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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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 confronted Ghadry outside the committee chambers and asked him:

"Aren't you ashamed of yourself? You come here as a cheap tool in the hands of Netanyahu and ask the Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee not to cede the Golan, your homeland, when more than half the Israelis want to withdraw. This is despicable."

Tibi is correct about Ghadry being a cheap tool of Bibi (and the Washington neocons), but I have to wonder if Ghadry even understood what was said to him in Arabic. Other Syrian opposition members have told me that Ghadry's Arabic language skills are pathetic (mine are too, but even I have seen typos on his website) and he made a fool of himself during an al-Jazeera debate, in which his opponent was constantly correcting his speech. He may not remember this from his childhood years, but Syrian citizens tend to be quite finicky about the Arabic language.

The bigger issue, however, remains why none of them have pointed out the obvious: Ghadry is Lebanese and any discussion with him on anything pertaining to Syria is as good an exercise in futility as one could ever hope to find.

Those familiar with the region know that some of the most virulently anti-Syrian Lebanese citizens are those whose families, like Ghadry's, fled from cities like Aleppo and Damascus when the Baath Party came to power. While they identify passionately with a Lebanese identity, Ghadry decided after 2001 that an ideal con job would be to wind back the clock, re-assume a Syrian identity, and set himself up as a "reformer". And it worked on the hapless neocons and most journalists, not to mention much of the Knesset.

I look forward to reading the full transcripts of the Frank Ghadry circus. But I would have loved to have heard him come up with answers to the following questions, which I doubt were asked:

1. With which passport did he travel to Israel? Was it his American one? Why not his Syrian one? Does he even have a Syrian passport?
2. Is his organization, the so-called Reform Party of Syria, an actual Syrian political party, or an American group?
3. Did he testify before the Knesset committee as a Syrian citizen, or as an American citizen?
4. When he testified before the US Congress, did he do so as a Syrian citizen, or as an American citizen?
5. When he donated thousands of dollars to the Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of the subcommittee before which he was called - by an amazing coincidence - to testify, did he do so as an American citizen? (because otherwise it would be illegal)
6. When his teenage daughter contributed $2,000 to the same Congresswoman, did she do so out of her own volition? (because otherwise it would be illegal)

addendum:

I had to add this fascinating etymology lesson from translator Grégoire Bali, as posted in the comments section (see CLICK TO DISCUSS below).

Just a word though on بندوق (Banduq). I don't know if you're aware that this word came into use in Aleppo under the Ottomans, when Aleppo was the 3rd most important city in the Empire, after Istanbul and Cairo, and a major crossroad of international trade. There used to be various trade delegations, the most important one of which was the Venetian trading post. Considering Venice in Arabic is البندقية (Al-Bunduqiah, and here's another interesting etymology I can tell you about later), the people of Aleppo under the Ottomans were not used to the way of living of the Venetians, whose wives accompanied them and were often seen in public mingling with the other men. They therefore thought all their sons were bastards, and so the word بندوق (Banduq, or little Venetian) became the word you most commonly use to say bastard in the Levantine culture. By the same token, in Ghadry's case, you can substitute the Venetians for the Americans and you will know who the بندوق's daddies are.

Border Math

My latest commentary on US-Syria relations appeared in the June issue of Chronicles, a monthly magazine that is required reading for stalwart traditional conservatives.

Aside from covering the ebbs and flows of diplomacy between the 2 nations, I offer some hard facts to evaluate the Washington talking point about "Iran and Syria", especially some details of Syria's impact on American success in Iraq.

Get out your calculator and I will hope to guide you to the following conclusions:

1. "Foreign fighters" are a political scapegoat and not a substantial threat to Iraq's stability
2. The idea that the US cannot secure it's border with Mexico is ridiculous

---------------
Border Math - A Study in Priorities

by George Ajjan

A rare crack in the fortified wall of the Bush administration's diplomatic obstinacy seemed to appear as U.S. diplomats sat down in March with their Iranian and Syrian counterparts to discuss stability in Iraq. Foreign-policy realists of both parties hailed the move as a potential breakthrough: Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) offered a characteristically self-righteous lecture, while Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), the enigmatic might-be presidential candidate, echoed:

"We will not achieve peace and stability in Iraq without a regional framework that includes Iran and Syria."

This apparent crack in the wall turned out to be an illusion, however, as the opportunity to engage one another face-to-face represents not honest hope for progress but a platform for one-upmanship by both the United States and her regional adversaries. (continued...)

Despite being targeted for attack by the same neoconservative hawks who pushed us into Iraq, Iran could afford the most happy-go-lucky attitude toward the talks, considering that, whatever their outcome, she would continue to exert substantial influence on political developments in Iraq through Shiite political parties. As Srdja Trifkovic describes the Iranian perspective:

"They are playing Iraq for the long term, and they know that if they play their hand right, it may fall into their lap like a ripe fruit."

