The Shotgun Blog
« December 23, 2007 - December 29, 2007 |Main| January 6, 2008 - January 12, 2008 »
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Obama 2008 = McGovern 1972
Man, I hope that Barak Obama is the Democratic nominee for President. Not because I like him – in fact, I hate him on a personal level. Rarely has history delivered up at such a critical moment such an inconsequential figure with such hopes invested in him. Every time I see his face – pale and strangely off-putting like that of a transsexual – my blood boils. But, still, I pray that God is kind enough to deliver us such an opponent: as annoying as the man is, tearing apart the Coke-snorting, criminal-coddling, terrorist-appeasing, possibly-Mohammadean Democratic nominee is going to be a lot of fun.
The pundits are right when they say that this election should be an easy win for the Democrats. After all – there’s been a decade of unremitting political-cultural attacks against the President and the Republican Party, the global situation remains unsettled, and the economy is slowing. If the Democrats had any sense about them at all they would duplicate the formula followed the two times they’ve elected a President in the last forty years: they would nominate a Southern Governor with a moderate reputation. If Brad Henry, Mike Easley, or Phil Bredesen were set to be their nominee the Democrats would be looking at something like a five to ten point win right about now.
The human race is fortunate, then, that the Democratic base is – in brief – composed largely of stupid and delusional people. In my experience, devoted Democrats fall into one of two camps:
1) They are unkempt and confused, like the woman who voted for Lyndon Johnson because she thought that Barry Goldwater wanted to take away her TV.
Or;
2) They’re long-term sufferers from what I call “The American President” syndrome. I’m talking about the Aaron Sorkin movie here. In it, the good-hearted liberal President is assailed by Evil Republicans™ who, for some bizarre reason, are violently opposed to the widowed President dating a demure lobbyist played by Annette Benning. At the end, the President decides to reject compromise and moderation and instead gives a speech where he proclaims that the symbol of America should be equally the flag and someone burning the flag and then subsequently promises to “go door to door and get all of the guns.” Thereafter, the President delivers the State of the Union to rapturous applause and, presumably, goes on to be overwhelmingly re-elected by an American electorate full of deeply closeted ACLU members.
Of course, in reality, any President who went off his rocker like that would be lucky to live out the rest of their term, let alone re-elected. The delusion is excusable in the writer, who reportedly wrote the script, “holed up in the Four Seasons Hotel with the curtains drawn … while smoking endless amounts of crack.” However, it is less understandable in (mostly) sober individuals.
For all of the rhetoric about change – for all of the excitement and auto-erotic heavy breathing coming from the media – the truth is that Barak Hussein Obama is on the far left and, when that fact is explained to the American people, he will lose the forthcoming election: badly. The only caveat that I’ll make in that statement is that it’s null and void if the Republicans as a whole are so stupid as to respond to the present crisis by nominating for President the former Governor of a nowhere state whose primary qualification for office is that he seems like he’d make a good substitute host of the “700 Club.”
This is 1972 all over again. The Democratic base has, as it did all of those years ago, become progressively unhinged from reality and is determined to have its way come what may. In 1972 they wanted McGovern – acid, amnesty, abortion, and all. They’d been radicalized by the anti-Vietnam movement, by the 1968 convention, and all of that and they were determined to take charge and, in so doing, they led their party off an electoral cliff that it has really never fully recovered from.
Frankly, Obama is a Republican’s dream. All of us were already tried of Hillary Clinton. The GOP has already torn that woman down and apart – an election with her as the nominee would have been spent refighting old battles – fighting for yard after yard of shattered ground like the poor bloody infantry in the Great War. With Obama, on the other hand, we get a whole new – and hitherto unexplored – life to exploit.
In particular, I’m quite eager to see how the Moslem issue works out. Yes, I know that the Senator’s official position is that he’s a “Christian” and he even belongs to some far-left black “Church” which, among other things, holds denouncing “middleclassness” as one of its core beliefs – but, really, how much is the word of a Democrat worth?
Both Obama’s father and his step-father were Moslems. That’s a fact. He also went to Islamic schools as a child. Really, at the moment, we know very little about what he believed and professed in the years between then and when he was first getting into public life in the mid-1990’s. Is it really all that implausible that a young black man - especially one with as intense an interest in his family background as Obama professes – wouldn’t have flirted with the faith of his fathers at some point during his young adult years?
