Stelmach's Big Win

Alberta has delivered a landslide for Ed Stelmach. The PC's won 72 out of 83 seats. The Conservatives even broke into the Liberal stronghold of Edmonton. This was a disastrous night for Kevin Taft. There is no other way to put it. Stelmach should have been beatable or at least woundable. Stelmach instead won a massive victory. Why? You've got me. I don't have enough knowledge of Albertan politics to explain this result. Even Albertans seem confused. The one party state is alive and well in Alberta. After all, Ed Stelmach: The Same Thing Albertans Can Believe In.

Elections Everywhere

The next three days see three major votes. Today, Russians go to the polls to elect Dmitry Medvedev as the next President of Russia. Tomorrow, Albertans will choose to extend the Tory dynasty into yet another decade. Finally, on Tuesday, four states will have their say in the endless primary season south of the 49th. The only question is when will Canadians across the country get to vote?

14 Years

That's the maximum prison time for someone convicted of attempting to bribe a member of parliament. Here's the relevant section of the criminal code (emphasis mine):

Bribery of judicial officers, etc.

119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who

(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a 119. (1) (a) ">member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or

(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.

Whoever made this offer to Mr. Cadman, and there is all evidence that an offer was in fact made, should be looking for a criminal lawyer right about now. Now, who would have the authority to "legitimately represent the party"? Mr. Harper knows, or at least he used to know.

Chuck Cadman

The late MP for Surrey North is in the news again. The allegations made in this upcoming book are serious. If the reports are accurate, the people involved have no place in public life. It is crucial that someone get to the bottom of this. Offering a $1,000,000 life insurance policy to a dying MP to gain his vote on a matter of confidence is both illegal and immoral. How far up the Conservative food chain this goes is a big question. The reports quote Harper as having known about it before hand and having done nothing to stop it. Here's the full quote from CBC.ca:

Stephen Harper is also quoted in the book, confirming some of the details.

Harper said his understanding of the offer to Cadman was that "it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election.

"I don't know the details," he's quoted as saying in the book. "I can tell you that I had told the individuals — I mean, they wanted to do it — but I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind he was going to vote with the Liberals."

Harper also confirmed the people who met with Cadman were "legitimately representing the party."

Harper had a responsibility to tell these people not to approach Cadman with the illicit offer. He also had a responsibility, if they had insisted on going forward with their plan, to separate himself and his party from their actions. There is no way that the offer should have been made with Harper's prior knowledge by people "legitimately representing the party."

If these reports are accurate, we may have found an election issue. I have no confidence in a government that is willing to pay people for their votes. It is tragic that the late Mr. Cadman may be used for political gains, however, his death does not reduce the immorality and illegality of these actions nor does it reduce the government's involvement.

Budget

The budget is out. For the most part it is as bland as white bread with the crust cut-off. The only interesting thing is the Tax Free Savings Accounts. We will see whether or not these things catch on. Harper continues to limit the amount the federal government can do. There isn't anything to fight an election on here. There is a limited amount for infrastructure which is a good thing. There is a tiny amount of money to help immigrants (not nearly enough). A tiny help for students (once again not nearly enough; almost all the new money for grad students). I do like the prospect of a ten year passport. I like the debt being paid down. There is a lot of stuff in this budget worth keeping. The sins here are of omission or of previous commission. There was no money for this budget because it was spent in the last two years. If there had been more money, we might have seen:

• Real money for the environment. Okay, not bloody likely from the Tories but we can dream. Some concrete plan to fight climate change might have been nice anyway. We have in this budget: 66 million for industrial standards (which won't be tough enough) and 240 million to try to figure out the whole carbon storage thing. The latter is great if, a this is a huge if, it works.
  
• Real money for cities. Don't get me wrong, the infrastructure money is a nice start. As is the money to help immigrants. However, in both cases it is a fracture of the amount necessary. Cities across this country need help.
• Real money for universities. Remember the millennium scholarships of Jean Chretien? Compare and contrast the numbers. The first point on this list could also have been for universities to help solve the problem. Two birds, one stone.
• Health care anyone?
• Real money to help Canada remain competitive. Ontario is in full panic mode. Perhaps Mr. Flaherty should go talk to his neighbours in Oshawa about the prospects for the Canadian auto industry. Or, he could talk to his friends at the banks about how their years are going. I don't love corporate bailouts, but some incentive for investment might have helped in this time of need.

All of these things are good reasons for people to vote Liberal in the next election. However, it is difficult in a budget debate to say, "we're bringing you down because you didn't do enough." There is no poison pill either for the Liberal caucus or for the country. The cuts to the GST were far more destructive than this budget will ever be. I'd like to see this government defeated as much as anyone else. However, I agree with my leader, this budget is neither the time nor the place to do so. Let's go win some by-elections.

John Tory Gets Clarked

John Tory has received a pathetic 66.8% of the vote at a leadership review at a party convention in London. This is a result eerily similar to the result that Joe Clark received after his defeat in 1980. I can't see John Tory staying on with that kind of support. He might do it but the pressure would build for Tory to go before the 2011 election. The knives that have come out so far have not come from people who would want to replace Tory. This vote opens the door for a lot more knives. John Tory could, as Clark did, ask for a leadership vote and then run as a candidate. Assuming Tory steps down, All Politics is Local will cover the race as it evolves.

Yet Another Tuesday Wrap-Up

A few things out of last nights contests:

First, Obama's wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii. This is more bad news for the Clinton campaign. Obama continues to out work her on the ground. There was an analyst on CNN last night who said that Obama's loss in New Hampshire was the best thing to ever happen to him. I tend to agree. He has outworked Hillary in every primary and caucus since Super Tuesday. The polls were showing a single digit Obama lead in Wisconsin. He won by 17. Turnout has become Obama's main weapon against Hillary. He's getting all the people who pollsters don't poll because they tend not to vote. Students are particularly relevant in Wisconsin. Students often rely on just a cell phone. Cell phones are rarely called by pollsters. Even if they didn't rely on cell phones pollsters wouldn't want a lot of students in their sample because they don't tend to vote. However, students were one of the groups that propelled Obama over the top in Wisconsin.

The speeches last night were interesting. Obama gave a pretty good preview of a convention speech. Long on both rhetoric and detail, it was, in fact, too long. However, it did serve to answer a lot of his critics. I love some of his policies, hate others. I'll start with the negative. His position on NAFTA and other trade deals is narrow and naive. Narrow because he doesn't understand the full economic consequences of withdrawing from NAFTA and naive because he doesn't seem to understand just how difficult such a withdrawal would be. I love his education policies. He came out against standardized testing which is huge. He also has a great proposal for funding post-secondary education. He wants to tie $4,000 in funding for every student to community involvement. It is a great idea. I would love to see it implemented in Canada. I was amazed at the number of young black men at his rally in Houston. Young black male Americans are notorious for being politically uninvolved. If young blacks come out and vote on March 4th, Obama will win Texas and Ohio.

Clinton's speech was perhaps the best indication of how far she has fallen. The speech was a direct appeal to the core of the traditional Democratic base. I was surprised she didn't break out into rousing rendition of 'Solidarity Forever' or some other union hymn at the end. Clinton is no longer even thinking about the general election. If she was, she wouldn't be wrapping herself in the rhetoric of big labour. Big labour is about as popular as big business in the United States. The only people who still have time for it are the members of the Democratic party.

McCain delivered the speech he's going to be giving until November assuming Obama wins the nomination. It is all about experience versus change. He's calling Obama naive and inexperienced (okay, not directly but through strong implications). I'm not sure that this strategy will be successful. There is an old article by a Canadian political scientist named Gad Horowitz. He is describing the differences in the political culture in the United States and Canada. He argues that America is a nation of one ideology, liberalism. Canada has both liberalism and conservatism which then allowed for the infiltration of socialism. However, Canada is not at issue here. McCain's speech is classic 19th century conservatism in a lot of ways. Campaigning against hope and the future in the United States is kind of like campaigning against hockey in Canada. You are going to be in for a rough ride. I would not be surprised if McCain ditches the conservative rhetoric and goes more to the issues in the future. Because, that dog won't hunt.

Kosovo

A very interesting development in the Balkans. The Kosovar declaration of independence has implications here in Canada. The comparisons with Québec have and will be made. Spain, which has similar secessionist concerns, has refused to recognize Kosovo. I think this is the wrong approach. The division of a country is a traumatic and dramatic moment. However, the division of one country does not guarantee the division of another. The history of Serbia is completely different from that of Canada. The last time English Canadians tried to wipe out the French was over 200 years ago. This is not true in Kosovo. There is a major difference in the ethnic tensions in the two locales. Ethnic tensions in Canada may lead to the occasional hurt feeling, they almost never (at least since the demise of the FLQ) lead to serious injury or death. Ethnic tensions in Serbia are far more dangerous. It is difficult to compare this reaction from Serbs to the peaceful demonstrations of English Canadians which characterized the last referendum campaign. There is no history of Serbs and Kosovars living peacefully within a Serbian state. The last twenty years have been characterized by ethnic conflict and UN supervision. Canada did not object 15 years ago when the Soviet Union broke up. It did not object when East Timor broke away from Indonesia. It did not object when Eritrea separated from Ethiopia. We should not be afraid to support the independence of a country because of fear of encouraging separatism at home. Separatism should be combated by proving to all Quebeckers that their future is brightest within the Canadian federation. We should not be threatened by legitimate claims for independence.

