Dear Americans,
Please vote for Barack Obama today.
Also, Californians please Vote NO on Prop. 8!
Thanks,
Dave
Never mind the public hearings scheduled for February 17, 2008, the Edmonton Journal seems to have framed Edmonton City Council’s proposed Ward changes as a fait accompli.
Though I support changing Edmonton City Council representation from the current 6-Ward/2-Councillor system to a 12-Ward/1-Councillor system (for various reasons including size, population, etc), I also believe that public hearings are an important part of this decision-making process and should not be overlooked as a formality.
Also, this isn’t the first time that the Ward debate has come up…
“The ward issue languished until shortly after the 1986 election, when two city council members, Ron Hayter and Jan Reimer, announced the ward system was totally inadequate and called for changes to be made. After Reimer moved that the wards be increased from six to twelve, with one member elected from each, council referred the proposal to a committee chaired by Hayter. Although he made a concerted effort to obtain support for ward reform, public response was unenthusiastic, and reform efforts collapsed when Mayor Decore, who had just been re-elected with one of the largest majorities in the city’s history, announced that he needed a lot of convincing that “we should shake up the system” and he had “difficulties” accepting the idea of single-member wards. In September 1987 council narrowly defeated a proposal calling for twelve wards with a single member elected from each. Alderman Lilian Staroszik explained that, in her opinion, Edmonton already had “probably the best possible representation.”*
*Masson, Jack; Edward C. LeSage Jr. (1994). Alberta’s Local Governments:Politics and Democracy. University of Alberta Press, pp. 297
I began 2007 excited by the Presidential contest to come. The field for both parties was deep and varied. For the first time, I was rooting for a Republican. After watching the 2000 contest, I believed John McCain to be an individual with a history of personal sacrifice and unbending integrity: ingredients to be one of the great presidents. In the period following 9/11, I could not help but think that the war-hero senator would have been ideal to steer the western world into the New World Order. My impression of rookie Senator Barack Obama was less charitable. I found him to be all flash and no substance, as if he were giving clinics on stirring oration less than engaging in substantive policy debate.
However, in the course of my fascination/obsession with this presidential contest, my sentiments on both men have transformed immensely. As Senator Obama showed himself to be a visionary leader, speaking to my logical and emotional capacities, Senator McCain disturbed me with his seemingly insatiable desire to win-at-all-costs, blindly pandering to those whom he had so courageously held fast against in the past.
Throughout the course of the election, Sen. McCain has failed to articulate a cohesive, consistent message. Surveying the varied message themes of the campaign, a common thread begins to emerge: A promise to take care of current problems, which should get America back on track. The difficulty with this message is that it assumes that fixing the current state of things is all that is required to move forward; that a reversion to the Reagan Revolution will ensure the prosperity of America as if that period was its cultural, economic and social zenith. Indeed, in 2000, Sen. McCain tended to rely more on his compelling personal narrative than a political one, but even then his platform seemed more of his own devising than a pastiche of focus-group-tested planks designed to appease sections of the Republican base.
Conversely, Sen. Obama has developed a bold new paradigm for American progress. Rather than merely correcting the mistakes of the current administration, Sen. Obama seems genuinely intent on ushering in a New American Age. He has outlined a vision for an America that transcends petty dichotomies and has developed a heightened sense of purpose, focused on fulfilling the extraordinary promises ignored for the past 16 years in favor of political posturing and rigid ideological adherence. Sen. Obama reminds us that America’s greatest moments are not those when it reacted appropriately in the face of devastation, but when it forged a new way forward.
Irrespective of the fact that this decision is always made in the most animated of political climates, Vice-Presidential selection should never be a heavily political decision. While campaign promises are reiterated over and over, they can be discarded on the floor of the White House when they become inconvenient or untenable. A Vice-President is a decision that, except in very extreme circumstances, you are stuck with. In Senator Biden, Sen. Obama chose someone to provide much needed foreign policy muscle, both on the campaign trail and in the White House. VP picks don’t get much more straightforward than Sen. Biden.
Sen. McCain, however, made an inappropriate and, by most accounts, impulsive selection in Governor Sarah Palin. Setting aside any debate about her individual abilities, Gov. Palin was a cynical and purely political choice, designed to assure a drifting Republican base and scoop up any discontented Clinton voters making their choice on exclusively superficial grounds. Far and away the most myopic decision for any campaign in either party, the impulsive nature of this choice has backfired in spectacular fashion, locking in the base of the party while repelling independent voters that Sen. McCain was once uniquely positioned to deliver. To boot, the McCain team has spent most of the campaign treating Gov. Palin more like a decorative feature of the campaign rather than a genuine candidate for the second-highest office in the land.
