Herman Cain vs Morgan Freeman, Left-Wing Intellectual Laziness & Tea Party Racism

With the 2012 Republican Party primary elections dawning ever-nearer on the horizon, it's a charge one can expect to hear more and more often from an increasingly-unimaginative left:

Tea Party racism.

It's a mantra that dwells on the surface of the American left-wing psyche as their President leads the United States deeper and deeper into an economic morass, and as they find themselves increasingly bereft of any new ideas.

Looking for a way out of what seems like an inevitable defeat in November 2012, their imaginations will continually bring them down to what has been and remains their last, best hope. Charges of Tea Party racism.

In the past, they've come from such "luminaries" of the entertainment world as Janeane Garofalo. This time they're coming from someone far more talented and far more accomplished. Morgan Freeman's talents don't lend credulity to his accusations any more than his accusations diminish his talent.

"Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term," Freeman insisted. "What underlines that? Screw the country. We are going to do ... whatever we can to get this black man outta here."

"It is a racist thing," Freeman continued. "It just shows the weak, dark underside of America. We're supposed to be better than that. That's why all those people were in tears when he was elected."

Freeman apparently hasn't stopped for so much as an instant to consider the fact that the Tea Party opposes President Barack Obama because they disagree with his politics as if it were even a possibility.

But with the left unable to conjure any more than a handful of examples of Tea Party racism -- and always among individuals who either dwell on the periphery of the movement, or who are promptly banished forthright -- these are arguments that simply don't carry any credibility.

Herman Cain is a black man. But he isn't buying it.

He simply notes that Morgan Freeman has never been to a Tea Party event. His experience with the Tea Party movement has indicated the precise opposite of Freeman's comments.

"They know I bring my message from my heart and from my head, and they're responding to it," Cain declared.

In fact, it's Cain's success in front of Tea Party crowds that is more threatening to Morgan Freeman's narrative than anything. And it's likely one of the reasons that the left is determined to believe that Cain cannot win the primary election, let alone a 2012 showdown with Obama.

They're foolish to count Herman Cain out, and doubly foolish to do it merely to preserve what is a low-road political narrative in the first place.

The American Left's TMZ Moment

Never has a lop-sided, hastily-erected fence sparked such speculation in the not-so-hallowed falls of the internets.

Yet when Todd Palin set to work feverishly constructing a fence between the home he and his wife Sarah Palin -- the former Governor or Alaska, and former Vice Presidential nominee -- share with their children and the property currently being occupied by author Joe McGinniss, it didn't take long for a photo of a section of that fence to appear on the internet.

The photo reveals a massive gap under the bottom of the lop-sided fence, indicating the clearly-poor crafmanship of the work.

Then again, quality craftsmanship requires time. And when a would-be journalist is watching your family's private moments from the house next door, you start building fast.

The incident has revealled, once again, the self-serving nature of many of those who occupy the far left -- even those who occupy the far left under the guise of being conservative.

Case in point:

In The Conservative Soul, Andrew Sullivan wrote a fine and thoughtful book on the meaning of what it is to be a conservative. But in joining the "Bristol Palin is Trig Palin's mother" rush, Sullivan demolished his own credibility. He chose to become, essentially, a left-wing birther.

(And while right-wing birthers are concerned about the birth certificate of the American President -- a matter that would be of great social consequence if it weren't total nonsense -- Sullivan and company are concerned about the birth certificate of Palin's child. Sad world.)

It's on this note that some would imagine that Sullivan would decide to stop self-immolating, and leave Sarah Palin alone.

Nope. In a Daily Dish blog post about Palin and McGinnis, Sullivan snidely remarks: "I'm hardly surprised that Sarah Palin has had a conniption over someone threatening to commit journalism in her vicinity."

Apparently, to Andrew Sullivan, that's what this entire sorry affair is: journalism.

It isn't voyeurism for the satisfaction of a cabal of far-left-wingers who despise Palin. It's journalism.

Of course, there are other individuals, relentlessly invasive of the privacy of public figures, who call themselves journalists: the paparazzi.

Certainly, many among the paparazzi aspire to journalism. The problem for them is that they possess no quality journalistic skills. Accordingly, they become relegated to a dark corner of the world of journalism where they simply invade the privacy of celebrities in order to sell the photos they take for money.

This is apparently the depth that McGinniss has sunk to. Evidently, possessing no quality journalistic skills, he instead spies on the Palin family, presumably so he can include what he sees in their home in a book -- to be entitled Sarah Palin's Year of Living Dangerously.

To visit Wasilla, interview locals, perhaps even friends, family or adversaries of Palin would be one thing. But moving in next door and playing at being a Peeping Tom?

Another thning entirely.

Which reminds one of the genius of TMZ. TMZ is basically an infotainment program/website largely centred around the papparazzi. But rather than glorifying papparazzos, the show focuses on showcasing the ridiculousness of said papparazzos, and the kinds of stupid questions they tend to ask their subjects.

The current plight of Sarah Palin and family is a reminder of how ridiculous the left-wing media can be.

That someone like Andrew Sullivan, who describes himself to be a conservative, would join the ranks of their cheerleaders is rather embarrassing -- but, as in most cases of Andrew Sullivan and embarrassment, the embarrassment remains his.

A Losing Proposition for All Canadians

Frank Graves calls for "culture war" in Canada

EKOS pollster Frank Graves recently offered some advice to Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff that should make the blood of all Canadians run cold.

“I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy,” Graves is reported as having said. “If the cranky old men in Alberta don’t like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin.”

Once upon a time, as many Canadians will recall, it was the Liberal Party that accused the Conservative Party of divisive politics. Now, it's the Liberal Party's favourite pollster encouraging them to do the very same.

Then again, this is really nothing new.

Under Jean Chretien, the Liberal Party thrived off of false chariactures of their principal opponents. In the discourse offered by the Liberal Party, Preston Manning was transformed from a forward-thinking conservative on matters such as language policy (his proposed Fair Language Policy would have been a multi-cultural upgrade on official bilingualism) into a thinly-veiled bigot.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. But under Chretien, the Liberals were willing to do anything -- anything -- to gain or keep power. Even if it meant stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers.

