Yea Barack Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am overjoyed at the recent election of Democrat Barack Obama as President of the United States. Obama won all the Kerry states and also won all the Gore states. In addition Obama created 9 new blue states: Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. Obama also got an additional electoral vote from Nebraska by winning the Second Congressional District of Nebraska (NE-2) which consists of the Omaha metropolitan area. This occurred because Nebraska gives two electoral votes for the statewide winner, and one electoral vote each for the winner of the Presidential vote within each of Nebraska’s 3 Congressional Districts. Maine also uses this same method. However, never before had either Maine or Nebraska split its electoral votes as a result of this “district method” of allocating electoral votes. That being said, Bush came close to winning Maine’s Second Congressional District in 2000 and in 1992 Ross Perot came close to winning one of Maine’s Congressional Districts. However, because Clinton narrowly won that Congressional District, Ross Perot was unable to get a single electoral vote despite winning 19% of the national popular vote. Because of what happened in Nebraska, Republicans in Nebraska plan to introduce legislation to restore the winner-take-all system of Presidential elections. Nebraska used the winner-take-all system prior to the 1992 Presidential election. Nebraska has a unicameral Upper House (known sometimes as the Nebraska Senate), all of whose members are officially non-partisan. Unofficially however, Republicans make up a majority of the Nebraska Senate and so the bill to return to winner-take-all could conceivably pass considering that Nebraska has a Republican governor. It is however too late to repeal the “district method” for this election so Obama will get an electoral vote from Nebraska.

I will not object too strongly if Republicans in Nebraska manage to repeal their “district method” because I favour the winner-take-all method for Presidential elections. There are many reasons for this but one of the big ones is that the “district method” opens up the Presidential race to gerrymandering and that needs to be avoided at all costs. So if Nebraska Republicans repeal Nebraska’s “district method” I am ok with that even though NE-2 could have broken a 269-269 electoral vote tie in favour of Obama if the election nationwide had been closer. Due to the electoral vote splitting that is to happen in Nebraska, the 1996 Presidential election will still be the last election when not a single state’s electoral votes were split. In 2000, and 2004, there were split electoral votes due to faithless electors. In 2000, a Gore elector for the District of Columbia refused to cast any electoral votes in protest of DC not having full congressional representation. In 2004, a Kerry elector for Minnesota cast his/her electoral vote for John Ewards (sic) for President and John Edwards for vice-president. This vote for “John Ewards” appears to have been a simple mistake. Even though the vote was for “John Ewards” it was certified as a vote for John Edwards. This faithless electoral vote was very unfortunate because it denied John Kerry a well-earned electoral vote from Minnesota. Due to NE-2 going for Obama, this Presidential election will be the first Presidential election since 1960 in which any state’s electoral votes are split (other than splits occurring due to faithless electors).

I feel that also I need to debunk claims that I have seen that Barack Obama is to the right of Stephen Harper. I’ve seen the argument made but I consider such an assertion hogwash. Yes Obama is to the right of Stephane Dion, Bob Rae, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, and even Michael Ignatieff. But Obama is not to the right of Stephen Harper. To make my point I want to debunk the claims made in a recent Toronto Sun column written by columnist Lorrie Goldstein. Goldstein says:

“One of the most intellectually lazy and politically dishonest things the liberal media have done over the past few years is to constantly misrepresent Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a clone of outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush.

Lazy because the facts don't support it. Dishonest because those making the comparison know better.

On the bright side, they now have a lot of splaining (sic) to do, given the number of political views Democratic presidentelect (sic) Barack Obama and Harper share and it will be fun to watch them squirm.”

Goldstein goes on to make his points as to why this is his view. He says:

“For example, Harper, unlike Bush (and Obama), does not support the death penalty. Harper, unlike Bush, supports medicare and has never attempted to use the power of the state to restrict access to abortions.”

It is true that both Bush and Obama support the death penalty but I personally suspect Harper also supports the death penalty considering his government’s new policy of not opposing the death penalty given to Canadians sentenced in the United States. As for Goldstein’s claim that Harper supports medicare, I can tell you that Harper certainly did not support medicare when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition. The National Citizens Coalition opposes Canada’s medicare system, opposes the Canada Health Act and would like to see health care in Canada privatized. It was only after Harper became a party leader that he began publicly supporting the status quo for health care in Canada. As for Obama, Obama platform calls for significantly more government involvement in the United States health care system. It is also of note that Obama’s Presidential predecessor Bill Clinton has come to Canada and given speeches lauding Canada’s health care system and indicating that Canada’s nationalized health care system is the ideal. Considering that Obama’s end goal for health care is to make sure every American is covered, I think the argument can be made that Obama does support medicare. I’m sure Obama always has supported some form of medicare, unlike Harper whom we know at one time opposed the Canadian medicare system. As for abortion, Harper has refused to state his own view on abortion but over the years has clearly given more support to the pro-life side. Obama by contrast is openly and steadfastly pro-choice. This makes Obama the more “abortion choice” friendly politician.

