Friday 31 October 2008

Final McCain and Obama Campaign Ads

Final push is on. New ads from both Obama and McCain just 3 days before the election. Obama uses Bush to attack McCain in his negative ad. He then promotes his Powell and Buffet endorsements in a positive one. McCain attacks Obama on wanting to sit down for talks with Iran. McCain than uses an ad with Obama praising Lieberman and McCain on global warming as a positive one. I would imagine ads from both campaigns will be all over the airwaves this weekend South of the border.
-Darryl


Obama Ads





McCain Ads



North Carolina Senate Race gets Nasty. Ad war over religion

And the media thought our ads on Dion were harsh. The senate race in North Carolina between Elizabeth Dole and Kay Hagan is going to be one of the closest in the United States. It could very well determine if Democrats achieve 60 seats in the Senate giving them a filibuster proof majority. Some of the media and of course Dion complained about Conservative ads against him. Liberals ran attack ads against us trying to link George Bush to Harper. As you can see from the ads below; our negative attack ads are very mild compared to what we see South of the border. Personally I believe that while everyone says they dislike negative advertising, ultimately it works. Of course if you go too far, it backfires big time. Not sure how these ads will impact the outcome on Tuesday, but they are quite interesting. Current polls show Democrat Kay Hagan with a slight lead in the race. Mixing religion and political campaigns could be risky. Any thoughts on these ads or negative ads in general?
-Darryl

Dole campaign ads:









Politics and Religion:





Kay Hagan Response Ads





Social Security Attack



Standard George Bush Ad for Democrats



A little election humour....

Thanks to my friend Doug who sent this to me...
-Darryl

Hollywood encourages young people to vote

I think this will be the first election where we really see a large turnout among young people. It is time for a new generation to have their voices heard.
-Darryl



Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz, Snoop Dogg, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, Ben Stiller, Will Smith, Steven Spielberg, Justin Timberlake, along with Sacha Baron Cohen as Borat, Zach Braff, Colin Farrell, Neil Patrick Harris, Scarlett Johansson, Shia LeBeouf, Tobey Maguire, Ryan Reynolds, and Jason Segal, are featured in a second of a series of public service announcements to encourage American youth to vote in partnership with Google, YouTube, Declare Yourself, and MySpace. The non-partisan PSAs, produced by DiCaprios Appian Way, were created to engage and inspire young people to vote and participate in the upcoming election.

McCain looses 'Joe the plumber'

This is not a big deal, but tells the story about how poorly the McCain campaign is being run. Constantly jumping from one message to another. Constantly in reaction mode and never proactive. Joe the Plumber is now the third person on the McCain ticket and his fame is being extended a few minutes. Yet for some reason, the people running the Republican campaign cannot even coordinate an appearance properly. Not a reason to vote for or against McCain, but you would think with five days to go that the campaign could at least get its act together. Palin and McCain aides fighting amongst themselves in the media. For a decade Hillary was one of the most disliked figures in Republican circles yet during the McCain campaign there were ads that promoted Hillary Clinton and attacked Obama for not selecting her as VP. It would be fair to say that the whole purpose of selecting Palin was to appeal to those upset Clinton supporters following the primaries. A few weeks later, it appears that economic credentials are not present on the Republican ticket at a time when the economy is the top issue. Political opportunism has backfired. All the Republican surrogates seem to have disappeared. Gaffes are taking place everywhere. Palin seemed to suggest that only states that vote Republican are pro-American. The whole campaign has been a complete gong show. In the final weeks where is Mitt Romney? Mike Huckabee? Fred Thompson? Rudy Giuliani? Where is George W. Bush? Donald Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? Joe Lieberman? Obama is out there with Colin Powell, Warren Buffet, Al Gore and Bill Clinton. John McCain has "Joe the Plumber". Would you not rather have someone like Romney talking about the economic crisis? If you haven't demonstrated that you can put together a compotent campaign, why should anyone have confidence you can run the United States of America?

All the blue states have been given up on. McCain is now desparate to hold red states that in some cases haven't voted Democratic in decades. Even his home state of Arizona is becoming a battleground state because of a surge in Obama support among Hispanic voters. Ironic given how much of a price he paid for his amnesty bill. Obama supporters are enthusiastic, excited and are turning out new voters as we speak. McCain supporters are looking at the polls, see the writing on the wall and were never that enthusiastic or excited to begin with. Stopping the democrats from unchecked power is really the only remaining hope left. The electoral college map and state polls show that mathmatically it is almost impossible for McCain to win.

When you look at the George W. Bush fiscal record and the fact that McCain represents more of the same failed policies; one has to wonder if there is a Conservative option in this race. Under the Republicans spending is up to record levels, the national debt has doubled, unemployment has increased and John McCain opposes Barack Obama's middle class tax cut in favour of continuing the Bush tax cut that he once opposed. The economy has been mismanaged into a likely recession - if not worse. Banks are failing. Corporate welfare is soaring. Home values are collapsing. The volatile stock market is threatening retirement investments and savings. The middle class is far worse off today than 8 years ago. Incomes are falling or staying the same. A massive wealth transfer has taken place to oil producing nations, many of them enemies of the United States. Huge trade deficits are growing. China is loaning Americans money to fight a war in Iraq. George W. Bush has not once balanced the budget. America's standing in the world has drastically fallen. I am not at all sure how that is a conservative record. I see it as a disaster with change more than justified. McCain does not represent change.

