The campaign of Mark Sanford has issued a statement from the candidate about the allegations of tresspassing at the home of his ex-wife, Jenny Sanford:

Charleston, SC – April 17, 2013 – Former Governor Mark Sanford today released the following statement:

“It’s an unfortunate reality that divorced couples sometimes have disagreements that spill over into family court. I did indeed watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14 year old son because as a father I didn’t think he should watch it alone. Given she was out of town I tried to reach her beforehand to tell her of the situation that had arisen, and met her at the back steps under the light of my cell phone when she returned and told her what had happened.

“There is always another side to every story, and while I am particularly curious how records that were sealed to avoid the boys dealing with embarrassment are now somehow exposed less than three weeks before this election, I agree with Jenny that the media is no place to debate what is ultimately a family court matter, and out of respect for Jenny and the boys, I’m not going to have any further comment at this time,” Sanford said.

 

A roundup of recent movements in preparation for the 2014 House races:

CALIFORNIA: Former Rep. Joe Baca, a California Democrat, announced a bid in California’s 31st District to take on GOP Rep. Gary Miller. USA Today’s Catalina Camia reports Baca had previously indicated he would seek a rematch against Rep. Gloria Negrete McLeod, also a Democrat, in the 35th District. Because of past pro-gun votes, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s super PAC ran ads against him, a factor that Baca contends was decisive.

GEORGIA: The AP reports that “Jody Hice, a conservative talk radio host and minister who made headlines when he fought the ACLU over displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, says he’ll be running for Congress in the 10th District.” Current Rep. Paul Broun, a Republican, will be leaving to run for U.S. Senate. Romney carried 62 percent of the vote in this district.

ILLINOIS: State Sen. Darlene Senger, a Republican, now has a web site in her bid against incumbent Democrat Bill Foster in the 11^th District. Foster won a special election in the state’s 14^th District (under different district lines) in 2007 after House Speaker Dennis Hastert resigned, won reelection in 2008, then lost in 2010 to Republican Randy Hultgren. He beat Republican Rep. Judy Biggert in 2012. Obama took nearly 58 percent of the vote in the 14^th District.

IOWA: Former state Sen. Staci Appel, considered a strong candidate to challenge Republican Tom Latham, announced today that she has decided against a congressional bid, the Des Moines Register reports. This is a swing district that Obama carried with 51 percent of the vote in 2012.

MARYLAND: Dr. John LaFerla, who narrowly lost the 2012 Democratic primary in Maryland’s 1st District, announced he will run again.  He lost to Wendy Rosen, who dropped out abruptly in 2012 after it was revealed she had voted in both Maryland and Florida in 2006 and 2008. The seat is currently held by Republican Andy Harris. Romney carried this district with 60 percent in 2012.

PENNSYLVANIA:  Former City Controller Jonathan Saidel is not running in Pennsylvania’s 13^th Congressional District, where incumbent Allyson Schwartz is running for governor. He cited interest from Marjorie Margolies, who once held the seat (and cast an infamous vote for HillaryCare). Years later, Margolies’ son married Chelsea Clinton.

Other declared candidates include State Rep. Brendan F. Boyle and State Sen. Daylin Leach. In addition, almost every Democrat with ambition and/or a pulse is mentioned as a possible candidate, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer: “State Sen. LeAnna Washington of Philadelphia; State Reps. Mark Cohen of Philadelphia; Madeleine Dean and Mary Jo Daley of Montgomery County; and Ed Neilson of Philadelphia; Mark Levy, the Montgomery County prothonotary; and Valerie A. Arkoosh, a physician and Democratic activist from Montgomery.” Obama carried this district with 66 percent of the vote, so the Democratic primary winner is a heavy favorite in the general election.

Remember Eric Massa, the Democratic Congressman from New York who resigned halfway through his term, after allegations of sexual harassment and tickling staffers? He was replaced in a special election by Republican Tom Reed; Reed won reelection in 2012, 52 percent to 48 percent. (This is a district where Obama and Romney ran about even in 2012.)

Reed has one announced challenger – who has another election bid to deal with in 2013, as well:

Having announced in March her intention to run for re-election to the Tompkins County Legislature in 2013, Martha Robertson — who serves as chairperson of the Legislature — announced Thursday, April 11, she will be challenging U.S. Rep. Tom Reed, R-23rd, for his Congressional seat in 2014.

Local Republicans think they begin the race with an obvious issue to hit her with, namely, being able to balance a county legislative job, a party leadership role, and a congressional race at the same time:

To answer the question of how she will fit in time to represent the people in her legislative district of Dryden and the needs of the county as leader of the Legislature, while also running for Congress, Robertson said she does not plan to seek the county chaipersonship for a third time.

“I won’t be running for chair of the Legislature, this year will be the final time for me,” she said. “That’s a big part of the time commitment. I feel I can serve the district of Dryden very well as legislator.

“People have been asking me for a long time to run for something else and I think they’ll support me being on the county Legislature as long as possible. Sometimes you have to step up and when I found out Nathan wasn’t running, I felt someone needed to step up to challenge Tom Reed,” she added. “I’m very good at multitasking, and I think I will be able to step back by not being the chair, which should make time, and people should feel I should be able to do a good job as legislator.”

The Tompkins County Republican Party disagrees with Robertson, saying the demands of her campaign will prevent her form effectively serving as not only the chairperson of the Tompkins County Legislature, but as a legislator as well in a prepared statement issued Friday, April 12. The press release also made note of fellow Legislator Nathan Shinagawa’s run for the same office in 2012, saying that resulted in him missing sessions of the Legislature while he campaigned.