Iran will want significant incentives if she agrees to facilitate a face-saving American withdrawal from Iraq, which will be difficult to offer, considering that the United States and Iran have not had actual diplomatic ties in nearly three decades. Therefore, a polite roundtable discussion in Baghdad devoted to Iraqi security and unrelated to nuclear issues was not likely to mend years of mistrust or alter the dynamics behind a potential large-scale military invasion.

The Syrian government relishes any opportunity to dress up as a choirboy, tout its regional influence, and wax poetic on Iraq's woes, because it has far fewer time constraints than the Bush administration does. While Bush will be gone in less than 20 months, Syrian President Bashar Assad will be on the ballot this year in a Sham referendum designed to garner him a second seven-year term. So he will be saying "I told you so" to America about Bush's Mesopotamian Misadventure for a long time to come. Given this longevity, coupled with the White House's demonstrated inflexibility, Assad knows that he cannot hope for a full rapprochement with the United States until Washington is remade after 2008. This means that, for the moment, Syria will use any direct diplomatic access to Washington to rehabilitate her image by appearing helpful, while loudly broadcasting her traditional grievances and positioning herself for a variety of post-Bush contingencies.

President Bush's calculus, like Assad's, is based on spin. By engaging in highly publicized diplomacy with Iran and Syria, he can rebut his critics who have been whining about the need for dialogue. Of course, he can later claim that the outcome of the talks strengthens his original position—that America has certain expectations regarding her enemies, who already know what they need to do—and that the March Iraqi initiative was used to reinforce the desired change in behavior. In other words, this White House likes to talk at its international adversaries, not with them, and then maintain that the entire affair was a waste of time, because the rogues never comply with the unilateral orders shouted at them. In a recent speech on U.S.-Iran relations, Senator Hagel referred to this approach as "international blackmail."

Nevertheless, President Bush—perhaps motivated by guilt over ignoring the findings of the Iraq Study Group (ISG)—did agree to the flirtatious talks. By sitting down, however meaninglessly, with Iran and Syria, perhaps the President can at least pretend to have heeded the advice of his father's secretary of state, James A. Baker. The trouble with the ISG and Baker's approach, though, especially as it pertains to dealing with Syria, is that it moderately tweaks the status quo of U.S. foreign policy without challenging it in any substantial way. Baker deserves credit for recognizing the boost in America’s regional credibility that would result from a successful resolution of Israel's land disputes with her neighbors, but how this would pay off in the Iraqi debacle, particularly in the short term, is vague.

Basically, since the Bush administration has blasted "Iran and Syria" ad nauseam, any mainstream Washington discussion, such as the ISG report, simply cannot fail to address external factors, however dubious their supposed influence (in the case of Syria) on what is essentially an internal Iraqi conflict and a fight against foreign occupiers. President Bush has painted himself into a corner by continually harping on Syria. The Syrians themselves have picked up on this and milked it for all it is worth. In a recent interview with ABC News's Diane Sawyer, Assad took an unsubtle swipe at the Bush administration:

"It doesn't matter how strong economically or what army you have; it’s a matter of credibility. We have credibility. We have good relations with the other factions. They should trust you to be able to play a role."

Middle East analysts could not help but chuckle at the poised assertion, recognizing Assad for having the gall to exaggerate Syria's clout so wildly. Yes, Syria may have certain footholds in Iraq, among the now-seated politicians she sheltered from her rival Baath faction during the Saddam Hussein era; in the tribes in the Anbar Province on Syria's eastern border; and with the mercurial cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who reportedly adored his stay in Damascus a year ago and "didn't want to leave," as one official joked. But Syria is far from being a major powerbroker in Iraq. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and, to a lesser extent, Turkey will have to drive America's endgame in Mesopotamia.

As far as U.S.-Syria relations go, Washington is far more obsessed with the infiltration of foreign fighters into Iraq through Syria's eastern border. This matter pervades practically every discussion of the Iraq war, no matter who is talking. For example, during a recent high-profile congressional visit to Damascus, Princess Pelosi, as the attention-loving Speaker of the House seems to fancy herself, hunkered down with her colleagues to confront Assad on the foreign-fighter issue, even as they spited Bush by touting their faith in the ISG.

This is nothing new. As far back as 2003, the Bush administration set the tone in Washington by referring to foreign fighters as the "backbone" of the insurgency. Since then, just about everyone has followed in lockstep. Rarely will a politician, even a staunch critic of the President, forego the opportunity to slap Syria on this basis. It is a slam-dunk position on which seemingly everyone can agree: If only Syria and Iran would cease to allow free transit to insurgents, 25 million peace-loving pro-American Iraqi angels would be free to scarf down Big Macs while bopping along to Britney Spears on their iPods.

