Lang Slams Layton Over Debate Decision

From the Andrew Lang for Toronto-Danforth Campaign:

LAYTON’S OPPOSITION SHUTS GREEN PARTY OUT OF DEBATE
Toronto-Danforth Liberal Candidate Andrew Lang calls 
Layton’s decision disappointing

September 8, 2008 – Toronto-Danforth Member of Parliament Jack Layton denied Elizabeth May and the Green Party the opportunity to participate in the televised leader’s debate today, according to local Liberal candidate Andrew Lang.

“Jack Layton spends a lot of time talking about giving a voice to people who don’t have one,” said Lang. “And so I find his decision to silence Elizabeth May disappointing, although not altogether surprising. Jack Layton showed the same disregard for debate and dialogue when he refused to participate in a local debate in this riding in the last election.”

Recent polls put Green Party support across the country around 10%, and in by-elections held in early 2008, the Green Party finished neck-and-neck with the NDP in several ridings, including Willowdale, where the Greens finished ahead of the New Democratic candidate.

The NDP, along with the Conservatives and the Bloc, opposed May’s inclusion in the October 2 debate, announced today. The Liberal Party supported her participation.

- 30 -

For more information:
Andrew Lang Campaign
media@andrewlang.ca

The Message Track We're Not On

As Campaign 2008 kicks off, I expect my blogging to be light. My time will be spent helping to elect Andrew Lang as the next Member of Parliament for the great riding of Toronto-Danforth. However, I do want to throw an idea out into the blogosphere. Stephane Dion is saying that he wants the opportunity during this campaign to define himself after enduring two years of Conservative attacks. His tactic seems to be to portray himself as a lean green fighting machine. All well and good, but I think we can do better. Stephane Dion is a Canadian hero and we should not be afraid to remind voters of his heroism.

Stephen Harper rightly says that we are facing turbulent times ahead. I would argue that if you want an example of leadership in crisis, look no further than Stephane Dion. When our country faced, perhaps, its greatest crisis during the 1995 Referendum and its aftermath, M. Dion showed extraordinary courage and heroism. During the referendum, M. Dion went toe to toe with Lucien Bouchard and held his own. Something all the pundits said couldn't be done. After the referendum, Stephane Dion ensured that our country would never again face the issue of national unity without clear rules and regulations. M. Dion is a hero. He put his personal reputation, his name, on the line for his country. It is that Stephane Dion that will be a great Prime Minister. We can talk policy until we're hoarse and get nowhere. Or we can talk about the character of the man who we believe should be Prime Minister.

The Front Bench Empties

The Conservatives are facing a slew of retirements as we enter into a federal election. I get Emerson and Hearn. They're older and they've got battles for re-election. Well a battle for Hearn with Harper's unpopularity on the Rock, an impossible dream for Emerson. However, Solberg is a bit of a head scratcher. Apparently, he's got a job offer he just couldn't turn down, which was my suspicion when I heard the news. I mean the man is turning fifty in a couple of weeks making him a spring chicken by parliamentary standards. He's in one of the safest ridings in the country where he is personally extraordinarily popular. I have to think that Solberg has decided to cash in and make some money. Frankly, I don't blame him. The man got elected at 35, he's served his country for fifteen years, he's entitled to want to make a little more money and spend some time at home. The only reason it surprises me is that I would have put him on a short list to replace Stephen Harper. Then again, maybe he's going into the private sector to build up a war chest for a future leadership race, who knows. I do know that Harper just lost two of the better members of his "team" in Solberg and Emerson.

Palin Problems

McCain's VP picks increasingly looks to be the 2008 answer to Dan Quayle. There are a growing list of problems for Gov. Palin. First and foremost, her 17 year old daughter is five months pregnant. Why is this a problem? Well, if the goal is to appeal to working class women, particularly mothers, how is this story going to play. How many mothers would think it appropriate to throw their 17 year old pregnant daughter into the national spotlight? How many mothers would think it appropriate to be moving halfway across the planet (check out the distance from Washington to Alaska) at this time of personal upheaval? This is the kind of thing that politicians (of any gender) might leave politics to deal with, not try to climb the ladder. Obama is right to say that the Palin family is not up for political discussion. However, if Gov. Palin is being picked in large measure for her values, for her personal qualities as a human being, it is entirely fair to question a potential vice-president's judgment in a time of personal crisis. Further muddying Palin's judgment is the trooper-gate affair. Once again, the central actors in the story are almost irrelevant. Whether or not Palin's former brother-in-law is an abusive husband and father is almost irrelevant. No matter how dispicable her brother-in-law is, the Governor was in a clear conflict of interest and should have recused herself and her office from any involvement in the case. The fact that she may have taken steps to have her brother-in-law fired and subsequently fired a bureaucrat who defied her wishes is at issue. The allegations, if true, would further cast doubt on Palin's judgment. Even if we throw Palin's experience or lack thereof out the window, her lack of judgment should disqualify her from the office that she seeks.

Tick, Tick, Tick

So, we all know when the election is going to be. We all know how its going to happen. Can we just get this show on the road?

Disgraceful

Scott and David have the details. The news out of Guelph today is that some asshole or assholes (pardon my french but I call a spade, a spade) have vandalized property and gone so far as to cut break lines at cars parked in front of homes with Frank Valeriote signs. Kudos to all four candidates in Guelph for decrying this kind of criminal behaviour (Scott's got the press release). This is a direct assault on our democracy and I hope these criminals are caught and punished to the full extent of the law. This kind of shit makes me sick.

McCain-Palin... Odd Couple 08

To the shock of the chattering classes, John McCain has chosen Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) to be his running mate. Quick run down of the positives and negatives:

Positives: She is in lock step with his base on almost every issue. That's something McCain desperately needed. She's a woman. This fits with McCain's overt attempt to lure Hillary supporters. Note that the two democrats she mentioned in her remarks were Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton not Barack Obama and Joe Biden. She's not from Washington. She has some maverick credentials. She probably takes Alaska off the map. She might help in Montana, the Dakotas and Colorado with her NRA membership. Working class roots.

Negatives: She has less than two years experience in even state-wide elected office. Yes, she has more executive experience than Obama-Biden, but she also has more than McCain. For a 72 year old candidate with a medical history longer than my arm to be choosing someone this green is a little worrisome. What exactly are her foreign policy credentials aside from having a son shipping off to war? She's under investigation for firing a bureaucrat for failing to fire her brother-in-law who was divorcing her sister. It may have been a staffer acting without her knowledge but it smells to high heaven. In a year where the Alaska Republican party is disentegrating before our eyes (Sen. Stevens (R-AK), Rep. Young (R-AK)), do you really want to be reminding people about bridges to nowhere? Based on today's introduction she's not going to wow anyone with her speaking skills which makes both halves of the Republican ticket.

I get what McCain was thinking with this pick. However, I would have gone with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) if the criteria were conservative and female. What really would concern me if I were John McCain is it makes this election at least partially about the Republican ticket. McCain has made some progress in the polls making this election about the Democratic ticket. I don't think the Republicans necessarily want the spotlight.

I Can Use History Too!

