How Newt Gingrich pulled this one off

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, January 27, 2012 at 7:20 AM - 0 Comments

Win McNamee/Getty Images

“I am a grandiose thinker,” Newt Gingrich proclaimed in one of his more modest utterances of the recent presidential debates. Indeed, there is little that isn’t grandiose about the former House Speaker: from his proposals for a lunar colony to mine minerals to his more earthy appetites, from the partisan victories to his fall from political grace, the moral indignation and the moral failures, and, now, his latest breathtaking political resurrection. Newton Leroy Gingrich, history professor and maker of history, lover of policy minutiae and women he’s not married to, has become the sudden front-runner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. With the Jan. 31 Florida primary on the horizon, Gingrich smashed Mitt Romney’s well-oiled political machine and beat him soundly in South Carolina—a state that has consistently predicted the party’s nominee for the last 32 years—grabbing a comfortable lead in polls of likely voters.

But national polls also show that more than half of Americans have an unfavourable opinion of Gingrich, and that Barack Obama could beat him handily if the election were held today. His sudden surge has many Republicans wondering how they got here.

The Republican primary voters—many of whom filled Tea Party rallies and showed scores of incumbent politicians of both parties the door in the November 2010 election—have sent a strong message that they are not finished with their desire to remake Washington. Romney, with his cool, managerial mien and moderate record as former governor of Massachusetts, does not seem to fit their notion of someone ready to show up on Inauguration Day and start blowing up the place. Whereas Gingrich has done it before, proving both that he is capable of remaking Washington—and that the process is rather messy. “I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I’m doing it,” Gingrich told the Washington Post in 1985.

Continue…

How Ron Paul shook up the GOP race

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM - 0 Comments

Stephan Savoia/AP

Outside the large outdoor tent where a group of South Carolina Republicans had gathered for a town hall discussion about the presidential race, a few demonstrators shouted loudly and waved signs from the sidelines. In a scene that repeats itself around the Republican campaign trail, they turned out to be not from the Occupy movement, but supporters of Ron Paul, a fellow Republican running for president.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who was moderating the event, called out to them, “Come into the tent!” They didn’t budge, showing once again that bringing Paul’s movement into the Republican fold is easier said than done.

Paul, a 76-year-old Republican congressman from Texas, has long been regarded as the party’s cranky libertarian uncle. He inspires jokes about legalizing pot—and eye rolls with talk of moving the U.S. dollar to the gold standard. But in this crowded campaign, Paul has moved from the fringes to the main stage, repeatedly garnering enough votes and dollars to stay in the race while other candidates drop by the wayside. He has little chance of winning the nomination, but the soft-spoken gynecologist from Texas has stunned Republicans with his strong showing. Paul came in second in the New Hampshire primary, behind only Mitt Romney, with 23 per cent of the vote—triple what he drew when he ran for president four years ago. In Iowa, where the top two finishers, Romney and Rick Santorum, drew a quarter of the vote each, Paul came in third with one-fifth. Going into the South Carolina primary, polls had him around 15 per cent.

Continue…

“People around here are more Newtish”

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 9:30 PM - 0 Comments

When I first arrived in South Carolina last week, I expected to hear voters complaining about Newt Gingrich’s harsh attacks against Mitt Romney’s business practices at Bain Capital. After all, it seemed contrary to the free market capitalism championed by Republicans. (As Romney put it in his concession speech tonight: “Those who pick up the weapons of the left today will find them used against them tomorrow.”) But what I heard from voters was the opposite — and helps explain how Gingrich beat Romney soundly in the state.

Turns out, it wasn’t so much the content of Gingrich’s harsh attacks that got their attention, it was their very harshness. After losing hard in Iowa where he had pledged to be positive, Gingrich came out swinging. And rather than be defensive in the wake of his ex-wife Marianne’s interview about his infidelity, Gingrich went on the offense and attacked the media for raising the question in the presidential debate. That played well with voters spoiling for a fight — with Obama, with Washington, with the media. Continue…

Ex-wife bombshell hits as Newt surges

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 12:40 PM - 0 Comments

Maybe Newt Gingrich should have opened a second six-figure Tiffany account – for his ex-wife Marianne. ABC News is touting a new interview with Marianne, who was married to Gingrich for 18 years, in which she says Gingrich wanted an “open marriage” so he could have a mistress. He lacks the “moral character” to be president, she says. The interview is set to air tonight on Nightline.

