Alighting on Staten Island, Democratic Mayoral Hopefuls Make Their Appeals

Staten Island does not get a lot of love in Democratic primary elections — only around one-sixteenth of New York City’s residents live there, and its population is relatively conservative.

But on Monday night, five Democrats running for mayor made their way to the College of Staten Island for a forum at which each pledged to help the island if elected, offering to do everything from lowering the toll on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge to using a proposed giant Ferris wheel to attract tourists.

William C. Thompson, Jr., a former comptroller who grew up in Brooklyn and now lives in Manhattan, noted that Staten Islanders had often felt that theirs was “the forgotten borough.” But he vowed that it “won’t be forgotten under a Thompson administration.” He said he would reduce the $15 toll on the Verrazano (it is $15 now, and set to go up to $20 in 2017) and offset the cost by reinstating a commuter tax and increasing automobile registration fees for heavy vehicles.

Mr. Thompson also said he would create a new position, a deputy mayor of infrastructure, to oversee rebuilding areas damaged by Hurricane Sandy.

Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker and a Manhattan resident, said that rebuilding in response to the hurricane would be her first priority. Ms. Quinn said homeowners in areas of Staten Island hit by the storm should be eligible to sell their homes to the city or state if they did not want to return to them, and she proposed burying power lines.

She also said that she would spur the island’s economy by creating a regional council charged with expanding New York City’s volume of exports and guiding the new export business to Staten Island’s waterfront.

John C. Liu, the current comptroller and a Queens resident, promised to build a public hospital on the island, which currently does not have one. He also said he would expand express bus service on the island, and move forward with a proposed light-rail project on the western shore that would connect it with Hudson-Bergen Light Rail system in New Jersey.

To prepare for future major storms, Mr. Liu said the city should consider building sea walls in New York Harbor to protect Staten Island. He also said that should he become mayor, he would visit Staten Island so much that “you’ll think that I’m living here.”

Bill de Blasio, the city’s public advocate and a Brooklyn resident, also expressed concern about the island’s lack of a public hospital but said the best solution might be for the city to provide support to the borough’s private hospitals to encourage them to expand services. He expressed cautious support for a proposal to build the world’s largest Ferris wheel near the St. George Ferry Terminal, saying it could encourage tourism. He also proposed reviving a plan for a rail line along the island’s northern shore, to connect with the ferry terminal.

And Sal F. Albanese, a former councilman from Brooklyn, also promised to address the toll on the Verrazano Bridge, which he likened to “being mugged without a gun.” He personalized the toll issue with a slightly shaggy dog-like story about buying an elliptical machine at Dick’s Sporting Goods on the island, and learning that the store was unable to deliver it to his Bay Ridge home on the appointed day; its truck had already made one trip to Brooklyn, and could not afford to pay the cost of the toll again.

View the original article here

It’s Their Party

Other possible subjects were: The Facebook phenomenon and why does its board of directors look like a reunion tour of the Backstreet Boys and their managers?

Or: The new sensation of dancing dogs on TV talent shows and how many of them do you think were ever made to ride on the roof of a car?

But, no, I think we should go with the conventions. The Republicans are having theirs in Tampa, Fla., in August and then the Democrats will be in Charlotte, N.C., at the beginning of September. The presidential nominees have been chosen, but there’s still a lot to look forward to. The speeches! The funny hats! And, um ...

Little-known factoids about the upcoming conventions:

• The Democrats have an official barbecue sauce. Actually, three. You can buy them on the official Web site, along with a bunch of T-shirts and a very fetching oven mitt.

• The Republican National Convention says that it is expecting 13,000 to 15,000 members of the news media, which would make it “the single largest media event in the world except for the Olympic Games.” The convention should try to use this Olympic theme more extensively, perhaps decking out all the potential vice presidential nominees in Speedos and recounting heartwarming stories involving ailing family members who are rooting for them back home.

• The governor of Florida has rejected Tampa’s attempt to ban the carrying of concealed weapons downtown during the Republican convention. I guess this is one way to ratchet up excitement, but I’d prefer Donald Trump nominated for vice president.

