Newsweek Blogs

Palin's Out: What the Web Thinks

Mark Coatney — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:23:57 GMT

Now that Sarah Palin has dropped her resignation bomb, the rest of the Web is spending a lovely Friday afternoon trying to figure out why. Matt Cooper h as some theories, here. Friends Palin tell Politico's Mike Allen she plans to remain in the public eye, but hasn't decided anything about 2012. Is this a clue?

Balz talks to a lot of people, and no one has a firm theory about the resignation.

Halperin has 10 possible factors, most of which come down to money.

An Alaska blogger lists some possible reasons

Stromberg says this was a foolish move.

Alaska Democrats think she's crazy.

Bill Kristol thinks she's crazy like a fox.

And, of course, if you haven't read Purdum's Vanity Fair piece, it's definitely worth the hour of your life to read it.

Another Separation For Mark Sanford

Katie Connolly — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:54:50 GMT

Another one of Mark Sanford's relationships is on the rocks today. This time it's his publisher. Sanford had a contract with Sentinel, a conservative publisher owned by the Pengiun Group, for a book titled "Within Our Means". Today a spokesperson announced that Sentinel and Sanford had made a "mutual decision" to go their separate ways. Sanford, who made headlines earlier in the year for wanting to refuse stimulus money for his his state, had planned to write about fiscal conservatism. It's unclear if Sanford will seek another publisher, or how far he'd gotten in writing the novel. We're just glad he wasn't planning to writing about family values.

Obama on Putin, Pies and GITMO

Holly Bailey — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:45:32 GMT

Here's more from President Obama's interview this morning with the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven:

On Russia, Obama was asked why he plans to meet with former Russian President Vladimir Putin in addition to talks with current leader Dmitry Medvedev. “(Putin) still has a lot of sway…and I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev that Putin understand that the old Cold War approaches to U.S.-Russian relations is outdated — that's it's time to move forward in a different direction,” Obama told the AP. “"I think Medvedev understands that. I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new, and to the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the U.S. is not seeking an antagonistic relationship but wants cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues, that we'll end up having a stronger partner overall in this process.”

Also on foreign policy, Obama said he was “not reconciled” with the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. The president also expressed some reservations about his recently announced policy of putting some high risk Guantanamo Bay detainees in “indefinite detention” as the administration moves to close the prison next year. “It gives me huge pause,” Obama said, suggesting he may not follow through on the policy.

In perhaps his most interesting comments, Obama weighed in on the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action this week, in which it decided in favor of a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who sued the city for reverse discrimination. The ruling overturned a verdict laid down by an Appeals Court judge named Sonia Sotomayor. (Maybe you’ve heard of her.) SCOTUS, Obama said, was “moving the ball” on affirmative action, but he noted that the court had ruled out the use of racial preferences in hiring. Still, he spoke sympathetically toward the white firefighters, telling Loven, “I’ve always believed that affirmative action was less of an issue or should be less of an issue that it has made out to be in news reports.”

In addition to the Michael Jackson comments, Obama also weighed in on life at the White House. His biggest pet peeve: having to wear make-up all the time. "The shine police," he groused. On the plus side, he raved about the White House pastry chef, who “makes the best pie I’ve ever tasted."

Obama on MJ: 'I still have all his stuff on my iPod'

Katie Connolly — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:42:43 GMT

Obama gave a wide ranging interview to the Associated Press today, where he finally spoke about Michael Jackson's death."I'm glad to see that he is being remembered primarily for the great joy that he brought to a lot of people through his extraordinary gifts as an entertainer," Obama said, adding that his briallinace "was paired with a tragic and in many ways, sad personal life." He brushed off the notion that African Americans were disappointed that he hadn't issued a formal statement after the entertainer's death last week. "I know a lot of people in the black community and I haven't heard that," Obama told the AP. He also mentioned that has a lot of Jackson tunes on his iPod.

Biden Makes Surprise Visit to Baghdad

Holly Bailey — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:53:52 GMT

Vice President Joe Biden just landed in Baghdad in a surprise two-day visit to Iraq. According to the White House, Biden is there to meet with U.S. military officials and troops and will sit down with Iraqi political leaders including President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The trip comes on the heels of Biden’s new Iraq duties. As Newsweek was first to report, President Obama has asked Biden to take the lead on Iraq policy with the goal of encouraging Iraqi political leaders to get their act together. Here’s part of my write-up from Newsweek's latest issue:

Biden's role will be something of an unofficial envoy to Iraq, though he won't handle day-to-day dealings with officials on the ground. The goal is to "raise the level" in hopes that Biden's stature encourages Iraqi officials to bridge their political differences, says a senior administration official who didn't want to be named talking about high-level personnel decisions. "He knows the players," White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel tells NEWSWEEK. "He brings a lot of experience and expertise on this issue to the table, and the president trusts him."

While they insist that overall incidents of violence in Iraq remain low, Obama and his aides worry about the recent spate of bombings in the region and the Iraqi security forces' ability to respond. But it's the continued political turmoil that has officials most anxious. Both Obama and Biden have raised the issue repeatedly with Iraqi leaders in recent months, without much success. "I think the Maliki government is not only going to have to continue to strengthen its security forces, but it's also going to have to engage in the kind of political give-and-take leading up to the national elections that we've been talking about for quite some time," Obama said on June 26. "I haven't seen as much political progress in Iraq … as I would like to see."

Uneven Green Shoots in U.S. Cities

Newsweek — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:12:12 GMT

No U.S. metropolitan area has been immune from the financial crisis, but the impact has been highly uneven: some cities are already starting to show signs of recovery; others--notably in Florida, California, and Ohio--are still mired in the downturn.

