Al Franken asks governor to preempt litigation and name him Senator
In the latest twist in the Franken/Coleman debacle continually unfolding in Minnesota, it seems that Al Franken really doesn't want to have to go to court in order to become the Junior Senator from Minnesota.
According to a brief filed in a Minnesota district court today, Al Franken wants Republican Norm Coleman's challenge of the results of the Minnesota recount to be referred not to the Minnesota Supreme Court, but rather by the US Senate.
In other words, Franken would (unsurprisingly) rather see all the errors and irregularities in the recount examined by the Democrat-controlled Senate rather than a court of law.
Franken's even go so far as to sent a letter to Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty asking him to sign Franken's certificate of election -- something that is actually unlawful, as Minnesota's election law requires all court challenges of an election result to be complete before a winner can be officially certified.
Tim Pawlenty is a Republican. Accordingly, one can certainly expect that Democrat partisans will accuse him of partisan wrangling in this affair. Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, however is a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labour Party. He's also refused to sign an election certificate at this time.
Yet with partisan Democrats going out of their way to try and marginalize any criticism of the way the Minnesota recount has proceeded, anyone paying close attention to the overall situation cannot ignore one overarching question:
Why is it that Al Franken wants errors and irregularities in the recount result examined not by a (presumably) impartial Supreme Court, but by the Democrat-controlled US Senate?
One could not help but imagine the absurdity of the scene: Joe Biden presiding over a Senate hearing in which his party has both deep partisan interests and control over the proceedings.
There's probably a reason why Franken doesn't want these errors and irregularities to be tried before a court: likely because, despite what various Democrat partisans would have people believe, there may well be more to these allegations than they would like to admit.
Ultimately, it's the same reason why Norm Coleman didn't want this recount in the first place: because he might lose.
It's hard to fault Franken for his own self-interest, even if the means by which he's pursuing those interests risks giving American democracy another black eye. If anything, it's merely confirmation that Franken's transformation from an extradorinary entertainer to a run-of-the-mill politician.
Once Franken announced he was running for Senator, no one should have been shocked about that.
Sadly, in the wake of this new pinnacle in his own partisan excess, it may prove to be hard for Franken to take it to right-wing ideologues like Ann Counter the way he used to.
Al Franken, once a masterful critic of Republican sophists has become little more than a sophist himself.
Showing posts with label InDecision '08. Show all posts
Showing posts with label InDecision '08. Show all posts
Friday, January 16, 2009
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Nuh-Uh, Al...
...You don't sit until the election is over
With the recount between Al Franken and Norm Coleman for Minnesota's remaining senate seat set to exceed Coleman's term, the Democrats have some funny ideas.
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota's other Senator -- and, naturally, a Democrat -- seems to think that whomever is ahead in the recount when Coleman's term expires should be seated in the Senate on a probationary basis while the recount is completed and while any further litigation works its way through the courts.
However, that won't happen if John Cornyn, a Republican senator from Texas, as anything to say about it.
"I can assure you that there will be no way people on our side of the aisle will agree to seat any senator provisionally or otherwise unless there is a valid election certificate and all legal issues about who got the most votes is finally decided," Cornyn insisted.
Cornyn is absolutely right to do this.
Not only would seating Franken before an official election result is determined be extremely undemocratic, but there would be little point to it.
Without an official election decision, Franken could not expect to be allowed to vote, or even speak. If anything, Franken would be reduced to sitting among his fellow Democrats and trying to look pretty.
The Democrats couldn't even expect to enjoy their filibuster-proof senate -- something clearly on Klobucher's mind when she suggests that Franken be allowed to sit provisionally.
In essence, there's a very basic principle at stake: in the United States, you win an election then you get to sit in the Senate. Unless you happen to have bought your seat from Rod Blagojevich.
With the recount between Al Franken and Norm Coleman for Minnesota's remaining senate seat set to exceed Coleman's term, the Democrats have some funny ideas.
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota's other Senator -- and, naturally, a Democrat -- seems to think that whomever is ahead in the recount when Coleman's term expires should be seated in the Senate on a probationary basis while the recount is completed and while any further litigation works its way through the courts.
However, that won't happen if John Cornyn, a Republican senator from Texas, as anything to say about it.
"I can assure you that there will be no way people on our side of the aisle will agree to seat any senator provisionally or otherwise unless there is a valid election certificate and all legal issues about who got the most votes is finally decided," Cornyn insisted.
Cornyn is absolutely right to do this.
Not only would seating Franken before an official election result is determined be extremely undemocratic, but there would be little point to it.
Without an official election decision, Franken could not expect to be allowed to vote, or even speak. If anything, Franken would be reduced to sitting among his fellow Democrats and trying to look pretty.
The Democrats couldn't even expect to enjoy their filibuster-proof senate -- something clearly on Klobucher's mind when she suggests that Franken be allowed to sit provisionally.
In essence, there's a very basic principle at stake: in the United States, you win an election then you get to sit in the Senate. Unless you happen to have bought your seat from Rod Blagojevich.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Senator Al Franken?
Comedian predicts narrow victory in the Senate election that doesn't end
Anyone expecting -- or led to expect -- the Al Franken/Norm Coleman Senatorial election in Minnesota to come to a swift conclusion upon the start of the recount was apparently in for quite the wake-up call.
