them, to re-brand them, reintroduce them. but finding his side in power in washington, but not very beloved or exciting, eric cantor started doing this thing about once a year or so, where he would try to sculpt a new image for the party. so, yes, young guns, that was awesome. but that was just the 2010 version of eric cantor s new relaunched republican party. before that, he had launched something called the national council for a new america. that one was going to show how the republican party was tapping outside the beltway ideas for the republican policy agenda. the launch for that one, you might remember, it involved mr. cantor inviting the young, fresh faces of jeb bush and mr. romney for a celebration of outside the beltway ideas that was actually held at a pizza parlor that was literally inside the beltway, inside the perimeter highway that encompasses greater washington, d.c. and despite eric cantor s intention to hold a series of these informal chat and choose
them, to rebrand them, reintroduce them. but finding his side in power in washington, but not very beloved or exciting, eric cantor started doing this thing about once a year or so, where he would try to sculpt a new image for the party. so, yes, young guns, that was awesome. but that was just the 2010 version of eric cantor s new relaunched republican party. before that, he had launched something called the national council for a new america. that one was going to show how the republican party was tapping outside the beltway ideas for the republican policy agenda. the launch for that one, you might remember, it involved mr. cantor inviting the young, fresh faces of jeb bush and mr. romney for a celebration of outside the beltway ideas that was actually held at a pizza parlor that was literally inside the beltway, inside the perimeter highway that encompasses greater washington, d.c. and despite eric cantor s
was during that round of eric cantor rebranding that the republican party eric cantor rebranding that he suggested maybe perhaps in some form, his party could accept something like the dream act for young immigrants. eric cantor said that could happen. and because he s the majority leader in the house, he could make that happen. but as always, this was rebranding, which is about brand and image and not actually about behavior. and so he never actually allowed a vote on the dream act or anything like it. he just stuck it in the rebrand and hoped people thought that he might have done something about it. then just a couple of months ago, because it was a new year, and that means a new republican image, courtesy of eric cantor, this past year, his new rebranding effort was labeled, an america that works, which did not work either at changing broad perceptions of the republican party, or changing at all the substantiative party actions of the party. nor did it serve to rebrand eric canto
it was a strongly republican sample, only 21% of the people they talked to were democrats, 49% of the people they talked to were republicans. and in this poll, they asked specifically about support for immigration reform. they asked the question in three different ways. they described the senate immigration bill, they described it as bipartisan immigration reform legislation, being debated in washington. then they asked if people liked it. and in eric cantor s district, the number of respondents who strongly support or somewhat support that immigration reform proposal, which is basically the senate plan, the number who strongly or somewhat support it is 72%. the number of people who somewhat or strongly oppose it is only 23%. it s 3-1. they asked it in a different way. they asked it actually in slightly harsher terms. in more draconian, less friendly to immigrants version of immigration reform. that one also supported by huge majorities in eric cantor s district. and in eric cantor s d
all the substantiative party actions of the party. nor did it serve to rebrand eric cantor himself as a man that might be desperate needed in washington. the history of eric cantor s time in republican leadership in washington is basically a marketing history. the one remarkable thing about his legacy, if you look at it with a cold eye, is just how frequently he announced he was defining a new brand for the republican party, while also not changing anything substantiative about what republicans were actually doing in washington. and changing what republicans actually do in washington, that is well within his power as the majority leader. he decides what gets voted on and what doesn t. but under his leadership, despite repeated attempts at looking new and fresh and awesome, what house republicans actually did was fecklessly repeal obamacare several dozen times and vote to restrict abortion rights as often as they could and otherwise lurch from self-made debt ceiling crisis to self-made