Refining Richardson's rationing riots

It's hard to identify the most ridiculous proposal made by a presidential candidate thus far in the 2008 race. In the running:

1. Sam Brownback's suggestion that "we need to more equip the labor union movement that's developing inside of Iran; they had a bus driver strike that recently took place."
   
   A Republican position steeped in conservative tradition: calling for more ties with organized labor in foreign nations. uh-huh.



2. Tommy Thompson's endorsement of a "soft" ethnic cleansing policy for Iraq: "Those 18 [Iraqi] territories, just like 50 states in America, should elect their state leaders. And if they do so, the Shi'ites will elect Shi'ites, Sunnis will elect Sunnis, Kurds will elect Kurds. And you know something? People will go to those particular territories and you get rid of the civil war, internecine."
   
   Hear that, Protestants? Get out of Maryland.



3. Bill Richardson told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "This is how I would deal with Iran. I would talk to them, but I would build an international coalition that would promote and push economic sanctions on them. Sanctions would work on Iran. They are susceptible to disinvestment policy. They are susceptible to cuts, economic sanctions in commodities. They only have one refinery there."
   
   Just one? Methinks Richardson needs a math lesson from Mitt Romney.

Our "savvy Iranian source", who has featured here several times before, wrote to me in stitches upon hearing Richardson's interview:

"With accurate information like that, it's no wonder US policy toward Iran is so successful :)" (continued...)

I had this in mind when I saw coverage this week of riots in Tehran that resulted from the government's decision to ration fuel supplies. The Guardian says:

"The US - which is leading efforts to isolate Iran, accusing it of seeking to build nuclear weapons - said Iran's petrol imports were a point of 'leverage'.

Iran lacks refining capacity, even though it is the second biggest exporter in OPEC, and therefore has to import more than 50% of its petrol needs. To keep prices low, the government subsidised them at enormous cost to the public purse.

Conservatives in Iran's parliament, especially those aligned with the country's national oil company, have long pushed for higher petrol prices. They hope the move will cut waste and curb smuggling while also enabling the government to invest in more oil and gas production."

So I asked the "savvy source" for his feedback on this whole issue. He reports to us directly from Tehran, and here are his key takeaways:

1. "...people are angered by the poor implementation of the policy and the unpredictability of moves by the government."
2. "...the sudden implementation of this scheme is mainly due to domestic power-struggles. The group that wanted to push through with it...simply sprung the news on everyone. By doing so, they created a fait accompli that would be difficult to reverse."
3. "In the late 1990s, there were debates about building new refineries but this did not make economic sense, since it was cheaper to import petrol (remember that oil prices were in the single digits back then and global refinery capacity was abundant) than to invest a lot in refinery infrastructure."
4. "...sanctioning petrol supplies would be the last thing [the UN would] do. All the EU diplomats in Tehran I have spoken to and also people in the European Council in Brussels say that this option is not on the table."
5. "Even if...they decide to go ahead with it, I think the impact this would have on an already tight oil market would be so severe that it would dissuade them...if the US and some others want to do it unilaterally, they will have very limited success and Iran will be able to bypass the sanctions. So overall, I wouldn't worry about petrol being sanctioned."

Here are his complete remarks:

Firstly, a quick note on the public reaction (violence, etc.): People are very frustrated due to the economic hardships currently being experienced in addition to a general frustration with the unpredictability of some of the actions of the Ahmadinejad government.

What had apparently happened at many of the petrol stations was that when the rationing was announced (at 9 pm in the evening, to come into effect at midnight the same day), people had descended upon the stations to fill up before the deadline. Many of the station-owners had panicked and were concerned about running out of petrol and had thus shut off their pumps.

This had led to increased frustration among those at the stations (not only where they being rationed, now the station was closed as well), which in turn led to the incidents mentioned in the media, such as the torching of a number of filling stations.

It is possible that both domestic and foreign elements were behind some of these disturbances, given the role played by "thugs for hire" throughout Iran’s our contemporary history.

Most people I am speaking to understand that this is a necessary step by the government, but people are angered by the poor implementation of the policy and the unpredictability of moves by the government. Although most people knew that rationing would happen sometime during the summer, nobody was expecting it to happen the way it did two nights ago. So people being people, they panicked and did stupid things.

I think it is important that we understand that what happened was not only in reaction to the policy itself but due to pent up frustration, the fact that people were caught off-guard and the possible interference of elements (probably mainly internal) that were either trying to make Iran look unstable/weak or simply trying to score some political points on their domestic rivals.