"We bless your simplicity but do not envy your folly"
- Thucydides

Tom Flanagan has decided that Stephen Harper is channeling Scipio Africanus in his fight against Stephane Dion. While Mr. Flanagan's comparison seems apt, let me use another historical battle to show how easy it is to get history on your side. My story takes place in Greece and it is a war between a rich and expanding power and an old out-dated army. My historical narrative is the Peloponnesian War. Athens, having rallied much of Greece to its banner through the Delian league, was rich and had the most powerful navy in the world (read the Conservative Party of Canada). They were led by highly regarded leaders who were thought to be far smarter than their opponents like Pericles (read Stephen Harper). Sparta was an isolated city-state that relied on its powerful army for its defense (read the Liberal Party of Canada). The Athenians, in their arrogance, decided to attack the Peloponnesus (read Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal) in the hopes of defeating Sparta once and for all. Starting to sound like someone you know? The Athenians thought that they would rout the Spartans and indeed early naval battles went distinctly their way (by-elections anyone?). However, that's when the Athenians got greedy. They decided that waging war with Sparta wasn't enough, they decided to attack their long time adversaries in Syracuse as well (read the Bloc Quebecois). With their navy (or advertising dollars) tied up in Syracuse (Quebec) the Athenians began losing battle after battle in Greece (Ontario and the rest of Canada). Eventually, the Spartans were able to rout the Athenians in spite of all the advantages that Athens seemed to have at the beginning of the war. So you see boys and girls, history tells us that the arrogant Tories are destined to fail miserably in this election. Isn't classical history fun?

Right Wing Misses Symbolism

Well, it shouldn't be surprising that people who hate arts and culture wouldn't understand the idea of symbolism. The right wing blogosphere is up in arms because they think Barack Obama is giving his speech in front of a mock-up of a Greek temple. That isn't quite the imagery he's going for. If you were, you know, thinking and not just angrily reacting you would realize that Barack Obama is delivering his speech on the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech. Logically, they aren't a constructing a temple to their new god, they are reconstructing a temple to a REPUBLICAN president, namely Abraham Lincoln. The Lincoln Memorial, of course, being the site of Dr. King's famous speech. It doesn't matter whether or not the pillars are in a straight line or not. They're on an angle because its a stage, not an actual building. Greek temples had their pillars in a straight line too. The image they are going for is at left. It is wholly appropriate for the first African-American nominee of a major political party to honour Dr. King on the anniversary of his famous speech. It is also wholly appropriate to honour the president who ended slavery in the United States. Apparently, the right wing can't see this. Yes folks, the Republicans now see fit to attack the Lincoln Memorial.

A Nuclear Power In Crisis And Nobody Cares

It never ceases to amaze me what is deemed newsworthy and what isn't. Pakistan has been in full crisis mode ever since its Gen. Pervez Musharraf resigned. Is it getting any press in North America? I understand not covering the delightful dismemberment of Belgium. After all, who cares about Belgium? Pakistan is not so easily ignored. Lest we forget, Pakistan is a full fledged member of then nuclear club. It is also a critical ally in the war on terror. The direction which the country takes following its presidential elections are crucial not only in southern and central Asia but around the world. But who cares about that when we can spend hours dissecting Hillary's speech for any hint of bitterness. God help us all.

On Your Mark...

I am back from Guelph where I spent the weekend working on the Frank Valeriote by-election campaign. Or what we all believed to be a by-election campaign. It is becoming increasingly clear that a fall election is in the cards and the writ could very well be dropped in the next couple of weeks. I can only guess that Harper is not hearing good things from his by-election campaigns. I would have thought that Harper would have wanted to use any positive by-election result, even a close second, as momentum going into a general election. If, as is generally being discussed by the chattering classes, Harper is prepared to go before the three by-election results on September 8th, it means that Harper sees no benefit (I don't think he's looking to save some money here) to having those votes go ahead as planned.

Quick Thoughts

Having to get up before God to prepare for the first visit of a Liberal leader to Toronto-Danforth in God knows how long, I'm just going to ramble a bit tonight.

• First and foremost, by the time this is actually posted, Stephane Dion will be speaking at Cinespace Studios in Toronto. It's great to have the leader in the riding and I'm sure it will be a resounding success.
• I was at the Rob Oliphant event today in Don Valley West. I didn't actually hear the speeches (I was at the back in order to go out with Rob and M. Dion on Bayview afterwards), so I won't comment on that. It was a good crowd. Good energy. With the number of experience hands stearing the Oliphant ship, I am cautiously optimistic.
  
• Are we ready to start placing bets as to the start of the general election yet?
• Great to see Eric Lamaze win the gold today.
• Whenever we go to the polls, it's going to be economic policy front and centre.
• Hebron is finally all set to start up. More money us mainlanders will never see a penny of.
• I was visiting relatives in Don Valley West and picked up a piece put out by the Tory by-election campaign. Traditionally, first pieces tend to introduce your candidate. This piece barely mentioned the candidate. If it wasn't for the small print indicating who paid for the thing, John Carmichael's name would not have appeared once on the piece. The piece did talk about all the nice things Harper's done for Toronto. Included in the list was talk about spending on the arts... in the week Harper cut the arts budget by $44.5 million. The rest of the list was pennies here and there. Mostly stuff that previous governments had committed to.

Blogging will in all likelihood be slow this weekend as I head off to Guelph again to campaign for Frank Valeriotte.

Con-ned!

With apologies to Keith Olbermann a quick update into the government's fifty running scandals... Con-ned!

Number 3: What do Doctors Know About Medicine-Gate

Tony "landslide" Clement has been one of Harper's better cabinet ministers. Yes, the pool is that weak folks. Well, that was until he started arguing medical facts... with doctors! Mr. Clement you're not a doctor, you don't even play one on TV!

Number 2: And By Fixed He Means Completely Unfixed-Gate

Stephen Harper as I've already noted called a by-election in Don Valley West for September 22nd. This of course forces Elections Canada to run at tax-payers expense a returning office for the period of the by-election writ. Well, with Harper openly speculating about pulling the plug on the government before the by-election, Elections Canada may be running a returning office, printing ballots and accepting votes for NOTHING. It it were to happen, no amount of electoral reform would get the wasted votes back.

Number 1: China Totally Won't Be Important-Gate

As Jean Chretien has rightly pointed out, Stephen Harper's decision to avoid the opening ceremonies in Beijing may cause irreparable damage to what has been a strong relationship between Canada and China. Harper really can't say he was too busy. Heck, Putin made it and he was busy starting a war! China's coming out party and our Prime Minister stays home. I have no problem sending Emerson. He might even be the right man for the job. Still, the optics dictate that the PM make an appearance. I hope the economy can be supported as well on the moral high ground as it could by having a robust trading relationship with one of the world's largest economies.

And On the Seventh Day...

The Prime Minister called a by-election? Anyone know if this has been done before? I've heard of burying a bad news story on a Friday afternoon but Sunday? Apparently, this couldn't wait until Monday Morning. Anyone know the schedule for the vote on the throne speech/opposition days when the house returns? Maybe the PM wanted to make sure the election day was before the house fell? I'm just flummoxed by this one. With a fall election imminent and with the ink barely dry on Mr. Godfrey's resignation was it really necessary to spend taxpayers' money on a by-election? Loyal readers will know that I am big on local representation but Mr. Harper waited the maximum to call elections in Toronto-Centre and Willowdale, what makes DVW so different? Is he trying to take resources away from the Liberals and the NDP in Guelph? At any rate, I look forward to helping elect Rob Oliphant as the next member for Don Valley West. Just a reminder, we still have three by-elections going on in Guelph, Westmount-Ville-Marie and Saint-Lambert. Election day for the first three is September 8th. Election day in Don Valley West is September 22nd.