All along, however, the official word from military commanders on the ground betrayed this neoconservative fantasy, while Princess Pelosi and her colleagues in the congressional minority simply abdicated oversight. Washington representatives, including a majority of Senate Democrats who rubber-stamped Bush’s Mesopotamian Misadventure from day one, could have reshaped the parameters for Washington debate regarding Iraq and held the White House accountable on more pressing concerns, had they demonstrated a better grasp of simple arithmetic in the form of "border math."

About two years ago, Gen. John Vines, who commanded all the coalition forces in Iraq, estimated that no more than 150 foreign fighters entered Iraq per month, mainly from Syria, though he cited Sudan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt as the infiltrators' main countries of origin. Divided by roughly 30 days per month, that makes an average of five new foreign fighters per day.

Apparently, no one in Congress questioned whether a handful of infiltrators per day logically posed a threat to 150,000 of the best-equipped, best-trained military personnel in the world. At that rate, about 1,800 foreign fighters enter Iraq annually. It would therefore take a whopping 75 years to reach parity with the number of U.S. troops currently in country. Even so, these mere five encroachers per day do not possess superhuman ability to engulf Iraq with violence, as the American public has been led to believe. One need not be a military expert to determine that the foreign fighters could be and should be stopped, but their infiltration is tolerated as a political scapegoat, because the American public, put to sleep by neoconservative lullabies, generally does not want to believe that the United States could sink in the swamp of Iraq on her own.

The calculations are simple. Iraq's border with Syria is 375 miles long, or 1.98 million feet; 15,000 troops assigned to patrol the border in two 12-hour shifts would equate to 7,500 round-the-clock patrols; 1.98 million feet divided by 7,500 troops yields one fully equipped American soldier for every 264 feet. At that concentration, in a mostly barren desert area, American soldiers patrolling the Syria-Iraq border could easily spot suspicious movement and apprehend any potential terrorist, even in the dead of night.

Those 15,000 troops would create a virtual human net to stop infiltrators—quite apart from the use of infrared technology, helicopter flyovers, or human intelligence. Fifteen thousand troops may sound like a lot, but it represents less than ten percent of the total American deployment, and less even than the "Surge" on which the Bush administration has pinned its hopes for Baghdad’s security. If foreign-fighter infiltration truly presents such a major threat to stability in Iraq, we should naturally have expected U.S. forces to divert ten percent of their manpower to break this "backbone" of the insurgency. That never happened, because American military commanders have accepted all along the predominantly homegrown nature of the insurgency in Iraq.

Witless congressional staffers read the hawkish think-tank memos offered them very carefully and never bothered to investigate thoroughly or pay very close attention to the testimony of military officials who warned about the hype of foreign fighters. Moreover, the Bush administration could have solved the border problem, essentially, by outsourcing it. A three-party cooperative-patrol solution, including a 5,000-strong Syrian contingent and 5,000 Iraqi recruits, with a supervising presence of another 5,000 American troops, would have nullified foreign-fighter infiltration, while simultaneously rebuilding critical diplomatic bridges. Instead, the White House and its media allies opted at every stage to employ the inflammatory rhetoric of its "stay the course" talking points.

Chronicles readers and other Americans concerned about border security should also take particular note of Syria's ridiculous effort to defend herself by claiming that, since the United States has great difficulty in keeping illegal immigrants from crossing the Mexican border, Syria should not be expected to seal its eastern frontier. While Princess Pelosi happily prances around the souqs of Damascus to embarrass the Bush administration, she and her colleagues fail to connect the Iraq war to illegal immigration on the U.S.-Mexico frontier. In fact, the numbers are even more staggering than the Iraqi border example. Given a 2,000-mile southern boundary, the American military manpower currently deployed to "stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom" could easily cut off illegal immigration and potential terrorist incursions completely.

Think of it: 150,000 troops divided into two 12-hour shifts would yield 75,000 round-the-clock patrols; 2,000 miles is 10.56 million feet. Dividing that by 75,000 yields one solider for every 141 feet, keeping America secure from the Pacific Ocean all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

Sadly, the United States will continue to spend precious lives, treasure, and political capital thousands of miles from her own unprotected frontiers, so long as American policymakers remain hopelessly fixated on grandiose sentiments about "the decisive ideological struggle of our time." Furthermore, our unwillingness to engage our adversaries in the Middle East in a substantial way has undercut America’s regional credibility dramatically. Even worse, most of the "realists" in Congress who have finally found the courage to distance themselves from the status quo do so not out of principle, but for political expediency. Tough talk on Iran and bullying Syria may score quick points in cable-news shouting matches, but without a revamped diplomatic strategy, we may not only fail to extract ourselves from Iraq honorably but soon end up scratching our heads wondering how Washington blundered its way into yet another ill-advised military boondoggle.

George Ajjan, a Republican activist and member of the Arab-American Institute's National Policy Council, writes from Clifton, New Jersey.

O --- This article first appeared in the June 2007 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.

Defeat for the politics of hate

As expected, Kevin O'Toole, David Russo, and Scott Rumana sailed to victory in District 40 over Todd Caliguire, John Ginty, and Joe Schweighardt (who had atrocious yard signs, by the way) in Tuesday's primary.

