It's Tea Time!

Since President Obama has been in power, his agenda has been an aggressive one.  Not realizing that many in his own majority party became reluctant to the drastic and massive changes in economic and health policies, he pushed anyway.

The result is where the Democrats had to battle on three fronts:

1.  The Tea Party. One of the biggest grassroots political movements in history. Mostly Republican and conservative.  These people are motivated and will certainly vote.  They think Obama is a socialist.  They are mostly tired of the government being involved in their life and are mad has hell!  While most of the Tea Baggers don't make over $250k a year, they're still pissed that Obama is taxing more out of those above that amount.

2.   Independents.  They'll balance this out, but they're not too happy with Obama or the Democrats either.  They may simply vote out incumbents, no matter which party, but they're more driven to vote out the party in power--the Democrats.  And as many independents can be fiscally conservative, those ones are pissed that Obama totally forgot about "pay as you go" but more especially on the job front.

3.  Democrats.  The lefties are ticked that Obama didn't deliver on their agenda--gay marriage, "don't ask don't tell", climate change legislation, and even more comprehensive health care reform.


As the Tea Party is a new thing, was the whole purpose of it to win these mid-terms?  I don't think they even know.  What's going to happen after this election when Republican presidential candidates start organizing their campaigns?  Which candidate will emerge as the Tea Party favourite, besides Sarah Palin?  Or will Tea Baggers split up into different camps, basically ending the movement?

I said it from the beginning that this Tea Party thing is a fad.  It's a fad because it doesn't REALLY have a leader at the front, or any formal organization.  And as a fad it will fade.  Just like the Obamatons did--but even they had a strong leader and an extremely well run campaign organization.

So to my Tea Bagging friends in the U.S.A, and you know who you are, enjoy the party while it lasts!  (That would be tonight by the way.)

U.S. Midterm Elections 2010 prediction

Senate:  Democrats hold by 4 seats (52-48)

House:  Republicans win by 4 seats

• Current (including vacant):  Dems 256 + GOP 179 = 435.
• 218 seats needed for majority. GOP gains +43.

Why?  The Tea Party/GOP base is waaaay more motivated than Democrats.

Obama gets caught in the middle.
The U.S. is at a stand-still, except for only a few minor non-partisan issues.

Canada wins due to Democrat protectionist attitudes no longer prevailing in the House.

Iggy's "game"

Former Liberal strategist, Scott Reid, you know, the "beer and popcorn" guy, has opined a piece on what Michael Ignatieff needs to do to be winnable--"up his game."


How many times does this guy need to be resurrected from continued contradictions, pretending to 'get back to work', having thinkers' conferences, a blah blah tour, and now 'open mike' sessions (how clever!)?

Reid says that Harper hasn't been able to grow his support and is not a successful leader in a united Conservative Party (although he is the PM), yet in the same breath says that the reason we have perpetual minorities is because of the Bloc.  So why doesn't this logic also apply to the Liberal Party, Scott?  Your fearless leader Paul Martin, who was set to sweep the nation, didn't even come close all thanks to... a brand-spanking new united Conservative Party, and guess what, the Bloc.

You know, you can go on and on about what Ignatieff needs to do to win. You can look at Canadian political history and the comeback stories all you want.

You want my advice?

First thing, Mr. Ignatieff, that you should probably do, is actually SHOW UP TO WORK!

You see, his voting record is the worst out of 307 MPs.

You can't up your game unless you actually show up to play now can you?

h/t Ardvark

Mr. Harper goes to Ukraine

U of A history and classics professor David Marples has written extensively on Ukraine for many years and I try to read everything he writes.  We are lucky in Edmonton to have such an astute academic providing occasional journalism on a country that means a lot to many Canadians of Ukrainian descent. 

Prime Minister Harper's recent visit to Ukraine was important and timely.  Professor Marples has written an excellent synopsis of Ukrainian politics under newly elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who is deemed as pro-Russian, compared to his pro-Western predecessor, Viktor Yushchenko.

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper's visit to Ukraine this week has offered some clear signals that Canada is concerned about recent developments in Ukrainian politics, particularly violations of human rights, a pro-Russian orientation, and the growing accumulation of power in the hands of President Viktor Yanukovych.

