Behind the Curtain: Who's Really Behind CPAC?

Getty Image

CPAC is currently having its annual shindig in Maryland. CPAC is run by the American Conservative Union, and the event needs lots of money to happen. But it's not grassroots organizations that are funding this event. It's heavy hitters and deep pockets.

Who's really sponsoring CPAC?

It's big energy companies, tobacco, and the NRA.

Rarely seen and previously unreported tax filings for the ACU and ACU Foundation, the group responsible for staging CPAC, reveal that in the 2010 tax year, the National Rifle Association provided $225,000 of the ACU Foundation's overall revenue. In 2010 the ACU Foundation reported $288,670 in grant revenue and $1,063,103 in "program service revenue." The NRA's executive vice president and CEO, Wayne LaPierre, has been a regular featured speaker at past CPAC events and he again spoke at the gathering on Thursday. The 2013 CPAC included an event titled "NRA University" at which CPAC attendees could "learn more about NRA, Second Amendment, gun control debate." It even offered participants "a FREE one-year NRA membership," according to the conference schedule. The NRA is a "presenting sponsor" at the 2014 conference--a sponsorship level requiring a $110,000 contribution.

In 2010 the billionaire Koch brothers' companies contributed a total of $50,000 to the ACU and the ACU Foundation. In the same year, cigarette giant Altria contributed $25,000 to the ACU, and the conservative Anschutz Foundation contributed $25,000 to the ACU Foundation.

So, if you've wondered why Wayne LaPierre gets to scowl and complain and cajole the audience to buy guns before the President takes them away, it's because the NRA paid for the spot.

Here's the list of other sponsors, and lots of familiar names.

Presenting sponsors require a contribution of $110,000 or more. They include: the NRA, One America News Network, Tea Party Patriots, Townhall Media/Regnery Publishing, and the Washington Times.

Associate Sponsors, which require $60,000 contributions are Koch Industries and a movie scheduled to come out May 9, 2014 "Persecuted".

Supporting Sponsors require $25,000 contributions, and include: Citizen Link (Focus on the Family), Heritage Foundation, How Money Walks, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Liberty Alliance, MPAA, National Review, Red Alert Politics, and Tea Party News Network.

Contributing Sponsors, who pony up $18,000 include: The Blaze, Citizens United 25th Anniversary, Leadership Institute, Run Ben Run, and Red Card Guest Worker Permit.

Participating Sponsors, which is the lowest tier at $9,000, include: Americans for Prosperity, ChooseEnergy.org, Ashbrook Ashland University, Sarah Palin's new tv show, AECR, 60 Plus, BDMR, College Republicans National Committee, Christians United for Israel, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Eagle Forum, Eberle Associates, Empower Action Group, Fabrizio Lee, Facebook, Gravis Marketing, Convert! Integrated Marketing, GWU Graduate School of Political Management, Freedom Alliance, Let Freedom Ring, Policy Issues Institute, Justice Fellowship, TMA Direct, Turning Point USA, Unfairmovie.com (aka the anti-IRS movie), 780 WAVA 105.1, 1260 WRC talk radio, and Young America's Foundation.

Sponsorship levels are here.. Sponsors by level are here.

On the RNC Platform Finding NSA Programs Unconstitutional

The Republican National Committee is claiming that the USA Patriot Act's NSA provisions are now unconstitutional?

Really?

And they want investigations too?

A page-long resolution also called for "a special committee to investigate, report, and reveal to the public the extent of this domestic spying." This committee would then make suggestions for reform beyond what President Barack Obama suggested a week ago. The committee also wants to "hold accountable those public officials who are found to be responsible for this unconstitutional surveillance."

The full text of the resolution is here.

It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetically politically motivated.

Back in 2001, Congress overwhelmingly approved the Patriot Act:

senate.gov (passed US Senate 98-1, the one person being Russ Feingold).

clerk.house.gov (211 GOPers approved, versus 3 opposed, including Ron Paul; 145 Democrats approved versus 66 opposed).

Read carefully through the names of those who approved the Patriot Act. There are a whole lot of familiar names. Both Darrell Issa and John Boehner voted for the Act.

But if that isn't enough, let's look more recently at the 2011 extension of the Patriot Act. It passed 250-153 with 28 no votes. Once again, Issa voted for. Even Louie Gohmert voted for this.

By investigations, I guess that means Darrell Issa will have to investigate himself.

Back in 2001, every GOP senator voted for this; some of them are still in the US Senate today. Did any of them misunderstand the Act? Did every one of the 211 GOPers who voted for it in the House misunderstand the Act and ignore the constitutionality? Some of them are still in Congress today too.

Did any of these same people then suddenly find that the law was unconstitutional in 2011 when they reauthorized the provisions of the Patriot Act (Pub.L. 112-14), knowing full well that there were provisions that might collect data on the US, inadvertently or on purpose? The answer, of course, is no; they approved the legislation and reauthorized the law enabling the NSA to continue gathering data.

%%FOLD%%

Back in 2006, the media revealed that the NSA amassed a massive database of calls, which they said was targeted on international calls, but that too had caveats.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide," he said. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."

The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.

She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."

So, even after the 2006 revelations and Congressional briefings by security officials, they were still satisfied that the programs were constitutional.

So what's changed that the GOP is now claiming that these programs/actions are unconstitutional.

It isn't the NSA's actions.

It isn't the law either.

I'd argue that the only thing that's changed is that the GOP thinks that they've found an issue on which to hurt Democrats. I'm not alone in finding the flip-flop on the NSA and eavesdropping programs that the GOP formerly authorized so confounding (well, not really - it's more enlightening about tactics and politics than about the specific policy itself).

But by convenience (and in the same way that they turned on a dime to claim that the ACA's individual mandate was unconstitutional) they're now claiming that a position they once held was unconstitutional.

It's got nothing to do with the constitutionality of the NSA enabling legislation or the actions/results of the NSA programs. It has a whole lot to do with who won the White House and who won reelection in 2012.

So, it leads to a quandary: is the GOP pleading ignorance of the law they championed, or are they playing politics in the hopes of dinging the President and Democrats? It's not like they can claim they were duped either. The 2006 revelations were well documented and should have informed decisions to reauthorize the law, including in 2011, and yet the law was reauthorized without concern about the constitutionality by these Republicans.

Well, they're going to play it both ways. And neither is particularly satisfying.

It's one thing to argue that the programs should be allowed to sunset because the threat has past or that additional reforms need to be instituted. It's quite another to claim that the program is unconstitutional little more than a year after reauthorizing the law for a second time.

It was enacted with sunset clauses, meaning that it would require Congress to reauthorize - to look at the law with a critical eye and evaluate how the law operated in practice. They've now done so at least two times - 2006 and 2011, with amendments added in several other acts of Congress since first enacted in 2001.

Each time, the law was approved with support from Republicans.

Indeed, the current version of the law is far more protective of US civil rights and limits what the NSA can do with far stronger oversight. Many of the revelations about the NSA refer to actions before the Obama Administration came to office and before the reforms were instituted.

Only now, with a Democrat in the White House is there a complaint that the ongoing program is unconstitutional, when it was revealed to be doing the same exact thing that it was revealed to have done in 2006 (and to which Congress knew or should have known all along pursuant to the regular briefings to Congress).

