There Are Some Problems Profit-Driven Aid Won't Solve

Free condoms in Africa key to halting the spread of HIV

Though the George W Bush administration of the United States offered remarkably few accomplishments that the global conservative movement can be legitimately proud of, one of the successes Bush can very much boast about is his administration's success in fighting HIV/AIDs in Africa.

Bush's Afrian HIV/AIDs initiative offered free medical treatment and HIV medications to HIV sufferers. His program gave hope to HIV patients and to their children.

However valuable Bush's initiative was, it did suffer from notable weakness: it cut funding to condom-distribution programs.

Cameron's government has produced as its first foreign aid initiative a plan to spend nearly three million Pounds Sterling to distribute condoms in Uganda.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, however, Alex Singleton casts his barbs at the HIV/AIDs initiative being prepared by British Prime Minister David Cameron's government. His criticism casts it as a hippie-esque solution to a looming epidemic, and suggests that the distribution of 45 million condoms in Uganada should instead be be profit-driven.

Singleton writes:

"No one wants HIV/AIDS to spread, but free distribution will never work. As Professor William Easterly, the eminent development economist, has argued, there’s no shortage of Coca-Cola in Africa, and condoms should be treated in the same, for-profit way."

William Easterly has been on the right track about a great many things in Africa. But on the topic of condoms, he is very clearly wrong.

There's a good reason for this: Condoms are nothing at all like Coca-Cola. Nor are they like mosquito nets. In White Man's Burden, Easterly remarks on the failure of programs to deliver free pesticide-treated mosquito nets to Africans at risk of contracting malaria from nocturnal mosquito bites.

Easterly documented cases of many of these nets simply being wasted -- in some cases being used as veils at the marriages of young African women. Easterly's argument was that programs to deliver these nets were ill-conceived, and resulted in many areas being over-supplied with mosquito nets.

In come cases, they would up in the hands of corrupt local officials who instead merely hoarded them, despite having no means to ever use them on their own.

Provided that the Tory condom plan is better designed than the mosquito net programs, one would expect that these condoms would actually reach their destination. Considering that Uganda's population is more than 31.5 million people, 45 million condoms is unlikely to over-supply Ugandan demand.

It's more likely to under supply it.

Singleton astoundingly suggests that the success many roadside vendors have had selling Coca-Cola products demonstrates that for-profit distribution of condoms will better ensure their distribution.

"Coke and other soft drinks are vital way of getting something drinkable in rural africa, and tens of thousands of entrepreneurial Africans sell them out of wooden shacks and by the side of roads. The drinks are affordable, but by charging, Africans are able to make a living distributing them."

The dubious merits of substituting Coca-Cola for fresh drinking water aside, Singleton has seemingly forgotten one of the cardinal rules of market economics: profit-seeking capital will go where there is profit to be earned.

Simply put, if there were profit in selling condoms in Africa, Sheik or Trojan would have set up shop there a long time ago. There would be no need to even consider a state-funded condom initiative in Uganda.

Singleton could certainly argue that the state could subsidize the for-profit distribution of condoms in Africa -- an option that the Conservatives may well want to explore before forging ahead with their current plan.

Moreover, as oral contraceptives do nothing to protect against the spread of HIV, a profit-driven distribution method may be more appropriate for those.

But this doesn't seem to be Singleton's option of favour. Rather, what he recommends is almost guaranteed to fail:

"The Department For International Development opposes abstinence-only AIDS-awareness programmes. Instead, it is supposed to support the ABC technique of preventing HIV – abstinence, be faithful, use a condom. But, in practice, DFID-funded projects are surprisingly quiet on the A and the B – staffed, as they are, by politically correct workers who think telling poor people to stop having sex with prostitutes and other peoples’ wives is racist."

While Singleton insists there is evidence that the acceptance of birth control by African women leads to domestic abuse (he doesn't actually site any), he conveniently ignores all the evidence that abstinence-only programs simply do not work.

People won't abstain from sex just because you tell them to. That holds no less in Africa than it does anywhere else in the world.

Former US President George W Bush laid the groundwork for significant success fighting HIV in Africa. Now, David Cameron's coalition government is prepared to fill in the missing link -- Alex Singleton's objections be damned.

No Justice for the Death of a President

Released in 2006, Death of a President is a mockumentary about a fictional assassination of George W Bush at a speech in Chicago.

In the film, the FBI and the Secret Service quickly investigate the matter, and arrest Zahra Abi Zikri (Hend Ayoub) for the act. In typical American tradition, however -- even in fiction -- conspiracy theories abound about whether or not they have the true culprit.

The film raises an extremely important question: that of, considering the currently fiercely-polarized state of American politics, especially amidst the modern 24-hour news cycle, whether American officials could realistically be trusted to objectively pursue justice, or whether a scapegoat -- as the fictional Zikri very well may be -- would simply be sought and summarily convicted.

Softening the Hard Right Turn

To succeed, the Republican Party needs moderate conservatives

Writing recently in the Los Angeles Times, Jonah Goldberg notes that many American left-wingers believe these are very, very good times for them.

Why are these very, very good times for the left wing? Certainly not because they're implementing their agenda on issues like health care reform. As Goldberg notes, and certain less-than-gifted bloggers are more than willing to confirm, many left-wingers -- particularly socialist progressives -- think these are good times for them only because they believe the conservative cupboard to be effectively bare:

"If there's one thing liberal pundits are experts on these days, it's the sorry state of conservatism. The airwaves and the Op-Ed pages brim with more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger lamentations on the GOP's failure to get with President Obama's program, the party's inevitable demographic demise and its thralldom to the demonic deities of the right -- Limbaugh, Beck, Palin.

Such sages as the New York Times' Sam Tanenhaus and Frank Rich insist that the right is out of ideas. After all, the religious dogmatism and 'market fundamentalism' of the Bush administration were entirely discredited, leaving the GOP with its intellectual cupboard bare.

'During the two terms of George W Bush,' Tanenhaus declares in his latest book, 'conservative ideas were not merely tested but also pursued with dogmatic fixity.'

Even worse than being brain dead, the right is blackhearted, hating good-and-fair Obama for his skin color and obvious do-goodery."

The idea of ideological civil war among conservatives was even enough to distract various left-wing thinkers and commentators from what was then the then-impending defeat of two Democratic governors in New Jersey and Virginia which are being said to effectively cast a pall over Barack Obama as he plots his next move forward.

"The same voices seem eager to cast Republican Dede Scozzafava's withdrawal from the congressional race in New York's 23rd District not only as proof that their interpretation is correct; they're also determined to cast it as a far more important news story than the Democrats' parlous standing with the voters. Don't look at the potential historic gubernatorial blowout in Virginia, or the Jon Corzine train wreck in the New Jersey election, or the flocking of independents to the GOP in the major races. No, let's all titter and gape at the cannibalistic 'civil war' on the right."

Just as Goldberg notes in Liberal Fascism, many of these commentators have naturally drawn comparisons between what is currently going on within conservative circles with fascism -- in this case, Joseph Stalin.

As Goldberg notes, it's just one of many such allusions that is particularly troubled:

"Frank Rich, gifted psephologist, finds the perfect parallel to the GOP's squabbles in Stalin's murderous purges.