The recount has proven to be a long and exhaustive process, with the Coleman campaign engaging in some highly dubious challenges. At one point arguing, for example, that any ballots featuring a vote for John McCain be counted as a vote for Coleman -- an obviously disingenuous take on the meaning of "voter intent".
With this recount starting to look as if it will never end, Franken, the Democrat candidate -- has recently announced that he expects to win that race by between 35 and 50 votes.
Franken himself would make a fine addition to the US Senate. But those clamouring for him to take a seat in that body need to be well aware of all the implications.
First off, Franken's talents have clearly been well-suited to the role of poliitical opposition. Even if he's often proven to be little more than a left-wing counterpart of Ann Coulter -- so it's unsurprising that one should note his level of disdain for Coulter -- one think that Franken has done successfully is keep a wide variety of right-wing commentators on their toes.
As a Democratic Senator, one can expect Franken to be little more than a loud mouthpiece for the Democrats and their sitting President.
Secondly, a Franken victory would give the Democrats their 60-seat filibuster-proof Senate. While those friendly or sympathetic toward the Democrats may view this with satisfaction, one has to consider the effect such a thing could have on the democratic process in the United States.
As the National Post's Terence Corcoran has noted, some Democrats seem to be looking to the current economic crisis in order to implement their own agenda in an environment reminiscent of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.
As we've previously seen, times of economic crisis are not the times for revolutionary shifts in economic policies or practices.
If Franken's election serves to enact such policy changes, it may not be quite the boon that Democrats imagine it to be.
Only time -- and the remainder of the recount -- will tell if the Franken campaign's prediction of victory will come true.
If it should, the rest of the story -- what Franken does when he actually reaches the Senate -- will be entirely up to Franken himself.
Anyone expecting -- or led to expect -- the Al Franken/Norm Coleman Senatorial election in Minnesota to come to a swift conclusion upon the start of the recount was apparently in for quite the wake-up call.
The recount has proven to be a long and exhaustive process, with the Coleman campaign engaging in some highly dubious challenges. At one point arguing, for example, that any ballots featuring a vote for John McCain be counted as a vote for Coleman -- an obviously disingenuous take on the meaning of "voter intent".
With this recount starting to look as if it will never end, Franken, the Democrat candidate -- has recently announced that he expects to win that race by between 35 and 50 votes.
Franken himself would make a fine addition to the US Senate. But those clamouring for him to take a seat in that body need to be well aware of all the implications.
First off, Franken's talents have clearly been well-suited to the role of poliitical opposition. Even if he's often proven to be little more than a left-wing counterpart of Ann Coulter -- so it's unsurprising that one should note his level of disdain for Coulter -- one think that Franken has done successfully is keep a wide variety of right-wing commentators on their toes.
As a Democratic Senator, one can expect Franken to be little more than a loud mouthpiece for the Democrats and their sitting President.
Secondly, a Franken victory would give the Democrats their 60-seat filibuster-proof Senate. While those friendly or sympathetic toward the Democrats may view this with satisfaction, one has to consider the effect such a thing could have on the democratic process in the United States.
As the National Post's Terence Corcoran has noted, some Democrats seem to be looking to the current economic crisis in order to implement their own agenda in an environment reminiscent of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.
As we've previously seen, times of economic crisis are not the times for revolutionary shifts in economic policies or practices.
If Franken's election serves to enact such policy changes, it may not be quite the boon that Democrats imagine it to be.
Only time -- and the remainder of the recount -- will tell if the Franken campaign's prediction of victory will come true.
If it should, the rest of the story -- what Franken does when he actually reaches the Senate -- will be entirely up to Franken himself.
Monday, November 17, 2008
It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over
Franken/Coleman contest will come down to the wire
When the ballots were counted in the 4 November Senatorial contest between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and Democrat challenger Al Franken, Coleman managed a very narrow victory.
So narrow, in fact, that Minnesota state law mandated an automatic recount.
The results of that recount -- and, barring any legal action on behalf of either candidate -- will be announced tomorrow.
Until that happens, AlterNet's Scott Rafferty offers numerous reasons why he insists Franken will emerge victorious in the contest. They are (in short) as follows:
-Minnesota only uses hand-marked paper ballots, leaving for fewer opportunities for electoral fraud. The notorious "hanging chad" is also not in play in this particular contest.
-The optical scanners used to count ballots also allow for voters to correct a potentially spoiled ballot before it's even cast.
-In Minnesota, every vote counts. Even if a particular ballot mark doesn't necessarily fall within the officially mandated standards, manual counters will honour it as a sign of intent on the voter's behalf.
-Courts in Minnesota require solid proof of electoral fraud before a box of ballots is discarded.
-Minnesota's ballots are single-page ballots, and are designed with simplicity in mind. You don't need to be able to follow a treasure map to pirate gold to vote in Minnesota.
-The hand-counting verification of a cast ballot allows for clumsily-corrected ballots to be examined and, if at all possible, counted.
-According to Rafferty, studies have shown Democrat voters to be more prone to the kind of errors that would result in an otherwise-discarded ballot being counted.
-The optical scanning machines used in Minnesota still have a 0.2 rate of error, even with perfectly-marked ballots. A hand recount will inevitably reveal a number of these ballots.
-461 voters in Minneapolis whose absentee ballots were discarded due to seeming signature discrepancies may yet have their ballots counted, if Al Franken's legal team get their way in court.