Secondly, with regard to the policy itself – there were of course a great deal of things that needed to have been done in advance - such as proper information, planning for taxis, busses, coordination with the police, and the petrol stations, etc.

The way I'm seeing this is that the sudden implementation of this scheme is mainly due to domestic power-struggles. This is in the sense that one or several groups were opposed to the rationing scheme while others wanted to push through with it as quickly as possible. The group that wanted to push through with it waited until most of the school exams etc. were over and then simply sprung the news on everyone. By doing so, they created a fait accompli that would be difficult to reverse.

This is the main reason the law enforcement forces (LEF) were not ready - my guess is that they found out about it the same time as the rest of us did. That's probably why in many places, the baseej militias had to be put in to restore order, since they're probably quicker at getting mobilised in some places than the LEF and also used this occasion as a show of force and readiness.

Thirdly, with regard to government policy generally on petrol subsidies – this is a policy that has been in the making for several years now. In the late 1990s, there were debates about building new refineries but this did not make economic sense, since it was cheaper to import petrol (remember that oil prices were in the single digits back then and global refinery capacity was abundant) than to invest a lot in refinery infrastructure.

What was not calculated was the increase in prices we have seen since then, as well the huge increase in consumption, mainly due to rising per capita income and more cars being purchased.

The debate in the past few years has focused around curbing consumption, reducing smuggling to neighbouring countries, reducing the subsidy burden on the state (given that around half of Iran's petrol is imported at international prices and sold at subsidized prices locally) as well as freeing up refinery capacity so that they could actually begin exporting petrol rather than importing it.

Fourthly, with regard to sanctions, I doubt that the US will move toward any sanctions on petrol.

For quite a while now, the US as well as the EU have stated that they want to create sanctions that target the regime and not the people of Iran. If we hold this to be genuine, then sanctioning petrol supplies would be the last thing they'd do. All the EU diplomats in Tehran I have spoken to and also people in the European Council in Brussels say that this option is not on the table.

Even if this differentiation between the people and the regime is not genuine and they decide to go ahead with it, I think the impact this would have on an already tight oil market would be so severe that it would dissuade them. I am also unsure of how long it would take for them to reach some form of consensus on this in the UN Security Council (my guess is, many many months and after many many disagreements). If the US and some others want to do it unilaterally, they will have very limited success and Iran will be able to bypass the sanctions.

So overall, I wouldn't worry about petrol being sanctioned. My guess is that the reason this has been mentioned (along with the rather dubious issue about sanctioning Iranian air travel, which I think will not stand a day of legal scrutiny and also flies in the face of the people vs. regime issue mentioned above), is to raise the bar, ensure that Iran knows the heat is still on (even though there is major lack of consensus in the UNSC) and also to force the more "moderate" members of the UNSC to adopt tougher stances.
continue reading "Refining Richardson's rationing riots..."

Chicken served at 5

In an inspiring display of representative democracy in action, nearly 200 irate senior citizens from Passaic County turned out on Monday and gave the Board of Chosen Chickens an earful they will not soon forget, blasting their outrageous plan to plug a budget hole (resulting from political patronage jobs and out-of-control hiring practices) by selling the county's golf course to themselves, and then borrowing money to make the purchase, which will be paid back over 20 years.

But don't worry - Bill Pascrell, III, one of the great legal minds of our time (why else would he have been chosen as County Counsel??? I wonder if he ever swapped career notes with Liz Cheney) has assured everyone that Lance v. McGreevey does not apply to this case.

Wayne attorney Mark Semeraro explained it to Ashley Kindergan of the Herald News in advance of Monday night's meeting:

"The laws that prevent bonding of current expenses have virtually no purpose or meaning at all if all a public entity has to do to circumvent them is create an entity to stand in its shoes. The freeholders have stated that the sole purpose of selling this golf course to the PCIA is to generate funds to pay its bills."

But one of the several dozen speakers at Monday's forum explained it like this:

Husband - Honey, I've got a $5,000 hole in my budget, but I just can't borrow any more money.

Wife - Well, what are we going to do?

Husband - Say, I've got a nifty idea! How about I sell you my car for $5,000, and you can take out a loan to pay me for it.

That summed it up pretty well. Nothing changes in behavior, you continue to use an asset, but you "sell" it to pay today's bills using debt you can't afford.

