After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

If there is a god, he’s probably applauding this decision. Though not for the reasons that Palin might have assumed.

Tina Fey, on the other hand, must be disappointed.

An Australian rural community desperate to encourage new families to move in and revitalize the town is offering to rent farm houses to interested families for one Australian dollar a week. The hamlet of Trundle, 215 miles northwest of Sydney, has a population of 380.

 Like neighboring communities, it has struggled with years of drought and is hoping that the cheap rent — the equivalent of 95 U.S. cents a week — will bring in new life and help fill up schoolrooms.

Maybe Jimmy McMillan should consider moving Down Under.

But before Obama panics too much, he might want to consult this list of Midterm study strategies, compiled by me back in the eighth grade:

• Eliminate distractions. Minesweeper, SuperNES, listening to your mom fight with your sister down the hall, trying to mediate a mideast peace settlement… all these are distracting to the study process.

• Prioritize the material. Midterm exam questions are usually about things that have been covered recently on the curriculum, and are therefore foremost in the minds of teachers – er – voters. Spend more time on recent issues like the tea party, and less time on the stuff that was covered at the start of the term and that everyone’s forgotten about by now anyway, like, y’know, healthcare.

• Plan your time. Midterms take place in the middle of the term, as their name suggests. While you’re studying for them, you also have to juggle other assignments and a social life. Oh, and national security and economic concerns, too. Make a schedule and stick to it. Use whatever tools work for you, like an agenda book or, if you prefer, a highly-paid team of executive secretaries.

• Find the right study buddies. Pick people who are smarter than you and copy their notes, or arrange a cram session with them in the library. If you can get them to write your speeches for you, too, all the better.

• Remember that it’s not worth as much as the final. Even a bad grade on a midterm can be made up for with a strong final exam, which is usually worth a bigger percentage of your overall grade. Time to put it behind you and focus on what’s important: Beating Sarah Palin in 2012.

For actual news about the US midterm election, in case anyone’s interested, check out the CBC’s interactive maps.

Sometimes, the greatest ideas are the most obvious. (Hat tip: Matt).

When Barack Obama steps up to the podium to deliver his inaugural address, one man standing anonymously in the crowd will be paying especially close attention. With his cropped hair, five o’clock shadow and boyish face, he might look out of place among the dignitaries, though as co-author of the speech this man has more claim than most to be a witness to this moment of history.

Jon Favreau, 27, is, as Obama himself puts it, the president’s mind reader. He is the youngest chief speechwriter on record in the White House, and, despite such youth, was at the centre of discussions of the content of today’s speech, one which has so much riding on it.

The full text of the inauguration speech is available here.

With the imminent departure of President George W. Bush, the creators and producers of the Tony-winning musical Avenue Q launched a contest to replace a lyric in the musical’s final song, “For Now,” that states, “George Bush!” is only “for now.”

Over 2,000 entries were received, and the judging panel — including Q creators Robert Lopez, Jeff Marx and Jeff Whitty and the show’s producers — have selected four possibilities that will be tested over several performances to “gauge the response and audience reaction, and determine which lyric emerges as the most satisfying,” according to a press statement.

The contest lyrics that will be tested follow:

“Recession”
“Prop 8″
“This show”
“Your mother-in-law”

Avenue Q is, of course, no stranger to political satire. In 2004, it held its own version of the Bush-Kerry presidential debate… with song, dance and puppets.

I’m normally a cynic, but even I’m finding it difficult not to be a little idealistic today. Obama has a real gift for oratory and for inspiration, and you could feel the change in the air watching the whole thing.

Sure, expectations for Obama are so high that he has nowhere to go but down. And sure, the US and indeed the world are in messes from which it’s going to take an awfully long time to climb out from.

But the much-maligned, misunderestimated Dubya was perhaps the most hated, divisive president of modern times. Obama’s inauguration today was met with a worldwide sigh of relief, and of optimism for things to come.

That’s Sarah Palin, laughing as she digs her own grave, getting prank called by CKOI’s Les Justiciers Masqués. It’s kind of like watching a car wreck; equal parts entertaining and horrifying.

When Obama wins on Tuesday, as is expected, Montreal will have played its part.

I’ll be traveling during the election, so there won’t be any commentary on the results on this blog for a couple of weeks. That said, to all Americans out there, make sure to exercise your civic duty and vote!

The bad news from this scenario? We won’t be able to make fun of Sarah Palin anymore. Really, Joe Biden isn’t nearly as much fun to mock.

Meanwhile, the assholes are at it again. Why aren’t these investigations kept under wraps to prevent media hype and asshole copycats?

Except that it seems he’s not really a plumber. And he’s not really an undecided voter. And he’s not really named Joe. (It’s his middle name). Oh yeah, and for a guy supposedly so concerned about taxes, he hasn’t quite paid his own.

So, lies, cheating and misrepresentation… Hey, sounds like a politician to me. Joe the Plumber for President in 2012? Why not? As Jon Stewart pointed out, he’s already given more interviews than Sarah Palin.

The Canadian debate is obviously more relevant to us as Canadians. But for sheer entertainment value alone, the US VP debate is likely to be much more exciting. Start exercising that channel flipping thumb; you may need it.

Sarah Silverman’s The Great Schlep is a movement to encourage Jewish (and other) Americans to travel to Florida to visit their grandparents and encourage them to vote for Barack Obama:

(Warning: NSFW).

Palin is a true-blue representative of her party. She is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and against gay marriage. Her opposition to abortion extends to cases of rape and incest. The women who backed Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the nomination for presidency don’t generally ascribe to those values.

[ . . . ]

Tokenism is an insult, an insidious one whose effects are difficult to erase over time. People will forget that there were other options on the Republican table, capable, long-serving, proven women like Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas – and that McCain ignored them in favour of doing something headline-grabbing. That effect is already starting to wear off. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll this week found, “Three quarters of all voters think McCain chose a female running mate specifically because he thought adding a woman to the Republican ticket would help him win in November.”

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with the otherwise politically-savvy selection of Palin. Choosing a candidate solely because she’s a woman is no better than systematically denying opportunities to qualified people because they are women.

And while McCain no doubt sees Palin’s stance on issues like abortion and gun control as qualifications, not drawbacks, given the socially conservative voters he’s trying to attract, the fact remains that Palin is much less qualified than the myriad other choices that McCain had – of both genders. She was chosen for her youth (to contrast McCain’s age) and her gender, proving that tokenism is no better than discrimination, after all.

It does, however, beg the question of how many Americans won’t vote for McCain just because he sounds like a French freedom fry?

The Maclean’s poll discovered an epic lack of global knowledge of Canadian affairs. Andrew Grenville, chief research officer for Angus Reid Strategies, converted the poll’s seven Canadian-knowledge questions to a zero-to-100 scale. Only the Americans passed, with a score of 57.

[ . . . ]

Curiously, there is a huge upside to this blissful ignorance: to not know Canada, apparently, is to love it. “There is a lot of ignorance about Canada but there are also these positive perceptions, kind of like this halo of positive expectation,” says Grenville. “We get the benefit of the doubt. They don’t really know us but they’re pretty sure we’re nice,” he says. “So we get away with a few things.”

