Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Bob Rae pulled a good magic trick today. Not against Stephen Harper & the Conservative Party of Canada, but against Stephane Dion & Michael Ignatieff. He's had his little you-tube moment, and for a tenth of a second it made me forget about the economy, our national security, crime, health care, and yes, even the environment. It made me think of Iraq. More importantly, it reminded me of Chretien's decision to join the chorus of naysayers against the Americans' resumption of the war in Iraq. Despite 18 UN resolutions denouncing Iraq's violations, and a weariness of allies to force Hussein to comply with the peace treaty signed by his generals, the United States did what was necessary and ultimately, the most humane thing to do: It brought Sadam to justice. Five years after the resumption of this war, our closest neighbor and ally has buried 4,174 of her sons and daughters. Along with that, thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed as a result of terrorist attacks from AQI. It's easy to see how politically easy it was to avoid participating in this chapter of the war. Politically easy isn't necessarily the same thing as being moral. Or right. Enter Michael Ignatieff. In 2003, Mr. Ignatieff supported the war in Iraq, which is easily understood given his time spent living in America. Without the socialist blinders on, it wouldn't be difficult to understand the plight of the Kurds, or for that matter the plight of those living in the rest of Iraq. Then, astoundingly, just months before General David Patraeus was to prove succesful with the "Surge", we were treated to Mr. Ignatieff's about-face. I'll sum up the three page article that he wrote in one sentence: I want you to vote for me, so forget everything I said about human rights for Iraqis. (that's not plagiarism, it's condensing.) So here we are, 2008. We can't say for sure, but we'd definately bet on it, that Stephane Dion is going to lose the election by more than a couple of votes. There's a line up behind Mr. Dion just waiting to get a second crack at the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. (don't ask me why.) The two most obvious potential wannabe leaders are Rae and Ignatieff. What does all this have to do with Stephen Harper? Not much, but it sure makes people remember that Ignatieff once admitted thinking like Harper with regards to a war that most people don't understand and are too lazy to learn the facts about - and there's nothing that Ignatieff can say or write to make people forget that. Not a bad days work if you ask me. Put another knife in the not-a-leader's back, embarrass your next leadership rival, and have your current electoral opponents waste a day playing trivial pursuit. Too bad for him that he's so far out in left field that most sensible people wouldn't vote for him to run their country. He's a hell of a magician though.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The difference between Gerry Ritz and the Liberal's new negative attack ad? Gerry spoke instinctively, like when you stub your toe. It took a lot more than the same .0005 seconds to create and air the new Liberal attack ad. You tell me - who's really worse? Those that respond in a negative way about the death of innocents, and then have to swallow their own blood as it rolls down off their tongue when they realize how offensive they may have sounded? Or would it be those that use the deaths of those innocents in a thought up, scripted, filmed, acted and voiced-over and aired political commercial? Kinda takes the spontaneity out of one of the above when it when it's worded like that, huh?
Friday, September 19, 2008
....And then pull it out from under him. H/T Warren - Has the fat lady sung? & Steve Janke - Oh, You mean that Green Shift! Considering the lastest numbers from Nik Nanos, maybe the plank is the safest part of the ship, which is sinking pretty fast.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Stephen Harper has deposited some credibility into the NDP campaign in a maneuver that should allow him to withdraw some riding wins from the vote split on the left. From The Star: Tories to put NDP, Greens on hot seat "They're beginning to challenge the Liberals as our prime opponent in a number of key areas," the strategist told reporters yesterday. "Liberal support seems to be gravitating to the other two opposition parties." And he singled out NDP Leader Jack Layton in particular, saying that the NDP – not the Liberals – has been serving as the official opposition to the government. "While the Liberals were abstaining from votes and retreating in a number of issues, the NDP were standing firm," the strategist said. "I think it has served them well." as Bruce Campion-Smith explains, "fuelling the perception of the NDP as a strong opposition plays to the Conservatives' interests, too, by undermining the Liberals and the image of Stéphane Dion." I couldn't agree more. I think it's a brilliant campaign strategy. Boost Layton with the expectation that he'll bleed off some support from social Liberals. By admitting that the NDP were the only opposition to defend what they felt was in the best interest of Canadians, the Conservatives have given the NDP some relevancy. I think that this is what we're seeing reflected in the polls now. I still believe that this election is Stephen Harpers to lose. The question is, will Jack Layton finish second or third?
Friday, September 12, 2008
From The Guardian: Stephen Harper is now the number one choice for prime minister among Prince Edward Island residents, according to a new poll by Corporate Research Associates. The Halifax-based polling firm sampled the views of 300 Islanders last month, before Harper pulled the plug on his minority Conservative government Sunday. Harper now has a 10-point lead over Liberal Leader Stephane Dion on the Island. It's easy to see why people are slowly (very, very, very slowly) starting to look at Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. For starters, we have no oil here. Zero. Our main industries are toursim, farming, and fishing. They all involve burning fuel of some sort. Secondly, while our provincial government, along with some federal money, has already green-shifted some of our dependence on electricity to wind energy, we still have to buy the majority of our electricity from off island. It's expensive enough already. Generally, wages here are not competitive with the rest of the country, but the cost of living is low enough that people are able to still have some quality of life. Dion's Green Shift promises to charge us more for the things we do that contribute to global warming, and then give us back a tax break if we conserve. That's of no benefit to those on low incomes, because they don't pay taxes anyway. This province doesn't need any more taxes! In this current election campaign, the four contenders running for the Liberals should perhaps realize that after twenty years, PEI'ers might actually decide that it's time to pay someone else $150,000.00 a year to sit on their arse.
I've been following the leaders tour on CPAC (yeah, I'm a follower, not a leader) and I've noticed something. After three days, it's getting hard to listen to Stephane Dion and Jack Layton. I've always respected Stephen Harper, and even Gilles Duceppe, as politicians. They both speak to the average person and sound more intelligent than either Stephane Dion or Jack Layton. Listening to either Dion or Layton is too much like being talked down to, instead of talked to. I almost hate to say it, but I'd sooner vote for Gilles Duceppe than Dion or Layton. If the Conservatives don't get at least 180 seats in the next parliament, I'll be amazed.
Monday, September 08, 2008
If you get a chance, watch the following segment on CBC's The National tonight. AFGHAN CIVILIANS:According to a humanitarian watchdog--Human Rights Watch--more civilian deaths in Afghanistan from air strikes are fueling a public backlash in that country. A report released today says U.S. and NATO air strikes killed 116 civilians in 2006; in 2007, that number jumped to 321. The CBC's Alison Smith reports from Washington. I just watched the early airing. Not a pretty sight. Claims by the CBC of 90 Afghan women and children killed by American airstrikes. All caught on camera by an Afghani cellphone. Question: Why does a poor Afghani, living in a remote region where there is no cellphone service, barely (if any) electricity to recharge a cellphone, and where the simplest of neccessities such as food are treasured, have a cellphone? Just curious. Not that there's anything wrong with a dirt-poor person living in a place where just existing sometimes seems like asking too much having something that most likely would cost him a years' wage. It's not that I don't care about the deaths of innocent civilians, because I do. This just reminds me of Green Helmet Guy.