Saturday, June 13, 2009
Swine flu
In recent weeks I have been preoccupied by exams and studying. I didn’t notice that the swine flu epidemic had gotten way worse. Tens of thousands of people infected (some people think it could be hundreds of thousands). Multiple children have died of swine flu in the United States. My heart goes out to all the families of the children and adults who have died of swine flu worldwide. I didn’t realize how severe this epidemic was. I’m so sorry.
Smiths Falls water bottle plant
The other day in the Kingston Whig standard there was an article about the plans for a water bottle company to take over the empty building where the Hershey Chocolate Factory used to be in Smiths Falls, Ontario. The Council of Canadians has objected to this on the basis that bottled water is bad for the environment due to polluting trucks and due to the fact that water bottles end up in landfills. I do not agree with the Council of Canadians assessment. Water is good for you and bottled water is the only way to drink water on the go. Also, so long as water bottles are recycled they are not a problem. As far as trucks are concerned, that is something we need to work on long term. But by all means open a water bottle factory in Smiths Falls.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
It seems odd the NDP keeps getting scandals recently
It does seem odd that the NDP in recent days has been beset by scandals. First there were union donations in Nova Scotia in the middle of an election campaign. The reason they are considered improper is because the umbrella union organization appeared to use its subdivisions to give more than the new legal donation limit. The NDP has done nothing wrong, however. They immediately returned the donations as soon as they realized there was a problem. The NDP's opponents have called for an RCMP investigation but I disagree. Not every little thing should warrant an RCMP investigation. The governing Manitoba NDP also saw an old scandal resurface over the use of union volunteers in the 1999 Manitoba election to do with election expense claims. Some former NDP worker has come out with the allegation that this mishap was done purposefully. The NDP's response has been that it what they did was thought to be a legal practice at the time and it was only later ruled illegal and the situation was dealt with at this time and there is nothing new here. I'll take the Manitoba NDP's word on this. Although this former NDP worker has called for a public inquiry, there can't be a public enquiry for every single scandal. That would be going too far. Sometimes inquiries and investgations are warranted, but there are times when we should just let things be. Another odd thing is that both these scandals are related to unions. Unions mostly support the NDP in Canada. This was also true at the federal level until union political party donations were completely banned. In most provinces that have an NDP local labour unions almost exclusively support the local NDP. An exception to this is in Ontario. In Ontario, lingering bitterness over the Bob Rae years makes unions in Ontario split their support between the provincial Liberals and the provincial NDP. This held true even during the 2007 Ontario election when Rae had already openly become a Liberal. Rae's effects on the Ontario NDP have long outlasted Rae's time as a member of the NDP. In my view it needs to be firmly established what it is and is not legal for unions to do when it comes to helping political parties so that we don't get scandals like the ones in Manitoba and Nova Scotia.
Monday, May 25, 2009
St. Paul’s by-election
It is now not a matter of if there will be a provincial St. Paul’s by-election, but when. Michael Bryant is quitting politics and will take a newly created job with the City of Toronto. Unlike current federal vacancies where we don’t know whether there will be a by-election because we don’t know when the government will fall, provincially there is a majority government and a by-election is thus guaranteed because there are over two years left in the mandate. I’m not sure of any possible Tory or NDP candidates for the by-election. But one possible Liberal candidate is St. Paul’s public school trustee Josh Matlow. He ran against Ernie Eves in his by-election in 2002 and did quite well, way better than the 1999 result in Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey. I wonder if he’d go for it. Another remotely possible candidate is federal St. Paul’s MP Carolyn Bennett. She ran for the provincial Liberals in 1995 in the St. Paul’s predecessor St. Andrew-St. Patrick. The problem with this idea is that it would be a messy situation because it would create a possible federal by-election in St. Paul’s as well as the provincial by-election. Bennett might also face questions about the federal MP’s pension she would collect while also collecting an MPP salary. Bennett is very unlikely to run. I am a bit concerned about this by-election because the McGuinty government has never had to defend a Toronto seat in a by-election where the Tories got over 25% of the vote. The Tories got about 26% of the vote in St. Paul’s in the last provincial election. The Toronto Star article I read said Bryant would return to electoral politics if McGuinty ever retired as party leader. Of course by then Bryant would not have his seat but one must cross that bridge when one comes to it. I wish Bryant well in his new job.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Goodbye John Tory