5.1 Percentage unemployment rate in Provo, Utah, the country's lowest.
17.5 Percentage unemployment rate in Modesto, California, the country's highest.
25 Percentage of the "Strongest 20 metro areas" that lie in Texas, with Austin, Dallas, and El Paso in the top five.
70 Percentage of the "Weakest 20 metro areas" that lie in California and Florida, with Tampa; Stockton, California; and Sacramento, California, all in the bottom five.

Foreign Oil Companies Decline Deal for Iraq's Oilfields

Newsweek — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:55:43 GMT

By Lennox Samuels

Iraqi oil minister Hussain Al-Shahristani was expecting to score a second triumph on the day American combat troops withdrew from his nation's cities. But by the time bidding to develop eight Iraqi oil and gas fields ended, he had only one potential deal in hand. Shut out of Iraq's hydrocarbon industry for more than three decades, foreign oil companies nevertheless declined to pursue development contracts that were seen to be advantageous to Iraq, but not so good for them.

BP and CNPC of China agreed to produce oil at the 17-billion-barrel Rumaila field, accepting the government's offer of $2 a barrel for each additional barrel the consortium extracts. The joint venture had sought $3.99 a barrel. Reps from other companies, including Exxon, Shell and 30 others from 18 countries sat impassively, apparently underwhelmed by the potential payoff. Shahristani made clear that Big Oil would be paid a flat fee for their efforts and would be allowed no ownership stake in any field.

For some, the government's posture was hubris. Analysts said Shahristani provided oil companies little incentive to bid, asking companies to spend heavily on development for very little return. "They clearly went too far in not allowing any kind of reasonable profit," said Sam Ciszuk, an energy analyst with IHS Global Insight Middle East, in London. "There are huge risks - not only financial, but legal and political."

And life-threatening, he could have added. A just-released United Nations report states that most of Iraq's oil fields are mined. The Ministry of Defense bans non-military de-mining operations, meaning the oil companies will not be able to use civilian contractors to clear any land mines. "One wonders whether oil companies actually thought about this issue at all," a U.N. official told NEWSWEEK. "It might take years before they even set foot on the fields.

The companies' cool response could put a damper on Iraq's economic-development plans, which hinge on oil. Dependent on crude, Iraq has seen its budget decrease as per-barrel prices have dipped. The loss in revenue even threatens funding for the Army and National Police, which have inherited responsibility for security in urban areas with American combat forces gone. "They need to learn to make better deals," says a Western consultant to the Maliki government, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Shahristani said he expected production on the eight fields to yield $1.7 trillion over 20 years. But the Western companies would realize only a fraction of that. Given the lack of enthusiasm, the oil minister ended Tuesday's session early. Matters could get worse still: Even the BP/CNPC is no sure thing. No contracts have been signed and there's no guarantee that the deal will go forward, Ciszuk told NEWSWEEK. "Nobody's popping champagne corks in London," he said.

At the opening of the session at Al-Rasheed Hotel, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was bullish. "Today we - Iraq, the Iraqis - and the entire world will witness a round which might be unique of its kind in the region," he stated. It appears he and his cabinet should not count their oil barrels before they are filled.

How Lobbyists Will Break In Franken

Daniel Stone — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:53:42 GMT

Call him what you will—ridiculous, heroic, a clown—but beginning next week, Al Franken will officially be known as Senator. Despite the disadvantage of getting a late start, having a fresh face will make him the newest object of attention on Capitol Hill. Other members will want to meet him and anxious staffers will ask for photos. But that's small peanuts. For lobbyists, there are few things more valuable than pushing a crisp business card into the palm of a new member with a blank slate.

Lobbying by nature is a competitive sport—there's only so much time and money to be divvied out. In Washington, the value is highest, where national legislation or federal contracts can translate into big money for interest groups that have an issue to push. Add to the equation Franken's untimely arrival in the midst of huge debates on climate change and health care and the price for Franken's ear will be high. So how does Washington's massive lobby machine break in the Senate's newest addition?

"The first move is always from the member," says one lobbyist, who declined to be named, like many lobbyists in this story, speaking candidly about strategy. Indeed, the first move will be Franken identifying how receptive his staff will be to meetings with special interests. "We usually take the temperature of a new member by word of mouth, hearing about his reputation from other folks around town.”

(Franken could pre-empt the whole rat race by stating a refusal to meet with any with registered lobbyists, like the White House's current policy. But all of the lobbyists who spoke to NEWSWEEK were skeptical that Franken, seeing dollar signs and influence, would be so adamant.)

Someone new like Franken will come into the senate with a solid amount of political naiveté, but no member is ever a blank canvas. By reviewing the issues that a candidate ran on during his campaign, a lobby firm can reasonably ascertain where the member stands on certain issues. Franken ran as a liberal Democrat, so it's already clear he'll be a supporting vote for the party’s health care initiative and the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor.

But it's the unknown territory where the member may be most susceptible. "Lots of us are lining up to see where he might not have a defined position," says Vin Weber a former GOP congressman from Minnesota who’s now a registered lobbyist with DC firm Clark and Weinstock.

On those undefined issues, being the first one to bend a freshman senator's ear matters, but there are different ways to get in line. Loitering outside his office to pass off a packet of information to a staff member might work, but lobbying is most effective when it creates a relationship. The longer term the better. Yet relationships are hard to build when federal lobby policy restricts the circumstances under which a registered lobbyist and senator can meet. Senate lobby rules limit the value of a gift from lobbyists to $20 and privately-funded travel is strictly limited. “No one will be buying [Franken] dinner,” says one lobbyist.