Tick Tock

Apparently, Bob Rae thinks this is a bad time to go to the polls. While I am of two minds on the issue, I do find these comments sort of ironic coming from Rae. After all, Rae wanted to bring Harper down in the summer of 2006 over softwood lumber. I didn't agree with Rae's reasoning then, and I don't now.

Get Out the Brooms

A couple of sweeps tonight in the s0-called Potomac Primary. On the Republican side, John McCain continues his shaky and inevitable path to the Republican nomination. McCain won all three states. However, he did progressively better as the states became less and less Republican. He won by only nine points in Virginia (a red state) while cruising to victory in Maryland and D.C. If the Democrats win in November, they should send Mike Huckabee a present. Huckabee has made it so that McCain will have to spend the extra time he has before the Dems sort out their nominee appealing to his base. McCain cannot win in states like Virginia and Colorado without the religious right. Tonight in Virginia, more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for John McCain.

On the Democratic side, Barack Obama continues to build momentum. Obama's talking about momentum these days. As he should. Momentum has been elusive for both Democratic front runners. Clinton is now stuck putting all her eggs in three baskets: Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama is a long way from winning the nomination. However, for the first time since his victory in Iowa, he has to be viewed as the favourite. The most compelling reason to vote for Obama at this point has to be his electability. Not only do national polls show him more easily beating John McCain, he is wining in states Democrats need to win in November. Let's do a little forecasting. Where are the battlegrounds?

• Florida: No real primary. Clinton won it for what its worth. She might be better with Latinos in a national election. However, I don't think it matters in terms of a national election which Democrat is on the ballot. I don't see Hillary getting that many more Latinos to the polls. I also don't see them staying home if Obama is the nominee.
  
• New Hampshire: Clinton won this too. However, McCain is very popular in New Hampshire. I question if either Democrat can beat him here. Side note: The person who is happiest McCain won the nomination? Has to be Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire. The senator is up for re-election and will likely face the extraordinarily popular former governor Jeanne Shaheen. Early polls showed Gov. Shaheen with a double digit lead. McCain may be able to carry Sununu on his coattails.
• Ohio: Yet to vote.
• New Mexico: Draw. They are still counting ballots a week later. The race is still too close to call.
• Missouri: Draw. Obama by a point but on the Democratic side that doesn't mean much.
  
• Arizona: Yes, Clinton won here too. However, there is no way she beats John McCain on his home turf. This isn't really a swing state, in spite of what the Clinton camp may be selling.
• Iowa: Obama victory.
• Colorado: Obama Victory.
• Virginia: Obama Victory.

A real primary in Florida would help to clarify this picture. However, the bottom three results tell the tale in my opinion. States like Virginia and Colorado are where the electoral map is changing. McCain is going to have some appeal with traditional independents, so Democrats may be forced to expand their horizons. Obama is the candidate most able to do that. Arizona and New Hampshire are going to be tough slogs for either of them, so I discount those Clinton wins. Florida didn't really have a primary, so once again hard to give her credit. Thus, I really do think Obama has proven himself more electable.

Bring on the Budget

It appears that there will not be an election about Afghanistan. Dion has come out with a very reasonable compromise and after some haggling I'm sure the Tories and Grits can come up with an agreeable bill. This means that the next most likely issue to bring about an election call will be the budget.

Unsuper Saturday

If you thought Super Tuesday was the end of the primary process, you were wrong. Three more states weighed in for each party yesterday. The Democratic race was predictable. Barack Obama easily won the two caucuses (NE, WA) and took the lone primary (LA). The most impressive of the wins may be Washington. The state of Washington is a traditional Democratic stronghold. Obama was criticized after Super Tuesday for mainly winning in red states, winning in both the red states of Nebraska and Louisiana and also the blue state, Washington, gives him more credibility going into three more blue states (well two states and a district) over the next three days (ME, MD, DC). The Clinton camp is spinning this as an expected defeat, but she can't be happy about the margins. Losing by 20 points in the Louisiana primary has got to be particularly disconcerting. We aren't any closer to determining who the nominee is, but momentum (which has meant nothing in this race) is back with Obama. Maine votes today in a caucus. Obama has lost only won caucus in this entire race (NV). Look for the momentum to continue.

The Republican race was much more surprising. The presumptive front runner, John McCain, was able to eke out only won victory yesterday (WA). Mike Huckabee took the Kansas Caucus by a wide margin and then eked out a victory in Louisiana. Now, Huckabee's victory and Louisiana and McCain's in Washington are of indeterminate worth. Louisiana would have been winner take all if any of the candidates had garnered 50% but the Paul campaign and the remnants of the Romney campaign made that impossible. Thus, Louisiana's delegates are uncommitted. Washington's delegate selection process is long and arduous. The caucuses are merely the first step in determining delegates. The end of this process is the end of May. Overall, the day's results can be seen as giant screw you to John McCain. Does it throw his nomination into question? Not really. Does it show he has miles to go before he wins over the Conservative base? Absolutely. John McCain, no matter how popular he is with independents, cannot win the presidency without the Republican base. If they stay home in November, it will be a Democratic landslide.

Romney

Mitt Romney has decided to end (why do they call it suspend?) his race for the White House. This means barring a disaster John McCain is the Republican nominee. I guess the calculus just didn't work out for Romney. At 61 Romney may be positioning himself for a future run. Saying you are dropping out for the good of the party, certainly sends that message. If the Republicans lose (probably a 60% chance) in 2008, a 65 year old Romney could certainly be a contender in 2012. What exactly would make him more endearing the second time around? Well, nothing but hope springs eternal in the land of the free. McCain needs to win the rest of the states on his way to the nomination. If the people of Louisiana vote for Huckabee tomorrow, it could be a bad sign for McCain in November. McCain has not had a lot of success in the south or among evangelicals in general. Without The Base voting in droves, he has no chance against what will likely be a better funded Democratic opponent. In other words, just because the race looks over, doesn't mean there can't be a little intrigue.

Side note: I've been hearing something strange from people in my politics classes: they are getting tired of the US race. I guess two years is a long time for a campaign to go on. I wonder if this sentiment is presence elsewhere, particularly south of the border.

The Toronto Bills

As you may or may not have heard the Buffalo Bills have announced that they will play 8 games over the next five years at the stadium formerly known as the Skydome. The announcement yesterday has caused a whole slew of reactions. Stephen Brunt is convinced the Bills are moving north the moment their ancient owner, Ralph Wilson, shuffles off this mortal coil. The Hamilton Ti-Cats are furious seeing the move as an intrusion on CFL territory. The Argos on the other hand see it as a nice way to sign up season ticket holders (Argos season ticket holders get first dibs on Bills tickets). Let's parse this one step at at a time.

Firstly, this is not a move north. This is a money grab by Wilson. If you could play one game a year in Toronto and make as much as you'll make the entire year in Buffalo, wouldn't you do it? I sincerely doubt that Mr. Wilson who has stuck with the city of Buffalo through thick and thin is going to abandon it in his later years. However, when Mr. Wilson is dead and buried the dynamic changes significantly. Mr. Wilson has already said that the team will be sold not inherited upon his death making it available to the highest bidder. Who at this point would the highest bidder be? Three obvious possibilities:

1. A local Buffalo person or group tries to save the team. This is a possibility. This scenario recently played out in the NHL in Nashville. However, the Nashville deal was facilitated by the killing of a higher bid from a bidder looking to move the team to Hamilton. The Toronto Maple Leafs are majorly implicated in that move. There also is not a lot of money floating around Buffalo these days. Wilson himself is not a Buffalonian. However, a future owner would undoubtedly seek greener pastures. Where?
2. Los Angeles. Los Angeles is the one blemish for the great and mighty NFL. The largest sports league in the United States is conspicuously absent from its second largest market. The main obstacle to success in LA is the stadium. The old LA Colosseum is just that, it's old. No luxury boxes, not enough seats. There is simply no willingness right now in LA to build a new stadium. Without some sort of government assistance, stadiums are an expensive proposition. Partially because of this stadium problem, there isn't anyone beating down the NFL's door for a team in LA. This isn't the case in...
3. Toronto. The 5th largest market in North America is much more likely scenario. First of all, the NFL (as is made clear by this deal) considers Toronto to be part of the Buffalo market. Thus, a move to Toronto would not be so much a relocation as a shift in an existing location. Second, the stadium issue is not as big a deal in Toronto. Toronto has built 3 stadiums in the last 25 years - the Dome, the ACC, and BMO field. All were done with significant public involvement. There is no indication that the city would balk at building an NFL stadium, particularly if it improved the city's perennial Olympic hopes. There is also a group willing and able to own an NFL team in this city. The trio on hand yesterday, Tannenbaum, Godfrey and Rogers, have deep pockets. The pockets get even deeper if Mr. Tannenbaum can convince his partners over at MLSE to expand their empire into football.
   

