Obama's Budget Plan Shows He and Harper Really are Ideological Twins

Because a "pronounced move to redistribute wealth" is a Conservative idea right? Darryl Wolk - one of the few Conservatives that actually supported Obama before he was elected President - has tried to argue that Harper and Obama are so alike and that Canadians will see this and give Harper a majority as a result. Well I think if Canadians actually looked at the actions of these two governments they just might come to a different conclusion. Let's take a look at what Obama's $3.55 trillion Budget Plan proposes:
--------------------------
"Mr. Obama's proposal signals a radical change of course by redirecting enormous streams of deficit spending toward programs like health care, education and energy, and paying for some of it through taxes on the rich, pollution surcharges, and cuts in such inviolable programs as farm subsidies.... The Obama administration will attempt to close the large fiscal gap even while starting a major health-care initiative meant to substantially extend coverage; to do so, it foresees increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans and using revenues from a new program: selling carbon credits (read: taxing carbon) to manufacturers as part of a cap-and-trade plan meant to slow climate change....The combined effect of the two revenue-raising proposals, on top of Mr. Obama's existing plan to roll back the Bush-era income tax reductions on households with income exceeding $250,000 a year, would be a pronounced move to redistribute wealth by reimposing a larger share of the tax burden on corporations and the most affluent taxpayers. "
------------------------
Sounds just like what Harper ran on in the last election doesn't it? Carbon taxes (coupled with cutting taxes for the low and middle income earners as the Green Shift did), raising taxes on the rich and corporations, redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, true blue Conservative policies.

Oh wait those are the sorts of policies Harper said would destroy the economy!

To be honest I think some of Obama's proposed policies go even a bit too far for my tastes, I don't support increasing corporate tax rates for instance, but I'm interested to see how the Blogging Tories portray this budget as in sync with the budget they put forth here in Canada.

I think they'll have a pretty tough time.

On the environment Canadians saw a budget here in Canada that completely ignored the issue, whereas in the U.S. it's seen as one of the central issues to address.

On human rights Canadians see a government still defending the "process" at Guantanamo Bay, whereas in the U.S. the government is shutting it down and banning torture.

On poverty Canadians see a government here that can't even bring itself to mention the word, whereas in the U.S. the government is taking major efforts to help the most vulnerable.

On post-secondary education Canadians see a government that treats it as an after thought (it received ZERO mention in their last election platform), whereas Obama is placing making his country a world leader on this issue a top priority of his first term.

On partisan co-operation, Stephen Harper can’t help but constantly pick fights wtih the opposition, while across the border Obama reaches out to his rivals for consensus.

On transparency and accountability Canadians see a government that becomes more and more secretive versus one in the U.S. that is opening more windows on how government is operating by the day.

And I could go on. So Conservatives can try to latch themselves to Obama all they can, but their actions (or lack of actions) speak far louder than their words and I don't think Canadians will be fooled.

If Conservatives like Darryl wish we were actually taking the kinds of bold of approaches in Canada as Obama is, I'd strongly encourage them to join them to join the Liberal Party to help make that happen :).

-------------------------------------
(h/t CanPolitico for the NY Times link)
For more info on Obama's Budget Plan for the 2010 Fiscal Year see here and here.

Recommend this Post

When Egos Run Wild!

Apparently when the most popular President in generations makes his first visit to our country since taking office the main concern is not ensuring the President gets to have informed meetings with the most important figures in Canadian political life. Nope, apparently the top priority should be to ensure that our incredibly insecure Prime Minister gets to be the SOLE star of the show.

Have we ever seen a Prime Minister so afraid of others taking attention away from him that he feels the need to banish them to unseen quarters on a day where the world will have its eyes on us? Can anyone even picture any of our previous Prime Ministers acting this way?

No we can't have video footage of President Obama meeting with the Governor General or the Leader of the Opposition because that might take precious seconds away from clips that might be shown of the great Stephen Harper desperately trying to cozy up to President who is more popular that Harper could even hope to be. I guess Harper really thinks that people might buy the idea that there really is only one person of importance in Ottawa and that it's him. I guess this is how he's dealing with all the hits to his ego he's taken since December, so that with a day more about him than the guest of honour he can tell himself "I'm the star here, no one else!".

Unfortunately for Stephen Canadians know better and will see through these petty stunts. He looks incredibly small compared to all of his predecessors.

Perhaps the next time Obama visits (which I expect won't be for many more months, perhaps even a year) we'll have a Liberal government and Obama can see how vastly different things are done for a Presidential visit when the Canadian Prime Minister doesn't have an inferiority complex.

Recommend this Post

A New Voice of Hope

Today, 8 long years of mismanagement and disappointment came to an end and a new era has begun (see inauguration/speech video and other photos below). Barack Obama faces impossible expectations and no doubt he cannot meet them all and no doubt he will make some decisions that I disagree with and that he obviously won't still have an 80% appproval rating in 2012. But as I’ve been saying for a for a long time now the United States and the world desperately need a major overhaul from the approach of the last 8 years. But in these trying times the world also doesn’t just need change, but hope and optimism. And nobody embodies change and hope better than Barack Obama. As Nelson Mandela said today in a letter to the new President: “Your election to this high office has inspired people as few other events in recent times have done. Amidst all of the human progress made over the last century the world in which we live remains one of great divisions, conflict, inequality, poverty and injustice…You, Mister President, have brought a new voice of hope that these problems can be addressed and that we can in fact change the world and make of it a better place” I share the hope of Mr. Mandela and so many others today…

The hope that the United States will stand up for human rights and not against them.

The hope that the United States will engage the world and embrace multilateralism instead of unilateralism.