The best thing that could happen to the Republican Party on Tuesday would be a complete blow out. They need to lose the White House, Senate and Congress. Once that occurs, Obama and the Democrats can deal with the financial crisis over the next four years. Republicans can use the time to rebuild the Reagan coalition and come back with a platform that appeals to all Conservatives, independents and moderate Democrats - not just their base. Republicans have to go back to their roots. Corruption needs to be cleaned out. Anyone associated with the Bush presidency needs to be fired and not allowed near Washington again. They have to find conservatism again. Maybe in four years this can happen and the Republican party will be credible again. In the short term, the state of the Republican Party in America is in no better shape than the Liberal party in Canada.

Reagan asked Americans if they were better off today than four years ago. The overwhelming majority of Americans can not say they are. When you screw up this badly, someone must be held accountable. Republicans do not deserve another term in power.

In terms of Canada, it will be nice to not be compared to Bush in future campaigns from Harper's perspective. Given our oil reserves, I would not be afraid to open up NAFTA but American should know that we will have some grievences to and not all of the renegotiation would be to their advantage. Free trade has been good for both sides and there is no chance the agreement will be torn up. Obama gave us a "heads up" on that issue during the primaries.

The focus of the remaining Republicans, most of whom call themselves independents should be rebuilding the Reagan coalition. Here is what can happen in America when the ideas of conservatism appeal to a broad base. Until that coalition is rebuilt, the Republican party will not have much influence in American politics going forward. Obama will pick up somewhere around 370 electoral college votes on Tuesday and the Republicans being tossed from power will be well deserved. When you tell people who disagree with you that they do not fit in as a conservative, you find yourselves getting your asses handed to you at election time when they vote for someone else or stay home. There is no doubt we are going to see that happen on Tuesday and the question is how will Republicans respond. Will they blame the media? Will they look in the mirror, realize they messed up America and take responsibility? Will they get the message their views are not mainstream and they need to broden the tent? If they do not return to the conservative roots in the next few years; get use to seeing President Obama for a long time.
-Darryl

Thursday 30 October 2008


Here is the single best way Canadians can support Barack Obama

If you are available to travel from Toronto to Ohio between Monday Nov 3 - Wednesday Nov 5, come help us Get Out The Vote (GOTV).

There are still a few spots available in cars driving down during those dates (one from Vaughn), and there are fantastic Out of State coordinators who will help you find housing if you need it.

Why is this so important?

John McCain has virtually no electoral path to victory without Ohio.

Due to the efforts of a fantastic group of volunteers in Ohio, 94% of Ohioans are registered to vote. We need to get Democrats to the polls.

In 2004, Bush won Ohio (and therefore, the White House) by only 10 votes per precinct. With your help we can get those 10 votes.

The volunteer team in Ohio (and all over the country) is tremendous. Anyone who comes down will be trained, and given all the information and help needed to go out there and get those votes.

If you can come (or if you are driving to Ohio from Toronto and have a few spots in your car), please contact Desiree Sy (until Fri Oct 31st).

Let's win this!

-Desiree Sy
e.lake8@gmail.com
cell (often off, takes messages): 647-403-8296
work: 416-874-8296



Breaking News: New Conservative Cabinet


Update: Click here for the official list from the Conservative website

Formal write up coming soon…this is the unofficial list based on the notes I took. Sorry if there are spelling errors...


Quick thoughts: I really like the increase in women in this cabinet as well as the experience this time around. A couple of surprises in terms of portfolio selection, but no real surprises in terms of who got in cabinet. I think this is the strongest cabinet Stephen Harper has put together to date. Personally I think Maxime Bernier should have been brought back in some form, but am not surprised that he was not. Alice Wong, Lois Brown, Shelly Glover, Bob Dechert and Michael Chong should also be considered in the future. Overall I am happy with this cabinet. Clearly the economy will be the top focus moving forward.

-Darryl


Cabinet:

PM – Stephen Harper

Justice – Rob Nicholson

Veterans Affairs – Greg Thompson

Indian Affairs – Chuck Strahl

Treasury Board – Vic Toews

International Cooperation – Bev Oda

Finance – Jim Flaherty

Agriculture – Gerry Ritz

National Revenue – J.P. Blackburn

Senate Leader – Marjory LeBreton

Defense – Peter MacKay

International Trade – Stockwell Day

Labour – Rona Ambrose

HRDC – Diane Finley

Environment – Jim Prentice

Transport – John Baird

Foreign Affairs – Lawrence Cannon

Industry – Tony Clement

Intergovernmental Affairs – Josee Verner

House Leader – Jay Hill

Whip – Gordon O’Connor

Public Safety – Peter Van Loan

Immigration – Jason Kenney

Public Works – Christian Paradis

Heritage – James Moore

Health – Leona Aglukkaq

Natural Resources – Lisa Raitt

Fisheries – Gail Shea

Sport & Olympics – Gary Lunn

Status of Women – Guergis

Small Business – Diane Ablonczy


Secretaries of State

Foreign Affairs responsible for AmericasPeter Kent

Transport – Ron Merrifield

Western Economic Diversification – Lynne Yelich

Democratic Reform – Stephen Fletcher

Science and Technology – Gary Goodyear

Economic Development Agency – Denis Lebel

Atlantic Canada Economic Opportunities Agency – Keith Ashfield

Notes:

*11 women appointed

*Peter Kent, Van Loan will represent York Region

*Cabinet is larger, now 38 members (unless I am missing a post or two)

*At this point I am not sure who the Minister is for Toronto or Ontario.