'Though they constantly liken the president to various totalitarian dictators,' Rich writes, 'it is they who are reenacting Stalinism in full purge mode.' Stalin's 'full purge mode' involved the systematized exile and slaughter of hundreds of thousands (not counting his genocide of millions). The GOP's purge has so far caused one very liberal Republican to halt her bid for Congress."

Indeed, Goldberg wants to offer a different explanation altogether:

"Let me offer a counter-theory, admittedly lacking in such color but making up for it with evidence and consideration of what conservatives actually believe.

After 15 or 20 years of steady moderation, many conservatives think it might be time to give their ideas a try.

Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' was promoted as an alternative to traditional conservatism. Bush promised to be a 'different kind of Republican,' and he kept that promise. He advocated government activism, and he put our money where his mouth was. He federalized education with No Child Left Behind -- coauthored by Teddy Kennedy -- and oversaw the biggest increase in education spending (58%) in history, according to the Heritage Foundation, while doing next to nothing to advance the conservative idea known as school choice.

With the prescription drug benefit, he created the biggest new entitlement since the Great Society (Obama is poised to topple that record). He increased spending on the National Institutes of Health by 36% and international aid by 74%, according to Heritage. He oversaw the largest, most porktacular farm bills ever. He signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a massive new regulation of Wall Street. His administration defended affirmative action before the Supreme Court. He pushed amnesty for immigrants, raised steel tariffs, supported Title IX and signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation.

Oh, and he, not Obama, initiated the first bailouts and TARP.

Now, not all of these positions were wrong or indefensible. But the notion that Bush pursued conservative ideas with 'dogmatic fixity' is dogmatic nonsense."

Indeed, in Liberal Fascism, Goldberg argues that in George W Bush's speeches one can find firmly entrenched the ideals of the Protestant Social Gospel.

Indeed, Bush belongs to the United Methodist Church (prior to 1977 he was an Episcopalian). The United Methodist Church fuses the outreach of the social gospel with the personal holiness aspect of traditional Evengelical churches.

This firm belief in human charity is an often-overlooked side of Bush:

"Most Democrats were blinded to all of this because of their anger over the Iraq war and an often irrational hatred of Bush. Republicans, meanwhile, defended Bush far more than they would have had it not been for 9/11 and the hysteria of his enemies."

One could argue further that many of Bush's opponents were indeed deeply ideologically invested in ignoring these elements of his political identity.

But Bush left behind him a particularly toxic political environment -- much of which was the doing of his supporters, and much of which was the doing of his opponents -- and left the Republicans and Democrats alike facing a stark dilemma:

"In 2008, the primaries lacked a Bush proxy who could have siphoned off much of the discontent on the right. Moreover, the party made the political calculation that John McCain -- another unorthodox and inconsistent conservative -- was the best candidate to beat Obama."

Moreover, the opponents of George W Bush campaigned against John McCain as if he himself were Bush.

When Obama defeated McCain in the election, much of the triumphal reaction was seeped in the language of electoral vengeance -- this despite the fact that had not (and still haven't) beaten Bush, but instead defeated a candidate who was at least partially selected for his ability to reach out to moderate and conservative Democrats.

But, as Goldberg himself notes, the Republicans may have miscalcuated the will of their base to sacrifice their ideological expectations and adhere to the Republican brand.

"In short, conservatives have had to not only put up with a lot of moderation and ideological flexibility, we've had to endure nearly a decade of taunting from gargoyles insisting that the GOP is run by crazed radicals.

Now the rank and file might be wrong to want to get back to basics, but I don't think so. With Obama racing to transform America into a European welfare state fueled by terrifying deficit spending, this seems like a good moment to argue for limited government.

Oh, and a little forgiveness, please, for not trusting the judgment of the experts who insist they know what's happening on the racist, paranoid, market fundamentalist, Stalinist right."

What Goldberg seems to be suggesting is that many American conservatives have tired of the "big tent" vision of conservatism pursued by the Republican Party.

What he doesn't seem to understand is the perils of abandoning that particular model. And while the Republican Gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia (both states that went firmly in favour of Barack Obama in 2008) are indeed illustrative of the current state of the Democratic Party, the victory of Democrat Bill Owens very much does present this dilemma in all its glory.

When the Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava quit this particular election and supported Owens, the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, enjoyed a brief surge. Many conservatives -- and many conservative media commentators -- believed he could win the race in a lock.

But Scozzafava's exit from the race added a lot of undecided voters to the mix. On election night they decided to follow Scozzafava's lead and support Owens. The hard conservative vote in the district wasn't enough to secure a victory for Hoffman.

The lesson the episode offers is a very simple one: there aren't enough hard conservative voters in the United States to guarantee a victory for a hard conservative Republican Party, or even for a Conservative Party with no Republican opponents.

While hard conservative voters have proven to be enough to get the Republicans in the game, so to speak, they need moderate voters to put them over the top. That means moderating their conservative ideology in recognition that, yes, there are voters in the United States other than merely conservatives, and, yes, they deserve to be heard too, and not just by the Democrats or the Green Party.

A strong argument certainly does exist for the need for Republicans to harden their conservative policies. One could easily argue that Republican brass has been spooked by the taunting (as Goldberg puts it) of progressive socialists who declare anyone who isn't as far left as they are to be of the "extreme right".

But conservatives -- and especially not the Republican Party -- cannot afford to harden their conservative policies at the expense of being able to reach out to political moderates.

To do this is political suicide, regardless of whether or not American conservatives think this is "their turn".

Tony Blair's Tender Legacy

As alluded to in part one of Michael Cockerell's Tony Blair: the Inside Story, many politicians spend a great deal of time and energy concerning themselves with their legacy.

Unfortunately for former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, he will very likely share a legacy with US President George W Bush. It likely will not be an entirely positive one.

Like George W Bush, Blair's departure from office was mired by tension with his successor. Just as Bush's departure from office has been mired by increasing tensions with his Vice President, Dick Cheney -- who believed Bush had stopped taking his advice during their second term -- Blair's final days were marked by tensions beteween himself and Gordon Brown, his Chancellor of the Exchequer.

For Bush and Cheney, the matter was clearly the war on terror. For Blair and Brown, the issue was the prospects of Britain replacing Pounds Sterling with the Euro as Britain's currency. Blair favoured this, and Brown did not.

Like Bush, Blair's legacy will be decided by whether or not he led his country to war under false pretenses. Like Bush, Blair's legacy will be impacted by personal controversy. For Bush, a lingering controversy was the outing of CIA agent Valeri Plame. For Bush, the lingering controversy was the suicide of Dr David Kelly, a British arms inspector who had been accused of helping falsify evidence justifying the war.

Like Bush, Blair's efforts to reform the civil service badly backfired. There was a palpable backlash against Blair's proposed reforms for hospitals and schools. Meanwhile, Bush led a dismantling of regulatory economic agencies that eventually helped precipitate a global economic recession. Bush's educational and health care reforms were widely lampooned. At one point, Bush even vetoed a Democrat bill that would supply health care to millions of uninsured children.

Like Bush, Blair left office amidst a push within his own party to minimize its association with him. While Brown worked behind the scenes to collectively push and shame Blair out of office, Bush failed to show up to his own party convention in order to best keep his distance from Presidential nominee John McCain.

Like Bush, Blair was viewed as a liability to his party. In a 2005 election that proved to be a significant setback for his party, Blair was targeted by the opposition Conservative party of Britain as an individual who had lied to take Britain to war in Iraq, and would lie to win an election. Bush was encouraged to stay as far away from the 2008 federal election campaign as he could in order to avoid associating McCain too closely with Bush.

