Idiots:

Everyone who has told me today that Canada losing is OK just because America lost too.

The UAE thing

Right now, George W. Bush is taking a lot of heat down south for not caving into baseless, nonsensical and essentially racist demands that he rescind the sale of commercial authority over 6 American ports to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates.

Here's a comment I posted on Occam's Carbuncle:

The UAE are more an ally against Muslim extremists than an enemy, by far. They provide a base for American planes and they also provide important intelligence.

My problem with the sale is that the UAE are still an undemocratic country, but that still seems besides the point in the eyes of the administration, since they are still one of the more moderate nations, both in terms of their government, but also in terms of the people. (The objections don't have to do with this point anyway.)

Right now, the only objection appears to be that the UAE is an Arab country. Terrorists can infiltrate any port company... whether the company is owned by the British or the UAE is unimportant. And port companies don't DO much that's important anyway. They act as the bureaucracy at the port - they don't deal with security.

None of the objections appear to have substance, especially since the UAE have a fairly strong record since September 11, even helping with the training of Iraqi security forces. The rejection of this deal will make the United States look racist throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. Their relationship with the UAE would be seriously strained since there doesn't appear to be any principled objection to the sale. This decision, more than any other, would hurt America's ability to work multilaterally in the Middle East.

The opposition (which consists of basically all Democrats and most Republicans) seems to base their decision to oppose the deal almost exclusively on a xenophobic attempt to score political points by seeming tough because the company is owned by the UAE, an Arab country.

Fortunately, Bush is more mature than that. Congress rarely is, and I often fear that the next President (in 2009) won't be nearly as restrained as Bush (when it comes to making unprincipled decisions based on xenophobia just for political gain).

Big Deal

I know millions of Canadians are heart broken that the men's hockey team lost today (which is just silly), but this is probably actually a good thing in the long term.

Winning in 2010, on home ice, should be much more important for Canada than winning in Turin.

Doing a 3-peat would've been really tough for Canada in 2010, so might this not be a good thing for the men's hockey team going into Vancouver? Losing in Nagano seemed to help when it came to winning in Salt Lake, and losing in Turin should help when it comes to winning in Vancouver.

Again with the incompetence

Peter MacKay has publicly mused that two Canadian hostages in Iraq are alive and well and that they should be released in due time.

What a moron.

If those two Canadians come out dead, Peter MacKay will look like the biggest jack ass ever.

Stupider than almost any Liberal cabinet minister in (at least) Martin's government.

More concern

Good to know that other people are also concerned about Peter MacKay's appointment to Foreign Affairs.

Ezra Levant, over at the Shotgun, clearly articulates why MacKay is a burden to the Harper administration:

There has been a lot of noise in the conservative base about the appointments to cabinet of David Emerson and Michael Fortier. Yes, those are interesting and important issues. But far more important -- and far more worrying -- is that the key post of Foreign Affairs has been frittered away on a spineless Red Tory, who not only is already contradicting party principles, but is defying his leader's clear statements.

Foreign Affairs is where the difference between a liberal, UN-centric, appeasement approach to the world, and a conservative, Anglospheric, freedom approach to the world is the clearest -- moreso than in any other cabinet portfolio, from finance to justice. MacKay has always been a weak spot in the party, from his political dalliance with Belinda Stronach to his chronic media undermining of Harper. That was one thing when it was just party business. But now it's the nation's business, and it's something that should cause Canadians, especially movment conservatives, great concern.

He also doesn't have a good understanding of his position. I remember in a media interview at the time of the unveiling of the cabinet, MacKay mused that his role as Foreign minister would help in his role as chief of ACOA (the atlantic subsidy department) since he'd be able to promote Atlantic Canada to the world. NO, YOU MORON. Your job isn't to economically promote a specific part of Canada that accounts for less than 10% of the national population! It's to promote the ENTIRE country. Harper should've kept alive the position of Deputy PM... And attached it to a portfolio that doesn't allow MacKay to do much damage. Imagine what Condi Rice and other foreign ministers will think of Harper's judgment when they sit down with MacKay? Isn't that something that Harper should have thought about? I know that he was a former leader of the party, and I admire his courage (which was mixed with desperation in the face of the seemingly unstoppable Paul Martin) in bringing the parties together, but he really, truly does not merit something as significant as Foreign Affairs. Why not Environment or Intergovernmental Affairs?

Some criticism

Even though I found nothing wrong with the Emerson/Fortier/O'Connor appointments, there were definitely some things that I found disappointing in Harper's cabinet. No other decision stands out in its poor judgment than the appointment of Peter Mackay to Foreign Affairs.