*No floor crossers or senate appointments.

Bill Clinton reminds Americans of the Good Times

Update
: CNN is now showing that Obama will safely win Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota and Virgina. He is now projected to win at least 291 electoral college votes to 163 for John McCain. 85 electoral college votes are considered too close to call with MO, FL, IN, OH and NC being the only remaining battleground states. With the exception of Indiana; Obama currently leads in every remaining battleground state. No one should be expecting a close race on Tuesday. Expect Obama to win at least 300 electoral college votes and likely closer to 400. It's over.
-Darryl

It has been a great final week for Barack Obama. Recently he has been endorsed by Colin Powell and other Republicans. Polls are going his way in states currently held by the Republicans. Last night he made headlines and released a great 30 minute television infomercial that not only outlined his vision and platform, but also was 100% positive with no shots at McCain fired. Last night Bill Clinton reminded Democrats of when the economy was strong, when the budget was in surplus and when jobs were being created during his time as president. Bill Clinton on the campaign trail with Obama also guaranteed that Obama would have a good news cycle today and with only 5 days to go that is important.

Now on the US election, perhaps I have been a little overkill. Some people are getting tired of Obamamania. In 5 days, I will no longer be writing about the US election after blogging about it since 2006. It has been a historic primary. An African-American candidate for President. Two prominent women Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton taking center stage and breaking down barriers for women. A slate of political all stars running in both primaries that included Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Joe Biden. We have seen endorsements, debates, speeches, a revolutionary internet campaign and a presidential election that really started following the last mid-term race in 2006. Millions have been raised and spent. The campaigning is basically over. The focus now for both sides must be getting out the vote on the ground, particularily in the swing states. This campaign has been exciting and turnout is going to be extremely high.

For as long as I have been supporting Obama, most of the criticisms have been the same. People say I am not Conservative. They question Obama's experience while insincerely trying to pass off Palin as qualified. There have been accusations that Obama is a Muslim. That he hangs out with terrorists. There was Wright, Ayers and other "scandals" as Republicans chose the route of personal and unsubstantiated attacks because they cannot run on their record over the past eight years. They have called Obama a socialist. They say Obama will ruin the economy as if it has been managed well under Bush. They say George Bush and John McCain are not the same but fail to site any differences. That is because there is no difference except on torture and climate change. On the economy, John McCain is more of the same. On foreign policy, John McCain is more of the same. On domestic priorities, John McCain is more of the same. Under George W. Bush (who inherited a surplus from Bill Clinton) we have seen record deficits, not once a balanced budget, the national debt has doubled, unemployment has increased, spending has skyrocketed, government is the biggest it has ever been in history, and the middle class is not better off than 4 or 8 years ago under this administration. People may point the figer elsewhere, but it is time to take responsibility and show accountability.

John McCain says he is running on change and that he is different from Bush. His policies are the same and his campaign has been nothing but mudslinging and negative attacks. Obama wants to build America up while McCain is focused on tearing Obama down. His low road attacks are not based in truth and his polling numbers show that Americans have rejected the recycled "liberal", "tax and spend", "socialist" and "weak on national security" labels that have been used in past campaigns. I have not seen one person comment about how George W. Bush has done a good job or has been a great president. People on the right and left are united in calling Bush one of the worst presidents in United States history. Unfortunately, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. It is time for real change.

Barack Obama has been tested during these past two years. He has made an immediate impact in the senate dealing with arms control and ethics. He has experience in the state legislature. His campaign has been about unity and moving America forward. He offers the change that Americans and the world are demanding. His platform (or the video last night) shows that many of his policies are no different than what Conservatives are offering in Canada. Unlike McCain, we know exactly where we stands. He is running on the economy, an area McCain admits he is not up to speed on.

In 5 days, this race will be history. America will face many challenges and the results of this election will impact governments all around the world. Barack Obama is the right choice for these times. He is qualified to be president and has put together the best campaign seen in the modern world. He has brought new people into the political process. The enthusiasim and excitment for his campaign is incredible. He is the guy who can restore America's image on the world stage. This Tuesday, Americans should vote for change. Yes we Can!
-Darryl

Wednesday 29 October 2008

Obama's 30 minute television special: American Stories, American Solutions

Out of the park...home run for Obama! Congratulations Philadelphia as well on the World Series Championship!
-Darryl


Why is "Joe the Plumber" talking about foreign policy

What a joke the McCain campaign has become. Conditions are terrible for Republicans in this election cycle, but this is unreal. New desperate attacks each day. No consistent message. Palin and McCain aides fighting each other through the media. Now the campaign is overplaying its hand with "Joe the Plumber" having him stumping on the campaign trail and freelancing on foreign policy - an area where he has no defined credentials. The McCain campaign is going from poorly managed to outright bizarre. Who is the presidential candidate? Is it McCain, Palin or Joe the Plumber.
-Darryl

Obama and McCain final attack ads

With 5 days to go, here is some of the attack ads from both campaigns heading into voting day.
-Darryl

Barack Obama:







John McCain





Hillary needs you to volunteer for Obama

Senator Hillary Clinton spoke on October 21, 2008 in Hibbing Minnesota.