Hmmmm, sounds like a certain US presidential candidate, doesn’t it? Canada, like Barack Obama, is well liked despite not being that well known. And Canada, like Obama, gets the benefit of the doubt for it.

Curiously, Canada has been riding this ignorance-is-bliss wave for years, even decades. Barack Obama should take notes.

US elections do not create legitimate Palestinian peace partners. Olmert might do well to remember that.

Maybe that low standard is the reason why this year’s field of primary candidates – both Democrat and Republican – seems almost more devoid than ever of anyone worth voting for. It’s not as though I’m naive enough to expect inspiration, integrity or brilliance. I’d just like to see some real choices, for a change. And I certainly don’t envy the choices of our neighbours to the south. Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that Stephen Colbert would have made a better president than any of the “real” candidates currently running? (The Democrats missed a golden opportunity for media coverage on that one…)

Anyway, this is just my time to revive my election pledge from the last election: No election coverage until next September. None, nada, zilch.

That means no daily analysis of the primaries, no odds-making, and no commentary on Hillary Clinton’s hair. (Though if something really out-there happens, I reserve the right to mention it.)

I hope you’ll, once again, find it a better blog because of it.

U.S. Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama has been trying to burnish his foreign policy credentials. So it didn’t help when he called Canada’s leader a “president” during a debate Tuesday.

Asked what he’d do about the North American trade deal, Obama said it needs changes, so he’d “immediately call the president of Mexico (and) the president of Canada.”

A mistake worthy of… Dubya Bush.

To some people, this might indicate that Obama should spend more time reading up on the governmental systems of the different countries of the world, particularly the US’s neighbours.

To me, it just indicates that he clearly hasn’t heard Joe’s rant.

It’s still early for analysis, but this piece in The Independent has an interesting – if perhaps a bit optimistic – perspective on how things might play out.

But never mind those clowns. Personally I think the winner should’ve been Meryl Yourish.

• Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage won approval in South Carolina, Tenessee, Virginia and Wisconsin, with similar amendments on the ballot in 4 other states also expected to pass once the votes are tallied. This would mean that a total of 28 states – more than half – will have banned gay marriage in the U.S., delivering a serious blow to the hopes of people in favour of equality and civil rights.
• Arizona passed measures against illegal immigrants, including making English the state’s official language.

On the other hand:

• Missouri passed a measure to guarantee stem cell research would be permitted.
• South Dakota’s voters rejected an attempt to restrict abortion in the form of proposed legislation.

Some analysts have further noted that, though Democrats made significant gains, they may have done so at the expense of ideology, since many of the newly-elected Democrats are much more moderate than Liberal while many of the defeated Republican incumbents were on their party’s more moderate wing. So the House (and possibly the Senate) may have shifted to the left, but both parties actually shifted to the right in the process.

What will it all mean? Your guess is as good as mine.

But, for the sake of the United States, I hope that drunkenness subsides soon, or else all they’ll be left with is a giant hangover.

All of the planets aligned for the Democrats right now. Increased frustration at Bush’s policies – namely, the war in Iraq – combined with ill-timed sex scandals and a lot of general weariness led to a sort of protest vote against Republicans as proxies for Bush. But Democrats would do well to note that there’s still two long years until 2008. That’s enough time to either put up or shut up, so to speak.

It’s easy to gain popularity by pointing fingers in opposition (well, for everyone but John Kerry, anyway). It’s a lot harder to make excuses once you’re in the hot seat. A lot of eyes will be on the Democrats now, looking to see what they do with these two years of limited power, in order to decide what to do about 2008. If tonight’s vote was against Bush, the next presidential election will be about some sort of vision for the country… and despite the Democrats’ victories tonight, they haven’t conclusively demonstrated that they have one.

The Democrats, therefore, have a choice to make. They can either spend the next two years dragging the country down into myriad scandal investigations, handing out subpoenas like tissues and clamouring for time on TV. That’s door number one, and it leads to a path of increased cynicism, frustration and disillusionment with politics in general.

Or, they can take the tougher road and start taking a stand on issues and trying to once again define a voice for the party. Door number two means taking whatever limited power you’ve been handed and trying to actually do something with it. Agree or disagree, voters will generally have a lot more respect for someone who leads than for someone who blames. This is what the Democrats didn’t figure out in 2004, and from many of the interviews I’m seeing tonight with key Democrats, I don’t think they’ve figured it out in 2006 either.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the Democrats weren’t the big winners tonight. Not because a serious backlash could still result in a resounding Republican victory when it counts, in 2008’s Presidential election – though it’s certainly possible. But because we haven’t seen anyone try to raise the standard of debate with this election. It’s the same old corruption scandals, negative campaigning, negative issues, finger-pointing about Iraq and threatening of congressional investigations that we’ve seen a million times before. And it’s coming from all sides.

In reality, there may be no true winners in tonight’s election, only losers: the American people.

• Congress: Democrats take control with a projected 16-seat gain.
• Senate: Still too close to call, but looks like the Republicans will narrowly hang on.
• Hockey: Habs 3-2 over Oilers in a shootout.

Everyone knows which one of those is the most important in my book, of course.

If the Democrats take control of the House (somewhat likely) and/or the Senate (highly unlikely) tomorrow, will that mean Bush will be relegated to lame duck status? Is tomorrow’s vote pivotal for gays/women/minorities/Iraq, or will it really not change very much? If the Democrats win some power, will they use it to legislate, or will they use it to launch a bunch of costly and pointless probes and investigations into Republican behaviour that will make voters sigh and roll their eyes at the endless scandal circus?

What will the results spell for 2008? Will it scare Republicans into a voter backlash, or will it energize the Democrats and give them momentum?

Personally, I hope that the Democrats gain control of Congress at least, not because I’m particularly disposed to favour one side or the other (I’ve already spelled out my objections to the giant either-or wedge in American politics numerous times) but because, on principle, I believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I’ve seen what happens too many times with the lack of a strong enough opposition. The Canadian Liberals, for instance. Even my years at Concordia were instrumental in demonstrating the pitfalls of having too much power concentrated in too few hands. The Bush administration has had a blank cheque for quite some time now, and it’s time to instill some checks and balances in the form of a more powerful opposition.

Basically, what it boils down to is my belief that the more handcuffed a government is, the less it will be able to do… and, hence, the less harm it will be able to do. Like doctors, government officials ought to be required to swear an oath of office that begins with “first, do no harm”. But, since they don’t, the next best option is to limit their power as much as possible.

The candidates threw out the debate rules and went after each other on issues including gun control, healthcare, education, immigration and even the word “liberal”. Why can’t real political debates be like that?

After all, politicians have essentially been actors for years. And I’m not just talking about Reagan or Schwarzenegger. Most of them are reading off rehearsed scripts, playing a part, saying their lines. So why don’t their lines ever sound so good in real life?

Now, the show has an obvious liberal bias, with Martin Sheen having played the fictional Democratic President Josiah Bartlett for the last 6 seasons. The show’s audience is over 75% Democrat, and its cast includes some of the most outspoken liberal actors in Hollywood. An online poll on the show’s site as to who won the fake debate is running 65% for Santos. In fact, an independent poll – yes, a real pollster actually ran a poll about fictional candidates, in a bizarre twist – surveyed an equal number of Democrats and Republicans and found that 59% favour Santos. It’s virtually pre-ordained that Smits is going to emerge the winner.