Of course, Rafferty provides few compelling reasons why a good number of these factors couldn't swing in Coleman's favour rather than Franken's.
But even if he's incorrect, in a contest this close it doesn't take much of a margin of error on Rafferty's behalf for Franken to still emerge the victor.
Which will certainly be a sad day for comedy. But then again, American voters can likely still count on Franken to crack a joke or two on Capitol Hill.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Obama Victory An Exciting Opportunity for Conservatives
No time like the present to shed the Bush millstone
If ideology were everything in politics, one wouldn't expect Canada's governing Conservative party to be very excited about the prospect of working with US President-elect Barack Obama.
Yet, John Ivison points out in a National Post Full Comment post, Canada's new Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lawrence Cannon, is looking forward to working with Obama with a sense of cautious optimism.
Of the issues prompting caution upon Cannon is that of NAFTA, which Obama suggested he wanted to renegotiate in order to include labour and environmental standards. “I think at the outset we have to indicate that NAFTA has been beneficial to all trading partners. Sure, we acknowledge there are some irritants - that’s quite normal - but, as we’ve done in the past on issues like softwood lumber, we’ll deal with them in a constructive manner,” he explained.
Cannon attributes some of Obama's NAFTA-themed musings to the election, but isn't ready to take anything for granted.
“I think what is said in the course of an election, is said in the course of an election. Afterwards, things cool down a bit,” he added. “I don’t presume what the new American president will want to do though. We take note of what has been said.”
While it certainly could be expected that the Conservatives would prefer to be adjusting to a John McCain Presidency, a change in the leadership of the United States was assured during this election -- something the Conservatives have been preparing for.
"We have been putting in place our program to be able to make sure that when this change occurs on November Fourth," Cannon previously said. "We'll be well-positioned to continue our relations, our privileged relations, with the Americans."
Like any other Canadian, Cannon understands the importance of the Canada/US relationship.
"You know, 40 per cent of our economy depends on exports and roughly 70 per cent of those go to the United States. So we are very, very tied in with the United States," Cannon mused. Cannon also wrote off any notion that Obama doesn't understand Canada despite having rarely spoke of it during the election. "That’s not an indication of lack of knowledge. He’s a senator from a border state, which to me demonstrates he’s very knowledgeable."
Of course, it takes more than being from a border state to understand Canada. Obama's previous mention of the "President of Canada" does lead one to wonder about Obama's level of expertise.
Then again, Obama is known to be a fast learner. His Presidency should do little to harm Canada/US relations.
Cannon seems to be looking forward to working with Obama on the economy. "I think the issue that confronts Canada, as well as the United States and the world, of course, is the instability, the volatility in the marketplace," he insisted.
Obama does, however, introduce one wild card into Canada/US relations. Ironically, it's one to which he himself is a bit of a wild card -- that of the war in Afghanistan.
Cannon has already insisted that Obama's election won't change Canada's plans to withdraw from Afghanistan. "We welcome the renewed focus on Afghanistan on behalf of the president-elect," Cannon announced. "The U.S. interest won't change our opinion or intention to withdraw our forces in 2011."
Yet Obama remains very committed to the Afghanistan mission. While the ever-increasing unpopularity of the mission provided some election-time impetus for the Harper government's decision to set the withdrawal date, one has to wonder what effect the charismatic Obama's support of the mission may have.
If Obama calls on Canada to stay committed to the Afghan war, it may become a good deal more palatable to Canadians, who would vote for Obama in a pinch if they could.
But perhaps most important of all is that if Stephen Harper and the Conservatives can establish fruitful relations with the incoming Obama administration its opponents would no longer be able to profit politically by pushing it as close to the now-outgoing Bush administration as possible.
But a lot of work has to be done. Hopefully, Lawrence Cannon is up to that job.
If ideology were everything in politics, one wouldn't expect Canada's governing Conservative party to be very excited about the prospect of working with US President-elect Barack Obama.
Yet, John Ivison points out in a National Post Full Comment post, Canada's new Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lawrence Cannon, is looking forward to working with Obama with a sense of cautious optimism.
Of the issues prompting caution upon Cannon is that of NAFTA, which Obama suggested he wanted to renegotiate in order to include labour and environmental standards. “I think at the outset we have to indicate that NAFTA has been beneficial to all trading partners. Sure, we acknowledge there are some irritants - that’s quite normal - but, as we’ve done in the past on issues like softwood lumber, we’ll deal with them in a constructive manner,” he explained.
Cannon attributes some of Obama's NAFTA-themed musings to the election, but isn't ready to take anything for granted.
“I think what is said in the course of an election, is said in the course of an election. Afterwards, things cool down a bit,” he added. “I don’t presume what the new American president will want to do though. We take note of what has been said.”
While it certainly could be expected that the Conservatives would prefer to be adjusting to a John McCain Presidency, a change in the leadership of the United States was assured during this election -- something the Conservatives have been preparing for.
"We have been putting in place our program to be able to make sure that when this change occurs on November Fourth," Cannon previously said. "We'll be well-positioned to continue our relations, our privileged relations, with the Americans."
Like any other Canadian, Cannon understands the importance of the Canada/US relationship.