• You, the taxpayer, are paying the bill. Yes! Back in the 1970s, after a Watergate scandal involving lobbyists who traded huge donations to the Republican convention for special favors from the Nixon administration, Congress passed a law providing federal funding. Indexed for inflation, it’s now about $18 million per.

“It’s the one part of the public funding program both parties seem more than happy to accept,” said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College and an expert on the financing of political conventions. (Isn’t it reassuring that there are people struggling to get the country worried about presidential nominating convention finances? It reminds me of the year I was in charge of making it fun to read about the New York City Charter Revision Commission.)

The parties swear, when they take the cash, that they won’t solicit additional contributions. But in American politics, when there’s a law against raising money you want to raise, the answer is:

A) Break the law.

B) Find a crazy billionaire.

C) Form a committee.

Option C wins! The cities that want to be a convention site create committees, which promise to raise copious cash if chosen. The host committee in Charlotte, for instance, is pledged to raise $36.65 million.

This is turning into something of a struggle, particularly since the Democrats, in a little-noted reform effort, prohibited the host committee from accepting donations above $100,000, or money from lobbyists or corporations. (The Republicans will pretty much take anything from anybody.) Instantly, like a daffodil in spring, a new committee popped up in Charlotte, called New American City. Its mission is to “showcase all that the city and region has to offer” during the convention and, of course, it has none of those irksome limitations.

While they were banning corporate contributions, the Democrats also reduced this year’s convention to three days from the usual four. However, the eliminated day will be turned over to a celebration at the Charlotte Motor Speedway, during which viewers will have the opportunity to note the close ties between the Democratic Party and Nascar dads. And since it is happening before the official opening gavel, it can be paid for by New American City.

Do not tell me that this country has lost its capacity for innovation.

In a sane world, the conventions could run one day and $18 million would be plenty. They could skip almost everything but the speeches by the candidates, and President Obama will actually leave the convention to make his at Charlotte’s unfortunately-named Bank of America Stadium.

Why do they stretch it out? Well, there are a lot of politicians out there yearning for a chance to address an empty auditorium at 2 o’clock in the afternoon. And our public officials have to deal with an endless line of really irritating people who are impossible to make happy. A convention is a mound of favors they can do for their special interests — a party invitation, a seat in the vicinity of Joe Biden, or just the opportunity to mingle on the floor with the South Dakota delegation. (Good hats!) If it wasn’t for the need to treat the monied troops, the Republicans could hold their convention at Mitt Romney’s vacation house. Which I hear is much more pleasant than Tampa in late August.

View the original article here

Obama applauds Iowa Democrats for their help (AP)

By KEN THOMAS and LUKE MEREDITH, Associated Press Ken Thomas And Luke Meredith, Associated Press – Wed Jan 4, 2:45 am ET

WASHINGTON – Confronting his Republican opponents, President Barack Obama told Iowa Democrats on Tuesday that the stakes of the 2012 election are much higher than when the state launched his presidential bid four years ago.

"We're battling millions of dollars of negative advertising and lobbyists and special interests who don't want to see the change that you worked so hard to fully take root," Obama said in a teleconference with Democrats attending precinct caucuses. "And that's why this time out is going to be, in some ways, more important than the first time out."

Obama outlined his progress during the first term, telling activists in the live video link that because of their support, the Iraq war ended, a major health care overhaul bill was signed into law and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays was no longer in use.

"The problems that we've been dealing with over the last three years, they didn't happen overnight and we're not going to fix them overnight," Obama said. "But we've been making steady progress as long as we can sustain it." Democrats estimated that more than 25,000 Iowans attended Democratic caucuses.

Obama wasted little time getting back in front of voters following a Hawaiian vacation spent largely out of the spotlight. On Wednesday, Obama will travel to Cleveland for an event focused on the economy.

Obama was seeking to rebut months of withering criticism from Republicans as GOP voters in Iowa took their first step in choosing a challenger among a field that included Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and others. Republicans have assailed Obama's economic record, pointing to high unemployment rates, while tagging him as a president who has failed to live up to lofty expectations.

"Three years later, the president's promises of hope and change have been replaced with a record of failed leadership and policies that have made the economy worse," Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said.

