text:
Every year, Republican members of the House of Representatives retreat from Washington to assess their political fortunes. This year, they gathered in mid-January, at the Kingsmill Resort, in Williamsburg, Virginia. It was too cold to play golf on the resort's renowned course, and at nearby Colonial Williamsburg, with a steady rain falling, there wasn't a costumed Thomas Jefferson or Benedict Arnold in sight. Aside from the bar and the spa, there was no escaping the ballrooms, where, for three days, some two hundred Republicans pondered the state of their party.
Two months earlier, Republicans had lost the Presidential election and eight seats in the House. They were immediately plunged into a messy budget fight with a newly emboldened President, which ended with an income-tax increase, the first in more than twenty years. A poll in January deemed Congress less popular than cockroaches, head lice, and colonoscopies (although it did beat out the Kardashians, North Korea, and the Ebola virus). It was time to regroup.
The event at Kingsmill was not so much a retreat as an intervention. On the eve of the getaway, Tom Cole, a Republican congressman from Oklahoma, told me that factional disputes over taxes and spending had created a dire situation. "It's a very important time for the conference, and it needs to air some of these things," he said. "It's a little like a dysfunctional family right now, where everybody knows old Uncle Joe at the end of the table's an alcoholic, but nobody wants to say it. And somebody needs to say it. We need to get Joe some help. Come on, he's ruined too many Christmas parties!"
Over three days, the Republicans heard from political strategists, pollsters, conservative intellectuals, C.E.O.s, and motivational speakers. A dinnertime address by Erik Weihenmayer, a blind mountaineer who scaled Everest, was called "Using Adversity to Our Advantage by Working Together." Panel discussions had existential titles such as "What Happened and Where Are We Now?" Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor for National Review, was asked to explain why the Republicans' economic agenda had failed. "I said to them, 'Don't kid yourself that this was a close election; face the facts that this is in a lot of ways a very weak party,' " Ponnuru told me. He argued that too many voters believe that the Party's economic agenda helps nobody except rich people and big business.
On the second day, after a 7 A.M. choice of Catholic Mass or Bible study, the political analyst Charlie Cook gave a sober presentation about current demographic trends, demonstrating that the Party was doomed unless it started winning over Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and younger voters. He also noted that forty per cent of the electorate is moderate—and Republicans lost that constituency by fifteen points in 2012. Thanks to congressional redistricting, Republicans were able to hold on to the House of Representatives, and Cook said that the Party could probably keep it for the foreseeable future, but he warned that the prospects of winning back the Senate, and the White House, would require dramatic change. There are only twenty Republican women in the House, and Kellyanne Conway, a G.O.P. pollster, gave the overwhelmingly white male audience some advice: stop talking about rape.
In the next few years, a new field of Republican Presidential candidates will emerge to sort out some of these issues. Until then, House Republicans, who have moved sharply to the right since January, 2011, are the face of their party. They will also determine the destiny of President Obama's second term, which features an ambitious agenda including taxes, immigration, and gun control. The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has often shown a willingness to compromise, but for more than two years he has been stymied by a small and unruly group of right-wingers, led by his deputy, Eric Cantor.
Cantor is the House Majority Leader, which means that he is responsible for the mundane business of managing the schedule, the House floor, and committees, where legislation is generally written. He has used his position to transform himself into the Party's chief political strategist. Cantor is frequently talked about as a future Speaker; he could even be a future President, some of his aides say. Since the election, as Republicans have confronted Obama in a series of budgetary battles—another will unfold this week—few have tried as hard as Cantor to reposition and redefine the defeated party.
"He's a fantastic Majority Leader," Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and a close friend, said. "Eric keeps the trains running on time very efficiently." As Mitt Romney's former running mate and the architect of the budget policies that some Republicans blame for their loss in 2012, Ryan is well aware of his party's problems. "What Eric is really focussed on is that we need to do a better job of broadening our appeal and showing that we have real ideas and solutions that make people's lives better," Ryan said. "Eric is the guy who studies the big vision and is doing the step-by-step, daily management of the process to get us there. That is a huge job."
Late in the afternoon on the second day of the retreat, Cantor and his wife, Diana, who happens to be a liberal Democrat, met me for coffee at the Trellis restaurant, in Williamsburg. Cantor, who is forty-nine, is slight and speaks in a nasal Southern drawl. When cameras are around, he has a tendency to look frozen, as if he'd just been caught doing something wrong; his smile can look like a snarl. He's more genial in person.
Born in Richmond, Cantor, who is Jewish, first entered office in 1992, as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates. In 2001, he became a member of the U.S. House. In 2011, when Republicans gained control of the House, Cantor became the Majority Leader, and the highest elected Jewish official in America. Along the way, he has become one of the top fund-raisers in the House. For the past two years, he has anchored the Tea Party, as the leader of House conservatives and the creator of a strategy to oppose and obstruct the Obama agenda.
Cantor was one of the most influential political forces in Obama's first term. In June of 2011, the President and the Speaker began working toward a Grand Bargain of major tax increases and spending cuts to address the government's long-term budget deficits. Until late June, Boehner had managed to keep these talks secret from Cantor. On July 21st, Boehner paused in his discussions with Obama to talk to Cantor and outline the proposed deal. As Obama waited by the phone for a response from the Speaker, Cantor struck. Cantor told me that it was a "fair assessment" that he talked Boehner out of accepting Obama's deal. He said he told Boehner that it would be better, instead, to take the issues of taxes and spending to the voters and "have it out" with the Democrats in the election. Why give Obama an enormous political victory, and potentially help him win reëlection, when they might be able to negotiate a more favorable deal with a new Republican President? Boehner told Obama there was no deal. Instead of a Grand Bargain, Cantor and the House Republicans made a grand bet.
The bet failed spectacularly. Just as Cantor had urged, Obama and Romney spent much of the campaign debating tax and spending policies that the House Republicans had foisted on the Romney-Ryan ticket. What's more, by scuttling the 2011 Grand Bargain negotiations, Cantor, more than any other politician, helped create the series of fiscal crises that have gripped Washington since Election Day. The failure of the Grand Bargain led to a byzantine deal: if the two parties could not agree on a new deficit plan, then a combination of tax increases and spending cuts—cuts known, in budget jargon, as a "sequester"—would automatically kick in on New Year's Day. (The sequester was postponed until March 1st.) Looming beyond this "fiscal cliff" was an even more perilous fight, over the expiration of the debt ceiling, which is the limit on how much money the government can borrow, and which Congress must regularly raise if the Treasury is to pay its bills.
At the January retreat, a halfway point in the midst of these budget battles, Cantor sounded chastened, or, at least, like a man wanting to appear chastened. "We've got to understand that people don't think Republicans have their back," he said. "Whether it's the middle class, whether it's the Latino or the Asian vote." It was not "necessarily our policies" but, rather, how "we've been portrayed." He added, "It goes to that axiom about how people don't really care how much you know until they know you care. So we've got to take that to heart and, I think, look to be able to communicate why we're doing what we're doing."
Cantor had been struck by one presentation at the retreat. Patrick Doyle, the president and C.E.O. of Domino's, had given a talk called "Turning It Around," in which he explained that he revived the failing company after conducting extensive research that led him to conclude that Domino's pizza was terrible. But Cantor seemed more interested in Doyle's sales advice than in his point about his product.
"There was a discussion about features and benefits," he said. "Marketing 101, right? If you're selling detergent and you put a new blue dot in a detergent block, that's a feature. But the benefit is it gets your clothes cleaned." He paused to let the lesson sink in.
"Well, we have features that we're for, whether it's balanced budgets, whether it's fiscal prudence or reforming entitlements," he said. "Those are features—those aren't ends in themselves. But they're going to produce a stronger America. They're going to save the safety-net programs for those who need them. We have to apply our principles in a way that translates to understanding that we actually are focussing and trying to help people and meet the needs that they have."
Since the 2012 elections, the Republicans have been divided between those who believe their policies are the problem and those who believe they just need better marketing—between those who believe they need to make better pizza and those who think they just need a more attractive box. Cantor, who is known among his colleagues as someone with strategic intelligence and a knack for political positioning, argues that it's the box.
As he gamed out G.O.P. strategy for the budgetary showdowns with Obama in January and February—including this week's clash over the sequester—Cantor was happy to make himself available for several long interviews. He persistently struck a diplomatic note and mentioned again and again how much he looked forward to working with Obama, a position that he said he's been articulating for a long time.
"Why isn't that your reputation, then?" I asked.
"I have to ask you that. Maybe you can make it so!"
When a party's base of power is centered in the House, the most populist and polarized institution in Washington, it often has trouble corralling its most obstreperous partisans. The lower chamber of Congress has frequently served as a foil for Presidential candidates trying to distance themselves from the more radical elements in their party. In 1999, George W. Bush criticized members of the House for "balancing their budget on the backs of the poor." But the problem is trickier when you are the House Majority Leader.
There are several ways to think of the divide in the Republican conference. One is regional. The House has two hundred and thirty-two Republican members; nearly half of them—a hundred and ten—are from the South. The rest are scattered across the Midwest (fifty-eight), the mid-Atlantic (twenty-five), the mountain West (eighteen), and the Pacific (twenty-one). There are no House Republicans from New England. Nan Hayworth, a Tea Party representative from upstate New York who lost to a Democrat in November, told me about a Southern Republican who once tried to win her support for a colleague on some internal conference position. "He's a good Christian man," the congressman told her, assuming that was the first thing she needed to know. She responded, "Well, I'm married to a good Jewish man."
Tom Price, an orthopedic surgeon from Georgia, who holds Newt Gingrich's old congressional seat and is seen as a leader of the most conservative House Republicans, said that, during a recent debate over taxes, "we talked past each other oftentimes as much as Republicans and Democrats talk past each other." He explained how surprised he was when one of his colleagues from a Northern state told him that he favored a tax increase on millionaires. "It hit me that what he was hearing when he's going home to a Republican district in a blue state is completely different than what I'm hearing when I go home to a Republican district in a red state," he said. "My folks are livid about this stuff. His folks clearly weren't. And so we weren't even starting from the same premise."
The other divide in the House is generational. If Democrats vote as a bloc, which they often do, it takes only sixteen dissenting Republicans for the leadership to lose a vote. There is a rump group of some forty or fifty restless Republicans. At its core are two dozen younger members, most of whom have been elected since 2010 and have what generously might be called a dismissive attitude toward their leaders, whom they see as holdovers from the big-spending era of George W. Bush.
Raúl Labrador, who is forty-five, is a cheerful libertarian and the unofficial leader of the rump. Born in Puerto Rico, he moved with his family to Las Vegas when he was thirteen. His mother thought that he was hanging around with the wrong crowd, so she sent him to a Mormon youth program, and eventually they both became devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He later moved to Boise, Idaho, where his wife, whom he met at Brigham Young University, was born. In the 2010 election, he beat a conservative Democrat, and now represents one of Idaho's two congressional districts.
Older House members "were so excited when this class came in," Labrador told me in his office recently. "But they just wanted us to sit in the corner and be quiet. They want our numbers, but they don't want our input, and they don't want our opinions. They spent two years working really hard to make sure that we were co-opted—that we were just another member of Congress who did as we were told. But it's because of this class that we have a majority." He said that, if it weren't for the class of 2010, "these guys wouldn't have any chairmanships. They wouldn't have the leadership positions."
Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, who is sixty-three and has served for a decade in the House, recently emerged as the leader of a large faction of House Republicans who believe that the Tea Party-inspired congressmen are dooming the Party. A member of the Chickasaw Nation, Cole started in politics in 1979, when he was thirty, as a strategist and a consultant. He served in top staff positions in the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is in charge of electing Republicans to the House. He has a lifetime rating of ninety-two per cent from the American Conservative Union.
Cole is no fan of Obama. "The President is so self-righteous and so smug," he told me. But Cole is one of the few House Republicans who have worked closely with the White House. On one of his walls, which is decorated with Native American artifacts, were framed copies of two laws that Obama signed regarding tribal issues. "He's the best President in modern American history on Native American issues," Cole said.
He seemed far more frustrated with the extremists in his own party. "This is a very different Republican Party than the one I got elected into," he said. "It's much more domestically focussed, much more fiscally responsible, much less concerned about America's position in the world or about defending the country. It almost takes for granted the security that we have now. It's not a group shaped by 9/11. Their 9/11 is the fiscal crisis, the long-term deficit." In fact, the overwhelming majority of House Republicans—a hundred and fifty-eight out of two hundred and thirty-two—have arrived in Washington since the 2006 election, when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had become increasingly unpopular. A hundred and sixteen, exactly half, came after the 2010 election, and the fallout from the economic crisis has been the major issue.
"But this is also a much braver conference politically," Cole went on. "It will do things that it knows are politically not in its interest." He pointed out that House Republicans have twice passed Ryan's budget, which included controversial changes in Medicare and deep cuts in Medicaid; it included large tax cuts, too, which meant that the plan wouldn't bring down federal deficits for several decades. But Cole also said that his colleagues had some serious blind spots. "If this were football, some of these guys would know only one play, and that's to throw deep every time," he said. "They don't understand winning incrementally or winning first downs. I admire the zeal, because we have to have that, but it needs to be tempered with a little bit of experience."
Cantor's reputation as a Tea Party leader is a recent development. In his office, he keeps a photograph of a bow-tied Thomas Bliley, the former mayor of Richmond, who represented Cantor's suburban district for two decades, until Cantor succeeded him. Bliley, who is Catholic, and who started out as a Democrat, is now a lobbyist. "He's a real Virginia gentleman," Cantor, who worked as Bliley's driver when he was a student at George Washington University, said. "He really was seen as a uniter." As Bliley created a base in the quickly suburbanizing areas around Richmond, Cantor's parents held meetings in their home to help build up the local Republican Party. In Virginia politics, the Bliley machine is known for its pro-business views, not for its Tea Party adherents. "I learned a lot from him," Cantor said.
After Obama's election in 2008, Cantor started a group called the National Council for a New America, which sought to embrace the idea that the G.O.P. needed to become more moderate. He told reporters that he was reading David Frum and Ross Douthat, two conservative writers at odds with the rightward drift of the Party. The efforts were short-lived. As the Tea Party movement took off, in 2009, Cantor worked to harness its energy. The National Council for a New America shut down a year later, and Cantor co-authored a book, "Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders," with Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, a congressman from California, who is now the third-ranking Republican in the House. They presented themselves as a new wave of small-government conservatives who would help thwart the Obama agenda.
For the first two years of Obama's Presidency, while House Republicans were in the opposition, John Boehner shared Cantor's approach. Things started to change after Republicans took over the chamber in January, 2011. In terms of political intrigue, the relationship between the two men is rivalled only by the complicated partnership of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. When Cantor was aligning himself with the Tea Party right, and Boehner was trying to reach a Grand Bargain with the White House, Boehner deputized Cantor to enter into budget negotiations with Vice-President Joe Biden. He thought that Cantor might be brought into the process, rather than working against the deal from afar. But the arrangement was shattered when Cantor learned that the Speaker was secretly negotiating his own deal, directly with the President. It took the men, and their fiercely competitive staffs, months to repair the rift.
The first test for Cantor in his attempt to alter the Party's trajectory came this winter, as he navigated the maze of fiscal deadlines—the automatic tax hikes, the spending cuts of the sequester, and the debt ceiling. After Election Day, Cantor and Boehner, humbled by the Party's losses, came to agree on strategy and moved quickly on two fronts. First, the election had made a tax increase inevitable—taxes would rise automatically if there was no deal with Obama to avert the fiscal cliff—so Cantor conceded that they would have to return to negotiating with the White House. They were trying, he said, "to straight up do what we really need to have happen, which is: we're going to have to increase taxes, and you can't keep digging the hole deeper, so you got to do something to control spending."
But Boehner and Cantor needed more control over their most unruly faction. A new Congress is a time to evaluate chairmanships and review committee assignments. Controlling such perks is one of the few remaining sources of leverage that senior Republicans have over junior members. House Republican leaders decided to punish four wayward members who had defied their authority in the previous Congress. In early December, the four men—Tim Huelskamp, Justin Amash, Walter Jones, and David Schweikert—were removed from their committees. On Capitol Hill, the event became known as the Purge.
It did not have the intended effect. A few weeks after the episode, Huelskamp was still outraged. I met him in his Capitol Hill office, and he sprang out of his chair to point out some vaguely conspiratorial details that he said didn't add up. Huelskamp, a fifth-generation farmer from Kansas who represents that state's First Congressional District, said that he was being punished for his conservative views, an argument that had made him a minor cause célèbre on Fox News and conservative blogs.
Republicans involved in the decision insisted that the Purge wasn't about ideology. Huelskamp and Amash were removed from the Budget Committee largely because they refused to vote for Ryan's budget in the previous Congress. (Huelskamp also lost his assignment on the Agriculture Committee.) Walter Jones was taken off the Financial Services Committee—a coveted assignment, because members attract enormous sums of money from Wall Street—for not helping to raise money for the Party. David Schweikert had voted the wrong way on two-thirds of the key votes that his leadership tracked in the previous Congress, and, I was told, "there was a strong feeling that he had somehow been responsible for this story that broke about skinny-dipping in the Sea of Galilee," a reference to a story on Politico, last August, about a member of Congress, Kevin Yoder, of Kansas, who, after a night out with other House members and their families, took off his clothes and plunged into the sacred waters upon which Christians believe Jesus once walked. (Schweikert's office insisted that he had nothing to do with the story.)
In a previous era, when House leaders punished errant members, there was little recourse for the congressmen; party committees could withhold campaign funds. But Huelskamp said that he was immune to such pressure, since his support came not from House leaders but from grass-roots conservatives. "They will say, 'Either vote this way or we'll shut your money off,' " he said. "But nobody in Washington elected me, nobody in leadership. Outside groups came and helped me."
He added, "I'm very upset about the lack of leadership. We came in with high hopes and high expectations—the class of 2010!—and left with a big tax increase, a big spending increase, more corporate welfare, and no entitlement reform. If the Republican leadership doesn't look, at a minimum, like it's actually articulated and attempted to advance some conservative principles, then I think we'll lose the majority."
Cantor was unapologetic about the Purge. "There was some sense within the House" that some members "were going out of their way to, let's just say, leverage a certain position against the team as a whole," he told me. "Again, it wasn't their votes. It was the conduct that followed." Still, the episode was a reminder that steering House Republican politics in 2013 could be dangerous. It was not an ideal moment to be peddling a plan to raise taxes.
By early December, Cantor's and Boehner's original plan, to negotiate a fiscal-cliff deal directly with the White House, had begun to trouble House conservatives. Boehner was negotiating the details of the tax hike with Obama, as he had in 2011, but this time Cantor clearly agreed with the strategy and the policy. Cantor was simultaneously trying to reposition a deeply unpopular party and preserve his credibility with the most conservative members of the House. (You never knew when Boehner might quit or be overthrown.) Five days before Christmas, the negotiations with Obama stalled. The White House wouldn't agree to any spending cuts, and a large faction of House Republicans wouldn't proceed without them.
Merely talking to the President had cost Boehner. News of his concessions to Obama were leaking to House conservatives, some of whom no longer trusted him. Tom Price, the Georgia Republican, recalled reading that Boehner had told Obama that he would accept higher tax rates. "That was an 'Oh, please, no, tell me I'm reading the wrong story here' moment," Price said. "People recoiled." According to Huelskamp, at one meeting of the full Republican conference a conservative rose and asked the Speaker if they could please send their own person into the negotiating room with Boehner and Obama.
The effort to reach a deal with the President was Plan A. But Obama, energized by his victory, insisted on a deal that raised taxes far more than Boehner would accept. The Speaker suspended the talks, and, with Cantor's full support, proposed his own plan, and tried to get it through the House. They called it Plan B.
"The purpose of the Speaker's talking with the President was to get something for the additional monies you're asking people to pay in," Cantor said, about the tax increase that they knew they were facing. "When that seemed as if it wasn't going to meet with a lot of reception on the part of our members, we went to Plan B."
In theory, passing Plan B would strengthen Republicans in their negotiations with Obama. But it still entailed passing an income-tax hike, something that Republicans hadn't supported for twenty-two years. Republican dogma held that the 1990 tax increase signed into law by George H. W. Bush had cost him reëlection, in 1992. (The real culprit was probably the recession that year.) For almost a quarter of a century, no policy has been more sacrosanct to the Republican Party than opposition to higher income taxes.
But there was no way around it. The fiscal cliff insured that, at midnight on New Year's Eve, when the vast majority of the Bush-era tax cuts were allowed to expire, taxes would rise for ninety per cent of Americans anyway. The two sides had now agreed to preserve the Bush-era tax cuts for most taxpayers, and the negotiations had narrowed to one issue: the threshold of income at which a sliver of the wealthiest Americans would pay more. Obama's long-standing position was that the trigger should be two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Boehner and Cantor's Plan B set the threshold at a million dollars. At the last minute, Cantor advanced a separate bill with spending cuts that he hoped would attract his most right-wing colleagues to also vote for Plan B. Early on the day Plan B was set to pass, December 20th, Cantor told reporters, "We're going to have the votes."
That night, in the Speaker's Lobby, a hive of ornate rooms, with fireplaces and leather chairs, just behind the rostrum that viewers see on C-SPAN, members of Congress and reporters milled about, trading gossip about the fate of Plan B. Nan Hayworth, the Republican from upstate New York, was sitting a few paces off the floor in an overstuffed chair, explaining how the Tea Party movement in the House had matured. Hayworth is a Princeton-educated doctor, and, like almost half of her 2010 classmates, she had no previous experience in government. Her favorite book is Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson," a 1946 free-market treatise about the long-term economic impact of government policy.
"We came in saying we have got to move on deficit and debt," she said as the House voted on a bill to name a government health clinic in Florida. "We have got to move on the Affordable Care Act. We are on the wrong course. If we don't act, calamity awaits." Instead, she said, "we experienced the process of having our aspirations and our commitments disappointed." The Tea Party, like Obama's most loyal voters after 2008, had been frustrated by the messy reality of the legislative process. "Our supporters looked at the lack of progress and thought, Here we elected this enormous majority in the House of Representatives. We came in with all this enthusiasm and passion, and nothing's getting done." Since Election Day, she believed, members were listening to the leadership, which was trying to set a smarter course for the Party.
Boehner and Cantor entered the floor and cornered potential holdouts. One early vote in the evening suggested trouble. It was on the package of deep spending cuts that Cantor had put on the floor to make the tax increase in Plan B more palatable. Twenty-one Republicans, including Huelskamp and Labrador, the core of the rump faction, voted nay, because the cuts weren't deep enough.
Steve LaTourette, a moderate from Ohio who was retiring, characterized them as "extremists." Hayworth also thought that they were outliers. "All along, the Speaker explained to us, in straightforward but respectful ways, 'Look, guys, just realistically, there are some things you're going to be able to do and some things you're not.' But it took a while for some of us to understand." Hayworth was going to support Plan B. She looked at her phone to make sure she didn't miss the vote. "You know, you can be a revolutionary, but you're not necessarily going to be able to do the long, hard grind of governing."
When we finished talking, Hayworth looked down at her phone again. "That's weird," she said. There was no mention of the vote, but she had a message summoning her to an emergency meeting of Republicans in the basement of the Capitol. She and other members filed down to the meeting room, underneath an area known as the Crypt. Along the way, they walked through the Capitol Rotunda, where the flag-draped coffin of Daniel Inouye was lying in state and two young women stood in tears, grieving.