Indeed, we know – thanks to Hillary Clinton’s discovery of a youthful ‘essay’ – that Obama had political ambitions from a very early age. Islam has a specific doctrine, known as “al-Taqiyya”, which permits the followers of Allah to conceal their true faith when among unbelievers. Now, let’s be very clear – I’m not saying that Obama is a concealed Moslem, a Manchurian candidate, waiting to seize the office of the Presidency in the service of sinister interests. But, on the other hand, it’s impossible to rule it out. These things are, after all, unfalsifiable by their very nature.
Is Barak Hussein Obama secretly a Moslem, pretending otherwise under the cover of a goofy Black Nationalist church? I can’t prove it and I, personally, don’t believe it – but neither I nor anyone who isn’t a telepath can disprove it either. Unfalsifiable.
Yes, I’m enjoying this.
In any case, we don’t need anything so dark in order to work towards destroying Obama. While, admittedly, I’d take a “What Should I Do, Imam?” letter signed by Obama over a weekend in bed with Jenna Fischer, we can make do with substantially less. Indeed, the facts that Obama fully admits to – his parentage and religious education – are, within the broader context of his views, a serious issue.
Obviously, no one can choose their parents. We can’t fault Obama for that. Someone could be born a red diaper baby and later become a staunch and reliable anti-communist. But Obama shows no sign of such a transformation. If we take him at face value – that he was born and raised by a vacuous mother with a thing for Moslem men, that he was seemingly raised as a Moslem to some degree, and later became irreligious before eventually joining some frivolous fringe “church” there still remains the very serious issue that his background and upbringing – which he has never denounced or discarded – will make him excessively sympathetic towards the West’s enemies. Such notions might not sit well with pious multicultural sensibilities but are nonetheless real. It takes a strong man to overcome early bonds of affection and accept that it might be necessary, in the interests of our civilization, to kill people one was raised with – maybe even to kill one’s own relatives, if that is what is required. Does the candidate of Oprah seem likely to be the one to dispense with that sort of sentimentality?
Forget the notion – bandied about by Shelby Steele – that part of Obama’s draw comes from the fact that he’s a “nonthreatening black man.” The deeper truth is that a large part of Obama’s appeal comes from the fact that he’s a nonthreatening man, period. For all of the jokes about John Edwards as the “metrosexual candidate” (a label his 2008 campaign persona seems designed to shake) no one deserves the label more than the effete and gaunt Obama. There’s a reason why Obama draws the woman’s vote more than Hillary Clinton: he’s a limp-wristed weakling whose appearance and attitudes are perfectly in keeping with the cultural mores of the day. His appeal – particularly to the young and to single women – can be traced to his girlishly sensitive countenance and character.
No, Obama doesn’t cry in public or claim that he can “feel our pain” like Bill Clinton. Obama’s appeal in this regard is more subtle (and quite possibly genuine). For his occasional calculated statement about foreign policy, his mush-brained homilies about the “audacity of hope” are perfectly positioned to win over the lavender and lace set.
This, of course, is only the beginning. My confidence that we’ll beat Obama isn’t nearly enough for me to quit – especially not when I transparently hate the man with such passion. My hope is that no one else will quit either and that we can spend a whole year administering a truly epic beat-down to the Democrat.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on January 5, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (40) | TrackBack
On the GOP race (and Ron Paul's ignorance of Canada)
As I was offering my thoughts on the state of the GOP race right now (here), I discovered that Dr. Ron Paul blithely assumes terrorists don't target Canada.
Take a look at what I mean (and how to contact Dr. Paul's campaign to set him straight) here.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 5, 2008 in Canadian Politics, Current Affairs, International Politics, Military | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Goodman's pitch for bad parenting
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 5, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack
A Deal?
This should be 329 consecutive life sentences .
*
Posted by Neo Conservative on January 5, 2008 in Crime | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Friday, January 04, 2008
Gore and Kent, sitting in a tree...
Before Al Gore engaged in hyper-enviro-bole, there was... Peter Kent...?
Huh? Peter Kent, Conservative (!) candidate for Thornhill, Ontario, boasts, on his website, "A quarter century before Al Gore discovered global warming, Peter Kent reported on the phenomon (sic). This groundbreaking CBC program won a Silver Medal at the New York Film Festival of 1984."
The Nobel Peace Prize committee is, I'm sure, now seriously considering Peter Kent for an award.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 4, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBack
Thursday, January 03, 2008
What (I think) Iowa means
I can understand how most Canadians would look at Iowa and think it doesn't matter much (particularly with super-duper Tuesday a month away), but in many respects, conventional wisdom was turned on its head tonight (and yes, I really messed up in predicting the Democratic caucus).