This comes right as Gingrich is surging in the socially-conservative state of South Carolina where evangelical Christians have traditionally made up more than half of the primary voters. A new poll suggests Gingrich is leading Romney 34% to 28% ahead of Saturday’s vote, with Ron Paul in third place with 15% and Rick Santorum with 14%. Rick Perry had only 5% of likely voters. (Gingrich leads Romney 37-20 among evangelicals, according to the poll.)

In a boost for Gingrich, Texas governor Rick Perry today dropped out of the race and endorsed Gingrich – conceding “Newt is not perfect – but who among us is?” Meanwhile the news broke that Rick Santorum, not Mitt Romney, was the winner of the very close contest in Iowa.

Luckily for Romney, Gingrich’s personal life is diverting attention from Romney’s tax returns and tone-deaf comments such as he earned “not very much” from speaking fees last year – only $373, 327.62.

Tonight’s candidates’ debate will be worth watching.

**

Twitter/luizachsavage

State: no ‘expedited’ process for new permit

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 5:00 PM - 0 Comments

On a conference call with reporters this afternoon, Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones said that if TransCanada applies for a new permit to build the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the permit review process — which includes an environmental review as well as a ‘national interest determination’ process — will have to start all over again. (The current process has been going on since 2008).

While TransCanada said in a press release today that they expected an “expedited” review that could lead to an in-service pipeline by 2014, Jones denied that.

“If it comes with a new application it will trigger  a completely new process. We cannot say that anything would be expedited at this time. It would go through all the requirements,” she said.

Jones said some of the information put together by the State Dept could be used in the new review, but declined to speculate whether that could make the process shorter, or by how much.

Jones  the State Dept. was forced to deny the permit because the legislation passed by Congress setting a 60-day deadline for a decision did not leave enough time to consider an in-depth analysis of alternative routes in Nebraska that would avoid the Sandhills region. Without a full analysis, State could not conclude affirmatively that the project would be in the national interest.

She also said: “We today recommended to the president that the permit be denied and also that he determine that it was not in the national interest. The legislation did not give us enough time to do a responsible evaluation of the factors. We continue to believe this has to be done the right way.”

I asked how it was that the State Dept. only concluded on Nov. 10 that it needed to analyze alternative routes within Nebraska, when the issue had been raised for years. Jones said it was the result of concerns raised at public hearings held this year in Nebraska and elsewhere.

The bottom line is that  State could have reached a permit decision by early 2013. By starting all over again, it’s unclear when a permit decision may be completed. That may depend in large part on the result of the November presidential election.

TransCanada: will try again, hope for pipeline in 2014

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 4:12 PM - 0 Comments

From TransCanada’s press release:

January 18, 2012 15:59 ET

TransCanada Will Re-Apply for a Keystone XL Permit

State Dept.: TransCanada can apply again

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:53 PM - 0 Comments

Here is the full statement on Keystone XL decision from the State Dept. It says the 60 day deadline imposed by Congress did not allow for full vetting of an alternative pipeline route  but that TransCanada can apply again.

For Immediate Release and Posting

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

For Immediate Release                                                                                                                                               January 18, 2012

2012/070

MEDIA NOTE

Denial of the Keystone XL Pipeline Application

Today, the Department of State recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline be denied and, that at this time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest.  The President concurred with the Department’s recommendation, which was predicated on the fact that the Department does not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest.

Since 2008, the Department has been conducting a transparent, thorough, and rigorous review of TransCanada’s permit application for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project.  As a result of this process, particularly given the concentration of concerns regarding the proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, on November 10, 2011, the Department announced that it could not make a national interest determination regarding the permit application without additional information.  Specifically, the Department called for an assessment of alternative pipeline routes that avoided the uniquely sensitive terrain of the Sand Hills in Nebraska.  The Department estimated, based on prior projects of similar length and scope, that it could complete the necessary review to make a decision by the first quarter of 2013.  In consultations with the State of Nebraska and TransCanada, they agreed with the estimated timeline.