But Alda’s character is fighting a serious campaign. They’ve scripted Senator Vinick as a centrist, pro-choice Republican from California, with just enough centrist appeal that he could – theoretically – win the television presidency. An anti-Bush, in other words. And I must admit, if it were a real debate, he would have nearly wiped the floor with Matthew Santos… despite the fact that there were clearly lines he – presumably a Democrat in real life – nearly choked on while having to speak. Hell, I figure I’d be a Democrat if I were American, and even I woulda voted for him.

Wouldn’t it be gutsy of the show’s producers if they wrote a Vinick victory and let the Republicans take office on the show? Of course, it would be a Democrat’s funhouse version of the Republican party… but it would sure be more interesting than the assumed outcome. I’d love to see them try.

And you know what else would be really neat? If this debate inspired some real political debates to follow a similar format, allowing candidates to actually debate issues for a change. I’m willing to bet a lot more people would watch – and consequently, a lot more people would vote.

Update: I admit, I was curious about the fact that the debate was going to air twice – once on the east coast and once on the west. So I tuned into NBC Seattle and was rather shocked to notice that, though the script was nearly identical, the actors’ tones had changed dramatically. In debate #2, Santos seemed to be the clear winner, scoring definitive points over Vinick on nearly every issue. I wonder if the actors were coached in the interim to make a pre-determined Santos victory seem more plausible? At any rate, it’s amazing how the same lines could have such a different effect when spoken with slightly different pauses, tones and facial expressions. Food for thought.

“He’s very difficult to deal with because he won’t agree to things that he doesn’t believe he can deliver, although that is very frustrating and annoying and infuriating,” Bono told reporters while standing next to Martin.

Canada currently spends the equivalent of 0.26 percent of GDP on foreign aid. Martin says he would rather commit to small increases he knows he can afford than make long-term promises.

Bono, I love your music and the video for Where The Streets Have No Name kicks ass. So I mean this with all due respect: shut up!

Martin may be a weak political leader who waffles more than an Eggo, but at least he’s a political leader. Who elected Bono leader of anything?

This is just part of a larger rant that I have about celebrities and politics. We used to have economists talking about the economy, international relations experts discussing international relations, political analysts talking politics… Agree or disagree, the people leading the discourse usually actually knew something about their topic and had solid credentials in their field.

Since when did “#1 on the Billboard rock charts” become a credential for discussing world trade or poverty?

This is not a new phenomenon. It’s been going on for years, and has been encouraged by the fact that stars get publicity for their political action, and are under a large amount of pressure to pretend to care about causes bigger than themselves. Some actually do care. I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is this notion that we’re supposed to listen to them because they’re celebrities. In a debate about world trade, if you put a Ph.D. in global economics at a table with Jeanine Garofalo, why should we assume that they’re on equal footing to discuss the issues? I won’t give much weight to Paul Martin’s opinion on rock music, so why should I care so much what Bono thinks about politics?

In last year’s American election, in which we had Springsteen singing for Kerry and Britney Spears cheering for Bush, I couldn’t help but wonder whether anyone was actually basing their vote on what celebrities were saying. And if so, what does that say about the electorate?

That’s my issue with Live 8 in general. International aid and third-world poverty are serious issues, and nobody elected Roger Waters or Dave Matthews to decide how best to spend our tax dollars to deal with them.

Celebrities are human beings – often with good hearts and fat bank accounts. If they want to do charity work or get involved in worthy causes, more power to them. But when they use their charity work as a publicity stunt, it cheapens them and their cause.

It also creates issues among fans who respect celebrities for their art but dislike their politics. Should I refuse to watch Sean Penn’s movies because I don’t like his soapbox political views? No, that’s mixing issues, isn’t it? But by suggesting that his celebrity status lends credence to his politics, the celebrities themselves have mixed those issues, leaving someone like me to either have to avoid art because of politics, or wonder if I’m implicitly supporting politics because of art. When I go to an Our Lady Peace concert and, in the midst of screaming and cheering, Raine Maida shouts that we should “send a message to Bush to stay out of Iraq”, it puts a sour taste in my mouth. Regardless of his message (I’d feel the same way if Raine said the opposite), suddenly I’m no longer at a rock concert, but at a political rally. It didn’t say that on my ticket. I didn’t pay for that. All it did was to make me feel manipulated and used.

The most reasonable point I’ve ever heard from a celebrity on the issue of celebs in politics comes from Alice Cooper:

“To me, that’s treason. I call it treason against rock-and-roll, because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics. If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal.”

Cooper’s comments were made in the context of last year’s US election campaign, but they’re equally valid for issues like foreign aid and world trade.

So let Bono think that Paul Martin is “infuriating”. That’s fine. I don’t really care. I may disagree with Martin an awful lot, but here he is being eminently reasonable, refusing to make lavish promises he can’t keep and instead sticking to more immediate, gradual commitments. Foreign aid in itself won’t solve African poverty overnight. And, despite what he may think, Bob Geldof is not uniquely qualified to tell us how to think.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe – just maybe – if Bono were Canadian and had actually voted for Martin, then his criticism might be a bit more valid. In the meantime, please stick to rock music and let the politicians stick to politics.

Contrary to the widespread impression of a nation only divided into two unified “red” and “blue” camps, our latest survey finds important cleavages on values and basic attitudes within each party. As a result, both parties face internal challenges as well as opportunities to expand their constituencies.

Anyway, the quiz stubbornly insists that I’m an “enterpriser”, which it classifies as Republican, Conservative, rich and male. Er… not exactly accurate. I tried to tell it that I was against government meddling in religion or morality, in favour of gay rights, and that I probably would’ve voted for Kerry if I were American, but it didn’t listen. I guess I have to win the lottery and get a sex change operation now.

Then again, reading the 9 categories I have to conclude that I don’t fit any of the descriptions. “Canadian”, unfortunately, was not one of the choices.

(Via Mike Silverman, who the quiz didn’t listen to either).

No one can say whether a northward exodus of liberal Americans will materialize. After the dust of this hotly contested election settles, they will reflect on other priorities, including home, employment and family. But an influx of left-leaning Yankees might well invigorate the Canadian political scene. After all, if they became citizens, they would probably be natural Conservatives.

Meanwhile, Damian is amused by the idea that some of them could claim refugee status. Like him, I’d love to see them try.

But could she really win? Could she capture more votes than John Kerry did last night? Certainly she’s more charismatic. She’s a proven campaigner and she was probably the brains behind any good decisions that Clinton made during his term. And both she and her husband are evidently still hugely popular.

But would it be enough?

I can’t help but think that… god damn, this election is just barely over! Can we give it a rest for a while before we start campaigning for the next one???

The trouble is, the combination of results that have given the Republicans another four years in the White House, significant gains in Congress and a virtual lock on the Senate all at the same time. That means that one side pretty much dominates all three houses – as opposed to the tenuous hold they had last term. And no matter what side the power is concentrated on, that is too much power for one team in a nation that is very much bitterly divided.

The GOP doesn’t have much to hold them back now. Despite the fact that nearly half the country didn’t vote for them, they have a popular vote win, a win on “their” issues in many direct questions, and pretty much a free rein to move the country even further to the right for the next four years – and, with Supreme Court appointments, for a long time after that.