The BCRO-endorsed Freeholder candidates - Paul Duggan, Charlie Kahwaty, and Bob Yudin - also won the countywide contest. Their counterparts on the line in Passaic County - Jerry Holt and Joe Stinziano - also won without a sweat. Haven't seen the returns from Totowa yet, though.

After voting in Clifton during the day in District 34, I spent the evening at the Grand Chalet in Wayne (which old timers like me remember as Beefsteak Charlie's). Spirits were high and a huge, star-studded crowd from around the Garden State turned out to support O'Toole and his team including:

1. Tom Wilson, Republican State Chairman, up for re-election
2. Peter Mancuso, Wilson's expected rival for the post, the vote for which takes place on June 14
3. Bill Baroni, District 14 State Senate nominee
4. Tom Kean, Jr., District 21 State Senator

In addition, this was the HQ for virtually the entire Essex County GOP and many prominent Bergen County Republicans turned up as well, including former Freeholder Lisa Randall, key operatives and fundraisers from D40, Fair Lawn Councilman Ed Trawinski, Assemblywoman Charlotte Vandervalk, and others. Even Duggan and Kahwaty turned up, celebrating their primary win "in exile", while their running mate Bob Yudin remained holed up at the BCRO.

Désirée Taylor from NJN led the TV coverage of the victory celebration (go to 7:13 for the segment about District 40). She mentioned that a 2:1 margin of victory was expected, in the end O'Toole captured 54% of the vote to Caliguire's 40% (Victor Rabbat, whose campaign his longtime friend and former GOP Chairman Mike Mecca described as "shortsighted at best", won 6%). However, the Assembly races broke at a wide spread: 59% to 41%.

Thus, the margin was less than anticipated but still more than decisive and the energy in the room Tuesday night bore witness to that. O'Toole spoke with the same passion that he demonstrated throughout the campaign:

"The voters have rejected the politics of HATE!

People asked us why we are spending so much money; well, we are spending the money to rebuild the Republican Party in New Jersey, which is perilously close to not even existing." (continued...)

BCRO

I have said all along that I would not want to be Guy Talarico on June 6. Well, it seems that Guy Talarico doesn't want to be Bergen County Chairman anymore - he expressed his intent to resign yesterday:

"I am proud of my record and the advancements we have made since I took office as Chairman. I have decided that it is time for someone else to take the helm and for me to give my family and profession the time that they deserve and require."

Bye, Guy. The Bergen Record barbecued Talarico one last time, and RED Faction leader Joe Caruso, who had a public falling out with the soon-to-be-former-Chairman when the disastrous D40 Primary was launched, blasted him as well:

"The dark ages of the Republican Party in Bergen are over...The facts speak for themselves. Whether he was a great chairman or a bad chairman, under his reign the party has suffered numerous defeats and splits, bankruptcy and humiliation."

But now comes the all important process of selecting a replacement, which needs to be done in the next 30 days. (note: though I am a Passaic County resident, I believe that all North Jersey Republicans have a stake in neighboring Bergen's future, because of its proximity, its status as the largest county, and its trend-setting track record. Where Bergen goes, other counties follow.)

The first factor to consider is the timing, because Talarico's term would have been up in 2008 anyway. Thus, whoever the County Committee selects at this stage will hold the post for only 11 months. Therefore, the first issue to consider is whether the predicament facing the BCRO would best be rectified by a caretaker Chairman, who would re-establish fiscal order, and tend to the task alluded to by Trawinski in a press release he issued yesterday on the heels of Talarico's resignation:

"...give the party a full accounting of the BCRO finances and let the organization’s rank and file know how deeply in debt [Talarico] has left the party. I am sure there are financial blunders made by Mr. Talarico that will hamstring the party for years to come."

On the other hand, some argue that such an approach would effectively concede 2007, the lowest turnout year of the 4-year cycle and therefore the GOP's best shot at a win. From that perspective, the Chairman should be someone who plans on serving at length and getting the party out of the entire hospital, not just out of the ICU (the first approach).

Several names have been suggested thus far as potential Chairs. I will go through each one by one in alphabetical order and give pros and cons.

Vince Micco

• Pros
• conservative credentials - Few would challenge Micco's dedication to conservative causes. He's a respected veteran and the "RINO hunters" around the county would find little to target.
• party involvement and loyalty - Micco has been a loyal Republican foot soldier for years, a Bergen County Young Republican officer (when the group was functional), plus he took on Steve Rothman in 2006.
• youth - Micco is young, and thus his selection would represent somewhat of a changing of the guard and an investment in the up-and-coming generation of Republican leadership, dovetailing nicely with the wins of Scott Rumana and Jay Webber, as well as the promotions of O'Toole and Bill Baroni to name a few.
• Cons
• fundraising - some would suggest that Micco did not rock the boat raising money for his 2006 congressional run, and therefore he wouldn't be successful raising money as Chairman. While this is true, it reflects more the dynamics of the race than it does Micco's abilities - he would have raised much more than that had he chosen to run in D36.

