Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« An Anglo-Alliance | Main | A Deal? »

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


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What (I think) Iowa means:



It doesn't matter what Obama does early on. He will not likely beat Hillary in the end. Even hie does ... and if I know the American mind, when the big vote for president comes, the question that will be going through those minds are ... "Do I really want a woman or a Negro to be my president." I think the answer to that will be know. The American mind may have come along way, but where that has brought them is anyone's guess.

Posted by: John West | 2008-01-03 11:17:18 PM

The south may still have racism rampant, but not America. America is ready.

Posted by: JOsh | 2008-01-03 11:40:45 PM

Well I think the fact that he is an un-seasoned politician and Islamic may be Obama's downfall and besides the fact that Clinton is Female(I think) she is HATED by many DEMS and REP alike. I think that reason alone will sink her. I think Americans would vote a Black woman in to power if they thought she was a strong enough person and not a weak willed puppet like the choices they have now.

Posted by: SW | 2008-01-03 11:53:23 PM

The Republican brand looks good again!

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-04 12:00:47 AM

America will have a woman or Negroe President when woman and Negroes are held to the same levels of merit and accountability as white men.

As long as exceptions are made and these subgroups of people are subject to hiring and admission quotas, as long as they have their own special interest advocacy groups which favour them above white men, they will not be trusted to represent all Americans equally.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-01-04 12:05:31 AM

I agree that quotas, lead to a idea of sub-standardness. Just like when I hear the word Racism over and over. I think the word these people mean is Prejudice. If there is such true thing as Race, then there is an admission that in itself there are differences amongst people and when there are differences there is no perfect equality...but oh well, it sure looks good on paper to the academics.

Posted by: SW | 2008-01-04 12:25:13 AM

Iowa means nothing.

Anyone who can take a state or a caucus seriously when so many votes go to a moonbat like Edwards, and an idiot like Obama who has yet to answer a serious policy question, they had best think again.

If it does represent the feeling across the country, then god help the free world.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-01-04 1:29:39 AM

No matter who wins either party, the Republicans will win again. Terrorism and home security are still at the forefront of American's minds. With Hilary and Obama running the show for the Democrats, the Republicans will win with much more convincing numbers. Any party that tries to be politically correct instead of electing leaders that deserve to be there, will not win in a nation like the US. But on the slim chance they do win, God help us all. The impact on this country will be huge.

Posted by: D.R.-Calgary | 2008-01-04 7:11:38 AM

I agree with Deep Blue -the Bannerlines in the New York Dailies like the Mirror and Post will read:
Hicks picks nixed -Obama Alabama ain't going nowhere
-Clinton will lead the Democrats,and be defeated
Super former Mayor Rudy the Enforcer will win for the Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln.Obama was created in the left wing Liberal media in the land of the free and home of the brave -It was painfully obvious in Lyin Time Magazine last week. Macleod
still digging out in Moncton which looks like a scene from Doctor Zhivago.

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2008-01-04 7:25:21 AM

Even the women abandoned Shrillery last night. An omen perhaps? My hat's off to the Magic negro as well however in the life-cycle of a politician, he's still in diapers.

On the GOP side, the Huckster's win was as expected. Interesting that the village idiot, Ron Paul pulled 10% overall, beating out Rudy. Fortunately, that is an aberration and will not be repeated, going forth.

Posted by: Atric | 2008-01-04 8:30:04 AM

It's important to remember that none of the three Democratic front-runners has any experience in governance, not even a mayorship. All are senators. Edwards's background as a trial lawyer will not endear him to an America in desperate need of tort reform; Shrillery is a carpetbagger who rode her husband's coattails into a reliably Democratic county; Obama is an idealist who seems to have been elected largely because of his freshness and message of hope.