The hope that the United States will tackle the crisis of climate change instead of denying it.

The hope that the United States will provide health care for all its citizens instead of being the only western nation that doesn’t.

The hope that the United States will truly become an accountable government by and FOR the people instead of a government consumed by secrecy.

The hope that the United States will look after the impoverished and help left them out of poverty instead of seeing the poor as a burden to be looked down upon.

The hope that the United States will do its part to solve the economic crises instead of being an enabler of the policies that started it.

The hope that the United States President will work to heal the divides at home and across the globe rather than exacerbate them.

The hope that the United States will play a more positive role in the world than it ever has before.

I may not be an American but I can say I’m as optimistic about America’s new direction as I was the election night I won't forget in Chicago.

The Chase for Change is now over. Change has arrived and while actions will speak louder than words, I hold out hope that 4 years (and even 8 years) from now Barack Obama will still represent change we could all believe in.

Recommend this Post

A Faint Hope of Getting it Right on the Environment

Happy New Year everyone! I hope the year for you is getting off to a good start! On the political side of things my spirits were brightened a bit to see this story on National Newswatch (which I’ve included below). One of the leading climatologists at NASA is openly lobbying the incoming Obama administration to impose a carbon tax, arguing (as Liberals did in the last election) that it is the ONLY feasible approach in the short term to make the reductions we need in greenhouse gas emissions. Even though I still think the odds are slim Obama will impose a carbon tax, this climatologist isn’t the only leading figure to call for a carbon tax, as both Al Gore and Bill Clinton have called for it recently too. IF Obama did decide for this more sensible and needed approach I would LOVE nothing more than to see the reactions of the Conservatives and the NDP.

A carbon tax in the U.S. would mean Canada would be STRONGLY compelled to have one as well (as we should regardless). Even though the idea is probably even a tougher sell in the U.S. than here, Obama will have an unprecedented honeymoon to bring in sweeping policies in his first 100 days. It’s either now or never for him for a carbon tax though, if he doesn’t move on it immediately, it won’t sell nearly as well later. However, if Obama opts for an exclusively cap-and-trade approach, I’m afraid we will be doomed to the same here in Canada for at least the next few years (even though I still think it’s a poor precedent for Liberals to reject a sound policy after just one election in which dozens of other issues and our own organizational weaknesses were big factors in our loss as well). Cap-and-trade over a carbon tax might seem like good politics, but it certainly isn't the best policy. But for now I’ll hold out the faint hope that Obama will get it right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality Bites
Halifax news, politics and snark, by Tim Bousquet

Hansen: Dion was right
January 01, 2009 04:34 PM

James Hansen is the NASA scientist who first testified to the US Senate on the climatic challenges facing the globe in 1988, and continues to be one of the leading climatologists researching the issue.

Today, New Year's Day, Hansen releases a letter to Michelle and Barack Obama:, in which he underscores the importance of taking quick action to address global warming. The letter's worth reading in its entirety, but of special interest to Canadians may be the section that deals with the need for a carbon tax. Hansen argues not just that a carbon tax is necessary, but also that a cap and trade system is not a viable alternative.

As you'll recall, Stéphane Dion campaigned on a carbon tax. Jack Layton condemned it, saying he would prefer a cap and trade system, and Stephen Harper ridiculed it as an economy killer. There were no doubt many reasons why he lost in the polls, but Canadians overwhelmingly rejected Dion and therefore the carbon tax. But here we are, three months later, and the man who arguably knows more about global warming than any other human tells us we can't avoid cataclysmic climate change without a carbon tax:
The physics of the matter, together with empirical data, also define the need for a carbon tax. Alternatives such as emission reduction targets, cap and trade, cap and dividend, do not work, as proven by honest efforts of the 'greenest' countries to comply with the Kyoto Protocol:

(1) Japan: accepted the strongest emission reduction targets, appropriately prides itself on having the most energy-efficient industry, and yet its use of coal has sharply increased, as have its total CO2 emissions. Japan offset its increases with purchases of credits through the clean development mechanism in China, intended to reduce emissions there, but Chinese emissions increased rapidly.

(2) Germany: subsidizes renewable energies heavily and accepts strong emission reduction targets, yet plans to build a large number of coal-fired power plants. They assert that they will have cap-and-trade, with a cap that reduces emissions by whatever amount is needed. But the physics tells us that if they continue to burn coal, no cap can solve the problem, because of the long carbon dioxide lifetime.

(3) Other cases are described on my Columbia University web site, e.g., Switzerland finances construction of coal plants, Sweden builds them, and Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.

Indeed, 'goals' and 'caps' on carbon emissions are practically worthless, if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen – caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and unconventional fossil fuels).

Coal phase-out and transition to the post-fossil fuel era requires an increasing carbon price. A carbon tax at the wellhead or port of entry reduces all uses of a fuel. In contrast, a less comprehensive cap has the perverse effect of lowering the price of the fuel for other uses, undercutting clean energy sources.vi In contrast to the impracticality of all nations agreeing to caps, and the impossibility of enforcement, a carbon tax can readily be made near-global.
It's hard to read these words and not think that Canadians have made a terrible blunder.

Adding: Hansen says more about the issue here:
"Goals" for percentage CO2 emission reductions and "cap & trade & dividend" are a threat to the planet, weak tea, not commensurate with the task of getting CO2 back to 350 ppm and less. Note:

(1) There must be a tax at the mine or port of entry, the first sale of oil, gas and coal, so every direct and indirect use of the fuel is affected. Anything less means that the reduction of demand for the fuel will make it cheaper for some uses; e.g., people will start burning coal in their stoves. Peter Barnes' idea to push the cap upstream to the extent possible is not adequate nor is a 'gas tax' suggested by NY Times and others. A comprehensive approach is needed.