I've never been particularly impressed by Peter Mackay. He's the architect of the stupidest decision ever made in Canadian politics (the deal with Orchard in May 2003, when he would have won anyway had he not signed the deal), he throws around the word moderate every 2 minutes during television interviews as if being moderate was some sort of great thing to be (I grew up thinking of "moderate" as a sort of insult, perhaps Mackay could refer to himself and his party as "centrist" - that would be okay since it doesn't automatically imply a lack of conviction and principles - being a "radical" or 'immoderate" centrist is completely fine by me).

He's just very very wishy washy. More so than probably any other member of the Conservative cabinet. I know this has to do with his personal life, but he had the poor judgment to befriend Belinda Stronach, when it was clear that Belinda's only preoccupation was the fulfillment of her ambitions. His supposed dating of Sophie Desmarais (daughter of billionaire Power Corp. head) smells funny as well.

Anyways, enough Mackay bashing for now. My only point is that it's best to follow up Pierre Pettigrew's wishy-washiness with someone who has conviction and the unmistakeable ability to distinguish between good and evil. I strongly doubt that Peter Mackay possesses those qualities. I know that PM Harper had to give him some senior role, but Foreign Affairs should have been left to someone with strong views on Canada's role in promoting the universality of human rights. Lastly, I just can't imagine Peter Mackay holding his own in a meeting with Condi Rice. It just seems so unbalanced - a brilliant woman like Dr. Rice discussing serious issues with someone who comes across as a complete and hopeless lightweight.

I hope I'm proven wrong. For many conservatives, the position of Foreign Affairs has the ability to be just as important as the position of Finance... Harper seemed to do good by appointing Flaherty to Finance, but I'm struck by how little I've heard in the way of criticism (from conservatives) towards Mackay's appointment. I'm setting the bar pretty low when it comes to Mackay, so I might be pleasantly surprised. We'll see.

Deception

Before Garth Turner was elected as an MP, I only knew that a) he was revenue minister under Kim Campbell, b) that he was some financial columnist now and c) that he looked really tough because of the jacket, the pose and the beard in the above picture.

And so it came as a shock when I heard him speak to the media this week. I expected this deep, angry and even wrestler-like voice to come from him - i.e. "YOU KNOW MEAN GENE...", but no, he sounded like a complete pussy cat.

So if there's ANYBODY who should see his electors because of deception...

Being cynical isn't cool

A lot of the criticism of the Conservatives over this past week has revolved around the idea that Harper has "lost his way". That he's instantly become part of the establishment. That he's lost his core values, on and on.

What nonsense.

This sort of thinking is most commonly found among leftists - or that is what I thought until this week. People don't magically change upon taking office, especially people like Stephen Harper.

There's 3 class of '93 Reformers who are part of the current cabinet: Monte Solberg, Chuck Strahl, and Stephen Harper.

Stephen Harper was first a Trudeau Liberal, then a Progressive Conservative, and then after not witnessing any meaningful (conservative) change, he helped in the founding of Reform.

Clearly, this is someone to whom principles and change matters.

It's okay to be cynical about the apparatus of big government in general: its misplaced priorities, its inefficiency and its unintended consequences, but being deeply cynical of those who run the apparatus of government is usually immature, especially in the current circumstances.

Unless you're deeply cynical and paranoid, it is clear that Stephen Harper still has an agenda for conservative change.

Those who emotionally and openly criticize his cabinet-making decisions (rather than have measured disagreements) only hinder his ability to implement actual changes to the structure of government in Canada.

Harper can and probably will make mistakes, in strategy and in public relations.

However, his core beliefs are still solid. He believes in the freedom of the market place. He believes in not having a broken military. He believes in actual, meaningful federalism. And he believes in smaller, more limited government.

In order for him to achieve any of his objectives, even in an incremental way, he needs public support - starting with his base.

It'd be tragic if his base deserts him over something as superficial as the Emerson story (a story that involves Harper simply wanting experience and depth in his cabinet).

False Courage

I remember someone once asked me whether I'd ever want to run to become an MP someday.

I replied that no, I could never become an MP because I wouldn't possibly be able to be completely loyal to the party that I ran for, if I was able to become elected.

Someone should have given that advice to Garth Turner.

Over just the past 12 hours or so, he's proven himself to be a remarkably irresponsible and burdensome (to his party) MP.

Forget that the Emerson and Fortier appointments were actually good (which I have argued a number of times already), Turner's comments today to the media, but especially his last few posts on his personal blog show a deep betrayal of loyalty to his party and to his party's leader. If he keeps up this behavior, it would be in the Prime Minister's best interests to boot him from caucus.

