Endorsements You Do Not Want

Stephen Harper got some political cover for his reckless management of the government's expenses. He got an endorsement from someone whose skills at managing a budget are...well...um...yeah...

BOB RAE!

Is it the opinion of Bob Rae that governments have no real control of their revenues?

Does he believe that there is nothing a prudent government can do to ward off a deficit?

Here is an interview Bob did with John Oakley, where unlike an independent Parliament official, Bob Rae ABSOLVES Stephen Harper for his reckless spending and tax cuts, saying there is nothing Harper or Flaherty could have done to prevent this.

Rae:

"I did not bring in a deficit. The fact of the matter is, the recession caused the deficit, we did not have a tax and spend agenda, that's just nonsense. We had a situation where revenues where dropping like a stone as a result of the recession, that's what happened."

"Okay, so if we have a deficit now, at the federal level or the provincial level, is that going to be the personal fault of Mr. Harper or Mr. McGuinty? I don't think so, these are things that happen"


Oakley:

"If Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty take us into deficit because of the situation or circumstances, you'd be willing to cut them a lot of slack?"

Rae:

"With great respect John, they're not taking us into deficit...

Oakley:

"Mr. Rae, if the country runs a deficit, do you give them the benefit of the doubt?"

Rae:

"It's not a matter of giving them the benefit of the doubt, the fact is there is a very serious recession on John, maybe you haven't noticed. A lot of people are going to be losing their jobs, a lot of people aren't going to be paying taxes, a lot of companies are not going to be in a position to pay taxes. That is going to have a major impact on the revenues of the country. Would I agree with everything they have done so far, in terms of how they've spent things? No, but do I hold them personally responsible for the fact that we're going to have a deficit here, and in Ontario, of course not and no reasonable person should do that"

Yes, Bob, Harper did not cause a global recession.

However, he did spend away a surplus like a drunken sailor who just got to port after 13 years at sea.

How long has it been since Bob Rae got thrown out of office in Ontario?

13 years already…

h/t Steve V

Election Fatigue

I have been hiding under a rock for the past few days but I did read Don McPherson's coulmn scolding Michael Ignatieff for not being Obama. Gee thanks Don, for creating a scarecrow for you to beat on.

The funniest part about McPherson's column is that he said Bob Rae had yet to declare for the race, one full week after Bob Rae had announced he was running.

Maybe Don MacPherson is the one who needs a brain...

Welcome to the back of the bus

This is an editorial I wrote for this week's Link, Concordia's student newspaper

California’s Prop 8 makes gays second-class citizens

by Anthony Di Domizio

Last Tuesday saw the election of the United States’ first black president. It was a momentous occasion for an America whose history of racism and discrimination is not too far behind.
Despite the significance of Obama’s victory, Nov. 4 will also be remembered as a day when America almost, but didn’t quite, leave its historical baggage trailing in the dust. As American civil rights leapt forward, they took a step back due to the passing of Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage in California.

Exit polls showed an alarming trend in the outcome of Prop. 8 as the state of California was split down the middle. Whites narrowly voted against it, 51 to 49 per cent; Latinos voted narrowly in favor 53 to 47 per cent; Blacks, who turned out in record numbers to elect Obama, voted 70 to 30 per cent in favour.

Prop. 8 was the most watched ballot measure in the 2008 election and the result has all but officially relegated gays to the back of the civil rights bus. The irony saddens me.

California was the second state to recognize same-sex marriage and has weathered a history of ballot measures to remove the right. If the battle for gay marriage ever needed a victory, it was in “liberal” California.

Gays hoped that a victory in California would turn the tide against state referendum after state referendum denying their legal right to form a committed relationship before the law. However, Prop. 8’s supporters also knew how important it was to stop the parade in its tracks.

Over $74 million was spent in the Prop. 8 campaign, mostly by gay-rights groups campaigning against it and religious groups warning about the moral destruction that two dudes getting hitched would cause to their fragile little lives.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has a problem with Mormons campaigning against gay marriage. This is the biggest hypocrisy I have ever seen. Mormons can have 15 wives, including teenagers, and I am not allowed to have one husband?

What gives these people a right to interfere in other people’s lives? One of Jesus’ most prolific teachings is that people shouldn’t judge one another. This goes well beyond that. Why deny two people the right to love each other? Why deny them the right to promise themselves to one another for the rest of their lives?

When gay marriage was passed in Canada, Jean Chretien proudly said that he could never see the Constitution used to deny rights to other people. San Francisco’s mayor, Gavin Newsome, echoed that sentiment last week.

Some asked me why it mattered what California voters did. After all I’m Canadian and I can get married here. For the same reason Canadians recognized the importance of the U.S. electing a black president, gay rights activists argue that once the U.S. passes a law on same-sex couple rights, the path to equality will become a lot smoother.

As the history of last Tuesday begins to wear off and the real work to fix the American economy gets underway, a lesson must be learned; that nobody needs to be left behind. This is a time for leadership. It’s time we get off this bus once and for all.

Martha Hall Findlay is a Sub-Prime Candidate

I really hate to be the asshole here but Martha Hall-Findlay should not be allowed to seek the Liberal Leadership until she pays back at least some of the debt she incurred 2 years ago.

From the Hill Times most recent update on leadership debt, Martha has paid back exactly NOTHING from her leadership run two years ago.

Here is an analogy that should make many Liberals hesitant about indebted candidates seeking the leadership again.

Assume the Liberal Party is a bank.

In the last race, martha borrowed 200k to finance a leadership bid. In the 2 years since the event, she hasnt shown any attempt to pay back this 200k. (She raised 100k but none since she lost)

Would you allow the same person to run up another 200 000$ in debt? Someone who borrowed 200% of what she was able to raise? This is ridiculous.

This does not preclude dark horses form running. It precludes people from saddling the Liberal Party with debt. It is the Liberal party which is screwed because as she raises the 200 000$ for yet another leadership bid, the party loses out that 200 000$, which it desperately needs.

After what we saw with Dion, it is clear a candidate needs to be able to raise money to be an effective leader. With her current track record in terms of not raising money, I firmly believe the Liberal Party would be acting irresponsibly if it allowed MHF to borrow more money before paying off a sizeable amount of her previous debt.

I have no problem with Kennedy running. He is at least trying to retire his debt. He has shown an ability to raise money. He is much less of a risk.