People will be bombarding Franken's office, to be sure. But the better way to a member’s legislative thinking is by having a soft touch. "You don't want to annoy the member, or he’ll shut you out" says another lobbyist. It's hard to get far with a member, he says, if he doesn't trust you. Better strategy is to find an issue that interests them, then find a way to make him want to meet to talk about it.

To do that, location is key. A member like Franken won his election on the narrowest of victories—300 votes—which means he's got a lot of Minnesotans to win over before his next election. "Considering 49.999 percent of people voted against him, the absolute best rationale for early attention is to meet his needs responding to constituents," says Jack Bonner, who heads grassroots lobby firm Bonner and Associates.

Still, it’s not all a one-sided dance. There's a thoughtful process for a new member like Franken, too. He won't want to be seen meeting with every interest group that knocks on his door, nor bought by the visitor with the biggest check. Rather, it'll be important for his image back home to consider Minnesotan issues first. Lobbyists agree: anyone good in the trade will know how to define a national issue in the context of a member’s constituents.

Franken may have already given an early indication of how open he'll be to the ways of Washington. “I’m not going to Washington to be the 60th Democratic senator,” he told a crowd of reporters after his election became official. “I’m going to Washington to be the second senator from the state of Minnesota." It's a noble and responsible thing to say to the people who elected you. But as one lobbyist sees is, he could also be playing hard to get.

As Obama Heads to Russia, the 'Reset' Faces Its First Test

Holly Bailey — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:53:45 GMT

When President Obama met Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for the first time last April, both men called for a new day in relations between the two countries. Obama said he wanted to push the “reset” button, while Medvedev called for an end to the “drift” in the U.S./Russian dynamic. They pledged to forge a more pragmatic relationship than their predecessors, George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, who bonded personally even as ties between Russia and the U.S. sank to new lows. Obama did not want to be “buddy buddy” with Medvedev, a senior administration official told reporters at the time. The White House, according to the official, wanted to forge something “more substantial,” a rapport of “candor and frankness” that would produce real results.

As Obama prepares for his first visit to Russia next week, the boundaries of that new relationship will face its first real test. Obama and Medvedev are expected to announce some progress toward the renegotiation of a crucial arms-control treaty that aims to cut down on nuclear weapons stockpiles. But despite all the conciliatory talk these past few months, the two sides continue to face significant differences over several issues, including how to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and a proposed U.S. missile shield in Europe. In recent weeks, the Russians have suggested that Obama will not reach his goal of reducing nuclear arms unless he drops the U.S.’s missile defense plans. But on Wednesday, the White House signaled in some surprisingly tough talk that it would offer no such concessions on that issue or another hot topic for the Russians: a U.S.-backed push to add former Soviet states Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, a move Moscow strongly opposes.

Asked in a briefing what “reassurances” Obama might give Medvedev on those two issues, Michael McFaul, the president’s top adviser on Russia, unloaded. “We’re definitely not going to use the word reassure in the way we talk about these things,” McFaul told reporters. “We’re not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense… We don’t need the Russians.” They would be no concessions on those issues “in the name of reset.” McFaul insisted.

There is one area where the U.S. strongly needs the Russians: Iran. While the White House says it won’t drop its missile defense plan, Obama has hinted that the shield wouldn’t be needed if Iran’s push to develop nuclear weapons can be stopped—a clear incentive for Moscow to intervene, though Obama insisted he was offering no “quid pro quo.” But Russia remains hesitant to crack down on Iran, a key trading partner. Last month, Russia was one of the first countries to recognize the controversial reelection of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, even as others remained skeptical. But the U.S. sees some signs of hope there: last week, Russia signed on to a letter sent by the G8 foreign ministers ahead of next week’s summit in Italy condemning the post-election violence in Iran. According to an aide, Obama was “gratified” at the role Russia played in finalizing the statement.

How does the White House hope to sway Russia? For one, administration officials say they hope to find some areas of agreement on efforts to prevent terrorism as well as energy and climate change. But Obama, just as he did in recent trips to Europe and the Middle East, will seek to capitalize on his international popularity by appealing directly to the Russian people. While there are lengthy sit-downs with Medvedev and Putin on his schedule, Obama also plans to meet with business and civic leaders in Moscow as a way to establish what an administration official described as a “direct relationship” with the Russian people, who tend to view Americans as adversaries.

In Moscow, Obama will deliver a major speech echoing his remarks in Cairo last month in which the president will talk about American values and its desire to have a better relationship with Russia. According to the White House, Obama’s goal is to change the longtime perception among a majority of the Russian people that what’s good for the U.S. is bad for Russia. “They think that our No. 1 objective in the world is to make Russia weaker, to surround Russia, to do things that make us stronger and Russia weaker,” McFaul says. “I think what you're going to hear when President Obama is in Moscow is that that is not the way that he sees the relationship … It's not, in our view, a zero-sum game, that if it's two points for Russia it's negative two for us, but there are ways that we can cooperate to advance our interests and, at the same time, do things with the Russians that are good for them, as well.”

But as the White House has learned in recent months, turning the page with the Russians won't be easy. It will take more than nice talk to produce the meaningful results that Obama wants and needs. He'll have to overcome decades of mistrust between the U.S. and the Russians--entrenched history that a so-called reset button won't easily clear away.