Disagreeing with the government (the cabinet/PM) is perfectly fine and healthy, that's why the House of Commons needs more free votes. However, Turner's desire to make himself out to be a martyr is laughable. He should know that caucus solidarity is more than about empowering the party leadership. The secrecy of his conversations with the Prime Minister should have been maintained. If he got a dressing down from the PM, he should have kept it to himself. Disagreements can be made vocally and strongly within the confines of caucus, why couldn't he let them be known at that time? Besides feeding a likely media frenzy tomorrow, what exactly has he accomplished? He's essentially voted non-confidence in his leader and in his party with his last post.

I was just hoping this time I would not be asked to choose – between party and principle.

I'd rather not be the judge of whether the Conservative Party is principled or not, but I'm not a Conservative MP. Conservative MPs are expected to tow the party line, at least in the sense that they BELIEVE in their party and in their party's leader - that's the way the system works. If you wanted to be a maverick, be a maverick when it comes time to vote in the House and in committees. By essentially questioning your leader's values, integrity and judgment, and by painting him and your party's leadership as a bunch of vindictive jackasses, what more can you expect than to be alienated and shunned?

Why doesn't he just leave caucus if he's unable to show some confidence in his leader's judgment? Unless he turns things around and issues some clarifications, he's become a liability to his party that should back up his words with some action:

Leave caucus now or have your disagreements without being disagreeable and unneccessarily "outspoken". Otherwise, you only help the Liberals, and who would want to do that?

If the Tories don't learn to speak with one voice, THEY WILL LOSE. And then yes, they'll experience the joy of being principled, in opposition, for what will seem like an eternity. As has been said many times over the past few days: Perfection is the enemy of the good. The Tories will not be perfect, but they're definitely a heckuva lot better than the Liberals.

"Speaking out" about your party's imperfections only makes things worse. Like I've already said, if Turner doesn't clean up his act, he should get the boot.

Larry Zolf is a Moron

Do you know where you can go to get the worse pieces of political analysis ever written?

CBC.ca

And more often than not, they're authored by some guy named Larry Zolf who is portrayed as a "Canadian political expert".

How misleading. So, so, so misleading.

The columnists from Canada's national newspapers (or rather Canada's largest circulation newspapers) are usually quite good, even when they lean liberal in their outlook (John Ibbitson, Jeffrey Simpson, Chantal Hebert, John Travers, etc.)

Ibbitson, Simpson, Hebert and Travers generally know their stuff. They're quite often wrong in their views in my opinion, but they appear to be intelligent, reasonable and even insightful. They offer food for thought for smart readers who already possess an understanding of Canada's political scene.

Zolf does none of that. Half of his 'insights' are based on false assumptions or false knowledge. He often appears to be ignorant and uninformed. And even when he isn't showcasing his lack of knowledge, he engages in speculation and predictions that almost always turn out to be wrong (like when he predicted that a Liberal majority was the probable result of this past election.)

In his most recent column he says at one point:

Harper has the media on his side, apart from Barbara Yaffe.

The ignorance is astounding. It's almost funny.

He mentions at the beginning of his article how Barbara Yaffe criticized the Fortier and Emerson appointments and then later he implies that Yaffe was the only one to criticize the Harper government for behaving as they did. Is this guy serious? Or is he just hopelessly stupid? Dozens of columns and editorials denounced Harper's actions, not just Yaffe. And while the media hasn't been that anti-Harper recently, they're hardly failing to criticize Harper's decisions regarding cabinet.

And even more shockingly, I read Yaffe's columns every now and then, and she's actually fairly sympathetic to the Tories! She's usually fairly pro-Tory in her analysis, so why would Zolf make that comment? Doesn't he even bother to do the most basic research before he makes such sweeping and uninformed remarks? Why does the CBC have this guy on their payroll?

The insights that this guy provides might make the most uninformed people think, and it might enforce untrue stereotypes in the minds of people who are just getting to have an understanding of the Canadian political system. Besides that, he does nothing. And even with what he does do, it's a disservice to anyone who might read him.

There's no way Harper didn't know that

Yesterday, Harper appointed Helena Guergis, an Ontario MP as the Parliamentary Secretary to former Liberal David Emerson.

Guergis sponsored a bill in the last parliament that would have banned switching parties without entering into a by-election. (A slight majority of Conservatives voted against the bill)

If Harper did this as some sort of practical joke, then good for him, but I can't see any other reason why she'd be Emerson's Parliamentary Secretary.

She's not from BC - so she wouldn't have a strong knowledge of the Pacific Gateway initiative or the Olympic bid, two of Emerson's key duties. And more importantly, if she's stuck to her principles, she clearly does not believe in Emerson's legitimacy as a cabinet minister.