Harper's New Gambit

Stephen Harper has once again indicated a willingness to break a key policy plank. It's another plank that was supposedly based in his Reform Party roots. Yes, Harper has decided that if he can't goad Stephane Dion into a fall election, he'll call one himself. So why the flip-flop? The most obvious reason is that Harper is trying to learn from his predecessor at 24 Sussex and call the election before a massive scandal (namely, "In and Out" - contrary to what the media and the CPC may have you believe money laundering is frowned upon in this country) discredits his party to all Canadians. By dissolving parliament he breaks up that annoying ethics committee and prays that the wheels of justice move slowly so that his lawsuit against Elections Canada lasts through the writ period. In otherwords, namely his own, Mr. Harper is calling a "snap election for short-term political advantage." Exactly what he said he was putting a stop to when he passed the fixed election date legislation. Well, I guess not all of us are good at keeping promises. Seriously though, what is left of the old Reform agenda? Senate reform? Meet Michael Fortier. No more pandering to Quebec? Nation resolution, UNESCO, the list goes on. Fixed election dates? If he feels like it. Balanced Budgets? Not once they run out of assets to sell. Come on Alberta, how much longer is it going to take before you realize that this guy is more Brian Mulroney than Preston Manning?

So with all signs pointing to a fall election, what is the Tory strategy? Well, radio ads put out by the Tory candidate in the probably never going to be called by-election in Don Valley West may provide a hint. The ads, which are supposedly targeting the people of Don Valley West, talk almost exclusively about M. Dion, his leadership and The Green Shift. The line is clearly that it doesn't matter if you like your local Liberal candidate, this is about who you want in the Prime Minister's chair. Mr. Harper et al. are clearly reading the same polls as everyone else and are trying to make this vote about M. Dion's leadership (where he is weaker) instead of about the Liberal brand and the Liberal team (where we are stronger). Will it work? Who knows, but one can certainly see the wisdom in that line of attack.

Layton Promises What Liberals Have Already Delivered

Jack Layton is trying to prove that his party's victory in Outremount wasn't the combination of random forces unlikely to repeat themselves. To this end, he is promising Montrealers cash for their transit system. One problem Jack. Liberal leaders have already done what you are promising to do. A Liberal Prime Minister already gave one cent of the gas tax to cities for transit. A committment that would have been made permanent had Mr. Layton not brought down the Martin government in the fall of 2005. The rest of Jack's money is going to come from a cap and trade system set up by a pair of Liberal premiers. Tomorrow look for Jack Layton will promise to start the Canada Pension Plan, repatriate the Constitution and eliminate the deficit of the early 1990's.

Opa!

It isn't just the Olympics that kick off today. Here in Greektown we are gearing up for the fifteenth annual Krinos Taste of the Danforth. I encourage everyone in the GTA to come down and enjoy the food, the music and the party. If you've never made it down, you are in for a real treat. You really can't go wrong with any of the restaurants. The food is cheap and plentiful. It's a great way to find a new favourite restaurant. It may be GreekTown but the fare is as wide ranging as our wonderful city. Want some Brazilian or Japanese? They've got you covered. The music is great as well. There's activities for the kids, so bring them along and if they've never tried loukoumades (sp?), that's honey balls for the unitiated, it's a must. Finally, if you have a chance, say hi to the Lang Gang which is scheduled to have a lemonade stand Saturday on Arundel Ave. (that's one block east of Chester) just North of the Danforth.

However amid the frivolity, I repeat my plea from earlier years. For heaven's sake, take transit. This isn't really a drinking and driving thing (although don't be so stupid as to do that), it's a parking thing. The neighbourhoods which surround the Danforth are filled with homes with no driveways or garages to park a car in. Thus, many of the locals park their cars on the street. 362 days a year that isn't a problem. However, with literally tens of thousands of people descending on such a small amount of space, parking becomes a real problem. The only parking lots in the area are the couple of surface lots that have been built over the subway tracks so visitors tend to try to park in our cozy neighbourhoods. Most people who live in the area either love Taste or take the opportunity to get out of town for the weekend. Still, I hate to see my neighbours trapped in their houses because if they move their car they might not be able to park within a block of their house. You can get off at Broadview, Chester or Pape Station on the TTC and literally be steps from the action. So, please have fun on the Danforth this weekend, just leave your car at home.

Side Note: For the second straight year, the OYL has put Summer Fling the same weekend as Taste. Argh! So, after much deliberation, I'm leaving the party behind to go party with my party in Guelph (confused yet?).... oh, I guess we'll debate some policy too.

McCain's Convention Problems

John McCain should be enjoying his summer upswing in national and state polls. The road gets rockier heading in. One potential nightmare for the presumptive Republican nominee: his own convention. The GOP (or most of it) will be in Minnesota from September 1-4 trying to turn the only state won by Walter Mondale into a swing state. The problem for McCain is, who does the self-described "Maverick" get to speak at his nominating convention? See, it isn't very maverick-like to have McCain be endorsed by the big wigs of the Republican party. He could use as few pictures with the Bush/Cheney crowd as possible. Further complicating matters is that most of the Republicans who have been elected in the last eight years have cosied up to Bush to get votes. So then, who do you put on stage? I suppose the people that have been floated as VP possibilities but that's a fairly thin field. Gov. Jindal might hold people's attention for a few minutes. Romney isn't exactly cut from the Maverick mold. Gov. Palin is in the middle of a scandal (and really the less said about Alaska Republicans the better). Gov. Crist could work in a pinch. McCain is going to have a hard enough time competing with the show that the Democrats are going to put on in Denver. If people realize from watching the Republican convention that John McCain really is just another Republican, he's toast. If he fills the convention with moderates and conservative Democrats (can you feel the Joe-mentum?) he risks further alienating his skeptical base. Oh this dance is going to be something.

Jack Layton and 9/11 Truth

Just for kicks I decided to throw Jack Layton's name into YouTube. A little opposition watch on a long weekend. Anyway, apparently the 9/11 Truth idiots have taken to asking Mr. Layton questions about their causes. What's Layton's response? Does he condemn this bullshit for what it is? No. The member for Toronto-Danforth says that he is good friends with conspiracy theorist Barry Zwicker and that he has "studied" Mr. Zwicker's ramblings on the subject. He then PRAISES 9/11 Truth for their opposition to the equally non-existent North American Union. I wonder if he shares their views on the evils of vaccines. Here's the video (you have to fast forward through the random story about Layton and Chow not saving a guy's life).



I understand not wanting piss off these wackos, but there's a large gulf between polite and sympathetic. Jack seems to be leaning strongly to the latter.

McKay Insults Soldiers; Generation

Peter McKay continues to embarrass himself and all Canadians. The Minister of National Defence took a swing at Canadian soldiers and an entire generation in responding to a question about the uptick in disciplinary actions in the military in recent years. Here's the quote from the CBC:

"young people today are not used to, quite frankly, some of the demands and the rigours and the discipline that is expected in the Canadian Forces." "Requiring young people to comply with strict military doctrine and discipline is a greater challenge today, quite frankly, than it was 10 or 15 or 25 years ago,"

Okay, I understand that McKay doesn't expect a lot of votes from people under thirty in the next election. I also understand that this comment will probably get a nod of the head from many older voters who are distressed at the behaviour of kids these days. However, I think it is important to remember that Mr. McKay is impugning the men and women who have volunteered to risk life and limb in defense of this country. They are our heroes not some young punks. Mr. McKay also apparently forgets the difficulty in keeping "with strict military doctrine and discipline" "15... years ago" in Somalia. Lapses in military discipline under combat stress is nothing new (Vietnam anyone?). To blame our soldiers upbringing for what has to be considered a predictable side effect of the stresses of combat is beyond low. The actions of a few a bad apples should never be used to denigrate the entirety of our armed service. The vast majority of Canadian soldiers today are serving their country with honour as they did in Somalia fifteen years ago. Mr. McKay owes our brave young men and women at very least an apology if not his resignation. I guess this kind of comment is predictable... it's a lot harder, quite frankly, to get competent cabinet ministers than it was 10, 15 or 25 years ago.