John Taylor: Set Regulations "Other Countries Can't Thwart"

Daniel Stone — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:17:53 GMT

Our D.C. politics wonk, Dan Stone, normally resides over at the The Gaggle, but is making an appearance here after checking in with former economics adviser John Taylor on the state of global regulatory developments. --KP

It's still up in the air whether the worst of the financial crisis has passed. In the here and now, the undeniable--and more immediate--question is over how to strengthen the lax financial regulations that toppled the first domino.

Economists say when recovery eventually comes, the resulting growth will likely be a product of a new regulatory structure devised by the world's governments. But the world's a big place. Government leaders may generally agree on a broad global framework of investing and trade restrictions, but getting each national government to play ball in actually setting and enforcing the regulations makes for tricky business.

"A lot of the financial institutions now are global, they're multinational. If the treatments are too different in the different countries, then that can lead to [companies] trying to develop new strategies to exploit differences in the regulatory apparatus," says John Taylor, an economic adviser to both Bush Administrations who now teaches at Stanford. He devised what economists refer to as the "Taylor Rule," a principle that uses global economic indicators as signals to central banks on how to set interest rates to avoid economic extremes.

It would be pure speculation if it wasn't jarringly apparent. A decade ago, Thomas Friedman wrote about a flattening world--one in which countries with looser tax structures and low inflation, like China and Brazil, attract national-turned-multinational corporations. The U.S. too, with its low interest rates in 2003 and especially 2004 led to a housing boom that, down the line, caught the eyes of foreign investors.

There could be an easier way out of the woods. Or maybe just less difficult. Taylor thinks that strategizing how to set global regulations before actually setting them is the vital first step. "I think that as we go through and complete financial reforms in the U.S., the considerations need to be communicated and information has to be exchanged so other countries can't thwart it," he said. If it sounds like a delicate dance, it most certainly will be.

Are "Virtual" Sweatshops and Currencies a Threat to China?

Barrett Sheridan — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:59:56 GMT

Our Beijing bureau chief, Melinda Liu, is in town and mentioned to me yesterday that the Chinese authorities are cracking down on "virtual" currencies. What's a virtual currency, you ask? In online multiplayer games like World of Warcraft, players collect loot in order to buy weapons and armor for their characters, and to advance through the game. For many, this is a very, very serious pastttime -- as evidenced by this teen's reaction when his mother canceled his WoW account.

Some players are so serious, in fact, that they'll pay real-life cash for the virtual gold. When clever entrepreneurs figured this out, they started hiring people to work in "virtual sweatshops," playing WoW and similar games for hours at a time, collecting loot to later sell on virtual currency exchanges. This has started to worry Chinese officials, says The New York Times:

The coin of fantasy realms have already moved markets here. So-called QQ coins — a form of currency produced by the Chinese Internet giant Tencent — have sometimes risen sharply in value against China’s official currency, the renminbi, alarming officials at the nation’s Central Bank.
Some people have even traded virtual currencies in China, and exchanged them for clothes, cosmetics and other goods.
Last year, nearly $2 billion in virtual currency was traded in China, according to the China Internet Network Information Center. Some experts say they believe there is a much larger underground economy in the virtual world.

And just as Beijing controls its real-life currency, the renminbi, it now plans to regulate these virtual currencies:

On Tuesday, China said that new regulations would restrict the trading and use of virtual money, and that virtual currencies would be banned from being exchanged for goods.
The government also said it was moving to fight online gambling and disputes over virtual coins.
In a release, Beijing said that while virtual currencies had helped promote online gaming, they have “also brought new economic and social problems.”
Beijing has repeatedly sought to tame the online gaming market with new regulations (and even Internet addiction camps) but the activity continues to grow.
The new rules, issued jointly last weekend by the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Culture in Beijing, are the government’s strongest effort yet to tame virtual money.

I think China's heading in the wrong direction on this one. They want an alternative to the dollar in global markets. How about QQ coins?

Who Gets Paid What in the Obama White House

Holly Bailey — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:58:40 GMT

How much does Jon Favreau get paid to write President Obama’s speeches? According to a list of salaries released today by the White House, Obama’s chief speechwriter makes $172,200 a year—the top salary possible in the West Wing. Favreau, who is paid on par with what President Bush’s chief speechwriter was paid in 2008, earns the same salary as 19 other top administration officials, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, advisers David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, National Security Adviser Jim Jones and economic adviser Larry Summers. The list, which is provided to Congress annually by the White House, includes staffers in the Executive Office of the President, including the first lady’s office and the Domestic Policy Council. (Vice President Biden’s staff salaries are typically disclosed in a separate report to the Senate.) Among the highlights: Social Secretary Desiree Rogers, who makes $113,000; Stephanie Cutter, who is leading the Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court confirmation process, is paid $153,200; Tom Donilon, Jones’s deputy, earns $172,200; and Reggie Love, Obama’s body guy, makes $102,000 a year. One thing is clear: None of these folks should be expecting a raise. Earlier this year, Obama put a salary freeze on White House staffers earning more than $100,000 a year. (That means you've still got a chance, Tommy Vietor!) For the record, Obama's salary is $400,000 a year.