On December 23, 2011, the Congress passed the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (“the Act”).  The Act provides 60 days for the President to determine whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest – which is insufficient for such a determination.

The Department’s denial of the permit application does not preclude any subsequent permit application or applications for similar projects.

Obama: GOP forced rejection of Keystone XL

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:20 PM - 0 Comments

Basically, he says that because Congressional Republicans forced his hand through legislation to reach a decision within 60 days — the State Dept. did not have enough time to do a proper environmental review of an alternative route around the Sandhills — and therefore could not conclude that it was in the national interest.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 18, 2012

Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.  As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.  As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied.  And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.

This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.  I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.  Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down.  In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security –including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico – even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas.  And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment.

U.S. rejects Keystone XL pipeline

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 12:59 PM - 0 Comments

Note: This post was updated at 3:30 p.m. ET:

BREAKING: The U.S. State Department has officially announced its rejection of TransCanada’s proposal to build the Keystone pipeline at a briefing on Wednesday afternoon. 

There are reports today that the State dept. is going to reject the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

The State Dept. was in the process of deciding whether the project is in the National Interest.  They administration had signaled that it could not reach this determination within the 60-day deadline that Congress imposed in December because officials needed more time to review an alternative route around the Sandhills of Nebraska.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said yesterday: “…certainly we made clear back in December that a political effort to short-circuit that process for ideological reasons would be counterproductive because a proper review that weighed all the important issues in this case could not be achieved in 60 days — according to the State Department, which, again, runs this review process.”

And: “… it is a fallacy to suggest that the President should sign into law something when there isn’t even an alternate route identified in Nebraska and when the review process is — there was an attempt to short-circuit the review process in a way that does not allow the kind of careful consideration of all the competing criteria here that needs to be done.”

According to the Washington Post, TransCanada will be allowed to reapply for the permit after it develops an alternative route around Nebraska’s Sandhills. The question is how long will that take? State had indicated they needed a year to consider the alternative route — which would put a final decision past the November presidential election. Perhaps that ends up being the ultimate timing after all?

But expect Republicans to keep pressing for a quick permit. House Speaker John Boehner declared, “This is not the end of this fight.”

This story is developing, please stay tuned for updates.

Santorum: Repeal Obamacare before Americans discover they like it

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Monday, January 16, 2012 at 5:10 PM - 0 Comments

Republican presidential contender Rick Santorum spoke this afternoon to the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, (where he got a warm reception — but not as enthusiastic as the one given to Newt Gingrich who is running second place in the polls in this state.)

Here is Santorum explaining why he left political “retirement” to run for president:

“It was Obamacare.  It was this huge expansion of the federal government. I realized it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It’s one thing to have inexorable growth in government that we seem to be are lethargically marching along for those who are on the margins of society.

“Obamacare is different. They are going to make every single American dependent on the federal government for something that is essential to their very being, their life.

“Once that happens, it’s over.

“Margaret Thatcher said when she left the prime ministership of England that she was never able to do for England what Reagan was able to do for America: turn it back form the precipice of Statism. She said the reason was the British national health system.

“Once they have you – once they have your life, your health, they’ve got you.

“Why do you think that Nancy Pelosi and all those Democrats would vote for bills they knew would cost them the election? I’ll give you what Juan Williams told me in the green room of Fox three days before the vote on Obamacare in the House. I said, “You guys are committing political suicide. You are going to lose the next election by a landslide.” He said, “Let me tell you what the Obama administration told me: We believe, they said, Americans love entitlements and once we get them hooked on this entitlement, America will be changed and every one of those guys that got thrown out will be back in.”

**

Twitter/luizachsavage

New Republican weapon on Keystone XL: a map

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Monday, January 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM - 0 Comments

Congressional Republicans plan to keep TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline  high on their agenda when the US House of Representatives resumes its session tomorrow, two congressmen said this morning.

“We go back into session tomorrow. This issue will be first and foremost,” South Carolina congressman, Jeff Duncan, told me in an interview. “We’re going to ramp it up,” said Duncan, who sits on the Natural Resources committee and, a member of the Republican “energy action team” in the House.

“We’re going to keep attaching it to other bills. I’m not one who likes to attach non-related legislation to other pieces legislation, or bob-tailing, but this is an issue we’ve already passed its something we believe in and we’ll keep attaching it,” said Duncan. Last month, Republican lawmakers attached legislation that would give President Obama a 60-day deadline to decide on the Keystone XL permit to legislation extending a payroll tax cut by two months.

