In this March 20 file photo, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his wife Ann hug during a victory rally in Schaumburg, Ill. (Steven Senne/AP)

Hilary Rosen vs. Ann Romney: why the dust-up is fake

By Liz Marlantes, Correspondent / 04.12.12

Can we just say: Enough with the fake "wars" on/about/between women?

First, it was Democrats trying to make it seem as though a serious dispute about whether the government should require insurance plans to cover birth control was actually an argument about birth control in general. When the truth is, the latter debate is settled and will almost certainly never be revisited as a matter of public policy. Even Rick Santorum has made that clear, despite his personal views on the matter. 

Now, it's Republicans pretending there's a big national fight over a subject that most women basically agree on – the decision to work or stay home. Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen unintentionally set off this fake firestorm when she commented on CNN Wednesday night that Ann Romney – whom Mitt Romney has been referring to as his top adviser on women's issues – has "never worked a day in her life." Here's the full quote:

“What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future.”

The Romney campaign pounced, with Ann Romney putting out her first-ever tweet: “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

So why is this a fake fight? Because first of all, we don't think there's anybody out there (with kids at least) who doesn't think raising children is hard work – as Ms. Rosen herself later said. But more to the point, because the debate over women staying home or going to work isn't really much of a debate anymore – since increasingly, it's a choice that most women simply don't get to make. For women who do get to make that choice, that's great – whatever they decide. But for the vast majority, forgoing a paycheck just isn't an option these days. 

It's clear from the context that Rosen wasn't criticizing Ann Romney for staying home. She was criticizing the Romney campaign for presenting Ann Romney as an expert on the economic concerns of women, when Romney's own economic circumstances (including the fact that she was able to stay home with all five of her sons) are not those that most women have. 

Was it a political mistake for Rosen to criticize Romney's wife, regardless of the context? Sure. Ann Romney is a gracious person, a popular presence on the campaign trail, and an immensely sympathetic figure. Obama's top advisers wasted no time condemning Rosen's remarks as "inappropriate," saying family members should be "off-limits."

But does this mean there's a debate in the public sphere between Democrats and Republicans over whether women should work or stay home? No. And the real outrage is that these fake catfights take attention away from debates about serious issues that really do affect women.  

Read entire post | Comments

First lady Michelle Obama laughs with Stephen Colbert during her appearance on Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report"' in New York. (Kristopher Long/Comedy Central/AP)

Michelle Obama on 'The Colbert Report': Did she get the best of him? (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 04.12.12

First lady Michelle Obama appeared on “The Colbert Report” last night, in case you missed it by watching playoff hockey. It’s the first anniversary of her "Joining Forces" initiative to support military families, which is why faux conservative funnyman Stephen Colbert booked her. How’d she do? Comedy can be a dangerous thing, after all. Sometimes it’s best left to professionally trained forces.

We think she did fine. That would be no surprise – at this point Mrs. Obama is a seasoned guest star. She’s even been on “iCarly,” which is the “Meet the Press” of Nickelodeon tweener shows. She had no problem hitting the three goals of success for politicians appearing on basic cable:

STAY ON MESSAGE. The first lady gave a graceful speech about the importance of supporting military families. “Jill Biden and I started this initiative to make sure this country, which is a grateful nation, does whatever it can to honor our veterans and their families,” she said.

She noted that unemployment rates for veterans and military spouses are declining, but are still too high.

“These people are bringing skills that actually improve the bottom line,” she said.

Obama notably remained unfazed when Mr. Colbert said that he had served in Iraq for a week, and considered himself a veteran, “which is why I hired myself for this show.”

PLAY THE GOOD SPORT. Colbert’s character on his show is right-wingish, so he brought up that the whole "Joining Forces" thing sounded like big government, especially because its website ended with “dot gov.” Obama deflected this comment like a pro: first by denying the premise, then shifting to answer the question in the way she’d have wanted him to frame it, by saying that, yes, everybody needs to help veterans, from government to businesses big and small.

Colbert segued out of this by saying that hiring a veteran could have the added benefit of shutting people up.

“He’ll really make the inter-office complaining sound trivial,” said Colbert.

ZING BACK. You can’t let these show business-types get away with stuff, if you’re a guest. Colbert brought up the “iCarly” appearance, wondering out loud whether its teen hosts or he had more gravitas.

“That’s a tough one,” said the first lady. “Carly is 16 and she’s real deep.”