'Stand With Jenny' Petition

Katie Connolly — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:31:28 GMT

Amid the heartbreaking turmoil of her personal life, South Carolinians appear more enamored than ever of their first lady, Jenny Sanford. As Newsweek's Kathy Deveny noted, Mrs. Sanford's response to her husband's teary press conference and public confession of infidelity seemed pitch perfect to most women. She played neither the humilated victim nor the scorned wife. Rather, Jenny projects an image of loving mother, prepared to forgive but not to compromise her principles. The reaction of South Carolina's women to Jenny's statement and interview has prompted the Palmetto Family Council, conservative Christian organization, to launch "Stand With Jenny", a petition showing support for the First Lady. They'd received so many emails and phonecalls from constituents who were angry with Sanford but proud of his wife that they wanted to provide a space for the community to both vent frustration and offer consolation. The petition calls Sanford "inspiring" and "an example to women everywhere of biblical motherhood." The Palmetto Family Council hopes the petition will "encourage her and thank her for her strength, her courage, her commitment to her family, and her example." A spokesperson told your Gaggler that the online petition already had over 1000 signatures by this morning, and the number is still growing. (Warning: the petition requires you to submit an email and home address. I can't guarantee you won't end up on unwanted mailing lists if you sign it.)

A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

Daniel Stone — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:15:04 GMT

Congress is on recess this week for the July 4 holiday. But the quiet in Washington has only amplified a flap between some members of congress and administration officials over an allegedly "suppressed" report from the Environmental Protection Agency. The document, which hasn't been released in its entirety (an incomplete draft is here), supposes that global temperatures have actually decreased over the past decade, essentially undercutting the key cause of global warming. Al Carlin, the EPA employee who authored the report, has only fanned the flames. He appeared twice on Fox News (which has been covering the story regularly according to media watchdog Media Matters) to not-so-subtly suggest an EPA internal conspiracy fueled by the environmental movement. Sen. James Inhofe, the ardent climate-change denier from Oklahoma, immediately jumped on the story, seeing an opportunity to validate all those years he railed against the "faulty science" of global warming. Inhofe immediately called for a criminal investigation into the matter to hold the EPA accountable. (Sensing a slight overreaction, he later backpedaled, saying he wasn't qualified to call for criminal proceedings.)

Neither scientists nor administration officials are swayed much by Carlin's or Inhofe's claims. For one -- and the EPA is quick to point out -- Carlin isn't an environmental researcher, he's an economist. What's more, the report was entirely his idea to research and produce. EPA officials never asked him to do it, hence why they didn't give it top billing when he finished. "Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false,'' the EPA said in a statement. "The individual in question...was not part of the working group dealing with this issue.'' Climate scientists have also taken to a respected science blog to point out shaky scientific ground on which Carlin built his claims.

The whole episode shines more than a bit of light on the palpable tension in Washington over the climate debate, certain to escalate this summer as the Senate discusses the cap and trade bill the house passed last week. The bill, in its current state, would set a limit to carbon emissions and would auction off permits to pollute. But it'll be far from easy to pull through. Democrats will need to assemble at least 60 votes to overcome an almost-certain filibuster, meaning lots of brokering in the coming weeks. With all things up in the air, only one thing seems already clear: how Sen. Inhofe will be voting.

Q+A: Ray Romano on Mammoths, Curse Words, and Vegas

Newsweek — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:57:32 GMT

Funnyman Ray Romano resumes his role this weekend as the voice of Manny, the worrywart woolly mammoth whose whingeing made hits out of Ice Ages 1 and 2. Now, in Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, Manny and the rest of his prehistoric gang will be in 3-D for the first time. Talk about evolution.

NEWSWEEK's Nicki Gostin sat down with the star for a chat—excerpts:

So you’re promoting Ice Age 27, right?
Yeah, feels like it.

So I guess you really enjoyed making it.
No, no, I didn’t mean it like that. It’s been a long time. It’s been eight years that we’ve been doing them. As long as they keep them interesting, then we’ll keep doing them.

Is it the easiest work you’ve ever done in your life?
No!

What’s wrong with that question?
It is convenient because you go to work and you don’t have to get dressed up, you don’t have to coerce Patty Heaton to kiss you in any scene, you don’t have to put on makeup, you don’t have to wait for lights. But it’s also different because you’re not working with any other actors. You’ve got to emote, get angry, while you’re standing in front of a microphone without moving left to right. Technically, it takes a lot of getting used to. Look, yeah, you’re not working yourself into the ground like you do in a sitcom, so in that sense it is easier.

Your character, Manny, becomes a dad. Bring back memories?
Yeah. When we recorded the scene when the baby’s born, it gets a little emotional, and I had to draw on what happened in my real life when my daughter was born. Then of course Manny thinks he knows how to be a father and he really doesn’t yet; he’s learning as he goes, and that’s all the same. I was a fumbling idiot.

Did you ever drop your daughter?
No, but when I went to pick up [my wife and daughter] at the hospital, I parked my car in a tow-away zone and I came out with my newborn in my arms and the car that was supposed to be right there was gone. So we had to take a cab back to Queens.

Was your wife ready to divorce you?
Luckily, she was still medicated. The epidural hadn’t worn off yet. My daughter’s first ride was on the meter. We had to pay 50 cents extra to have her in the car.

Your daughter must be dating by now.
Yes! I’m not as neurotic about it as my wife is. This is what I don’t get. My daughter shares everything with my wife, every conversation with her boyfriend. I remember when I was 18 and dating; I didn’t come home and tell my mom, ‘Ma, you’re never going to believe what she said today.’ But my wife gets to hear all of it and she reacts to all of it. I’m like, just relax, it's teenage love. She’s also at college. She just finished her first year.

Was that weird?
Yeah, especially for my wife because we have three boys and we took over the house. My daughter was my wife’s only ally. It was like when we pulled out of Vietnam and the Viet Cong took over.

Do you see your Everybody Loves Raymond costars?
I do. I just got back from Vegas with Brad Garrett.

I thought you two hated each other.
Why would you think that?

