Mind the ‘credibility’ gap

By Colby Cosh - Monday, October 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM - 0 Comments

(J Pat Carter/AP Photo)

Over the weekend, the estimable David Akin was talking U.S. politics with Ipsos’s Darrell Bricker on Twitter when he noticed an unfamiliar verbal oddity in a Reuters report on the polling firm’s recent survey of early voters.

Obama leads Romney 54 per cent to 39 per cent among voters who already have cast ballots, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling data compiled in recent weeks. The sample size of early voters is 960 people, with a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Huh, what’s this “credibility interval” business? Sounds like a different name for the good old margin of error! But why would we need a different name for that? This question, it turns out, is the pop-top on a can of worms.

The polling business has a problem: when most households had a single land-line telephone, it was relatively easy to sample the population cheaply and well—to estimate quantities like voter intentions in a clean, mathematically uncomplicated way, as one might draw different-coloured balls from a single urn to estimate the amounts of each colour amongst the balls on the inside. That happy state of affairs has, of course, been reduced to chaos by the cell phone.

The cell phone, increasingly, does not just divide the population into two hypothetical urns—which is basically how pollsters originally went about solving the problem. Its overall effect (including the demise of the telephone directory) has affected the math of polling in several ways, all of them constantly intensifying; declining response rates to public surveys (“Get lost, pal, you’re eating up my minutes”) are the most obvious example. Put simply, individual members of the public are no longer necessarily accessible for polite questioning by means of a single randomizable number that everybody pretty much has one of. The problem of sampling from the urn has thus become infinitely more complicated. Pollsters can no longer assume that the balls are more or less evenly distributed inside the urn, and it is getting harder and harder to reach into the urn and rummage around.

So how are they handling this obstacle? Their job, at least when it comes to pre-election polling, is becoming a lot less like drawing balls from an urn and more like flying an aircraft in zero-visibility conditions. The boffins are becoming increasingly reliant on “non-probability samples” like internet panel groups, which give only narrow pictures of biased subsets of the overall population. The good news is that they can take many such pictures and use modern computational techniques to combine them and make pretty decent population inferences. “Obama is at 90 per cent with black voters in Shelbyville; 54 per cent among auto workers; 48 per cent among California epileptics; 62 per cent with people whose surnames start with the letter Z…” Pile up enough subsets of this sort, combined with knowledge of their relative sizes and other characteristics, and you can build models which let you guess at the characteristics of the entire electorate (or, if you’re doing market research, the consumerate).

As a matter of truth in advertising, however, pollsters have concluded that they shouldn’t report the uncertainty of these guesses by using the traditional term “margin of error.” There is an extra layer of inference involved in the new techniques: they offer what one might call a “margin of error, given that the modelling assumptions are correct.” And there’s a philosophical problem, too. The new techniques are founded on what is called a “Bayesian” basis, meaning that sample data must be combined explicitly with a prior state of knowledge to derive both estimates of particular quantities and the uncertainty surrounding them.

A classical pre-election voter survey would neither require nor benefit from ordinary knowledge of the likely range of President Obama’s vote share: such surveys start only with the purely mathematical specification that the share must definitely be somewhere between 0 per cent and 100 per cent. A Bayesian approach might start by specifying that in the real world Obama, for no other reason than that he is a major-party candidate, is overwhelmingly likely to land somewhere between 35 per cent and 65 per cent. And this range would be tightened up gradually, using Bayes’ Law, as new survey information came in.

This is probably the best way, in principle, to make intelligent election forecasts. But you can see the issues with it. Bayesianism explicitly invites some subjectivity into the art of the pollster. (Whose “priors” do we use, and why?) And in making the step from estimating the current disposition of the populace to making positive election forecasts, one has to have a method of letting the influence of old information gradually attenuate as it gets less relevant. Even nifty Bayesian techniques, by themselves, don’t solve that problem.

Pollsters are trying very hard to appear as transparent and up-front about their methods as they were in the landline era. When it comes to communicating with journalists, who are by and large a gang of rampaging innumerates, I don’t really see much hope for this; polling firms may not want their methods to be some sort of mysterious “black box,” but the nuances of Bayesian multilevel modelling, even to fairly intense stat hobbyists, might as well be buried in about a mile of cognitive concrete. Our best hope is likely to be the advent of meta-analysts like (he said through tightly gritted teeth) Nate Silver, who are watching and evaluating polling agencies according to their past performance. That is, pretty much exactly as if they were “black boxes.” In the meantime, you will want to be on the lookout for that phrase “credibility interval.”  As the American Association for Public Opinion Research says, it is, in effect, a “[news] consumer beware” reminder.

The Latino Obama?

By Jaime Weinman - Tuesday, August 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM - 0 Comments

Pat Sullivan/AP

Julián Castro, the 37-year-old mayor of San Antonio, Texas, is drawing comparisons to Barack Hussein Obama—and not just because they both share a name with a former dictator. When Castro was announced as the keynote speaker at the upcoming Democratic National Convention, stories focused on his background: a Harvard-educated pragmatist who is less left-wing than his mother, Rosie Castro, who heads the Mexican-American civil rights group La Raza Unida. The New York Times, echoing the way people used to speak of Obama, has called Castro the “post-Hispanic Hispanic politician.” Democrats must hope that Castro can do something that Obama hasn’t been able to do: deliver a major demographic advantage over the Republicans.

For 50 years, the Democrats have been losing ground among Caucasian voters. In the 2010 midterms, David Paul Kuhn, with the blog Real Clear Politics, wrote that they “performed worse with whites than in any other congressional election since the Second World War.” Some Democrats have argued the party needs to do more to court the white working class, but others have countered that the party should concentrate on wooing the growing Hispanic population, alienated by the Republicans’ anti-immigration policies. The strategy may have already helped in states like Colorado, which has become more Democratic, and Nevada, where Democratic Sen. Harry Reid managed to win a surprise re-election in 2010, based partly on Latino votes.

That strategy is very likely the reason Castro was chosen to deliver the keynote; it also explains why Obama is campaigning in Texas, a state he has almost no chance of winning. Though Texas hasn’t chosen a Democrat in a statewide election since 1994, it has pockets of Democratic power in urban areas like Castro’s own San Antonio and Houston, which elected an openly gay woman as mayor in 2010. Urban Texas, the Washington Post wrote last month, is “surprisingly fruitful territory” for Obama’s fundraising.

If Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, the keynote speaker for the Democrats in 2008, represented the technocratic moderate Southerners who helped elect Obama the first time around, Castro may represent the younger, less white electorate the Democrats see as key to their future.

Some have already warned that the Democrats can’t take the minority vote for granted: “Assimilation and shifting notions of racial identity could change the equation,” wrote Jamelle Bouie of American Prospect magazine. But the Republicans seem to be going out of their way to create fertile ground for the Democrats with Mexican-Americans. Ted Cruz, the Cuban-American Republican nominee for this year’s U.S. Senate election in Texas, ran a campaign commercial touting his role in helping Texas “execute an illegal alien”—José Medellín, a Mexican citizen. That kind of story provides an opening for politicians like Castro. Plus, he has an identical twin brother, Joaquin, a Texas state representative, so if Julián doesn’t work out, the Democrats could always try again in 2016.

Courting the Latino vote in the U.S. presidential race

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 11:00 AM - 0 Comments

Todd Heisler/The New York Times

They are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. electorate, but one of the hardest to lure into the voting booth. About 22 million Hispanic-Americans will be eligible to vote this November, an increase of 3.5 million since the last presidential election. If they show up, they could account for 10 per cent of voters at the polls—and an even larger share in crucial battleground states like Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado.

In a presidential race that remains a statistical tie, then, they could make the difference. And as President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, struggle for their support, they are tossing around immigration policy proposals that could have big implications for Canada.

Most Hispanic voters lean Democratic, and Obama won just over two-thirds of their ballots in 2008. Romney knows he is unlikely to win a majority of their vote—but he doesn’t need to. George W. Bush, a Republican, southern-border state governor who won over many Hispanic voters with his push for bilingual education and promise of immigration reform, was able to get 40 per cent of their vote in 2004, and win re-election. And the Obama campaign has to worry about a repeat of the 2010 mid-term election results—when many Democratic supporters, including many Hispanics, stayed home and Republicans took over the House of Representatives.

Continue…

Why Obama should worry

By John Parisella - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 at 2:04 PM - 0 Comments

With the Wisconsin recall election over, and Republican Scott Walker reelected, it is clear the reelection of Barack Obama next November is far from certain. For the labour movement, this is a serious setback, and for Democrats, it’s a warning signal that the Republicans have shown strength in a state that has voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in the last 6 elections. And we are less than 6 months from the presidential election.

Republicans have every right to be jubilant. Governor Walker took on the public service unions, withstood a 1-million plus recall petition, and was able to keep the governorship in a state that gave Obama a 13% vote margin in 2008. This can only add to the already phenomenal fundraising efforts of the pro-Romney Super Pacs. The Wisconsin result has shown that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision regarding election finance from corporations is certain to change the parameters of this presidential election.

True, the Citizens’ United decision allows pro Democratic constituencies to regroup and form Super Pacs. But all the evidence points to the overriding strength and wealth of corporate America over the union movement.

Another factor in the GOP win has to do with Democrats being unable to present a coherent alternative to the GOP outside of the more traditional rhetoric of the past. As much as the Democrats and Obama were inspirational in 2008, they have resorted to tactics and a political discourse that is more reminiscent of past glories than of a promising future. It is fair to ask, despite Republican obstruction: What has happened to change and hope?