Or as another resident said, "This is just fuzzy math." His remarks, as well as several others, including a scolding from notoriously non-partisan Clifton Mayor Jim Anzaldi, can be seen on the Passaic County YouTube page. (continued...)

As Kindergan reported in Tuesday's Herald News, opposition is growing:

"Three towns have since adopted resolutions urging the Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders to reconsider the deal. Officials in Wayne, where the golf course is located, authorized the township attorney last week to research legal action to prevent the sale."

And in an op-ed today, the Herald News said:

"The sale of the course does nothing to address the county's long-term budget woes. As many county residents are beginning to realize, the whole enterprise seems more like a shell game, the shifting of money around, hoping the magic works long enough so as to be passed on to another group of freeholders down the road."

Republican Freeholder candidate Jerry Holt flexed his analytical muscles at the hearing, and singled out his November opponent Pat Lepore.

"Your budget projects $10 million in revenue, but the resolution is to borrow $22 million. Where is the $12 million due to the taxpayers?

And you are going to need more money next year because you anticipate more problems."

It was a delight to see professional flag-saluter and senior citizen extraordinaire Walter Porter turn out too blast his former colleagues, and even extend a kind word to a fine ex-Mayor of Paterson, Pat Kramer:

"This is a gimmick as far as I am concerned. There is now doubt in my mind. A $950,000 deficit? It's inconceivable! Back when I served on the Freeholder Board with Mayor Rumana, we made money on the golf course.

Now, I may have disagreed with Freeholder Jim Gallagher and his father-in law over the years, but they are right in this case.

I have felt very close to the members. One year, we raised the dues a quarter and they came down en masse. This is the most diabolical decision I've ever heard of as far as a body such as yours."

Porter was followed by a cynical senior who said:

"I thought I had something to say, but you folks have your minds made up already."

The audience seemed to agree, but I am not so sure that he is right. Terry Duffy and Gallagher are already solidly against the sale, and Bruce James will probably fall in line next. Forget Elease Evans, and probably Sonia Rosado and Tahesha Way as well. But if Pat Lepore wants to keep his seat, he'd best change his mind.

Wayne Councilwoman Ann Mary O'Rourke drew massive applause when she rebuked the Freeholders for holding the hearing so early:

"I don't think that 5 o'clock in the afternoon is an appropriate time for this meeting. If it was held at a more reasonable time, at a minimum of 7 pm, you would probably have quadruple the number of people!"

Passaic County Republican Chairman, District 40 Assembly nominee, and soon-to-be-ex-Mayor of Wayne Scott Rumana also addressed his former colleagues of the Freeholder Board:

"As the mayor of the largest town and the largest taxpayer in Passaic County, let me say that this is a horrible resolution to an abysmal hiring process and budgeting process. Our children and grandchildren between 5 and 15 years old, 20 years from now, will be paying for this when they start owning their first homes.

Taking money from bonding and using it to plug budget holes is illegal. You may have found a loophole, but you are doing just that."

You know the public has had enough when an old lady makes her way down to the microphone and addresses the Freeholder Board as if she's talking to a brazen grandchild: "I mean, whatsamatter with you people?!?!" Another woman drew cheers of agreement when she suggested that this sale be put to a referendum.

After nearly 2 hours of disgruntled taxpayers' complaints (which still wasn't enough to make Elease Evans unfold her arms and drop her smug pose), My 3 Sons co-star Bill Pascrell, III addressed the crowd to repeat the same propaganda which they are apparently too stupid to accept as divine law. In short, he is as arrogant as his father. But at least the Congressman has been elected and worked his own way up. By contrast, his son is an unelected political hack.

He mentioned that the hearing was required under law. (did the law require it to be scheduled at a time that would minimize turnout of angry voters?) He also got very huffy when the crowd balked at his explanations. Typical entitlement response that I would expect from this ilk - democracy is great when their atrocious policies go essentially unchallenged, like when a mere 2 or 3 people turn up at Freeholder meetings and they can applaud their opposition. When 200 turn up, then they're on the defensive and it doesn't feel too good. ya haram...

The highlight of the entire evening, though, was an uproar when Pascrell III had the audacity to say:

"We recognize that the golf course needs work, that's why the Freeholders are willing to put in $3 million of their own money for improvements."