Cross posted at LGF.

The Most Insane Holocaust/Nazi Analogies and References of the Year

2013 saw quite a few politicians and prominent people abusing the English language, and specifically using the absurd argument that events and actions in the present are just like what Hitler and the Nazis did during the Holocaust. It's Reductio ad Hitlerum and in the process it debases the terminology referring to the Holocaust and the Final Solution. These people have little understanding of history, let alone current events, and they conflate the two to suit their political objectives. Facts fall by the wayside. And the horror of the Holocaust is eroded in the process of making these absurd claims.

Just so we're working from the same dictionary, here are some actual facts about the Nazis.

Despite the singular nature of the Nazi regime and the Holocaust, there are a whole lot of people who think that making analogies to the Holocaust is acceptable.

I've boiled the analogies down to four general themes - based mainly on the focus of the analogy.

The first deals with health care reform, otherwise known as Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.

One particular instance in January could be treated as the most insane Holocaust analogy of the year, except that we were just getting warmed up.

According to Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll (R), Idaho should refuse to set up a state-run health exchange under Obamacare because, although the federal government is using private insurers for the time being, the Obama administration will eventually “pull the trigger” on those companies to establish a socialistic health care system.
Nuxoll posted her comments on Twitter, as well as included them in an email blast to 120 supporters:

The insurance companies are creating their own tombs. Much like the Jews boarding the trains to concentration camps, private insurers are used by the feds to put the system in place because the federal government has no way to set up the exchange. Based on legislation and the general process that is written toward this legislation, the federal government will want nothing to do with private insurance companies. The feds will have a national system of health insurance and they will eliminate the insurance companies.

When the Idaho Spokesman-Review asked Nuxoll to clarify her comments, she doubled down on them. Nuxoll said she didn’t mean to disrespect any group of people with her analogy, and explained she said it because “I felt badly for the Jews — it wasn’t just Jews, but Jews, and Christians, and Catholics, and priests. My thing was they didn’t know what was going on. The insurance companies are not realizing what’s going to end up in their demise.”

This Idaho Republican somehow thinks that a US law that is designed to expand access to health insurance is "much like" the systematic annihilation of the Jewish people in the gas chambers and putting them on cattle cars.

And from today, we have this gem from North Carolina State Senator Bob Rucho, a Republican:

https://twitter.com/SenatorBobRucho/statuses/412200682477744128

The health care reform in the US has generated quite a few Nazi/Holocaust references over the past few years, but few things stir the Nazi references more than gun control or any kinds of firearms reforms. That's the second theme.

This too was from January, in the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre.

One of the common forms of this nonsensical analogy is when people and organizations Tweet that if only Jews had guns they would not have had to endure the Holocaust.

https://twitter.com/thinkprogress/statuses/411502572118089728

https://twitter.com/WashTimes/status/400632608582672384

Lest we forget, the NRA's own Wayne LaPierre spreads this nonsense as well.

This would, of course, ignore facts, history, and logic. The analogy fails primarily because of the fallacy that gun control was somehow central to the rise of the Nazi party and that the lack of firearms prevented opponents from overthrowing the Nazi regime.

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

Just as important is the fact of the nationality of the victims of the Holocaust.
All but about 130,000 Jews murdered by the Nazis lived outside Germany. Nearly 4.5 million lived in Poland and Russia - both of which had standing armies that failed to stop the Nazi invasions of both countries. The rest lived in countries that also fell to the Nazis, including much of France, the low Countries, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Romania, or were allied with the Nazis, including Italy.

The Polish army disintegrated against the Nazis in under a month; the entire country was overrun in weeks, with the Soviets invading as well. Nearly half of all Holocaust victms lived in Poland, which had a standing army and air force protecting it.

The French army had superior equipment as compared to the Nazis, but they lost to superior tactics in under two months time. The British and Allied army remnants were thrown off the Continent at Dunkirk.

The Nazis then invaded Russia, capturing enough territory to encompass millions of Jews living there - in total, nearly 5 of the 6 million Holocaust victims were living in Russia and Poland - not in Nazi Germany.

Russia had a huge standing army, complete with tanks, planes, and division upon division of infantry.

The Soviets had a larger military than the invading Nazis by all metrics, but the Nazis had the advantage of surprise and superior tactics at the outset. The Soviet response was to trade land for time to regroup and attack.

Despite the larger numerical size of the Soviet military, it was nearly defeated and sieges were laid upon the biggest cities in the USSR - Stalingrad, Leningrad, and came within shooting distance of Moscow.

The Nazis invaded countries with large Jewish populations and with standing armies that were shattered by the Nazi invasion. No amount of individual gun ownership would have saved anyone under those circumstances. Firearms ownership is quite besides the point when an enemy country invades your country with more firepower than your own government can repel.

Also, this analogy purposefully ignores that even major Jewish uprisings like in Warsaw were eventually snuffed out and even the Warsaw ghetto was liquidated with its survivors sent to the death camps.

But more substantively, this analogy fails the smell test the moment you realize that the Nazis defeated entire armies with superior firepower, that a few German Jews (who were a minority of all Nazi victims) with guns would stand no chance.

The third insane Nazi analogy of the year deals with political procedures.

This past November, US Senator Harry Reid amended the rules regarding filibusters and Senate rules for what would allow votes on nominations to move forward. It was a procedural act to address the stalemate in the Senate and the failure to confirm presidential nominees to various postings. And yet, the rhetoric from the right included all kinds of Nazi references, with this one being just a representative sample:

The Obama NAZIS have made a power grab, and the people of the United States of America have less power today than they had yesterday. Barack Obama’s celebrating his power grab by laughing in the media right in your faces, Americans may be too dumb stupid to even know that’s what’s just happened. What’s been ripped apart is the meaning and glory of an America that once stood for something. Now the US stands for nothing. The people are made losers by their servants. An American sellout from an American President and American Senate.

That's right, the ability to limit debate so as to bring about a vote that enables those opposed to the nomination to still vote against that person is akin to a Nazi power grab. Note too that as soon as the rule was changed, votes proceeded and the formerly obstructed nominations proceeded without incident, including several on a wide bipartisan basis indicating that the purpose of the filibuster was to obstruct at all costs on the politics and not on the qualifications of those involved (the confirmation process is about advise and consent - not to block and thwart nominees on political basis alone).

A fourth kind of Nazi analogy is the slow fall into Nazism, as identified by Glenn Beck and his followers. Beck has no problems showing off his significant collection of Nazi memorabilia in Salt Lake City this past June. Beck has a warped sense of history and thinks nothing of trying to compare current events to the rise of the Nazi regime. He has no problem juxtaposing those Nazi artifacts with contemporary events/descriptions is an attempt to convince viewers that there are parallels and that we should oppose the Obama Administration at every opportunity because of the slippery slope to Nazism.