To make matters worse, Lawrence Martin -- who brought Canadians reports of Graves' commentary -- seems to think that Ignatieff has taken this advice, and that his attempt to exploit issues like the long gun registry and abortion as ideological boilerplate mark the first steps in a stark turn down the low road of politics.

This can only serve to transform Canadian politics into something darker, more divisive, and dishonest.

It takes a particularly dangerous brand to ideologue to look at the divisive and destructive political canflaguration in the United States, then tell one of Canada's political leaders that we need that here. Canadians cannot afford to turn their back on Frank Graves.

His advice to Ignatieff would make for a losing proposition for all Canadians. Hopefully, any attempt to spark a culture war will make like everything else Michael Ignatieff has attempted to date -- and blow up in his face.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Montreal Simon - "Frank Graves and the Way to Beat the Cons"

Sort of Political - "Kory Teneycke ROCKS!!!"

BC Blue - "Stunning Advice to Iffy by Liberal Pollster"

Adventures in Alternate Reality

One has to take a certain amount of amusement at Enormous Thriving Plants' Audrey. Ever the masochist, she just keeps crawling back for more punishment.

In a recent installment at her blog, Audrey waxes triumphally over a video of Democratic Representative Emanuel Cleaver being spit on by a Tea Party protester.

Of course, the problem for Audrey is that the video in question is far from conclusive. Moreover, Huffington Post blogger Andy Ostroy admits it:

"I admit, it's pretty hard to tell if the enraged Tea Bagger intentionally spit on the Congressman."

With that admission, Ostroy undid what a score of pundits, demagogues and left-wing propagandists have worked so hard to construct: the image of a white Tea Party protester spitting on a black Congressman.

The problem being, of course, that the image doesn't hold up to so much of an ounce of skepticism.

For one thing, as one can clearly see in the video, no less than two black Congressmen pass by the protester in question before Emanuel Cleaver turns away in evident disgust. He angrily turns to face the alleged culprit, who has been bellowing at each of the men who passes.

If Cleaver had been spit upon intentionally because he's black or because he's a Democrat, one would wonder what possessed the alleged culprit to pass up the other two potential targets.

At intervals, he can even be seen drawing deeply for breath. He is, after all, an old man.

Of course, Ostroy is clearly intent to milk the incident for all its worth, no matter how inconclusive the evidence:

"some highly suspect circumstantial evidence clearly exists: (1) Cleaver obviously is either a great physical actor or some "spit-like" fluid definitely hit him in the face as he passed the protester, causing his entire body to jerk away from the accused; (2) the angry, visceral reaction from Cleaver to the protester clearly signals that something very bad had just happened. Something beyond simple partisan, anti-reform shouting; (3) notice how the protester's hands are strategically cupped over his mouth, which would conveniently conceal the act of spitting."

Right. He couldn't possibly be cupping his hands over his mouth because he's screaming very loudly.

Of course, Ostroy seems to think he has the answer to that, too:

"Keep in mind that both men at this point are perhaps two feet away from each other, which would mean the rabid protester's vein-popping shouting at Cleaver would easily be heard sans hand-cupping, and that such distance might also make the "spray it" theory a bit of a stretch;"

The volume of the crowd can clearly be heard in the video in question. And as for why the alleged culprit would be yelling so loudly with the congressmen passing so closely by, one is afraid that there's a simple explanation for that, as well:

The congressmen clearly aren't listening. It's only natural that this individual would do whatever is necessary to render himself unignorable. That requires volume.

So when one considers precisely how evident it is that the whitewash being offered by these individuals just doesn't hold up under scrutiny -- visual or logical -- one has to wonder just why individuals like Audrey and Ostroy want this so badly:

"Why can't Republicans then, out of simple human decency, just acknowledge and condemn this unacceptable behavior? They can't. It's simply not in their DNA."

Oh, right. Because Republicans are mean. And indecent. And... whatever.

Apparently the idea that the Republican Party won't denounce the conduct because there's nothing there worthy of a national public denounciation just doesn't compute.

The amount of deception being employed in this incident -- with a clear "say it, don't spray it" scenario being misrepresented as intentional spitting -- makes it clear that individuals like Audrey and Ostroy are actually in a rush to gift credibility to Michelle Malkin.

Audrey accuses Andrew Breitbart of living in an "alternate reality". Yet the only sense of reality that seems to differ from our own is the one in which the video in question is treated as conclusive -- even Andy Ostroy admits it.

But that's one of Audrey's defining characteristics: when reality doesn't suit her argument, she simply attempts to re-define reality.

Call it equal parts being a deluded ideologue and making the mistake of treating the Huffington Post as a serious news outlet:

0% Sense in 10% Fliers

Time for "ten percenter" mailings to end

One of the news stories that has generated a quiet buzz in Canadian politics was a recent vote to ban the controversial "ten percent" fliers MPs are elligible to send out.

In recent years this practice has been abused by MPs mailing fliers into ridings held by other parties. The Conservative Party is not the only party to abuse this practice, but they've been the most prolific.

MPs are allowed to send fliers to a number of households equal to 10% of the number of votes they received in that riding during the last election.

The purpose of those fliers is supposed to be to provide information to the constituents of those ridings, but far too often the mailings have been used for crass partisan politics.

The time has long come for the 10% fliers to be stopped. MPs have no business mailing fliers into another MPs riding for any reason. Whichever party is doing the mailing, or whichever party holds the riding makes no difference whatsoever in this regard.

If a party wants to send fliers to residents of a riding they don't hold, there are simple ways for them to do this: nominate a candidate, and start campaigning. The fliers can be sent by that candidate, at the candidate's or party's expense -- not by a rival MP at public expense.

The Conservative Party caucus has, sadly, expressed its attention to ignore the vote to ban the mailings as a "non-binding motion".

Fortunately, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office has since issued a statement insisting that the Conservative Party supports ending the practice, contingent on the agreement of Board of Internal Economy.

Given the way the Conservative Party has used these 10% mailings -- the mailings targetting Liberal MP and long time anti-semitism battler Irwin Cotler (who, among his efforts, can be credited with bringing the number of Nazi war criminals hiding in Canada to public attention) were particularly unfounded and disturbing -- one will believe that the Tories have stopped using these mailings when one sees it.

But it's simply beyond question that it's time for the practice to end -- and it must end now.

