Live election coverage

I'm sitting in my kitchen, watching CNN and eagerly waiting for the election results to trickle in, probably like every other American on this historic night. My objective here is to provide live updates of the races involving restaurateurs or known supporters of the industry, such as former National Restaurant Association executive Jo Ann Emerson (now running for re-election on the Republican ticket as the congresswoman from the eighth district of Missouri). The thread is probably best read from the bottom up. All times are EST.

According to our count, there are eight current restaurateurs running for office. You can find out who they are, and learn about the other "friends of foodservice," by checking out the story on our website, nrn.com.

Here's how some of those races stand as of the time posted.

12:07 a.m. New Mexico, Alabama
The networks have just projected that the industry's victory streak has come to an end. Ed Tinsley, a co-owner of the K-Bob's Steakhouse chain and a longtime director of the National Restaurant Association, has apparently been defeated in his effort to win the congressional seat for the second district of New Mexico. Tinsley, a Republican, lost by six points to oil-industry veteran Harry Teague. At MUFSO, Tinsley commented that unions had poured money into the election in hopes of pushing Teague into office.

Things aren't looking too good for Subway area developer Jay Love, either. Love, the Republican looking to win Alabama's second district, is running about two percentage points behind his Democratic opponent, with 97 percent of the ballots counted.

11:15 United States of America
The hooting and hollering outside were a tip-off to the news flash that came seconds later from The New York Times, CNN, The Miami Herald and Crain's New York: Barack Obama will be our next president.

I can't say I'm surprised. The poll I've been conducting on this page put him 10 points ahead of John McCain. And that's with a sampling size of 22 people. Julia Stewart landed two votes, by the way.

10:12 Oklahoma, Florida
CNN has just projected that Dan Boren, a co-owner of two Roly Poly quick-service outlets, has kept his House seat for the second district. A Democrat, Boren won almost three out of every four votes cast (71 percent).

The vote was closer in Florida, but racetrack concessionaire Tom Rooney still won the House seat for the 16th district by considerably more than a nose. The Republican challenger is projected to win with 60 percent of the vote. He beat Democrat Tim Mahoney, who had been funded by the National Restaurant Association's Political Action Committee.

8:54 General observations
I didn't vote tonight until about 7 p.m. The volunteer who checked me in at the neighborhood firehouse said the traffic was about triple the norm.

It's kind of a surprise that so many people were still sober by that time. I was one of the few NRN staffers who was not going to watch the returns on a barstool. It's the sort of thing my co-workers normally do during March Madness, the World Series or the Olympics. Then again, Tuesday is sometimes enough of an excuse for some pub time. It must be that whole "third place" social phenomenon.

8:30 Florida, Oklahoma
The industry's candidate in Oklahoma, Democrat Dan Boren, is looking like a shoo-in. Only 2 percent of votes have been counted, but Boren, an investor in Roly Poly wrap shops, is leading Republican Raymond Wickson by a 69 percent to 31 percent margin.

Things are much tighter in Florida, however. With slightly more than a fifth of the votes counted, dog-track concessionaire Tom Rooney (of the Pittsburgh Steelers Rooney's) has 54 percent of the ballots, compared with incumbent Timothy Mahoney's 46 percent.

Results thus far suggest Rooney could be an exception to a Republican backlash. As of this moment, two Democratic restaurateurs have been projected as the winners of their respective races, and Boren would make it three. Might the tide be hurting Rooney?

At Nation's Restaurant News' MUFSO conference in Washington, D.C., industry lobbyists speculated that the Democrats could pick up 10 Senate seats and 20 slots in the House. The early counts haven't disproved those forecasts.

8:00 Kentucky
CNN has projected Yarmuth as the winner in Kentucky.

7:36 Virginia
Mark Warner, a co-owner of Majestic Cafe in Alexandria and the former governor, has been declared the winner in the race for the Senate seat that had been vacated by the retirement of the legendary John Warner (no relation). Mark Warner is projected to have beaten Republican contender James Gilmore III with 57 percent of votes.

7:26 Kentucky
John Yarmuth, the Republican incumbent from the third district, is creaming challenger Anne Northup, 57 percent to 43 percent, with 42 percent of precincts reporting. Yarmuth is a part owner of the Sonny's BBQ chain, which his brother serves as chief executive.

Follow the election from a restaurant perspective

I'll be blogging live tonight to cover the races where restaurateurs will be vying for a ticket to Capitol Hill. Check back as soon as the results start rolling in.

McCain vs. Obama: What's a restaurateur to do?

