim of the three upcoming fiscal cliffs, and the breakdown in communication between House Republicans and the White House — a Murderer’s Row of political booby traps that mean the opening of Obama’s second term is likely to be the hundred days of hell. But Jarrett said reforming the corporate Tax Code remains important to the president, and she still hopes it’ll happen.

“I think that there is an interest on both sides of the aisle to do so,” she said. “A big part of our agenda is to position the United States for long-term sustainable growth and health, and those jobs come from the private sector. And so, we have to prime the pump in … It depends on our dance partner … the Republicans in Congress.”

But they WANT tax reform, we interjected. “Well, but do they want it in a balanced and fair way?” she said. “So that’s the question.”

Here’s something else that will change in the second term, and that the White House also telegraphed during the lame-duck session: Both Obama and Jarrett are going to spend more time traveling outside Washington, aiming to bring beyond-the-Beltway pressure on lawmakers. That’s part of the reason Jarrett, despite a clogged pipeline to Capitol Hill, predicts both gun control and immigration packages will pass this year. “That’s what the American people want,” she said. “So our goal is to engage them in that process and let their voices be heard, and I think ultimately when that happens, Congress acts.”

So the White House will be enlisting allies the president has met on his travels, and Cabinet secretaries and administration officials will be doing more community outreach as they travel. “If someone is going somewhere to give a speech, add on an opportunity to meet with some local leaders and tell them about our agenda,” she said. “He’s very confident that now, with the American people, with that wind at his back, there really are no limits to what we can accomplish.”

Obama will carry that message through in his second inaugural address, which she said will have “a very hopeful message” that emphasizes the vital role played by every citizen.

Jarrett says when her time in the West Wing is done, she expects she’ll go back to the Windy City. And what will Obama do in his post-presidency? “Spend a lot of time in Hawaii, I hope,” she said with a laugh.

The biggest change in Obama over the four years, she said, is the certitude of his decisions. Close aides say he has never been a hand-wringer and is even less so after the first term. “He still agonizes, but he is more confident because of his experience,” she said.

The greatest misperception about Obama, she said, is the appearance that he isn’t enjoying himself. “People shouldn’t confuse how serious he takes his job for how serious he takes himself,” she said. The two of them recently watched “Lincoln” in the family theater. Asked what she learned from the movie, she replied: “Change is always hard.”

Why House Republicans Are Retreating on the Debt Ceiling

By David Weigel | Posted Friday, Jan. 18, 2013, at 4:27 PM ET

Slate.com

Why House GOP leaders decided to surrender on the debt ceiling—for now.

 House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) issued a statement today regarding a temporary debt limit increase Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

“Next week,” said Cantor. “We will authorize a three month temporary debt limit increase to give the Senate and House time to pass a budget.”

Without action, the United States is scheduled to hit the debt limit in late February, maybe early March. Republicans were proposing something equally bland and radical. They would raise the debt limit without demanding spending cuts equal to the new borrowing authority. They would not demand a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, as they did in 2011, the last time we stumbled into this faux crisis.

No, all they wanted was a commitment from the Democratic Senate. The upper house had to pass a budget by the end of the grace period. If it didn’t, said Cantor, “members of Congress will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job.” The 27th Amendment doesn’t let Congress cut its own pay hastily, so the money would be held in escrow, until the Senate passed something. Republicans wouldn’t demand anything in particular for that “something”—no equal cuts, no defunding of Planned Parenthood. They would just shame the Democrats, something that began quickly on Twitter with a #NoBudgetNoPay hashtag.

How did Republicans end up here? According to participants in the three-day retreat, the party’s first real all-hands meeting since the election had a resigned, realistic tone. Members were assigned to read articles like Ramesh Ponnuru’s post-election wrap, “The Party’s Problem.” Ponnuru had debunked a warm-blanket Republican theory that Mitt Romney’s cartoonish elitism had cost them the election. 

“Romney was not a drag on the Republican party,” wrote Ponnuru. “The Republican party was a drag on him.”

The message to the conference was that the debt limit wasn’t actually all that great of a lever for change. Thursday, the longest day of the retreat, began with Boehner trying to sell the conference on a short-term debt limit increase. He was aided quickly by Rep. Paul Ryan, who walked members through the math of the debt limit, and talked up the short-term punt.