Isn't that kind of bad? Having her as his Parliamentary Secretary when she's on record as opposed to the deal that brought her superior into cabinet?

A question that's always interested me

With all the talk about Harper's cabinet, its strengths and weaknesses, I'm curious to know how cabinet discussion works.

Considering that Canada is at least in theory a bilingual nation, how does language function when it comes to cabinet meetings?

With Quebec's five ministers, I'm certain that at least 3 of them speak good English (Fortier, Bernier and Cannon), but what about the other two whose English appears to be rather weak? (Blackburn and Verner)

And what about the possibility of unilingual francophones as cabinet ministers? When was the last time that happened?

Would they just have a translator sit in on these supposedly highly secretive cabinet discussions?

Why not hold a by-election?

Commenter Bob asks in the comments to one of my previous posts why Emerson should not stand by re-election in a snap by-election.

I answered in the comments, but I'm posting my answer in a new post as well:

Our system of government is tricky. The fusion of the Legislative and Executive branches makes it tricky.

Traditionally, Prime Ministers have only selected cabinet members from among their own party's ranks. Considering that almost all real power in Ottawa lies within the cabinet and considering that the management or our national government is carried out exclusively by cabinet ministers and their staffs, it is unfortunate that those called upon to be Prime Minister only have a few dozen realistic choices for cabinet.

Personally, I favour the American-style seperation of the executive and legislature.

Considering we don't have that, I think poaching opposition talent is completely legitimate.

It's true that Emerson would probably lose in a by-election, but that's besides the point. By-elections should not be automatically held everytime there's been some form of deception, intentional or not (in this case it wasn't even intentional).

When promises are broken by governments, general elections are not automatically called. Similarly, in this situation, the breaking of Emerson's implicit promise to his constituents (the promise of him being a Liberal member in the house) does not warrant a by-election. Accountability can and will always occur at the time of the next general election.

This is also why I oppose recall elections.

Explaining the uproar

Occam's Carbuncle (temporarily out of hiatus) clearly demonstrates what all the fuss is about.

Too many conservatives (in their sincere attempt to be principled when they saw their party as unprincipled) failed to check their premises.

Odd that me and OC, two guys who aren't even that partisan in their allegiance to the Conservative Party are far more capable than many others (including plenty of intense partisans) have been at seeing the Emerson affair for what it was. The optics (the politics) of it might have been poor, but the defection itself was based on merit. Stephen Harper didn't owe David Emerson a damn thing. He brought him in for his expertise and for his knowledge of the softwood lumber file, the Olympics, and the Pacific Gateway initiative.

A socialist I like

I take back all my earlier criticisms of Jack Layton.

Yes, he's a socialist, and I disagree with him on almost all issues of public policy, but I saw a press conference of his on the topic of Harper's cabinet and Layton dealt with his disagreements with Harper in a very measured, dignified and dutiful way.

He clearly laid out why he felt that the appointment of David Emerson and Michael Fortier was wrong, but he did so without resorting to hyperbole, heated partisan rhetoric or any misrepresentation of the facts. Much better than even how the Conservatives carried themselves in opposition.

If Layton continues this way, he'll go a long way in raising the level of debate in the House.

Cool it

I find it odd that I've found myself defending the Conservatives today against Conservatives who are actually far more partisan than myself.

I used to be a member of the Blogging Tories blogroll, but then I removed my membership because I didn't want to be pigeonholed as some sort of mindless Conservative supporter. I've never seen myself as a big-c Conservative, even if I can't imagine that I'll ever vote for any other party.

Anyways, in addition to the criticisms of Emerson, Fortier and especially Harper (for facilitating the appointment of Emerson and Fortier), there has also been criticism directed towards Gordon O'Connor, Canada's new Minister of National Defense.

The charges against O'Connor seem fairly ridiculous. Here's a comment I posted on a couple of blogs:

Regarding Gordon O'Connor:

The Accountability act is actually the opposite.

It is designed to prevent public servants, bureaucrats and politicians from leaving government service in order to lobby the government (as a registered lobbyist) for a few years after their service in government.

O'Connor had left a private post in order to join the government.

It isn't the same thing and there's nothing (as far as I can see) that's wrong with it.

People from the private sector should be encouraged to take up government service. On the other hand, people who are in government should not be able to leave public service for jobs that involve lobbying their old colleagues and co-workers. The two situations are completely seperate.

Great Move

I'm going to have to dissent from all of the (negative) commentary surrounding David Emerson's defection to Stephen Harper's cabinet.

Firstly, there's very little comparison between Emerson's defection and the defection of Belinda Stronach in May of 2005.

