text:
MR. DAVID GREGORY: This Sunday, the president ramps up the campaign fight a little more than two weeks before Election Day, but does he help or hurt Democrats? The view from the White House on the election landscape, how the administration would respond to big Republican gains on Election Day, and the president's role on the trail, with our exclusive guest White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.
Then, more on the fight for control of Congress. Majority Leader Harry Reid battles for his political life as he debates a tea party-backed opponent in Nevada.
MS. SHARRON ANGLE: How did you become so wealthy on a government payroll?
REP. HARRY REID (D-NV): That's really kind of a low blow. I think most everyone knows I was a very successful lawyer.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: And in Delaware, GOP candidate Christine O'Donnell down in the polls but still grabbing the headlines.
MR. CHRIS COONS: What would you do in Washington?
MS. CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: You're just jealous that you weren't on "Saturday Night Live."
MR. COONS: I'm dying to see who's going to play me, Christine.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: One of the tight races that could tip the balance of power is in Colorado, where recent polls show a single-digit race. As our special Senate debate series continues this morning, we are joined by Colorado Senator Democrat Michael Bennet for a showdown with his challenger, Republican Ken Buck.
Announcer: From NBC News in Washington, MEET THE PRESS with David Gregory.
MR. GREGORY: Good morning. Today, for the first time this election season, the president and the first lady hit the campaign trail together, heading to Ohio to stump for Governor Ted Strickland and attend a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee. But with just 16 days until the election, is there anything the president can do to stop Republicans from a major victory on November 2? Joining me now, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.
Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
MR. ROBERT GIBBS: Thank you for having me, David.
MR. GREGORY: We are just 16 days away, and there was something in The Washington Post that really caught my eye, that kind of summed up the difficulty for the president and for Democrats. I'll put it up on the screen. And it's about the West Virginia Senate race and hopeful Joe Manchin. The headline, he's got one problem, "That pesky `D' after his name. This year Manchin has one problem he can't fix. `There's not much wrong with him,' said John Jenks, attending [an event for the Republican John Raese] on Wednesday. `It's just that he is a Democrat.'" Why is that such a problem?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, there's different political environments in different states. But understand, David, the overall political environment is driven by our overall economic picture. It took us years to get into the mess that we got ourselves in at the end of 2008, and it's going to take a while to get us out. We lost eight million jobs, we saw a financial system near collapse, we have a continuing housing crisis that we're making progress on dealing with. We have positive economic growth, and we've had nine straight months of private sector job growth. It's just going to take a while to get out of the mess that took us a long time to get into.
MR. GREGORY: Just this morning, though, AP story out showing a poll, many Obama 2008 supporters defecting to the GOP. This has, in many ways, become a referendum on the president and his policies.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I will say this, I'm a little leery of polls that take three weeks to conduct, just as a political professional. But, again, we're in a tough political environment because the country's in a tough economic environment. It's 9.6 percent unemployment, again, eight million jobs that have been lost. But, you know, look, we've got candidates that are out there making their positive case because we know exactly what the Republican Party wants to do, David. They said it sitting probably right here in the chair I'm sitting in. They want to go back exactly to what we had in 2008. They want to start by repealing things like Wall Street reform and putting banks back in charge of making financial decisions that affect not just Wall Street, but affect Main Street. I think at the end of the day people are going to understand that message and not turn over control of Congress to people that want to take us back to what we're trying to get out of.
MR. GREGORY: Last time you were here, you made a little news, you raised some eyebrows by what you said. And I want to play what you said, but I want to play it in the full context and have you talk about it, give a--give an updated version of it. Let me--this was about the election landscape.
(Videotape, July 11, 2010)
MR. GREGORY: Is the House in jeopardy, the majority for the Democrats in the House in jeopardy?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I, I think there are--no doubt that there are a lot of seats that will be up, a lot of contested seats. I think people are going to have a choice to make in the fall. But I think there's no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There's no doubt about that.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: You also went on to say that there's--it will depend on how strong the campaigns are by Democrats. First of all, what--how do you see the landscape now?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I--it's a--there's no question it is a tough and challenging political environment. We're the beneficiary of a lot of political real estate after 2006 and 2008 that haven't been held by Democrats for a long period of time. But look, I, I think that campaigns in this cycle are being run on a lot of local issues and issues that are important, not nationally, but to individual states and independent, independent--individual congressional districts. I think our candidates have done a remarkably good job in a tough political environment, and I think that, come election night, we'll retain control of both the House and the Senate.
MR. GREGORY: You believe that?
MR. GIBBS: I do believe that.
MR. GREGORY: What's different now as opposed to then?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think right now you see an electorate by Democrats that is actually more engaged. You mentioned the president out on the trail. He's joined today by a very popular first lady in a--in an important state like Ohio. Twenty-thousand people signed up on Deval Patrick's Web site for the event that we had yesterday, 26,000 people in Wisconsin. There's an excitement about what this president is trying to do, there's an energy around it. And we're seeing that in shrinking generic congressional ballots, and we're seeing that in a shrinking enthusiasm gap.
MR. GREGORY: The president on the trail, as you mentioned, has some pointed messages. And I want to show just a portion of one of his talks here on Tuesday.
(Videotape, October 12, 2010)
PRES. BARACK OBAMA: The question is going to be whether once again hope overcomes fear. Because what essentially the other side has decided is that they're going to try to ride fear and anxiety all the way to the ballot box on November 2.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: He's accusing Republicans of riding fear and anxiety to the ballot box, and yet, with his talk about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and influence of foreign money, a lot of people question whether he's, in fact, guilty of the same thing. This is what the president said back in October in Maryland.
(Videotape, October 7, 2010)
PRES. OBAMA: Just this week we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations. So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections. And they won't tell you where the money for their ads come from. So this isn't just a threat to Democrats. All Republicans should be concerned, independents should be concerned. This is a threat to our Democracy.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: A threat to our democracy, yet the White House has not produced proof of any foreign funds in the ads. And this is what The Washington Post said about this general issue. The headline: "Secret campaign money," that foreign donations are not the problem. "The gusher of secret money," they say in the editorial, "pouring into the coming election is alarming. It should be plugged for future campaigns--and could be, with the switch of a Senate seat or two. But the rhetoric about this development, from President Obama on down, is irresponsibly alarmist. ... Bruce Josten" with the Chamber of Commerce, he's chief lobbyist, "told The New York Times that the chamber's 115 foreign affiliates pay less than $100,000 in membership dues, out of a total budget of $200 million. The foreign money is kept in segregated accounts. The White House seems willing to stoke" xenophebia--"xenophobia without any evidence for its accusations."
MR. GIBBS: David, I, I think if you look at what the president said, he was extremely careful. You've got a group that does take money from foreign countries--from, from companies in, in other countries. They are running $75 million worth of ads. David, you and I don't know exactly who's contributing to that because there's a program that keeps all of their donors and--involved in these ads a complete secret. You're not going to know today, you're not going to know tomorrow, you're not going to know after the election. What's the agenda of those that would contribute and write million-dollar checks to influence races like in Colorado or throughout the country? What's their political agenda? And this is solved quite easily. Bruce Josten, the chief lobbyist, could simply open up the books, could simply show people exactly where the donations are coming from and who's paying for the ads. And I have to say, David, it, it's a pretty easy political solution to simply show the American people where the money's coming from. And since it's been a week and a half or two weeks into this debate and they haven't shown you where the money is, it, it calls into question where that money comes from.
MR. GREGORY: But isn't it striking to you, Robert, that an administration that passed healthcare reform, financial regulation, a massive stimulus to try to, you know, grow the economy, is in itself using a fear tactic here a couple weeks before the election, talking about Karl Rove, talking about the Chamber of Commerce and secret money into the campaign?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, it's just a fact. Karl Rove, who believed, quite frankly, that outside money in the 2004 race had the potential to derail our democracy before he started running a group that I think we now both agree has the potential to derail democracy. Karl's group is spending $50 million, the chamber is spending $75 million. If you add up all the conservative groups and what they've pledged to spend in this race, it's $399 million. Nobody knows who those donors are. Nobody knows what their political agenda is. What do they want from the next senator or from the next congressman? It does have the potential to derail our democracy, $400 million injected into this political campaign with no idea.
MR. GREGORY: But this is still a lot more smoke than fact. Isn't that fair?
MR. GIBBS: No. Absolutely not. Again, we could, we could know all the facts by simply having Karl Rove and others lay out exactly where their donors come from and exactly where that money--what the agenda is behind those big checks.
MR. GREGORY: But isn't the bigger issue here than Karl Rove, this poll question that Bloomberg asked earlier this month, whether people believed that children in your life will have a better life than you had? Fifty-one percent say they're just somewhat or not confident in that. The faith in President Obama and making a better future was very high when he came into office, and here's where it stands now.
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I don't doubt that there are concerns throughout this country and there's a deep frustration, and you can include the Oval Office in that, and getting our economy moving again. The president works every day not to do what is politically popular, but what--to do what is right. Investing in auto companies and ensuring a financial collapse didn't lead not from a recession to a great depression may not have been the most popular thing to do, but it was the right thing to do. And every step of the way, David, in, in facing economic catastrophe, Republicans said no. The people in this country, in order to affect their outlook on the future, need a party in the Republicans that's willing to come be part of Democracy and be part of government.
I don't doubt that as we look through the messages of what happens on Election Day, regardless of the outcome, the American people are going to want two political parties to work together to solve our problems. And, quite frankly, from the very get-go, from the very first day there was a coordinated strategy by Mitch McConnell and the Republicans to simply say no to everything that President Obama wanted to do, and now we know why. Because they want to go back to what happened in 2008 and 2007.
Look, Karl Rove is the architect in many of these outside groups, and I think it's pretty emblematic of wanting to take us back to the Bush years.