The economy, which remains the major issue for much of the electorate, seems to be sputtering at a very inopportune time for the Obama Administration. Despite some obvious achievements by the Obama team, the general mood of polarization and negative attacks has soured the electorate on politics this time around.

President Obama himself cannot escape some of the blame for the Wisconsin debacle. Some will point to his absence in the recall campaign for the defeat. The margin appears too wide for this hypothesis to be viable. Besides, an incumbent President running for reelection should not be distracted by a state conflict despite national implications. What Obama has to reflect upon is not his presence in Wisconsin, but his message to the country. He needs to do more than try to define the unimpressive Mitt Romney.

The American electorate continues to show respect and affection for a President who is facing the slowest post recession recovery since the 1930’s. They may not be satisfied with the state of the economy, but they are willing to cut Obama some slack. After all, the Bush years remain a bad memory.

Despite the disappointing results last night in Wisconsin, Obama still has plenty of time to recover. His Republican opponents continue to hammer a negative, un-inspirational message, alienating in the process some key constituents. Their attacks on a ‘fictional’ Obama lack ingenuity, and seem increasingly so over-the-top as to be risible.

Yet, Obama remains vulnerable as Wisconsin has shown. Money and the state of the economy give every reason for Obama to worry.

Obama’s learning curve

By John Parisella - Monday, April 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM - 0 Comments

In an election year, one important criterion in evaluating an incumbent is whether he/she has grown in office. Barack Obama entered his presidency with a strong narrative and a compelling personal history, but with little or no experience as an executive. Suddenly, on November 4, 2008, he became the world’s most powerful individual—in the midst of a major financial meltdown and economic recession, along with two inconclusive wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) and a burgeoning debt.

There will be other instances as we get closer to the 2012 election when his record will be assessed in more detail. The question that must be posed now is: Has President Obama grown in office?  Has he learned from his mistakes? Is he acting with greater assurance in the exercise of his duties?

We know President Obama started with a 60 per cent plus approval rating in much of his first 100 days, and six months from his re-election rendez-vous, he is slightly under 50 per cent. Many pundits blame the slow economic recovery for this drop. Others believe Obama made a major mistake in pushing universal healthcare at a time when people were still feeling the recession. Ultimately, the November result will give much material for historians of the Obama Administration.

Surely, Obama has not had an error-free administration. On healthcare, he may have passed his landmark legislation, but he failed to win much support for it in the process. On the economic stimulus plan, he may have compromised unnecessarily to get Republican votes in Congress, and the sluggish recovery has obscured the fact that his Administration has created more jobs in three and a half years than his predecessor Bush did in eight.

Yet despite mixed results, we can observe the maturing of Obama in office. While he seemed more detached in the first two years—depending a lot on his rhetoric and foregoing the traditional strength of the Presidential bully pulpit—he now seems more engaged.

In December 2011 and later in February of this year, President Obama faced the hostile Republican majority in the House of Representatives to win an extension of the payroll tax-cut for an extra year.  He has since promoted the ‘Buffet rule’ which sets a floor of 30 per cent on the income rate for millionaires and billionaires. Obama has yet to win this battle, but he framed this issue for the campaign, and placed the GOP on the defensive. Just recently, the President took the offensive on women’s issues after a disastrous Republican primary season, and has all but won the fight on freezing tuition interest rates for students.  His approach on the Jimmy Fallon show, where he engaged in “slow jamming the news” on the issue, represents an Obama reminiscent of his better 2008 days.

In the area of national security and foreign policy, the president has increasingly demonstrated a sure-footedness in dealing with a complex, ever-changing and dangerous world. As we recall the daring elimination of Osama Bin Laden a year ago, we are reminded that this President has done much to improve America’s standing in the world.  Over 50 per cent of Americans approve of Obama’s performance on the international stage.

With Romney the soon-to-be-crowned opponent, Obama is now setting the agenda—unlike last summer’s battle on the debt ceiling where he appeared weak and ineffective. He has since changed the political climate and is now showing more presidential poise and confidence with each outing.

This being said, the economy remains a problem, and the mood of America is not positive. Americans may soon conclude that the Obama presidency has failed, and may want to return to the GOP policies of the past. However, at this moment, the GOP challenger is still trying to define himself, while Obama is showing increasingly that he is on an upward learning curve. At the end of the day, this could be the determining factor in winning President Obama a second term.

Obama’s uncertain road

By John Parisella - Friday, March 16, 2012 at 1:22 PM - 0 Comments

In the wake of Mitt Romney’s lacklustre performance in Mississippi and Alabama, the discussion has centered on how the Romney campaign must retool as he is emerging as a weaker candidate from the primary process. Both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have indirectly pushed this narrative with their attacks on the frontrunner, despite Romney’s obvious delegate advantage for the nomination. In light of this, however, it would be foolhardy for Obama supporters to conclude that this election may not be as close as predicted with the President pulling off an easy win.

The reality is that recent polls show a decrease in Obama‘s approval members, largely attributed to the gas prices. Romney has actually narrowed the worrisome gap of recent weeks, and in some polls, he is actually ahead. Even Obama’s lead over the more polarizing Santorum is not wide enough for the President to feel any comfort. It is clear from these poll numbers that America is still fundamentally a 50-50 country.

Whether it is a President from one party, or a House from another, when the presidential results hover around the 50% mark, no party or ideology clearly dominates the political landscape. Many would be tempted to predict that the Democrats with President Obama may win next November, but few would predict that he will recapture the House in the process. This is why the Republican primary spectacle, disheartening as it is to many veteran Republicans, is not a forerunner of an electoral defeat for their nominee come November.

There are three factors that the Obama campaign see as being serious obstacles to reelection. One is the Republican obsession with defeating Obama at all costs. The animosity directed against an incumbent President has never been as vitriolic in recent decades. His birthright has been questioned, he is described as a radical, European socialist, and there is the implication is that he acts un-American when he apologizes to other countries about America’s role in past conflicts. All this is part of the fictional Obama syndrome created by GOP spin-meisters, but it is also an indication that even an unloved Mitt Romney is by far more acceptable to Republicans than Obama. Expect Republicans to rally around Romney because their dislike for Obama far surpasses their reservations about the former Massachusetts Governor’s conservative credentials.

A second factor is the economy, considered by all as the overriding issue in the fall campaign. Despite encouraging job numbers in recent months, the recovery is still not robust and gasoline prices are beginning to modify the rhetoric of a sound economy. With Americans travelling more in the summer months and with events in the Middle East remaining uncertain, it is possible that higher gasoline prices could spark an economic slowdown in the months leading up to the election. This accounts for Obama’s increasingly public presence to explain why gas prices are on the rise, and how his energy policy is not to blame.

A final, even more uncertain factor is events in Syria, Afghanistan and Iran. At best, it is difficult to predict circumstances in each country. At worst, events could mushroom out of control with Obama appearing weak and ineffective in the process. Granted, foreign policy rarely trumps domestic issues, but there could be a cause-and-effect outcome on the U.S. economy if the situation deteriorates in those countries.

President Obama remains the best campaigner of the lot and he has recovered much of the mojo lost in the debt ceiling debate of last summer. The Tea Party is less of a factor than it has been, and the Republican alternative fails to impress. But when key factors are somewhat beyond the full grasp of the White House, it is fair to conclude at this juncture that Obama’s reelection prospects are on an uncertain road.

Bye-bye, oil sheiks of the Middle East

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 10:30 AM - 0 Comments

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

The rural state of North Dakota is famous mainly for its rough weather. Its largest city, Fargo, is best known to outsiders as the title of a noir movie in which a body is fed through a wood chipper. With a population half the size of Winnipeg’s scattered across rugged plains, it once held the distinction of being the least-visited state in the U.S. But today, so many people are flocking to North Dakota that there is nowhere to put them. In a nation beset by joblessness, workers are coming here in such numbers that an estimated 15,000 people are now living in trailers, cars, corporate “man camps” and other forms of makeshift housing. So scarce are places to sleep that in 2010 one firm housed some of its workers by trucking in a chunk of Vancouver’s recently used Olympic Village to the overwhelmed city of Williston.

The reason is an oil boom. Production in the state has surged from 100,000 barrels per day in 2007 to 500,000 barrels per day and growing—almost overnight making North Dakota the fourth-largest producer in the U.S., and on its way to becoming second only to Texas. And, like the Alberta oil sands boomtown of Fort McMurray—whose mayor recently visited to offer advice (“Plan ahead!”)—Williston is abruptly bursting.“First it got hard to find the hotel rooms. Then it was housing. Now it’s everything,” says Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council. The state is racing to build more houses, roads, schools and hospitals. The biggest sign of change: “Young people in the communities,” says Ness—sons and daughters are not leaving the state to look for work as soon as they turn of age. It’s been, he says, a “renaissance—and a challenge.”

A rebirth of the local economy is the least of it. The oil boom under way here is part of a global transformation with far-reaching consequences for matters of warfare, the environment and modern life. Like Alberta’s oil sands, the sudden bonanza in North Dakota is driven by recent technological advances that have, for the first time, made it economically viable to extract oil (and natural gas) from previously untappable geological formations—so-called “unconventional” fuel trapped in rock. Such formations have been discovered elsewhere around the United States, but for years sat fallow as a mere curiosity. Suddenly, however, the technology is available to get the oil and gas out. And the rise of the feasibility this type of oil and gas extraction is poised to transform the geopolitics of energy.

