Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

As Crises Grow, Congress Goes Home; Poll: GOP To Blame If DHS Funding Fails; Official: Extremists Come In All Shapes, Sizes; Billion Dollar Blast

Aired February 17, 2015 - 07:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN: All right, time for to us to get "Inside Politics," he's left us. John King is back in D.C. We thought you would be here to welcome Chris back to the show after a long weekend but no, you fled.

JOHN KING, CNN HOST, "INSIDE POLITICS": They sent me back to shovel my driveway. I'm sorry.

It's a beautiful day. Good morning to you guys in New York. Let's go inside politics. With me this morning to share their reporting and their insights are Ed O'Keefe of "The Washington Post" and Chris Moody of CNN. Thanks for braving the slushy streets and getting in here early.

We awake this morning to big court decision in Texas. The president, remember, late last year used his executive power to change immigration laws or policy. He can't change the law.

A federal judge in Texas, a district court judge in Texas said you can't do that. You can't stop deporting people. You can't decide who gets to stay. This is something Republicans wanted in 26 states led by the Republican governor of Texas.

The White House will appeal now to the court in New Orleans. The Court of Appeals, here's what they said this morning. The Department of Justice, legal scholars, immigration experts, and the district court in Washington, D.C. have determined that the president's actions are well within the legal authority.

Here's where they say, we think you're wrong, sir, "The district court's decision wrongly prevents these lawful common-sense policies from taking effect and the Department of Justice has indicated it will appeal that decision."

So a victory this morning for conservatives, the question is will a higher court uphold it.

ED O'KEEFE, "THE WASHINGTON POST": We should point out that this obviously is a final ruling. What it does in the short-term is delay the start of the application process, which was supposed to begin today. So if you are someone you know was supposed to do this today, you might want to call ahead.

It will go to the appeals court, I suspect this like so many other things that the Obama administration has done will end up at the Supreme Court. That's exactly what Republican governors and the attorneys general want.

We see GOP lawmakers heralding this decision, immigration groups talking about activist judges who are making these decisions. The roles have been reversed.

KING: You say we see GOP lawmakers hailing this decision. We don't physically see them in this town. You see the building behind me which looks beautiful in the snow. The capital building, they're off this week. I want to get do that in more detail in a moment.

But Chris, one of the things they're not here debating, which they should be here debating, is the Department of Homeland Security which enforces these immigration policies about to run out of money. They're not here.

And if you look at our brand new poll out this morning, this is an interesting one. If had you a 21 percent approval rating, if 21 percent of your colleague and bosses approved of how you were doing your job, you'd be sulking, right?

Look at this approval of Congress, 21 percent approve, that's actually up from 13 percent last year. So I guess the Republicans can say our new Congress is on the right track, 21 percent approve. Does the court decision give them an off-ramp?

One of the reasons they can't deal with Homeland Security funding is the fighting within the Republican Party over this immigration policy. Can the leadership now say can we please fund the department? Can we please not have this fight and let's see what happens in the courts?

CHRIS MOODY, CNN SENIOR DIGITAL CORRESPONDENT: I don't see them using it that explicitly. I think the court decision is a reminder that the Obama administration will not only have to fight this right here in Washington and in Congress, but also in the states.

Like as you mentioned, more than half the states in the union have joined this lawsuit against the immigration action. So just like Obamacare and several other policies that the president has pushed through in his administration, he's going to have to fight this just beyond Washington as well.

And you're right, I'm actually shocked about 21 percent approval in Congress, I don't know if I've ever seen it that high. Is that some kind of fluke with the weather or something that's happened? I can't understand it.

KING: Maybe they won't come back. They've spent 24 days in session, the House, 26 days in session, the Senate, that's not so bad. The question is, why not be here at this week.

If you're dealing with the Homeland Security Department, it's about to go down. The president is asking for authorization of military force. So they are presidential appointees.

You're trying to get off to a good fresh start, why not work until you get the big things done and then take break?

O'KEEFE: Because everything in life is like high school and the closer you are to that due date, which is Friday the 27th, the faster they get their work done. They will come back from this in a week and they will probably either agree to fund it or set up a short-term continuing resolution to kick this fight a few more months.

Important to point out, Republicans would point out they went five weeks essentially from start of the year to this week, working straight with only one day off from Martin Luther King Jr. Day. That's a departure from the past. But all they got done was approving a bill that we know the president is going to veto.

MOODY: I think by comparing Congress to high school, you need to apologize to American high schoolers across the region.

KING: Washington is like the fifth grade and every fifth grade is going to sue me for slander. Will this impact the debate? Maybe they can talk about the court decision and we're winning in the courts right now.

This is Republicans maybe we don't want to have this debate in Congress. It could shut down a very important agency in the government. Who would get the blame?

A new poll says 30 percent of the people would blame President Obama, 53 percent would blame the Republicans in Congress, 13 percent both. If your goal with the bigger House majority and the new Senate majority is to prove to the American people, you can be responsible partners in government, do you take this risk?

O'KEEFE: I don't think so this point, that's why you saw them last week so aggressively, Chris, you heard this, too, Republicans repeatedly saying it's the Democrats' fault. It's the Democrats' fault. We're six votes short in the Senate. It didn't work.

