Why McCain needs Romney as running mate

Michigan! Michigan! Michigan!

According to a SurveyUSA poll, Romney as a running mate would deliver Michigan to the GOP on a silver platter. A disaster such as losing Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa would still yield a completely even electoral college.



An effort in Pennsylvania, the convention in Minnesota and some hardcore electioneering in Virginia, Colorado, Ohio and Florida can bring a third Republican White House term.

If we're going to do it, let's be prepared

Mulling over elections is never good. Keeping Canadians on their toes isn't either. An election is possibly the most tangible aspect of politics: either there is or there isn't one.

The Prime Minister's concerns about the functioning of Parliament in the upcoming session are legitimate. Many bills would probably be killed by the Liberals, and if little progress is made in the by-elections the Grits will have an ace up their sleeve. Combined with a bruising 2008 so far we're NOT in a good position to trigger an election in our favor.

Many mishaps could have been avoided or run better (Bernier comes to mind). Our communications strategy could have focused more on accomplishments and vision for Canada, rather than just rubbishing the products of Stephane Dion's vivid imagination. The water strategy, mentioned in the Throne Speech, is nowhere to be seen from where I am. We're not exalting our claim to Arctic sovereignty as strongly as it deserves.

The PM is right to meet with opposition leaders to discuss the agenda for the next session of Parliament. We do, however, know the response. Bloc and NDP will say no, Liberals will say "we'll see". Calling them into the open is the best tactic. A draft agenda with specification of planned bill content will do the trick. If Dion stays silent he signs his own political death warrant. If he rejects the proposal the PM can go to the Governor General and ask very serenely to return to the ballot box before the commencement of the fall session.

There's no doubt Canada will go to the polls in September or October. What the Tories must do is tap into the vast reserve of popular and needed measures that would demonstrate leadership and vision. Some bills before Parliament right now are political TNT, with countless interpretations and possible skewings. That's NOT a baggage we can bring to the polls.

If we want to repeat the job interview with Canadians we have to be ready. Arctic sovereignty plans, economic policy to stimulate growth, re-training funds for displaced workforce, environmental sustainability and recovery frameworks are measures Canadians look for in a manifesto these days. Arguing about unborn children and petty investigations will only land both parties in quicksand. These are tough times that call for mature behavior and mature solutions. The Tories are the mature party by definition, let's keep that perception up.

Formulate, Demonstrate, Captivate. That's what gets a good election campaign started.

Election rumors do not enthuse me

I am confident the Prime Minister's political advisors have done a great job and delivered a strategy, however the latest playing around with election rumors is not a healthy exercise for the country. Harper is right to demand a check on whether the current set-up can function, but it should be very quick and painless.

Gordon Brown flunked an election in his first year in office because he thought at first he'd win it. When opinion polls turned against Labour the election speculation died away.

The troubles lay mostly in the Senate, and there isn't much we can do about it right now. For all the need of reform, I doubt many Canadians would shift their allegiance to the Conservatives on this issue. And an issue-based election it should be: general polls give us too close to the Liberals. We simply can't risk a simple tally-up of voter support.

Harper's test should be a law project that would be immensely popular with Canadians and sufficiently crafted to get the Liberals to stand up and vote against. The Party must demonstrate to have important law projects in the pipeline and thus be deserving of a majority. This should convince Canadians that the Tories know where they're taking the country and that it's the right way.

If we're serious about the election then bring it on cleverly. Announce a popular test bill with universal appeal among voters, submit it under a vote of confidence and then go for it. If the Liberals defeat it they'll shoot themselves in the foot. If, on the other hand, the bill passes it's business as usual. With the additional proviso that the Government is committed on a road to reform and transformation of the country.

It won't be long before the system collapses anyway, once the pressure's up the boiler must yield at some point. The top priority is delivering what Canadians want and be seen as true leaders who don't accept stalemate in times of crisis. Whether Canadians want an election or not, let the Liberals throw the stone. It will bounce back anyway.

An ill-thought symbolic initiative

Two US Congresspeople are proposing a very bipartisan resolution to urge the IOC to strip Russia of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. One word comes to mind immediately: China. Hardly anyone rose with such passion to take the truly undeserved Beijing Olympics somewhere more worthy of the prestige of an Olympic competition.

If human rights and behavior on the international stage were ignored we'd still be before a case of extraordinary stupidity. Choosing partners and bedmates pragmatically would involve, in my opinion, knowing their aims and their potential to threaten you. Russia, despite all the bullying, is weak but growing steadily. Antagonizing Russia would bring the country closer and closer to China, no shining example of liberty herself. With China's stranglehold on the world's manufacturing and Russia's resources, the potential geopolitical Hercules is enough to scare the wits out of me.