Stand Up For Consumers

Stephen Harper et al. promised to "Stand Up For Canada" if they were elected. Apparently that meant standing up for small agricultural cartels. At least, that is the policy Harper has taken in the latest attempts to revive the Doha round at the WTO. Jeffrey Simpson has a good artice. This should be a no brainer. Millions of Canadians would benefit from the removal of these tarrifs. A few thousand Canadians benefit from their maintenance. To be fair, this is an issue that no political party in this country seems to be willing to adress. Politicians and the media in this country and most of the West (I mean the developed world not Alberta here) treat farming as a sacred cow (no pun intended). With grocery bills skyrocketing it is time to stop the squeeze on the Canadian family. Bring down these tariffs Mr. Harper. Canadian farmers can compete in certain areas. We aren't talking about the end of Canadian agriculture here. Dairy just isn't our most competitive industry right now. Heck, our dairy industry might become competitive if it actually had to compete. Mr. Harper, you claim to believe in the free market, let it reign on Canada's farms.

Update: The talks have collapsed again! We should still be lowering tariffs.

FV for Guelph

I spent the majority of Saturday helping out the Frank Valeriote campaign in Guelph. Great turnout by the young Liberals. We dropped a lot of literature which will hopefully help to further introduce Frank to the fine people of Guelph (he's apparently already been around once pre-writ). Scott and William have the pictures. Yes, by the way, we were bussed in. I don't really see the problem seeing as it is an important by-election and no one ever claimed we were locals. I believe plans are in the works for a lit drop or canvas after the end of Summer Fling in a couple of weeks. I hope that a lot of the young liberals attending that event will join me in giving another hand to the Valeriote campaign. A Liberal government is impossible unless we hold on to seats like Guelph.

Jim Flaherty Still Can't Balance a Budget

The man who left the Ontario budget in tatters when he was booted out of office, is beginning to show his handiwork federally. You mean if you tax less and spend more, you're going to run a deficit? What a shock! All sarcasm aside, this is terrible news for the country. M. Dion we quite literally cannot afford another Conservative budget. Bring down this fiscally irresponsible government as soon as humanly possible.

Time to Show Some Momentum

There are by-elections now called in Ontario and Quebec. It is crucial to finally start winning these things in a convincing fashion. Are three victories to much to ask for?

Warren Kinsella's Happy Happy Joy Joy Land

I am reluctant to criticize a guy who just did a favour for my riding association. However, I think Mr. Kinsella is in desperate need of a reality check. Mr. Kinsella was in Toronto-Danforth doing a little talk for a few Toronto young Liberals. Kinsella was waxing poetic about why Stephane Dion is going to be competitive in the next election (not a sentiment I necessarily disagree with). His arguments ranged from sound to downright absurd. Here are some of the low-lights:

• Money actually doesn't matter in politics. Mr. Kinsella argued that the massive Tory fundraising edge is inconsequential, after all, Ross Perot didn't become President. I mean if you could just buy your way into office Silvio Berlusconni would be Prime Minister of Italy... oh wait...
• Quebec votes with the winner. Kinsella claimed with great authority (he was born there after all) that Quebeckers are shrewd voters and vote with the party that will win the election. Oh, is that why the Bloc Quebecois has won the majority of Quebec ridings in election after election since 1993?
• The clapping ad is good symbolism. Kinsella says he watches political ads with the sound off and gives the clap-a-thon an A plus. Explain to me again what clapping politicians have to do with exotic frogs? Wait, are we serious about climate change or are we smiling for the cameras? I'm all for non-verbal communication. I don't mind the inclusiveness and the sense of momentum but if you think that ad is going to do anything but rally some die-hard grits, you're dreaming.
  
• In tough economic times, the Tories will be doomed by their lack of vision. I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that was the sentiment. Kinsella argued that Canadians will insist upon a plan to guide them through rough waters. Mr. Kinsella should read up on the federal election of 1935. See how far R.B. Bennett got with his grand schemes for tough economic times. Also note how King used his edge in leadership to convince people to vote for his judgement over outlandish schemes.
  
• We shouldn't underestimate Harper but we should follow him around with a video camera waiting for him to screw up. I'm all for keeping tabs on your opponents. However, Kinsella has to remember that most politicians aren't as incompetent as John Tory. Getting a guy with Tory's pathetic political track record to self-destruct isn't evidence of an effective campaign, it's evidence of unbelievable good luck. That strategy didn't work against Harper in 06, and it won't work in 08.
• People are smart to vote with their gut. This one floored me. Voting intuitively is stupid. It's how George W. Bush won the Whitehouse. Sorry Mr. Kinsella, it isn't a good idea to vote for the guy (or gal) who's just like you. Vote for the guy who gets you, sure. Vote for just another guy.... Mr. Kinsella wonders why we can't get the same kind of energetic election that they are having down south. Guess what, we did have that. It was called Trudeaumania. And guess what, he was nothing like the average Canadian. If you search for mediocrity in your politicians, that's exactly what you're going to get.
  

You Mean 1 Euro Doesn't Include the Carbon Cost?

The European Union is engaged in debate over what to do about aviation and their new carbon trading system. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the discount airlines. I traveled on them extensively when I was in Europe. However, the mere thought that they would be excluded from any sort of carbon pricing system is absurd. Europeans are using discount airlines not only for recreational travel but also to get cheap labour from the poorer East to the richer West without the bother of actual immigration. Work the week in England, fly back to Poland for the weekend. The discount airlines have become a crucial part of the continent's economy. Thus, a tax on air travel might actually force Europeans to change their ways, perish the thought. The EU's incessant holier than thou attitude on climate change would be a lot more bearable if they weren't so afraid of doing anything that would actually negatively impact on any of their citizens. There has been some leadership within the EU (particularly in Scandinavia) on climate change. This, on the other hand, smacks of the same kind of nimbyism which limits the climate change debate on this side of the pond. You would think a non-democratic instituion like the EU (the European Parliament is about as legitimate and powerful as the Canadian senate) would have a little more luck dealing with angry voters. Hey, if they can exclude air travel, why can't we exclude oil production? They are both major polluters after all.

Suzuki Proves Why Liberals are Needed to go Green

The David Suzuki Foundation has released a report on provincial efforts to solve the climate crisis. The report supports the efforts of Dalton McGuinty in Ontario to eliminate coal powered plants from the grid. The Suzuki Foundation, however, toes the green line on nuclear power. The report claims that the province could avoid nuclear power and keep the lights on and sights a World Wildlife Fund/Pembina report to that effect. Unfortunately, the solution proposed by the WWF/Pembina report is to rely on importing hydro from Manitoba and Québec. In other words, Ontario cannot forego nuclear expansion and remain energy independent (I am aware that the province buys and sells energy on a daily basis, but basically production in Ontario meets Ontarians needs). We need climate change policies which don't pass the buck. We need policies which work for the given jurisdiction and are created within that jurisdiction. The green lobby in this country and around the world, is scared of nuclear energy. While the potential for disaster is theoretically possible with nuclear power, the reality is that a well-maintained modern Canadian power plant built in a stable climate is simply not a serious candidate for catastrophe.