Because shutdown is synonymous with Republicans, just as Obamacare might be with the Democrats, you know, the idea that something is going to get shut down, blame goes to the Republicans, and they can't beat it.

MOODY: Parsing out Senate procedure in the public forum is very difficult thing to do. We had a shutdown in 2013 and 200,000 DHS employees still went to work because it's a matter of essential and nonessential employees.

But the Obama administration still found a way to cause pain to make people see there was a shutdown that back-fired on them as we saw with some of the memorials that were closed down.

But I can imagine that the administration would suggest maybe at the airports that the longer lines were the fault of a shutdown and if the, if the American people are blaming the Republicans, that won't be a tough thing to do.

KING: We'll see who blinks this time because Republicans did get the blame when it happened last time. However, then time passed and an election came and we did just fine in an election.

We'll see whether the calculation kicks in and whether they think they can take the risk now, we'll watch it when the Congress comes back. One more in the polling department on this authorization of military force, a huge question of war and peace.

One of the reasons you say, you're right, they did work longer than normal and the beginning of the year, why not stay one week more or two weeks more. Start the debate. The president wants war powers against is. The Congress says the president should not.

But 78 say yes, eight in ten Americans essentially saying give the president these powers. Do you put limitations what do you say about ground troops, how long should it last? What about the next president?

The interesting part is eight in ten Americans say give the president this power and yet, do you approve of how the president is holding handling ISIS or disapprove, about half, 49 percent disapproved in September. That's up to 57 percent.

So the American people want to give the commander-in-chief war- fighting authority, but they're skeptical of how he's handling it.

ED O'KEEFE: I think it speaks again more broadly to seeing Congress do its job and get engage on the issues that's part of it, interesting if you dive deeper near the poll. Support for ground troops while still a minority percentage overall has climbed since the fall.

That's going to be the hold-up mother than anything in this debate. Do you authorize ground troops? Where can they go? For how long can they go? Democrats on the Hill don't want it to happen. Republicans are more open to it.

If those numbers continue to head north, that will drive the debate more than anything. There's no doubt that both parties want to have this debate. They want to give them some kind of authority. But the details are going to hold this up.

KING: There's no doubt. We saw it dating back to the James Foley beheading, sadly that the American people as they see the barbarism of ISIS say, yes, I'm tired from Iraq, from Afghanistan, but maybe we do have to open our minds to more muscular policy.

MOODY: And they want to see something more restricted and the aumf that was sent downing from Congress was three or four years against ISIS and I think those restrictions will be what people want to see. They want to see a debate in Congress. They want Congress to have a skin in the game.

KING: It will be a fascinating debate going forward when they come back. Ed, Chris, thanks for coming in.

Alisyn, that's the big debate in this town. They did start the year working more than they normally do. Why do they disappear when they have a couple of big crowded inbox, shall we say, that they could have taken a few more of these and run them out of the inbox and then gone home.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN: That's a peculiar work ethic. You're right for pointing that out, Johns. Thanks so much. We're going to continue the conversation that you've just been having about terrorism because the White House is trying to take on terrorists with a three-day summit on extremism, but there's already criticism about this plan. We'll bring you both sides.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN: Big day for the White House -- it is targeting terrorism with the start of a three-day summit on extremism. The conference plans to focus on efforts to prevent extremists from radicalizing, not only is, but in all forms, you've heard all the names.

Is this summit focused the way it should be? Is it really going to be able to strategize in a way that it attacks the problem at its source, or are we just too far into this the battle to think we can start at the beginning?

Let's discuss with someone who knows, author of "In the Land of Invisible Women," Dr. Qanta Ahmed. Great to have you with us. What's the central question?

You know that the summit is based on these preparations in 2011 where they outlined where they want to, do we have a holistic strategy. We have al Qaeda, AQAP. We have North Africa. We have Boko Haram. You said don't get distracted by the many when you are dealing with one problem. Why do you think that is and what is that?

DR. QANTA AHMED, AUTHOR, "IN THE LAND OF INVISIBLE WOMEN": Exactly. My hope is that this summit which is a move in the right direction, the White House is putting priority on something it identifies as a problem will be looking the ideology of Islamism.

And in fact the 2011 document referred mainly to al Qaeda and to a community-based approach in the United States. That's far too narrow. There's definitely a role for the Muslim community in the United States, but we're not going to be able to solve what is a global opponent.

The opponent is in opposition, is seeking to attack and dismantle secular pluralistic democracy. I can give you countless examples of that. And what I fear by labeling the conference extremism, the delegates there are going to miss the actual problem, which we are confronting a new warfare.

The new warfare is Jihadism, Jihadism is the violent version of Islamism. Islamism can be nonviolent, too, which is also not referred to in the 2011 document. But Jihadism is not insurgency. It is not terrorism tactics which are the language in which this has been discussed.

Jihadism is the motive of Islamists in order to produce a sharia state, which is directly opposed to our secular values. ISIS has done just that in front of our eyes. That's what we're confronting and that's what the summit should be about.