Honorable Mentions go to the following:

• MSNBC analyst Michael Eric Dyson, who in an appearance in June characterized Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s vote with the majority overturning a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as, “A symbolic Jew has invited a metaphoric Hitler to commit holocaust and genocide upon his own people.”
• Rep. Brenda Barton (R-Payson), who compared President Obama to Hiter in relation to the government shutdown that included shuttering National Parks nationwide.
• One of the leaders of the Tea Party movement, Judson Phillips, has no problem dissembling and thinking that President Obama is out to create a one-party state using both Hitlerian and Stalinist tactics.
  
• Glenn Beck makes the list again, calling New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg a Nazi. It's doubly insulting considering that Bloomberg is Jewish




• Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa said that American exceptionalism is reminiscent of Nazism “before and during World War II.
  

A person can lose count of the references uttered on Twitter and blogs and comment sections across the Internet, so I kept the references to political leaders, media figures, and other notable figures. If I were to extend this to every utterance, it would be a full time job. For just one day in January 2013, you could have this selection as among the more notable Hitler references. Cross posted at LGF.

Egypt’s Descent in to the Heart of Darkness

Madness, power, and no good outcome on immediate horizon.

The military’s removal of President Mohammad Morsi opened up a can of worms from which the Egyptian polity is not likely to recover from anytime soon.

Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood had been busy attempting to impose its socio-political will on a nation that was largely unwilling to go along with their agenda. The military was even more reluctant since it saw Morsi’s actions as destabilizing.

So, instead of waiting until new elections, the military did what it’s done repeatedly over the past 60 years. It’s deposed the existing regime and supplanted it with one favorable to its own agenda. After all, Nasser came to power in a coup. Sadat came to power from a coup. Mubarak came to power with the assent of the military, and the military then deposed Mubarak. Now, they’re facing an organized and militarized threat in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood is not backing down and yesterday’s clashes with police and security forces left more than 500 dead and thousands injured.

It’s only going to get worse from here because the Brotherhood’s leadership now believes that they have no other options in the political arena. The military’s effort showed the Brotherhood that they will not be allowed to wield political power, and that’s infuriating to the group, which actually won the right to govern in the historic elections following the coup that deposed Mubarak.

But what the Brotherhood doesn’t understand is that their heavy-handed wielding of political power was not without consequences. It was tremendously unpopular with a majority of Egyptians who saw it as an effort to impose social restrictions at a time when the economy continued to suffer from the very problems that led to Mubarak’s ouster.

The Brotherhood wasn’t dealing with the underlying economic and social conditions that led to an anemic economy, high unemployment, food shortages, and high costs for fuel and food.

The military’s brutal crackdown against the Brotherhood’s protest camps across Cairo forestalls any kind of reconciliation as the lines in the sand have been drawn. The Brotherhood isn’t going to trust the military or attempts to bring it back into a political process, when their leader remains arrested and out of power. The military is losing in this as well, given that they overthrew a sitting government.

Worst of all, Egyptians are losing out because the political chaos is exacerbating the economic chaos and conditions are only going to get worse. Extremists are going to take advantage of the situation.

All of this presents huge challenges for foreign countries in trying to deal with the chaotic situation in Cairo. For the US, it means trying to remain above the fray but condemning the violence and a need to return to a political dialog. Critics of the Administration claim that it lost Egypt, but that ignores that the Brotherhood and the Egyptian military are the ones who brought this crisis upon itself. The US has little influence to play here, except perhaps as a mediator. The one area that the US has influence is on providing foreign assistance and military aid - withholding that aid could get the military to buy into reconciliation talks. But the Brotherhood isn’t going to go along with a deal that doesn’t end with Morsi back in the presidency.

So, until the sides see the futility of the continuing violence and shrink away from an open civil war, they will continue to run up the body count

So Much For Openness: Gov. Christie Blocks Bill That Would Require Port Authority To Hold Hearings Before Toll Hikes

In the wake of an outcry from commuters around the New York City metro area about proposed toll hikes at Port Authority of New York and New Jersey bridges and tolls, both Governors Chris Christie and Andrew Cuomo acted swiftly to force the agency to pare back the increases.

Both also claimed that they would push for more accountability and fiscal responsibility from the bistate agency.

Well, it looks like the charade continues.

Governor Christie killed a bill that would have required the agency to hold hearings before implementing toll hikes.

The developments illustrated Christie’s tight control over the Port Authority and his administration’s insistence on reforming the agency from within, despite Democratic attempts to harness anger generated by recent toll hikes on the agency’s bridges and tunnels.

Christie’s veto of a proposed state law that would have forced the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to hold public hearings before future toll increases drew an immediate rebuke from the bill’s sponsors, who said Christie killed their effort to bring more transparency and accountability to the Port Authority. The bi-state transportation agency is jointly controlled by Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Democrats have called for more legislative oversight, audits and investigations. But Christie has said his administration is already fixing a “dysfunctional” agency that he inherited, and he has dismissed outside efforts as politically motivated.

Christie’s strategy has included stocking the agency with loyalists who will enact his agenda, and that trend continued on Thursday with the Port Authority’s announcement that failed Supreme Court nominee Phillip Kwon, a former Christie colleague in the U.S. attorney’s office, would take over as the agency’s deputy general counsel starting Monday.

“In effect, the governor announced that reform at the Port Authority will not happen under his watch,” said state Sen. Bob Gordon, D-Fair Lawn, a lead sponsor of the proposed bill, along with Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, D-Englewood.

Christie told state lawmakers that the bill should be altered to focus on hundreds of smaller independent authorities, boards and commissions — what he has called the state’s “shadow government.”

Sorry, but the Port Authority is a shadow government in its own right and the open hearings law should have applied to all agencies. The Port Authority is a bistate monstrosity that is accountable to the governors of New York and New Jersey alone. There's no oversight, and both states see the Port Authority coffers as a bank from which they can draw upon for infrastructure projects without having to directly raise taxes. Instead, the agency can and does issue more and more bonds using the tolls and fares to back them.

That isn't to say that toll and fare hikes aren't warranted. They are; the Port Authority has significant projects it has to carry out over the next few years and that costs tremendous sums of money. From the Bayonne Bridge span height increase to replacing hangers and cables on the George Washington Bridge to a replacement span for the Goethals Bridge and the PATH terminal at the World Trade Center, the agency has a huge capital load on its plate.

But the agency must do more without raising fares and tolls. There has to be more accountability and holding public hearings on which these issues can be made known would have been a good first step.

Christie doesn't want to lose the governors' tight grip on the agency, which includes selecting individuals for key positions.

The Star Ledger Doesn't Get It On ARC/Gateway Tunnel

The Star Ledger's editorial page doesn't get it when it comes to talking about the ARC tunnel and its successor, the Gateway Project.

It laments the billions that Gov. Chris Christie supposedly left on the table by killing the project because overruns would have been a multibillion dollar hit on New Jersey taxpayers.

Plans for a new rail tunnel between New Jersey and Manhattan took a nasty PR hit in 2010, when Gov. Chris Christie pulled the plug on the ARC tunnel, citing billions in potential cost overruns to the state.

That concern was reasonable, if overblown. But he left billions of federal dollars on the table that we might not get back. And his real motive, it seems, was to grab the money set aside by Gov. Jon Corzine, so that he wouldn’t have to raise the gas tax.