Because he threatened to quit Raymond over money.
That’s just business. That had nothing to do with me—that was with the network. We play a card game once a month and we do charities together. And every couple of months I play Vegas, and half the time I’m with Brad and the other half I’m with Kevin James.

Didn’t you discover him?
People think because he did a thing on my show that I discovered him, but he had a development deal before he was even on my show.

So he doesn’t owe you.
No, no. I’m going to be riding his coattails when he becomes a big movie star, which he’s about to do.

So what else have you been doing?
I’m filming a new series for TNT. It’s coming in December. I co-created it. It’s called Men of a Certain Age. It’s about three friends who are experiencing a crossroads in life. When you start wondering what’s next, who you are.

TNT is no swearing right?
You can swear. You can’t say the F word.

But you can say the S word?
Yes, you can.

So we will be hearing a cursing Ray Romano.
You don’t know how many times, nine years on Raymond, I wanted to say, "You’re full of s---, Debra!"

Project Runway: Ask the Judges ANYTHING

Sarah Ball — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:31:27 GMT

On Monday, NEWSWEEK sits down with the four formidable judges of Project Runway to discuss the long-awaited Season 6 premiere. Got questions for Michael Kors, Heidi Klum, Nina Garcia or Tim Gunn? Throw 'em up in the comments—the juicier, the better. We'll put the best ones to the panel—stay tuned for video of their responses, and in the meantime, let us know what you'd ask!

What is Mark Sanford Thinking?

Holly Bailey — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:32:19 GMT

Who is advising Mark Sanford these days? That’s what your Gaggler is wondering, considering the embattled South Carolina governor will not stop treating the media as a confessional. In two days of interviews with the Associated Press, Sanford not only owned up to still being in love with the Argentine woman he cheated on his wife with, but he confessed to having “crossed the lines” with other women in the past—though he insists he didn’t have sex with them. Sanford admitted that he’d seen his mistress, now identified as Maria Belen Chapur, more often than he’d initially admitted and described her as his “soul mate.” “This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story,” the governor told the AP. “A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.” And Sanford is coming clean with all this, even as he says he wants to reconcile with his wife, Jenny, whom he is "trying to fall back in love with." Yikes. We can only guess at the advice most political consultants would be giving Sanford right now: Shut up. But maybe we got a clue as to what was to come when we saw Sanford’s aides essentially drag him away from the press conference he held a week ago to confess his affair. Sanford doesn’t want to go away. He wants to explain, even as he admits he's participating in his own "political funeral," as he put it. It’s unclear who is giving Sanford advice day to day. Perhaps no one. The State newspaper over the weekend described his wife, Jenny, as his most valuable political adviser, and she's clearly not around. Another confidant, former chief of staff Tom Davis, looks to be on the outs with the governor as well. Meanwhile, Sanford’s troubles just seem to get worse and worse. Henry McMaster, South Carolina’s GOP attorney general, has announced an investigation into whether Sanford abused his office or used state funds to conceal his affair (or affairs?). A growing number of Republicans in the State are calling on Sanford to resign—something he, so far, refuses to do. "I've been able to do my job and in fact excel at it," Sanford told AP. Can he survive?

Can Obama Sell Health Care Reform Without Getting Too Specific?

Holly Bailey — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:00:49 GMT

President Obama heads to the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., today to hold a health care town hall. It’s the second time in a week that Obama has taken questions from the public on reform efforts. Last Wednesday, Obama participated in an ABC News forum on the topic at the White House. Today, Obama will take questions from a live audience, as well as those submitted via Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. It’s all a part of Obama’s efforts to use his own political popularity to get health care reform through Congress. This marks a bit of a strategy change for the White House. Initially, Obama tried to take a hands-off approach to the legislation, allowing Congress to take the lead. The plan seemed based on not repeating the mistakes of the Clinton White House which saw its reform efforts go down the tubes in 1993 when it took a heavy-handed approach to the bill, as opposed to letting lawmakers run the show. But Obama is far more popular than Bill Clinton was, and Democrats want the president to share some of their political burden on what will no doubt be a tricky debate. But is Obama doing enough?

Not unlike George W. Bush when he tried to use his own political capital to sell the equally tricky task of reforming Social Security four years ago, Obama is trying to have it both ways. He wants to bank on his enormous popularity to influence the public to pressure Congress to get something done this year, but he also wants to stay above the fray. Obama doesn’t want to get too specific about what he wants and doesn’t want in a bill because he knows what ultimately emerges from Congress will be a test of compromise.

Case in point: Obama said repeatedly during the campaign that he’d like to set up a publicly-run health care system to compete with private insurers in hopes of bringing costs down. Obama hasn’t backed down from his wish, but he refuses to say if it’s a deal breaker. Asked repeatedly at a news conference last week whether he’d veto a bill without a public plan, Obama dodged the question. One reason: It’s not just Republicans who are skeptical about a public plan. Many Democrats are worried about the cost, amid the backdrop of an ever-increasing budget deficit. The public is skeptical too. According to a new CNN poll, 51 percent of those surveyed support Obama’s plan—a slight majority—while a majority of those polled, 54 percent, worry that health care costs will go up under a public plan. That latter number is bound to make the White House nervous because it’s the exact opposite of what Obama has been arguing. He says competition would force private insurers to cut costs and will, in the end, save everybody money.

It’s a guarantee that a question along those lines will come up at today’s health care town hall. But how specific will Obama be? Here’s the White House’s dilemma: Can the president go out and try to sell the public on health care reform without getting involved in the intricate details of what the legislation will ultimately be? That’s what Obama is trying to do—and will keep doing as long as he can.