In spite of the considerable environmental and logistical challenges involved, these developments have led to feverish calls for “energy independence.” The prospect that the U.S. could fulfill all its own energy needs from domestic sources, plus those from friendly neighbours such as Canada, has become a rallying cry for the Republican presidential candidates who are attacking President Barack Obama for standing in the way of job creation and “energy security.” Obama’s decision to deny a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have moved Alberta oil sands crude to refineries on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, has become a staple topic on the Republican presidential trail. In November, the Obama administration did move to open more areas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska to offshore drilling, but banned development along the East and West Coast, fuelling more criticism from industry groups and Republicans.

The debate over North American energy security has been unfolding against the backdrop of the unpredictable Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa, home to 70 per cent or more of the world’s known conventional oil reserves. “The Arab world is very possibly at the beginning of the great revolutionary period of the 21st century,” says Paul Sullivan, an economics professor at the National Defense University in Washington. “Nobody really knows how long this will go and how it will all play out.” Of course, non-oil-producing states like Egypt and Syria are in chaos. But tensions continue to threaten some of the region’s largest producers, like Libya, Algeria, Bahrain, even Saudi Arabia.

And now the discussion has been sent into overdrive by recent threats by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz—a choke point on the Persian Gulf separating Iran from Oman—as retaliation for harsh economic sanctions over its nuclear program and the threat of a military attack on its nuclear facilities. The Strait of Hormuz is only 54 km wide, but each day, 15 million barrels of oil—17 per cent of the oil consumed by the world—move through the waterway. It would be a global disaster.

The rise of North America as an energy power is starting to get attention overseas. “A few years ago, much of the global debate was based on the premise of acute resource scarcity and its economic and political ramifications,” said Khalid al-Falih, the head of Saudi Arabia’s state-owned energy company, Aramco, in a speech on Nov. 21. But, he added, “Rather than supply scarcity, oil supplies remain at comfortable levels, even given rising demand from fast-growing nations like China and India.” The reason? Abundant supplies and a “more balanced geographical distribution of unconventionals”—such as the new sources now being developed by Canada and the United States.

Canadians are among the loudest voices in the U.S. selling a vision of continental energy independence. One of the pitchmen is Brad Wall, the premier of Saskatchewan, who gives several U.S. speeches a year on energy. Speaking in December to conservative lawmakers from around the U.S. who had gathered in Phoenix, Ariz., he urged the audience to choose Canadian oil over what he calls “extreme oil” that depends on the U.S. military presence abroad. “I think we should have a broader goal continentally to move toward energy independence,” Wall told Maclean’s afterward. “Maybe this should be the moon mission of the next couple of decades.”

There is also a view that North American energy independence should include “Canadian energy independence.” Currently, Canada is a net exporter, producing more oil (2.5 million barrels per day) than Canadians consume (1.85 million). However, most Canadian production is exported from western provinces to the U.S., while about half of the crude used by Canadian refiners to meet domestic demand comes from imports—44 per cent of that from OPEC countries and 37 per cent from the North Sea, according to Natural Resources Canada. (The reason is the cost-effectiveness of exporting western oil to relatively closer American refineries, rather than moving it to refineries in Atlantic Canada, Ontario and Quebec.)

But are the Canadian and American unconventional sources enough to fuel continental energy independence—or, at the very least, to wean America off Middle Eastern oil? The number to start with is 19.1 million barrels—the amount of petroleum products the U.S. consumed per day in 2010, according to the U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration. Most of that was used for transportation.

The U.S. only produced about half of that—9.4 million barrels per day (counting crude oil, natural gas liquids and biofuels)—leaving a gap of about 9.7 million barrels to be supplied through imports. Canada contributed the largest share—one-quarter. The next biggest supplier was Saudi Arabia, at 12 per cent, followed by Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico and others. All told, OPEC members (Persian Gulf states, African countries, Venezuela and Ecuador) supplied about half of U.S. imports—already down from a peak of 70 per cent in 1977. So in order to eliminate oil from hostile or unstable sources at its current level of consumption, the U.S. would have to replace roughly five million barrels per day. Can it?

The U.S. domestic oil industry says yes—“Drill, baby, drill!” By ramping up domestic U.S. production and increasing imports from Canada, the United States could end its reliance on all other sources. “If the full potential of domestic oil and gas production could be achieved while also increasing imports of Canadian oil, all of America’s liquid fuels could come from secure North American sources within 15 years,” says Jack Gerard, the head of the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group.

The API hired consulting firm Wood Mackenzie to analyze a scenario of maximal North American oil production. They looked at what would happen if “all impediments” to extracting oil within the U.S. and off its shores were lifted. Under their scenario, drilling would be allowed in currently restricted areas off the coast of Alaska, the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and in portions of the Rocky Mountains. This would also include lifting a moratorium on shale drilling in New York state, and speeding up drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico that were slowed after the BP oil spill. In addition, Canadian oil sands pipelines into the U.S. would be fully developed so that the United States can absorb the expected increases of Canadian oil sands production.

The report concluded that without any change to current policies, U.S. production would increase only slightly above current levels. But if development was encouraged, U.S. production could surge to 15.4 million barrels per day in 2030 (not counting biofuels). The extra six million barrels would slightly exceed the portion of current consumption that comes from overseas. In addition, if enough pipeline capacity is built, Canadian oil sands production would increase from 1.6 million barrels per day in 2010 to 5.8 million in 2030. “By 2030, we could be very close if not equal to not having to import from other places in the world.” says John Felmy, chief economist for the API.

Already, the United States has seen a boom in natural gas production, thanks to the same technology that is enabling the oil boom: hydraulic fracking. This process pumps millions of litres of water and chemicals underground to break apart rock and release natural gas or oil. It is used to extract natural gas from underground shale formations such as the Marcellus in the northeastern part of the country, and the Eagle Ford and Barnett in Texas. Not only does the U.S. now produce enough natural gas to cover its own needs, but it is expected to soon become a natural gas exporter. Meanwhile, the abundant supplies have driven down prices for consumers, and have raised the possibility of replacing gasoline with natural gas for some vehicles such as buses and trucks, and for industrial plants to be adapted to run on natural gas—helping to reduce dependence on oil.

“Natural gas could conceivably become the basis of a vehicle fuel in the long run,” says Washington-based independent energy analyst Joseph Dukert, although, he adds, “We still have a long way to go before that happens. There is room for natural gas to penetrate the industrial energy market to a greater extent—but it would involve bringing in new types of equipment. Industry has been reluctant to move in that direction so it might take some nudging from the government.”

As for oil supplies, Canada is not the only neighbour that could help the U.S. move off of Middle Eastern oil. Oil giant BP has looked at the broader picture in the western hemisphere and concluded that if oil reserves trapped deep below the ocean off the coast of Brazil are developed, self-sufficiency is within reach by 2030. “The growth of unconventional supply, including U.S. shale oil and gas, Canadian oil sands and Brazilian deep-waters, against a background of a gradual decline in oil demand, will see the western hemisphere become almost totally energy self-sufficient by 2030,” the company concluded in a report on Jan. 18.

But on the opposite end of the spectrum are advocates for the surest form of independence: ending reliance on oil altogether. According to the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, a “comprehensive but achievable” clean energy strategy could cut America’s oil consumption by seven million barrels a day by 2030—more than enough to displace all imports, at today’s consumption level at least, from hostile and unstable countries.

The biggest piece of the NRDC’s strategy is a major increase in fuel efficiency. Already the Obama administration has taken a substantial step in that direction. Last November, the President announced new mileage rules for passenger cars and light trucks. Beginning in model year 2017, fuel-efficiency rates will have to start rising five per cent until they reach an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025—nearly double the fuel efficiency of today’s car. If the vehicle fleet on the road today had that efficiency rate, it would reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1.7 million barrels per day, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Under the NRDC’s plan, emissions standards should be increased further—to 60 miles per gallon by 2025—and seven per cent of all passenger-vehicle miles be travelled using plug-in electric vehicles. The estimated savings if the plan went into effect would be 2.8 million barrels a day by 2030. For additional savings, fuel-efficiency standards for new medium- and heavy-duty trucks would be increased from six to 10 miles per gallon, old vehicles retrofitted, and large numbers of heavy trucks switched from diesel fuel to natural gas. The rest of the plan consists of long-term changes to urban design and lifestyles—such as expanding public transit and planning “smart communities” that require less driving and commuting, a savings of 1.6 million barrels per day. Another 1.6 million barrels per day could be saved by a combination of conservation initiatives, including fuel-efficient replacement tires and motor oil. “The fact of the matter is that the lowest hanging fruit lie in efficiency and clean fuel technology,” says Anthony Swift, an attorney for the NRDC.

Environmentalists also argue that reducing supply is a more “secure” form of energy independence. The price of oil is set by global markets regardless of whether oil is produced in the U.S. or imported from Canada, so instability in the Middle East that leads to price hikes will still be felt by North American consumers. “Should OPEC or any other major exporter choose to cut off supplies to any country, supply shortages and a price spike are likely to affect every major importing country regardless of where they get their oil,” says Swift.