(2) "Cap & trade & dividend" creates Wall Street millionaires and complex bureaucracy. The public is fed up with that – rightly so. A single carbon tax rate can be adjusted upward affecting all activities appropriately. With 100% dividend the public will allow a carbon price adequate to the job, i.e., helping us move to the post- fossil-fuel world.

(3) Supply 'caps' cannot yield a really big reduction because of the weapon: 'shortages'. All a utility has to say is 'blackout coming' and politicians and public have to cave in – we are not going to have the lights turned out. Will the public allow a high enough tax rate Yes, dividends will exceed tax for most people concerned about their bills.

(4) A tax is not sufficient. All other measures, such as building codes, are needed. But with millions of buildings, all construction codes and operations cannot be enforced. A rising carbon price provides effective enforcement.

(5) Wouldn't it be cheaper to let people burn the dirtiest fuel? No. The clean future that we aim for, including more efficient energy use, is not more expensive. For example, you may have read about passively heated homes that require little energy and increase construction costs only several percent. Such possibilities remain the oddball (with high price tag), not the standard construction, unless the government adopts policies that make things happen.

Tim Bousquet

Recommend this Post

Live from Chicago Part 6: A Strong Mandate for Change

OVERDUE UPDATE WITH PHOTOS
What a night! Obama and the Democratic Party received a powerful mandate for change! With a popular vote lead of 52%-46% and an over 6 million (almost 7 right now) vote margin and with possibly as much as 375 electoral votes in Obam's column (it looks like the final total will be 364 electoral votes unless a recount in Missouri overturns a slight McCain lead there), this was a completely decisive victory. Obama gave a very powerful victory speech tonight (and yes McCain gave a good gracious concession speech) - America has a real opportunity to re-assert its leadership on the world stage and get its house in order at home - on finding solutions for the current economic crisis improving health care, education and their record on the environment. He will be facing some tough challenges though for sure. I am hopeful Obama will at the least do all he can to fulfill his potential with the mandate he received tonight and that, with control of Congress, he can carry out the bulk of his agenda in a responsible manner. I remain a bit disappointed the Democrats have not won more Senate seats (though 4 still remain officially uncalled, with almost all precincts in Dems are currently down in MN, Oregon, Georgia the Reps may win without the need for a run-off, and convicted felon Ted Stevens is still ahead) and they fell a bit short of expectations for the House despite a decent number of pick-ups. The biggest disappointment though is what looks like a victory for Prop 8 to ban gay marriage in California (52% for Yes with 86% reporting) - it's very sad such a slim majority can decide the rights of a minority and amend the state constitution so easily. So while at the top of the ticket this was an emphatic victory for those looking for change after the last 8 years it was not an across the board win for progressives at the ballot box this year.... No question though tonight was history in the making and I was glad to be in Chicago for it. Goodnight!

OVERDUE UPDATE: Here are at last are some of the photos from the night (their quality is coming up somewhat poor on here though)....

Recommend this Post

Live from Chicago...part 5

Even after 2 senior political aides to McCain see "no path to victory" and a GOP CNN political analyst sees no way for a GOP win, CNN is still not calling the election! Have some courage, its a pretty safe call guys.

Fitting that McCain is watching the results from the Goldwater suite. I would love to hear the discussion, wondering if he's blaming his "rogue" hand picked, novice running mate.

The crowd here at Grant Park gets very upset at every McCain pickup, not to worry my friends...let the man win the non-surprising red states to save some face. He's served his country well in his lifetime, more than his share, he's just lost his way (and his morals and positions that he's stood up during his career) and he's run a relentlessly negative campaign and that's what he can blame it on.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Recommend this Post

Live from Chicago...part 4

I find it humourous that the McCain camp is keeping their supporters at their rally from watching the news and results, and instead is trying to keep them distracted with guest performers.

CNN is also being humourous with their wild "for the sake of argument" best case scenarios for McCain. Why even bother, when they preface these arguments with that qualification and also a "not likely" on more then half of them. And more so, after all of that, with all of that in consideration, they won't even call the election!

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Recommend this Post

Live from Chicago Part 3

Breaking news: Danielle Takacs beats CNN and projects Obama will be the next US president.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Recommend this Post

Live from Chicago part 2

Pennsylvania called for Obama!!!! Crowd goes insane! Feeling much better now. Things are looking really good :)

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Recommend this Post

US E-Day Live from Grant Park in Chicago Part 1

Excitement for Obama could be seen all over the place the closer you got to Grant Park where he will be speaking tonight.

I was at his campaign HQ this aft and it was literally overflowing with volunteers calling voters across the us to gotv for Obama. There were so many they had to set up a second campaign office across town. And all of the workers were using their own cell phones! We need this kind of operation for Liberals across the country!

So I am in Grant Park now Ill have lots of photos up later. I came to the park area around 3 PM. Now the crowd is completely overflowing. They go wild every time a new result goes on the jumbo screen with obama ahead anywhere even with only 1 percent precincts in

As for the results so far... I like what I see in Indiana and Florida but not Virginia at all so far. I don't trust any exit poll data and I think its too early to call it based on numbers so far

The states called so far are no surprise except I am a bit surprised nh has now been called so quickly. No surprises yet with Senate races either.

Will have more as the night goes on stay tuned...