Colbert then gave Obama an opening to lord it over her husband, the leader of what used to be called The Free World, by noting that she’s the more popular of the two. Did she ever think of threatening to not campaign for him if he doesn’t do the dishes?

Sometimes, she admitted. But then she hit her campaign-approved mark.

“I am endorsing my husband, Barack Obama ... he has done a phenomenal job,” said the first lady.

Yes, yes, the shows script the flow of these appearances, but if you don’t do them every day it’s still easy to get tangled up and at the least not get out what you want, as clearly as you want it. Trust us.

And as Colbert said, Obama’s focus on military families can only mean one thing: the childhood obesity crisis (her other big issue as first lady) must be over.

“Kids, go to town on that Oreo pizza!” Colbert said.

Read entire post | Comments

In this March 19 file photo, Ann Romney, wife of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, talks with audience members after her husband spoke at the University of Chicago, in Chicago. (M. Spencer Green/AP/File)

Lilly Ledbetter and Ann Romney: Gone in six seconds

By David Grant, Staff writer / 04.12.12

How long does it take to set D.C. media/communications mafiosi gunning?

In the Washington spin cycle, gaffes can go from a spokesman's mouth to full-blown tempest in a teapot in a mere six seconds. 

Six. Seconds. One Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Missis....

Case in point: Wednesday's Lilly Ledbetter news moment. In case you missed it (and you likely did), Wednesday began bright and gay as many days do: with a conference call with a group of surrogates from one of the presidential camps.

In this case, it was Team Romney on offense.

Until they took a simple, nonhostile question from HuffingtonPost's Sam Stein: "Does Governor Romney support the Lilly Ledbetter Act?"

Six seconds went by. "Sam," an unidentified voice replied, "we'll have to get back to you on that."

Wait, that doesn't sound like a massive newsmaking event to you? Au contraire.

The Ledbetter Act, the first piece of legislation President Obama signed in 2009, expanded the ability for citizens to sue their employers for unfair pay. Passing Congress with only three Republican votes (all in the House), it was a big win for Mr. Obama with women, in no small part because while anyone can sue his or her employer for pay issues, Ms. Ledbetter was a woman and the case had picked up many prominent backers among women's rights organizations.

So the question put the Romney people in a vise. Republicans, whom former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney must convince he isn't a mushy moderate, despise the law. Women, whom current polling tells us are going to vote for Barack Obama in droves, love it.

But because Team Romney didn't have an answer ready, that gave journalists and Democratic operatives alike a moment to jump into the fray. Then when Romneyville announced they would not seek to overturn the law, everyone got another whack at the piñata.

In the hours that followed, the Democratic National Committee blasted out more than two dozen e-mails with links to stories on the subject, their own quips on the matter, and finally, a statement from DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida late Wednesday night. Chief among these was one entitled "Six LONG seconds" – with a link to a YouTube video of the exchange.

Six seconds of pause? In today's political environment, that can be the difference between a "good" and a "bad" day on the Internet. And that wasn't even the end of the day's twists and turns. Hint: Things ended with Democrats on defense, after Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen quipped on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" that Mitt Romney's wife, Ann, had "never actually worked a day in her life." (Ann even got on Twitter – a first – to mark the occasion!)

Read entire post | Comments

Miami Marlins president David Samson (l.) listens as manager Ozzie Guillen speaks at a news conference at Marlins Park in Miami Tuesday. Guillen has been suspended for five games because of his comments about Fidel Castro. (Lynne Sladky/AP)

What Ozzie Guillen got right about Fidel Castro

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 04.10.12

On Tuesday Florida Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen couldn’t backtrack fast enough from the niceish things he’d said about Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. At a press conference in Miami, Guillen said that no, he doesn’t really believe Castro is someone to be “loved,” as he’d said in an interview with Time magazine. Nor did he really “respect” Fidel as a survivor who’d outwitted countless assassination plots.

Guillen said that he’d since met with women who’d been abused by the Castro regime and he truly understood the depth of animosity towards the Cuban leader that still exists in south Florida.

“I feel like I betrayed the Latin community,” Guillen said at his mea-culpa fest. “I am here to say I am sorry with my heart in my hands, and I want to say I am sorry to all those people who are hurt directly or indirectly [by my remarks].”

