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.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
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.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Hillary's Convention Home Run
Hillary Clinton demonstrated what makes her a political force in America with her speech at the Democratic Convention last night. She silenced the critics who said she wasn't helping Barack Obama enough, she gave tribute to her supporters and her own history-making campaign, and she showcased the skill, wit and grace that will ensure she has a role to play whether in an Obama administration or a Democratic Congress. She did everythign she can for Barack Obama, the outcome of the election will rest on what he makes of it. But whatever the result, the best of Hillary Clinton was on display last night, and here's hoping there's more where that came from.
"If you here the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going. If they're shouting after you, keep going. Don't ever stop. Keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going. And even in the darkest moments, that is what Americans have done. We have found the faith to keep going. I have seen it." Hillary Clinton, paraphrasing Harriet Tubman of the underground railroad.
"If you here the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going. If they're shouting after you, keep going. Don't ever stop. Keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going. And even in the darkest moments, that is what Americans have done. We have found the faith to keep going. I have seen it." Hillary Clinton, paraphrasing Harriet Tubman of the underground railroad.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Cone of Absurdity
Barack Obama and John McCain participated in a forum at the Saddleback Church with Rick Warren (of "Purpose Driven Life" fame) to answer questions about politics, leadership and God. Obama performed decently, but it was McCain who outperformed all expectations while appearing vigorous, succinct and straight-forward. Thus, since Obama was 'beaten' in this exchange, it was time for his supporters to light the Barack-Signal and call for the most absurd, belittling attack to be launched. And here it is: McCain violated the 'Cone of Silence'. It not only sounds like the name of a low-budget sci-fi movie from the 80's, it is also an unfortunate and pathetic attempt to undermine John McCain's strong performace and attack his credibility and character. NBC's Andrea Mitchell started this all by reporting that some "Obama people" were questioning whether McCain had been able to hear the questions Warren asked Obama, thus explaining how prepared and capable he was in asnwering them when his turn came around. There was a room with no audio or video feed which was suposed to hold whichever candidate went second so that the questions would not be known in advance. McCain was in this "cone of silence" for the final two-thirds of Obama's time on stage. For the first third, McCain was not in the green room, but was instead en route in a secret service motorcade. McCain inists he had no knowledge of the questions, his staff and campaign insist he was not watching the forum while in the car, and there is no evidence from either during the debate or after that suggests McCain knew what questions were coming. The only reason this claim has risen is because McCain did so well. This charge underscores the absolute arrogance of the Obama campaign by charging that the only way McCain could outperform Obama is if he cheated. This is character assassination at work and its wrong. Considering that Barack Obama and his supporters have spent 2 years lecturing voters to ignore all the baseless claims and accusations levelled at him, its discouraging to see them so eager to spread similar charges against McCain.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
How Bush is Winning the White House for McCain
George W. Bush, once the albatross of John McCain's campaign, once the greatest obstacle for John McCain to overcome, is helping McCain win the election. The Bush Administration is undermining Barack Obama's most fundamental and defining political positions in an effort to aid McCain's White House bid. And I suspect it will be successful.
Although Obama's greatest weaknesses are foreign policy and defence, it is in these arenas that Obama has most fundamentally defined his candidacy. Obama's position on Iraq (will end it in 16 months) and on diplomacy (we must talk more to our allies AND our enemies) has been a central characteristic of his campaign thus far and was the central thrust in his attack on and defeat of Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obama's cosmopolitan world view, his diplomacy-first policies, his bring-the-troops-home position, are the bedrock of his candidacy. And that is where President Bush has been undermining him, chipping away at the foundation of the Democratic candidate's platform.
In the last 4 weeks, Bush has made gigantic course changes on Iraq and foreign relations. Most of the media has called these moves flip-flops or as The Guardian puts it, a "remarkable turnaround". However, these moves are in fact constructed, nuanced changes designed to weaken the Democrats' positions going into the Fall election. Last month, Bush moved to adopt a "time horizon" for withdrawing troops from Iraq, reversing what was once a set-in-stone position against such a move. This will allow both the Bush Administration and the McCain campaign to adjust their positions on the increasingly unpopular war. McCain can now (and he has) suggest that troops CAN come home as the situation on the ground improves. With this, Obama's central position disappears. By using the vague language of "time horizon" Bush allows McCain and the Republicans to minimize the difference between Obama and themselves and appeal to independent voters, while not alienating the Republican base. This move seriously undercuts Obama's charge that McCain will not bring troops and wants a never-ending war.