Rob Ortiz

• Pros
• fundraising ability - Ortiz is one of the most prolific fundraisers in New Jersey Republican circles. With him in charge, the BCRO will certainly have a stronger link to "the money people".
• youth - the same argument in favor of Micco also applies to Ortiz.
• outreach factor - since Hispanics are an emerging Garden State demographic, a Republican Chairman of the most important county in NJ from that community would send a strong signal of inclusion, though the gains to Bergen specifically would be marginal.
• Cons
• grassroots exposure - Ortiz is a largely unknown quantity in the eyes of the County Committee and has focused his efforts far more on big-ticket fundraisers than on door-to-door neighborhood GOTV pushes. It's "guest list" versus "walking list". Thus if he did become Chairman, it would be incumbent upon him to hire a full-time Executive Director to handle the political nuts and bolts while Ortiz oversaw an unprecedented fundraising operation personally.

Lisa Randall

• Pros
• experience - Randall has an impressive resume, having been elected as a State Assemblywoman as well as a Freeholder, and appointed to prominent posts in both the Kean Sr. and Whitman Administrations. With her at the helm, a seasoned insider will be guiding the party's effort, which will instill confidence in the BCRO. This is a big plus.
• Cons
• grudge factor - Randall is a prime target for the "RINO hunters", having been associated with Kean, Whitman, and Kathe Donovan - all the usual targets of these fruitless forays. My sense is that dislike for Randall runs deeper than it does for any of the other potential contenders.

David Russo

• Pros
• experience - Russo has been in the Assembly since 1990. He's a pro. He's been a successful fundraiser and has helped prop up the BCRO.
• Cons
• grudge factor - Russo just came out of a primary that he won handily, but he remains high on the hit-list of Talarico's minions.
• elected official - both of Russo's running mates are party chairs in the other 2 counties of District 40. Russo becoming BCRO Chair would be heading in exactly the wrong direction. We need to eliminate conflicts of interest, not establish more of them. Russo should continue to do good work in Trenton, not become Chair - and if he does, it should be expressly in a caretaker capacity.

Bill Thomson

• Pros
• conservative credentials - ideological purists would probably be happy with Thomson's reputation for conservatism.
• party involvement and loyalty - Thomson has been heavily involved with the party for years, and his wife Lauren was a candidate for Freeholder last year. He even sought a candidacy for Chairman last year, which got hung up with filing technicalities.
• Cons
• organizational affiliation - Thomson is prominently linked to the Christian Coalition, which is a source of discomfort for many Republicans in the area who are adamant that religion should be kept out of politics.
• grudge factor - Thomson joined with Trawinski in opposition to Talarico, as they worked together on the "Anybody But Guy" project. Although, Thomson supported the line in 2006 when Todd Caliguire won a messy primary over Donovan, in which Trawinski supported the loser.

Ed Trawinski

• Pros
• geography - with all the slogans about who's "south of Route 4" in Bergenese, Trawinski's hometown of Fair Lawn is a nice compromise - Route 4 runs straight through town. He's right at the county's center of gravity.
• party involvement and loyalty - it's hard to top "Steady Eddie" in this category. He's taken more than one for the team by putting his neck on the line as a candidate for US Congress (District 9 against Steve Rothman in 2004), State Assembly (District 38 against Bob Gordon/Joan Voss in 2003), and Freeholder (2002).
• vote getting ability - while the Chairman's job is not to charm the voters, someone like Trawinski, who was able to win a multi-ethnic middle-class town by 1,000 votes in the same year that Corzine won it by 2,000, will have credibility for having personally demonstrated the skills it will take to "Bring Back Bergen".
• Cons
• elected official - true, he's "only a councilman", but my principle stands - party chairs should not be elected officials, because there will always be conflicts of interest.
• grudge factor - Trawinski has been vocal in opposition to Talarico for quite some time, having spearheaded a recall drive months ago. Talarico loyalists may seek to undermine him, although at this point there's not much to fear.

and just for laughs...

Kevin Collins

• Pros
• judgement - If given the opportunity to alter skin tone on disgusting race-baiting mailers, he will refrain.
• Cons
• everything - he's Kevin Collins.

The machinations of Bergen County GOP politics can be quite complex. So if I have missed anything, I hope people will correct or augment my points in the comments section.

By design I did not bring Joe Caruso into the discussion, because he lives in Passaic County and therefore would not be eligible for this post. Joe will definitely continue the RED Faction efforts that have injected much-needed energy into the party, and coordinate more closely with the BCRO once the guard is changed and the place is "fumigated", to use Paul Duggan's terminology.