Reconsidering Manual Labor

Katie Baker — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:03:40 GMT

For years, American educators have been touting the rise of the "knowledge economy" and shifting focus away from the manual trades, encouraging teens onto the four-year college track in preparation for our supposedly postindustrial society. Meanwhile, cubicle jobs are increasingly going the route of manufacturing work as corporations outsource any task that can be delivered over a wireless connection. And thanks to the financial crisis, that drain is only likely to accelerate. So perhaps it's time to reconsider where the future of work is headed as the century unfolds. It's a subject that's starting to gain traction, first in the writings of Princeton economist Alan Blinder and most recently in a clever book called Shop Class as Soulcraft, by philosopher (and motorcycle repairman) Matthew Crawford.

The Idea: American elites tend to harbor ambivalent feelings about manual labor and the blue-collar trades, which are increasingly identified as jobs of the past, only suitable for low-skilled or immigrant laborers. However, manual trades (construction, repair, and maintenance) are among the few jobs that have proved resilient to global outsourcing. Moreover, as Crawford argues, working with one's hands can potentially be more lucrative and intellectually satisfying than being a low-level cubicle worker.

The Evidence: Crawford, who left a think tank to open his own repair shop, makes some compelling arguments about the link between independent thinking, self-reliance, and working with one's hands. The connection is hardly new: ancient Greek notions of "knowledge" (sophia) and "craftiness" (techne) also implied manual dexterity (Athena was patron goddess of both widsom and craftsmen) and Heidegger identified man as a fundamentally tool-using animal. Blinder predicts that work will soon be divided between "personal services" requiring face-to-face contact (a physician, for example) and "impersonal services" that don't, and can thus be sent abroad (a radiologist who reads patient X-rays and types up the results). He counts 30 million to 40 million of these impersonal jobs, from scientists and editors to clerks and typists, and predicts that the economic upheaval for white-collar workers is just beginning. For manual labor, however, his analysis suggests a future of rising wages and demand.

The Conclusion: Americans may need to rethink whether they should continue to push kids toward cubicles. But embracing manual labor is going to require a sea change in the upper-middle class, which has been looking forward to a high-tech, "labor-lite" future. College students are now expected to be "pliable generalists" rather than specialists, but perhaps it's time to start relearning independent craft skills that integrate both the head and the hands.

Nigerians 4 Life: Gazprom's Deliciously Unfortunate New Brand

Katie Paul — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:57:00 GMT

Once upon a time there was a Russian gas company named Gazprom, which grew fond of a Nigerian state-owned gas company. After an extended courtship, the two resolved to partner up. A joint venture was born. But what to name it? They pondered, and pondered, and then they decided: Nigaz. No joke.

Franken Won, Says Minnesota Supreme Court

Katie Connolly — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:28:38 GMT

The Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled Al Franken the winner of the hotly contested Minnesota Senate race this afternoon. Incumbent Norm Coleman had appealed a lower court's decision, primarily arguing that absentee ballots had been improperly handled by electoral officials. ~~Coleman now has the option of appealing to federal courts. He has yet to indicate whether he plans to rest his campaign for the seat~~. ***UPDATE Coleman has conceded the race to Franken. He won't be lodging a federal appeal.*** On Sunday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty told CNN he was prepared to certify Franken as soon as the ruling was handed down~~, but he added he would of course follow the direction of the Supreme Court should Coleman take his appeal further~~.

~~Depending on Coleman's action~~s, Franken may be seated as early as next week, when Congress returns from Fourth of July recess. This would nominally give the Democrats a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority. But will Franken's presence in the caucus really change things for Senate Democrats? I'm inclined to think no. Why? Because the real 60th vote remains newly minted Democrat Arlen Specter, and it's still unclear to me the degree to which he will actually be a faithful caucus member. So far, he appears to be playing well with his new friends, but his loyalty hasn't really been tested yet. The most telling indicator of his intentions to date was his decision last week to support the inclusion of a public plan in health-reform legislation. This came after weeks of strategically applied grassroots pressure mobilized by pro-public-plan groups. Predictably, Specter is less concerned with the ideological or policy ramifications of his supporting a public plan than with his electoral viability if he doesn't. Specter is increasingly likely to face a serious challenger in the Democratic primary, so he needs to prove to Democratic primary voters that he can be trusted to remain true to his new party label. Franken will indeed add a (undeniably entertaining) 60th voice to the caucus room, but the real 60th vote is still in the hands of Pennsylvania primary voters.

Argentina's Next Power Brokers?

Katie Paul — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:08:31 GMT

Photo credit: AFP/Getty Images

Francisco de Narváez is not the sort of person you'd expect to build a political platform around the idea of normalcy. He’s a Colombian-born businessman with a big black tattoo on his neck who inherited the family supermarket chain back in the '90s, then built it into a business empire, with stakes in agriculture, clothing stores, and even Argentina's leading newspaper, Clarin. Not to mention, in the last four years, he's mysteriously managed to increase his wealth by about 900 percent, prompting authorities to launch an investigation into his business dealings earlier this month (the rumor mill is buzzing about a drug connection).

But voters in Latin America's third-largest economy seem ready to give his brand of normalcy a try. The dissident Peronist just eked out a win over former president Nestor Kirchner in midterm congressional elections, amounting to a humiliating and potentially crippling upset over Argentina's resident power couple—not to mention a huge legislative thorn in the side of Nestor's wife, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who lost her congressional majority in the process. It’s a particularly impressive feat, since the Kirchner-Narváez face-off took place in the sprawling, largely working-class suburbs of Buenos Aires province that have long been the Kirchners’ electoral home turf.