So, what's stopping an NFL move to Toronto? The border is an issue. The NFL has international designs but has so far been reluctant to put teams on foreign soil. The CFL also has major objections to such a move. The Argos are fine with a game a year, but a team in their market may change their opinion pretty quickly. The CFL commissioner, Mark Cohon, has already said on record that he would fight an NFL intrusion into Canada with every resource he has. Included in his bag of tricks is trying to wrestle up some political opposition. Another factor oft cited by Bob McCown is money. The NFL's primary source of revenue is from domestic television. A weak market in Buffalo is better for the domestic interest than a non-market in Toronto. However, there is one significant problem with this line of reasoning. While Toronto means nothing to American advertisers. It means quite a bit to Canadian ones. The value of the Canadian television contract would presumably go up if it included a Canadian team.

At the end of the day, I think there's a 60% chance the Bills are in Toronto in the next ten years. What this does to the CFL is unknown. If Toronto fails in the CFL, the league is in big trouble. So, while, as a Bills fan I'd like to see my team in my city, I worry about the impact of the NFL on Canadian Football.

Race for the Exits: Super Tuesday Post Mortem

I think the best way to tackle this is to divide the post between the Republicans and Democrats. Let's start with the Republicans.

John McCain

Positives: He won the most states and the most delegates. He cleaned up in the three biggest states: California, New York and Illinois. He is the front runner for the Republican nomination.

Negatives: He won only three red states last night. One of them was Arizona, where he is senator. The second was a nailbiter in Missouri over Mike Huckabee (9,000 vote margin). The only impressive red state win came in Oklahoma. This is important not only in terms of assessing McCain's appeal with The Base but also in terms of his chances of winning the nomination. Republicans (unlike Democrats) award more delegates to states that tend to vote for them. Thus, there is one delegate for every 91,335 registered voters in California and one delegate for every 60,516 voters in Alabama. So while Huckabee and Romney won smaller states, they will be better rewarded (proportionately) than McCain.

Mitt Romney:

Positives: Impressive wins in the mountains and desserts (and tundra) where Romney won every state save Arizona. Still the choice for non-southern conservatives. He still has enough money to keep fighting. He's one every state that nobody's paid attention to. See: Maine, Wyoming, Nevada, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota.

Negatives: In a word: Huckabee. Romney needed to win the states that Huckabee took on Super Tuesday. It is difficult for a candidate who is campaigning as the conservative hope to be shut out in the South. People don't pay attention to the states where he has one because, well, nobody lives there (Nevada excluded). He is apparently assessing his situation today which is polspeak for he may not be long for this race.

Mike Huckabee:

Positives: He cleaned up in the South winning Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Arkansas. He was handed West Virginia by the McCain people earlier in the day. If Romney decided to call it quites he might have the opportunity to go head to head with McCain.

Negatives: Outside of the South, Huckabee barely beat 20% of the vote all night. An abysmal 4% in Mass., 8% in New Jersey, 11% in New York, 12% in California. Those numbers tell me that in a head to head race with McCain he would lose and lose badly.

Republican Overview: The race is McCain's to lose. However, he is not the nominee just yet.

On to the Democrats.

Hillary Clinton:

Positives: She won California by an impressive margin. Picked up good victories in Tennessee and Arizona. Won Mass. in spite of the endorsements. Leads delegate count going out of Super Tuesday.

Negatives: Lost the majority of states yesterday. She also lost pretty badly in a bunch of states out West. She lost two to one in Georgia which was polling much closer than that. In a proportional race, losing by wide margins is a good way to lose delegates. All the pundits say the next week will be rough for the Clinton campaign.

Barack Obama:

Positives: Won the majority of states. Carried every close race of the night. Cleaned up out West by impressive margins. Apparently, has smooth sailing for the next week.

Negatives: Lost California by 10 points. Lost in Tennessee badly. Failed to capitalize in Mass. He trails in the delegate count.

Democratic Overview: I think this is the definition of a toss-up. Hillary has more delegates but it would be absurd to call her the front runner.

Overall thoughts: The AP called Missouri incorrectly on both sides (called for Clinton and Huckabee went Obama and McCain). A fairly major screw up given Florida 2000. Not enough emphasis in the media on the delegate numbers on the Democratic side. Winning states is really quite irrelevant. This is PR, it's margins that matter.

Everything Else

This blog has become overwhelmed by the US presidential election. I suppose that is natural but I thought it necessary to chime in on a few other things in the news.

• Albertans are off to the polls in March. I really hope for the sake of democracy that someone other than the Conservatives win. However, hopes for a right wing split have been hurt by news that the newly merged Wildrose Alliance Party is having serious issues. What serious issues? Well, the president resigning on the eve of an election call is not a good sign.
• Of course, the call of the Alberta election means that the federal election is postponed until the vote is done. Still could be looking at a spring election.
• Toronto appears to have a balanced budget for the first time in recent memory. Yes, it involves a massive tax hike but at least its balanced.
• Can't put down the PS3 guys? Well, apparently you're hardwired that way.
• Okay, I know I said this wasn't going to be about the US election and this sort of isn't. But, wouldn't it be nice if we could get the boost in voter turnout that they are seeing in the US primaries? If you say it's because some of the primaries are proportional, I may scream. I mean I wish we could have candidates that actually get young people to the polls.
• I love this political cartoon in The Star.
• I know it has gone under the radar a bit, but John Tory is still fighting for his political life. He also still doesn't have a seat in the legislature.

Either later tonight or tomorrow I will post a Super Tuesday post mortem. I've considered live blogging it but honestly I don't see the appeal of live blogging. Have you ever gone back and read those posts? They are boring as white bread with the crusts cut off. Hindsight is 20/20 and I intend to take advantage of it.

Prediction Time

I may not have predicted the Giants shocking the Pats in the Super Bowl last night, but you should still read my predictions for the Super Tuesday states. State by state, All Politics is Local is prepared to tell you who's going to win in each party.

Alabama:

Obama, McCain

Alaska:

Clinton, Romney

Arizona:

Clinton, McCain

Arkansas:

Clinton, Huckabee

California:

Obama, Romney

Colorado:

Obama, Romney

Connecticut:

Clinton, McCain

Delaware:

Clinton, Romney

Georgia:

Obama, Huckabee

Idaho (DEM ONLY):

Obama

Illinois:

Obama, Romney

Kansas (DEM ONLY):

Obama

Massachusetts:

Obama, Romney

Minnesota:

Clinton, McCain

Missouri:

Clinton, McCain

Montana (REP ONLY):

Romney

New Jersey:

Clinton, McCain

New Mexico (DEM ONLY):

Clinton

New York:

Clinton, McCain

North Dakota:

Obama, Romney

Oklahoma:

Clinton, McCain

Tennessee:

Clinton, Huckabee

Utah:

Obama, Romney

West Virginia (REP ONLY):

McCain

There you go folks. No need to tune in tomorrow night. You heard it here first.

McGuinty Sends Right Message

Here's the Toronto Star article on McGuinty's response to black-focused schooling. He's get it exactly right. Now, no doubt Andrew Coyne will attribute this response to Islamophobia like he did McGuinty's response to Tory's segregation of Ontario's schools.

Giuliani and Edwards

Another two candidates have dropped out of the race for the White House. One was expected, the other one a bit of a shock. The expected one first. Giuliani now knows how Al Gore feels. He lost this campaign in large measure because of his strategists. I think there was the sense that, much like Mitt Romney, Giuliani would not go over well in the coffee shops of Iowa and New Hampshire. Running for Mayor of New York involves shockingly little retail politics for a municipal position. Giuliani doesn't know how to do it and frankly wouldn't be good at it. You didn't want a lot of tough questions and intense scrutiny of some of those not so Republican ideas of his. Having said that, Romney is still alive having fought and lost in Iowa and New Hampshire and Giuiliani is done. The lesson here is that even if it hurts (and losing both hurt Romney) you have to campaign in the holy states of American politics. The impact of Giuliani's exit and support for McCain at the polls may be minimal. However, Giuliani was the best fundraiser the Republicans had. McCain had such significant fundraising issues that he had to lay-off his staff in the summer due to insufficient funds. Romney's been paying for this largely from his own savings, something not even he can sustain. Huckabee has been unable to open the church coffers. Paul has had some success but none of the other candidates want any part of Ron Paul or his money. For the first time in at least thirty years the Democrats have a commanding lead in the fundraising department. Clinton's war chest is legendary and Obama keeps churning it out (CNN's reporting 32 million in January alone!). Giuiliani may have been the only candidate able to spend like a Democrat in the national election. The Republicans with 5 senate vacancies to defend and more house vacancies then they want to count are looking for their presidential candidate to rake in some hay. I don't know that either of the remaining front runners have that potential. In other words, the largest beneficiary of the Giuliani loss may be Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Edwards impact is very different. First of all, why he didn't go to the floor and play king maker, I don't know. Perhaps he couldn't pay for it financially. Maybe he decided to spend some time with his wife who is battling cancer yet again (never a good sign) instead of running a hopeless campaign. At any rate, he's out. The question becomes who was supporting John Edwards? Was it a) people looking for change (i.e. not Hillary), b) people looking for policy and experience (i.e. not Obama) or c) people who just liked John Edwards (i.e. will likely now stay home). My guess is that his support is about 50% a, 30% b and 20% c. It's a complete guess. However, if accurate, it would be good news for Obama. The difference between Obama and Clinton in most of the Super Tuesday states is covered by Edwards' support. This changes the dynamic dramatically. A two horse race (apologies to the stubborn Mike Gravel) is a different kettle of fish (if I may mix my metaphors). It allows for a lot more negative campaigning (there's only one other option so criticizing one automatically boosts the other). It also narrows the focus. The PR nature of the Democratic primary selection means that in terms of delegates we will not have a nominee on Super Tuesday. However, if one candidate manages to win a vast majority of the states (irregardless of margin and therefore delegate count), the perception may be enough to name a winner. I'd be surprised if that happens at this point.

