On the eve of the election, Stephane Dion demonstrates just how unprepared he is to be the Prime Minister of ALL of Canada.
Watch it here: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mv-5biChVrA
And here: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/mike-duffy-live/thursday-oct-9/#clip101442
I know a refugee from Honduras in Toronto who, until one year ago had never spoken a word of English. His English speech and comprehension are stellar compared to Professor Dion, who has reportedly lived in Canada for some 53 years.
How can you be Prime Minister when you are unable to communicate effectively with 78% of the population?
This was a simple question, clearly enunuciated in three different ways, and Dion could obviously hear the interviewer ("hearing problem" my a*&). It is now clear he simply doesn't understand English. We already knew he can't speak it coherently.
So Professor Dion has wrong-headed policies (increased taxes and spending at a time of economic crisis and uncertainty) spun dishonestly (revenue neutral - NOT - when you consider how much your cost of living will rise as a result of his ill-considered "Green Shift", and how little your taxes will drop - if at all), is making up policy on the fly, and now we have clear evidence that he cannot communicate effectively with 78% of the population.
Stephane Dion is clearly unfit to lead Canada.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
CBC onslaught on Harper government begins
As expected, the CBC's reporting on the election has started off according to expectations from this genetically anti-conservative news outlet.
7:00 AM World Report Monday Sept. 8 reports on the start of the partys' campaigns. First the Conservatives are skewered by targeting a local conservative campaign in Brantford where the local candidate has reportedly been "muzzled by Harper", and "cannot talk to the media". Reportedly this is also true of other candidates according to the reporter. The "history" given by the news team is that in 2006, Harper was "sideswiped" by two members who talked about using the notwithstanding clause and (here it comes again) a woman's right to choose on abortion. They just can't help themselves in helping the Liberals trying to ressurect that "scary" image of what Harper might do as a "hard-right social conservative" monster.
We are told they called a news conference at their "so-called war room" (come on - it's a common term in all election campaigns), but few reproters attended, but that's OK since there was little new - in the CBC's opinion.
Then they focused on the broken Harper promise not to tax income trusts, and featured a guy who is running for the Liberals on that issue.
Predictably all of the reports had either a negative tone, or a negative theme for the Conservatives.
On the other hand, Dion has a busy day. Lots of sound bites of him attacking Layton and Harper - straight from his mouth rather than an interpretation spun by CBC staff. No mention of his leadership problems. No mention of well-read blog reports that his campaign will be far from carbon-neutral unless he claims carbon credits, and whether or not those carbon payments will come out of his allowed election expenses. A nice bite of him trying to explain how his scheme would work. No mention that in Saskatoon he reportedly didn't know what a car pool is.
Layton is in Calgary, in Harper's riding where he claims he's running to be Prime Minister - as wildly unrealistic as his economy-destroying policies, but no negative spin from CBC.
So CBC focuses on the Liberal, and NDP leaders with their direct quotes to get out their message, but for the Conservatives they put an obscure (he lost last time) rural candidate under the microscope in an attempt to create controversy, fear and mistrust ... as per the Liberal campaign plan, and ressurect years-old niche issues.
What else is new?
It will be interesting to track the spin the CBC (and others) tack on Harper and the Conservatives during the next 5 weeks, and whether or not the other partys are also similarly attacked. Dion especially needs to be put under the microscope, given the controversy dogging his leadership, and the potentially mammoth effects to our economy should his so-called Green Shift plan ever comes to fruition. Growing carbon taxes on every energy-using segment of our economy, with a very few exceptions, in exchange for a measly 1.5% & 1% income tax cut on the lowest tax brackets and no tax cut at all on the upper bracket sounds to me like a massive tax grab, and given the implications of those carbon taxes to most goods and services in Canada, like a massive finanical loss to almost every Canadian family.
Is this really what Canada needs in a sluggish economy? Are CBC, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, CTV and other activist media outlets willing to ask those hard questions, or are we in for yet another media campaign of anti-Conservative fear-mongering by the Liberals' media allies?
