Election campaigns can produce surprises
By John Parisella - Wednesday, September 8, 2010 - 0 Comments
It is a truism in U.S. politics that, in an election year, once the Labour Day weekend passes, that’s when the real campaign begins. With most primaries done, the polls show a decided advantage for the Republicans, with generic poll numbers giving them a 6-10 point lead. The Democrats are realizing it is now a matter of cutting their losses in order to preserve control of Congress. With less than 60 days left before voters head to the polls, most pundits are predicting the GOP will win the House of Representatives and possibly even the Senate .
The economy continues to be the overriding issue. August numbers have clearly indicated a slowdown in the economic recovery, with unemployment at 9.6% and annual GDP growth stuck below 2%. Housing starts are down and the largest stimulus package in U.S. history has been mostly spent. The Republicans will benefit from the situation, not because of better policies, but rather from America’s bad mood. Some call it anger and point to the Tea Party’s growing influence as proof; others like Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson call it a temper tantrum by voters against the incumbents who happen to be the Democrats. Whatever it is, it is real and it is no fun.
-
The American character at work in post-Katrina New Orleans
By John Parisella - Friday, August 27, 2010 at 6:29 PM - 0 Comments
It has been five years since the disastrous Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf of Mexico and the bordering states. Many reports this week are showing the incomplete but nonetheless significant resurgence of New Orleans. The citizens of the Gulf states, most recently affected by the BP oil spill, have endured much in the last few years. But they are examples of the American character in action—resilience and the ability to rebound have once again won the day.
What is it in the American character that promotes this capacity to recover, to reverse course when necessary and act in a way that brings progress? Some will argue that American history is full of examples where values and principles gave way to expediency. When slavery was abolished, segregation soon took its place. Yet today, America is governed by an African-American. It may take time, but it seems this most influential of all nations eventually gets it right.
The ongoing resurgence of New Orleans, the resistance to despondency by New Yorkers after the terrible events of 9/11, and the ability to revisit decisions like the one to go to war in Iraq speak to the nature of the American character. The mood in America has been decried of late as angry, with the rise of the Tea Party and the bitter debate over the Ground Zero mosque cited as evidence. This weekend Glenn Beck will deliver an angry address at the Lincoln Memorial, an attempt to simulate the Second Coming or his version of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Meanwhile, the upcoming election cycle has already been interpreted as a rejection of America’s current course of action. But somehow Americans will make it through this period of fierce polarization. The one consistent trait of this country is its character. Five years after Katrina, that much should be clear.
[John Parisella is currently serving as Quebec's Delegate General in New York City] -
How partisan politics are hurting immigration reform
By John Parisella - Monday, August 16, 2010 at 7:03 PM - 0 Comments
(AP Photo/Paul J. Bereswill)
Last October, I had a public conversation with President George W. Bush in Montreal during which I had the privilege of asking him questions about his presidency. When I asked him what was his biggest disappointment, he answered without hesitation it was his failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Along with Republican Senator John McCain and the late Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, he had tried to forge a bipartisan consensus to secure the country’s borders and develop a path to citizenship for anywhere between 12 to 20 million undocumented immigrants. Bush was in the latter stages of his presidency and the politics inside the Republican party made it impossible to reach a consensus on reform. The problem hasn’t disappeared. In fact, it has just gotten worse.
Enter Arizona. The problem along the Arizona border with active Mexican drug cartels soon transformed the debate into one about law and order and border security. The law enacted by Gov. Jan Brewer brought in stringent measures, including giving police a near-universal right right to round up illegal aliens. Just recently, a federal judge upheld most parts of the law, but blocked key provisions that could have led to widespread racial profiling. The battlelines have therefore been drawn between hard line Republicans who want to secure the border above all else and blame Obama for worsening the problem, and Democrats who see obvious political advantages in mobilizing the Latino and progressive voters pushing them to enact reforms.