The National Defense University’s Sullivan, though, says that energy security is greater when supply is guaranteed, even if prices are high: it’s the difference between paying more at the pump—and a scenario under which no oil can be had at any price. Still, the maximalist North American production scenario is unlikely to happen in the kind of time frame contemplated by the oil industry, or ever, given environmental concerns, political opposition and infrastructure challenges. Witness the years of delay and impediments to building the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would have helped move not only Alberta crude but also domestic U.S. shale oil. Or take the mounting opposition to the hydraulic fracking that underpins so much of new domestic production—a major concern for environmentalists as well as local communities concerned about the possibility that the aquifers that supply their drinking water could be contaminated by chemicals.

There is also reason to be pessimistic about the political prospects of achieving independence purely by reducing fossil fuel consumption through greater conservation and the use of renewable “green” energy sources. A case in point is the controversy that erupted over the Obama administration’s half-billion-dollar loan guarantee to solar-panel-maker Solyndra Corporation in 2009. The company went bankrupt and taxpayers were left on the hook, in a debacle that critics have made into a poster child for wasteful government efforts to expand clean energy production faster than market forces would do on their own.

Indeed, the most likely way to reach oil independence by 2030 is probably a combination of some increase in production, alongside further reductions in demand. “In order for North America to become energy independent, there would have to be substantial changes in the demand side of the equation as well as supply,” says Joseph Dukert, an independent energy analyst in Washington. Murray Smith, a former Alberta energy minister and the province’s former envoy to Washington, agrees. “If you sat down and formed a presidential commission and said, ‘How do we do this? How do we get to the math?’ you could come very close to energy independence. It would require some increased availability of drilling in the U.S., changing natural gas into a transportation fuel, and it would require further savings on making the hydrocarbon molecule more efficient, and increasing the level of diesel engine penetration in the marketplace.” Smith adds, “I don’t think it’s a dream out of reach—but it’s an elusive dream. You have to commit to it.”

But rather than Americans uniting around a plan for the future, the politics have become divided. The pro-drilling advocates and the anti-oil advocates have taken to the barricades, as the Keystone and Solyndra clashes show. Republicans and Democrats have made energy a partisan issue. Each side has enthusiasm and fundraising for their cause—be it from the oil industry or national environmental groups. There is little evidence of a constituency for a compromise approach that could realistically take North American energy independence from buzzword to reality.

“It would be best to have a full, comprehensive energy security policy, but this is unlikely to happen any time soon,” Sullivan testified to a congressional committee earlier this year. “It seems we will need to settle for ad hoc improvements in the diversification of supplies and other ad hoc policy measures, until the real shocks hit us in waves upon waves upon waves of economic and energy security woes.”

Bachmann goes into overdrive

By macleans.ca - Thursday, July 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM - 13 Comments

Melina Mara/The Washington Post/Getty Images

So extreme was the caricature of Michele Bachmann as a kooky wild-eyed right-wing harpy that by the time she turned in a polished performance at her first candidates’ debate in New Hampshire in June, speaking in smooth, fully formed paragraphs and delving into details of national policy, you could almost hear a national gasp.

Without any Palin-esque winks at the cameras or “you-betchas,” the 55-year-old third-term congresswoman and mother of five from Minnesota has emerged as a serious force in the Republican presidential field, surging into second place behind frontrunner Mitt Romney in polls of Republican voters—and in at least one poll, ahead of him.

At a time when former Massachusetts governor Romney is repenting for past moderate positions, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty can’t quite bring himself to attack Romney head-on, and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman entered the race by describing his opposition to Obama as a genteel “difference of opinion on how to help a country we love,” Bachmann, who formally announced her candidacy on Monday, gleefully serves generous helpings of partisan red meat. On health care: “As president of the United States, I will not rest until I repeal Obamacare.” On Obama’s intervention in Libya: “Absolutely wrong.” On financial regulation: “An over-the-top bill that will actually lead to more job loss.” On reducing corporate taxes: “I’m a former federal tax lawyer. I’ve seen the devastation.” On energy efficiency: “President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want.”

Continue…

Aretha Franklin on Martin Luther King, Barack Obama and Halle Berry

By Elio Iannacci - Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 9:15 AM - 1 Comment

Jan Persson/Redferns/Getty Images

While Billie Holiday is often associated with the sound of suffering and Nina Simone, rage, Aretha Franklin’s music is almost always linked to the nourishing of hope and freedom. In fact, her powerful voice—which has officially been declared a natural resource by the state of Michigan—is forever tied to the U.S. civil rights movement.

Which is probably why major labels continue to make money by reissuing her classic tracks. Columbia Records has invested in two big projects this year. The Great American Songbook is an 18-track CD of covers written by legends such as Cole Porter and Billy Straythorn; the Take a Look box set, a 12-disc package of ’60s cuts, celebrates the 50th anniversary of her first album.

On a tour bus en route to rehearse for her much-lauded appearance at the Toronto Jazz Festival on June 24, Franklin talked about her performances during that era of social change. “In those early days, myself, Mr. Harry Belafonte and a young gospel singer with a terrific voice by the name of Queen Esther Marrow, did concerts with Dr. Martin Luther King,” she said. “I was a teenage girl then, so naturally I was in awe of Dr. King and listened carefully to every word that he said. At that time, Respect became a civil rights anthem.”

Continue…

Bachmann goes into overdrive

By Randy Kim - Tuesday, July 5, 2011 at 8:10 AM - 0 Comments

Melina Mara/The Washington Post/Getty Images

So extreme was the caricature of Michele Bachmann as a kooky wild-eyed right-wing harpy that by the time she turned in a polished performance at her first candidates’ debate in New Hampshire in June, speaking in smooth, fully formed paragraphs and delving into details of national policy, you could almost hear a national gasp.

Without any Palin-esque winks at the cameras or “you-betchas,” the 55-year-old third-term congresswoman and mother of five from Minnesota has emerged as a serious force in the Republican presidential field, surging into second place behind frontrunner Mitt Romney in polls of Republican voters—and in at least one poll, ahead of him.

At a time when former Massachusetts governor Romney is repenting for past moderate positions, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty can’t quite bring himself to attack Romney head-on, and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman entered the race by describing his opposition to Obama as a genteel “difference of opinion on how to help a country we love,” Bachmann, who formally announced her candidacy on Monday, gleefully serves generous helpings of partisan red meat. On health care: “As president of the United States, I will not rest until I repeal Obamacare.” On Obama’s intervention in Libya: “Absolutely wrong.” On financial regulation: “An over-the-top bill that will actually lead to more job loss.” On reducing corporate taxes: “I’m a former federal tax lawyer. I’ve seen the devastation.” On energy efficiency: “President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want.”

Continue…

What's blocking up the Keystone XL pipeline?

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, June 17, 2011 at 11:00 AM - 0 Comments

Jimmy Jeong/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Stephen Harper has urged Barack Obama to approve it. Alberta’s energy minister demanded that the President “sign the bloody order,” already. But the soft-spoken diplomat leading the American government’s review of TransCanada Pipelines Ltd.’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline, Daniel Clune, is keeping his cards close to his chest. The approval of the US$7-billion, 2,700-km pipeline that would bring oil sands crude from Canada, through the U.S. heartland down to the Gulf Coast, has become one of the biggest issues between Canada and the U.S., a hot environmental cause south of the border—and a tug of war between two departments of the Obama administration.

To the pipeline’s backers, the approval process is dragging on longer than any before it—but for critics who oppose building infrastructure to tie the U.S. to even more carbon fuels, and oil sands in particular, it’s whipping by too fast. The State Department has said it will made a decision by the end of the year, and its every move is being scrutinized on both sides for evidence that oil interests have captured the Obama administration—or that federal bureaucrats are about to sabotage the national interest by scuttling a golden opportunity to create jobs and help wean America off Middle Eastern oil.

Congress is watching closely. House Republicans, who tout the pipeline as a “no-brainer,” have introduced legislation to try to fast-track a decision by Nov. 1. Meanwhile, in the Senate, a Republican and a Democrat, both from Nebraska, have expressed concern about the safety of the pipeline, which would traverse their state’s important agricultural aquifer. Several recent leaks in the existing Keystone pipeline that runs from Alberta to the Midwest have heightened those worries.

Continue…

Can Obama escape those unemployment numbers?

By John Parisella - Monday, June 6, 2011 at 5:17 PM - 7 Comments

The latest U.S. job creation numbers are disappointing, as unemployment hit 9.1% with only 54,000 new jobs created in May. They’re especially discouraging when contrasted with the 244,000 new jobs that emerged in April. President Obama had trouble hiding his disappointment when he talked about ‘bumps in the road,’ while visiting a Chrysler auto plant last week to highlight the domestic auto-manufacturing comeback following its bailout. His spokespeople emphasized that over 2 million private sector jobs were created in the past 15 months. Yet, it’s hard to overlook the fact that 13.9 million Americans are still out of work and 45% have been unemployed for more than six months.

Republican presidential candidates and critics have labeled Obama’s efforts on the economy a failure. His supporters counter by pointing to the belief by many economists that the 2009 stimulus saved nearly 2 to 3 million jobs and the TARP program brought back financial stability.

Obama’s administration has also argued that it has, admittedly with the GOP’s help, produced other ‘stimulus’ measures by reducing payroll taxes, signing free trade agreements (ratification to come) and establishing a task force to reduce business related regulations. It is becoming obvious, however, that the GOP wants to make the next general election a referendum on Obama’s economic policies.