Inside, Boehner opened the meeting with a prayer made famous by Alcoholics Anonymous: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Then he announced that he didn't have enough votes to pass Plan B, and sent everyone home. Moments later, Hayworth and some two hundred Republicans burst out of the meeting room. Mike Kelly, a heavyset car dealer from western Pennsylvania, shook his head. "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!" he exclaimed. Boehner, grim-faced and flanked by security, marched out a side door. Paul Ryan, who had kept a low profile since November, tried to slip away unnoticed, but was chased down a hall by a pack of reporters shouting questions. "You're confusing me with someone who's commenting," he said.
As the building emptied, I ran into David Dreier, a California Republican who was retiring from Congress after thirty-two years. "I just don't have an easy explanation," Dreier said. "It's a group up here of members who have been outspoken and are ideologically very conservative. I've said for the past four years: I'm a Reagan Republican, which makes me left of center in my party."
On New Year's Day, Cantor was back in the Republican conference room underneath the Crypt, with an announcement to make. Twelve days had passed since the Plan B fiasco. Cantor's first attempt at leadership after the election had failed, leaving Boehner hamstrung in his negotiations with Obama and the Senate. At a White House meeting eight days after Plan B's demise, Boehner was sullen and silent. He refused to engage in the discussions, and instead repeated talking points: the House had done all it could; now the Senate needed to act. The White House and the Senate negotiated a deal to avert most of the tax hikes in the fiscal cliff; Vice-President Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, who led the final talks, agreed to set the crucial threshold for the new tax rate for upper-income individuals at four hundred thousand dollars (and four hundred and fifty thousand dollars for families). With no time left to negotiate anything more substantive, they simply delayed by two months the sequester—$1.2 trillion in spending cuts that, if not averted, could cost the economy an estimated seven hundred and fifty thousand jobs this year. Although some Democrats warned that the delay was foolish, the deadline was kicked to March 1st. The final bill, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, passed the Senate, by 89–8, shortly after 2 A.M. on New Year's Day, after five minutes of debate.
House Republicans had to decide what to do with it. If Cantor had had his way, he would have been in Guadeloupe. "My whole family went on a cruise, and I couldn't go," he told me, glumly; he had to stay in Washington to deal with the fiscal-cliff crisis. His wife, Diana, said, "This was our twenty-third anniversary, and he missed my fiftieth-birthday cruise also." Cantor called every morning to check in on her mother, who lives with them and was on the cruise. "She's his buddy," she said, "so he's calling me to make sure that my mother's happy, that I'm doing enough activities with my mother, because they do crossword puzzles together every night."
A few hours after his daily call, Cantor walked into the meeting room with Boehner—another public show of alliance. Cantor then announced that he couldn't vote for the Biden-McConnell compromise. If Obama was getting new revenues, Republicans had to get spending cuts. "I do not support the bill," he told reporters as he walked out of the meeting. Once again, Cantor had abandoned Boehner at a crucial moment of the negotiations. The Senate bill seemed doomed, and the economy was headed for the cliff.
Later in the day, during a second meeting, Boehner offered his members a stark choice: alter the bill by adding spending cuts to it, and send it back to the Senate, or pass it unamended. Boehner said that he would pursue the amendment approach if two hundred and seventeen Republicans—a majority of the House—favored it. But he warned his colleagues that that would effectively blow up the deal negotiated by Biden and McConnell, and Republicans should prepare to accept the blame for it. A quick count that evening revealed that the votes weren't there for the more radical approach.
In the end, Boehner's bill passed, 257–167, but only eighty-five Republicans, mostly from states that Obama won in 2012, voted for it. Cantor watched the vote from the floor. It was one thing to tell his colleagues that he didn't support the bill, as he had done that morning. But now he had to decide how to vote. When it was clear that the bill would safely pass with Democratic support, he quickly marched down the aisle, voted nay, and left the chamber. The Speaker of the House does not normally vote unless he or she wants to make a statement. But on New Year's Day Boehner voted for the fiscal-cliff deal, which included more than six hundred billion dollars in higher tax revenue over the next decade. After almost two months of unity, the old Boehner-Cantor divisions had broken into the open. And again it was the Speaker, not Cantor, who was trying to lead the Republicans in a more responsible direction. According to a Republican who spoke with Boehner shortly after the drama of New Year's Day, the Speaker was blindsided by Cantor's public opposition to the bill: "He couldn't believe it."
Paul Ryan voted for the bill. Since his failed bid for Vice-President, Ryan has been seen as a potential rival to Cantor for the Speaker's job in a post-Boehner House. "I was torn," Ryan told me. "You get so tied up in these votes, so I just pulled myself out of it and said, 'Look, this has to pass. The deal is not going to get better.' And if I'm saying to people, 'This has to pass,' then I ought to vote for it, you know? It's just not going to get better. I just thought it was important to show some unity at that moment. I understand why people voted against it." Ryan insisted that there was no rivalry with Cantor. "This is nothing but ridiculous palace intrigue, honestly," he said. "I'm a policymaker. If I wanted to be in leadership, I would have run for it years ago."
During my conversation with Cantor in Williamsburg, he seemed uncomfortable talking about his vote on the Senate bill and again pointed to the lack of spending cuts in exchange for the tax increases to which Republicans had acceded. "You cannot keep telling people, 'I'm just going to raise your taxes,' and then not fix the problem!" he told me. He insisted that Boehner knew where he stood. "John and I were very up front with each other," he said. "He and I had met one on one that morning." He added, "It was my impression that we were on the same page. We both didn't like this bill. We both did not like it and both were upset that we couldn't have moved the needle." (Boehner's office said that the two men did not have a one-on-one meeting but that there was a larger leadership meeting that morning at which Cantor made it clear how he would vote.)
I told Cantor that other Republican members were baffled that their leadership was so divided on the issue. "I felt John and I had communicated with each other," Cantor said. "And I felt, you've gotta do something about this problem! You can't just kick the can! And that's what caused me to vote like that. Is it a vote that members like to see? No."
He motioned toward his wife, who had just been joking about her husband living with two liberal Jewish women. "Again, go back to this family, and my getting along with the Jewish women in my life," Cantor said. "You don't agree on everything, O.K.? But you work to find ways that you can move forward together. And I think that's the important takeaway here. You're not getting everything you want in life."
The chaotic resolution of the fiscal cliff left Republicans even more battered. Rather than rejuvenating the Republican identity, Cantor seemed to be doing little more than opportunistically tacking between factions within the House.
And the extremists were invigorated. On January 3rd, the House was to elect its Speaker. Normally, this would be a pro-forma exercise, but Labrador, Huelskamp, and a small band of colleagues had another idea. They would round up enough of their dissatisfied Tea Party colleagues to vote for someone other than Boehner. That would throw the election into a second round of voting, and might produce a more conservative option—Tom Price or even, if they could convince him, Cantor.
Labrador was still irked by the Purge. "I thought it was a mistake for anybody to be punished for their votes or for their actions or for their attitudes," he said. Worse, he added, was that Boehner had insisted on personally trying to cut a deal with Obama after the election and then agreed to raise taxes. "I agree that the President won, and I agree that the President had a mandate to propose what he wanted to propose. It doesn't mean that my mandate is the same as his mandate. I won my election as well." Many House Republicans said the same thing after the election. "We're the first branch of government," Labrador said. "We don't have a king. We don't have an emperor."
The attempt to unseat Boehner was so ill-conceived that a Times reporter dubbed it the Keystone Coup. The plotters had openly discussed it at Bullfeathers, a Capitol Hill bar frequented by congressional staffers, some of whom overheard the details and leaked them to Bloomberg Businessweek. On the morning of the vote, Huelskamp was photographed on the House floor with his iPad; right there, open in an e-mail, was a list of congressmen whom he expected to vote against Boehner. The subject line, visible to reporters, said, "You would be fired if this goes out."
Labrador said that the plot would have succeeded had several of the Republicans not lost their nerve. "I just decided that I was going to follow through with what I said I was going to do, even though other people decided that they were going to change their mind," he said. In the end, twelve Republicans did not vote for Boehner—a historically high vote of no confidence. Cantor received three votes. During the roll call on the House floor, Cantor grimaced and shook his head when his name was called out as a replacement for Boehner.
I asked Cantor what he was thinking at that moment. "That we don't need that," he said. "That I am one hundred fifty per cent behind John Boehner as Speaker." He insisted that the plotters were motivated by stories in the press that overhyped the idea of a split between the two leaders. "Where did they get their information to go and make their decisions?" he said, noting that two of the votes he received were from freshmen who barely knew him. "What do they know, really? I only met them a couple of times." He added, "That's why I was shaking my head. 'Here we go again!' "
Nevertheless, Labrador said he thought that the episode sent a useful reminder to the leaders. The next big fight was already coming. The Treasury was about to hit the debt ceiling, sometime in middle to late February. Unless Congress agreed to authorize the government to borrow new money, the United States wouldn't be able to pay its bills and would default on its loans, which could trigger a global economic crisis. Labrador wanted House leaders to be willing to hit the debt ceiling unless Obama agreed to spending cuts.
On January 15th, a few hours after I left his office, Labrador joined a hundred and seventy-eight other Republicans who voted against a fifty-billion-dollar relief package for areas in coastal New York and New Jersey that had been wracked by Hurricane Sandy. It was the second time that month that major legislation passed the House with a majority of Democratic votes. This time, Cantor voted for the bill.
So did Tom Cole. He was dumbfounded that so many of his colleagues voted against the fiscal-cliff deal. "These guys have no endgame," he said. "I mean, they just are so desperate to do something that they don't think past their nose. And that's the dangerous part of this." He added that he couldn't understand what the opponents of the deal believed they were accomplishing: "I saw one of them on television who said, 'Well, Obama will cave.' Really? With all the polls running in his direction, his popularity moving up, ours in the tank? He's not going to cave. Some of these guys will hold a political gun to their head and threaten the President: 'Do what I want or I'll pull the trigger!' Like he cares?"
The divisions had to be repaired before the fight over the debt ceiling. "We have to have a unified leadership with a clear strategy," Cole said. "We cannot afford to go through a situation again, as we did with the fiscal cliff, where four leaders vote one way and five vote the other."
In Williamsburg, back in January, Cantor was pondering his party's position on the debt ceiling. A vote to raise it would allow the Treasury to borrow money to pay its bills, but many conservatives, like Labrador, hated the idea of voting to increase the debt. But if the ceiling wasn't raised a government default and economic catastrophe could follow. It wasn't clear whether Cantor would ultimately side with Raúl Labrador or with Tom Cole.
Before he arrived at the restaurant that afternoon, Cantor, together with Boehner, had led a panel called "The Next 90 Days—Planning for the First Quarter," which turned into a debate about the Republican strategy for dealing with the debt ceiling. The most conservative Republicans argued that, if Obama wouldn't yield on more spending cuts, a nay vote on the debt ceiling would prove to the President, and to Tea Party constituents, that they were serious about cutting the size of the government. The Party's consultants and its business class warned that such a path was suicidal. Cantor hinted at his inclination. "I think the way forward is that we need to be on grounds where the public understands why it is we're doing what we're doing," he told me. He said he had figured a way out of the dilemma.
A few days later, he was standing in his Capitol Hill office beside a crackling fire; he was about to go and vote. Cantor and his staff occupy a sprawling space on the third floor of the Capitol (rather than in one of the far-flung House office buildings). An elevator off the main corridor of the Capitol delivers visitors directly to his suite. Cantor and his aides explained that, after a fierce debate at the retreat, he and Boehner, back in a temporary alliance, had persuaded their G.O.P. colleagues to drop their threat to use the debt ceiling to extract spending cuts from Obama. "Hoo!" he told me. "We had some robust discussion."
They still didn't have a solid majority. Cantor descended a narrow spiral staircase at the end of the hallway outside his office. He looked at his BlackBerry to see what bill he was about to vote on—"the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness reauthorization," he said. In the House, there is always a stack of uncontroversial votes that the leadership can use to buy time; the votes were bait to lure Republicans to the floor so that the Party's whips, who are in charge of vote-counting, could make sure that the debt-ceiling vote, which was scheduled for the following day, didn't turn into another embarrassment, like Plan B. Nobody knew what the Democrats were planning. If they voted against the Cantor plan as a bloc, the Republicans would need to supply two hundred and seventeen votes. On the morning of the Plan B vote, Cantor had famously declared that it would pass. This time, as he walked through the Capitol Rotunda to the House floor, a reporter shouted a question about the prospects for the vote. Cantor ignored him.
As the whips made their rounds, Cantor retreated to another suite that he maintains, just off Statuary Hall, the old House Chamber. Obama had given his Inaugural Address the previous evening, laying out a program that included tax and immigration reform and emphasized support for gay marriage and gun control. Conservative columnists and radio hosts were condemning it. Cantor was diplomatic. "I'm cautiously optimistic," he said. "I think he checked the box with some of those who are in the base on his side. If he's interested in wanting to work with us, we're going to be there waiting and interested to do so. We really need to be focussed on trying to accomplish something, being results-oriented, and not beating our chests."
Cantor seems newly pained by his reputation as an ideological roadblock. In Virginia, his favorable rating is twenty-seven per cent, a fact that makes a statewide run for office in the near future a dim prospect. Cantor explained why he argued at the retreat against using the debt ceiling as political leverage. He had been hearing from donors on Wall Street and in the business community about the potential impact on the markets. "Most people would say incurring debt at this point is allowing money for bills that you already incurred," he said. "It's to pay the bills." Eight days earlier, at a press conference, Obama had made the same argument.
Besides, there were better fights to come. Conceding the debt-ceiling vote was a simple way for House Republicans to prevent the U.S. government from going into default, which would be disastrous for the economy here and abroad. It also meant they could save their leverage for the coming fight over the automatic spending cuts in the sequester. "We're not trying to sit here and just obstruct," Cantor said. "We're trying to solve the problem, and we've been put in this position, I guess, perception-wise, that all we want to do is obstruct. So this is an attempt for us to get on firmer ground."
To win over the right, House leaders promised three things. They would demand that the Democratic-controlled Senate write a formal budget, which Senate Democrats have avoided doing for several years; if the senators didn't pass a budget, they wouldn't get paid. Second, they promised conservatives that the cuts in the sequester would be kept intact or replaced with something equivalent. The final promise was far more daunting: Paul Ryan would write a budget that balanced within ten years. "Big goal," Cantor said, and he sounded relieved that it wouldn't be his job; Ryan's last budget, which included severe spending cuts, didn't promise to come into balance until the late twenty-thirties. "People were concerned that it took too long to balance," Ryan said. To make the budget balance in a decade, the level of cuts will have to be extreme. Cantor may have led his colleagues out of the debt-ceiling canyon only to get them trapped in another one.
I pointed out that, because the fiscal-cliff deal included more than six hundred billion dollars in higher taxes over the next ten years, Ryan's job might be a little easier. Cantor flashed a mischievous grin. "Irony!" he said.
The next day, at the White House, as the House was voting on Cantor's debt-ceiling legislation, Rob Nabors and Dan Pfeiffer sat in Nabors's spacious office, on the second floor of the West Wing, and discussed Obama's legislative strategy. Since 2011, Nabors had been the director of the President's Office of Legislative Affairs, which put him in charge of figuring out how to move Obama's agenda through the House and the Senate. Pfeiffer, who, like Nabors, previously worked on Capitol Hill, was Obama's communications director. (A few days later, Nabors was promoted to deputy chief of staff for policy, and Pfeiffer was promoted to senior adviser, the position previously held by David Axelrod and then David Plouffe.)
Pfeiffer thought that the G.O.P.'s retreat on the debt ceiling was the first rational move the House Republican leaders had made since the election. "They knew at the end of the day that they would be forced to extend the debt ceiling," he said. "They saw in advance that they were holding this ticking time bomb, and they gave it away." As he finished his sentence, an aide said, "The bill just passed. Two-eighty-five to one-forty-four." Boehner and Cantor had made some progress; only thirty-three Republicans had voted against it.
The legislation merely delayed the fight over the debt ceiling until mid-May. In its place, Cantor and the House Republicans had engineered the battle over the sequester, which would begin on March 1st. Cantor viewed the various fiscal deadlines as what his aides referred to as hot stoves. "One is particularly hot," Steve Stombres, Cantor's chief of staff, said. "You touch the debt limit and you go into default, and that could be irreparable damage to our economy. But we felt like we could handle the heat of the sequester. We just needed to get them sequenced correctly and use that as an opportunity. The sequester was in place, and the members don't want to give up that money, those cuts."
Cantor seems to have absorbed a few lessons since the November election. The first is that his own unpopularity has become an impediment to the Republican cause. During our last conversation, over breakfast at a hotel in Richmond, he repeatedly returned to his dismay over the partisan "rancor in Washington" and expressed the hope that "we could bring people together more," because "I don't think accentuating the differences is helping anybody." This acknowledgment counts as a victory for the White House, which hoped that the election would "break the fever" and raise the cost of G.O.P. obstructionism.
Cantor had also come to see that when House Republicans returned to power in 2011 they were unrealistic about their expectations. "The job right now is, first of all, accepting the fact that although we're a majority in the House, we are a minority in Washington," he said. "It's run by the Democrats, and so we've got to be smart about how we go forward." Boehner repeatedly reminds House Republicans that they control only "one-half of one-third of Washington." Similarly, at the retreat, Paul Ryan told reporters that Republicans "have to recognize the realities of the divided government that we have."
Finally, Cantor reaffirmed his belief that the best way to win the winter and spring budget fights is by making short-term adjustments in public relations, not major changes in policies. As he sees it, Republicans face a marketing challenge: the problem is the box, not the pizza. In early February, before he was set to deliver a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, he invited me to join him at a luncheon in an A.E.I. conference room with some dozen people who he said would be affected by the policies that he was going to discuss from the lectern. He said that the fiscal battles with Obama over taxes and spending had left his side sounding like budget scolds, speaking an alien language of Washington jargon ("austerity," "sequester," "debt ceiling"). Just as those blue dots in the laundry detergent are only an abstract feature until you know that they provide the benefit of cleaner clothes, Cantor wanted to show that Republican fiscal policies "make life work" for average Americans, a group of whom he had assembled for the lunch.
Joseph Kelley, who lives in Washington, had been invited to explain the benefits of school choice, or vouchers, which had allowed him to take his four children out of a crime-ravaged public school and send them to the private Preparatory School of D.C. Erin Shucosky, who wore a neck brace, was there to highlight a tax on medical devices that passed as part of Obama's 2010 health-care law. A twelve-year-old girl who has battled cancer, an area of federal research that Cantor has long championed, sat at the end of the table. Fiona Zhou, a Chinese graduate student in engineering at George Washington University, was the beneficiary of a visa program that Cantor wants to expand. "Majority Leader Eric Cantor interviewed me about my experience," she said. "So I guess he's using my case for the speech."
Cantor entered the room and greeted everyone. "I know it's been a lot of pain, but we appreciate you doing it," he told Shucosky. He thanked the group for coming and explained that he wanted "to make sure that people understand that the issues that we're trying to grapple with here in Washington have a real personal impact on real people."
Shucosky talked about the arthritis in her neck and the costly surgery that she had had. She hoped that the government would help bring down health-care costs rather than increase them. The comment piqued the interest of Kelley. "If I heard correctly, certain other countries, they get free medical?" he asked. "Is that true?"
Cantor sighed. Free health care was not on his list of issues. "Well, it's different in every country," he explained. "There are a lot of people who don't have insurance here and can't access it, and that's why the President's health-care bill that passed attempts to go in and allow for everyone to have health care. And we're grappling with the expense."
Afterward, Cantor went upstairs to give his speech. His aides had been planning the address for weeks. That morning, they had learned that Obama would be simultaneously delivering remarks about the sequester, an issue that Cantor's speech purposely avoided. There was something surreal about what Cantor was attempting. The looming sequester, which would slash spending across the government, was created by both parties, after the failure of the Grand Bargain, in 2011, as a purposely odious policy, in order to force the two sides to reach a more rational plan to reduce long-term deficits. Now House Republicans wanted the sequester to go into effect—and were blaming Obama for creating it. I asked Cantor about the disconnect between his speech, which highlighted real Americans who would theoretically be helped by future G.O.P. policies, and the real-world and immediate impact of the sequester. "What's our choice, right?" he said. "There seemed to be no interest whatsoever on the part of the White House or the Senate to act. It's up to the President to lead."
Cantor spoke about school choice, tax reform, expanding visas. After the speech, he rode back to the Capitol and met privately with House Republicans to discuss one of the policies he had emphasized: a policy that would allow workers to convert overtime compensation into time off. "I gave a talk today about helping people and about finally focussing on legislation that has understandable benefits right away," Cantor said. He explained that it would help parents who wanted to go on a field trip or attend a teacher conference. "What I want to see is how we can communicate this, communicate the benefit. How are we going to build a coalition and get it done?"
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, of Florida, excused herself halfway through the session and left; the meeting seemed to have been convened mostly for the edification of the one reporter in the room. Cantor asked Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the fourth-ranking Republican leader, if the legislation was ready yet. "We're still kind of in the exploratory stage, but we are looking at some child-care bills, and not quite ready at this point to bring them forward," she said. "But we're working on it."
"O.K., I get it," Cantor said. "There's always . . ." His voice trailed off. "O.K., anybody else have anything?" The room went silent. "All right, thank you. Thank you very much."
Some of the media greeted Cantor's public speech with ridicule. Politico called it "Cantor 4.0" and noted that he has a history of championing the latest political craze. His attempts to reorient himself seemed ham-handed and overly political. But the problem extends beyond Cantor's personal limitations. The real trouble is that the Republican Party cannot be transformed by the leadership of the House of Representatives. House Republicans as a group are farther to the right than they have ever been. The overwhelming majority still fear a primary challenge from a more conservative rival more than a general-election campaign against a Democrat. They may hope that the Party's national brand improves enough to help win the White House in 2016, but there is little incentive for the average member of the House to moderate his image.
The House is rarely the source of renewal for a political party. In the nineteen-eighties, during a low point for the Democrats, it was Democratic governors like Bill Clinton, not the unpopular Democratic-controlled House, who pointed the way out of the wilderness for the Party. Major change almost always comes from a party's aspiring Presidential candidates, and almost never from the House. In Richmond, before my last conversation with Cantor, Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, who may run for President in 2016, spoke at an annual political breakfast hosted by Cantor. Jindal's target was Obama, but his remarks were an implicit rebuke to House Republicans for becoming mired in a series of unnecessary fiscal crises that are of their own making, and which have kept them from dealing with other issues. "These are, in reality, sideshows in Washington that we have allowed to take center stage in our country," Jindal said. "As conservatives, we are falling into the sideshow trap."
Days after Cantor told me that he wanted to rise above the budget squabbling, he was back in the thick of the fight over the sequester—a policy that, whether he deems it a sideshow or not, will have a more immediate impact on real Americans than any of the issues he mentioned in his think-tank speech. Ryan's new budget, which is scheduled to be released in March and will include dramatic cuts, will again leave the Republican Party defending fiscal policies that do not enjoy majority support. (Ryan brushed off the coming attacks. "I'm used to that," he said. "We're going to get demagogued no matter what we do. It's like 'Groundhog Day.' ") Unsurprisingly, when I asked Cantor if he was interested in running for President he responded with a resounding no. He seems to be settling in for a period of relatively low expectations.
"We all want to hope for winning the lottery, you know?" he told me at the end of our last meeting. "We all want to hope for going to the land of Oz. I love that. I mean, that's what Hollywood is about. That's what the press likes to write about—the extremes. But I think reality is you've got to be reasoned in your leadership, and it's about managing expectations and about staying true to your principles." ♦