"You know, 40 per cent of our economy depends on exports and roughly 70 per cent of those go to the United States. So we are very, very tied in with the United States," Cannon mused. Cannon also wrote off any notion that Obama doesn't understand Canada despite having rarely spoke of it during the election. "That’s not an indication of lack of knowledge. He’s a senator from a border state, which to me demonstrates he’s very knowledgeable."
Of course, it takes more than being from a border state to understand Canada. Obama's previous mention of the "President of Canada" does lead one to wonder about Obama's level of expertise.
Then again, Obama is known to be a fast learner. His Presidency should do little to harm Canada/US relations.
Cannon seems to be looking forward to working with Obama on the economy. "I think the issue that confronts Canada, as well as the United States and the world, of course, is the instability, the volatility in the marketplace," he insisted.
Obama does, however, introduce one wild card into Canada/US relations. Ironically, it's one to which he himself is a bit of a wild card -- that of the war in Afghanistan.
Cannon has already insisted that Obama's election won't change Canada's plans to withdraw from Afghanistan. "We welcome the renewed focus on Afghanistan on behalf of the president-elect," Cannon announced. "The U.S. interest won't change our opinion or intention to withdraw our forces in 2011."
Yet Obama remains very committed to the Afghanistan mission. While the ever-increasing unpopularity of the mission provided some election-time impetus for the Harper government's decision to set the withdrawal date, one has to wonder what effect the charismatic Obama's support of the mission may have.
If Obama calls on Canada to stay committed to the Afghan war, it may become a good deal more palatable to Canadians, who would vote for Obama in a pinch if they could.
But perhaps most important of all is that if Stephen Harper and the Conservatives can establish fruitful relations with the incoming Obama administration its opponents would no longer be able to profit politically by pushing it as close to the now-outgoing Bush administration as possible.
But a lot of work has to be done. Hopefully, Lawrence Cannon is up to that job.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Hopefully, Al Didn't Quit His Day Job
Franken falls short in his bid to join US Senate
Even though a recount looms, it seems that Al Franken may not be changing careers after all.
In his bid to defeat Republican incumbent Norm Coleman, Franken may have lost by as little as 727 votes. Although Minnesota's election law mandates an automatic recount in cases where the margin of victory is less than .5%, it seems that Franken hasn't come out on top this time around.
Which, for Franken, may not be such a bad thing. Now he can write another book -- perhaps one on a positive note. While his last two books, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and The Truth (With Jokes) were both written in the wake of Republican Presidential victories. Now, Franken has a victory to write about.
As one considers what many Democrats have regarded as the nadir of their political lives, a victorious third act should prove to be quite cathartic.
Comedy is, and will always remain, Franken's true gift. Now, with Barack Obama bound for the White House, many Democrats should find their sense of humour restored.
There will, meanwhile, be other opportunities for Franken, be it competing for a seat in the Senate or the House of Representatives. But for now, Al Franken makes an awfully good comedian.
Even though a recount looms, it seems that Al Franken may not be changing careers after all.
In his bid to defeat Republican incumbent Norm Coleman, Franken may have lost by as little as 727 votes. Although Minnesota's election law mandates an automatic recount in cases where the margin of victory is less than .5%, it seems that Franken hasn't come out on top this time around.
Which, for Franken, may not be such a bad thing. Now he can write another book -- perhaps one on a positive note. While his last two books, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and The Truth (With Jokes) were both written in the wake of Republican Presidential victories. Now, Franken has a victory to write about.
As one considers what many Democrats have regarded as the nadir of their political lives, a victorious third act should prove to be quite cathartic.
Comedy is, and will always remain, Franken's true gift. Now, with Barack Obama bound for the White House, many Democrats should find their sense of humour restored.
There will, meanwhile, be other opportunities for Franken, be it competing for a seat in the Senate or the House of Representatives. But for now, Al Franken makes an awfully good comedian.
Quelle Fuckin' Suprise!
Could this have anything to do with this?
Some times, the conclusion of a big election can put a few things in perspective.
For example, Michael Byers seems to have had a change of heart regarding the United States. Byers, who typically doesn't like Americans very much, suddenly seems to think that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should re-connect with the United States.
A week ago today, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix reported on an address Byers delivered at the Canada Trade Summit in Saskatoon.
"On a formal level, Mr Obama needs to receive an invitation to Ottawa ASAP, and also an expressed willingness on the part of Mr. Harper to travel to Washington, again on a formal level, as soon as possible," Byers remarked. "I would want to see Canadian diplomats reaching out to members of Mr Obama's team within a few weeks of the election result."
Naturally, that wouldn't have happened if John McCain had won the election. But now that Obama has officially emerged victorious, one can only hope, like Byers, that it would happen soon.
But one would have to wonder what Byers would be suggesting if George W Bush were winning a third term.
...Oh, yeah. Byers doesn't like Bush very much.
One can only wonder if Byers would be so eager to see a renewal of relations between the United States and Canada if John McCain had somehow won this election.
Byers' known antipathy to the United States doesn't, however, change the fact that he's correct -- if only incidentally. Barack Obama's Presidency is a crucial opportunity to redefine relations between the United States and Canada.
It seems that the federal government seems to have recognized this as well. And not merely the bureaucracy, either: it seems the Conservative party is eager to get down to work with Obama.
"Most [of us] are leaning towards Obama," one unidentified Conservative staffer told CTV. "But still the general overall thought, I think for us, is that either [one] is better than George W."