If nothing else, the announced Congressional bid complicates her bid to be reelected to the County Legislature, with voters knowing that she aspires to begin a new job in Washington starting January 2015.

Over on the home page, I have a look at Terry McAuliffe’s (former, as of December) firm, GreenTech Automotive, and their libel suit against the Franklin Center and Watchdog.org.

GreenTech Automotive makes the “MyCar.”

MyCar is a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle in the US, but can be adapted to 45mph for in Europe. NEVs are low-speed vehicles; and depending upon the state you live in are limited, by law, to 25-35 mph. No highway driving, please.

The GreenTech web site showcases the car in the plant:

The MyCar comes in eight colors: Hello, Atomic, Crush, Race, Mist, Rally, Electric, and Mystic. To the untrained eye, those colors resemble light yellow, darker yellow, purple, red, gray, green, blue and white.

The Wednesday edition of the Morning Jolt features a lot of discussion on what we know, and don’t know, about the Boston Marathon bombing, and then this gradual return to “normal” politics:

Contemplating the New Sanford-Weiner Era

Oh, goodness, do we need a lighter, sillier topic.

Anthony Weiner, you’ll do.

As a guy who was not opposed to Mark Sanford attempting a political comeback, I suppose I should attempt to extend the same mentality to Anthony Weiner.

But he’s not going to make this easy.

Anthony Weiner sounded contrite in his first TV interview in two years, as the disgraced Democrat considers whether to run for New York City mayor.

“I think I’ll be spending a lot of time, here on out, saying I’m sorry,” Weiner told New York 1 in an interview that aired Monday night.

Weiner’s political future is now a source of fascination and speculation, following a lengthy New York Times Magazine cover story and the release of a 64-point plan to improve New York City. The Democratic primary for mayor is in September.

Weiner, 48, declined to go into detail about the sexting scandal that led him to resign from Congress in 2011. When asked by the 24-hour news cable channel to go into some of the specifics — such as how many women received lewd photos and messages from him — Weiner would only say “more than one person, several people.”

“I have been excruciatingly honest, in letter by letter, detail by detail, with my wife,” Weiner told New York 1. “An embarrassing amount is in the public domain … But out of respect for the idea that I’ve laid it all out for her and out of some respect for the privacy of the people who were at the other end of these correspondences, who had their lives turned upside down, I am not going to go into the details of every bit of it.”

Ahem.

From Andrew Breitbart’s book:

The next twenty-four hours—even though it was Saturday of a Memorial Day weekend—were going to be critical. We knew that the organized left was going to wage war, and by the time I woke up the next day, after launching the story, I realized that the Democrat-Media Complex was playing for keeps. For starters, the Daily Kos, the proto–Huffington Post whose founder, Markos Moulitsas, is still granted Meet the Press airtime, published a post immediately declaring war on me. Without bothering to investigate the veracity of our allegations, the Kos post simply declared: “Breitbart to use SEX SMEAR on Rep. Anthony Weiner.” The post was later updated to accuse me of faking the photograph. (Kos, months earlier, led the charge on another Saturday morning when he tried to blame me for the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by the insane Jared Loughner. Within these battles against prominent Internet lefties, there are no repercussions when their side lies, cheats, and attacks. How could Kos get away with publishing a declaration of war, without having the facts, even after having been proven so egregiously wrong in trying to connect a political enemy to the despicable behavior of a lone, crazed gunman? As Dennis Prager often says, being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.) …

On day two of the Weiner scandal, conspiracy theories were building steam suggesting that there had in fact been a hacker, or hackers. One such theory was that PatriotUSA76—the still-unnamed person who drew my attention to Weiner’s errant re-tweeter—was the alleged hacker. The second one, which was started by the Daily Kos and took on a life of its own, became the narrative Congressman Weiner was hoping would stick—namely, that I was the alleged hacker. While I was screaming back into the phone, amid picturesque cacti and red, rocky terrain, I put the phone on mute and looked at my wife and friends and emphatically told them: “I have no choice. I apologize profusely. I’m fighting for my media life.” At one point, I tried to explain to the other two husbands what was going on. “Have you ever heard of Congressman Anthony Weiner?” I asked. Both had a passing knowledge of his existence. “Well, I’m in the middle of breaking a story that will be huge, if I can just get past Memorial Day and into the real news cycle.”

Affairs are bad; I think the wrongdoing is exacerbated when you attack, or let others attack, the folks who are telling the truth about you.

For contrast, once confronted with his wrongdoing, Mark Sanford didn’t deny it. He laid it all out, in cringe-inducing detail, at the South Carolina State House upon his return from Argentina. In fact, within a few days, most people, left, right and center, wanted him to please stop talking about it and going into the way-too-personal details.

(I’m fascinated by which details of the Sanford story entered the national consciousness and which ones didn’t; when I mention that Jenny Sanford had known about the governor’s mistress in Argentina for six months before the public revelation, that the pair had begun a trial separation and that the pair had not spoken for two weeks before that day, most folks are surprised. All of these facts are written on page one of the prologue of Jenny Sanford’s book, Staying True.)

Anyway, this is why I… oh, for heaven’s sake, Governor, what have you done now?

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford must appear in court two days after running for a vacant congressional seat to answer a complaint that he trespassed at his ex-wife’s home, according to court documents acquired by The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The complaint says Jenny Sanford confronted Sanford leaving her Sullivans Island home on Feb. 3 by a rear door, using his cell phone for a flashlight. Her attorney filed the complaint the next day and Jenny Sanford confirmed Tuesday the documents are authentic.