The fact remains that there is no other reliable, cost-effective way to generate green electricity in this province. Our hydro sources are already dammed. Wind is too unreliable to keep the lights on. A hot humid day with no wind and plenty of air conditioners and we're stuck importing electricity from coal plants in the US. Solar is still too expensive for any sort of mass-generation facility. Using solar as a means of heating homes and businesses through incentives to install solar paneling is a good approach, and one that should be advanced. However, Ontario's energy needs will not wait for companies and homeowners to take advantage of a government program. We need power in the very near future. Conservation, while important, will not solve a problem in a province with a booming population and increasing air conditioner use. People have more air conditioners than they did twenty years ago and on the hottest days in southern Ontario it is in the interest of public health to use them. Thus, we are left with nuclear power. The carbon cost for a nuclear-generated kilowhat hour of electricity is miniscule to negligible. The small amount of fissile material necessary for power generation means that even in the extraction of uranium there is not much of a cost. Nuclear power should be on the lips of every environmentalist on earth. It is the only thing that could curb the production of coal plants in China and India which will doom the planet.

The Liberal Party is the only party with the determination to solve the climate crisis and the pragmatism to see the wisdom of using nuclear power.

Monday Thoughts

I apologize for to my three readers for my week long hiatus. I was off on the Rock where they call Prime Minister Harper Steve because "he doesn't like being called Steve." Wait, you mean promising everything to everyone can backfire? What a shock! Some other quick fire thoughts:

• Just finished Fareed Zakaria's "The Post-American World." I tend to agree with Mr. Zakaria on most points although I think he is slightly on the optimistic side in terms of the United States. At any rate an easy read and quite informative on many points. I definitely recommend it. Fans of The Daily Show will undoubtedly recognize Mr. Zakaria who has an appearance rate only rivaled by John McCain.
• Seeing the anger towards Harper in Newfoundland was refreshing. How long do you think it will be before Quebec dumps him like they did Mulroney and Borden before him?
• Harper's electoral math may be challenged by a few losses on the Rock if he doesn't do some repair work. Luckily for Mr. Dion, Newfoundlanders don't tend to vote anything except Tory and Liberal. If they are mad at Harper, he should be the beneficiary no matter what the impact of The Green Shift may be on the oil producing province.
• It is remarkable how the media insists on saying that the American race is close. Anyone look at an electoral college projection lately? Could McCain win? Sure. Is it going to take a major shift in public opinion? Definitely.
• The economy may be in the tubes, but everything's coming up roses in Gotham. Seriously, I need to see this movie. I never need to see a movie. I really never need to see a summer blockbuster. This one, I want to see.
• Speaking of the economy being in the tubes, $1.50 for a litre of gas in St. John's? Holy mackerel... or I guess cod.
• Note to self: Post on Suzuki report on provinces and climate change.

Have a good week everyone!

What Happened to the Dog Days?

Summer is supposed to be a time when you can take a news holiday and get away with it. Weeks filled with Coney Island hot dog contests and George Bush clearing brush. Financial markets in particular are supposed to be slow. Everyone's to busy golfing to care about the markets. Lots of low volume days. Well, this doesn't quite fit the pattern. Anyone following the mortgage meltdown south of the border won't be shocked to hear that the US Treasury is going to extraordinary lengths to protect its biggest lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the fact this meltdown is occuring in July tells me, in case I needed a reminder, just how serious this crisis is. Last week a major regional bank went under in California. There are rumblings of General Motors having liquidity issues. The global economy is on the precipice. Yes, don't believe for a second that any country, least of all Canada, can resist the pressure of a US recession. If M. Dion insists on spending the summer talking about The Green Shift, he better be talking about all those Green jobs he's going to bring Canadians. People don't want to hear about the environment when they can't put food on the table or pay the rent. Climate change doesn't stop being important but voters care a whole lot less. Priorities change when the economy goes south. If M. Dion needs any confirmation he should talk to his foreign affairs critic about auto insurance.

Coyne on Abortion

Andrew Coyne has written a compelling piece on abortion for Maclean's. Coyne argues that, after twenty years of having absolutely no law on the subject (through what he describes as a political fluke), it is about time to have a real debate on abortion and finally get some sort of law on the books even if the law merely reaffirms the status quo. Coyne seems to be pulling out his hair over the lack of democratic oversight on this issue. While I theoretically agree with Coyne's concerns, I must say that the abortion debate or lack there of seems to fit well into Canada's current political climate. Think about it. It's been over twenty-five years since the first voices began speaking of the urgency of getting Quebec's signature on the constitution. Canadians are deeply divided on free trade and have voted both ways on it (people forget that the Liberals opposition to free trade remained through the 1993 election when they promised to renegotiate NAFTA) but we no longer debate the issue. Health care has gone from an urgent issue to a non-issue. Why? Politicians realized that they couldn't do anything about it or at least not anything that would win them votes. So, they continue to throw money at the problem and call royal commissions. The chattering classes (mostly the right wing of it) are upset about human rights commissions and free speech. Any politicians touching that issue with a ten-foot pole? As sad as it may seem, there is nothing more Canadian today than to push our biggest problems and debates to the backburner. I can only guess that Canadians are divided enough by other things that they can't really stomach any more federation threatening national debates. Thus, while Mr. Coyne raises a valid point, don't expect anyone to reopen the abortion debate this millenium.

Side Note: Abortion will likely remain off the table for two more practical reasons. The Tories see at as a losing issue. The pro-life crowd already largely votes Conservative and the few pro-choicers they have are crucial to staying in government and winning a majority. The Liberals are divided on the issue. Having gone through, at the focused prodding of the court, the same-sex marriage debate, the Grits are in no mood to open up internal wounds.

Most Important Election?

Trust Dan Arnold to break up the summer blahs. Once again the Calgary Grit is running a knockout political tournament. This time it is the greatest elections in Canadian history. I'm going to stay away from recent history for my federal picks and leave all my answers to before 1945. My provincial political history stinks so I'm going to have to be more recent. I'll start with a couple of pre-confederation elections.

1841 (Province of Canada): The first election after the rebellions of 1837. The coalition of Baldwin and Lafontaine would be established during this election including the subsequent by-election victory of Lafontaine in York (made famous by the Heritage moment). Although it would take a fair bit of conflict and the burning of a legislature, this election would pave the way, more than any other, for the establishment of responsible government in this country.

1858 (Province of Canada): The double majority system was a pain in the neck to begin with but it became untenable in 1858 with the Liberals under George Brown (not far removed from their anti-Catholic origins) elected in Canada West and the Tories under Cartier elected in Canada East. If 1841 was important because of the cooperation between the provinces, 1858 was important because the provinces couldn't work together. George Brown would never have joined Macdonald's grand coalition if he felt he could govern without it. Without Brown onboard the grand coalition would have been a joke and Canada may never have been born.

1874 (Federal): Alexander Mackenzie may not hold a particularly special place in the hearts of Canadians, but his election in 1874 was crucial. The Tories under Sir John A. Macdonald were mired in the railway scandal and deserved to be defeated. Canadians understood this and, for the first time as a country, threw the bums out. Accountability is everything in a democracy and we got accountability in 1874.

1878 (Federal): Two elections in a row? Absolutely. Canada would be run for the better part of twenty years on the national policy which elected John A. Macdonald in 1878. While his policies have been a mixed bag (Railway-finished; tariffs-eliminated; immigration-became cornerstone of Canada), the national policy is crucial in understanding where we came from as a nation.