"I'm a solid Republican myself," admitted the staffer. "But there really is this Conservatives-for-Obama thing going on."
It seems that the Conservatives are actually optimistic that a bilateral accord on greenhouse gas emissions can be reached between Harper and Obama -- neither are proponents of the Kyoto protocol.
Beyond this, however, the Conservatives stand to reap a distinctly superficial benefit from Obama's victory.
"We can't play the Bush card on them anymore," admitted what CTV describes as a "prominent Liberal".
But Michael Byers clearly underestimates the importance of the relationship between the United States and Canada if he honestly believes he can reduce the entire relationship to shallow cross-border partisan parochialism.
It's unsurprising that Byers is eager to re-connect with the United States following Obama's election. What is surprising is that the Conservative party seems especially eager to do it, too.
Some times, the conclusion of a big election can put a few things in perspective.
For example, Michael Byers seems to have had a change of heart regarding the United States. Byers, who typically doesn't like Americans very much, suddenly seems to think that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should re-connect with the United States.
A week ago today, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix reported on an address Byers delivered at the Canada Trade Summit in Saskatoon.
"On a formal level, Mr Obama needs to receive an invitation to Ottawa ASAP, and also an expressed willingness on the part of Mr. Harper to travel to Washington, again on a formal level, as soon as possible," Byers remarked. "I would want to see Canadian diplomats reaching out to members of Mr Obama's team within a few weeks of the election result."
Naturally, that wouldn't have happened if John McCain had won the election. But now that Obama has officially emerged victorious, one can only hope, like Byers, that it would happen soon.
But one would have to wonder what Byers would be suggesting if George W Bush were winning a third term.
...Oh, yeah. Byers doesn't like Bush very much.
One can only wonder if Byers would be so eager to see a renewal of relations between the United States and Canada if John McCain had somehow won this election.
Byers' known antipathy to the United States doesn't, however, change the fact that he's correct -- if only incidentally. Barack Obama's Presidency is a crucial opportunity to redefine relations between the United States and Canada.
It seems that the federal government seems to have recognized this as well. And not merely the bureaucracy, either: it seems the Conservative party is eager to get down to work with Obama.
"Most [of us] are leaning towards Obama," one unidentified Conservative staffer told CTV. "But still the general overall thought, I think for us, is that either [one] is better than George W."
"I'm a solid Republican myself," admitted the staffer. "But there really is this Conservatives-for-Obama thing going on."
It seems that the Conservatives are actually optimistic that a bilateral accord on greenhouse gas emissions can be reached between Harper and Obama -- neither are proponents of the Kyoto protocol.
Beyond this, however, the Conservatives stand to reap a distinctly superficial benefit from Obama's victory.
"We can't play the Bush card on them anymore," admitted what CTV describes as a "prominent Liberal".
But Michael Byers clearly underestimates the importance of the relationship between the United States and Canada if he honestly believes he can reduce the entire relationship to shallow cross-border partisan parochialism.
It's unsurprising that Byers is eager to re-connect with the United States following Obama's election. What is surprising is that the Conservative party seems especially eager to do it, too.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
History
Barack Obama elected President of the United States of America
One could be forgiven if they feel that the world has ground to a halt this evening.
The citizens of the United States of America have delivered their decision: Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States.
There will be no protracted wrangling over the electoral college. No supreme court. For the first time in nearly a decade, the United States can boast an honest-to-god democratically elected President -- elected fair and square.
The election was the only poll that mattered, and Obama won.
Few need any kind of reminder of the heavy burden of history Obama will carry throughout his Presidency. For the first time in its 231 years of existence, the United States has elected an African American as its President.
Only in a country that has well and truly turned a historical page in its traditionally contentious race relations could a man like Barack Hussein Obama be elected President. All Americans should be as proud as defeated Republican nominee John McCain that such a thing is possible.
Today, in the same year that Canada set a historic low in voter turnout, the United States posted its best voter turnout since 1908.
This election was not merely historical in the sense of the man elected. It's also historical for participation. After the humiliating nadir of the 2000 and 2004 elections, many can toast the United States as having recovered its democratic self-respect.
But Obama's mandate isn't as towering as the electoral college would seem to suggest. Although the number of electoral votes granted to Obama very much justifies the labeling of his victory as a landslide, his slim lead in the popular vote should continually serve as a reminder that if the electoral college distributed its votes the same way that his party does throughout its primary elections, this election victory would have been much more difficult to claim.
Many should hope that John McCain -- unlike Al Gore and John Kerry -- will make good on his promise to help Obama build bridges between the electoral coalition that has helped him win the Presidency and the rest of his country.
Obama's victory has been well-earned, and is well-deserved. But the real work for Obama now lays ahead of him, and he'll need the American people beside him in order to prevail in his labours.
To say that the United States has chosen its new Commander in Chief wisely would mischaracterize this election. Americans had two excellent choices for President before them -- perhaps the most difficult choice they have faced in the last 20 years.
But in the end, Obama -- the historical candidate -- has won his historical victory.
In a no-lose situation, it's unsurprising that all Americans have emerged as the real winners tonight.
The Only Poll That Matters
Americans elect the "Leader of the Free World" today
Today, as millions of Americans head off to the polls to elect the President of the United States of America, it seems that it's all but guaranteed that history will be made -- Barack Obama will be elected the first African American President.