With polls showing a majority disapproving of Obama’s handling of the economy, Republican candidates—such as potential frontrunner Mitt Romney—see a bone to gnaw at and will use it as a way to pin the economic woes of the nation on Obama. Will it work? Can the Republicans extend their midterm success in capturing the House of Representatives to one of winning the presidency?

If the unemployment numbers inch up towards 10%, they may have a point. Even prominent Democrats like Howard Dean admit that the economy could be the deciding factor. Already, pundits refer to the figure of 7.2% unemployment as a ceiling: no incumbent has ever been re-elected when the figure was higher. And the way thing are going, it’s unlikely that the current recovery will result in a figure in the vicinity of 7.2% by election time. That means if Obama wins, it will be with the highest unemployment figure in history.

So, is the economy the only issue that will determine how voters will choose in 2012? True, the economy may have led Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush to becoming one-term presidents, but that would be ignoring other factors that contributed to their defeats. Carter had over 400 hostages in Iranian hands for over a year and seemed helpless in asserting U.S. power. And Bush lost in large part because Ross Perot earned 19% of the popular vote as an independent candidate (Clinton won the 1992 election with only 42%).

Candidates are scrutinized for how they handle their ‘hard’ power responsibilities (the economy and national security) and their ‘soft’ power duties (Can he be trusted? Will he keep us safe? Does he have his priorities straight?). So far, polls are indicating that Obama is very competitive on ‘hard’ power issues and the current deficit and debt battle indicate he has some advantages regarding taxing the top 1% of earners and preserving Medicare from being a voucher-directed program a la Paul Ryan. The killing of Osama Bin Laden was also a boon to his national security credentials.

On the ‘soft ‘power front, Obama’s personal favourables remain high. People like the man and his family. They seem to acknowledge his intelligence and find his coolness under pressure reassuring. They also understand that he inherited two wars, not of his making, and the worst economy since the Great Depression. Finally, Americans remain proud of choosing the first African American president, they want him to succeed, and a majority currently wish him to be reelected.

It is obviously too early to predict the outcome of the next campaign. Suffice it to say that unless there is a second recession in 4 years, Obama may have a chance to be evaluated beyond issues of the economy.

Rahm Emanuel—the new sheriff in town

By Erica Alini - Monday, May 23, 2011 at 9:45 AM - 0 Comments

Chris Helgren/Reuters

Rahm Emanuel’s inauguration as mayor of Chicago said it all. There was the allure of his powerful Washington friends—an impressive parade of attendees that included U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner—and the shadow of the city’s budget deficit of over US$500 million. The ceremony, in fact, took place in the Pritzker Pavilion, part of Millennium Park, an ambitious and over-budget development that symbolizes the city’s struggle to keep costs under control.

For America’s third-largest city, the event was the end of an era, one dominated by the Daley political dynasty, which controlled the mayor’s office from 1955 to 1976 under Richard J. Daley, and from 1989 until last week, under his son Richard M. Daley. The younger Daley is credited with turning Chicago from a manufacturing economy into a business and financial hub. The former mayor, though, also left the city burdened with unprecedented debt.

And while Emanuel worked as a fundraiser in the 1989 electoral campaign that first elected Daley, he spared no criticism of the outgoing administration, and during his first speech called on Chicagoans to “face the truth.” “It is time to take on the challenges that threaten the very future of our city: the quality of our schools, the safety of our streets, the cost and effectiveness of city government, and the urgent need to create and keep the jobs of the future right here in Chicago.” Emanuel’s fame as a relentless bulldog who, as the White House chief of staff, helped President Barack Obama shepherd the Democratic ranks and pass crucial congressional measures, surely helped him capture more than 50 per cent of the vote in February. Nicknamed “Rahmbo,” Emanuel seems to many to be the heavy-hitter needed to take on Chicago’s notoriously tough bureaucrats and unions and to replenish public coffers.

Continue…

Bin Laden: Dead or alive?

By Nicholas Kohler with Erica Alini - Tuesday, May 17, 2011 at 10:05 AM - 25 Comments

AFP/Getty Images

On Good Friday in 1865, Abraham Lincoln and his wife, Mary, appeared at Ford’s Theatre in Washington to watch Our American Cousin, a contemporary farce. During the play, John Wilkes Booth, a popular Shakespearian actor and Confederate sympathizer, made his way to the president’s box with a .44-calibre derringer and fired a single shot into the back of his head. Booth then leapt down onto the stage and is said to have cried: “Sic semper tyrannis”—“Thus always to tyrants!” Somehow, amid the subsequent commotion, Booth escaped, leading authorities on a 12-day chase that ended with his being locked in a burning barn in Virginia.

The men carrying Lincoln from the theatre hadn’t yet laid him down in the boarding house across the street, where he died the next day, before the conspiracy theories surrounding his shooting, Booth’s part in it, and the shadowy forces that might really lie behind the plot began proliferating. These narratives began with the conspiracy led by Booth to kill Lincoln in the days following the Confederate side’s surrender to the Union and the end of the Civil War, but quickly became more baroque.

By 1937, when amateur historian Otto Eisenschiml published his tract on the assassination—Why Was Lincoln Murdered?—Booth had become just a patsy to Edwin Stanton, Lincoln’s steely secretary of war. In the one figure of the scheming Stanton, Eisenschiml sewed together all the accidents and curiosities of Lincoln’s shooting into one, cohesive plan. The book marshalled arguments that cast Stanton as an individual of such capacity and ambition that he could first manufacture a situation in which Lincoln was left unguarded, engineered Booth’s improbable getaway, then orchestrated a means of spiriting his fellow conspirators away, their heads hooded, to isolated prisons where they could never report on Stanton’s role in the plot. The book was a bestseller.

Continue…

Obama’s approval rating highest in 2 years

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 1:19 PM - 3 Comments

U.S. President Barack Obama’s approval rating has hit 60 per cent, according to an Associated Press-Gfk poll taken after the death of Osama bin Laden. The results are being attributed not only to the assassination, but also to a surge in support from independent voters and an improvement of how Americans perceive Obama’s foreign and economic policy. 73 per cent of Americans say they’re confident that the president can handle terrorist threats, and 52 per cent approve of his handling of unemployment. But the news, which comes as Obama gears up for a lengthy re-election campaign, wasn’t all good—the poll also found that 52 per cent of Americans still feel the country is on the wrong track.

Toronto Star

Next up: rush for perimeter security, regulatory harmonization

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 9:14 AM - 12 Comments

With the Harper government winning a majority, expect a sense of urgency on moving ahead with the perimeter security and regulatory harmonization talks with the US. Harper campaigned on this issue and is being warned that the window to move ahead is closing as the presidential campaign cycle draws nearer.

Working groups made up of senior officials from both  governments have been holding consultations with a variety of on what perimeter security and regulatory harmonization should look like. They are working on putting together “action plans” for the leaders. There are expectations for another Harper-Obama meeting this summer at which the leaders would approve the action plans and instruct their governments to implement them.

The consultations in Canada have not been made public, but my story in Maclean’s rounds up some of the proposals the US government is receiving. They include some ambitious ideas such as a two-country visa,  mutual recognition of agricultural inspections, and cross-border embedding of customs inspectors, among many others.

Story is here:

The US and Canada — singing in harmony? US and Canadian groups are urging their governments to coordinate rules and ease restrictions

Obama announces that bin Laden is dead

By Jaime Weinman - Sunday, May 1, 2011 at 10:44 PM - 17 Comments

Update: Here’s the speech:

Turn on the TV news; President Obama has called a Sunday night press conference to make what is described as a major national security statement. John King on CNN just said, following speculation from several other sources, that the announcement will be that Osama Bin Laden is dead and that the U.S. is “certain” that it has the body.

It’s very rare for Presidents to call press conferences on Sunday night. So when the announcement was made (it was originally announced for 10:30, then pushed back) everyone knew that this had to be big, but the subject was not leaked until a few minutes later. So until King came onto CNN with the official news, the CNN people seemed a little lost, standing around and saying only that they couldn’t say anything. Wolf Blitzer even announced that his sources wanted to commend the channel for not engaging in speculation. Ed Henry told us repeatedly that reporters had been told to watch for something big.

Over on other channels I’ve heard some commentators were reduced to reading back speculation from Twitter, since that’s where the news started to break first. It seems like some people get out of top-security briefings from the President and then leak it immediately, knowing it’ll be all over Twitter. I’m not judging them for that, just wondering if I’d have the nerve to leak something, even knowing the people who briefed you don’t really care if it gets out.

As I continue to write, Obama’s statement has not yet begun, so I’ll just say this: people are already saying that Obama won re-election with this news. Let’s not go crazy. That’s what people (some of the same people, literally) were saying about George H.W. Bush in 1991. Maybe this news makes it clearer that a Donald Trump is not going to beat Obama. But if the Republicans come up with their own Clinton…

11:02 and the speech has been delayed once more. Poor Wolf Blitzer is looking a little wild-eyed. He’s like a man who has been told to stall for time and has totally run out of stories. Which he has.

Now details finally start to trickle in: He was killed by “U.S. assets” in a mansion outside Islamabad. Update: It was actually the nearby Abbotabad, An announcement that raises many issues about the U.S.’s relationship with Pakistan, or rather re-raises them, since they’re not new issues.

With these details in, they have to fill more time by bringing commentators on to speculate on what this one sentence worth of details might mean. Or might not mean.

Flipping around the channels, which have mostly cut in with special news reports, one thing stands out above all: this is a great time to see archival Bin Laden footage.

