AP have a very unfortunate and untimely leak - from Obama's perspective - on prospective chiefs of staff in an Obama White House. We've heard the names floated before but this AP piece suggests that Obama approached Rep. Rahm Emanuel with the offer. Naturally, Emanuel's office denies it, and Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic convincingly refutes it but one can already hear McCain clearing his voice and bellowing "not only has my opponent measured the drapes, he's already picked his Chief-of-Staff, and they can't wait to raise your taxes and spread the wealth around. Now that's why Joe the Plumber and I, you there Joe, are going to...real Americans...but they forgot to let you decide."
Let's wait for Obama to close it out or McCain to pull off a comeback win before the transition speculation begins in earnest.
However, briefly consider the options that have been floated around for Obama. Rahm Emanuel, John Podesta, and Tom Daschle.
Rahm Emanuel (Rahm-bo) is from Chicago and worked in the Clinton White House. He may be a likely choice, but, as Ambinder notes, his personality could well disrupt Obama's messaging.
John Podesta, who's heading Obama's transition team, also hails from Chicago and was Clinton's final Chief-of-Staff.
Tom Daschle, a former Senate Majority and Minority Leader, comes from South Dakota.
Obama may be "inexperienced" but he's lining up some very familiar hands - these candidates have very solid, convincing, and Clintonesque (he has little choice here) experience, nicely coupled with voices from his familiar Midwestern stomping ground.
This resonates neatly with the Biden pick. Meanwhile, is McCain scouring Guam and the US Virgin Islands for some obscure, yet popular legislator to be his chief of staff?
Friday, 31 October 2008
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
The audacity of hope on Iran
Legend has it that Mr Sarkozy finds Obama's policy on Iran 'arrogant' and 'utterly immature'.
There is no disputing Sarkozy's judicious assessment here. He is, after all, the undisputed global authority on both arrogance and utter immaturity.
There is no disputing Sarkozy's judicious assessment here. He is, after all, the undisputed global authority on both arrogance and utter immaturity.
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Unhealthy politics: sifting through the rubble of McCain and Obama's healthcare proposals
Note: please see Healthcare.com's HealthDecision 08 for a comprehensive and nonpartisan breakdown of Barack Obama and John McCain's healthcare plans.
The day of reckoning for Barack Obama and John McCain is now just under three weeks away. The campaign has intensified to a level that could hardly have been anticipated last June when Obama secured his victory in the primaries. General interest has peaked, as has voter registration. People throughout the world are obsessing over every development in this campaign, as two inherently likeable, yet unorthodox characters battle it out in order to win the right to lead the world’s most powerful nation, which is itself at such a critical juncture.
The US economy is in a frightful state and worsening as every day draws on, despite massive and unprecedented government intervention. The United States is involved in direct wars on two fronts, and an indirect war on terrorism on countless others. For the first time in decades, Washington faces credible global competition. All the while, dissatisfaction with the state of the country on behalf of ordinary Americans has reached historical proportions. There is no doubt it will take prodigious skill, unequalled intellect, and original vision to lead the US out of this quagmire and renew the country’s great promise. Each presidential candidate can, in their unique ways, make a convincing case to be that person. Both Obama and McCain have profound biographies, far-reaching vision, and unfaltering dedication to their country.
However, they each approach problems from their own divergent philosophies.
There is one subject, which is of immense importance that illustrates their disparate beliefs. Healthcare, as the election approaches, is foremost on the minds of many Americans. There is no wonder why. Prescription drug costs are high. Medical costs are sky-rocketing. Many Americans receive their health insurance through their employers which bears some notable negatives. As the National Review points out, rising premiums have a harmful impact on take-home pay. Employees are often deprived of agency in deciding their healthcare package as the choice is made by employers. And very often, termination of employment will leave someone, not just unemployed but, lacking medical coverage. Most staggering of all, approximately 47 million people in the United States live an uncertain life without health insurance.
With such a stark reality in mind one would think that the issue of healthcare has been the preponderant focus of the presidential campaign. It has not. It’s easy for everyday realities to be overshadowed by fundamental changes such as Russia’s invasion of Georgia or the current financial crisis. However, less excusable is the ease with which the candidates have allowed this campaign to be distracted by debate on peripheral or trivial issues of fleeting importance. For quite some time, there was far more discussion of gaffes, East Coast elites, toasters, and lipsticked pigs then there was of the 47 million uninsured.
Thankfully, though belatedly, healthcare has made an entrance in the last week. One reason for this is because the candidates’ positions on the financial crisis have been more nuanced than substantive (both supported the bailout, both opposed welfare cheques for CEOs, both transformed into raging populists). Their criticisms of each other have been more personal than policy-oriented. One was “erratic”; the other “phoned it in”. On healthcare, however, the gulf is more apparent.
Naturally, that did not translate into an honest debate automatically. Obama and McCain both sought to paint their opponent’s healthcare plans as radical, outside the mainstream, and unworkable. Meanwhile, they both attempted to present their own as an original solution to a crippling problem that is, at the same time, straight down the middle politically. McCain has invoked the presence of Reagan and the spectre of socialized healthcare when berating Obama’s plan. He frequently argues that the Democrat will plant government in between the citizen and his/her doctor. Conversely, Obama has attempted to portray an out of touch McCain who will endeavour to tax the middle class and turn over more revenue to insurance companies.
Obama has placed greater emphasis on healthcare in his advertising, carefully preying on McCain’s favouring of market solutions and deregulation to somehow create an underlining impression that healthcare will follow the financial system down the tubes if McCain is allowed to touch it. In one ad, entitled “Coin”, Obama and McCain’s positions are juxtaposed in order to carefully carve an impression that Obama stands beside the middle class, while McCain envisages Wall St. solutions for health. In unmistakeably clear language the narrator claims, “McCain would deregulate insurance giants letting them bypass patient protections.” Obama has an acute sense of timing and the power of the word “deregulate” in the current climate is considerable.
The Obama campaign has also made great play of McCain’s proposal to offer a $5,000 tax credit on health insurance. In at least four ads (“Taketh”, “One word”, “Prescription”, and “Can’t explain”) the claim has been advanced that McCain’s tax credit would be transferred directly to insurance companies. Obama has additionally argued that McCain would tax employer based health benefits which amounts to a middle class tax hike. As the Democrat put it in the second presidential debate, “one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.” He was fully supported by his running mate who argued, with the best line of the vice-presidential debate, that taxing these benefits was “the ultimate bridge to nowhere.”
What then does McCain really propose? Thanks to Healthcare.com there is now a comprehensive and bi-partisan source that breaks down, with clarity and precision, the proposals of both candidates. Fundamentally, McCain intends to lower the total cost of healthcare, and would do so using the market as a hinge or a “lever”. Following this, McCain’s primary avenue for lowering costs will be the creation of greater choice in the healthcare market giving consumers agency. He would indeed introduce a tax on the money company’s pay for their employee’s insurance premiums, with the goal of bridging the gap between employee based healthcare and insurance from other sources. This is predicated on the belief that greater choice will cause costs to plummet. McCain also proposes a $5,000 tax credit for families ($2,500 for individuals) with the aim of reimbursing employees for the rise in company based premiums, or offsetting the costs of a private health plan, depending on which option a citizen elects.