Gay marriage is not an issue that should be decided by popular vote – because a majority shouldn’t get to decide to deny rights to a minority. But look for the Republicans to push ahead for a nationwide constitutional ban on gay marriage, for no good reason other than because many people find the idea distasteful. In fact, this issue probably helped Bush win the election, by encouraging Conservatives to go cast a vote. Similarly, abortion is once again in trouble. We can probably expect a woman’s right to choose being gradually chipped away in the next few years.

Many Kerry supporters are disappointed because they fear another four years of what they perceive to be devastating international policies by the Bush team. Personally, I’m much more concerned about the domestic American scene. In fact, the Democrats most likely lost this election by assuming Iraq was the only issue, and failing to make a strong case for their liberal values at home.

And with so much power concentrated on the Republican side, I admit I’m worried. I’d be just as worried if all the power were concentrated on the left. Either way, too much power in one camp with too few checks and balances is a dangerous thing.

But the big question going into this election was, would they or wouldn’t they?

The Jewish vote has been heavily Democratic since time immortal. But in light of 9/11, the war on terror, the situation in Israel and the alignment of the far left with Israel’s enemies, would some lifelong Jewish Democrats shift their allegiance to Bush? Would committed Democrats react like Meryl and Lynn and vote for Bush because of international issues? Or would they act more like Allison, putting these issues aside to vote for the candidate who they still feel is best on domestic issues?

Ha’aretz is reporting that Bush picked up 22% of the Jewish vote this election. That’s up 3 percentage points from the 19% he got in 2000. So it seems that there were at least some Jewish voters who switched allegiances.

On the other hand, that’s still 78% of Jewish voters casting their ballots for Kerry. And the “why” isn’t exactly a mystery:

They predicted “anticipated conflicts” between the Republican majority on Capitol Hill and the Jewish community on issues such as separation of church and state, abortion, gay rights, and same-sex marriage – issues, one Jewish leader said Wednesday, on which “the vast majority of the Jewish community disapproves of the Republicans’ positions and views.”

The voting broke down similarly for Jews as it did for Christians, with the more secular voting for Kerry and the ultra-Orthodox religious allying more closely with Bush:

According to unconfirmed results, Bush won 75 percent of Jewish votes in two large Brooklyn voting precincts that have a substantial concentration of Orthodox Jews, compared to a 25 percent turnout for Kerry.

Ultra-Orthodox activists predicted Wednesday that the final results will prove that other voting precincts in Brooklyn with an ultra-Orthodox populace overwhelmingly supported Bush.

[ . . . ]

“In the current elections, Orthodox Jews played within the community the role of evangelicals in the general electorate,” Furst said. The difference is that evangelicals make up about 40 percent of America’s population, while the percentage of Orthodox members in the Jewish community does not exceed 10 percent.

That may be so, but it’s telling that the division line in the sand seems to be religious versus secular, not one religion versus another. (The Muslim vote, of course, is an exception. An estimated 93% of Muslims voted for Kerry.)

At any rate, the big story here hasn’t materialized the way some people thought it might. The Jewish population did not become conservative overnight, abandoning decades of liberal values in order to vote for a president whose support for Israel is – at least in part – due to his evangelical Christian beliefs. Considering that there was no Joseph Lieberman on the Democratic ticket this time around, getting only 3% less of the Jewish vote than four years ago can hardly be called a defeat for Kerry.

I could lament the fact that I missed my chance to blog the day after the US election… but I won’t. First of all, there’s nothing to say that hasn’t already been said. And second of all, I was too busy at work to blog.

Besides, according to CBS MarketWatch, nobody’s reading blogs anyway. Well, that’s certainly true in my case…

Kerry should have conceded hours earlier, but at least he didn’t drag this out for weeks. Now, love him or hate him, Americans at least know that Bush is their president.

But many of the networks are still labelling it “too close to call”, pointing to the slim 140,000-vote margin in Ohio for Bush that, if eradicated, could theoretically swing the election to Kerry.

Frankly, I think Ohio is still the big story because the major media networks want it to be the big story. That’s where they sent all their reporters, so that’s where they’re expecting the story. Plenty of other states have even slimmer margins and have been declared for one candidate or the other.

Bush won the popular vote convincingly this time, unlike four years ago. And he’s leading in the three states that the networks have yet to call, including the all-crucial Ohio. Very soon, Kerry’s going to come under a lot of pressure to concede. This isn’t Florida in 2000, no matter how much people were expecting it to be. This is a solid victory and Kerry should be gracious enough to admit it.

The Bush victory was pretty expected, and I don’t have much to say about it that a million other bloggers haven’t already said. Personally, I think the more telling stories were some of the direct ballot questions, particularly the issue of gay marriage. 11 states have banned gay marriage by passing constitutional amendments to disallow it. This is a serious step back for human rights in the United States, and it’s extremely sad that so many people have turned out in droves to deny even the possibility of granting rights to a minority that are already enjoyed by the majority.

I could say much more about this election, but I’m posting manually since blogger seems to be down (perhaps overloaded with election blogging?) so I’ll leave it at that… for now. More to come.

For what it’s worth, here’s my US election prediction: A narrow win for Bush, but not so narrow that it takes a month in the courts to sort out.

Why? Simply beacuse all these neck-and-neck polls for months have shown Bush slightly ahead. Kerry has never been leading at any point in this campaign.

I think that most Americans – whether fairly or unfairly – feel that Bush understands that there’s a war going on better than Kerry understands this. Implicitly they trust Bush over Kerry on security. And tomorrow at the polls, I think they’ll give Dubya four more years.

But hey, I could be wrong.

I’m not so naive as to think that the media is truly objective, but I do believe it ought to at least strive for objectivity. A newspaper ought to report the news, not be a propaganda vehicle for a given party or candidate. Endorsements directly negate any semblance of objectivity.

This US election, we’ve seen bloggers – large and small alike – boarding the endorsement train. Damian Penny is endorsing Bush. Andrew Sullivan has endorsed Kerry. Some blogs, like LGF for Bush and Daily Kos for Kerry, have become de facto campaign tools.

In a way, I’m much more comfortable with blogger endorsements than with media endorsements… because blogging is all about relating one’s personal opinion. People read bloggers for a certain viewpoint or perspective, not for objectivity. A blogger offering an endorsement is akin to offering his or her opinion, which, let’s face it, is the raison d’être of blogging.

But I’m not about to be presumptuous enough to offer an endorsement here. Why? Several reasons:

• First of all, my readership — all 9 of you — doesn’t really care what I think about the election, and even if you did, most of you are Canadian and can’t vote in it anyway. “Endorsement” differs from “opinion” in the grandiosity of the words. An opinion is just that — a mere opinion. An endorsement, on the other hand, implies a certain importance. And I don’t harbour any delusions of importance, nor do I really believe that anyone would — or should — be influenced by my opinion.
• Secondly, I’m not American either. And again, while I can have my opinions, the issues I’d be concerned about as a Canadian are not the same issues as American citizens have to weigh in this election.
• And finally, because I don’t think that either Bush or Kerry is worthy of endorsing in this election. I was “undecided” for a long time and now I’m in the “I don’t care, just pick a leader” camp. Of course, this is an easy cop-out, given that I’m Canadian. If I were American I’d probably have to weigh the issues and finally hold my nose and vote for one or the other, because I firmly believe that it’s extremely important for every citizen to vote, and I wouldn’t be able to justify not voting. But I don’t have to make a decision, so I won’t.