Obama is certainly a more attractive candidate than either Edwards or Shrillery, in the respect that he seems forward-thinking and not beholden to the ideological and political baggage of years past. He seems reasonably genuine. But then, so did Jimmy Carter. That's the one risk associated with fishing outside the traditional "first families" for candidates--they tend to be unknown greenhorns. Sometimes you roll lucky number seven, but more often you come up snake eyes.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-04 9:02:18 AM

Huck got lucky...once people learn his liberal record (thousands of pardons including murderers in Arkansas)illegal immigration, etc. he'll falter. As for Obama, he may have some momentum now, but I still wouldn't rule out Clinton, as she has lots of money and crooked friends.

Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-04 9:22:11 AM

The Red Star reports on Obama's "message of hope"this morning -what is he hoping for? no body
seems to know -free parking on the White House lawn?
It is also painfully obvious that he has about the same mental capacity as a twelve year old. The Big State's primaries and the Big City voters will decide who the next President of the Republic will be -it ain't gonna be Obama Alabama.Why did,nt his White mother call him Ralph or Irving? "Irving Obama has a nice ring to it!. Macleod enjoying every moment of this nonsense.

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2008-01-04 9:25:04 AM

Speller has it right. The sup group status that women and black loved to use for their gain is now working against them.

You have to be able stand up on your to get the respect required to lead the most powerful nation in the world.

Can you imagine the expectation of black or women if either of these two get in the Oval office. They will need giant fly swatters to keep the "you owe us" crowd off the White House lawn.

Posted by: John West | 2008-01-04 9:41:15 AM

Does it really matter who wins? All the horses in the race are out of the same stable albeit they have different political party names. Money rules the game and the participating gamblers (the people) lose.

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-04 11:02:15 AM

America is far from the banana republic you describe, Stephen. Any kid can be the President. Ronald Reagan was an actor and George Washington was a general. The post has been held by people from every corner of the country. (Unlike in Canada, where EVERY elected PM has come from central Canada and most from Quebec.)

By the way--how, exactly, can living in perhaps the greatest country in human history, with a standard of living most countries can only dream of, be considered "losing"? Exactly what are they losing? To lose something, you must first own it. What have the people put into this election and lost, before the ballot box even opens?

Oh well, I guess there's always room for one more malcontent at the DNC.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-04 12:07:09 PM

Yes, America is thankfully becoming more colour/gender blind but I fear for the republic when it has become so enamored with charisma (remember that charismatic Canadian asshole that campaigned on a "just society" back in the sixties). The candidates with the emptiest quivers have come out on top although on the Democrat slate, Obama is likely the lessor of the evils.

New Hampshire will be different than Iowa as the charismatic Baptist Preacher won't fare as well and unlike Atric, I think Ron Paul will do as well or better there. Look to Romney picking up support in New Hampshire.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-01-04 12:50:35 PM

Here is part of an interesting article by Lou Dobbs on what is really happening in America. SJB.

"...Another certainty in the midst of all this is that majority rule in this country is far more an ideal than a reality, especially for working men and women. The most sweeping corporate tax legislation of the past two decades provides nearly $140 billion in tax breaks, bailouts, and subsidies for U.S. multinationals and other special interests. As Sen. Bob Graham of Florida has pointed out, there are 14 additional incentives for corporations to export U.S. jobs to cheap foreign labor markets, and the new tax law rewards, rather than punishes, companies that have moved both jobs and profits overseas. Congress continues to ignore our conflated crisis of border security and illegal immigration, which is driving down the wages of working Americans and taxes collected by local and state governments.
These lawmakers are hardly representative of American society. I can't find more than a few blue-collar workers in the House, but about a third of House members are lawyers. While fewer than 1 percent of our population can claim millionaire status, about 30 percent of the Congress is made up of millionaires. None of our elected officials lives in poverty, as do 36 million of us, and, of course, none has had to apply for welfare or training assistance after his or her job was shipped overseas...."
See full article at:

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-04 2:22:17 PM

First of all, Stephen, I don’t care that some agitprop put out some opinion piece. If you’re going to debate, then do it—but don’t send in a pinch-hitter if you feel you’re outmatched. The gracious thing is to simply withdraw.