7:00 AM World Report Monday Sept. 8 reports on the start of the partys' campaigns. First the Conservatives are skewered by targeting a local conservative campaign in Brantford where the local candidate has reportedly been "muzzled by Harper", and "cannot talk to the media". Reportedly this is also true of other candidates according to the reporter. The "history" given by the news team is that in 2006, Harper was "sideswiped" by two members who talked about using the notwithstanding clause and (here it comes again) a woman's right to choose on abortion. They just can't help themselves in helping the Liberals trying to ressurect that "scary" image of what Harper might do as a "hard-right social conservative" monster.
We are told they called a news conference at their "so-called war room" (come on - it's a common term in all election campaigns), but few reproters attended, but that's OK since there was little new - in the CBC's opinion.
Then they focused on the broken Harper promise not to tax income trusts, and featured a guy who is running for the Liberals on that issue.
Predictably all of the reports had either a negative tone, or a negative theme for the Conservatives.
On the other hand, Dion has a busy day. Lots of sound bites of him attacking Layton and Harper - straight from his mouth rather than an interpretation spun by CBC staff. No mention of his leadership problems. No mention of well-read blog reports that his campaign will be far from carbon-neutral unless he claims carbon credits, and whether or not those carbon payments will come out of his allowed election expenses. A nice bite of him trying to explain how his scheme would work. No mention that in Saskatoon he reportedly didn't know what a car pool is.
Layton is in Calgary, in Harper's riding where he claims he's running to be Prime Minister - as wildly unrealistic as his economy-destroying policies, but no negative spin from CBC.
So CBC focuses on the Liberal, and NDP leaders with their direct quotes to get out their message, but for the Conservatives they put an obscure (he lost last time) rural candidate under the microscope in an attempt to create controversy, fear and mistrust ... as per the Liberal campaign plan, and ressurect years-old niche issues.
What else is new?
It will be interesting to track the spin the CBC (and others) tack on Harper and the Conservatives during the next 5 weeks, and whether or not the other partys are also similarly attacked. Dion especially needs to be put under the microscope, given the controversy dogging his leadership, and the potentially mammoth effects to our economy should his so-called Green Shift plan ever comes to fruition. Growing carbon taxes on every energy-using segment of our economy, with a very few exceptions, in exchange for a measly 1.5% & 1% income tax cut on the lowest tax brackets and no tax cut at all on the upper bracket sounds to me like a massive tax grab, and given the implications of those carbon taxes to most goods and services in Canada, like a massive finanical loss to almost every Canadian family.
Is this really what Canada needs in a sluggish economy? Are CBC, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, CTV and other activist media outlets willing to ask those hard questions, or are we in for yet another media campaign of anti-Conservative fear-mongering by the Liberals' media allies?
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Canadian Press enters the election clearly opposing the Conservatives
Excerpts of this “report” below
Far be it for Bruce Cheadle and Canadian Press (and watch for lock-step anti-Conservative activist “reporters” from CBC, CTV, Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, etc., etc.) to simply report facts. They just can’t resist interpretation, excuses for their side, highlighting negatives for the Conservatives, and overlooking failures and weaknesses for their side (ie. Liberals). As reported this morning on Bourque, “CBC's Mansbridge inexplicably breaks away from hostileDion press conference to go to the marginalized Bloq/Duceppe press'er”
The Conservative Party won’t just be fighting the Liberals, NDP and Bloc in this election. They will also be fighting the combined resources of the CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and Canadian Press among many others, who will do everything in their power to swing the vote to prevent a Conservative win, or at the very least, a Conservative majority.
In Canada, as in the U.S., election “reporting” by the mainstream media has become little more than a thinly-disguised advocacy for the agents of big government, doctrinaire multilateralism and wealth redistribution.