Of course, Obama has already made history by being the first African American to run for President as the nominee of one of the two major parties.
But even as the polls continue to favour Obama with a lead of anywhere from three to seven points -- although enough undecided voters remain to turn the race for McCain -- this election is not over yet.
The only poll that matters is the election.
If Obama does indeed emerge victorious this evening, there are few rational reasons for tears to be shed. Obama is every bit as excellent a candidate as John McCain, and McCain every bit as excellent as Obama. No matter what happens, the United States will elect an outstanding Commander in Chief.
America has reached its decision. The only thing left is for them to deliver it at the polls.
Monday, November 03, 2008
The Folly of the "Lesser Evil" Mentality
Considering Barack Obama to be the lesser of two evils presents moral and practical conundrum
As the 2008 US federal election draws to a close, many American voters are finding themselves effectively sandwiched between their distaste for the twin elite coalitions in the United States -- the Democrat and Republican parties -- and their seeming inability to effect change through a third party.
Actor Danny Glover believes he has the answer for the conundrum faced by these voters.
A few days ago, Glover appeared on the Real News Network, where he proclaimed "if we are going to have some sort of impact on this Democracy, I think we're going to have to accept the fact that we're going to have to deal with the lesser of two evils, and I consider Barack Obama to be the lesser of two evils."Choosing the lesser of two evils may seem like a reasonable notion. But there is a problem with it: at the end of the day, one is still left with evil.
It's widely accepted that the Democrat and Republican parties are so institutionalized in the United States that no third party could ever dream of being fully competitive. Due to the firmly entrenched partisanship of Democrats and Republicans and the literally thousands of elected positions available to be contested, third parties rarely survive long enough to actually win power.
The "lesser evil" mentality essentially tells us that both the Democrat and Republican parties are evil -- the Democrats only nominally less evil than the Republicans. As such, some third party would have to be imagined to be "good". Yet that party, seemingly, cannot compete.
One has to wonder about the moral standing of a society that only presents its voters with two realistic options: between evil and evil.
Those who -- like Danny Glover -- are deciding to support Barack Obama only because he's the "lesser of two evils" are demonstrating not only a significant lack of faith in their country, but also a significant lack of faith in their ability to change it.
Which is actually quite ironic that these individuals would choose to anoint the leader who has campaigned on change -- change they don't truly believe is possible -- as this "lesser of two evils".
Certainly, many progressive-minded Americans are fearful that voting for a third party would only result in another Republican government. Many Democrats continue to blame Ralph Nader and his Green party for both terms of the George W Bush Presidency.
But to brand John McCain as the greater of two evils is rather confusing. John McCain's record is well known. Not only has he served his country honourably, including being imprisoned by North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Beyond that, he spent the last eight years as every Democrat's favourite Republican. Before that, he served honourably as an American member of Congress, and was integral to the US effort to normalize relations between the United States and Vietnam. His work on campaign finance reform has further democratized American politics, and certainly wasn't done out of self-interest: fundraising has never been a strength of McCain's campaign.
Furthermore, McCain has often reached out to Democrats in order to accomplish his goals.
Yet the McCain that has often come across during the Presidential Election has, all too often, been a fictional John McCain. There has been John McCain the traitor, John McCain the racist, and numerous other dishonest caricatures promoted by various members of the "progressive" left.One supposes the matter is actually very simple: if Barack Obama is to be the "lesser of two evils", then there must be a greater evil to contrast him against. If no such evil is actually present, that evil must be invented.
The invention of such evil puts an indelible twist on the moral nature of the political contest. It demands that, even if policy differences aren't sufficient to demonstrate one candidate's superiority over the other, morality must be invoked instead. However, if the moral failings of the candidate whom it is insisted is more evil, fiction most be invoked in order to make that argument.
Certainly McCain isn't the only candidate to whom fiction has been applied in order to moralize this election. There has been Barack Obama the secret Muslim, Barack Obama the terrorist, and countless other fictions.
The moralizing -- and subsequent fictionalizing -- of the American Presidential contest is very unfortunate indeed. It means that many thousands -- if not millions -- of Americans will be making their voting decision based not on fact, but on fantasy.
Then, there is also the fact that this has been done not in the name of uniting the American people, but dividing them. And with potentially less than three percent separating McCain and Obama (according to the margin of error of most polls) there is no question that this election will produce an American population as divided as ever before.
But don't ask Danny Glover about any of this. So far as being a political visionary goes, he makes a really good actor.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Senator Al Franken?
SNL alum in close race
As the 2008 US Election winds to a close, most eyes are on the tightening race for President (although Barack Obama continues to hold a modest lead over McCain in most polls).
One of the sometimes-overlooked races in this election is that being contested between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat comedian Al Franken.
Franken, well known for his Air America radio network and the intensely partisan nature of both his commentary and his comedy, holds a 4% leader over Coleman, 42% to 38%.
Independent candidate Dean Barkley accounts for the remainder of decided voters, and very well could play kingmaker in this race.
Franken's fame could wind up giving him an edge. Having previously elected former pro wrestler Jesse Ventura, residents of Minnesota certainly aren't adverse to electing celebrities to political office.
Franken would likely make a competent addition to the Democratic caucus, but his ultimate usefulness to the Democratic party will likely depend on who wins the Presidency. Franken's rhetoric gears him primarily toward opposition politics. With Barack Obama in the White House, Franken could find himself severely handcuffed.