I would like to say that I’m sorry that John Tory was humiliated in the Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock by-election. Tory was always very moderate for a Tory and while I always disagreed with him on the overall direction of Ontario, I always appreciated his support for same-sex marriage. Thus I extend to Tory my political condolences. At the same time I am pleased a Liberal won the by-election. Congratulations to Rick Johnson. He, just like Kathleen Wynne before him, proved to John Tory that his Liberal opponent is no pushover. It is unfortunately disturbing that the Ontario PCs are likely to now take a hard shift to the far right because hardcore Conservative Tim Hudak is the frontrunner for the PC leadership. Ontario does not need to go down that road again. Another possible contender for the PC leadership is apparently federal Public Safety minister Peter Van Loan. The issue with a Van Loan run is that he does not have a seat in the Ontario legislature and many Ontario Tories have expressed a desire that their next leader already have a seat in the Ontario legislature. If Van Loan ran and won he would have to convince the holder of his seat in the provincial legislature, Julia Munro, to step aside, something she was unwilling to do for John Tory despite the fact that Tory’s cottage is in her riding. If Van Loan ran, he would not have to resign his seat unless he won the leadership. However protocol would dictate that he would have to resign as a cabinet minister as soon as he entered the provincial leadership race. Then if he didn’t win the leadership he’d have to hope that Harper would be willing to take him back into cabinet.
Strangely enough, Peterborough Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro was approached by some provincial Tories to run for the leadership. He declined. Even if Del Mastro may have been a good leader, Del Mastro himself expressed the view that the next leader should already have a seat in the Ontario legislature. Del Mastro does not have a seat in the Ontario legislature so that would have worked against him if he had run. Also if Del Mastro had run and won, he would have found himself completely seatless. This is because the provincial riding of Peterborough represented at the Ontario legislature is held by the Liberals. Not only this, but all provincial seats adjacent to the Peterborough riding are also held by the Liberals (this includes the Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock riding John Tory just lost). The closest provincial riding to Peterborough held by the PCs is the Durham riding. Thus in the hypothetical situation of Dean Del Mastro running for and winning the Ontario PC leadership, he might have to convince Durham MPP John O’Toole to step aside to allow him to run in a provincial by-election. Considering that O’Toole might not be willing to do so means it is a good thing for Del Mastro that he is not running for the PC leadership. Del Mastro’s only possible incentive for moving to the Ontario legislature is that once a member of the Ontario legislature, his job would be more secure than is his job in the House of Commons. This is because the Ontario legislature has a stable majority government slated to last until September 2011 whereas the federal House of Commons has a much less stable minority government that pundits believe will only last so long. However, considering the likely uphill battle Del Mastro would have faced against frontrunner Tim Hudak it probably would not have been worth it for Del Mastro to run for the PC leadership.
In an article in the Globe and Mail, there is this strange tidbit:
“Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who hails from Calgary, may also be wooed by provincial Tories anxious to gain access to his contacts in ethnic communities in the Toronto area. He was invited to speak at the provincial party's convention last month, where he joked about having been made an "honorary" Ontarian.”
I assume the article didn’t mean that the Ontario PCs may woo Jason Kenney to run for the Ontario PC leadership. Although Kenney may well be an “honorary Ontarian” and although Kenney lives a significant part of the year in Ontario due to his job as an MP, Kenney actually running for the Ontario PC leadership would be too much of a parachute. The article may have been referring to Ontario PC leadership contenders seeking Kenney’s endorsement or may have been referring to the provincial party asking Kenney to use his contacts with Toronto ethnic communities to establish contacts for the Ontario PC party with those same ethnic communities. Kenney actually running for the Ontario PC leadership seems way too “out there” to be possible.
Former Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock MPP Laurie Scott was originally planning to run in her old riding again in 2011. She may well still do so despite there now being a Liberal incumbent in her riding. Even if she didn’t run Rick Johnson would face a tough fight to retain his seat but I’m hoping he fights that fight valiantly and I wish him good luck in the legislature.