There is no doubt that McCain’s plan is rooted in solid logic and would, as Healthcare.com notes, increase competition and give consumers greater choice. For some Americans, in light of the current economic atmosphere McCain may well be battling history on his market solutions. One potential pitfall is the development of “coverage gaps”. Moreover, those with a diagnosed condition, and those without the financial wherewithal, would struggle to get insurance. To counteract this McCain proposes to use federal and state assistance to aid those afflicted in what is a more complicated aspect of his plan. This might also be where it would unravel in the eyes of conservatives.
Ronald Brownstein of National Journal writes, in a detailed assessment of McCain’s healthcare proposals, that considering so many American’s use employer based health insurance, “McCain would upend that system.” An additional proposal to allow insurance policies from any state be sold in every state would, according to Brownstein, “undercut state laws requiring insurers to cover specific treatments.” On the whole the writer concluded: “The real problem with McCain's idea is that, without the economic incentive provided by the exclusion, more employers might stop offering coverage. And even employers who want to continue could find it difficult because younger workers would be likely to use their credit to buy stripped-down, cheaper coverage on their own. That would leave employers covering only older and sicker workers, which could quickly swell premiums to unaffordable levels.”
In contrast to McCain, Obama has struck an emotional chord with voters on this subject. Whereas McCain has performed quite poorly, Obama has poignantly recounted the days of his ailing mother battling insurance companies. His proposals are predictably compassionate. The primary focus is to greatly increase the levels of coverage. Obama would guarantee coverage for any American or permanent resident who requested it by opening a national health plan based on the system available to employees of the federal government. However, health insurance under the Obama plan is not mandated, as it would have been under Hillary Clinton. For Healthcare.com some of the primary benefits of the Obama plan would be the greater access it would offer the uninsured, and the incentives it would provide for small-businesses to offer health coverage to employees. Moreover, the plan includes “a market-place mechanism for standardizing, regulating and extending coverage for health insurance plans by way of the National Health Insurance Exchange.”
On the downside, Obama’s reforms are seen as so sweeping they would suffer a troubled legislative existence, with congressional passage far from assured even with solid Democratic control of congress. Moreover, it may be difficult to raise the requisite level of funding in the current economic environment. An editorial in the National Review contended, “Obama’s plan amounts to putting the whole country on Medicare, which would reduce the quality of care, empower bureaucrats over doctors and patients, and, quite possibly, bankrupt the federal government.” This argument is effectively along the lines of McCain’s charge that it would put government in between the patient and the doctor.
A supporter might retort, it’s better to have government in the middle than an insurance company. This underscores the fundamental disparity in the approaches of both candidates. McCain’s proposal sees an active role for the market, with the state as a guarantor. Obama, on the other hand, would use the market, but has generally drawn up a plan that would see the state become more of a protagonist. With the financial crisis, McCain’s private sector solutions may seem out of date to some onlookers. Nevertheless, Americans are historically averse to big government, and it is far too early to claim there has been a fundamental shift in outlook on this subject.
There is no appetite for socialized healthcare. It must be stressed that, despite the charges, Obama’s plan is not tantamount to state controlled health services. Greater government involvement yes, but certainly not socialized healthcare. McCain argued at a rally recently, anyone advocating socialized healthcare should travel to Canada or England and take a look at the quality of services there. Funnily enough, Canadians tend to be more proud of their healthcare system than anything else.
Writer Fareed Zakaria draws another link between the two neighbors’ health systems. He asserts that one of the reasons Ontario has outpaced Michigan as North America’s auto-manufacturing hub is because employers are not burdened by the provision of healthcare in Canada as they are in the United States. The candidates are right to focus on how to stimulate business through financial, economic, and tax packages. They would also do well to remember that healthcare is an economic issue too. One does not need to go as far as Zakaria does to see this reality. With premiums becoming so costly and outrageous numbers of people off the radar, healthcare should feature prominently in people’s thinking about who to elect. Similarly, it would be unwise for anyone, voter or candidate, to be too wedded to a particular ideology when thinking of healthcare. Ideological healthcare has proven itself to be a failure on both sides. The rewards will be reaped by whoever harnesses the benefits of all approaches. Even though there is little doubt that the quality of care in the United States is unrivalled, the American healthcare system is broken. The question therefore is not how to improve services so much as access; that should be a priority for voters and prospective presidents alike.
Note: please see Healthcare.com's HealthDecision 08 for a comprehensive and nonpartisan breakdown of Barack Obama and John McCain's healthcare plans.
The day of reckoning for Barack Obama and John McCain is now just under three weeks away. The campaign has intensified to a level that could hardly have been anticipated last June when Obama secured his victory in the primaries. General interest has peaked, as has voter registration. People throughout the world are obsessing over every development in this campaign, as two inherently likeable, yet unorthodox characters battle it out in order to win the right to lead the world’s most powerful nation, which is itself at such a critical juncture.
The US economy is in a frightful state and worsening as every day draws on, despite massive and unprecedented government intervention. The United States is involved in direct wars on two fronts, and an indirect war on terrorism on countless others. For the first time in decades, Washington faces credible global competition. All the while, dissatisfaction with the state of the country on behalf of ordinary Americans has reached historical proportions. There is no doubt it will take prodigious skill, unequalled intellect, and original vision to lead the US out of this quagmire and renew the country’s great promise. Each presidential candidate can, in their unique ways, make a convincing case to be that person. Both Obama and McCain have profound biographies, far-reaching vision, and unfaltering dedication to their country.
However, they each approach problems from their own divergent philosophies.
There is one subject, which is of immense importance that illustrates their disparate beliefs. Healthcare, as the election approaches, is foremost on the minds of many Americans. There is no wonder why. Prescription drug costs are high. Medical costs are sky-rocketing. Many Americans receive their health insurance through their employers which bears some notable negatives. As the National Review points out, rising premiums have a harmful impact on take-home pay. Employees are often deprived of agency in deciding their healthcare package as the choice is made by employers. And very often, termination of employment will leave someone, not just unemployed but, lacking medical coverage. Most staggering of all, approximately 47 million people in the United States live an uncertain life without health insurance.
With such a stark reality in mind one would think that the issue of healthcare has been the preponderant focus of the presidential campaign. It has not. It’s easy for everyday realities to be overshadowed by fundamental changes such as Russia’s invasion of Georgia or the current financial crisis. However, less excusable is the ease with which the candidates have allowed this campaign to be distracted by debate on peripheral or trivial issues of fleeting importance. For quite some time, there was far more discussion of gaffes, East Coast elites, toasters, and lipsticked pigs then there was of the 47 million uninsured.
Thankfully, though belatedly, healthcare has made an entrance in the last week. One reason for this is because the candidates’ positions on the financial crisis have been more nuanced than substantive (both supported the bailout, both opposed welfare cheques for CEOs, both transformed into raging populists). Their criticisms of each other have been more personal than policy-oriented. One was “erratic”; the other “phoned it in”. On healthcare, however, the gulf is more apparent.
Naturally, that did not translate into an honest debate automatically. Obama and McCain both sought to paint their opponent’s healthcare plans as radical, outside the mainstream, and unworkable. Meanwhile, they both attempted to present their own as an original solution to a crippling problem that is, at the same time, straight down the middle politically. McCain has invoked the presence of Reagan and the spectre of socialized healthcare when berating Obama’s plan. He frequently argues that the Democrat will plant government in between the citizen and his/her doctor. Conversely, Obama has attempted to portray an out of touch McCain who will endeavour to tax the middle class and turn over more revenue to insurance companies.