Next Goldstein says:

“Harper's position on same-sex marriage, before the courts decided in its favour and which Harper has not overturned by invoking the Constitution's notwithstanding clause, is the same as Obama's.

Both support civil unions for homosexuals but not same-sex marriages. That's also the position of all the major Democratic presidential contenders in recent years, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Both Harper and Obama support the war in Afghanistan.”

Now we’ve reached everyone’s favourite issue: same-sex marriage. First off let us note that of course Harper has never had the Parliamentary votes to overturn same-sex marriage using the notwithstanding clause even if he wanted to. At first glance it does appear that Harper and Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is the same: no same-sex marriage, civil unions. However there is a key difference. Obama does not favour laws that ban same-sex marriage whereas Harper does. Obama opposed the recent California referendum to ban same-sex marriage ; he endorsed the no side of the California referendum to ban same-sex marriage. Obama also opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment. It is very clearly evident that Obama does not support overturning same-sex marriage in a jurisdiction after a court has legalized same-sex marriage in a jurisdiction. This is in stark contrast to Harper. Harper wanted same-sex marriage in Canada overturned the moment it was legalized by a court in Ontario in 2003. After the 2003 Ontario court ruling, it became Harper’s policy that any court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario or any other province were to be overturned by the government. In the spring of 2005 when the same-sex marriage Bill was being debated, Harper led a Parliamentary campaign to defeat the same-sex marriage bill and to use government legislation to overturn the court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage. This is in stark contrast to Obama, who opposes efforts to overturn court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage. So it is very evident that Harper’s position on same-sex marriage is very much to the right of Obama’s position on same-sex marriage, in contrast to what Goldstein asserts.

As for the war in Afghanistan, both Harper and Obama support it. But this fact does not contribute to either the argument that Obama and Harper are both as right wing nor does it contribute to the argument that Obama is more right-wing than Harper.

Next Goldstein discusses the environment:

“Harper, from oil-rich Alberta and Obama, from coal-rich Illinois, have both softened their past opposition to the Kyoto accord and reducing greenhouse gas emissions for pragmatic reasons.”

I don’t believe that this statement accurately reflects Obama’s position on the environment. During this long Presidential campaign, Obama has been supportive of the Kyoto protocol and it really is hard to argue that Obama has ever been as hostile to efforts to fight climate change as Harper has been in the past.

Next Goldstein talks about taxes:

“Next, consider this example of the logical absurdities to which simplistic comparisons between Canadian and American politicians can lead.

Obama's major campaign promise was a $2.9-trillion tax cut to 95% of American taxpayers over the next decade, despite having inherited a $438-billion deficit from the Bush administration.

On the surface, that sounds a lot like former Conservative Ontario premier Mike Harris' 30% cut to the provincial income tax rate, despite having inherited an $11.2 billion deficit from the previous government of then NDP premier Bob Rae in 1995.

So, does that mean Obama is a Harris clone, a closet common sense revolutionary? Will the federal Liberals (and liberal media), who attacked Harris for cutting taxes without first balancing the budget, make the same criticism of Obama today? Of course not.”

I consider this comparison between Harris and Obama to be absurd because Harris’s tax cut program involved cutting taxes for all income levels (Harris did not implement enough tax cuts for the low income brackets of course), whereas Obama’s plan involves raising taxes for the wealthiest and cutting taxes for everyone else. Also of course Obama’s tax plan puts a greater emphasis on cutting taxes for lower income earners than Harris’s plan ever did. So therefore Goldstein’s comparing Harris’ tax plan to Obama’s tax plan is like comparing apples and oranges and in reality does not make help make Goldstein’s argument.

Next Goldstein makes another comment on taxes:

“Now factor in that cutting taxes in tough times (albeit with a different emphasis on who gets the most benefits) has been done by both Republican and Democratic administrations. So, is Obama a Ronald Reagan clone? See how silly this gets?”

Of course Obama is not a Ronald Reagan clone. Again, Reagan’s tax cuts did not involve raising income taxes for the highest income earners, unlike Obama’s tax plan. So Obama and Reagan cannot be compared based on taxes.

Finally Goldstein discusses the Iraq War:

“Finally, to address what the liberal media think is their best argument, yes, had Harper been PM in 2003 it is likely, despite his denials today, that we would have joined the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

But in the U.S. at the time, support for invading Iraq was a bipartisan position widely held by Republicans and Democrats -- and by prominent Liberals inside and outside of then PM Jean Chretien's government, including the current frontrunner for Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff.

For the liberal media to argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that Harper was wrong and Chretien right, is supportable. But to argue that makes Harper a Bush clone is absurd.”

Goldstein makes a good point about Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff’s position on Iraq really handicapped his 2006 bid to lead the Liberal party. But I disagree with Goldstein on his point about Iraq. Harper supported the Iraq war and would surely have sent Canadian troops to Iraq. This made his position the same as Bush’s. Why can’t we use these facts to make the “Harper is a Bush clone” argument? It is also very noteworthy that Obama opposed the Iraq War from the start, which clearly makes Obama to the left of Harper on Iraq.

To conclude, I feel that it is very fair to say that Barack Obama is to the left of Stephen Harper.