-
Not his father's cup of tea
By Jaime Weinman - Thursday, June 3, 2010 at 4:40 PM - 8 Comments
Rand Paul favours Tea Party populism over both his dad’s beliefs and the GOP establishment
Ed Reinke/ CP Images
There are lots of dynasties in U.S. politics, but Ron Paul may be the first politician to found an anti-government dynasty. When the Texas Republican congressman ran for president in 2008, he became a cult figure for his radically libertarian views, but seemed to have no chance of starting a long-term movement. Then came the May 18 Senate primary in Kentucky. Paul’s son Rand, head of the tax-cut lobbying group Kentucky Taxpayers United and a guy who calls his candidacy “a message from the Tea Party,” easily beat establishment favourite Trey Grayson for the Republican nomination to succeed ex-baseball pitcher Jim Bunning. One of Rand’s sons, 14-year-old Duncan, was photographed carrying a sign for him, as if preparing for his eventual succession. We’ve seen the Gores, the Kennedys, and the Bushes, but here come the Pauls to undo everything those families have done.
-
Why Rand Paul couldn’t help himself
By Andrew Coyne - Monday, May 31, 2010 at 4:00 PM - 125 Comments
Critics smeared Paul as a racist. His defenders claim he’s a man of principle. I’d call him a libertarian nerd.
Bob Adelman / Corbis
I have it on good authority that Rand Paul was not named for Ayn Rand. (His legal name is Randal.) Still, he might as well have been. Soon after his stunning victory in last week’s Republican Senate primary in Kentucky, the younger Paul—his father is the libertarian congressman Ron Paul—stirred up a firestorm of controversy over his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or rather to that part of it forbidding private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race. Critics immediately smeared him as a racist. Defenders portrayed him as a man of principle. Me, I’d call him a libertarian nerd.
The principle to which Paul has attached himself is freedom of contract, the notion that consenting adults should be free to do business with whomever they please. Like its close cousin, freedom of association, it implies also the negative: the freedom not to contract—not to hire, not to sell to, and so on. And as a general rule it’s perfectly fine, the basis both of our laws and economic system.
-
Sarah Palin is unstoppable
By Michael Petrou - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 8:00 AM - 196 Comments
How she’s changing the face of American politics
Photograph by Sally Ryan/The New York Times/ Redux
John McCain thought he needed to spring one more surprise on America.
In August 2008, his presidential campaign against Barack Obama was listing badly. Some of this was his fault. But after eight years of George W. Bush, anyone representing the Republican party came with a lot of baggage. McCain needed to choose a candidate for vice-president who underlined his reputation as a maverick within the party and who was untainted by close ties to the previous administration. The stakes were high. As John Heilemann and Mark Halperin write in Game Change, their book about the campaign, “If McCain’s running mate selection didn’t fundamentally alter the dynamics of the race, it was lights out.”
McCain’s original plan was to partner with Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic nominee for vice-president. McCain hoped such a choice would prove his bipartisan credentials, steal thunder from his opponents, and back-foot the press—allowing his campaign to regain some momentum. But when word of the Lieberman plan leaked, much of the Republican party rebelled, and McCain was forced to scramble. “We need to have a transformative, electrifying moment in this campaign,” McCain strategist Steve Schmidt said. No one on the short list of alternative candidates could deliver this. Schmidt suggested a new option: Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
There wasn’t time to vet Palin properly, or to probe her thoughts on foreign and domestic policy. Picking Palin was a Hail Mary pass in the dying seconds of a championship game. But McCain met and liked her. She was confident and calm. She wasn’t afraid to burn bridges and upset people, even in the Republican party. She was an outsider, like him. Steve Schmidt told McCain choosing Palin could hurt him. But a safer candidate, he said, wouldn’t help. It would be better to go for the win and lose big than to tiptoe to a narrow defeat. “High risk, high reward,” another one of McCain’s advisers cautioned. “You shouldn’t have told me that,” McCain replied. “I’ve been a risk taker all my life.”
-
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
…
-
Looking back and moving forward
By John Parisella - Wednesday, December 23, 2009 at 5:28 PM - 10 Comments
As I approach my first holiday season in New York City, I have been reading and listening to countless accounts of the first decade of the 21st century and how America has fared. The general view is that this past decade was the most trying since the 1940s. It started off with a presidential election that was ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Then, of course, came the horrific events of 9-11. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq followed, while Hurricane Katrina only added to the heavy burden of the American people. Finally, the financial meltdown and the deepest economic recession since the Great Depression closed out the decade, leaving most Americans in a state of uncertainty and vulnerability.