Audience members shouted back, "IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY, IT'S OUR MONEY!" He then reassured the crowd that law prohibits selling the golf course to a private developer, and insisted that "it will remain a golf course FOREVER." I don't believe that many were convinced.

The meeting was then adjourned, having satisfied very few taxpayers, including many staunch Democrats. I guess Pascrell III left in his own car - a far cry from the departure of his lobbying partner Dale Florio, the Somerset County GOP Chair, from the unity lunch following the Republican gubernatorial primary in 2005. Pascrell III waited outside the New Brunswick Hyatt in a stretched limo, which whisked Florio away with him.

Talk about Limousine Liberals...
continue reading "Chicken served at 5..."

The dehumanizing media

Apologies for the delay in posting this article, from the February issue of the recently-launched Syrian magazine FW:, but the text can be found below. The article strongly endorses a non-sectarian approach to Middle Eastern politics, which in my opinion is the only hope for making progress and achieving reform in the region.
The magazine, shepherded by Syrian journalist/historian Sami Moubayed, who runs mideastiews.com and is also regularly featured on Washington Post Global, will have its full online launch shortly.
-----------------
The dehumanizing media
by George Ajjan

Israel's summer invasion of its northern neighbor once again put the Middle East front and center for Americans, especially since more than 25,000 US citizens were stuck in Lebanon during the bombardment. The media's coverage therefore exhibited, in many cases, a local flavor telling the story of area residents anxiously awaiting the safe return of family members evacuated by the US military. Because so many Americans had friends and neighbors stuck under siege, and because the newspapers and local TV reports were filled with such personal anecdotes, Americans viewed Lebanon's tragedy with sympathetic eyes. (continued...)

But the positive aspects end there. Unfortunately, like the already in-depth treatment of the Iraq War, the mainstream media's coverage of the Summer War continued to exhibit the latest trend for reporters and pundits commenting on the Middle East, namely a very shallow sectarian one, in which decision makers and their subjects are evaluated first and foremost on the basis of religious sect. This approach has severe flaws. Aside from being misleading, the sectarian view ultimately contains a dehumanizing component with disturbing overtones. Examples of this sectarian style abound in routine press coverage. For instance, writers on the Middle East frequently collect anecdotal evidence to support their amateur assessments of public opinion, and identify their sources by sect. Articles often contain quotations that begin; "My taxi driver, Ali, a Shiite, remarked..." or "A Sunni shopkeeper named Omar said that..."

While this is disgusting and irresponsible on its own, there additionally seems to be no shortage of political commentators who analyze regional dynamics with incomplete and factually unsustainable sectarian theories. As one very prominent example, those looking for a simple solution to the ongoing civil war in Iraq often assert with confidence that "Iraq should be split into three independent countries, because it really consists of three separate nations for three separate peoples: the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds." Of course one cannot ignore the diversity of Iraq in terms of the ethnicity and religion of its inhabitants. But oversimplifying the historic conflicts that may exist below the surface and essentially ignoring the Arab character of Iraq is a thoroughly invalid approach.

Azmi Bishara, the Arab deputy in the Israeli parliament, remarked upon this fallacy, when he addressed the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's annual convention in 2004. He discussed the design of a new Iraqi flag that had been proposed after the US invasion, which dispensed with the traditional Arab colors of red, white, green, and black, and consisted instead of two blue stripes (symbolizing the Tigris and Euphrates rivers), and a crescent moon (symbolizing Islam), which was tinted yellow (a Kurdish color). Bishara rightfully blasted the design and its backers, saying that they had a phony view that did not account for Arabism, but saw Iraq as containing merely "2 rivers, religion, and Kurds."

Unfortunately, Bishara's view, however accurate and wise, is unpalatable to many decision makers, who may be equally unwilling to delve deeper and comprehend the complex forces driving Middle Eastern politics. Thus, they will often choose to rely upon the shallow conclusions suggested by cocktail party sectarian sound bytes. Perhaps the journalists concocting these superficial analyses fancy their familiarity with regional demographic statistics and sectarian vocabulary. Or perhaps, in their academic lethargy, they find it easier to explain Middle Eastern politics by placing people in neat little sectarian boxes, as one-dimensional groups who compete with each other like teams in a death sport. The trouble is, when the mainstream media conditions its audience, as it has especially for the past several years, to view the Middle East in such terms, observers become less likely to assess the people involved (be they leaders or followers), as complex human beings. Instead, they tend to see the Middle East as a region full of mindless sectarian robots, incapable of iterative thought processes or decision-making based upon individual principles, personal agendas, or secular values. In other words, "Ali the taxi driver" only acts in "Shiite" interests, whatever the media's reporters and editors might assess those to be. He only takes decisions as a function of his religious sect by birth, not because he is a citizen of his country, an inhabitant of his town, a speaker of his language, a practitioner of his profession, or a father of his children.