Anyhow, it's Huckabee for the Republicans, and Obama for the Democrats in Iowa (as I'm guessing you all know by now). FWIW, here's what I think this means for the GOP, and for the Dems.
I will say this, Obama's victory does say something about how far my country has indeed come. Not only did he win, but he was the first African-American I can remember who did better than his pre-election polls suggested (typically, more voters say they supported the African-American candidate than actually support him or her). Should he be the Democratic nominee, I will vote against him, but I tip my hat to him tonight.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 3, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (46) | TrackBack
An Anglo-Alliance
JOHN O'SULLIVAN: If Australians, Indians, Canadians, and even Americans can recognize the Anglosphere as a new and growing factor in world politics, why is it something from which the Brits themselves shy nervously?
Read more at NRO: “An Anglo-Alliance”
Posted by Winston on January 3, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Liveblogging the Iowa Caucuses
I'm going to be watching the Iowa Caucuses on C-Span. I'll be liveblogging as I see anything of note.
In advance, my prediction:
Democrats: Obama wins, by more than people thought. 40ish%. Hillary Clinton third, Edwards second.
Republicans: Toss-up. I think that Romney wins, not by much, Huckabee second, McCain third.
Turn-out appears to be high for both sides. Democratic turn-out 25%ish above 2004. Republicans high also - high enough that the room they've chosen for the caucus that CSPAN2 is showing live appears to be too small.
As I've noted in the past - I'm not really sure if this is a very good way to pick the leader of the world. I suppose my Canadian enemies will damn me for my excessive interest in American politics and my Americans ones for my "foreign" attitude but, let me just say that this whole affair lacks of the majesty of, say, the State Opening of Parliament.
(5:55PM) Huckabee looks like he's going to win the GOP Caucus. Big.
(5:56PM) Fox is projecting that Huckabee has won. By a lot. This is the end for Mitt Romney. Obama has a narrow lead among Democrats, Clinton in third.
(5:58PM) Romney is done. Looking at him on Fox, he looks defeated. There's no way he drops Iowa by ten and wins New Hampshire. This will be the end of him.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is dropping. Now back by a point and a half on Obama, with Obama picking up momentum. The Republican votes seem to have come in from larger precincts first, whereas for the Democrats the inverse seems to be true.
(6PM) Mitt Romney is tanking on Fox right now. His eyes are filled with fear. He's shaken up, from the look of the guy.
(6:04PM) Don't let the early numbers deceive you. The Democrats, of course, are using the threshold system - and most of those have yet to be reallocated. I stand by my earlier thought - Obama is going to win big.
(6:07PM) Obama now up by nearly two and a half points over both Clinton and Edwards.
(6:12PM) Obama is closing in on a three point lead. In the GOP race, there's still a battle for third place.
(6:25PM) Obama is up by four. Ron Paul has dropped into last place.
(6:29PM) Fox just called Iowa for Obama - with Obama now having opened up a five point lead, and with Clinton still in third.
(6:32PM) Obama up by close to six points. Words are that the Clinton camp plans to unleash hell upon Obama - though, at the same time, the word is also that they plan on a technical attack about the details of their respective health care plans. Weak, weak, weak.
(6:39PM) Obama now up by more than six points. Clinton still in third. McCain creeping towards third.
(6:40PM) Clinton now below 30%.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on January 3, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Poor comparisons
My regular debating opponent in the Tri-City News, Mary Woo Sims, ends our most recent exchange with the declaration that, in a country as rich as Canada, there's no reason for anyone to be poor.
But, of course, as long as poverty keeps being defined more as a measure of income disparity than true impoverishment, then we could be the richest country in the world a hundred times over and still have a "poor" underclass.
Here's my complete column on the subject and here's Mary Woo's.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 3, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (76) | TrackBack
Strong Horse
Just saw the above picture on this blog and recommend you to read the article there:
"Look at this picture of the aftermath of an IED explosion. Who do you think this Iraqi child considers the ‘strong horse?’ Can you fake this kind of reaction, this instantaneous bolt to safety in the middle of fire and death?"
(h/t Hugh Hewitt)
Posted by Winston on January 3, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Stelmach's exposed right flank
Nature isn't the only thing that abhors a vacuum: politics does too. And so, with the Alberta Tories having largely abandoned the right, that rushing sound you now hear is the noise generated by hopeful conservative parties filling the void.
