FYI

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

Five Questions For John McCain

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

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

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

Carbon Tax Will Starve Children

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

Primary Systems

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

Both Systems:

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

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

Hillary Clinton Surrogates Lose It

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

Join the Lang Gang

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

Sports Talk for a Sunday

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

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

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

TTC on Strike

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

Race For the Exits: Pennsylvania Edition

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

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

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

If Not Now, When?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School Closures

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

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

Andrew Lang for Toronto-Danforth

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

Because No One Can Do Business In This Tax Climate

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

Stephen Harper Attacks Property Rights

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

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

Another Immigration Post

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

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

Immigration Debate

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

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

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

Zimbabwe

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

Stephen Harper's Slow Walk Towards Oblivion

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

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

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

Doesn't He Have More Important Things To Do?

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

She Realizes How This Ends, Right?

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

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