MR. GREGORY: Do, do you call on Democratic candidates, like Joe Manchin, like a dozen or so blue dog Democrats in a Congress to rebuff their support from the chamber of commerce that they have in, in this race?
MR. GIBBS: Look, the chamber has a--has certainly a constitutionally protected right to air ads. Nobody's arguing that they can't be involved in the election. But the president has said, and not just in the last two weeks, David, the president said this at the State of the Union in criticizing the Supreme Court's decision that groups that support Democrats and groups that support Republicans, liberal or conservative, ought to simply tell the American people where they get their money. Who's paying for the millions and millions...
MR. GREGORY: But you're not concerned about Democrats getting support from the chamber?
MR. GIBBS: No. Look, the, the, the chamber supported the president's recovery plan. The president--we would liked to have had the chamber's support in dealing with small business tax cuts that Republicans opposed and took us three months longer to get than it should have. We would, quite frankly, have liked the chamber's support on commonsense Wall Street reform that starts to put Main Street back in charge and not held hostage by Wall Street. Again, there was a coordinated effort not to have that happen, not because it was right for the American people, but because it was all a series of political points.
MR. GREGORY: I want to ask you about a, a big news item this week, and that is the, the issue of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. The president speaking on Thursday at an MTV town hall said this:
PRES. OBAMA: I've said very clearly, including in a State of the Union address, that I'm against "don't ask, don't tell" and that we're going to end this policy.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: And yet, on that very day the president's Justice Department filed an appeal to halt a judge's ruling that would have struck down "don't ask, don't tell." So, if the president wants the law to go away, if he wants the ban to go away, why is he still supporting the law in the courts?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let's be clear, the president believes the law is discriminatory, unjust and, quite frankly, you have men and women who are willing to lay down their life for this country. They--those people ought to be able to serve. The law that was struck down that the president opposes, we, we've got a process. One, the House has passed repeal, and we hope the Senate takes up that repeal quickly. They didn't.
MR. GREGORY: But what if the Senate does? Is there faith in the Senate that's misplaced? What does the president do if the Senate doesn't act?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we have a process in place right now to work with the Pentagon for an orderly and disciplined transition from the law that we have now to an era that "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't exist. And I will say this, David, "don't ask, don't tell" will end under this president. The courts have decided, the legislature has, has--is beginning to decide, and the president is firmly in the place of removing "don't ask, don't tell."
MR. GREGORY: But does he believe it's unconstitutional?
MR. GIBBS: You know, David, he thinks it's discriminatory and it's unjust and most of all it harms our national security. It's...
MR. GREGORY: We know his position, though. But if you keep defending...
MR. GIBBS: ...it's time for the law...
MR. GREGORY: ...it in the courts, how does it end? You can pronounce it dead, but how does it end if you keep backing it in the courts?
MR. GIBBS: Yeah, well, it ends with a vote in Congress. It's a law, and the most durable solution is to repeal that law. That's what the president asked the House to do and they did, that's what the president--I think there's enough votes to do it in the Senate. But, again, we have to get through Republican filibuster. It harms our national security. It's discriminatory, it's time for it to end. And I will say this, David, again, this president will end "don't ask, don't tell," and I think the courts--you're seeing from the courts that their deciding that "don't ask, don't tell," quite frankly, is--has--it's time for it to end, and that time is coming very soon.
MR. GREGORY: This is the Sunday New York Times Magazine, it's called "The Education of A President." And it talks about the president and the White House's vision for what happens after November 2, whether you lose control or the House or the Senate or you don't. If it's a slimmer majority. And there's a portion of the article, written by Peter Baker, I'll put it up on the screen.
"While proud of his record, Obama has already begun thinking about what went wrong -- and what he needs to do to change course for the next two years. He has spent what one aide called `a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0.'"
What is Obama 2.0? What comes next?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, there's a couple of different things. We've got to address problems that sit before us. We have a medium and long-term fiscal situation that we all understand is unsustainable, and it's only going to be solved if the two parties are willing to work together. We've got to take steps to continue education reform. And most importantly we, we've passed some important legislation that creates a foundation for long-term economic growth, Wall Street reform, and healthcare reform. And it's going to take a lot of coordinated energy and work to implement those. I think that's what the president--you'll see the folk--president focused on in the next two years regardless, quite frankly, of the outcome of this election.
MR. GREGORY: But what about--how do you say to the voters, "I hear you, there's going to be some kind of course correction." What does that look like?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we'll have time to figure out exactly what is said after the election when we know the final results. Right now the president's focus is on getting our economy stronger and strengthened and moving forward, as he's out there making the case for, for democrats in this election.
MR. GREGORY: You said you'd never trade the job of press secretary. Do you stick by that or might you be elsewhere in the administration or in Washington?
MR. GIBBS: You know, David, and I think you would pretty easily agree with this, it is a tremendous honor and privilege to walk into that building every morning to serve this president, to serve any president. I am happy with what I do. I'd love to be the manager of the Atlanta Braves, but they hired somebody this week. So I'll just have to be inordinately happy with one of the best jobs on the planet.
MR. GREGORY: Might you run the DNC?
MR. GIBBS: I've spent no time thinking about and no time talking to people about what comes next for me. We're focused on what comes next for this country.
MR. GREGORY: All right, Robert Gibbs, thank you very much. Appreciate it.
MR. GIBBS: Thank you.
MR. GREGORY: Coming up next, our special Senate debate series continues. This week, the fight for Colorado. Democrat Michael Bennet squares off with his tea party-backed challenger, Republican Ken Buck, in a tight race that could tip the balance of power in Washington. Only here on MEET THE PRESS.
MR. GREGORY: Coming up, the fight for control of Congress. Will the tea party's power be the big story on election night? It's all playing out in one of the country's most watched Senate races. The candidates, in their first national showdown, are up next after this brief commercial break.
MR. GREGORY: And we are back to continue our Senate debate series, this week turning our attention to the Rocky Mountain West, Colorado. It's a heated race that could indeed tip the balance of power here in Washington.
In the final stretch, President Obama tries to rally his base with Democratic control of Congress on the line.
(Videotape, Friday)
PRES. BARACK OBAMA: This election is a choice between our fears and our hopes.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: In Colorado, President Obama isn't on the ballot, but he's on the minds of voters, and he casts a long shadow over Democratic Senator Michael Bennet.
(Videotape, February 18, 2010)
PRES. OBAMA: He's somebody who is going to change Washington if you send him back there and give him the kind of mandate that he, he deserves.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: A relationship his opponent has used against him.
(Videotape, campaign ad)
MR. KEN BUCK: A rubber stamp for his friends in Washington.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: Two years ago, Colorado was Democrat country, where the party staged its national convention, where Senator Obama tapped into frustration among the state's independent voters...
(Videotape, August 28, 2008)
PRES. OBAMA: The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats, as well as Republicans, will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: And we have news. Colorado also went for Obama...
Offscreen Voice: Wow.
MR. GREGORY: ...according to NBC News projections.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: ...and carried the state by nine points over John McCain. But much has changed in the Rocky Mountain West--high unemployment due to lost construction jobs, growing anger over government spending and the debt--giving the tea party an opening and a candidate, Ken Buck, a lawyer and former district attorney, whose tea party backing helped him beat the establishment GOP candidate.
MR. BUCK: I have cowboy boots, they have real...(censored by network)...on them, as well as county...(censored by network)..., not Washington, D.C., bull...(censored by network).
(End videotape)
SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): Make some...(unintelligible)...
MR. GREGORY: He is challenging Bennet, the freshman senator and former head of Denver's schools, who was appointed to the seat after Ken Salazar joined the Obama Cabinet. Their campaign, among the most contentious in the country, mirrors the national debate: Has government helped or hurt in the "great recession," and who can voters really trust to fix what's broken in Washington?
And joining us now, the current junior senator from Colorado, the Democrat, Michael Bennet, and his challenger, Republican Ken Buck, who is still the district attorney of Weld County, Colorado. That was my mistake, I apologize. Welcome to both of you.
And this is a debate that matters. If you look at the polling, we'll put it up on the screen, the latest Denver Post/KUSA poll, it's a tight race with Mr. Buck with a 5 point advantage right now, both of you under 50 percent, so a lot on the line here.
Mr. Buck, let me start with you because you do have tea party backing. The tea party is a major movement in this midterm campaign, whether it's Sharron Angle in Nevada, Christine O'Donnell getting a lot of headlines in Delaware. And the question is whether the tea party represents an extreme, insurgent political force, or whether it's a legitimate political movement. What do you say?
MR. BUCK: I, I think it's a legitimate political movement. I think what we're talking about are folks that are frustrated that we are spending so much money in Washington, D.C., and they're every bit as frustrated with the Republicans as they are with the Democrats, because the Republicans are every bit as much to blame for the mess that we're in as the Democrats. And, and that frustration has exhibited itself in a lot of energy. Folks are, are not going to try to send the same type of Republican to Washington, D.C., that they've sent in the past. And so I think it is a lot more mainstream than it has been portrayed.
MR. GREGORY: But, you know, it's--is that point, there are a lot of folks who, supported by the tea party, in the tea party, say, `Oh, there's a mainstream movement.' But there are others who say it is anything but. As a matter of fact, the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights and the NAACP are releasing a report this coming week. And here it is, I'll show it on the screen. The "Tea Party Nationalism, a critical examination of the Tea Party movement and the size, scope and focus of its national factions." And there are some serious charges that I want you to respond to. "The result of this study contravenes many of the Tea Parties' self-invented myths, particularly their sole concentration on budget deficits, taxes, and the power of the federal government. Instead, this report found Tea Party ranks to be permeated with concerns about race and national identity and other so-called social issues. ... Tea party organization have given platforms to anti-Semites, racists and bigots, Further, hard-core white nationalists have been attracted to these protests, looking for potential recruits and hoping to push these (white) protestors toward a more self-conscious and ideological white supremacy." If you're senator, do you think these elements in the tea party need to be dealt with and need to be rebuffed?