Iowa looks to be among about a dozen states that could shift either way in the 2012 campaign, with Republicans pointing to voter registration gains as a positive sign heading into the fall. Iowa has switched its support in each of the past three elections, supporting Obama in 2008, Republican President George W. Bush in 2004 and Democrat Al Gore in 2000.

Trying to build on his 2008 win there, Obama's campaign has opened eight offices in the state and had held more than 1,200 training sessions, phone banks and other events and made more than 350,000 phone calls to supporters since April.

The president's re-election campaign emailed supporters a video of Obama's Iowa victory speech in January 2008, arguing he has kept the promises he made that night: making health care more affordable, cutting taxes for the middle class, ending the war in Iraq and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

In Des Moines, roughly 200 people gathered at a caucus site at Lincoln High School, making small talk and waiting for Obama to speak as a girls' basketball game was played in an adjoining gym. Several party loyalists said they thought Obama could reignite the loyal support he generated in 2008.

"No Republican candidate is exciting their base. There's just isn't anybody exciting their base, and if they can't get excited, I just can't believe they have a chance whatsoever," said Danny Waterman, 65, a retired police officer who supported Obama four years ago.

Scott Rieker, a 35-year-old elementary school teacher, said he hasn't agreed with everything Obama has done since winning the White House but many party loyalists are approaching the upcoming campaign with a greater sense of reality.

"I'm not going to vote for anyone else, and I will make calls and knock on doors," Rieker said. "But ... it's more grounded in reality now. We thought that the world would magically change in four years, I think, when we were working last time."

Rieker and others listened as Obama sat in a chair with a flag behind him in a call monitored by Mitch Stewart, the Obama campaign's battleground states director.

Skipping a fiery speech, Obama gave caucus-goers in Iowa an understated recitation of accomplishments and challenges. The address was marred by audio difficulties when the president sought to hear questions from two members of the audience.

Obama told party activists that he was "actually more optimistic now than I was when I first ran, because we've already seen change take place." He said a key part of the 2012 campaign would be "reminding the American people of how far we've traveled and the concrete effects that some of our work has had."

Turning nostalgic at one point, Obama recalled the pivotal role that voters in Iowa played in his first campaign, when he shook up the Democratic political establishment by defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton in the caucuses.

"Because of you, because of all the memories I have of being in your living rooms, meeting you in a diner or seeing you over in a campaign office, I have never lost that same source of inspiration that drove me to embark on this journey in the first place," he said. "You guys inspire me every single day."

___

Meredith reported from Des Moines, Iowa. Associated Press writers Julie Pace and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Democrats See Mitt Romney as Their Biggest Threat (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | The first vote in the 2012 Republican primary has yet to be cast, but the Democrats have already targeted GOP front-runner Mitt Romney. According to NPR, the Democratic National Committee recently unleashed a biting TV attack ad on Romney in key primary states.

This maneuver is somewhat unprecedented since the party of an incumbent president rarely goes to this length to attack another party's candidate months before the primary even begins. With the former Massachusetts governor facing stiff competition from Newt Gingrich, the Democrats are clearly hoping to put a dent in Romney's presidential aspirations.

Among the GOP candidates, Romney is arguably the biggest threat to President Barack Obama's re-election bid. The Michigan native has consistently polled well in a hypothetical matchup with the president. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Obama leading Romney by only 1 percentage point, which is well within the error margin. This is in contrast with the hefty advantage enjoyed by the president over the other Republican candidates.

Romney has also done extremely well with independents -- the prized group one needs to capture to win the presidency. In fact, the same Quinnipiac survey shows the former Massachusetts governor leading all GOP candidates in moderate Republican support. Furthermore, the Real Clear Politics' average of polls puts Romney nearly 17 percentage points ahead of the next strongest rival in independent-rich New Hampshire. The least the Democrats would want is for Romney to ease through the primary process, en route to a showdown with the president.

Gingrich's recent surge in the polls has given the Democrats an opening to put more pressure on the GOP front-runner. The DNC clearly hopes its biting attack ad will help to peel off support for Romney in key primary states. It appears the Democrats would prefer Obama taking on Gingrich instead of Romney. While Gingrich is not a lightweight opponent; he carries much more political baggage than his Republican rival, having involved in politics for decades.