It’s a cop-out, perhaps, but I refuse to believe that the issues are as black-and-white as the Democratic and Republican campaigns are trying to make them out to be.

For example, the Republicans claim Kerry’s unfit for leadership because he flip-flops on issues. But I think that a good leader should be willing to make situational decisions, and to change a decision based on input or new information. Maybe Kerry’s more nuanced style isn’t weakness but openness. I also think that Kerry’s not foolish enough to truly compromise American security or to pull troops out of Iraq prematurely. Despite what some people claim, he knows that the US created the situation in Iraq, and that the US can’t just leave without solving it.

Similarly, I don’t think that the innuendo-based attacks on Bush are fair to him. The widespread panic about reinstating the draft is nothing more than a scare-tactic designed to turn voters away from Bush. And instead of banding together against terrorism, Democrats are blaming the Bush administration for failing to correctly interpret warning signs before 9/11 and failing to prevent the attacks. The 9/11 commission uncovered some glaring mistakes, to be certain… but if Al Gore were President, would he really have done any better? Remember, this was so far off anyone’s radar screen before 9/11 that anyone who warned about it incessantly would be accused of fear-mongering.

I’m equally torn on domestic issues. Bush has created a huge deficit and giant economic woes… but was that entirely his fault? The economy was on the verge of recession when Clinton handed him the reins, and between the tech stock crash and 9/11, economic problems were a near-certainty. Nor do I truly believe Kerry will end NAFTA, as many Canadians fear. But economy-wise, it’s hard to tell who would be better. Kerry seems disturbingly like a protectionist, while Bush has implemented tariffs. The rhetoric about “tax cuts for the wealthy” is a Kerry campaign favourite, as is the notion that Bush is subsidizing the outsourcing of American jobs, but I doubt Kerry would be able to do much about either.

The Bush team has crawled steadily to the right, pandering to interest groups who believe that guns are good, abortion and gay marriage is bad, and decisions should be made based on Christian faith. This, too, is a bit of an oversimplification; in four years in office, Bush hasn’t directly done much to threaten the separation of church and state. But I’d trust Kerry’s judgeship appointments over Bush’s, in terms of setting out a future for the country. The fact that the Republicans would use a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as a campaign tack, even though they know it would never pass, says a lot about the types of divisions they’re aiming to create in American society.

Kerry, for his part, is more solid on these issues but his “internationalist” policies concern me. Though AIPAC’s record on Kerry shows him to be a good friend to Israel, the amount of faith he has in the United Nations concerns me. Similarly, many American allies are very concerned about Kerry because they think he’ll try to get them on board on issues that they have no intention of supporting. For them, it’s easier with Bush, because at least he won’t ask so they won’t have to refuse.

Nothing’s as simple as thirty-second campaign spots make it out to be. But ultimately, the right to vote is what’s important. My only hope for this election is that a leader is chosen quickly by the people, not by the courts.

• Sharon’s Gaza disengagement plan was approved by the Knesset after some typically-Israeli political jockeying that’s still ongoing. Netanyahu’s threatening mutiny unless Sharon agrees to hold a referendum, but so far, Sharon’s not budging. The settler fringe is of course up in arms – somewhat literally – and on the anniversary of the Rabin assassination, some can’t help but wonder if Sharon is looking over his shoulder these days. Despite being uncomfortable with the idea of the plan being perceived by the Palestinians as a reward for terrorism, and my general overall pessimism about the whole conflict, I can’t help but think that despite the mess, Sharon will land on his feet. He always does. For more, see Allison and Jonathan.

• The CJC has Issued another statement responding to the remarks by Canadian Islamic Congress leader Mohamed Elmasry that said that all adult Israelis are ‘legitimate targets’ for terrorism. The CJC statement called the CIC marginal and irrelevant, no matter whether Elmasry resigns or not. The CIC, you will recall, likes to believe it speaks for all Canadian Muslims. I personally am waiting to hear a huge outcry from Canadian Muslims who believe that this organization does not represent them. I’m still waiting. I think I’ll be waiting a while. The police, by the way, are investigating Elmasry’s remarks as a hate crime.

• Speaking of the CIC, they’re the same group that issued an election report card urging Canadian Muslims to vote for or against specific candidates (seemingly based on how pro- or anti-Israel they are). Damian points to anti-American remarks by Liberal MP Yasmin Rantisi, the first Muslim woman elected to Parliament. Something tells me the CIC would give her an “A”.

• Arafat’s ill health continues to dominate the news. My feeling is that this is an overexaggeration designed to cause panic and an outpouring of sympathy for Arafat. Meryl’s not betting on anything but she does have an interesting idea for a Magen David Adom matching fund if any Arab dictators croak. Arafat would be included in this, it seems. MDA is one of my favourite charities and the irony just seems deliciously appropriate.

• Less than a week before the US election and it’s still too close to call. I’m thinking Tuesday might be a good time to actually get some work done, since everyone will be preoccupied with voting and watching the results. Hmmmm.

• There was a lunar eclipse tonight. I didn’t get much of a view of it but I hear that people who had clear skies and lines of sight were wowed.

• Oh yeah, and the Red Sox won the World Series, breaking an 86-year “curse”.

Everywhere I turned were political messages. The restaurants, the coffee shops… it was just inescapable. While walking down the street, the same woman asked me three times if I wanted to “help elect John Kerry”. Each time I smiled at her and said, “sorry, I’m Canadian”. By the third time I just said “still Canadian” and kept walking. She didn’t miss a beat.

Being Canadian in Washington ten days before the election is kind of like being the only sober person in a room full of drunks. By being a step or two outside the action, you can afford a sense of perspective that most people don’t have. Maybe that’s why it’s so obvious to me how bad things truly are.

The truly frightening thing to see is how people are confusing political opinion with personality. These days, you don’t just “vote” Republican or Democrat, you are a Republican or a Democrat – in a much more literal sense than ever before. People assume that if you’re on the opposing side, you’re lower than pond scum, definitely not worth speaking to or even the time of day. Everyone assumes the people they’re speaking to are on “their” side, and that their favourite pastime is to bash the other side. It frustrates them to no end when you choose not to play along.

I can’t help but wonder what will happen the day after the election. I’ve never seen people so divided. But somebody’s going to be elected, and the half of the people who didn’t vote for him will be very disappointed. Will the country be able to reunite and get over this election and move on? I wonder how long the wounds will take to heal.

A message to my American friends, if you’re reading: I realize that, despite the impact that this election may have on us as your neighbours and on the rest of the world, it’s really your election and your decision. I don’t think we have any business butting in. I realize passions are running high and you probably think that catastrophe will strike if your side loses. But please, please don’t lose sight of what’s important. Whether Bush wins, or Kerry wins, life will go on.

I’m just glad to be back home, where I can watch the rest of this boxing match from the sidelines.