"Paper Holes", Not "Bullet Holes"

Liberal Party response to photo controversy not a pretty picture

In some sectors of the Canadian media, the response to the outrage swirling around the Liberal Party's "Anywhere but Copenhagen" contest has been anything but torrid.

On the National Post's Full Comment blog, Jeff Jedras offered the same response as Warren Kinsella: the Stephen Harper-as-Lee Harvey Oswald photo was bad, but the Conservative party has been just as bad.

Jedras and Kinsella both pointed to an image that appeared ont the Conservative Party website during the 2008 election, in which Stephane Dion appears in front of a red background peppered with what they had described as "bullet holes".

That the bullet holes in question don't resemble bullet holes as most Canadians would recognize them is just one problem with this attempt at a diversion. As Tim Powers points out in the Globe and Mail, the second problem it is that simply has no basis in truth:

"Warren's prop today was a picture of Stéphane Dion surrounded by paper holes depicting his flawed policy initiatives - like the carbon tax - along with comments from Liberals. But according to the Liberals these were bullet holes and this was therefore a terrible thing - as offensive as their assassination photo.

It was prepared by purchasing an iStockphoto image called 'Paper Holes.' That’s right, paper holes. The supplier (a Canadian company, by the way) describes the image as 'black hole [sic] in paper.' Check it out here."

And to make matters worse, the "headshots of possible shooters" were actually the headshots of people who had been challenging and questioning Dion's Green Shift policy (poking holes in it, if you will -- perhaps even paper holes).

Moreover, if one were to actually take time to read the text in question, they'll find this all makes perfect sense.

Of course, it's very unlikely that Jeff Jedras, Warren Kinsella, or anyone else from the Liberal Party will stop peddling their rhetoric even after it's shown to be demonstrably false.


Other bloggers writing about this:

Lord of the Universe - "Liberals and Fake Harper Assassination Pic: Idiots of the Day"

Kitchener Conservative - "Hey Libs, You Screwed Up... Just Admit It!"

An Idea Crazy Enough to (Never, Ever) Work

Liberal leadership -- or Tory membership -- should be farthest thing from Ruby Dhalla's mind

Writing in a blog post on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Dan Arnold drops an interesting thought regarding rumours that Ruby Dhalla is among the Liberal MPs that may cross the floor.

Arnold provides what he must imagine to be a very persuasive reason for Dhalla to stay put with the Liberal party: defecting will hurt her chances to be leader of the Liberal party.

It's hard to decide which prospect is more unlikely -- Dhalla being admitted into the Conservative party, or winning the leadership of the Liberal party. Not only is either incredibly unlikely, but both are terrible ideas.

The reasons for both come back to one central issue: Dhalla's recent private member's bill that would extend pension -- admittedly, not a full pension to immigrants after only three years of residence.

The bill has drawn near-universal condemnation, and for obvious reasons: not only is it an extremely cynical piece of legislation, but it's incredibly irresponsible to boot.

Even Judy Sgro, normally a close ally of Dhalla's, has announced she will vote against the bill. Usually private member's bills stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing. Dhalla's bill is likely better compared to a single snowflake in the eighth ring of hell.

The Conservative party would have to publicly renounce virtually all of its principles in order to accept Dhalla within their ranks.

The Liberal party, meanwhile, would not only risk alienating its fiscally-conservative wing, but also risk alienating communities of immigrants who came to Canada and earned their position in this country -- not having a government cheque mailed out to them before they had so much as earned their citizenship, as the recipients of Dhalla's bill would recieve.

It's hard to believe that Dhalla wasn't imagining a windfall of votes from immigrants whose parents are receiving an extra government cheque every month. Her bill is so incredibly cynical that it could only be born of sheer opportunism.

Of course, there are deeper problems with Dhalla's bill than simply paying these people a pension. There's something deeply wrong with the idea of admitting immigrants to Canada who are past retirement age unless they are capable of supporting themselves financially.

Cases where an individual is in immediate peril of being persecuted or killed by their state is another matter entirely. Admitting these people to Canada (regardless of age) and extending them financial aid if need be is the right thing to do. (Canada has no business to accept refugees only to live in poverty.)

But cases where an elderly individual is coming to Canada under no such state of peril is another matter altogether. If they are coming to Canada on their own, they'd better be able to support themselves. If they're being admitted under a family reunification program, their family had better be able to support them.

It's in the sense that Dhalla's bill spits on these basic principles that it truly represents Barry Cooper's politics of self-service. The Liberal party has already been bitten hard by the consequences of embracing these politics too closely. The Conservatives would do themselves -- and the country -- a disservice by following suit.

Fortunately, the Conservatives won't be embracing the politics of self-service, at least in the form of Ruby Dhalla. She's already announced that she won't be crossing the floor.

"The rumour mill is in overdrive again," Dhalla wrote in an email. "These people need to find a topic of discussion that doesn't include the name Ruby Dhalla."

The Liberals may not be so fortunate. If Michael Ignatieff can't right the Liberal ship, the party may be in search of a new leader soon. If Dhalla hasn't jumped to the NDP by that time, one can only wonder if she'll make every Liberal's worst nightmare come true.

RIP - The Meaningfulness of Racism as an Issue

Vapid accusations of racism do the issue a severe disservice

As Michael Coren notes in his SUN media op/ed column, racism used to mean something.

"A racist was someone who judged another person not on their ability, character or achievements but purely and exclusively on the colour of their skin or ethnic background," Coren writes. "Members of racial minorities such as blacks, Jews or Asians lost jobs, were denied basic human rights, enslaved and even murdered. Racism, as I say, used to mean something."

"Not now," Coren continues. "Racism still exists of course, but being called a racist often means you are winning an argument against a liberal or merely stating a conservative or orthodox opinion."

Former US President Jimmy Carter and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd took turns accusing Obama's political opponents of being racists.

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," said Carter. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

How is it that people like Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd know that Barack Obama's opponents are racist? Why, because they say so.

"[Joe Wilson's] outburst was certainly rude but there surely was no racist aspect to it. Not so explains Dowd. She heard the unspoken, 'You lie, boy!'" Coren writes. "Ah, now I see. Even though the word 'boy' was never uttered it must have been meant because Obama is of mixed race and Wilson is a white man who opposes him."

Carter's and Dowd's arguments don't hold water in a rational mind. Then again, they were never meant to.