Secondly, the phrase “working men and women” is a favourite Leftist talking point. ANYONE who has a job—ANY job—fits that description. Whether you make your living with your mind your hands, if you’re gainfully employed, you’re a working person.

Thirdly, the corporate fat cats/offshore tax shelters/shipping jobs overseas harp is hackneyed, clichéd, and trite. The issue has been talked to death. If companies find profit margins more attractive overseas, it’s because the American consumer is addicted to lower prices. Farming out critical parts of your business infrastructure to other countries is a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare; if manufacturers could compete while still staying at home, they’d do it.

And lastly, there’s no point in bemoaning the fact that Congress is top-heavy with lawyers. To become an effective lawmaker, you need to know the law. Becoming a lawyer is one way of doing that. As for the fact that none of the representatives is poor or on welfare, my answer is, well, duh! Who wants a FAILURE for a Congressman? Should we establish quotas for drug addicts, convicted felons, and insane people too? Or apply the same hiring criteria to nuclear physicists and airline pilots? No thanks!

It really is unbelievable how supposedly educated people can uncritically swallow such a blatant and utterly transparent example of the politics of envy.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-04 2:40:04 PM

JC- Agree to disagree with regards to Paul, however I have to agree with you regarding Romney.
He will probably pick up momentum in New Hampshire at the expense of Huckabee. I really think NH will be a litmus test for Guiliani. If he doesn't do well there, he may as well take his ball and go home.
As for the Dems, well they appear to be lightweights compared to the GOP candidates. Remember the democrats ain't your grandpa's party anymore. No more FDRs no more Harry Trumans, and no more JFKs. The party has lost it's sense of raison d'etre.
In my very humble opinion.

Posted by: Atric | 2008-01-04 3:39:11 PM

Shane Matthews: America is far from the banana republic you describe, Stephen. Any kid can be the President. Ronald Reagan was an actor and George Washington was a general. The post has been held by people from every corner of the country. (Unlike in Canada, where EVERY elected PM has come from central Canada and most from Quebec.)

I agree with you about the USA, it is a great country and it has enjoyed a stable democratic form of government for longer than any other countries in the world. However, how about showing a little respect for our former excellent Prime Minister, John George Diefenbaker, who was Member of Parliament for Lake Center (1940-53) and for Prince Albert (1953-79)? He got elected despite a strong opposition from Ontario. And our current (and also excellent) Prime Minister is certainly not from Ontario or Québec but a lot of us down here in New Brunswick voted for him and his party anyway because we vote for the vision and the ideas not the region or religion.

Posted by: andré | 2008-01-04 3:43:06 PM

The next President will be Republican IMHO.

Harper will remain our PM for a long time.

The World needs Conservative values now more than ever. The people are starting to awaken to that fact as so much of what's been happening requires common sense and reason. Store fronting and the short term feel good politics of the Left just will not cut it.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-04 4:40:42 PM

To Shane Matthews why don't you educate yourself to what is really happening, instead of mouthing worn out slogans and insults. Here is more info for you. Stephen J. Gray.
The Corporate Communists/Fascists
By Stephen J. Gray

“The authoritarian elites on both sides operate an ‘over world’ of organized conspiracy which mirrors the underworld of organized crime.” -Charles Levinson in his book Vodka Cola

The book Vodka Cola revealed in intimate detail the financial connections between the multi-national corporate elites in the west and the communist dictators in the Soviet Union before the “fall of communism.” Yet, these same corporate elites at that time were telling all and sundry about the “dangers of communism” while at the same time profiting from their business deals with the communist dictators. On pages 54 and 55 of Vodka Cola there is a detailed list of “Western multinationals with Moscow offices” at the time of the so-called “Cold War.”