The ARC tunnel would have doubled rail capacity — helping commuters get to high-paying Manhattan jobs and increasing property values in New Jersey. It was set for completion in 2018. But Christie didn’t have a Plan B. A tunnel is still needed, and he isn’t committed to the Gateway plan.

Even that 2025 date will cause hardship. NJ Transit says tweaks — adding double-decker buses, encouraging commuters to use ferries and PATH trains — could wring another decade out of the existing transit system. That gets us to 2022.
After that? Doomsday.

Let's just ignore the fact that Gov. Corzine fast-tracked the ARC project to get it underway before he left office, ignoring the fact that NJ Transit has never been able to contain costs on its infrastructure projects.

The federal government understood this as they estimated the overruns to be anywhere from $1 to $5 billion, and the feds further refused to cover any cost overruns on this interstate project. Had the federal government wanted to keep the project going, it would have ponied up a deal to cover cost overruns. It knew, or had reason to know, that the overruns would be more than what NJ Transit was willing to admit, and there was no way that they would do so. Instead, they let Christie kill the project and touch off the ensuing political finger pointing.

Amtrak is better suited to be the lead agency on the Gateway tunnel project because it assures that the rail connections under Manhattan lead to a high speed rail setup, and not just a tunnel ending without any place to store trains when they are done with the run into Manhattan. The ARC project was ill-conceived and the Gateway tunnel is a far more practical approach to getting new capacity.

That doesn't mean that there aren't capacity issues with the existing infrastructure - there most certainly are.

However, NJ Transit has cut its capacity all while raising fares because it lacks the operating funds to run as many trains and there's no timetable on when those cuts would ever be restored (something that they admitted during a recent customer survey blitz in Hoboken). That means that the supposed 1-seat ride into Manhattan wouldn't happen, or it would mean reduced service to Hoboken - far from an ideal situation.

It's also interesting that New York, which stands to benefit greatly from whatever tunnel project is built, hasn't put up funding to cover its end of the deal. That's another reason why Christie killed the ARC project. ARC's funding structure was disproportionately hitting New Jersey residents, while New York gained benefits without contributing its fair share.

The Gateway project is truly an interstate venture, as it produces a major upgrade to the NEC - an interstate corridor and the only real high speed rail option for the country (the Acela service isn't anywhere near European or Japanese standards, but it's the closest thing that the US has in service). Upgrading the stretch in New Jersey through Queens, New York would shave significant time on a Washington DC to Boston run.

It's a project that has to get done, but the Star Ledger also oversells the benefits to New Jersey. Values cannot be expected to rise without additional service by NJ Transit. If the agency can't increase its operating budget to provide more service, it doesn't matter what kind of capacity is available.

Egyptians Go To Polls To Elect New President

It's a historic day in Egypt. Today is the first day of a two-day election to determine the next president of Egypt and for the first time, it doesn't involve Hosni Mubarak and there are multiple candidates with a chance of winning. The fact that polling is all but nonexistent, no one really knows who will come out on top:

In the run-up to the ballot, there have been no reliable opinion surveys, nor is there a permanent Constitution to set the president’s duties and powers. But the vote is widely seen as crucial in choosing a leader to influence Egypt’s course for decades to come.

About 50 million Egyptians are eligible to vote, and four or five of the candidates are seen as plausible contenders.

From the Islamist side, Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh has campaigned as a relative liberal while Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood has offered a more conservative vision.

Two candidates held positions under President Hosni Mubarak, deposed 15 months ago as the Arab Spring began to stir revolt in many parts of the Arab world — the former prime minister, Ahmed Shafik, and Amr Moussa, a former diplomat and elder statesman.

A fifth candidate is the Nasserite, Hamdeen Sabbahy, a poet-turned-populist who is campaigning as a political descendant of the leader of the Egyptian revolution of 1952, President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

The ballot represented a remarkable break with the traditions of the Mubarak era, when presidential elections simply confirmed the ruling elite in a land that for decades has been used to power exercised by presidents drawn from the military after centuries of highly centralized rule.

Since the fall of Mr. Mubarak, the military has continued to play a dominant role in steering the transition.

If the leading vote-getter doesn't get sufficient votes, there will be a runoff election in June.

The problem is that the military continues to throw its weight around and it remains to be seen whether they'll abide by the results of the elections should Morsi or Fotouh win. While the military claims that they'll relinquish power by July 1, Fotouh has a pretty good chance of winning, primarily because he's got the support of Islamists as well as moderates, but Amr Moussa may be preferred by the diplomatic elites, who see Moussa as a known quantity.

The candidates are trying to stress the need to work on economic development and restoring law and order but one of their fallback positions has been to question the Camp David Accords with Israel.

Egyptian candidates have repeatedly called for a review of the Camp David Accords that has brought a cold peace between the two nations.

That the candidates have repeatedly mentioned Israel is a relief valve rather than constructive engagement of the problems facing Egypt. The peace deal with Israel has been beneficial to Egypt, and mentioning Israel is simply meant to deflect attention from the real problems facing Egyptians today. That includes a stagnant economy that is ill-equipped to deal with social mobility, entrenched elites, and lack of opportunities.

Israel's Netanyahu Forms Coalition Government With Rival Kadima

Israeli politics can make for strange bedfellows. The Knesset is made up of 120 parlimentarians, and to govern, one must be able to get a majority of Parliament. In the last election, Likud was given the opportunity to form a coalition government (in Israel's history, no single party has ever garnered sufficient seats to form a government on its own). It did so, but only barely.

The need to create coalition governments means that minority parties can hold tremendous sway in the coalition governments - the religious parties for example can threaten to leave the government if their policies aren't enacted/followed, for instance).

A few times in Israel's history, the two biggest parties have joined together to form a unity government - particularly in times of need.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes this was the right time to form a unity government, and that gives Netanyahu the numbers in the Knesset to take a policy stance that might push some of the minority parties to bolt. It convinced rival party Kadima to join in a unity government so that there is no need to hold new elections to form a new government.

No elections, Kadima joins government: In a dramatic move, the Likud and Kadima parties agreed on a unity government early Tuesday, averting the prospect of early elections.


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Kadima Chairman Shaul Mofaz finalized the surprising unity agreement hours before the Knesset was expected to approve its own dissolution and set September 4th as the date of the next elections.

PM Netanyahu announced that Kadima’s Mofaz will be appointed deputy PM and minister without portfolio, while also being included in Israel’s security cabinet. Mofaz told Kadima members the party will likely get more portfolios later on, apparently in 2013. As part of the deal, Kadima will also chair the Knesset’s Economics Committee.

The move was also a tactical ploy by both Kadima and Likud - the two biggest party blocs in the Knesset to thwart the ascension of a new party headed by Yair Lapid. For Kadima, the move prevents a potentially serious blow to the party's standing in the Knesset. For Netanyahu and Likud, the move strengthens its hand in dealing with a variety of issues, including the contentious move to expand the mandatory draft to include all Israeli citizens, eliminating the exclusion for the ultra-orthodox.

UPDATE:
Some US media outlets are playing the angle that the coalition unity government deal is designed with Iran in mind. That completely ignores the fact that the deal opens up the opportunity to reform the IDF and undertake other economic policy reforms that it could not do if the religious parties were able to force new elections.