Excerpts:
By Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press
… Prime Minister Stephen Harper, weary of waiting for the opposition to bring down his minority government, dashed his promise of a fixed election date and pulled the plug himself …
Straight reporting – Stephen Harper went to the Governor General and asked that parliament be dissolved to call an election. Period.
… Harper said this election will be a choice between certainty and risk at a time when the world economy has entered a period of instability - a statement aimed at scaring voters away from Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's proposed overhaul of Canada's tax system. …
Straight reporting – the second part of this paragraph departs from Harper’s quote to give a negative interpretation, and misrepresenting a 1% income tax cut to the lower and middle class in return for massive tax increases on just about anything involving energy as a positive “overhaul of Canada’s tax system”.
… Harper's managerial acumen in a slowing economy will be pitted against Dion's "Green Shift" plan - designed to shift taxation off income and on to greenhouse gas-emissions. …
Straight reporting – in fact the tax increases that come with the “Green Shift” are massively in excess of the tiny 1% income tax cut only to the lower and middle classes – in fact a massive tax grab to finance Liberal pet projects, and likely at the cost of huge increases in costs of goods and services to Canadians who will thus be negatively affected by Liberal carbon taxes. The last part of this paragraph was added as an editorial pitch for the Liberal plan.
… Dion accused Harper of abandoning the poor, squandering the $12-billion surplus left by the Liberals, …
Straight reporting – by definition a surplus means the government over-taxed the taxpayers in excess of their promises and budgeted needs. So Canadian Press’s “squandered surplus” is a responsible accountant’s definition of over-taxation. The smaller the “surplus”, as long as it isn’t a deficit, the better the management. Big surpluses to be blown are only positive to big-taxing, big-spending advocates.
… Public opinion polling over the past year suggests another minority is in the offing - common wisdom that's been openly embraced by Harper, who doesn't want to scare off voters wary of what a Tory majority might do. …
Straight reporting – the last part of this paragraph is blatant campaigning against the Conservatives by a reporter who wants to resurrect the spectre of the scary “hidden agenda” of Stephen Harper. Disgusting, irresonsible – and unprofessional.
… The autumn of their first year in power, the Conservatives galvanized one angry constituency with $2 billion in spending cuts that targeted such things as the court challenges program, adult literacy and women's programs - while posting a $13 billion surplus for 2005-06. …
Straight reporting – a review of all of the negative reports of the Conservative’s mandate to reinforce the Liberal’s “scary” campaign is mandatory for the anti-Conservative media. Typical.
… They infuriated another constituency by breaking an election promise and restricting income trusts. …
Straight reporting – more reviewing and highlighting of early-mandate negatives – don’t want the voters to forget them do we!
… And their first attempt at environmental legislation was greeted with such widespread disdain that it was all but scrapped and the minister was shuffled. …
Straight reporting – yet more negatives from only one point of view – “widespread disdain” is only from the Liberal side of the spectrum.
… Harper also shocked the Commons by announcing he would recognize "the Quebecois" as a nation within a united Canada. …
Straight reporting – can you imagine Canadian Press, or any other leftist outlet, highlighting this as a negative if it had come from Dion, Chretien, or Martin?! This is designed to remind western Conservatives and weaken Harper’s base.
Completely missing from this “report” – any mention at all of Stephane Dion’s failure to connect with English Canada, his weak leadership, his unpopular “Green Shift” plan at a time of record energy prices, the questions over the revenue-neutrality of his plan, the disharmony within the Liberal Party, Dion’s inability to communicate with 75% of Canadians, disorganization and lack of funds within the Liberal Party, loss of support for the Liberals in Quebec and falling support in Ontario, – and on and on.
This will be the type of “reporting” the Harper Conservatives will have to deal with for the next 5 weeks as the mainstream leftist media in Canada does its very best to thwart his plans for a win, and especially a majority government. The usual suspects who have already made up their minds to vote Liberal – NDP – Green will not be swayed, nor will hard-core conservatives.
But those who haven’t yet decided how they will vote should read all media reports with a very critical eye, and most important of all, consider the source. Editorial interpretation and media spin should not be confused with hard facts.