At an energy-themed breakfast in Myrtle Beach, SC, another Republican congressman, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, showcased a map that he said would be making the rounds of Capitol Hill in coming weeks.

“We have an opportunity here to win the messaging war and we are going to push this as hard as we can over the next several months,” he told a packed ballroom of hundreds of assembled Republican officials and activists.

“What you are going to see over the next few weeks in Washington are these two maps,” said Mulvaney. Showing the audience an image of a map of the proposed pipeline route from Albert to the Gulf Coast of Texas, Mulvaney said: “This is what the president wants you to see.” Switching the slide to a map of thousands of pipelines that cover the US. “…And this is reality. Often those two things are divorced in Washington.”

“What you see here is that pipelines already exist. What the president would have you believe is the pipeline is somehow unusual or extreme. The truth of the matter is that there are pipelines all over this country that function each and every day without any environmental impact at all.”

(Environmentalists who oppose the pipeline have argued that few pipelines in the US carry diluted bitumen and that they have particular concerns about a pipeline in the Sand Hills area of Nebraska that crosses a large aquifer.)

The Obama administration has delayed a decision on a permit in order to review an alternative route that would take the pipeline around the environmentally sensitive region of Nebraska. Republicans accuse President Obama of delaying the process to appease environmentalists ahead of the November presidential elections.

The breakfast was hosted by a former US ambassador to Canada and a former Speaker of the South Carolina legislature, David Wilkins. He told the audience: “What most Americans view as common-sense or no-brainer energy policy, like drilling off our own shores, or in ANWR, or approving a pipeline to ship oil from Canada – a trusted ally, a stalwart partners in the pursuit of liberty, and a strong environmental steward – somehow has all fallen victim to the worst kind of partisan politics in Washington.”

(Note: this post has been updated with the same map used in Rep. Mulvaney’s presentation.)

**

Twitter/luizachsavage

‘Anyone but Romney’

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Monday, January 16, 2012 at 9:10 AM - 0 Comments

Brian Snyder/Reuters

Bob Vander Plaats has seen this movie before—and he’d really like to change the ending. He’s the right-wing Christian leader in Iowa who helped launch Rick Santorum from the back of the Republican presidential pack to a stunning virtual tie with the far better-funded front-runner Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses—each getting 25 per cent of the vote. Vander Plaats, who heads a social conservative group called the Family Leader, endorsed Santorum two weeks before the vote, when the former Pennsylvania senator had a mere four per cent in the polls, and his network of conservative activists helped rewrite the first chapter of the campaign.

But when Romney emerged victorious from the next vote in New Hampshire on Jan. 10, Vander Plaats saw history repeating itself. Back in 2008, he’d been the Iowa campaign chair of Mike Huckabee, the once-obscure former pastor and governor of Arkansas. Huckabee shot to national prominence with his Iowa victory, carried, like Santorum, on a wave of support from Christian conservatives concerned with social issues such as abortion and gay marriage—only to be bested by John McCain in moderate New Hampshire. And most crucially, Vander Plaats’s candidate was defeated by McCain in South Carolina, where conservatives split their votes between Huckabee and a former-actor-turned-senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson. McCain went on to win the nomination despite staunch opposition from conservatives critical of his views on everything from illegal immigration to climate change and torture.

Continue…

Move over abortion, here comes Iran

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM - 0 Comments

This morning’s prayer breakfast began predictably enough. In a hotel ballroom here in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, where Republicans are gathering ahead of Monday night’s candidates’ debate, the room was packed with hundreds of social conservatives and evangelical Christians. The emcee’s opening remarks declared, “It is not in government we trust; it is in God we trust.” Then came a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Organizers had forgot to bring in an American flag so the audience was asked to recite the pledge “to the flag inscribed upon our hearts.” (A flag was promptly rushed in.) Next a pastor led an invocation, asking God to help America “turn from our wicked ways” and “heal our land.” Some in the audience prayed with their eyes closed, others with a hand upraised. “Contrary to what so many believe,” he declared. “We are still a God-fearing Christian nation.”

