Pete King takes a trip to Camp David

Daily Point

Weekend without Bernie

The GOP strategy going into 2020 is coming into focus, from Twitter posts about impeachment as “witch hunt” to GOP House members rushing a secured hearing. 

Some plan of action was being hammered out a few days ago at Camp David, too. 

A weekend retreat featuring GOP lawmakers and White House staffers at the storied site was “mainly to discuss the legislative agenda for the next three or four months,” attendee Rep. Pete King told The Point. “As much as anything, it’s to establish more contact between the White House and members of Congress.”

The headline from the retreat was the fact that among the group were some of those who discouraged President Donald Trump from holding the 2020 G-7 summit at his Doral property. 

The Seaford Republican said members discussed issues including trade, prescription drugs, and the Space Force. He stressed homeland security and the MS-13 gang. And then there was impeachment, which he said was covered in the way of how to talk about it to the media. 

King said he had never been to Camp David, and noted the disparity between dense woods and modest surroundings and the presidential sites.

 “I’m not a big outdoors guy, but probably if you went to the Poconos you get a bigger cabin,” he said. “The aura of it is that where you were was where history was made.”

King says he saw the event as a “focus group” that formed a cross-section of the party — including members like Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana, chair of the Republican Study Committee, which bills itself as a conservative caucus of the party.

“I think they feel with the election coming up next year they want everybody as close as possible working together on issues after impeachment is over with,” King said, adding that the conventional wisdom was that the House would impeach but the Senate would not convict. 

King, who famously defended Bill Clinton on impeachment in 1998, says you can be “critical” of what went on regarding Trump’s alleged quid pro quo with the Ukrainian president. But King’s not budging. 

“Right now, based on what I’ve seen and heard so far, I would definitely vote against impeachment.”

—Mark Chiusano @mjchiusano

Talking Point

An issue with monitoring

Much attention has been given to negotiations over legislation passed in Albany in June to establish a three-person board of monitors for the Hempstead school district that would have veto power over pretty much everything except labor contracts.

But more quietly, talks also continue in Albany on another measure passed by the State Legislature for a single monitor for Wyandanch, another school district with chronic troubles.

Wyandanch has an oft-criticized school board, it struggles academically, and suffers from severe fiscal stress. It is the most economically distressed community in Suffolk County with a small tax base and an increasing number of students, some of whom are English language learners.

State Sen. John Brooks said he and bill co-sponsors Sen. Phil Boyle and Assemb. Kimberly Jean-Pierre have been talking to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s office about the measure.

“There is some difference of opinion on what the responsibilities or authority the monitor should have,” Brooks told The Point.

Translation: The hold-up is over whether the monitor should have veto power over the school board.

Brooks said he and his colleagues have requested that the monitor be someone with administrative experience.

Brooks also said that, partly as a result of his work with Wyandanch, he is crafting legislation that would require board candidates in special districts that have tax-levying responsibilities — school, library and fire districts, for example — to provide information about family members or family-owned contractors doing business with that district.

Which is a nod to yet another problem in Wyandanch — nepotism on the school board.

—Michael Dobie @mwdobie

Pencil Point

Self-imposed

For more cartoons, visit www.newsday.com/opinion

Reference Point

Delays ahead - and behind

As eyeballs of riders and critics alike rolled at news from the Long Island Rail Road that its next generation of cars is behind schedule, even before the awarding of a contract for the new M9A fleet, it’s worth recalling that concern about the railroad’s cars has been a constant in the region.

Back in 1947, Newsday’s editorial board was writing about the LIRR’s brand-new double-decker cars, which it pronounced were “clean as pins” and running on time — which the board said was “something new for the LIRR.”

But the board took the occasion to chide the Public Service Commission for slow action on a rate increase request, writing, “People want better service even if it means paying a bit more.”

In 1952, the editorial board worried about the delivery of new cars to resolve a sorry situation, “that the rickety cars of the LIRR are not only uncomfortable but hazardous.”

The problem apparently was budgetary in nature, with one trustee holding up the order of 20 new cars (of an eventual 50) until the railroad was put on sound financial footing. The board wrote that it appreciated that effort, then added, “But as long as there is one outworn car at the head of one train (most of them have been put in the center of the trains to minimize the danger) there is still an element of chance for serious trouble.”

By 1973, the board was celebrating the retirement of old cars that were “sweltering in summer, drafty in winter and dirty in any season.”

“Most of these old cars have been retired now,” the board wrote, “but there are disturbing indications that they may have been replaced by shiny new death traps.”

The issue was the heavy use of plastic — in seat cushions, tile floors and insulation.

“Not only do most of the plastics burn furiously when ignited, but they give off cyanide and other deadly gases,” the board wrote. “Incredibly, there are no federal or state safety standards governing the materials that can be used in rail cars.”

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority said that it would perform tests to determine how combustible the cars actually were, but that elicited more howls as being an insufficient response.

At least the current conflict has nothing to do with cyanide.

—Michael Dobie @mwdobie