Divide and Rule may be fine, but don't divide from yourself!

You just can't make this up!

Behold, for an improvement in both the malnutrition and food crises is just around the corner. An Indian local official has proposed to promote eating something we have plenty of everywhere but do not really consider as edible foodstuff. He's talking rats.

After extolling the virtues of rodent vermin fricassees, he proceeded to suggest that eating the pests will help save a significant proportion of grain stocks. Although crazy, this solution is at least more workable and immediate than what many pseudo-scientist bigwigs have been concocting over the past few months. Should I mention the nuts proposal of getting overweight people off public transport again?

The official in question isn't new to crazy outbursts of creativity misplaced in a pulping mill. His is the idea of hiring eunuchs as guards in maternity wards (who in their sick mind would..... never mind). He is also about to father a proposal to harvest snakes, apparently for the value of their venom. Doesn't he know they're also very tasty? Yumm.

The Deceitful Caucasus

Those following the news coming from South Ossetia will no doubt be astounded by the different views of the conflict held by the Georgians, Ossetians, Russians and foreigners. The entire region is a gunpowder depot waiting to explode, and the immaturity of the Georgian political administration is the detonator.

The two breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia had the legal right to secede from everyone when the Soviet Union collapsed, and they have been self-governing de facto since 1991. This is an essential premise to the debate as to whether they are indeed deserving of recognition. With an ungovernable Kosovo, which after years of NATO/EU rule still can't sort itself out, being awarded the status of an internationally recognized state the case for recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, who won their independence, is very compelling.

Saakashvili has gradually increased tensions with Russia, confident that his close friendship with the United States and Georgia's bid to join NATO would shield his country from any retaliation by the northern neighbor. Anyone with the minimal understanding of politics will understand this is a strategy leading to war.

Invading a heavily armed breakaway republic whose population holds Russian citizenship (over 80%) has cut Georgia's chances of being considered for military aid in the conflict. Condi Rice is merely advocating both sides to be reasonable, while both presidential hopefuls avoid mentioning military intervention. Let there be no doubt: as long as Georgian forces remain in S.O. they will be minced by the Russians and the Ossetians with equal gusto.

The Georgian President is probably holding a backward view of NATO as a military block for containing Russia, thus he must demonstrate military might and courage in order to obtain membership. He is plainly wrong: NATO is a political block, and Georgia's membership is necessary for containing Iran and having closer bases to Syria than are currently available.

Saakashvili's stupidity will cost thousands of lives and possibly a regional violence escalation, as Abkhaz fire has already hit the Georgian side too, opening a possible second front. This situation cannot continue.

The West must immediately tell Georgia and Russia to withdraw from South Ossetia, recognize the breakaway republics to keep consistent with the Kosovo precedent and dispatch a truly international peacekeeping force to the borders. The two republics hold little strategic significance, as the major Caspian oil pipelines do not pass through their territory.

What a waste of lives.

Thoughts on a rising UK Tory star

Michael Gove MP is a fascinating person. Brilliant education, excellent journalist, skyrocketing political career and firm opinions and confidence make him a very good candidate for the Shadow Cabinet. However I don't like him, and here's why.

My first encounter with a speaking Gove was at a reception organized by Conservative Friends of Israel in London. I appreciated his views on terrorism and certain aspects of interventionist foreign policy. On education his record was squeaking clean. However he made a slip that put him in my blacklist for a long time.

Aiming evidently to pander to the audience, he criticized the then recent trials of Russian oligarchs stating that they were fueled by clear anti-Semitism because most of them were Jewish. At that point I nearly exploded. Firstly, if you don't pay taxes you go to jail, whatever religion you adopt. Secondly, the Russian oligarchs are mostly crooks who obtained their wealth shadily. Thirdly, they were using their immense wealths to attempt buying back the political system that slipped from their claws in recent years.

Pandering to audiences seems, however, to be a virtue or, at most, an excusable momentary defect for Gove. In an article he justified Obama's emptiness in his Berlin speech through the notion that he (Obama) still needs to win an election, so he looked to offend no-one and pander. His praise for Obama's own speechwriting, however, seems to conflict with Gove's own helping out with speeches for many Conservative politicians and leaders. An activity that, however condemned by him nowadays, definitely earned him more clout in the high floors of the Party HQ complex.

Gove lacks judgement in another area which he should instead claim as his own turf. In late March 2003, the following appeared on the BBC website:

A columnist for the London Times, Michael Gove, compared him to William Pitt, who fought against Napoleon.

"He is the pilot who weathered the storm. Tony Blair may not appreciate the comparison with William Pitt but the prime minister is a leader who has seen through a war and emerged with his international reputation enhanced," wrote Gove two years ago.

