The Scandal That Isn't There (vs. One That Is)

Scandal! Scandal! It's time for a new haute faux scandal. And this time, it's (again) coming from Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. And this time, it's (again) targeting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D).

So what happened? Long story short, Robert Gates decided to release a book that throws plenty of shade at the Obama Administration. Why? President Obama dared to question the wisdom of indefinite extension of the Afghanistan War and look for a full spectrum of options on Libya (in 2011). Apparently, Robert Gates didn't like President Obama asserting his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief.

And now, Gates is digging further back in time to try to read Senator Reid. No really, he's taking to the media to rehash comments the Senator made nearly 7 years ago on the Iraq War. Of course, he fails to mention that Senator Reid has been proven correct on Iraq.

We can't help but wonder why Republican politicians are chomping at the bit to see more of Robert Gates throwing political punches at President Obama, Senator Reid, and other top Democrats. Is it because they hope Gates' comments can revive their meme of #ObamaFAIL? Is it because they still refuse to acknowledge the Obama Administration's foreign policy successes? Is it because they want to use Gates' recent comments as ammo in their battle against President Obama & Senator Reid on Iran policy?

Or could the motivation behind the "Gates-gate" hype lie closer to home? Just as "Gates-gate 1.0" was starting to hit its stride in the media, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) screwed it all up with the emergence of his own (very real) Bridge-gate scandal. Might "Gates-gate 2.0" just be a clumsy G-O-TEA attempt at diverting media attention from the scandalicious slow motion implosion of Republicans' "Great White Hope for 2016"?

Whatever the motivation(s) behind "Gates-gate", it just seems like there's no there there. And we should keep this in mind in case someone decides to manufacture a new "Harry Reid SCANDAL!!!"

Bloody Consequences

It's happening again. It's like clockwork. It goes on and on. And Senator Harry Reid (D) once again had to deliver the predictable bad news today.

.@SenatorReid on gun safety bill: "I would love to bring it back up. But I can't do it until I have the votes."

And he won't have the votes until more politicians on Capitol Hill develop the courage to kick their NRA habit. So what else is new?

Sadly, another shooting is. This time, it was at a mall in Northern New Jersey.

People forced to take cover inside the mall posted to Twitter throughout the night as they waited to be evacuated. One woman, Kathryn Jean Lopez, posted: “Folks are nervous in here please just say a prayer. ... There is screaming.” She posted a dark photo from inside the Nordstrom store showing several people seated on the floor checking their phones.

Jonathan Astacio, a manager at the Brookstone store at the mall, said he heard what sounded like four gunshots near the store around 9:20 p.m. Mr. Astacio said he saw police officers searching the mall.

He and other employees at the store moved into a back stockroom, he said.

Alexa Tom, 28, a sales associate who works at Neiman Marcus in the mall, said that she saw security guards running through the store locking down all the doors after 9 p.m. The store’s security team brought the more than 50 people left in the store to the first-floor shoe department, where they stayed for about an hour.

Fortunately, no one was injured this time... Except for the shooter himself, Richard Shoop. This was his planned suicide. And he apparently wanted a host of witnesses to it.

At least no one else was hurt... This time. But as we know all too well these days, that isn't always the case. Just don't try explaining that to G-O-TEA icon Ron Paul. He thinks this is all about "freedom".

“Jefferson obviously was a clear leader on the principle of nullification,” the former Texas congressman said of the third president. “I’ve been working on the assumption that nullification is going to come. It’s going to be a de facto nullification. It’s ugly, but pretty soon things are going to get so bad that we’re just going to ignore the feds and live our own lives in our own states.” [...]

...He stressed that the constitutional “right to keep and bear arms” was not for hunting, but to allow rebellion against tyrannical governments. “The Second Amendment was not there so you could shoot rabbits,” he said. “Right now today, we have a great threat to our liberties internally.”

Ron Paul said this at a campaign rally for Virginia G-O-TEA Gubernatorial Candidate Ken Cuccinelli... But he might as well have said it on the stage with his ideological soulmate, Sharron Angle. After all, they share the same affinity for "Second Amendment Remedies". And they both fail to see the bloody real world consequences of their dangerous rhetoric and equally dangerous policy prescriptions.

Every so often, Senator Dean Heller (R-NRA) and Rep. Joe Heck (R-NRA) will say something about the need to do something about gun violence. Yet when push comes to shove, they vote the NRA-Sharron Angle-Ron Paul party line. And in turn, Harry Reid doesn't have the votes to pass anything. And we all continue to live with the bloody consequences of inaction.

The Disconnect

This can be very confusing. Sometimes, it seems like a deal is near on gun safety reform. Even former REPUBLICAN National Committee Chair Michael Steele said this morning on MSNBC that he doesn't understand why a few gun owners (prodded by the NRA) fear background checks and registration.