Rather, they're meant to obscure the issues being debated in the United States right now and shame and intimidate Obama's opponents into silence.

"It is unfair and itself divisive to impute racial motives to Mr Obama's opponents without evidence," writes McGill political scientist Gil Troy. "The shrill opposition reflects the high stakes surrounding the current debate, Americans' enduring ambivalence about big government and the ugly way modern politics plays out in the media, within the blogosphere and on the streets."

"Mr Obama is controversial because he is seeking big changes," Troy continues. "Mr Obama wants to be a transformational president. ...Spending nearly a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy, taking over the U.S. auto industry, and now trying to solve the perennial health-care riddle – while protecting America and seeking world peace – are sweeping goals. No wonder there's pushback."

"The conservative counterattack is particularly intense because Mr Obama seems to forget that Americans have mixed feelings about big government," Troy explains. "There's a strong individualistic streak in American thought. Every major jump in the government's mandate has encountered fierce resistance."

Yet because Carter and Dowd have found such an immediately receptive audience amongst the political commentators at the increasingly-FOX News-like CSNBC, people like themselves -- and clods like Janeane Garofalo -- have been utterly unrepentant about their relentless playing of the race card.

Carter, for his own part, ought to be embarrassed. Race-baiting should be considered below any former President, even one as terrible as Carter was.

“I’m deeply disturbed by those accusations because it’s a unfair and untrue commentary on the American people and them exercising their god-give rights to disagree with the administration," said John McCain. "It seems to me that President Carter has earned his place as – if not the worst President in history – certainly the worst in the twentieth century.”

McCain, as some may recall, was also accused of racism during the 2008 election, particularly when Obama's most unscrupulous supporters had no other rebuttal to offer.

Fortunately, Barack Obama himself takes a very different take on the matter. He knows full well that there isn't a total absence of racism in the movement that has risen against him, but at least he refuses to exaggerate it.

"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are. That's not the overriding issue here," Obama recently said. Instead, Obama rightly attributes the criticisms to a debate over the role of government "usually that much more fierce during times of transition or when presidents are trying to bring about big changes."

Just like Gil Troy suggested.

"Even though we're having a passionate disagreement here, we can be civil with each other, and we can try to express ourselves acknowledging that we're all patriots, we're all Americans and not assume the absolute worst in people's motives," Obama concluded.

To which any rational individual should be able to say "amen".

But people like Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd, Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow clearly don't want cooler -- and more rational -- heads to prevail. It's just not in their game plan.

"It is dishonest for Mr Carter, Ms Dowd and others to play the race card, implying that anyone who dares disagree with Mr Obama's health-care plan or stimulus package is a redneck," Troy concludes. "American politics needs a different tone – these delusional, demagogic, racial recriminations only make things worse."

Barack Obama -- in his handling of this issue and others -- has shown himself to be a very wise leader. But unfortunately, both Obama himself and the issue of racism are being done a severe disservice by Carter, Dowd and company. By envoking racism for petty political purposes they risk casting the entire issue as permanently vapid and meaningless.

The very best that can be hoped for is that the opportunistic and savage attempts of these demagogues to steamroll their opposition under accusations of racism will help challenge some traditional -- but fallacious -- notions about racism.

" It was always said that racism can only come from a group with power. That's a deeply fallacious argument and, even if it were true, power is no longer in the hands of a creamy few," Michael Coren concludes. "Obama is powerful, not a racist. Some of his friends who are black, such as his former minister Jeremiah Wright, are not powerful but are racist."

Unfortunately, it all may be too much to hope for so long as partisan demogogues are bastardizing the issue.

What Is It With These People and Racism?

If there's anything many left-wingers have realized over the last few years, it seems to be that they can make race an issue about anything. Ever.

In a recent segment on MSNBC, Contessa Brewer, Dylan Ratigan and Toure attempted to write off protesters showing up to Barack Obama's Town Hall meetings with guns as white racists out to harm a black President.

There was, sadly, only one detail that didn't add up -- the man featured in the newscast wasn't everything its hosts claimed he was.

"There are questions about whether this has racial overtones," Brewer said, as the image of a man wearing a white shirt with an AR-15 assault rifle appeared on screen. "Here you have a man of colour in the Presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs."

"It sounds simplistic when you put it that way, but it is real that there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black person being president," Toure added. "Just several upheavals in the country over the last ten years from 9/11, to the economic tsunami, to the black man becoming president and, you know, we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that."

"Angry at government and racism, you put those two together," later added Ratigan.

Fortunately, MSNBC's cameras weren't the only ones on hand at the Arizona rally.

CNN's cameras were also present, and interviewed this "white man with a gun". Who, unfortunately for Brewer, Ratigan, Toure and MSNBC, wasn't actually white.

Oops.

But portraying conservative activists as racists has recently proven to be the bread and butter of MSNBC. When Janeane Garofalo insisted that protesters at Tea Bag rallies were "about hating a black man in the White House. This is about racism straight-up," host Keith Olbermann could do nothing but nod his head in agreement.

Garofalo has since remained unrepentant about her foray onto the political low road. Olbermann himself has also had remarkably little to say about his participation in a blatant bastardization of racial politics.

So many of those paying attention to the American left-wing media must surely be beginning to wonder more frequently: what is it with these people and racism? If they so desperately need to edit their footage so as to obscure the race of the subject of a newscast, perhaps their fixation has become an evidently unhealthy one.

The Follies of Political "Evil"

Sarah Palin invokes accusations of "evil" in health care debate

If Sarah Palin has any intentions of reaching out to moderate Democrats in preparation for what many speculate will be a run for the Presidency in 2012, she certainly hasn't started off on the right foot.

Writing on her Facebook page, Palin denounced Barack Obama's health care plan as "evil".

Alluding to a clause dealing with "advance care planning consultation" that could deal with "living wills" and "termination of life services", Palin seemed to have started out with a rather peculiar interpretation of the clause that led her to speak about the rationing of health care.

"Who will suffer the most when they ration care?" Palin asked rhetorically. "The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care," Palin continued.

"Such a system is downright evil," she concluded, noting that this clause could lead to decisions regarding euthanasia being made by "death panels".

the Examiners' Jacksonville Republican Examiner, Patrick McMahon notes that Palin's comments seem to be a rather bizarre way of extending the advantage that Republicans already seem to be enjoying in the health care debate. One thing that can be said for certain about Obama's health care reform package is that it will certainly lead to a drastic change in American taxation culture -- a change that more and more Americans do not seem to want.