The couple’s 2010 divorce settlement says neither may enter the other’s home without permission. Mark Sanford lives about a 20-minute drive away in downtown Charleston.

Jenny Sanford said Tuesday that she has custody of the couple’s four boys.

She said the complaint has nothing to do with her former husband’s efforts to rebuild his career in politics. She said it was filed with the court the day after the incident and when a family court judge last month set the case for the docket, it happened to be two days after the election.

“I am doing my best not to get in the way of his race,” Jenny Sanford told the AP. “I want him to sink or swim on his own. For the sake of my children I’m trying my best not to get in the way, but he makes things difficult for me when he does things like trespassing.”

Sentiments like this one were destined to end at some point after this crisis…

 

… but it’s striking that the press felt the need to goad Congress into turning the attack in Boston into a partisan cudgel.

At his weekly Capitol briefing Tuesday, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said the explosions in Boston demonstrates “why having the ability to dress security concerns is important,” and thus provides more evidence that sequestration should be turned off.

As the rest of the report lays out, the reporter set the stage for Hoyer by asking, “whether Monday’s attack makes the argument for addressing sequestration,” and to his credit, Hoyer said he doubted sequestration was hindering or influencing the response to the attack. 

Hoyer added, “I doubt that [sequestration's] having any impact presently — and the reason for that, this is a priority item and I’m sure they’re shifting what resources are necessary. Even if they’re shorter resources than they otherwise would’ve had, I’m sure they’re putting all the resources necessary on this effort. Certainly at the federal level — I think the President’s made that pretty clear.”

The Republican Party of Virginia is having some fun this afternoon.

Here’s Terry McAuliffe in September 2011, discussing Solyndra on a Virginia-based public television program:

McAuliffe says, “I’m proud to always say of all my businesses and the one I’m doing now with the auto, I do it all with private capital. I use my own money and investor money, I just don’t want the government in my business.”

Strangely enough, that’s the exact month that McAuliffe’s company, GreenTech Automotive, accepted a $3 million loan from the Mississippi Development Authority, acting on behalf of the state of Mississippi. The contract can be found here. Separately, the MDA loaned another $2 million to Tunica County to purchase the site for the factory.

Perhaps Florida Democrats aren’t as enthusiastic about adopting Charlie Crist as one of their own as the initial coverage suggested:

Major Democratic financial backers,including trial lawyers and teachers, are gushing about Charlie Crist and his prospects for 2014.

Crist has not announced plans to run for governor again, but polls show him trouncing Republican Gov. Rick Scott by double digits.The lifelong Republican-turned-Democrat at this point looks like he could grab the Democratic nomination without even a serious challenge.

But oh-so-quietly, veteran Democratic fundraisers and strategists across Florida worry about another scenario: a Charlie Crist train wreck that would ensure a second term for one of America’s most vulnerable Republican governors. The wariness and even downright hostility to Crist’s candidacy are part of what’s fueling speculation about Sen. Bill Nelson entering the race.

Grassroots Florida Democrats did their best to defeat Crist in 2000 (in the race for Florida Education Commissioner), in 2002 (for attorney general), in 2006 (in the governor’s race) and in 2010 (as an independent candidate for Senate). After spending a decade telling voters that he’s the wrong choice, they may not be too eager to make him their new standard-bearer.

Sen. Bill Nelson, meanwhile, is a strangely low-profile three-term senator. PPP found that 38 percent approve of his performance, 40 percent disapprove, and 22 percent aren’t sure. This is after winning reelection handily, 55 percent to 42 percent, just a few months ago.

There’s some dispute as to just how bad Rick Scott’s approval rating is, with two pollsters showing extremely bad news and one showing not-so-bad:

PPP’s survey, released Tuesday, said only 33 percent of voters viewed Scott favorably, compared to 57 who did not. The Q Poll, released today, had that rating at 36-49.

But AIF, in an 800-voter survey that Associated Industries of Florida President Tom Feeney said shows “a clear contradiction [to] recently released polling data that has Governor Rick Scott’s approval rating in the low 30s,” said Scott’s approval rating is “holding strong” with 47 percent of Florida voters approving the job Scott is doing (though 49 percent don’t.)

Former Gov. Charlie Crist, above, holding up his change-of-party membership form, which he filled out in the White House.

UPDATE:  A beautiful detail in that story: “Among those who says he encouraged Nelson to run? Crist’s boss and top cheerleader, John Morgan, the trial lawyer whose Morgan & Morgan TV ads blanket much of Florida. Morgan and Nelson discussed it over dinner at Luma in Winter Park in February, but Nelson was non-committal.”

In case you’ve missed Charlie Crist’s television commercial for that law firm:

The jokes write themselves: “Former prostitute running for mayor in Mississippi.“

This e-mail from Terry McAuliffe reinforces two points about his campaign for governor. First, he will have an inordinate amount of money for his campaign this year — probably somewhere between $10 million and ∞ –  and he’ll probably be hitting the airwaves soon.

Second, his staff cannot spell, announcing “how we faired” instead of “how we fared”.