This is an amazing feat for a President who has stumbled his way through these debates, doing a convincing job of making it look like he was being fed the answers from offstage. The wide-eyed surprise, the long pauses, the stumbles… sure, that’ll win him a debate.

But it has. Because Kerry has fought this entire campaign on the basis that people should elect him because he’s not Bush. That’s been fine and dandy for attracting the “we’d rather vote for Hitler than Bush” crowd… but hasn’t done much to sway the undecideds.

I’m no particular fan of Bush, but it’s looking a lot like four more years are coming up. In this, an election that the Democratic candidate should have won in a cakewalk. The Democrats will have nobody to blame for a loss but themselves.

Bush: “Kerry’s a liberal senator from Massachusetts… yadda yadda yadda.”

Yawn.

From what I saw, it wasn’t a rout, but Cheney had the edge over Edwards by quite a bit. In somewhat of a reversal of the first Presidential debate, it was Cheney who came across as calm, informed, and on the ball, while Edwards stumbled quite a bit. I even saw him repeat Bush’s mistake of saying “Saddam Hussein” when he meant “Osama bin Laden”. Sheesh.

That said, both of these guys seemed like much better leadership material than either Bush or Kerry. Why couldn’t the race be between these two?

Paul Martin proved that you can lose the debate and win the election. Kerry may have won the battle tonight but at the moment, he still seems to be losing the war.

The felt flew during a rain-drenched Times Square debate between President Bush and Democratic contender John Kerry – in puppet form – on the afternoon before the real deal in Florida.

Thanks to “Avenue Q” producers and cast members, the naughty puppet citizens of the Tony-winning Broadway musical launched edgy questions about such edgy issues as unemployment, gay marriage and military service during Thursday’s “Avenue Q & A.”

It was a one-time-only comedic event that warned: “Any similarity between puppets and actual presidential candidates is purely coincidental.”

Three cheers to Avenue Q, one of the most brilliant, funny shows I’ve ever seen, for this hilarious concept. I bet the debate was more interesting than the real one.

The largely party-line vote in the Republican-led House was 227-186, 49 votes short of what was required for approval.

In July, Democratic-led foes blocked a similar measure in the 100-member Senate where proponents failed to get even a simple majority to lift a procedural hurdle against it.

[ . . . ]

Democrats charged that Republicans have pushed the measure, along with other proposals which had little chance of passing, merely to divide voters and rally social conservatives.

Of course, voters aren’t left with much of a choice, as none of the candidates in this election have been willing to clearly speak out against the continued discrimination of gays and lesbians on this issue. Instead, voters have a choice between Bush – who wants to ban their right to marry – and Kerry, who thinks the states should get to decide:

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose gay marriage. Yet like most fellow Democrats in Congress, they favor leaving the matter to individual states.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter, has said he also believes states should decide whether to sanction same-sex marriages, but that Bush sets the administration’s positions.

One day, the US leadership will realize that continuing to maintain a second-class citizenry is wrong. Until then, I suppose gay people can always come to Canada.

Overall, both Bush and Kerry came across much better in the debate than any of the Canadian candidates did in our election debates a couple of months ago… but unfortunately, that’s not saying much. Neither of them seemed like buffoons. Both were well-coached, and both were trying very hard to inspire the confidence of the American people. But neither is a true leader. Neither offers the type of inspired, straight, honest, and committed leadership that I believe the American people want and maybe even deserve.

Kerry is the better debater. Hands down. He had the luxury of speaking in generalities, because he doesn’t have to defend his record the way Bush does. Even at that, he sounded stiff, robotic, and hedged on most of the issues. Although he relaxed somewhat as the debate went on, he seemed on more solid ground while attacking Bush’s past decisions rather than laying out future strategies of his own. Bush’s strategy was to paint Kerry as indecisive, waffling, and lacking in true conviction, and Kerry played into his hands. By speaking endlessly about how he wants to bring fresh credibility to the US on the international scene, he was basically saying that his main basis for being elected is that he’s not Bush. Well, that’s not good enough.

Bush, if anything, sounded more relaxed than Kerry and relied heavily on the “aw-shucks” demeanour that he plays like a fine-tuned instrument. That said, many questions – which should have been anticipated by his team – left Bush looking like a deer caught in headlights. Despite throwing in a few 4-syllable words (I wonder if they were spelled out for him fo-ne-ti-cly) in rehearsed statements, Bush stumbled often and didn’t seem really comfortable unless he was repeating one of his talking points… over and over again. If I heard him use the words “mixed messages” one more time, I might have thrown something at the TV.

Kerry spent a lot of time attacking Bush but it’s difficult to ascertain what Kerry’s positions are. I was watching and really hoping that he would put forth some vision. Bush, on the other hand, spent a lot of time defending decisions and positions that were ill-advised or just plain wrong.

Watching Bush was more like watching a second-grader learn to read. He slipped up at one point, saying “Saddam Hussein – er – I mean, Bin Laden”, which of course, proved Kerry’s point – that Bush couldn’t tell the difference. Major wince. Oh, and I still maintain that anyone who can’t pronounce “nuclear” shouldn’t be allowed to have his finger on the button.

Kerry, for his part, scored points on the attack in the manner of a veteran debater. He quoted popular sayings quite often. He gave rehearsed answers to questions that weren’t quite asking for them. He spun a web of words. The problem was finding the substance behind the words. He criticized Bush at every turn but didn’t offer anything concrete in terms of his own plans or strategies, beyond merely stating that he has some. Does he? Beyond wanting to call in more allies and make multilateral decisions, I’ve yet to hear them. He may have wiped the floor with Bush in debate technique, but Bush might still retain the psychological edge.

On a personal note, some of Kerry’s positions – namely his continued faith in the UN to resolve international conflict, and his seeming thought that America can make the terrorists hate it less by being nicer – concern me. It’s hard to tell if these are his positions though, since he hasn’t been too clear. Bush, for his part, has always concerned me and continues to do so. He seems to show an appalling misunderstanding of the distinctions between different groups, preferring to paint them all as the generic “bad guys”.

Overall, I’m glad I’m not American and don’t have to vote in this election.

Update: For more in-depth coverage, see Damian Penny’s liveblogging of the debate.

Go check out the site; it’s a hilarious spoof on celebs in politics.

I hope you all found the breather refreshing. But it’s now September, so the election is fair game. And while I don’t plan on turning this into an American politics blog, the occasional mention will probably creep in from time to time in the next couple of months.

Here’s a summary of some of my thoughts to date:

Either-or

First off, I’m really really glad not to be American right now.

Please don’t take this the wrong way. I don’t dislike Americans. I don’t hate the United States. But I’m grateful not to have to figure out who to vote for in this election.

The problem with the two-party system – and I’ve ranted about this before – is that they are two-party systems. Either-or. Left or right. One extreme or another.

I’ve always more or less assumed I’d vote Democrat if I were American… but could I really bring myself to vote for the party who is in denial that a war is being fought? Whose idea of Mideast policymaking is to draw moral equivalences between the Palestinians and Israel? Who believes that being politically-correct beats being truly correct? Who blames everything on the catchall culprits of the white and the wealthy, while simultaneously nominating candidates who are – you guessed it – white and wealthy? Who is better at making excuses for terror than at fighting it? A party that associates itself with the far-left wingnuts and makes no apologies for that?