The rest of the word did not fare much better. The economic woes of the United States were felt globally and natural disasters, like the tsunami of 2004 that left over 200,000 people dead, devastated entire regions. Terrorism continued on its ugly course and was not just relegated to U.S. soil. We need only think of London, Madrid, Mumbai, and Bali to remind us that terrorism has no boundaries. Tensions in the Middle East intensified with two armed conflicts involving Israel. Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea continued their nuclear sabre rattling. Political divisions also surfaced in Iran and parts of China. And finally, an anti-climactic outcome in Copenhagen rounded out a less-than-stellar decade on the international stage.
-
America isn't done changing
By John Parisella - Friday, November 13, 2009 at 4:50 PM - 13 Comments
On November 4, 2008, Barack Obama said America had changed. For those who recalled the idealism of the 60s, the dreams of Martin Luther King and the Kennedy brothers had seemingly come to pass: a young African-American man from humble beginnings was elected on the basis of his character and not on the colour of his skin. It was an exhilarating moment that I was fortunate to witness while standing on the roof of the Canadian embassy. A little over a year later, however, many Americans are wondering whether America has really changed or whether last year’s election was an accident of history.
The polarization so often decried by Obama and the rest of the political class remains as sharp as ever. While the nation seemed open to more governmental activism in light of the financial meltdown of last fall, more and more Americans have become concerned about the size of government, the deficit and the debt. Health care reform still has the favour of a majority of the population, but the shape that reform should take has become fodder for acrimonious debates. And as Obama considers different options for the war in Afghanistan, the debate over American military efforts will once again be front and centre. No matter what, his decision will surely be a contentious one. Meanwhile, the economy remains fragile, job losses are expected through most of 2010, and Obama’s approval numbers have come back down to Earth. America, it seems, is back to business as usual.
-
Still not there on healthcare reform
By John Parisella - Monday, November 9, 2009 at 5:56 PM - 7 Comments
The House of Representatives passed a major healthcare reform bill on Saturday by a close margin of 220 votes to 215. It is the first of its kind since Medicare was passed in 1965 and the first-ever aimed at implementing universal coverage. Only one Republican voted for the bill, while 39 Democrats broke party ranks. Speaker Nancy Pelosi deserves much credit for achieving this important milestone, but the narrow victory sets the stage for a drawn-out fight in the Senate.
Blue Dog Democrats will most likely pursue their attempts to either eliminate or weaken the public option when they begin to deliberate, while independent Senator Joe Lieberman is hinting he might join a Republican filibuster. In other words, the 60 senators needed for cloture are no longer onboard. Saturday night’s vote may prove historic should Barack Obama end up with a comprehensive reform package. But unless he opts for reconciliation, a process that allows for a straight up and down vote requiring a simple majority, there may not be anything for him to sign before the holiday season.
-
The first anniversary of Barack Obama
By John Parisella - Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM - 34 Comments
One year ago, I was in attendance at the closing rally of the Obama campaign, where close to 100,000 supporters packed the Prince William fairgrounds in Manassas, Virginia. As the participants left the grounds, there was an almost Zen-like atmosphere. Few doubted that the next day, November 4, 2008, their fellow Americans would for the first time pick an African-American to be their president. The question was no longer when, but by how big a margin? The Obama-Biden ticket swept into power with 365 Electoral College votes to 173 for the McCain-Palin ticket, garnering 53% of the popular vote in the process. It was a clear mandate and the best popular vote performance by a Democrat since LBJ in 1964. Particularly interesting were Obama’s victories in key southern states such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. By the eve of his inauguration, the president-elect was riding high in the polls, hitting a plateau with a 65% approval rating. Obama had not yet begun his first year in office and it had become obvious that the eyes of the world were on this new president.
-
The Fox and Cheney sideshows
By John Parisella - Friday, October 23, 2009 at 7:01 PM - 102 Comments
The Obama White House recently decided that Fox News is biased and that it should be called out for its distortions and mistruths. White House strategists have apparently concluded that the Beck-Hannity-O’Reilly crowd is getting traction. Even though recent polls put Obama’s approval ratings over the 50% mark—the latest CNN poll put his popularity at 55%—the White House is growing increasingly concerned about the impact his opponents will have on major upcoming legislative proposals like health care, cap-and-trade, and the consumer protection agency. As a result, Obama will still do interviews on Fox, but his staff has clearly labeled the network media non grata.