Obama has placed greater emphasis on healthcare in his advertising, carefully preying on McCain’s favouring of market solutions and deregulation to somehow create an underlining impression that healthcare will follow the financial system down the tubes if McCain is allowed to touch it. In one ad, entitled “Coin”, Obama and McCain’s positions are juxtaposed in order to carefully carve an impression that Obama stands beside the middle class, while McCain envisages Wall St. solutions for health. In unmistakeably clear language the narrator claims, “McCain would deregulate insurance giants letting them bypass patient protections.” Obama has an acute sense of timing and the power of the word “deregulate” in the current climate is considerable.
The Obama campaign has also made great play of McCain’s proposal to offer a $5,000 tax credit on health insurance. In at least four ads (“Taketh”, “One word”, “Prescription”, and “Can’t explain”) the claim has been advanced that McCain’s tax credit would be transferred directly to insurance companies. Obama has additionally argued that McCain would tax employer based health benefits which amounts to a middle class tax hike. As the Democrat put it in the second presidential debate, “one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.” He was fully supported by his running mate who argued, with the best line of the vice-presidential debate, that taxing these benefits was “the ultimate bridge to nowhere.”
What then does McCain really propose? Thanks to Healthcare.com there is now a comprehensive and bi-partisan source that breaks down, with clarity and precision, the proposals of both candidates. Fundamentally, McCain intends to lower the total cost of healthcare, and would do so using the market as a hinge or a “lever”. Following this, McCain’s primary avenue for lowering costs will be the creation of greater choice in the healthcare market giving consumers agency. He would indeed introduce a tax on the money company’s pay for their employee’s insurance premiums, with the goal of bridging the gap between employee based healthcare and insurance from other sources. This is predicated on the belief that greater choice will cause costs to plummet. McCain also proposes a $5,000 tax credit for families ($2,500 for individuals) with the aim of reimbursing employees for the rise in company based premiums, or offsetting the costs of a private health plan, depending on which option a citizen elects.
There is no doubt that McCain’s plan is rooted in solid logic and would, as Healthcare.com notes, increase competition and give consumers greater choice. For some Americans, in light of the current economic atmosphere McCain may well be battling history on his market solutions. One potential pitfall is the development of “coverage gaps”. Moreover, those with a diagnosed condition, and those without the financial wherewithal, would struggle to get insurance. To counteract this McCain proposes to use federal and state assistance to aid those afflicted in what is a more complicated aspect of his plan. This might also be where it would unravel in the eyes of conservatives.
Ronald Brownstein of National Journal writes, in a detailed assessment of McCain’s healthcare proposals, that considering so many American’s use employer based health insurance, “McCain would upend that system.” An additional proposal to allow insurance policies from any state be sold in every state would, according to Brownstein, “undercut state laws requiring insurers to cover specific treatments.” On the whole the writer concluded: “The real problem with McCain's idea is that, without the economic incentive provided by the exclusion, more employers might stop offering coverage. And even employers who want to continue could find it difficult because younger workers would be likely to use their credit to buy stripped-down, cheaper coverage on their own. That would leave employers covering only older and sicker workers, which could quickly swell premiums to unaffordable levels.”
In contrast to McCain, Obama has struck an emotional chord with voters on this subject. Whereas McCain has performed quite poorly, Obama has poignantly recounted the days of his ailing mother battling insurance companies. His proposals are predictably compassionate. The primary focus is to greatly increase the levels of coverage. Obama would guarantee coverage for any American or permanent resident who requested it by opening a national health plan based on the system available to employees of the federal government. However, health insurance under the Obama plan is not mandated, as it would have been under Hillary Clinton. For Healthcare.com some of the primary benefits of the Obama plan would be the greater access it would offer the uninsured, and the incentives it would provide for small-businesses to offer health coverage to employees. Moreover, the plan includes “a market-place mechanism for standardizing, regulating and extending coverage for health insurance plans by way of the National Health Insurance Exchange.”
On the downside, Obama’s reforms are seen as so sweeping they would suffer a troubled legislative existence, with congressional passage far from assured even with solid Democratic control of congress. Moreover, it may be difficult to raise the requisite level of funding in the current economic environment. An editorial in the National Review contended, “Obama’s plan amounts to putting the whole country on Medicare, which would reduce the quality of care, empower bureaucrats over doctors and patients, and, quite possibly, bankrupt the federal government.” This argument is effectively along the lines of McCain’s charge that it would put government in between the patient and the doctor.
A supporter might retort, it’s better to have government in the middle than an insurance company. This underscores the fundamental disparity in the approaches of both candidates. McCain’s proposal sees an active role for the market, with the state as a guarantor. Obama, on the other hand, would use the market, but has generally drawn up a plan that would see the state become more of a protagonist. With the financial crisis, McCain’s private sector solutions may seem out of date to some onlookers. Nevertheless, Americans are historically averse to big government, and it is far too early to claim there has been a fundamental shift in outlook on this subject.
There is no appetite for socialized healthcare. It must be stressed that, despite the charges, Obama’s plan is not tantamount to state controlled health services. Greater government involvement yes, but certainly not socialized healthcare. McCain argued at a rally recently, anyone advocating socialized healthcare should travel to Canada or England and take a look at the quality of services there. Funnily enough, Canadians tend to be more proud of their healthcare system than anything else.
Writer Fareed Zakaria draws another link between the two neighbors’ health systems. He asserts that one of the reasons Ontario has outpaced Michigan as North America’s auto-manufacturing hub is because employers are not burdened by the provision of healthcare in Canada as they are in the United States. The candidates are right to focus on how to stimulate business through financial, economic, and tax packages. They would also do well to remember that healthcare is an economic issue too. One does not need to go as far as Zakaria does to see this reality. With premiums becoming so costly and outrageous numbers of people off the radar, healthcare should feature prominently in people’s thinking about who to elect. Similarly, it would be unwise for anyone, voter or candidate, to be too wedded to a particular ideology when thinking of healthcare. Ideological healthcare has proven itself to be a failure on both sides. The rewards will be reaped by whoever harnesses the benefits of all approaches. Even though there is little doubt that the quality of care in the United States is unrivalled, the American healthcare system is broken. The question therefore is not how to improve services so much as access; that should be a priority for voters and prospective presidents alike.
Note: please see Healthcare.com's HealthDecision 08 for a comprehensive and nonpartisan breakdown of Barack Obama and John McCain's healthcare plans.
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Looking ahead to the final debate
The Obama campaign's pre-debate talking points for surrogates were accidentally leaked this morning. Politico's Ben Smith reports that the underlying goal that seeped through the memo was a desire "to raise the stakes" and emphasis that is McCain's last chance to turn it around.
The talking points are iterative on the subject of McCain being erratic, and one can expect Obama to push that line tonight. It also seems that the Obama camp is practically goading McCain into mentioning William Ayers. They've obviously concluded that the Ayers strategy has been a miserable failure- hardly a groundbreaking thought- and therefore have little to lose from McCain mentioning it and allowing Obama to appear wronged. McCain indicated recently that it would be raised. However, considering he did not do so in the second debate, while his campaign was in anti-Obama overdrive, it would be peculiar for him to do so now, after he has tempered the tone of the campaign in the face of a public hardened towards political attacks.