Caruso has a major July 13 fundraiser in the works, particularly to support the D36 candidates, which will feature some high-profile guests. He and his team already have fired a shot across the bow of Ferriero and Sarlo (who has been subpoenaed) by getting Michael Guarino on the ballot for State Senate and Aileen Vitale as a running mate for Carmen Pio Costa. We now have a full and committed slate for District 36.

Other Districts

I also wish a hearty congratulations to Jay Webber for scoring a huge win in District 26 over Larry Casha. Webber never gave up after challenging Bob Martin in 2003, and had a team of committed supporters that earned him a wide margin of victory, despite having been outspent more than 2:1 by Casha. It goes to show that a strong grassroots game is essential in a Republican Primary with low turnout. In Passaic County, where he grew up and where he had the line, Webber won nearly 3:1. Well done Jay!

The only sad part about Tuesday night for me was the defeat of Guy Gregg for State Senate in District 24. I had high hopes for Gregg to join O'Toole and other newcomers to the State Senate to recharge the NJGOP. In the homestretch of the campaign, I was hearing that Gregg had not been running a good campaign up there in Sussex County and his opponent Steve Oroho outperformed him considerably. Even the endorsement of Congressman Scott Garrett was not enough to push Gregg to victory.

Null set

For those of us who remember our high school al-gebr, here is a definition of the term null set, which came up in the most recent Republican President Primary debate:

Let X be a measurable space, let μ be a measure on X, and let N be a measurable set in X. If μ is a positive measure, then N is null if and only if its measure μ(N) is zero. If μ is not a positive measure, then N is μ-null if N is μ-null, where μ is the total variation of μ.

Press 1 if you understand that (because it is in English), or press 2 if you're Tom Tancredo. Let me phrase it another way:

Knowing what you know right now — not what you knew then, what you know right now — was it a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq?

When Wolf Blitzer asked that question of Mitt Romney on Tuesday night, here is how his mind interpreted it:

• Let X be the measurable space of Iraq.
• Let N be the decision to invade.
• Let μ be the measure of Saddam Hussein having followed UN resolutions and allowed inspectors.
  What are the characteristics of N?

"...null set," said Romney. That, of course, was the lead-off question in the 3rd GOP debate. Actually, Romney's full response was (continued...):

"Well, I answered the question by saying it's a non sequitur, it's a null set kind of question, because you can go back and say, if we knew then what we know now, by virtue of inspectors having been let in and giving us that information, by virtue of if Saddam Hussein had followed the UN resolutions, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So it's a hypothetical that I think is an unreasonable hypothetical. And the answer is, we did what we did; we did the right thing based on what we knew at that time."

That's what you get when you have a guy who wants to run the White House like the Boston Consulting Group (note: Romney's former BCG colleague, the right-wing Bibi Netanyahu, served as Israel's Finance Minister from 2003-2005, with interesting results). By contrast, here is Rudy Giuliani's answer to the same question:

"Absolutely the right thing to do."

And so began another 10-man battle royale. Null set, eh?

Overall, I thought CNN did a better job than either Fox News or MSNBC. The 2nd and even 3rd tier candidates seemed to have tightened up their game, and I think the messages of Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul (which had already occurred after Giuliani's fit in the 2nd debate) are beginning to coalesce. Gilmore and Thompson seem lost at sea, and Brownback does little more than pander. McCain seemed more at ease and friendly in this round, and Giuliani avoided any major attacks.

Romney, however, did not rise above the crowd as he did in the first 2 intramural contests. This technobabble answer wasn't a good way to start off, although I have to give Romney credit for laying off the karaoke and sparing us another speech about caliphates. Instead, he actually made good common sense when he said:

"We have to make sure they understand that we're not arrogant...we're going to have not just to attack each one of these problems one by one, but say, how do we help move the world of Islam so that the moderate Muslims can reject the extreme?

And for that to happen, we're going to have to have a strong military and an effort to combine with our allies...to help move Islam towards modernity...instead of looking at each theater one by one and saying: We'll bomb here, we'll attack here, we'll go to Sudan."

That them dovetails nicely with his foreign policy outline published in Foreign Affairs:

"If elected, one of my first acts as president would be to call for a summit of nations to address these issues. In addition to the United States, the countries convened would include other leading developed nations and moderate Muslim states. The objective of the summit would be to create a worldwide strategy to support moderate Muslims in their effort to defeat radical and violent Islam. I envision that the summit would lead to the creation of a Partnership for Prosperity and Progress: a coalition of states that would assemble resources from developed nations and use them to support public schools (not Wahhabi madrasahs), microcredit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic health care, and free-market policies in modernizing Islamic states."

He also scored a hit when he was asked about Mormonism and replied:

"There are some pundits out there that are hoping that I'll distance myself from my church so that that'll help me politically, and that's not going to happen."

Romney also seems to be trying out a new "1.21 Gigawatts" theme related to "vision" and "future".