Big news today is that the Alberta Alliance and the Wildrose Party have confirmed they are set to merge into a single entity. The Calgary Herald reported this development on January 1, and the parties have confirmed the development today. Here's the Wildrose Party's press release:
News Release
Thursday, January 3, 2007
For immediate release
Two main centre-right parties could soon unite
The provincial executives of two Alberta political parties, the Alberta Alliance and the Wildrose Party of Alberta, announced today a joint plan that will unite their parties, subject to approval by members and electoral authorities.
If accepted, the merged party will call itself the Wildrose Alliance, and be ready for an election in February. The leader would be MLA Paul Hinman, current leader of the Alberta Alliance.
The proposal also calls for the Wildrose Alliance to adopt a constitution very similar to that of the Wildrose Party.
The two parties have already contacted their members to explain the plan and invite all to a meeting in Calgary on Saturday, January 19th (Westin Hotel, 10 a.m.).
Wildrose Party President Rob James said of the proposed union, “Paul Hinman is respected by members of the Wildrose Party, as are the achievements of Alliance Party founder and president Randy Thorsteinson. The policy differences between our parties are minimal. We strongly recommend to our members to get behind this union.”
Hinman said, “United we succeed, divided we fail. The Stelmach government has lost touch with what is most important to Albertans. We owe it to Albertans to give them a united and effective alternative.”
If members at the January 19th meeting approve of the plan, they will then elect a new combined Wildrose Alliance executive to set an election platform and strategy, and a general meeting of the party will take place this spring.
- 30 -
For more information contact:
Alliance Party – Paul Hinman, 403-393-2003 (Paul.Hinman@assembly.ab.ca)
Wildrose Party – Rob James, 403-630-5917 (rcjames1@telusplanet.net
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 3, 2008 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
I guess Florida's oranges never heard of Al Gore
The global warming debate is over.
The earth is getting warmer.
Pay no attention to those Florida farmers desperately trying to save their crops from freezing.
Nothing to see, here. Move along.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 3, 2008 in International Politics, Science | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack
Early morning music
A little bel canto sing-along from Act 2 scene 3 of Bellini's Norma, a concert performance of the duet "Mira, o Norma" (followed by "Cedi...deh cedi") with sopranos Edita Gruberová and Vesselina Kasarova accompanied by Friedrich Haider on piano.
In case you’ve forgotten the lyrics, here they are;
ADALGISA
Mira, o Norma, a' tuoi ginocchi
Questi cari pargoletti.
Ah! pietà di lor ti tocchi
Se non hai di te pietà.
NORMA
Ah! perché la mia costanza
Vuoi scemar con molli affetti?
Più lusinghe, più speranza
Presso a morte un cor non ha.
(English Trans.)
ADALGISA
See, o Norma, at your knees,
These dear, dear children.
Let pity for them move you,
If you feel no pity for yourself...
NORMA
Ah, why do you try to weaken me
With such soft feelings?
Such illusions, such hopes
Are not for one about to die...
If you prefer orchestra and action, here’s the "Mira, o Norma" clip from a 1997 La Scala production with Tatiana Troyanos as Adalgisa and Montserrat Caballe as Norma.
Posted by Kevin Steel on January 3, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Profiting from Ron Paul
Someone - I'm going to guess foolish Ron Paul supporters are the culprits, given the circumstances, has managed to bid up the "field" option on Intrade (an events preduction market) for the New Hampshire Republican Primary to the point where the asking price has reached 7.8. In order to borrow a significant number of options you'd have to probably short them at around ten or so, though. In any case, you'd end up with about a 10% return by next Tuesday night.
Two declarations - first of all, obviously, I don't recommend betting to anyone who disapproves of such things and, second that, in the interests of full disclosure, I have taken a small (sub-$100) short position on this particular option.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on January 2, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Greed is... good?
Reading the comments on the Alberta Alliance and Wildrose Party merger, I couldn't help but notice the debate between Epsilon and tomax7 amongst others on the topic of greed. So I thought I'd fish out some videos to help spur on the debate, and provide some fodder.
The best video, of course, would be John Stossel's "Greed." I'm having trouble locating the full video, but here is a clip:
Milton Friedman had much to say about capitalism and the profit motive (which is sometimes called "ambition" and other times called "greed"). Here are two great clips, especially the first one (an interview with Phil Donahue):
No one wants to be accused of providing only one side of the argument. So here is the other side of the argument. (Actually, I have no idea what's going on there. But it does capture the mood of the other side on this issue, if, uhm, nothing else).