A Little Absurdity

I don't know how many of you caught this story. The long and short of it is that the local chapter of the National Organization for Women in New York has criticized Ted Kennedy saying,

"We are repaid with his abandonment. He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton."

Given this All Politics is Local is happy to provide like criticisms of other presidential candidates' supporters:
(NOTE: THIS IS A JOKE)

The NAACP responds to Wesley Clark's endorsement of Hillary Clinton:

Mr. Clark's endorsement of Hillary Clinton is a betrayal. The NAACP has stood by Mr. Clark throughout his career and is shocked by Mr. Clark's betrayal. The fact that he would pick a white person over Barack Obama proves that he is just not comfortable with the idea of an African-American president. For shame.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints responds to Chuck Norris' endorsement of Mike Huckabee:

How could you Chuck? We supported you throughout your career. We've watched all 99 episodes of Walker: Texas Ranger and this how you repay us? Clearly, this demonstrates that you are just uncomfortable with the idea of a Mormon president. Your endorsement of Mike Huckabee over Mitt Romney proves that you are in fact a bigot. You are no longer welcome in Utah.

AWOL

I really hope there was a damn good reason that my school trustee missed the vote on black-focused schools yesterday. If anyone knows why Cathy Dandy was AWOL, please leave me a comment. This was probably the most important vote the board has taken since it refused to balance its budget under the Tories. Barring major illness or a death in the family there is simply no excuse to miss this vote. By the way, this is a horrible decision. A major step backwards. John Tory was wrong when he proposed giving government money to ethnically divide our schools. The 11 members of the board are wrong. I hope this dies in the bureaucracy.

Follow the Money

In my efforts to better gauge support on the ground in Super Tuesday states I have raided CNN's handy-dandy campaign contribution maps to find the leader in donations for each party in each state. Note: these numbers reflect last year's contributions only. No momentum from the early races here. Thus, Huckabee has no money. Also, just because they raised a lot in a given state doesn't mean they are spending it there. A lot of this money has gone into the contests already finished. What fundraising does demonstrate is some sort of local organization (with the exception of the internet based Paul campaign).

Without further ado here's the list of the states each candidate leads the money race in:

Democrats:

Clinton: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Oklahoma

Obama: Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee and Utah

Edwards: Alabama

Republicans:

Romney: California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, Utah

Giuliani: Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, West Virginia

McCain: Arizona, Minnnesota

Huckabee: Arkansas

Paul: North Dakota

The Democratic side is fairly predictable and not all that surprising. The Republican side is worth paying attention to. McCain has all the momentum but does not have much money in the bank. Huckabee had almost no ground game in these states (most of his numbers are under $10,000). It will be interesting to see if he has been able to catch up in a month. Giuliani is nowhere in the polls but has more money than McCain and Huckabee combined. Politically, Giuliani may be forced out after Florida. Economically, he can live to fight another week. Unlike the rest of the candidates, Giuliani spent a relatively small amount in the early states leaving him lots of money for Super Tuesday. This was Giuliani's strategy.

Wide Open

The nomination of the Democratic party for the presidency of the United States is anyone's game. Barack Obama won an overwhelming victory in South Carolina last night. The next Democratic primaries of consequence occur on Super Tuesday (Florida, like Michigan, has been disenfranchised). Obama and Clinton both face real challenges if they are to win the White House. Obama is behind. Recent polls in many of the big Super Tuesday states show him well back of Hillary. Obama needs to translate what has been an effective ground campaign into an effective national campaign. If I was advising the Obama campaign I would tell them not to try to take Hillary head on in New York and California. There are some states that should play well for Obama and he should focus on winning those. There are only two states where Obama is ahead in the recent state wide poll: Illinois and Georgia. Illinois is a non-issue and requires little attention. Georgia should be bolstered by his win in South Carolina. Alabama was close (3 points) in the most recent poll and should also be a target. Obama should also be out beating the bushes out West. Arizona and California may be lost causes but Idaho, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico are all in play. Obama did well in rural Nevada and may be able to carry that success forward.

The Clinton strategy is all about holding on for dear life. Clinton needs to make sure the leads she has don't disappear once Barack Obama starts actively campaigning. Clinton has a national network at her disposal and is going to have to use it. She was in Tennessee last night and it states like it (where she holds leads in states that look vulnerable) that Hillary's fate will be determined.

Edwards' strategy at this point is a bit of a mystery. He is clearly no longer a viable candidate for the presidency. My guess is that he's hoping that this race will go to the convention floor where he could play the role of king maker. This would mean keeping both Obama and Clinton under the magic number of delegates. I don't know that he even has the support do this.

Quick hits

Some thoughts and suggestions as you browse the interweb:

• Electoral-Vote has a great piece today on how the conventions actually work. In general, it is one of the most reliable sources of Presidential and Congressional races out there.
• Social Credit is back in vogue in the United States. All aboard the quick boat to hell because that's where this economy is heading. Seriously, your best idea on how to fix the economy is giving everybody a cheque? This was bi-partisan!!!! Heaven help us.
  
• More big promises with lots of smoke and mirrors on the environment from the EU. Ok, all countries that already produce a lot of renewable energy will have high targets. Those that don't will have low targets. See, if you set the bar low enough, even Bulgaria can get over! Of course, if you really want to you could always build the power plant in Eastern Europe and have the power go into the West. I love EU rhetoric on the environment but their actions are pathetic.
  
• By the way, a few months back I posted on the importance of air conditioning in meeting or more accurately not meeting Kyoto Targets. I did the math thanks to the government's website, it looks to my calculations that about 3% of Canada's emissions growth is due to residential and commercial cooling. That might not sound like much but think about it this way. That's about 5.6 Megatonnes of C02 per year. That's over 300% more than in 1990. Residential and commercial lighting (which has become the first front in the war against climate change) has increased by about 0.9 Megatonnes. The other big non-industrial culprit? Well, you're using one: computers.
• I'm pulling for Obama in South Carolina. I don't know that there's much between him and Clinton but isn't it nicer listening to him?
• Giuliani's radical strategy is producing expected results. I don't expect his campaign manager to be working in November.
• If anyone cares, I'm backing the OYL Roots team at the meeting in March.
• For the no readers I actually have at Queen's University I am unlikely to vote in the upcoming AMS elections. Two reasons. One, I don't have class Tuesday or Wednesday and making a special trip to vote in an election that won't affect me when I graduate in April doesn't seem worth it. Two, the most inspiring platform belongs to the joke team which isn't on the ballot. The AMS is big government at its worst. If anyone wants to know how to lose money selling alcohol to students, ask the AMS. Pathetic. Four years of different executives with identical results.
• Fred Thompson has dropped out of the Republican race. Now, if someone could wake the Senator and tell him the news we can proceed with our regularly scheduled programming.
• Speaking of regularly scheduled programming. How y'all liking the reality TV-a-thon that is prime time TV? Yay for corporate greed and internet piracy!

PR Continues to Fail Italy

Another Italian parliament has bitten the dust under the weight of their broken electoral system.

Manley's Musings

I have been perusing John Manley's report on Afghanistan. Manley argues that the Afghan mission is important for four reasons:

1. Counter-Terrorism
2. Bolster the UN
3. Support NATO
4. Help the Afghan People

I get point 1 and point 4. The middle two are a little bit of a stretch. The United Nations is not going to live or die by the Afghan mission. While the mission is UN authorized, this is NATO's baby. If the UN wanted to help Afghanistan it could try to get more troops from non-NATO countries. The third point bothers me because outside of the United States and occasionally the UK no one else in NATO cares enough about this mission to risk lives. France, Germany et al. are content to let Canadians die. I support an active Canadian presence in NATO. However, there is a major difference between participating in a mission and getting the proverbial shaft. Canadian troops right now are getting the latter. Canadians should be equal partners not cannon fodder. Mr. Manley recommends that we make our extension conditional upon getting more assistance from our NATO allies. If the mission is important and worthwhile our extension should be unconditional. If not, we should pull out. Our European allies will not change their minds because of a Canadian ultimatum. For the Germans and French (the two most capable armies), such a change would mark a major shift in foreign policy. We simply do not have that kind of power.

Manley then argues that Canadians should stay in Kandahar past 2009 because there is no strategic reason to exit earlier. Mr. Manley is confident that the Afghan National Army will at some point be able to step up so we can step down. I can not share his optimism. I do not foresee the day when Hamid Karzai is going to call up the Prime Minister and say, "we've got this now, you guys can head home." The insurgency is strengthening year by year. The poppy trade grows exponentially. All this, and the Afghan government remains little more than a Kabul based neighbourhood watch.