There is indeed a “hidden agenda” in this election, but it isn’t from the Harper Conservatives. It is from the ranks of the committed social activists who have taken over the mainstream media in this country, and for whom the spectre of a second Harper mandate is anathema, and for whom a Harper majority would represent a repudiation of all they represent.
The rampant anti-McCaine/Palin agenda of the mainstream media in the U.S. has been exposed for what it is, and derision and well-deserved abuse is being heaped on them as a result. They are now becoming the brunt of late night talk show host jokes and monologues. With any luck at all the same hard scrutiny will be applied to our own activist media, and they will be exposed for the unapologetic advocates they really are. Any resemblance of objective reporting will be accidental, or the bare minimum needed to retain a modicum of even-handedness. I’m not holding my breath.
The above interpretation of today’s election call is but the first shot from a very hostile media corps.
Far be it for Bruce Cheadle and Canadian Press (and watch for lock-step anti-Conservative activist “reporters” from CBC, CTV, Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, etc., etc.) to simply report facts. They just can’t resist interpretation, excuses for their side, highlighting negatives for the Conservatives, and overlooking failures and weaknesses for their side (ie. Liberals). As reported this morning on Bourque, “CBC's Mansbridge inexplicably breaks away from hostileDion press conference to go to the marginalized Bloq/Duceppe press'er”
The Conservative Party won’t just be fighting the Liberals, NDP and Bloc in this election. They will also be fighting the combined resources of the CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and Canadian Press among many others, who will do everything in their power to swing the vote to prevent a Conservative win, or at the very least, a Conservative majority.
In Canada, as in the U.S., election “reporting” by the mainstream media has become little more than a thinly-disguised advocacy for the agents of big government, doctrinaire multilateralism and wealth redistribution.
Excerpts:
By Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press
… Prime Minister Stephen Harper, weary of waiting for the opposition to bring down his minority government, dashed his promise of a fixed election date and pulled the plug himself …
Straight reporting – Stephen Harper went to the Governor General and asked that parliament be dissolved to call an election. Period.
… Harper said this election will be a choice between certainty and risk at a time when the world economy has entered a period of instability - a statement aimed at scaring voters away from Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's proposed overhaul of Canada's tax system. …
Straight reporting – the second part of this paragraph departs from Harper’s quote to give a negative interpretation, and misrepresenting a 1% income tax cut to the lower and middle class in return for massive tax increases on just about anything involving energy as a positive “overhaul of Canada’s tax system”.
… Harper's managerial acumen in a slowing economy will be pitted against Dion's "Green Shift" plan - designed to shift taxation off income and on to greenhouse gas-emissions. …
Straight reporting – in fact the tax increases that come with the “Green Shift” are massively in excess of the tiny 1% income tax cut only to the lower and middle classes – in fact a massive tax grab to finance Liberal pet projects, and likely at the cost of huge increases in costs of goods and services to Canadians who will thus be negatively affected by Liberal carbon taxes. The last part of this paragraph was added as an editorial pitch for the Liberal plan.
… Dion accused Harper of abandoning the poor, squandering the $12-billion surplus left by the Liberals, …
Straight reporting – by definition a surplus means the government over-taxed the taxpayers in excess of their promises and budgeted needs. So Canadian Press’s “squandered surplus” is a responsible accountant’s definition of over-taxation. The smaller the “surplus”, as long as it isn’t a deficit, the better the management. Big surpluses to be blown are only positive to big-taxing, big-spending advocates.
… Public opinion polling over the past year suggests another minority is in the offing - common wisdom that's been openly embraced by Harper, who doesn't want to scare off voters wary of what a Tory majority might do. …
Straight reporting – the last part of this paragraph is blatant campaigning against the Conservatives by a reporter who wants to resurrect the spectre of the scary “hidden agenda” of Stephen Harper. Disgusting, irresonsible – and unprofessional.