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Recommend this Post

The Night Before E-Day in Chicago

Arrived yesterday morning in Chicago expecting to see a hustle and bustle of one of the world’s biggest cities, which is home to most likely the next president of the juggernaut of the United States. As I walked the streets, listened to conversations, I could not believe it, but I couldn’t tell that this was the base of Barack Obama’s campaign. I guess it may be just because Illinois is in the bag and the campaign is focused on the swing stages instead, but what I saw still took me by surprise.

I spent about five hours yesterday, walking the streets of Chicago to see if there was any excitement. I saw one businessman with an Obama button on his jacket quickly walking down the streets. I saw another man with a placard on both his front and back, detailing his lack of trust for Obama who seemed to have a resemblance to a man obsessed with saving one’s souls on judgment day. I guess not everyone is for Obama here in Illinois, but people didn’t seem to give this guy much attention..

Near the end of the evening and lack of signs of pre-election day life, I decide to take my chances and hike to Grant Park, the location of Obama’s E-day speech. As I walked though the park, I am sill amazed that the park seems unguarded, vast and empty. If it were not for the extensive amount of blue rows of porto-poties, it would have been any night in a big city. As I continued walking through the dark emptiness, I realize just how huge the park is. I realize that almost half of the park, the middle, is under construction and as such, the space will go unused.
I finally got to the one end of the park, and it was there that the excitement was…going to be. The only excitement at that moment was one block of media satellite trucks, at the end of the row was CBC (which did get a greeting from me and hence gave away my nationality). The event looks like a private yet intimate affair for 60 000, and a couple more thousand invited politicians and VIPs. The people that do not make it to this area, those without tickets, will experience the event outside in amazing weather fit to anoint a new era and its leader of change, watching the festivities on big screens and more likely just hearing I just like others in their homes.

But the experience will be going there, being around thousands of others, who, for a variety of reasons, support the Democratic party and its leader of yesterday and most likely its stander bearer for at least a decade. And during that time, those thousands of Americans and people from around the world who came to experience the man who they are putting much trust and faith in to deliver on his message of change and hope, will come together in what will be a goal that they hope will one day eventually last longer than a historic election night.

This election is historic – we will have a president who is African-American, but more importantly, someone who has reconciled the white and black vote and has recruited more first time voters and youth. Or we could (big long shot) will have a female vice president, who, many say, is less of a role model for women’s rights than her sex would have us believe. George Bush was able to connect with voters on the fact that if he could be president, anyone in the US could be president, and that he could relate to the “average Joe” and even be one of them. If Ms. Palin becomes VP, well I'll leave it others to note what that would say...

I came here yesterday with the expectations that the US is onto election fever that we only dream about. And clearly yesterday, my expectations of that fell a bit short. They are not dashed – the only day that matters is E-day and what happens that day as a result of it. The Obama craze that is taking over the US and other parts of the world, can be attributed to good old fashioned Get Out the Vote efforts and political organization and fundraising, but more importantly, using those efforts with a little bit of creativity and the willingness to do those tried, tested and true efforts in a more risky, yet calculated way. And it’s also been a powerful example of a campaign that’s heavily tapped into grassroots involvement that Liberals could learn from.

As I ended my night, I snuck into a 7-11 for a late snack. At the cashier, there are a handful of Obama buttons and small florescent Obama posters for sale than the average button or poster. Ahh…at least some things don’t change with the smell of new change – good old American capitalism and free markets.

I’ll post some photos later from the scene of Grant Park from last night (and any photos I get tonight), so come back here later today for my thoughts throughout the day here in Chicago as “The Chase for Change, 2008” series finally concludes with the E-Day results and a hopeful victory speech for the ages…. I expect a MUCH larger crowd that the handful of people I saw last night to say the least.

History will be made today no doubt about that. America and the world badly need change after 8 disastrous years and it can't come soon ehough.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: Election Countdown and Some Perspective from 2000/2004

Well for somewhat obvious reasons my focus was elsewhere these past two months, so I think this would be the first post in this series since Palin was picked as McCain's VP. Well what’s changed since then? Let’s see well Palin slowly lost credibly and has gone from being seeing as a genius gambit and to a massive drag on McCain’s campaign as she goes “rogue” for 2012, McCain lost credibility as the economy tanked and he suspended his campaign and seemed clueless what to do, McCain has launched desperate attack after desperate attack hoping something will stick, Joe the Plummer became official John McCain spokesman, and Sarah Palin’s friend Ted Stevens became a convicted felon and opened up another Senate on the Democrats’ quest for a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

Meanwhile Obama has stayed consistently on message (notwithstanding some less than helpful remarks from some of his surrogates), put in 3 strong debate performances, responded to the economic crisis well and now has a chance to rout McCain on Election night. He’s put the Democrats back on the map in places where they’ve been out of the game for over a decade and has raised phenomenal amounts of money ($150 million in September alone!). Liberals here must make his campaign operation a case study for ourselves (and if they get some of the top guys who worked on his campaign to advise us all the better)

BUT, let’s NOT get too confident here. Obama is clearly leading, but McCain sits pretty much exactly where Al Gore sat in the polls at this point so late in the campaign in 2000. In the end he won the popular vote and should have won the election if they re-counted all the ballots in Florida. And in 2004...well take a look at these electoral college predictions from TWO DAYS before E-day last time. Kerry is seen is solidly ahead in Iowa, yet he lost. Kerry is ahead in Florida and he ended up being trounced losing by 5%. Kerry is ahead in Ohio and he lost there too. If you look at the next day you see Kerry up by 5% in Florida so that's 10% off the actual result.