Meanwhile, former vice-president Dick Cheney is continuing his crusade against Obama’s foreign policy, going so far as to label the president a “ditherer.” Cheney’s statements get wide media coverage, if only because they stand in such contrast with the reserve shown by former President George W. Bush. Again, the White House has reacted and taken to reminding voters about Cheney’s role in the last administration. Given Cheney left with a popularity index of less than 25%, the Obama people have taken to portraying him as the face of the Republican party. Since the inauguration, Obama strategists have been blessed to have Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and, once again, Dick Cheney as embodiments of the Republican party. Going after them seems to be working, too, as voter identification with the party is at 20%, its lowest point in 26 years. So far, their attacks have paid off. But is it the best approach in the long run?
-
Bill’s backstage moments
By Jonathon Gatehouse - Thursday, October 1, 2009 at 12:55 PM - 0 Comments
A book on the Clinton presidency offers an insider’s look into the White House
Journalists write the first draft of history. Bill Clinton provided the second—and subsequent revisions—with his 957-page autobiography, My Life, in 2004. Now we get the footnotes.Taylor Branch’s thick new book, The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President, is the product of more than 80 free-form conversations the Pulitzer-prize-winning author recorded with the former U.S. commander-in-chief during his eight years in office. Intimate, often late-night bull sessions between two old friends (Clinton, Branch and Hillary all worked together on George McGovern’s 1972 Democratic campaign), the semi-regular chats were an effort to capture the details of White House deliberations, crises and victories while they were still fresh. Not so much the period’s great events, as its backstage moments. Continue…
-
Why Obama needs to "keep it simple, stupid"
By John Parisella - Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 7:44 PM - 58 Comments
In the 1992 presidential election campaign, Democratic strategist James Carville famously unveiled the wedge issue that would decide the election by stating, “It’s the economy, stupid.” It was a simple and efficient message targeting an electorate concerned about job losses and slow economic recovery. George H.W. Bush, who had a 90-plus per cent approval rating after the Gulf War, would end up a one-term president, ceding the reins to Bill Clinton.
Right now, the healthcare messaging from the White House has none of the clarity nor the simplicity of Carville’s slogan. And while Barack Obama remains the best salesperson for healthcare reform, he is having to defend different bills in both Houses of Congress and is not connecting in the way we have become accustomed to. True, opponents of reform have been scaremongering, but that was to be expected. Complicating matters is the sluggish economic recovery and the rising deficit due to the stimulus package and bailouts. One can argue that governing and campaigning are two distinct operations, but if Obama is feeling the heat this August, it is to some extent self-inflicted.
-
Palin and Gingrich are not doing the GOP any favours
By John Parisella - Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 5:21 PM - 30 Comments
Republicans are still searching for their voice eight months after losing the presidency. It is not unique that a party still be in search of itself after such a decisive loss. What is strange is the fact that personality politics and not policy debates are dominating the discussion. After all, we are still a long way from 2012 and it is too early to project a nominee. Yet, in recent days, it seems the attention has shifted from the Dick Cheney/Rush Limbaugh sideshow to the Sarah Palin/Newt Gingrich roadshow.
Just recently, Governor Palin delivered a speech in New York and made a well noticed appearance at a fundraiser where Newt Gingrich was the main speaker. David Letterman’s controversial top ten on Sarah Palin further served to keep the Alaska governor in the news. (Expect her to be a guest on the Letterman show soon as it reinforces her celebrity status.) Meanwhile, Gingrich is commenting daily and appearing on the Sunday news show regularly.
-
Clinton and Biden make Obama stronger
By John Parisella - Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 5:20 PM - 3 Comments
When Barack Obama was choosing his cabinet, some pundits referenced Lincoln’s “team of rivals” in commenting his choice of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and his decision to keep Defense Secretary Bob Gates, a Republican. When he selected Tim Geithner, Steven Chu and Eric Holder, others said that, just like JFK, Obama was selecting the “best and the brightest.” After close to six months in office, it is more accurate to say that Obama carefully chose the consummate team players. By this, I am referring to Hillary Clinton and Vice-President Joe Biden. Together, they make Obama look stronger.
Outside of Obama, Hillary Clinton has been the star of this administration. And it is not because she is dominating the news cycle—she has, in fact, been low key. Rather, it is because she has been focused, determined and effective. She also seems to be enjoying her new role and that only reinforces the notion of the team player. After years of being the team player in husband Bill Clinton’s political career, she is now performing a similar service for Barack Obama.