From: Andrew Smith <info@terrymcauliffe.com>

Date: April 13, 2013, 11:57:04 AM EDT

To:

Subject: How we faired

Reply-To: info@terrymcauliffe.com

Seton — I have some big news to share.Yesterday, we submitted our first financial report of 2013, and it contained a big number: $5.1 million raised in January, February, and March. That’s the most money any gubernatorial candidate has raised in the first quarter, in at least the last five elections.And while I’m proud of that top line figure, it’s what’s behind it that has me beaming from ear to ear. Here’s exactly how we got to $5.1 million:

• Over 5,100 people pitched in and gave what they could
• In a true display of grassroots support, 73 percent of our donations were $100 or less
• About 3 in 4 donations came from the Commonwealth

There’s no denying it: our grassroots momentum is growing. After all, this isn’t Terry’s campaign — all of us own a piece of it.

Everyone owns a piece of it, hm? Careful. Some of McAuliffe’s investments don’t turn out so well.

The Monday edition of the Morning Jolt features John Kerry blaming the media for hyping the possibility of war on the Korean peninsula, the Right assessing Pat Toomey’s background check deal with Joe Manchin, and then this predictable turn in the discussion of the Kermit Gosnell late-term abortion “House of Horrors” scandal:

The Conservative Media Blackout That Wasn’t Really a Blackout At All

Here it comes: the mainstream media will claim that their critics on the Right are hypocrites, because conservative media outlets weren’t really covering the “house of horrors” of late-term abortionist/alleged mass murderer Kermit Gosnell, either.

This morning, the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi writes: “The Weekly Standard and the National Review, two leading conservative magazines, for example, hadn’t published anything on the trial, according to a search of the Nexis database.”

Notice the careful wording on that accusation. Of course, several of my colleagues wrote about the charges against Gosnell before the trial. (The opening statements in Gosnell’s trial began March 18.)

And if I’m reading Farhi correctly, he’s only looking at the print magazines, not the online versions – which, as we all know, generate a lot more material, day in and day out, than the print versions of our magazines.

Anyway, a quick look through NRO’s archives:

Michelle Malkin, back on January 21, 2011:

In the City of Brotherly Love, hundreds of babies were murdered by a scissors-wielding monster over four decades. Whistleblowers informed public officials at all levels of the wanton killings of innocent life. But a parade of government health bureaucrats and advocates protecting the abortion racket looked the other way — until, that is, a Philadelphia grand jury finally exposed the infanticide factory run by abortionist Kermit B. Gosnell, M.D., and a crew of unlicensed, untrained butchers masquerading as noble providers of women’s “choice.” 

Mark Steyn, February 10, 2011:

As I was leaving Fox News last night, I glanced up at the monitor and caught Juan Williams expressing mystification to Sean Hannity as to why Republicans in Congress were wasting the country’s time on a “little thing” like abortion.

Gee, I dunno. Maybe it’s something to do with a mass murderer in Pennsylvania, or Planned Parenthood clinics facilitating the sex trafficking of minors. From the Office of the District Attorney in Philadelphia:

Viable babies were born*. Gosnell killed them by plunging scissors into their spinal cords. He taught his staff to do the same.

This is a remarkable moment in American life: A man is killing actual living, gurgling, bouncing babies on an industrial scale – and it barely makes the papers.

Here’s Rich Lowry, Feb. 4, 2011:

The nightmarish case of the Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell and the sting video of a counselor at a Planned Parenthood clinic cooperating with a supposed pimp show the dignity of women is decidedly secondary. The 261-page grand-jury report in the Gosnell case could have been written by Stephen King. Gosnell’s gruesome operation was, on its own terms, highly efficient. During the day, his assistants administered labor-inducing drugs to pregnant women, overwhelmingly poor minorities. Then the good doctor showed up in the evening. On some women, he performed traditional abortions, occasionally butchering them in the process. Other women had delivered babies before he arrived. Here, he performed post-birth abortions–

-and I’m going to cut if off here, lest you lose your breakfast all over your keyboard. Yeah, it’s awful.

Finally, Michael Walsh, writing as his left-wing alter-ego David Kahane, quoted the indictment at length in a February 7, 2011 column.

Here’s Matthew Franck on February 3, 2011.  Here’s Tom McClusky on March 29, 2011. Here’s Mark Steyn, quoting the trial, in the Corner on March 20.

But none of that will be acknowledged by Fahri, because it interferes with the point he wants to make, that “media bias” isn’t to blame for the fact that Kermit Gosnell only became a household name last week.

Listen up, media. The existence of other factors – the fear of offending squeamish readers, limited budgets, the presence of other news events, the lack of television cameras in the courtroom – doesn’t disprove the factor of bias, the notion that at many allegedly “mainstream” publications and outlets, a political and ideological lens skews the perception of what is big news and what is, in the words of the Post’s health policy reporter, just a “local crime story.” As Jay Nordlinger lays out, there is always an editor’s decision of which events get “flood the zone” style coverage, and that decision inevitably reflects that editor’s worldview and perspective. News that damages key tenets of the Left – i.e.,the notion that late-term abortion is necessary, good, and moral objections to it are outdated, fringe, religious zealotry – rarely is deemed big news.

We’ve seen much more mundane matters get much bigger coverage than this man and his horror show garnered until last week. This is the same Washington Post Style section that had a front-page-of-the-section story about an Alabama high school football coach mocking Michelle Obama’s butt. (Obnoxious, of course, but why is this national news?)

If you’re not going to implement anything to mitigate that bias – i.e., diverse viewpoints in the newsroom, on the reporting staff, not just the column-writing staff – then just admit the bias and move on.

Terry McAuliffe’s car company, GreenTech Automotive, is suing the investigative-journalism nonprofit Watchdog.org for libel, seeking $85 million in damages.