Barack Obama: Closing Argument in Norfolk, VA

Voting is now underway in more than 30 states. Turnout is high. We are now 5 days away from election day. The Obama ground operation is working hard to turn out voters. Volunteers from safe Democratic states are working in the contested states. Tonight Obama has purchased 30 minutes of prime time television on several channels for an infomercial. All the endorsements have been made. The debates are over. This one is now in the hands of the American voter. The crowd in Virginia last night is an example of the enthusiasim and the growing support we are seeing for Barack Obama's campaign even in formerly Republican states.
-Darryl

Dave Matthews for Obama

Vote Tuesday November 4th. Visit http://www.VoteForChange.com to get all the info you need for election day.

What does John McCain have against Milwaukee?

I have family who live in Milwaukee and in the surrounding area of Wisconsin. This post is for them. You know how to vote this Tuesday! For the record, despite what John McCain says; I think Milwaukee is a beautiful place to live and visit.
-Darryl


Another round of Trudeaumania?

Justin Trudeau says he is not running. Same goes for Frank McKenna. According to the poll below, Justin Trudeau would be the best choice to replace Stephane Dion with McKenna and Ignatieff tied in second place. Bob Rae was fourth. Candidates Dominic LeBlanc, Gerard Kennedy, Martha Hall Findlay, Ruby Dhalla and John Manley failed to register any significant support in this pool. Here is a look at some of the potential candidates:

Justin Trudeau - declared he is not interested in the leadership of the Liberal Party at this point in his career

Frank McKenna - also announced he is not running.

Michael Ignatieff - front runner and most likely the next leader

Bob Rae - another front runner candidate

Dominic LeBlanc - the darkhorse or potential compromise candidate. Likely one of the only contenders not from Toronto

John Manley - lacks charisma and likely won't be forgiven for working with Harper. Strong foreign affairs and economic experience at least.

Ken Dryden - huge name recognition but lacks charisma

Gerard Kennedy - likely hurt by playing kingmaker for Dion last time

Scott Brison - always runs when there is a leadership race

Ralph Goodale - from the West but not fluent in French

Ujjal Dosanjh - interested perhaps but only won his riding by 22 votes

Dalton McGuinty - most likely not interested

David McGuinty - probably very interested

Martha Hall Findlay - probably the only credible female candidate that will enter

Ruby Dhalla - young but not fluent in French

Elizabeth May - if she gets turfed as green leader or if she wants to make change in parliament, May should consider getting in this race. Unlikely though.

Joe Volpe - his last leadership campaign was a disaster

Martin Cauchon - Token Quebec representative. Not sure what he brings to the table outside of the Montreal region

Dennis Coderre - See above. The last three Liberal leaders have represented Quebec ridings. I think Liberals should consider looking to another province this time.

Stephane Dion - if the government falls before May...he is the guy!

With McKenna and Trudeau not entering the race, it should be more clear than ever that the problems in the Liberal party extend well past leadership and there will not be an easy quick fix. There is no Barack Obama in the field. I expect a smaller race this time with less than 5 candidates. Ignatieff, Rae, LeBlanc, Manley, Findlay and Kennedy are the only ones who could pass themselves off as serious candidates at this point in time. It looks to be like Michael Ignatieff will take it this time, but LeBlanc could be the compromise this time between Rae and Iggy based on the way this thing is shaping up. Manley, Kennedy and Findlay are serious candidates but do not really have a serious chance of winning.
-Darryl

Canadians prefer Trudeau

Poll shows young heir is top pick to replace Dion

Norma Greenaway , Canwest News Service

Published: Tuesday, October 28, 2008

OTTAWA - He is tall, dark-haired and handsome. He won a seat in the House of Commons on his first try. He's got a famous name. He has a picture-perfect young family. On top of all that, Justin Trudeau is the top pick among Canadians of all political stripes and most age groups as the next leader of the federal Liberal party, according to a new Ipsos Reid poll.

Trouble is, the 36-year-old first-born son of the late Pierre Trudeau says he's not interested in the party's top job this early in his nascent political career.

Pollster John Wright says he suspects most Canadians know Trudeau "can't be taken seriously as a serious candidate" to replace outgoing leader Stephane Dion, given his lack of political and life experience in the face of such economically challenging times.

Pollster John Wright says he suspects most Canadians know Trudeau "can't be taken seriously as a serious candidate."

Pollster John Wright says he suspects most Canadians know Trudeau "can't be taken seriously as a serious candidate."

Wayne Cuddington/Ottawa Citizen

Instead, Wright says he interprets Canadians' choice of Trudeau as meaning either the party is bereft of recognizable leaders, or it has a genuinely clean slate heading into the leadership contest. Wright comes down on the side of the latter.

"There's no heir apparent. There's no air of excitement. There's no air of appointment," Wright, senior vice-president of Ipsos Reid, said in an interview.

The online survey, released Tuesday and conducted exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National, explored Canadians' support for nine potential Liberal leadership candidates. Among Canadians of all parties, it said, Trudeau finished first with 16 per cent of the vote. He also scored the most support among those aged 18 to 55, and he was the hands-down favourite among women voters.

Michael Ignatieff, the party's current deputy leader, and Frank McKenna, the former New Brunswick premier who announced Tuesday he would not be a candidate, were tied for second with 12 per cent of the vote. The two men also were the most popular choice among Canadians 55 and older, each garnering 16 per cent of the vote. Toronto MP Bob Rae, a former NDP premier of Ontario, finished in third spot at nine per cent.

Other potential contenders were well back. John Manley, a former deputy leader, had five per cent, and Toronto MP Gerard Kennedy, a former leadership candidate, had three per cent. New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc, who has all but officially declared his candidacy, and Toronto-area MPs Martha Hall Findlay and Ruby Dhalla each registered one per cent.