One possibility is that the unsophisticated sectarian coverage dominating the media reflects the American public's desire for closure. Despite decades of considerable diplomatic, political, and military investment in the Middle East, the United States has not resolved the conflicts and its citizens are constantly bombarded with images of war in the region. So perhaps as long as spectators can convince themselves that "there will never be peace over there," having been conditioned to believe that people's sectarian identities program them to kill one another no matter what outside influence exerts itself, they can sleep easy as night.

That is the disturbing part. Beyond aspiring merely to onlookers' peace of mind, policies might ultimately be more effective if constituents were challenged, by the media that shapes their views, to develop a better understanding of the opportunities for peace in a region that will continue to impact the world at large.

George Ajjan, a Republican activist of Syrian origin, is a member of the Arab American Institute's National Policy Council.

O --- This article first appeared in the English-language Syrian magazine "FW:" in the February, 2007 issue.
continue reading "The dehumanizing media..."

Marco................

On Thursday night I drove down to New Brunswick, where the Republican State Committee held a meeting at the Hyatt hotel, open to the public, during which several items of business were conducted.

1. election of State Chairman for a 2-year term
2. selection of rules governing the allocation of delegates to the Republican National Convention in 2008
3. approval of a resolution concerning divisive race-oriented campaign tactics

To begin, the floor was open for nominations for Chairman. Skip McMahon, the Morris County Committeeman, got the first word in with a nomination of Peter Mancuso, a retired Wall Street executive, Former Morris Township Mayor and Republican State Committee Finance Chairman who has spent the past several months touting his interest in the post. He ascended to the podium and made about 10 minutes worth of remarks which focused almost exclusively on fundraising. (continued...)

Mancuso emphasized the committee he planned to assemble of business leaders from throughout the state, which he said were not Wall Street people. He mentioned 31 individuals signed on who had pledged $200,000 thus far, and another 20 potential donors still waiting for approval from their employers to accept an official political fundraising role.

The strength of his presentation was a logical and convincing rebuttal to the criticism put forth by a number of Republicans, of which Ocean County Chairman George Gilmore was the most prominent: namely that his contribution to the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee helped Robert Menendez defeat Tom Kean, Jr. Mancuso explained unabashedly that at the time his organization (the New York Stock Exchange) chose to sell its shares in the public domain, a number of United States Senators from both parties were instrumental in shepherding the process through the compliance jungle. Therefore, said Mancuso, a decision was made to contribute a sum (something like $50,000) and split it evenly between the 2 parties - it was handled at the corporate level and he never even saw the check (the FEC record shows that the contribution was made by Peter Mancuso, c/o Performance Specialist Group). However, there is also a $250 contribution to Jon Corzine listed under Mancuso's name.

He went on to say to the audience yesterday that if that was the only negative thing anyone could say about him after 48 years on Wall Street, "then God bless me". Well, I'm not sure donations to Democrats here or there would be that big of a sin in the eyes of at least some of the State Committee. For the record, this is the text in the By-Laws of the Passaic County Republican Party, which ought to be enforced statewide:

"A member of the County Committee may be removed, and the seat held by such member declared vacant, should such member...openly and notoriously support the election of a candidate for public office in a general election other than the duly designated candidate of the Republican Party."

Following Mancuso's speech, Somerset County Committeeman Bill Crosby nominated Tom Wilson for a 2nd term. Wilson ascended to the podium and made a speech that was chock full of lingo related to political activities, and much less about the money used to fund those activities. In other words, Mancuso told the audience, "here's how I'm going to raise money" and Wilson told them, "here's what we do with the money that is raised."

Well, as expected, Paul DiGaetano didn't show up, so it was a 2-way race. A secret vote was conducted, after which it was suggested that Wilson won by a count of 28-10, which closely mirrors the victory he scored over Dick Kamin 2 years ago.

