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 Luiza Ch. Savage - 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…

The Tea Party—one year later

By John Parisella - Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 1:21 PM - 0 Comments

The origins of the Tea Party movement can be traced back to the winter of 2009 and a rant by CNBC anchor Rick Santelli claiming the Obama administration did not understand what the American people were facing with high unemployment and mortgage foreclosures. Spurred on by Fox News personalities like Glenn Beck, it was not long that public displays of anger soon became part of mainstream media reports. Eventually, last August’s town hall meetings on healthcare reform laid the groundwork for a more organized national movement.

Unlike the Republican social conservatives of recent decades, the Tea Party fed on economic uncertainty using a message that married libertarian politics with strict fiscal conservatism. Its initial audience was an angry segment of the electorate, but its influence soon spread to the mainstream parties, the extent of which became clear by the time the Republican primaries rolled around. While liberal newscasters like Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow were quick to present the movement as a far-right outlier supported by Fox News, right-wing bloggers, and Rush Limbaugh, it seems the so-called fringe movement was much more than that.

Continue…

Obama's authenticity trap

By Andrew Potter - Thursday, June 17, 2010 at 10:56 AM - 68 Comments

One of the more pointless aspects of the whole BP spill fiasco is the ongoing debate about whether Obama’s reaction to the whole thing has been appropriate. Has he shown enough anger? Too much anger? Has he been too cerebral? Too dispassionate?Too uncaring?

Please.  The assumption that what is required, more than anything else, is authenticity is one of the most pernicious aspects of our political discourse. Of course Obama had it coming, to some extent, since his whole brand is “authenticity”. But now he, and the public, are facing the double-edged nature of authenticity as the litmus of leadership: we think we want authenticity only until we see it:

An article by Julia Kirby in the HBR does a good job of highlighting just what is wrong with this whole approach to leadership. Here’s the problem:

In the current criticism of Obama, we’re seeing another form of double bind, at least as difficult to navigate. Today Show’s Matt Lauer found him frustratingly cerebral, but how would the general public have felt if he’d been visibly enraged? As one writer, William Jelani Cobb, told CNN: “It would have fed deeply into a pre-existing set of narratives about the angry black man.”

To see the trap in action, you don’t even have to play the race card:

The cost of doing business

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Thursday, June 3, 2010 at 4:28 PM - 13 Comments

Just in from the White House: “The Obama Administration today sent a preliminary bill for $69.09 million to BP and other responsible parties for response and recovery operations relating to the BP/Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The Administration will continue to bill BP regularly for all associated costs to ensure the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is reimbursed on an ongoing basis.”

BP’s 2009 profits: $14 billion in a bad year.

Week in Pictures: April 2nd – 7th 2010

By macleans.ca - Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 3:24 PM - 0 Comments

On a scale of 1-5, how would you rate Barack Obama’s performance in his first year in office?

By macleans.ca - Monday, January 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM - 66 Comments

Presenting Obama, the musical

By Michael Barclay - Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 1:20 PM - 2 Comments

In July 2008, Barack Obama gave a speech before an adoring crowd of 200,000 Germans in Berlin. Democrats hailed the performance as JFK-esque, while Republicans accused the then-presidential candidate of being little more than a grandstanding celebrity. But even Democratic partisans are likely to cringe at the notion of a fawning new German musical called Hope!, based on Obama’s presidential campaign, which premieres in Frankfurt on Jan. 17.

Written and conceived by the American composer Randall Hutchins, Hope! is a big-budget production with 30 cast members playing key figures in the election campaign—both Democrat and Republican—as well as citizens caught up in the excitement, including what the official website describes as “an Afro-American committed non-voter” and “a humorous Italo-American restaurant owner.”

Continue…

Maclean's Interview: Efraim Halevy

By Yoni Goldstein - Wednesday, December 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM - 59 Comments

Efraim Halevy is the former head of the Mossad, Israel’s national intelligence agency, where he worked closely with five Israeli prime ministers—Yitzhak Shamir, Yitzhak Rabin, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon. He is the author of Man in the Shadows: Inside the Middle East Crisis With a Man Who Led the Mossad.

Q: What are the real chances of peace between Israel and the Palestinians?
A: I think peace between Israel and the Palestinians hinges on the Palestinians proving the capability of nationhood. I don’t think that nationhood can be thrust upon the Palestinians from without. A nation has to be built from within—and it has to be purely Palestinians who create and build their own nation. The way things are at the moment, the Palestinians are not creating their own nation. The nation is being created from without. The United States is training their military forces; Tony Blair is chaperoning them and helping them build their economic and political institutions; the European Union is helping in other fields. In other words, what is being done is the Palestinian nation is being built with outside help. This, I think, cannot succeed. Whether the Palestinians have it within their capacity to transform what they have into a nation that has an in-built hierarchy, that has an in-built structure of discipline and orderly conduct—this is something that we don’t know yet.

Q: Do you have a sense whether they’ll be able to do it?
A: I don’t know. I think that if it is not the case, then they’re in for a lot of trouble. I think it is in Israel’s interest that there should be a Palestinian state—I think it is in Israel’s interest that there should be a Palestinian people that is capable of sustaining a Palestinian state. But what has been going on in recent years is not very encouraging.

Continue…

Steve must have been in the bathroom

By Andrew Potter - Monday, November 30, 2009 at 4:07 PM - 5 Comments

Obama has decided how to proceed in Afhganistan, issued the orders, and is letting (most of) the allies know:

As Mr. Gibbs spoke Monday morning, the president was on the telephone with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France…. Mr. Obama also had calls scheduled with President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, and was to meet at the White House on Monday with Kevin Rudd, the prime minister of Australia.

Of course, why would he tell us what’s up. We’ve already said we’re leaving no matter what.