Among the 26 per cent of those surveyed who said they would vote Liberal if an election were held today, Ignatieff and McKenna each pulled 19 per cent of that support and Trudeau pulled 17 per cent, putting the three men into a statistical dead heat, given the survey's margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. Rae was next at 10 per cent.

The other potential contenders finished well back. Kennedy had five per cent support, Manley and Hall Findlay each had three per cent, and LeBlanc and Dhalla came in under one per cent.

Wright said the poll, which also said one in 10 of those surveyed said "none of the above" when asked to make a choice, points to a wide-open race.

"It doesn't rule anybody in. It doesn't rule anybody out. It's an opportunity," he said.

Wright said the findings, taken in conjunction with the results of other surveys, suggest there is a yearning in the Liberal party and the country as a whole for something new, but not necessarily at the expense of experience.

Wright says Trudeau can be "part of the solution" for the party if Liberals use his youth, crowd appeal and fundraising abilities. But they need someone different for leader, he says.

"I think the issue over the next number of years may be how much experience people (potential leaders) have had with the economy and running a government, someone who can go eye-to-eye go toe-to-toe with Stephen Harper and help rebuild the party," he said.

The online survey, involving 1,012 adults, was conducted Wednesday through Saturday. Ipsos Reid said the sample's composition reflects that of the Canadian population according to census data and is considered accurate to within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=9b14c1bf-e87a-40a6-8053-564930d09ed9

Tuesday 28 October 2008

Full Barack Obama "Closing Argument" Speech

Barack Obama made his closing argument speech in Canton Ohio, making the choice in this election starkly clear.



Canada now supports Obama 72%-12% over McCain

While these results come as no surprise, should Obama win as expected this Tuesday a lot will change in Canadian politics as well. For starters Jeffrey Simpson from the Globe and Mail points out what I have been saying for a long time. In his editorial, "What's a Canadian to do when there is no Bush to kick around anymore", Simpson points out that in future elections there will no longer be a George W. Bush for opposition parties to compare Harper to any more.

With Barack Obama polling at 72% here, and with previous polls showing he would win a majority regardless of what Canadian party he chose to lead; one has to wonder if anti-American aspects of the Canadian population will become out of touch with the views of mainstream Canadians. Stephen Harper has demonstrated that he is pro-American as oppose to pro-Bush in my opinion. Close relations with Obama could help him in the next election. He will be free to work productively with our US friends and ally without the media and opposition accusing him of being "too close to Bush".

For sure an Obama presidency will change policies in Washington with regard to Afghanistan, Iraq, the economy, climate change and America's role in the world. Gone will be hundreds of thousands of protesters that use to greet George W. Bush here and in Europe. The crowds Obama drew in Germany for example could be a sign of things to come starting in January 2009. This past weekend, I had the pleasure of staying at Deerhurst in Muskoka for a Rotary district conference. The G8 will be coming there in 2010. I wonder if 100,000 Canadians will make the trip up to Huntsville to cheer on Obama as oppose to protests we have seen in the past? Obama has the ability to restore America's image and role in the world. He can regain their moral authority. He can repair declining relations with allies and enemies alike. Obama winning on Tuesday will be good for Canadian relations with the United States, Stephen Harper and in my opinion the United States of America.

Of course one cannot get too caught up in the hype and desire for change. Obama will face a lot of challenges right away as president and there will be no honeymoon period. Is it possible to live up to the expectations? Is the world and American public guarenteed to be let down? Will Obama resort to protectionism or attempt to renegotiate NAFTA? Will the US economy make the next president unpopular regardless of who wins? Will he be tested by a foreign power or act of terrorism?

According to the Globe and Mail, Canadians prefer Obama over McCain by a margin of 72%-12%. Polls and electoral college vote projections in the United States indicate Canada's preference will likely win. Obama will make history and change will come to the United States government after 8 years of Republican rule. The question now is, are Canadians ready for change as well?
-Darryl

Canadians back Obama, seek closer ties with a new president

Majority do not believe Harper has been very effective in promoting Canada's interests with U.S., poll found

From Monday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Canadians are excited about the prospect of a Barack Obama presidency, and want Prime Minister Stephen Harper to work more closely with a new U.S. administration on issues from protecting the environment to dealing with the economic crisis, a new poll suggests.

With only eight days until the U.S. election, Canadians overwhelmingly support Mr. Obama over Republican nominee John McCain, and believe the Illinois senator would do a better job of restoring America's credibility in the world and dealing with the global economic crisis.

But regardless of the winner, there remains significant skepticism in Canada over whether the U.S. can be trusted to deal fairly with Canadian concerns, said the survey, which was conducted for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute. The Calgary-based institute holds its annual conference in Ottawa today, with its focus on Canada-U.S. relations.

And there are concerns that Mr. Obama – together with a Democratic-controlled Congress – could impose protectionist measures that would hurt Canada.

“It's pretty clear that we have a healthy skepticism of the Americans, even with Obama, although there are a lot of hopes with him as president,” said Greg Lyle, managing director for Innovative Research Group, which conducted the online survey for the institute.

Canadians expect their government to work closely with the U.S. on international problems, and do not believe Mr. Harper has been particularly effective in dealing with the administration of George W. Bush.