Narváez, on the other hand, is part of a center-right coalition that has been making inroads into power in the past few years, which favors privatization and supports the farming community in their fight against high export taxes. Mauricio Macri, another business leader and the owner of the Boca Juniors, Argentina's most popular soccer team, swept to victory in the race to become mayor of Buenos Aires in 2007, a position of outsized influence in a country where 10 percent of the population lives in the capital city. And his former deputy mayor, Gabriela Michetti, just landed a decisive win to become the city's congressional leader. Farmers who had been sufficiently incensed by the Kirchners' tax policies to try their hands at politics also picked up seats.

Could the pendulum swing back to neoliberalism in Argentina? Anti-Kirchner Peronists are certainly on the rise and are newly positioned to challenge the policies strong-armed into place under the Kirchners, but the grand coalition they're proclaiming is not fully up and running yet. For one, Kirchner's term isn't over until 2011, and there's ample evidence she's not above ruling by sheer force of populism—stirring up those infamous Argentine street protests. For another, there are still breaks in the ranks. Days before the election, Narváez surprised even his coalition partners by backing nationalizations in certain public-service sectors, normally a big no-no among the pro-business types. But, then again, "normal" may not have been the best way to characterize Narváez after all.

Leading Indicator: Employment

Newsweek — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:41:27 GMT

54%
The share of employed Americans who say they will look for a new job once the recession ends. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 71 percent say they want to make a change once the recovery begins.

Source: Adecco North America

Breakfast With George Soros

Barrett Sheridan — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:03:14 GMT

This morning The Wall Street Journal hosted a breakfast with über-investor George Soros, the man who "broke the Bank of England" by betting against the pound and earning a billion dollars for himself in the process. Last year, in the midst of a declining market, he came out of retirement to take control of his Soros Fund Management, which was up nearly 10 percent in a year when the S&P 500 shed about 40 percent. Below are selected quotes and ideas:

On the origins of the crisis: A "super bubble" inflated over the last 35 years. Every time it looked set to pop, regulators took drastic action, only to allow it to continue inflating. How can we be confident it's pricked for good this time? "I think the evidence is pretty conclusive."

On the next steps: We are, for the first time, simultaneously concerned about both inflation and deflation. Since September, the Federal Reserve has expanded its balance sheet from $800 billion to about $10 trillion. "You have the makings of runaway inflation." Inflation fears are likely to force the Fed to raise interest rates, which will stomp on the "green shoots," curtail growth, and lead to stagflation. But, strangely, "I think that is the preferable outcome." The alternative is deflation, which would only worsen our "crushing" debt load.

On his trading strategy: He has returned to retirement and left day-to-day operation of his fund to others, but nonetheless has some thoughts. "This is not a time to have firm convictions"—in other words, big bets are for the foolhardy. "My theory is that the future is unpredictable. Therefore I'm not going to predict it," he said to laughter.

On new regulation: "Markets are imperfect, but regulators are more so." Nonetheless, future regulators need to actively seek to pop bubbles before they get out of control—something Greenspan consciously avoided doing. As speculation and leverage increase, regulators should raise margin requirements and take other actions to cool the economy (aside from merely tightening the money supply by raising interest rates).

On China: Having just returned from a trip to the Middle Kingdom, he says, "I see China as the big winner, the main beneficiary of the collapse of the international financial system...They are virtually untouched by this crisis." Their "state capitalism" has sheltered them from the worst effects of the collapse. "They don't have to nationalize the banks because they are nationalized."

On the dollar: "The dollar is a very weak currency except for all the others...If the Chinese allowed the renminbi to be convertible on the capital account, it would be very attractive—but they don't."

On China's dollar holdings: "I suspect they will diversify into commodities...I'd rather accumulate real assets than currencies."

On the state of politics today: "An open society is closely related to democracy, but not identical...When you have an electorate that is unwilling to face reality, it needs to be told stories." That's why the political discourse today "is not aimed at understanding reality, it is aimed at getting elected and manipulating reality."

On the media: "Media is a reflection of society, so you have the same problems as in the political sphere. On top of that, you had deregulation and thus concentration, which is not good—and I have to say that even though I am a guest of The Wall Street Journal."

Obama Says He'll Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell...Someday...

Katie Connolly — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:43:02 GMT

As I noted earlier, the first couple hosted a celebration honoring LGBT Pride Month in the East Room this afternoon. The event comes amid rising tensions between the Obama administration and the gay community, who are disappointed at the lack of attention given to their issues so far this year. For the most part, Obama didn't mince words. He described the gay rights "struggle" as "difficult," "painful," and "heartbreaking." He likened the movement to prior civil-rights battles, drawing parallels with "all those in our history who've been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, who've been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them." He told the by-invitation-only group that he understood their frustrations, and it wasn't for him to advise patience, "any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago."

After listing the steps his administration has taken to further gay rights—signing the memo about extending partner benefits to federal employees, calling on Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, meeting with Matthew Shephard's mother as part of a strategy to address hate crimes, and repealing the HIV travelers ban—Obama turned to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And this is where his words went from unambiguous to murky. Although he acknowledged that "preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security," his plan for ending DADT was unclear. He's apparently working with the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs to develop some sort of strategy, but he didn't give a deadline or outline a process. The upshot? This doesn't really advance the repeal much beyond a campaign promise. There is a bright side for gay-rights activists, though. If you read between the lines, DADT will likely be repealed before the next election (or 2016, depending how bullish you are on Obama's chances). Here's Obama:

I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps...We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.

I'm thinking those words will be ringing in the gay community for weeks.