Amtrak's Gateway Tunnel Project Moves Forward As Recriminations Continue Over Cancelled ARC Project

My views on the ill-conceived ARC tunnel project are well known (just check out the label linked below). It was a poorly conceived project that would end up saddling New Jersey taxpayers with cost overruns that the Federal Transit Administration conceded could end up being anywhere from $1 to more than $4 billion over the $8.7 billion budget (which itself was higher than initial $5 billion estimated for the job). NJ Transit claims that they could hold costs to $10 billion simply didn't hold water, not when everyone was expecting it to run much higher considering the initial outlays were already running significantly overbudget.

Following Governor Christie's cancellation, Amtrak came forward with their own project - Gateway - which would not only provide high speed rail access through to New York Penn Station, but would give NJ Transit additional slots. The Gateway project is starting to get funds to do initial planning and design studies underway. While NJ Transit wouldn't necessarily get as many slots under the proposal as in ARC, the benefits greatly outweighed the fact that NJ Transit simply couldn't handle the project as NJ Transit's Jim Weinstein noted.

All that hasn't stopped New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg from sniping away at Governor Christie for claiming that New Jersey is suffering from the results of that cancellation at hearings relating to Port Authority fare/toll hikes.

It's partisan politics at its core - and that continued yesterday during hearings Lautenberg held in Congress with the Port Authority on the hot seat. It's interesting that during the hearing that Lautenberg's role as a Port Authority trustee came into focus considering that Lautenberg was busy complaining about fare and toll hikes all while Lautenberg was granted an exemption from tolls because he was a former trustee. That's hypocrisy in motion, and Lautenberg's actions and policy decisions helped form the current financial situation that required significant fare hikes (though the bulk of the fare/toll hikes are resulting from the Port Authority's cost overruns on the misbegotten PATH transit hub at the World Trade Center - the fare/toll hike nearly matches dollar for dollar the cost overruns).

The fact remains that Lautenberg could have prevented the cancellation had he done his job and secured the federal government's obligation to cover cost overruns - or to get New York to join in covering the costs for the project. Instead, he has decided to focus his ire on Governor Christie. It's so much easier to focus on partisan politics than doing the hard work of getting everyone who stands to benefit from the project to contribute - even if the contribution is conditional on covering potential cost overruns (that proponents could argue wouldn't materialize, but which were sufficient to scare off the FTA and federal government from covering them - that really speaks volumes about the nature of the cost overruns expected).

At the same time, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has thrown his own ideas on the table for resurrecting a commuter tax on New Jersey residents who commute and work in Manhattan to fund mass transit projects in New York. He went on to complain about Christie's cancellation of the project, but where was Stringer to call on the City to contribute to the ARC project to keep it running? He was silent.

If the project was as vital as Stringer was saying, where was his voice to call on the City to find a way to fund the project.

It's all well and good to say that you've got a vision for New York City mass transit projects and finding a more stable revenue source, but when you've got the opportunity to get a project done that has been needed for years - and need to address the funding, you're missing in action. This too comes down to politics, which in Stringer's case is firing up the base for a potential run for Mayor to succeed Mike Bloomberg.

Friday Night News Dump: South Carolina Lt. Gov. Resigns In Disgrace Over Criminal Charges

It's the latest installment of the Friday Night News Dump. This is where bad news goes to lie under the radar. In this instance, we've got Republican, Lt. Gov. Ken Ard of South Carolina, resigning in disgrace over criminal charges of spending campaign funds on personal expenses and fabricating donations.

He entered guilty pleas shortly after resigning this afternoon.

Apparently as part of a plea deal, Mr. Ard appeared before Judge G. Thomas Cooper of Circuit Court in Columbia, S.C., and pleaded guilty to all seven misdemeanor charges lodged against him. Judge Cooper then sentenced him to five years of probation, a $5,000 fine and 300 hours of community service. He could have faced up to $35,000 in fines and seven years in prison.

The indictment, announced by the state attorney general, Alan Wilson, charged Mr. Ard with what Mr. Wilson said was an effort to create “the false appearance of a groundswell of political support” by reporting $162,500 in “fictitious or bogus campaign contributions.” He also spent campaign donations on personal items, including iPads, clothes, football tickets and family vacations, the indictment said.

This also qualifies as a name that party situation since Ard's party affiliation isn't discussed until deep into the article.

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley issued a statement saying that Ard and his family are "good people" but the fact is that Ard has been under investigation for some time and that this was probably as good a deal as he could get.

And once again South Carolina politics is embroiled in scandal - prior to Haley, Gov. Mark Sanford got into trouble and admitted violating campaign spending laws and was censured by state legislators after confessing to an extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina (aka, hiking the Appalachian).

Virginia Governor Has Second Thoughts About Passing Invasive Ultrasound Procedure Bill

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is having second thoughts about signing an abortion ultrasound bill that would impose new and more invasive procedures violating a woman's rights in order to obtain an abortion.

Gov. Bob McDonnell is having second thoughts about signing it into law.
According to the Post, McDonnell has stepped back from his promise to sign the bill if it crosses his desk. Additionally, reports AFP, yesterday the House of Delegates put off a third and final vote on the legislation after a day of protests in Richmond.

The most controversial aspect of the law is how the ultrasound, which would not be optional, would be carried out. According to an article by Slate's Dahlia Lithwick last week, the use of the foot-long probe for the transvaginal procedure of no medical necessity would constitute rape* [see my comments below] under the federal definition of the crime. Additionally, critics noted, if a woman chooses not to look at the ultrasound, that fact will be noted in her medical record.

While the FBI definition of rape involves the following:

The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

Virginia law considers object sexual penetration a felony separate from rape, and this statute would require doctors to carry out an unnecessary medical procedure that meets the definition of that felony crime. So, while the requirement to use this ultrasound probe wouldn't meet the definition of rape under Virginia law, it most certainly is a criminal act under Virginia law.

Under either federal law or Virginia law, the woman seeking a lawful abortion would have to get a medically unnecessary and invasive procedure that meets the FBI definition of rape all because Republicans think that this is the means to overturn Roe and its progeny - to say nothing of the added health care costs associated with the procedures involved.

Nowhere do supporters of this bill suggest that the ultrasound procedure is medically necessary. It is merely another way to shame and violate women who are seeking an abortion that pro-lifers deem abhorent and immoral.

Connecticut's Utility Fails To Meet Own Deadline To Restore Power

Connecticut Light and Power is the poster child for all that is wrong with power utilities in the country. Not only can it not provide its basic purpose - reliable power distribution, but it can't even make its own deadlines to restore power to hundreds of thousands of people across the state.

Thousands of customers are still without power two weeks after the early season snowstorm.

CLP's parent company, Northeast Utilities, has put up $10 million to offer assistance to its customers and waived penalties and other fees from the storm period. That's cold comfort to the hundreds of thousands of customers who were without power for nearly two weeks.

Gov. Dannel Malloy empowered a panel to investigate the utility and thus far there's no good news for the utility. It cut back on tree trimming, and while the utility can claim that it has spent more on trimming in recent years, it's less than it was spending a decade ago (as adjusted for inflation). That translates into less miles of line that gets trimmed - meaning that more trees are likely to cause service disruptions.