And during the Second World War some of these multi-national corporations were hand in glove with Hitler’s Germany, so states the book Trading With The Enemy by Charles Higham. The beginning of the book states, “From the Standard Oil executives who diverted precious fuel to the enemy and the Ford Motor Company plants that supplied trucks to keep the German war machine running, to the ITT executives who streamlined Nazi communications and helped perfect the robot bombs that devastated London; from the Chase National Bank executives who held millions of dollars in gold—some of it refined from the fires of Auschwitz—in trust for the Reich at war’s end, to the top-ranking government officials who kept their deals running smoothly….”

So, what did the American government at the time do about all this corporate chicanery? Page 13 of Trading with the Enemy states “…the government did sanction such dubious transactions-both before and after Pearl Harbour. A presidential edict, issued six days after December 7, 1941, actually set up the legislation whereby licensing arrangements for trading with the enemy could officially be granted.” (emphasis added)

I believe these multi-nationals mentioned in this book were traitors to their country. One wonders how many families lost loved ones because of the treachery committed by these multi-national business elites?

“The multi-national companies are, therefore, the core of modern capitalism and have replaced the Western nation-state as the real political power centers of the age” (Charles Levinson page 16, Vodka Cola).

Now fast forward to today and the multi-national corporate communists/fascists have found another dictatorship to profit from. Many are now firmly ensconced in communist China. China is a country where the organs are ripped from some of the people without their consent; where a one child policy has resulted in forced abortions; where slave labour has been reported: “Thirty-one dirty and disorientated workers have been rescued from a brickwork factory in China, where they were being held as virtual slaves.” [1]
It is also a place where dissidents are tortured; and, it was reported that an alleged torturer was welcomed to Canada. The Epoch Times of May 29, 2007, had this to say:

“…Chinese official Bo Xilai was served with legal papers Monday, questions remain as to why the Chinese Commerce Minister accused of crimes against humanity was allowed to enter Canada in the first place. Despite the fact that Bo was one of a number of high-ranking Chinese officials who have been on an RCMP watch list, he freely entered the country with a trade delegation from China last Friday.” The Epoch Times article goes on to state: “Bo is accused of overseeing a systematic campaign of torture against adherents of Falun Gong, a Chinese meditation practice, in the northeast Chinese province of Liaoning, where he was governor from 2001 to 2004.” [2]

What we are seeing in our world today is a continuation of multi-national greed. Money and profits count far more than corporate ethics. They do not care who they rub shoulders with as long as there is money to be made. The Guardian, a U.K newspaper, had this to say: “a new threat is emerging which neither Britain nor other western states have prepared for—the spread of Chinese and Russian power and influence. The theatre of battle is the City of London. Over the past decade, the UK has allowed its capital city to become the home for many of the world's most cut-throat and dodgy global financiers….all in the name of global capitalism.” [3]

“Global capitalism,” I believe, has become a danger to a free society. When big business involves itself in “trading with the enemy” and invests in countries with slave labour and other atrocities then we ourselves could be next on their policy agendas. But maybe I am being to cynical; after all, we will be getting a “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)—that should keep us safe and free! And we also have a “Charter of Rights,” so all is well, eh?!

The evidence from the books I have quoted from is only a small part of the unethical and unprincipled practices being enacted across the world today. Nothing has changed. Oh sure, we elect politicians but the corporate communists/fascists rule.

Stephen J. Gray
July 27, 2007.
[email protected] website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo

1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6733045.stm

2 http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-5-29/55849.html

3 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2134875,00.html

Note: I would suggest to readers of this article that they try and obtain copies of the books Vodka-Cola and Trading with the Enemy, which I have in my personal library for over 20 years. If people read the books they will realize how vast this multi-national network of power is.

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-04 4:50:28 PM

Don't sing Diefenbaker's praises too loudly, André; I'm an Avro Arrow fan. And you're right, there are a couple of exceptions to the "always from central Canada/usually from Quebec" rule. But no one can deny that Canada's system leaves a lot to be desired in terms of basic fairness and checks and balances, a shortcoming shared by most Westminsterian governments.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-04 5:30:26 PM

Stephen, I told you before: Either make your own arguments or don't bother posting. There's nothing more tiresome--or pathetic--than a shill for other people's opinion pieces. Someone content to let "expert" others do his thinking for him, abdicating all personal thought, and along with it, all personal responsibility. Congratulations--you have been successfully programmed.