Will it be enough to save Guillen’s job? Only time will tell if that’s the case. He’s been suspended for five games in the wake of local protests about his Castro remarks. Since the Marlins have just opened a new ballpark and need to make the most of their new moment in the Miami sun, it’s possible that ex-Red Sox skipper Terry Francona is already stocking up on SPF 60. You know, just in case somebody calls.

But here’s the thing: Guillen got something right about Castro. And that something is the very reason he’s in trouble.

It’s correct that Castro, against long odds, has defied US efforts to oust or kill him for decades. There was the hapless US-sponsored invasion (Bay of Pigs), the crackpot schemes (exploding sea shells intended for his diving spots), and straightforward economic pressure (economic embargoes).

Nothing worked. And that has driven a succession of US presidents to distraction, while only increasing the animosity of an expatriate community that has waited so long to celebrate his demise.

Guillen walked right into this situation, so fraught due to an era of pent-up frustration, and said something flippant. He told Time that “a lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that [expletive] is still there.”

As Foreign Policy magazine analyst Joshua Keating noted Tuesday, “That’s as undeniably true as the statement was undeniably insensitive to Castro’s victims.”

The irony, of course, is that Guillen is now in trouble for referring to a situation that is on the verge of change. Castro has already ceded power to his brother Raul, who seems intent on liberalizing the sclerotic Cuban economy.

Of course, this “liberalizing” is taking place in the context of what has been a rigid Communist regime. It takes the form of empowering people to buy and sell their own houses and cars, and an expansion of licenses for private enterprise, among other items, according to Ted Piccone, Brookings Institution senior fellow in foreign policy.

Piccone visited Cuba recently, and says he was struck by the country’s unique blend of decaying splendor, cultural vibrancy, lack of freedoms, and relative poverty. The question now, he says, is if the regime can open things enough to get the economy going without destabilizing society to the point where they lose control.

“The trick for party officials, then, is to demonstrate enough tangible improvements that Cubans will maintain faith in their ability to lead the country even after the Castros leave the scene,” wrote Piccone in January.

Of course, that’s the trick for Guillen, too, isn’t it? He’s going to have to demonstrate enough tangible humility that Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria maintains faith in his ability to lead a motley crew of ballplayers in the National League East. 

Read entire post | Comments

President Obama and his wife, Michelle, read to children at the annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House in April 2011. Daughters Sasha and Malia listen with their dog, Bo. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File)

How Bo and other 'first dogs' contribute to White House Easter Egg Roll

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 04.08.12

When you’re the first dog, indignity comes with the territory. That was our thought when we saw the Obama family’s Portuguese water dog, Bo, in a video that advertises the 2012 White House Easter Egg Roll. 

Bo is wearing pink bunny ears in the spot. At one point there’s a squawk and he pretends to, um, produce an Easter egg. “There will be games,” says the closing tag line.

It’s cute. But here’s our point: Presidential pets are often used as props. Bo is not the first White House dog forced to wear funny headgear for an Easter image. 

No, Barney wasn’t the first, either. Remember Barney, George W. Bush’s Scottish terrier? “Barney Cam” was the pioneering series of videos that mixed White House pets with real administration officials in scripted entertainment. Barney never had to don fake ears. But he did have to suffer a headdress made from roses in the classic 2007 film “My Barney Valentine.” The plot had him deliver the flowers to his valentine, consort Miss Beazley.

Then there was King Timahoe, Richard Nixon’s Irish setter. “Christmas at the White House,” a 1971 CBS News special, showcased Timahoe “romping on the sitting room floor” with his owner, according to a program review. Nixon’s chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, had a different view of this relationship. In his diary he wrote that Timahoe was so nervous around Nixon he wouldn’t go near him even when tempted by dog treats. 

But to identify the first canines to serve as administration Easter overlords, we’ll have to set the way-back machine to the early 1900s. Calvin Coolidge had lots of pets, including a raccoon he walked on a leash, and at one point his collie Prudence Prim wore a bonnet for the Easter Egg Roll. A photo of this event is at Washington’s Newseum. The collie looks unembarrassed. Coolidge looks dour.

And in 1923, Warren Harding’s Laddie Boy served as Easter Egg Roll host in the Harding family’s absence. A handsome Airedale terrier, Laddie Boy was the first presidential pet to receive extensive news coverage. After Harding’s death in office, newsboys around the country donated 19,000 pennies for a memorial. These coins were melted down and cast into a life-size Laddie Boy sculpture, today owned by the Smithsonian.