Strangely enough, Peterborough Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro was approached by some provincial Tories to run for the leadership. He declined. Even if Del Mastro may have been a good leader, Del Mastro himself expressed the view that the next leader should already have a seat in the Ontario legislature. Del Mastro does not have a seat in the Ontario legislature so that would have worked against him if he had run. Also if Del Mastro had run and won, he would have found himself completely seatless. This is because the provincial riding of Peterborough represented at the Ontario legislature is held by the Liberals. Not only this, but all provincial seats adjacent to the Peterborough riding are also held by the Liberals (this includes the Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock riding John Tory just lost). The closest provincial riding to Peterborough held by the PCs is the Durham riding. Thus in the hypothetical situation of Dean Del Mastro running for and winning the Ontario PC leadership, he might have to convince Durham MPP John O’Toole to step aside to allow him to run in a provincial by-election. Considering that O’Toole might not be willing to do so means it is a good thing for Del Mastro that he is not running for the PC leadership. Del Mastro’s only possible incentive for moving to the Ontario legislature is that once a member of the Ontario legislature, his job would be more secure than is his job in the House of Commons. This is because the Ontario legislature has a stable majority government slated to last until September 2011 whereas the federal House of Commons has a much less stable minority government that pundits believe will only last so long. However, considering the likely uphill battle Del Mastro would have faced against frontrunner Tim Hudak it probably would not have been worth it for Del Mastro to run for the PC leadership.
In an article in the Globe and Mail, there is this strange tidbit:
“Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who hails from Calgary, may also be wooed by provincial Tories anxious to gain access to his contacts in ethnic communities in the Toronto area. He was invited to speak at the provincial party's convention last month, where he joked about having been made an "honorary" Ontarian.”
I assume the article didn’t mean that the Ontario PCs may woo Jason Kenney to run for the Ontario PC leadership. Although Kenney may well be an “honorary Ontarian” and although Kenney lives a significant part of the year in Ontario due to his job as an MP, Kenney actually running for the Ontario PC leadership would be too much of a parachute. The article may have been referring to Ontario PC leadership contenders seeking Kenney’s endorsement or may have been referring to the provincial party asking Kenney to use his contacts with Toronto ethnic communities to establish contacts for the Ontario PC party with those same ethnic communities. Kenney actually running for the Ontario PC leadership seems way too “out there” to be possible.
Former Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock MPP Laurie Scott was originally planning to run in her old riding again in 2011. She may well still do so despite there now being a Liberal incumbent in her riding. Even if she didn’t run Rick Johnson would face a tough fight to retain his seat but I’m hoping he fights that fight valiantly and I wish him good luck in the legislature.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Federal election results
It goes without saying that I am incredibly unhappy about this month’s election results. They really were quite horrendous. That being said, Harper’s brazen attempt to get a majority government by gutting the fixed election date law failed. But the Liberals did so poorly that Harper could have gotten a majority if he had not turned off Quebec voters by insulting Quebec artists. I am an Ontario voter but I couldn’t disagree more with Harper’s assertion that ordinary Canadians don’t care for the arts. I am very pro-art. I like Shakespearean plays, paintings, other plays, musical concerts, and whatever kind of art you can think of. I like certain mainstream television shows and some Hollywood movies, but with the exception of the few TV shows and movies I like, I prefer the “refined art” of the kind that the other parties defended against Conservative attacks during the election.
Now Jean Charest plans to pull a Stephen Harper and call an early election in his province in an attempt to get a majority. I have mixed feelings about this. Although I want Charest to get a majority, I hate early elections. I prefer how things are done in Ontario, when early elections occur very rarely. Ontario has not had an early provincial election since 1990. That’s the way I prefer it and I disagree with politicians of all stripes playing politics with election dates. Charest unfortunately is playing politics with election dates so I cannot on balance agree with his decision to call an election.
This leads to another interesting question. Elizabeth May failed to win a seat in the election. May has since vowed to win Central Nova in the next election and in the meantime promised to run in the first available by-election. But what if the first available by-election is Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Gilles Duceppe’s riding. What if Charest calls the Quebec election and then the PQ does incredibly badly. What if then Pauline Marois resigns the leadership. At that point I see no way Duceppe could resist for a third time going for the PQ leadership. At which point Laurier-Sainte-Marie would be vacant and there would be a by-election. Considering how poorly the Greens did in Quebec, would Laurier-Sainte-Marie really be an appropriate riding for May to run in?