The juxtaposition of temperament between these two candidates, especially in the last two months, has been stark.
While at his best when passionately sermonizing, Sen. Obama has displayed a capacity to be calm and measured when challenged, his confidence shining through in either case. Sen. Obama makes every effort to display his extraordinary leadership qualities and communicates with a conviction and sincerity that is difficult to come across in US politics. Since his convention address, his policies and priorities have been clear and consistent, yielding significant dividends.
In his speeches, Sen. McCain attempts to be reassuring and empathetic, but the open-ended nature of his attacks on Sen. Obama are the only component that manage to attract attention. By engaging in a series of Hail Mary campaign plays, bizarre debate behavior and a seemingly intentional effort to completely change, rather than hone, his campaign narratives, Sen. McCain has managed to undermine his previously well-earned reputation as an experienced, straight-talking candidate with the judgment to lead. His conduct during the initial days of the economic crisis could be charitably described as erratic. Like a desperate car salesman haggling at you rather than with you, his campaign has imploded into an embarrassing spectacle that betrays the ethos of the John McCain I came to admire in 2000.
As the election enters its final five days, Sen. McCain is faced with an unfavorable electoral map suggesting that this election will not be the nail-biting experience of 2000 or 2004. On the long road down, Sen. McCain’s campaign has devolved into a parody of itself. Attacks on Sen. Obama have become more outlandish, his policy communications have been reduced to gimmicks and infighting within his campaign is beginning to take its toll as staff turn their back on their central mission.
Even Joe the Plumber has left his side.
Chris Henderson is a political director based in Western Canada, where he spends his time holding democracy together. He is a former Chief-of-Staff to the President of Daveberta. He can be reached through his agent, the President of Daveberta.
I’m not sure if this October 29 answer from Ed Stelmach says more about the PC government or the opposition, actually, I really don’t have a clue what it says because I don’t think it actually makes any sense.
Mr. MacDonald: … The Canada Health Act is based on a set of five principles. My first question is to the Premier. Why are four principles of the Canada Health Act – comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and public administration – ignored by the board that this government created to run health in this province?
Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, you know, we can debate about these principles back and forth for the next 10 years. Our main goal here as a government is to make sure that this publicly funded health system is sustainable for the next generation. The way this opposition is going, we’re going to lose it over the next year not only in this province but right across this country.
Any guesses as to what he could have meant? Anybody have a Rosetta Stone handy?
I almost completely missed this post until someone of a more articulate nature pointed me in its direction (ht IP). With all the talk of renewal and reform of the somewhat directionless Liberal Party of Canada, Jeff Jedras hit the nail on the head in a recent post:
The question we, as Liberals, should be asking ourselves is not do we need to be centre or left, but what do we stand for? What does being a Liberal mean? What are Liberal values?
We’ve become, or rather, had become, so good at the strategic game, at morphing to suit political changing winds, that we’ve lost touch with just what the heck we’re all about in the first place.
I’m in the midst of doing a bit of analysis into the Alberta results of the October 14, 2008 federal election, but in the meantime, here’s a look at the popular vote results over the past 24 years (partially to show off my excel skills and partly to impress my statistician friend).
*Imaged edited since posted.
I posted this on Twitter, but in case you missed it, Edmonton City Council is in the midst of hosting a number of open Town Hall Meetings on the 2009 City Budget.
The meetings in Ward 5 and Ward 4 will be held tonight and Thursday for people in those areas wanting to have a say about anything from taxes to bike transportation plans. My understanding is that the Mayor and Ward Councillors will be attending these meetings, so take advantage of it!
WARD 5 – Tuesday October 28, 7:30-9:30pm, Pleasantview Community Hall, 10860 – 57 Avenue.
WARD 4 – Thursday October 30, 7:30-9:30pm, Riverdale Community Hall, 9231 – 100 Avenue.
I’m excited to announce that on Friday October 31 from 12pm-1pm, I will be making my radio debut by joining Miss Samantha Power in co-hosting that day’s Newsroom on CJSR FM 88. Over the course of the hour, Samantha and I are planning to discuss the role of independent media, citizen journalism, and corporate ownership over the mainstream media in Canada.