text:
Nokia won't be releasing any Windows Phone 7 handsets until Microsoft has pushed through its major OS update later in the year, codenamed 'Mango'.
Stephen Elop, CEO of Nokia, has been cagey about a Nokia Windows Phone UK release date and now, according to sources, the company is going to play the waiting game for the new OS update, which means we won't see any handsets this side of October.
Nokia not in seventh heaven
Nokia has been very careful to not mention that the company will be offering Windows Phone 7 handsets, which makes a lot of sense given that the upcoming Mango update is looking increasingly likely to be called Windows Phone 7.5.
Mango is being seen as a major refresh of the current Windows Phone 7 OS and will act as bridge between Windows Phone 7 and the launch of Windows Phone 8 in 2012.
Elop has stated that we will see the Windows Phone operating system on a Nokia device this year, but the company will be shipping them "in volume" in 2012.
Via the Guardian

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Kresher Capital closes on three real estate acquisitions in Denver
Kresher Capital LLC is creating a footprint in Denver's LoDo and RiNo neighborhoods, completing three acquisitions totaling $13.5 million within 45 days.
Kresher closed on properties at 1720 Wynkoop and 3001 Walnut at the end of 2012 and is set to close on a property at 3012 Huron in the coming weeks.
The most notable of the deals was the acquisition of commercial retail totaling $7.1 million at 1720 Wynkoop. The units front Union Station and include tenants such as Venice, Morton's Steakhouse, The Salon and Paradise Cleaners.
Another notable acquisition was done with Epic Brewing Co. The Salt Lake City microbrewery signed a lease with Kresher Capital, concurrently purchasing the building and allowing the brewery to expand into Colorado. Epic signed a 20,000-square-foot lease and plans for production and distribution, as well as a tap room at the location.
Kresher says it will close soon on a fully leased, 29,000-square-foot office property at 3012 Huron in the Prospect Park neighborhood. The property includes adjoining parking spaces.
Ryan Arnold, vice president with Jones Lang LaSalle's Denver team, represented Kresher in the acquisition of 3012 Huron and was instrumental in the closing of 3001 Walnut.
Kresher — a private, equity investment group focused on real estate lending and acquisition opportunities which has offices in Colorado, Florida and New York — said it hopes to continue growing its Colorado market share.
"Kresher is continually looking to expand its real estate acquisition and lending business in Colorado," said Kresher's Patrick Dunn. "We are happy with the risk-adjusted returns offered in the Colorado marketplace as evident from the performance of both our lending and direct investment platforms.
"We are very excited about investment opportunities in certain metro areas, and Denver is right at the top. Kresher fully expects to substantially expand our lending business in conjunction with closing on opportunistic real estate investments in the Denver area over the coming years."