“Specifically, as a direct and express result of the articles published by Defendants … investors are wavering in their commitment to provide $25 million in investments already promised to GTA,” the lawsuit said. “GTA … intended to raise $60 million in capital, (and) is now in significant danger as a direct result of the loss of investor confidence in GTA arising from the publication of Defendants’ articles.”

Watchdog.org cited the same documents I did yesterday, with one difference; they quoted an expert who used the term “fraud.”

From Watchdog.org:

Attorneys for GreenTech have contacted us and asked for a retraction of our April 1 and April 3 articles. In particular, they object to the use of the term “fraud” in our reporting. Lest there be any confusion about the point of our articles, we have updated them. To be clear, our articles were not intended to (and did not) accuse GreenTech of committing fraud. Instead, the articles pointed out that the federal EB-5 visa program — which trades U.S. green cards for business investments and which GreenTech has used as a source of capital — has lax oversight, is prone to abuse and fraud, and cannot possibly deliver on its promises to taxpayers and investors. Our articles also quoted sources who criticized GreenTech’s reliance on the EB-5 program — the same criticism that Virginia officials leveled against the company in 2009. We stand by our reporting about the EB-5 program and will continue to investigate this important story. — Editors

If you had a cynical mind, what would you suspect about this lawsuit?

If you wish to help out the good folks at the Franklin Center and Watchdog.org, you can do so here.

UPDATE: GOP lieutenant-governor candidate Pete Snyder moved fast, issuing the following statement regarding the decision by Terry McAuliffe’s GreenTech to sue Watchdog.org over a blog post:

No one should be surprised that Terry McAuliffe and his sputtering company are blaming their business failures on a non-profit organization for scrutinizing their mismanagement. It’s exactly the kind of thing you’d expect from a Washington insider. Thanks to an amazing team, I’ve been able to build two very successful businesses based in the Commonwealth and create hundreds of good-paying Virginia jobs. I’ve also raised capital and dealt with investors — and trust me, it’s not a blog post that scared investors from GreenTech, it’s McAuliffe’s mismanagement and the fact that GreenTech hasn’t lived up to his hype or created the jobs and cars he promised. Terry is out of his league playing CEO, and clearly he would be out of his league trying to play Chief Executive of Virginia. Just like Terry’s lost investors, Virginia voters see Terry’s management skills as a risky investment.

I wonder if GreenTech’s lawyers will sue over that.

Finally, here’s a section of the Jolt that was heavily shaped by last night’s Twitter discussion of Kermit Gosnell coverage — or how rare that coverage is:

Why Is One of the Most Horrific Crimes in Recent Memory Getting Almost No Press Coverage?

If you need to get up to speed on the Kermit Gosnell story, here’s a good place to start.

A doctor whose abortion clinic was a filthy, foul-smelling “house of horrors” that was overlooked by regulators for years was charged Wednesday with murder, accused of delivering seven babies alive and then using scissors to kill them.

Hundreds of other babies likely died in the squalid clinic that Dr. Kermit Gosnell ran from 1979 to 2010, Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said at a news conference.

“My comprehension of the English language can’t adequately describe the barbaric nature of Dr. Gosnell,” he added.

It’s utterly, utterly horrible; I won’t blame you if you can’t read that story any further.

However, you may be surprised at how little you’ve heard  about this story so far. Seth Mandel lays out the utterly unforgivable decision-making on the part of the national media so far:

You may not have heard much about Gosnell’s case. That’s because the mainstream press has chosen by and large to ignore it. There is no area of American politics in which the press is more activist or biased or unethical than social issues, the so-called culture wars. And the culture of permissive abortion they favor has consequences, which they would rather not look squarely at, thank you very much. The liberal commentator Kirsten Powers has written a tremendous op-ed in USA Today on Gosnell and the media blackout. Powers writes of the gruesome admissions that Gosnell’s former employees are making in court, some of which amount to “literally a beheading” and other stomach-turning descriptions. On the media’s refusal to inform the public, Powers writes:

A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months. The exception is when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segment on Meet the Press meant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some backward red state.

The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial and The New York Times saw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial’s first day. They’ve been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony . . .

You don’t have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” It’s about basic human rights.

The media should be ashamed beyond description for this behavior. The American left should come to terms with what it means to talk about a human life as if it were a parasite, or merely a clump of cells. And they should most certainly stop lecturing the rest of us on compassion, on pity, on social obligation, on morality.

The Washington Post health-policy reporter, Sarah Kliff explains to Mollie Hemingway, “I cover policy for the Washington Post, not local crime, hence why I wrote about all the policy issues you mention.”

Except that a lot of “local crime” stories become national policy or politics issues, or at the very least get national coverage. Last night on Twitter I went on a tear: Trayvon Martin, the Cambridge police arresting Henry Louis Gates, O. J. Simpson, the Unabomber, Jeffrey Dahmer, Casey Anthony, D. B. Cooper, Bernie Madoff, Son of Sam, JonBenet Ramsey, Andrea Yates, David Koresh & the Waco compound, Amy Fisher . . . Heck, all of the gun massacres that drive our periodic discussions of gun laws are technically “local crime” stories.

You can argue about the importance of all of the crime stories listed above, but the point is that a lot of “local crime stories” become big national stories. You’d think Doctor Baby-in-a-Blender would make the cut.

Josh Greenman, editorial-page editor of the New York Daily News:

I humbly suggest: Whether you support abortion rights or oppose them, read the Kermit Gosnell coverage with clear eyes. It is wrenching.