1896 (Federal): The election of the second Liberal and first Francophone Prime Minister deserves recognition. Liberals would govern the country with the coalition created by Wilfred Laurier in 1896 for the better part of the next century. This also marked the beginning of 15 years in the wilderness for the Conservatives until...

1911 (Federal): If Laurier laid the framework for Liberal success in 1896, Robert Borden carved the path for Conservatives in 1911. In the first major free trade election (take that 1988), Borden was able to win election on opposition to reciprocity with the United States. His coalition of soft nationalists in Quebec and social conservatives in English Canada remains the blue print for Tories today.

1917 (Federal): If Borden laid the frame for Conservative success in 1911, he laid the path to the opposition benches in 1917. While Borden would win the wartime election, his promise (which he would break) not to introduce conscription would haunt Conservatives in Quebec for generations.

1935 (Federal): The re-election of Mackenzie King in 1935 shows the political acumen of Canada's longest serving Prime Minister. With the other parties promising the moon, King promised to be the Prime Minister Canadians trusted. He won and would end up leading the country through World War II.

1985 (Ontario): The election of the Peterson-Rae coaltion in 1985 would mark the end of 42 years of PC rule. The Tory dynasty finally brought down by the incompetent leadership of Frank Miller and the controversy surrounding Bill Davis' pre-retirement decision on Catholic schools. Ontario elections were a non-issue until 1985. The next ten years would see all three major parties at the reins.

1995 (Ontario): The election of Mike Harris is still viewed with pangs of nausea by many progressives (myself included). However, the election of one of the first real neo-conservative governments in the country deserves noting. Mike Harris' cuts were way too deep and he left a province with deficits in everything from its budget to its schools, hospitals and roads. However, his rise from third place to first place is important, and should be recognized as such.

You Know They're Serious

When they make commitments for a point in the future when they are unlikely to be alive. Shit, the normal way to make a commitment you have no intention of keeping is to put it off 10-15 years when you're going to be out of office. This whole 2050 crap shows just how far we are from having an international agreement on climate change with some teeth.

The Delightful Dismemberment of the New Democratic Hopescape

Apologies to Stephen Colbert for the title. Anyway, it has come to my attention that the Ontario New Democrats are engaged in some sort of leadership race. Apparently, we won't see any candidates for another week or so. I won't bother with going through the list of potential candidates, at least until we get a couple of announcements. However, it has also come to my attention that Buzz Hargrove is retiring as CAW President and there might be more than a coronation to replace him. So, here's the question: with both the Ontario NDP and the CAW in full out leadership races, is there a chance their volunteers might be a little distracted if and when the next federal election begins? I can only hope so.

Andrew Lang Campaign Update: The newly founded Toronto-Danforth Federal Young Liberals are proud to be hosting a timeraiser for Andrew Lang tomorrow night. What's a timeraiser you ask? Well, its a fundraiser but instead of paying money you pledge volunteer hours. The details are on facebook here. Lots of great prizes to be auctioned off so come out, pledge some hours for the Lang campaign and have some fun.

It's Still The Economy Stupid

On a day that saw the TSX lose over 400 points it is wise to remember that with all this talk about the environment and Orders of Canada the issue that will probably make or break the next election is the economy.

Margaret Wente Misses The Point... Again

One of my least favourite columnists is at it again. Margaret Wente has an annoying habit of presenting something that is news to her like it is news to everyone else. Yes Ms. Wente, I know and I'm pretty sure Stephane Dion knows that Canada's efforts to stop climate change won't add up to a hill of beans if the rest of the world doesn't get on board. What Ms. Wente fails to realize in her moment of personal epiphany is that the only way the world is going to get on board is if countries like Canada get their act together. China and other developing states have the stated position that they will act only when the rest of the world acts. Canada can't stop global warming. We all know that. We also know that if every country took Ms. Wente's logic, nothing would ever get done. We can only hope for the sake of the planet, that the obstacles which have stood in the way of getting something accomplished will finally come down. We can ill afford this kind of selfish, defeatist thinking.

Update: Instead of putting in a massive comment, I'm using the bully pulpit to respond to some of the comments below. First of all, I cannot agree with "the it's too hard, so let's give up now" mentality that Ms. Wente et al. espouse. Second, let's do some math on that $1.1. billion figure for Ontario electricity. Let's assume that somewhere between 1/4 and a 1/3 of electricity use is industrial or commercial (rough estimates I know). So let's say that business will be on the hook for about $300 million. Hell, CIBC loses that in a quarter. That leaves $800 million for residential consumers. Ontario has about 12 million people, let's take the average household around 2.5 people that means about 4.8 million households. The average cost annually per household would be a whopping$166.67 or about 46 cents/day. Obviously, if you are air conditioning 5000 sqft you are paying more than if you are blowing a fan over 500 sqft. So not a huge burden for even the poorest among us. Finally, there are dates and costs in the green shift. Pages 29-31 of the booklet available on the website should provide some enlightenment although there is more information elsewhere in the pamphlet.

Better Than Expected

That's my conclusion after reading the Liberal Party of Canada's "Green Shift." Here's the quick run down of why:

What I Like:

• Excluding and then minimizing taxation on transportation emissions will go a long way in preventing the new carbon taxes from causing a massive spike in prices at the grocery store. It will also minimize the sticker shock that may have otherwise ensued.
  
• It is head and shoulders more practical and reasonable than the Green Party's ridiculous proposal from yesterday. There are no ridiculous cuts to CPP or EI, for one thing. It also will not send the economy into immediate shock.
  
• It is gradual and predictable. I have long believed that the only way to be successful is to give the private sector time to adjust before we beat them over the head with a hammer. This plan does do that by increasing the carbon tax year over year.
  
• The tax cuts are progressive. They are weighted heavily towards helping Canadians who need it most and will be most negatively affected by the shift.
• We've given up on Kyoto. One of my largest concerns was that this tax was being proposed in order to somehow miraculously meet our Kyoto targets. Stephane Dion has moved away from that today and I applaud him for that. Kyoto is simply not possible anymore. It will be much easier to make the argument against the Conservatives without the red herring of the Kyoto Protocol in the way.
  

What I'm Still Worried About:

• The green tariff plan is vague and dependent upon the US Congress approving a carbon tax. Furthermore, what kind of tariffs are we prepared to place on imports and how do we ensure that these tariffs are consistent with our committments in our various FTA's and the WTO? If we don't ensure that Canadian industry is promoted and not hurt by this plan, it will fail the country if it doesn't fail us Grits at the polls.
• It isn't clear how consumers will see the impact of these taxes. As I've said before, sin taxes should discourage negative behaviour. However, with the tax being assessed at the "wholesale level" how much consumers are going to pay or understand that they are paying is an issue. If consumers don't understand how they can make carbon-friendly purchases they won't. Similarly, if cleaner producers simply raise their prices to match the taxes imposed on their diritier competitors, consumers will not be able to discern what is green and what isn't.
  