"He will make an excellent drone." - Data

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-04 5:37:21 PM

The CF105 Avro Arrow was terminated by the CAS RCAF of the period because of sloppy management by AVRO which resulted in huge cost over runs -aside from that AM Curtis wanted to build his Air Force in Europe with NATO committed Wings of F-86 Swords and later CF 104 Starfighters at the same time ensuring that all Aircrew except Flight Engineers were Commissioned thus ensuring dominance by the Air Force in the Canadian Forces Officer's Clubs and NDHQ -I was there and you were not.Diefenbaker should have used more political common sense by gradually winding down the Arrow Program.His political smarts were very limited but Lester B.Pearson was much worse: Put the famed RCN and RCAF out of business Macleod who don't need history lessons thanks.

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2008-01-04 5:44:02 PM

I think the whole world would be very happy to see some Middle East countries that I will not bother to identify adopt our type of
Westminsterian governments right now despite the fairness and checks and balances problem.

Posted by: andré | 2008-01-04 5:53:52 PM

To Shane Matthews Here is more info for your education on "free enterprise" and "good" corporate citizens.So far you have resorted to banalities other than trying to refute my info. Stephen J. Gray.

The “Good” Corporate Citizens
By Stephen J. Gray

Do some of the “good” corporate citizens have no conscience, no morals, no ethics and no principles? Examples: They invest in countries like communist China where slave labour has been used. They shut down plants in democratic countries in order to take advantage of cheap labour in communist China. Polluted and poisoned goods from China have been exported to other countries. The communist dictators in China brook no dissent. Dissidents have reportedly been tortured, and a one child policy in China results in forced abortions. Some Chinese people have been forced from their homes for the 2008 Olympic Games, but hey, this will be a good venue for the “good” corporate citizens to advertise at, and also celebrate.

Some of the “good” corporate citizens also like a “good” celebration in North America. Their company logos can be seen in “parades of pride” where men have marched naked and some in the parade can be seen making obscene gestures. One “good” corporate company was even going to give a pornography service on their cell phones (which they later withdrew after protests by decent people). Some also sponsor TV programs that promote pornography.

“The once underground pornography industry is now very much aboveground and impossible to avoid.”
“Profiting from that industry now are major corporations and mainstream entertainment companies. Annual revenues for the porn industry are estimated at about $10 billion a year.” [1]

Still, these “good” corporate citizens must believe they are providing a “good” public service?!

Some other services the “good” corporate citizens have provided over the years have been investing in the communist Soviet Union before the fall of communism, and while they were telling all and sundry about the dangers of communism!

“There is no incentive to place optimistic bets on the future when the companies who are today most committed to the [communist] East are the very same which cooperated with the Nazi system.” [2]

But hey, the corporate communists/fascists have to make an honest dollar somewhere! And during the Second World War some of them even had business interests with the Nazis. But, money has no conscience: The Financial Post of December 28, 1996, had a headline, “BIS received Nazi gold stolen from Belgium—and knew it.” The article goes on to say, “The Bank for International Settlements received clearly marked bars of Belgian government gold stolen by Nazi Germany during the Second World War and refused to return it to Belgium unless all future claims for stolen assets were renounced…”

Money has no allegiance to any country, that’s why many “good” corporate citizens use offshore tax havens. There are no tax havens for the working people of today’s society. Sure, they get miniscule tax breaks on their tax returns, but the offshore outlaws get a free lunch at taxpayers’ expense.