Read entire post | Comments

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney addresses a crowd at a campaign event in a metal working shop, in Broomall, Penn., Wednesday, April 4. (Steven Senne/AP)

'Morning Joe' host: GOP establishment thinks Mitt Romney will lose to Obama

By Liz Marlantes, Correspondent / 04.05.12

On MSNBC Wednesday morning, "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough had one of those refreshingly direct moments where he cut through all the political blather with a blunt assessment of what's really going on in the presidential race. Mr. Scarborough was talking about Rick Santorum's chances of being the nominee in 2016, when panelist Mark Halperin interjected that Mitt Romney might win in the fall (thereby taking 2016 out of the equation for Republicans). At that point, Scarborough irritatedly cut him off:  

“Nobody thinks Romney’s going to win [the general election]. Let’s just be honest. Can we just say this for everybody at home? The Republican establishment – I have yet to meet a single person from the Republican establishment who thinks Mitt Romney’s going to win the general election this year. They won’t say it on TV, because they’ve got to go on TV, and they don’t want people writing them nasty e-mails. I obviously don’t care. But I have yet to meet anybody in the Republican establishment that worked for George W. Bush, that works in the Republican Congress, that worked for Ronald Reagan that thinks Mitt Romney’s going to win the general election.” 

This basically corresponds with Decoder's own conversations with various Republican insiders. There are many who say they think President Obama is vulnerable – but there are far fewer who, when speaking off the record, say they believe Mr. Romney is well positioned to take advantage of that vulnerability. In a word, many Republicans smell a loser.

Yes, Romney is widely seen as the most "electable" candidate among Republican primary voters, and has been throughout this campaign. In Tuesday's Wisconsin primary, 38 percent of voters said that beating Mr. Obama was their top priority, and 68 percent of those voters chose Romney. But that doesn't mean they're confident Romney will beat Obama – just that they think he has a better shot at it than the other GOP candidates on the ballot.

In fact, when pollsters ask voters who they think is going to win in the fall (as opposed to who they want to win), Obama wins pretty handily. A recent Pew survey found that 59 percent of voters believe Obama would beat Romney in the general election, including 30 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

And it is that underlying sense – that, barring some unexpected turn of events such as a double-dip recession, Romney is probably going to lose in the fall – that has really been weighing down Romney's candidacy. The reluctance on the part of many Republicans to back him until recently, and the lack of enthusiasm shown by many when they do get on board, probably have less to do with Romney's positions on the issues and whether he's a true conservative or not, than with this widespread sense that he is likely to lose to Obama. 

That's why Sen. Marco Rubio (R) of Florida followed his endorsement of Romney by telling The Daily Caller: "There are a lot of other people out there that some of us wish had run for president – but they didn't." That's why former Gov. George Pataki (R) of New York said, after endorsing him: "Mitt is not a perfect candidate," adding, "it's hard for blue-collar families like mine to identify with him. It's hard for economic conservatives to identify with him." (In fact, Mr. Pataki actually won an NCAA-style bracket put on by Yahoo News for "most tepid Romney endorsement.")

As "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart joked: "These are his supporters! For God's sake, this is politics, presidential politics. Fake it better!"

Some of them are trying. But, as Scarborough noted on Wednesday, in their heart of hearts, many Republicans – right now, at least – really aren't anticipating victory, which makes that enthusiasm a lot harder to muster.

Like your politics unscrambled? Check out DCDecoder.com

Read entire post | Comments

Obama's open mic moment: President Obama chats with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during a bilateral meeting at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, Monday. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Obama's open mic moment: How big a flub? (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 03.27.12

President Obama’s open mic moment sure looks like a political flub. Attending the nuclear safety summit in Seoul, South Korea, and unaware that a nearby microphone was live, Mr. Obama on Monday told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” in missile defense negotiations after the 2012 elections.

Then he patted Mr. Medvedev’s hand in a kind of “we’re all in this together” manner, and he sat back awaiting further proceedings, according to tape of the incident.

Wow. First of all, what’s with world leaders and microphone mischief? Can’t they all assume that every time they’re in public, every word is taped? Six years ago, a microphone at a Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, caught George W. Bush using an expletive to describe Hezbollah activity. Then there was the campaign appearance in 2000 in Illinois where a mike picked up Dick Cheney using an expletive to describe a New York Times reporter.

