Sometimes this campaign looks like a Hollywood screenwriter wrote it. It’s like something out of West Wing. I expect at any moment Martin Sheen to come in with a cigarette and say: "Okay boys, let’s make a president!"
There are some real scenarios to chew on, though. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch endorsed John McCain. I think it was the writer Mike Sullivan from Fox who suggested that he would feel better about voting for McCain if he knew who his running mate was. What an interesting point. What if McCain announced who his running mate was? What if that person was young, attractive, fit, perhaps even a person from a visible minority? What sort of a stunning gesture would that be, not only showing confidence, as opposed to arrogance, about being the nominee but at the same time reassuring people, like those who read the Post-Dispatch need to be reassured, about McCain’s fitness, health and soundness. It’s not too late to do it. If McCain did it in the next couple of days before Super Tuesday, I think it could be a real devastating shot against Romney. So far, Romney doesn’t have anyone nominated for that and is in a much less obvious position to do that.
McCain is looking more and more like George C. Scott as Patton. All he is missing is a gigantic American flag behind him, the shiny helmet with the "A", britches, boots and a swagger stick up his ass. Apparently his record at Annapolis was as good as Custer’s at West Point. I want to know who is running mate is too.
The other thing that was brought up is what is Arnold Schwarzenegger listened to the Kennedy in his bed and jumped on the Obama bandwagon and actually supported Obama, a Democrat, for president? What a devastating gesture that would be. There’s not much time left to do it and Schwarzenegger would be fried forever as a Republican if he did it. But McCain got Lieberman to support him. Lieberman’s a Democrat Senator, albeit an independent one. Lieberman has far less to lose as a member of his party than Schwarzenegger stands to lose. Lately, though, he’s been acting more like a Democrat anyways. If he announced his support for Obama and also announced that he was joining the Democrats, it would create almost irresistible momentum for Obama.
Clinton said she found her voice. She didn’t point out that it was Bill’s.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Presidential Race
Now we learn from the Today show that in fact Madame Clinton was in fact photographed with Mr. Rezko and President Clinton. This is in addition to the Soo situation, the Buddhist Temple, White Water…
Apparently, Madame Clinton and her family have invested millions of dollars in the Saudi part of the world. Doesn’t that put her in a conflict?
Not only is her hideous strategy having some effect on Obama’s support nationwide, but now she pulled out the Puss-in-Boots trick where she wells up and sends President Clinton to do her dog work. She could not wait to get out of South Carolina. She is the status quo ante candidate. It’s Middle Age Barbie in the White House package.
At the Obama acceptance rally in South Carolina, lighters were replaced by digital cameras, all held up looking like mini-lighters at rock concerts. He then attended on Sunday morning to do an interview with the odious, vile George Stephanopoulos. I would have pointed out that Stephanopoulos is a Clinton lickspittle who owes his career to them and it shows.
The Kennedy endorsement doesn’t hurt Obama, though. Senator Kennedy says Obama makes us appeal to the better angels of our nature, a Lincolnian phrase. I wonder if that means Barack, also from Illinois and more specifically Springfield, is the next Lincoln? Who wouldn’t love to see him in a stovepipe hat and some mutton chop sideburns?
Romney now has the support of the Jeb Bush organization in Florida and it was confirmed that the New York Times endorsement may have been a strategy to ruin McCain because they know that he is the easiest candidate to defeat. I think Romney is looking better and better right now. Looks young too.
The Canadian Front: John Manley stated he thought of Afghanistan as 1600 era England.
Superbowl: Junior Seau says there are three categories in life: good, great and EVER!
Apparently, Madame Clinton and her family have invested millions of dollars in the Saudi part of the world. Doesn’t that put her in a conflict?
Not only is her hideous strategy having some effect on Obama’s support nationwide, but now she pulled out the Puss-in-Boots trick where she wells up and sends President Clinton to do her dog work. She could not wait to get out of South Carolina. She is the status quo ante candidate. It’s Middle Age Barbie in the White House package.
At the Obama acceptance rally in South Carolina, lighters were replaced by digital cameras, all held up looking like mini-lighters at rock concerts. He then attended on Sunday morning to do an interview with the odious, vile George Stephanopoulos. I would have pointed out that Stephanopoulos is a Clinton lickspittle who owes his career to them and it shows.
