Congratulations Obama

Congratulations to Barack Obama on winning a second term. Conservative pundits thought that was utterly impossible. Obama won 26 states and the District of Columbia. Only two states switched parties, with North Carolina and Indiana going back to the Republicans. Once again no President has won the election without also winning a majority of states since Jimmy Carter achieved this in 1976. I find that winning the election while winning only a minority of states is quite possible, but the way that votes nationwide swing from election to election makes this particular scenario unlikely. Obama again won all the Kerry states, all the Gore states, 9 out of 10 Dukakis states, and most 1992 and 1996 Clinton states outside the South. Obama is the first Democratic President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to win a majority of the popular vote in two elections. FDR won four terms, and won a majority of the popular vote in all four. Since then until this year Democratic Presidents have either been assassinated in their first term (John F. Kennedy), declined to run for a second full term (Lyndon Johnson), been defeated at their run for a second term (Jimmy Carter), or failed to win a majority of the popular vote for their second term or their first term for that matter (Bill Clinton). Presidents have been term limited since the 1940s to two terms when a constitutional amendment was passed limiting the number of Presidential terms. Many felt that FDR’s four terms went against the precedent set by George Washington when he declined to run for a third term and all other Presidents followed suit at the end of their second term until FDR ran for a third term in 1940. FDR ran for a fourth term as well in 1944 in the middle of World War II and won the narrowest popular vote victory of his Presidential career but still an Electoral College landslide. Sadly FDR only completed less than four months of his fourth term before dying suddenly. This paved the way for Vice President Harry Truman to preside over the end of World War II. This in turn paved the way for the famous Dewey defeats Truman headline when a newspaper in the 1948 Presidential election famously called the election incorrectly when in reality Truman had defeated Republican nominee Thomas Dewey. Truman’s victory was not anticipated because Dewey previously had a large lead because the Democrats had been suffering from an uneven economy despite the post-war economic boom. The Presidential term limit was brought in to enshrine what many saw as a sort of constitutional convention that had lasted for over a century. Because of the term limit Obama can’t run for a third term. I’m not sure what impact this has on the chances of the Democrats retaining the White House in 2016. The Democrats will need a new candidate who can take Obama’s appeal and get-out-the-vote machine with them. Romney’s campaign now admits that their internal polls were skewed Republican because that is what they thought the electorate would look like. I personally knew all along that the public polls had the composition of the electorate right. Republicans hoped that Romney would be like Reagan and defeat a Democratic President (Jimmy Carter in the case of Reagan) who was struggling with a poor economy. Of course this dream of Republicans didn’t work for two reasons. Firstly, the electorate is much more Democratic-leaning then it was in 1980. This fact is reflected in the strong support for Obama in the Northeast, Midwest, and west coast that was conspicuously absent in 1980 for Carter. Some have called Obama the Democratic Reagan. This is an interesting concept. It is true in the sense that both inherited a bad economy, both were unpopular during a large part of their first term because of the bad economy, both suffered mid-term election losses for their party in their respective first terms but both also managed to hold onto the Senate in the two respective midterm elections, and both then went on the win re-election to a second term. It can also be argued that ideologically Reagan and Obama complement each other, Reagan with strong conservative convictions on certain issues and Obama with strong liberal convictions on certain issues. So congratulations to Obama, now the hard work for Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans begins.

Obama and Gary Coleman

I would like to discuss a famous actor who passed away recently. RIP to Gary Coleman. He was a great actor and I shall always remember him for the time he played himself in an episode of the Simpsons and for the voice he played in the game the Curse of Monkey Island (Monkey Island 3). In the Curse of Monkey Island Coleman played the voice of a bratty lemonade sales boy who scams his customers by using a literally bottomless mug that sits on a hole in the table. The lemonade he poured after the customer paid a nickel went to the ground and the customer is scammed when they find the mug empty. The game’s hero, Guybrush Threepwood, switched the bottomless mug for a real mug and when Kenny pours the lemonade into this mug Guybrush gets to drink it. Kenny storms off in a fit as a result of this. Later, however, Kenny sees the error of his ways and runs a legitimate cannon sales business that Guybrush buys several cannons from.

In politics, I am perturbed by Barack Obama’s poor approval numbers. I do not know if it is because of the Gulf oil spill, a still-recovering economy, or lingering unpopularity of his health care reform, but many Americans in my view are too quickly forgetting how much worse things were under George W. Bush. In regards to Obama’s lingering unpopularity over health care, this is unfortunately the case because the Democrats may have won the legislative battle but by then they had long since lost the media battle with the Republicans. The Republicans by the summer of 2009 had already gotten their negative story on the health care bill to be a largely accepted belief among many Americans. Democrats fighting back failed to reverse the minds of many who had been convinced by the massive Republican misinformation. This is harming Obama’s presidency far too much despite the fact that the health care bill he signed is needed, long overdue, and contains none of the Republican negative characteristics attributed to it. As I’ve said, Obama’s health care bill is only a first step in the effort the cover all Americans for health care. Republicans really ought to show more care for the poor who cannot get adequate coverage but then that would not be a typical Republican thing to do, the party that likes to ignore the poor. What concerns me as well is that no matter how much the economy continues to improve in the United States, voters do not give him credit for the recovery and in surveys continue to treat Obama as though the United States in is deep recession. Meanwhile in Canada it is equally disheartening how large a lead the federal Conservatives have taken in the polls over the Liberals. Now is a difficult time to be a Liberal much in the same way that in the US it is a difficult time to be a Democrat. One can hope for improvements in the future.