text:
February 06, 2008
Muhammad Yunus is blazing another trail in his constant search for new and often unconventional ideas for confronting poverty, head-on. Just as Grameen Bank revolutionized banking with its bottom-up approach, I believe his latest initiative—social business—has the power to transform the way societal problems such as poverty, ill-health and even environmental degradation are addressed.
We have already seen that transformative effect in the success of two social businesses, each one pioneered by Professor Yunus. Grameen-Danone has become operational and shows the potential to significantly improve the nutrition of Bangladeshi children while providing real economic opportunities to local communities. Grameen Green Children Eye Hospital will provide valuable eye care services with the goal of alleviating cataracts, which afflict hundreds of thousands of people in Bangladesh. The first hospital opened in 2007, and three more are planned.
Grameen Foundation has been involved in the successful creation of two social businesses, both of which are mentioned in Dr. Yunus' new book. One is Grameen-Jameel Pan-Arab Microfinance Limited, a joint venture between Grameen Foundation and the Abdul Latif Jameel Group that advances microfinance in the Arab World. The second, Grameen Capital India, is a collaboration of Grameen Foundation, the Institute for Financial Management and Research (IFMR) Trust of India and Citicorp Finance (India) Limited (CFIL). These social businesses have already shown that by combining the responsive, ever-evolving nature of a capitalist business with the passion inherent in a social change-focused organization, we can create a model in which performance is measured in social impact, and its market value is influenced by the extent to which societal problems are solved.
The microfinance sector can make great gains in expanding its outreach and moving closer to social and financial sustainability through embracing the social business model of for-profit, non-dividend companies with an overarching social purpose. Agree? Disagree? What other strategies can microfinance embrace to propel themselves forward? How can other social businesses model the examples set by microfinance-based social business to enact their own changes, and how can those businesses synergize with MFIs?
Alex Counts is the President and CEO of Grameen Foundation.
I am totally convinced that social business provides a powerful framework for vastly leveraging the impact of social development work. My background is in the nonprofit social change organizations and foundations, and at least in the U.S. there is a tendency to assume that every new social development project should form a nonprofit 501 c 3 organization and start raising grant support. While this certainly has an important place in our society, it creates from the start a dependent relationship on philanthropy that can be very difficult to overcome (and usually neither the goal nor an legal framework for operating a financially self sufficient operation are established).
Even before Grameen Danone, it strikes me that the Grameen Bank itself is a social business (as opposed to a non-profit) and that this structure is one critical element behind its success in going to scale and working with so many people.
I am creating a social business franchise network in California called TeamWorks. We have the first affiliate, a cleaning business with seven member-owners, operating self-sufficiently in Silicon Valley. Members pull themselves out of poverty by securing much better pay for themselves, getting health insurance, and having long-term assets build in their capital accounts within the business that are financed by profits. Members also learn all kinds of new skills and encouraged to identify and work towards their own goals.
We have a separate entity that provides technical assistance and is now starting new affiliates. Many people suggested early on that this central organization should be a non-profit and seek grants, but I have insisted that it too be a social business (our businesses are organized as LLCs). The affiliates pay 5% of their gross revenues as membership dues to the network's central entity. In the short term, this has made the challenge of getting launched much more difficult financially because this membership fee is initially providing only very modest revenue for the central organization.
In the last year we have been figuring out how to finance expansion -- people's assumptions are that since we are not a non-profit, we can't get grants and since our founding documents forbid investors from making money off the businesses then we can't get traditional investment either. What we have done is established a partnership with non-profit community development organization to host our own TeamWorks Capital Fund. We are now securing grants that go it the Fund, which then makes "equity-like" loans to the new TeamWorks affiliates we are launching.
We get some head scratching at first, but funders are starting to understand and get excited about it. As the network gains steam, it will eventually be able to finance much of its own expansion and will not need any philanthropic investment -- and it will be able to create opportunities for many more low-income people to become co-business owners and improve their lives.
I am so grateful for Professor Yunus' new book as it helps define and give legitimacy to this new arena of work. More specifically, he has drawn a very clear distinction from the "triple bottom-line" ventures out there that are attempting to make money for investors and do social good at the same time. More power to them when they pull it off, but I appreciate Yunus laying out the potential pitfalls and clarifying the distinctions of the "social business" model -- this has been very helpful to us.
Great post, Alex. It is wonderful to hear that Grameen Foundation is a pioneer in the social business field as well with your Grameen-Jameel Pan-Arab Microfinance Limited and Grameen Capital India.
Social business can be a very powerful tool to address social needs. Instead of focusing on profits and wealth creation, the creative energy and organization power of a social business can focus on solving social problems using an entrepreneurial model. With enough profits to cover expenses, the entity can be sustainable and expand over time to reach more people.
My social business, MyLocalCause.com LLC, is a blog based social network for high school and college students who want to make a difference in their communities by creating new service projects (tutoring, recycling, stream cleanup, etc.) and expanding the work of existing non-profits.
So, students and non-profits register for free blogs and then tell their friends and family members to view their blog and buy books/music/electronics/etc. using affiliate ads to generate commissions for their local cause.
A prototype website is set up at MyLocalCause.com. We are transitioning over to more powerful servers and the popular WordPress blogging software over the next two weeks.
[The grameenfoundation.mylocalcause.com blog is a prototype that offers links to your website and GF donation page. Email me for more details about the new site.]
Kevin Gormley
Like many would realize now that they have been emplying social business concept without using the name "Social Businee". However we are entering the new era of Social Business and this can be the panacea to poverty. Its success is really in our mind set. Do you need to be a millionaire tomorrow or end of the year? Lets think about it,there is so much money in the world today, even with the financial crisis at our door steps, so much that with unselfish distribution we can all have proper clean water, sanitation, 3 meals a day etc. But our greediness prevents this from happening. This is the era of appealing to moral well being and revisit our economic, social political frameworks with morality on the centre stage!!!!!
As soon as humans can learn to live without greed, then we will end poverty..