But then, rather than turn to traditional social conservative issues of abortion, marriage, or school prayer, the agenda turned abruptly to foreign policy. (Almost an hour of breakfasting would go by before the word “abortion” was mentioned.) Continue…

Last minute fixes to Mitt Romney’s face

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 8:53 PM - 0 Comments

Here is “Mount Myrtle”, a massive sand sculpture by Team Sandtastic,  here in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, receiving finishing touches ahead of the Republican candidates’ debate on Monday evening.

I’m told it was built using shovels and pastry knives. Newt Gingrich’s head seems the most life-like of the lot. Mitt Romney’s, the biggest.

**

Twitter/luizachsavage

The battle to define the post-Bush GOP

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 7:28 PM - 0 Comments

There are a few interesting things going on in the Republican presidential campaign beyond the immediate battle for who will be emerge from South Carolina as the strongest “Not Romney.”

Two big conversations have emerged from this campaign season that go beyond the question of “Who can beat Obama in November?”

The first is the relationship between Republicans and free-market capitalism, high finance, and the growing inequality gap in the U.S. Most recently, this issue has exploded in the form of Newt Gingrich’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record while he ran Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Gingrich, quickly joined by Rick Perry, attacked Romney for buying up failing enterprises, saddled them with large debt used in part to pay Bain large management fees, and then downsized them or let them fail, resulting in large job losses. This is the theme of the film “When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” that Gingrich’s supporters are promoting around South Carolina.

Here’s Gingrich on Thursday: Continue…

The GOP goes to pieces

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, January 6, 2012 at 6:00 AM - 0 Comments

Charlie Neibergall/AP

The night before the vote in the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, stood grinning in disbelief at a Pizza Ranch restaurant in a suburb of Des Moines, surrounded by throngs of supporters who had turned the place into a mob scene where they faced a real risk of getting trampled. Or at least suffering a smack to the head with the butt end of a television camera from a major U.S. network or even one from the U.K. or Japan.

Santorum was suddenly a Republican front-runner, a conservative Catholic surging on the strength of Iowa’s evangelical voters. The next night, as Maclean’s went to press, he was locked in a dead heat with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the caucuses’ vote, the first vote in the GOP’s nomination process.

For months, Santorum had languished with support in the single digits and only a few questions tossed his way during televised debates. Now, sporting his trademark sweater vest over a button-down shirt, with a boyish face and earnest demeanour, he had the air of a class president about him (if the class president had fathered seven kids ages three to 20 and put on a few pounds).

Continue…

Return of the fighter

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Monday, December 19, 2011 at 11:30 AM - 0 Comments

Carolyn Kaster/AP

As they argue amongst themselves heading into the first primary votes next month, Republican presidential hopefuls can agree on this much: President Barack Obama has been “absent,” “missing,” “nowhere” and ineffectual on the most pressing issues of the day.

“He’s done nothing” on the debt, said Mitt Romney at a campaign stop last month. “He has completely disengaged from his job,” Michelle Bachmann told Fox News in November. Obama has shown “no leadership” on China, according to Jon Huntsman, and a “lack of leadership” on Syria, according to Rick Perry. On the economy, quipped Bachmann: “It’s been like, Where’s Waldo?”

It’s something of a U-turn from what Republicans argued in the prelude to the mid-term elections in 2010: that a power-hungry Obama was steamrolling America into an unrecognizable socialist state. That line helped sweep Tea Party candidates into Congress and gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives. But all of a sudden, they say, Obama is fiddling his thumbs—particularly in the face of America’s US$15-trillion debt.

Continue…

US ambassador: border deal more baseball than football

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 1:00 PM - 0 Comments

This morning, I spoke with US Ambassador David Jacobson about the border deal.

First off, for the record, let me say that the ambassador rejects the football analogy – “game of inches” – used in my previous post to describe the incremental progress on border issues that this agreement represents.

Jacobson, a long-suffering Chicago Cubs fan, says it’s better to think about progress on the border in terms of baseball:

“For years the Cubs tried to success by getting home-run hitters,” said Jacobson. “But the way you win pennants and – or so they tell me – the World Series, is getting a lot of guys who can hit singles and doubles. This [border agreement] is a collection of singles and doubles and when you add them up you get a Championship. I think this is a more apt analogy.”