The Kennedy endorsement doesn’t hurt Obama, though. Senator Kennedy says Obama makes us appeal to the better angels of our nature, a Lincolnian phrase. I wonder if that means Barack, also from Illinois and more specifically Springfield, is the next Lincoln? Who wouldn’t love to see him in a stovepipe hat and some mutton chop sideburns?
Romney now has the support of the Jeb Bush organization in Florida and it was confirmed that the New York Times endorsement may have been a strategy to ruin McCain because they know that he is the easiest candidate to defeat. I think Romney is looking better and better right now. Looks young too.
The Canadian Front: John Manley stated he thought of Afghanistan as 1600 era England.
Superbowl: Junior Seau says there are three categories in life: good, great and EVER!
Friday, January 25, 2008
Below is the complaint I registered this morning with the CRTC:
TO: The CRTC
Dear Sir/Madam:
I wish to complain about a broadcast I heard on CBC Radio 1 on January 25 at 8:00 AM. A report was filed by Jennifer Westaway regarding the US presidential campaign, and more specifically the Florida Republican campaign in which Ms. Westaway described the candidate, former Governor, Mitt Romney, as the "Mormon with money".
I am not Mormon nor am I a Republican. I don’t believe Ms. Westaway intended to be as offensive as she was but I was surprised to see a CBC reporter and a CBC program apparently had no insight or sensitivity to how offensive such a comment could be to all people of good faith who like to follow public affairs.
For insurance, I am sure Ms. Westaway and the CBC understand that Jacques Parizeau’s infamous line that the 1995 referendum was won by "ethnics and money" would be as unacceptable coming out of the mouth of a CBC reporter as it would be from that of a first minister. What if the comment from Ms. Westaway had been about the "Jew with money" or the "Muslim with money"? I can’t believe that the CBC would have failed to block this from broadcast.
I cannot believe it was necessary for mention Mr. Romney’s Mormonism while making the point that the is one of the more monied candidates in the campaign.
I just believe that the high standards of the CBC with regards to culturally sensitive broadcasting should be applied equally to all, regardless of which minority or religion one belongs to or which country one comes from.
I’d like an apology from the network and Ms. Westaway and I believe it should be communicated to the Mitt Romney campaign.
Yours truly,
John Farant
TO: The CRTC
Dear Sir/Madam:
I wish to complain about a broadcast I heard on CBC Radio 1 on January 25 at 8:00 AM. A report was filed by Jennifer Westaway regarding the US presidential campaign, and more specifically the Florida Republican campaign in which Ms. Westaway described the candidate, former Governor, Mitt Romney, as the "Mormon with money".
I am not Mormon nor am I a Republican. I don’t believe Ms. Westaway intended to be as offensive as she was but I was surprised to see a CBC reporter and a CBC program apparently had no insight or sensitivity to how offensive such a comment could be to all people of good faith who like to follow public affairs.
For insurance, I am sure Ms. Westaway and the CBC understand that Jacques Parizeau’s infamous line that the 1995 referendum was won by "ethnics and money" would be as unacceptable coming out of the mouth of a CBC reporter as it would be from that of a first minister. What if the comment from Ms. Westaway had been about the "Jew with money" or the "Muslim with money"? I can’t believe that the CBC would have failed to block this from broadcast.
I cannot believe it was necessary for mention Mr. Romney’s Mormonism while making the point that the is one of the more monied candidates in the campaign.
I just believe that the high standards of the CBC with regards to culturally sensitive broadcasting should be applied equally to all, regardless of which minority or religion one belongs to or which country one comes from.
I’d like an apology from the network and Ms. Westaway and I believe it should be communicated to the Mitt Romney campaign.
Yours truly,
John Farant
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Inter-provincial free trade
What happens when you make it harder to trade in one area and easier to trade in another? The latter is bound to become bigger than the former, which is bound to become smaller in proportion than it used to be.
Neil Reynolds failed to address this in his article. I don’t understand what he means when he says the provinces have a constitutional right to keep provincial barriers forever. They don’t. That’s the overwhelming legal opinion. If a federal government would try to get rid of them, they’d be gone. The trade and commerce powers are federal.