“They showed us a slide of five or six times in the last 30 years where we’ve come to some really good agreements,” said Rep. John Fleming, a conservative from Louisiana who’d sponsored legislation that would prevent the debt limit from being abolished in a budget deal. “Leading up to every one of those was several short-term increases. It keeps the pressure up until finally both sides decide, ‘You know what? We’ve got to get this off the table until we get a solution everyone can live with that fixes America’s problems.’”

As the discussion veered into “messaging,” guests and nonessential staffers were asked to leave the room. Ryan strolled over to the media room, where he said members were being educated on “the consequences of all the deadlines that are coming.”

“We have to recognize the realities of divided government that we have,” he said. “We’re discussing the possible virtue of a short-term debt limit extension so we have a better chance of getting the Senate and the White House involved in discussions in March.”

Republicans convinced themselves that hiking the debt limit for a few months would dramatically change the narrative. In February, the president would give a State of the Union speech, where he could lambaste Republicans for causing a crisis. By April 15, the White House would have to propose a budget. But if Republicans pushed back the debt limit, they’d get to vote first on the continuing resolution, the spending package that funds the government. Next they’d vote on what might replace sequestration, the mandatory $1.2 trillion of cuts inherited from the 2011 debt limit deal. They’d have “credibility,” as Rep. Mick Mulvaney put it, when the next debt limit deadline came up.

“Take the small one first, take the middle one next, and take the debt ceiling last,” said Mulvaney, a Boehner critic who’d lost a vote this week on paying for Hurricane Sandy relief with across-the-board budget cuts. “None of us are talking about default. We understand the risk of default to the country.”

On Thursday and Friday, conservative members discussed what might be added to sweeten a debt limit deal. They could change statutory language so that, in the event the debt limit was breached, the government would prioritize debt payments and Social Security checks, while stiffing everything else. “Whether or not we keep the national parks open is not what people think of when they hear default,” said Mulvaney. “It’s certainly not what the markets think.”

But the leadership’s preferred debt limit hike will be relatively clean. As the meeting ended, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel joined a couple of reporters in the parking lot and walked them through accelerating Lewis Carroll-esque questions about the meaning of reform. Hadn’t the speaker ruled out any debt limit hike that didn’t include spending cuts? “The Boehner rule is cuts or reform for any increase in the debt limit,” said Steel. Forcing the Senate to vote on a budget, with the threat of withholding pay, was reform.

Several times, Republican House leaders have asked the conference to back a compromise bill, then pulled it when the votes weren’t there. And Republicans haven’t given more clues as to what they want from the next inevitable debt limit fight. But they’ve realized how bad they’ve been made to look. When one reporter asked Ryan if he was willing to “shoot the hostage” and hit the debt limit, he rolled his eyes. “I don’t want to use any metaphors such as that, at all.”

Go for the Throat!

Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.

By John Dickerson|Posted Friday, Jan. 18, 2013, at 6:13 PM ET

President Obama, left, and Vice President Biden announce the administration's new gun law proposals on Wednesday in Washington, D.C.
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

On Monday, President Obama will preside over the grand reopening of his administration. It would be altogether fitting if he stepped to the microphone, looked down the mall, and let out a sigh: so many people expecting so much from a government that appears capable of so little. A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will follow. After the election, the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon.

Inaugural speeches are supposed to be huge and stirring. Presidents haul our heroes onstage, from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. George W. Bush brought the Liberty Bell. They use history to make greatness and achievements seem like something you can just take down from the shelf. Americans are not stuck in the rut of the day.

But this might be too much for Obama’s second inaugural address: After the last four years, how do you call the nation and its elected representatives to common action while standing on the steps of a building where collective action goes to die? That bipartisan bag of tricks has been tried and it didn’t work. People don’t believe it. Congress' approval rating is 14 percent, the lowest in history. In a December Gallup poll, 77 percent of those asked said the way Washington works is doing “serious harm” to the country.

Advertisement

The challenge for President Obama’s speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great when the environment stinks. Enhancing the president’s legacy requires something more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems. Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.

President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the achievements of his first term. He'd make sure health care reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the military on a new footing after two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president as a one-term senator with no executive experience. In his first term, he pushed for the biggest overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he wanted to make history. He may already have made it.