Canadian health care is, almost hands-down, a superior model to the current American model. But it doesn't come cheap to Canadians, who can pay up to 30% of their income in taxes.

For the vast majority of Canadians, our health care is worth what we pay for it in taxes. But Americans, who traditionally favour lower taxes, may not share the same opinion.

Appearing on George Stephanopoulos' program on ABC, Newt Gingrich attempted to defend Palin's comments. “Communal standards historically is a very dangerous concept,” Gingrich insisted. “You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.”

Of course, what neither Palin nor Gingrich seem to be addressing is the fact that any decision regarding the pursuit of euthanasia would ultimately have to come from either a terminal or unresponsive patient, or from their medical proxies. No government agency could impose euthanasia on any patient. For the simplest reason why, one has to realize that it would be unconstitutional.

Few words exist to describe precisely how threatening it is when politicians attempt to ascribe the label of "evil" to their opponents' policies -- especially policies that, even if potentially unimplementable, are actually quite benign.

Many Americans -- Republican and Democrat alike -- have good cause to be concerned about the cost of health care. The Canadian experience has demonstrated that it's extremely difficult to control the costs of an already-costly system. This is a legitimate concern.

But Barack Obama is not the devil, nor are his health care policies the work of the devil. To describe them as "evil" only serves to unduly stir up moral hysteria.

That is far, far less than what one expects from a statesperson -- especially one who, like Sarah Palin, needs to court moderate Democrats to accomplish that goal.

Gutter Politics, Defined

Harper not to blame for "gutter politics" -- at least not alone

In a blog post appearing on the website of Vancouver's Georgia Straight, Charlie Smith derides Stephen Harper and the Conservative party for allegedly indulging themselves in "gutter politics":

"This week, I stumbled across another piece of garbage sent through the mail by a Conservative MP.

This one featured a 'pop quiz'. It asked how long Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was away from Canada.

On the flip side, it contained the Conservative slogan 'Ignatieff: Just visiting'.

There was not a word about public policies, plans, or issues--just a vicious personal attack on the Opposition leader.

I wonder what thoughtful conservatives think of these tactics, which are so typical of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Harper seems to think that if you treat the public like they're idiots, you have a better chance of getting reelected.

It's time for people like Senator Hugh Segal, former federal cabinet ministers John Crosbie and John Fraser, and former prime ministers Kim Campbell and Joe Clark to stand up and condemn this nonsense.

Harper is debasing our political culture. As we've seen in the United States, whenever this occurs, there's a corresponding decline in political literacy.

That's likely followed by reckless policies that can bankrupt the nation and lead it into perpetual war.

It's time for conservatives to say enough is enough. The ends don't always justify the means."

Smith is perfectly right to note the irresponsibility and recklessness of the Conservatives' "Just Visiting" campaign.

But in order to make the argument that Harper, and Harper alone, are responsible for the rise of gutter politics in Canada would be a facetious argument ad extremis.

It would ignore the Liberal party's long, somehow proud history of engaging in gutter politics, embodied in some savagely personal and pernicious attack ads being aired against Harper.

One can say what they will about the "Just Visiting" ads. They don't accuse Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff of plotting to summarily declare martial law upon winning power. While the move to impugn Ignatieff's citizenship based on time spent out of the country is atrociously irresponsible, at least they stay on the right side of accusing a political opponent of plotting treason.

Then, of course, there is the matter of Canada's undisputed king of gutter politics, Warren Kinsella. Even against the testimony of Liberal Senator Noel Kinsella that Harper consumed the allgedly-missing communion wafer, Warren Kinsella has been utterly shameless about using this non-scandal for his party's advantage.

Among the other media sources peddling "Wafergate" as if it were a scandal of any political consequence is the Huffington Post.

Even feverish arch-Liberal blogger Darryl Raymaker is unshockingly eager to get in on the act.

Classy.

Yet, if one were to ask Charlie Smith, it's Stephen Harper, and Stephen Harper alone, who's responsible for "gutter politics" and the "decline in political literacy" that comes with it.

Those who have actually payed attention to anything over the past 20 years in this country know better. Harper certainly hasn't shied away from gutter politics, but he certainly didn't pioneer it.

Speaking of New Lows...

David Orchard targets the RCMP for partisan gain

When Gerry Ritz's extremely outrageous comments regarding the listeria outbreak became public, the Liberal party released an attack ad denouncing it as "a new low".

Now, with a micro-scandal emerging in which it has been alleged that uniformed RCMP officers have been lending a helping hand to Rob Clarke, the Conservative incumbent in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, David Orchard, the Liberal candidate in that riding, has taken aim at the RCMP.

"It's completely unnecessary in a democracy for the national police force to be using its vehicles, openly, on the main street of a town, to drop off signs for a candidate," Orchard lamented. "It's a gesture of intimidation. It's frightening and unacceptable."

Only David Orchard could look at an off-duty RCMP officer delivering campaign signs and equate it with the popular cliche of a Texan Sheriff busting out people's tail lights. The Liberal party actually takes the intellectual dishonesty a step further, accusing the Conservative party of "abusing police resources".

If Orchard and the Liberals had merely denounced it as "unprofessional", they'd be right on the mark.

Of course, no one expects to hear Orchard or his party surmising that, considering that Clarke formerly commanded the RCMP detachment in nearby Spiritwood, Saskatchewan, this is simply a case of an RCMP officer helping out a political candidate he supports. Moreover, one he almost certainly knows personally.

The officer in question shouldn't have been delivering signs in uniform. Nor should they have been using a marked RCMP pickup in order to do it.

But for David Orchard and the Liberal party to try to use the RCMP in order to fear monger its way to an electoral victory is beyond shameful.

For Orchard, this ranks right up there with him comparing Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to slave traders.

It's a new low. One may wonder precisely how much lower Orchard could sink yet.

Maybe for his next act Orchard's going to suggest that his door-knockers are being Rodney Kinged. Given his own recent experience with door-knocking perhaps Orchard's colleague Garth Turner could help set that one up.