But then, while Bush’s Mideast policies have been sounder, most of the rest of his policies have been disasters. Could I ever really vote for a party who believes that the “right to bear arms” supersedes the rights of people not to get shot? Who pushes for Christian prayer in schools, wants to limit a woman’s right to choose, and thinks that gay people don’t really deserve all the same rights as the rest of us? A party who has made an utter mess of the economy and used foreign policy to distract people from the fact that they don’t have jobs? A party who invaded Iraq under false pretences, because no matter how much I might think that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, there’s no denying that Bush didn’t exactly go about it in the best way. A party who associates itself with the far right wingnuts and makes no apologies for that?

No, the either-or choice is really no choice at all. I honestly think I might be tempted, if I were American, to shirk my right to vote and waste it on someone like Mickey Mouse.

Mud-slinging

Second, like most elections, including our last Canadian one, this has devolved from a debate of ideas into an attack of characters. The Bush team has been merrily attacking Kerry’s Vietnam record, and then dissociating itself from the attacks. The Kerry team has been adopting some of the Bush-is-Hitler crowd to do its dirty work. The personal smears, low blows, and mudslinging are turning off the average American from politics, and it just gets worse every election.

People bemoan the fact that nobody votes, but they never stop to wonder why. I think a lot more people would get involved in politics if it was truly about platforms and ideas. But people are sick of unflattering photos of candidates’ wives, attacks on personal history, or flinging of insults. They’re tired of corruption. And they’re annoyed because candidates keep asking for their votes on the basis that they’re “not as bad” as the other guy. I’m sorry, but I just don’t think that’s good enough anymore. And neither should most people. If it’s true that populations get the government that they deserve, then it’s time for Americans to demand better from their politicians.

Annoying celebrities

From Arnie to Dixie, and from the Boss to Britney, celebrities seem to be increasingly speaking out – or spewing – their political views to anyone who is willing to listen. Arnold Schwarzenegger is, at least, an actual politician, and has the votes and the office to prove it.

But most celebrities are not politicians, nor should they be. Many form their political views in the same way that they get their fashion sense. I’m starting to think that Alice Cooper has a good point:

If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons.

Cooper, incidentally, is a Republican.

Polarization

Finally, as I’ve noticed on recent trips to the US, the population seems more polarized than ever at the moment. Whoever wins in November is going to piss off half the population, and it will probably be even tougher to reunite the country than it was in 2000. People on the left blame Bush for everything that’s wrong in their lives, and people on the right think that Kerry will make everything go wrong in theirs. It’s easy to get caught up in partisanship; it will be much tougher to build bridges across that divide and remind people that, left or right, they’re all Americans.

In a way, the polarization reminds me of 1995 in Quebec. Federalists and separatists alike maligned, smeared, and hated each other so much that most of us wondered if the province would ever recover. We did, of course. Eventually we realized that we could all just agree to disagree and that the other side didn’t have horns growing out of their heads. But the next referendum will probably divide us all over again. And that’s some of what I see happening in the States.

That’s the saddest part of all. Because in such a bitterly divided election, no matter who wins, everyone loses.

Lynn is not impressed by Arafat’s mea culpa and neither is Meryl. Neither am I, for that matter. Arafat’s line about how “even the prophets made mistakes” sounds more like an egotistical attempt for Arafat to compare himself to a prophet than anything else. I guess megalomania comes with the territory for dictators. Whatever.

LGF has the Muslim self-congratulations for vote influence in Canada, which is a logical follow-up to some of what I posted before the election.

Damian has some thoughts about the backlash against Springsteen for participating in the concerts for John Kerry. I think he nails the issue – it’s silly to boycott all celebs for their political views unless they’re extreme. But if people want to boycott, or to criticize, that’s part of freedom of speech as well. Personally I wish celebs would butt out of politics and stick to their areas of expertise, but I know that’s about as likely to happen as peace in the middle east.

And finally, a shout-out to the newest link on my blogroll, Autonomous Source. Bruce is a blogger from right here in Quebec, and definately worth a read.

Poll: Many Americans Still Unsure Whom To Vote Against

WASHINGTON, DC — According to Gallup Poll results released Monday, 6 percent of Americans are still undecided about whether to vote against President Bush or Democratic challenger John Kerry in November’s presidential election.

Gotta love the Onion.

President Bush on Wednesday rejected international condemnation of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and said world leaders owed him a “thank you” for his plans for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Bush blasted the Palestinian leadership as having “failed the people, year after year after year” by not preventing terrorism against the Jewish state.

Many pro-Israel bloggers, like LGF and Damian Penny, are commending Bush for having the guts to speak the truth. And I certainly won’t argue the veracity of Bush’s statements.

But the cynic in me notes two facts: 1) The Israelis aren’t exactly impressed and 2) it’s an election year.

Israel is skeptical. The tiny country has learned the hard way that relying on your friends – even your best friends – can only take you so far. Sooner or later they all turn on you and you have to be able to rely on yourself. Bush is only a friend to Israel as long as it’s politically savvy to be one.

And in an election year, Bush has no doubt calculated that his core base of the religious right is staunchly pro-Zionist. And he may even be thinking that some of the votes he’ll lose to Kerry over the Iraq war might be recouped by stealing some of the traditionally-Democratic Jewish votes, though this is less likely (despite what the conspiracy freakazoids will tell you) because, well, the Jewish vote isn’t that big and most of them will vote Democrat anyway.

In any case, the battle lines were drawn a long time ago, but now they’re digging in at the trenches. The U.S. and Israel are lined up against – well – pretty much everyone. The United States is a great friend to Israel but at the same time, the pariah status that Israel has enjoyed is now also shared by Bush and his government.

This just brings to mind the strange bedfellows caution: be careful who you get too close to. Despite Bush’s recent statements, Sharon isn’t exactly going to win any popularity polls in the Arab world, or even in Europe. And, for that matter, neither is Bush. For the enemies of the U.S. and Israel, this is just the same old song. If Israel wants to score some points in world opinion, it needs the endorsement of more than just the United States.

I’ve been watching the hearings of the independent commission of Sept. 11 on CNN, and it is frustrating. Did the administration under FDR have to face a similar inquiry about lapses of failure after Pearl Habour? (That is strictly a rhetorical question, okay?)

There is so astounding a lack of common sense and humility in these proceedings that it begs the questions Are you more interested in winning this war or this election? In what way does what did or did not happen before Sept. 11 actually pertain to the post-Sept. 11 period?

Honestly, just when did The Blame Game become the second American pastime?

[ . . . ]

I can’t summon up outrage against the Clinton administration. I can’t summon up outrage against the Bush administration. The somebody should have known mindset is all very well and good if you actually believe the technology in The X-Files is online and available to our government.

[ . . . ]

Ooh, brainstorm! Why don’t we just blame the terrorists for Sept. 11?

Because, Debbye, people are more interested in pinning catastrophes on their political rivals than on those really at fault. Left blames right. Right blames left. And the cycle continues.

I’m tired of reading endless attacks and character smears on Kerry from right-wing sites, and just as tired of hearing them about Bush from left-wing sites. Yes, it’s an election year. Yes, passions run high and there are certainly people out there who are party-loyal and view the other guys as the devils-incarnate. And yes, maybe it’s easier for me, with my outsider’s perspective, to roll my eyes and remark that it doesn’t matter.