Seventy-seven brave Canadian soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan. This fact is barely mentioned in Mr. Manley's report. This remains the crux of the matter. To quote, "How many deaths will it take 'til he knows that too many people have died?" I am reminded of The Simpsons episode where Homer is slowly sinking in tar and attempts to extricate himself. Mr. Manley's recommendations are akin to trying to get your arms out with your mouth. While it would be tragic to leave Afghanistan again to its own decay and devastation, it is simply not within our military powers to help. Our soldiers may be able to pacify one area for a few months as long as they maintain a presence. However, it is simply not reasonable for our troops to try to hold down the fort forever. We can and should help Afghanistan in other ways. Our aid agencies are at work on the ground and should continue that work. Canada has a good reputation in assisting fledgling democracies with the institutions requisite for effective government and we should play that role in Afghanistan. We should assist the UN in its health and social development projects. The only way to end the insurgency is to make it clear that a peaceful, democratic, prosperous Afghanistan is not only the inevitable future but also in the clear best interests of all Afghans. We cannot achieve that goal with bullets and bombs.

I commend Mr. Manley and his team for many of his recommendations. I agree that we need to be pushing for more help from our NATO allies and other partners. I am weary, for the reasons noted above and others, of the chances of our success. I agree that more effort should be placed on development. However, on the crucial question Mr. Manley has bought into the false promise of state-building and imperial counter-insurgencies. To quote Ogden Nash, "Man is a victim of dope, in the incurable form of hope." Mr. Manley is no exception. It is tragic that Canadian soldiers will die for his false optimism. At the end of the day, the Government of Canada must act in the best interests of Canadians. Our duty as a people and a government to aid others around the world does not extend to instances where the Canadian national interest is being sacrificed. The lives of our citizens must come first. Seventy-seven deaths are too many, the cost has become too high. It is time to leave Kandahar with our heads held high, knowing that for the past six years we have fought for the people of Afghanistan and given them a chance for a better life.

Monday Thoughts

Quick thoughts on the start of this new week:

• Don Wittman was a great broadcaster. He will be missed by all Canadian sports fans.
• I'm getting really tired of the debate over hand guns and Toronto. Of course they should be banned. Will it change anything? Probably not. It's like the ban on heroin. It doesn't stop heroin but it does make it a little harder to access.
• Good editorial from the Star today about racially divided scholing. I agree. It's a desperate idea and not a good one. We absolutely have a major problem. Segregation is definitely not the answer.
  
• Brady plays badly and the Pats still win? I give you your Super Bowl Champs. It will be a game but Brady has had his one bad game. He's not going to miss against the Giants.
• A huge win for Eli and the boys up at Lambeau field. Winning on the frozen tundra in January is no easy feat. Their reward? See above.
• The right is reorganizing itself again in Alberta. Not an issue in the next election I wouldn't think. However, if Stelmach continues to bleed support, we could see this new Wildrose Alliance Party making a play. Kind of like the Québec Solidaire. Could be something, but isn't quite there yet. I'm sure that comparison would make members of both parties shudder.
• I disagree with Cherniak on local nominations. Yes, instant members are not reliable partisans. However, the ability to sign up instant members and get them to vote for you at a nomination is a good facsimile of a candidate's ability to recruit volunteers and voters. Much like university skills are not horribly relevant in most work places but are still a valuable asset, nomination skills, while not directly transferable, are a good predictor of success. Also, appointing candidates gives your opponents a free cheap shot. "My opponent? She's the Ottawa choice. I am the local here." Does a leader have the right to appoint? Sure. Should he (or she)? No.
  
• We are rapidly approaching 4,000 dead Americans in Iraq. The deaths on September 11th were just under 3,000. The two events are not all that related but it does give you a sense of scale.
• This is folly. There simply is not sufficient transit to try to force people out of their cars. Get on the TTC in rush hour. There isn't much room left. We need more public transit infrastructure before we start imposing tolls.
  

Nevada and South Carolina

Results are in from the latest caucuses and primary. On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton eked out a victory over Barack Obama. The real story here (given the almost identical delegate count of Clinton and Obama) is that John Edwards is done. He says he is going to stay on in spite of getting an abysmal 4% of the vote. In my opinion, the Nevada result is a more accurate gauge of Edwards' national popularity. Edwards did well in Iowa and New Hampshire because he was able to revive the infrastructure he had from his 2004 run. Without the organizational advantage, the campaign collapsed. Now, he may still do well in his native South Carolina (he was born there but later moved to North Carolina), but his campaign is over. This is a two horse race from here on in.

On the Republican side, Romney continued to show that he is the man to beat nationally with his win in Nevada. Much like the Democratic race, Nevada involved little of the retail politics of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina. This meant that Romney's money paid off handsomely. The real question is can Romney actually fundraise. He may be able to pay for the Republican nomination by himself, the presidency is a much more expensive kettle of fish. However, no other Republican seems able to get their name out without a long intensive ground war. John McCain, facing a problem similar to John Edwards, garnered only 13% of the vote. Mike Huckabee who has almost no money was a distant fourth at 8.2%. Ron Paul continued his strange and fascinating run, picking up his first second place finish. Rudy Giuliani still believes that he can compete with Romney in an air war but he may have kept his powder dry a little too long. There are only so many sixth place finishes a candidate can take.

In South Carolina, the Republicans had a completely different result. Those who argue that Romney will never win the nomination can point to South Carolina with confidence. There, John McCain, with no Karl Rove to attack him, exorcised his 2000 ghosts and held off Mike Huckabee for the win. South Carolina is the first state from the South to vote and is thus crucial in reading the Republican Base. Iowa and New Hampshire are swing states and Nevada, while traditionally Republican has in the past and may in the future vote for a Democrat. South Carolina is as red as they come and the failure of the Romney campaign in that state should not be overlooked. Romney has a real problem in that the more people see him the less they like him (see Iowa and New Hampshire). As a result he didn't go hard to ground in South Carolina. The other candidates were far more invested here and were rewarded by the locals. McCain's win here makes him nationally viable in a way that his repeat in New Hampshire did not.

Long story short, I don't know who wins in either party. Hillary has the momentum but an Obama win in South Carolina (the first state with a significant African-American population) would swing the Mo back to the junior senator from Illinois. The Republican race is as wide open as ever. I would be shocked at this point if the race is over after Mega Tuesday (February 5).

Hail to the Victors Valiant

Mitt Romney has won his SECOND state of the primary season. Yes, CBC, John Ibbitson et al. that's his SECOND victory. Mr. Romney, of course, won the great state of Wyoming on January 5th. The Democratic non-primary saw Clinton beat uncommitted. Romney's victory in Michigan means the Repubican race is wide open. I mean wide. It becomes even wider when you factor in that South Carolina will almost certainly not vote for Mr. Romney. Fred Thompson's non-race for the presidency likely faces its Waterloo in South Carolina. Barring an unexpected victory there, he's done. The x factor in all of this is Rudy Giuliani, who although he has yet to win a state or finish better than 4th in a major contest, is expected to be competitive when about half the country votes on February 5th.

Other news? Gary Lunn's getting grilled over isotopes. Yawn! The Guergis thing is shocking but I doubt actually malicious in intent. The premiers are mad at the feds. Well, that is news. When something actually happens in Canadian politics, let me know.

Sometimes it isn't fun...

...being a Liberal in Toronto-Danforth. First, our big star provincial candidate, Ben Chin, decides he's better off working in Dalton McGuinty's war room forcing the local riding association to scramble and find Joyce Rowlands to throw under the wheels of the NDP juggernaut. Now, Deborah Coyne, the 2006 candidate for the federal Liberals in Toronto-Danforth, is seemingly being rewarded for her bravery in facing down Layton and now is running in Don Valley West to replace the retiring John Godfrey. Coyne is a great candidate and will make a great MP assuming she can win in Don Valley West (an almost certainty if she can get the nomination). However, I can't help but feel a little bit frustrated with the party. I don't blame Chin and Coyne for pursuing greener pastures. However, I would like to think that someone, somewhere thinks that a Liberal can win in Toronto-Danforth. It might not happen soon federally (beating a sitting NDP leader is no easy task), but I would like to see a little more fight.

Golden Globes Lose Their Shine

The Golden Globe Awards will not be televised due to the writers' strike State side. I know for many the return of Stewart and Colbert last night marked a return to normalcy, however, the strike continues. The next major casualty may be the Oscars which would be a far bigger ratings hit for the networks. Stay tuned.

Chantal Hebert is Colour Blind

Or at least somewhat forgetful. Here's a quote from her most recent offering:

"when the Prime Minister hosts the premiers later this week, it will be an all-white all-male gathering."

This will no doubt be news to Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik.

This really is more funny than anything else. I am just so angered by Ms. Hebert so much of the time that I get a little joy by pointing out her typos.

Romney for Wyoming

In case you missed it, Mitt Romney has won the Wyoming Republican Caucuses in an impressive victory. He won 8 of 12 available delegates. Fred Thompson finished second garnering three delegates and long shot Duncan Hunter picked up the one remaining delegate. Why are these results not getting the Iowa caucus/New Hampshire primary treatment? Your guess is as good as mine. Here is an example of Huckabee's lack of cash and organization hurting. If Huckabee could have campaigned in Wyoming, a state filled with Christian conservatives, he could have been competitive. Unfortunately for Huckabee he couldn't and Romney won in a cakewalk. On to New Hampshire. Keep your eyes open for the Maine caucuses on February 3rd. Another state no one is paying attention to that is voting before Super Tuesday.