… The autumn of their first year in power, the Conservatives galvanized one angry constituency with $2 billion in spending cuts that targeted such things as the court challenges program, adult literacy and women's programs - while posting a $13 billion surplus for 2005-06. …
Straight reporting – a review of all of the negative reports of the Conservative’s mandate to reinforce the Liberal’s “scary” campaign is mandatory for the anti-Conservative media. Typical.
… They infuriated another constituency by breaking an election promise and restricting income trusts. …
Straight reporting – more reviewing and highlighting of early-mandate negatives – don’t want the voters to forget them do we!
… And their first attempt at environmental legislation was greeted with such widespread disdain that it was all but scrapped and the minister was shuffled. …
Straight reporting – yet more negatives from only one point of view – “widespread disdain” is only from the Liberal side of the spectrum.
… Harper also shocked the Commons by announcing he would recognize "the Quebecois" as a nation within a united Canada. …
Straight reporting – can you imagine Canadian Press, or any other leftist outlet, highlighting this as a negative if it had come from Dion, Chretien, or Martin?! This is designed to remind western Conservatives and weaken Harper’s base.
Completely missing from this “report” – any mention at all of Stephane Dion’s failure to connect with English Canada, his weak leadership, his unpopular “Green Shift” plan at a time of record energy prices, the questions over the revenue-neutrality of his plan, the disharmony within the Liberal Party, Dion’s inability to communicate with 75% of Canadians, disorganization and lack of funds within the Liberal Party, loss of support for the Liberals in Quebec and falling support in Ontario, – and on and on.
This will be the type of “reporting” the Harper Conservatives will have to deal with for the next 5 weeks as the mainstream leftist media in Canada does its very best to thwart his plans for a win, and especially a majority government. The usual suspects who have already made up their minds to vote Liberal – NDP – Green will not be swayed, nor will hard-core conservatives.
But those who haven’t yet decided how they will vote should read all media reports with a very critical eye, and most important of all, consider the source. Editorial interpretation and media spin should not be confused with hard facts.
There is indeed a “hidden agenda” in this election, but it isn’t from the Harper Conservatives. It is from the ranks of the committed social activists who have taken over the mainstream media in this country, and for whom the spectre of a second Harper mandate is anathema, and for whom a Harper majority would represent a repudiation of all they represent.
The rampant anti-McCaine/Palin agenda of the mainstream media in the U.S. has been exposed for what it is, and derision and well-deserved abuse is being heaped on them as a result. They are now becoming the brunt of late night talk show host jokes and monologues. With any luck at all the same hard scrutiny will be applied to our own activist media, and they will be exposed for the unapologetic advocates they really are. Any resemblance of objective reporting will be accidental, or the bare minimum needed to retain a modicum of even-handedness. I’m not holding my breath.
The above interpretation of today’s election call is but the first shot from a very hostile media corps.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Toronto's Failing Society
So far this year, 14 Canadians have been killed in Afghanistan.
So far this year, 35 Canadians have been murdered in Toronto.
I think Canada should get out of Toronto. We're doing better in Afghanistan.
So far this year, 35 Canadians have been murdered in Toronto.
I think Canada should get out of Toronto. We're doing better in Afghanistan.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Obama's Missed Opportunity
Too bad U.S. president wannabe, Barack Obama, backed out of an opportunity to sponsor a NASCAR racecar. It seems to me it would have been the perfect metaphor for his campaign.
(CHANGE gears and HOPE I win!)
If he wins (fat chance - see Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis for similar media-hyped faint hopes), he will drag the U.S. on a hard, fast track to the left, and lost in all of the excitement and noise of the event will be the sad fact that he will be going in endless circles, going nowhere.
I think the true Obama crowd will be sipping latte's in their Volvos in Boston and Seattle - not sucking brewskis with good ol' boys in Georgia and Texas.
"HOPE and CHANGE" is not a plan. It's a slogan.
Ordinary NASCAR fans are smart enough to know that.
(CHANGE gears and HOPE I win!)