McCain is clearly in a losing position overall though, and it is unlikely he'll have as promising a stage to launch a game-breaking move again. It all depends on what he designs. His campaign "reset button" earlier this week was an absolute failure. It had no impact on the polls, it didn't address economic concerns coherently, and, above all else, it was in no way new or original. With that in mind, and McCain's history of spectacular Haily-Mary gambles (Palin, campaign suspension etc), expect the maverick to throw a final pass tonight. Just don't expect anyone to catch it.
As MacArthur said, "old soldiers never die, they just fade away."
The talking points are iterative on the subject of McCain being erratic, and one can expect Obama to push that line tonight. It also seems that the Obama camp is practically goading McCain into mentioning William Ayers. They've obviously concluded that the Ayers strategy has been a miserable failure- hardly a groundbreaking thought- and therefore have little to lose from McCain mentioning it and allowing Obama to appear wronged. McCain indicated recently that it would be raised. However, considering he did not do so in the second debate, while his campaign was in anti-Obama overdrive, it would be peculiar for him to do so now, after he has tempered the tone of the campaign in the face of a public hardened towards political attacks.
McCain is clearly in a losing position overall though, and it is unlikely he'll have as promising a stage to launch a game-breaking move again. It all depends on what he designs. His campaign "reset button" earlier this week was an absolute failure. It had no impact on the polls, it didn't address economic concerns coherently, and, above all else, it was in no way new or original. With that in mind, and McCain's history of spectacular Haily-Mary gambles (Palin, campaign suspension etc), expect the maverick to throw a final pass tonight. Just don't expect anyone to catch it.
As MacArthur said, "old soldiers never die, they just fade away."
"The last leader of a developed country to follow the Bush doctrine"
Thus, with a cold lack of originality, Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, was described by Jack Layton the leader of the NDP, in a transparent effort to link the Canadian Prime Minister to George Bush. Layton's strategy was such a hit, the leader's of Canada's other political parties have been tripping over each other to land the latest quip linking the two North American conservatives together.
However, what passes for comedy amongst the chattering classes rarely strikes the same chord with voters. It is safe to say that hell will freeze over before Canadians elect anything that resembles George Bush, and that standard applies to Prime Minister Harper. Indeed, the only similarity the two men share is being right of centre. Harper has kept the off-putting and polarising hard right in his party in check since he has been leader. Bush, on the other hand, let them run riot in his. Harper has demonstrated a committment to the war in Afghanistan, where Canada is ably shouldering a burden many its NATO allies are loath to consider, but he could hardly be described as a military adventurer (indeed Afghanistan is a legacy of the pervious liberal government). The merits and demerits of Bush's foreign policy are not up for discussion here, but suffice it to say that comparisons between Bush and Harper on this front are weak. Though Harper has tried to trim regulation in Canada, the financial institutions there are healthy, on the surface level at least, and the Commonwealth member is ably trudging through the credit crunch. The US has lost an inconceivable number of jobs this year, where as over 100,000 jobs were created in Canada last month.
Harper will surely score a rout then in today's election? Apparently not. He has clearly run the country competently, yet true political popularity evades him. He has picked needless fights in this election campaign- one in particular over the arts may have cost him dearly in Quebec- and he has foundered on his strong suit, the economy, as polling day beckoned.
Nevertheless, he remains not just the only viable choice for Prime Minister, he is certainly the right choice. On the basis of Canada's current economic performance alone, he deserves re-election. The Harper government received a string of endorsements from national newspapers (the highlights of which are here), a reality which reflects its solid performance. As the Economist put it: "In what is the first credit-crunch election in a big Western country, Mr Harper’s ejection would set a dispiriting precedent that panic plays better politically than prudence." The Ottawa Citizen too was on the mark: "There are no Obama-esque promises to repair the world. But Mr. Harper offers the steadiest hand and clearest judgment to steer Canada through the rough waters that lie ahead.” This summarises the situation neatly. Harper offers wise and solid stewardship in an age of turmoil. But please do not expect any tingling feeling to shoot up your legs.
That Canadians would dethrone Harper, while doing so well in such chaotic times, would be a masochistic move. Reasonably, polls suggest that outcome to be unlikely. Harper is on course for re-election with a stronger minority government, but it is most probable that the Conservatives will be deprived of the much sought-after majority.
So are the liberal North Americans on the verge of re-electing Bush II? Despite the best efforts of other politicians to frame it that way, not quite. It would seem that Canadians are more clued in to Harper's quips than those of Layton or Dion. The Prime Minister remarked recently, "look the other guys keep talking gloom and doom, talking about recession, they've got the policies that will make it happen."
That should be enough to see him returned as Prime Minister.
However, what passes for comedy amongst the chattering classes rarely strikes the same chord with voters. It is safe to say that hell will freeze over before Canadians elect anything that resembles George Bush, and that standard applies to Prime Minister Harper. Indeed, the only similarity the two men share is being right of centre. Harper has kept the off-putting and polarising hard right in his party in check since he has been leader. Bush, on the other hand, let them run riot in his. Harper has demonstrated a committment to the war in Afghanistan, where Canada is ably shouldering a burden many its NATO allies are loath to consider, but he could hardly be described as a military adventurer (indeed Afghanistan is a legacy of the pervious liberal government). The merits and demerits of Bush's foreign policy are not up for discussion here, but suffice it to say that comparisons between Bush and Harper on this front are weak. Though Harper has tried to trim regulation in Canada, the financial institutions there are healthy, on the surface level at least, and the Commonwealth member is ably trudging through the credit crunch. The US has lost an inconceivable number of jobs this year, where as over 100,000 jobs were created in Canada last month.
Harper will surely score a rout then in today's election? Apparently not. He has clearly run the country competently, yet true political popularity evades him. He has picked needless fights in this election campaign- one in particular over the arts may have cost him dearly in Quebec- and he has foundered on his strong suit, the economy, as polling day beckoned.
Nevertheless, he remains not just the only viable choice for Prime Minister, he is certainly the right choice. On the basis of Canada's current economic performance alone, he deserves re-election. The Harper government received a string of endorsements from national newspapers (the highlights of which are here), a reality which reflects its solid performance. As the Economist put it: "In what is the first credit-crunch election in a big Western country, Mr Harper’s ejection would set a dispiriting precedent that panic plays better politically than prudence." The Ottawa Citizen too was on the mark: "There are no Obama-esque promises to repair the world. But Mr. Harper offers the steadiest hand and clearest judgment to steer Canada through the rough waters that lie ahead.” This summarises the situation neatly. Harper offers wise and solid stewardship in an age of turmoil. But please do not expect any tingling feeling to shoot up your legs.
That Canadians would dethrone Harper, while doing so well in such chaotic times, would be a masochistic move. Reasonably, polls suggest that outcome to be unlikely. Harper is on course for re-election with a stronger minority government, but it is most probable that the Conservatives will be deprived of the much sought-after majority.
So are the liberal North Americans on the verge of re-electing Bush II? Despite the best efforts of other politicians to frame it that way, not quite. It would seem that Canadians are more clued in to Harper's quips than those of Layton or Dion. The Prime Minister remarked recently, "look the other guys keep talking gloom and doom, talking about recession, they've got the policies that will make it happen."
That should be enough to see him returned as Prime Minister.