In the immediate term, the DNC's attack ad may actually backfire. Primary voters tend to coalesce around their party's candidates when they are being attacked by the other political party. By singling out Romney, the DNC is giving stature to his campaign.

View the original article here

Tea Party Endorsements Have Lost Their Luster (The Atlantic Wire)

If you're looking for an early indicator of how Tea Party brand will influence next year's elections, look no further than Gallup's first heat check of the 2012 congressional cycle. The organization asked voters how a Tea Party endorsement of a particular candidate would affect their vote. Short answer: its a turn off. "The effect is nearly 2-to-1 negative, with 42% saying they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate versus 23% saying they would be more likely. About a third say it would make no difference or are unsure," Gallup found. Even Republicans aren't enthralled with a Tea endorsement: 44 percent said it would be help and 42 percent said it wouldn't matter. As far as Democrats, only 8 percent said they'd like a Tea Party-minted candidate.

View the original article here

Democrats Hold Their Ground In Wisconsin Recall Votes (The Atlantic Wire)

Wisconsin Democrats, at least, didn't lose any more ground last night in the state's recall elections. Sens. Jim Holperin and Robert Wirch (pictured) held on to their seats and kept the the Republican majority in the Senate to a 17-16 margin, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The recall elections--which lost their drama when GOP won four of six elections last week--were seen in part as a referendum on labor organizing efforts in response to the controversial anti-union legislation that Gov. Scott Walker signed amidst large protests earlier this year.

Related: Wisconsin Republicans Keep the State Senate in Recall Vote

But even though Democrats failed to take the Senate, the Sentinel notes, "the narrower [GOP] majority would make it tougher to win approval of controversial legislation, such as stricter abortion restrictions or tougher penalties for illegal immigrants." Which led the Democratic party chairman, Mike Tate, to spin the result into a moral victory (Via National Journal): "[The recall elections] forced Walker and the GOP to pay public lip service to moderation and bipartisanship for the first time since they took power in January. All of these facts show that voters gave Democrats the overall victory in this summer's historic senate recall elections."

View the original article here

Democrats may have too many candidates for their own good - Las Vegas Sun

By David McGrath Schwartz (contact)

Sunday, July 10, 2011 | 2 a.m.

Sen. Harry Reid’s Democratic Party has done a remarkable job preventing contentious primaries over the past few elections. The reasoning: Infighting requires campaign spending on something other than defeating Republicans and leaves internal rifts.

So the congressional campaign outlook for 2012 presents an interesting math problem: For the three seats in Southern Nevada, there are five current or former elected Democrats expressing strong interest in running.

Noting that in 2012 the president will be up for re-election and there will be a U.S. Senate race to worry about, that scenario causes some party observers to worry.

Dina Titus

Steven Horsford

John Oceguera

“This is a critical state for the president’s re-election,” said Terry Murphy, a Nevada political consultant. “It would benefit everybody if Democrats selected their candidates rather than fought it out in the primary.”

Another Democratic source imagined two popular Democrats such as former Rep. Dina Titus and state Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford duking it out for a congressional seat. He called it “a nightmare scenario” because of the drain on resources it would cause.

(The latest example of the Democratic machine’s distaste for primaries: a targeted effort to weaken Byron Georgiou, who’s running against Reid-supported Rep. Shelley Berkley for the party’s nomination for U.S. Senate.)

This year, the Democratic-controlled Legislature drew congressional boundaries with the help of consultants hired by the state party. Although not mentioned publicly, the three names most often mentioned for those seats were Horsford, Titus and Assembly Speaker John Oceguera.

That worked out cleanly because after the 2010 census, Nevada had four congressional seats — one for the north, where Democrat Treasurer Kate Marshall is running against former Republican state Sen. Mark Amodei, and three in the south.

Oceguera signaled he was willing to take on Rep. Joe Heck; and the two maps passed by the Legislature had him living in Heck’s district.

But politics is rarely simple.

First, Democrats couldn’t strike an agreement with GOP lawmakers or Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval on the boundaries, leaving redistricting, for now, in the hands of the courts.

Second, any sense of anointment that Oceguera, Horsford and even Titus had evaporated once the Legislature adjourned.