If he wins (fat chance - see Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis for similar media-hyped faint hopes), he will drag the U.S. on a hard, fast track to the left, and lost in all of the excitement and noise of the event will be the sad fact that he will be going in endless circles, going nowhere.
I think the true Obama crowd will be sipping latte's in their Volvos in Boston and Seattle - not sucking brewskis with good ol' boys in Georgia and Texas.
"HOPE and CHANGE" is not a plan. It's a slogan.
Ordinary NASCAR fans are smart enough to know that.
The Liberals' Hidden Agenda
Re: Green shift targets the rich: Liberal
A way to transfer Alberta wealth to 'rest of country' in today's National Post.
It would seem the Liberals have their own "Hidden Agenda". How instructive that a Liberal MP, one who is privy to closed-door discussions, has laid bare for all to see the real agenda of their so-called "Green-Shift" strategy.
Far from trying to save the planet, the Liberals are returning to their true roots. Stick it to "the rich", and engineer a massive redistribution of wealth in Canada. When all else fails, fall back on class warfare and the politics of envy. How cheap and superficial. How irresponsible!
While I'm certain this admission will bring howls of approval from the usual suspects in downtown Toronto and Vancouver and their faithful mouthpieces at the CBC and the Toronto Star, if that's really the goal, then hang it out there for all to see and let's have that open debate rather than one on a half-baked, smoke-and-mirrors theory of so-called "green-shifting".
Remember, as Stephane Dion reminded us so conveniently this week - he does have a PhD. The problem is, it's in Sociology - not the Environment or Economics. Taxing success, redistributing wealth, and rewarding mediocrity are in his academic DNA. (And, not uncoincidentally, his dog is named "Kyoto" - the real agenda is revealed).
This man deserves to be sent back to academia ASAP. In my opinion, his untested theories and less than forthright agenda represent a clear and present danger to the economic and political future of this country.
A way to transfer Alberta wealth to 'rest of country' in today's National Post.
It would seem the Liberals have their own "Hidden Agenda". How instructive that a Liberal MP, one who is privy to closed-door discussions, has laid bare for all to see the real agenda of their so-called "Green-Shift" strategy.
Far from trying to save the planet, the Liberals are returning to their true roots. Stick it to "the rich", and engineer a massive redistribution of wealth in Canada. When all else fails, fall back on class warfare and the politics of envy. How cheap and superficial. How irresponsible!
While I'm certain this admission will bring howls of approval from the usual suspects in downtown Toronto and Vancouver and their faithful mouthpieces at the CBC and the Toronto Star, if that's really the goal, then hang it out there for all to see and let's have that open debate rather than one on a half-baked, smoke-and-mirrors theory of so-called "green-shifting".
Remember, as Stephane Dion reminded us so conveniently this week - he does have a PhD. The problem is, it's in Sociology - not the Environment or Economics. Taxing success, redistributing wealth, and rewarding mediocrity are in his academic DNA. (And, not uncoincidentally, his dog is named "Kyoto" - the real agenda is revealed).
This man deserves to be sent back to academia ASAP. In my opinion, his untested theories and less than forthright agenda represent a clear and present danger to the economic and political future of this country.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
"Sky is the Limit" for Liberals' sense of entitlement
“For Liberals, 'the sky is the limit'” reads the headline in the Globe and Mail.
It's clear to me that the same old Liberal arrogance and sense of entitlement that spawned the sponsorship scandal is still alive and well. There's a new captain on board, they've shuffled the deck chairs, but apparently an unrepentant Liberal Party of Canada is still steering the ship, obviously minus a moral compass. Nothing has changed with this bunch.
Anyone with a wit of sense, who understands the intent of the ban on corporate political donations and a limit of $1,100 per donor would know that the aborted Liberal scheme to draw "limitless" donations from corporate donors is illegal, unethical and against every principle of the new rules. Yet a veteran Liberal MP, on CBC's "Politics" show claimed that the party wasn't clear, and thought the scheme was OK.