"The Republican Party is a party of the future and with a vision. Ronald Reagan had a vision for where he was going to take America. We have to once again take people forward, and that vision is the new frontier of the 21st century...Strong military, strong economy, keeping our taxes down, and strong families and strong family values...and one more thing, optimism and a vision for the future...

But there's something bigger in conservatism that I don't think we've spoken about, and that is that America is a land of opportunity, and our future is going to be far brighter than our past, not just as we overcome these challenges, but as we take advantage of the new opportunity of the 21st century...

We are a party of the future, and we have to stop worrying about the problems and thinking we can't deal with those. We have to focus on the future and our opportunity to make America a great place for our kids and grandkids."

Back to the debate, after Romney's math lesson, Blitzer continued on the Iraq issue, prompting Sam Brownback to propose dividing Iraq into 3 pieces - Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd (yawn). When Blizter got to McCain, he asked what would happen if we discovered in September that the "surge" was not working. McCain ridiculed Brownback's proposal, but then repeated his own series of regional clichés.

"Then you have to examine the options. And I'll tell you the options. One is the division that Sam described. You would have to divide bedrooms in Baghdad, because Sunni and Shi'a are married to each other. You have 2 million Sunni and 4 million Shi'a living in Baghdad together.

You would have to — you withdraw to the borders and watch genocide take place inside Baghdad. You watch the destabilization of Jordan. You see further jeopardy of Israel because of the threats of Hezbollah and Iranian hegemony in the region."

A genocide in Baghdad would undermine the stability of Jordan, a dictatorship with little of the ethnic and religious diversity of Iraq or Syria? And I further fail to see how Hezbollah's tactical ability to threaten Israel is substantially impacted by an American withdrawal from Iraq.

Here is how Iran harms Israel:

1. Iran loads weapons and missiles on planes
2. Planes fly to Syria
3. Material is unloaded and smuggled into Lebanon
4. Hezbollah launches attacks into Israeli territory

This process operates independently of any internal Iraqi conflict, and Iran does not need a foothold in Iraq to continue to pursue this course of action.

But it remains a dangerously reality for the region, which could be stopped if the United States championed talks between Israel and Syria on the basis of land for peace: Syria would cut off weapons supplies to Hezbollah and end support for Hamas and other groups in exchange for regaining the Golan Heights. So why are no presidential candidates talking about that as part of their foreign policy? Aside from being the right thing to do to promote stability and change the regional dynamics, it's probably the lowest-hanging presidential legacy fruit out there.

Instead, we here frightening oversimplifications, such as Tommy Thompson's proposal for Iraq which seemed to suggest a policy of ethnic cleansing:

"There are 18 territories in Iraq, geographically defined. Those 18 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."

As usual, the only person on stage making sense about Iraq was Ron Paul:

"The sooner we come home, the better. If they declare there's no progress in September, we should come home. It was a mistake to go, so it's a mistake to stay. If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment. So we're not making progress there and we should come home. The weapons weren't there, and we went in under UN resolutions. And our national security was not threatened. We're more threatened now by staying."

He continued by identifying the bellicose attitude of the Bush Administration as the most pressing moral issue facing America.

"I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that's part of the American tradition. We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the Just-War theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we're not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security!

I mean, we have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption and go back to traditions and our Constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights, but not to think that we can change the world by force of arms and to start wars.

The president ran on a program of a humble foreign policy, no nation-building, and no policing of the world. And he changed his tune, and now we are fighting a war, and our foreign operations around the world to maintain our empire is now approaching $1 trillion a year. That's where the money's going, and that's where it has to be cut so we can take care of education and medical cares that are needed here in this country."

Paul continued by assailing the neocons.

"I think we should immediately stop patrolling the streets. That's a policeman's job. It's not the work of the Army. We're not fighting a military battle. We're in a different type of warfare right now. So the sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can make sure that no more Americans will die.

We have a lot of goodness in this country and we should promote it, but never through the barrel of a gun. We should do it by setting good standards, motivating people, and have them want to emulate us. But you can't enforce our goodness like the neocons preach with an armed force. It doesn't work.

Woodrow Wilson was telling us about that in promoting democracy a long time ago...It doesn't work, and we have to admit it."

Giuliani offered a response on the topic of nation-building as well:

"People can only embrace democracy when they have an orderly existence, and we have to help provide that. We didn't want that role, but it is our role. We have to train our military to do it. We should probably have an Iraq stat program, in which we measure how many people are going to school, how many factories are open, how many people are going to back to work. We had to get into the nitty-gritty of putting an orderly society together in Iraq. It is not too late to do it."

First of all, the New York Times has been publishing "Iraq Stats" on their editorial page for years now, back when one was called a "RINO", or even unpatriotic, for suggesting that we were occupying Iraq and not merely "liberators". When I came back from visiting Iraq in September of 2003, I spread the message that our presence would could cause lots of resentment and that we were too lackadaisical about the need to train Iraqis to run and police their own country. Nobody wanted to hear it at that time. So, now, 4 years later, how long does Giuliani expect it to take to "put an orderly society together in Iraq"? And are US military personnel equipped to manage that process?