The second phase of the proceedings concerned the rule change for the allocation of Presidential delegates, which Rudy Giuliani supporters wished to make "winner-take-all". I, in coordination with Michael Illions, have been arguing against this for months, penning op-eds in the Asbury Park Press and the Star Ledger (see also an excellent op-ed by State Senator Joseph Kyrillos, who is supporting Mitt Romney).

The energetic Christina Ramirez from Morris County introduced a motion to adopt the "winner-take-all" rules, which caused some confusion because earlier in the night, Middlesex County Commiteeman Don Katz put forth a resolution that this vote be by secret ballot (Ramirez was the lone dissenter on that), and thus ballots were prepared for each member to check "winner-take-all" or "congressional" (meaning that the delegates would assigned by the winner of each of the 13 congressional districts). Thus her resolution was withdrawn (because procedurally it conflicted with the design of the ballots), and a new one was introduced allowing the use of the ballots.

I don't remember whether this procedural stuff came first, or the pitches for or against the "winner-take-all" approach. But there were some excellent points made. Mike DuHaime, a Passaic County native and longtime GOP operative who is currently Rudy Giuliani's campaign manager, gave a strong and convincing presentation (even though I disagree with it). He approached the rule change with "2 hats": one, being affiliated with Rudy Giuliani and believing that his candidate, essentially a "favorite son", would do wonders for NJ Republicans, and two, having advocated for a long time, even during his tenure as NJGOP Executive Director, that "winner-take-all" would put NJ on the map in presidential primaries and force the candidates to come here. DuHaime's remarks were seconded by George Gilmore, the "Chairmen of the County Chairmen", who discussed how and why the small committee recommended the "winner-take-all" rule change.

National Committeeman David Norcross offered the official rebuttal (he is backing Mitt Romney), and Don Katz followed up. Both echoed many of the points that Michael and I raised in our op-ed pieces.

But there is another issue here - the changing of the rules intending to coronate Giuliani is just another example of how NJ Republicans always look for easy answers, and never seem willing to roll up their sleeves and do the necessary party-building (e.g. nominate Kean, his name will have coattails that will carry us to victory statewide). Thus, I question DuHaime's suggestion that "nothing will be better for New Jersey Republicans than to have Rudy Giuliani in the White House". No one doubts the Mayor's personal appeal, but the idea that Garden State Republicans can win elections ongoing by including "Giuliani Democrats" in their voter coalitions is far-fetched.

We simple cannot allow the Republican Party to be based more upon personalities than principles (hence the reason for my REDchoice project, a presidential primary poll based upon issues). True, Ronald Reagan was a tremendous personality, but "Reagan Democrats" supported Republicans because of the conservative principles so embodied by the late 40th President appealed to their values. Reagan's vision of smaller, less intrusive government won over these blue-collar suburbanites and linked directly with tax-cutting Republicans at the bottom of the ballot even when Reagan was not on the ticket. I fail to see where Giuliani has articulated any overriding principles that will compel voters to vote for local Republicans.

Anyway, after Giuliani's Oil of Rheims was safely in the vial (24-14 vote), the attendees were fairly exhausted. The last portion of the meeting was the quick and unanimous voice-vote approval of 2 resolutions, the second of which concerned the race-baiting tactics in the District 40 GOP primary, used in Todd Caliguire's campaign against Kevin O'Toole. I don't recall everything that was said, but naturally the tactic of using race, ethnicity, gender, etc. in a campaign was condemned. There was also a statement about discouraging the hiring of any campaign consultant associated with the mailer that was produced - meaning, Kevin Collins. (Interestingly, I ran into former Clifton Councilman and GOP Freeholder candidate Frank Gaccione at the Clifton Municipal Building earlier in the day and he had a very cynical attitude about the whole affair, having had his personal finances and tax records brought into question during his campaigns.)

Collins, for his part, maintains that he did not design the piece as it was mailed and he sticks by Talarico's claim that the BCRO did not in fact pay for the piece, saying that it was paid for by the Caliguire campaign and that an ELEC filing would correct this outage. However, Collins would have more credibility in trying to clear his name had he mentioned all of these things before his candidate lost in disgrace.

Also interesting to note: Tom Wilson beat Giuliani by 10 points on Thursday night.
continue reading "Marco..................."