Even if John McCain -- who previously was every Democrat's favourite Republican, even if he's been relentlessly demonized in the course of this increasingly fiction-wrought campaign -- wins the presidency, Franken's acerbic rhetorical style could prove to be a distinct liability.
That being said, Franken could make the American legislative process a good deal more interesting -- to say the least.
As the 2008 US Election winds to a close, most eyes are on the tightening race for President (although Barack Obama continues to hold a modest lead over McCain in most polls).
One of the sometimes-overlooked races in this election is that being contested between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat comedian Al Franken.
Franken, well known for his Air America radio network and the intensely partisan nature of both his commentary and his comedy, holds a 4% leader over Coleman, 42% to 38%.
Independent candidate Dean Barkley accounts for the remainder of decided voters, and very well could play kingmaker in this race.
Franken's fame could wind up giving him an edge. Having previously elected former pro wrestler Jesse Ventura, residents of Minnesota certainly aren't adverse to electing celebrities to political office.
Franken would likely make a competent addition to the Democratic caucus, but his ultimate usefulness to the Democratic party will likely depend on who wins the Presidency. Franken's rhetoric gears him primarily toward opposition politics. With Barack Obama in the White House, Franken could find himself severely handcuffed.
Even if John McCain -- who previously was every Democrat's favourite Republican, even if he's been relentlessly demonized in the course of this increasingly fiction-wrought campaign -- wins the presidency, Franken's acerbic rhetorical style could prove to be a distinct liability.
That being said, Franken could make the American legislative process a good deal more interesting -- to say the least.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
October 2008 Book Club Selection: Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama
Can Obama organize a community for all Americans?
(OK. The October book club selection is really late, but this book has been hard to come by. Guess why? -ed.)
With Barack Obama seemingly on the verge of winning the Presidency, many observers -- both within the United States and otherwise -- may wonder precisely what it is that makes him tick.
Dreams From My Father actually makes it abundantly clear.
First off, one may wonder how many American liberals might be uncomfortable with the reality that Obama actually reflects a politically incorrect aspect of African American culture -- the unfortunate stereotype of the absentee father.
Obama spends the book equally divided between three different tasks: chronicling his experience growing up without his father, his experiences as a community organizer in Chicago, and his direct confrontation with his identity as an African American in Kenya.
Most interestingly, the path Obama seems to be following to the White House -- unless the numerous undecided voters still at stake in the 2008 Presidential election intercede -- seems to closely resemble that of Harold Washington, the first African American mayor of Chicago.
Interestingly, Obama's presidency may pose the same dilemma to young black leaders as Washington's mayoral reign posed to Obama. While trying to organize numerous iniatives for the betterment of Chicago's Altgeld neighbourhood Obama came face to face with the complacency of older, more entrenched black leaders who believed they had a "direct line to the mayor's office".
An Obama Presidency may fool many black leaders into a similar sense of complacency -- causing them to forgo community measures in favour of expected initiatives from higher on. In the end, it's possible that an Obama Presidency may serve to undermine community-level initiatives.
The other interesting element of Obama's personality that emerges is a wariness of his father's thwarted ambitions. Having studied in America -- in Hawaii and at Harvard -- Barack Obama Sr expected to become a prominent man in Kenya. Yet a seeming lack of political savvy wound up with Barack Sr falling out of favour with the Kenyan leadership resulted in the promises of such prominence vanishing before his very eyes.
Encounters with various family members in Kenya underscored an expectation that Obama will accomplish great things of Obama. That and intra-family rivalries may be serving to intensify the personal pressure on Obama to emerge victorious from this presidential campaign.
Dreams From My Father is a fascinating, thought-provoking read. It's well worth the time to finish before the election on November 4, if one can find the time.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The Gods Must Be Angry or Something
Bill Maher, LA Times, Obama campaign targeted by domestic terrorists
When Bill Maher chose to frame his film Religulous as a call to arms against religion, one would be alarmed if he didn't believe the so-called "other side" just might respond to that call.
But as it turns out, Religulous may not be the only thing Maher has done to inspire the violent ire of religious extremism.
Last night Maher performed at a club in Palm Desert, California where a threat-laden letter containing a white powder had been sent.
"Save the babies" was reportedly written on the front of the envelope, and "kill all Obama supporters" scrawled across the back.
Similar letters were recieved by the Los Angeles Times and at a Barack Obama campaign office in Los Angeles.
As the 2008 United States Presidential Election campaign intensifies with less than a month to go until balloting, it's starting to seem more and more that this campaign is taking on more and more distinct overtones of a religious conflict. Perhaps more than any other presidential campaign in recent history.
Consider the case of Scranton, Pennsylvania, a city so religiously polarized by the campaign that local resident Ann Conway -- an opponent of abortion and of the Iraq war -- mused that "If I do end up voting for Obama, then I’ll go to confession after and tell the priest my sin."
Bishop Joseph Martino, the Bishop of Scranton, has declared that Barack Obama's Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden will be denied communion within his diocese.
“Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign,” Martino has asserted. “Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s command. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of the Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.”
Canadians are familiar with a few of these religious overtones within our own politics. In Ultramontaine Quebec (long prior to Jean Lesage's Quiet Revolution), it was regarded that "heaven is Bleu and hell is Rogue". The message of this was crystal clear: proper god-fearing Quebeckers would vote for the Conservatives, as voting for the Liberal party was considered blasphemous.