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 2, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack
Timberrrr
Would a vignette like this be politically correct nowadays?:
Somehow, I doubt it...
But forget about the environmentalists. Recall, instead, the following video that played nightly when I was a wee lad. It may as well have been the Canadian national anthem, as far as I was concerned.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 2, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Variations on a theme
I ripped Byers myself on the ol' blog.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 2, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Pakistan's message to the world: never mind what we said last week.
From the Hindustan Times (via Jonah Goldberg: NRO - The Corner):
In a dramatic U-turn, Pakistan government (sic) has “apologised” for claiming that former premier Benazir Bhutto died of a skull fracture after hitting the sunroof of her car during a suicide attack.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 2, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
"I marched against cruise missiles and CIA mischief..."
"every other weekend, but I drew the line at picketing Cher..."
Read a free preview of my new e-book Acoustic Ladyland: Kathy Shaidle Unplugged.
It's not all about my journey from Left to Right. At one point I stick a lit candle in my ear. Sober.
Posted by Kathy Shaidle on January 2, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
The not-so-friendly skies...
A massive police probe is underway at ultra-secure Pearson airport after a .22-calibre handgun and bullets were found in the washroom of a secure area.
*
Posted by Neo Conservative on January 1, 2008 in Travel | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Shilling for Moe and the Liberals
This is a bit like shooting ducks in a barrel, but it’s a holiday and I’m up for something easy, so here goes.
I'm reading this column by Michael Byers in the Toronto Star: From rogue nation to world leader and I'm wondering, why does this guy seem to be channeling Jean Chrétien and Maurice Strong?
"[Harper] has also picked unnecessary quarrels with China over human rights...
...Kyoto Protocol–arguably the most important treaty ever...
It's time to move NATO troops out, and UN peacekeepers in.
And then, let's get serious about the "responsibility to protect" where it's needed most: in Africa."
There's no little description at the bottom of the column telling me about this writer. Could he be this Michael Byers? Why, so he is. Byers works at the UBC's Liu Institute which opened in 2000. Maurice Strong, sinophile, father of the Kyoto Protocol, was the chair of the institute's International Advisory Council. You remember the Liu Institute because it was created as a place for former Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy to warm his butt while helping to plot scams like the climate change jiggery-pokery (successful) and global gun control (unsuccessful).
Byers ends his column with "This year, let's elect a government that shares this vision. Let's shake the "rogue state" label – before it sticks." (I wonder which 'government' that's supposed to be?) The rogue state label? Byers starts his column with a quote by some unnamed British wag: "So, how does it feel to be the citizen of a rogue state?" I mean, the guy could have been making a joke. And we're supposed to care?
Now, let’s go back to Byers’ sub-hed: “Nation needs to cast off neo-conservatism and lead on human rights and the environment.” And look back at the things I’ve clipped from the column; human rights in China, Kyoto Protocol, NATO. These are not exclusively neo-con issues. Human rights in China, a lot of people are concerned about those and Harper's approach isn't "neo-con." He's been confrontational, and that's not been to the liking of Beijing puppets like Maurice Strong and Jean Chretien, but so what? The merit of the Kyoto Protocol is a scientific debate--the misuse of shoddy science to push a political agenda in my opinion. And NATO in Afghanistan? The UN Security Council approved the mission in Afghanistan and Canada's then-Liberal government threw its support behind it. So it's neo-con thing? Byers, cut the bullsh-t. The "neo-con" label is a ruse being used by the Liberal supporters to try to tie everything to the difficult situation in Iraq. We all know that. Told you I was being lazy.
So I'll do a little background work.
FYI 1 The Liu Institute says it gets its name from Dr. Jieh Jow Liou (so why it's not called the Liou Institute, is umm a mystery). It was established with money from Dr. Liou and from The Liu Foundation. Here's a UBC bio (scroll down) of Taiwanese businessman Jieh Jow Liou. The Liu Foundation was set up by Chinese-American media mogul Arthur Liu of Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Inc. The foundation is run by his wife Yvonne out of New York. Lui you may recall was in the news being pummeled by Democrat supporters for pulling the plug on Air America back in 2004. MRBI owns Sinocast Radio in Canada. Looks like in 2000 Liu was supporting Liberal causes (the institute) in Canada and Republican causes in the US, so I'm guessing he's a business type who likes the winning side.
FYI 2 Another member of the founding Liu Institute board along with Strong back in 2000 was former University of Toronto president John Evans, chair, Torstar Corporation, owner of the Toronto Star.
