McCain Seizes Coal Gaffe

The McCain campaign has released this new web ad that capitalizes on the contradiction between the official Obama-Biden platform (pro-coal) and the words of Joe Biden himself (anti-coal). The McCain web ads have usually been better than his tv ads and if I was giving him advice, this is one that should definitely get moved to the television sets of Pennsylvania and the other Appalachian states (Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia) as coal is an important aspect of those states' economies. Plus, this ad is just plain effective. You've got clips of Obama, secret footage of Biden, and a catchy tune to boot! Roll this ad out Senator McCain. You'll be glad you did.

Buck Up, Canada!

The Canadian federal election, after an agonizingly slow start, has now kicked into high gear. With the politicians crisscrossing the country campaigning, the party websites up and functioning, and the airwaves filled with partisan ads and commercials, it must be time for the traditional wringing of the hands over the negativity of our political campaigns. The media partakes in this willingly: our newscasts offer up polls on who is the ‘nastiest’ leader and our newspapers run columns denouncing the mean-spiritedness of the campaign so far. And individual Canadians are again complaining that our politics is too dirty, too harsh. This is absurd. This campaign has offered little in the way of negativity, with the exception of a pooping puffin. There has yet to be anything in the way of a controversial attack, a personal insult or a smear campaign—nothing. Canadians seem to hold this ideal of a friendly and civil campaign, but we must remember that on October 14 the country is holding an election, not a harvest ball; we are not electing a homecoming queen, we are electing a head of state. And in this contest there is no prize for congeniality and there’s no award for good sportsmanship. Only one person can claim victory on election night and it should not be based on who ran the campaign with a smile. Elections must be adversarial as they are competitions to see who is most capable to lead our country. The leaders have to display to us why they are the best choice (by presenting their ideas and qualifications) but they must also demonstrate why the other choices are wrong (by attacking and undermining the other guys.) Some people tend to confuse any ad or comment that questions or challenges the opponent as wrong. But this is not dirty pool, its politics and politics is meant to be a contact sport. By making those who seek office compete for our votes, we can see how our perspective leaders will handle challenges. If a candidate is confronted during the campaign, it is an opportunity for him to showcase his knowledge, wit, political skill and fortitude. If a party leader can’t handle a criticism during the campaign, how is he going to handle similar criticisms or attacks when they come from an aggressive Russian President, an angry European envoy, or a protectionist American Congress? The Prime Minister’s Office is not the place to first see how our leaders handle adversity; the campaign trail is. Our electoral system depends on allowing candidates to draw these kinds of distinctions between themselves and their opponents without being labeled as ‘negative’. If we were to do away with all kinds of negativity and make our politicians play nice, our elections would be even duller, our candidates less tested, and our democracy worse off. So buck up, Canada! The campaign has just started and if you think it’s too rough-and-tumble now, it is just getting warmed up.

The Consortium and the Censorship

The so-called media 'consortium' that decided today NOT to allow Green Party leader Elizabeth May into the leader's debates should reconsider. If in 2008 the Green Party cannot break into mainstream Canadian politics, then it will likely never be. When has the environment ever been such talked-about, high-profile topic? The answer is never. Global warming and climate change are gigantic issues and the Greens speak directly to those voters who see them as paramount. With neither of the two dominant parties having done much of anything on this front for years, it is completely acceptable to allow another party their chance to campaign on the environment.
The Green Party of Canada ran a full slate of candidates (308) in 2006 and will run another full slate (minus 1, as per the agreement with Liberal leader Dion) this time around. That's much more than the Bloq Quebecois ever runs. In fact, the BQ has never run more than 75 candidates since they only run in Quebec, yet they are routinely included in the national leader's debate. This leads to the absurd situation where millions of Canadians are watching a leader debate for whom they cannot ever vote for. The Greens, however, are a national party. They received nearly 4.5% of the vote last election and now have a sitting member of Parliament in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast MP Blair Wilson. In fact, as May points out, it was the existence of the one lone Bloc MP that helped then-BQ leader Lucien Bouchard nap a spot in the leader's debate in the 1993 election. With 5% of the vote, a sitting MP member, and an central issue that has never been so pressing or so palpable, the time is right for the Green Party to enter the leader's debate. Let Elizabeth May in.

The Distasteful Attacks on the Palin Pregnancy

John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, deserves to be fully vetted and researched and questioned like all who seek public office, especially the 2nd highest position in the land. However, the absurd and bitter attacks against her and her family regarding the news of her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy are hitting new lows. First, this story all grew out of internet rumours that swirled a conspiracy theory ripped right from a Desperate Housewives script, claiming that Governor Palin's new infant is not hers, but rather her daughters, and the Governor was pretending to be pregnant to cover up this teenage mistake. The fact that this story, spun by some liberal blogger grew so fast and gained such momentum is shocking. Even more shocking is the vitriol that has been spewed in the days following the Palin's announcement that their daughter is indeed 5 months pregnant. To Barack Obama's credit, he has maintained that the family of Palin should be off limits, but that has not stopped his supporters, surrogates and other liberals and democrats from going on the attack (a move Obama perfected during the primary where his supporters attacked Hillary Clinton while the candidate himself was able to masquerade as staying above the fray.) There has been a barrage of insults levelled against Sarah Palin, from her hypocrisy for supporting 'family values' while having a pregnant teen, to the quality of her judgement for not refusing the VP spot knowing her daughter is in this sticky situation. But no attack has been so harsh, so unnecessarily vicious as Obama supporter Ed Shultz's words on Larry King Live last night. Not only does Sarah Palin apparently lack judgement for not dropping out, not only must she be a hypocrite for having a pregnant teen, but she is also a terrible mother? According to Shultz, its important to ask, "What kind of mother is she?" Apparently, teenage indiscretion equals bad mothering. Schultz even went so far as to muse that "most professional gardeners have a really nice yard, you know what I mean?" Thus, Shultz insinuates that if there is a problem in her family then it must mean Sarah Palin is a miserable mother and a pitiful leader. Does this mean that the woman who is cheated on is a bad partner and terrible wife? If a kid fails in school, does it follow that the parent is also an underperformer or unintelligent? This discourse is absurd and it's nonsense. And the Obama campaign better be careful, because with millions of independent-minded, moderate voters up for grabs in this election, attacking this mother for the choices of her children might drive many Americans into Sarah Palin's corner. Palin's best attribute is her down-to-earth, 'neighbourly' feel. Americans want to elect leaders to whom they can relate, and I'm willing to bet Americans can relate quite well to a strong, working mom who's family has its share of problems, just like everybody else's.