Michael Gove now says that events since 11 September have enhanced Tony Blair's role with the Americans and have shown that he is "neither a geopolitical gnat nor a poodle".

I disagree. Everyone else make up their minds.

Finally, Monday Mr Gove gave a speech where he criticized men's magazines such as Zoo and Nuts (the titles speak for themselves) for family breakdown, teenage pregnancies and God knows what else. His quote is as follows:

"Titles such as Nuts and Zoo paint a picture of women as permanently, lasciviously, uncomplicatedly available," he said.

"We should ask those who make profits out of revelling in, or encouraging, selfish irresponsibility among young men what they think they're doing.

"They celebrate thrill-seeking and instant gratification without ever allowing any thought of responsibility towards others, or commitment, to intrude."

Though I don't read either Nuts or Zoo, I can't fail to feel consternation at such drivel being spouted by a member of the Shadow Cabinet that hopes to take office. He is no different from an old lady poking her stick at thin air and blaming everything on television or some other gift of modernity.

Mr Gove should be reminded that family solidity is built by expunging the nonsensical welfare benefit system that rewards breakdown, giving power of education and discipline back to parents and schools and dealing away with the "permissive philosophy of self-expression" that Margaret Thatcher condemned in the education system as far back as 1986.

Lad's mags as well as gal's mags and everything in between have absolutely nada, zip, zilch to do with family breakdown. Surprisingly he didn't attack the Sun's Page 3. The reason is clear: attacking the Sun may lose the support of the most-read English-language newspaper and its readership. Pandering and avoiding offending anyone again, just the sins he pardons Obama.

Michael Gove exposes himself as an overconfident controlling octopus, seeking to expand Government's reach into the realm of free expression and freedom to enjoy the daily digest of unnatural breasts if one so wishes. As if freedom of expression in Britain wasn't abridged enough by the current Orwellian Soviet.

Never mind the skyrocketing career, Gove needs to be reminded that the Conservative Party wants to deal away with Labour's meddling, not tweak it to its own agenda. His views on terrorism and education, when thorough and well-thought, are of extreme scholarity and appeal. The pandering Oxfordian may be well advised to be less superficial and pandering in the future, lest he become a liability to the Party. Firing him for the nonsense he may spout next would cause the Tories enough damage to see a smooth General Election win slip from their safe reach.

My two pence in the abortion debate

Following Dr Roy's and Blue Like You's posts regarding the need for an abortion law in Canada, I would like to chip in, keeping in mind my ignorance of the medical ramifications of the subject.

In principle the case resembles the Yes, Prime Minister scene where the PM consults a prominent banker, Sir Desmond Glazebrook, regarding an appointment to the Bank of England:

PM: I've got to appoint a new Governor of the Bank of England. I'd welcome your views.
Sir Desmond: Well, I certainly think you should appoint one.

The absence of a law defining the legal framework for abortion in a civilized country like Canada is laughable. Jonathan Kay rightly points out that the free-for-all system currently in place is fertile territory for actions which to all but the perpetrators and their ilk are undeserving of human nature. Asking the Supreme Court to reverse its decision of deeming abortion a matter of criminal law would set the provinces against each other, particularly regarding trans-border abortions.

So I believe me must deal with the issue federally and take a strong stance. We must tread carefully, though. At the beginning of July a poll showed the Tories losing favor with women voters in battleground provinces. A strict Conservative abortion law would bring the Liberals closer to an election comfort zone.

I am of the opinion that although both mother's and child's rights are extant from conception, the mother's supersede the child's in the first months of pregnancy. Following that, the child supersedes the mother except in her right to life and health. Moreover, as pregnancy is a consequence, if abortions are to be avoided more has to be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

An abortion policy emanating from the federal government should therefore not assign the hypothetical right to life to an embryo because, wishful thinking aside, without the mother it is nothing but a pack of cells and is thus at her complete disposal. If one was to be insensitive one could argue it is the mother's property as much as her ovaries, eggs and body. A threshold should be set by policymakers as to when the unborn becomes less dependent on the mother's will. Once past that, the pregnancy should be continued if it doesn't endanger the mother.

The threshold date should depend on the options available post-birth. If the mother were able without penalty to not recognize the child as her own (unwanted pregnancy discovered after the limit) then the limit should be set pretty early. If, instead, such safeguards for the infant's raising by a willing and dedicated mother are not present then more leeway should be given.

All in all the factions must realize that both extreme positions abridge rights. A golden middle ground has to be found based on prevention and safeguard. If the government stepped in to make contraception more broadly available and the populace more aware of its use I would throw my support behind moves to stop financing non-medically dictated abortions. For the cost of an abortion thousands of condoms could be distributed freely or hundreds of women could be provided with birth-control pills independently of medical cover.