[added: just noticed SDA has a thread on the column.]
Posted by Kevin Steel on January 1, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBack
Monday, December 31, 2007
Here comes 2008
Happy new year and best of luck to the Shotgun readers, bloggers and staff.
Posted by Winston on December 31, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Predictions for 2008
Well, it seems to be the thing to do today, so I’m going to give it a go:
1) Canadian Politics:
There will not be a General Election in 2008. Instead, Stephane Dion will continue to die a slow death, withering away in front of our very eyes. Both parties will fail to gain traction in the polls, absent some outside defining issue. The Liberals will be afraid to go, the Tories will be afraid to go – fear of the unknown will keep everything frozen for another year.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper will again confound conventional political wisdom by agreeing to a request that Canada increase the size of its mission in Afghanistan as, with Iraq fading from the news and Pakistan spiralling into chaos, international support coalesces for emulating the Iraqi “surge” strategy in Afghanistan and possibly even northern Pakistan.
My MP, James Moore, will finally become a member of the Cabinet.
Carole Taylor will run for and win the job of Mayor of Vancouver and, quite promptly, discover what she should have already known: that it’s an incredibly frustrating job in which doing anything of value is pretty much impossible.
The other BC Carole, Carole James, will be forced out by a panicked BC NDP in the summer/fall when they see the 2009 Election coming and no chance of her beating Gordon Campbell. Coming full circle, she will be replaced by Adrian Dix.
With it broadly expected that Gordon Campbell will retire sometime after the 2010 Olympics, a number of people will begin manoeuvring for the Premier’s job in earnest. Despite her “exit” from Provincial politics, Carole Taylor will be the early front-runner, if she can avoid being dragged down by the Vancouver Mayor’s job and if she can avoid a conservative revolt. She will probably be successful on the first count – and unsuccessful on the second. With the end of Campbell’s tenure in sight, MLA’s from the old Reform/Social Credit wing of the BC Liberal Party will begin to express their concerns about the party’s leftward drift more openly. Will they find a champion? Probably.
The one name missing from the list of people lining up to be Premier of British Columbia will be former Deputy Premier and current CKNW Radio Personality Christy Clark (full disclosure: once upon a time, I was a member of her riding association). She’s a smart woman and both a provincial and Federal liberal. Whatever her husband’s current job, she’ll know that there are going to be two Liberal leaderships opening up in the next few years. She’ll also know that there’s an appetite among the estrogen-heavy Liberal membership for a woman leader. After all – lack of Federal experience seems to be no bar to the job. Gerard Kennedy nearly won the job last time and his principal accomplishment in life up until that point (prior, I suppose, to being Education Minister of Ontario) was running a Food Bank. But for the timing of her ill-fated run for Mayor of Vancouver, she could have been a formidable candidate last time around. This time…
Forget what the polls say: Ed Stelmach will call a General Election in Alberta and he will either lose or nearly lose. The Alberta PC’s have the stench, even across Provincial borders, given off by all decaying and defeated regimes.
2) World Politics:
There will be no General Election in Britain in 2008. Like James Callaghan three decades ago, Gordon Brown will hold on and pray for a miracle. He might wait all the way into 2010 looking to change things around. It probably won’t work. But, mind you, David Cameron is no Maggie.
After nearly a decade in the wilderness, Benjamin Netanyahu will return to power as the Prime Minister of Israel. However, his return to power will be no cause for celebration…
…because his return to power will be triggered by Iran’s public declaration – a surprise to no honest person with an IQ higher than room temperature – that it either has deployed or will soon deploy nuclear weapons. With that Olmert’s government will come tumbling down and, like Britain in the terrible spring of 1940; Israel will turn to the man who turns out to have been right all along.
Contrary to expectations, the Beijing Olympics will prove to be an embarrassment for the Chinese regime. They will be disrupted by activists. Frantic efforts will be unable to hide the terrible state of the Chinese environment, which will injure the health of some of the athletes. Entering the country en masse after years of stories about China’s rise, the international media will prove very eager to tell the contrarian story of how China is blighted by extreme poverty and generally filthy conditions.
Pakistan will continue to teeter on the brink. It may fall over. If it does – if, for example, something terrible happens to Musharaff and an Islamist takeover beckons – the world will be treated to the most frightening days since September 11th, or possibly the Cuban missile crisis, as an alarmed India threatens war and the U.S. Armed Forces launch a desperate operation to either capture or disable Pakistan’s nuclear weapons before they fall into the wrong hands.