And on the US Senate floor yesterday, US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) vowed to press on for floor votes on a wide array of gun safety measures. And not only did Reid demand a floor vote on his own bill, but he even went as far to suggest that the Assault Weapons Ban deserves a floor vote as well (as an amendment). Perhaps all the G-O-TEA filibuster threats truly are getting to him. And unfortunately for Senate Republicans, it's happening the opposite effect of what they had desired. (No really, think about it.)



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) had been planning to effectively give the NRA veto authority over any and all gun safety legislation. And he's willing to do so because he's currying the gun lobby's favor just in time for his own reelection campaign in 2014.

“Sen. McConnell opposes the Reid bill,” the minority leader’s spokesman, Don Stewart, told TPM. “While nobody knows yet what Sen. Reid’s plan is for the gun bill, if he chooses to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the Reid bill, Sen. McConnell will oppose cloture on proceeding to that bill.”

In other words, if a bipartisan deal is struck, McConnell may very well forgo the filibuster and possibly even vote for the final version. But his threat is weighty because he’s an extraordinarily clever strategist and has a proven track record of unifying Senate Republicans behind his will. And so his filibuster threat will likely force Democrats to win his approval for any passable bill.

Crucially, McConnell is up for reelection next year in bright-red Kentucky, and is carefully watching his right flank. That means he won’t dare get on the NRA’s bad side, but he could also be on the hook if any wayward Republicans decide to buck the party line and join Democrats on a bill the powerful gun industry lobby dislikes. In other words, McConnell seems to have taken it upon himself to make sure any new gun legislation will be NRA-compliant.

On that score, lawmakers have an escape hatch to say they support background checks without actually doing anything doing anything to make it harder for people to avoid them when buying a firearm at gun shows or in private sales. The NRA supports enhancing mental health reporting in existing background check systems, a policy that some pro-gun senators back and point to as evidence that they support background checks

And here's the most depressing story from yesterday. While the Senate was debating whether to even allow for votes on gun violence prevention bills, a 4 year old child shot a 6 year old child in New Jersey. No really, that happened.

Authorities are deciding whether to charge anyone after police say a 6-year-old was shot in the head by a 4-year-old in New Jersey.

The older boy is in serious condition.

Authorities are still investigating how the younger child obtained the .22-caliber rifle from his family’s Toms River home Monday night.

Police Chief Michael Mastronardy says the children were outside the 4-year-old’s home when the boy went inside, got the rifle and shot the 6-year-old about 15 yards away. It’s not clear if the 4-year-old pulled the trigger or if the rifle accidentally discharged.

The parents of the 4-year-old were home at the time.

Yes, this actually happened while Congress was wrestling over gun violence yesterday. What also happened yesterday was this.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In context, [President Obama] was noting the overwhelming public support for support universal background checks -- "How often do 90 percent of Americans agree on anything?" Obama said to laughter -- and the fact that public opinion on the issue crosses partisan boundaries. Even large majorities of gun owners and NRA households agree with the American mainstream. [...]

"If our democracy is working the way it's supposed to..." is a phrase that stuck with me, largely because it seems our democracy is not working the way it's supposed to.

Indeed, as of yesterday, 15 Republican senators said they're prepared to prevent the Senate from even debating any bill that changes any gun law in any way. Forget voting for or against efforts to prevent gun deaths, the GOP lawmakers are prepared to ignore the overwhelming will of the American mainstream and kill popular legislation in its infancy.

In fairness, I should note that this is not a universal attitude among congressional Republicans, and just this morning, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said pending legislation "deserves a vote, up-or-down." Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) added that his party's filibuster threats are "wrong."

But the larger trend is hard to miss. As Ezra Klein explained this morning, "Gun control has emerged as an unusually clarifying test case for how Congress really works. On one side of the ledger is most everything that we think moves Congress: Public opinion, a national tragedy, the president's bully pulpit, elite opinion. On the other side is everything we wish didn't move Congress: a powerful but increasingly controversial interest group and, arguably, the minority's natural incentive to foil the majority's agenda. Guess which side is winning?"

I suspect many Americans have a rudimentary Schoolhouse-Rock-style understanding of how a bill becomes a law, and may expect something like background checks to pass, given the larger circumstances. But, once again, our democracy isn't working the way it's supposed to.

That's what's perhaps most frustrating about what's happening in Congress now. While there's broad consensus among the American people on gun safety reform, a rigid minority refuses to even allow votes on it. And while calls for action continue from constituents, some Senators are clearly ignoring their constituents. (Does Senator Dean Heller [R] really want to go there?)


Something must change.

Casinos: MGM Mirage Reveals "Exit Strategy" Out of Atlantic City

Now that the New Jersey gaming control board has made it clear that MGM Mirage isn't welcome in Atlantic City any more (as long as it wants to do business in Macau) (H/T to Hunter), they've reached a settlement with the state to let go of its 50% stake in Borgata.

The deal was driven by the division's recommendation to the New Jersey Casino Control Commission last year that MGM Mirage's partner in the Chinese gambling district of Macau, Pansy Ho, be found unsuitable because of allegations her father Stanley Ho has had ties to organized crime.

