GOP Leader Says National Security Won’t Drive 2010 Politics

ABC News’ David Chalian Reports:

Despite the stark divide on display in the Cheney vs. Obama battle today, the Republican charged with winning back a GOP majority in the United State Senate doesn’t believe national security will prove to be much of an Achilles heel for President Obama and the Democrats in the midterm elections next year.

“I think 2010 is likely to be about spending and borrowing and the anxiety the public have there as well as the failure to deal with other looming fiscal challenges like entitlement reform that threaten to swamp us,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Sen. Cornyn went so far as to say that he views much of President Obama’s national security policies in a positive light.

“I think the American people trust Republicans more than Democrats on national security, generally — that may fluctuate the polls,” said Cornyn. “People sort of view with some questions what the Democrats do on national security, but as long as the president is doing what he has been doing, which I view as — the preponderance of which I view as positive, then I think he’ll find the Republicans are with him and the American people will support him.”

The Texas Republican pointed to the Obama approaches in Iraq and Afghanistan and his decision to reverse course and refuse to release detainee abuse photos as encouraging signs, but continued to express concern about the president’s handling of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

“His announcing the closure of GITMO without a plan to hold the detainees, I think got a pretty significant rebuke — bipartisan rebuke — in the vote we had in the Senate yesterday,” Cornyn said.

Later in the day, Sen. Cornyn ratcheted up his rhetoric in a statement critiquing President Obama’s speech today. “His attacks today on those with differing opinions on how to best keep our nation safe reeked of the very same fear mongering that he derided moments earlier. His persistent reminders that he ‘inherited’ these problems are unproductive and trite. Americans are looking for leadership, not finger pointing and excuses for the implementation of ill-advised policies,” said Cornyn.

As former Vice President Dick Cheney prepared to share the proverbial presidential stage today with his mano a mano national security showdown with Barack Obama, Sen. Cornyn said he doesn’t expect all of his candidates to embrace Mr. Cheney on the 2010 campaign trail.

“I think the vice president is controversial in some quarters, but there is nobody that knows better than he does about what the threats are that face our nation and why it was necessary to take extraordinary measures to protect our country,” said Cornyn.

At a reporters roundtable breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, Sen. Cornyn was pressed on whether or not Mr. Cheney would prove to be an effective surrogate for the Republican candidates running for the US Senate this cycle.

“I think that depends on the race and where you are,” said Cornyn. “I’d be proud to appear with the vice president anywhere anytime. But I think it depends on the circumstance and the race,” he added.

Sen. Cornyn’s comments sparked Democrats around the country, who are eager to keep the politically unpopular Dick Cheney front and center, to ask Republican senate candidates in competitive states if they would be proud to appear with Vice President Cheney.

“Will you welcome Dick Cheney to Florida to campaign on your behalf?,” a Florida Democratic Party press release asks of Republican candidates Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL) and Marco Rubio.
As for the substance of the Obama vs. Cheney national security debate, Sen. Cornyn doesn’t seem to believe the 2010 elections will be significantly impacted by President Obama’s national security policies, barring an outside 9/11 type of event.

GOP Rep.: Pelosi Should Lose Security Clearances

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: One of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leading Republican critics is calling on his colleagues to suspend the speaker’s security clearances, until or unless her disagreement with the CIA is resolved.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said on ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” today that Pelosi, D-Calif., “can’t be trusted with intelligence secrets until this matter is cleared up.”

“The speaker’s intelligence security credentials are in question. I think this Congress needs to consider whether we would suspend that and ask her whether she will step down or step aside until such time as this matter is cleared up,” said King, who said he agreed with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich that Democrats should replace Pelosi as speaker.

“The briefings that take place on the fourth floor of the Capitol building will not be at the level of confidence and the ability of the members to keep that secure,” he added. “And certainly I think at this point the speaker can’t be trusted with intelligence secrets until this matter is cleared up.”