Others are now focusing on CLP's parent company, and how the political favors and lobbying has won it the right to little oversight or responsibility when things go horribly wrong.

The State Attorney General is working with a risk management company to try and figure out what the utility did and is an expansion of similar investigations being carried out in the wake of the utility's failings during Hurricane Irene.

There are five separate investigations ongoing into CLP's actions during the aftermath from Irene and the snowstorm.

The Latest From Zuccotti Park's OWS Protests

So how are the protesters dealing with the lack of generators after the NYPD and FDNY confiscated them as a fire hazard? They've gone and become their own generators - using bikes to power generators:


Local businesses continue suffering from the ongoing security measures put in place after OWS protesters took over Zuccotti Park. One business claims to have laid off a bunch of part time workers because business is down significantly as a result of the security barriers limiting the traffic to his establishment.

Marc Epstein, owner of the Milk Street Cafe at 40 Wall Street, just let 21 employees go.

The reason? The barricades police have set up throughout Wall Street as a consequence of the ongoing demonstration.

In June, he opened the New York branch of the Boston shop, which has a 30 year history. Epstein says he leased the space on Wall Street because it was next to a pedestrian plaza – and his was the only restaurant along that plaza.

“The opening was perfect,” Epstein told CBSNewYork.com. “The food was delicious, the customers were happy, and the line was out the door.”

Customers kept coming back, Epstein said.

“Everything was going in the right direction. Sales continued to grow. We started to build our catering business. Costs were going down. I felt that by October or November we would break even.”

Then the Occupy Wall Street movement launched.

“I came one Monday morning and I found the exit by the 2 or 3 subway station closed. I saw all these barriers – barricades – all up and down my street,” Epstein said. “At first I thought nothing of it, but after a week… it’s been six or seven weeks now.”

The security barriers are meant to thwart protesters from marching into the Wall Street hub area around the NYSE and Federal Hall, but they have also served to thwart tourists and local businesses from carrying out regular business. These measures are in addition to the barriers installed in the wake of 9/11 to protect the stock exchange from potential attack by car/truck bombs.

Note too that the building where the business is located is owned by none other than Donald Trump, so expect Trump to squawk about the situation.

Local politicians continue weighing in over the protests, and Shelly Silver, the Assembly Speaker, has come out against the protests after spending time on the fence. He's been joined by other Democrats, including Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who represent the area of Lower Manhattan. They're demanding the city crack down against the nuisances, particularly those protesters who are defecating and urinating on local streets and the incessant noise coming from the drummer groups along the west side of the park.

While expressing sympathy for Occupy Wall Street protesters and their right to protest, the elected officials wrote to Bloomberg insisting he solve growing concerns.

“Some of the protesters, and others who have opportunistically joined the crowd for unrelated reasons, have created serious qualify-of-life concerns for residents of the immediate area,” the letter states.

The group complained about public urination, nonstop drumming - and erected barricades that make it difficult for local residents to get around.

“It is important that these quality-of-life concerns are addressed in an effective and thoughtful manner by the city so that they do not keep recurring,” the letter states.

Silver, at the Capitol in Albany, told reporters that exercising one’s First Amendment rights “should not include defecating or urinating on sidewalks.

“What we want is a recognition that other people have a constitutional right to enjoy their home, that businesses have a right to do business unimpeded by people who are exercising their First Amendment rights,” he said.

Meanwhile Mayor Mike Bloomberg and former Mayor Ed Koch sparred over the protesters and whether they were focused on the right target. While Bloomberg suggested that the real beef was with Congress and Washington, Koch pointed out the problem with someone stealing a bike going to jail while someone who stole millions got a fine.

Both are serious problems, but the issue of fines is one that Congress has to address - that's not merely something that Wall Street can rectify on its own. It means giving teeth to the penalty structure in place for Wall Street and financial malfeasance.

At the same time, a new poll suggests that the makeup of those protesting isn't quite what people may think.

The poll by Fordham's Center for Electoral Politics and Democracy released last week found that the Occupy Wall Street movement is 68% white, 61% male and 28% unemployed. But most of the protestors are college graduates and 22% hold advanced degrees.

It also found that only 25% of the protestors identify with the Democratic Party, while 21% want Rep Ron Paul (R-Texas) to become the Republican Party nominee for president.

The project by Costas Panagopoulos, professor of political science at Fordham and students, surveyed 301 protestors camped out at Zuccotti Park from Oct. 11 to Oct. 14, with a response rate of 78%. Only one other such survey of Occupy Wall Street exists and it polled fewer protestors, Panagopoulos said.

“The group is very liberal and part of the Democratic base,” Panagopoulos said. “But a surprising number don’t plan to vote."

The OWS rabble rousers seem to detest the Tea Party movement, with 75% giving it two thumbs down.

But, like their conservative counterparts, the Zuccotti Park denizens don’t trust Washington to “do what is right” and 97% disapprove of how Congress is handling its job.

More protestors identify with the Socialist Party than the Republican Party, and more than a third identify with no party at all, the survey found.

A surprising percentage support Ron Paul, which suggests quite a significant libertarian streak among protesters, which isn't nearly what Panagopoulos suggests. It isn't surprising that there's a significant liberal presence, but there's a confluence of anti-government sentiment among the protesters that has all kinds of shades - from socialist to libertarian.

The Daily News reported that a group claiming to be affiliated with the OWS protesters that circulated a supposed manifesto codifying various demands of the protesters is a bunch of bunk.

Don't Expect Flood Mitigation Plans Anytime Soon

After disastrous flooding in New Jersey and upstate New York, we're getting the usual round of calls for fixes that may prevent future flooding.

The problem is that all those fixes require money and time.

A $330 million project for Bound Brook is not yet complete, and showed some of the limitations of the flood mitigation project. For one thing, the flood control project planned for a 150 year event, and Irene was a 500 year event (but expect that kind of storm damage to become more common place).

Heck, they usually require planning and it turns out that a New York State Panel empowered in 2006 to look at flood fixes for the Mohawk River near Albany never met.

A task force created to find ways to lessen water damage after a 2006 flood hit the Mohawk Valley and the state canal system has never met despite a state mandate. Flood damage in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene raises questions about the failure to develop a plan that could have reduced losses this summer.

Plans for a water diversion tunnel in New Jersey that would shift water from the Passaic River to Newark Bay have been floated several times, and there was even money set aside for that purpose, but environmentalists ended up killing the tunnel.

Population density is part of the problem within the Passaic watershed. There's far too many properties within the flood plain and flooding is complicated by runoff from more developed areas. Buyback plans to condemn and demolish homes and businesses in the worst flooding areas are nearly tapped out; these areas soak up floodwaters and reduce downstream flooding.

Some localities have called for dredging of waterways that have become choked with silt from runoff but environmentalists block such moves on grounds that it is a temporary solution, or that it will disturb polluted areas releasing more contaminants into waterways, etc.

Flood control projects meant to protect downstream areas get blamed for upstream flooding, which becomes a contentious issue as political disputes end up blocking any action at all - and these issues require interstate and regional solutions since watersheds often cross political boundaries.