(These efforts were mitigated when McCain hugged Bush at a political rally.)

Like Bush, Blair's time in office was marked by a savage terrorist attack. For Bush, 9/11 eventually wound up writing the story of his time as President. For Blair, 7/7 will be central to his legacy. Unlike Bush, however, who led his country to war partially as a retaliation for a terrorist attack, 7/7 could be viewed as a retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq.

Just as Bush's government had received ample warnings about the impending 9/11 attacks, Blair's government had received numerous warnings about the "inevitable" attacks that finally came to fruition on 7/7.

Like Bush, Blair led his party into office as a well-organized political machine, ready to do its country's business. Like Bush, by the time Blair departed, his party was in shambles, with its premier political opposition -- in this case, the David Cameron-led British Tories -- poised to knock them off in the next election.

For a man who came to power at the head of an overwhelming Parliamentary majority, Blair must be very disappointed to look back at his time in office and see such a disappointing record.

Blair came to office as a "destined" Prime Minister, with big hopes and huge expectations to live up to. Like many such leaders, the dizzying heights of his expectations could only be matched by the dispirting depths of disappointment.

Political Doctrines Make Strange Bedfellows

Part two of Michael Cockerell's Tony Blair: The Inside Story deals with Tony Blair's foreign policy.

Like the many distinctions Blair shares with Barack Obama, Tony Blair shares an important distinction with former Prime Minister Jean Chretien -- being one of the few world leaders to have led their country from the period shortly following the disintegration of the Soviet Union (in Chretien's case, he was elected Prime Minister in the period immediately following this event) right up to the post-9/11 period and the end of the so-called Pax Americana.

As the film shows, Blair approached foreign policy matters with an activist and nearly evangelical fervour. The "Blair doctrine" was a moralist foreign policy doctrine, that demanded nearly open-ended commitment to foreign interventions so long as he was convinced it was the right thing to do.

From the fight against Slobodan Milosevic to the battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Blair was able to use his considerable diplomatic skills to help build interventionist coalitions.

The religious influences on Blair's foreign policy decisions -- which were obvious from the language he used to support his policies -- were obvious. Although Blair was often unwilling to discuss his religious beliefs with the media or in public, he was willing to allow his religious values to influence his political decisions.

While overzealous secularists may condemn such influences, there is little wrong with allowing one's values to influence their decisions -- so long as those values can be shown to be largely positive.

Although Blair had once spoken about the prospect of his generation never knowing war -- apparently the Faulklands Islands don't count -- during his time in office, Blair deployed British troops to Kosovo, Sierra Leonne, Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, just as Tony Blair needed President George W Bush to help implement the Blair doctrine, Bush wound up needing Blair to help implement the Bush doctrine of preemptive engagement.

After 9/11, Blair stepped quickly to Bush's side, pledging support to the United States. Just as Bush must have known he would need Blair's diplomatic skills to build a broad anti-terror coalition, Blair must have known he would need Bush and the power of the American military in order to implement his moralistic vision of the fight against terrorism.

Yet Bush would, in turn, use Blair to carry out the war in Iraq. Blair shared a moralistic view on the war in Iraq based on the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction. Just as questions would rise over the extent of Bush's complicity in the clear manipulation of intelligence leading to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein had acquired weapons of mass destruction, questions would eventually rise over the extent of Blair's knowledge of this, and his complicity in it.

Eventually, the British public failed to share Blair's moralistic view of the planned war in Iraq. Cynicism about the intelligence being used to justify the war became more widespread. Even as Blair made it evident that he at least seemed to firmly believe in the evidence being presented.

In the face of UN opposition, Blair's diplomatic skills faltered. With it disappeared any hope of garnering global support for the Bush doctrine.

Yet Blair was eventually able to essentially shame his party and the House of Parliament to back him on exercising the Blair doctrine in Iraq. Yet, if the War in Iraq truly was a defining moment of the 21st century, it was certainly a defining moment for Tony Blair.

Like George W Bush, the war in Iraq will define Tony Blair as a leader who was not immune to poor judgement. In sticking so doggedly to their foreign policy doctrines in regard to a conflict that didn't necessarily need to be fought at the time it was, both men will likely be remembered for putting more obstacles in the path of those fighting terrorism than any that they may have ever conquered.

ETP Joins the Wrong About Everything Club

John Bolton is pure evil according to blogger

If one were to accept the claims of Enormous Thriving Plants' Audrey at face value, one would believe that Audrey has always been implicitly logical and reasonable with her political arguments.

One would be led to believe that her critics are merely bending at windmills over matters that are factually apparent.

Unfortunately for Audrey, this is pure fiction. The truth is rather different.

In fact, it seems that the arguments that Audrey often raises fall far short of the "implicitly logical and reasonable" benchmark, and instead veer way off into the margins of a vast ideological intellectual morass, from which for ideologues as dedicated as Audrey, there may truly be no way out.

One needs look no further than Audrey's recent rantings about former American Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who recently had something to say about Bill Clinton's recent trip to North Korea to negotiate the release of two imprisoned American journalists.

Before one gets into what Bolton actually had to say about it, let's examine what Audrey had to say:

"A mere hours after his Washington Post column calling Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea "kneejerk" / "an act of obeisance" was published, North Korea pardons the American journalists it had imprisoned.

If the former (Bush appointed) UN ambassador had had his way, Laura Ling and Euna Lee would still be sitting in a North Korean labour camp, simply to satiate his PNAC fantasy of American-strength-through-non-diplomacy.

...Another Neocon joins the Kristol/Perle "Wrong about everything" club."

While it is true that Bolton's comments on Clinton's efforts to secure the release of the captured journalists are less than flattering for the former President, Audrey draws a rather peculiar conclusion -- that because Bolton criticizes Clinton's actions that he wanted to see Ling and Lee remain in prison.

Yet Bolton's own comments contradict that statement.

"The reporters' arrest, show trial and subsequent imprisonment (twelve years hard labor) was hostage taking, essentially an act of state terrorism," Bolton wrote. To any rational individual, that hardly seems like the words of someone who favours the injudicious arrest, incarceration and enslavement of American citizens.

But Audrey's comments that Bolton would rather see Ling and Lee remain in captivity "simply to satiate his PNAC fantasy of American-strength-through-non-diplomacy" is actually a very revelatory remark.

It demonstrates that Audrey clearly doesn't understand the recent history of diplomatic efforts with North Korea, and the tendency of the Kim Jong Il regime to throw these diplomatic efforts back into the face of the western world. Oddly enough, Bolton refers to such an episode in his column:

"In some ways the trip is a flashback to the unfortunate 1994 journey of former president Jimmy Carter, who disrupted the Clinton administration's nuclear negotiations with North Korea and led directly to the misbegotten 'Agreed Framework.' By supplying both political legitimacy and tangible economic resources to Pyongyang, the Agreed Framework provided the North and other rogue states a roadmap for maximizing the benefits of illicit nuclear programs. North Korea violated the framework almost from the outset but nonetheless enticed the Bush administration into negotiations (the six-party talks) to discuss yet again ending its nuclear program in exchange for even more political and economic benefits. This history is of the United States rewarding dangerous and unacceptable behavior, a lesson well learned by other would-be nuclear proliferators."