4-Peat

Great win for Canada. The juniors have made this country proud once again.

More Caucus and Other Random Thoughts

So, two am postings are clearly a poor way to get readers. The before bed thing posting thing worked a lot better when I was six hours ahead and was posting in prime time eastern. At any rate, my first thoughts on Iowa are below. Here are some more with some assorted stuff thrown in.

• Joe Biden has called it quits. What a shock! I didn't hear it... who's concession speech did he use?
• Romney's people goofed big time. His speech overlapped with Huckabee making him the only major Iowa contender not to get air time on CNN. Terrible gaffe.
• Brad Marchand has turned his game around. So has the team, great game today. Sweden's going down! Please JFJ, if you can, draft Luke Schenn. The kid is great. Reminds me of the job Dion Phaneuf did in Grand Forks.
  
• The Leafs don't just suck. They sizzuck. They seem to come to play about one night in four.
• I know less than nothing about the politics of northern Saskatchewan. I do know that my principles say that local membership, not Ottawa should choose their candidates. This might be the politically astute move, it is not the principled one.
• That said, Dion screwing his own guy (Orchard) is kind of strange. Normally, you screw your opponents lieutenants not your own.
• Clinton's speech was a stinker last night. Hard speech to write, but still. It was downright awful.
• Mason was fabulous today in net. The only goal was a scrambling mess that was frankly the fault of the defense (Pyett and Godfrey I believe) not Mason. Good decision by Hartsburg to keep him in.
• Did you see my Wolverines knock off the Gators? I have said it before and I'll say it again, the SEC is overrated.
• Kenya is depressing. Actually, beyond depressing. It just makes you want to curl up into a ball and cry. The alternative is doing something but for the life of me I can't see much for the world to do. Maybe peacekeepers but I don't know that the Kenyans would be all that keen.
  
• Isn't Canada a utopia now that the GST is at five percent? What's that? The big three are still shedding jobs? The world is still getting warmer? The PQ are surging in the polls? Damn! Better knock off another point.
  
• Oil around a hundred dollars a barrel means one thing and one thing only, Alberta's about to get even richer.

That's it for now. Enjoy the game tomorrow. Go Canada Go!

Caucus, Caucus, Caucus!

The results are in from Iowa. Yes, after only twelve months of endless polls and speculation we have results. Here they are:

Democrats:

Obama: 38% (16 delegates)
Edwards: 30% (14 delegates)
Clinton: 29% (15 delegates)
Richardson: 2%
Biden 1%

Republicans:

Huckabee: 34% (17 delegates)
Romney: 25% (12 delegates)
Thompson: 13% (3 delegates)
McCain: 13% (3 delegates)
Paul: 10% (2 delegates)
Giuliani: 4%
Hunter: 1%

The important numbers should actually be the ones in brackets. These include delegates who are selected by the voters and those super delegates who can choose who they want to vote for. Thus, Clinton leads Edwards and the huge gap in the Republican race. I hate how CNN reports this as a winner take all thing. It isn't. This is PR and they are reporting it as First past the post. The real story is here. However, super delegates are notoriously disloyal and are likely to jump ship if it looks like one of the other ships is going to win the race. Please note how well PR treated the small candidates on the Democratic side. The most interesting thing on the Republican side is the performance of Congressman Paul. Paul has fundraised better than almost anyone on the republican side (Romney's spending more but that's a lot of his own money). Now, Paul's support up to now has been a little shady. Largely web-based and not all from the most reputable sources (conspiracy theorists/racists). However, a ten percent showing in Iowa shows that he has a real following. Will he win the nomination? Of course not. Is it a trend to look for in American politics? Maybe. The congressman's message may resonate even more in the Granite state where Republicans are more interested in their wallet and big government than the God-fearing Iowans. So, I will be watching that with great interest. Outside of that, bad night for the inevitables. Romney is in trouble. As is Clinton. Edwards has to pray Clinton wins New Hampshire and he can play the native son card in the now Colbert-free South Carolina primary, otherwise he's done. The delegate count is close. Dodd is gone which means there are 11 Connecticut super delegates looking for a home. However, as is often the case in politics perception is way more important than reality and the title of Winner of the Iowa Caucus goes a long way in America.

I'm not hugely surprised by the result. I thought both results were going to be closer but aside from that. I am leaning towards the junior senator from Illinois, so I am pleased with the results. Huckabee, like a lot of the Christian right, scares the pants off me but I am glad he kicked Romney's butt. I am still confused by Rudy's strategy. If he was just avoiding Iowa or just avoiding Iowa and New Hampshire okay. However, I can't see him bursting on to the scene in South Carolina either. Michigan was governed by Romney's father and McCain did well there in 2000 so I don't see that one happening. Poor Nevada moved up their caucuses and nobody cares (with the possible exception of Richardson) so a win there is unlikely to generate much buzz going into the February 5th. I just can't see the big states bailing him out at that point. Anyhoo, that's enough random ramblings for one night. We shall see what Tuesday brings.

10 Lessons from 2007 pt. 2

Am I the only one fed up with the national junior team? As far as I can tell there are about three guys (Tavares, Matthias, Schenn) actually playing over the last four periods. Pathetic. The so-called big line has been particularly disappointing. Brad Marchand's only contribution was giving up the puck and the game against Sweden. Brandon Sutter is clearly hurt and should not be playing. I think Craig Hartsburg should be replaced for next year. Anyway, on we go with the lessons from 2007.

5. The Environment is Actually Politically Important

The lesson we began to learn with Dion's Green victory in December of 2006 continued to be learned in 2007. Be it the rise of the Green Party of Canada in national polls or the increasing success of the Ontario Green Party in the provincial election (particularly Shane Jolley in Owen Sound), the environment is resonating with Canadians. As Mr. Jolley's result indicates its more than urban hippies who care about this issue these days. Harper's dance on the issue would be funny if the consequences of his inaction were not so dire.

4. Immigration is the Defining Issue for the West

This is more relevant for other countries with more serious immigration problems (rioting in France; panic and legal chaos in the United States) but Canada must do better by its new immigrants. We are too often failing to ensure that the newest Canadians can integrate successfully into Canadian society. Our past successes are wonderful and we should celebrate them. We need to work hard to ensure that immigrants arriving today have the same success. Canada is a leader on this issue. We must continue to lead. The West is aging and our economies are teetering. Immigration is the best path to economic and social progress, countries that fail to grasp this will be left behind.

3. The American Primary System is Beyond Broken

The state of Michigan has been disenfranchised by the Democratic party and nobody seems to have noticed. Michigan is not exactly a small insignificant state. However, they angered the DNC gods by moving their primary up so that candidates actually bother to visit their little state. As a result, the Michigan primary is little more than a straw poll. This disturbing incident combined with the insanity that is the Iowa Caucuses, leads to one conclusion. The Americans need to change their system and now. All the states should vote the second Tuesday after New Year's day. Iowans are upset at how early they have to vote this year. The second Tuesday would ensure that the holidays are not overwhelmed by elections. By having all states vote early, they would finally have equity in the primary process.

2. Pakistan is in Deep Trouble

Martial law. The assassination of an opposition leader. The opposition being taken over by a 19 year old. This country is in trouble. The tension between secular democrats, the military and militant Islamic extremists is tearing the country apart. This is scary stuff. Even if you don't care about Pakistan and its people (and as human beings we should), you must remember this country is a nuclear power. The future of Pakistan could shape all of our futures. I don't know what the outside world can do to help the Pakistani people. I do know that we are all going to be holding our breaths until this mess is sorted out one way or another.

1. The Internet is Killing Traditional Entertainment

Don't think this is as relevant as some of the other stuff? You could make the argument. I've posted on the writer's strike before, but it is worth some repetition. What this strike is about (internet revenues) is about how to slice up an increasingly small and insignificant pie. Consider this, what is the top rated live-action TV sitcom still on the air? I have no clue. Do you? The most popular comedies are probably cartoons: The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park etc. This lack of quality television combined with the download disease which has spread with technology from music to television and movies is killing Hollywood and its related affiliates north of the border. The strike by the writers may prove to be one more nail in the coffin. The collapse of an industry that has sustained North America for generations is not in any way insignificant. It has been confirmed in 2007. Enjoy your reality TV folks, its all that's profitable these days.

On that note, Happy New Year. May 2008 find you well.

Movie Thoughts

I've seen two movies in theatres in the last couple of weeks. I don't usually see two movies in theatre in a year so this is something to write home about or at least post. Since I believe both to be somewhat political, my thoughts.