MR. BUCK: Absolutely. First of all, I haven't seen it. I've been to over 800 events in Colorado in, in the last 20 months. I have not seen that. And, and I find it offensive that folks would try to label the tea party in that way. It's just not true in Colorado. I don't know if it's true in other states, I haven't been to the other states. But I can tell you that if there are people that hold those views, they are quickly asked to leave meetings. I have not seen them in, in meetings.
MR. GREGORY: Senator, is this a legitimate question? Is this a mainstream movement? Because this is high stakes in your, in your campaign, in this debate.
SEN. BENNET: Yeah. Well, you know, David, over the last 22 months, I've had town halls in every part of our state, red and blue, and said the same thing in all those places. And what I'll tell you is this, my favorite rooms are the ones where there are Democrats, Republicans, unaffiliated voters, and tea party people, because when folks are together in a room, they actually have to listen to each other. I think one of the things that we are facing right now is that we've stopped listening to each other in our politics. So I haven't seen a lot of that either, and I have had the opportunity to engage with people who are self-described tea party people, to have a serious conversation rather than just a bunch of slogans about how we are not going to become--you know, what, what we need to do so that we're not the first generation of Americans who leave less opportunity, not more, to our kids and our grandkids.
MR. GREGORY: Mr. Buck, the issue of the tea party matters, though, because one of the big knocks against you, it's been subject to the campaign between you, is whether or not you took positions to appeal to primary voters, to get that tea party support that you're now backing away from. This is how The Denver Post editorial wrote about it on Friday. I'll put it up on the screen. "Buck ... ran as a far-right tea party conservative in his primary race against more moderate Jane Norton, and" now has been tacking--"tracking back to the center.
"It hasn't been an easy waltz. He'd trip over his feet more often in his march to the center if they weren't in his mouth. Buck's critics now call his tap dance `Buckpedaling.'
"First, he said he supports Colorado's `personhood' measure." An abortion-related measure. "Then he backed off. Now he says he isn't sure. During the primary, he told voters he'd support a Fair Tax. Then, when faced with a misleading Bennet attack ad, he backed off. He told one crowd he favored repealing the 17th Amendment, which allows for the direct election of senators, then" he "later backpedaled. His position on Afghanistan has morphed so much it's almost incoherent. Buck says he doesn't believe in nation-building yet he says we can't leave Afghanistan as a safe haven for terrorists - as if it would be possible to control events there once our troops are gone." Is that litany? Is that charge fair?
MR. BUCK: No.
MR. GREGORY: Explain why.
MR. BUCK: Well, issues like the 17th Amendment. As I said, I've been to over 800 events in, in Colorado in, in 20 months. I have talked about the 17th Amendment. Someone asked me a question. I said, `The short answer is yes, but...' and then I gave an explanation of why I thought there were better answers than--to, to restoring the balance of power between the states and the federal government than the 17th Amendment. Senator Bennet has played a commercial over and over that misstates, misquotes, misleads on, on that issue. The next day, I called the person back and said, `You know, I, I've thought about it, and I, I don't want to leave you with the impression that the answer is yes.' Fifteen times more, with the Democrat tracker camera in my face, I explained that I wasn't in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment.
It is easy when you have a tracker and, and they have 100 examples of, of answers, and, and the questions are coming at you from different angles, to use tape that shows a slight deviation in the answer. It is not fair to say that I have backtracked on, on those issues.
MR. GREGORY: But isn't it also easy to flirt with positions in a primary, and then back off and say, "Well, I'm not sure I'd actually vote for that," you know, once you get into a general election? Isn't that what people really dislike about politics?
MR. BUCK: Well, they, they may dislike it, they--but people are also sick and tired of, of politicians not answering questions, politicians not being accessible. And I think it's, it's incumbent on us, if we're going to run in this kind of a race--and this is an important year, David. I think that, you know, this is a different year than most years. We've got to tell the American people that we have to live with less. We have a $13.5 trillion debt. And the only way to do that is an honest campaign with honest people. And, and I have let people know my heart. It hasn't always been the same exact words to, to the same questions, but it has been--they, they know where I'm coming from on, on issue.
MR. GREGORY: Is he a political opportunist?
SEN. BENNET: I think absolutely. I mean, I think it's very clear that he ran a primary election saying that he would privatize Social Security, that he would demolish the Department of Education, that the American people need to wean theirselves off of student loans, that he supported the personhood amendment, pro-life in all cases except for--including cases of rape and incest. He's not changed his position on that. And in the general election, even as recently as yesterday, he said, "Well, I, I don't, I don't support abolishing the Department of Education, but I wouldn't oppose it if it came up for a vote." That's not the kind of straight talk that people in Colorado want.
And what, what complicates it even further is that the primary election, virtually every dollar spent on TV on behalf of Ken Buck came from groups outside of Colorado, came from groups sponsored by people that got us into this mess in the first place, you know, that managed to drive this economy into the worst ditch since the Great Depression and double our debt. And in the general election, the same thing is happening. Eighty-five percent of the money that, that represents the TV ads that are running on behalf of Ken Buck are from outside the state.
But, but the other thing is, in these difficult times, I think it is enormously important. We're never going to say exactly the same thing every, you know, every second of every day. But the flip-flops in this race are unbelievable.
MR. GREGORY: I want to--you want to button this up before I move on to some questions. You say...
MR. BUCK: I would.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. BUCK: The, the, the media has looked at Senator Pennet--Bennet's ads. The--and in fact, the same editorial that you quoted from talks about the despicable nature of Senator Bennet's ads. They have been false, misleading, deceitful. The Colorado Springs paper talked about the fact that the--this was the sleaziest campaign in the history of the state of Colorado. And on, on Senator Bennet's side, he talks about his deep, deep empathy for Social Security; and he's on the Commission on Aging, he missed 92 percent of the meetings for the Commission on Aging. He talks about earmark reform. He voted against earmark reform four times in 2009. In 2010 he offers a bill, doesn't bother getting one co-sponsor, doesn't bother moving the bill forward in any way, but runs on the fact that he is a good government earmark reformer. It's, it's that kind of, of, of duplicity that, that Colorado voters are sick of.
MR. GREGORY: Let me move on. You can deal with some of that, but I want to move to another issue, which is the role of President Obama in this campaign. He came out to campaign for you, and back in February this is what he said, talking about the economy. Watch this.
(Videotape, February 18, 2010)
PRES. OBAMA: He was here by my side in Denver a year ago when we signed the Recovery Act into law. Wasn't a politically easy decision to make for any of us because we knew that we were already facing big deficits that had been run up over the last decade. But we had a responsibility to do what was right for the American people and break the back of this recession that was slipping into a depression.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: And yet, on that signature issue, the legacy of that, this is what you said back in September, just last month.
(Videotape, September 11, 2010)
SEN. BENNET: We have $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet and, in my view, nothing to show for it.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: So the president said you took the tough vote...
SEN. BENNET: Right.
MR. GREGORY: ...you helped the stimulus get passed. You say there's nothing to show for it but more debt. Isn't that an admission...
SEN. BENNET: This...
MR. GREGORY: Hold on. Isn't that an admission that the major piece to help the economy simply did not work by this administration?
SEN. BENNET: Absolutely not. In fact, what I was saying when I say that, which I have said in every town hall meeting in Democratic and Republican parts of the state, is true, because what I say is we have $13 trillion of debt on the balance sheet and nothing to show for it. I say we have not even had the decency to maintain the assets that our parents and grandparents built for us--our roads, our bridges, our wastewater systems, our sewer systems; by the way, those weren't Bolsheviks, those weren't socialists that built those things for us--much less build the infrastructure we need for the 21st century. And it's not just transportation. Transit--listen.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah, but the president acknowledges that, that infrastructure spending has not been really dealt with in this stimulus bill.
SEN. BENNET: Transit and--transportation, transit and energy infrastructure as well. That stimulus package saved us from going into the second Great Depression. But that's hardly enough of a standard if the--if what generations ought to judge other generations is whether they left more opportunity, not less for them. That's the point that I'm making.
MR. GREGORY: But what seems to be the issue that's hanging out there is that most Americans don't believe the stimulus has helped. You have been in lockstep with this president. Congressional Quarterly says you voted with the president 97 percent of the time. And in an editorial by The Denver Post, endorsing you, I should point out, this is part of what they say: "Michael Bennet for U.S. Senate. Since [Bennet] was appointed senator ... he has been running for election and, at times, running scared. ...
"If he had bucked his party and his president on just one major issue, and in turn showed some Colorado independence, it would have been much easier to endorse him. Instead, his 20-month career has been frustrating to watch, leaving voters, and us, with a difficult choice.
On December of 2009, "for example, he made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, blasting Washington lawmakers for their dirty dealing as they patched together a health care bill larded with special deals. ... Then, three days later, he voted for the bill.
"The current health care bill is law because of Bennet's one vote. That vote, and his speech, epitomize his short Senate career: So much potential, yet not enough spine."
SEN. BENNET: Well, let's focus on the potential question. Listen, I, I did vote--I did cast a vote for health care, and I also said that I thought the process was horrible. The status quo before we passed health care was also horrible. And part of what we needed to do was clean up the way Washington does its business, I completely agree with that, because it--it's one of the things that's eroding confidence in the American people and what's going on in, in this town. I also think that it's clear that the recovery, you know, package has grown the GDP somewhat and saved thousands and thousands of jobs in my home state.
Look, when I agree with the president, I agree with him. When I disagree with him, I disagree with him. He's done some things that were not helpful to Colorado, and I've fought back--canceling the Orion Project, making sure that we didn't change the tax treatment for natural gas producers in our state. And I might say, also, that today I was endorsed, not just by The Denver Post, but the Grand Junction Sentinel, who endorsed John McCain and Bob Schaffer, a Republican who ran for this seat.