The division recommended that MGM Mirage be directed to disengage from any business association with Pansy Ho. MGM Mirage instead chose to maintain its casino partnership in Macau and at least temporarily exit the New Jersey market.

Las Vegas-based MGM Mirage had previously disclosed settlement talks were under way focusing on placing the company's New Jersey interests into a divestiture trust. Under today's settlement, which is subject to approval of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission:

-- MGM Mirage's interest in the Borgata and the land will be placed into a divestiture trust and the interest is to be sold within 30 months.

-- MGM Mirage will cease doing business as a gaming licensee in New Jersey, but can re-apply for a license there 30 months after the sale

"We have the utmost respect for the DGE but disagree with its assessment of our partner in Macau," Jim Murren, MGM Mirage chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. "Regulators in other jurisdictions in which we operate casinos have thoroughly considered this matter and all of them have either determined that the relationship is appropriate or have decided that further action is not necessary. Since the DGE takes a different view, we believe that the best course of action for our company and its shareholders is to settle this matter and move forward with the compelling growth opportunities we have in Macau."

Well, what else can MGM do? And perhaps in the long run, this will be seen as a smart move. We all know just how lucrative of a gaming market Macau is quickly becoming. And with both Wynn Resorts and Las Vegas Sands now saying they're "primarily Asian companies doing some business in America", how can MGM be blamed for picking Macau over the rather thorny situation in Jersey.

And speaking of Jersey, Atlantic City continues to be in a free fall... Even as we recover here in Las Vegas and other big US gaming destinations are also seeing signs of recovery. But then again, not all of Atlantic City's problems are directly related to the economy. In particular, AC is now facing the harsh reality of increasing competition from Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland as all these states loosen their anti-gambling laws and allow more gaming (with PA, in particular, posing a real threat with new full hotel-casino resorts opening in or near Philadelphia, AC's biggest "feeder market").

So when we look at the full picture, it's easier to see why MGM is ready to leave AC. With increasing gambling options all over the Northeast, it's becoming increasingly difficult to see how AC can remain top dog. And at least now, MGM no longer has to worry about it.

Is MGM Mirage Ready to Leave Jersey?

One would think that the home of "Jersey Shore" and "The Real Housewives of New Jersey" would have no problem with whatever casinos want to do business in Atlantic City. But apparently, MGM Mirage is running into some trouble out there.

Why? Oh, just one of Macau's worst kept secrets...

When New Jersey casino regulators said last year that MGM Mirage needed to cut ties with an “unsuitable” business partner in China, the casino giant said it would defend itself against allegations raised in New Jersey, where MGM Mirage owns a 50 percent stake in the Borgata resort.

For the past eight months, both sides — with reputations and track records to uphold — have been gearing up for battle. Or reconciliation. [...]

Regulators red-flagged MGM Mirage’s 2004 deal with Pansy Ho because she is the daughter of controversial Macau casino boss Stanley Ho, who has reputed ties to Asian organized crime.

Nevada gaming regulators signed off on the partnership in 2007, saying that MGM Mirage had structured the Ho partnership in such a way that her father would not be able to exert his influence on the business. Nevada regulators said Ho, who ran a ferry and tourism company founded by her father, is a suitable partner because she is a successful and ethical businesswoman in her own right.

Because Ho didn’t need a Nevada casino license to do business with the company in Macau, MGM Mirage didn’t have to prove to Nevada regulators that she was a suitable partner. In passing judgment on Ho, Nevada regulators said they had no reason to believe she wouldn’t act ethically and that her father’s alleged associations — while distasteful — were not enough to harm Nevada.

It’s a different ballgame in New Jersey, where companies must renew their casino licenses every five years. Casino companies must prove their worthiness, and those of partners, at each renewal hearing as if they are obtaining licenses for the first time.

It's no secret that Nevada's gaming regulators are quite lax compared to New Jersey gaming authorities. If New Jersey regulators catch just one whiff of "organized crime influence", you're out and you're out for good. After all, why do you think Steve Wynn was forced out of Atlantic City in 1987? And why so many other big gaming industry players in Nevada are kept out of Jersey?

And now, the Pansy Ho connection may be enough to force MGM Mirage out of The Garden State. For all we know, Pansy Ho may really be a legitimate businesswoman and have no interest in her father's shadier operations in Southeast Asia. But in New Jersey, even family ties can be enough to lower the guillotine on a casino project.

So most likely, MGM Mirage will have two choices. Either they will have to abandon the MGM Grand Macau deal with Pansy Ho or they will have to end their partnership with Boyd Gaming on Borgata Atlantic City. Seriously, which one do you think MGM Mirage will stick with?

Macau's continually being touted as "the next big thing". The Asian gaming market continues to rise. Casino operators fight brutally over the very few gaming licenses the Chinese government permits.

And Atlantic City? Not so hot any more.

The Wall Street Journal is already reporting that MGM Mirage is ready to sell its 50% stake in Borgata, so I think we're starting to see where MGM really wants to go next.