With the presidential election just a few days away, we at Nation's Restaurant News decided to present this story from the issue that publishes Monday. It covers a debate we coordinated at our MUFSO conference specifically to help restaurateurs decide who'd be better for their businesses, John McCain or Barack Obama. It's being posted here in hopes of providing the industry with fodder for thought for those members who are still conducting their own internal debate as to which contender should get their vote (and if you want to practice, take our poll to the right).

Washington – A MUFSO debate between stand-ins for the U.S. presidential candidates proved as contentious as the actual face-offs between Barack Obama and John McCain, with the participants disagreeing on everything from Sarah Palin’s competency to what makes a good Oval Office occupant.

The two-person teams squabbled over such issues as which candidate offered the best prospects for small businesses; how much the financial crisis should be weighed in picking the next president; which contender was more of a capitalist; which candidate would surround himself with better people; and, in a strange twist, which of the two had mentioned Warren Buffett first during a televised debate.

Both sides included a one-time restaurant company leader who had sold his charge in the last few years: former Cold Stone Creamery CEO and chairman Doug Ducey, representing McCain, and Phil Hickey, who held the same posts at former LongHorn Steakhouse parent Rare Hospitality, speaking on behalf of Obama. Each was teamed with someone with a legal background. Melissa Rothring, the former executive vice president of legal affairs for current Cold Stone owner Kahala Corp., rounded out Team McCain. Cathy Hampton, the former general counsel of Rare and now a full-time volunteer in Obama’s campaign, joined Hickey.

Both sides offered assertions as to how the winner might affect the restaurant industry. The only concurrence seemed to come on the overarching question of which side had the best candidate. Both teams readily insisted they did.

Team McCain portrayed their candidate as the better capitalist, leader, commander in chief, decision-maker and independent thinker. “This guy’s a survivor, he’s a leader, and he’s always been mission-driven,” said Ducey, a resident of Arizona, which McCain represents in the Senate.

Teammate Rothring acknowledged that she had been drawn to McCain “by gut instinct.” But, in preparation for the debate, “I went to a website and looked up the issues. The common thread I saw with McCain is that he is a capitalist.”
She lauded the Republican candidate as someone who was likely to slice corporate taxes, cut the estate tax and lower the exemption on that industry-hated measure, push for tort reform, and seek a permanent research and development credit. All of those measures are favored by the restaurant industry.

In contrast, she asserted, Obama would push for a $9.15 minimum wage, unionization, paid sick leave, a rise in corporate taxes and the real estate tax, and a health care proposal that would cost “10 percent of your payroll.”

Team Obama’s Hampton challenged those assertions. “Just this weekend Sens. Obama and [vice presidential candidate Joe] Biden revealed their plans for small businesses,” she calmly retorted. “What they’ve done in their plan is direct money to help small businesses. One thing is to take away — completely eliminate — capital gains taxes for investing in small businesses.” She also cited a $3,000 tax credit for each new full-time employee a small business hires during the next two years.
“We’re talking tax cuts for 95 percent of hardworking families in America, and tax cuts for 98 percent of small businesses,” Hampton said.

Hickey professed to “take it up to the taller trees,” where he could see a bigger picture. Explaining that he’s a registered Republican who has contributed more than $1 million to industry lobbying and campaign efforts, he recounted that he was a staunch McCain supporter in the 2000 campaign.

Yet, he continued, the country has had eight years under a Republican Administration, “which was voted for by most of us. Let me ask you, how are things today? How’s your business? How’s that working for you?” His rhetorical questions came as the industry was contending with a pronounced downturn in sales, profits and traffic.

“My sense is, an Obama presidency would deal with bigger issues that would ultimately help our businesses,” Hickey said.
He cited such pressing concerns as the energy situation and the high gasoline prices that have resulted. “The leadership on that has been lacking,” he said. “As a result, it’s come out of control.”

Overall, he said, “The underpinnings of the economy are very uncertain. Who do you trust to lead for the next four years in the U.S. economy? Who do you trust to fix this?”

One of the constant points of contention during the hour debate was how much the economic crises should factor into a voter’s choice of candidate. The session was conducted after one of the worst weeks Wall Street had ever seen, and a day after the Bush Administration disclosed plans to buy stakes in nine banks as a recovery measure.

“Two years ago, we were all pretty happy with the economy. The issue was Iraq,” Ducey said. The economy “is unraveling, but it’s really all about housing. Once we get through the housing part of it, what will we have?”

He suggested, “People may go back to, ‘What are these issues?’ rather than, ‘What are these crises of the moment?’”
Team Obama would have no part of that. “I really wish we could turn the page on the economy, but it’s very hard to do that,” Hampton said.