"In taking such a clear stance, Harper's position departs from that of countries of the European Union, which appear to be concerned primarily about regional stability and favour warmer relations with Russia. The EU's motivation, ostensibly, is the need for reliable imports of Russian gas and oil, which were disrupted frequently during the administration of Yanukovych's predecessor, Viktor Yushchenko.

"The Canadian prime minister seemed more at ease during his visit to L'viv on the second day of his tour than during official meetings in Kyiv. 

Click here to see photos of Harper's visit to L'viv.

 

On Holodomor, the Great Ukrainian Famine in the early 30's caused by the Stalin Soviet regime:

"“One of the great crimes of history,” Mr. Harper said later. “I hope always that it will remind the Ukrainian people of the importance of their freedom, their democracy and their independence, and of the necessity of always defending those things.”  More...

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's opinion of Ukrainians?

"Ukrainian independence conjures up images of embroidered peasant shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phony cossacks in cloaks and boots, nasty anti-Semites" (p. 106). "My difficulty in taking Ukraine seriously goes deeper than just my cosmopolitan suspicion of nationalists everywhere. Somewhere inside, I'm also what Ukrainians call a Great Russian, and there is a trace of old Russian disdain for these 'little Russian'"

I now ask, with the Harper government's strong pro-Israel stance in the Middle East, and in sending a strong message and development funding to Ukraine, strong messaging to China on human rights, amongst other free-trade initiatives, is there any other leader right now in the free world promoting freedom and democracy the way Prime Minister Harper has, even in the last six months?

 

My grandfather, who emigrated from Ukraine into Canada just before communism took over, must be happy as heck in heaven knowing where Canada stands with his homeland.

You wonder why the Conservatives are 11 points ahead of the Liberals.

Civic obedience

So there's a Muslim as the new mayor of Calgary.  Why is this news?  Is Calgary all cosmo now because of this?  No.  It'll never be like yoghurt.

Edmonton's had a Jewish mayor for six years and no one is making any fuss.  At all.

So the brash and abrasive Rob Ford easily gets elected as the new mayor of Toronto.  What does this mean for conservatism in the liberal fortress?  It means that no matter who your candidate is, if the voters are upset and motivated enough, by running a disciplined campaign with a simple message,  you can win.  But you also need to GOTV.  Will this win convert into invigorated support for Tim Hudak's PCs come next Ontario election?  Not necessarily, but the potential is there.

And will that translate into growing support for Harper's Conservatives in T Dot?  This has been slowly growing for years.  Maybe a few seats to gain at most.  Liberals have no where else to go.  It's a war front, and the Liberals will have to throw much at it to defend it, leaving other areas, like BC and the West out to dry and fend for themselves.

It's tough for a politico or volunteer to be involved in so many consecutive elections.  While fun, it can be gruelling.  This Toronto mayoral race was relatively intense.  But it was nice to see conservatives united.

And when they are united, disciplined, and offer clear conservative policy messages, Conservatives rarely lose.

"The Toronto Song"

With today's Ontario civic election and the hotly contested Toronto mayoral election (I predict Rob Ford), and this past week I was recently in Toronto for a few days and Calgary for a couple of days, if you haven't seen it before, it gives me great pleasure to present to you the infamous "Toronto Song" by Three Dead Trolls In A Baggie.  (It gets going about 30 seconds in, so be patient..)

Link here.



Go Oilers!

Edmonton civic election 2010 results

Ok, here are my thoughts on the results...

Am I disappointed that David Dorward didn't win the mayor's chair?  Nope.  I think he would have been a good mayor, but I didn't think he'd win in the first place which is why I didn't lift a finger.

Am I angry that Stephen Mandel is still our mayor?  No.  He hasn't done a terrible job, and has improved since three years ago, but as I've said, my vote for Dorward was in protest to the poor manner in which the airport decision was made.

Am I disappointed that Jane Batty won in Ward 6 and is still on council?  Yep.  It's going to take a really strong candidate to beat her but there is potential in three years.  She seems to win without trying and goes on incumbent name recognition.

Am I pleased that new guy Kerry Diotte won in Ward 11?  Oh hells ya.  This is really the only shining light in this election.  Kerry ran an excellent campaign, picked the right ward with no incumbents, and was energized with a good team of volunteers.