I like Neil Reynolds and I think he’s great and he writes excellent things. I think when we’re trying to compete internationally; it is unreasonable and unnecessary for us to make it harder for us to trade with each other. We’re only 30 million people in a world where there are markets of hundreds of millions in each region, let alone all over the world. There will be even more people as China and India develop a larger middle or consumer class. We simply cannot afford the shackles of the 19th century in the 21st century, anymore than we could afford them in the 20th.
As for waiting for our own sweet time in the rapidly deteriorating economic situation in the United States, waiting even a year could be hurtful and harmful to our long-term performance as a competitor around the world. We simply cannot wait. It’s been long enough. We’ve waited 130 years to have a rational trade system in this country and it is time to bring in full faith and credit all the way.
There seems to be a bit of free trade history revisionism that Mr. Reynolds cites in that the reason we don’t have it now is because we didn’t need it. We opened up to foreign trade because it was essential. I don’t know.
The first effort to bring in a reciprocity treaty with the United States was in 1910 and the long-standing powerful, popular Laurier government fell the very next year as a result of trying to bring it in. No government seriously attempted it again, except for the Auto Pact in the 1960’s, until about 1985 and it wasn’t passed until 1989 and not fully implemented until 1999, some 130 years after Confederation.
The history of opening up trade is that it has not happened unless there has been a strong political will and initiative to bring it about and as we see, free trade efforts and projects are under assault all over the world right now from a newly retrenched protectionist element, not only in the usual places of Asia and Europe, but even in the United States. In this environment, we need to make ourselves as large as possible as a competitor as we face increasingly hostile foreign markets, including the United States, which on top of the usual protectionist elements, have found a new weapon to advocate for protectionism in the so-called post-911 era. This to me makes the value of making the whole country open for trade as high as ever and the strategic imperative is stronger than ever.
Trade doesn’t flow before government sets up routes. I don’t know how much of a country we would have had if, for instance, there weren’t a railroad route across the country. Everyone from truckers to the police to the automobile associations have been screaming for a 4-lane highway across the country from east to west for years and we still don’t have it. There is no strategic vision and if we continue to be complacent in this and other areas like productivity, we’re are going to be left behind.
I thought Mr. Reynolds understood this better than anyone.
In the meantime, Canada full accepts a tax increase of $15 to $20 billion a year from the losses that occur to the whole country because of lack of trade between the provinces. This is aside from the fact that it is ludicrous that you can’t buy beer brewed in New Brunswick in Ontario. Why can’t I buy milk from Nova Scotia in Ontario? Just on an emotional, patriotic level, it is damning and fearsome that we still have this situation. We should, after all, have a country and I think it is not too much to ask after 130 years that it start with economics.
Mr. Reynolds is the one who pointed out, after reporting about Courchesne’s lecture at Queen’s recently about economic productivity, that we have been amazingly complacent in the face of the par on the dollar, which has resulted in about a 70% increase in the price of everything for exporters. How should we act complacently about the fact that interprovincial trade barriers in turn exact a certain tax on our economy? Why should be tolerate that anymore? Why shouldn’t a strong federal government simply say that this has to come to an end and challenge it in the courts if necessary? The constitutional and legal answer would be clear: the provinces cannot continue to do this.
This is not to say that I am not optimistic and could not share Mr. Reynolds’ belief that in their own sweet time these things will happen, but I think we should have a greater sense of urgency in light of the incredible tectonic shifts that are occurring around the world economically and technologically. The quiet, acceptable disorganization of the 19th century and the 20th century simply cannot be tolerated any further. We should fight to get rid of these rusty shackles as soon as possible.
Neil Reynolds failed to address this in his article. I don’t understand what he means when he says the provinces have a constitutional right to keep provincial barriers forever. They don’t. That’s the overwhelming legal opinion. If a federal government would try to get rid of them, they’d be gone. The trade and commerce powers are federal.
I like Neil Reynolds and I think he’s great and he writes excellent things. I think when we’re trying to compete internationally; it is unreasonable and unnecessary for us to make it harder for us to trade with each other. We’re only 30 million people in a world where there are markets of hundreds of millions in each region, let alone all over the world. There will be even more people as China and India develop a larger middle or consumer class. We simply cannot afford the shackles of the 19th century in the 21st century, anymore than we could afford them in the 20th.