Hickey asserted that the economy was an attitude-changer, not a short-term distraction. “There’s a strange dynamic in this room, in that there are a number of Republicans,” he said. “My support for Obama started out in the minority. But other people have come up to me and said, ‘I just can’t go there. I just can’t vote for McCain.’”

The debate was moderated by Nation’s Restaurant News editor Ellen Koteff.

The White House story that wasn't

Colleagues attending the National Restaurant Association’s Public Affairs Conference alerted us Tuesday that a big story was shaping up in the host city, Washington, D.C. The Bush Administration had invited 200 restaurateurs from the conference to visit the White House Wednesday for an announcement from the President of a significant policy initiative. It had to be something of import to restaurants and other small businesses, or why would the attendees be summoned to serve as a backdrop? We geared up for what we thought would be a very newsworthy political development.

A few hours later, deputy managing editor Paul Frumkin called again from the PAC meeting: The White House had cancelled the invitation, saying the reason would become obvious. Clearly something bigger had trumped the meeting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

We now know that big development was Bush’s decision to address the nation last night about the bail-out package pending on Capitol Hill. What’s still a mystery is the policy initiative he was going to announce. NRA officials indicated that it would be of importance. But that covers a lot of ground, given how many industry-related political issues were apparently covered at the PAC conference.

All we can say is, Stay tuned.

A turn for the worse on menu labeling

One of the industry’s key defenses against menu labeling has been rendered useless by a recent court filing that could also break up the trade’s Hail Mary play for softening the impact of nutrition-disclosure mandates. The actions, little-noticed outside of the regulatory and legal worlds, came not from the restaurant business’ usual adversaries on diet-related matters, but from the hoped-for ally known as the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

The development was the latest in the prolonged legal effort by the New York State Restaurant Association to overturn a New York City requirement that local chain units post calorie counts on menu boards, regular bills of fare and drink menus. The association filed a lawsuit in federal court that asserts the city does not have the authority to regulate nutrition disclosure, since that power resides exclusively with the FDA.

Not so, the FDA itself said in a friend-of-the-court brief that was filed on May 29. The agency, which has been expressly granted the right to specify and police what nutritional information is printed on grocery-store items, told the court that it doesn’t have a hammerlock on menu disclosure. Only if a restaurant makes a health-related claim—such as pronouncing an item life-prolonging or cholesterol-reducing—do FDA rules pre-empt state or local regulations, the agency said.

The take-away for state and local jurisdictions that want to require restaurants on their turf to divulge nutrition information for all menu items: Knock yourself out.

The filing by the FDA, which had been requested by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in effect scuttles the pre-emption challenge that a number of restaurant groups have either eyed or actually tried in their efforts to fend off labeling mandates. But the damage to the industry’s defense strategies could go farther than that.

As I’ve mentioned in a column, there’s a growing sensibility within the restaurant industry that menu-labeling requirements are going to be a new reality, no matter how unpleasant the trade might find them. It’s a tide that the business may simply not be able to hold back. Some broad-minded thinkers are proposing behind closed doors that the industry temper the effects by suggesting the federal government take the lead on menu disclosure.

That way, the proponents argue, chains would have to meet only one set of disclosure standards from coast to coast, instead of a hodgepodge of obligations that could vary from town to town. Chains that operate in both Seattle and New York, for instance, will be required to provide one set of info on the West Coast, and another type on the East. Branches in the two cities will almost certainly end up with different types of menus and menu boards, which may be still different from the ones required for Santa Clara or San Francisco Counties in California.

But now the FDA has said that Congress didn’t want it to regulate restaurants, so states, counties and municipalities are the ones to fill the void. I’m certainly no lobbyist, but it seems that the industry would have to push legislation through Congress that would call for menu regulation by the agency. It could be one of the smartest things the industry has ever done. But a firefight will almost certainly erupt as rank-and-file operators balk at the notion of asking for government regulation. In the minds of those who are still thinking in yesterday’s terms, it’d be like pushing for a tax increase.

And then there’s the wild card that was dealt to the industry just this past week. A group of consumers has sued Applebee’s and Brinker International for allegedly misstating the nutritional information they voluntarily post on their menus. The class action suits allege that Applebee’s understated the fat content of its Weight Watchers-branded selections, and that Brinker similarly bent the truth the same on Chili’s Guiltless Grill section.

Those brands voluntarily disclosed information and ended up getting sued. When chain after chain after chain is posting analytical data to meet disclosure requirements, won’t the industry become the barrel where litigation-minded lawyers and consumers can draw a bead on the next fat tuna they’d like to fillet in court?

If the industry does proceed with its efforts to legislate federal labeling regulation, it would be well served to also incorporate some defenses against bounty-hunting of that nature.