Areas upstate are considering the unthinkable - instead of rebuilding along the same streams and waterways that have flooded several times in recent years, they are contemplating moving to higher ground and moving all the infrastructure that goes along with it. There are also calls for no new development within the Catskill watershed (which includes the NYC water supply area) and other efforts to reduce flood damage by moving structures out of projected flood areas.

Such plans wont help places like New York City, where much of the area is within a flood zone including Lower Manhattan.

Jerry Seinfeld Spurns Donald Trump Over Birther Comments

Donald Trump has been making the rounds touting his claims that President Obama isn't legally qualified to be President because he was somehow not born in the United States or that his mother isn't an American citizen.

Well, Trump's comments didn't sit well with Jerry Seinfeld who was scheduled to attend a fundraiser for St. Jude's Childrens Hospital and a Trump charity. Trump slammed Seinfeld for backing out, but I think Trump's the one who really needs to apologize for his asinine push to bring birtherism into the mainstream.

Donald Trump wasn't laughing when funnyman Jerry Seinfeld canceled an upcoming appearance at a benefit for his son's Eric Trump Foundation.

Seinfeld pulled out of the Sept. 13 event benefiting the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital because he disagrees with The Donald's questioning of Barack Obama's citizenship, his reps said.

"I just learned you canceled a show for my son's charity," Trump fired off in a scorching letter to Seinfeld yesterday, "because of the fact that I am being very aggressive with respect to President Obama, who is doing an absolutely terrible job as our leader."

Trump is doing a whole lot more than complaining about President Obama. He's questioning his qualifications for being President by questioning whether he is legally qualified. That's a huge difference.

Before the election in 2008, I questioned whether Obama had the character and judgment to be President based on his thin experience and lacking resume. People like Orly Taitz spread the nonsense that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii or was somehow not a US citizen eligible to be President. That conspiracy has now fully taken hold among the right wing and the GOP mainstream to such an extent that it is exceedingly troubling and will cause lasting damage to the GOP. Trump is now expanding and compounding that damage.

What Is Huckabee Hiding?

FOIA requests for information from Mike Huckabee's years as governor in Arkansas have revealed a rather troublesome response: the computer hard drives and records were physically destroyed by the outgoing Huckabee administration in anticipation of a run for President.

Those requests were made of his successor, Mike Bebee, who noted that Huckabee destroyed everything ranging from travel records to calendars and call logs, but gave a backup copy to Huckabee's former chief of staff:

In February, Mother Jones wrote to the office of Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe seeking access to a variety of records concerning his predecessor's tenure, including Huckabee's travel records, calendars, call logs, and emails. Beebe's chief legal counsel, Tim Gauger, replied in a letter that "former Governor Huckabee did not leave behind any hard-copies of the types of documents you seek. Moreover, at that time, all of the computers used by former Governor Huckabee and his staff had already been removed from the office and, as we understand it, the hard-drives in those computers had already been 'cleaned' and physically destroyed."

He added, "In short, our office does not possess, does not have access to, and is not the custodian of any of the records you seek."

"Huckabee just absolutely doesn’t trust anybody," says one former high-ranking Arkansas Republican. "In my experience, if you don't trust people, it's because you're not trustworthy."

The person who may know the most about Huckabee's records—or lack of them—is Jim Parsons. A self-described gadfly, Parsons is a former Green Beret turned good-government crusader who has filed dozens of Freedom of Information requests targeting Arkansas politicos on both sides of the aisle, including the Clintons. Shortly after Huckabee left office, Parsons went to battle with the state over his records.

In January 2007, Parsons requested "a copy of all information" on the Huckabee administration's computers the day he left office. Beebe's office provided Parsons with a January 9 memo addressed to Huckabee from the Arkansas Department of Information Systems, reporting that all of the gubernatorial hard drives had been "crushed under the supervision of a designee of [Huckabee's] office." That is, a Huckabee aide had made sure all this information was destroyed.

The memo included another tantalizing piece of information: The information stored on the drives had been saved on a backup, which was handed over to Huckabee's then-chief of staff, Brenda Turner. The history of the Huckabee administration, then, was locked away, under the watchful eye of a former aide. What did she do with this information? Where is it now? Turner, who now runs the PR shop for a Arkansas-based purveyor of Christian-themed greeting cards, did not respond to repeated requests for comment. (Contacted via his political action committee, Huckabee didn't respond to questions about his records.)

Parsons requested the backups and eventually filed a lawsuit against Huckabee and Beebe, alleging that the new governor had siphoned taxpayer money from an emergency fund to pay to replace the destroyed hard drives. Altogether, the new equipment cost over $335,000. Huckabee countered that the information on the hard drives included private details, such as social security numbers, that shouldn’t be released to the public. In the end, Parsons' suit was dismissed—largely because he didn't name Turner, who apparently possessed the records, as a plaintiff.

Why would someone do that if they didn't have something(s) to hide. Given his track record (including giving out pardons to those who didn't deserve it), this should raise more questions about his character and fitness to be a candidate for president.

Turkey; Qatar Quit Efforts To Mediate Lebanese Crisis

Just days after the Saudis gave up in their efforts to mediate the Lebanese political crisis and Turkey and Qatar picked up the role, Turkey and Qatar have given up as well.

Meanwhile, Lebanon's diplomats at the UN proffered a resolution condemning Israel building housing. It's typical of Middle Eastern regimes to go after Israel when their domestic political situation is in flux, and this is no different. Lebanon's Saad Hariri needs to bolster support and pushing UN resolutions is seen as one way to do so.

The UN move is calculated to help garner support among other Middle Eastern regimes to back Hariri over Hizbullah, Syria and Iran.

GOP Resurgence Coincides With Redistricting

The GOP could not have picked a better time for them to regain control of the House and thrive at the state level in many parts of the country.

2010 saw the decennial census. Redistricting follows.

The party will control 25 Legislatures, including Ohio, North Carolina, and Minnesota, boosting their power in statehouses by the most since 1928, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Republicans won the House and Senate in Alabama for the first time since the end of the Civil War. They took governors’ seats from Democrats in Michigan, Pennsylvania and at least nine other states.

Fifteen to 25 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are more likely to remain Republican or switch from Democratic after redistricting as a result of the party’s victory in the states, said Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee.

“We’re going to end up protecting a lot as opposed to carving new ones,” Gillespie said in a conference call with reporters.

Congressional seats will be reapportioned following the 2010 U.S. census. States with shrinking populations will lose seats, and those with growing ones will gain them. The party that draws the election map in each state will shape the political landscape for the next 10 years.

Redistricting Process

In 38 states, governors and state legislators play a determining role in the redistricting process, according to the Republican leadership committee.

Population figures come in December, which means that legislatures will begin the contentious task of creating new legislative districts for Congress and local districts. That's a monumental task, and it also means that in those states that have seen a loss of seats, politicians forced to the sidelines or otherwise forced into political campaigns against other incumbents as seats are merged.

That means that we'll see plenty of the usual gerrymandering of districts to protect incumbents where possible, but it also means that some states will see additional representation while others continue shedding representatives.

New York falls into that latter category, along with New Jersey.

This is an instance where elections have consequences for not just the immediate satisfaction, but long term changes to the political system.