MR. GREGORY: But on the big ticket items...
SEN. BENNET: And one of the--let me, let me just say, one of the basis for their endorsement was my willingness to reach across the aisle to work with Republicans and, and my opponent's stated desire to be the chief filibuster of the United States Senate if he gets back here.
MR. GREGORY: On the big ticket items, the ones that have really contributed to the debt, you were with the president.
SEN. BENNET: I, I don't disagree. And the president said, you know, in the clip that you had...
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
SEN. BENNET: ...that a lot of tough choices were going to have to be made here. And it's true, the choices are tough. And the politics right now are not supporting the aspirations we have for our kids and our grandkids. They're not allowing us to make--or they haven't allowed us to make even tougher choices that we're still going to have to make going forward.
MR. GREGORY: Why is that unreasonable in your view?
MR. BUCK: I'll tell you, Senator Bennet does one thing in Washington, D.C., and then comes back to Colorado and talks about a completely different thing. He has spent--on his watch in Washington, D.C., been part of the spending of $3 trillion. That's $3 trillion. We can talk about $13 trillion on the book; $3 trillion dollars has been accumulated since he's been in D.C., and that's something that he has to take responsibility for.
MR. GREGORY: And you take responsibility, as well, for what Republicans did in terms of running up the debt before that?
MR. BUCK: David, I have said over and over that Republicans are every bit as much to blame as Democrats, and I am not going to be one of those Republicans when I get to Washington.
MR. GREGORY: So to that...
SEN. BENNET: Well, just to be clear on that point, though, the, the budget, the budget proposals that he's made would blow, without even talking about the tax cut extensions, $1.3 trillion more of a hole into our budget than we already have and, and, depending on what we do with these extensions, an additional $4 trillion of debt on the balance sheet.
MR. GREGORY: Well, let me ask you on that point, do you agree with Republican leaders who say that tax cuts do not have to be paid for?
MR. BUCK: No, I don't. I, I think we've got to find spending cuts. And I don't know what you're talking about in terms of tax cuts.
MR. GREGORY: Well, extanding--extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the highest earners. The president says it all the time, it would cost an extra $700 billion. Should those be paid for if the--if, if Republicans like you want to cut that deficit, bring it in balance, do you then have to pay for the tax cuts you want to extend?
MR. BUCK: Well, first, David, where are the families going to pay for the money that they've got to send the federal government? That's, that's the bigger question to me. Secondly, though...
MR. GREGORY: But how can that be bigger? You either believe in the balanced budget or you do not. If you extend tax cuts, you said just a moment ago they have to be paid for. Then how do you pay for it?
MR. BUCK: Well, the, the--we pay for it by cutting spending. We also pay for it by growing government. When we leave money in the hands of taxpayers, they buy things, they pay taxes, they grow government. It's not a one for one exchange in the first year, but, but it would be bad, in my view--and, and I--every economist I've talked to has told me that it would be bad in a recession to try to increase taxes.
MR. GREGORY: Well, and you think there should be an extension on all the tax cuts for at least a year.
SEN. BENNET: For a year. For a year. In part to figure out how we do pay for it. I mean, the same thing that Ken is saying right now is what the Bush administration said when it created these tax cuts to begin with, and what we saw was the first period of economic growth in our country's history when middle-class income fell.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
SEN. BENNET: Our middle-class...
MR. GREGORY: But not--it's not fair to compare him to all Republicans. Republican leaders don't agree with what he just said, which is that you have to pay for tax cuts. So isn't he--aren't you guys more in line, wouldn't you say?
SEN. BENNET: Well, I didn't--I actually didn't hear him say that. I heard him say that you pay for it, and also by growing government you pay for it. I'm not quite sure what that means. But...
MR. BUCK: Well, let me explain to you. Here...
SEN. BENNET: ...my point is, my point is...
MR. BUCK: ...you grow government because as people have more money they spend the money and government grows. When we put people back to work, the government grows, we increase revenue and we decrease unemployment benefits.
SEN. BENNET: Well I'm definitely not interested in growing government, I can tell you that.
MR. BUCK: I'm sorry, growing the economy. I apologize.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
MR. BUCK: Growing the economy.
MR. GREGORY: You're talking about growing the economy.
MR. BUCK: Right.
MR. GREGORY: Is there also a reality that how do you pay for an extension of middle-class tax cuts?
SEN. BENNET: Yeah. I think there's a reality to all of it. I mean, the, the, the top 2 percent is $700 billion. All of them together are, are $4 trillion. And we're going to have to make some very hard choices to make sure that our kids are not bearing a debt that we were unwilling to deal with.
MR. GREGORY: Mr. Buck, I want to ask you about women who are taking a hard look at this race and deciding how they're going to make up their minds, and some issues that have come up, controversial issues, for you. You've taken a hard line position on abortion, saying you'd vote for a ban even if it includes rape and incest. During the primary campaign, you said, you said that voters should vote for you because you don't wear high heels. And then there was an issue that's gotten a lot of attention, as a district attorney, about a 2006 date rape case. You declined to prosecute. You told the Greeley Tribune, "A jury could very well conclude that this was a case of buyer's remorse," after you looked at the circumstances of the case and decided not to prosecute. A lot of people thought that was an insensitive remark. The woman who was involved in this case has been critical of you, saying that your tone was one of, in essence, attacking her. It was not the first time that your judgment or your ethics as a lawyer has been questioned. And I wonder whether you regret using those words, and whether you think women should give some weight to those issues in deciding whether to vote for you.
MR. BUCK: I, I, I think women as well as men are concerned about jobs and the economy and spending and, and other issues. They're concerned that when their kids graduate from college they have an economy and they have a future in this country and they, they have the same opportunity that we've had and our grandparents have had. But I'd like to talk about a couple of those issues, if I can...
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. BUCK: ...to clarify some things.
MR. BUCK: Rape case came into our office, it was reviewed by an attorney with--a prosecutor with 30 years prosecutorial experience who's now on the Colorado Court of Appeals. He declined to prosecute. Two female chief deputies reviewed the case, talked to witnesses, they, they declined to prosecute. The case went to another chief deputy who had handled many of the high-profile rape cases in the, in the Denver metro area. He declined to prosecute. I met with this young lady, explained the circumstances. I then sent the case to the Boulder County district attorney's office for, for Boulder County because they had a lot of experience with date rape as a result of the University of Colorado being in that county. They declined to prosecute and told me that the case couldn't be prosecuted. It was after this--the young lady made this case public that I had to explain to the newspaper exactly what...
MR. GREGORY: But do you regret the way you either talked to her or talked about the case?
MR. BUCK: I don't regret the way I talked to her. I think, I think the--it is important that a prosecutor approach a victim with, with a certain amount of reality, and that's what I tried to do with this victim. I didn't blame her at all.
MR. GREGORY: Right. But what about what you told the Greeley Tribune?
MR. BUCK: What I told the Greeley Tribune, I gave them five or six reasons why I thought a jury could decline this case.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
MR. BUCK: One of the reasons was the fact that she had regretted this relationship, and she had buyer's remorse as a result of the relationship that she had with this young man.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
MR. BUCK: That is, that is something that I think when, when someone decides to make a case public, the public has to understand why.
MR. GREGORY: Senator, is this an issue?
SEN. BENNET: I just--I, I do think it's an issue. Look, I have a lot of sympathy for the victim in this case. He just used the language again, buyer's remorse, and is the father of three little girls. I just think that's the wrong way to talk about this kind of set of circumstances, especially when you're a prosecutor.
MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to leave it...
MR. GREGORY: ...we're going to leave it there. We're going to come back. We want to get to some other issues. We're going to take a quick break. More from our Colorado's candidates for the U.S. Senate when our special debate series continues, right after this brief station break.
MR. GREGORY: We are back to continue our special Senate debate series with the candidates locked in a tight race for the Colorado Senate seat.
I want to do a bit of a lightning round here. I want to get to some issues here and have shorter answers on these things.
And Mr. Buck I want to start with you. The issue of gays in our country, in a debate last month you expressed your support for "don't ask, don't tell," which we talked about with Mr. Gibbs, and you alluded to lifestyle choices. Do you believe that being gay is a choice?
MR. BUCK: I do.
MR. GREGORY: Based on what?
MR. BUCK: Based on what?
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. BUCK: Well...
MR. GREGORY: Why do you believe that?
MR. BUCK: Well, I guess you can, you can choose who your partner is.
MR. GREGORY: You don't think it's something that's determined at birth?
MR. BUCK: I, I, I think that birth has an influence over like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically you, you have a choice.
MR. GREGORY: Does that put him outside the mainstream of views on this?
SEN. BENNET: I absolutely believe he's outside the mainstream of views on this.
MR. GREGORY: About Afghanistan, for you, Mr. Bennet. If President Obama and General Petraeus were to determine that they need a significant number of troops to stay in Afghanistan beyond the July 2011 deadline, is that a position that you'd be able to support?
SEN. BENNET: My position is that we ought to begin bringing our troops home in July '11. And there will be troops there, they'll have to leave troops there, and I recognize that. But this is the longest shooting war in our country's history.
MR. GREGORY: But if a significant number of combat forces must remain to achieve U.S. goals, you'd be for it or against it?
SEN. BENNET: I would have to look at it then, but what I want to make clear is that I believe the president needs to honor the commitment that he made to begin bringing our troops home. I don't know what significant is. I imagine that there will be a substantial number of troops there for the foreseeable future.
MR. GREGORY: And you could support that?
SEN. BENNET: But I, but I believe what the American people need to see that our commitment there is coming to an end.
MR. GREGORY: How do you answer that, Mr. Buck?
MR. BUCK: Well, I, I don't think we set artificial deadlines. I think that we, we set realistic goals, and, and we try to accomplish those goals. I don't think we should be nation-building, I don't think we should be staying there over the long-term. I...