Politics as unusual

The public’s interest in politics has been honed to a keen edge by the uncertainty over who’ll be sitting in the Oval Office next February. But the restaurant industry has been doing less handicapping than hedging. Indeed, the trade’s main lobbying forces have been quietly seeking insurance of sorts to protect the trade’s political interests regardless of who prevails in the November election.

That was evident during last month’s board meeting of the National Restaurant Association. As we reported at the time, the group voted to pursue an initiative whereby restaurateurs would be solicited to work in the campaigns of whichever candidate drew their support. The objective was to have a member of the business inside the tents of what were then the three main candidates. “When they win, we want friends who were friends [to them] before they won,” explained Bob Leonard, the IHOP franchisee who heads the NRA’s Political Action Committee.

That effort to curry favor with Democrats as well as Republicans has been seen in other actions by the group, large and small. For instance, as was noted earlier in this space, the association lined up John McCain to deliver a keynote address at its annual mega-convention in Chicago. I and apparently others chided the NRA for always selecting a speaker from the more sympathetic side of the aisle instead of taking a nonpartisan approach to booking presenters. In press releases issued after McCain appeared, the association noted that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had been invited to appear as well but had declined. It didn’t sound like the same NRA that had once boasted about its insider status with the Republican White House. It was as if it quietly removed that elephant pin from its lapel.

Fast forward to earlier this week, when the association and its longtime ally, the National Council of Chain Restaurants, formally praised a new law that aims to protect restaurants from being sued for printing credit card expiration dates on charge receipts. Obviously the two groups had pushed for the measure. They succeeded in part by working with Rep. Barney Frank, the liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, and Sen. Chuck Schumer, a party standard-bearer from New York. These are not the industry’s usual allies.

The NRA and its usual cohorts haven’t switched allegiances, to be sure. The group reportedly spent $200,000 last week alone to help one of its own, former chairman Ed Tinsley, win the Republican nomination for a U.S. House of Representatives seat from New Mexico. The association has very expressly indicated that it wants a member of the industry inside the Capitol, watching out for the business and presumably working closely with it to promote favorable measures. It’s hardly standing on the sidelines in that contest, and the party it favors is no secret, at least in that Congressional race.

But clearly its striving to work with the party that’s quite possibly going to control both the White House and the Capitol next year.

Every time restaurateurs are surveyed about what they regard as their biggest concerns, burdensome politics and regulation rank high on the list. If the industry slipped into a partisan mode in the current environment, that concern may move even higher.

Instead the NRA and the NCCR are taking a more pragmatic course. And it could prove a smart one indeed.

The house party

A heads-up to National Restaurant Association show coordinators: There is a second political party out there, you know. The association served up a pleasant surprise Monday by announcing that John McCain is going to drop by the industry’s mega-get-together next week in Chicago, first to speak to attendees, then to powwow with industry leaders about travel and tourism. His participation will follow by two years the unscheduled appearance of President George W. Bush, one of a long line of political speakers that also includes his mother, Barbara (accompanied by her dog, Millie), Ronald Reagan (in his second post-White House public appearance), Gerald Ford and Herman Cain. In one of those uncanny coincidences that no bookmaker in Vegas could anticipate, all were Republican (though I can’t absolutely swear to Millie’s political persuasion).

It’s easy to see why. As James Carville quipped at his recent appearance at an industry event, “I’d like to say hello to all of my fellow Democrats. All eight of you.” This is a obviously a Republican industry. And the whole point of a convention is being with persons of your own calling.

It’s great that McCain will be addressing the NRA’s convention. Indeed, it’s a tribute to the association that it can land figures of that stature, and the timing couldn’t be more perfect. This election is truly a race, with the outcome as uncertain as any I’ve witnessed. And you’re talking about someone who can recall listening to John F. Kennedy’s warning about some missiles in the place where Ricky Riccardo came from. A presentation by McCain could stimulating experience indeed.

But even rabid GOPers would have to acknowledge that their flag-bearer may not be the one voted into office six months from now. Nor is there any speculation about the Arizona senator’s claim to represent the team. His appearance may be more of a rah-rah event than a sobering moment of thought.

Face time with Obama or Clinton, in contrast, might have been far headier. If they’ll truly be enemies of the industry, isn’t it better to have a sit-down now, figuratively speaking? Where do they stand on industry issues like menu labeling, no-match letters or foreign tourism promotion? Inviting the trade’s adversaries might have been far more educational than a pep rally. And if the choice of the Democratic candidate has still yet to be decided, wouldn’t it be interesting to determine which one the industry would prefer to see in the race?