As there are finally rumours that Obama might come and talk, an hour late, a common news-coverage strategy now is to focus on the celebrations outside the White House, where people have gathered after hearing the news. Al-Jazeera English also shows an advantage in its focus on the Middle East, simply because they focus on what this means for, well, the Middle East – they’re speculating as heavily as the U.S. networks, but at least they’re the only English-language network speculating on some of these things.

11:35, here’s Obama. “The United States has conducted an operation that has killed Osama Bin Laden.” He follows by reminding us in great detail of what happened on 9/11.

Goes on to explain that last August he got a lead on Bin Laden hiding in Pakistan, and that “last week I determined we had enough intelligence to take action.” Today, the Americans took actions against Bin Laden’s compound. After a firefight, they killed Bin Laden and took custody of his body.

“His death does not mark the end of our effort.” Continues that terrorism is not over.

Emphasizes that the U.S. is not at war with Islam and reminds his listeners that President George W. Bush also emphasized that the U.S. was not at war with Islam and that Bin Laden “was not a Muslim leader.”

Asks the U.S. to revive the “sense of unity” that prevailed after 9/11. (Good luck with that.)

…The speech is over; the embedding of the Whitehouse.gov feed didn’t work, but I’ll put up a link to the speech when I have it.

For a Canadian connection, Harper will be commenting on it, of course. Here’s the thing: I doubt this will have any effect on the the election. But if the Tories do better tomorrow than currently projected, I figure there will be a lot of speculation that some amorphous national-security effect won them some extra seats. It’s the sort of thing that can never be proven, which is why it’s absolutely made for speculation. Update: Harper’s statement proclaims the importance of the Afghan mission and Canada’s “sober satisfaction” (a good choice of term) at the news.

For light entertainment, there’s always Fox News, where their chyron department made another one of its Freudian slips, and so did their one-man Geraldo department:

Trump wins

By Jaime Weinman - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 11:47 AM - 35 Comments

The big winner of the Obama birth certificate follies (and I do mean follies) is, of course, Donald Trump. Whether or not he even runs for President, let alone gets the nomination, he managed to make this “issue” so huge that the President of the United States felt he had to respond to it.

Trump played on one of the oldest vulnerabilities of media, the “some say” rule. If a prominent public figure is saying something, it is treated with respect. So if one Serious Person is saying something true, and the other is saying something false, many outlets – particularly cable news – will treat both statements as equally valid. (No, I don’t know who decides who and who isn’t a Serious Person, let alone why Trump counts. But he does, apparently, given the tone of much of the coverage on TV.) As ABC’s Jake Tapper just put it, “too many in the media have treated this crap as if it’s subject for debate and not just a a falsehood.” CNN provided the ultimate reducto ad absurdum of this principle recently with the announcement: “Trump says Obama wasn’t born here. We’ll show you the evidence and let you decide.”

Obviously, this announcement won’t change much. Those who are committed to believing that Obama was not born in the U.S. will continue to believe it, and point to today’s event as further evidence of the theory: Obama must be hiding something if he was worried enough to produce an elaborately faked birth certificate. The first rule of a conspiracy theory is that once you believe in it, everything is evidence for the theory – the fact that it can never be disproven is one of the things that separates conspiracy theories from regular theories anyway.

The real question is whether this is a tactical mistake by Obama when it comes to dealing with what we might call the birther-curious. These are people who don’t accept the theory that Obama was part of some 40-odd year conspiracy to install him in the White House, but just think that he’s “hiding something.” No real reason for it, just the old idea that where there’s smoke there’s fire, or that it wouldn’t be in the news all the time if there weren’t something to it. Another frequent tack is to argue that birtherism may or may not be true, but Obama was the one making it an issue for his own nefarious purposes.

My own cynical instincts are to think that today’s events make the issue worse in that sense, even if most birther-curious people believe that the certificate exists. Because the point of birtherism doesn’t have much to do with certificates; it has to do with defining Obama as a cultural alien and un-American – something that is believed and seriously argued by people who reject the literal theory of birtherism. So today just gives extra fuel to the idea that Obama is hiding his past, that he’s not One Of Us, and so on. Andrew Sullivan showed us how it’s done today by blaming Obama for “waiting so long,” and blaming the media for “piling on the Birthers.” You see? It wasn’t the Birthers who were really at fault here. Obama and the “MSM” were the ones keeping this issue alive. And when it continues to be alive, presumably it’ll still be their fault.

In other words, those email forwards you’ve been getting? Expect to get more of them. Not only that, expect them to be more elaborate than ever. Or as the headline on Fox News’s website put it today:

So yeah. Expect more of that.

Obama and the politics about Libya

By John Parisella - Monday, March 28, 2011 at 6:30 PM - 11 Comments

We all recall how the horrific events of 9/11 created a groundswell of support to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. Support for overthrowing Iraq also became widespread largely because of the rumours—later proved false—that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ready to unleash on the United States. Since then, Americans have soured on these two seemingly endless conflicts. So we can understand that Americans were not in a rush to intervene when the Libyan crisis erupted.

The current military operation was bound to raise doubts on all sides of the political spectrum. The fact that President Obama must address the nation suggests that Americans are concerned and are in need of some coherent explanation. From the outset, the president seemed the reluctant warrior. Clearly, leading the U.S. to invade a third Muslim country in 10 years was not part of his foreign policy plan.

Obama was initially provided with some cover when rebel forces tried to overthrow Colonel Gadhafi themselves. But once Gadhafi began importing mercenaries, shooting civilians and unleashing his superior weapon advantage, the president was faced with a humanitarian crisis reminiscent of the Rwandan civil war. The pressure to intervene was mounting as other so-called democratic forces were rising elsewhere. Finally, the rebels themselves cried for help.

The preferred course of diplomacy, somewhat successful in the Egypt crisis, began to produce dividends in the nick of time. The UN Security Council delivered a resolution, the Arab League asked for a no fly zone and were willing to help, and European leadership led by France and England resulted in an operation (albeit with heavy U.S. involvement) that halted the potential humanitarian catastrophe. Now there is an indisputable no fly zone with NATO leading the operation. Meanwhile, the rebels are regaining ground and Gadhafi forces are on the defensive.

Unlike the Afghan and Iraq wars, a spirited debate is emerging about Obama’s course of action. Republicans have led the charge but their criticism seems focused on process. John McCain says Obama should have imposed a no fly zone sooner, but the diplomacy was not up to speed and this would have resulted in a third U.S. led invasion of a Muslim country. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates clearly stated: imposing a no fly zone is a military operation.

Other Republican criticism ranges from questioning the end game, to how the U.S. proceeds if Gadhafi is not defeated, to why Congress was not consulted before U.S. aircrafts began flying. These are legitimate questions. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have repeatedly said they want Gadhafi removed. What happens if he stays in power? Other Republicans like Senator Richard Lugar actually question whether it is in U.S. interests to be so involved. Meanwhile, presidential contenders have acted more like pundits criticizing the Obama style and character, rather than behaving like eventual policy makers.

President Obama does have a case in that his approach has avoided the costly unilateralism in Iraq, and the consensus among voters is supportive of an allied approach. It is in line with the Cairo speech calling for political reform in the Middle East and engaging in a multilateral action in support should the need arise. It appears the humanitarian crisis has been averted and the president can take some well deserved credit for it.

This weekend, Secretary Gates said Libya was not in the vital interests of the U.S. The humanitarian nature of the mission is consistently emphasized. As of now, there are no U.S. boots on the ground, which has always been an Obama objective. But as the conversation continues to unfold in America, events are occurring elsewhere in the Middle East. It is hard to predict the outcomes. The overriding question is: Is the Obama administration on the right side of history as the Middle East events develop?

Updated: Obama proposes travel fee for Canada

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 3:26 PM - 95 Comments

The 2012 budget plan that President Barack Obama unveiled this week includes a proposal to impose a $5.50 fee on every traveller entering the US from Canada by commercial vehicle aircraft or vessel (airlines, cruises, buses, etc.) More precisely, it would end a waiver that visitors from Canada (not just citizens or residents, but all visitors) have enjoyed until now.

(* I had understood that commercial buses were also included, but the language is limited to aircraft and vessels.)

According to Birgit Matthiesen of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, 16,347,580 air passengers from Canada in 2009 at $5.50 would bring in $89,911,690 or almost the $110 million the Department of Homeland Security said they were looking to generate in the 2012 budget proposal.

Matthiesen says the proposal contradicts the border vision that Harper and Obama set out:

“It’s just yet another demonstration that crossing the border from Canada to the US is going to be costing us more and that the border is a real border. This will stymie not only tourism across our borders but also the travel of our business people,” she said.

“The idea that revenues to offset US budget deficits will come at the expense of Canadian tourists and businesspeople is worrisome – especially coming on the heels of Prime Minister Harper’s visit to the US when they pledged to do more for North American businesses and the North American economy. They pledged to reduce regulatory burdens. This is a huge burden.”

Matthiesen said that NAFTA does not give protection from the fee.

Of course, Obama’s budget is merely a proposal. The US Congress has to legislate any changes.

Here is the current COBRA language:

Fees for arrival of passengers aboard commercial vessels and commercial aircraft(1) Fees. (i) Subject to paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (g)(3) of this section, a fee of $5 must be collected and remitted to CBP for services provided in connection with the arrival of each passenger aboard a commercial vessel or commercial aircraft from a place outside the United States,other than Canada, Mexico, one of the territories and possessions of the United States, or one of the adjacent islands, in either of the following circumstances: (A) When the journey of the arriving passenger originates in a place outside the United States other than Canada, Mexico, one of the territories or possessions of the United States, or one of the adjacent islands; or (B) When the journey of the arriving passenger originates in the United States and is not limited to Canada, Mexico, territories and possessions of the United States, and adjacent islands.