Ace shouts what we all know is really going on here:

This story exposes fault lines between Democrats, who are by political necessity abortion absolutists, and Independents, who may lean somewhat pro-choice but sure the hell aren’t on board for infanticide. But to report this story at all would put the Democrats in the difficult position of angering its an element of its hardcore single-issue leftist coalition, or alienating independents.

Thus, the media — which just “wants to report the facts” and “takes no positions on policy questions” and which has no partisan leaning at all — simply doesn’t report the story at all.

After all, if the public hears of it, they may make The Wrong Decisions.

You don’t trust children with matches and you don’t trust the American public with information. It’s that simple.

I’ll end the week by sharing two items from the Friday edition of the Morning Jolt. First, a Jolt/Campaign Spot exclusive . . .

The NRCC, Harvesting a New Message on the Vine

Are you familiar with Vine?

It’s sort of “Twitter for video.” Basically, it’s a network designed for sharing six-second snippets of video. Mini-YouTube, if you will. I’m not quite convinced that this will take off, but I’m sure some folks said the same thing about 140-characters-or-less messages when Twitter debuted. Anyway, in a Morning Jolt/Campaign Spot exclusive, you can check out the National Republican Congressional Committee’s debut effort in using this mobile service.

The National Republican Congressional Committee today released a 6 second Vine ad on Elizabeth Colbert Busch’s unwavering support for unions at the expense of South Carolina jobs.

Colbert Busch has said union voices need to be “lifted up” and even took campaign cash from the same union that tried to destroy South Carolina jobs. Unions have enough of a voice in Washington, they don’t need Elizabeth Colbert Busch too.

This is the first time a political organization has launched an actual ad on Vine to attack an opponent. Vine ads can easily be shared and are a new frontier of political media.

“Elizabeth Colbert Busch has consistently sided with the union that tried to destroy South Carolina jobs,” said NRCC Regional Press Secretary Katie Prill. “She can dodge debates and questions over her shady alliance with these unions, but she can’t hide from the truth. The families of South Carolina deserve a voice in Congress, but Elizabeth Colbert Busch is only concerned with being the voice of unions in Washington.”

Elizabeth Colbert Busch Said The Voices Of All Unions Need To Be “Lifted Up.” “‘The voices of the union — of all unions — need to be lifted up,’ Colbert Busch said.” (Paige Lavender, “Jim Clyburn: Elizabeth Colbert Busch Will Protect Workers’ Rights In Congress,” The Huffington Post, 2/16/13)

National Review Online: “Colbert Busch Took Money From Union That Opposed S.C. Boeing Plant” (Jim Geraghty, “Colbert Busch took Money From Union That Opposed S.C. Boeing Plant,” National Review Online, 4/9/13)

A big deal? A passing fad? I guess we’ll see. But it’s good to see the NRCC trying new approaches and technologies and seeing what works.

 

How much will voters in South Carolina’s first congressional district see of Elizabeth Colbert Busch before Election Day?

Next week’s debate at the Medical University of South Carolina, sponsored by the AARP and Channel 2, is now canceled. Mark Sanford’s campaign says he was game. Her campaign is Tweeting an announcement for a debate later in the month, on April 29, so presumably she’ll attend that one. The Sanford campaign proposed two other debates — one on CNN, the other sponsored by the Rotary Club of Charleston — and says they’re still waiting to hear if Colbert Busch will agree.

Then there are these inconvenient points in a mostly glowing article in the Charleston Post & Courier:

Colbert Busch’s only public Charleston event this week was a call into her West Ashley campaign office . . .

The call lasted just a few minutes, but Jim Pierson, a Colbert Busch volunteer from James Island, said he thought it was an effective message.

When Colbert Busch held a kick-off event this month at an assisted-living center on Johns Island, a dozen elderly residents sipped champagne as they listened to Colbert Busch give a cheerful, brief speech.

She didn’t talk about federal policies or campaign issues. Instead, she just celebrated her primary win, thanked them for inviting her back, and she said she would keep them in her thoughts.

However, she did tour a hospital today.

Apparently they really meant this:

The single most important thing: Defeating Mitch McConnell. Join the campaign here-> ow.ly/jEoMR

— Progress Kentucky (@ProgressKy) April 11, 2013

Much more important than, say, obeying Kentucky law. You see, Kentucky requires at least one party in a conversation to consent to the recording of the conversation.

“Unless otherwise provided by law, the authorized maximum terms of imprisonment for a Class D felony is not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years.”

A local Democrat has told the press that the organization bragged about that Class D felony.

A secret recording of a campaign strategy session between U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell and his advisors was taped by leaders of the Progress Kentucky super PAC, says a longtime local Democratic operative.

Mother Jones Magazine released the tape this week. The meeting itself took place on Feb. 2.

Jacob Conway, who is on the executive committee of the Jefferson County Democratic Party, says that day, Shawn Reilly and Curtis Morrison, who founded and volunteered for Progress Kentucky, respectively, bragged to him about how they recorded the meeting.

I suppose the group could always try to distract us by saying something racist about McConnell’s wife again.

UPDATE: The tapers might be in the clear; it may come down to whether the recording device was in the room or outside of it.

In-person conversations: It is a felony to overhear or record, through use of an electronic or mechanical device, an oral communication without the consent of at least one party to that communication. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 526.020. According to the commentary included with the statute when it was adopted in 1974, a conversation which is loud enough to be heard through the wall or through the heating system without the use of any device is not meant to be protected by the statute, since a person who desires privacy can take the steps necessary to ensure that his conversation cannot be overheard by the ordinary ear. See 1974 Kentucky Crime Commission/Legislative Research Commission Commentary to 1974 c 406, § 227.