MR. GREGORY: What if General Petraeus says, "You know what, it's July 2011, but if we're going to achieve our goals, we can't pull any troops out. May need more troops, may need to surge up again here." Well, you could support that because you don't believe in deadlines?
MR. BUCK: No, I didn't say I could support that. I don't believe in deadlines, I don't believe in telling the enemy when we're going to withdraw. I need to know what he thinks the goals are. And if I agree with those goals, then evaluate at that point.
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you a question about the Supreme Court. Obviously a crucial role as a U.S. senator, confirming a justice who's nominated by the president. Which sitting justices would you have voted against?
MR. BUCK: I would have voted against Justice Sotomayor, and I would have voted against Justice Kagan, for two.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm. Are there Clinton-era nominees as well, down the line?
MR. BUCK: Perhaps. I didn't, obviously, study them as much as I have the last two.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm. For you?
SEN. BENNET: I probably would have voted against Justice Thomas, and, and, and I've been disappointed by what Justice Roberts has done. I think--my own view is that the president has a constitutional prerogative to nominate people, and if they're qualified, they ought to be confirmed, even if I disagree with their positions on a lot of things. I think one of the most graceful moments over the last 20 months, since I've been in this job in the Senate, was Lindsey Graham's statement before he cast his vote for Elena Kagan that set out the president's constitutional prerogatives and his constitutional obligations as a United States senator. I thought it was a class act what Lindsey Graham said, and I wish we saw more of that in the United States Senate.
MR. GREGORY: Mr. Buck, this is kind of related to something you told The Washington Post back in July, and I want to put it up on the screen. "There's a conservative movement within the Republican Party that distinguishes a lot of us, and we recognize that Republicans are a big part of the problem. ... I don't have any deep friends in Washington now, and in six years I won't have any friends." Is that...
MR. BUCK: Other than you, David. Other than you.
SEN. BENNET: I'll be you...
MR. GREGORY: But is that part of the problem?
MR. BUCK: Yeah. But you won't be in Washington, that's the problem.
MR. GREGORY: But is that part of the problem, that you want to come to Washington and not have any friends? How do you solve problems if you can't work with people on the other side?
MR. BUCK: Yeah. And, again, I think if you take that literally, you, you reach that conclusion. What I was saying there is I'm not coming to Washington, D.C., to make friends. I'm coming to Washington, D.C., to do the people's work. And the people's work has to do with reducing spending and cutting budgets and, and trying to get a grip on the size of government. Will, will I meet people here? Will I develop friendships? Sure. But I am not going to let those friendships interfere with my obligation to do the people's work.
MR. GREGORY: Who, who's a Republican--you've talked about working with both sides--who's a Republican you admire? You talked about Lindsey Graham.
SEN. BENNET: I just mentioned Lindsey Graham. I, I wrote a bill--I wasn't here for the bailouts. Ken doesn't know that, but I wasn't here for the bailouts. I was here to write a bill called the Pay It Back Act that said that the money that came back from the TARP-recipient banks should be used dollar for dollar for deficit reduction. Bob Corker was an original co-sponsor on that bill.
MR. GREGORY: Senator from Tennessee.
SEN. BENNET: Johnny Isakson from Georgia, a Republican as well, helped with that bill. It passed with broad bipartisan support.
MR. GREGORY: (Unintelligible)
SEN. BENNET: That's what people in my town hall meetings want. They're sick of the hyper-partisanship. They don't want to send somebody back to D.C. that says I'm going to be the chief filibuster or I'm going to put my track shoes on...
MR. GREGORY: All right.
SEN. BENNET: ...because I'm going to filibuster so much. She--he should save his time. There are people back here that will do that.
MR. GREGORY: All right. We've got about...
SEN. BENNET: What we need is cooperation.
MR. GREGORY: I've got about a minute left, I want you both to take this. This is from Facebook. We partnered up with Facebook's politics page, and we've solicited some questions for you on the page, and here's one that we chose. Ashley Newberg: "This is what I would ask them: What do you hope to accomplish, both in your political career and in life in general (outside of politics?" But you've got to be very brief. Mr. Buck:
MR. BUCK: In my political career, I'd like to see a constitutional balanced budget amendment.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
MR. BUCK: And in my life, I'd like to play more golf and, and get a decent handicap.
MR. GREGORY: There you go.
SEN. BENNET: I--this isn't a hard question for me because I've spent my whole life outside of politics. This is my first exposure to it. I hope to be able to accomplish a set of policies that make--create more opportunity, not less, for our kids and our grandkids. Outside of politics, I hope to raise my three little girls to be productive and happy citizens.
MR. GREGORY: All right. We're going to leave it there. Thank you both.
Early voting starting in Colorado, and Monday night, Bill Clinton, the former president, campaigning for you and for the Democrats out there. Strikingly, he seems to be one or the more respected political figures on both sides in Colorado right now. So a hard-fought contest, and we'll, we'll be watching.
And we will be right back.
SEN. BENNET: Thank you.
MR. GREGORY: That is all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.


text:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President-elect Donald Trump told reporters he will live in the White House after he takes the oath of office, but that his wife Melania and 10-year-old son Barron will be living in New York temporarily to allow their son to finish out the year at the same school.
During a photo op at his Bedminster Golf Club as he was saying goodbye to Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Trump said yes when asked if he intended to live in the White House. Then when asked if Melania and Barron would move to Washington, he said "very soon. Right after he finishes school."
Transition officials earlier Sunday were asked about the plans for Melania and Barron after the New York Post reported they would not immediately move to Washington, but would to continue live at Trump Tower so he could finish out the year at his elementary school.
"The Trump family is energized and excited about their new role serving the country, and specifically the President-elect's task at hand of helping to move our country forward," transition spokesman Jason Miller said. "No official statement has been released by the Trump family regarding transition timing, but like any parents they are concerned about pulling their 10-year-old son out of school in the middle of the year. We would also appreciate the same privacy and security considerations given to previous First Families with regard to minor children be extended to the Trumps as well."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Ariel Atom 3 - Specialty File
Small tweaks and a berserk Honda powertrain make the near-perfect Atom lighter, faster, and better.
Car and Driver, June 2009
Those who weren't among the half-dozen anxious souls who had an Atom on order as its former U.S. builder, Brammo Motorsports, closed its doors are excused for missing the track toy's one-year hiatus. The builder's baton has since been passed to TMI AutoTech, a recently formed U.S. subsidiary of Canadian firm Trak Motorsports, which ran the Ariel Atom Experience [Upfront, October 2007] and, in March 2008, set up operations in a 10,000-square-foot warehouse on the grounds of Virginia International Raceway. The first Atom emerged in January from TMI's facility, where the steel-tube frame is bent and welded and the car is painstakingly hand-built by the company's five employees. TMI plans to produce 50 cars this year and with additional staff, 100 the next.
This latest Atom 3, as distinguished from the first model sold here, Brammo's Atom 2, is now essentially identical to the version built in the U.K. and sold in the rest of the world. Changes include Honda-only powertrains—the majority of Atom 2s were powered by the Chevy Cobalt SS's supercharged 2.0-liter—as well as seemingly small but important tweaks such as specifically tuned Bilstein shocks that replace the off-the-shelf Konis, and slight modifications to the frame, suspension, and seats.
The base price has increased significantly, to $65,000, and the options list, as before, is long. Our car had most of the performance-enhancing goods, including Alcon four-piston brakes ($3975), 10-way-adjustable shocks ($2720), and one of the most popular options, a nonintercooled Jackson Racing supercharger ($8500) that adds 7 psi of boost and 55 horsepower.
VEHICLE TYPE: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 0-door roadster
PRICE AS TESTED: $85,479 (base price: $65,000)
ENGINE TYPE: supercharged DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 122 cu in, 1988cc
Power (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 8400 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 190 lb-ft @ 5800 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual
Wheelbase: 92.3 in Length: 134.3 in Width: 72.0 in Height: 47.0 in
Curb weight: 1388 lb
Zero to 60 mph: 2.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 6.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 12.6 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 3.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 11.2 sec @ 125 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 155 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 158 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.12 g
In the past, the Atom always seemed to be in one of two modes: either glued impressively to the pavement or spinning off the track backward. And for drivers used to street cars, the Atom still corners with an initially unsettling amount of steady-state oversteer. But the transition from that point to a slide and then into a spin is now much more progressive and easier to decipher. Jumping off the throttle midcorner, however, heaves the back end around with a viciousness surpassing that of a vintage 911.
The 8400-rpm, 2.0-liter K20A engine and six-speed manual are from the not-sold-here Civic Type R, but renowned Honda electronics fiddler Hondata squeezes out another 100 rpm, 24 horsepower, and 11 pound-feet of torque—yielding 245 horses and 170 pound-feet in the base car. The supercharged variant ups those figures to 300 horsepower and 190 pound-feet, and the result is an extravagant linearity and immediacy connected to one of the slickest-shifting manuals on the planet—it seems incapable of landing in the wrong gear—with which to harness the hysteria. Likely spoiling any engine-swapping fantasies is that Honda only accepts orders for this divine powertrain in batches of 20. Which would set you back a quarter-million dollars.
Quite surprisingly, even from a standstill, the Atom delivers the power to the rear wheels in a drama-free manner despite a power-to-weight ratio that's 27 percent more savage than a 505-hp Corvette Z06's. Fierce acceleration is the payoff: Zero to 60 mph comes in 2.9 seconds and the quarter-mile in 11.2 at 125 mph. That's an improvement of 0.1 and 0.3 second, respectively, and the Atom 3 would be even more meteoric if it weren't for two things—short gearing that necessitates two shifts to reach 60 mph and the school-bus–like aerodynamics that result from its open cockpit. Adding to the chaos is a menacing, brain-rattling shriek from the supercharger. To reproduce the sound of an epic lap in an Atom in your garage, throttle a circular saw about 12 inches from your right ear.