Sunday, 12 October 2008
Fox News need some relief
Fox News are in an absolutely frantic state these days, searching for anything at all to help them forestall an Obama presidency.
Obviously the Ayers affair is a hot sell, but so too is Acorn. On an hourly basis, some other person who has been harassed by Acorn activists isn't interviewed. Conveniently, Fox pointed out that the states where Acorn has been most conspicuous are battlegrounds leaning towards Obama. Fox are clearly using their experience from expausing fraud in Florida in 2000 to address it this time around.
Anything to avoid the issues.
Earlier, Scott Rasmussen was on and he was repeatedly implored by Fox to give them, and McCain fans, anything to be hopeful of and to do diminish Obama's lead.
He was given a perfect opportunity to say that Obama's six point lead in Rasmussen's tracker today is really quite insignificant. However, he never took the bait and maintained that Obama's position is really quite commanding considering no president has received more than 51% since 1988.
Rasmussen was given plenty more opportunities to correct his erroneous ways, but he decided to be an actual analyst, and reiterated that Obama's position is prime at this point.
Later, Fox's new media superstar, Mike Huckabee, was interviewed and was presented with the chance to reaffirm that McCain is right to push the Ayers link. Unfortunately, Huckabee dissented and said McCain ought to make the case for himself, rather than the case against Obama
That comment left a lot of head scratching in its wake.
Obviously the Ayers affair is a hot sell, but so too is Acorn. On an hourly basis, some other person who has been harassed by Acorn activists isn't interviewed. Conveniently, Fox pointed out that the states where Acorn has been most conspicuous are battlegrounds leaning towards Obama. Fox are clearly using their experience from expausing fraud in Florida in 2000 to address it this time around.
Anything to avoid the issues.
Earlier, Scott Rasmussen was on and he was repeatedly implored by Fox to give them, and McCain fans, anything to be hopeful of and to do diminish Obama's lead.
He was given a perfect opportunity to say that Obama's six point lead in Rasmussen's tracker today is really quite insignificant. However, he never took the bait and maintained that Obama's position is really quite commanding considering no president has received more than 51% since 1988.
Rasmussen was given plenty more opportunities to correct his erroneous ways, but he decided to be an actual analyst, and reiterated that Obama's position is prime at this point.
Later, Fox's new media superstar, Mike Huckabee, was interviewed and was presented with the chance to reaffirm that McCain is right to push the Ayers link. Unfortunately, Huckabee dissented and said McCain ought to make the case for himself, rather than the case against Obama
That comment left a lot of head scratching in its wake.
Saturday, 11 October 2008
Shuffling to the right
John McCain moved to the right of President Bush today, over the administration's decision to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsor's of terrorism.
North Korea represents, without a doubt, one of the vilest regimes to ever stain the planet. Craving a legacy, Bush has pursued a slight thaw with North Korea since the micro-Stalinist state developed nuclear weapons, and this, two months before he leaves office may well be the culmination.
McCain has criticized the development as the product of "hasty and incomplete" diplomacy while his opponent has called it "appropriate".
This brings to mind the Georgia crisis recently, when Obama stood square with the president while McCain marched on to the right. McCain always seems to be a bit loose with his bellicose rhetoric but in each instance has been closer to the mark. Obama was overtly cautious when Russia invaded Georgia, where as McCain rightly called premeditated aggression as it was.
Given Obama's candidacy has partly been a product of the failure of Bush's foreign policy and when one considers his strategy of linking McCain to Bush, it is somewhat ironic that during two significant foreign policy developments of the general election, he has stood squarely with the president. This has everything to do with Bush having greatly moderated his positions, of course, and it is inconceivable that Obama is mimicking the president.
However, McCain's position is not to be brushed aside as some attempt to put distance between himself and the White House, or worse yet, some incarnation of the maverick galloping off into battle. He raised legitimate concerns about the agreement.
As McCain noted it is incredibly difficult to accurately assess developments inside Kim Jong-il's little ice kingdom, so the prospects of the US being fully aware of North Korea's true levels of disarmament are cloudy. McCain rightly asked how the US would gauge Pyongyang's disarmament.
More ominous is the timeline of events. The US effectively lavished aid upon the megalomaniac's regime in response for disarmament following the successful detonation of North Korea's first bomb. Recently, it was rumoured that North Korea threatened to resume its weapons programme if it were not removed from the list. Now it has been, and according the State Department, North Korea promises to resume disarmament. It is very difficult to really know what is taking place, but the fear remains that Bush is craving any success to sign off on. Up until recently, North Korea was that success. Then Pyongyang stopped playing along and started making demands. Now Pyongyang's out of the sin bin and back on the pitch. So the question arises, is North Korea exacting leverage over the United States? That would be a terrifying precedent.
US policy to North Korea is easily formulated: all efforts must be devoted to creating the perfect conditions for the soft collapse of the regime so as not to flood the region with calamity, refugees, and possibly war. Under no circumstances should Washington partake in prolonging the life-span of the anachronistic horror that is Kim's reign. If Washington believes that this deal will further push the tyrant to the wire - one fails to see how it could - than so be it. For now, the fear is it that it will do the complete opposite.
North Korea represents, without a doubt, one of the vilest regimes to ever stain the planet. Craving a legacy, Bush has pursued a slight thaw with North Korea since the micro-Stalinist state developed nuclear weapons, and this, two months before he leaves office may well be the culmination.
McCain has criticized the development as the product of "hasty and incomplete" diplomacy while his opponent has called it "appropriate".
This brings to mind the Georgia crisis recently, when Obama stood square with the president while McCain marched on to the right. McCain always seems to be a bit loose with his bellicose rhetoric but in each instance has been closer to the mark. Obama was overtly cautious when Russia invaded Georgia, where as McCain rightly called premeditated aggression as it was.
Given Obama's candidacy has partly been a product of the failure of Bush's foreign policy and when one considers his strategy of linking McCain to Bush, it is somewhat ironic that during two significant foreign policy developments of the general election, he has stood squarely with the president. This has everything to do with Bush having greatly moderated his positions, of course, and it is inconceivable that Obama is mimicking the president.
However, McCain's position is not to be brushed aside as some attempt to put distance between himself and the White House, or worse yet, some incarnation of the maverick galloping off into battle. He raised legitimate concerns about the agreement.
As McCain noted it is incredibly difficult to accurately assess developments inside Kim Jong-il's little ice kingdom, so the prospects of the US being fully aware of North Korea's true levels of disarmament are cloudy. McCain rightly asked how the US would gauge Pyongyang's disarmament.
More ominous is the timeline of events. The US effectively lavished aid upon the megalomaniac's regime in response for disarmament following the successful detonation of North Korea's first bomb. Recently, it was rumoured that North Korea threatened to resume its weapons programme if it were not removed from the list. Now it has been, and according the State Department, North Korea promises to resume disarmament. It is very difficult to really know what is taking place, but the fear remains that Bush is craving any success to sign off on. Up until recently, North Korea was that success. Then Pyongyang stopped playing along and started making demands. Now Pyongyang's out of the sin bin and back on the pitch. So the question arises, is North Korea exacting leverage over the United States? That would be a terrifying precedent.
US policy to North Korea is easily formulated: all efforts must be devoted to creating the perfect conditions for the soft collapse of the regime so as not to flood the region with calamity, refugees, and possibly war. Under no circumstances should Washington partake in prolonging the life-span of the anachronistic horror that is Kim's reign. If Washington believes that this deal will further push the tyrant to the wire - one fails to see how it could - than so be it. For now, the fear is it that it will do the complete opposite.
He really must be the messiah
Apparently Obama can see into the future:
I distinctly remember the McCain camp crying foul over this speech and charging that Obama had injected race into the camapign.
Well, it didn't take very long for McCain's coterie of goons to oblige Obama's predictions. That an Obama stump speech - after all stump speeches are in themselves engineered to exagerate- could actually understate what eventually has transpired really sheds light on how shameful and disappointing McCain's presidential run has been.
I distinctly remember the McCain camp crying foul over this speech and charging that Obama had injected race into the camapign.
Well, it didn't take very long for McCain's coterie of goons to oblige Obama's predictions. That an Obama stump speech - after all stump speeches are in themselves engineered to exagerate- could actually understate what eventually has transpired really sheds light on how shameful and disappointing McCain's presidential run has been.
Dispatches from the McCain/Palin revolution
Here's a few nuggets that some journalists have observed or concluded about the fires being fueled by McCain/Palin (see my earlier post "playing with fire").
Jonathan Martin, Politico:
"Terrorist!” one man screamed Monday at a New Mexico rally after McCain voiced the campaign’s new rhetorical staple aimed at raising doubts about the Illinois senator: “Who is the real Barack Obama?”
"He's a damn liar!” yelled a woman Wednesday in Pennsylvania. "Get him. He's bad for our country."
At both stops, there were cries of, “Nobama,” picking up on a phrase that has appeared on yard signs, T-shirts and bumper stickers.
"Obama Osama!" one woman called out.
John Weaver, McCain’s former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.
“People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Sen. Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Sen. McCain,” Weaver said. “And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive.”
“Sen. Obama is a classic liberal with an outdated economic agenda. We should take that agenda on in a robust manner. As a party we should not and must not stand by as the small amount of haters in our society question whether he is as American as the rest of us. Shame on them and shame on us if we allow this to take hold.”
Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic:
The saddest thing about many Republicans isn't just that they disagree with liberals on race--it's they are largely ignorant on race. When the McCain campaign cast the spell of diabolical jingoism, they have no idea of the forces they are toying with. We remember Martin Luther King's murder as a sad and tragic event. Less remembered is the fact that ground-work for King's murder was seeded, not simply by rank white supremacy, but by people who slandered King as a communist.
Let me be clear--This is the ghost that McCain Campaign is summoning. This is the Ring Of Power that they want to wield. The Muslim charge, the "Hussein" thing is nothing more than today's red-baiting, and it is what it was then--a cover for racists. You may say I'm overreacting, and I really hope you're right. 999,000 out 1 million times we'll go on like normal and proceed to Election Day. But if some shit pops off, the thug and thug-mongers will not be able to throw up their hands and say "How could I have known?" Ignorance will not save them. Their stupidity is a scourge on us all.
Joe Klein, Time:
"I'm beginning to worry about the level of craziness on the Republican side, the over-the-top, stampede-the-crowd statements by everyone from McCain on down, the vehemence of the crowds that McCain and Palin are drawing with people shouting "Kill him" and "He's a terrorist" and "Off with his head."
Watch the tape of the guy screaming, "He's a terrorist!" McCain seems to shudder at that, he rolls his eyes... and I thought for a moment he'd admonish the man. But he didn't. And now he's selling the Ayres non-story full-time. Yes, yes, it's all he has. True enough: he no longer has his honor. But we are on the edge of some real serious craziness here and it would be nice if McCain did the right thing and told his more bloodthirsty supporters to go home and take a cold shower. But McCain hasn't done the right thing all year. His campaign is appalling, as the New York Times editorial board said today--and more, it is a national disgrace."
David Brooks, The New York Times:
The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.
Conservatives are as rare in elite universities and the mainstream media as they were 30 years ago. The smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment.
This year could have changed things. The G.O.P. had three urbane presidential candidates. But the class-warfare clichés took control. Rudy Giuliani disdained cosmopolitans at the Republican convention. Mitt Romney gave a speech attacking “eastern elites.” (Mitt Romney!) John McCain picked Sarah Palin.
Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.
She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch.
And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away.
Kathleen Parker, National Review:
The McCain campaign knows that Obama isn’t a Muslim or a terrorist, but they’re willing to help a certain kind of voter think he is. Just the way certain South Carolinians in 2000 were allowed to think that McCain’s adopted daughter from Bangladesh was his illegitimate black child.
But words can have more serious consequences than lost votes and we’ve already had a glimpse of the Palin effect.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reported that media representatives in Clearwater were greeted with taunts, thunder sticks and profanity. One Palin supporter shouted an epithet at an African-American soundman and said, “Sit down, boy.”
McCain may want to call off his pit bull before this war escalates.
Jonathan Martin, Politico:
"Terrorist!” one man screamed Monday at a New Mexico rally after McCain voiced the campaign’s new rhetorical staple aimed at raising doubts about the Illinois senator: “Who is the real Barack Obama?”
"He's a damn liar!” yelled a woman Wednesday in Pennsylvania. "Get him. He's bad for our country."
At both stops, there were cries of, “Nobama,” picking up on a phrase that has appeared on yard signs, T-shirts and bumper stickers.
"Obama Osama!" one woman called out.
John Weaver, McCain’s former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.
“People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Sen. Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Sen. McCain,” Weaver said. “And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive.”
“Sen. Obama is a classic liberal with an outdated economic agenda. We should take that agenda on in a robust manner. As a party we should not and must not stand by as the small amount of haters in our society question whether he is as American as the rest of us. Shame on them and shame on us if we allow this to take hold.”
Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic:
The saddest thing about many Republicans isn't just that they disagree with liberals on race--it's they are largely ignorant on race. When the McCain campaign cast the spell of diabolical jingoism, they have no idea of the forces they are toying with. We remember Martin Luther King's murder as a sad and tragic event. Less remembered is the fact that ground-work for King's murder was seeded, not simply by rank white supremacy, but by people who slandered King as a communist.
Let me be clear--This is the ghost that McCain Campaign is summoning. This is the Ring Of Power that they want to wield. The Muslim charge, the "Hussein" thing is nothing more than today's red-baiting, and it is what it was then--a cover for racists. You may say I'm overreacting, and I really hope you're right. 999,000 out 1 million times we'll go on like normal and proceed to Election Day. But if some shit pops off, the thug and thug-mongers will not be able to throw up their hands and say "How could I have known?" Ignorance will not save them. Their stupidity is a scourge on us all.
Joe Klein, Time:
"I'm beginning to worry about the level of craziness on the Republican side, the over-the-top, stampede-the-crowd statements by everyone from McCain on down, the vehemence of the crowds that McCain and Palin are drawing with people shouting "Kill him" and "He's a terrorist" and "Off with his head."
Watch the tape of the guy screaming, "He's a terrorist!" McCain seems to shudder at that, he rolls his eyes... and I thought for a moment he'd admonish the man. But he didn't. And now he's selling the Ayres non-story full-time. Yes, yes, it's all he has. True enough: he no longer has his honor. But we are on the edge of some real serious craziness here and it would be nice if McCain did the right thing and told his more bloodthirsty supporters to go home and take a cold shower. But McCain hasn't done the right thing all year. His campaign is appalling, as the New York Times editorial board said today--and more, it is a national disgrace."
David Brooks, The New York Times:
The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.
Conservatives are as rare in elite universities and the mainstream media as they were 30 years ago. The smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment.
This year could have changed things. The G.O.P. had three urbane presidential candidates. But the class-warfare clichés took control. Rudy Giuliani disdained cosmopolitans at the Republican convention. Mitt Romney gave a speech attacking “eastern elites.” (Mitt Romney!) John McCain picked Sarah Palin.
Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.
She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch.
And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away.
Kathleen Parker, National Review:
The McCain campaign knows that Obama isn’t a Muslim or a terrorist, but they’re willing to help a certain kind of voter think he is. Just the way certain South Carolinians in 2000 were allowed to think that McCain’s adopted daughter from Bangladesh was his illegitimate black child.
But words can have more serious consequences than lost votes and we’ve already had a glimpse of the Palin effect.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reported that media representatives in Clearwater were greeted with taunts, thunder sticks and profanity. One Palin supporter shouted an epithet at an African-American soundman and said, “Sit down, boy.”
McCain may want to call off his pit bull before this war escalates.
Troopergate finding: Palin's actions were unethical, not illegal
The concluding report on the Troopergate affair in Alaska has been released, following a 12-0 vote by Alaska's Legislative Council.
Totalling a mean 263 pages, the report produced by investigator Steve Branchfower concludes, among other things, that Governor Sarah Palin did in fact violate ethics codes for state executives, and thereby abused her power.
Alaska's executive branch ethics act maintains that "each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
Nevertheless, the report is sympathetic to the ordeal which the family was enduring due to the abusive trooper and recommends a course of action to assist families who make complaints arising out of similar ordeals in the future.
The report also concludes that Palin acted within the law when firing Walt Monegan, Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner, even though his refusal to fire the trooper was a "contributing factor" in his own eventual dismissal.
The Anchorage Daily News has a neat summary of the findings to make digesting the document a tad bit easier.
Totalling a mean 263 pages, the report produced by investigator Steve Branchfower concludes, among other things, that Governor Sarah Palin did in fact violate ethics codes for state executives, and thereby abused her power.
Alaska's executive branch ethics act maintains that "each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
Nevertheless, the report is sympathetic to the ordeal which the family was enduring due to the abusive trooper and recommends a course of action to assist families who make complaints arising out of similar ordeals in the future.
The report also concludes that Palin acted within the law when firing Walt Monegan, Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner, even though his refusal to fire the trooper was a "contributing factor" in his own eventual dismissal.
The Anchorage Daily News has a neat summary of the findings to make digesting the document a tad bit easier.
Friday, 10 October 2008
Playing with fire
John McCain is in Minnesota today facing down yet another angry mob of supporters who have been riled to fever pitch by Sarah Palin's race-baiting politics of division. At a town hall in Wisconsin yesterday, the mavericks answered a series of questions that neatly fell into the theme we've been seeing all week. McCain/Palin supporters are frothing with rage because they are only beginning to realise that the prospect of Obama being the next president has gone from a possibility to a likely outcome. Added to that has been the McCain/Palin policy of scorched earth politics, rooted in the realisation that they can only win if the make Obama absolutely unacceptable to 50.1% of people. What about the divided country? Apparently they're indifferent to it. So a barrage of anti-intellectual and anti-media sentiment turned into a torrent of anti-diversity populist rage.
The theme from their rallies, Palin's in particular, has been clear: Obama is not one of us, and therefore he's not really American. Such messaging has been far from subtle, and has recently been compounded by the links to William Ayers. The combination of Obama (who a frightening amount of McCain/Palin rally-goers seem to believe is a radical Islamic terrorist) with Ayers (a downtrodden domestic terrorist) is a corosive cocktail, partly because the concept of domestic terrorism was obliterated by 9/11, so when Palin accuses Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists", it hardly matters that the terrorist in question is white (nor does it matter that the link is misleading), because the word terrorism is enough to associate Obama with the mountains of Afghanistan, where too many people already place him.
Needless to say these tactics are shameful. Even more so considering McCain promised to wage an honest campaign. However, he has long since made the political version of a Faustian pact, and as such, everything is on the table. Once McCain lambasted an introducer who had in turn lambasted Barack Hussein Obama. Now the recital of Obama's full name at McCain/Palin rallies is a mandatory feature on the menu (this reached a nadir when performed by the Lee County Sheriff).
The shameful nature of the some characters turning out to these rallies has been displayed through a number of videos on the internet. These are easy to find, but they will not be linked here as I have no interest in contributing to the situation in any way at all, nor do I care to give idiots a platform to take the bait and display their unfathomable stupidity. Suffice it to say that these videos illustrate how people turning out to these rallies believe, apparently on masse, Obama to be a terrorist, because of his "bloodlines" and his name, or at the very least a "commy faggot". Again the nadir- there always is one- was when a child said of Obama, "you need gloves to touch him." That his parents should be arrested is beyond question. However, it is just a small part of the tale. Calls for Obama's assassination at these rallies is routine. Meanwhile, Palin just smiles on, stoking the fires.
Another thing that is clear beyond doubt is that McCain is uncomfortable and unhappy with the situation. It provides a small piece of solace that McCain is visibly disturbed by the events, and at his town hall meetings when yet another lunatic emerges to wax lyrical about Obama taking over America, McCain usually shuffles nervously and turns around. However, it is his name that is displayed on the campaign. He is responsible, and the buck stops with him. McCain unleashed Palin, allowed her to construct a public persona founded lies, and then allowed her to spew forth venom which has helped foster division, and create an image of Obama as un-American, not American, or as a terrorist.
The enraged tone of the last week is also recieving mainstream attention, precisely because it has gotten so out of hand. Many conservatives have also written about the negative impact of the Palin effect, while others have speculated that violence could be on the horizon. Simply to watch a McCain/Palin event would lead one to that conclusion easily.
John McCain has lost control of his campaign, and his tactic of making Obama unacceptable has already created apparent fissures in the nation's electorate. Doubtless, it is putting independents off, and Obama continues to soar in the national and battleground polls. Therefore, it is likely that the tragic end to this campaign will pitch a President Obama against a chunk of the citizenry who view him as an un-American alien imposter, clandestinely plotting the downfall of America. It did not have to be this way, of course, but McCain ceded control of his campaign to the architects of the Bush war room (presumably after giving them steroids) and ultimately to his running mate. The final levy was breached recently, when McCain clearly gave the green light for all chips to be put in.
If ever there was proof that McCain has been overruled by his campaign, his running mate, and his supporters it came today in Minnesota (a state Obama is approximately ten points clear of McCain in). After a week of negative coverage of the shameful turn his campaign has taken, McCain pleaded with his supporters to be "respectful". "We have to fight and I will fight but we will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments and I want to be respectful," McCain said. His crowd were less than enthused. If ever there was proof that events have outpaced the angry and disoriented Senator it came subsequently in the event. A supporter stood up and said he was "scared" by the prospect of an Obama presidency, to which McCain responded: "I have to tell you Senator Obama is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as President of the United States." Too little to late. What happened? McCain was booed by his own crowd at his own rally.
Obama supporters attend rallies holding on to hope and cheering "yes we can." Some McCain supporters attend rallies reeling with rage and filled with fear, while a few scream "kill him", "off with his head", and "nobama". This is the fruit of McCain's negative campaigning, it's his child, and he's now reaping his own whirlwind.