From the report above:

Morrison and Reilly did not attend the open house, but they told Conway they arrived later and were able to hear the meeting from the hallway.

Other sources have corroborated this series of events to WFPL. The meeting room door is next to the elevators on that floor. McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton has told multiple media outlets the door was shut and locked on Feb. 2. But the door has a vent at the bottom and a large gap underneath.

As mentioned in today’s Morning Jolt, the NRA will indeed be scoring all of the upcoming votes on background checks and gun owners. But this doesn’t necessarily mean a full-scale divorce between the NRA and the background-check co-sponsors, West Virginia Democrat Senator Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Senator Pat Toomey.

Wednesday evening, Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, issued a letter that indicated that yes, the proposal would be “scored” by the organization.

In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks.  This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer.  As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.  Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of America’s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer.  During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools.  Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

I still suspect that the NRA knows that Pat Toomey is probably the best ally they’re going to get elected statewide in Pennsylvania – and that they’re pretty happy with Manchin overall, too. Perhaps the pair are destined to go into future elections with a “B” grade from the organization. (Joe Manchin spoke at the NRA convention back in 2011.)

The deal reflects some basic political realities: Toomey was elected in 2010, and so he’ll next appear before the voters in 2016, a presidential-election year with high turnout. You’ve heard Pennsylvania described as Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in the middle, but the real battleground that determines statewide elections is the Philadelphia-suburb counties. As I summarized it last cycle:

[Republicans] are increasingly optimistic about Bucks County, where about 435,000 are registered to vote. Toomey won this county over Joe Sestak in the 2010 Senate race, 53.2 percent to 46.8 percent. But the other major suburban counties, Montgomery County (with 553,104 registered voters) and Delaware County (about 395,000 registered voters) are looking like tougher nuts to crack for Republicans this cycle, compared with Bucks County.

These are classic “soccer mom” suburban counties, and the Philadelphia Inquirer is a big media influence here. It is a tough corner of the state in which to sell an uncompromising stance on gun issues.

Toomey needs to be able to say that after Sandy Hook, he did his best to do something — particularly if or when, God forbid, there is another horrific massacre in 2016. Whether or not the bill passes is almost immaterial; he just needs to be seen by those soccer moms as a guy who tried his best to work out a bipartisan compromise to slightly lessen the odds of another massacre. As a Second Amendment fan, you don’t have to like that, but you do have to recognize it.

So when you see folks like Jacob Sullum write . . .

. . . it is hard to see a logical connection between the Newtown murders and the proposal offered by Manchin and Toomey. But that does not matter, because it makes them feel as if they are doing something to prevent such crimes. And isn’t that what laws are for, to make legislators feel better? President Obama certainly seems to think so. Notice that Manchin implicitly endorses Obama’s view that anyone who fails to support new gun controls does not have “a good conscience.”

The cold, hard truth is that yes, this and almost all legislation relating to guns is meant to make lawmakers and the public feel like they’ve done something. Because as we’ve all noted, the only policy that could have prevented Sandy Hook was confiscation of all privately held firearms. But when lawmakers in suburban districts go back and do their town hall meetings, they need to say either A) see, I passed “X” or B) I tried to pass “X.” They will get these questions the next time some lunatic goes on a spree-killing.

Anyway, Toomey summarizes:

WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO

The bill will not take away anyone’s guns.

The bill will not ban any type of firearm.

The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine.

The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.

The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

At Red State, Erick Erickson disputes that, contending that the way the bill is written, doctors can add their patients to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and suggests that they can be added for no real reason. 

The provision could spur a debate on just who should be able to determine if someone is psychologically imbalanced in a way that makes them a threat to others. As I have mentioned in previous Jolts, the only person who can currently place a person on the can’t-buy-a-gun list is a judge. If you see or encounter someone who behaves in a manner that makes you think they’re likely to go on a shooting spree, your employer, school principal, or university administrator can’t do a darn thing about it (other than involve law enforcement and try to get that person before a judge). Sometimes a psychiatrist can explicitly tell the police that her patient had confessed homicidal thoughts and was a danger to the public, as in the case of the Aurora shooter, and the police will do nothing.

Over on the home page, I take a look at why Virginia officials were so skeptical about assisting Terry McAuliffe’s GreenTech Automotive back in 2009. Besides the usual risks of investment, at least two officials with the state business-recruitment agency feared the company was a “visa-for-sale scheme with potential national security implications.”

What is the purpose of GreenTech Automotive?

The company, founded by Terry McAuliffe, is now a top issue in this year’s Virginia race for governor. Until recently, the controversy over the company centered on the firm’s October 2009 decision to build a plant in Mississippi instead of Virginia. McAuliffe contended that he wanted to build a plant in Virginia, but the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) — the state’s business-recruitment agency — wouldn’t play ball.

“We had sites, we had meetings, and they chose that they weren’t going to bid on it,” McAuliffe declared. PolitiFact looked at the paperwork and rated that assertion false, concluding that “VEDP asked GreenTech to address its concerns and waited in vain for replies.”

But internal communications from VEDP now reveal that the state agency didn’t merely think that McAuliffe’s company had a risky business model. At least two high-ranking officials actually suspected that the company’s real aim was to make money by selling U.S. residency visas to wealthy foreigners.