“…Tax havens are the seedy backstreet bars of the financial world, where corporations and multi-millionaires huddle in shadowy corners to pursue their business out of sight of respectable citizens.” [3]

Citizens of many countries supposedly elect democratic governments and expect their political representatives to pursue good policies for their countries. Yet, are we seeing “good” policies? These elected rulers are allowing the “good” corporate citizens to proliferate pornography. They allow them to manipulate the tax system through offshore tax havens. They even bail them out with taxpayers’ dollars as witness the sub prime mortgage debacle in the United States. And some politicians, after leaving politics, finish up on corporate boards where they become a part of the “good” corporate citizenry

Stephen J. Gray
August 31, 2007.
[email protected] website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo

[1] http://www.slis.indiana.edu/news/story.php?story_id=705

[2] Charles Levinson in his book, Vodka-Cola page 207.)

[3] http://globalpolicy.igc.org/socecon/tncs/2004/0921taxhavens.htm

Books worth reading: Vodka- Cola by Charles Levinson and Trading with the Enemy by Charles Higham

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-04 6:14:28 PM

First of all, MacLeod, learn to write. Few people are interested in biting into a huge, impenetrable block of text hampered by inadequate punctuation and absolutely no paragraph breaks. You haven’t been smoking those asbestos-laced doobies again, have you?

Now then. The development of the Arrow was a model of efficiency compared to many 1950s jet shops in the U.S. Canada’s FIRST supersonic interceptor went from drawing in 1952 to flying prototype in 1957. What’s more, the Arrow program pioneered the practice of testing scale models with rockets, thus eliminating the need to build an extremely expensive supersonic wind tunnel. The paper specs were perfected to such a degree that Avro was able to pre-build the entire assembly line and roll the prototypes right off, as opposed to having to hand-build prototypes, test them, rebuild them to the point where they worked, and then build the assembly line after the fact. The Americans actually attempted to do the same thing and ended up having to rejig the entire line. The Avro Arrow, meanwhile, had a complete fly-by-wire system—in 1957—and had been so accurately modeled that the centre of gravity on RL-201 was within 0.67 % of the estimated position.

The Arrow program went over budget because the RCAF insisted that Avro assist in the parallel development of the Sparrow missile and the ASTRA fire-control system, then also in the early experimental stages. The Arrow had been designed to use Falcon IR-homing missiles but the brass wanted a longer-ranged, radar-beam rider for intercepting incoming bombers at extended ranges. This was not prudent; it would have been wiser (and much cheaper) to perfect the aircraft first and then worry about the new missile. Moreover, once the Soviets launched Sputnik and demonstrated the feasibility of the ICBM, everyone assumed manned aircraft were suddenly obsolete. The U.K., for instance, virtually stopped all aircraft development completely.

The Arrow project was NOT mismanaged by Avro; nor was it sabotaged by the Americans. If anything, it was sunk by the over-ambitious brass in the RCAF. To coin a crappy pun, your disjointed tail of officer’s club camarillas doesn’t “fly.” And it was the F-86 SABRE, not the F-86 “Sword.”

Maybe you were there, but you certainly weren’t all there, if you know what I’m saying, MacLeod.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-04 6:16:51 PM

It's not your info, Stephen; it's someone else's. That's my point. These arguments are also someone else's. All you're doing is reeling off passage after passage from Leftist tomes without giving any airtime at all to books written by the other camp (yes, conservatives do write).

The companies you so fervently denounce as Nazi sympathizers and genocidal maniacs didn't do anything that YOU don't do every time you buy a cheap product made by starving factory workers in Southeast Asia. But of course, you don't hold yourself to the same high standard you hold company directors, do you?

It must be awful to be a Leftist, to have so low an opinion of oneself that one has to set the bar down into the dust just to keep their self-esteem from evaporating altogether, while at the same time raising the bar for conservatives right up there with the Big Dipper--and inevitably being disappointed when society's movers and shakers turn out to be mere mortals after all.

So cut the crap. Your problem with the rich isn't that they have money; it's that they have it and you don't.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-04 6:26:26 PM

Back to the subject.

The Republican machine will eat Obama alive. They have been saving the big guns until they see who the opponent is.