I asked him to respond to a few of the other issues:

Q: Who will be in charge of implementing the agreement and ensuring that the deadlines are met? Will there be someone at the White House?

Jacobson: There are different people in charge of the regulatory side and the “Beyond the Border” part. On the regulatory side, it’s Cass Sunstein, head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. On the border side, it is the people who have managed the process so far: Dan Restrepo [Special Assistant to the President and a Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council] and Peggy Cogswell [who heads the Screening Coordination Office at the Department of Homeland Security]. Ultimately, they are acting on behalf of the president of the United States.

This is a process. I flew home last night from Washington and crossed the border and it looked the same as when I flew down to Washington. Nothing changed at the border. But over the next several months and the next several years there will be changes – but only if we follow up on what we committed to yesterday. The Canadian and American people need to hold our feet to the fire.

A: The agreement mentions a May 30, 2012 deadline for coming up with joint privacy protection principles to guide the work under the action plan. Who will be in charge and what kind of input will they seek from the public?

Jacobson: We are already putting out Federal Register notices for the regulatory cooperation piece and the border vision piece. We are informally reaching out and I have already gotten God-knows-how-many telephone calls about this. We are reaching out for input not just on privacy but on everything.

With regard to privacy specifically, I personally feel very strongly about this. There are people who have expressed concerns — both in Canada and in the US – about the need for us to respect privacy. I agree that people should be concerned – and they are concerned on both sides of the border that privacy is honored and respected on both sides of border.

I have spent my whole life defending these issues – the first job I ever had was at ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union]. The president taught on these issues. Americas value these issues as much as Canadians.

Right now every agency in the US that will get access to this information has its own privacy officer. Every agency has an inspector general who is responsible for monitoring these issues and reporting to the president and to Congress. Personal information can only be accessed on a strict need-to-know basis and it is a felony for members of US government to use personal information for improper purposes. These are things we are concerned about.

We protect privacy in different ways – but our values are very much in synch. We want to make sure we give comfort on both sides of the border that privacy and individual rights will be respected in both countries.

There is a person in the White House responsible for this. Canada has a Privacy Commissioner and they will be involved, and privacy officers at each agency will be responsible for working with their counterparts to come up with [the joint statement on privacy protection]. These issues are really important to all of us.

The agreement includes many items that will require funding – from new computer systems to new infrastructure at the border. What can you say about the prospects for funding these items given the fiscal situation in the US and the desire of Congress to cut federal government spending?

Jacobson: Obviously at the moment there are budget issues in the US. What the agreement does is say the expenditures will be handled as part of budget processes in each country on a case by case basis. There is not a lot money to throw around. But some of these things will save money and some of them will cost money. We have to make sure we will implement them on the basis that both countries can afford. One of the things we need to do on both sides is to invest in things that will create jobs and this [agreement] is one of those things that will create jobs. The president spoke quite eloquently about that yesterday. There are some things we need to spend money on. I can’t tell you how much any one thing will cost or how the Congress will allocate the money.

What kind of assurances can you give to Canadians that the effort on regulatory cooperation will not lead to a watering down of health and safety standards, or a movement away from government regulation to self-regulation by industry?

Jacobson:  This is not a process of a “race to the bottom” or “we’ll take whichever is the least restrictive” or un-regulating or de-regulating. That is not our intention. People on both sides of the border understand that.

About that border deal between Canada and the U.S.

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 12:02 AM - 0 Comments

Amid the pageantry of a joint appearance at the White House alongside President Obama, the prime minister on Wednesday touted the new border security agreement in grandiose terms: the “most significant steps forward in Canada-U.S. cooperation since the North American Free Trade Agreement.” The agreement, though, is less a single leap than a series of many incremental gains, say the technocrats who labored in the shadows to put the multifaceted deal together. One Canadian official likened border negotiations to the cliché about football—it’s a “game of inches.” And this agreement covers a lot of inches—including myriad new ways in which the two nations will share data about travelers and cargo, the promise of a single on-line portal for importers and exporters who today have to schlep paper documents to a variety of government agencies, and pilot projects that will allow certain kinds of pre-inspected cargo to cross the border without stopping. It also includes a border wait-time measurement system and an inventory of border fees to help citizens and policy makers understand how well things are working—or not.