If we want to prevent abortions based on the child's sex then we must set the threshold before the gender can be determined. Illegal or homemade abortions would, however, still flourish. Sometimes there's just no winning.

Another beheading, this time in Greece

A man beheaded his wife in Santorini and was caught while wandering aimlessly, with the head. Aside from confirming further that there's no end to being sickeningly deranged, it also proves that beheadings aren't necessarily a prerogative solely of Iraqi extremists.

Preventing these psychoses is no easy task. Forced confinement is illiberal, medications rely on patients taking them, compulsory psychiatric assessment on the general citizenry reeks of totalitarianism. Other news sources (such as Corriere della Sera) imply that the man had previously been in psychiatric treatment.

With more stories of unstable individuals' sanity going AWOL, some serious questions should be answered. If a treatable condition that is potentially dangerous to society is discovered, should drugs be prescribed immediately, routinely and for an undetermined time? Should a technology be developed for administration of the drug without patient control, implying periodic doctor appointments for re-assessment? How would that conflict with individual liberties and possession of themselves?

Food for thought, feeding those who listen and inquire.

Why we aren't winning yet

After three weeks of vacationing plus a few days of other sadly more important business to sort out, I'd like to offer a honest opinion as to why the Tories have been shown in a poll again in a smaller lead over the Liberals than they truly deserve. Plus, a poll shows the Party at odds with Quebeckers and Ontarians. In a whole month since the beginning of July's poll, hardly anything has changed.

Quebec first. Declaring the Quebecois a nation within Canada and emphasizing their role in a united federation is excellent PR, however I believe more is needed to sway the complex lot that inhabits the east shore of the Ottawa river. Far from advocating more Quebec-focused policies and subsidies to ailing industries, the central government should be helping (or putting pressure on the QC government) those hit by economic change out of their trade by shifting their focus. Facing the facts, with Chinese workforce and Siberian taiga paper and wood will soon all come from Asia. Aiding the forestry sector and papermaking industry isn't a long-term solution. Why not help shift logging to maple cultivation? With Quebec's soon-to-be negotiating autonomy with France overseas demand for our syrup may well increase if the industry plays its cards well. Just a thought.

Ontario inhabits the realm of my ignorance, but McGuinty has been outsmarting Tory and bolstering the image of the red party in the province. As far as I know he holds the initiative of going on a disputable sales trip to Europe and introducing re-training schemes for displaced automotive industry workforce. Trade, competition, investment and labor mobility are typical Conservative battle horses. Where were our troops?

Recently I read an article in the Globe and Mail titled "The Tories' almost forgotten policy". Forgotten allright, and it's our fault entirely.

Without wanting to sound too pretentious or judgmental, the Party's communications strategy is lacking in appeal to those voters who are wholly uninterested in political wrangling. Therefore rubbishing Stephane Dion is not a long-term vote winner but a mere tool for keeping him at bay. Associating the Green Shift policy with the punchbag Liberal leader is also a double-edged sword.

Steve Janke pointed out that the two provinces expected to take the shaft from the Carbon Tax do not elect one Liberal MP save Ralph Goodale. Pandering to voters in those districts would seem a risky if at all worthwhile time and energy investment. On the other hand Ontarians may see higher taxes trickling down to higher prices at the pump, but the Liberal typical promise of more social programs and dish-outs can outweigh this concern.

So we all get shafted one way or the other, but for the proposing leader two provinces are hopeless and eight may be persuaded to risk income redistribution. Simplistic as it may sound, Dion's gambling with the odds in his favor. Compounded with widespread inbuilt social distaste for the oil industry and its profits, the Green Shaft touches a sensitive nerve in many Canadians' minds.

What can the Party do to send the GS to the rubbish bin? Step one is achieved: discreditation by association. But it isn't enough. The Tories must offer a viable alternative that would ensure both emission reduction and that the money redistributed by an eventual economic adjustment do travel out of oil companies' wallets into those of other Canadians.

Despite a company's only purpose being a profit, a government's duty is to promote investment and growth, especially in times of economic duress. Therefore instead of further reducing the GST the current Government should encourage inter-province investment. Alberta is raking in huge profits with the current oil prices, while Ontario motor industry is in a slump and British Columbians are shafted with the provincial carbon tax.

Tax credits for profits re-routed to viable investment in other provinces could help hammer out a new message:

Liberal Ontario/BC waste and tax, Tory Alberta/SK invest and enrich.

It's time to cut out the wrangling and show Canadians we can not just out-fundraise and out-campaign, but out-smart, out-initiative and out-policy the Liberals as well.