There's no question that he is already a president of consequence. But there's no sign he's content to ride out the second half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is approaching gun control, climate change, and immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker.

How should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack Obama of the first administration might have approached the task by finding some Republicans to deal with and then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a good deal more schmoozing with lawmakers, too.

That's the old way. He has abandoned that. He doesn't think it will work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for cooperation. Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name.

Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.

This theory of political transformation rests on the weaponization (and slight bastardization) of the work by Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek.

Skowronek has written extensively about what distinguishes transformational presidents from caretaker presidents. In order for a president to be transformational, the old order has to fall as the orthodoxies that kept it in power exhaust themselves. Obama's gambit in 2009 was to build a new post-partisan consensus. That didn't work, but by exploiting the weaknesses of today’s Republican Party, Obama has an opportunity to hasten the demise of the old order by increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers, supporters of “self-deportation” and the pure no-tax wing.

The president has the ambition and has picked a second-term agenda that can lead to clarifying fights. The next necessary condition for this theory to work rests on the Republican response. Obama needs two things from the GOP: overreaction and charismatic dissenters. They’re not going to give this to him willingly, of course, but mounting pressures in the party and the personal ambitions of individual players may offer it to him anyway. Indeed, Republicans are serving him some of this recipe already on gun control, immigration, and the broader issue of fiscal policy.

On gun control, the National Rifle Association has overreached. Its Web video mentioning the president's children crossed a line.* The group’s dissembling about the point of the video and its message compounds the error. (The video was also wrong). The NRA is whipping up its members, closing ranks, and lashing out. This solidifies its base, but is not a strategy for wooing those who are not already engaged in the gun rights debate. It only appeals to those who already think the worst of the president. Republicans who want to oppose the president on policy grounds now have to make a decision: Do they want to be associated with a group that opposes, in such impolitic ways, measures like universal background checks that 70 to 80 percent of the public supports? Polling also suggests that women are more open to gun control measures than men. The NRA, by close association, risks further defining the Republican Party as the party of angry, white Southern men.

The president is also getting help from Republicans who are calling out the most extreme members of the coalition. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called the NRA video "reprehensible." Others who have national ambitions are going to have to follow suit. The president can rail about and call the GOP bad names, but that doesn't mean people are going to listen. He needs members inside the Republican tent to ratify his positions—or at least to stop marching in lockstep with the most controversial members of the GOP club.

When Republicans with national ambitions make public splits with their party, this helps the president.

(There is a corollary: The president can’t lose the support of Democratic senators facing tough races in 2014. Opposition from within his own ranks undermines his attempt to paint the GOP as beyond the pale.)

If the Republican Party finds itself destabilized right now, it is in part because the president has already implemented a version of this strategy. In the 2012 campaign, the president successfully transformed the most intense conservative positions into liabilities on immigration and the role of government. Mitt Romney won the GOP nomination on a platform of “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants—and the Obama team never let Hispanics forget it. The Obama campaign also branded Republicans with Romney's ill-chosen words about 47 percent of Americans as the party of uncaring millionaires.

Now Republican presidential hopefuls like Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are trying to fix the party's image. There is a general scramble going on as the GOP looks for a formula to move from a party that relies on older white voters to one that can attract minorities and younger voters.

Out of fear for the long-term prospects of the GOP, some Republicans may be willing to partner with the president. That would actually mean progress on important issues facing the country, which would enhance Obama’s legacy.

If not, the president will stir up a fracas between those in the Republican Party who believe it must show evolution on issues like immigration, gun control, or climate change and those who accuse those people of betraying party principles.

That fight will be loud and in the open—and in the short term unproductive.

The president can stir up these fights by poking the fear among Republicans that the party is becoming defined by its most extreme elements, which will in turn provoke fear among the most faithful conservatives that weak-willed conservatives are bending to the popular mood. That will lead to more tin-eared, dooming declarations of absolutism like those made by conservatives who sought to define the difference between legitimate and illegitimate rape—and handed control of the Senate to Democrats along the way. For the public watching from the sidelines, these intramural fights will look confused and disconnected from their daily lives. (Lip-smacking Democrats don’t get too excited: This internal battle is the necessary precondition for a GOP rebirth, and the Democratic Party has its own tensions.)