Modernity vs. Dumb Luck

Yesterday, I had a lovely chat with Ashley Kindergan, the political reporter for the Herald News. She gets my monthly blog update (for which you can subscribe in the upper right if interested) and discovered my facebook and myspace pages. Ashley wanted to talk to me about trends in modern campaigning and what effect they were having on local races, for inclusion of my comments in an article called Campaigns influenced by the Internet, appearing in today's paper:

"...local election battles are still waged using conventional means including lawn signs, pounding the flesh and direct mail. But the Internet is making inroads, and Republican blogger and Passaic County businessman George Ajjan has been one of the first to harness the newest trends.

In March 2006, Ajjan began writing a blog called The Aleppine Elephant, which offers everything from his opinion on the Middle East to blow-by-blow descriptions of political infighting in the Passaic County Regular Republican Organization.

Two months ago, he started a Facebook group called Save Passaic County and created a MySpace profile. Ajjan's YouTube channel features edited video clips of speeches by Passaic County's Republican freeholder candidates, Joseph Stinziano and Jerry Holt. Ajjan said he is trying to carve out a political niche on the Internet for local Republicans." (continued...)

I made several key points to Kindergan during our conversation:

• The Boss needs a chauffeur to ride the learning curve

People in powerful positions are accustomed to being in total control and thus may feel intimidated by new technologies which may reveal otherwise. They decision of what to purchase may also be a source of confusion and frustration. For example, Kindergan said that Passaic County Republican Freeholder candidates Jerry Holt and Joe Stinziano "might set up a Web site if resources allow, but in the meantime they are happy for the free publicity that Ajjan's YouTube videos affords them."

This is why all candidates need to seek out advice on these matters. The reality is that a very modest investment will provide any candidate with all they could ever need and more. There is no excuse for a full-fledged campaign not to use the internet. This was one criticism I had of the recent rout led by Kevin O'Toole, Dave Russo, and Scott Rumana in the District 40 GOP Primary. They spent well into 6 figures, but chose not to build a website. Their opponents did have an effective online presence, however.

Also worthy of note, I did not know until Kindergan informed me yesterday that Victor Rabbat, who ran without a "line" and earned 6% district-wide, had a website. But I didn't know about it, and couldn't even find it while searching online. So it's not just checking a box. Candidates don't just have to be online, they have to be online right. A website does no good if nobody can find it!

• More yard signs on Route 46!!!

Basically, the Democrats win local elections by dumb luck, not because they have implemented any more progressive techniques than the Republicans. As Kindergan notes:

"County-level candidates haven't embraced technology as readily. Democratic Freeholders Terry Duffy and Pasquale 'Pat' Lepore said voters still place the most importance on meeting candidates running for local office in person, and weren't as interested in blogs and campaign Web sites. But Lepore said he thinks that political view will change soon."

Since first getting involved about 4 years ago, I have been astonished at the lack of sophistication of campaigns here. There is no over-arching vision in either party, only frantic task-orientation, like who has more yard signs on the highways. Thus, the local GOP organizations have a huge opportunity to move the game onto a whole new playing field by taking advantage of the fact that internet penetration is very high in the suburbs, where even loyal registered Democrats are feeling the pinch of high property taxes that harm homeowners and offer them next to nothing in return.

• "I took the initiative in creating the Internet..."

Let's face facts - if there was not always some worry about a no-good faction seeking the Chairmanship, we would be able to recruit new blood to the County Committee, especially those comfortable with technology. Kindergan quoted my vision for their role:

"It's really my belief that in the coming years, local elections, particularly, are going to be decided by which candidates and activists have a list of their neighbors' e-mail addresses and are able to send them a two-minute YouTube video."

The process is starting, and moving slow as Kindergan noted, but the important thing is that the technological infrastructure is already in place. As Holt said:

"During the (primary) campaign, I was copied on a lot of e-mails where people saw some of the items that George (Ajjan) had posted on YouTube."

• GenNext GOP

Spearheading the implementation of new technologies is a perfect fit for young people, and a win-win. The youngsters can gain some political experience, get some nice letters of recommendation for their college applications, or perhaps earn course credit, while the GOP gains a modern approach and a "Farm Team" of future candidates and party leaders. Kindergan quoted one of my protégés, Dan Beckelman, who was a big help in my 2004 congressional race.

"Dan Beckelman is the kind of young, energetic political junkie of whom campaign managers dream. Beckelman, a senior at The College of New Jersey and treasurer of the TCNJ College Republicans, is running for Borough Council in Fair Lawn.

"I don't have a role model of someone who is doing really well with an Internet-based campaign. Most people feel that older people vote in local elections, so we should prioritize lawn signs as opposed to online."

