Get back on the horse

It's stupid for Liberals to talk about delaying a leadership vote. The party is acting like a bunch of drama queens -- as though the recent election defeat was such a cataclysm, such a total and ultimate disaster, that no leader could possibly get his act together for years and years.
Do they think maybe somewhere there's a magical pony coming to save the party if they just wait long enough? If they wait too long, Canadians may discover they don't miss hearing what the Liberals have to say.
So, folks, the choice is clear: Bob Rae, Dominic LeBlanc, or Justin Trudeau. None are without flaws, but any one could do the job.
So pick one and get on with the real work of rebuilding this party before the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who did not vote Liberal can't remember why they ever did.

Another sanity test

Anyone who takes Newt Gingrich seriously as a candidate for President of the United States is also certifiably nuts.

Trivial

As usual, the media seem to be focusing on trivialities, like how young some of the new NDP members of parliament are:


Canada's problem for the next four years is not going to be the age of the people sitting on the opposition benches:

Haven't we all felt like this some days?

Shorter

Shorter Republican presidential debate:

Still crazy after all these years.

Our binary future

The Liberal party is going to get a lot of unsolicited advice over the next several months, but they could do much worse than listen to Jason Cherniak.
Jason tells the Liberal organization to clean out its Ottawa office, stop trying to pick "winners", and listen to the party membership.
One piece of his advice that I disagree with, however, is that the Liberals should "stay Liberal".
The future for progressives in Canada is to merge with the New Democrats.
As Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom says

Eventually, both parties will be forced to face the mathematics of the situation. Each wants to be the one to defeat the Harper Conservatives. Neither can do it alone.

As many other countries are discovering as well, the 21st Century political model is a binary one -- a yin yang toggle switch; the either-or language of the computer code. Politics is the forces of light vs the forces of darkness, and you're on our side or you're with the terrorists. No time for nuance or tolerance for compromise. The serpentine political slither between extremes is considered to be offensive, and labeled as unprincipled.
Myself, I actually liked the Liberals non-ideological approach, but I grew up in the last century.
Times have changed.

Gonna get my picture on the cover

Saskatoon rockers Sheepdogs are in the final four for the cover of the Rolling Stone.
Go! Vote!



And, of course...

What next?

Here's tonight's Liberal anthem:


Two weeks ago, Warren Kinsella wrote about what a Harper majority government would do:

* No abortion. In May of last year, Harper’s government was alone among G8 nations in opposing abortion as part of family-planning projects in poor nations. He stuck to his decision, even when facing criticism from Barack Obama. If put to a vote — and Tory MPs periodically push for one — abortion would be gone. Since Harper assumed control of the party in 2004, more than 80% of his caucus favour banning abortion.
* No gun control. More than other issue of its type, Harper has been clear about gun-safety laws — he detests them. In 2009, a Conservative backbencher’s bill to gut the centre of Canada’s gun control laws was defeated in Parliament. But Harper is undeterred. Throughout the campaign, he has said his party will go back to the issue and “scrap the long-gun registry.” Shootings generally account for a third of all murders in Canada; after tougher gun controls were introduced in 1995, shooting-related deaths dropped dramatically. But, despite the pleas of police officers and victims’ families, gun control will be history under a Harper majority.
* No equal marriage. In 2005, Harper and a majority of his party voted for the proposition that marriage can only happen between heterosexuals. During the debate on Bill C-38 — the equal marriage bill — Harper appeared at rallies where anti-gay rhetoric flourished. The Tory leader does not regard the issue as one of human rights. In Parliament in September 2003, he dismissed it as a discussion about “sexual behaviour.” It’ll be gone, too.
* The death penalty. Since 2004, Harper has said he favours a free vote on a return of the death penalty. He wrote the Reform Party platform that called for a binding referendum on it. Most of his caucus are onside, with a majority of Conservative MPs — including Harper’s current justice minister — voting for it the last time it was before the House in 1987. More recently, in an interview with CBC in January, Harper stated: “There are times where capital punishment is appropriate.” Harper hastened to add that he then had “no plans” to bring back the ultimate sentence.
There are many other issues where Stephen Harper has been clear about what he favours — such as more jails, more government advertising, more baubles for the generals — and what he does not.
He isn’t shy. It’s all there, on the record, for those who want to look.

And Tom Lukiwski told CKOM already tonight that the Wheat Board is toast.
Oh well, cheer up -- someday the Conservatives will bite the dust again too.

Now the desperate search really begins . . .

. . . for something to criticize about Obama's handling of the Osama Bin Laden track-down and execution.
Three...two...one...
UPDATE: And here we go!

Happy Warrior

Ignatieff says:

“Polls don’t elect MPs,” Mr. Ignatieff said. “Votes elect MPs. Let’s wait for the Canadian people to do what they want to do

Brer Obama

Reading about about how all the jokes told by Obama about Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents dinner will end up raising Trump's profile as the leading Republican presidential candidate brings to mind another story.

Scared straight

A desperate, scared Stephen Harper asks Liberals to support him.
And in other news:

La di dah

Royal wedding fanatics must check out Tom and Lorenzo for all their great photos and commentary about The Bride, The Guests, The Hats, The Maid of Honour, The Ceremony -- they loved every minute.
Here's Kate:

As Alexander McQueen goes, I didn't think it was an outstanding dress -- the lace made her bust look lumpy, though the bustle in the back was a nice effect.
When it comes to dresses, sister Pippa stole the show, wearing another McQueen with a more high-fashion look. Tom and Lorenzo felt this dress with its unique neckline and cap sleeves would likely have more influence on wedding gown style in the long run.

And the flower girls were cute.

Yes, I find it annoying too

I'm a more linear type of person myself, and I prefer to read in one direction rather than two. But I had to install a somewhat new format for the comments in order to enable some moderation options. And now my comments are displayed with the first ones at the end and the most recent ones at the top. I don't like it but there doesn't seem to be any way to flip this.
Sorry about that.

Why I still believe in the Liberals

The thing I've always liked about the Liberals is exactly what some other people seem to hate about them -- basically, they don't believe in anything. They have no ideology.
The way I see it, that's a good thing. And its been good for Canada.
It means the Liberals seldom do something just because they "believe" in it.
Instead, they do what we want them to do. And isn't that the essence of democracy, really?
They steal other parties' good ideas. Wanting nothing except to be popular, the Liberals figure out what people want, what people like, and what people need. Then that's what they do.
So if prairie farmers want the Canadian Wheat Board, we get it. If immigrants want to bring their families here, they can do it. If people across the country want medicare, they get it. If people want corporate donations eliminated from politics, then the Liberals give the parties a public subsidy instead. If people want everyone treated equally under the law, then that's what the institutions of society will be set up to do. If women want access to abortion, they'll get it. If Canadians want a national day care program, then the Liberals will give that to us too -- or would have, except for Jack Layton.
Best of all, the Liberals really do want everybody to get along. Nobody is allowed to get too greedy, they don't give the banks or the churches or the unions or the developers everything they want. No wedge issues, no attempts to gain political advantage by trash talk, trying to make one group of Canadians hate another group of Canadians. No backhanded slams against the arts, or the sciences, or civil servants, or the poor, or the rich, or immigrants, or judges, or corporations, or whatever. They don't do attack ads very well.
I'm oversimplifying, I know. But I think one reason the Liberals have run the country for much of the last 150 years, is that they have done mostly the right things for Canada.
Not because THEY believe in it, but because WE do.