So you can see that state polls in 2004 just two nights or even one night before E-day were off by more than 5 percentage points in several cases. Lucky for Obama he is in the lead in far more states than Kerry was, but if the national tide turns against Obama in the final days (as it did against Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004) then so would these state polls and McCain could pull ahead or Obama may only win by a razor thin margin late in the night. In 2000 the race was far closer than polls a week out predicted, in 2004 Bush won by many more votes than the polls a week out predicted, so let’s keep in the mind.

Even so, I'll be Chicago Tuesday cautiously optimistic that I’ll bear witness to Obama’s victory speech (and hopefully before midnight lest the crowd get too restless), but it definitely ain’t over till it’s over.

Recommend this Post

Gut Check Time for Progressives: We Need a PM that Cares about Progressive Issues NOW!

Liberal and NDP supporters have a lot in common in terms of what kind of policies we’d like to see at the national level, but for that reason I just can’t understand why so many NDP supporters seem perfectly content to have Stephen Harper remain Prime Minister. If Jack Layton can’t be PM, and he can’t, then one would think NDP supporters would want a Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance of power and be working to make that happen. For all those NDP supporters who will claim that it doesn’t matter if Stephen Harper gets to stay PM – I wonder how they’d answer the following questions.

1. Who would work better with Jack Layton in a minority government context Stéphane Dion or Stephen Harper?

2. When has more progressive policy passed, with a Liberal minority or a Conservative minority government? Forced to choose between the two isn’t it obvious which one has been better for progressives?

3. What does Jack have to show for his “opposition” to Stephen Harper this term? Did he elicit a single concession? Did a single piece of progressive policy pass since Harper has become PM? Why would another Harper minority be any different?

4. Having to choose between a Conservative minority government with an NDP gain of 5 seats over a Liberal minority government with an NDP loss of 5 seats which would you choose?

5. Which of those two options would lead to more progressive legislation being passed?

6. Does anyone believe any of the following would EVER be undertaken with Stephen Harper as PM?
- a real plan to combat poverty
- a real national child care plan
- a real plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
- re-introduction of the Kelowna Accords
- meaningful increases in foreign aid
- fighting against the death penalty everywhere
- advocation against Guantanomo Bay
- re-instatement of the Court Challenges Program
- re-instatement of funding and mandate to Status of Women
- a Commissioner for Gender Equality

Yet we all know all those things in 6. would happen with Stephane Dion as PM - even Jack Layton acknowledged Dion to be a “man of principle and conviction” who you can trust. But every year more Stephen Harper is PM, more people suffer. Even so, Jack is unfortunately pursuing a strategy (by saying Stéphane Dion can’t be PM) that helps Stephen Harper who will never be a friend of progressives.

No matter what Jack says the evidence is clear - the race to be PM is between Stephen Harper and Stéphane Dion and pretending otherwise in no way helps progressives. It’s right in Tom Flanagan’s book – the Conservatives love the NDP because they’ve been instrumental to helping the Conservatives win ridings that were essentially two-way fights between Liberals and Conservatives.

Why is it so hard for NDPers to admit that Stéphane Dion would be a much more progressive PM than Harper? Did the Liberals and NDP not vote together on numerous private member's bills that Harper ended up ignoring? Why must NDP supporters resort to the same arguments that Ralph Nader supporters make in the U.S.? (While ironically backing Obama at the same time who makes the same arguments the Liberals do about how the stakes are too high to flock to a third party)

NDP supporters always seem to dodge the questions above, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised if none of them honestly answer them, or instead just take one snippet and ignore the rest as they usually do.

The results of the last election led to a trashed child care plan, Kelowna abandoned, Court Challenges program eliminated, and massive backtracking on human rights, the environment and foreign aid. If you are progressive and you want actual progressive policies passed by a principled PM there’s only one party poised to do that in government and that’s the Liberals. There is too much at stake to have this election be 1988 all over again, I would hope the NDP realizes that.

UPDATE - 4:15 PM: Credit where credit is due, this is a well-done ad by the NDP. Though it does make the case well why we need Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister. Still waiting on the FIRST commenter to answer the questions asked above. I guess we all agree on the answers then :).

Recommend this Post

NDP Image Make-Over Destined to Fail

So I guess Stéphane Dion is the only major party leader who wants to present a genuine picture of himself that is consistent with how he’s been as a politician. Meanwhile, Jack Layton is following Stephen Harper’s lead in presenting a completely new image, despite this also being his 3rd election as party leader. Both he and Harper must really think Canadians have short memories. But I’m real curious what NDP supporters think about Layton trying to portray himself as being like Barack Obama when Obama is to the RIGHT of the Liberals. Maybe Jack Layton doesn’t realize this, but Obama staunchly backs Afghanistan, is against same-sex marriage and is all for private health care. Is that the direction Jack Layton is hoping to go in too? Jack Layton actually said he has the EXACT same environmental plan as Barack Obama who DOES NOT use a 1990 target for his 80% reductions target and who didn’t support Kyoto. What do his supporters think about this? Obama is definitely the best option in the U.S. but his policies are certainly not extremely progressive by Canadian standards. So where is Jack going with this new “hope” angle? The only hope Jack Layton offers this election is that of another Stephen Harper government. No one believes Jack can be PM so he really offers no change, no hope. Therefore, in the end, this image make-over will fail.

I predict Jack’s dreams of being PM on Obama’s coattails will fade about a week into the election period as he’ll fail to break 20% in the polls. Then he’ll be right back to bashing the Liberals. Ultimately, Jack’s strategy has always been about one thing a bigger caucus above all else. His goal is to be opposition leader, not Prime Minister. As the leader of the NDP I’m sure he prefers Stephen Harper as PM, because he knows a Liberal government will get the job done and he’ll no longer ever be able to use the “13 years” line ever again. The NDP would slowly disappear with Dion as PM so I know when it comes down to it Jack will do everything he can this time around to ensure Stephen Harper continues to be PM. No matter all the moaning he’ll do this time about how bad a PM Harper is, Harper suits Jack’s interests just fine - after all I remember Jack acting as if it was a "great day for Canadians" when Stephen Harper won in 2006.