His dad is an African Muslim.

He went to a madrasas.

He's preaching against oil, and for Kyoto (or facsimile)

He's rather dark.

Most people don't like being bossed around by Oprah.

Posted by: dp | 2008-01-04 6:33:08 PM

"It's not your info, Stephen; it's someone else's. That's my point"

It is clear you did not read his posts.

Posted by: A fly on the wall | 2008-01-04 6:34:13 PM

Fly on the Wall wrote: "It is clear you did not read his posts."

His posts contain their own FOOTNOTES. You don't footnote your own words. It's clear that YOU did not read his posts.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-04 6:37:01 PM

I don't think Obama's unelectable, DP. In a country where Jimmy Carter can get elected, and for much the same reasons people are talking up Obama, anything is possible. And he's certainly more electable than Shrillery. Whether Obama will follow in Carter's footsteps and shuffle out after a single term, blinking and bewildered, is yet to be seen.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-04 6:40:19 PM

Reading the comments here someone is standing out as a condescending jerk. Too bad.

Opinions can be argued, facts are facts but boorish slagging is the end of discussion.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-04 6:52:48 PM

Poor old Shane Matthews you have to resort to slogans like "leftist" and "shill." when you cannot discuss anything intelligently. Since you seem to be unable to comprehend simple facts, I'll try and put it simply for you what my original point was.(My first post)
Political labels mean nothing. Just look at Canada where Liberals cross the floor to be Tories and Tories cross the floor to be Liberals and NDP politicians become Liberals, and on and on the doublecrossing goes. And the Bloc a party that wants to separate is allowed to vote on legislation affecting Canadians. Politics is a game. And the game is now being played in the U.S.A. The real rulers are the money men everywhere and the people get to play with an X at game time. And of course pay the TAXES while the BIG BOYS laugh all the way to offshore tax havens.

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-04 6:56:37 PM

"Someone," Liz? Enough courage to actually name names would be appreciated. But if you think this person has added nothing worthwhile to the exchange, why don't you?

P.S. Being a condescending jerk doesn't make someone wrong. It makes them a condescending jerk. Proof of A is not proof of B.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-04 7:40:13 PM

So what you're saying, Stephen, is that it's politics as usual. Well, thanks for clearing that up. The rest of your post contains the usual eat-the-rich boilerplate and constitutes opinion, not fact. And wouldn't you just love to be one of the money men instead of the man with the X.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-04 7:42:09 PM

This caucus proves the withering away of union power. He was the only candidate of the Big 3 with no union support or endorsements:

"Obama Win Shakes Up Organized Labor"

WASHINGTON - Despite racking up almost all of the endorsements from organized labor, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards came in behind Barack Obama -- the only Democratic front-runner with no national union support -- in the Iowa caucuses. That left at least one union looking for a new candidate Friday.

International Association of Fire Fighters President Howard Schaitberger called the support for Obama "breathtaking," after seeing his union's candidate, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., falter in Iowa and drop out of the race. Despite the money and the manpower organized labor shifted to Iowa for Clinton, Edwards and Dodd -- one union ran television ads for Clinton while another shifted workers in-state to stump for Edwards -- Obama still won convincingly.

UNIONS ARE dying - witness Detroit and the sagging of car sales.


Posted by: obc | 2008-01-04 9:13:13 PM

Whether or not you agree with Shane is irrelevant. His technique is to make a point and then attempt to support it with evidence - a perfectly good position paper strategy. Every thesis does the same thing. Others have used supported evidence to try to counter his points. I suggest you look up their evidence rather than simply blowing soot.