That’s right. I said it doesn’t matter.

Because the terrorists don’t hate Americans because they have a Republican president. They hate Americans because they’re Americans. September 11th would have happened even if Gore won the Florida battle… and the terrorists wouldn’t have batted an eyelash when the whole world tried to make him out to be the devil incarnate.

Would Gore’s team have attacked Iraq? Unlikely. And yeah, that changes things somewhat on the world scene. But would the terrorists have capitulated or given up with a Democrat in the White House? Not a chance! Most of the planning for 9/11 took place during Clinton’s term.

So vote for Bush. Or for Kerry. Or for Nader. Or for Mickey Mouse. Or for the Purple People Eater. The terrorists aren’t going to start loving the U.S. no matter who Americans elect as their President… unless it’s Bin Laden. (Hmmm, I figure he could probably dominate the election in San Francisco…)

The “Great Satan” of America is a myth that’s believed by a large portion of the world… and they don’t care who the Americans vote for as their President – they just care that Americans can vote at all.

I’m so sick of seeing this basic truism being turned into a finger-pointing election issue that I felt it necessary to break my promise and rant about it. Now I’m done, and we’re back to our regularly-scheduled programming. But 9/11 wasn’t Bush’s fault, or Clinton’s fault, and it’s certainly not Kerry’s fault or Gore’s fault or Rice’s fault or Rumsfeld’s fault. Like Debbye said, it’s the terrorists’ fault. And somehow I doubt that the families of the 3,000 people who were murdered in the WTC would grant anyone the right to cheapen their lives as an election issue.

Bush 2004 Campaign Pledges To Restore Honor And Dignity To White House

Addressing guests at a $2,000-a-plate fundraiser, George W. Bush pledged Monday that, if re-elected in November, he and running mate Dick Cheney will “restore honor and dignity to the White House.”

Right now it’s the Primaries for the Democrats. Dean versus Kerry versus Edwards versus Lieberman versus Clark versus . . . yes, I know there are more of them. But with all the analysis possible on the issues, the campaign speeches, the voting results, there’s only one overwhelming, all-encompassing truth to the process: it’s BORING as hell!

And to make matters worse, in the Primaries they go state by state. Sheesh, get it over with and pick a leader, would you?

Then, there’s the ad nauseum commentary on everything Dubya does or says, from the State of the Union address to whether he likes milk with his cornflakes, and how it will affect his re-election chances. Who cares what the polls say in January… the election’s not till NOVEMBER!!!

So here’s my promise to you. Seeing as how it’s a long way from now until November, and how practically every blogger in the blogosphere will be endlessly analysing every step of the campaign to death, I won’t. Like CHOM’s promise last November not to play any Christmas songs until a week before Christmas, I promise no US election coverage until September. None. Nada.

(Of course, if something really big happens, all promises are off, like, oh, say, Howard Dean donning a keffiyah. Oh wait, that did happen. Silly me.)

This doesn’t mean I won’t be covering US politics. That’s still fair game. But it does mean no campaign analysis, no Primary coverage, no betting on the odds and for the love of god, no mention of Al Sharpton! (After this one.)

I hope you find this a better blog because of it. And in the meantime, let’s discuss something more interesting politically… like this morning’s discussion on CHOM about whether Belinda Stronach is hot. Yes, it’s a very in-depth, mature radio morning show.

If Al Gore’s endorsement propels Howard Dean to victory in the Democratic primaries, as many pundits are suggesting it will, then next November, the American public will be faced with a choice even more polarized than in 2000, when Gore himself ran against Bush:

Mr. Dean hopes the endorsement also eases concerns among party leaders about his lack of foreign-policy experience, testy temperament, policy flip-flops, campaign miscues and edgy anti-war, anti-establishment message.

“What this says is that all these Washington insiders who have been gnashing their teeth, wringing their hands and clinging to their cocktail cups can relax now. Dean’s been knighted by the ultimate insider,” Democratic consultant Dean Strother said. “It’s game, set and match. It’s over.”

Well, game and set, perhaps. But personally, I don’t think it will be “match” until we see who Bill Clinton chooses to endorse.

People like [music journalist Kerry] Doole don’t believe a televised contest, one built around cover versions, is the best way to find Canada’s next musical star. “It can assess a very limited type of musical talent – the talent of mimicry,” Doole says. “The stress appears to be on vocal ability, rather than any kind of originality or creativity.”

For Canadian Idol’s detractors, that’s the central issue – since the contestants only do cover songs, it’s impossible to assess how much raw talent they have. After all, Gordon Lightfoot and Joni Mitchell and Neil Young didn’t become music legends by singing covers.

“Ultimately, the only way you make music is by listening to your own voice, certainly not putting yourself in front of a panel that’s trying to create hit songs,” says Jim Cuddy, one of Blue Rodeo’s two front men.

In other words, it’s nothing but a glorified karaoke contest. Which is why I don’t watch it.

The game of “what if” can be endless and pointless but it can also be fun. So I was thinking about what might have happened if the outcome of the 2000 election was different. What if the whole Florida ballot scandal never happened and Al Gore was voted into office in 2000?

In light of the events of the past few years, a lot of people might think that this would have been the worst possible thing for the US. But I’m not so sure. Because September 11th, 2001 would have happened no matter who was in the White House. Clearly, the US government had to strike back. Republican or Democrat, no US president could have reacted otherwise to an attack on American soil. The speeches might have been worded differently, but ultimately the reaction against Al Qua’eda and against the Taliban would have been military, just as it was – swift and decisive.

Where the difference might have come in is in events since. Oh sure, you could argue that a Democratic government might not have attacked Iraq. There’s no way to really know but I somehow doubt that’s the case. Faced with the same situation, the same set of facts, and the same military procedures, I have a feeling any government would have come to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein needed toppling. The world is a different place than it was in 2000.

So then what? Right now we have a polarized US – indeed, a polarized world. Bush is, to all but his supporters, only about a step worse than the devil incarnate. The decisions of his government are easily attacked and dismissed as hawkish, right-wing, gun-slinging Texas cowboy acts, when in truth Bush is merely acting on the advice of the experts 99% of the time. But as a Republican, he’s an easy target.

But a Democrat making those kinds of decisions? Well, he’d be a bit tougher to attack, wouldn’t he? For one thing, there would probably be a lot of money directed to CYA reports on politically-correct issues to try to appease the naysayers. For another thing, where would the Left go, after abandoning Gore? To the Republicans?

Ironically, it would probably have been a lot easier for Gore to get United Nations support and backing than it was for Bush. And as a result, the anti-American sentiment that is so heightened right now in Europe and around the world might not be nearly as prominent. It’s one of the paradoxes of politics, that a dovish leader has an easier time making war, just as a hawkish leader has an easier time making peace.

Is this what would have happened if a few hundred ballots in Florida were counted differently in 2000? Short of inventing a time machine and changing the past, we obviously can’t know. There are too many variables. But with the next election coming up in a little over a year, it makes interesting food for thought.

Look for comments from the usual antisemitic suspects about the “Jews taking over the world” in, oh, about 30 seconds.