text:
Please click on a question from the list below - the answer will then appear on the right-hand side of the page. Alternatively, you can view our First Visit or our Main Help page.
We hope the information above will answer your question, but you can also or call us on 0345 071 9026.
Is it safe to shop online?
Shopping online with us is safe, and we take the utmost care to ensure your personal details remain private. When you enter the checkout process, the sign-in process, or the account management area, you are taken through our secure server. Our secure server encrypts all of your personal information including your credit/debit card number, account number, name and address, and all other personal information, so that it cannot be accessed or read as the information travels over the Internet. You can therefore remain assured that shopping with us online is safe and secure.
Our site is also ISIS (Internet Shopping Is Safe) verified by the Interactive Media Retail Group (IMRG).
Our site is also Verified by Visa and MasterCard SecureCode compliant. They are two systems that help combat fraud by providing greater protection to our customers when they shop online. Both operate in an identical manner - one applies if you using a Visa card and the other if you are using a MasterCard or Maestro branded card to pay for your online transaction. Further information about Verified by Visa and MasterCard Securecode can be found by clicking on the links below:
If you prefer not to send your credit or debit card number over the Internet, simply call us on 0871 230 0867 (Calls cost 13p per minute plus your phone company's access charge) or contact us for more information.
How do I unsubscribe from your emailing list?
If you no longer wish to receive details of our special offers and promotions, simply send an email to email@example.com confirming that you wish to be removed from the emailing list. Please make sure that you send the request from the email address that you want to unsubscribe.
Why can't I find an item number?
From time to time certain items may sell out, and in these cases we will remove them from the websites. However, if we receive new stocks of the item, we will make them available again, so it can be worthwhile searching for the item again at a later date.
Why haven't I received email confirmation of my order?
We send out email confirmations as soon as we receive your order. Please check that you have given us your correct email address (the address we hold can be viewed in the 'Your Account' section). If this address is correct, please allow 24 hours before contacting us as the email may have been delayed, for example by problems with your email provider.
Where do you deliver?
We are able to deliver goods to anywhere in the UK. Unfortunately we cannot deliver to addresses outside of the UK or to BFPO addresses.
Can I cancel an order?
Providing your order has not been prepared for despatch you can cancel your order by contacting us or calling our customer services on 0345 071 9026.
Why haven't I received my order?
Most of our items will be delivered to you within 7 working days (this excludes weekends).
If you feel that your item has not arrived within the expected period please Contact Us.
Why isn't the website working properly for me?
On the rare occasions that you may experience a problem when using the website, please contact us with as much detail of the problem as you can - any error messages that were displayed, as well as your browser type and version, are especially useful and will help us investigate the problem quicker. We will then contact you to advise you of our findings and how to overcome the problem.
Why won't the website accept my address?
Please double check the details you have entered are correct, especially that the postcode and the street name have been entered correctly.
If you still have difficulties, please contact us with your account number and address details and we will be happy to make the changes for you.
What happens if I forget my password or account number?
If you forget your password or account number, you can request a reminder of these details to be emailed to you. To do this, click the 'Sign in' link to go to the sign in page. Underneath the normal sign in area, there are links titled 'Forgotten Account Number' and 'Forgotten Password'. Click the relevant link, fill in the details on the next page and click the 'Sign In' button. You will then be signed in to the site (with restricted access to account management areas of the site) and we will email you a reminder.
Do I have to set up a personal account to shop with House of Bath?
In order to place an order with us, or to use the account management features, you will need to sign in to the site. You can either sign in with an existing account if you have one, or you will need to create an account.
If you create an account, pay for your purchases using your credit or debit card as you place your order.
Where can I read your Terms & Conditions?
The Terms and Conditions of the site are available by clicking the ' Terms and Conditions' link at the foot of every page.
How can I make a payment on my account?
You can pay your account online, over the phone or by post. To pay online, simply sign in to your account on the website and select the 'Your Account' link, followed by click the 'Account Balance and Payment' link. You can then pay online instantly using a variety of debit and credit card
Do I have to be there to sign for delivery?
Sometimes you may have to sign for your delivery. Please see our Delivery Service Policy. We will leave you a card notifying you of the time and date we attempted delivery. If we have successfully left your parcel in a safe place or with a neighbour the card will contain these details. If your parcel has not been delivered the card will contain contact details so that you can arrange an alternate time to deliver to you.
How much do I have to pay on my balance?
If you have a balance outstanding on your Personal Account, you will receive a statement through the post every 28 days. Your minimum payment is shown at the bottom of your current statement and will include any other payments such as Total Cover (Whats This?) if applicable. You can choose to pay the minimum payment on your account, or you can pay your balance in full. The choice is entirely yours. You can check your current balance anytime by clicking on Your Account and then choosing the option of Account balance and Payment.
Have you received my returned items?
You can check if we have received your returns online with Your Account services. If you click on Your Account you will see the option Account transactions, just click on this option and you will be able to view your received returns in seconds. Please allow up to 14 days for your returns to show.
Can I use my own packaging to return items?
Yes you can use your own packaging to return items. Please ensure you provide us with your name, address, account number, the reason why you are returning the item and the receipt.
Please keep a copy of the receipt for your own records.
How can I use the promotion codes that I have received through the post/email?
Do you have a promotional code you want to use? It is really easy. When you are on the 'Shopping Bag' page, promotional codes can be entered in the 'Add Promotional Code' box. Selecting the 'Apply' button will present the details of the promotional code. You can then select the 'Add to Bag' button to add the discount / free gift to your bag. Your Promotional Code will be four letters followed by a number. The Promotional Code will have an expiry date and can only be used once.
Why isn't my payment card accepted?
Please be aware that certain locally issued Visa and Mastercards will not be accepted on our website. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.
What should I do if I change my name or address?
Unfortunately you are unable to change the name registered against your account. If you change your name you will have to reregister and create a new account. Once you have activated your new account please use it for all future orders.
If you wish to change your registered address please login to your account and make the appropriate changes. Please note that you are only able to change your address to one within the same country as was registered against the account. If you have changed your country of residence you will have to reregister and create a new account.
If I buy a product online can I return it to a store?
If you buy clothing, footwear or accessories on the High and Mighty website and these are items that are sold in our retail stores then they can be returned through the retail network. Simply take your product, in its original packaging along with your Advice Note to the store. The store will provide you with a 'Returns Note' and organise for the product to be returned to the warehouse. The card that you paid with will be refunded within 14 days by our customer services team. Colleagues will NOT be able to refund cards within the store; it can ONLY be done by our customer services team.
None of the Home or Electrical products can be returned via stores.
If I buy a product in store can I return it through the courier or Royal Mail?
No, products bought in our retail stores can only be returned to our retail stores.