Also take note of what the track-focused Atom does without: ridiculously wide tires (just 205/50R-15 fronts and 225/45R-16 rears), anti-roll bars, and a kidney-pummeling suspension. Weight is indeed the enemy, so when it's pared down to 1388 pounds (43 lighter than the last Atom 2 we tested), none of those automotive-grade girdles are needed to dominate track days or achieve 1.12 g of skidpad grip.
Naturally, near perfection on four wheels doesn't pass government regulations, although there are numerous owners who have managed to register Atoms for street use as a kit car. It's a worthwhile pursuit because there's almost as much satisfaction to be had during a wind-in-your-face drive on back roads on a warm, sunny day.
But beware: The Atom is so rewarding, its responses so urgent, and its unassisted steering so pure that an encounter with one—short of a professional racing career, perhaps—may steer you onto a lifelong path of automotive disappointment.


text:
Johnsonville Brats, Original
Original bratwurst. BHA, propyl gallate, citric acid added to help protect flavor. Only premium cuts of pork. Perfect blend of spices. US inspected and passed by Department of Agriculture. Sausage is all we do. American-made and family owned since 1945! Made with only quality ingredients like fresh pork, combined with a unique blend of herbs and spices for a juicy, robust flavor every time. Our delicious Bratwurst and Italian Sausage varieties always use natural casings and never contain any artificial flavors or colors. Visit Johnsonville.com for great-tasting recipe ideas. Gluten free.


text:
A new publication from the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the group that writes the specification for the seismic design of steel buildings in the U.S., provides a broad understanding of earthquakes and how they affect buildings. The American Institute of Steel Construction, headquartered in Chicago, is a not-for-profit technical institute and trade association established in 1921 to serve the structural steel design community and construction industry.
While "Facts for Steel Buildings Number 3: Earthquakes and Seismic Design" was written prior to and does not directly address the situation in Haiti, the reader gains a basic understanding of earthquake engineering and the U.S. buildings codes that are designed to prevent this level of catastrophe.
Written by Ronald O. Hamburger of Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., this publication presents an overview of the causes of earthquakes, the earthquake effects that damage structures, the structural properties that are effective in minimizing damage, and the organization and intent of seismic design requirements for steel structures in the U.S. today and also looks at the future of seismic design.
Hamburger is one of the world's leading experts on seismic design and chairs the AISC committee responsible for prequalifying moment connections for use in high-seismic applications. He is a past president of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and played a key leadership role in the post-Northridge earthquake research that helped to create our current seismic design standards. For his work on performance-based seismic design, he received the AISC T.R. Higgins Lectureship Award in 2007.
AISC's Facts series provides a look at the background and philosophy on various topics without delving into heavy technical details. They are written so as to be understandable by both engineers and laypeople. The previous two installments — "Facts for Steel Buildings Number 1: Fire" and "Facts for Steel Buildings Number 2: Blast and Progressive Collapse" — are also available for download.
To request a free PDF of the Earthquake report, send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.com with the words "Earthquake Design Guide" in the subject line.


text:
This Sunday, at The Picture House in Exeter:
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
I'm still on my "online hiatus" this week, but wanted to pop in briefly to post the flyer above, for the premier of the new fairy tale film by the Chagford Filmmaking Group. We'll all be there (our daughter played the dragon in the film, and Howard's mum worked on costumes)...and perhaps we'll see some of you who live in the West Country at the premier too...?
I'll be back on this blog on Wednesday, May 2nd. In the meantime, a few quick recommendations, if you haven't come across these items already:
New Portrait of Janey Morris; Molly Crabapple's Week in Hell; "Dear Daughter" by Mur Lafferty; "Girls Who Read" by Mark Grist, and Axel, the thatcher's dog.
Tilly sends her regards.
Click on the picture for a larger version, in which you can see the bluebells....


text:
Hi Archinect,
Kengo Kuma in full Piper tonight! You can view the video at the GSD's YouTube channel.
I came in a little late, unfortunately, but just in time to see KK show a picture of a recent project in which "nothing happens"--there was no evidence of the project in this image of a hill, water, and a small antennae sticking up. He said that was his favorite picture of the project, but when he sent it out to magazines, they never used it.
Showing another project, he said: "And I understand that nature is strong; architecture cannot resist. All architecture can do is respect nature. So that was a lesson from that disaster."
6:50: In discussing what he sees as an ideal, gentle, approach towards nature, KK says something to the effect of 'architects like to design shapes, but this is not so important for Japanese' as an approach to architecture.
6:54: KK shows a box made by Bruno Taut, who had a shop in Ginza; his father had purchased it. "Whenever [my father] drank beer he would bring out this box and say 'this is a great wooden box, designed by an important German architect.' I didn't understand, but...I still have this box on my desk...Bruno Taut always looking at me."
6:58: A little anecdote as he begins work on a project (below) next to a house by Bruno Taut. When he was visiting the site, the neighbor came out and said "if you're architects, you must come see this." They weren't sure what she meant, but she took them into her house (which turned out to be by Taut), which seemed normal, and took them through a secret door ("like in a spy movie") to a lower section of the house, as in the above section. KK was pleased to be building next to Taut!
"In western paintings the deepness of the space always shown by perspective, but in Japan, we didn't use perspective. The superposition of layers makes space deep. The other thing is straight lines (of the rain). In western paintings...architecture is geometrical and straight, and the rain is soft and ambiguous...This shows how in Japan, nature is considered a part of life, not separate from it."
7:04: Another western architect who greatly respected Japanese ways is Frank Lloyd Wright. KK is showing the Robie House.
Two artists KK couldn't have learned without are Okakura Tenshin, who wrote The Book of Tea, and the painter Hiroshige. FLW liked Hiroshige too and collected many of his paintings.
KK's Hiroshige musuem. In the village where it is, traditional life used to always rely on the mountain--energy, museum, everything--"and then they built shrine in the mountain. The message of the shrine was 'respect the mountain. We cannot live without the mountain.'" But this message was forgotten in the 20th century. The "sad system" of the 20th century was that 'all energy, all material' comes from Tokyo. For this project, KK wanted to use local materials, and most of it is from the village. Crazy beautiful.
7:10: Discussion of FLW's use of a very soft stone in his Imperial Hotel. Others couldn't understand why he wanted to use that stone, as it wasn't seen as appropriate for an expensive hotel. But he wanted softness. Likewise, KK chose a soft stone (I think for his Chokkura Plaza project).
7:13: Using bamboo not as decoration but as formwork for concrete. KK loves bamboo, but its difficulty is that it tends to crack if it gets dry.
The floor is transparent, "people can communicate easily." And it's "good for the foot," as it looks rather...not flat.
7:16: Inspiration from the 3D wood joint system (no nails) from 'Chidori' toys for a small temporary pavilion. His students assembled it in 5 hours.
7:17: The next step was to develop this technique for a permanent building.
With regards to this next image, KK pointed out that a layer of glazing sits in the middle of this lattice wall, which is quite thick, and he said "this is the inside (pointing to the left) and this is the outside (pointing to the right)." It was the same phrase that SANAA used so often in describing their work; I think it points less to the slightly non-native use of English and more to the fact that in images of these buildings, you really can't tell what is inside or outside, or often even that these are "buildings" in any convention sense of enclosure at all.
Dazaifu Tenmangu Starbucks. "This is not decoration; this is the structure of the building. If these joints were 90 degrees, it wouldn't be so complicated, but at these angles it is complicated.
7:21: Another building beside an important temple. 8 houses piled up in Asakusa. "In 20th century, always repeating the same floors, always flat; but this is not like that."
7:22: Nagaoka City Hall, two hours from Tokyo by bullet train. "City hall in 20th century was outside of city; but for this project the mayors wanted to get the city hall in the center of city." KK's proposal was that the city hall is not a building but a "doma," a traditional house with its gathering space with an earth floor. "After the completion, every night the mayor call my mobile phone, saying...'many people are coming." [laughter.] Every night it's a popular place for the community.
7:25: Besançon City Arts and Cultural Center, in France.
7:27: Project in Marseille, using a recycled glass that KK found there, that resembles Japanese rice paper in its translucency.
7:28: Italian project. Very soft Italian stone called "tuho" (?) that naturally supports growing vines; the building makes use of this phenomenon that KK found.
7:31: And some smaller experimental projects with his students. A "Teehaus" (tea house) in Frankfurt. "As a first proposal I showed him a tea house made of earth, and he said 'no...don't use natural material.' He said vandalism is strong in Germany, and he wanted a strong material like steel or concrete. KK said "I am not Tadao Ando, I won't build a tea house out of concrete." So they made an inflatable building that can be put up in 15 minutes. Small door 60 cm x 60 cm, which is traditional for teahouse.
7:33: "Shape memory alloy" is an expensive material, and they used it in 2mm strands, built around a spherical formwork. The pavilion changes shape.
7:35: "Casa del tutto" was the theme for the Venice Bienelle. 'Casa' means 'umbrella' in Japanese, so that joke inspired their umbrella house, which is made of 15 umbrellas that KK designed.
7:40: Another lesson from the earthquake: self-sufficiency. "All the infrastructures were out." Japanese infrastructures were so weak. This experimental house is made of plastic blocks that are filled with water and that interlock; water can flow between blocks to create circulation, which allows for heating of the different parts of the house.
7:41: Project with 'membrane' walls for an eco-village hotel.
7:43: East Japan Project. industrial design project to help revitalize industry in areas hit by the tsunami. "Start from the bottom is a theme for our practice. Start from the material and small element, and start from the place. ...Thank you very much." [applause]
7:46: Question from the audience: You described a perfect level of integration with nature in the hedge at the FLW Imperial hotel, in which the bamboo was just bent, not cut; do you feel you've reached that level of integration in any of your own work? You work so beautifully with materials. Answer: That level of integration is very difficult...[no, not yet.]