For all I know, the NRA did invite one or both of the Democratic contenders, and was turned down by each. Or that there might be a surprise last minute stop-by by one or both, akin to George W. Bush’s unexpected presentation in 2006.

That would be a pleasant surprise indeed, and I don’t say that because of my own political leanings. During times of political uncertainty like these, it’s better to learn what your adversaries are thinking than it is to review the points of agreement with the entrant you prefer.

'And why is there no Mrs. Ronald?'

This just in from the lunatic fringe: McDonald’s is promoting a homosexual agenda, if not homosexuality itself. The story may have slipped by such hack media as The New York Times, CNN and The Financial Times, but the vast left-wing conspiracy couldn’t push it past the newshounds at WorldNetDaily.com, otherwise known on the net as WingNutDaily.

The site—“A Free Press for a Free People”—broke the news Sunday that the chain “famed for the Golden Arches, Ronald McDonald and kids meals has signed onto a nationwide effort to promote ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ business ventures.” The story cited the incontrovertible proof: McDonald’s USA’s vice president of corporate communications, Richard Ellis, was elected to the board of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Ellis even acknowledged that he was “thrilled” to be chosen, and shared the organization’s “passion” for promoting business within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. The insinuations were clear. McDonald’s may strive to be as wholesome as American Pie and a John Birch Society picnic, but it’s secretly celebrating diversity and opportunity for all. It may even have an Obama-supporting Democrat within its executive ranks.

The story was illustrated with a picture of a poster promoting McDonald’s kids meals. It depicted a boy dressed as a pirate and a girl in princess garb, no doubt secretly listening to Melissa Etheridge tunes in the background.

The story drew a combination of disbelief and ridicule from sectors of the blogosphere where most contributors walk upright and believe the moon landing wasn’t staged in a soundset. But the knuckle-dragging forces of reaction jumped on the report as proof we’re one cross-dresser away from outlawing heterosexual marriage and weaving a pentacle into the flag.

Those of us who cover foodservice have often remarked that the industry’s overt commitment to diversity often stops short of expressly welcoming persons of all sexual orientations. McDonald’s is showing itself once again to be a leader by working with the NGLCC. It may catch heat from the black-helicopter crowd planning to build a new community in the mountains of Idaho, but it’s demonstrating how attuned to the modern world it intends to stay. No wonder its sales have remained strong while many competitors wheeze and stumble.

Fueling a frustration

News tidbits can often provide a truer account of the day’s issues than full-blown stories. So it was with three nuggets of recent days. All three dealt with restaurants and politics, but that’s about the extent of the connection—until you consider what might connect the dots.

The first point is a paragraph in a Jan. 1 New York Times story about the efforts of groups with a political agenda to influence the presidential campaign in not-so-subtle yet completely legal ways. In what could be called soft lobbying, the organizations fund their own advertising campaigns for a favored candidate, a practice protected by the courts’ current interpretation of free-speech rights. For instance, the Service Employees International Union, a new-age group hoping to organize the restaurant business, spent more than $1.5 million to run radio spots in Iowa for John Edwards, a candidate who boasts that he refuses contributions from political action committees.

The second development was a page-one story in this morning’s Times about the unfairness of Iowa’s quirky caucus system. Because the archaic set-up leaves no room for the equivalent of an absentee ballot, you have to attend one of the evening caucuses to influence the statewide results. Yet how many restaurants are going to let their staff run off for a political forum during the dinner rush? The story cited several specific examples of foodservice employees being thwarted in their desires to participate. Presumably the same timing problems keep restaurant owners and operators out of the caucuses as well. The system clearly seems to discriminate against places with a vibrant dinner business.

And the last tidbit of the three: A restaurateur in Edmond, Okla., is so frustrated with the political process in his home town that he’s refusing to serve certain officials, as he proudly declares in a sign posted out front, the Associated Press reported today. The two members of the Edmond Planning Commission, along with the board’s attorney, are cited by name as being unwelcome at Falcone’s Pizzeria and Deli. Actually, the language is a little stronger than that: The trio is instructed to stay off the property, according to the report.

The three reportedly led opposition to the red, green and white awning that proprietor Danny Falcone wanted to erect above his new restaurant to trumpet its Italian orientation. The Planning Commission reportedly refused to permit the awning, and the city council apparently followed its lead.

Restaurateurs often voice frustration with the political process, which many describe as an alien world where common sense seems to be suspended. With an adversarial union spending $1.5 million in just one state to push a candidate, despite lobbying limits and the beneficiary’s declaration he’d refuse tainted financing, and the system in that very state working against restaurateurs, is it any wonder the industry may feel a little desperate?