Posted by: DML | 2008-01-05 12:21:31 AM

The fact is that Shane Mathews never saw the CF105 Avro Arrow close up,was never in the Avro Facilities Malton Ontario,knew nobody who actually worked there
never saw the CF105 Arrow in the Air which several of us based in Trenton did from time to time.The Team leader of the Northrop FA-18 and F18L Team in Canada the late R.C. Bud Turner worked for Avro on the Jetliner and Cf100 Programmes,joined Garret and then was recruited by Northrop.The Northrop Canada Team often talked about the demise of the Arrow which was inevitable. US Aerospace Industries did not give a shit about the Arrow but were impressed with the Jetliner -Howard Hughes bought one in Malton and flew it for several months in California.To sum up,This ain't no thesis -these are facts.Fortunately for real history Matthews does not know what he is talking about.Avro Canada's claim to fame is they produced excellent models of the British designed AvrO Lancaster Bomber during world war II. We often flew to Malton to pick up parts for RCAF Lancasters
still serving in the RCAF in the 1950's.The real decision makers on the fate of the CF105 Avro were
the veteran senior commanders of the RCAF including AM Wilf Curtis and AVM Ed Ryhno who built the RCAF Turbine Air Force. Go back to your Comic books little man. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2008-01-05 6:05:50 AM

Maybe I never did see any of those things, MacLeod, the fact of the matter is we have no proof that you ever saw them either. All we have is the word of a man who couldn't even recall the name of one of the most famous jets of the 1950s, the F-86 Sabre. "F-86 Sword," indeed!

The cancellation of the Avro Arrow was executed by none other than the Right Honourable J.G. Diefenbaker, during a speech in the House of Commons, on the grounds of cost overruns and the manned interceptor's expected obsolescence in the face of ICBMs. Up to then workers at Avro had been expecting a scaling back of development but not a complete cessation of work, with the loss of 14,000 jobs.

Even if you did work at Avro, or were a member of the RCAF in the 1950s--and I am not convinced--that doesn't mean your version of events is correct. You have presented nothing that threatens to dethrone the official version of events. Your posts read more like an embittered corporal-for-life taking jabs at his long-deceased superiors than the words of someone who truly knows what he's talking about, MacLeod. Next you'll be telling me you saw the aliens at Roswell.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-05 12:31:06 PM

Well I understand they all looked like you.
Thanks for a good laugh -go back to your comic books
US will vote Republican and will totally reject the Democratic Party regardless of who their Candidate is -Rudy the enforcer looks good to our US based Partners,who were there when the Mayor and Former
District Attorney cleaned up the streets of New York
as the old song goes: "East Side,West Side all around the town" Life looks much better thanks to Rudy on the "Sidewalks of New York" MacLeod in the real east of Canada -covered with snow.

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2008-01-05 12:52:17 PM

In one thing we agree, MacLeod--Rudy seems to be the strongest of the candidates thus fielded. Although even his record in the Big Apple may not be enough to overcome the strong thirst for change that seems to be swept America, he does have a track record of changing things for the better--unlike Obama.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-05 1:05:20 PM

Shrillery was booed last night at a New Hampshire political dinner. The latest NH poll has Obama at 37% and Her Heinous at 27%.

"HELP! I've fallen and I can't get up!"

Posted by: obc | 2008-01-05 1:16:37 PM

Mr Gray, I sympathize. One great problem of posting political analysis on the web is dealing with low-level dreck from the great majority whose minds are conditioned by the mass media, even when they are unaware. They can't be blamed, or help it.
Sadly, valuable people like yourself get mired in numbnutted wrist-wrangling with unfortunates who merely regurgitate what the MM have put in their heads, proud to proclaim 'their' opinions. Yeah, it's like riding a bicycle thru molasses. But don't despair.
McCain is offering war without end, without frontiers. Did he read George Orwell's '1984' between torture sessions in Hanoi?
Will Mrs Coca or Mr Pepsi win the D nomination? Before placing bets, read Tom Mahl, how the 1941 Republican Convention nominated Wendell Wilkie, a life-long Democrat (details in my downloadable free ebook at http://groups.google.com/group/aristomafia?hl=en).
Nil illegitimus carborundum (don't let the bastards grind you down). Old git Tom

Posted by: OldgitTom | 2008-02-16 2:53:07 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.