I want to comment on what happened in Outremont in the federal election. This time New Democrat Thomas Mulcair won by 6 percentage points, a much smaller margin than in his by-election win. I even hear that the race sea-sawed back and forth between Mulcair and the Liberal candidate. While I’m glad to see the Liberals do better in Outremont than in the by-election, unfortunately the 33% the Liberals got is still less than the 35% the Liberals won the riding with in the 2006 election. It was also heartbreaking to see Eleni Bakopanos fail to regain Ahuntsic for the Liberals after leading for much of the night. However, the Liberals managed to retake Brossard-La Prairie with a new candidate after a recount. That puts the Liberals at 14 seats in Quebec, which is higher than the 13 won in 2006 under Paul Martin. No doubt this improvement of Liberal fortunes in Quebec is largely due to Stephane Dion’s stellar performance in the French leaders’ debate. It was also good to see Justin Trudeau elected in Papineau. However due to the narrow margin in Papineau, I think it likely that Dion’s excellent French leaders’ debate performance helped put Trudeau over the top.
By contrast however, the Liberals were sadly wiped out in English speaking New Brunswick. The Liberals did much better in French speaking New Brunswick and Dion’s French debate performance probably helped there. What was particularly amazing was that in Madawaska-Restigouche Liberal incumbent Jean-Claude D’Amours increased his margin of victory to several thousand votes over the 800 vote margin he had last time. In part this was due to a slight decline in the Conservative vote, but it was largely due to a substantial increase in the Liberal vote largely at the expense of the NDP. No doubt that some of this was due to strategic voting as a result of the near-Tory win last time. Also the fact that there was a new NDP candidate probably decreased the NDP vote as well. But part of it I am sure is Dion’s excellent French leaders’ debate performance. In addition, I have no doubt that Harper’s poor French leader’s debate performance hurt the Tories in Madawaska-Restigouche.
Sadly I fear Elizabeth May may never win a seat in Parliament. Her chances in a by-election are iffy and her chances in Central Nova are even more iffy. In addition, next time I’d expect May to have a Liberal opponent in Central Nova in addition to the Conservative incumbent. The whole deal about not running a Liberal candidate against May in Central Nova was entirely a Stephane Dion thing and I expect the next leader of the Liberal Party to run a candidate in every single riding as the Liberal Party traditionally does. The Green Party may not even get into the leaders’ debate in the next election because the Green Party no longer has a single MP in the House of Commons and having Blair Wilson was one of the main reasons that May was included in the election’s leaders’ debate.
I was glad to see the Tories wiped out in Newfoundland and Labrador. The NDP won St. John's East with about 75% of the vote and almost won St. John's South-Mount Pearl over the Liberals with the Tories at only 12.6%! In St. John’s East the Tories got a mere 9.3%! I, like all Liberals, wish the rest of Canada could have voted like Newfoundland and Labrador. I’m glad that at least some parts of the country agree that the Tories shouldn’t be in office. I would like to thank Danny Williams for single-handedly wiping out the federal Tories in Newfoundland and Labrador. The strange part is that Williams is a Progressive Conservative, himself a Tory! How strange that a provincial Tory was one of the Liberals best allies in the election.
To be honest, while I’m obviously disappointed in the New Brunswick Liberal results, they do not surprise me too much. English speaking rural New Brunswick is Atlantic Canada’s only Bible Belt so it is not surprising that the Tories do well here. Even English-speaking cities in New Brunswick are somewhat socially conservative so it is not too big a surprise that the Tories won Saint John and Fredericton and almost won Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe (it was probably the francophone minority in Moncton that saved the Liberals here). On a related note, Dominic LeBlanc from Beauséjour, New Brunswick has been the first to announce his bid for the Liberal leadership and I may support him. We need a new leader who can win back government, defeat Stephen Harper, and implement a centrist vision for Canada.
Now Jean Charest plans to pull a Stephen Harper and call an early election in his province in an attempt to get a majority. I have mixed feelings about this. Although I want Charest to get a majority, I hate early elections. I prefer how things are done in Ontario, when early elections occur very rarely. Ontario has not had an early provincial election since 1990. That’s the way I prefer it and I disagree with politicians of all stripes playing politics with election dates. Charest unfortunately is playing politics with election dates so I cannot on balance agree with his decision to call an election.