As anyone who has paid attention to the issue of North Korean nuclear proliferation would know, Kim Jong Il's regime had gone back on this deal -- which Hans Blix was dissatisfied with in the first place -- by resuming missile tests under the guise of launching satellites.

Bill Clinton isn't the only US President to try and fail to reach a diplomatic resolution with North Korea. George W Bush tried (and failed) to reach such a resolution, offering aid packages to North Korea as part of a multi-lateral deal. A more substantive deal was eventually reached in which North Korea would shut down its nuclear program in exchange for the unfreezing of accounts in American banks.

By 2008, North Korea had again reneged on the deal, declining to report its nuclear activities. By May of 2009 North Korea had restarted its nuclear reactor and threatened to attack South Korea.

The history of North Korea's renunciation of diplomatic efforts -- often demanding broad concessions before talks could even begin -- now spans three American Presidents. To pretend that North Korea is engaging in diplomatic negotiations over its nuclear program in good faith would, at this point, be a sham.

There is also, as Bolton muses, the risk of emboldening criminal regimes like Kim Jong Il's by legitimizing their effectively taking foreign citizens hostage:

"While the United States is properly concerned whenever its citizens are abused or held hostage, efforts to protect them should not create potentially greater risks for other Americans in the future. Yet that is exactly the consequence of visits by former presidents or other dignitaries as a form of political ransom to obtain their release. Iran and other autocracies are presumably closely watching the scenario in North Korea. With three American hikers freshly in Tehran's captivity, will Clinton be packing his bags again for another act of obeisance? And, looking ahead, what American hostages will not be sufficiently important to merit the presidential treatment? What about Roxana Saberi and other Americans previously held in Tehran? What was it about them that made them unworthy of a presidential visit? These are the consequences of poorly thought-out gesture politics, however well-intentioned or compassionately motivated. Indeed, the release of the two reporters -- welcome news -- doesn't mitigate the future risks entailed."

These risks are especially pronounced when one considers how these deals will be accepted by a regime that so routinely violates its diplomatic agreements.

Against the backdrop of North Korea's malfeasance in regards to diplomacy, it takes a special kind of ideologue to use the fact that an individual was appointed as Ambassador to the UN by George W Bush -- who himself tried and failed to reach a diplomatic accommodation with Kim Jong Il -- as evidence that they would rather see American journalists enslaved in a North Korean prison.

Particularly when that very same ideologue seems to go to such lengths to overlook entirely the manner in which the North Korean regime has approached diplomacy in the first place.

Of course, when it comes to Audrey, one should never, ever be surprised.

Obama Must Not Repeat Bush's Mistake

Barack Obama has an opportunity to support democracy in Russia

At the end of his first visit to Russia, Barack Obama must certainly understand the opportunity that lays before him.

Perhaps more than anything else, Obama has the opportunity to not make the same mistake that George W Bush did.

Bush made the mistake of failing to make the same pro-democracy stand in Russia as he claimed he was making in Iraq. In his extremely soft approach to then-President (and now Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin, Bush played directly into Putin's hands.

"Putin is immune unless he hears a firm reaction from the top man," former World Chess champion and Soldarinost leader Gary Kasparov told Playboy Magazine in 2008. "He doesn't care about clerks, even Condoleezza Rice. Only a message from the top counts. Everything else is a game. When Putin made some of the statements that implied he could stay in office for a third term, he didn't hear anything from Bush. President Bush, you stuck up for him; you looked into his eyes. Why are you silent now? Instead, what does Putin hear? Condoleezza Rice says, 'we'd rather have him inside than outside the tent.'"

"This philosophy has never worked before," Kasparov continued. "Churchill said 'no matter how beautiful the strategy, occasionally you must check the results.' For seven years, with engagement by the West and with the influx of capitalism, Putin destroyed all democratic institutions in Russia. So we all remember that Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes. Putin looked into Bush's eyes as well. He saw he could push Bush's limits. Every time he pushes he tests the waters. He pushes and Bush does nothing."

The challenge for Obama is evident: he must not allow Putin to push his limits.

Obama has the advantage of having to deal not directly with Putin, but rather through Dmitri Medvedev.

But even amidst some seeming efforts by Medvedev to wield Presidential power himself, as opposed to merely being a lackey for the former President, Putin will remain a factor in dealings between the two leaders.

But Obama seemed to be alluding to Putin in many of his reflective comments after his visit. The allusions were far less than flattering.

"I think that Americans and Russians share an interest in strengthening the rule of law, democracy and human rights," Obama explained. "To quote my inaugural speech: ‘To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.’ Later, speaking in Cairo, I said: ‘I have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights.’"

Obama may, however, be underestimating the Russian leadership's commitment to these values.

"These ideas are shared by your President and your people," Obama continued. "I agree with President Medvedev when he says that ’some freedom is better than no freedom.’ I therefore see no reason why the ‘reset’ in relations cannot include the common desire to strengthen democracy, human rights and the rule of law."

For his own part Gary Kasparov is unimpressed by Obama's sentiments.

"Abandon the policy of double standards and call a spade a spade," Kasparov said. "Stop pretending that the current regime under Putin is democratic and thus give it a carte blanche for further abuses."

Obama's stance on Russia is a definitive improvement over George W Bush's, but some improvements clearly need to be made. Obama cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of his predecessor.

The Sound of Dissent in Dixie

When leader singer Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks spoke out against the Iraq war on March 10, 2003, she provoked a firestorm from the American right wing.

Speaking out against the war in Iraq, Maines told an audience in London that she was ashamed the President was from Texas.

Various right-wing activists, bloggers and media figures targetted the Dixie Chicks for nothing less than complete professional destruction.

Shut Up and Sing documents how, in a period of weeks, the Dixie Chicks went from being lucrative corporate shills to being branded as un-American or anti-American.

American country music radio stations fed the fire by caving under the pressure being exerted by far-right groups like Free Republic. By complying with the boycott -- refusing to play the Dixie Chicks' music and in some cases even organizing mass destructions of their CDs -- these radio stations emboldened these activists.

Had those radio stations not been as compliant with the de facto mass censorship it's likely that the campaign against the Dixie Chicks would have failed.

What all too often escapes scrutiny in the affair is the role of then-President George W Bush in the affair. As President of the United States Bush was obligated to defend the freedoms of American citizens regardless of whether they agreed with his war or not.

A conscientious leader would have defended the Dixie Chicks despite their criticism of him. A concientious leader understands the value of freedom of speech, and understands the value of dissent.

This being said, to describe Bush as a conscientious leader would be a mistake. This is an individual who strictly adhered to a specific ideological programme even after it became evident that this programme was failing. In his approach to policy Bush proved to be far too rigid to ever be described as conscientious. Not only Americans, but countless others, continue to suffer the consequences of his failed economic policies, in particular.

Bush may not have explicitly encouraged the sustained attack on the Dixie Chicks, but in failing to speak out against it, and speak supportively of their freedom of expression, he failed to live up to his responsibility as President of the United States of America.

Unsurprisingly, John McCain -- the man who very well could have been elected President in 2000 if not for Karl Rove's infamous "secret black baby" push-polling stunt -- seemed very Presidential when grilling radio executives over whether or not they were "networks" and whether or not politically-motivated programming decisions were being made.

The contrast with Bush's "they shouldn't have their feelings hurt" comments is both obvious and profound.