In the survey, 58 per cent said Mr. Harper has not been effective in advancing Canada's interests with the Bush administration. [The online poll of more than 2,000 people was conducted between Oct. 16 and Oct. 21, and has a margin of error of 2.7 percentage points.]

With the expectation that Mr. Obama will be the next president, 70 per cent of respondents said Canada should work more closely with the U.S. to protect the environment; 60 per cent said the two governments should work more closely in dealing with the economic crisis, and 59 per cent said there should be greater co-operation to reduce drug trafficking.

Colin Robertson, senior fellow with the institute, said he was struck by the pragmatism of Canadians who remain suspicious of the U.S., but recognize the need for close collaboration.

“Arguably, Canadian are the original unAmericans – our origins go back to that,” said Mr. Robertson, who heads the Canada-U.S. project at Carleton University. “But there is nonetheless a realism that says we expect our leaders to work together on problems.”

In fact, 62 per cent of respondents indicated a willingness to adopt American regulatory standards if it would ease restrictions at the border.

On the other hand, Canadians want to see their government move more aggressively to assert sovereignty in the North, despite U.S. opposition. Some 57 per cent say it is unlikely the U.S. will recognize Canada's claims in the North, and 44 per cent want the federal government to unilaterally declare a 200-mile economic zone to cover the Northwest Passage.

Like people around the globe, Canadians are enamoured with Mr. Obama, who outpolls Mr. McCain here by 72 to 12. (In the U.S., Mr. Obama has a commanding eight-point lead over Mr. McCain in an average of national polls assembled by RealClearPolitics website.)

The greatest fear regarding the Democratic candidate is that he would be too protectionist, with 57 per cent saying they worry he would end or renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement, or that he would be too protectionist.


My US Election Prediction: Obama wins 378 to 160

You can put together your own prediction by visiting this link.
-Darryl

Update: These numbers do not come out of thin air. Below is the breakdown.


Obama will win 378 electoral college votes by winning the following states:


Hawaii

California

New Mexico

Oregon

Washington

Nevada

Colorado

North Dakota

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Michigan

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Iowa

Illinois

Indiana

Virginia

North Carolina

New York

New Jersey

Vermont

New Hampshire

Maine

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Connecticut

Delaware

Maryland

DC

Missouri

Florida


John McCain will win 160 electoral college votes by winning the following states:


Arizona

Alaska

Georgia

Texas

Utah

Idaho

Montana

Wyoming

South Dakota

Nebraska

Kansas

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Alabama

Tennessee

South Carolina

West Virginia

Kentucky

Monday 27 October 2008




2008 US Electoral College and State Polls Breakdown


CNN is the most Conservative calling 277 electoral college votes for Obama. Electoral-vote.com is the most confident predicting 375. Either way an Obama win is likely as 270 are required to win the White House. There will be a lot of focus on the national polls over the next week, but this formula is the only one that matters. The US election is decided by electoral college votes and not the overall popular vote. This is how Bush was able to win in 2000 despite having less total votes. Like in Canada, national polls do not matter unless you factor them into seat counts. The three sites below factor state polling into their projections.
-Darryl


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5

Palin and McCain feuding

This is what happens on a losing campaign. John McCain is going down and will not be President. Sarah Palin is a rising star who will likely be the next nominee in 2012. Behind the scenes in the Republican campaign, finger pointing has begun and Palin and her people have ditched the talking points, advice and campaign message that they blame for her negative press and image. In the meantime, McCain has the task of convincing his supporters he can still win. If he fails to do that; turnout and get out the vote efforts will lead to an even more humilating loss to Obama. Sarah Palin has drawn huge crowds, brought energy to an otherwise lame campaign and is now a mainstream celebrity in the United States and around the world. I suspect this will encourage further infighting as Republicans cruise to a certain defeat. Palin is in a great position for 2012, but needs to be careful. The bigger the defeat this year, the more her wagon will be tied to this electoral disaster. I have learned from comments on this blog and elsewhere that Palin has quite the following. Unfortunately for the Republican Party this year, McCain does not. Should be interesting as we go into the final week of this US Presidential election campaign.
-Darryl

New Obama Ads

New Obama Ads

2 minutes. Expensive and highlights the financial advantage Obama will have in the final days. This ad outlines his agenda.



This ad goes after McCain's negative campaign



Jay-Z tries to get out the vote at a concert in Michigan

Sunday 26 October 2008

Pssst! Lissen up, Messrs Harper, Layton and Dion: How would you like to reduce the number of seats the Bloc wins in the next election by one third? From 50 to say 30 to 33? That would spring loose between 17 and 20 seats for the CP, NDP and LPC to pick up …

There is a way; a way that is fair, more democratic, and that levels the playing field.

The way is set out below, but first, a bit of background so that you understand the Cat’s proposal.

On the federal scene, four parties are fighting the lock that the Bloc has on the majority of voters in Quebec.

Harper has tried to prise voters loose from the Bloc, but so far has failed. The Greens have a policy regarding environmental matters which should offer a choice, but have failed to win much support in that province. Jack Layton tried his best, but so far is not breaking through in Quebec. The Liberals have fought but have had their seats in Quebec reduced to mainly the Anglophone areas.

And all this is happening when the Bloc is given an unfair level of assistance from Canadian taxpayers generally, and when the Bloc is shrinking as a political party.