text:
Obama issues cybersecurity order
President Barack Obama used his State of the Union stage Tuesday to issue a highly anticipated executive order meant to safeguard the nation's power plants, water systems and other forms of critical infrastructure against crippling cyberattacks.
The eight-page order represents a major attempt to shore up the country's digital defenses against the new threats emerging from China, Iran and elsewhere — though it will require later intervention by a divided Congress and relies, at least for now, almost entirely on industry support.
Story Continued Below
The president's actions begin a process that would encourage the nation's most significant systems — from the power grid to the financial sector — to adopt baseline security standards meant to stave off foreign hackers and digital spies.
The order also aims to help companies and the government share specific data about emerging cyberthreats — a capability long sought by Washington and Wall Street alike.
"We know hackers steal people's identities and infiltrate private email. We know foreign countries and companies swipe our corporate secrets. Now our enemies are also seeking the ability to sabotage our power grid, our financial institutions and our air traffic control systems," Obama said Tuesday, before urging Congress to act quickly and pass legislation that "gives our government a greater capacity to secure our networks and deter attacks."
"We cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing in the face of real threats to our security and our economy," the president added.
Release of the order concludes months of White House work and private-sector outreach, which began in 2012 as Congress failed repeatedly to find any consensus on legislation.
The order's debut is only more impactful mere weeks after cyberattacks targeted The New York Times, Twitter, the nation's top banks and a slew of other critical institutions. Some of those unrelated incidents, while catalytic, aren't necessarily covered under the White House's latest effort — but they have injected a renewed seriousness into a long-stalled debate.
Specifically, the new executive order tasks the federal government with working alongside private companies to develop voluntary cybersecurity standards — a set of best practices, so to speak, that industry could choose to implement.