Am I pleased that voter turnout increased and was near what I predicted at 35%?  Yep.  The airport issue really helped.  But I hope in the next three years that any future major decisions which greatly affected thousands of Edmontonians is put to a plebiscite

In Calgary, am I shocked that, Naheed Nenshi, a Muslim won the mayor's chair?  I could care less what religion he professes and wonders why so many people are yapping about this fact.  He simply had the best ideas and most thorough policy platform.

And now here's an issue barely anyone is talking about except for Wildrose Alliance Party leader Danielle Smith...

Was I really really really disappointed that there was not a senate election?  You bet ya.  Thanks to Ed Stelmach, we didn't have one, especially when we have a prime minister who would have appointed any newly elected senators.  The existing senator-elects all wanted another election as it's been six years since the last one.  They seem to support democracy, unlike others.  Not sure what the PCs are so afraid of.

In summary, as you were my fellow Edmontonians.  Nothing's really changed but continue to be engaged in setting the direction of our exciting, growing city.

Now back to cheering on the Oilers...

Edmonton civic election 2010 decision

I have thought long and hard about this election, researched candidates, read what they've said in media, vexed others' opinions through conversation and blogs.

There are a multitude of ongoing issues that I agree and disagree from every candidate I looked at. 

But there are two issues which, whether you agree or not with them ideologically, are in the spotlight because how much they impact business and people but more so because of HOW council's decision was made.  Those issues obviously being the City Centre Airport (CCA) and the sale of EPCOR.

Those two huge issues, which impact thousands of people, weren't around in the last election, so we didn't vote for a candidate based on it.  There was no plebiscite. 

Then in the last three years, our mayor and council voted to shutdown the airport and sell off EPCOR.

So electorally, and democratically, the people of Edmonton didn't have a say.  At all.  Developers and private interests did.

Sure it was late and they didn't have quite enough valid signatures, but the petition from EnVision Edmonton is valid in the sense that this is a large number of people who wanted a say, didn't get it, and council didn't want to listen.

Keelor Road got a plebiscite.

Moving large air traffic to the International Airport got a plebiscite.

But selling EPCOR?  No plebiscite.

Shutting down the City Centre Airport?  No plebiscite.

Now one can argue that the city is 'moving forward' with these decisions having been made as strong leadership.  But is the electorate being blinded by council's group-think.  Strong leadership also means listening to the people.

Some have argued that certain councillors say they do not regret the decision and will stand in the next election on their record.  Yeah, but you see, I didn't know where you stood three years ago on it, so guess what? Now I'm not voting for you.  But now, there's already been a decision.  I didn't have a say on it back then did I?

So for me, this election comes down to a fundamental philosophical aspect of our representative democracy here. 

Do you elect representatives to government based on their policy platform and when issues arise that are outside the scope of their platform and that impact thousands of people, simply trust them to vote accordingly, and when we disagree, vote them out, although the decision was already made?

On smaller issues, I don't see this as a problem.  But on issues that have such a lasting impact, shouldn't our representatives then default to perhaps conducting a poll in their district, have a town hall, or defer to holding a plebiscite next election.

So because I see the potential of future decisions being made and the input of the people being continually thwarted by this group-think autocratic mayor and council, I am voting accordingly in protest to their actions, sending them a message, and holding them accountable with the candidate I feel has the best chance of defeating them.  It also helps that I agree with them ideologically on several other issues obviously.

David Doward for Mayor

James Johnson for Ward 6

For Public School Trustee, I think instead of having retired administrators and bureaucrats, the board needs some young fresh people on it with new ideas about education.  I strongly support public education, so this is not an ideological thing for me. I mean, former city councillor Michael Phair is endorsing this guy, and I'm on the total opposite end of the political spectrum as Phair, but that doesn't matter here.  What matters is the kids.

Michael Janz for Ward F

So there you have it folks.

Don't forget to vote this Monday October 18th!  Click here to find your voting station.

More on the UN Security Council vote...

Our crack team of reporters have learned that the UAE sought to sink Canada's bid and that possibly the U.S. snubbed us by not lifting a finger to campaign for their closest neighbour.

Wait. What? The U.S.?  Aren't they our friends?