Background on COBRA is here.

The DHS budget justification document mentions ending the exemption:

“The President’s FY 2012 Budget includes a legislative proposal to lift the country exemptions for Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean, which will increase collections by $110 million. The Budget assumes implementation of this exemption by Q3 FY 2012 and therefore requests $55 million in discretionary funding to cover half of the costs.”

***

You can follow me on Twitter at luizachsavage

Transcript: Obama and Harper's remarks

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, February 4, 2011 at 5:33 PM - 9 Comments

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                               February 4, 2011
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA

AND PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER OF CANADA

IN JOINT PRESS AVAILABILITY

South Court Auditorium

3:21 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Please be seated.

I am very pleased to be welcoming my great friend and partner, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, back to the White House to reaffirm our extraordinary friendship and cooperation between the United States and Canada.  I’d like to talk a bit about what we accomplished today, and then address the situation unfolding in Egypt.

The United States and Canada are not simply allies, not simply neighbors; we are woven together like perhaps no other two countries in the world.  We’re bound together by our societies, by our economies, by our families — which reminds me my brother-in-law’s birthday is today and I have to call him.  (Laughter.)

And in our many meetings together I’ve come to value Stephen’s candor and his focus on getting results, both when it comes to our two countries and to meeting global challenges.  Although I, unfortunately, have not yet had the pleasure of seeing him and his band jam to the Rolling Stones — but I’m told the videos have become a sensation on YouTube.  So I’ll be checking those out after this bilateral.  (Laughter.)

We’ve had a very successful day.  Our focus has been on how we increase jobs and economic growth on both sides of the border. Canada is our largest trading partner and the top destination for American exports, supporting some 1.7 million jobs here.  So today we’ve agreed to several important steps to increase trade, improve our competitiveness, and create jobs for both our people.

First, we agreed to a new vision for managing our shared responsibilities — not just at the border but “beyond the border.”  That means working more closely to improve border security with better screening, new technologies and information-sharing among law enforcement, as well as identifying threats early.  It also means finding new ways to improve the free flow of goods and people.  Because with over a billion dollars in trade crossing the border every single day, smarter border management is key to our competitiveness, our job creation, and my goal of doubling U.S. exports.

And, Mr. Prime Minister, I thank you for your leadership and commitment to reaching this agreement.

We’ve directed our teams to develop an action plan to move forward quickly.  And I’m confident that we’re going to get this done so that our shared border enhances our shared prosperity.

Second, we’re launching a new effort to get rid of outdated regulations that stifle trade and job creation.  Like the government-wide review that I ordered last month, we need to obviously strike the right balance — protecting our public health and safety, and making it easier and less expensive for American and Canadians to trade and do business, for example, in the auto industry.  And a new council that we’re creating today will help make that happen.

Third, we discussed a wide range of ways to promote trade and investment, from clean energy partnerships to the steps Canada can take to strengthen intellectual property rights.

And we discussed a range of common security challenges, including Afghanistan, where our forces serve and sacrifice together.  Today, I want to thank Prime Minister Harper for Canada’s decision to shift its commitment to focus on training Afghan forces.  As we agreed with our Lisbon — or our NATO and coalition allies in Lisbon, the transition to Afghan lead for security will begin this year, and Canada’s contribution will be critical to achieving that mission and keeping both our countries safe.

Finally, we discussed our shared commitment to progress with our partners in the Americas, including greater security cooperation.  And I especially appreciated the Prime Minister’s perspective on the region as I prepare for my trip to Central and South America next month.

Let me close by saying a few words about the situation in Egypt.  This is obviously still a fluid situation and we’re monitoring it closely, so I’ll make just a few points.

First, we continue to be crystal-clear that we oppose violence as a response to this crisis.  In recent days, we’ve seen violence and harassment erupt on the streets of Egypt that violates human rights, universal values and international norms. So we are sending a strong and unequivocal message:  Attacks on reporters are unacceptable.  Attacks on human rights activists are unacceptable.  Attacks on peaceful protesters are unacceptable.

The Egyptian government has a responsibility to protect the rights of its people.  Those demonstrating also have a responsibility to do so peacefully.  But everybody should recognize a simple truth:  The issues at stake in Egypt will not be resolved through violence or suppression.  And we are encouraged by the restraint that was shown today.  We hope that it continues.

Second, the future of Egypt will be determined by its people.  It’s also clear that there needs to be a transition process that begins now.  That transition must initiate a process that respects the universal rights of the Egyptian people and that leads to free and fair elections.

The details of this transition will be worked by Egyptians. And my understanding is that some discussions have begun.  But we are consulting widely within Egypt and with the international community to communicate our strong belief that a successful and orderly transition must be meaningful.  Negotiations should include a broad representation of the Egyptian opposition, and this transition must address the legitimate grievances of those who seek a better future.

Third, we want to see this moment of turmoil turn into a moment of opportunity.  The entire world is watching.  What we hope for and what we will work for is a future where all of Egyptian society seizes that opportunity.  Right now a great and ancient civilization is going through a time of tumult and transformation.  And even as there are grave challenges and great uncertainty, I am confident that the Egyptian people can shape the future that they deserve.  And as they do, they will continue to have a strong friend and partner in the United States of America.

Mr. Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER HARPER:  Well, first of all, thank you, Barack.  Both thank you for your friendship both personal and national.  And thank you for all the work you’ve done and all of your people have done to bring us to our announcement today.

[Speaks in French.]

And I will just repeat that.

Today, President Obama and I are issuing a declaration on our border, but it is, of course, much more than that.  It is a declaration on our relationship.  Over the past nearly 200 years, our two countries have progressively developed the closest, warmest, most integrated and most successful relationship in the world.  We are partners, neighbors, allies, and, most of all, we are true friends.

In an age of expanding opportunities but also of grave dangers, we share fundamental interests and values just as we face common challenges and threats.

At the core of this friendship is the largest bilateral trading relationship in history.  And since the signing of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, a milestone in the development of the modern era of globalization, that partnership has grown spectacularly.

Not only is the U.S. Canada’s major export market, Canada is also America’s largest export market — larger than China, larger than Mexico, larger than Japan, larger than all the countries of the European Union combined.  Eight million jobs in the United States are supported by your trade with Canada.  And Canada is the largest, the most secure, the most stable, and the friendliest supplier of that most vital of all America’s purchases — energy.

It is in both our interests to ensure that our common border remains open and efficient, but it is just as critical that it remains secure and in the hands of the vigilant and the dedicated.  Just as we must continually work to ensure that inertia and bureaucratic sclerosis do not impair the legitimate flow of people, goods and services across our border, so, too, we must up our game to counter those seeking new ways to harm us.

And I say “us” because as I have said before, a threat to the United States is a threat to Canada — to our trade, to our interests, to our values, to our common civilization.  Canada has no friends among America’s enemies, and America has no better friend than Canada.

The declaration President Obama and I are issuing today commits our governments to find new ways to exclude terrorists and criminals who pose a threat to our peoples.  It also commits us to finding ways to eliminate regulatory barriers to cross-border trade and travel, because simpler rules lead to lower costs for business and consumers, and ultimately to more jobs.

Shared information, joint planning, compatible procedures and inspection technology will all be key tools.  They make possible the effective risk management that will allow us to accelerate legitimate flows of people and goods between our countries while strengthening our physical security and economic competitiveness.

So we commit to expanding our management of the border to the concept of a North American perimeter, not to replace or eliminate the border but, where possible, to streamline and decongest it.

There is much work to do.  The declaration marks the start of this endeavor, not the end; an ambitious agenda between two countries, sovereign and able to act independently when we so choose according to our own laws and aspirations, but always understanding this — that while a border defines two peoples, it need not divide them.  That is the fundamental truth to which Canadians and Americans have borne witness for almost two centuries.  And through our mutual devotion to freedom, democracy and justice at home and abroad, it is the example we seek to demonstrate for all others.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  All right, we’ve got time for a couple of questions.  I’m going to start with Alister Bull.

Q    Thank you very much, Mr. President.  Is it conceivable to you that a genuine process of democratic reform can begin in Egypt while President Mubarak remains in power, or do you think his stepping aside is needed for reform even to begin?

And to Prime Minister Harper, on the energy issue, did you discuss Canada’s role as a secure source of oil for the United States, and in particular, did you receive any assurances the U.S. administration looks favorably on TransCanada’s proposed Keystone Pipeline to the Gulf Coast?  Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I have had two conversations with President Mubarak since this crisis in Egypt began, and each time I’ve emphasized the fact that the future of Egypt is going to be in the hands of Egyptians.  It is not us who will determine that future.  But I have also said that in light of what’s happened over the last two weeks, going back to the old ways is not going to work.  Suppression is not going to work.  Engaging in violence is not going to work.  Attempting to shut down information flows is not going to work.

In order for Egypt to have a bright future — which I believe it can have — the only thing that will work is moving a orderly transition process that begins right now, that engages all the parties, that leads to democratic practices, fair and free elections, a representative government that is responsive to the grievances of the Egyptian people.

Now, I believe that President Mubarak cares about his country.  He is proud, but he’s also a patriot.  And what I’ve suggested to him is, is that he needs to consult with those who are around him in his government.  He needs to listen to what’s being voiced by the Egyptian people and make a judgment about a pathway forward that is orderly, but that is meaningful and serious.

And I believe that — he’s already said that he’s not going to run for reelection.  This is somebody who’s been in power for a very long time in Egypt.  Having made that psychological break, that decision that he will not be running again, I think the most important for him to ask himself, for the Egyptian government to ask itself, as well as the opposition to ask itself, is how do we make that transition effective and lasting and legitimate.

And as I said before, that’s not a decision ultimately the United States makes or any country outside of Egypt makes.  What we can do, though, is affirm the core principles that are going to be involved in that transition.  If you end up having just gestures towards the opposition but it leads to a continuing suppression of the opposition, that’s not going to work.  If you have the pretense of reform but not real reform, that’s not going to be effective.

And as I said before, once the President himself announced that he was not going to be running again, and since his term is up relatively shortly, the key question he should be asking himself is, how do I leave a legacy behind in which Egypt is able to get through this transformative period.  And my hope is, is that he will end up making the right decision.

PRIME MINISTER HARPER:  You asked me about the question of energy, and, yes, we did discuss the matter you raised.  And let me just say this in that context.  I think it is clear to anyone who understands this issue that the need of the United States for fossil fuels far in excess of its ability to produce such energy will be the reality for some time to come.  And the choice that the United States faces in all of these matters is whether to increase its capacity, to accept such energy from the most secure, most stable and friendliest location it can possibly get that energy, which is Canada, or from other places that are not as secure, stable or friendly to the interests and values of the United States.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I think we’ve got a Canadian reporter.

Q    Prime Minister, can you answer this in English and French?  Canadians will be asking how much of our sovereignty and our privacy rights will be given up to have more open borders and an integrated economy.  And while I have you on your feet, I want to ask you about Egypt, as well, whether you feel that Mr. Mubarak should be stepping down sooner, it would help the transition?

And, Mr. President, on the sovereignty issue, you’re welcome to answer it — you don’t have to speak in French, though.  (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you.  (Laughter.)  Now, I love French, but I’m just not very capable of speaking it.  (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER HARPER:  On the question of sovereignty, this declaration is not about sovereignty.  We are sovereign countries who have the capacity to act as we choose to act.  The question that faces us is to make sure we act in a sovereign way that serves Canada’s interests.  It is in Canada’s interests to work with our partners in the United States to ensure that our borders are secure, and ensure that we can trade and travel across them as safely and as openly as possible within the context of our different laws.

And that is what we’re trying to achieve here.  We share security threats that are very similar on both sides of the border.  We share an integrated economic space where it doesn’t make sense to constantly check the same cargo over and over again — if we can do that at a perimeter, if we can decongest the border, that’s what we should be doing.  If we can — if we can harmonize regulations in ways that avoid unnecessary duplication and red tape for business — these are things that we need to do.

So that’s what this is all about.  This is about the safety of Canadians and it is about creating jobs and economic growth for the Canadian economy.

Let me maybe — I’ll do French and then I’ll come to Egypt.

(Speaks in French.)

On the question of Egypt, let me just agree fully with what President Obama has said.  I don’t think there is any doubt from anyone who is watching the situation that transition is occurring and will occur in Egypt.  The question is what kind of transition this will be and how it will lead.  It is ultimately up to the Egyptian people to decide who will govern them.

What we want to be sure is that we lead towards a future that is not simply more democratic, but a future where that democracy is guided by such values as non-violence, as the rule of law, as respect and respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities, including the rights of religious minorities.

(Speaks in French.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  With respect to security issues and sovereignty issues, obviously, Canada and the United States are not going to match up perfectly on every measure with respect to how we balance security issues, privacy issues, openness issues. But we match up more than probably any country on Earth.

We have this border that benefits when it is open.  The free flow of goods and services results in huge economic benefits for both sides.  And so the goal here is to make sure that we are coordinating closely and that as we are taking steps and measures to ensure both openness and security, that we’re doing so in ways that enhances the relationship as opposed to creates tensions in the relationship.  And we are confident that we’re going to be able to achieve that.

We’ve already made great progress just over the last several years on various specific issues.  What we’re trying to do now is to look at this in a more comprehensive fashion, so that it’s not just border security issues, but it’s a broader set of issues involved.  And I have great confidence that Prime Minister Harper is going to be very protective of certain core values of Canada, just as I would be very protective of the core values of the United States, and those won’t always match up perfectly.

And I thought — I agree even more with his answer in French.  (Laughter.)

All right.  Thank you very much, everybody.

END                       3:49 P.M. EST

Harper and Obama announce new regulatory council

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, February 4, 2011 at 3:25 PM - 35 Comments

To advance a vision of “perimeter security”, “Canada and the U.S. intend to establish a Beyond the Border Working Group composed of representatives from the appropriate departments of our respective federal governments.” It will report annually.

They announce the creation of a U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council composed of senior officials from both governments to work on “increased regulatory transparency and coordination.”

This will “in no way diminish the sovereignty of either Canada or the U.S.”

This will include early notice of regulations that could have effects across the border and to help make regulations more compatible.

Jon Stewart's biggest get

By Jaime Weinman - Thursday, October 28, 2010 at 10:32 AM - 0 Comments

Here’s the episode. I wish I could figure out how to embed Comedy Network clips.

Last night was the biggest moment in The Daily Show‘s history, at least in terms of its ability to blur the lines between a silly comedy show and a legitimate news source: the show’s first full-length, in-studio interview with a sitting President of the United States. (Obama has been in the studio with Stewart before, but before he was President..) Obama has been a more talk-show-friendly President than most: last year he was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,  the first sitting President to sit down with a talk show host. But that was the most-watched talk show on television, which The Daily Show is not, and it was a short, soft interview (though Obama managed to get himself in minor trouble anyway with his “special Olympics” joke). By going on The Daily Show and doing a full-episode segment, Obama was almost anointing Stewart’s show as the equivalent of a prestigious cable news program: something that doesn’t have that many viewers, but has the ability to drive the news and the narrative.

James Poniewozik has more thoughts on the interview and what it says about Stewart’s status as a “real” news personality, rather than just a fake one. Stewart has the luxury that most TV journalists don’t have, of being able to only get serious when he wants to — he can always hide behind his comedian status to preserve his credibility in a tough situation, while real newsmen have no choice but to take everything (even things they may personally consider not worthy of mention) seriously. And Stewart also benefits from not having to pretend to be a policy wonk or political junkie: he can, and did, spend most of an interview asking questions about process issues and Obama’s failure to change the system. A “real” reporter would have to ask more questions about policy and the election horserace, not just because of network pressure, but because the real news’s job is to give more broad-based information.

I think both Stewart and Obama came off pretty well in the interview, even if both were ill at ease — but why not? This was a big moment for Stewart, who really is uncomfortable in situations like this. (I get the impression he really doesn’t want to get politicians mad at him, even though it’s part of his job and he does it. When Meghan McCain was on recently, Stewart seemed genuinely unhappy that her father, once one of Stewart’s favourite people, has turned against him and the show due to the negative coverage he received in 2008.) Obama was uncomfortable for the same reasons that any sitting President facing a tough mid-term would seem uncomfortable. One thing that seemed to come across most clearly is that the health care legislation, and his belief that it sill turn out to be the right thing despite its overall unpopularity on both left and right, is something that’s very much on his mind. Obama isn’t G.W. Bush, but both of them are preoccupied with the idea that history will judge them to have been right. I guess a lot of leaders are.

Obviously, too, Stewart isn’t some kind of firebrand interviewer who asks all the tough questions the Mainstream Media won’t ask. There are many criticisms that didn’t play a big role in the interview, like the biggest criticism of Obama from the left, his record on civil liberties.

One thing the interview left me wondering about is whether the show will ever be able to get George W. Bush. Conservatives actually go on Stewart’s show quite a lot, as they consider it a place where they can get a fair shake from Stewart and prove that they are cooler than people think. But Bush is the only living President who hasn’t been on either Stewart or Colbert. (Bush’s father hasn’t been interviewed, but did tape a message for Colbert’s Iraq show.) I’m certain they’d love to get W., and I’m certain it’s been suggested as part of his book tour, but it seems equally certain that they won’t get him. I think it would be a good idea for him to go, since Stewart would be very nice and respectful (voluntarily) and might help him improve his image.

Why underestimating Obama is risky

By John Parisella - Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 4:43 PM - 0 Comments

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer recently warned Republicans should “not underestimate President Barack Obama.” The conservative Krauthammer is no convert, and his piece was highly critical of the direction in which Obama is taking the country. He was critical of the restructuring of one-sixth of the US economy; he was dismissive of the near-trillion-dollar stimulus package; and he raised the spectre of major tax hikes to pay for all of it. All legitimate positions and classic conservative arguments. There was nothing new—except his warning.

Krauthammer readily acknowledges that Obama, like him or not, achieved an historic milestone in changing how healthcare will be delivered in the United States. He admits quite readily that it is already a transformational and significant presidency. He may not like it, and he may believe it to be detrimental to the country, but he recognizes that Obama has not been a reluctant leader over his first 18 months in office. When one hears the boisterous sounds from the ranks of the opposition, it is hard to imagine the objectors would be as vocal if the changes Obama enacted had been minor.

Continue…