They got caught with the lid off the cookie jar, intending to steal more cookies ... yet again.
Obviously this gang hasn't learned a thing, and they do not deserve to be trusted with the reins of power any time soon.
It's clear to me that the same old Liberal arrogance and sense of entitlement that spawned the sponsorship scandal is still alive and well. There's a new captain on board, they've shuffled the deck chairs, but apparently an unrepentant Liberal Party of Canada is still steering the ship, obviously minus a moral compass. Nothing has changed with this bunch.
Anyone with a wit of sense, who understands the intent of the ban on corporate political donations and a limit of $1,100 per donor would know that the aborted Liberal scheme to draw "limitless" donations from corporate donors is illegal, unethical and against every principle of the new rules. Yet a veteran Liberal MP, on CBC's "Politics" show claimed that the party wasn't clear, and thought the scheme was OK.
They got caught with the lid off the cookie jar, intending to steal more cookies ... yet again.
Obviously this gang hasn't learned a thing, and they do not deserve to be trusted with the reins of power any time soon.
Why John McCaine will win the White House
I believe John McCaine will indeed be the next president of the United States. Won't the CBC's already inflated victory balloon pop when that happens!
I live on the U.S. border. While there are hard-core Democrats and Republicans who literally hate each other (those who vote in primaries), the vast majority of Americans are, like Canadians, somewhere in the middle. They are swing voters and independents. I think they are sick to death of the vitriolic partisanship that monopolizes headlines, while real issues go unaddressed or are mishandled.
George Bush isn't running, and Americans understand that, so don't discount the entire Republican "brand" so swiftly. The Clintons evoke such negative feelings from such a wide range of America that it more than offsets the "Bush factor", should Hillary become the nominee.
In fact I believe that a Hillary candidacy would almost assure a McCaine win, she evokes such negative feelings, and she comes with the anchor of Bill tied around her neck.
Obama has not yet been scrutinized beyond his flowery rhetoric. So far, he's all style and no substance. "Change" and "Hope" and soaring oratory are not hard policy.
But tough scrutiny and criticism will rapidly descend if he wins the nomination, and there he will suffer mightily in comparison to John McCaine. He is a rookie senator with little experience at this level, let alone being considered for leader of the free world, the most powerful man on earth. In a showdown, world sharks like Vladimir Putin would eat him alive.
He has (reportedly) the most liberal voting record in the entire U.S. senate, and that does not reflect the values of the vast majority of mainstream middle America. Wait until the talk turns to big tax increases, as it must under an Obama administration, and see what happens.
Finally he is black, and leftist media adulation aside, do not under-estimate the undercurrent of racism that is still widespread in much of the U.S. There aren't enough Starbucks-sipping, BMW-driving Bostonian elites spread throughout the entire U.S. to offset the Joe Lunchbuckets who will put down their beer, give up a day of rabbit hunting or football watching, and quietly vote to ensure he doesn't win, no matter what they may think of John McCaine.
And finally there is John McCaine himself. He is clearly a principled individual who has upset even the right wing of his own Republican party for his principled non-partisan stances. I think that's a huge positive for the electorate at large. You can trust him to do what he says, and to listen to those who disagree.
He was a prisoner of war, and before that, a warrior who repeatedly put himself in harm's way. That gives him a thoughtful perspective that most people on earth, let alone world leaders, do not have. I believe it has to lead to an introspective and compassionate streak that transcends political dogma. It's probably the "independence" that ideologues like Rush Limbaugh so hate, and that's a good thing. The American electorate at large will respect and admire that.
He is also clearly in a superior position to understand world and U.S. security when emergencies arise, from his own first-hand experience. Military briefings from his advisors cannot be sugar-coated for a man who has been there. Obama wouldn't have a clue, and would be operating from a position of complete ignorance.
I think when push comes to shove, John McCaine will look very good to the majority of mainstream America when placed under the microscope next to an inexperienced "community organizer" from Chicago with an extremely liberal record, or the bitter, vindictive, partisan wife of a disgraced former president. The White House does not need 4-8 more years of the Clintons.