Pelosi last week accused intelligence officials of “misleading the Congress of the United States” by not fully briefing her about waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. CIA Director Leon Panetta maintains that she was fully and accurately briefed.

King’s idea for a House floor vote on security clearances is not being embraced by House GOP leadership, according to Capitol Hill sources.

But Republican leaders are considering other ways to force all House members to take a stand on the controversy surrounding Pelosi before the Memorial Day break.

One concept being discussed would involve a vote on whether the House intelligence committee should investigate Pelosi’s allegations. Such a vote would almost certainly fail along party lines, but would force House Democrats into a politically awkward vote.

“There are a number of different ideas on the table,” King said. “We do go home for this Memorial [Day] break so there is a concern that this will dissipate over time. If it does then it’ll be the country that pays the price.”

Though Democrats are lining up behind the speaker, King predicted that splits will begin to appear inside the party.

“I think they have to decide whether national security means more to them then holding their party together,” he said. “At some point Democrats are going to have to decide whether — it probably will be a political decision on their part — whether their seats become vulnerable. If they think they’re going to lose their seats then they’re going to join Republicans in this growing movement to stand up for national security and set aside partisanship.”

“I expect to see that fairly soon and they’re all kinds of factions within the Democratic caucus that are pulling against each other right now,” King added. “But they are not standing on the steps of the US Capitol in solidarity with Nancy Pelosi today, and I don’t expect that’s going to happen because they don’t have any confidence that what she said was the truth.”

Watch the interview with Rep. Steve King HERE.

Also today, we spoke with Ana Marie Cox, of Air America, about Pelosi, Michael Steele’s efforts to turn around the Republican Party, and tomorrow’s dueling speeches pitting President Obama against former Vice President Dick Cheney.

(Guess which speech she’ll be attending.)

Watch our interview with Ana Marie Cox HERE.

Hoyer Seeks Social Security Consensus

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: As if there weren’t enough high-profile issue out there for Congress to tackle, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is launching an effort to get his colleagues to touch the traditional “third rail” of politics: Social Security.

Hoyer, D-Md., has been working behind the scenes with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to find a bipartisan group of lawmakers who are willing to commit to making Social Security reform a priority.

Their starting point: That nothing should be ruled in or out.

In a speech in Washington today, Hoyer expanded on his vision for reform.

“Of our entitlement programs, I believe we would have the easiest challenge in reforming Social Security,” Hoyer said at a Bipartisan Policy Center event on fiscal discipline, according to the text of his speech provided by his House office.

Hoyer outlined a few possibilities: “Here, the options are well and widely understood. We can bring in more revenues. We can restrain the growth of benefits, particularly for higher-income workers, while we strengthen the safety net for lower-income workers. And/or we can raise the retirement age, recognizing that our life expectancy is significantly higher today. What is missing here is not ideas — it is political will.”

Building that political will is no easy task. As President Bush’s failed attempt to create personal accounts inside Social Security showed, the issue is stuffed with politically perilous code words for members of both parties.

In the past, Democrats haven’t been able to whisper about private accounts or benefit cuts without getting hammered. Discussions with Republicans have gotten hung up on whispers of tax increases.

Hoyer is trying to break through that, according to a leadership aide.

“We’re in the process of seeing if there’s enough will and trust to go forward,” the aide said. “We don’t want to rule anything out, or anything in.”

That said, the aide cautioned, it’s “been assumed” that privatization won’t be part of the discussion. “Events have done that for us.”

Indeed, even Graham — who has supported private accounts in the past — told The Washington Post’s Lori Montgomery today that the concept is “off the table” because of the stock market’s recent volatility.

The discussions between Hoyer and Graham began at the White House fiscal summit in February. Since then, the White House has not been directly involved, according to Hoyer’s office, though the president has committed publicly to the broad goals of entitlement reform.

This is all very preliminary, and inaction is far more likely than action.

But if Hoyer and Graham are able to round up enough interested members of Congress, their next step would be setting up a process that would involve the president and members of both parties — a step that might just break a longstanding political logjam.