Sen. Ruben Kihuen, D-Las Vegas, has been the recent subject of buzz, pushed by local and national groups trying to recruit a Hispanic candidate in Nevada.

Kihuen said he appreciates that supporters have started a Facebook page to draft him to run for Congress, but said it’s too early to commit.

Would he consider running in a primary against a Democrat?

“I’m going to base my decision on what I feel is best for the people of Nevada, and what my constituents are saying,” he said.

Titus said she can’t comment on electoral politics because she is a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

Also interested is Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas, a business-friendly Democrat who openly sparred with Oceguera during the session and took swipes at the control Horsford tried to exert over his caucus.

He called his possible opponents “good people. But it will be easier for me to make a decision because I’m not a political opportunist.”

The glut of options is a shift from early last decade, when the Democrats struggled to find viable candidates to run in the competitive congressional district. Now they have more serious candidates than available seats.

Andres Ramirez, a political consultant, warned against anointing anyone.

“In many instances, the perceived front-runners in the beginning don’t even run,” he said. “It’s way too early.”

Publicly, anyway. Privately, all the potential candidates are preparing.

View the original article here

Will Dems give back their Weiner money? (Daily Caller)

Several Democrats who have received campaign contributions from former Congressman Anthony Weiner have refused to return the donations despite increased pressure in light of the New York Democrat’s resignation on Thursday.

According to a Republican operative, the Democratic representatives who have kept money from Weiner are numerous, and include New York’s Tim Bishop ($10,000), Bill Owens ($4,000), Carolyn McCarthy ($1,000) and Brian Higgins ($4,000), Virginia’s Gerry Connolly ($1,000), Colorado’s Ed Perlmutter ($1,000), Pennsylvania’s Tim Holden ($2,000) and Mark Critz ($1,000), Georgia’s John Barrow ($6,000), Michigan’s Gary Peters ($1,000), New Jersey’s Rush Holt ($1,000), Missouri’s Russ Carnahan ($1,000) and Oregon’s ($1,000) Kurt Schrader.

As early as mid-Weinergate, the National Republican Congressional Committee launched a campaign against Democrats who had accepted funding from the disgraced representative, urging them to donate the money to charity or find a way to return it.

As part of the campaign, the NRCC sent press releases to the districts of each congressman who had received money from Weiner urging constituents to support the rejection of the funds.

In a release sent to Barrow’s district, NRCC Communications Director Paul Lindsay stated that “Congressman Weiner’s behavior is so unbecoming for a Member of Congress that it should have been a very easy decision for John Barrow to return or donate the money he has received from his disgraced colleague.”

“Instead, Barrow continues to pocket his embattled ally’s cash and essentially pretend that Weiner’s behavior is not a problem,” the statement said. (OUT: Rep. Weiner resigns from Congress)

While the pressure has reached some of the recipients of Weiner’s funds — Democratic congressmen who have returned the money include Connecticut’s Joey Courtney and Jim Himes, Minnesota’s Tim Walz, Ohio’s Betty Sutton, Iowa’s Dave Loebsack, Indiana’s Joe Donnelly and Illinois’ Bill Foster — the majority of recipients have refused to dispose of the now-tainted contributions.

Bishop, for example, Weiner’s fellow New York Democrat, received an impressive $10,000 donation from the scandal-embroiled former congressman. Despite calls for Bishop to return the money, however, his press secretary Oliver Longwell said in an email to TheDC that Bishop is unlikely to do so unless the House Ethics Committee were to declare the funds ill-gotten or obtained through impropriety.

“Bishop returned donations from a colleague in the past when the Ethics Committee determined that there were improprieties in that Member’s fundraising,” Longwell added. “Should that be found to be the case with Mr. Weiner, Bishop will return the funds.”

Spokespeople for other representatives did not respond to The DC’s requests for comment.

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Will Dems give back their Weiner money?

Howard Dean called a 'fiscal conservative'

Union leader calls New Jersey gov 'Adolf Christie,' compares pension battle to 'World War III' [VIDEO]

Pawlenty, unwilling to attack Romney in debate, takes shot on Twitter

'Go the F**K To Sleep' tops NYT bestseller list, audiobook gets narration from Samuel L. Jackson

View the original article here