On a day when Americans are celebrating their hard-earned freedoms, it's important for people all over the world to remember precisely how tenuous and how costly exercising those rights can be, and remember that political leaders have a responsibility to uphold those rights.

Guess Who Else Is Coming North?

Bush to make post-Presidential debut in Calgary

With excitement over Barack Obama's first visit to Canada building, it would be understandable if the announcement of a former President's speaking engagement in Canada went largely unnoticed.

At least for the time being. When one is the President that preceded Obama, very few of your plans go unnoticed.

George W Bush will be speaking in Calgary on March 17th. It will be his first speech -- and believed to be the first of many -- since leaving the office of President.

Reportedly former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna will also be present. He'll host a question period after Bush's speech.

Many will rightly note that Bush is extremely unpopular north of the 49th parallel. Ergo Canada is an odd place for Bush to give his first post-Presidential speech. But if there's one city where Bush can be expected to be able to speak without an overabundance of fuss, Calgary is certainly the place.

“Alberta’s a very conservative province and he’s certainly seen as friendly to the oil industry,” said University of Calgary political scientist David Taras. “He’s choosing a safe place to go test his image.”

It's very much in character for this President to play it safe in regards to public appearances, and avoid dissent as much as possible. But if Bush is expecting a warm reception in Calgary, he might have another thing coming.

“He’s very unpopular in his own country and he’s very unpopular in Canada, at least according to what the polls are saying,” Taras added. “You never know, but I’m guessing there will be a cold respect rather than any real affection or admiration.”

It will be interesting to see how Calgary recieves the former President. But one thing is for certain: it certainly will not set the standard of how Bush will be received elsewhere in the world.

Fact, Fiction, or Simply Partisan?

Oliver Stone flick blurrs lines between history and partisanship

Oliver Stone has a history of producing historical films. Between the big screen and the small screen, Stone's films include Nixon (1995), JFK (1991), The Last Days of Kennedy and King (1998) and The Day Reagan Was Shot (2001).

In W, Stone turns his attention to George W Bush before his Presidency has actually concluded and before his successor has actually been elected.

Josh Brolin portrays George W Bush as a man utterly lost in life -- torn between his carefree tendencies and the stern expectations of his father George HW Bush (James Cromwell) -- until an anxiety attack leads him to seek solace as a born again Christian.

Brolin deftly disappears into the role. At times Brolin's delivery of some of Bush's more famous speeches could nearly be mistaken for the man himself.

But for the other roles, one frankly wonders if Stone cast the worst actor possible. In particular, the role of General (ret) Colin Powell; Jeffrey Wright bumbles his way through a rather curmudeonish performance as Bush's oft-ignored Secretary of State.

While some of the casting choices -- Rob Corrdry as Ari Fleischer -- were a good deal more inspired, the often-cartoonish performances delivered often defy credulity. It almost seems as if Stone is intending to produce bad cinema, yet producing a watchable film despite his best (or, depending on how you look at it, worst) efforts.

The movie often blurs the line between known truth (Bush's cabinet/prayer meetings) transplanted truth (some of Bush's famous publicly butchered language displaced into private settings) and outright fiction (in particular, the scenes in which Bush and company plan the invasion of Iraq).

Yet even throughout the scenes depicting the planning of Iraq and Bush's struggles with the immediate aftermath, Bush's attitude seems to be not one of malfeasance, but one of assurance -- he seems to literally believe he is doing not only the right thing, but precisely the very thing his father should have done before him.

The contrast between HW Bush and W Bush's approach to Iraq couldn't be clearer. Bush Sr is shown congratulating his defense staff -- including Powell -- for concluding the war so quickly. W Bush instead celebrates what he believes to be a definitive triumph without having considered the consequences of the coming occupation, while Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) gloats to Powell.

Brolin's depiction of George W Bush concludes as it began -- with a man hopelessly overwhelmed by the circumstances he finds himself in.

The generally-accepted expectation is that Stone's flick was intended to ridicule Bush, if not outright villify him. As such, there's no question that the release of the film toward the conclusion of a Presidential election is clearly intended to influence the outcome of this election.

With more and more people falling all over themselves to identify John McCain with George W Bush as closely as possible, there's little question over whether or not the film is actually trying to influence the election.

As such, W is unquestionably a highly political film. While still a biographical film, it will, by necessity, have to be rejected as a historical film.

The film is still tremendously entertaining, and some speculation holds that it may serve to make Bush seem more likable by focusing on the struggles and foibles of his life rather than attempting to outright villainize him.

One way or the other, W will remain the subject of a great deal of controversy for a long, long time.

Liberals Play John Howard Card

As the likelihood of an election victory becomes more and more remote, it seems the Liberal party may simply be out to maximize Prime Minister Stephen Harper's embarrassment instead.

In a spot released today, the Liberals needle Harper over the recent mini-scandal emerging over the apparent plagiarism of a speech made by then-Australian Prime Minister supporting the Iraq War.

The ad asserts that, while Canadians were proud of Jean Chretien's refusal to enter Iraq with the United States -- an attitude hardly universal amongst Canadians -- Harper was "ashamed of his country".

The ad then claims that John Howard was the Iraq War's biggest supporter -- which is actually untrue, but the Liberals likely feel reluctant to admit that British Labour Prime Minster Tony Blair was actually the Iraq War's biggest supporter (aside, naturally, from George W Bush).

Over an image of burning oil wells and the sound of marching boots, the ad notes that Australian troops were in Iraq for five years. The ad asserts that Harper "parroted his words and would have followed him to Iraq," before asking "Do you really want more of this?"

This spot comes as the desperation in the Liberal campaign becomes ever-more apparent. Having given up marketing their Green Shift plan or branding Stephane Dion as a leader, the Liberals have instead settled for counter-branding Stephen Harper as a member of some vast right-wing conspiracy -- oddly overlooking the support of the Iraq war by the American Democratic Party, a party that the Liberals have historically sought to emulate and has enjoyed association with.

Which is certainly nothing surprising. No party wants to address the logical shortcomings of its own claims -- least of all a party that has given up on winning, and is instead content to merely embarrass its opposition.

Liberals Getting Desperate

With the Liberal party facing its greatest popularity crisis since Stephane Dion assumed leadership, the Liberal party stepped up its attack against Harper today, releasing two more ads.

This, added to a spot released three days ago, frankly show the Dion campaign in full panic mode, pulling the George W Bush card in a desperate attempt to polarize this election.

The first spot -- released on September 27 -- insists that Canada is "falling behind" under Stephen Harper. The Liberals are trying to counter-brand Harper as regressive and backward thinking:



The ad tries to portray Stephane Dion's Green Shift as in line with global trends by noting the other countries that are investing in Green economic growth. Newspaper clippings denoting the policy advancements by various countries -- Britain, Germany and (ironically) the United States -- appear cast against a fluttering image of each country's flag.

The ad then abruptly shifts, accusing Harper of cutting $60 billion to "Green jobs" (naturally, the spot doesn't mention that Harper quickly restored the funding under re-designed -- but similar -- prograns).

For the first time, the speaker providing the voice overs for the Liberal ads sounds increasingly outraged as the ad goes on. As one will see with today's pair of ads, this is becoming thematic of the Liberal campaign.

The second two ads push the anti-Bush button, and play it hard:



The first ad brings up an issue from five years ago, mentioning Harper's support for the Iraq war.