text:
The MXS 3.8 is a fully automatic 'connect and forget' 12V charger with 7 charging steps and offers selectable 0.8A, and 3.8A programes. It offers a wide
charging range on all lead-acid battery types from 1.2Ah up to 80Ah with additional maintenance capabilities to 130Ah.
The MXS 3.8 is IP 65 classified (splash and dust proof), it is easy and safe to use, protects vehicle electronics, is spark-free, reverse polarity protected
and short circuit proof.
The MXS 3.8 is delivered with 5-year manufacturers warranty.
Charging current: 3,8A max
Charger type: 7 step, fully automatic charging cycle
Battery capacity: 1.2–80Ah up to 130Ah for maintenance
More information...
Copyright © 2019 HEX Diagnostics


text:
Parent Directory | Revision Log
|Links to HEAD:
|(view) (download) (annotate)
Fix patch count on first clone (by vikraman).
store darcs cache in DISTDIR
merge @THANKS into @AUTHOR as @THANKS does not exist
Use 'darcs get --lazy' instead of 'darcs get --partial' (gone in darcs-2.8).
Switch from ESCM_OFFLINE var to EVCS_OFFLINE (bug #410467 by Ulrich Müller). Don't skip _darcs/ when checkout to $WORKDIR. Add 'rsync' to DEPENDS.
Update copyright years in headers
fix random bugs in eclass documentation, and convert to new @AUTHOR tag
Add ESCM_OFFLINE variable support. Cleaned-up an eclass. Make it 'eclass-manpages' friendly. Thanks to Alexander Vershilov for ESCM_OFFLINE support (bug #353052) and thanks to mren <email@example.com> for documentation support (bug #211221)
darcs.eclass: export EDARCS_PATCHCOUNT: var shows amount of patches in pulled repository This feature is requested for 'app-portage/smart-live-rebuild' program (already provided by other SCM eclasses) (bug #343581) Thre request and implementation hints by Alexander Vershilov <firstname.lastname@example.com>. Implementation by Michał Górny <firstname.lastname@example.com>. Thank you, guys!
convert to eshopts_{push,pop} (bug #328869) Thanks to Mike Frysinger <firstname.lastname@example.com> for the report and fix.
Update darcs.eclass to use dev-vcs/darcs instead of dev-util/darcs.
Makes *-darcs work with newer portage and pkgcore. Patch by firstname.lastname@example.com.
Make the darcs eclass copy using rsync instead of cp like most other SCM eclasses to exclude the _darcs directory. Patch by Avuton Olrich <firstname.lastname@example.com>.
Don't change the PWD in darcs_src_unpack (eclass/darcs.eclass)
Restore shopt settings after changing them, fixing bug #160342.
removing basename call in global scope; calling darcs get with --partial by default
Use --set-scripts-executable by default for get/pull in darcs.eclass. Fixes bug #136460.
added new darcs eclass
This form allows you to request diffs between any two revisions of this file. For each of the two "sides" of the diff, select a symbolic revision name using the selection box, or choose 'Use Text Field' and enter a numeric revision.
|ViewVC Help
|Powered by ViewVC 1.1.20