You really want to “oppose” Stephen Harper Jack? Then work to defeat him this election instead of playing exactly in to Tom Flanagan’s strategy of making this election 1988 all over again.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: Sarah Palin Vs. Hillary Clinton – It’s No Time to be Fooled

So I've said what the pick means for Obama, but what do I think of Sarah Palin as VP? Well first of all kudos to McCain for picking a woman. We do need more women moving up the ladder in politics and it’s more than about time the Republicans finally did this. BUT while it’s important to have more women it’s MORE important to have those women fight FOR women’s issues and women’s rights. Hillary Clinton was certainly that kind of woman and Obama and Biden may not be women but I know they’ll fight for them. Sarah Palin? Well let’s see how she stacks up against Hillary Clinton on the issues:
On a woman’s right to choose: She is against abortion EVEN in case of rape. That’s even MORE conservative than the Bush administration’s official position.
On the environment: Doesn't believe that humans cause global warming and is in the pocket of Big Oil and mining companies. I thought John McCain was going to be a champion of the environment? I guess this pick says otherwise, no wonder the Sierra Club is angry.
On education: Wants creationism (not just intelligent design) taught in public schools
On life-saving research: Opposes stem-cell research (which McCain says he supports)
On pork-barrel spending: She supported the infamous "bridge to nowhere" that McCain claims she opposed.
On ethics: She’s supporting Alaska Senate Ted Stevens Senate re-election campaign while he is under indictment in a corruption scandal (don’t think that a big deal? Well the video in the post I link to curiously disappeared from her website). She also was a staunch backer of Pat Buchanan who has said so many offensive things that even the bulk of the Republican Party shun him these days.
On Hillary Clinton: Nothing but a whiner. According to Palin’s own words sexism is “just part of the game” in politics and she seems to imply that it should just be accepted and that it’s something women shouldn’t talk about. And the P.U.M.A. crowd like this woman? Palin mocks everything they stand for!

So does this woman have ANYTHING in common with Hillary Clinton other than her gender? No wonder the old boys club of the Republican establishment is ecstatic. John McCain/Palin have no plan for child care, poverty, extended parental leave (it’s shameful how far the U.S. is from Canada on that), and pay equity, while Obama/Biden do. If you read the latest article on McCain's website for why women should vote for him it just says McCain will help the economy and that will help women. What a champion!

The reality of the Palin pick though I think is summed up well by the National Organization for Women:
“What McCain does not understand is that women supported Hillary Clinton not just because she was a woman, but because she was a champion on their issues. They will surely not find Sarah Palin to be an advocate for women.”

To be clear again I think Sarah Palin is to be admired for what she has accomplished, being a successful businesswoman and a very popular governor, and I’m not someone who’s gonna say she lacks the experience to be President. It’s good to see a woman on the Republican ticket as it will make it easier for other women to run for the Republican nomination in 2012. I hope Sarah Palin runs for the nomination in 2012, but given where she stands on the issues that matter to me and I’m sure millions of others who want to see women’s rights and issues ADVANCED not moved BACKWARD I can’t say she would be a friend of women as Vice-President or President. Therefore, if she and McCain pick up ANY Hillary Clinton supporters it would be profoundly disappointing because Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin (or John McCain) have virtually NOTHING in common on the issues.

I would have liked to have seen a woman (like the governors of Arizona or Kansas) on Barack Obama’s ticket but as I’ve said from the very beginning (before it was known who would win the Democratic nomination) it’s absolutely essential that all progressives line up behind the Democratic nominee because there is too much at stake on too many issues that matter to the U.S., Canada and the world (certainly not just women’s issues) to allow someone as Conservative as John McCain to become President. I'd say that case is even stronger now with someone more Conservative than Stockwell Day and Cheryl Gallant as McCain's choice for VP.

However, whether Barack Obama admits it or not will need Hillary Clinton’s supporters to win – he would do well to do more joint appearances with her and pointedly reach out to her supporters. The convention was not the place in my view, but I see little harm in doing an event with Clinton where Clinton lays out the case of why Palin is not a friend of women and Obama gives his standard stump speech but with added praise again for Clinton (I know he’s done this), but crucially with some lines about how he needs Clinton’s supporters and all Democrats to win and he asks for their support. Obama could say he doesn’t need 20% of Clinton supporters to win and surely some will never vote for him, but any voters gained leads to a much more comfortable lead-up to, and actual, election night.

I think Obama’s DNC speech made an excellent case for why all Americans should vote FOR him, but he hasn’t yet sealed the deal fully within his party. I hope he takes the next few weeks to do that. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’d like to see him have an insurmountable lead in the polls weeks before Election Day.

h/t to mydd.com for the sources
Other Liberals have commented on the Palin pick here, here, here, here, here, here, and here

UPDATE: The Democrats definitely should not underestimate Palin’s appeal. As of now her favourability ratings are a fair bit higher than Biden's and I know there were some who argued that Biden’s favourables were a good reason to have him on Obama’s ticket. So for now Palin is clearly positive for McCain’s chances. But again I think the only way for Democrats/progressives to approach this pick is by focusing on her stands on the issues, anything else I think will backfire.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: John McCain’s VP Pick - McCain Admits Obama is Ready to Lead as President!