How is this happening? Consider the article headed Bloc’s the big winner in election financing, by Barbara Yaffe, in Saturday’s Vancouver Sun:

“In a bit of political perversity, it turns out Canadians are bending over backwards to provide financial sustenance to the Bloc Quebecois. A new study by the Calgary-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy reveals, of all Canada's federal parties, the Bloc benefits most substantially from campaign finance reform introduced five years ago by the Chretien government. Declares the Frontier Centre news release: "Without federal financing, the separatist party likely would have been unable to mount a serious campaign in the 2008 election."”

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=771df322-e5cd-40b6-89bd-43591f2dc5da

Wow! These are strong contentions.

Let’s examine the details, because they are important. Jean Chretien is the man who allowed this state of affairs to come about, when he reformed the financing of political parties by banning corporate and union donations so as to reduce any undue influence by these groups. Chretien cut the maximum limit any individual could donate to a political party to $5,000, which Harper later reduced to $1,100.

“The 2003 reforms also set up a new system of direct taxpayer-funded allowances whereby parties receive quarterly payments based on the number of votes gleaned in the previous election. Each vote yields nearly $2.” (per Yaffe).

The result?

The Tories won big time, because they had two streams of income for elections. They had focused on persuading individuals to fund them, and by winning a goodly percentage of the total votes cast in all provinces of Canada, which gave them another source of revenue, from this federal funding.

The Liberals suffered because they got their share of federal funding, but had far fewer individuals who donated to them, so their income came from one strong stream (the federal funding), and one relatively tiny trickle (individuals).

The NDP had two strong streams of income to fight the 2008 election (individual donations and federal funding).

And the Bloc? It had virtually one ONE stream of income, the federal funding:

“The Alberta study shows that the Bloc has become more heavily reliant on these allowances than any other party, including the Greens. The ratio of the taxpayer allowance to money from Bloc fundraising is 5.6 to 1. Contrast that to a 1.3 to 1 ratio for Conservatives and a 1.5 to 1 ratio for the New Democrats, the two parties that are least dependent on the taxpayer subsidies. Incredibly, the Bloc in the first six months of this year had a scant 1,070 individuals offer donations. Even the tiny Green party had 7,915 donors during that same time period. With its meagre donor base, the Bloc raised a paltry $73,704 while scooping $1.5 million in public financing.”

What is more, the Bloc has been shrinking as a political party, at least as far as a donor base is concerned. It has won votes, true, but it has done so by having Canadian taxpayers across the country funding its separatist agenda, while donations from Quebeckers have shrunk to almost nothing:

“It is also noteworthy, says study author Mark Milke, that the Bloc's donor base has been seriously shrinking since 2004 when it had 8,775 donors. By 2007, that had fallen to half and it since has shrunk further. "Simply put, the Bloc's fortunes in the recent election were rescued by public financing," says Milke, a political science lecturer at the University of Calgary.”

Yaffe summarizes the position with this statement: “How ironic, that the party that would seek to break up Canada has become so reliant on the national teat.”

Yaffe goes further, and suggests that the current funding method holds even greater threats to Canada, if the Bloc’s modus operandi was copied by other parties in the future:

“Imagine if every province had a Bloc party. It would negate the usefulness of the federal Parliament entirely. Each province would have a parliamentary "gimme, gimme" team seeking only to best the next province.”

She also rebuts any possible defence of this broken reform by Bloc supporters with this weighty argument:

“The defence Bloc supporters will offer in the face of the Frontier Centre's report will be that the Bloc is a Quebec party, backed by that province's taxpayers who are also federal taxpayers. That is, they, too, indirectly support the Bloc's existence. And Quebecers help to finance all federal parties. But that won't assuage the broader group of taxpayers who have absolutely no incentive to appreciate the Bloc's work in Ottawa.”

Let’s summarize: the only separatist party in Canada received donations from roughly one thousand Canadians, totalling a pathetic $73,000, but still was funded to the tune of $1.5 million in federal funds. So Bloc supporters were content not to put their money where their mouth was by making their own donations to the Bloc, but to rely on federal government funding…
And the Green Party, which does not have a single seat in Canada’s parliament, while the Bloc has 49, had almost ten times more individual donors than the Bloc.

Something smells in Denmark, sayeth the Cat.

And we can blame Jean Chretien for this half-baked, unfair and undemocratic system.

So, how can the Tories, Dippers and Liberals fix this broken system?

It seems to me that we need a system of public funding of federal political parties which rewards parties for their efforts to attract total votes in an election, to attract donors in each province, and to attract donors across all of Canada.

First, let’s agree with a few principles that should apply to any federal funding scheme:

1. That federal funding of federal political parties is a good thing and should continue (we do not want to go the route of the USA system, where politicians are bought by special interests).

2. That any party should continue to get some funding based on the total number of votes it gets in each federal election (so that parties with more votes, which have appealed to more Canadians, should receive more federal funds).

3. That we do not go back to the old system of allowing corporations and unions to fund political parties, but only allow individuals to do so.

4. That we keep the current $1,100 limit per person on donations by individuals (increasing by inflation).

5. That the federal funding should also encourage political parties to reach out to Canadians, and encourage Canadians to participate in political affairs by donating to parties of their choice. This should increase the percentage of Canadians who actually vote in our federal elections, and so strengthen our democracy.

6. That the federal funding should also level the playing field, by recognizing that political parties which strive to sign up members from all across the country, should be encouraged to do so, so as to reduce sectionalism in the country.

7. That, at the same time, any party which has a firm footing in any province should also be encouraged to increase its membership and donations within that province.

So much for the governing principles.