text:
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
Sorry for the delay in me responding, I haven't had time to dedicate to posting. .. still don't.
My god, you have the patience of a saint: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post521152
Ah, damn, I missed your post, I guess you saw that already. Oh well, I make the reasoning explicit, anyways.
I finally got this damn thing: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...027#post509027
The solution is subtle, but after you realize the error, obvious.
Yo. What up?
Hey sorry, I haven't been able to login for like 6 months, lol, finally remembered my password. I'll check out your thread.
Just noticed the rep you gave (yes it's already several days old!)--thanks!
I agree that providing a counter-example works better. But it can be taken to be a concession that burden has reversed. And there's no reason to make such a concession. In fact, it would be harmful in the long run.
I'm not into comparing debates. I like your argument about Zombie Gods; you have skillfully seized on the false dichotomy presented by Craig.
Whether I understand why he said it is beside the point. I understand WHAT he said. And WHAT he said doesn't make sense. My version is a lot more sensible
Registered User
Super Moderator


text:
By continuing to use this site you agree to the use of cookies. Please visit this page to see exactly how we use these.
You can view here all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas to which you currently have access.
Page created in 0.028 seconds with 18 queries.


text:
SPECIAL OFFER VALID TILL SEPTEMBER 16, 2016.Magento 2 CE Installation Service for AWS EC2 CentOS Linux with PHP7, NGINX, Redis, MariaDB and Varnish
Save time, avoid reinventing the wheel, use our experienced and certified engineers. Our team will ready your (dedicated or vps) server(s) (owned by you, we do not provide the server) in 24 to 48 hours.
You will get the latest Magento 2 installed using these top-of-the-line tools to give you the best performance and safety required.
Nginx webserver (instead of Apache), MariaDB (instead of MySQL), Varnish 4.x (full page cache), PHP 7.0 + php-fpm engine, phpMyAdmin.
Redis for session/backend caching, SSL, monitoring tool, management scripts.
Additional Information
|Demo Store Code
|Compatible Versions
|Possible Transactions
|Special Features


text:
No record for MLS#RX-10382270
Featured Cities
Questions? Just ask!
RegisterRegister as a New Visitor
to receive FREE Email Alerts whenever new listings match your saved search criteria. Use our Property Watch List to save your search parameters and rerun saved searches in seconds, without filling out new search form. Also, save individual property listings for quick retrieval. Already registered?
Log in >


text:
One day, Mrs Tan, her daughter Sally, Mr Lau and an elderly woman were waiting for the lift to come. When the door of the lift opened, they get inside the lift and Sally pressed the lift number of the floor she stays. She had also pressed the floor numbers for the other members.
On reaching at the third floor, the lift got struck. Mrs Tan, Sally and an old woman got scared, but Mr Lau told them to remain calm and didnot panic. He repeatedly pressed the lift door emergency bell and two lift technicians arrived after fifteen mintues. One of them said in a reassuring voice to remain calm. The lift will be ready soon.
The lift door opened after repair work i.e. few minutes. Mrs Tan, Sally and other members thanked the technicians. They walked to their flats and being relieved of ordeal.
Student or Learner


text:
EMCTO 2013 European Multidisciplinary Conference in Thoracic Oncology
Lugano, Switzerland - 09 May - 11 May 2013
The European Multidisciplinary Conference in Thoracic Oncology (EMCTO) was organised in partnership between the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), The European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS), and the European Thoracic Oncology Platfom (ETOP).
The five partners created a programme that integrates perspectives from the different disciplines to demonstrate how the multidisciplinary team can combine knowledge for personalised treatment of the whole range of thoracic oncology tumours.
Abstracts presented at the conference can still be accessed via the online searchable programme.


text:
Vice President Joe Biden said Friday that America is not in decline and that the Republican presidential ticket is in denial about the improving economy.
Biden spoke to about 1,000 people at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh on Friday. Later in the day, he drew about 1,500 people at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside in Kenosha.
Biden criticized Republican Mitt Romney for not condemning the remarks about rape and pregnancy made by Indiana's Republican Senate candidate, Richard Mourdock, and Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin's remarks about "legitimate rape."
"It's not enough to tell me you don't agree," Biden said. "It's having the moral courage to stand up and say what they said is wrong."
The vice president peppered his speeches with familiar criticisms of Romney and running mate Paul Ryan. He said Romney "meant what he said'' when he contended that 47 percent of Americans see themselves as victims entitled to government assistance.
"I don't recognize the country he's talking about,'' Biden said.
Polls show President Barack Obama and Romney are in a tight race for Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes.
Obama appeared at a rally at the University of Wisconsin-Madison earlier this month.


text:
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
CBS Election Night (1980)
Posted by Kliph Nesteroff at 9:37 AM
Labels: CBS, news, Ronald Reagan, walter kronkite
2 comments:
One of the darkest days in American history (seriously).
- November 4, 2008 at 4:05 PM
- Batman2500 said...
You are truley anonymous and out of touch. This was a positive defining moment for America. Just think where we would be with 4 more years of James (Just call me Jimmy) Earl Carter. Jimmy gave us bad economics, bad foreign policy and showed how terrorist could manipulate a super power. Everyone disparages Regan but he was the best choice for America and thank god America knew it!
- November 8, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
In the moments before being shot to death, Trayvon Martin spoke to a friend, complaining that he was being watched by a "creepy-ass cracker," according to testimony Wednesday in the second degree murder trial of George Zimmerman.
Rachel Jeantel, 19, who had been friends with Martin since elementary school told jurors the details of their cell phone conversation in the final minutes of the Sanford, Florida, teen's life.
"He kept complaining that a man was just watching him," Jeantel said Wednesday.
(MORE: WATCH: Sparks Fly During Zimmerman Trial Opening Statements)
She asked him to describe the man. According to Jeantel, Martin said: "Creepy, white. Excuse my language, cracker. Creepy-ass cracker."
Martin became fearful as the individual came towards him, Jeantel said.
"He just told me he wanted to try to lose him," said Jeantel. " 'Now the [expletive] is following me,' " said Jeantel, repeating Martin's words.
She said that she told him to run, but he said he would not because he was nearly home. Soon after, Jeantel said, there were the sounds of a struggle. Finally the phone call abruptly ended.
(MORE: Graphic Photos Drive Trayvon Martin's Parents From Courtroom)


text:
The guide is developed from empirical data to assist companies with capital planning using an index for each of the key areas of capital, leasing and operating costs as well as a combined or holistic cost in present value.
This Net Present Lifecycle Cost can assist to estimate and benchmark the full cost of a commercial office investment over a five year period across Asia Pacific.
In line with the growing number of Grade A office buildings in development outside of CBD's,
CBRE has applied the NPLCC to quantify the holistic cost difference between CBD and city fringe locations.
In addition, CBRE Project Management has included high level project timeline estimates for each of the 25 cities across various project sizes to further help with corporate real estate planning and business case proposals.


text:
In the future, you may never lose your vehicle in a car park again thanks to a new Apple patent application called "Method for locating a vehicle," published by the U.S. Trade and Patent Office.
The patent describes technology that would allow you to track down your car via a Bluetooth connection, pinpointing its exact location. In a similar manner to how Maps directs you to a location using GPS, the iPhone would lead you to your car's location.
As well as this, Apple has published another patent application called "Accessing a vehicle using portable devices," which looks at helping you unlock the door of your car using your iPhone - brilliant if you're as forgetful as the rest of us.
The applications would also allow the iPhone to manipulate your car in other ways, such as starting the engine, turning the radio on, opening the sunroof, activating the headlights and adjusting the seats.
According to the applications: "The vehicle-related operation can include a personalisation operation, in which the vehicle automatically adjusts an environmental setting (e.g., seat position, mirror position, temperature controls, settings for an audio or audiovisual entertainment system) based on the received vehicle access credential and/or on the particular portable device from which the vehicle access credential is received."
Jargon translated: If you share your car with a friend or partner, it will adjust itself according to specifications stored on your iPhone!
Unfortunately, there's nothing in the description that talks of revealing a secret bottle of champagne, or throwing you're pursuant off with oil or heavy smoke. But, on the bright side, at least you'll never lose your car, or have to worry about faffing about with the entertainment system again.
If you can't wait for these technologies to be put to use, then you could always take a look at Volkswagen's latest attempt at such a concept.
(via Cnet)
See also:
Volkswagen partners up with Apple to create new iBeetle car
Budget plastic iPhone shown in concept image
Photos of alleged iPhone 5S and iPhone 6 parts leaked online
Apple working on USB 3.0 support for iOS Lightning connector?


text: The past two seasons have been zero fun for those who have even a casual rooting interest in the Ole Miss football program. The third game of the 2012 season, when the Rebels play Texas in Oxford, will be set aside to remember the best of times on the field and the worst of times off it. The 1962 Rebels ...Read More »