This leads to another interesting question. Elizabeth May failed to win a seat in the election. May has since vowed to win Central Nova in the next election and in the meantime promised to run in the first available by-election. But what if the first available by-election is Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Gilles Duceppe’s riding. What if Charest calls the Quebec election and then the PQ does incredibly badly. What if then Pauline Marois resigns the leadership. At that point I see no way Duceppe could resist for a third time going for the PQ leadership. At which point Laurier-Sainte-Marie would be vacant and there would be a by-election. Considering how poorly the Greens did in Quebec, would Laurier-Sainte-Marie really be an appropriate riding for May to run in?
I want to comment on what happened in Outremont in the federal election. This time New Democrat Thomas Mulcair won by 6 percentage points, a much smaller margin than in his by-election win. I even hear that the race sea-sawed back and forth between Mulcair and the Liberal candidate. While I’m glad to see the Liberals do better in Outremont than in the by-election, unfortunately the 33% the Liberals got is still less than the 35% the Liberals won the riding with in the 2006 election. It was also heartbreaking to see Eleni Bakopanos fail to regain Ahuntsic for the Liberals after leading for much of the night. However, the Liberals managed to retake Brossard-La Prairie with a new candidate after a recount. That puts the Liberals at 14 seats in Quebec, which is higher than the 13 won in 2006 under Paul Martin. No doubt this improvement of Liberal fortunes in Quebec is largely due to Stephane Dion’s stellar performance in the French leaders’ debate. It was also good to see Justin Trudeau elected in Papineau. However due to the narrow margin in Papineau, I think it likely that Dion’s excellent French leaders’ debate performance helped put Trudeau over the top.
By contrast however, the Liberals were sadly wiped out in English speaking New Brunswick. The Liberals did much better in French speaking New Brunswick and Dion’s French debate performance probably helped there. What was particularly amazing was that in Madawaska-Restigouche Liberal incumbent Jean-Claude D’Amours increased his margin of victory to several thousand votes over the 800 vote margin he had last time. In part this was due to a slight decline in the Conservative vote, but it was largely due to a substantial increase in the Liberal vote largely at the expense of the NDP. No doubt that some of this was due to strategic voting as a result of the near-Tory win last time. Also the fact that there was a new NDP candidate probably decreased the NDP vote as well. But part of it I am sure is Dion’s excellent French leaders’ debate performance. In addition, I have no doubt that Harper’s poor French leader’s debate performance hurt the Tories in Madawaska-Restigouche.
Sadly I fear Elizabeth May may never win a seat in Parliament. Her chances in a by-election are iffy and her chances in Central Nova are even more iffy. In addition, next time I’d expect May to have a Liberal opponent in Central Nova in addition to the Conservative incumbent. The whole deal about not running a Liberal candidate against May in Central Nova was entirely a Stephane Dion thing and I expect the next leader of the Liberal Party to run a candidate in every single riding as the Liberal Party traditionally does. The Green Party may not even get into the leaders’ debate in the next election because the Green Party no longer has a single MP in the House of Commons and having Blair Wilson was one of the main reasons that May was included in the election’s leaders’ debate.
I was glad to see the Tories wiped out in Newfoundland and Labrador. The NDP won St. John's East with about 75% of the vote and almost won St. John's South-Mount Pearl over the Liberals with the Tories at only 12.6%! In St. John’s East the Tories got a mere 9.3%! I, like all Liberals, wish the rest of Canada could have voted like Newfoundland and Labrador. I’m glad that at least some parts of the country agree that the Tories shouldn’t be in office. I would like to thank Danny Williams for single-handedly wiping out the federal Tories in Newfoundland and Labrador. The strange part is that Williams is a Progressive Conservative, himself a Tory! How strange that a provincial Tory was one of the Liberals best allies in the election.
To be honest, while I’m obviously disappointed in the New Brunswick Liberal results, they do not surprise me too much. English speaking rural New Brunswick is Atlantic Canada’s only Bible Belt so it is not surprising that the Tories do well here. Even English-speaking cities in New Brunswick are somewhat socially conservative so it is not too big a surprise that the Tories won Saint John and Fredericton and almost won Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe (it was probably the francophone minority in Moncton that saved the Liberals here). On a related note, Dominic LeBlanc from Beauséjour, New Brunswick has been the first to announce his bid for the Liberal leadership and I may support him. We need a new leader who can win back government, defeat Stephen Harper, and implement a centrist vision for Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)