There is no doubt that Canadian officials have learned their lesson from years of trilateral “Three Amigos” summitry that resulted in lengthy bureaucratic to-do lists and more controversy than results. This time, they cut out Mexico, instead running a bilateral process focused on a limited number concrete high-impact results that could be implemented in a short period of time. Rather than endlessly negotiating over grand policy changes, they agreed to more modest pilot projects in complicated areas such as land border-preclearance in order to “build confidence” and demonstrate tangible results on the ground. Continue…

What to do about Tehran’s push for nukes?

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 7:10 AM - 0 Comments

Reuters

War drums are beating again in Washington, nearly a decade after the push to invade Iraq over stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be non-existent. This time critics warn that time is running out for President Barack Obama to stop Iran’s alleged progress toward building a nuclear weapon. A growing chorus of hawkish voices say the United States—or Israel—must soon bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities or else accept a world in which the theocratic Islamist regime wields nukes, and then try to “contain” the threat.

The world’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, concluded in a report on Nov. 8 that Iran is closer than ever to obtaining nuclear weapons. Then, on Friday, Nov. 18, the IAEA’s 35-nation board of governors, including representatives from China and Russia, voted to censure Iran. “The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device,” said the agency’s head, Yukiya Amano.”

The IAEA said Iran has been acquiring large quantities of enriched uranium, and that it was working toward perfecting an “implosion device” that would turn it into a weapon. “It is no longer within the bounds of credulity to claim that Iran’s nuclear activities are solely peaceful,” said Glyn Davies, the chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA.

Continue…

Some enchanted evening

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

In her new political memoir, No Higher Honor, Condoleezza Rice devotes little ink to her dealings with Canada. There are fleeting, subclause-length mentions of Canada’s role in Haiti and Afghanistan. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien rates a full sentence for blasting a speech in which George W. Bush called for the ouster of Yasser Arafat.

And then there is Peter MacKay. He gets almost a page.

It turns out their evening together in Nova Scotia, in 2006, was more than just grist for the gossip mill—Rice credits it with helping her decide not to quit her job.

In 2006, the secretary of state was embroiled in “intense” internal White House confrontations over detainee policies, while externally defending the administration’s actions to reporters and foreign governments. By Sept. 11, 2006, she felt ready to leave: “I have been doing this too long, I thought. Tomorrow I am going to tell the President that I want to leave at the end of the year. I can’t do this anymore.”

Continue…

The U.S. and Canada: we used to be friends

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Monday, November 21, 2011 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

No one was more surprised than TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. itself by the Obama administration’s decision to impose a fresh year or more delay on a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline—TransCanada’s proposed 2,673-km project that could transport more than 700,000 barrels of crude oil from the oil sands in Alberta to refineries in Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast of Texas. It had been heavily promoted by the governments of Canada and Alberta. And after two years of studies and drafts, the U.S. State Department had issued a final environmental assessment on Aug. 26 that had turned out to be even friendlier to the pipeline than supporters had been hoping for.

Indeed, the State Department concluded that there are “no significant impacts” to the environment along the route of the pipeline. The department also concluded that the pipeline would fill a need: even under a “low demand” outlook for oil, and even if there was increased fuel efficiency and a greater use of alternative energy sources, the hunger for Canadian crude oil would continue to grow among Gulf Coast refineries because supplies from countries such as Mexico and Venezuela are declining. Alternative transportation methods, such as trucking or rail, would add more emissions and run a higher risk of accidents than a pipeline. The project would not increase greenhouse gas emissions, State reasoned, because the oil would be produced for somebody to use in any case. And State also looked at 14 alternative routes and decided that none of them was preferable to the one proposed by TransCanada.

Then, little more than two months later, on Nov. 10, the State Department abruptly balked and declared the need for an additional study—one that would take a year or more—to look at an alternative pipeline route within the state of Nebraska that would avoid the Sand Hills area. That is a region of grass-covered sand dunes that covers a quarter of the state—and also Nebraska’s Ogallala aquifer, one of America’s largest underground sources of fresh water. The study is expected to delay a permit decision, which State had said would come by the end of December, until 2013. Had the project been approved on schedule, it could have started operating by then; the delay will push final approval for the project past the presidential election.