Soldiers are shown marching in between inter-cut photos of Harper with George W Bush, noting that if Harper had his way, Canadian troops would be in Iraq. The ad then turns to Afghanistan (ironically, a war the Liberals themselves committed Canada to) and questions Harper's commitment to withdrawing groups.

A now frantic-sounding male voice asks "Can we really trust him on something so important? Do you really want to find out?"

But the true desperation of the Liberal campaign comes shining through in the third spot, entitled "Harpernomics and Bush":



The first Liberal ad claims the Canadian economy is in a "tailspin" and accuses Harper of parroting and emulating Bush by claiming the economy is strong and allowing industry to self-regulate.

However, following a Bush-riddled attack on Harper, the ad then tries to abruptly shift into Liberal promises to "strengthen the social safety net in tough times" -- something they previously did the opposite of -- balance the already-balanced budget, and "put people first".

The spot concludes by telling Canadians the Liberal party is "always there for you."

These latter two spots coincide with the launching of a slick new website promoting a hypothetical Bush/Harper campaign.

A George W Bush impersonator greets visitors to the site, saying "welcome to our website. My pal Steve and I have the same economic plan... if you can call it that. Heck, he would've joined me in Iraq and you'd still be there. I'm going back to Texas. But if you vote for Steve, it'd be just like I moved up there with y'all."

Certainly, this new concentrated anti-Bush push may garner the Liberals some support. Or, conversely, all Canadians may recognize the party as simply desperate -- just as Canadians recognized Paul Martin as desperate when he challenged Harper to talk about abortion in the tail end of the 2006 campaign.

(Unfortunately for Stephane Dion, his primary collaborator, Elizabeth May, also holds some conservative views on abortion, so he can't pull that particular card.)

If this is the best Hail Mary play Stephane Dion could pull out of the playbook, the Liberal party has just conceded defeat in this election.

Quick! Buy Another Case of Embarrass-mints!

Hey, Weren't Republicans Supposed to be the Religious Ones?

Just asking...

If one were to ask certain observers of American politics, they would probably be told that the American Republican party was at the forefront of mixing religion in politics.

Much has been made about George W Bush's religiosity. "Concerned parties" everywhere objected to Mike Huckabee and his belief in creationism. Some have even insisted that the combination of Christianity and conservative politics has put the United States on the road to fascism.

So if this is the case, and Republicans are so religious, and this is such a bad thing, why is it that the Republicans' presumptive presidential nominee barely mentioning religion at all, and the remaining nominees for the Democrat nomination battling it out on the topic of religion?

In fact Clinton and Obama made a direct appeal to religious voters at a weekend debate at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania's Messiah College.

Meanwhile, John McCain has remained remarkably quiet about his religious beliefs (for the record, he's an Episcopalian-turned-Baptist), to the extent that the Evangelical community -- another target of "concerned parties" and traditionally a reliable source of support for Republicans -- is largely split over whether or not they'll support him.

Right now if religion is much of an issue for anyone in the 2008 Presidential campaign, it's the Democrats. Yet there seems to be remarkably little criticism of this particular religious turn, and the worst criticism seems to be directed at Clinton and Obama by one another.

One has to wonder where the "interested parties" are on this particular matter. But then again, one is hardly surprised, either.

Bush Promises to Help McCain Win Whitehouse

Probably won't mention that "illegitimate black baby" thing again

For John McCain, certainly one more endorsement couldn't have hurt.

After all, he's piled up endorsements from virtually every prominent Republican in the United States, most of his defeated opponents, and even a few Democrats.

Now, he's just received his biggest, most important endorsement from... President Bush?

Aw, fuck.

It may seem counter-intuitive to suggest that an endorsement from the sitting president would be a bad thing... if you're a complete idiot.

But considering Bush's continually plummeting approval ratings (32% of polled Americans approve, 66% disapprove) Bush's approval could prove to be a major obstacle for McCain.

Certainly, an endorsement from Bush will help McCain better access the Republican base. This could be helpful.

But what Republicans desperately need to do right now is access soft Democrat voters -- the very voters that Bush will absolutely repel from McCain's campaign.

Bush's endorsement of McCain could prove to a boon to the Democrats, just as Ralph Nader running for President will prove to be a boon to the Republicans, just as it has in the past.

Of course McCain accepted the endorsement in his typical fashion -- very politely, and with underwhelming enthusiasm.

"I appreciate his endorsement, and I appreciate his service to our country," McCain announced.

Then again, there's also the issue of trust. After all, if you're John McCain, just how far do you trust the guy who's presidential campaign fraudulently suggested you have an illegitimate black baby? Probably not too terribly far.

And certainly, Colonel Clusterfuck probably thinks he's really throwing McCain -- and his party -- a bone on this one.

Common sense suggests otherwise.

Why Doesn't the United States Have a Stable, Viable Social Democratic Party?

An unlikely source provides the answer

If there is one great unanswered question about American politics, it's probably "who really killed JFK?"

At least, if you're a nutbar.

If, like the rest of us, you aren't a conspiracy-peddling, Manitoba-cigarettes-smoking weirdo, that question is probably "why doesn't the United States have a viable, stable social democratic party?

A passage from Al Franken's The Truth (With Jokes) ironically provides an answer -- and it's an answer that "progressives" like Franken probably won't like.

Starting on page 119, and continuing onto page 120:

"It is actually illegal for tax-exempt religious organizations to engage in partisan political activity. But that didn't stop the Bush-Cheney campaign from encouraging clergy in battleground states to do their civic duty. In Pennsylvania, for example, recieved this e-mail from a Bush-Cheney staffer:

"Subject: Lead your congregation for President Bush

The Bush-Cheney '04 national headquarters in Virginia has asked us to identify 1600 "Friendly Congregations" in Pennsylvania where voters friendly to President Bush may gather on a regular basis. In each of these friendly congregations, we would like to identify a volunteer coordinator who can help distribute general informatinon to other supporters. If you are interested, please email Luke Bernstein at LBernstein@GeorgeWBush.com your name, address, phone number and place of worship.

Thanks,
-Luke

Paid for by Bush-Cheney '04, Inc

Jesus Christ! And this from a Bernstein?!

Look. Churches are always going to be involved in social justice issues, on one side or the other. Just as Dr. Martin Luther King (for) or Dr. Jerry Falwell (against). ANd some congregations certainly have a political bent, such as Our Lady of Gun Control in Bayside, Queens. But this was ridiculous. Even the campaign's allies thought the White House had gone too far, considering the state of the law at the time.

There was only one solution. Change the law."

Oooh! Those dastardly Republicans, right?

Right?

Hold that phone.

"In early June 2004, Republicans in the House Ways and Means committee added an ammendment to H.R. 4520, the American Job Creation Act of 2004 (which cut corporate taxes, thereby creating jobs for people who gild bathroom fixtures), that would allow churches to commit three (count 'em, three) "unintentional violations" of legal restrictions on political activites each year without losing their tax-exepmpt status. I call that the "four strikes and you're out" law. Even more exciting, clergy would now be allowed to endorse candidates, as long as they made it clear they were acting as individuals and not on behalf of religious organizations.

Thankfully, when even the Southern Baptist Convention said the Republicans were getting a little too cute, the "Safe Harbor for Churches" amendment died a quiet death."

Hooray! A victory for the separation of church and state, right? Right?