• Provincial autonomy. Loyal readers of this blog will know that I am fierce a federalist. However, I am concerned that this plan, as it relates to electricity generation may infringe upon a provincial jurisdiction. Two major concerns:
• First, it is up to each province to determine how they produce energy. Different options make more sense for different provinces. For instance, the carbon cost of electricity in Quebec is negligible because of the availability of hydroelectric power. That is not available to Albertans who rely on a far dirtier grid. Energy is tightly regulated if not government controlled industry in this country and the green shift runs the risk of interfering with those regulations. It is today, the responsibility of the provincial government to determine how much individuals pay for a kilowatt/hour of electricity. The Green Shift fundamentally shifts that power to the federal government.
• Second, Stephane Dion is not the first leader to come out with a climate change strategy. A discussion with the premiers of BC, Ontario and Quebec will be necessary in order to ensure that federal and provincial efforts are working in concert and not at cross-purposes. I don't believe that it is within the power of the federal jurisdiction to simply override provincial initiatives.
  
• The world needs our oil. Even with the Saudis boosting production and new reseves off the coast of Brazil, the world is thirsty for Canadian oil. That thirst is not just to fuel American SUV's. It's to make fertilizers for African farmers. I am not an economist. I don't know how much this is going to cost the oil patch. However, I am concerned that this would push the soaring cost of a barrel of oil even higher.
  
• I would have liked to see a more explicit discussion of what this going to cost Canadian industry. In particular an assessment of the impact on extraction industries, agriculture, forestry and auto manufacturing.
  

Shiny New Web Browser

Just downloaded Firefox 3 as part of their whole download day thing. I have been a loyal Firefox user for years so it really didn't take much to persuade me to download the new version. Glitch free so far!

Lang Campaign Update

The effort to elect Andrew Lang as the next MP for Toronto-Danforth. A great opportunity tomorrow for those looking to actually do something about getting the Liberal party back in power. You can e-mail the Lang campaign (andrew@andrewlang.ca) for the details. Also, Andrew Lang is holding a fundraiser next Tuesday morning. Think you could never afford a fundraiser with the likes of Bob Rae, George Smitherman and Trudeau-era cabinet Otto Lang? Think again. For just $50 ($25 for youth 25 and under!) you can have breakfast with them. So sign up today.

Howard Hampton Quits

In other news, a pin dropped. Seriously though, we have an honest-to-God leadership race here in Ontario. The great thing about a ten person caucus? Everyone is a potential candidate. I could do a breakdown. I might if I get bored enough. However, in a party built on ideology and solidarity figuring out the differences is going to be a little difficult. One question. With Peter Tabuns (MPP Toronto-Danforth) considering a run, has one riding ever housed the leaders of a provincial and a federal party simultaneously?

EU Looking Green

Ireland has rejected the Treaty of Lisbon. The EU needs a more simple way of organizing itself. The EU also wants to matter outside of Europe. Unfortunately, this streamlining requires unanimous consent and Ireland's approval must be done through a constitutional amendment which requires a referendum. Thus, tiny Ireland has ground one of the greatest success stories of the last sixty years to a halt. 862, 415 people have denied progress to 490 million. One of the stumbling blocks this time was the perceived threat to Ireland's traditionally neutralist foreign policy. Expect the EU to try, try again. The problems here are pretty simple. The gulf between the EU and its people is widening. Brussels and the political elite across Europe are increasingly out of touch with their populous. The politicians of almost all political parties favour integration in the face of globalization and other economic challenges. The people are a little less enthusiastic. Witness the pathetic turnout across Europe in European Parliamentary elections or the abysmal failure of the last round of EU reforms or the protests over Brussels-imposed value added taxes on fuel. The second problem the EU recognizes: getting 27 different electorates or parliaments to agree to anything is virtually impossible. However, in order to eliminate the consensus-based decision making processes they need consensus. It's akin to the Canadian senate approving a constitutional amendment to eliminate the senate. Thus, the superpower-in-waiting that is the European Union continues to stumble and fail. However, Europeans probably won't notice until Euro 2008 is over.

VP Picks: McCain/?

With all the focus on Obama and his selection for VP, people seem to be forgetting that John McCain, who's been the presumptive Republican nominee for months, has yet to make his choice. Here's the short version of the long list:

Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Why? McCain needs the religious right and you don't get much more religious than the former baptist minister. Huckabee's down home charm connects with voters. Why Not? Huckabee connects with voters because he doesn't talk like a politician. However, there are reasons politicians talk like politicians. Huckabee has had the occasional case of foot-in-mouth disease. Arkansas became a lot less of an issue when Hillary lost the nomination.

Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA): Why? He's religious and rich. He also looks the part if there is a look to this part. He might be able to deliver Michigan where his father was governor. Why Not? Mormons don't play well with evangelicals. Romney can't deliver Mass. and McCain doesn't need any more votes in Utah.

Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY): Why? America's mayor made the worst tactical decisions of the primary contest, but wouldn't be driving the straight-talk express so that shouldn't be a problem. If you want 9/11 mentioned obsessively at every campaign stop, Rudy's your man. Why Not? Two divorcees on the same ticket? The religious right is spinning in its newly dug grave.

Fmr. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN): Why? He supposedly has an appeal to the evangelical base. Why Not? Fred doesn't campaign well because, well, he doesn't like it. Also old meet elderly, elderly meet old.

Secy of State Condoleeza Rice (R-TX): Why? A black woman on the ticket might serve to undermine some of Obama's historical significance. Why Not? McCain is now trying to run as fast as possible away from the Bush administration, Condi doesn't help with that. Condi also has never campaigned in her life. Who votes for Condi that wouldn't vote for McCain already? She probably doesn't want the job anyway.

Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL): Why? Florida is a swing-state, Crist can probably deliver it on a silver platter. He has some resonance with The Base. Why Not? Crist is relatively new on the job (elected 06). How much does he resonate outside of the sunshine state?

Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS): Why? Popular governor with appeals to the Base. Did well after Hurricane Katrina. In other words, he's ready in a crisis like say if old man McCain kicks the bucket. Why Not? If John McCain can't win Mississippi without Barbour he should just concede now.

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA): Why? Popular new governor of hurricane battered Louisiana. He's younger than Barack Obama. Another history maker if he were to be elected. Why Not? The guy turns 37 tomorrow. The minimum age requirement is 35. McCain is almost 71. The age difference may just make McCain look older than he really is. He's also a little wet behind the ears politically.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): Why? Meet the Republican answer to Hillary Clinton. Hutchison is a senate veteran with loads of experience with appeal to the base and straying Hillary democrats. Why Not? McCain needs help in Texas? He's in trouble. She also might rather be governor of Texas than VP.

Sen Joe Lieberman (I-CT): Why? Appeal to independent voters and the religious right (the only people more fervently pro-Israel than American Jews are American Evangelicals). Can you say Florida? Why Not? Lieberman's been on a losing ticket once before. He caucuses with the democrats which will offend traditional Conservatives to no end. Especially because if he caucused with the Republicans they would be the majority party in the senate. Anyone feeling the Joe-mentum these days?

Fmr. Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA): Why? Appeals to the religious right and might help in Pennsylvania. Why Not? Hard sell to independents and actually might hurt in home state where he was just defeated.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX): Why? If I didn't mention the libertarian his internet minions may hunt me down. He appeals to old-fashioned Republicans. Why Not? McCain (and most Americans) have no interest in abolishing half the government. Paul does. The Republican establishment is pissed off at Paul (see attempts to unseat him in his congressional primary).

VP Picks: Obama/?