The Continuing Idiocy On The Cordoba House Proposal

Michael Calderone picks up on a subject I've been hammering home since the outrage began over the Cordoba House proposal hit the big media outlets.

It is not located at Ground Zero (or in Ground Zero). Close, but no cigar. Some media outlets have consistently gotten it wrong.

In covering the growing controversy over the proposed Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, the national media, led by the big cable networks, have by default shaped the increasingly heated debate by repeatedly referring to the project as the "Ground Zero mosque." An MSNBC spokesman said that describing the project is a "show-by-show decision," while a CNN spokesperson said the network guides anchors in written copy to refer to the project as "an Islamic center that includes a mosque that is near Ground Zero, or is two blocks from Ground Zero." Of course, political pundits may stray from the network's phrasing and inaccurately describe the location of the planned building at the center of the furor.

But Phil Corbett, the New York Times' standards editor said, "Given how politically volatile this discussion has been, we think it's important to be accurate and precise," in explaining the paper's consistent references to the planned structure being two blocks from the Ground Zero site.

The "Park51" project, as it's officially dubbed, is in fact planned for a site two blocks from where the World Trade Center towers fell, amid other lower Manhattan establishments whose names have never featured the words "Ground Zero." If built, the 13-story community center and mosque project will be one of hundreds of buildings located within blocks of Ground Zero — a densely populated area that already includes a couple of mosques, along with less "hallowed" institutions, like strip clubs, bars and Off Track Betting operations.

But Park51 is getting all the attention downtown — and now, nationwide. President Obama affirmed the constitutional right to build a mosque on private property Friday, breathing new life into an already long-raging controversy. In covering Obama's recent remarks — and the past couple months of debate — the media's played a pivotal role in framing the issues at hand. Here's a rundown of how the media covered the debate as it took shape.

Location, location, location

News organizations make conscious decisions when they describe a construction work-in-progress as either located on the site of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history or two blocks away. The New York Times — except for one blog headline — has consistently described the mosque in headlines as not being built at Ground Zero but "near" the site.

Corbett, who oversees the Times standards on such questions, told The Upshot that he hasn't issued any formal guidelines but has discussed that particular phrasing with editors.

"To call it the Ground Zero Mosque not only would give you the impression that it's on the site of the Trade Center," he continued, "but it might even give you the further impression that it's part of the rebuilding process to that site."

The Times appears to be in the minority, judging by headlines related to Obama's remarks.

Many news organizations ran headlines this past weekend describing a "Ground Zero mosque," including the Associated Press, Huffington Post, Washington Post, Fox News, New York Daily News, Politico, and AOL's Politics Daily site. (Yahoo! News, linking to an AP story on the remarks, similarly went with "Ground Zero mosque.")

Several other news organizations routinely place "Ground Zero" in quotation marks, which is more of shorthand way of describing the debate without pinpointing the location.

Still, shorthand also plays a significant part in how the media frames debates. Anyone who's picked up a newspaper or turned on cable news has likely heard about the "Ground Zero mosque" and the controversy surrounding it. It's perhaps the simplest way to jump into a story that's now lasted more than two months.

It's little wonder that there is so much opposition to the project when you've got people thinking that the project is happening within Ground Zero.

Throw in mendacious lies that claim that the Cordoba House proponents are somehow affiliated with Hamas, and you've got a vicious mix.

Meanwhile, there are reports that Gov. Paterson will meet with SoHo Properties to discuss possible alternative locations for the community center and mosque, but other reports discount that SoHo Properties would consider alternatives.

Politicians continue chiming in. Some Democrats are annoyed that President Obama took a stand because it has become a wedge issue for the GOP to exploit with November elections looming.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are engaging in the usual demagoguery and pandering for votes. That includes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who faces a tough reelection battle, and various New York congressional races:

And via Newsday, Rep. Steve Israel, the Democrat in NY-2, said, "While they have a constitutional right to build the mosque, it would be better if they had demonstrated more sensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims. I urge them to do so before proceeding further."

Rep. Tim Bishop, whose NY-1 district has three GOP challengers duking it out, said, "As a New Yorker, I believe ground zero is sacred ground and should unite us. If the group seeking to build the mosque is sincere in its efforts to bring people together, I would urge them to seek an alternative location which is less divisive. I dispute the wisdom of building at that location, not the constitutional right."

It's almost a given that everyone is operating under the belief that the proposed project is located at (or in) Ground Zero, rather than near it, and that there's somehow an area beyond Ground Zero that is sacrosanct for such construction.

It's political pandering. Pure and simple. And it's still wrong.

Yet, there are some politicians who are demanding an end to the pandering. That includes New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who got slammed by some on the right wing for taking the principled stand.

UPDATE:
Here's something else to consider about Gov. Paterson's potential meeting with SoHo Properties to discuss locating the mosque somewhere other than at 47-51 Park Place.

Community Board 1 approved the project. Community Board 1 governs all of Lower Manhattan and all of the Financial District, the area around Ground Zero and Battery Park City. Where else in Lower Manhattan would this center be acceptable? Three blocks away? Four?

Some people simply wont be satisfied with any distance, but it isn't the distance - it's the religion of those proposing the project. For them, it wont matter where it's located near Ground Zero.

Where Do Rangel's Constituents Sit On His Massive Ethics Mess?

Do Charles Rangel's constituents think that Rangel should be booted from office over his 13-count ethics indictment in the House? While some reports seem to think that this doesn't sit well with his constituents, reporters were busy asking his constituents this morning and not all of them were calling for Rangel to step down.

Indeed, some were saying that this was a witch hunt to go after Rangel after 40 years of service and that this was politics. They cited his work for the district and all the good things he's done.

The myopia is astounding, but not unexpected. After all, when people are polled about Congress, they generally give Congress generically awful marks, but rank their own member quite well. Rangel is no exception to that rule. In fact, I've remarked on numerous occasions during this entire affair that while it will hurt Rangel's fellow Democrats, Rangel may well be reelected without much of a problem.

Rangel was reelected handily in 2008 despite the news of his tax evasion, rent stabilization mess, and other legal and ethics woes coming to light during the summer of 2008. If his constituents didn't boot him then, what makes anyone think that they're going to do so now?

It may well take a perp-walk to send Rangel packing if Congress doesn't first expel him and Congressional Democrats are loath to do so. They've been dragging their feet for nearly two years in resisting calls for investigations and for Rangel to step down as chair of Ways and Means. Yet, the weight of evidence against Rangel is such that it can no longer be avoided and the timing couldn't be better.

Everyone should get what they deserve over coddling corruption, graft, and unethical behavior.

UPDATE:
Here's a full breakdown of the House ethics panel's findings.

UPDATE:
Despite the finding that Rangel evaded his tax obligations for more than a decade (from 1998 until the present), Democrats on the panel think that his actions deserve a slap on the wrist: they are recommending a reprimand. Reprimand is the lowest of three possible outcomes - explusion would have been the worst, and a censure would have been an intermediate step.

That the panel's Democrats can't see that this case warrants the most serious punishment is outrageous. After all, if anyone systematically avoided their tax obligations for a decade, they would be looking at jail time. Combine the tax woes with the multitude of other ethical and legal woes, and expulsion should have been the only possible outcome.