The Golden Compass:

I wrote about this when the preview came out. I loved the books. Huge fan. I was somewhat disappointed in the movie. All the nuance is gone. So is most of the character. Lee Scoresby comes off as a pervert. The bears have lost all their nature. Is the film anit-Catholic? No. It's anti-Calvinist. Read the books. In all seriousness, it's anti-repression of nature and independent thought especially when done so by religion. If Catholics feel that this criticism is leveled most heavily against them it reflects their own self-image and not reality or Pullman. The movie wears kid gloves compared to the novel. Serafina Pekkala's anti-religious rant has become muted. The true horror of the intercision process is lost (the victim appears to have survived). If religious critics want to be offended, they should read the books, particularly the last one. As for the movie... I hate how they mangled the order of the plot. I hate ending the film early. The Subtle Knife has a different feel and to start the next movie (assuming they make it) with the arctic sacrifice would be improper. The Golden Compass (first titled The Northern Lights) is heavily concerned with snow and ice. Neither The Subtle Knife nor The Amber Spyglass share this fascination. The former focuses on trees and desert and the latter on rock and earth. This thematic division is part of the elegance of the trilogy. To change it loses more nuance. Also, separating Lyra's loss of her best friend from the meeting of her future lover is nice. A little more loyalty to the book may have helped here. On the bright side, the CG is great particularly the polar bears.

I am Legend:

I got asked to see this one today. Not my type of movie frankly. Although, I have trouble finding a genre for this. It isn't really horror or sci-fi although it borrows heavily from both. However, my distaste has nothing to do with what type of movie it is. You may be wondering why this movie is political. Well, I need to be a spoiler to explain. So if you want to wait to see the movie stop reading now. The movie has heavy religious overtones in its ending. Robert Neville (Will Smith) is saved from hell (well mutated humanoid vampires) by the shining lights of a religious prophet and her mute son. He then redeems humanity by having a religious epiphany. The movie's premise is that a scientifically engineered virus has wiped out/mutated most of humanity. Neville and his saviour have a fierce theological debate. Posters in the destroyed New York proclaim God's love. The prophet has spent most of the plague on a boat. His daughter (not saved from damnation) complains that the destruction of mankind will prevent her from getting her Christmas presents and never shuts up (compare with the saved and mute/obedient son of the prophet). The building most prominent in the last bastion of humanity is a church. All in all the movie has a distinctive Noah's Ark (God has killed the wicked and saved the righteous) overtone that I find creepy as all get out (way creepier than the CG vampires). The lesson seems to be that science and perhaps commercialism have distracted humanity from God (the prophet hears God's voice because the world is quiet post-plague). The path to salvation is to bring God back into the centre of our lives and let Him guide our actions. If the Golden Compass is the anti-religion movie for the holidays, this is the pro-religion movie. I have nothing against religion. In fact I am proud of my Jewish faith. However, I don't think it should dictate all of our actions. I don't care if Mike Huckabee wants to wish people a merry Christmas. I just don't want the fact that a kid was born in Nazareth a couple thousand of years ago to dictate policy. You can apply this to any religion, I am just using Christianity as an example. I don't care if you wear a headscarf. I care when a woman is sentenced to be beaten for being raped because that is the interpretation of God's will. I have no objection to a faith based reality as long as the sense and reason based reality comes first.

Hmm... two movies that I saw in theatres... didn't really like either one. Maybe I should stick to not paying an arm and a leg for bad entertainment. If you want an interesting religiously themed movie this holiday season try to dig up a copy of the Hungarian movie Kontroll. That one I liked.

10 Lessons From 2007 pt. 1

Christmas is upon us. A merry Christmas to those who celebrate. Not being Christian, I take no particular note of the day. I do note that in a week's time it will no longer be 2007 and instead be 2008. So, before time passes this year into dust, a quick review of what we've learned over the past year.

10. There is no such thing as an inevitability in politics

Inevitable has been tossed around a lot this year. A spring election was inevitable. Jean Charest's defeat was inevitable. A fall election was inevitable. Hillary Clinton's nomination was inevitable. None of these things have come to pass. The lesson: don't believe the hype. The media (both mainstream and otherwise) make money (okay mostly the mainstream here... yay adsense!) on helping their audience understand the news and come to some sort of conclusions. These conclusions are often incorrect. Not to say that I will stop making predictions on this blog (half the fun in blogging after all). I'm just saying nothing is inevitable. Things may be more likely than not, but sometimes things change. In fact, things change most of the time.

9. A week is a lifetime in politics

So, we should have known this a long time ago. This year made the point standout. John Tory was seen as being tough competition for Dalton McGuinty, that is until the religious school flap blew up in his face. Mulroney was Harper's mentor until Karlheinz Schreiber reared his head. Things change quickly in politics. This is related to the point above. We should be weary of making predictions because we never know what the future may hold.

8. Records are meant to be broken (or at least asterisked)

Readers of this blog (all three of you) will know that I occasionally dip into the sports world for my posts. So here's the sports entry for the list. This year saw the breaking of the all-time home run record in baseball (Bonds), the youngest winner of the Hart in a generation (Crosby), and is on the verge of producing a perfect football team (the Pats). In the case of both baseball and football those records come amidst scandal. The Patriots were caught taping the signals of the New York Jets on opening day resulting in massive fines and the loss of a draft pick. Barry Bonds chase of the home run record was dogged by allegations of steroid use. Since then, Mr. Bonds has been indicted by a grand jury for perjury and has been named in the increasingly infamous Mitchell Report. In both cases, some have wondered whether or not the records should stand. I have no qualms with the Pats records. I don't think Spygate helped them in the least. Was it foolish and illegal? Yes. Does it change one of the best offenses ever fielded? No. That's what matters. That's why I feel very differently about Barry Bonds. Steroid use did help him hit all those home runs. While not banned by baseball, they were banned substances. He cheated and that directly impacted his performance. I don't accept that he is the greatest home run hitter in history. I can't.

7. Quebec is undergoing another political revolution

The continued strength of Stephen Harper's Tories combined with the rise of the ADQ in the spring election tells me that something big is going down in Quebec. Add to that the hearings on immigration and what you come up with is this: rural, conservative Quebeckers are tired of voting for socialists just because they agree with their position on independence. I think we are slowly seeing the evolution of a more accurately represented Quebec.

6. Nation building cannot work if the nation does not want to be built

2007 should prove once and for all that these misguided occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq are doomed to fail. Is the consequence of leaving potentially disastrous? Yes. That's why this debate isn't easy. What should be easy is the answer next time someone asks us to help occupy a resistant country. NO! We have not learned from history (Vietnam, Somalia etc.) and now we are repeating it. It is a great tragedy that so many people died this year for nothing. At the end of the day, the result of the mission will be the same: failure.

Harper's Running Scared

After nearly six months, Stephen Harper has decided to call the rest of the by-elections. He could have called them at the same time as the Quebec by-elections but that didn't suit his narrative. See, he wanted to show that the Liberal party was weak, conflicted and poorly organized. So he called the by-elections in Quebec first where the LPC(Q) is probably best described as weak conflicted and poorly organized. The rest of the Liberal party on the other hand is doing fine. Add to that, Harper's majority train hasn't run through Toronto or Vancouver yet. Saskatchewan (which features the only by-election likely to be close) is more of a mystery. However, I think it confirms what I have believed for months, Saskatchewan is politically restless. They just threw out a government in the middle of an economic boom. That, political scientists will tell you, is not an everyday phenomenon. Did they go to the political right? Sure. However, federally the Tories have raised a lot of anger over their meddling in the Canadian Wheat Board (I don't understand this issue, so I won't get into details. I just know people are upset). If Harper thought there was a political gain to be made in Saskatchewan he would have called that by-election a long time ago. The reality is that Harper does not want the headline "Liberals Sweep By-Elections" to appear before an election. That would mean Stephane Dion might not be a bumbling incompetent as the Tories have sought to portray him. That would mean that maybe the Liberals are a viable alternative. And that thought, has Stephen Harper running scared.

Now that I've ended it so nicely, one more thing. I think it behooves us to change the rules regarding by-elections. They should be set 60 days after the retirement of the MP or MPP. Giving the government this kind of manipulative power is ridiculous. There we go folks another bit of electoral reform I support. More democracy, more representation. What's not to like?

Monday Snapshots

Some quick thoughts for the new week:

• Bali ended in a compromise even more useless than the one agreed to in Kyoto ten years ago. The agreement by the current responsible signatories of Kyoto means less than nothing. The world will get warmer and not one world leader has a plan to stop it.
• This weekend did not look much like global warming in Southern Ontario. I ache from the shoveling. If Canadians are a little thinner than their American neighbours, I think shoveling has to contribute to our national fitness.
• The NDP's dumping of a transgendered candidate in Quebec City looks bad. There's a he said she said thing at play here. The candidate claims her sexuality is at root here. The NDP claims she wasn't a team player. The truth is impossible to discern from my perspective. I will say that maybe a candidate that was acceptable to the NDP in Quebec before their win in Outremont may be less desirable now that they think they can actually win seats. Why this particular candidate was not desirable I cannot say. However, irregardless of the reasoning, the NDP dropped a transgendered candidate. That looks bad to the LGBT community which has often supported the NDP.
• Electoral systems do not predict environmental policies or any other policy. I could easily argue that systems which guarantee coalition governments limit the possibility of dramatic action so necessary to solve the climate change crisis. The responsiveness of the EU to the issue has nothing to do with electoral systems and everything to do with bureaucratic pressures from Brussels elites.
• My Bills playoff dreams ended on Sunday. Tear.
• The Celtics are ridiculously good.
• So are the Pats. Oh and didn't the Red Sox just win the world series? Oh to be a sports fan in Boston...
• The polling scandal is more funny than scandalous. It certainly exposes Harper's obsession with monitoring public opinion particular in Québec.
• The new military strategy in Afghanistan is now apparently to occupy with force as much land as physically possible. So, now when we whack the Taleban/mole we keep our forces/mallet in the same area/hole and switch to a new unit/mallet. Mr. Ignatieff probably thinks this is a good idea. I think it is moronic. If we can't secure peace without pointing a gun to people's heads we are in serious trouble. We need to rethink and refocus this mission and we need to do so now.
• Schreiber... zzzzzzzzzzz.... Mulroney...zzzzzzzzzzzz... Have we solved the myriad of problem the country faces TODAY? No? Then why is the media wallowing in the past? Can we talk about the future at some point? Please!