This approach is not a path of gentle engagement. It requires confrontation and bright lines and tactics that are more aggressive than the president demonstrated in the first term. He can't turn into a snarling hack. The posture is probably one similar to his official second-term photograph: smiling, but with arms crossed. 

The president already appears to be headed down this path. He has admitted he’s not going to spend much time improving his schmoozing skills; he's going to get outside of Washington to ratchet up public pressure on Republicans. He is transforming his successful political operation into a governing operation. It will have his legacy and agenda in mind—and it won’t be affiliated with the Democratic National Committee, so it will be able to accept essentially unlimited donations. The president tried to use his political arm this way after the 2008 election, but he was constrained by re-election and his early promises of bipartisanship. No more. Those days are done.

Presidents don’t usually sow discord in their inaugural addresses, though the challenge of writing a speech in which the call for compromise doesn’t evaporate faster than the air out of the president’s mouth might inspire him to shake things up a bit. If it doesn’t, and he tries to conjure our better angels or summon past American heroes, then it will be among the most forgettable speeches, because the next day he’s going to return to pitched political battle.

He has no time to waste.

Correction, Jan. 18, 2013: This article originally identified a National Rifle Association online video as a television ad. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

Red-state Democrats may break with White House From left, Sen. Mark Begich, President Barack Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. Tom Udall. | AP Photos By: John Bresnahan and Manu Raju January 18, 2013 05:35 PM EST

For Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and his top lieutenants, the challenges of balancing the 2014 Senate map and President Barack Obama’s second-term agenda could cause as many headaches as anything Republicans throw at them. Overall, 20 Democratic-held Senate seats are up for grabs next year, versus 13 for Republicans. Democratic incumbents face reelection in solidly red states like Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana and South Dakota, all of which Obama lost by double-digit margins in November. (PHOTOS: 39 great photos from Obama’s first term) A little more than a year after Obama is sworn in to another term, there will be high-profile Senate races in swing states like Colorado, North Carolina and New Hampshire. One red-state Democrat — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) — has already announced his retirement, putting in play a seat that has been in Democratic hands for nearly three decades. While Obama is now riding high in public-opinion polls — and the GOP is struggling with historically low approval ratings — senior Democratic senators and aides say the president must face a stark political reality even as he begins his second term as commander in chief. Newly reelected and emboldened red-state Democrats, as well as senators up for reelection in 2014, want and need to show independence from the White House. For these Democrats,  a visit or endorsement by Obama is not going to help them win, although they will be happy to have his money or checks from his donor network. (PHOTOS: 7 best campaign dustups) From guns to immigration to budget fights — especially possible cuts to the popular Medicare and Medicaid programs — these upcoming battles will expose the fault lines within the Democratic Party. Obama will have to juggle the political needs of red-state Democrats even as he tries to outmaneuver a House GOP leadership pulled to the right by its hardliners. Reid singles out those who are up for reelection and does whatever he can to promote their agenda and protect them from politically charged votes, aides said Friday. “What you have in the Democratic Caucus — probably more so now than the Republican [Conference] — you have a sizable amount of moderates,” Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), up for reelection in 2014, told POLITICO. “We are kind of practical, let’s get things done, we’re willing to try some new stuff. But we’re not going to do the same ol’, same ol’. I think that’s a struggle with the administration at times.” “We may have some other agenda ourselves,” added Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who also faces voters in two years. “We may as a Senate decide that we want to do something about jobs. The Senate may decide it wants to do something about small business and a tax package. We may want to do something on tax reform itself. Our agenda depends on our 55 senators — [and] what we decide we want to put on the floor.” (PHOTOS: 10 great quotes about voting) A senior Democratic aide said the White House must recognize the “blunt political reality” that 20 Democratic senators will face reelection in a cycle in which control of the Senate is at stake. “And if they want to actually get stuff done, they’re going to have to make an effort to work with us, and personally reach out to the Mark Pryors, and the Mary Landrieus and listen to those folks and make them feel heard,” the aide said. “It can’t feel like an oppositional relationship, it has to feel like we’re partners with generally the same but sometimes slightly different options on how to get there.” The aide added: “Gun control will be a test of that. That’s going to require a lot of hand-holding.” While the 2014 Senate map may favor Republicans, the GOP would have to essentially run the table in six of seven red states where Democrats hold seats to win a majority. Opposing Obama on some issues may even help some Democratic incumbents, all of whom are leading or very competitive in early polls. “To the extent that they break with the president, it could be — I don’t want to say it is — a big advantage for them in deep-red states,” said a Democratic strategist. Several Democrats who are up for reelection and from red states told POLITICO they are skeptical of elements of — if not all — of Obama’s aggressive gun control agenda. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who could face a tough reelection and has previously opposed reinstating the assault weapons ban, said there needs to be “more emphasis on [mental health issues and counseling families in crisis] as well as enforcing some of the laws that are already on the books.” She added it was important for Washington “not to overreact one way or another.” Begich added: “To start saying we’re going to have more laws and more regulations, I think, would be problematic.” Udall voiced similar sentiments, though he suggested more of an openness to tightening background checks. “When you talk about gun rights and the situation in the West, there are very mixed feelings in terms of pushing a nationwide package — a one-size-fits-all package,” Udall said, questioning the effectiveness of an assault weapons ban. “Everybody ought to be at the table,” said Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who is also up in 2014. “And we ought to be talking about violent images and games. They’re readily available. We ought to be talking about mental health services and to what extent we can take a step forward and identify people who hurt themselves and others. And we need to be talking about the access to firearms that’s greater than any other developed country in the world, including some countries that are similar to us like Canada, who have much lower rates of mass killings [than] we do. So everything has got to be on the table.” Reid must navigate these concerns within his caucus while facing heavy pressure from liberals and gun control advocates pushing hard for every element of the president’s agenda. Senior Democratic aides expect Reid — a gun rights supporter despite recent distance from the National Rifle Association — to take the temperature of his caucus next week. Universal background checks, Senate aides say, is probably the one element of the agenda most Democrats can get behind. Other than that, it’s not at all clear what Democrats will be willing to pass. And Reid said he wouldn’t stage votes on guns that don’t stand a chance to pass the House. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said his chamber will wait for the Senate to act before taking up the gun issue, but many House Republicans — concerned about NRA-backed primary challengers next year — would rather keep the status quo on federal gun laws despite the national uproar since last month’s shootings in Newtown, Conn. On immigration, there’s more unanimity among Senate Democrats and Reid’s leadership team over supporting a comprehensive bill. Right now, the focus will turn to a small bipartisan group of senators trying to cut an immigration deal, and if they do, that would likely emerge as the main vehicle this year. But the White House is expected to unveil its own sweeping immigration bill, which could b e largely ignored if a bipartisan Senate deal starts to gain steam. Added to the problems: There are also a number of senators from red and swing states who are nervous about advancing on such a polarizing issue. And there are several who hope the Senate will begin to focus on the No. 1 campaign issue in 2012: jobs. “My No. 1 priority is jobs and the economy, and that is what I want the U.S. Senate to focus on,” said freshman Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, a state Obama lost by 11 points last year. “Overall, the Senate needs to address the pressing needs of our still-recovering economy and cutting spending to get our fiscal house in order in a bipartisan way.” Mark Udall said he welcomes tough votes on guns, immigration or revamping U.S. energy policy, but said the economy is still the biggest issue. “That’s what people [in Colorado] expect me to do. That’s what my reputation in part rests on,” Udall said. “Anything we do that counters people’s emphasis on that, we will be punished for that, I believe. We should be criticized. Anything that we do that moves our economy forward and creates certainty [for the business community], I think we have got to be acknowledged for it and the voters will have to decide if they’re going to reward us on Nov. 2, 2014.” With tensions between Senate Democratic leaders and the White House still raw over the fiscal cliff battle, cutting spending, especially big changes to Medicare or Medicaid, will be difficult to navigate as they head into a confrontation with Republicans over raising the debt ceiling and extending government funding past the current March 27 deadline. The House Republicans are planning to vote on raising the debt ceiling for three months and stop pay for members of Congress if the Senate doesn’t pass a budget, GOP officials said Friday. But a Reid spokesman said the Senate would consider only a clean debt ceiling bill but felt the GOP movement was encouraging. No matter how the debt ceiling battle turns out, Obama is almost certain to face new pressure from 2014 Senate Democrats over cutting deeper into the budget. “I’m going to underline something very strong here: The president must propose — or we should — a combination of spending cuts,” Begich said. “We cannot do this budget just on the revenue issue that we did at the end of last year.”