As promised, here's a more complete run down of Obama's choices for VP, in no particular order:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Why? Biden gives Obama some of that gravitas. He's a pillar of the senate and has loads of experience in foreign policy. Why Not? Biden is not exactly a vote-getter. Not only that, putting a guy on the ticket who's been in the senate for a dog's age kind of goes against the whole change in Washington thing.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) Why? The Lieberman factor may put Connecticut in play for McCain. Dodd would help to counteract that. Like Biden he provides some experience. Why Not? Once again a bit contrary to the message. Also, Obama really should be able to take Connecticut under his own head of steam.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) Why? Prominent Hillary surrogate would go a ways in unifying the party. Might be able to put Indiana in play for the Democrats. Why Not? Having a ballot with two people from neighbouring states does not exactly provide for regional balance. Also two fresh faced young senators (Bayh doesn't look his 53 years) doesn't exactly provide the necessary weight for the ticket.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Why? A woman on the ticket would go a long way in winning over disenfranchised Hillary supporters. McCaskill might be able to deliver Missouri for Obama. Why Not? She has less experience than Obama (elected in 06) and while a woman has backed Obama for a long time so her unifying ability is questionable.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Why? Unify the party. She campaigns like nobody else. Why Not? No real extensive foreign policy credentials (not compared to McCain). Baggage, baggage and more baggage. Would be a sign of weakness which could sink him. Bill Clinton. Needs to move past primary fight. She gives him which state again? Better ways to win in the midwest. In a lot of ways doesn't give you much that Obama doesn't have by himself - strong liberal campaigner is a good way to describe both of them... no balance past gender.

Sen Jim Webb (D-VA) Why? Military experience. Can't hurt in Virginia which is a battle ground. Former Republican, thus, good with independents. Why Not? Not a party unifier. How well he'd play past Virginia is questionable. Maybe a little inside the beltway.

Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) Why? He gets you blue collar workers. Might have more success winning North Carolina this time around. Why Not? Edwards has never connected to more than a sliver of the American people. Less comparisons to the disastrous Kerry/Edwards campaign the better.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Why? Change you say? How about a bipartisan ticket. Hagel is a vocal critic of the Bush administration and is leaving Washington because he's disgusted by it. Sounds like a description of Obama's electorate. Also, military and foreign policy experience. Why Not? A Conservative Republican would be a tough sell for the base. Probably doesn't put Nebraska in play.

Gov. Kathleen Sibelius (D-KS) Why? Strong female governor would go a long way to unify the party. Governors do well in general elections because they have experience as an executive. Why Not? Kathleen who? Name recognition is a non-factor outside of Kansas. Probably couldn't carry her home state.

Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) Why? Strong female governor would go a long way to unify the party (didn't I just say that). Just won re-election in a landslide. Why Not? The only person who may be more popular than Napolitano in Arizona? John McCain. Any other year she'd be top of the list.

Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH) Why? Big time Clinton surrogate. Unifies the party. Might be able to carry Ohio for Obama. Why Not? Two midwesterners again. Little national name recognition. No foreign policy experience.

Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) Why? Big time Clinton surrogate... oh fuck it... see Gov. Ted Strickland

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) Why? Experience up the wazoo. Appeal to Hispanics. Probably gives you New Mexico. Why Not? Doesn't unify the party (Carville called him Judas for endorsing Obama.) Not particularly appealing to independents. Might do you well out West but past NM, CO and NV.... Zero charisma.

Five Questions For Barack Obama

Now that the Democrats have a nominee we can look at the path ahead. So, much like I did for the Republican nominee, here are five questions for Barack Obama.

1. Can He Unite the Party? This has been one of the toughest fought primary contests ever. Obama needs to remind Clinton supporters that it is a lot better to have a Democrat in the White House than a pro-life, pro-war, pro-Bush Republican. Part of party unification will undoubtedly be the choice of his vice-president. This leads nicely to question number 2.
2. Who will be Obama's VP? A VP selection is an awkward business and few people have a more awkward choice than Obama. In spite of the press, an Obama-Clinton ticket would be disastrous. The Billary side show would ruin Obama's image. My choice? Retiring Republican senator Chuck Hagel. Why? A bipartisan ticket would do Obama a great service and who better than the most anti-Bush Republican who also happens to be a decorated Vietnam Vet. Hagel's quitting because he's disgusted with Washington. Obama wants to change Washington. Perfect. The only problem is that Hagel's a social conservative and might not want the gig. More likely? A Clinton surrogate (Gov. Strickland (D-OH), Gov. Randell)(D-PA) or a woman (Gov. Sibelius (D-KS) or Sen. McCaskill (D-MO)).
3. Can He Re-Write the Electoral Map? Obama will win if he's able to change the electoral map. As always, Electoral Vote (link at sidebar) is the best source for these computations. Long story short Obama's counting on winning formerly red states like Virginia and Colorado.
   
4. Can He Keep Fundraising? Obama has been breaking fundraising records for months. If he can keep it up, he can crush John McCain (who can't fundraise to save his life). While there are no indications that the well is dry, it's a long time until November.
   
5. Are People Ready For A Black President? This is the biggest question. It was an issue among some Democrats. We can only hope that this is not an issue.
   

Factors and Non-Factors in Hillary's Defeat

Hillary Clinton officially (finally, thank God) lost the nomination last night. More relevantly, Barack Obama won the nomination but I'll talk about that in a different post. However, there has been plenty of debate about why Hillary lost. Here's my top five reasons she lost and the one non-factor everyone's talking about:

1. She Conceded Iowa: Don't underestimate how important this was. The Clinton campaign last year made a determination that it would be too difficult if not impossible for Hillary Clinton to compete in a state of white working class Americans. Ironic, no? Anyway, she figured John Edwards' had a huge advantage on the ground there and would trounce her. Turned out Edwards' ground game, while formidable was beatable. Obama's win in Iowa gave him the credibility he had, up until that point, lacked. For the first time, he was the front-runner. That never really changed the rest of the way.
2. She Thought the Race Ended February 5th: The rumour is that Hillary's people didn't understand that the Democratic Party assigns delegates proportionally. They thought they could win California and New York and just walk away. Oops. Turns out the PR rules meant Hillary's victory in California was fairly small (in terms of delegates). She then failed to get a ground game going in the next 11 contests. Obama was able to run almost unopposed in a lot of these states, pick up huge, delegate producing majorities and win the nomination.
3. She Didn't Understand How to Use the Internet: There is an irony that the woman who started her campaign with an internet video would be brought down by a candidate who out-webbed her. However, that is exactly what happened. Hillary's people didn't understand how powerful a fundraising and organizing tool the internet could be. Barack Obama did. He out raised her, out organized her and won the nomination.
4. She Couldn't Control Her Surrogates: This started and ended with Bill but there were a few people in between. As Hillary tried desperately to shed her patrician image, her surrogates were consistently arrogant and condescending. As they say in Hillary country, that dog won't hunt.
5. She Underestimated Her Opponent: You get a sense that Hillary Clinton thought her nomination was inevitable until the moment she lost in Iowa. There was no serious effort by Clinton to try to go after Barack Obama until well after it was too late. The attempts she did make only solidified his message of hope and change.
   

The non-factor in this race was gender. Plain and simple there is simply no evidence that voters cared one bit about gender. In fact Hillary won the people who you would have thought would have never voted for a woman (see all those "hardworking, white Americans" she loves so much). Obama also won with a coalition of younger and better educated Americans. The ones you wouldn't expect to be as concerned about gender. Media pundits calling her names does not a sexist country make. No, nobody talked about Barack's haircut (that was reserved for John Edwards), but they did talk, ad nauseam, about his bowling score and other trivial things (see flag pin-gate). Clinton lost this nomination because of her mistakes and those of her campaign combined with the unprecedented race run by her opponent. No amount of genitalia would have changed the result.

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.