Well, that is important. But, at the same time, there are numerous questions. What about the right of Pastors to express their opinions (politically or otherwise), alternately known as free speach? What about the right of religious congregations to organize as they see fit (again, politically or otherwise)?

Of course, these are important questions, but not necessarily pertinent for our purposes here. For that, we have to turn to the development of Canada's social democratic party, the New Democratic Party. (While the Bloc Quebecois often claims to be a social democratic party, they don't count because they are founded almost entirely on an exclusionary racial ideology.)

The NDP was formed in 1961 as a political merger of the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth Foundation) and the Canadian Labour Congress. The annointed leader, Tommy Douglas (quite possibly one of the three best Prime Ministers Canada never had) was actually an ordained Baptist minister. (That's right, you read it -- Baptist.)

Both the CCF and the NDP after it were based almost entirely on the Protestant Social Gospel. The Social Gospel advocated that Christian values demanded a more generous and inclusive society (aforementioned by Al Franken as social justice).

It probably helped that in Canada churches were allowed to hold and express political opinion. An obsession with politically marginalizing religion certainly isn't anything that has never manifested itself in Canada (see: modern NDP), but it has yet to establish the stranglehold on religion that exists in the United States.

Comparing the two case studies, one can't help but draw the conclusion that the failure of the United States to produce a relevant social democratic party is at least partially due to its legal muzzling of religious movements.

Of course other factors, such as an obsessive, fearful suspicion of communism (although suspicion certainly was warranted, at least on a limited basis -- read: not McCarthy-esque) certainly played a role, one has to wonder what would exist today.

Maybe -- just maybe -- a stable, viable social democratic party.

(If you're reading this, Ralph Nader, you don't count. And it certainly was a shame that Howard Dean -- whom history may recognize as one the best Presidents the United States never had -- was judged to be too scary by Democrats.)

Naturally, the blending of politics and religion can go too far, and George W Bush is a fairly decent example of that (although most of the Republican party's intractable opponents find Mike Huckabee even more threatening). But one should also keep in mind that a liberal mixing of politics and religion can also have positive results.

Canadian public health care is, without a doubt, history's greatest example of this.

But before the specific values of the Social Gospel can take root, as they have north of the 49th parallel, religious organizations have to be allowed to at least knock at the door. It's ironic that some of those who most decry the lack of social democrats in the United States are the ones most determined to see that this is never allowed.

Speaking of Not Suffering Fools...

KeVron gets a much-deserved spanking

The vaccilations of various left-wing commentators over the tasering of Andrew Meyer has apparently continued and unsurprisingly (considering the source) intersects with us here at the Nexus.

In a recent post at Canadian Cynic's blog, Pretty Shaved Ape (reportedly, also known as Lindsay Stewart, a Waterloo-area actor/waiter -- read: failed actor) has chosen to address a disagreement between Dr. Dawg and the ever-petulant and mindless KevRon.

To put it shortly, KevRon -- and if anyone doubts his overall objectability, he recently suggested we "tase Wanda Watkins and her grief" -- accuses Dawg of being a "phrawd". (Apparently, he isn't literate enough to know what letter "fraud" starts with.)

In a number of complaints lodged, predictably, at his hero's lair, KeVron complains about the larger implications of the Meyer incident for "liberals/progressives/Democrats":

"...Phrawd's confabulation puts progressives/liberals/democrats in the indefensible position of having to insist that sparky and his kind should be "tasered for running over his time at a campus meeting", to which, of course, none would ever agree..."

Naturally, there are a few problems with this statement. First off, KeVron is legitimately neither a liberal nor a progressive, although he may claim to be a Democrat so long as that remains merely an indicator of how one votes.

Secondly, while there are a few individuals who have used the Meyer tasering as a rhetorical weapon against the Democrats, it's also rather unfortunate that this isn't entirely unfair.

Simply put: what was John Kerry's reaction to the tasering? "Hey! Stop that!" would have been both simple, and reasonable. Instead, Kerry can audibly be heard in the background of the video continuing to speak to the audience as if Andrew Meyer wasn't being tased right before his eyes.

That's not the reaction one should expect from a man who could (many would probably agree should) have been president of the United States.

In all fairness, however, president George Bush remained quiet about the largely politically-motivated crucifixion of the Dixie Chicks, despite the fact that it happened over a longer period of time. Republicans are clearly no better in regards to defending people's freedom of speech.

Finally, one considers that KeVron himself has taken almost precisely the same stance that he decries in this particular statement, and one would wonder what to think, if they weren't aware of the fact that KeVron rarely thinks at all.

In the end, it's very unfortunate: Dr. Dawg, a legitimate progressive, has managed to make himself into an ideological enemy of the Hateful Left, as led (at least on this side of the 49th parallel) by Canadian Cynic, but definitely embodied in KeVron (who resides south of it).

What was his crime? Questioning the so-called "infinite wisdom" of Cynic and Martin Rayner.

And while Lindsay Stewart may be far from being the belle of the ball in regards to reasonable political discourse (consider the recent ambivalence over "weepy", "unimportant" Peter MacKay's recent Afghan ordeal, or that he (she?) shares a blog with a spectacularly psychologically unbalanced individual who recently, in print, wished death on another individual), one at least has to respect his (her?) ability to make a sound ethical judgement pertaining to the use of tasers.

That's a bit of wisdom he (she?) could stand to share with his (her?) blogging mate. Probably right in the midst of planning his (her?) next performance of Hamlet, which will probably be held in the walk-in freezer of the Wendy's he (she?) probably works at.

As for KeVron, one shouldn't worry much about him: the spanking will build some desperately-needed character.

Harper No Fun as Prime Minster?

Four out of five press gallery members agree

Stop me if you’ve heard this one.

Stephen Harper is a dour, robotic man. Controlling, pompous and devoid of any sense of humour.

If indeed you have heard this one, you’ve probably heard it from a Liberal – and for obvious reasons. However, unlike most of the Liberal party’s many characteristic partisan whispering campaigns, this one is apparently true.

Provoking a small amount of controversy, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has declined to attend the upcoming press gallery dinner, scheduled for 27 October. It is customary for politicians attending the said dinner to give mock self-effacing speeches, and it’s generally considered a highlight of Ottawa’s social calendar.

He won’t be alone, either. His office has reportedly also issued instructions to federal cabinet ministers to also take a pass on the event. Governor-General Michaelle Jean has also decided not to attend.

Depending on who you ask, recently the Conservative party has seldom missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This is another one of those times.

It’s hard to understand why Stephen Harper would decline to attend this event. As Leader of the Opposition, he has attended twice before, delivering what many people considered to be uncharacteristically funny performances in 2004 and 2005.

When Audrey McLaughlin declined to attend following a flat-on-her-face performance penned by a feminist comedian, at least it was understandable when she declined to attend the next year. With Harper, not so much.

This really is one of those times when Harper could learn something from George W Bush, who not only invited Stephen Colbert to give a characteristically hilarious performance at the White House Correspondant's dinner, but was actually fairly gracious about the entire affair, despite the speech's often-scathing nature, even shaking Colbert's hand afterward.

While many may point to Harper’s decision not to partake in this event as merely another skirmish in his ongoing feud with the Ottawa Press Gallery, the core truth beneath it all may be simpler than all of that.

Perhaps Harper, as Prime Minister, really is no fun at all.

Video Never Lies

Amateur Attack Ads Tell Interesting story

It’s official. YouTube has become a cultural phenomenon.