Q: What is more important: narrative, form, or material? KK: Integration of these things.
Q: You mentioned how after the fire in Tokyo, steel buildings took off; similarly, in Chicago. What do you think the role of disasters is in seeding these forms of architecture and what do you think will be the result of the tsunami? KK: The structure itself is not so important. If we can build a strong building in a bad location, it will be destroyed. The most important thing is to find the appropriate location. Research here is important, and also material; concrete is not always the most appropriate.
Q: Do you consider yourself part of a new generation of metabolist? KK: Ahhhhh...uh....I know them personally, very very interesting people, and [name] is still very active. But besides him. But the problem with metabolism is the size of the grain is too big; I want to find a smaller grain, finding an appropriate size for the environment. In that sense what I am doing is a kind of metabolism...but not a new metabolism.
Q: Your work is so eloquent in relating between nature and structure, but you work mostly in non-dense environments. Tokyo has an interesting relationship with cyclical processes of rebuilding. How do you imagine your [taller] buildings aging, in the most bustling city on earth, in Tokyo? KK: We also design in dense contexts, and also use natural materials there. I think the situation is the same as in a distant area. Aging and recycling is [part of the design]. For the bigger skyscrapers, the hurdle is getting higher and higher, but still I want to do a similar method. Q (follow up): Is it true that there's a 30 or 50 year rule in Tokyo where buildings have to be taken down and redone? KK: I don't think so, but as an average lifestyle, it's about 25 or 30 years. For the older buildings built before 1960s, the construction quality was very low, and the life is short. Now the life is getting longer and is same as here, I think.
Q: In your projects...[is there a shift from experimentation towards more conventional building practices in the trajectory of your career]? KK: For us, the dialogue between more experimental and more conventional projects is more important than before. As I started teaching...I wanted to make the collaboration closer and deeper than before.
End. Applause.
Thanks for reading!
love this line from Q+A
KK said "I am not Tadao Ando, I won't build a tea house out of concrete." also the way he critiques the metabolists re: the issue of scale as not fine enough "grain"...
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
This blog was most active from 2009-2013. Writing about my experiences and life at Harvard GSD started out as a way for me to process my experiences as an M.Arch.I student, and evolved into a record of the intellectual and cultural life of the Cambridge architecture (and to a lesser extent, design/technology) community, through live-blogs. These days, I work as a data storyteller (and blogger at Littldata.com) in San Francisco, and still post here once in a while.


text:
This short documentary presents an episode in the life of the owner of a general store in Pointe-Verte, New Brunswick. Nicole and Fabien, helped by their children, work 109 hours a week, never stopping. While the parents, now nearing retirement, have been holding the fort for over 30 years, their kids dream of a different future. The filmmaker, who grew up in a family grocery store, follows the daily events in this place of comings and goings, where life is all hustle and bustle. With scenes that are both funny and touching, the film pays tribute to these people who have devoted themselves to their community, providing a reassuring presence at all times. In French with English subtitles.
This documentary was made as part of the Tremplin program, with the collaboration of Radio-Canada.


text:
The Y had a Superhero Party. I took my two nephew's Evan and Elijah along with Mica and Isaak. They had so much fun! They all very much got into character! I had more pictures of Isaak and Elijah because they split all the kids up into 2 groups. I decided to hang out with the 3 year old's.
You Can Follow Me Here:


text:
Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
Show All Answers
Trained marksmen under the direction of the Shaker Heights Police Department conduct sharpshooting on public lands and on private property when allowed by property owners and where deer can be harvested safely and humanely. The marksmen receive additional training in the Cleveland Metroparks to simulate the environment in which they will be working. "Do Not Enter – Deer Management Area" signs where deer management operations occur and radio contact with SHPD officers on patrol prevent citizens from wandering into the operational area. In the event of an unauthorized entry into the area, no shots are fired and individuals are asked to leave. Culled deer are transported to a processor for dressing and preparation for donation to a local food bank.
Based on information obtained by resident questionnaires and observations by SHPD officers and the City's deer culling contractor, there is an overabundance of deer in our city. Suburban areas, especially Shaker Heights, provide high-quality, high calorie and easily accessible foods in the form of gardens, ornamental plantings, and fertilized lawns, while nearby woodlands offer daytime refuge. The richness of plant species is higher in residential areas than in wooded habitats. Suburban areas are free of hunting and natural predation. Deer have a high reproductive potential and populations increase quickly.
Since 2016 a majority of Shaker residents who have responded to an annual questionnaire indicate that they have concerns about deer in Shaker and that they would like to see a decrease in the number of deer.
A deer herd that lacks natural predators will increase by 20 to 40% yearly, unless regular culling resumes. To better understand the factors that contribute to the unbalance in the deer's environment, see Cleveland Metroparks' Deer Management webpage.
Unpalatable landscape plantings and deer repellants are unreliable and short-term strategies. Deer are likely to ignore either the taste or odor repellents in times of food scarcity and overpopulation. Some repellents lose their effectiveness in rain and require reapplication and others do not weather well even in the absence of rainfall. Long-term approaches are needed to maintain deer populations at levels that are healthy for both deer and humans.
Reproductive agents for wildlife are not commercially available, are currently classified as experimental and are produced by research facilities. Also, the free-ranging nature of deer makes it difficult to deliver contraceptives to them. Relocation of deer is not allowed by ODNR. This technique requires the use of traps and/or remote chemical immobilization techniques and has been demonstrated to be impractical, stressful to the deer and may result in a high post-release mortality rate of up to 85%. These programs also require release sites that are capable of receiving deer.
Finding locations that are safe, have ease of access and have multiple deer visiting is critical to the success of the culling program. Once a site has been selected it is important not to overuse it, as the deer learn to avoid it. Over the last three years it has become more difficult to locate sites on public lands. The majority of City property is within a park or along a trail, with significant pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Even in areas that are wooded and not in a park, there are people walking dogs, biking and cross country skiing. As the number of viable public locations for culling has decreased, more residents have requested culling on their own property.
Culling on private property is the same as culling on public property. The property is baited and cameras are set up near the bait sites. Trained sharpshooters perform the culling. Please see the FAQ What is the City's deer culling program? for additional details.
Precision Wildlife Management, the City's contractor, will conduct a site assessment at the prospective property to ensure it is safe and appropriate for culling. If the site is deemed acceptable, Precision Wildlife Management will meet with the property owner to explain the program and address concerns. The property owner will also be required to provide written permission for culling on their property. Precision Wildlife Management will also contact neighbors directly next to or to the rear of the property. Everyone will be given the option of being notified when culling will take place.
If any neighbor directly next to or to the rear of the private property to be used for culling objects to the culling, no culling will take place on that property.
The City's Wildlife Task Force (formerly the Deer Task Force), which includes Council members and residents, has approved specific protocols for sharpshooting deer on private property.
The deer meat is donated to Cleveland-area food banks.
The Eastside Wildlife Management Partnership, comprising the cities of Beachwood, Cleveland Heights, Lyndhurst, Mayfield Heights, Pepper Pike, Shaker Heights, South Euclid, and University Heights was formed in 2013 to ascertain whether collaborative action could be undertaken to address deer management in the region. After becoming educated about deer management by several experts, including the Cleveland Metroparks, some cities in this group decided to initiate deer management programs on their own (Pepper Pike and Lyndhurst) while others made no decision regarding deer culling. Currently, Shaker's Mayor and City Council members continue to talk with their peers in other cities about a joint deer management program.
Yes, dogs must be on leashes, and the leash must be held by the person at all times at Horseshoe Lake, Lower Lake and Southerly Parks. Outside these parks, dogs are required to be on leashes or under the control of their owners at all times so as not to create a nuisance. (Section 705.02 C.O.)
Up to two dogs per home/dwelling unit are permitted. (Section 705.10 C.O.)
Ohio law, as well as local ordinance requires owners of dogs to renew their dog license each year between December 1st and January 31st. Residents may purchase a license from Cuyahoga County.


text:
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Sound-Lab A-3 loudspeaker
The Sound-Lab electrostatic loudspeakers are legendary. Many serious audiophiles have heard of them, and rumors of their existence abound in audio circles. But, like gnomes, UFOs, and poltergeists, Sound-Lab loudspeakers are sufficiently hard to find that it is sometimes difficult to prove to skeptics that they exist at all. Well, I can now report that they do. As proof of this contention, I can point to the two which are actually occupying solid, tangible space in my listening room at this very moment. I have even taken a photo of them, which will be published along with this report if they leave any sort of an image on the film emulsion. (Many such apparitions do not!)
Footnote 1: Sound-Lab had a somewhat scarring experience with a review in The Absolute Sound several years ago; the resultant drop in sales led to their extreme caution in seeking reviews.—Larry Archibald
I have even met, face-to-face, and conversed with, a flesh-and-blood person who lays claim to being the designer of, and the president of the company which manufactures, the Sound-Lab loudspeakers. His name is Roger West, and he too is real.
Seriously, though, for a company which has been making loudspeaker systems for almost eight years, Sound-Lab maintains an extraordinarily low profile. It has never advertised anywhere, almost never submitted products for review to magazines (footnote 1), nor has it exhibited at CES for quite some time now (though their speakers were being used by both Rowland Research and Klyne Audio Arts at the 1986 Summer CES in Chicago). As a result, probably only a few thousand people have even heard of the company, let alone heard its loudspeakers. (After this issue of Stereophile is published, 35,000 people will have heard of Sound-Lab.)
Why such diffidence? Because Sound-Lab sees itself as a small company, staffed by people who believe in the product and take pride in their workmanship, and the Wests would prefer that it stay that way. Actually, I don't blame them; that kind of business, today, is a rare throwback to the dark ages, when running a business was supposed more to be fun than to be profitable.