It’s going to be fun, so you can listen to the show by tuning your radio to 88.5FM or live over the internet.
The show is part of CJSRs week-long annual FunDrive — which takes place all this week. Running a radio station is expensive, so along with collecting a dedicated student fee through the University of Alberta Students’ Union, CJSR depends on listener support to stay on air, so I encourage you to make a donation. You can donate, donate, donate online (securely) or phone (780) 492-2577 ext 1.
Categories
arthur kent and sportsmanship.
Former PC star candidate Arthur Kent doesn’t like how the media treated him in the March 2008 Alberta provincial election. Kent, who was unable to unseat Calgary-Currie Liberal MLA Dave Taylor, has filed a defamation suit against CanWest Publishing for a column written by Don Martin on February 13, 2008 (in which Martin stuck Kent with the moniker “Dud” as opposed to the more macho “Scud Stud“).
Kent has started a blog to chronicle his cause and has also used it to criticize his former leader and party:
Worse, the promise of a new, revitalized, results-oriented Progressive Conservative government has not been realized. The legislative session immediately after the March 3rd election will go down in history chiefly for one measure: the government’s enacting of pay raises for the Premier, his cabinet and the members of the assembly. With Progressive Conservative MLA’s occupying 72 of 83 seats in the legislature, it was an unseemly display of me-first politics, the opposite of public service-minded government.
Categories
neil wilkinson and ethics.
The appointment of Neil Wilkinson as Alberta’s Ethics Commissioner has spurned some legitimate debate surrounding his known partisan connections to the governing PCs (which includes publicly listed donations to Ed Stelmach‘s and Jim Dinning‘s PC leadership campaigns as well as publicly endorsing a PC MLAs re-election campaign).
Much like the returning officer fiasco during the 2008 provincial election, the issue isn’t whether Wilkinson is a competent manager (which I don’t believe is in doubt), but whether his partisan affiliations give him the credibility to serve Albertans as Ethics Commissioner without bias.
Created in 1992, as an effort to restore public confidence in government, the Office of the Ethics Commissioner is mandated to be a watchdog of the Legislative branch, with the power to initiate investigations when appropriate. The very suggestion that the person holding this office could be biased de-legitimizes the credibility of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, and will undoubtedly contribute to the already prevalent public cynicism towards government and those holding elected office.
If the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta are truly concerned with restoring public confidence in government, they should appoint an Ethics Commissioner whose credentials are unbiased beyond repute.
A couple of minutes ago, it appears that an online prankster had a little bit of fun with U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton‘s twitter account. Though the pranksters mark was quickly removed only seconds ago, I was still able get a screen shot of the prank while it was still up.
As a friend said of an earlier prank involving Jack Layton‘s twitter account, it’s “another great moment from the intersection of Eager and Careless.“
Edmonton-Mill Woods PC MLA Carl Benito addressing Public Accounts Committee Chairman Hugh MacDonald on October 8:
Mr. Benito: Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. When I go back to my constituency, the people who live there are mostly simple people. When they ask a question, you know, they want me to answer either yes or no or some simple answer.
In order to catch up with life, school, and work, I’m going to be taking a bit of a break from blogging this week. Here are some links to satisfy your fetishes:
– Litfest 2008 was excellent. I hope to post more on this later.
– When 33% of Newfoundlanders vote Conservative and 25% of Saskatchewan voters cast a ballot for the NDP, but neither of these groups are represented in the House of Commons, it’s pretty clear that something isn’t working. Political hacks can have rhetoric-filled debates for or against electoral reform until they’re red in the face, but the reality is that Canadians’ votes aren’t being reflected in the results and citizens are opting out of the system in droves. The status-quo isn’t working.
– Stephane Dion is moving on, but the Liberal Party of Canada will need a lot more than a new leader to become a national party again.
– Alberta’s Oil Sands will pollute Great Lakes, report warns. As if Ontario, Michigan, Illinois, New York, Wisconsin, and Ohio need our help polluting the Great Lakes… (h/t Solve Climate)
– The bizarre story of how Edmonton Oilers organization doesn’t tolerate bloggers in their press box. More here and here.
– You can be forgiven if you didn’t notice that the Fall session of the Alberta Legislature is underway, most of the important decisions get made in closed door cabinet meetings anyway…
And for anyone who’s ever been part of a leader’s tour…