I hope this article stirs the pot a bit. Keep your eyes open for another major initiative to be launched in the near future.

continue reading "Modernity vs. Dumb Luck..."

The بندوق pecking order

Israeli newspapers today covered the appearance of a certain Farid Ghadry before the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset. A brief bio on Mr. Ghadry:

1. born in the Republic of Syria
2. emigrated to the Republic of Lebanon as a child, holds Lebanese citizenship
3. awarded citizenship in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (later revoked)
4. emigrated to the United States and earned American citizenship

One might ask, on what basis would such an individual, who at one time carried 4 passports, be asked to speak to the Israeli Knesset?

Well, ynet News says:

"Ghadry, who heads the Syrian Reform Party – composed of Syrians living in Europe and the United States – arrived in Israel to convince the government not to negotiate with the Syrian president."

Thus, the visit is framed as an appeal from a respected opposition leader of exiled Syrian patriots. But this is a self-serving lie perpetrated by Ghadry. For certain, there are honorable members of the Syrian opposition, but not even a remote connection between any of those individuals and Ghadry.

الحقيقة: "Frank" Ghadry is nothing but a 4th-rate Lebanese con-man.

He might be slick enough to fool unqualified nepotistic neocons like Liz Cheney (the cheapest date in Washington for sleazy foreign agents posing as US citizens) into thinking that he was even Syrian at all - let alone that he had any kind of following - but I expected the Israelis to have more discerning eyes. At least in 1982 they fell for a 1st-rate con-job. (continued...)

For the record, here is the بندوق pecking order:

• 4th rate: "Frank" Ghadry, staunch defender of the Caledonians
• 3rd rate: Ziad Abdelnour, a self-obsessed hack who fancies himself one of the "300 most prominent Lebanese-Americans", but then asks people to shell out $50 so he can show off his "friendship" with former CIA head James Woolsey
• 2nd rate: Ahmad Chalabi, Donald Rumsfeld's Iraqi pet who peddled lots of the bad WMD intelligence that led the US into this disastrous war
• 1st rate: Amin "Mr. 2%" Gemayel, former Lebanese President who predicted a few years back that the Iraq War "will bring fundamental change to the area, and there will be a kind of Pax Americana...The U.S. will build on its relations to spread new ideas and a new mentality in the area, as well as reconciling with the people of the region." uh huh.

Likud MK (Member of Knesset) Yuval Steinitz - a close ally of Bibi Netanyahu - organized Ghadry's visit, ostensibly to offer a different perspective than the one given by Syrian-American Ibrahim Suleiman 2 months ago. Yet by using his influence to give credibility to a nobody, Steinitz has turned himself into Israel's Nancy Pelosi, because his independent diplomacy has made him look foolish and unqualified. No doubt that Bashar Assad and his cronies are all laughing like hell today, thinking: "Is this the best they can do? He's not even Syrian!"

Predictably, Ghadry was totally disregarded by Israel's left, including Danny Yatom from the Labor Party, and as indicated by MK Zahava Gal-On from the Meretz Party:

"Ghadry's proposal to negotiate with the Syrian people and not Bashar Assad is improbable because political talks must be held with the regime controlling the country. So the regime in Israel must speak to that in Damascus. If we had waited for someone else to rise to power instead of Sadat, we wouldn't have peace with Egypt today. Israel must ignore Ghadry's proposal and announce it wants direct negotiations with Assad."

The Jerusalem Post, which reflects Israel's more hawkish thinking, bought Frank Ghadry's pitch hook, line, and sinker. But Haaretz's Arab Affairs correspondent Yoav Stern has Ghadry's number. He writes:

"51-year-old Ghadry left Syria at a young age and immigrated to Lebanon, and later to the United States, where he lives today. He is considered a close associate of conservative officials in Washington. Ghadry founded the Syrian Reform Party while in exile in the U.S. in [2001], with the aim of bringing down Assad's regime. He later called on the American government to invade Syria, as it did in Iraq.

Ghadry's opponents within the Syrian opposition maintain that he is an 'imposter' and has no support in Syria or outside of it. Ghadry himself maintains that he is an integral part of the Syrian opposition."

One of the most fascinating elements of the visit was the reaction of non-Jewish Arab MKs (remember about 20% of Israel's population descends from the original inhabitants of towns and villages in today's Israel who did not flee in 1948). For example, MK Ahmad Tibi