Iraq continues to improve. The momentum there towards a fairly decent civil society is becoming irreversible. As this happens, the smarter Democrats try and claim credit for forcing the course change.
3) American Politics:
The world will be treated to the most confusing American Presidential election – and perhaps the most critical – since 1860. Barak Obama will win the Democratic nomination for President – after surprising Hillary Clinton in the early primaries and winning the endorsement of John Edwards.
John McCain will be the Republican nominee for President, after Mitt Romney defeats Huckabee in Iowa, but by a small enough margin to fail to get a bounce. McCain wins New Hampshire thereafter, as the many, many Republicans who despite Mitt Romney but merely dislike McCain gather around the latter.
In March, Ron Paul will be defeated for re-nomination in his own House seat by local City Councilman Chris Peden. His devoted followers will blame this on “neocons” or, when they think people aren’t looking, simply on “the Jews.” Shortly thereafter, Paul will announce an independent campaign for the Presidency.
At roughly the same time, Michael Bloomberg also declares for the Presidency as an Independent, putting a billion dollars behind his campaign.
Thus, we’re going to left with a four-way race for the Presidency, with three candidates who can potentially win the Presidency – and probably with all four polling high enough to make it into the debates.
The race will be ugly and chaotic. Indeed, I would not be at all shocked if it was the first Presidential race in a very long time to be marred by actual violence.
Bloomberg will take either Chuck Hagel or Sam Nunn as his running mate. Obama, looking to burnish his foreign policy credentials, will follow the model of inexperienced candidates for the Presidency in recent years and choose a gray-haired insider as his running mate. Chris Dodd or Joe Biden both seem plausible. Depending on the environment, John McCain can go four ways. He can reach out to Evangelicals by taking Huckabee as his running mate. He can choose the best-polling Republican and take Giuliani. He can try to mollify movement conservatives and take someone like Fred Thompson, John Kyl, or South Carolina Mark Sanford. Or, recognizing that the race is out-of-control he could make a bold decision and attempt a fusion ticket of sorts by taking Joe Lieberman as his Vice President. I happen to prefer the final option, simply because it enjoy the idea of the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate being elected as a Republican in 2008.
In the end, despite erratic polling, John McCain is elected as the 44th President of the United States. He wins only a plurality of the popular vote, but a smashing Electoral College majority. Democrats spend the next four years pointing out that a majority of Americans voted for candidates on the left of the spectrum.
Democrats keep the Congress. They hold the House by a very narrow margin – but pick up one seat in the Senate (the Republicans, though, partially offset their losses by electing John Kennedy to the Senate in Louisiana).
4) Everything Else:
The Writer’s strike drags on longer than anyone expected. This is one of those unfortunate cases where justice is on both sides – the writers deserve to be paid for all of their work, but the studios don’t have more money to give. This disrupts the pilot season, resulting in the renewal and even the revival of many on-the-brink shows.
Further, studios put a number of remakes and the like into production – in addition to scripts coming off the shelf after many years.
Reflecting the mood of the day, “No Country for Old Men” wins the Oscar for Best Picture. In a divided verdict, Paul Thomas Anderson wins Best Director for “There Will be Blood.” Meanwhile, Ellen Page wins Best Actress for “Juno” and Daniel Day Lewis wins Best Actor for “There Will be Blood.”
Tom Kratman’s novel “Caliphate”, due to be published by Baen in a few months, causes a stir on the blogosphere and draws a human rights complaint against Indigo/Chapters for carrying it in Canada.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on December 31, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away
American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Ledeen in his recent article:
"Meanwhile, our neighbors to the north have no doubt about Iran's campaign against NATO forces in Afghanistan. During a Christmas visit to Canadian troops, Canada's defense minister, Peter MacKay said that weapons are flowing from Iran into the hands of Afghan insurgents, and he doesn't like it. Those Iranian-made weapons account for the bulk of Canadian deaths and casualties."
Ignoring the real problem (mullahs), won't make it go away. Some body must take some serious actions against the clerical establishment of Iran.
And also related article on Iranian strategy in Iraq by Michael Rubin
Understanding Iranian Strategy in Afghanistan by Michael Rubin
Posted by Winston on December 31, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Iowa predictions
Well, now we get to see just how bad I am at predicting elections . . .