News of the Day

One exam done, time for a quick post:

• Pickton got convicted. Won't be eligible for parole for 25 years. I'm surprised they couldn't get a first degree murder conviction but they have twenty other chances to get him for murder one if they want.
• M. Dion is blogging from Bali. Interesting. I don't know how I feel about leader blogging. I am not crazy about politicians blogging in general. They have the bully pulpit of the house of commons or legislature or council to make their views known. I suppose it shows the Liberals finding new technology when its almost at its best before date. Of course, Dion's blogging sounds like a mixture between a travel log and a stump speech. It's all irrelevant because nobody outside of the politicos will read it.
• Flaherty's going after the NDP. Did Harper approve of this message? I thought Tories could only attack Liberals. Hmmm...
• The Wizard of Croz justifiably won the Lou Marsh award today. By the way I hate the Sid the Kid moniker. It needs to go before he's 40 and we don't know what to call one of the best players of all time. The Wizard of Croz is a name that I heard the Pittsburgh play-by-play guy call him and I like it.
  

Bali Boogie

As the discussion turns to who should be responsible for stopping global warming (the correct answer, boys and girls, is everyone) it's time to look at exactly who we can consider the "developed world." There is a tendency by some (let's call them the Bureaupean Bunion) to limit responsibility to Western nations. This is of course absurd. So, ladies and gentlemen a quick look at which countries are "responsible" and which are not with the corresponding GDP per capita (purchasing power) (all stats from the CIA World Fact Book).

Responsible:

Ukraine $7,800 (the same as China by the way)
Croatia $13,400
Bulgaria $10,700
Romania $9,100

Not Responsible:

Singapore: $31,400 (that's higher than France or Italy by the way)
South Korea $24,500
Kuwait $23,100
Bahrain $25,600

I don't want the historical guilt argument. I don't buy historical guilt in any context. I certainly don't buy it in this one. The countries most capable of changing their economies are those with the most money. If we must have two standards, can we at least divide the camps in a rational manner?

Once again, Harper has the right plan but no desire to make it work. Intensity based emissions allow for economic growth (starving people are a bad thing regardless of the climate). If they are tough enough they can also prevent climate change. Dion has the wrong plan with all the desire to make it work. Can we please have a meeting of the minds on this one? Harper's plan with Dion's desire. That's how we solve this.

Race For the Exits 2008: Month to Primary Edition

I figure now is as good a time as any to update my report on the Presidential election down south. I'm going to avoid the tedium of going through all the candidates and stick to the ones who have a chance in Hades of winning. With my luck, I'll leave out the winner. Here we go:

Democrats:

In order of current position:

Hillary Rodham Clinton: Okay, I know you've heard it all before when it comes to Hillary. I don't think I can say anything new. Here's the snapshot. She's the frontrunner except that she beginning to look like the New York Mets when they collapsed. In other words, she has a huge lead but she's hemorrhaging and fast. The question is whether or not she can hang on long enough to win Iowa and New Hampshire. Her positives include a great organization, name recognition and a strong appeal to women. Her negatives include her name recognition and the presence of a whole bunch of Americans that will never vote for Hillary.

Barack Obama: One of the most devoted Christians in the Democratic field has had some odd things thrown at him. To attempt to slur someone by calling them something that is a) false and b) only an insult if you are a racist is a) evil, b) moronic or c) both. Having said that, Obama is the candidate that appears to be gaining fast on the Clinton machine. He's not half as divisive as she is. He also hasn't articulated his vision as clearly although that is starting to come out. Outsiders usually do well in Presidential elections. However, it is difficult to call a US Senator an outsider. Obama may in the end just be too young and inexperienced.

John Edwards: If Clinton falls like Perdita Felicien and Barack trips like Barbaro out of the gate, look out for John Edwards. He did this four years ago and has a strong local organization all over the place. He's charming and enthusiastic. His rhetoric has always struck me as anachronistically socialist.

Republicans:

A much more open field. This order is going to be alphabetical.

Rudy Giuliani: I have never understood why the socially liberal mayor from New York thinks he can win the Republican nomination. However, if terror is the issue, Giuliani wins. I can't see it. I just can't. Not even with the support of the 700 Club.

Mike Huckabee: If I were to bet on someone at this point in the race, it would be this guy. Why? Because he is the only one who legitimately speaks to the base and actually wants the job (more on that later). The former Arkansas Governor is catching up fast to the early race frontrunners. The only question is does he have enough time and local organization in early states to close the gap.

John McCain: It is odd that John McCain, the great rabble rouser from 2000, has become the safe choice in this race. However, McCain is the known quantity here. If the Republicans get scared (of the other candidates, not terror), they might go McCain. He also has a good organization in New Hampshire where he won eight years ago.

Mitt Romney: I believe the national polls place the former Governor in the lead in this race. I don't see it. A Mormon is not good enough social conservative credentials for many in the base of the Republican party. It may be as baseless in reason as saying that Obama being a Muslim would disqualify him. The fact that Romney is actually a Mormon is a key difference. Romney also has Giuliani's problem of having some questionable (in the eyes of social conservatives) views on certain key subjects. The combination I think will leave him dead in the water in South Carolina and other Southern and Western states.

Fred Thompson: We will never know if Fred Thompson had a chance at this. He doesn't seem to like campaigning. The retail politics inherent in the primary process seems beyond him. On the other hand, with the whole host of question marks that plague the front runners. The faux reincarnation of Reagan could be a choice, who knows?

Do you support a candidate that a) wants to eliminate most of the US government or b) believes in UFO's? Sorry, it ain't happening. Although I have a certain respect for Ron Paul and his campaign.

Procrastination Post

I did say that I might post more than usual to avoid my work. Well, here's one. Two major issues on the table today.

1. The Middle East Peace Conference. There are something like 50 groups represented at this thing. There's two big ones missing: Hamas and Iran. The press has been about Iran and while there relationship with Hezbollah in particular does not help matters, Hamas is the far more important player left out in the cold. Bush must think he's Alexander the Great and he can just leave the disagreeable Spartans out of the picture while he negotiates Greece's surrender. The Spartans, however, did not control half of the country and have a legitimate claim to the whole territory by right of democratic election. Hamas does. A peace deal without Hamas will be, in all likelihood, a useless waste of time.
2. The C-22 fallout. Kudos to Premiers Charest and Doer for backing Ontario on this one. Apparently half the country is being small-minded. With Doer and Charest we now have all three major federal parties represented. Time for Stephane Dion to pounce on this wounded gazelle and end this farce. Oh, and will the increasingly disgraced minister resign?!?!

That's all for now folks.

Monday... the work continues

With two major papers due this week, blogging may be light. Then again I may use it as a means of procrastination which means it will be heavy. Anyhoo, Monday thoughts

• I am really curious to see whether anyone is paying attention to this C-22 fiasco.
• Congrats to the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the province of Saskatchewan on the Roughriders Grey Cup win. There have been better Grey Cups but at least it wasn't a blow out.
• Soccer Canada's first task in getting to 2010? Beating Saint Vincent and Grenadines. Go Canada Go!
• Any guesses on who the Republicans are going to nominate? Anyone?
• Obama is claiming momentum and thinks he's ready to caucus Clinton out of Iowa, we shall see.

Intelligence Wasted

I often wonder what would happen if Stephen Harper didn't subject his brain to political considerations. Some of the things would be awful, no doubt. Others, like this gem, would be a refreshing change. From the oft-quoted speech to the American Council for National Policy:

"For years, we have given concessions of various kinds of the province of Quebec, political and economic, to make them happier. This has not worked. The sovereignty movement has continued to rise in prominence. And its demands have continued to increase."

I don't mind politicians having a change of heart (Chrétien on free trade for instance). I do mind politicians selling their souls for a couple of votes.

Could Someone Please Get Out a Calculator

So, the furor over bill C-22 continues to grow. Peter Van Loan and co. claim the bill will give Ontario ten more seats. The media is trumpeting this as fact. My post here shows my math. Given current data Ontario would get all of two additional seats. In order for Ontario to deserve 10 additional seats its population would have to skyrocket. Around 850,000 people by my calculations. to get to 116 (ten more than the existing 106). That calculation also presumes that the population of the rest of the country remains stagnant which is highly unlikely. Nothing in the bill changes how Ontario calculates its seat total. Would the media or the opposition or somebody please challenge the Tories' new math on this one?