I’ll talk in the next post about what I think specifically about Sarah Palin as VP, but first I should say that I think the Obama camp’s initial response to it has been foolish. Right out of the gate they put out a press release saying Sarah Palin has little to no experience and no foreign policy experience and therefore she shouldn’t be a “heartbeat away” from the Presidency. I think Obama would do well to disavow the press release. Not to mention the release didn’t mention the historic nature of the pick, experience has been the central argument AGAINST Obama. Obama is just not going to win that argument. He’d be MUCH better to say “I believe Sarah Palin has the qualifications to be President, but I think it’s time for John McCain to stop the smears and admit that everyone on our tickets do – the American people deserve better”. If Obama and his supporters want to argue Palin is too inexperienced I think they’ll regret it and it will just end up in McCain ads. Sure Obama has more years of experience and more foreign policy experience, but Palin has executive experience which you really can’t deny is important (sure it’s only 2 years as a governor and being a mayor of a small town but it’s no coincidence there’s been very few Senators who have won the Presidency). Sure there were more experienced women (like Rice) McCain could have chosen as well but I don’t see how Obama benefits from making these arguments.

If Obama just cedes the argument that Palin has the qualifications necessary than what do the Republicans have left? I’m sure the plan for the RNC was to have speaker after speaker say Obama is “not ready to lead”, well it’s hard to argue that, if all agree that Palin is ready, that Obama isn’t. I know the Republicans are saying she has more exec experience, but the argument was always about Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience so they can’t change their arguments credibly this far in the game.

So I hope the U.S. media does its job and calls John McCain on this question and just asks point blank “if you think Sarah Palin is ready to lead, how can you say Obama isn’t?” After spending so much on ads saying Obama is not ready to lead, I wonder what he’ll say?

If experience is no longer an election issue then change, judgment and the actual policy stances become the bigger issues. Palin definitely brings the change card, but Republicans trying to win on that is like Liberals in Canada saying they want an election to be all about crime, it’s just not their strong suit, just like national security remains a Republican strong suit whether Obama likes it or not (hence why I thought the 3 AM ads were dumb because it was trying to elevate an issue that Democrats lose on). Then there’s judgment, also where Obama wins and same with policy stances.

That said, Democrats would do well not to underestimate what Palin brings to the ticket. She’s very charismatic, is an extremely popular governor and her life story will appeal to many Americans. Rather than go after her experience which is dumb, they ought to focus on where she stands on the issues and point out what kind of President she’d be. That’s the topic of the next post here.

Other Liberals have commented on the Palin pick here, here, here, here, here, here, and here

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: DNC Thoughts

Despite John McCain stealing the thunder the day after I think the Democratic National Convention in Denver this week went as well as can be expected. The case was made better than ever for why Democrats should vote FOR Barack Obama and finally many Democrats went full blown after John McCain – it was more than past time for that. Aside from Obama/Biden I’d argue the best speeches were from Hillary Clinton (Obama could not have expected better), Bill Clinton (I was pleased that he made the parallel back to the dynamics of the 1992 race), John Kerry (finally got his revenge for the “Voting for it before you were against it” smear you got in the last campaign), Bill Richardson (made the points I’ve been making about how on the very few principled stands McCain has taken like on taxes, the environment and torture, he’s reversed on every one) and Al Gore (good to see he noted the uncanny Lincoln parallel in terms of their experience and that at least 1 and up to 3 Supreme Court justices could be selected by the next President which will resonate for decades not 4 years). I wish others got more time like Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano because with less time you obviously can’t give the show stopper speeches others could. They still did well though.

Joe Biden did quite well, but I wasn’t blown away – still he’ll make an excellent VP and I think he’ll be great for the ticket.

Obama’s speech was definitely as good as it had to be. Not sure I can say it was his absolute best, but definitely blows away what anyone at the Republican convention will offer. All in all I can’t say the Democrats have much to be disappointed about from their convention and early news is they’ve gotten a bump in the polls from it.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: A Missed Opportunity for Obama's VP

UPDATED
So the worst kept secret is finally out of the bag – it’s Joe Biden. I never got around to outlining what I thought was required for Obama’s VP pick, but had I done so I would have said (you’ll just have to trust me on this) that the VP pick should have executive experience (e.g., be a governor), be able to put some Southern and Midwestern states in play (e.g., be from the South or Midwest), be a woman (because so many female Democrats felt let down by Hillary’s loss and it would give them a milestone to still fight for, not to mention it's well past time), be able to reach out to Hillary Clinton’s supporters (e.g., someone who worked on Hillary’s campaign or Hillary herself) and have solid foreign policy experience. Joe Biden only has the last one so I would count him as a disappointment and a missed opportunity.

What states is Joe Biden going to help Obama with? Will he help win Virginia, Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado? I’d say no – in fact McCain will be happy to cast the ticket as two liberal Northern Senators who don’t represent the rest of America.

How does Biden help counter the critique that Obama has no executive experience?

If Obama really wanted experience he should have gone with Bill Richardson, he doesn’t meet all my criteria (to be fair no one did), but at least he’s a Midwestern governor with solid domestic AND foreign policy experience, ties to the Clinton administration (even though Carville hates him now) and would have been another first – the first Hispanic (the fastest growing demographic) on the ticket. For those who say Americans couldn’t stomach two "firsts" and Obama needed an old white guy I say that’s offensive and I just don’t think that holds water.

I also thought the argument against Hillary Clinton was that she had been in Washington too long and it would go against his “change” message? So he picks someone who’s been in Washington two decades who has made countless gaffes while he’s been there and who said quite emphatically and he did NOT want to be Vice President? (Yes I know there was the Bill Clinton problem too but that could have been managed) How does Biden help reach out to Hillary supporters? The fact that he slammed Obama so much during the race doesn’t seal the deal I’m afraid and the disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters I fear are going to be fuming.