Now, let’s examine a revised method of federal funding which the Tories, Dippers and Liberals should be able to agree upon, and which those three parties, having the majority of seats in parliament, should be able to capture in an amending bill.

The new scheme works this way:

1. The federal funding is to be divided into three separate pools, instead of just one pool as at present.

2. The total amount of money in the 3 pools is to be increased for the next federal election by one half, from the $2 per total vote casts by voters in a general election, to $3. Based on the 13.8 million voters who actually voted in the 2008 election (59.1%), this would give us a total pool amount of some $41.4 million (let’s say $42 million).

3. The 3 pools are to consist of the Total Vote Pool, the Total Canada Donor Pool, and the Total Provincial Donor Pool. Each of these pools will have one-third of the total federal funding, or $14 million each, using the 2008 election result.

4. Political parties will be paid from their share of each of the 3 pools, as calculated below.

5. As a political party, you get $1 for every vote cast for your party in the general election, from the Total Vote Pool. This is down from the $2 the parties each got in 2008.

6. You will also get your proportionate share of the Total Provincial Donor Pool (your share being your total number of individual donors as a percentage of all the individual donors to all political parties in that province, times the allocation of this pools $14 million to each province). So, if the total number of individual donors in, say, Alberta, is 20% of the total number of individual donors in all of Canada, and you had half of those donors in Alberta making donations to you, then you get half of 20% of $14 million, or $1.4 million.

7. You also get your proportionate share of the Total Canada Donor Pool (your share being your total number of individual donors in all of Canada as a percentage of all the individual donors to all political parties in the whole of Canada, times the allocation of this pools $14 million). So, if you get 20% of the total number of donors in Canada, then you get 20% of this pool’s $14 million, or $2.8 million.

This proposed revised federal funding will encourage political parties to widen their membership and obtain donations from more people, so involving more people in our political process, and hopefully increasing the percentage of Canadians who vote in each election.

It will also encourage parties to widen their number of donors in every province, rather than concentrating on some and neglecting others, and thereby help reduce the political alienation felt by some regions of the country.

Finally, it will reward those parties which consistently encourage membership and donations in all parts of Canada.

The increase in total federal funding should reduce the impact on any party of moving from the current undemocratic and inefficient system, with its one pool, to the new system, with its three pools.

How about it, Mr Harper? Mr Layton? Mr Dion?

Thursday 23 October 2008


12 days to go and Palin still not sure what a VP does

The Vice President is expected to be ready to serve in the event that the President cannot. It is unclear if she is qualified for her main role should she become VP. They also break tie votes in the Senate and occasionally lobby senators to pass legislation. They are not involved in legislation in the way Palin suggests.
-Darryl

From Wikipedia:

The Vice President of the United States is the first person in the presidential line of succession, becoming the new President of the United States upon the death, resignation, or removal of the president, should he or she accept the position. Every presidential term ends on January 20 of the year immediately after a presidential election. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber. He or she may be assigned additional duties by the president but, as the Constitution assigns no executive powers to the vice president, in performing such duties he or she acts only as an agent of the president.

President of the Senate

President of the SenateAs President of the Senate (Article I, Section 3), the vice president oversees procedural matters and may cast a tie-breaking vote. There is a strong convention within the U.S. Senate that the vice president not use his or her position as President of the Senate to influence the passage of legislation or act in a partisan manner, except in the case of breaking tie votes. As President of the Senate, John Adams cast twenty-nine tie-breaking votes—a record that no successor except for John C. Calhoun ever threatened. His votes protected the president's sole authority over the removal of appointees, influenced the location of the national capital, and prevented war with Great Britain. On at least one occasion he persuaded senators to vote against legislation that he opposed, and he frequently lectured the Senate on procedural and policy matters. Adams' political views and his active role in the Senate made him a natural target for critics of the Washington administration. Toward the end of his first term, as a result of a threatened resolution that would have silenced him except for procedural and policy matters, he began to exercise more restraint in the hope of realizing the goal shared by many of his successors: election in his own right as president of the United States of America.

In modern times, the vice president rarely presides over day-to-day matters in the Senate; in his place, the Senate chooses a President pro tempore (or "president for a time") to preside in the Vice President's absence, and the Senate maintains a Duty Roster for the post, normally selecting the longest serving senator in the majority party.

When the President is impeached, the Chief Justice of the United States of America presides over the Senate during the impeachment trial. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where he or she was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment, the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

One duty required of President of the Senate is presiding over the counting and presentation of the votes of the U.S. Electoral College. This process occurs in the presence of both houses of Congress, on January 6 of the year following a U.S. presidential election. In this capacity, only four Vice Presidents have been able to announce their own election to the presidency: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George H. W. Bush. At the beginning of 1961, it fell to Richard Nixon to preside over this process, which officially announced the election of his 1960 opponent, John F. Kennedy. In 1969, Vice President Hubert Humphrey announced he had lost to Nixon. Later, in 2001, Al Gore announced the election of his opponent, George W. Bush.

Vice President John C. Calhoun became the first vice president to resign the office. He believed he would have more power as a senator. He had been dropped from the ticket by President Andrew Jackson in favor of Martin Van Buren. Already a lame-duck vice president, he was elected to the Senate by the South Carolina state legislature and resigned the vice presidency early to begin his Senate term.

Palin's response to what a VP does a few days ago:



Previous interview where Palin "does not know what a VP does"

 

FREE HOT VIDEO | HOT GIRL GALERRY