-
Obama's tough love for Israel
By John Parisella - Monday, June 8, 2009 at 4:03 PM - 14 Comments
The pressure is beginning to build on the fragile Israeli government to show some openness regarding settlements (legal or otherwise). Some Israeli polls show a more moderate stance from the population than has been expressed by the prime minister and Foreign Minister Lieberman. Meanwhile, U.S. public opinion appears to be appreciative of Obama’s approach, which has made peace in the Middle East a priority in the early stages of his presidency. This is a risky move by the Obama Administration, but it indicates that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu will have to show flexibility or else some tough love may be on the way. Netanyahu’s speech next week could therefore set the tone for future talks.
-
GOP Should Support Sotomajor
By John Parisella - Thursday, May 28, 2009 at 1:05 PM - 5 Comments
It has been said that the announcement of a Supreme Court nominee goes a long way in determining the outcome of the nomination. By all indications, Appeals Court Judge Sonya Sotomajor stands a good chance of being confirmed before Labour Day. Unless some indiscretion in her past is uncovered, Sotomajor appears to have the qualifications and the votes to make it to the highest court.
While we can assume she will eventually be part of the liberal voting bloc of the court, as her predecessor David Souter was, it will be interesting to see how the Republicans will vote at the end of the hearings. It may still be early in the process, but the GOP would do well to keep an open mind before the hearings and eventually vote on the basis of her qualifications rather than an ideological bent.
Currently, the court is composed of four conservatives (Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts) and three liberals (Stephen Beyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and John Paul Stevens, who is 89), with Arthur Kennedy often acting as the swing vote on the ideologically polarized court. It should be recalled that Kennedy’s vote is the one that made George W. Bush the 43rd president of the United States in 2000. Sotomajor’s nomination would therefore do little to shift the political balance. Continue…
-
The Bush Hangover
By John Parisella - Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 3:15 PM - 10 Comments
It is hard to underestimate the imprint George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” speech left on U.S. foreign policy. The story has been unfolding ever since, with the invasion of Iraq, the disengagement from bilateral talks with North Korea that had been started under the Clinton Administration, and the continuing alienation from an emerging regional, and possibly nuclear, power in Iran. The Iraq war quickly degenerated into an anti-insurgency operation that remains far from a conclusive; North Korea has once again provoked the ire of the world with its nuclear tests; and, as for Iran, with an election currently underway, it may not be the ideal time for the U.S. to radically alter its approach, but its nuclear enrichment program remains an ongoing source of worry. In the meantime, events in Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan have become grounds for serious concern. I know it appears all too easy to blame Bush and Cheney for all this, but eight years of misguided policies cannot be reversed overnight or even in the first year of a new presidency, however well-intentioned or promising it may be.
-
A tale of two Iraq wars
By Philippe Gohier - Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM - 1 Comment
A high-level official in both Bush administrations on U.S. military action in Iraq and whether Obama can overcome George W’s foreign policy mistakes
Along with Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Gates, Richard Haass is one of only a handful of people to have been at the highest rungs of the U.S. government for both Iraq wars. Haass was a special advisor to George H. W. Bush when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, and served as the director of policy planning in the State Department when the younger Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. In his new book, War of Necessity, War of Choice, Haass argues that, despite their similarities, the two wars are marked by one crucial difference: whereas the first military operation in Iraq was borne of obligation, the second war was elective. Haass left the State Department in 2003 to become the president of the Council on Foreign Relations.Q: Is there a moral distinction to be made between wars of necessity and wars of choice?
A: No. Wars of choice can be moral. For example, many people would argue that what the West did in Bosnia and Kosovo was truly moral even though it was a war of choice. And I expect there would be those who would go so far as to say that when the world chose not to intervene in Rwanda was immoral.
Wars of choice are just that—they’re choices. Usually, the interests involved are less than vital and there are other policy options. To me, though, it’s not a question of morality. When I call something a “war of choice,” it’s simply a description. It’s not a value judgment.
Q: Along with Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda, you’ve also said Vietnam was a war of choice. Do modern wars tend to be wars of choice?
A: There’s nothing particularly modern about discretionary wars. I haven’t done a thorough study, but I would bet that most wars in history are wars of choice.
But after 9/11, the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan was a war of necessity. If North Korea attacked South Korea tomorrow, that would obviously be a war of necessity.