TransCanada was stunned. “We actually found out about it after others did,” company spokesperson Shawn Howard told Maclean’s. “It was a surprise. We thought the conclusions reached in the final environmental impact statement were pretty clear.” The company believed it had picked the best route. “The biggest issue was distance. This was the shortest route through that part of the state, and as a result it had the least amount of land disturbance and affected the fewest land-owners,” he said.

Continue…

State Dept announces new Keystone study, delay

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 3:37 PM - 0 Comments

It’s official: the State Department has announced it will conduct additional “in-depth” study of an alternative route for the Keystone XL pipeline given concerns about the pipeline passing through the  Sand Hills of Nebraska.

This is something environmentalists had demanded for a long time, but State had shown little interest in until the politicalpressure was put onto the White House.

This move could push a final decision on the permit back by 12-18 months, according to Reuters, and therefore past the election.

I have not seen a statement yet from TransCanada in response. The company had indicated in the past that too much delay could kill the project.

From State:

For Immediate Release and Posting

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

For Immediate Release                                                                                                                                                           November 10, 2011

2011/1909

MEDIA NOTE

Keystone XL Pipeline Project Review Process: Decision to Seek Additional Information

Executive Order 13337 authorizes the Department of State to lead the review of Presidential Permit applications for transborder pipelines, granting the Department discretion in determining what factors to examine to inform a determination of whether the proposed project is in the national interest.  Since 2008, the Department has been conducting a transparent, thorough and rigorous review of TransCanada’s application for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project.  As a result of this process, particularly given the concentration of concerns regarding the environmental sensitivities of the current proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, the Department has determined it needs to undertake an in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes in Nebraska.

As part of the National Interest Determination process, the State Department held a public comment period, including public meetings in the six potentially affected states and Washington, D.C., to increase the opportunity for public comments.  During this time, the Department also received input from state, local, and tribal officials.  We received comments on a wide range of issues including the proposed project’s impact on jobs, pipeline safety, health concerns, the societal impact of the project, the oil extraction in Canada, and the proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, which was one of the most common issues raised.  The comments were consistent with the information in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) about the unique combination of characteristics in the Sand Hills (which includes a high concentration of wetlands of special concern, a sensitive ecosystem, and extensive areas of very shallow groundwater) and provided additional context and information about those characteristics.  The concern about the proposed route’s impact on the Sand Hills of Nebraska has increased significantly over time, and has resulted in the Nebraska legislature convening a special session to consider the issue.

State law primarily governs routes for interstate petroleum pipelines; however, Nebraska currently has no such law or regulatory framework authorizing state or local authorities to determine where a pipeline goes.  Taken together with the national concern about the pipeline’s route, the Department has determined it is necessary to examine in-depth alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills in Nebraska in order to move forward with a National Interest Determination for the Presidential Permit.

Based on the Department’s experience with pipeline project reviews and the time typically required for environmental reviews of similar scope by other agencies, it is reasonable to expect that this process including a public comment period on a supplement to the final EIS consistent with NEPA could be completed as early as the first quarter of 2013.  After obtaining the additional information, the Department would determine, in consultation with the eight other agencies identified in the Executive Order, whether the proposed pipeline was in the national interest, considering all of the relevant issues together.  Among the relevant issues that would be considered are environmental concerns (including climate change), energy security, economic impacts, and foreign policy.

***

Twitter/luizachsavage

Condi Rice on her night with Peter MacKay

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 3:24 PM - 0 Comments

In her new political memoir, No Higher Honor, Condoleezza Rice, devotes little ink to her dealings with Canada. Most mentions are fleeting and rate less than a sentence: there is Canada training police in Haiti, “standing aside” during the Iraq invasion, “bristling” while other NATO countries limited their own rules of engagement in Afghanistan, or participating in “unsettling” meetings on the lack of military coordination there. Former prime minister Jean Chretien gets a sentence all to himself for telling other G8 leaders he was “appalled” by a speech in which George W. Bush called for the ouster of Yasser Arafat.

And then there is Peter MacKay. He gets almost a page.

It turns out their evening together in Nova Scotia 2006 was more than just grist for the gossip mill — Rice credits it with helping her decide not to quit her job. Continue…