Of course, in the Bush and Cheney incidents, the mike picked up an expression of their real feelings. That’s what Republicans fear about Obama’s gaffe – that he’s just revealed his secret plan to impose his radical agenda on the United States after he tricks voters into giving him a second term.

Mitt Romney (can we call him the presumptive GOP nominee yet?) lit into Obama in that regard. At an appearance in San Diego he said, “This is no time for our president to be pulling his punches with the American people and not telling us what he’s intending to do with regards to our missile defense system.”

The Republican National Committee has already weighed in with a Web video backing up Mr. Romney on this point.

“What else is on Obama’s agenda after the election that he isn’t telling us?” it concludes.

Well, Obama did himself no favors by admitting something that’s pretty obvious. Right now, he’s got no room to deal with Russia on this issue. After November, if he wins, he’ll be able to act without worry as to any policy’s effect on his reelection chances.

But our two kopecks' worth is this: We think Obama is just playing Medvedev along. There’s no evidence that second-term presidents revert to their imagined archetype, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. In his blog at Foreign Policy, Daniel Drezner makes this point well, noting that conservative Ronald Reagan’s second term was marked by arms control attempts, and Democrat Bill Clinton’s by forceful NATO military actions. Even Mr. Bush became markedly more dovish in his second term, according to Mr. Drezner.

“[R]ecent second-termers have not reverted to their ideological bliss point – if anything it’s been the reverse, they’ve tacked away from their starting point,” writes Drezner.

Plus, flexibility is one thing. Power is another. Yes, second-term presidents don’t have to worry about appeasing the masses, but neither does Congress treat them with the deference of first-termers. They won’t be at the top of the ticket again, and friend and foe alike very quickly begin to focus on who might run next time. We’ve said it before: Second terms are like slowly deflating balloons. Remember Iran-Contra?

Obama made this point in his own defense after the hot mic incident, though he didn’t put it so starkly.

“The only way I get this stuff done is if I’m consulting with the Pentagon, with Congress, if I’ve got bipartisan support. And frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful considerations,” Obama told reporters at the nuclear summit. “This is not a matter of hiding the ball.”

Read entire post | Comments

An undated file photo shows Amelia Earhart, the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean. (AP)

Was Amelia Earhart a US spy? (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 03.21.12

Was Amelia Earhart a US spy? That’s one of the persistent rumors about the famous aviatrix, who disappeared in the Pacific 75 years ago on a dangerous leg of her planned around-the-world flight.

There are many versions of this story, but most share a basic outline: Earhart allegedly was keeping an eye on Japanese activities for her good friend, President Franklin Roosevelt. Her famous Lockheed Electra 10E might even have been equipped with secret cameras. Captured by Japanese forces following a crash, she was spirited to the island of Saipan, where she may or may not have survived World War II. Some even claim she was one of the women who provided the voice of Japanese propaganda broadcaster Tokyo Rose.

The mystery of the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan is getting renewed attention this week due to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s backing of a new search for their downed aircraft. The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) this July will mount an expedition to a South Pacific coral speck now known as Nikumaroro, in the Republic of Kiribati. A modern examination of an old photo taken of the site shows what might be aircraft landing gear protruding from water offshore, according to TIGHAR.

As to the spy/Saipan/Tokyo Rose theories, TIGHAR labels them all fables that have flourished in the absence of proof about what really happened.

“Not since George Washington chopped down the cherry tree has a historical figure been the subject of more myth and legend than has Amelia Earhart,” concludes TIGHAR in a section of its website devoted to debunking such confabulations.

As TIGHAR points out, no US government documents supporting the Earhart-spy story have ever been found. The FDR presidential library is silent on the subject, as are Army and Navy Intelligence files from World War II. That hasn’t stopped the spy theorists, though: They see absence of such files as proof that a government conspiracy is covering up the truth.

In 1943, a thinly fictionalized movie of Earhart’s life titled “Flight for Freedom,” starring Rosalind Russell and Fred MacMurray, portrayed her as flying over Japanese territory in a secret US mission prior to her disappearance. That’s the basis for many of the rumors, according to TIGHAR. Since then, several books have purported to prove the plot of this movie, including “Requiem for Amelia,” published in 1966 and written by former Navy officer Paul Briand, and “Lost Star,” a 1994 effort by Randall Brink and published by W.W. Norton.