In an e-mail dated November 17, 2009, Liz Povar, then the director of business development at VEDP, wrote to her colleagues:

Sandi et al. Even if the company has investors “lined up”, I maintain serious concerns about the establishment of an EB-5 center in general, and most specifically based on this company. Not only based on (lack of) management expertise, (lack of) market preparation, etc. but also still can’t get my head around this being anything other than a visa-for-sale scheme with potential national security implications that we have no way to confirm or discount. . . .

This “feels” like a national political play instead of a Virginia economic development opportunity. I am not willing to stake Virginia’s reputation on this at this juncture.

The e-mails were revealed pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PolitiFact; 79 pages of documents were posted online in January.

As I lay out in the piece, companies and the Regional Centers that work with them are not allowed to sell the U.S. visas, but they are allowed to point out that investment in their projects may qualify a foreign citizen for a residence visa, and they may appear to suggest that one directly leads to the other. For example, at the top of the website for Gulf Coast Funds Management LLC, the Statue of Liberty’s torch is next to the slogan, “Invest in your future with EB-5.”

Of course, Virginia had a lot of good reasons to be wary of giving special assistance to GreenTech:

On October 22, 2009, Mike Lehmkuhler, the vice president of business attraction at VEDP, assessed GreenTech’s hurdles in withering fashion:

The sales forecasts suggest a completely successful start-up, despite

• no brand recognition
• no demonstrated vehicle performance
• no safety and fuel economy certification from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• no emissions approval from the EPA
• no established distribution network
• no demonstrated automotive industry experience within the executive management team

All of this was to manufacture a product with a quite limited market. Almost no media coverage of GreenTech mentioned the limits of the GreenTech Automotive product:

MyCar is a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle in the U.S., but can be adapted to 45mph for in [sic] Europe. NEVs are low-speed vehicles; and depending upon the state you live in are limited, by law, to 25–35 mph. No highway driving, please.

The Thursday edition of the Morning Jolt features an examination of the Toomey-Manchin proposal on background checks, news about Terry McAuliffe’s GreenTech Automotive company, an intriguing quote from the White House, and then this . . .

Obama’s Outreach to Republicans, for the Cameras Only

Wednesday night, President Obama dined with Republicans.

This latest round of mealtime diplomacy — which will take place in the White House’s Old Family Dining Room, rather than the Jefferson Hotel — will feature lawmakers ranging from moderate Maine Sen. Susan Collins to conservative John Boozman (Ark.). Other attendees include GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), and John Thune (S.D.).

You’ll recall that Obama did almost no outreach to Republicans in his first term.

If there were ever a Republican for President Obama to work with, it was Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. She was one of just three Republicans in the entire Congress to vote for his economic stimulus plan in 2009 and even tried to work with him on health care, but in an interview with ABC’s Senior Political Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Snowe makes a remarkable revelation: She hasn’t had a face-to-face meeting with President Obama in nearly two years.

Now, if you’re a Democratic President looking to build bipartisan coalitions, isn’t Olympia Snowe the first place you start?

Of course, you’ll also recall some unnamed White House staffer who said that all of the recent outreach to Republicans was just window-dressing to get the media off his case; he, and apparently his colleagues and perhaps the president believed there was no practical use to actually meeting and eating with legislators in the opposing party.

“This is a joke. We’re wasting the president’s time and ours,” complained a senior White House official who was promised anonymity so he could speak frankly. “I hope you all (in the media) are happy because we’re doing it for you.”

So is the outreach “real” or for the cameras? Well, when Paul Ryan came to NR’s offices in Washington yesterday, he offered a nugget that appears to shed some light. Our Andrew Stiles wrote up that portion of the conversation:

Representative Paul Ryan hasn’t heard from President Obama since their lunch meeting in early March, the House budget committee chairman told reporters on Wednesday.

“Not that I know of,” Ryan said when asked if the president had made any effort to follow up on their meeting, which he noted was “the first time we ever had a conversation” since Obama took office. “I don’t really know him very well.”

Rep. Paul Ryan stopped by National Review’s Washington offices today. Towards the end of the meeting, I asked him about the contrast in his life in the past year — last autumn, when he spent every day in the white-hot spotlight running for vice president, and now, when he’s back chairing the House Budget Committee. I asked whether a part of him felt happy to be back in his budget-policy element.

“No, I actually wished I was doing something different,” Ryan said with a laugh. “I had a different vision than this.”

“I guess one of the most distressing things is that . . . I worked with Mike Leavitt — after my debate was done, I got to jump into the transition planning more. Mitt had two more debates to go. So I worked with Mike Leavitt and Chris Liddell and his team on the transition plan. And knowing what we were going to do in the first 200 days, how we were going to tackle the entitlement problems, the debt crisis, tax reform, energy exploration, all the things we said were going to do, we were going to do. And we were really getting down to the specifics. Losing the election and now seeing where the country is headed in this kind of level of detail . . . [holding up a summary of President Obama’s budget proposal, unveiled today] . . . Very few people have such a clear view of the whole alteration of trajectory that has occurred. And that’s obviously . . . I won’t say it’s despairing, it’s distressing, I’m distressed. I gave up despair for Lent this year,” he joked.

“I look at the situation now, and I do what you have to do as a legislator: make the best of a situation as it is, and try to improve things. I want to get an agreement to get a down payment on this problem to buy the country time, and help create some space for economic growth. But it’s distressing that all of these things are happening — I think Obamacare is going to destroy health care. I think the tax code is holding us back. I think we’re on the cusp of an energy renaissance, if we allow it happen, that could be a game changer for America. I think they’re regulating jobs out of existence with uncertainty. We could have changed all that. But we didn’t. So let’s go to Plan B, which is make the best of it.”