Based on the latest poll I have seen (which also is the must trustworthy, IMHO, because it's Mason-Dixon), here's how I see the Iowa caucuses shaking out (I go into more detail, including my very hazy ideas for what this means in New Hampshire, here):
Democrats
- John Edwards
- Hillary Clinton
- Barack Obama
- I don't care
- They don't care
- You won't care
- Dennis Kucinich
- Mike Gravel
Republicans
- Mike Huckabee
- Mitt Romney
- Fred Thompson
- John McCain
- Ron Paul
- Rudy Giuliani
- Duncan Hunter
- Alan Keyes
Now, you'll probably noticed I switched the order a bit on the Republican side. I did that mainly because of the evangelical Christian voters, who tend to be more loyal and show up more often that the rest of the GOP electorate. They usually add an unseen (and un-polled) boost to their preferred candidates. I'm guessing they'll be enough to push Huckabee into first (but not by much) and Paul into fifth.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on December 31, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Bravery & Sacrifice
Our thoughts, sympathies and respect go to the family and friends of Jonathan Dion, a gunner from Val d'Or, Quebec, a brave soldier, who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country and our freedom when his light armored personnel carrier hit an IED 12 miles west of Kandahar, Afghanistan. PM Harper released the following statement regarding this incident:
"These brave Canadian soldiers were helping bring hope to a population that has seen much hardship. We will not forget the sacrifice made by Gunner Dion while working to make life better for others. Canada is in Afghanistan as part of a UN-sanctioned mission to help build a stable, democratic, and self-sufficient society. Reconstruction and development in Afghanistan cannot occur in an unstable environment. These Canadian soldiers were working to provide security and help create the conditions needed to improve the lives of the people of Afghanistan."
RIP Soldier...
Posted by Winston on December 31, 2007 in Current Affairs, Military | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Alberta Alliance Party & Wildrose Party May Unite
December 30, 2007
Notice of Special General Meeting (SGM) of the Alberta Alliance Party.
Dear Alliance Party Members,
During the month of December the Provincial Council has been in negotiations with the Wildrose Party of Alberta to unite the parties. After several weeks of negotiations the Alberta Alliance Provincial Council has approved the following terms to a merger, subject to the approval of our members at a Special General meeting, to be held in Calgary , AB on Saturday January 19th 2008. We invite you to attend this meeting and ask that you pre-register by January 12th to insure we have adequate space for each attendee. You must be a current Alberta Alliance member.
The decision to merge the parties is entirely up to you. The following six resolutions will be submitted for consideration by all Alberta Alliance members in attendance.
Be it resolved that;
1) the Alliance changes the name of the “Alberta Alliance Party” to the “Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta”.
2) the Wildrose Alliance adopt new Bylaws substantially the same as those of the “Wildrose Party of Alberta ”.
3) the Wildrose Alliance immediately conduct election of officers.
4) the Wildrose Alliance call and provide notice of an Annual General Meeting to be held by May 1, 2008.
5) the Wildrose Alliance accept all the assets and liabilities of the “Wildrose Party of Alberta”; following the acceptance of the merger by members of both the Alberta Alliance and the Wildrose Party at their respective Special General Meetings.
6) the Wildrose Alliance allow all members of the “Wildrose Party of Alberta ” to exchange their membership in the Wildrose Party for a membership in the “Wildrose Alliance” for the unexpired term.
Both parties will have conducted due diligence examinations of the other, prior to the January 19th 2008 SGM.
If the merger is approved, the Wildrose Alliance will reimburse candidates for expenses already incurred for election material that bears the Alberta Alliance name to facilitate the transition to new name. (Candidates will have to provide documentation of the original expenses to be reimbursed.)
If the union is approved, a meeting of the new Provincial Executive shall follow the SGM, to establish by-laws for candidate selection and constituency formation.
Members of the “Wildrose Party of Alberta ” have been invited to attend. If members of the Alberta Alliance approve the above resolutions, Wildrose Party members will then be recognized as voting participants at the SGM.
I hope you can join us for this important meeting.
Sincerely,
Jane Morgan, CFO
On behalf of the President & the AAP Provincial Council
Posted by Matthew Johnston on December 30, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (39) | TrackBack
American foreign policy in the middle east
A discussion panel by the Jewish Policy Center about the role and importance of the American foreign policy in the middle-east. Worth of the time (almost 2 hours) to pay attention.
Posted by Winston on December 30, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Maybe he can take it...
To the Afghani Human Rights Commission.
-- KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- A key Taliban commander reportedly kicked out of the militia believes the dismissal order is a conspiracy against him and has not been signed off by Taliban leader Mullah Omar, his spokesman said Sunday.
*
Posted by Neo Conservative on December 30, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack