Clinton Hail Mary Fails

Hillary Clinton's prayers were not answered today. This thing has been over for weeks. Maybe this will quiet some of her nonsense. Then again, listening to Harold Ickes, probably not. Puerto Rico tomorrow.

Lies, Damned Lies and Polls

So, the bread tax (lots of CO2 in bread making don't you know) supporters are jumping for joy because a poll says that Canadians would support a carbon tax. Folks, let's not get silly. Polls are useful to see trends during an election period. Otherwise, they are mostly useless. Ask the folks at Fair Vote Ontario. See, they thought they had a winning issue. After all, in poll after poll, when Canadians were asked if they wanted their electoral system to be proportional, they said yes. Then a funny thing happened. Once a proposal for PR (namely MMP) came out in Ontario and was placed before the voters, it sank like a stone. What happened? Well, the polls that had put the electoral reform question to the voters had accentuated the positives and ignored the negatives. The proposal put before the people had all the dirty details that people just can't look passed. I will be convinced when Canadians say by wide margins that they are willing to pay more for gasoline, groceries and home heating and witness the reversal of economic fortunes in booming provinces (I'm guessing that the green economy won't be built in St. John's or Saskatoon) as long as they are saving the planet. An abstract concept is easy to support, an actual policy is much more difficult to sell.

Obama Continues to Outfox Clinton

If the race for the Democratic nomination could be summed up in a single event, it may be the Nevada Caucuses. Nevada was the kind of state Clinton should have taken in a walk. Few blacks, lots of Hispanics for starters. Instead, back in January she squeaked out a popular vote win in the caucuses and lost in terms of the all important delegate count. Why? Clinton doesn't know how to caucus. She lost caucus state after caucus state by resounding margins. Nevada was one of the few states where she actually was competitive. Well, her failure to caucus successfully was thrown back in her face this weekend when Barack Obama took an extra delegate at the state convention.

The American primary system is horribly complex and most states (I can only think of West Virginia Republicans as a possible exception) have one or two stages in actually choosing delegates long after the CNN camera crews have left. Nevada is no exception. In Nevada the caucuses where Joe and Jane Q. Public voted in January were step one. Joe and Jane Q. Public were actually voting for delegate spots to the state convention this past weekend. Those spots were assigned proportionally based on the votes received at the caucuses by each candidate. The delegates to that convention then have the job of choosing Nevada's delegation to the Democratic National Convention in August. Thus, while the delegates are pretty much picked on voting day, if one candidate fails to get delegates to the convention and the other does, things can change a bit. This is what happened over the weekend.

In typical Clinton fashion, Hillary sent Bill out assuming that he would take care of business. The Obama campaign actually made sure his delegates to the state convention, you know, went to the state convention and came away one delegate richer. American politics are often about big ads and big money. However, in Nevada and elsewhere in this nomination fight its been about strong on the ground organization and attention to detail. Clinton has done well in the air (why do you think she's lobbying for a 1001st debate?), but has been close to incompetent on the ground. That's the lesson going forward. If you want to win, win on the ground.

Side Note: Barack Obama received the endorsement of a former KKK member today. Robert Byrd has long since disavowed his membership in that organization (a true seeing of the light by all accounts) and has become a pillar of the US Senate, currently serving as President Pro Tempore (the guy third in the line of succession). It is telling about the progress made in the United States in the last sixty years that a former klansman is endorsing an African-American to be president of the United States. It is also a fitting symbol of the evolution of Robert Byrd as a politician. One of the things that pundits predicted would tell us when this race was over was when party elders started to pick sides. You don't get any more elderly than Robert Byrd.

Gifts from Political Heaven

Yesterday, both presumptive nominees in the race for the White House got really lucky in their efforts to secure their respective bases. For John McCain it was the decision handed down by the California court in San Francisco, appropriately enough, striking down the ban on same-sex marriage. While I applaud the decision, I don't know that anyone is happier about this than John McCain. McCain is desperate to find a way to energize the Religious Right. Right now, the Base is sitting on their hands. They aren't giving money, they aren't getting out the vote for congressional candidates, they are retreating from politics. However, nothing energizes the Religious Right like same-sex marriage (okay abortion does, but its harder to use). McCain and his Republican colleagues can now yell until they are blue in the face about those coastal elites attacking the values of decent, hardworking Americans. Consider the base re-energized.

Obama's gift from heaven was sent through the holy land. George Bush made a not so-veiled attack on Obama, comparing his foreign policy to Nazi appeasement. Beyond the outrageousness of these remarks, Obama know has a great way to sell his foreign policy to most Americans: George Bush hates it. Nothing unifies sentiment in the Democratic party quite like their hatred of George W. Bush. Democrats are basically prepared to do anything to contradict Bush, supporting Obama should be easy. This allows Obama to cast critics of his foreign policy as supporters of Bush's hugely unpopular foreign policy. Talk about having something served up on a silver platter.

Side Note: Anyone who doubted Obama's ability to fight a media war should be convinced after this week. Clinton crushes him in West Virginia and goes out and does interviews with everyone and anyone while the iron's hot. What does Obama do? He pulls John Edwards out of a hat. Thus, the image on CNN as Wolf Blitzer interviews Clinton is a split screen of the Clinton interview with the endorsement rally and the headline "Edwards Backs Obama." Check and mate.

FYI

If you are in the Toronto area and want to help out, Andrew Lang will be out canvassing this evening. The information is here. There were about ten of us out last week enjoying the spring weather and having some good old fashioned Liberal fun. I know it's the dinner hour, but I can't think of too many places I'd rather be when I'm hungry than on the Danforth. Come out and join the Lang Gang!

Five Questions For John McCain

As Canadian politics continues to be on hold, I continue my focus on the upcoming American election. In the next couple of days I will highlight the challenges facing the presumptive nominees of both parties starting with the Republican, John McCain.

1. Can he talk about anything other than national security? If the economy and other domestic issues reign supreme over the next few months, it will be incumbent upon McCain to find a winning domestic message. I have no idea what that will be.
2. Can he overcome the age issue? John McCain is trying to become the oldest person ever elected to the oval office. He's not only old, he's got a history of cancer. Voters want a strong powerful leader, not a guy better suited for a retirement home. McCain needs to prove to voters that he is still fit enough to be president.
3. Can he win over the base? John McCain has never really won over the Republican base. He needs evangelical Christians and other social conservatives to vote in droves if he hopes to win. There are few indications that he has done that yet. In recent primaries, 25% of Republicans who have bothered to cast their purely symbolic vote, have done so in protest against John McCain. That's not good. That leads to question 4...
4. Can he compete with Obama's money? For the first time in a long time, the Democrats have the definitive fundraising advantage over the Republicans. Not only did John McCain fundraise poorly but no other Republican candidate (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) was able to bring in the dough. Huckabee ran second on a shoestring budget. Romney ran third on his own money. The Republicans need to get their fundraising mojo back if they want to win. That starts with the base.
5. Can he save the Republican party from the coming doomsday? The elephant in the room for the elephant party is Congress. Even if John McCain wins the white house, the congressional picture looks bleak for the GOP. The Democrats have up to 10 different targets to pick up seats in the senate (in no particular order: ME, OR, MN, TX, GA, NC, VA, NM, CO, NH), the GOP have one: Louisiana senator Mary Landrieu. Expect the razor thin democratic majority to grow substantially. In the house, the problem is money. The RCCC (the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee) is broke and has told its members (the people running for Congress on the Republican banner) that they are on their own. With a slew of Republicans either retiring or in major political hot water, the Democratic control over the house of representatives is likely to strengthen. Speaker Pelosi is not worried about relinquishing the hammer any time soon. McCain will be called upon to try to save this sinking ship. This may be asking the impossible, but if McCain loses, he won't be going down alone.

I'll look at Obama's key questions in the coming days.

Carbon Tax Will Starve Children

That's the long and short of it folks. The purpose of any sin tax be it on alcohol, tobacco or carbon is to reduce the negative behaviour. A carbon tax will not reduce the negative behaviour because much of the behaviour is not voluntary. Any behaviour it does change will either negatively effect the environment, negatively effect Canada or both. The largest polluter targeted by this tax would be the oil industry. The explicit purpose of this tax, read the white paper folks, is to meet our Kyoto targets. Oil production in Canada has increased by around 50% since 1990. Natural gas production in Canada, largely as a result of the oil sands boom, has increased by around 100% since 1990. If you want to meet Kyoto targets, you better have one heck of oil sands strategy. Now, all us good environmentalists want to stop the smoggies in the oil sands. Problem is, all that goop does more than fuel SUV's. Oil sands oil production is, believe it or not, keeping the price of a barrel of oil down. If you were to reduce production in the oil sands, the cost would go up. If you put a tax on every barrel even if its only a $1.17 US per barrel (as is outlined in the white paper), the cost of every oil based product in Canada goes up. It is folly to think that this tax will be internalize by the polluters. The polluters won't pay; the consumers will. Not necessarily a problem on the gas for an SUV, a huge problem on a loaf of bread. We do not as progressives in this country believe in taxing the necessities of life. No problem justifies taking food out of the hands of children. This tax has that potential. Even if we find some means of alleviating the pain at home, we will not prevent the global ramifications of this action. An increase, or just the perception of an increase in the cost of Canadian oil, will send the already jittery oil markets into a frenzy. The cost will go up, world wide. And the oil to fertilizers and pesticides to grain to bread equation will happen not only in Canada but around the world. This is the equation which has the World Food Programme in full panic mode. I cannot as a progressive support a tax which will make this problem worse. A carbon tax, no matter how revenue neutral, does.

Primary Systems

The At Issue panel on The National tonight was comparing the primary systems of Canada and the United States. The panel stressed how the system in the United States is very different from the one in Canada, which is true. However, the panel, which praised the American system, ignored the similarities between the system the Liberal Party of Canada has used in the last two leadership races and the American model. Hebert claimed the Tories were close, which is false as anyone who knows anything about the delegate selection method used in the United States knows, it is not one member one vote, it's well, delegated. Under the Tory system, states with small number of registered democrats like, say, Indiana, would have a disproportionately small say in the race. While the Republicans do reward Republican voting patterns it is not based on the number of registered Republicans.

Both Systems:

• hold elections to elect delegates to a national convention
• both select those delegates at regional meetings (state level in US; riding level for the grits)
• assign delegates to different regions based on population (the Republicans modify this slightly by rewarding Republican states but the base-line remains rep by pop)
  
• make it so that elected delegates are pledged to a certain candidate for the first round of voting at the convention
• generate large fields in races with no clear front runner which narrow as the race progresses

There are three major differences. The first, is party membership. In the United States, party membership is cost-free and voters have the option to register with a certain party when they register to vote. In Canada, there is a small cost and party membership is not available through elections Canada. The American system is largely a product of, and perpetuater of a closed two party system where political parties (as organizations) have more power. This is largely beyond the control of Canada's political parties and is not something they can consider when setting their leadership rules. The second, which is also beyond the control of parties, is timing. The Democratic and Republican parties have no leader. Every four years they nominate a candidate for President. Voters and politicians understand that the primary process will happen at a certain time, and if both parties finish in a reasonable amount of time (*cough Hilary Clinton cough*), the primary process will have no impact upon the general election outside of deciding a candidate and possibly airing some dirty laundry. By contrast, a party without a leader in Canada is in a bind. A party cannot afford to not have a leader for the almost 18 months that the American race has lasted. The last Liberal leadership race was maligned by party insiders and the media alike for being excessively long at 10 months. Because of the fusion of powers in the Canadian system, a leader is much more important to the party than a presidential nominee. In fact, the government of the United States has functioned with almost no regard to the race. In Canada, a leaderless party, particularly if it is in government or the chief opposition changes the nature of parliament. Finally, the third major difference between the American system and the LPC system is that in the US the primaries and caucuses are staggered over months while the LPC does it over a weekend. Once again, time considerations come into play. However, I applaud the LPC for not making the leadership about pandering to local constituencies and hate the fact that ethanol and farm subsidies are major issues every four years because Iowans vote first.

Hillary Clinton Surrogates Lose It

Watching CNN's coverage of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries last night, I was struck by the performance of Clinton's supporters. They as a group (three of them through the night versus the one Barack Obama surrogate). I can't remember who exactly all three of them were at this point but they made quite a team. First, Paul Begala picks a fight with undeclared super-delegate and member of the rules committtee, Donna Brazile. Then Begala disappears into the ether and the next guy starts complaining about media bias on CNN. He goes after the most objective guy on the set, John King. Never mind that Clinton surrogates got about three times the air time that Jamal Simmons, the lone Obama supporter got. Apparently King's stating of the facts is biased. Apparently, Barack Obama is solely responsible for Florida and Michigan's disenfranchisement. No it wasn't the governors and senators in FL and MI trying to gain influence, it was those nasty Obama supporters. Maybe you'd get a little more sympathy if you stopped picking with members of the committee charged to solve the problem! Then, the Clinton team starts spinning the "Indiana is the tie-breaker" bit. Never mind your own prediction that "North Carolina would be a game changer." Or that you won Indiana by the skin of your teeth. What matters is the over-confidence all candidates show when campaigning in a jurisdiction where their hopes are bleak. Ask the Green Party how many times they've heard that they're on the cusp of a breakthrough. All in all a terrible performance by Clinton surrogates on a bad night for Clinton. According to the Green papers if you add up the delgates from Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana and North Carolina (the last four contests), you get a net of a one delegate gain for Hillary Clinton. That's including super delegates, a total of 358 total delegates. In other words, Clinton is done. She cannot possibly catch Obama. Even if you give her the results as in from Florida (roughly a 40 delegate edge) and take the Michigan results as the forty percent "uncommitted" for Obama (netting a 17 delegate edge), she is still almost 100 delegates behind with just over 500 delegates remaining. With the PR rules, she's done.

Join the Lang Gang

Are you tired of endless speculation about election timing? Do you want to actually do something? Are you in the GTA? Do you want to see Jack Layton out of the house of commons? If you answered yes to all of these questions come join Andrew Lang as he canvasses in Toronto-Danforth. Here's the link with all the info.

Sports Talk for a Sunday

With the TTC strike mercifully over, I feel it time to turn my attention to less politically charged topics. So, as is my wont, APL is turned over to sports talk tonight.

I know the country is in the middle of playoff fever. This Leafs fan though has turned his attention to greener pastures. Specifically, the exploits of Canada's Major League Soccer team (until MLS smartens up and expands to Montreal), Toronto FC. I've had the pleasure of attending TFC's two opening home matches against Real Salt Lake and Kansas City. The team is greatly improved and much more entertaining. The fans are as boisterous as they were last year. The Reds are the most fun team to watch in the city these days. Also, the only ones winning. Can I jump on the fire J.P. Ricciardi bandwagon?

There has been a lot of talk about how good an ownership group Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment (MLSE) is. Here's how I see it. MLSE wants to make money. In sports, you make money by being successful. Therefore MLSE wants to be successful. I don't buy that MLSE doesn't want a Stanley Cup. Bullshit. The problem is they want a Stanley Cup and they think that they should pick the team that wins it. The problem with the Leafs is the interference that the boardroom runs in the selection of GM's, coaches and players. The problem is that the owners are fans of the Leafs. The other properties don't suffer this problem and have shown some success under their reign. The Raptors, while unimpressive for the last couple of months, have done a good job under Brian Colangelo bringing in talent. The team may not be championship caliber right now but they have a lot of pieces and are still pretty young. Toronto FC is in its second season and should be assessed accordingly. However, there is no proof that MLSE is at fault. Much like in basketball and hockey they have shown a willingness to spend to the cap in order to compete. The manager, Mo Johnston, has drafted and traded well and now that he has brought in a real coach, his moves are paying dividends. Ownership groups should be willing to do two things: spend money and hire people who know their sport to run their teams. With the exception of the interference with the Leafs noted above, MLSE has done that.

TTC on Strike

The city of Toronto is minutes away from chaos. This after the union representing Toronto's transit workers rejected, by a 65% margin, the tentative agreement that was signed last weekend. I hold one person responsible for this: Bob Kinnear. If you are going to be the head of a major union, you better damn well know what is going to be acceptable to your membership. This is gross incompetence and the city of Toronto is paying the price. I'm glad I'm not out at a bar tonight relying on the TTC to get me home. Mr. McGuinty, first thing Monday morning, you know what to do: order these people back to work. First thing Tuesday, declare the TTC an essential service so that this union can't hold the people of Toronto hostage ever again.

Race For the Exits: Pennsylvania Edition

Another Democratic primary is in the books. Hillary Clinton has won in Pennsylvania. The margin is not entirely clear. I of course am referring to the delegate margin which is the only thing that actually matters. She has picked up somewhere between 8 to 15 delegates on Obama who entered with a lead of about 140 delegates. In other words a small dent. Clinton should be commended for running a strong campaign, but it should be painfully obvious to everyone that she cannot win. In order to win she has to have more delegates than Obama does at the end of the day. Here are the states and territories that are left and a reasonable prediction of the result:

North Carolina (115 delegates): 62 Obama, 53 Clinton (Obama +9)
Indiana (72 delegates): Clinton 37, Obama 35 (Obama +7)
West Virginia (28 delegates): Clinton 17, Obama 11 (Obama +1)
Kentucky (51 delegates): Clinton 29, Obama 22 (Clinton +6)
Oregon (52 delegates):Obama 30, Clinton 22 (Obama +2)
Puerto Rico (55 delegates):Clinton 33, Obama 22 (Clinton +9)
Guam (4 delegates): Clinton 2, Obama 2 (Clinton +9)
Montana (16 delegates): Obama 10, Clinton 6 (Clinton +5)
South Dakota (15 delegates): Obama 9, Clinton 6 (Clinton +2)

If this scenario plays out, which would be reasonable given the polls and history, Obama's lead would be still in the ballpark of 130 delegates. That would mean she would need 225 of the remaining the 305 super delegates in order to win. That is of course assuming the outstanding superdelegates would be willing to vote against the will of the people at the convention. This is pure fantasy. She is done. She is only prolonging the inevitable. The only possible way she wins is if the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated as is. Florida is a possibility but would only give her a few delegates. Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot, is not going to happen. They may seat the Michigan delegation giving the 40% of undeclared delegates to Obama. Chances are both delegations will be punished for daring to defy the DNC so even if they are seated they will not have full voting rights (perhaps the 50% that the RNC is allowing). In other words, Clinton shouldn't hold her breath waiting on Florida and Michigan.

If Not Now, When?

It is increasingly clear that the Conservative Party is not fit to govern this country. A party which has its offices raided by the RCMP, that threatens the hard work of our men and women in Afghanistan, that believes the solution to economic problems is political bickering, that threatens the environmental future of this county, that disregards basic tenants of our democratic system is not fit to govern. I understand that there is more to election timing than the mistakes of your opponents. However, the polls are looking increasingly positive and an election campaign would focus the voters attention on the mistakes of this government which they might otherwise ignore. We have eighteen months left before this government calls an election based on the fixed election date. I know we talk about how Canadians don't want an election now, but let's think this through. Is there a better time to go to the polls. There are essentially four windows for an election: before July 1, 2008; fall 2008; post-budget 2009; at the appointed time in 2009. Let's consider each option starting with the last one.

Option 1: Just Wait: This would be disastrous. One of Dion's major problems right now is his perception as being a weak leader. If he let's the Tories govern until fall 2009, he will only confirm everyone's suspicions. At that point, the Tories will be able to say, quite legitimately, if we did such a bad job, why didn't you defeat us?

Option 2: Wait for another budget: First of all, pulling the plug on a government that is six months away from its appointed death, looks desperate. Yes, Dion will have used his power but it will look petty. Second, and more importantly at this juncture, what's in the 2009 budget that isn't in this years budget. What is going to be the poison pill that the Canadian people will revolt against. Even if the economy goes down the tubes, the budget won't show the true extent of the damage (see the last pre-election budget delivered by Mr. Flaherty). One of the Tory scandals might have been blown wide open by now but honestly, I doubt it. Mr. Harper has adopted Mr. Chretien's strategy of letting it work through the justice system. The justice system doesn't work on a political clock. It could be well after fall 2009 before any of the scandals are fully resolved. We can't just pray for the election to fall into our lap.

Option 3: Fall 2008: What's the difference between now and five months from now? Is Dion going to win the country over on the barbecue circuit this summer? Are all the Tories' misdeeds going to come to a head in September? Is there some bill that's coming up in the fall that we want to fight an election on? Is the LPCQ going to turn into a well-oiled machine? I don't see anything changing dramatically in the next few months.

Option 4: Now: As I said at the beginning, we can pound Mr. Harper on a whole slate of issues. We could roll out a scandal a day if we wanted to (by the way this would be a disastrously confusing PR move). We can take our pick and just chip away. Let Mr. Dion be relentless in the debates plugging away at Harper's weaknesses. The best argument against an election now, is our disorganization (particularly in Quebec). Some of that disorganization is, quite frankly, going to exist no matter when we go. We are dead in the water in some ridings and will be eighteen months from now. However, the easiest way to get people fighting towards a common goal, is to have a clear and finite goal, like winning an election.

Thus, Mr. Dion and the rest of the Liberal caucus, I implore you, stand up for Canada. Defeat this government.

Side Note: On a personal note, I have finished my BA! Yay! I commence the job hunt in earnest tomorrow. However, I might be able to delay the search a bit if there was an election campaign to work on.

School Closures

Doing the right thing isn't always popular or easy. Just ask the Toronto District School Board. They've started a firestorm by proposing to close some schools that have pitifully low attendance. While it is never easy on a child to change schools and it is never easy for a neighbourhood to lose its school, it is sometimes necessary. The Toronto Star has good coverage here and here. Critics are comparing this to the mean old days of Mike Harris. Here's the critical difference: public consultation. While the TDSB does have a list of schools which are underpopulated, it is not about to go around closing every single one. At least, that's what I hope will come out of the public consultation. Obviously, it would make a lot of sense to close one of two underpopulated schools in an area. It would be disastrous to close both. I also hope that the TDSB takes the long view of things and realizes that certain schools may be underused today, but might not be tomorrow. It will be cheaper in the long run to keep a school going than to try to open one in the future. In the end, a few closed schools will help ease the perennial budget crisis and will help to use taxpayers money more efficiently. However, the margin for error on this is small and no matter what happens, people are going to be justifiably upset. As I said, doing the right thing isn't always easy.

Side Note: Many of the schools being closed house other schools within them. I assume that these schools will be evaluated separately and if possible moved even if there host is closed. For example, I assume Toronto will still need a school for deaf children even if Davisville PS closes. As a product of two different alternative schools(APS and Quest), they have a special place in my heart. I also know that in many cases there is not a correlation between attendance at the alternative school and its host institution. In some cases, alternative schools may underperform and be forced to close themselves. In other cases the host is weak but the alternative school is full. Once again, public consultations should make this clear to the board if they aren't aware of this already.

Andrew Lang for Toronto-Danforth

Last night, in my home riding of Toronto-Danforth, Andrew Lang was nominated as the Liberal Candidate in the next federal election. Regretfully, I am still in Kingston (last exam tomorrow) and was unable to make the nomination meeting last night. However, Andrew Lang has my full support and would have received my vote had I been able to attend last night. Please check out his website or join his Facebook group.

Because No One Can Do Business In This Tax Climate

Ford is ADDING jobs in Oakville. Is that crickets I'm hearing from Mr. Flaherty's office?

Stephen Harper Attacks Property Rights

Stephen Harper has taken a page out of the great depression and blocked the acquisition of a Canadian company by a US company. This sends a clear message to foreign companies looking to do business in Canada: get lost. Now, the Tories are trumpeting this as protecting a valuable Canadian asset. Let's get back to first principles here. In a market economy, private property is, well, private! That means that whoever owns the property can dispose of it as they wish. Harper is undermining the basic tenants of our economy. He is telling Canadians, in this case the owners of MDA, that they cannot make a profit on their hard work and investment. We are telling people who are thinking of setting up business in Canada, that their investments may not be as liquid as they think, depending on the whim of the government. The government has no right to meddle in the affairs of a private corporation unless it breaks the law.

We are not talking about selling nuclear secrets to the enemy here. We are talking about a country that is supposed to be our closest ally. We are not selling anything which affects the lives of average Canadians. We are selling a company that does its business almost exclusively with the United States, to an American firm. How can anyone call this free-spending, income trust taxing, trade blocking government conservative anymore?

Another Immigration Post

Chantal Hébert is at it again. Apparently, no matter what the issue, the Liberals are doomed to failure. Anyway, this time the issue is immigration. Hébert argues that immigration may be the issue of the next election. I agree. However, who a debate on immigration favours is another issue. She cites the Ontario election and the Québec reasonable accommodation hearings as proof that Canada is ready for a new approach to immigration. Okay, let's break this down. First, we are conflating two issues. The Tories have a piece of the budget bill on how people are admitted into this country. That's issue one. The reasonable accommodation committee and religious schools issue are issue two. On issue one, Hébert is right, the system has its problems and Canadians would like to see the process improved. However, this debate is highly technical and bureaucratic and makes for poor stump speeches. Which bureaucrat decides who gets in, is just not a sexy issue. Concerns about political meddling are sexy. A debate on proposals for reform to the immigration application process, while probably necessary, would put the country to sleep. What's more, the parties agree on most points.

On issue two, the question is how do we best integrate immigrants into our society. However, the electorate is not crying for change. Far from it, they are arguing against any changes to the status quo. John Tory's school funding proposal was rejected, not out of Islamophobia as some have claimed, but out of a desire to maintain the system of integration through education which has existed in this country for the last few decades. The reasonable accommodation debate in Québec is pretty much the same thing. The issue is not immigration as a whole or even immigrants in particular. There is an apprehension, unjustified in my opinion, that the most recent wave of immigrants is not fitting in as well as others have in the past. This apprehension is largely a case of xenophobic fear-mongering by some individuals and poor history in regards to previous waves of immigration. What is being debated in Québec and what was debated in Ontario is whether we change our processes of integration. The answer is no. This is what Hébert is missing. Canadians are not demanding change on the second issue, they are demanding a continuation of the status quo. In Ontario, they rejected separate schools. In Québec while the origins of the reasonable accommodations hearings are more sinister and negative, the hearings are still a call for the continuation of the status quo. Thus, while M. Dion may need to propose a solution to the problems regarding entry into Canada, he would be well suited to adopt Dalton McGuinty's position on the question of integration. The system works. Not perfectly, but it works and it is part of what defines us as Canadians. Any improvement to that system can not and should not divide Canadians.

Immigration Debate

I expect blogging to be light over the next couple of weeks as I complete the last remaining assignments and exams standing between me and a bachelors degree. However, I felt obliged to post something on the ongoing immigration debate. First and foremost I think we have to appreciate what a joy it is, that this is the immigration debate we are having. There are very few countries around the world that have such an enlightened on immigration. There are no credible political parties in Canada that want to shut the door to immigrants. A vast majority of Canadians support immigration. That is something we should be proud of as Canadians. I thought the cartoon from The Star at left was a cute illustration of the immigrant experience. However, that does not mean we don't have challenges surrounding immigration.

Frankly, if I were immigration minister this wouldn't be my priority. I am not saying that the waiting list isn't a problem, it is. It's just that I'd try to make the immigrant experience better in Canada first. Now, the two things may not be mutually exclusive, but the Harper government has shown little support (beyond a couple of millions of dollars in their first budget I believe) to helping immigrants integrate into Canadian life. So if you are only going to do one thing on the immigration file it should be helping immigrants who are already here. We need more support for our communities and provinces to finance more extensive ESL programs. We need money for more translation services for new immigrants that have not yet broken through the language barrier. We need to work harder with our professional associations and our universities to make sure that immigrants can find work in the fields they are already trained to work in.

Now, for the issue at hand. Canadians expect there government services to be free from corruption. The best way to prevent political corruption is to separate as much as possible the politicians from the day-to-day operations of the bureaucracy. If there is a backlog in applications, the solution is not to give the minister more power. The solution is to hire more people so that applications can be processed more quickly. Harper has shown no aversion to spending money in his time in office. This is a great way to spend money. It is good for the Canadian economy and more importantly it is good for Canada as a whole. Mr. Harper has correctly identified a problem. He has failed miserably in finding a solution.

Zimbabwe

As the world continues to await the results of the recent presidential results in Zimbabwe, fears grow that run-off would result in violence and more vote rigging. It is time for leaders in Africa to take action. The West has very little legitimacy in Zimbabwe for obvious reasons. However, those problems do not extend to other African states. It is time for the African Union and in particular the political leadership in South Africa to call on Robert Mugabe to release the results of the election, and if the results favour the opposition (as is widely expected) for Mugabe to step down. The people of Zimbabwe deserve a chance to get their country back on track. It is time for their neighbours to give them a hand.

Stephen Harper's Slow Walk Towards Oblivion

Every Liberal in the country should be rejoicing this morning that Stephen Harper is foolish enough to open up the constitution. The last Tory leader to open up the constitution in a time of economic downturn lost all but three seats. So I say if Stephen Harper wants to pursue Brian Mulroney's grand Tory coalition, let him. He will inevitably fail and be crushed by the weight of his own expectations. Here's the basic conundrum. The reason you open up the constitution is to get Quebec to sign on (only an issue in perception). However, if you open up the constitution there are whole bunch of other Canadians that would like to see some changes. Such as...

• Western Canadians. Western Canada has a ridiculously low proportion of senate seats and many there want a triple E senate. Open up the constitution, and real senate reform is on the table.
• Native Canadians. Quebec is a nation? What about our First Nations? Open up the constitution and prepare for a dogfight from native groups. Native rights essentially killed Meech Lake.
  
• The GLBT community. I know, I know, that's not the acronym these days but I can't remember the new one. Anyway, they want sexual orientation in the charter. This isn't as big a problem for the Tories (aren't a lot of gay Tories out there) but it will still be an issue. Could be a huge issue if a premier decides to champion the cause. Say, a premier who has a gay minister of health and a lesbian minister of education. Not saying McGuinty would, but you never know.

Not to mention the millions of Canadians who would like nothing more than to never hear another constitutional debate as long as they live.

Doesn't He Have More Important Things To Do?

This perplexes me. How does the Liberal foreign affairs critic (in a time of war, no less) and election platform guru have time to be reading every notable work of fiction produced in this country in the last year. It would make a lot of sense for Rae was on the Giller committee if he was still outside of politics, but this seems a little rich. Is this traditional or something to have a politician on the committee? I really do like Bob Rae, most of the time. Sometimes, though, I have to question just how committed to his job (this isn't like being a school trustee or something, being MP is a full time job) and the Liberal Party he really is. Either that or we're not prepared to go to the polls until after the Giller is awarded in November. I have to say, I'd prefer he be uncommitted. I suppose there is a third option. This could be a ceremonial post that doesn't involve any reading or judging. In which case, great. However, I think it unlikely.

She Realizes How This Ends, Right?

Clinton has announced that she will fight like Rocky. I know she's in Philly and all but if you are going to make outdated pop-culture references, could you at least make apt outdated pop-culture references. On second thought, I guess it is accurate... she is about to lose, even if she goes fifteen rounds.

By the way, all the April Fool's shenanigans on the blogs this morning made me smile. I have to agree with the consensus that this one takes it.

Green Grumbles

I am having increasing problems calling myself an environmentalist. It is not that I don't believe in fighting climate change and saving our planet. My opinion on that hasn't changed. However, I am increasingly distressed by the rhetoric and tactics employed by what should be my side of the debate. It is not now, nor will it ever be, appropriate to call someone a "climate change denier". While there is not anything technically wrong with the term, the implication is reprehensible. I compare it to calling Barack Obama, Barack Hussein Obama. Yes, technically they are denying that climate change is a reality, and yes, technically his middle name is Hussein. However, the implications of both of those statements are morally wrong. It is wrong to compare climate change to the Holocaust. It is wrong to use a man's name to spread Islamophobia.

I also disagree with the simplification that the fight against climate change can only be successfully waged with certain EU certified tools. Kyoto is a horrible treaty. It will and has made the problem worse. The European Union has done a lot right in fighting climate change. However, most of their "results" are a combination of good carbon luck (the collapse of the Eastern Bloc; temperate climate that doesn't require air conditioning) and coincidence (Margaret Thatcher's war on the coal miners leading to less coal use in Britain). We should not and frankly cannot use the European model here or in the developing world. Yes, we need action on climate change and yes, we need it yesterday. However, this does not justify making hasty and foolish decision. There is always time for good policy.

Finally, as I've been posting this weekend, I am tired of stunts in lieu of real action. Having 100,000 out of over 33,000,000 people turn off their lights for one hour is not a success. If you want to raise awareness, get involved in politics. Write your local representative. Talk to your friends and neighbours. Stunts don't work and they give people a false sense of success. This is a serious issue and its about time we dealt with it seriously. The foot soldiers in the environmental movement are used to being a fringe movement. Frankly, they've employed fringe tactics. We need to convince people this is a little more important than an endangered bird or 'killer' fur (not that I'm opposed to either of those causes). We need to employ the same kind of boring and studious approach we take to tax and fiscal policy. We need to have an honest debate about how to proceed. We need to stop worrying about making the cause cool and spend more time fixing the problem.

Quick Question

So the Earth Hour supporters are trumpeting their success at lowering energy use by about 5% in Ontario (more in Toronto the Green). I wonder if the Earth Hour folks bothered to look at energy use between 9pm and 10pm. Did we see a spike as people came home, turned on their lights, televisions, checked their e-mail etc? In other words, did earth hour reduce energy use or just transfer it to the subsequent hours?

Side Note: Reducing energy use is great. It is particularly great if the energy you use actually contributes to global warming. Many jurisdictions in Canada get their juice from low carbon and no carbon options like nuclear, hydro and wind.

Carbon Tariffs Will Hurt Canada, the Poor

Call this green reality check day or something. So, economists are all excited about the idea of imposing carbon tariffs on goods manufactured in countries with poor environmental records (read China). Canadians shouldn't just reject this idea we should run from it screaming. Let's start at home. Canada has a poor record on the environment. Some of this is our fault. Some of it, frankly, isn't. As everyone knows, Alberta has the world's second largest reserves of oil in the world. Unfortunately, those oil reserves are expensive to attain, both economically and ecologically. This means that barring a major breakthrough in oil sands technology it is going to be more ecologically damaging to get a barrel of oil from Alberta than from other oil producing nations. If the world adopts a carbon tariff system, Alberta will be the loser. If Alberta loses, we all lose. Now I know that the US probably couldn't impose tariffs on Canada under NAFTA (see Jack, it has its perks) but that wouldn't be true of the EU and others. If the Dems down south are serious about renegotiating FTA's the US might be able to sneak this past an unsuspecting Canadian government. I am not willing to gamble the booming Albertan economy on the prospect that some of the manufacturing might come home (no proof for this claim by the way). However, even if you have in for the good people out West, have some sympathy for the world's poor.

We have witnessed in recent weeks how the rise of oil prices has directly impacted the cost of food. People around the world rely on oil (unfortunately) for the pesticides that protect their food, the machines that cultivate their food and the vehicles which bring them their food. Oil goes up, price of food goes up. If oil sands production in Alberta is cut by eco-tariffs and their is no new production elsewhere, the price of oil will go up. If the price of oil goes up, the price of food will go up. This means that people will go hungry. This doesn't even bring into account the hypocrisy of Western governments who are denying other countries their best path to development. Until we can offer countries like China more affordable cleaner technologies, it would be unjust to impose trade sanctions. It would be particularly unjust since we have a global environmental regime that requires nations like China to do nothing to fight climate change. If we are going to confront this crisis we need to do so in cooperation with the developing world, not by engaging in a Pyrrhic trade war.

Earth Hour

I don't get this. I just don't understand it in the least. People turning off their lights for an hour is not going to help stop climate change. Let's be clear on this. What we need is for people to adjust their habits on a DAILY basis. We need people to use their cars less, to use energy less. However, a stunt like this does no more than Live Earth did last summer. It is a stunt, nothing more. Does it raise awareness? If you aren't aware of this at this point, you are living in a cave. What we lack is any sort of agreement on how to deal with this problem in a way that will actually work. This is true both nationally and internationally. Kyoto is dead and dead for a very good reason. Let's stop patting ourselves on the back for stunts and get down to work.

Plus Ca Change...

It appears fratricide is back in vogue in Quebec. I don't have a lot of patience for stuff like thus. We elected Stephane Dion leader of the Liberal Party of Canada less than a year and a half ago in an open and democratic process. Now, admittedly not everyone agreed as to who the best man for the job was. However, I thought we agreed what the job was. When the Liberal Party elects a leader they are looking for many things. They are looking for someone who shares their vision of Canada. Someone who would as Prime Minister advance the issues and ideas that have drawn us to politics. We are looking someone who can win a general election. Stephane Dion has not had the opportunity to do any of these things. To call for a leader's resignation before he has run a single national campaign is absurd. It is akin to firing a coach during pre-season. Yes, we have lost some by-elections. Yes, Stephane Dion and his Quebec team are partially responsible for at least one of those losses. However, by-elections are not elections. Just ask Dalton McGuinty. The Premier saw his party lose by-election after by-election between the 2003 and 2007 general elections. Did that have any predictive value? No. McGuinty won the 2007 election and won it easily. By-elections are strange beasts. I cannot say that I am thrilled with all of the decisions M. Dion has made. I have criticized him on this blog and elsewhere. However, he is the leader of the party and until there is a general election that should not be in question.

The Buzz About Buzz

There is a rumour out there that Buzz Hargrove is considering running for the Liberals in my home riding of Toronto-Danforth. First, I really don't believe it. I find it highly unlikely that Hargrove would want to run for the Liberals in a riding like Toronto-Danforth. The NDP wins in Toronto-Danforth by appealing to champagne socialists not Rosie Riveter. There are just not that many CAW workers in the riding. While Hargrove may not be as unpopular as Sid Ryan, the CUPE head and perennial NDP candidate in Oshawa, there is no proof that he is adored by the general public. On a more personal note, let me say this. If he runs in what is now an open nomination contest, I won't vote for him. If he is appointed by M. Dion, I won't work for him. There are plenty of contests that could use an extra volunteer (Gerard Kennedy's run against Peggy Nash comes to mind) and I'm sure Buzz will get along without me. I want Jack Layton out as much as the next Grit, perhaps more, but I don't want to send another NDPer up to Ottawa in his place.

Whatever Happened to Democratic Renewal

Anyone who read this blog during the Ontario election knows that I am no fan of electoral reform or more accurately electoral reform when it is synonymous with some system of proportional representation. However, that does not mean we don't have to take efforts to restore interest in the democratic process. Something has changed in this country. Okay, a lot of things have changed in this country, but something has made people decide that voting isn't important. When a centre-left newspaper is publishing editorials like this, it is time to reinvest in citizenship. What does that mean? Well, here's one way to do it. Here are some ways to get more attractive candidates. However, beyond my ideas, I think this is a discussion we need to be having. The only thing I'm not willing to listen to is that the only constant in the last 50 years, our electoral system, is responsible for the decline in participation.

I'm Worried About Jim Flaherty

The Minister of Finance up on Parliament Hill seems a tad confused these days. It seems he still thinks he works at Queen's Park. How else to explain his pre-occupation with a provincial budget as his own budget is under intense scrutiny up on the hill? I guess he's trying to fill the leadership void the Tories are facing at Queen's Park. You know what leadership is to me John Tory? Letting your former leadership rival who's no longer in your caucus do your job for you. That's leadership. Oh and Mr. Flaherty which of the following factors is hurting manufacturing in Ontario today the most?

1. The downturn in the US economy
2. The consistent and steady decline of the Big Three auto manufacturers
3. The infrastructure deficit which afflicts Toronto and other major cities
4. The rise of newly industrialized economies such as China
   
5. Corporate tax rates which are a smidge higher than some other jurisdictions
6. Aliens

If you said number five or six, you need your head examined. Tax cuts are not a panacea Mr. Flaherty. Ontario is a competitive jurisdiction. That's why companies like Toyota are building manufacturing plants here. However, no matter how competitive the taxes, in bad economic times people don't tend to open factories.

Let the Madness Begin

You don't have to be an American or even a sports fan to understand the allure of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Tip-off is in about 10 minutes, hope you've got your brackets done!

Obama Nails It

Anyone who hasn't seen the Obama speech this morning needs to. I have never seen a politician be so honest about racism. This kind of honesty is usually limited to quiet private conversations and comedians. This is an unbelievably bold speech. He may have either won or lost the presidency today depending on the reaction.

Don't Appoint Candidates

That's the message loud and clear tonight. Now, Cherniak's out ahead of this one saying that Martha was appointed in Willowdale. That is technically correct but the appointment was preemptive and popular within the riding association. Martha probably could have won an open nomination race, the appointment just made things easier. Saskatchewan's a different kettle of fish. There was a very popular candidate out there. In all likelihood, in a democratic race Joan Beatty wouldn't have been the nominee. By-elections are all about local politics and the ability of the individual to represent the constituency in Ottawa. A nomination race gives the illusion at very least of a grassroots candidate. An appointed candidate gives the impression that he or she will represent Ottawa to the riding instead of the other way around. Beyond the loss tonight, the nomination battle in Saskatchewan has placed one of our best organizers in that province, David Orchard, outside of our big tent. There is no reason to appoint a candidate for a nomination. If a candidate can't win a nomination battle, they are unlikely to do well in a competitive election. Democracy starts at home.

Obama for President

After months of deliberation, I have decided to throw the entire weight of this blog (about 1g) behind Barack Obama. Why Obama? One word. No, not hope. Policy. Obama is the candidate with the best ideas to lead America forward. Let's go through some of the highlights.

• Obama is the only candidate who has been right on Iraq since day one. While it shouldn't matter whether or not you supported the war, it is a lot easier to advocate withdrawal if you have a consistent position. It is always best to be able to draw a clear distinction between you and your opponent. Hillary Clinton can't do that. Obama can.
• Obama has by far the best policies on education. Hillary's are similar but are filled with one line throw aways like "Cut the minority dropout rate in half." How? I don't know. I don't think she knows. Obama's policies are actually explained. He also has a better program for making college affordable. He opposes the focus on standardized testing. He also includes teachers in his policy, something noticeably absent from Hillary's plan.
• Obama has the most feasible health care policy. Clinton has criticized Obama for not going far enough with his health care policy. Hillary's may be closer to the ideal, but it will never happen. There is a sliver of a chance that Obama could make his health care proposal a reality. I will take the realist over the idealist on this one.

Beyond policy, Obama is also by far the more electable candidate. He also has inspired young people to vote for the first time in a generation. There are some who claim that Obama's ability to mobilize is attributable to his successful use of the internet. I disagree. The internet is a great fundraising tool. It has been fairly unsuccessful as a mobilizing agent. Howard Dean was the first American candidate to really use the internet but his campaign couldn't mobilize anyone. Ron Paul has dominated the internet campaign in 2008 but has been able to get only about 5% of the Republican vote. Obama has connected to people in a way no other candidate has. He has used the internet, but that is not the only reason for his success. He has been effective at talking to people in a way that gets them excited.

Side note: Class has played a strange role in this campaign. Obama has won, according to exit polls, among upper income Americans. However, Obama has also won some of the poorest states in the union (MS, AL, SC, ID) while Clinton has won a lot of the wealthier states (CT, NY, NJ). I have no clue what this means. I just thought I'd point it out.

By-Election Fever

The blogosphere seems to have been hit with a case of by-election fever. Why? I'm not really sure. The most compelling race out there is the one (SK) that no one is covering. If Bob Rae or Martha Hall Findlay don't win it's a disaster. Joyce Murray losing would be equally disastrous considering we've won that riding the last two times out. The last won might be a toss-up. However, Saskatchewan is a province that Liberals need to do well in if we are going to retake government. The natives (and non-natives) are restless on the prairie, just ask Lorne Calvert. Federal angst is compounded over Conservative plans for the Wheat Board (compulsory I know nothing about the wheat board parenthetical) The Liberals have a chance to tap into that natural gas induced unease. Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is a swing riding. We need to win in swing ridings in order to get back into government. Is a loss there disastrous? No. However, it won't bode well for our ability to form a government in the next election.

Spitzer and Ferraro

I figure I should probably add my two cents to the Spitzer story. This is at the end of the day about a man making a horribly stupid mistake. A mistake that hurt his career and more importantly his family. People have already noted that this will cost Hillary at least one delegate in Denver, such is the state of American politics these days.

More important than Spitzer's traveling penis is Geraldine Ferraro's mouth. Ferraro got into hot water after a California paper printed some unbelievably racist comments she made about Obama. If you haven't seen Keith Olbermann's comment on this affair, here it is. Olbermann is great at being self-righteous and this is him at his zenith. However, if you go past the rhetoric, as is so often the case, Olbermann is right. Ferraro's comment's are despicable. Clinton's response is inexcusable.

Loyalty

Jason Cherniak has started a bit of a sh*tstorm with this post. Now, I have a lot of time for Cherniak. I think he has made and continues to make an enormous contribution to the success of the Liberal Party. However, I have two major issues with his post. First, I blog as a Canadian. I blog as a Torontonian. I very rarely blog as a Liberal. Yes, I am a card carrying member of both the Liberal Party of Canada and the Ontario Liberal Party. Yes, this blog appears on the Liblogs blog roll. However, this blog is about my opinion, not the party line. I make an attempt, when I blog, to contribute to the debate on issues of import to the country. If you want to know what the party line is on a given issue, there is a link on the sidebar to LPC, check it out. The Liberal Party doesn't pay me to blog. I owe them nothing. Second, even when I do blog as a Liberal, I still think it appropriate to criticize the party line when I disagree. The Liberal Party is most effective when it is a big tent. The Liberal Party at its best is not bound by ideology (like the NDP) or rigidly controlled from the leader's office (like the Conservatives). We are a party that actively debates the issues and from that active debate decides upon the best course of action. If we cease to engage in debate, we lose something that is central to our party. I don't think we can criticize Harper for being controlling and not allowing dissent unless we encourage debate in our own party. I will work hard to ensure the Liberals win the next election. My loyalty, however, will always be to myself and to my country.

Now, as for the question of whether or not these internal debates weaken our image in the eyes of the media and the general public, I cannot be sure. I don't believe the media get their view of a fractured Liberal Party from the blogosphere. I think it comes from stuff like the nonsense that was alleged to have happened during the Outremont by-election. I think it comes from certain high officials criticizing the leader in general instead of on a certain decision. I think Stephane Dion is criticized for his inaction not because other Liberals want to go, but because he himself seems to want to go. It is inconsistent for a leader to decry the actions of a government as being harmful to the future of the country and assert, as he and Bob Rae did on Hamilton on the weekend, that he alone has the power to control the timing of the next election, and then not bring down the government. If the government is destroying our country, then we need an election. If M. Dion doesn't want an election, fine. Then let's work with the Tories on the budget to try to find some middle ground. Let's drop the fire and brimstone rhetoric. If this government is terrible, M. Dion should be able as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada to convince the Canadian people of this fact and win an election. If the government is bad but workable, let's make it work. M. Dion could demonstrate leadership by working for a better compromise. He has shown that he is capable of this. He did it on Afghanistan. The Tory attacks are only effective if Dion is not demonstrating leadership. Abstaining on everything is not demonstrating leadership.

Mississippi

Barack Obama has won the Mississippi primary by a predictably large margin. A couple of things stand out from the exit polls. First, this appears to be one of the most racially divided primaries to date. Barack Obama has been consistently beating Hillary Clinton by wide margins among African Americans. However, he has also been doing fairly well among white voters in most states. In Mississippi, by wide margins, whites voted for Clinton and Blacks voted for Obama. This is a disturbing trend for Obama. Also troublesome for Obama is that in Mississippi's open primary (anyone can vote for either party) Republicans broke for Clinton. Now, the Clinton campaign will probably spin this as Clinton reaching out across the aisle to Republican voters. I don't buy that argument. I think what you are seeing is an attempt by Republican voters to extend the Democratic race as long as possible. Clinton is behind. The more delegates she can win, the longer she can stay in the race, the easier it becomes for John McCain. It is a trend worth looking out for in the future.

Monday Thoughts

Some non-OYL related thoughts on the weekend:

• Obama won convincingly in Wyoming. It won't mean much in terms of the delegate count but it does stop any talk of Clinton momentum coming out of Texas and Ohio.
• The Democrats would be wise to redo in some fashion the primaries in Florida and Michigan. There's well over a month until April 22nd and the Pennsylvania primary. Surely, they could get a race together by then.
• A big win for the Democrats in a special congressional election. The dems took the seat previously held by Republican speaker Dennis Hastert. If the Republicans can't win in southern Illinois, they are in big trouble.
• Looks like Obama may come out of Texas with more delegates than Clinton.
• Okay, so this is sort of OYL related. The message from both Stéphane Dion and Bob Rae over the weekend was that the Liberals have the power to call the election and will use that power. I have no clue what that means in terms of election timing.
• Layton appearing on Lou Dobbs is hilarious. If the NDP wants to refight the 1988 Election, we should be happy to let them at it.
• We are a couple of weeks away from the start of the Toronto FC season. Come on you reds!

The Battle on the Mountain

The OYL AGM is in the books and it was one to remember. A fierce, if civilized, contest between two teams ended in a mixed bag result. The two teams squabbled over approaches to the senior party and the rules for the creation of new clubs among other things. In the end, OYL Beyond (led by incumbent president Jacob Mksyartinian) took the big jobs while OYL Roots (led by incumbent Eastern Region coordinator Mary-Rose Brown) took the most spots. The breakdown is as follows:

President: Jacob Mksyartinian (Beyond)
Executive Vice-President: Kayla Lewis (Beyond)
Vice-President Federal: Elyse Banham (Roots)
Vice-President Provincial: Joanna Murrell (Roots)
Treasurer: Ryan Singh (Beyond)
Communications Director: Zac Spicer (Roots)
Policy Director: Chris Drew (Roots)
Recruitment Director: Laura Wiesen (Beyond)
Riding Director: Terry Chemij (Roots)
Student Director: Magda Dronicki (Roots)
Toronto Region: Jonathan Tsao (Beyond)
Central Region: Jonathan Pinto (Roots)
South-Central Region: Deep Chawla (Roots)
Southwest Region: Mandy van Waes (Roots)
Eastern Region: Krista Balsom (Roots)
Northern Region: Joey Montpelier (Roots)

Some quick analysis:

• Three of the top four races were razor thin. Mksyartinian and Murrell reportedly won by less than 20 votes while Banham cruised to victory by a single vote.
• Brown (Presidential candidate, Roots) may have been hurt by her sponsoring of an unpopular (and eventually defeated) amendment on gender parity. The top-down nature of the amendment didn't mix well with the Roots team's grassroots message. Brown was not only one of the chief defenders of the amendment in the morning's constitutional debate, but also repeated her support for the amendment in the presidential debate. Considering the margin, this may have been key.
• The most distressing part of the result for Beyond has to be the regional coordinators. Toronto voted in large numbers (the lines were ridiculously long for Toronto delegates and non-existent for everyone else) so the other races were close. However, without regional coordinators the prospect for the Beyond team's future success diminishes dramatically.
• The Queen's University Liberal Association (QULA) leaves a little bruised as all three Queen's candidates on the Beyond team went down to defeat. Sam Yorke was defeated for VP Provincial, Radey Barrack lost out for Communications Director and Samantha Smitiuch was beaten in Eastern Region.
• One of the biggest issues of the convention, the failure of the outgoing executive to ratify 14 new clubs in time for the AGM, is already solved. The passed constitutional amendment will force the executive to meet at least forty days before the next AGM in order to ratify new clubs.
• In spite of the extremely tight race, there were no recounts. While delegates today were happy to finally have results after a 90 minute wait this afternoon, the fact that a one-vote margin didn't trigger an automatic recount is a little disturbing. There was no recount apparently because the teams agreed, before the final tally, to forgo any recounts. A constitutional provision for a recount would not be an unwarranted proposal at next year's AGM.
  

The biggest message from this weekend has to be that the OYL has to unite or risk an all out civil war. The presidential debate on Saturday was at times tense with supporters from both teams drowning out their opponent. The split result and the closeness of most of the races means that the delegates were fairly evenly spit. Mksyartinian has got to find a way for this executive to work effectively under his leadership. Likewise, the Roots members that make up a majority of the executive must be willing to work with their President. Otherwise, a very successful AGM (high turnout and enthusiasm) may turn into an unsuccessful year.

Old Tricks

That's what the folks at Fair Vote Canada are up to these days. Seems they don't like Ed Stelmach getting a stable governable majority. Why? Well, it doesn't represent the "popular vote". Unfortunately, the popular vote is about as real as the Easter Bunny. So, here, for free, another civics lesson for the folks over at fair vote. Here's how the Single Member Plurality system that is currently in place works:

In every riding in the province candidates ran for election. Some (okay, most of these candidates) sought the endorsement of a non-democratic institution called a political party. Political Parties are big powerful interest groups that have a large influence on democratic results. One representation of this power is that many jurisdictions print the party's name under the candidate's on a given ballot for the purposes of simplicity and transparency. However, they are not being elected; their nominated candidates are. In each of Alberta's 83 electoral districts people went to the poll and they voted for which of the CANDIDATES on the ballot would best represent the people of that riding in Edmonton. Now, granted ONE of the considerations when deciding on which candidate to elect is which party they belong to. However, things like name recognition, view of the candidate (ie did you like them when they were at your door), candidate's position on local and provincial issues, etc. also factor into the decision. After each voter in each electoral district had made this calculus the votes were counted. In SMP votes are counted as follows.

1. Votes at each polling station are separated by candidate into piles and tabulated.
2. The results from all the polls are added together.
3. The candidate with the most votes (or a "plurality") is declared the winner and becomes the elected MLA for the riding.

Once a winner in each riding is declared, the elected members are sorted out. The Lieutenant Governor then makes a calculation: who is most capable of governing the province? That person he names Premier. He does this most easily by looking at which political party the elected candidates ran for in the election. In this case, 72 of the 83 delegates were endorsed by the Progressive Conservative Party. Thus, the Lieutenant Governor will ask the leader of that party, Ed Stelmach, to be Premier of Alberta. That's it.

Where does the popular vote fit into all this you ask? Well, it doesn't. At no time were Albertans asked which party they wished to govern the province. They were asked one question and one question only: Which of the candidates would best represent your riding in Edmonton? That's it. That's the question SMP answers, and it answers it well. If you want to ask the electorate a different question, fine. However, don't expect SMP to provide the answer to a question it doesn't ask.

Clinton's Big Night

Hillary Clinton is back... sort of. She has won the Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas primaries. Barack Obama won the Vermont primary and is leading the Texas Caucuses which are still reporting results. Texas is likely to be a wash in terms of delegates. Clinton's primary victory gave her exactly four more delegates than Obama. This is because delegates are elected by a sort of Multi-Member Plurality version of PR. Her win in Ohio gives her a twelve delegate edge. She picked up five more in Rhode Island. So, all those wins last night gave her 21 more delegates than Obama. Subtract the result from Vermont, you're down to an 18 delegate edge before the Texas caucus results come in. Obama had a much bigger win in the so-called Potomac Primaries a while back (about 45 delegates over Clinton). However, the media will play this as a big win. The perception will be larger than reality. Having said that these good times are unlikely to roll for Clinton as the road ahead gets bumpy from here to Pennsylvania. Obama is likely to win by sizeable margins in Wyoming this weekend and Mississippi next week. This is still Obama's race to lose. All Clinton did last night was to give herself another day to fight on.

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.