But Sound-Lab's attitude toward the promotion of their products is so laid-back, it's a wonder they sell any loudspeakers at all. How come they're still in business, after eight years of virtual obscurity? Roger attributes this to the incredible quality of his products, whose owners are allegedly so pleased that they voluntarily promote Sound-Lab speakers among their friends. It's the old build-a-better-mousetrap idea, which seems to make great logical sense, but which has brought failure to almost every manufacturing concern that adopted it as a way of doing business. In my opinion, it is not the quality product that usually succeeds today, but the most flamboyantly hyped product. Roger West does not believe in hype, and as proof of his opposite view, he cites Sound-Lab's eight years of longevity and continued, if sluggish, growth. After having lived with a pair of his A-3 speakers for several weeks now, and scanning my notes for the review I am about to write, I think he should be making some contingency plans to cope with a sudden increase in orders: this review is going to be a rave.
First, though, a brief description of the A-3. It is a full-range push-pull electrostatic with a curved (semi-cylindrical) diaphragm. Unlike another curved-panel electrostatic, the similarly-sized (and $900-lower-priced) MartinLogan Monolith, whose low end crosses over to a 12" cone woofer at 100Hz, the Sound-Lab A-3 is a true full-range electrostatic, spanning the entire audio band down to a claimed 32Hz without the use of a dynamic woofer. Also unlike the Monolith, the A-3's diaphragm is not freely suspended between its four edges to produce a continuous curved surface. Instead, it consists of a number of small, vertically rectangular flat panels, arranged in a 90-degree arc. Each panel measures about 4" wide, and they vary in height from 2.5" to 7". The varying vertical dimension, and varying tensions on the Mylar film diaphragm, cause each radiating panel to resonate at a different frequency; careful choice of those resonant frequencies produces a controlled rise in overall response at low frequencies, which precisely (in theory, at least) compensates for the LF rolloff that normally occurs in a dipole system of this size. (This front/back cancellation effect has been described often enough in these pages that I won't go into it again here.)
The A-3 is large enough to impress, but, with its nicely patina'd walnut trim (with mirror-imaged grain patterns for the skirt strip at the bottom front of each speaker) and curved, horizontally ribbed black grille cloth, too attractive to offend or intimidate. Each speaker weighs 145 lbs, but (thank Heaven!) is equipped with 5 castors, so the speakers are a snap to move around in order to tweak locations and orientation. (Just warn the cleaning lady not to roll them out of the way for vacuuming. Tell her you want to accumulate dust under your loudspeakers.)
The Sound-Lab A-3 is rated at 88dB sensitivity (1W at 400Hz input, 1m from the speaker), but my sample pair didn't even come close to that figure. Assuming the manufacturer's 6-ohm impedance figure to be correct for midrange frequencies, 2.45 volts of input would be equivalent to 1 watt of power. I fed one speaker with a 400Hz 1/3-octave warble tone at that level, and measured the output at 1m from the grille with a General Radio 1565-A SPL meter (tripod-mounted, 70 degrees incident angle, 40" height, C-weighted, Fast). The reading was 76dB, 12dB below the rated efficiency figure! Thus, the 100W minimum recommended power is by no means an overstatement.
Unfortunately, the speakers would not, on low frequency test tones, handle even that much power without strain. With a warbled sinewave centered around 45Hz, both of my samples sounded as if they were starting to bottom out at a mere 94dB—with a measured input power of only 12 watts. On musical material, fortunately, rather than bass tones, there were no signs of audible stress until playback levels reached about 100dB (150W input power). This is just about the minimum volume needed to reproduce symphonic and operatic music at realistic levels, but it was barely adequate for clean reproduction of such very-wide-dynamic range recordings as the JVC Rozhdestvensky Shostakovitch Symphony 15. In other words, the large (+ Series) Acoustat speakers are still the only ones I have found that can handle large amounts of mid-bass energy, let alone the below-40Hz stuff.
Footnote 1: Sound-Lab had a somewhat scarring experience with a review in The Absolute Sound several years ago; the resultant drop in sales led to their extreme caution in seeking reviews.—Larry Archibald


text:
By Matt Volz
Associated Press
HELENA, Mont. — A Montana federal judge will retire following an investigation into an email he forwarded that included a racist joke involving President Barack Obama.
U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull had previously announced he would step down as chief circuit judge and take a reduced caseload, but he informed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that he now intends to fully retire May 3.
The appellate court posted a statement by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski on its website Tuesday announcing Cebull had submitted the retirement letter.
The March 29 letter comes after the appellate court's Judicial Council issued a March 15 order on the investigation into the February 2012 email, but appellate court spokesman David Madden could not say whether Cebull resigned because of the order.
"The misconduct process is confidential. I am not privy to what the order said nor do I know what Judge Cebull's motivations were," Madden said in Wednesday email.
The council's order will remain confidential during an appeal period, which concludes May 17, Madden said. The council will make an announcement after Cebull's retirement takes effect, he said, but added that he was unable to answer when the order or the letter will be released to the public.
A Cebull aide directed calls for comment to Clerk of Court Tyler Gilman, who said Wednesday that Cebull would not have any comment other than the court's statement.
He declined to release the resignation letter or describe what it said.
Cebull wrote a letter of apology to Obama and filed a complaint against himself after The Great Falls Tribune published the contents of the email, which included a joke about bestiality and the president's mother.
The Billings judge forwarded the email from his chambers to six other people on Feb. 20, 2012, the newspaper reported.
Two other groups also demanded an investigation, with one, the Montana Human Rights Network, starting an online petition calling for Cebull's resignation.
Kim Abbott, the network's co-director, said Wednesday she was pleased with the announcement but hopes to see the results of the investigation.
"The email really called into question his ability to treat women and people of color fairly, so we're happy Montanans will get to appear before a different judge," Abbott said.
The complaints were referred to a special committee appointed by the appellate court to investigate whether Cebull's email constituted misconduct.
Kozinski's statement said the committee submitted a report to the Judicial Council in December after "a thorough and extensive investigation" that included interviews with witnesses and Cebull and going over related documents. The council issued its order based on that report.
The statement says the Judicial Council will not comment further until Cebull's retirement is effective.
Cebull stepped down as Montana's chief federal judge and took senior status March 18, which allowed another judge to be appointed while he continued working with a reduced caseload.
U.S. Sen. Max Baucus then formed a committee to replace Cebull and another judge taking senior status, with Baucus recently recommending that Obama appoint state District Judge Susan Watters of Billings to take Cebull's spot on the bench.
The new chief federal judge, U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen, plans to meet with other judges to discuss how to handle the Cebull's cases, Gilman said.
Cebull was a Billings attorney for nearly 30 years before becoming a U.S. magistrate in Great Falls in 1998.
He became a district judge in 2001 and has served as chief judge of the District of Montana since 2008.
Cebull's notable cases include his block of reopening of the U.S. border to cattle in 2005, two years after the U.S. banned Canadian cattle and beef products over fears of mad-cow disease. The 9th Circuit overturned that decision.
Cebull also presided over a lawsuit filed by landowners against Exxon Mobil Corp. over the cleanup following last year's pipeline spill of 1,500 gallons into the Yellowstone River.


text:
These are the first words that played in my mind when I woke up this morning, and I wanted to document them.
I know these phrases don't go together in scripture. I also know I'm taking a few liberties with the phrasing, but I think the story of how Jesus wept for Lazarus before he raised him — knowing he would raise him — is a wonderful dynamic to reflect on because it shows how Jesus acknowledged a reality before he changed it.
Jesus didn't walk into town, see everyone crying, and tell them to stop because everything would shortly be fine. He didn't discount their sorrow because there was a miracle on the horizon.
First, he acknowledged the current reality first. He bore record of his feelings for the untimely loss of Lazarus by mourning his friend's death with his entire being. And I'll be so bold as to say that one of the reasons he did this because there is a time for all things and a purpose under heaven.
And, sometimes, there's a time to truly mourn a loss even if you have faith that the sun will come out tomorrow or there's a miracle on the horizon.
Even if you have faith things will be better down the road, there is a time to acknowledge the present and release its anguish out of your body, rather than tell yourself things will be better in the future and you need to be strong now — thereby, internalizing the sorrow and carrying it with you as an unprocessed weight to be dealt with ( or not dealt with ) in the future.
Allow yourself to process things as they come and bear witness to how the circumstances are impacting you.
Because there is a time and season for all things, and a purpose under heaven. A time to weep and a time to rejoice, and for each moment to be unabashedly pure, based on the reality of your circumstances. For this is how we are able to live presently in the now, and authentically across time.
That was my morning thought this morning and I didn't want it to disappear like a dream. So I share it with you and hope it serves you as well.


text:
Chowking - Cerritos
I recently had a good, traditional Filipino breakfast at Chowking (a new Filipino/Chinese chain) in Cerritos. The restaurant is clean and bright, and has a corporate chain feel to it, but the food is good, the Filipino breakfasts is my favorite.
Their breakfast specials consists of garlic fried rice, a fried egg, sliced tomato and cucumber and your choice of tocino, longanisa sausage, fried luncheon meat, boneless marinated fried bangus fish or corned beef hash. The price is $3.99 (or was it $2.99)? In any case, a pretty great deal for a filling breakfast. We had some taho (soft tofu and tapioca with steamy brown sugar syrup) to finish off our meal.
They stop serving breakfast at 10:00 am and for the rest of the day, they offer such menu items as crispy fried chicken, wonton noodle soup, siopao and fried noodles. These other items are good, but have a fast food quality to them - the siopao, in particular, are probably made off site in a central corporate kitchen somewhere.
They are located next to a Subway, on South Street.
The address, I think is:
11900 South St
Cerritos, CA