Too many conservatives committed themselves to the idea that all defections were wrong when in actuality the only legitimate criticism against Stronach's defection were her perceived motives. It was deemed to be opportunistic, disingenuous, untruthful (having attended a Conservative strategy/candidate session the weekend in which she was negotiating her cabinet post) and many other things.

Emerson's defection has none of that. Harper's primary purpose for calling Emerson was not for political gain, or even for leverage inside the House during crucial votes. Harper called Emerson to ask him to be in his cabinet because Harper thought Emerson was the best person for the job. It's as simple as that. Emerson is a former CEO (a real CEO, not a puppet, merrit-less CEO like Stronach) whose abilities will undoubtedly result in the administration of better government (as compared to a situation where Harper had not recruited Emerson).

It is also clear judging from Emerson's comments on election night that he had no intention to sit as a Conservative, let alone a Conservative cabinet minister. This entire process seemed to have been initiated by Harper who was trying to court (who he saw and indeed was) the most competent and effective minister of the outgoing government.

In America, it is not rare for cabinet ministers to come from the opposing party. Bill Clinton's second Defence Secretary was the Republican Senator from Maine. George Bush's current transportation secretary is a former Democratic Congressman. It's true that each party ran with a specific team, but sometimes merit and even a spirit of non-partisanship (Emerson will not become a Conservative attack dog, deriding the Liberals as extreme for Canada) is undoubtedly a good thing. Prime Ministers should not always have to limit themselves to a single party when finding competent and deserving members for their ministry.

Also, Emerson's appointment will immeasurably help intergovernmental relations with the BC provincial government. There was no other way to signal strong support for economic development (Pacific Gateway, Olympics, etc.) in British Columbia without courting David Emerson.

As for Michael Fortier's entry in cabinet (through the Senate)... this issue is somewhat trickier. Basically, Harper made a calculation that regional (i.e. Montreal) representation was more important than having a purely elected cabinet. The debate surrounding Fortier should be about what is more important for a Prime Minister: having his entire cabinet accountable to the House, elected by an actual constituency of voters... Or to have adequate regional representation since his government was shut out of Montreal. I'm actually undecided on this matter - but Fortier's pledge to resign his Senate seat prior to the next general election should silence anyone who is trying to claim that Harper is planning to turn the Senate into a patronage dumping ground (correction: maintain the Senate's role as such). Assuming Harper moves quickly on Senate elections, that should put an end to those accusations.

Not Enough Credit

I watched about five minutes of President Bush's State of the Union speech this past Thursday...

And during the bit that I watched, I noticed something that I've noticed many times before: George W. Bush does not get any credit for being "progressive" on race and immigrant issues.

There's been such a backlash, such an uproar in the United States over illegal immigration that it would be so easy for any President or any political leader to spout xenophobic rhetoric, and many have, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Just watch any episode of Lou Dobbs on CNN and you'll hear arguments against illegal AND legal immigration. Immigrants are always the easiest scapegoats. Dozens of Republicans and Democrats (from the House of Representatives usually) make tonnes of arguments against both kinds of immigrants (usually to appeal to disaffected poor white workers in their districts).

It's obviously completely proper and even appropriate to enforce immigration laws, to toughen up border security and so on (and Bush did talk about that), but when you're a political leader, who commands the attention (and even the admiration) of millions of people, it is completely irresponsible to appeal to xenophobic fears. Even if a candidate was more conservative on most issues, I could never vote for someone who appealed to subtle racism or anti-immigrant fears. (My reason (in addition to Iraq) for hoping for a Tony Blair victory in the UK last year.)

Bush never does that, and for him, it doesn't even appear to be a political calculation. He seems to have a genuine admiration for Latin American immigrants, even commenting in some secret tapes released last year on how much strength it takes for Mexicans to cross the Rio Grande.

When Bush leaves office in 3 years, I'm not confident about his successor being mature when it comes to immigration policy. A mature policy includes border security and enforcement, but just as much, it includes not creating an atmosphere of distrusting immigrants. When the next President's approval ratings take a hit, don't be surprised to see him (or her) appeal to a mistrust of immigrants, even if they're legal, in order to deflect attention from failed policies.

Fortunately, for the time being, President Bush appears to be principled and mature enough to not go there.

Here's the bit I heard in the speech:

The American economy is pre-eminent — but we cannot afford to be complacent. In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors like China and India. This creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears. And so we are seeing some old temptations return. Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy. Others say that the government needs to take a larger role in directing the economy, centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes. We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy — even though this economy could not function without them. All these are forms of economic retreat, and they lead in the same direction — toward a stagnant and second-rate economy.