My top picks would have Kathleen Sebelius (Governor of Kansas) and Janet Napolitano (Governor of Arizona). While they lacked the foreign policy experience Biden has and were Obama supporters they satisfy the other criteria and were strong female governors (which would appeal to many disaffected Hillary supporters who still feel it’s crucial to have a woman in the oval office) who could have helped Obama win in the Midwest and ultimately that’s what Obama needs to win and Biden doesn’t really help much with that from what I can see.

John McCain may now pick a female VP (though I’m certain she’ll be anti-choice and not really onside with the women’s movement) and while I hope not many women get fooled (just imagine someone like Cheryl Gallant leading the country) – I think it would win over some former Hillary Clinton supporters and Obama has left this opportunity wide open for McCain by not just choosing a well-qualified woman himself.

To be clear I’m sure Joe Biden will make a great VP and he is well-qualified and certainly miles better than anything John McCain will put up. To be fair, I’ll refer you to two posts on why Biden will be good for the ticket. Still, from a strategic standpoint I personally just don’t understand this and I happen to feel strongly that there were better, more qualified people who deserved the position more. And as a woman I'm disappointed that this sends a message to wait until 2016 for a woman on the ticket.

The fact remains though that America and Canada and the rest of the world still needs Barack Obama as President. I’m disappointed because I think this pick works against that. No going back of course, but I’ve been frank on the faults made through this Presidential race by any candidate and will continue to do so. Obama is only human and he can learn from his mistakes pointed out by his supporters and recognize the weaknesses that still remain for a Obama-Biden ticket.

In the end I (and I hope many others, particularly in the U.S. so the media takes notice) and many others will continue to point out that John McCain would be MORE CONSERVATIVE on domestic policy and MORE HAWKISH on foreign policy than George W. Bush and would therefore be even worse on both fronts, not to mention he would set back women’s rights 30 years. And I will continue to point out all the great qualities an Obama Presidency would bring. So it won’t be hard to say Obama-Biden is by far the best option for Americans on November 4th. I still look forward to watching the Democratic Convention.

UPDATE: So after reading more posts in favour of Biden and watching his speech in Springfield with Obama, and a couple other videos, I must say I feel a lot better about him as the choice, I think he'll do better in states like Ohio than I gave him credit. When you are getting praise from Republican Senators AND Michael Moore at the same time, along with the high favourability ratings Scott Tribe noted, that is quite a good testament of cross-partisan support. I now feel better that he'll do well for the campaign and he definitely had some good lines in Springfield. That said some of the drawbacks I outlined remain - no executive experience, no regional balance to the ticket, and kind of goes agains the long-standing Obama arguments of "you can't change the culture in Washington by sending the same old faces back and expecting a different result" or that you can't credibly run against John McCain on Iraq when you voted for the war (which Biden did). Also the fact that Biden is on record saying he would be proud to be ON John McCain's ticket and that he encouraged John Kerry to take McCain as his running mate will take some of the sting out of Biden's attacks on McCain. Obama would do well to be well aware of these remaining weaknesses and Biden ought to have an answer ready of why he said he would be willing to be on McCain's ticket or wanted Kerry to have him in 2004.

But I did want to update this to say I feel better about him than I did before so the title of this post has changed a bit. Still a missed opportunity though, I would have liked to seen a strong female governor chosen and I still believe others would have done better and been more qualified for the ticket, for instance, I've yet to hear one argument why Joe Biden was a better pick than Bill Richarson. Biden will be a great VP though regardless. Still looking forward to the big convention speeches :).

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: Hillary Clinton Endorses Barack Obama (Video)

I would say this was easily the best speech I've ever seen her give. She ran a very strong campaign and she laid out the stakes in this election and its historic nature extremely well. The speech was positive in tone from start to finish (no even mention of John McCain) showcasing the great message Democrats are bringing in this election. I think it's a great step in unifying the party and I know no matter what role Hillary Clinton is given, she can be a strong asset to Barack Obama's campaign. If Democrats are united that will defeat John McCain as America and the world so badly needs.

Recommend this Post

Deja Vu

The ad above is paid for by Republican Party (RNC).I warned this would happen, but I guess the Democratic leadership candidates didn’t pay attention to what happened after the Liberal leadership race. Even so turning down the negativity on Obama on all sides certainly couldn’t have hurt – it’s a lesson for all party nominations: stay positive and just watch you don't get too negative or else it will come back later. What was said in the Democratic race was actually far more negative than anything in the Liberal leadership race though (I still say the Conservative ads here were pretty weak).

I don’t think this will have large effect though just like in Canada the Liberals rebounded in the polls after a short drop. Obama would be wise though to hit back with an ad of his own and use his massive war chest to blanket the airwaves with it.

His ad should take the experience or “not ready” attack head on – perhaps it could contrast him to Lincoln who has the exact same political experience going into the Presidency while also noting the community work Obama has done in his life. So the ad could say he’s ready to bring the change we need on Day 1 whereas John McCain is only ready to carry on the same failed policies of the past. Or it could be similar to his previous ads that what is needed in a President is the judgment to make the right decisions and time and time again Obama has been right and McCain wrong.

Either way Obama will be able to combat this and there's no point getting upset about the past and stopping it from the party coming together, but I do hope lessons can still be learned to make sure the next race for the Democratic Party leadership(which I hope isn't till 2016) isn't this negative.

Recommend this Post