As for waiting for our own sweet time in the rapidly deteriorating economic situation in the United States, waiting even a year could be hurtful and harmful to our long-term performance as a competitor around the world. We simply cannot wait. It’s been long enough. We’ve waited 130 years to have a rational trade system in this country and it is time to bring in full faith and credit all the way.
There seems to be a bit of free trade history revisionism that Mr. Reynolds cites in that the reason we don’t have it now is because we didn’t need it. We opened up to foreign trade because it was essential. I don’t know.
The first effort to bring in a reciprocity treaty with the United States was in 1910 and the long-standing powerful, popular Laurier government fell the very next year as a result of trying to bring it in. No government seriously attempted it again, except for the Auto Pact in the 1960’s, until about 1985 and it wasn’t passed until 1989 and not fully implemented until 1999, some 130 years after Confederation.
The history of opening up trade is that it has not happened unless there has been a strong political will and initiative to bring it about and as we see, free trade efforts and projects are under assault all over the world right now from a newly retrenched protectionist element, not only in the usual places of Asia and Europe, but even in the United States. In this environment, we need to make ourselves as large as possible as a competitor as we face increasingly hostile foreign markets, including the United States, which on top of the usual protectionist elements, have found a new weapon to advocate for protectionism in the so-called post-911 era. This to me makes the value of making the whole country open for trade as high as ever and the strategic imperative is stronger than ever.
Trade doesn’t flow before government sets up routes. I don’t know how much of a country we would have had if, for instance, there weren’t a railroad route across the country. Everyone from truckers to the police to the automobile associations have been screaming for a 4-lane highway across the country from east to west for years and we still don’t have it. There is no strategic vision and if we continue to be complacent in this and other areas like productivity, we’re are going to be left behind.
I thought Mr. Reynolds understood this better than anyone.
In the meantime, Canada full accepts a tax increase of $15 to $20 billion a year from the losses that occur to the whole country because of lack of trade between the provinces. This is aside from the fact that it is ludicrous that you can’t buy beer brewed in New Brunswick in Ontario. Why can’t I buy milk from Nova Scotia in Ontario? Just on an emotional, patriotic level, it is damning and fearsome that we still have this situation. We should, after all, have a country and I think it is not too much to ask after 130 years that it start with economics.
Mr. Reynolds is the one who pointed out, after reporting about Courchesne’s lecture at Queen’s recently about economic productivity, that we have been amazingly complacent in the face of the par on the dollar, which has resulted in about a 70% increase in the price of everything for exporters. How should we act complacently about the fact that interprovincial trade barriers in turn exact a certain tax on our economy? Why should be tolerate that anymore? Why shouldn’t a strong federal government simply say that this has to come to an end and challenge it in the courts if necessary? The constitutional and legal answer would be clear: the provinces cannot continue to do this.
This is not to say that I am not optimistic and could not share Mr. Reynolds’ belief that in their own sweet time these things will happen, but I think we should have a greater sense of urgency in light of the incredible tectonic shifts that are occurring around the world economically and technologically. The quiet, acceptable disorganization of the 19th century and the 20th century simply cannot be tolerated any further. We should fight to get rid of these rusty shackles as soon as possible.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Eight is Enough!
I think it's time for people to start asking Mr. Clinton just what role he is going to play in Hillary's Clinton administration. I also think she should be asked far more because she is the candidate.
In light of his role in the campaign, it's a fair question. What will he be doing. What implications are there for the fact that he was already president for eight years. Will be in fact be getting a co-presidency? I think those questions should be asked and Mrs. Clinton should be forthright in answering them.
If she hedges or complains or whines that she's being asked unfair questions, people should not back off until she gives the answer that people should expect.
What she needs to give is a written undertaking that she will not use Mr. Clinton in an official capacity. She needs to provide a protocol as to how her husband will behave during the presidency and that that will be enforced.
In light of his role in the campaign, it's a fair question. What will he be doing. What implications are there for the fact that he was already president for eight years. Will be in fact be getting a co-presidency? I think those questions should be asked and Mrs. Clinton should be forthright in answering them.
If she hedges or complains or whines that she's being asked unfair questions, people should not back off until she gives the answer that people should expect.
What she needs to give is a written undertaking that she will not use Mr. Clinton in an official capacity. She needs to provide a protocol as to how her husband will behave during the presidency and that that will be enforced.