A similar move by the Bush White House on diplomacy is undercutting Obama's central tenant of talking and negotiating with our enemies: Bush has announced a hundred new diplomatic hirings; the Administration has decided to station a diplomatic mission in Iran (the first in 30 years); Condoleeza Rice entered talks with Iran last month regarding their nuclear ambitions; and Rice personally delivered the Russia-Georgia ceasefire agreement to the Georgian President this week. Suddenly, George Bush has discovered the diplomacy that Obama has been campaigning for. And just as suddenly, Obama's calls for more talking and more negotiating don't seem so new and exciting; they no longer count as a "new form of politics" if the Bush government has already adopted them.
What these two abrupt changes by the Bush Administration represent is an effort to move the Republican Party closer to Barack Obama's core positions on foreign policy so as to eliminate those as viable reasons to vote for Obama. This election will be a referendum on Barack Obama and the perceived "riskiness" of electing an untested and inexperienced politician. If the Republicans can eliminate a few of the differences between Obama and McCain that may have driven voters into the Democrat's column, then Bush will have helped McCain win what should have been an unwinnable election. Voters have short attention spans and most Americans will just begin tuning in to the campaign in the next few weeks and THEN start making their decisions. If, come election day, there's increased diplomacy by the Bush government and McCain's talking troop withdrawal, it won't matter that Obama thought of them first, what will matter is that Obama will have lost his central thrust, he will have lost his campaign's foundation as a tenable issue, and he will have lost the election. And of all people, it will be thanks to George W. Bush.
Although Obama's greatest weaknesses are foreign policy and defence, it is in these arenas that Obama has most fundamentally defined his candidacy. Obama's position on Iraq (will end it in 16 months) and on diplomacy (we must talk more to our allies AND our enemies) has been a central characteristic of his campaign thus far and was the central thrust in his attack on and defeat of Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obama's cosmopolitan world view, his diplomacy-first policies, his bring-the-troops-home position, are the bedrock of his candidacy. And that is where President Bush has been undermining him, chipping away at the foundation of the Democratic candidate's platform.
In the last 4 weeks, Bush has made gigantic course changes on Iraq and foreign relations. Most of the media has called these moves flip-flops or as The Guardian puts it, a "remarkable turnaround". However, these moves are in fact constructed, nuanced changes designed to weaken the Democrats' positions going into the Fall election. Last month, Bush moved to adopt a "time horizon" for withdrawing troops from Iraq, reversing what was once a set-in-stone position against such a move. This will allow both the Bush Administration and the McCain campaign to adjust their positions on the increasingly unpopular war. McCain can now (and he has) suggest that troops CAN come home as the situation on the ground improves. With this, Obama's central position disappears. By using the vague language of "time horizon" Bush allows McCain and the Republicans to minimize the difference between Obama and themselves and appeal to independent voters, while not alienating the Republican base. This move seriously undercuts Obama's charge that McCain will not bring troops and wants a never-ending war.
A similar move by the Bush White House on diplomacy is undercutting Obama's central tenant of talking and negotiating with our enemies: Bush has announced a hundred new diplomatic hirings; the Administration has decided to station a diplomatic mission in Iran (the first in 30 years); Condoleeza Rice entered talks with Iran last month regarding their nuclear ambitions; and Rice personally delivered the Russia-Georgia ceasefire agreement to the Georgian President this week. Suddenly, George Bush has discovered the diplomacy that Obama has been campaigning for. And just as suddenly, Obama's calls for more talking and more negotiating don't seem so new and exciting; they no longer count as a "new form of politics" if the Bush government has already adopted them.
What these two abrupt changes by the Bush Administration represent is an effort to move the Republican Party closer to Barack Obama's core positions on foreign policy so as to eliminate those as viable reasons to vote for Obama. This election will be a referendum on Barack Obama and the perceived "riskiness" of electing an untested and inexperienced politician. If the Republicans can eliminate a few of the differences between Obama and McCain that may have driven voters into the Democrat's column, then Bush will have helped McCain win what should have been an unwinnable election. Voters have short attention spans and most Americans will just begin tuning in to the campaign in the next few weeks and THEN start making their decisions. If, come election day, there's increased diplomacy by the Bush government and McCain's talking troop withdrawal, it won't matter that Obama thought of them first, what will matter is that Obama will have lost his central thrust, he will have lost his campaign's foundation as a tenable issue, and he will have lost the election. And of all people, it will be thanks to George W. Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)