Most of the spy theories start with the recollection of a US serviceperson, heard somewhere in the Pacific theater during World War II, and then build speculation upon this foundation. As it happens, Amelia Earhart’s FBI files are now public, and they contain FBI investigations of many of these rumors, none of which the agency established to be true.

For instance, the FBI file contains records of an agency interview of a soldier, name expunged, conducted at Walter Reed Army Hospital in 1944. The soldier says he was stationed in the Philippines prior to Pearl Harbor, and one night was entertained at a local hotel by some Japanese acquaintances.

“He stated the walls of the hotel were extremely thin and he overheard a conversation in English between two Japanese to the effect that Amelia Earhart was still alive and was being detained at a hotel in Tokyo,” reads the FBI report of the interview.

“He stated that he never has been able to forget these remarks,” reads the report.

The soldier in question was a prisoner of the Japanese for much of the war, explaining why he hadn’t come forward sooner. But why were Japanese speaking to each other about such a sensitive subject in English? That is both unlikely and unaddressed by the FBI. The agency did not itself follow up on these allegations – it told the solider the whole thing was the purview of military intelligence, and that was where he should take his recollections.

The FBI file also contains correspondence between agency officials regarding the aforementioned book by Paul Briand, “Requiem for Amelia.” Their main concern seemed to be that certain material referenced in the book was said to come from the FBI, when it hadn’t. They insisted that Briand acknowledge that the material had come from various military intelligence sources, as opposed to the FBI. Why? Perhaps they didn’t want the FBI’s fingerprints on Briand’s assertions. Perhaps they were just being accurate. Nothing in the file indicates that they thought Briand was correct, however.

The FBI records also contain numerous requests from private individuals to J. Edgar Hoover to tell them the truth about Earhart’s activities. On Oct. 14, 1971, the famous FBI chief replied to one inquiry from a resident of Staten Island in New York. He sounds exasperated in the short missive.

“Although I would like to be of assistance in connection with your letter, the FBI does not have any material for distribution concerning Amelia Earhart. She was not the individual known as ‘Tokyo Rose.’ You may be able to find data regarding both of these people in your local library. Sincerely yours, J. Edgar Hoover,” he wrote.

Read entire post | Comments

On St. Patrick's Day last year, House Speaker John Boehner, President Obama, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny, and Rep. Peter King depart the annual Friends of Ireland St. Patrick's Day luncheon at the US Capitol in Washington. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/File)

St. Patrick's Day: Quick, which US president was most Irish?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 03.17.12

With St. Patrick’s Day upon us, this question comes to mind: Who’s the most Irish US president?

OK, “most Irish” isn’t exactly a scientific category. And lots of presidents claim ties to the Emerald Isle, including President Obama, who visited his ancestral home in Moneygall, County Offaly, last year.

But the answer is obvious. He’s a Democrat. He’s often included in historians’ lists of the Top 10 US chief executives. And he isn’t who you think.

Presidents play up Irish heritage for one big reason: votes. About 12 percent of the US population considers itself of Irish descent, according to census data. 

The days of Irish control of big cities are long past. But pockets of Irish political strength remain in Boston, Philadelphia, and other metro areas. Irish heritage is so widespread in the United States that in some ways a little wearing of the green emphasizes a politician’s American heritage.

That’s why Mr. Obama is hosting his Irish eighth cousin at the White House this year. It’s why Bill Clinton threw a St. Patrick’s party that ended with a line dance to “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling.” It’s why Richard Nixon once considered leading a St. Patrick’s Day parade – in Dublin.

Ten US presidents had fairly direct ties to Ireland, while more than 22 have Irish progenitors – however distant – on their family trees. Ronald Reagan loved to get together with House Speaker Tip O’Neill for a little Irish-themed humor. (Sample Reagan joke: “My father told me that the Irish built the jails in this country – then proceeded to fill them.”) However, Reagan was only moderately Irish; his great-grandparents on his father’s side had come to the US from County Tipperary.

Then there was John Kennedy. He’s the one you picked as “most Irish,” right? Wrong. You have to go back to Kennedy’s great-grandparents to find ancestors who were Irish-born.

Our pick? Andrew Jackson. Old Hickory was a founder of the modern Democratic Party and a fierce supporter of individual rights (except for native Americans). He is the only president whose parents were both born in Ireland. They left County Antrim for the New World in 1765, two years before Andrew was born.

Read entire post | Comments