Gerry Ritz in Context

Unforunate as it is, all parties have their asshole candidates

As the controversy surrounding the ridiculous comments made by federal Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz -- not-so-cleverly dubbed "Ritz Crackers" by the Edmonton Sun -- Canadians are reminded of a sobering fact.

Many politicians are assholes.

For his own part, Ritz's comments transcend assholishness. Gerry Ritz is not merely an asshole. Gerry Ritz is a fucking asshole. (And yet while living in Lloydminster, you voted for that guy twice. Funny, that. -Ed)

In a conference call with Department of Agriculture bureaucrats, scientists and his political staff, Ritz made some... colourful comments regarding the Listeria outbreak related to Maple Leaf Foods throughout August and September.

This is like a death by a thousand cuts. Or should I say cold cuts," Ritz remarked (cue drum beat).

After hearing Listerosis had claimed a victim in Prince Edward Island, Ritz said. "Please tell me it's Wayne Easter."

Easter has called for Ritz's resignation over the Conservative handling of the outbreak -- despite the fact that Michael McCain, the CEO of Maple Leaf Foods has already exhonerated the government, noting that Maple Leaf staff is to blame for the outbreak.

Of course, there are no political points to be scored in allowing Maple Leaf Foods to take responsibility for the matter.

Easter had previously claimed that the Tories were conspiring against him. Which is an odd accusation, considering that Liberal leader Stephane Dion is blatantly conspiring with Green party leader Elizabeth May to dislodge Conservative deputy leader Peter MacKay.

The "Ritz Crackers" affair is outrageous, but it brings to memory another outrageous episode in recent Canadian political history in which Jane Cornelius, the president of the St Catharines Liberal riding association distributed a joke about a hypothetical assassination of Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- by allied troops, no less.

Meanwhile Walt Lastewka, a Liberal candidate and former MP embroiled in the Cornelius affair by way of his dfense of Cornelius, showed considerable class recently by temporarily suspending his campaign in the wake of Tory opponent (and incumbent) Rick Dykstra's recent bereavement.

On another, distinctly un-classy, note much has been made about Harper's defense of Ritz, and for good reason. But then one also has to recall that Stephane Dion merely accepted Cornelius' apology in St Catharines and pursued no futher action.

In each case, apparently, a simple apology is supposed to make the whole matter go away. But it doesn't.

Canadians have the right to expect higher standards of those involved in politics. Just as Cornelius let down her former Liberals and the constituents of her riding, Gerry Ritz has let down his fellow Conservatives and, more importantly, the constituents of Battleford-Lloydminster.

If the individuals in question won't say so, their leaders should. In each case, the leaders in question will inevitably have to wear the indiscretions of their prematurely-excused colleagues.

There is no question that Gerry Ritz and Jane Cornelius are assholes.

Unfortunately, however, this is politics. There are plenty of assholes to go around.

The Machinations of Left-Wing Reactionaries

Vote-swapping scheme shows left-wing extremists running scared

All over Canada, left-wing extremists are sweating bullets at the prospect of a Conservative majority government.

In an effort to try and head this off, Hamilton, Ontario's Mat Savelli has started an "Anti-Harper Vote Swap" group on Facebook, in which people in 41 battle ground ridings are encouraged to vote strategically to prevent a Conservative victory in that riding.

"Let's pretend I'm NDP supporter in the riding of Winnipeg South. Seeing as the Tories only managed to beat the Liberals by less than 150 votes in the 2006 election, the Liberals almost surely have the best chance of winning. I post on this group's wall 'NDP in Winnipeg South looking for Liberal swap' and agree to vote Liberal in exchange for someone else (i.e. a Liberal living in rural Alberta where the Tories are a lock to win) voting NDP in another riding. The group runs on an honour system in the belief that we are all united against Harper."

In theory, this is an idea that could work. However, there are a number of issues with it.

First off, some may recall that former Canadian AutoWorkers union President Buzz Hargrove had his NDP membership revoked for encouraging Canadians to vote strategically during the 2005/06 federal election. Any NDP members participating in the "Anti-Harper vote swap" will almost certainly be imperiling their party membership.

Secondly, at a mere 1,128 members -- including, uncharacteristically, Saskboy -- it's unlikely that the vote swap will make a significant difference unless its membership grows in the coming weeks.

Most of all, however, the "Anti-Harper vote swap" seems to overlook the inherent cynicism of its own exercise. The "Anti-Harper vote swap" encourages Canadians to vote against their personal allegiances and own interests in order to block another party. In other words, the people participating in the swap aren't voting for anything. Rather, they're simply voting against the Stephen Harper Conservatives.

As a political act, this is inherently pessimistic and cynical. A large question of trust remains: who's to say that a Liberal agreeing to vote for the NDP -- essentially in Savelli's place -- won't instead just go ahead and vote Liberal?

Perhaps for NDP supporters there is very little incentive for being dishonest. But with the Liberal party very much in contention to win the election, there is absolutely no doubt that there is an incentive for Liberal party supporters to secure a vote from an NDP supporter and then renege.

The perverse brilliance of such an act is that the individual getting burned would never know the difference.

The dis- and mistrust bred so easily in the heart of an individual cynical enough to engage in such an enterprise may, in the end, turn out to be enough to sink the entire enterprise. But whether or not the "Anti-Harper vote swap" is successful or not won't be known until election day.

So Fucking What?

Ryan Sparrow screws the proverbial pooch, is shown actual door

"Goodbye, Ryan. Thank you for your time."

Those are the words that should have been uttered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper today, as he suspended Communications Director Ryan Sparrow.

Sparrow has been suspended for an email he sent to CTV following an appearance by Jim Davis, the father of fallen Corporal Paul Davis, following an appearance on Canada AM, in which he (rightfully) criticized Stephen Harper's promise to end the Canadian Forces engagement in Afghanistan in 2011.

Sparrow responded by emailing CTV and telling them that Davis is a Liberal party member who supported Michael Ignatieff during the 2006 Liberal leadership contest.

So the question on many people's minds is: so fucking what?

Not as in "Ryan Sparrow emailed CTV: so fucking what," but: "Jim Davis is a Liberal. So fucking what?"

Davis is entirely right to be concerned that his son's death not be in vain. Davis is entirely right to voice his opinion that, when Canada finally withdraws from Afghanistan, the mission there will have been accomplished. Jim Davis is entirely right to express his opinion.