It is a truly disappointing condition for the world's original democracy- for a country founded upon the highest of ideals. McCain must now do everything in his power to return his campaign to the issues that are dominating the country, and everyone else's minds, and state in no uncertain terms that racially tinged and divisive politics will not be tolerated. First and foremost, he must tell his running mate.
In Bethlehem, PA, some McCain supporters were chanting go back to Russia at a group of Obama followers across the road. Perhaps some people should just go to Alaska before it's too late.
The theme from their rallies, Palin's in particular, has been clear: Obama is not one of us, and therefore he's not really American. Such messaging has been far from subtle, and has recently been compounded by the links to William Ayers. The combination of Obama (who a frightening amount of McCain/Palin rally-goers seem to believe is a radical Islamic terrorist) with Ayers (a downtrodden domestic terrorist) is a corosive cocktail, partly because the concept of domestic terrorism was obliterated by 9/11, so when Palin accuses Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists", it hardly matters that the terrorist in question is white (nor does it matter that the link is misleading), because the word terrorism is enough to associate Obama with the mountains of Afghanistan, where too many people already place him.
Needless to say these tactics are shameful. Even more so considering McCain promised to wage an honest campaign. However, he has long since made the political version of a Faustian pact, and as such, everything is on the table. Once McCain lambasted an introducer who had in turn lambasted Barack Hussein Obama. Now the recital of Obama's full name at McCain/Palin rallies is a mandatory feature on the menu (this reached a nadir when performed by the Lee County Sheriff).
The shameful nature of the some characters turning out to these rallies has been displayed through a number of videos on the internet. These are easy to find, but they will not be linked here as I have no interest in contributing to the situation in any way at all, nor do I care to give idiots a platform to take the bait and display their unfathomable stupidity. Suffice it to say that these videos illustrate how people turning out to these rallies believe, apparently on masse, Obama to be a terrorist, because of his "bloodlines" and his name, or at the very least a "commy faggot". Again the nadir- there always is one- was when a child said of Obama, "you need gloves to touch him." That his parents should be arrested is beyond question. However, it is just a small part of the tale. Calls for Obama's assassination at these rallies is routine. Meanwhile, Palin just smiles on, stoking the fires.
Another thing that is clear beyond doubt is that McCain is uncomfortable and unhappy with the situation. It provides a small piece of solace that McCain is visibly disturbed by the events, and at his town hall meetings when yet another lunatic emerges to wax lyrical about Obama taking over America, McCain usually shuffles nervously and turns around. However, it is his name that is displayed on the campaign. He is responsible, and the buck stops with him. McCain unleashed Palin, allowed her to construct a public persona founded lies, and then allowed her to spew forth venom which has helped foster division, and create an image of Obama as un-American, not American, or as a terrorist.
The enraged tone of the last week is also recieving mainstream attention, precisely because it has gotten so out of hand. Many conservatives have also written about the negative impact of the Palin effect, while others have speculated that violence could be on the horizon. Simply to watch a McCain/Palin event would lead one to that conclusion easily.
John McCain has lost control of his campaign, and his tactic of making Obama unacceptable has already created apparent fissures in the nation's electorate. Doubtless, it is putting independents off, and Obama continues to soar in the national and battleground polls. Therefore, it is likely that the tragic end to this campaign will pitch a President Obama against a chunk of the citizenry who view him as an un-American alien imposter, clandestinely plotting the downfall of America. It did not have to be this way, of course, but McCain ceded control of his campaign to the architects of the Bush war room (presumably after giving them steroids) and ultimately to his running mate. The final levy was breached recently, when McCain clearly gave the green light for all chips to be put in.
If ever there was proof that McCain has been overruled by his campaign, his running mate, and his supporters it came today in Minnesota (a state Obama is approximately ten points clear of McCain in). After a week of negative coverage of the shameful turn his campaign has taken, McCain pleaded with his supporters to be "respectful". "We have to fight and I will fight but we will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments and I want to be respectful," McCain said. His crowd were less than enthused. If ever there was proof that events have outpaced the angry and disoriented Senator it came subsequently in the event. A supporter stood up and said he was "scared" by the prospect of an Obama presidency, to which McCain responded: "I have to tell you Senator Obama is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as President of the United States." Too little to late. What happened? McCain was booed by his own crowd at his own rally.
Obama supporters attend rallies holding on to hope and cheering "yes we can." Some McCain supporters attend rallies reeling with rage and filled with fear, while a few scream "kill him", "off with his head", and "nobama". This is the fruit of McCain's negative campaigning, it's his child, and he's now reaping his own whirlwind.
It is a truly disappointing condition for the world's original democracy- for a country founded upon the highest of ideals. McCain must now do everything in his power to return his campaign to the issues that are dominating the country, and everyone else's minds, and state in no uncertain terms that racially tinged and divisive politics will not be tolerated. First and foremost, he must tell his running mate.
In Bethlehem, PA, some McCain supporters were chanting go back to Russia at a group of Obama followers across the road. Perhaps some people should just go to Alaska before it's too late.
How embarrassing
Firstly, it was extremely duplicitous of CTV to claim "on reflection...we owe it to you to broadcast everything that happened," having "indicated" that they would not afford the clip public passage. They should have either refused to re-start the interview, or else been upfront about their intentions to broadcast the interview in its entirety. Both options would have made their sneaky pretence of public service a lot more digestible.
However, long after CTV's lack of integrity is forgotten everyone will still remember this painful episode in Stephane Dion's career. The Liberals have every right to feel aggrieved about the way CTV handled the affair. But really CTV are just a news organisation. Stephane Dion aspires to lead one of the world's major countries- and a G8 economy- after Tuesday. His inability to answer a question that was phrased simply ("If you were Prime Minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr Harper has not done?") should not be patched over with weak explanations of the different role that tenses play in English and French.
Canada is a bi-lingual country and it is only right that a Francophone should seek high-office. However, given that over 20 million of Canada's 33 million people cannot speak French at all, it seems reasonable to expect an aspiring prime minister to possess a suitable level of proficiency in English. Moreover, given that most global business is conducted in English, it would seem odd for a primarily English speaking country to elect a leader who could so easily fall foul of syntax. The thought of Dion at a G8 summit or an emergency financial summit, which lurks on the horizon for Canada's next leader, is enough to make one cringe.
It is disturbingly ironic that Dion would claim that Stephen Harper has not done enough to ease Canadians' anxiety over the economic crisis, only to be incapable of explaining what he would do differently, let alone understand the premise behind a question that he teed-up for himself.
Canada can surely do a whole better than this. Given that it is one of the few countries (in fact, I know of no other) that experienced real job growth last month, electing Dion on Tuesday seems like an insane prospect.
Harper's French may well leave a lot to be desired, but at least that is a better reflection of the Canadian population. True bilingualism does not mean electing a Francophone leader for the sake of it. Least of all one who speaks English poorly, but with a mitigating Franco twang.
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
The real reason the Rhino uses a black background
...has absolutely nothing to do with this.
But knowing what I do now...the Rhino now uses a black background in the interests of medicating the West's narcotic enfatuation with Middle Eastern oil.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
But knowing what I do now...the Rhino now uses a black background in the interests of medicating the West's narcotic enfatuation with Middle Eastern oil.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