CUOMO: The problem is subtlety. Even though you would argue and have the on the show very eloquently, it's not subtlety, it's precision and accuracy. But to the un-initiated and politicians, it sounds like subtlety and what they deal with is how do we make people feel that we're dealing with the actions that they fear?

Put up the poll numbers. The Americans aren't happy with what's going on here. They disapprove. What does that mean to the White House? We've got legacy concerns. We've done well on the war in terror. We killed Osama Bin Laden, that's what they're thinking.

So they have to deal with that find some of the other polls, what they're insightful about is the bar for Americans is do we put our fighting men and women on the battlefield? You see there, 50-47, almost back to half.

That's the concern. I don't care what we call them, I don't care what their philosophy is, how do we kill them? Now how do you take that and translate into a dialogue that's actually productive?

AHMED: With respect, I think the threats that we're facing is something that is not going to be a popularity contest. We elect leaders and we have confidence in them to make the very difficult decision that may seem unpopular.

In the United States even evaluating this problem has been constricted by fears or blatant calls of Islam phobia and I'm sure our president is sensitive to that and because of these calls of Islam phobia, evaluating these problems, it's not just a concern about freedom of religious expression, which is safeguarded in the United states.

But there's now been a confinement on freedom of critical reasoning. Our ability to critically reason this problem is limited because of a climate of fearing Islamophobia. We didn't elect our national leaders to be afraid to tread on to tread lightly when we are --

CUOMO: But they are a political of political correctness. If you start talking about Islamism, easy for to you say, you come from the faith and you're an academic. If I say it, it is part of the faith, you start getting beaten up here.

AHMED: I want while the summit is going on, for people at the summit in the United States to think -- this is not a problem to be solved looking at only one group.

ISIS is one of many manifestations of violent Islamism, which are geographically different, which are different in some of their associations, but their objective is the same.

We have been struggling to announce that the United States is in conflict with these groups, these groups have had no difficulty launching their warfare on us. Until we accept this is a new kind of warfare we're going to be misled into thinking we can somehow meet some social needs, employment needs, that's not going to work. We have to accept this is a new form of warfare and the summit should have been entitled "The White House Summit on Jihadism." that is not jihad. I'm a Muslim and as a Muslim I'm beholden to follow that, which means number one, it means personal improvement.

But number two, there is also the right for armed jihad, that Muslims have, which means to defend the right to pursue their religious belief. It is if it is under violent assault. So that's very different.

And it is subject to codes of conduct in warfare. The jihadists from Islamism do not observe any of those codes of conduct. Christian children, elderly, unarmed men are all fair targets for them.

CUOMO: And on one side, the enemy. What you're dealing with in its manifestation of action in is, someone who ignores all the rules and on the other side, you have the summit where they're too caught up in how many rules they want to follow and the how they want to deal with it and the right thing to say.

AHMED: We're a civilized nation so we follow international rules of law, of course, but we were remarking earlier. I'm very fearful that the verbal paralysis we have, not just while we're trying to talk about this, but our political leaders, which are very much influencing mainstream media positions.

I hope that that doesn't reflect a strategic paralysis. If I look back on what the last few years have revealed, it certainly would seem that we're also strategically paralyzed. That's got that's good to change.

CUOMO: Dr. Ahmed, thank you very much. We'll see what they do at the summit.

AHMED: Thank you, Chris. We'll bring you back in to help us along with your perspective.

AHMED: My pleasure.

CUOMO: As always -- Michaela.

PEREIRA: All right, Chris, thanks so much. Good conversation there. The wicked winter weather, it is causing a lot more than headaches for millions of you. It's also causing a significant dent in your wallet. Christine Romans will explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PEREIRA: All right, it's time for CNN Money now. Chief business correspondent, Christine Romans here with a look of what's moving your money. I understand there's trouble brewing at the ports out west.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, a real crisis, to be honest. A labor dispute at 29 west coast ports has tens of billions of dollars of goods just sitting off shore. Today is day six. Ships unanchored unable to unload. This dispute between workers and the port operators has backed up those ports. Automakers say they're already feeling the supply slowdown.

Winter weather is costing tax payers billions. It's not as bad as last year. They put the cost of this year's storms at 1 to $2 billion. Last year it was 15 billion. Those storms hit more northeast cities and much of the Midwest. It was much broader and bigger.

This year's storms really concentrated on Boston. That city, by the way, has already spent $36 million on snow removal. That's twice its annual budget for cleanup.

Gas prices have bottomed out for now. The national average is up 7 cents in the past week. That's according to AAA. It's up almost 20 cents over the past month.

Drivers still saving hundreds of bucks compared to this time last year when prices were well above 3 bucks a gallon. Looks like the prices have bottomed for now.

CUOMO: I like how she says for now.

ROMANS: For now.

CAMEROTA: Absolutely. That's the nature of it. Christine, thanks so much.

Well, the White House is set to tackle terrorism today in how to prevent radicalization. There is controversy about the approach. We'll take you live to the White House.

CUOMO: Weather is a terror of its own. Snow and ice covered streets mean this for us when we drive. Got to tell you though, this SUV has quite the ending. We're going to show you coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)