And it isn't as if he had never confronted Liberals over their policies in Afghanistan. In July 2007, Davis encouraged Liberal leader Stephane Dion to support the extension of Canada's Afghanistan engagement.

Davis has been anything but partisan in his comment on Afghanistan. He has now taken both federal leaders on over their stance regarding the mission.

For Sparrow to try to suggest that Davis was acting as a partisan hack is nothing short of shameful -- especially considering that he himself was acting as nothing more than a partisan hack.

Sparrow's behaviour is not only embarassing for himself or his party. It's also embarassing for his country. Canadians expect better than this out of their politicians.

Davis, for his own part, has remained classy throughout this entire shameful affair. He's voiced his disagreement with Sparrow's suspension, noting that "we all learn from our mistakes and we become better people because of that. The last thing that I would want is somebody to have hardship over my son's death. That's not what this is all about, this is not politics."

Unfortunately, however, Sparrow didn't get that particular memo -- just as online hatemoger Canadian Cynic didn't get the message that it's unacceptable to attack the parents of war casualties for political purposes.

And he still hasn't gotten the memo. (But for those keeping track on Cynic's psychopathic delusions of personal destruction, one may want to take note of the effect such an attack can have on one's personal career -- just something for the hateful sociopath to mull over for a little while.)

Davis never wanted his son's death to be about politics. Unfortuantely, Ryan Sparrow tried to make it about politics and, as such, he should be making a much more permanent exit from his position with the Conservative party than merely a "suspension".

"Goodbye, Ryan. Thank you for your time."

Stephen Harper should be memorizing that.

David Emerson Made His Bed

Now he'd fucking well better lay in it

When David Emerson won his Vancouver-Kingsway riding in the 2006 federal election, he promised to be Stephen Harper's "worst nightmare".

Instead, he crossed the floor to sit as Harper's Minister of International Trade and the Pacific Gateway. Eventually, he would be promoted to Foreign Affairs.

Shortly after crossing the floor Emerson suggested he wouldn't run again.

Now, he's changed his mind again. He "might" run again in an upcoming election. He just can't quite decide where.

Word is, he won't run in Vancouver-Kingsway. And, honestly, why would he? He provoked a great deal of outrage, including calls for a recall. This should come as no surprise, considering that he was elected as Liberal, then promptly turned his back on his constituents in order to further his own career.

There has been talk about Emerson running for reelection in a Conservative stronghold -- possibly even in Edmonton.

But to the very idea of this, Edmontonian voters should have only one thing to say to David Emerson: fuck off, David. You made your bed, now you have to lay in it. Go back to Vancouver-Kingsway and take your fucking medicine like a good little boy.

Canadians across the country should have better taste than to allow David Emerson to slither his way out of the electoral mess he's made for himself in Vancouver-Kingsway. He's now well into his third year as a cabinet minister. He's enjoyed the spoils of his duplicity, and eventually he's going to have to pay the price.

If he won't do so in Vancouver-Kingsway, hopefully Canadians of all partisan stripes -- Conservatives especially -- will have the good sense to administer that medicine wherever he may land.

RIP - The Memory of Tim McLean

McLean's memory transformed into political football

When news broke that 22-year-old Tim McLean was stabbed to death and beheaded on a Greyhound Bus near Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, Canadians -- and people the world over -- reacted with shock.

As the grisly details slowly emerged over a period of days, that shock fomented into digust, outrage and distress. Such reactions are predictable. No one likes to believe that such an atrocity can happen so close to home, and people tend to like it even less when reality intercedes.

Sadly, there are organizations that are certainly banking on such reactions when they chose to use McLean's brutal murder as a political football to try and score some points for their particular political and social agendas.

Never ones to turn down an opportunity to milk a controversy, the zealots at PETA courted some well-justified outrage by producting an ad attempting to use the McLean tragedy to garner some support for their extremist cause. They had planned to run the ad in the Portage Daily Graphic.

In the ad, PETA made the bizarre claim that Vincent Weiguang Li was some sort of cannibal, as opposed to merely an intensely psychologically disturbed individual, and that eating meat is akin to participating in Tim McLean's murder.

(They would later decry the criticism they recieved as hate mail, just going to show that, once again, PETA can't take the heat but can't bring itself to stay out of the kitchen.)

But this pales in comparison to the intentions of the Westboro Baptist Church, who recently announced plans to come to Canada and picket McLean's funeral as a method of promoting their message of hate.

"God is punishing Canada," the church declared in a statement on its website.

"We're trying to get you to see that your rebellion against the standards of God, your disobedience to the commandments - your idols, your false gods, your filthy ways have brought wrath upon your head," insisted the Church's now-leading spokesperson, Shirley Phelps-Roper.

"When it comes to the (Westboro) Baptist Church, they don't even deserve to be on the same page as Tim McLean. He was too great a guy," said Doug Mitchell, a longtime friend of McLean's.

In response to the Church's promise to protest at McLean's funeral, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day instructed the Canadian Border Security Agency to turn any known members of the WSB away at the border.

But when Shirley Phelps-Roper announced that a group of WBC members carrying no leaflets or any other form of hate propaganda were able to evade the order to refuse them entry to Canada, the impetuously unscrupulous Martin Rayner decided to try and run the issue -- and with it, the memory of Tim McLean -- into the endzone for a cheap touchdown, suggesting that all the current government's efforts toward strengthening border security has clearly all been for naught.

Rayner chose to parlay the WCB slipping into Canada into a forecast of an imminent infiltration by terrorist groups. This despite the fact that, the recent order to bar them from the country aside, the largely non-violent WCB necessarily remains a far lower priority for the RCMP, CSIS and CBSA than violent terrorist organizations.

The murder of Tim McLean was shocking to Canadians for obvious reasons. Its teen-slasher-flick gratuity has upset the equilibrium of many Canadians who continue to pretend that such things simply don't happen here.

The choice made by PETA, the WCB and Martin Rayner to indulge themselves in slasher-flick-cum-politics is shocking as well, and for not-so-different reasons.

The memory of Tim McLean should not be desecrated for petty politics.

Stephane Dion and the High Road

Doesn't usually include jokes about the assassination of a political opponent

Yesterday, as the story of a joke distributed by the president of the St Catharine's Liberal riding association about the assassination of Prime Minister Stephen Harper made its rounds, Liberal leader Stephane Dion, speaking in St Catharine's, had a unique opportunity to seize the political high road.

Instead, he did the precise opposite while insisting that he had done precisely that.

"It was in bad taste," Dion admitted, but instead of taking some time to reflect on the matter itself, instead tried to spin it into an attack on the Conservative party. "I’m very disappointed by the attitude of the Conservatives with their attack ads, low-blow politics, and we should not be one of them at all. We should keep the high road. It’s what Canadians deserve. It’s what they want and it’s what they will have with us."

Yet one wonders how precisely Dion defines the high road, when a joke alleging that Canadian troops -- or those of our allies -- has been offered up under the guise of legitimate political discourse and all the party leader has to say about it is "it was in bad taste."

Meanwhile, it's also impossible to overlook the fact that there's a difference between the attack ads directed at Dion by the Conservatives, which question his abilities as a leader, and highlight some of the lowlights of Dion's record (both of which are politically legitimate and fair, however much his various partisan hacks and lackeys would like to insist otherwise) and a joke about the assassination of the Prime Minister.

Dion also questioned why St Catharines Conservative MP Rick Dykstra didn't complain in April, when the joke was published. "Why is he waiting for weeks if it’s not crass politics?"

"Mr. Dykstra did that only to smear because I have a great function today and a big town hall meeting, which he doesn’t have," insisted Liberal candidate (and former MP) Walt Lastewka.

Jane Cornelius, who distributed the joke in the first place, even suggested that Dykstra had some sort of responsibility to oontact her directly before criticizing her publicly.

“Did I get a call from him? The answer is absolutely not,” Cornelius complained. “I would have expected more from the MP."

But Dykstra, who as a Conservative MP isn't exactly a subscriber of Peaking Liberally, hadn't even been made aware of the comments until this week.

Oddly enough, Dykstra's own comments were very much in the spirit of Dion's.

"This is obviously not at all in good humour," Dykstra announced. "If you refer to what people are saying about it now, there’s pretty overwhelming agreement that they are comments that should be withdrawn, apologized for and at least acknowledged that they were certainly incorrect and should not have happened."

"I certainly think good humour and good-spirited debate is something that has a place in our federal politics," he added. "This certainly doesn’t, and I don’t find it humorous."

Dion insisted that "Jane apologized and she did the right thing."

"In no way did I mean to offend anyone, and I apologize if I did," Cornelius had written in an earlier statement. "It was meant as a joke and to have a smile and a chuckle."

But apologizing for the offense is not the same as apologizing for the act. And when one makes such an eggregiously unacceptable remark in the course of a letter suggesting that politicians find the very "high road" that she and Dion allude to, it reeks of sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy.

It's well known that Stephane Dion "chewed out" Garth Turner over his remarks about Quebecois and Albertan separatists. Why would he not choose to chew out Cornelius for musing about the assassination of a political opponent?

For someone presuming to lecture Rick Dykstra about "crass politics", it's odd that Dion would excuse Jane Cornelius for engaging in politics that are beyond Crass and, quite frankly, make a lot of Canadians wonder what Jane Cornelius and Stephane Dion "smile" and "chuckle" about.

Old Joke, New Outrage

Jane Cornelius steps in it, tracks it into the house

Make no mistake about it: Jane Cornelius, the president of the St Catharine's Liberal riding association, is watching her political career go down in flames today, struck by the heatseaking missile that is her own hubris.

In a controversy quickly tearing its way through the blogosphere, Cornelius printed what has turned out to be an extremely ill-advised "joke" in Peaking Liberally, the St Catharines Liberal newsletter:

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes.

They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the PM if he would like to lead the discussion on the word “tragedy”. So the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a “tragedy”.

One little boy stood up and offered: “If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy.

“No,” said Harper, “that would be an accident.”

A little girl raised her hand: “If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy.”

“I’m afraid not,” explained Harper. “That’s what we would call great loss."

The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Harper searched the room. “Isn’t there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?”

Finally at the back of the room, Little Johnny raised his hand... In a quiet voice he said: “If the plane carrying you and Mrs. Harper was struck by a “friendly fire” missile and blown to smithereens that would be a tragedy.”

“Fantastic!” exclaimed Harper. “That’s right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?” “Well,” says the boy,

“It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn’t be a great loss ...and it probably wouldn’t be an accident either”."

Ironically, this was printed in an article accusing the Conservative government of poisoning Canada's political discourse, and suggesting that Liberals need to "wash their hands" of that.

If Cornelius is at all surprised by the outrage the printing of this joke has generated, she needs to have her head examined. (She may need it examined regardless.)

For a political party to print a joke about the assassination of a competing political leader is one thing. To suggest that Canadian troops, or the troops of one of our allies could be responsible for it, is entirely another. It's purely outrageous.

But some of the outrage may be overblown.

For example, Warren Kinsella has suggested the RCMP should be alerted.

While the spirit of the joke is outrageously disgusting, to take it quite this seriously is another matter. This is actually a very old joke, and has been told time and time again about any number of politicians.

All the "Little Johnny" jokes are. And let's not forget that Little Johnny is a bit of a little jerk.

Of course, never before has it been offered up under the guise of legitimate political discourse. And while numerous individuals have taken certain delight in poisoning Canada's political discourse, for the representative of one of our two major parties to do so quite like this is simply beyond the pale.

At least politics -- at least on any formal level -- isn't something that Jane Cornelius will have to worry about for much longer. If Stephane Dion doesn't act quickly to remove her from the presidency of the St Catherine's riding association (and maybe even expel her from the party) he needs to have his head examined, too.

The Stupidest Fucking Thing in the World To Say

Clinton ices any last slim hopes of being president

If Hillary Clinton had any hope, however slim, of being the Democrat nominee for President -- let alone being elected President -- she has certainly whittled that away with some recent and ridiculously stupid comments made while on the campaign trail.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," Clinton noted when asked about the possibility of her dropping out of the race.

Of course, it's hard to believe that comment had nothing to do with the recent health problems befalling the incomparable Senator Ted Kennedy.

Clinton picked the wrong time to try and pander to the Kennedy family, and in the worst possible way.

Clinton's apology aside, it's hard to look at this as anything but the final nail in her campaign's coffin. What a way to throw even the slimmest hope away.