Obama's health care overhaul

I support the passage in the United States of the recent health care overhaul. Of course I believe it doesn’t go nearly far enough. But it was hard enough to pass the bill as it was. They had to get every single Democratic Senator to vote for it. One notable Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, would not vote for a health care bill that had a public option. Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman also refused to support a public option. I fully support the public option concept and found it unfortunate that it wouldn’t have taken effect until 2013. Universal public health care is always the ideal. Republicans rail against government takeover of health care. Yet that’s a concept I support, and even the American population supports that concept to some extent. As much as Republicans claim that Americans oppose “government takeover” of health care many polls have shown a majority of Americans support the public option, something that Republicans would indeed classify as a “government takeover.” In my view individual states that have Democratic legislatures ought to pass a single payer system for their own state and go beyond the new federal law. California is attempting to do just that right now. However California has a Republican governor, famous actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has promised to veto a single payer bill. Democrats do not have the votes to override a veto. Also passing budgets and budget related items is so difficult under California’s constitution that the single payer bill would actually need voter approval in a referendum. Voter passage in a referendum is no guarantee when the anti-single payer groups would inundate the state with misinformation in an attempt to defeat a single payer system. There is also no guarantee that a single payer system could be passed into law next year. The open California governor’s race is an exact dead heat between the leading Republican and Democratic candidates at the moment and if a Republican wins, they too would surely veto a single payer bill. As for New York, although New York has a Democratic governor, this Democratic governor is badly embattled and is not running for re-election. New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo is expected to seek the Democratic nomination for governor but has yet to announce his candidacy. But even if Cuomo becomes governor, a single payer bill is unlikely to pass unless the Democrats majority in the Senate is expanded. At the moment there is a very narrow Democratic majority in the Senate in which the balance of power is held by socially conservative Democrats. With this narrow majority, it is not clear to me whether a single payer bill could pass. Sadly it also seems difficult for states to implement a single payer system with the constant thorn of budget deficits that is affecting every single jurisdiction in both Canada and the United States. Nevertheless in my view this federal health care bill in the US is only the beginning of the long fight to ensure that the under privileged have complete and total health care coverage in all of the USA.

Obama's State of the Union Address

Barack Obama’s State of the Union address seems very good. Its great that he points out that he and absolutely everyone else hated the bank bailouts. But I would point out that I’ve seen conservatives in the United States blame the hated bank bailouts only on Obama and point to it as example of why Obama is socialist, etc. American conservatives backing Republican Scott Brown in the recent upset Massachusetts Senate election cited the bank bailouts as one of the reasons that they believe Obama is so terrible. But I would point out that the bank bailout bill was signed by George W. Bush in 2008. I’m not sure if Obama was even there to vote for the bank bailout – he was probably out campaigning at the time. American conservatives also have railed against Obama’s stimulus package. But their argument does not hold much water when one considers that Bush also supported a stimulus package in the fall of 2008 but Republicans in his own party filibustered the Bush-supported stimulus until the session ran out. All of these things were just being done to prevent the collapse of the economy and these bailouts and stimulus packages do seem to be preventing the economy from collapsing and seem to be even helping the economy to recover. So in conclusion I’d say a lot more work needs to be done in the United States capital but Obama has given a great State of the Union address.

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.

Canadian and American politics

I am distressed about the fact that Stephen Harper wants to call an election. First he wants to meet all opposition leaders. Sadly Stephane Dion has failed to make an appointment with Harper for earlier than September 9 despite the fact that Harper has rejected September 9 as too late a date. If Dion wants an election all he has to do is refuse to meet with Harper before September 9. But if he wanted to try to avert an election he could take time out of his schedule to meet Harper before then. I am unhappy that Dion has not tried harder to find a mutually acceptable meeting time with Harper. If Harper called an election next week all the by-elections would be cancelled and I am very unhappy about that. Recently Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe found time in his schedule to meet Harper on Friday and NDP leader Jack Layton has agreed to meet Harper on Saturday. So why can’t Dion take time out of his schedule and meet with Harper soon like the other opposition party leaders have done?


In the US, I’d say Joe Biden was a fairly good choice for vice president by Barack Obama. I thought his recent speech at the Democratic National Convention was great. His only disadvantage is that he is from an existing blue state, Delaware, and therefore his presence on the ticket will not have a chance to bring in a red state. Biden is simultaneously seeking re-election to the US Senate. If Obama wins, Biden has to resign. If he resigns prior to the start of the new Congress, he will have to resign twice – resign his existing term and decline to serve the new term. Delaware has a Democratic governor who is term limited. Most likely a Democrat will win the gubernatorial election. But even if a Republican wins the gubernatorial election, Biden has plenty of time to resign and allow the existing Democratic governor to appoint a Democratic successor to the Senate before the new governor takes office.