I can perhaps understand the UAE as recent disputes about airlines and airbases came to light last week, but the U.S.? Say it ain't so?

In fact, U.S. State Department insiders say that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice not only didn’t campaign for Canada’s election but instructed American diplomats to not get involved in the weeks leading up to the heated contest. With no public American support, Canada lost its bid to serve. That gives the EU more than 25% control of the body and a strong voting block to ensure EU priorities become global priorities. -- This was the second time a high profile ally could have used U.S. help yet Rice chose to stay silent.

So the question I posed yesterday was not what's wrong with Canada, but what's wrong with the U.N.?

I'd now like to change the question to: "What's wrong with the United States?"


h/t Iceman

You can't spell undo without the UN!

In light of Canada not being voted onto the United Nations Security Council by the General Assembly yesterday, here's the background and other comments.

The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday elected Colombia, Germany, India, Portugal and South Africa to serve on the Security Council for two-year terms, beginning 1 January 2011.

They will replace Austria, Japan, Mexico, Turkey and Uganda, whose two-year terms come to an end on 31 December.

To be elected to the Council, candidate countries need a two-thirds majority of ballots of Member States that are present and voting in the 192-member Assembly. The seats are allocated on the basis of geographical groupings.

Colombia, India and South Africa ran unopposed and were elected to represent their respective regions, having received 186 votes, 187 votes and 182 votes, respectively, in the first round of balloting.

The two available seats from the Western European and Other States category were contested by Germany, Portugal and Canada, with Germany winning one seat with 128 votes in the first round. The contest between Canada and Portugal went to a second round but then Canada withdrew paving the way for Portugal to win the remaining seat, with 150 votes.

The five countries elected today will join Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Gabon, Lebanon and Nigeria, whose terms on the Council end on 31 December 2011. The five permanent members are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

You can read more on how it all works here on Wikipedia.

Ok, so I'm not happy that we didn't get on again but not surprised that we didn't.


That said, on a global political scale, I've never been a big fan of the UN or any non-sovereign undemocratic umbrella organization for that matter, especially the Security Council (UNSC) with the permanent members getting a veto.  I mean, look at the two countries who are on it:

• USA: democratic republic and the shining light of democracy
• UK: democratic constitutional monarchy
• France: democratic republic
• Russia: former communist and now semi-democratic republic with a history of justice issues
• China: communist with a history of human rights abuses, justice issues, and vast economic interest around the world

So let's look at this more closely when it came down to the vote for the last spot for the Western Europe and Others Group between Canada and Portugal.  My bet is that while Canada used to get voted on before, Arab and Muslim nations, including many African, European, and South American didn't give support primarily due to Canada's increasing and unwaivering support for Israel, coupled with the fact that we appear to be so closely tied with the US and the UK already.  But I think there's more to it.

So what does this say about Canada?  It's a bit of egg in the face, but other than that by history, every ten years or so, it was sort of our turn to be on it again.  It's not that Canada is still not a strong voice in international affairs, it's that in the last ten years, there are a slew of other countries that have seen growth and development.

So what does this say about Stephen Harper as Prime Minister?  It's not for a lack of trying but I don't think voters are going to change their support at all based on this issue, especially conservative ones.  Even then, the last time we were on the UNSC was in 1999/2000.  So since then, a lot has happened geopolitically wouldn't you say?  Would a different gov't in Ottawa have changed any of that?  Perhaps, but I doubt it.  I doubt it because it's not that Canada has really changed, but that the world has changed. Dramatically.

Many people have a view that the UN is a happy rainbow of nations that gets together often to try and do good things for impoverished people and nations around the world, and does peace-keeping missions in war-torn areas.

The reality is that it's record is not very good.  The list of places in the world where the UN did NOTHING to stop genocide, to stop war, to stop famine, is endless and far outweighs where it does any good.

The UN has become a sandbox for dictators, for crappy quasi-nations to beg, and especially for anti-Israeli banter.  The UN Human Rights Commission membership is a total joke, admitting China, Libya, Uganda, and Cuba. Seriously.


So the more important question is, with Canada and our strong history of supporting democracy and human rights around the world, in not getting its usual turn on the UNSC, I ask you, what does this actually say about the UN?