Like many recent cultural phenomena, perhaps the greatest strength of YouTube is that it offers its users a do-it-yourself online media outlet (not much unlike blogs – hello!).

Like any do-it-yourself media outlet, YouTube was quickly harnessed for political means. Various people have used YouTube – as well as similar sites such as Google Video – for various political purposes. Those with a stake in the current Liberal leadership campaign are no different.

Often, the way the grassroots uses the do-it-yourself online media tells an interesting story.

Once again, the current Liberal leadership contest is no different.

A number of amateur attack ads have been uploaded to these sites. They convey an interesting image of the Liberal party at this turning point in its history – and it may not be a very pretty picture at that.

The bulk of the videos take aim at one of two targets (if, of course, one ignores the mass of attention paid to George Bush and Stephen Harper): frontrunners Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff.

”Once a Dipper, Always a Dipper” takes aim at Rae, predictably highlighting Rae’s career as the disastrous NDP premier of Ontario, and listing several inflammatory quotes made about the Liberals during that time. “Keep leadership in the family,” becomes the theme of the piece.

”Timmy” portrays a couple of pop-art Ontarians, NDP supporters turned Liberals, shocked to learn of Rae’s candidacy for the Liberal leadership. While the mother is driven to drinking, the father tells his son Timmy the story of “Rae days” in scant detail. Rae Days are also the subject of ”Potholes”. In ”NDP Orange” it is actually suggested that Rae’s candidacy for the Liberal leadership metaphorically pisses on the “great” image and legacy of the Liberal party.

George Bush and the Republicans also become an omnipresent spectre. In ”Michael Ignatieff Outakes”, a South Park-style animated Ignatieff needs to be corrected after announcing his candidacy for the Republican party. He is later on seen ogling a map of Iraq. ”Fit to Be President” makes use of Hulk Hogan’s famous “Real American” entry music, and makes reference to some of Ignatieff’s contentious writings on imperialism and torture, as well as a photoshopped image of Iggy with an Eagle perched on his outstretched ”Presidential Finger”. A video of this title tries to turn a hand gesture into a political issue (yet curiously makes few references to Pierre Trudeau’s Prime Ministerial finger).

Speaking of Pierre Trudeau, no Liberal campaign of any sort could possibly be complete without someone exhuming his ideological grave, and this campaign is no exception to this rule. ”Quebec as a Nation: A New Perspective” quotes Pierre Trudeau at length on the issue of Quebec nationalism, painting Michael Ignatieff – whose recent Quebec as a nation appeal reopened the issue – as an outsider, out of touch with Liberal values. Video can also be found of Justin Trudeau responding to Ignatieff’s suggestion.

Even nutbars such as Alex Jones have weighed in, spreading their typical paranoid nonsense, and insinuating that Bob Rae could be used as a sacrificial lamb to allow the Conservative party to help institute a North American Union of Canada, Mexico and the United States.

To be fair, there are some bright spots. In particular, Gerard Kennedy’s supporters have posted some positive ads, highlighting their candidate’s strengths.

Frankly, these ads do not paint a flattering picture of the Liberal party.

Not only do they paint a start picture of a party divided against itself, they also reinforce the (arguably) popular public image of the Liberals as a party running headlong into a dead end – of a party so committed to living in the past that they cannot possibly lay claim to the bold vision for the future they often lay claim to. Between rampant anti-Americanism, and political xenophobia, these ads show a side of the Liberal party they would likely much rather remain private.

But nothing remains private when it is posted to online video, for the entire world to see.

Bush and Harper Running for Liberal Leadership?

Listening to the rhetoric being traded by the candidates for the leadership of the federal Liberal party, one would suspect that Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper and U.S. President George W. Bush were candidates for the job.

Each candidate has taken seemingly every opportunity to draw as close a relationship between Harper and Bush as humanly possible. Waxing rhetorically about the “similarities between Harper and Bush”, the leadership candidates have made a point of forcing the issue.

Even when mocking this tendency, Stephan Dion asserts, “yes, Harper is terrible,” while shrugging.

It’s safe to say that if any of the leading candidates – frontrunner Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Stephan Dion and Gerard Kennedy – were running against Harper or Bush for the Liberal leadership, they would win in a landslide. Unfortunately for them, they aren’t. So is focusing on Harper and Bush a wise decision?

Regardless of the wisdom (or potential lack thereof) of treating Harper and Bush as de facto candidates new. Before the campaign even began, the youth wing of the Liberal party distributed approximately 100 stickers to their university chapters . The stickers were a photoshopped mock-up of the Brokeback Mountain movie posters, with Harper and Bush’s faces substituted for those of Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. It is branded “Brokeback Conservativism”, and described as “a story about two friends who share ideas, ideologies, and long walks on the beach…”

The obvious homophobia aside (from members of the ever-so-tolerant Liberal party, too…), the stickers are merely one symptom of the Liberal party’s use of George Bush as a political tactic.

This was also prophetic of the candidate’s use of Harper/Bush comparisons during the campaign. John Diamond, the president of Young Liberals of Canada, in an interview with Concordia’s The Link, suggested this would be brought up during the leadership campaign – which it has.

There are some within the Liberal party who are concerned about this tendency. “I think [the campaign] is a little over the top. I don’t think that they have that much in common,” said Nick Blesser, the 2005/06 vice-president of the Concordia University Liberal Party Association. “I think it’s demonizing both individuals, which is not always a good idea. It creates more skepticism, and there is already too much of that among young people today.”

Blesser also clued into the homophobic statement made by the stickers. “Are you implying something sexual? No, I don’t,” he said.

It seems that the Liberal party’s attempts to equate Stephen Harper with George W. Bush have been bearing fruit. As the U.S. inches ever closer to its midterm elections, Canadian pollsters have found that the Conservative and Liberal parties are currently tied for support amongst Canadians. In a Strategic Council poll of 1,000 voters, the two parties were found to be tied at 32% apiece, with support in Quebec dipping to 16%.

According to the Strategic Council’s Allan Gregg, same-sex marriage, the Kyoto protocol and the war in Afghanistan are the key issues separating the Liberals and Conservatives in Quebec.

Diamond focused on Harper’s promised vote on potentially re-opening the same-sex marriage debate, saying, “To me, [same-sex marriage] is an issue of equality. [Harper] wants to open reopen this discussion, these are things that smack of George W. Bush republicanism.”

It isn’t limited to the leadership campaign, either.

Scott Reid, a Liberal party spokesperson, has delighted in pointing out what he wants Canadians to believe are Harper’s “three B’s: Bullying, BS and Bush”. He takes any opportunity he can to needle the Conservative party about allegedly “wearing Bush’s belt buckle” or “Bush’s pyjamas”.

The focus on equating Stephen Harper with George W. Bush may be paying dividends for now, but one can’t help but wonder if they will continue to be successful once the American midterm elections have passed, and the imaginations of Canadians are drawn to more important matters.

Worse yet, the Liberal party may want to consider what it will do should the current minority government endure past 2008, when Bush leaves office. Suddenly, what may well be their most successful PR tactic will have disappeared into history’s long night, leaving the Liberals to find a new tactic.

Perhaps what would be wise is if the Liberal party were to focus on establish a record as the Opposition to campaign on, instead of resorting to distraction tactics while quietly playing partisan politics with key issues such as the environment.