On other subjects, the most ridiculous answer of the night belongs to Sam Brownback who shreds 2 longstanding Republican positions in one sentence - non-intervention and opposition to labor unions:

"I think 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."

Well, ring-a-ding-ding. But there were some other disturbing answers pertaining to private enterprise. The first comes from Mitt Romney:

"With regards to big oil, big oil is making a lot of money right now, and I'd like to see them using that money to invest in refineries. Don't forget that when companies earn profit, that money is supposed to be reinvested in growth. And our refineries are old. Someone said to me — Matt Simons, an investment banker down in Houston, he said our refineries today are rust with paint holding them up. And we need to see these companies, if they're making that kind of money, reinvest in capital equipment."

Likewise, when McCain was asked if he had a problem with oil companies making huge profits, he said, "Sure, I think we all do. And they ought to be reinvesting it." Once again, Ron "Champion of the Constitution" Paul weighs in with a voice of reason:

"I don't think the profits is the issue. The profits are okay if they're legitimately earned in a free market. What I object to are subsidies to big corporations when we subsidize them and give them R&D money. I don't think that should be that way. They should take it out of the funds that they earn."

Totally agreed. I don't know what's more disturbing: when a Mayor of a town of 9,000 inhabitants wants veto power over McDonalds advertising strategy, or when a presidential candidate promotes intervention in the affairs of publicly traded companies. How much money oil companies reinvest is decided by their shareholders and their shareholders alone.

Then there was the hot topic of immigration. While the candidates sparred on the pros and cons of the bill currently being debated, which I oppose because I feel the first thing we need to do is secure our borders and stop the inflow of more illegal immigrants, there was also some quasi-philosophical discussion on the historic role of immigration in America. McCain had the most to say on this topic:

"My friends, we know what we're talking about is the latest wave of migrants into this country. We have to stop the illegal immigration, but we've had waves throughout our history. Hispanics is what we're talking about, a different culture, a different language, which has enriched my state where Spanish was spoken before English was.

My friends, I want you the next time you're down in Washington, D.C. to go to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names engraved in black granite. You'll find a whole lot of Hispanic names. When you go to Iraq or Afghanistan today, you're going to see a whole lot of people who are of Hispanic background."

Tom "take out their holy sites" Tancredo had the most controversial statement of the night when he essentially called for a moratorium on just about any immigration:

"Let's be serious about this, you guys. We talk about all the immigration reform we want, and what it's got to get down to is this: Are we ready for a timeout? Are we actually ready to say, Enough is enough? We have to stop all legal immigration except for people coming into this country as family members, immediate family members, and/or refugees.

Are we willing to actually say that and say enough — is it — we have got to actually begin the process of assimilating people who have come in this great wave of immigration. The process of assimilation is not going on.

And how long? How long will it take us for that — for us to catch up with the millions of people who have come here, both legally and illegally, and assimilate them? I'll tell you this. It'll take this long: until we no longer have to press 1 for English and 2 for any other language."

That is way further to the right than I care to be. However, I do agree with one element of Tancredo's speech: cut "political ties with the country from which you came." The US has suffered enough in recent years from the dual allegiance and questionable patriotism of Liz Cheney's friends.

Also, Tancredo socked it to President Bush like no other, when asked what role he would envision for the 43rd President in his administration:

"Some time ago, 2003 I think it was, I got a call from Karl Rove who told me that because of my criticism of the president, I should never darken the doorstep of the White House. I have been so disappointed in the president in so many ways since his — actually for the last several years, not just the immigration issue, but several other things, including the No Child Left Behind and the massive increase in government that we call prescription drug — Medicare prescription drug, that I'm afraid...I would have to tell George Bush exactly the same thing Karl Rove told me."

In closing, I do have to include one reply from Mike Huckabee, when asked about his views on evolution, because it's one of the most eloquent answers I've ever heard from a political candidate. Even John McCain, when posed the same question, replied, "I can't say it more eloquently than Pastor Huckabee — Governor Huckabee just did.":

"It's interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president. I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States. But you've raised the question, so let me answer it.

'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.' To me it's pretty simple, a person either believes that God created this process or believes that it was an accident and that it just happened all on its own. And the basic question was an unfair question because it simply asks us in a simplistic manner whether or not we believed — in my view — whether there's a God or not. Well let me be very clear: I believe there is a God. I believe there is a God who was active in the creation process.

Now, how did he do it, and when did he do it, and how long did he take? I don't honestly know, and I don't think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president. But I'll tell you what I can tell the country. If they want a president who doesn't believe in God, there's probably plenty of choices. But if I'm selected as president of this country, they'll have one who believes in those words that God did create.

And as the words of Martin Luther, 'Here I stand. I can do no other.' And I will not take that back."

Bravo, Governor Huckabee. Beautiful words.