What it does need is 4-8 years of reasoned non-partisan stability, leadership and toned-down rhetoric. John McCaine is the man to do it.
I live on the U.S. border. While there are hard-core Democrats and Republicans who literally hate each other (those who vote in primaries), the vast majority of Americans are, like Canadians, somewhere in the middle. They are swing voters and independents. I think they are sick to death of the vitriolic partisanship that monopolizes headlines, while real issues go unaddressed or are mishandled.
George Bush isn't running, and Americans understand that, so don't discount the entire Republican "brand" so swiftly. The Clintons evoke such negative feelings from such a wide range of America that it more than offsets the "Bush factor", should Hillary become the nominee.
In fact I believe that a Hillary candidacy would almost assure a McCaine win, she evokes such negative feelings, and she comes with the anchor of Bill tied around her neck.
Obama has not yet been scrutinized beyond his flowery rhetoric. So far, he's all style and no substance. "Change" and "Hope" and soaring oratory are not hard policy.
But tough scrutiny and criticism will rapidly descend if he wins the nomination, and there he will suffer mightily in comparison to John McCaine. He is a rookie senator with little experience at this level, let alone being considered for leader of the free world, the most powerful man on earth. In a showdown, world sharks like Vladimir Putin would eat him alive.
He has (reportedly) the most liberal voting record in the entire U.S. senate, and that does not reflect the values of the vast majority of mainstream middle America. Wait until the talk turns to big tax increases, as it must under an Obama administration, and see what happens.
Finally he is black, and leftist media adulation aside, do not under-estimate the undercurrent of racism that is still widespread in much of the U.S. There aren't enough Starbucks-sipping, BMW-driving Bostonian elites spread throughout the entire U.S. to offset the Joe Lunchbuckets who will put down their beer, give up a day of rabbit hunting or football watching, and quietly vote to ensure he doesn't win, no matter what they may think of John McCaine.
And finally there is John McCaine himself. He is clearly a principled individual who has upset even the right wing of his own Republican party for his principled non-partisan stances. I think that's a huge positive for the electorate at large. You can trust him to do what he says, and to listen to those who disagree.
He was a prisoner of war, and before that, a warrior who repeatedly put himself in harm's way. That gives him a thoughtful perspective that most people on earth, let alone world leaders, do not have. I believe it has to lead to an introspective and compassionate streak that transcends political dogma. It's probably the "independence" that ideologues like Rush Limbaugh so hate, and that's a good thing. The American electorate at large will respect and admire that.
He is also clearly in a superior position to understand world and U.S. security when emergencies arise, from his own first-hand experience. Military briefings from his advisors cannot be sugar-coated for a man who has been there. Obama wouldn't have a clue, and would be operating from a position of complete ignorance.
I think when push comes to shove, John McCaine will look very good to the majority of mainstream America when placed under the microscope next to an inexperienced "community organizer" from Chicago with an extremely liberal record, or the bitter, vindictive, partisan wife of a disgraced former president. The White House does not need 4-8 more years of the Clintons.
What it does need is 4-8 years of reasoned non-partisan stability, leadership and toned-down rhetoric. John McCaine is the man to do it.
Give Mulroney a Rest
I am just curious whether anyone in Canada besides the Conservative-loathing CBC, and Globe and Mail cares two hoots about what Brian Mulroney may, or may not have done in his private life after he left office five elections and four Prime Ministers ago. It's been 15 years - a decade and a half. He was out of office, and it was a few hundred thousands of dollars, relative small change compared to the millions lost by the taxpayers of Canada to the Liberal sponsorship scandal.
Surely there are hundreds of more important things on which to report in 2008 that are relevant in the here and now. It's ancient history. Give it a rest.
Surely there are hundreds of more important things on which to report in 2008 that are relevant in the here and now. It's ancient history. Give it a rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