One also recalls that Prime Minister Paul Martin was threatened with the denial of communion over his government's same-sex marriage act.
To pretend that religion and politics can ever be truly and fully separate is utterly naive. Although it offended a great many Canadians, Preston Manning was actually quite wise to note that religious beliefs inevitably will, in one way or another, have an influence on political beliefs.
But there is no doubt that the equation of certain political beliefs with sin has a deeply corrosive influence on both politics and religion. This "crusade" against pro-abortion candidates and commentators is proof of this.
There is no getting around calling the actions of those who sent the letters in question to Maher, the Times and the Obama campaign for what it is: terrorism. The spectre of domestic terrorism, sadly neglected in George W Bush's War on Terror.
Not only is it politically detrimental to equate supporting the "wrong" political candidate as sinful, but religiously detrimental as well: the exploitation of the sacred in the service of the profane. In some extreme cases, as we see with these attacks, they transform the adherents of a faith founded by a man who preached a message of peace from law-abiding citizens into terrorists.
With all good fortune, those who have perpetrated these attacks will pursued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of American law.
But it's important to note that the answer to the corrosive influence of invasive religious fundamentalism is not what Bill Maher himself would advocate -- a public-scale disavowal of religion.
Rather, the answer is for moderates like Ann Conway -- even if Conway herself, her political thinking tinged with the notion of anti-abortion politics as a sin she's willing to bear even if unwillingly, could barely be described as a moderate -- to wake other believers up to the notion that they can keep their politics and their faith.
The answer is for more churches to take a hard line stance against violent anti-abortion activism, and denounce such terrorism for what it really is.
Meanwhile, one should also not overlook that atheist activists such as Bill Maher certainly haven't helped the issue. By seeking to polarize American society against religion, they've made religion as much a political issue as anyone else, but one certainly shouldn't expect them to admit it.
And as we've seen, some of the more deranged among the faithful don't take kindly to it.
When Bill Maher chose to frame his film Religulous as a call to arms against religion, one would be alarmed if he didn't believe the so-called "other side" just might respond to that call.
But as it turns out, Religulous may not be the only thing Maher has done to inspire the violent ire of religious extremism.
Last night Maher performed at a club in Palm Desert, California where a threat-laden letter containing a white powder had been sent.
"Save the babies" was reportedly written on the front of the envelope, and "kill all Obama supporters" scrawled across the back.
Similar letters were recieved by the Los Angeles Times and at a Barack Obama campaign office in Los Angeles.
As the 2008 United States Presidential Election campaign intensifies with less than a month to go until balloting, it's starting to seem more and more that this campaign is taking on more and more distinct overtones of a religious conflict. Perhaps more than any other presidential campaign in recent history.
Consider the case of Scranton, Pennsylvania, a city so religiously polarized by the campaign that local resident Ann Conway -- an opponent of abortion and of the Iraq war -- mused that "If I do end up voting for Obama, then I’ll go to confession after and tell the priest my sin."
Bishop Joseph Martino, the Bishop of Scranton, has declared that Barack Obama's Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden will be denied communion within his diocese.
“Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign,” Martino has asserted. “Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s command. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of the Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.”
Canadians are familiar with a few of these religious overtones within our own politics. In Ultramontaine Quebec (long prior to Jean Lesage's Quiet Revolution), it was regarded that "heaven is Bleu and hell is Rogue". The message of this was crystal clear: proper god-fearing Quebeckers would vote for the Conservatives, as voting for the Liberal party was considered blasphemous.
One also recalls that Prime Minister Paul Martin was threatened with the denial of communion over his government's same-sex marriage act.
To pretend that religion and politics can ever be truly and fully separate is utterly naive. Although it offended a great many Canadians, Preston Manning was actually quite wise to note that religious beliefs inevitably will, in one way or another, have an influence on political beliefs.
But there is no doubt that the equation of certain political beliefs with sin has a deeply corrosive influence on both politics and religion. This "crusade" against pro-abortion candidates and commentators is proof of this.
There is no getting around calling the actions of those who sent the letters in question to Maher, the Times and the Obama campaign for what it is: terrorism. The spectre of domestic terrorism, sadly neglected in George W Bush's War on Terror.
Not only is it politically detrimental to equate supporting the "wrong" political candidate as sinful, but religiously detrimental as well: the exploitation of the sacred in the service of the profane. In some extreme cases, as we see with these attacks, they transform the adherents of a faith founded by a man who preached a message of peace from law-abiding citizens into terrorists.
With all good fortune, those who have perpetrated these attacks will pursued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of American law.
But it's important to note that the answer to the corrosive influence of invasive religious fundamentalism is not what Bill Maher himself would advocate -- a public-scale disavowal of religion.
Rather, the answer is for moderates like Ann Conway -- even if Conway herself, her political thinking tinged with the notion of anti-abortion politics as a sin she's willing to bear even if unwillingly, could barely be described as a moderate -- to wake other believers up to the notion that they can keep their politics and their faith.
The answer is for more churches to take a hard line stance against violent anti-abortion activism, and denounce such terrorism for what it really is.
Meanwhile, one should also not overlook that atheist activists such as Bill Maher certainly haven't helped the issue. By seeking to polarize American society against religion, they've made religion as much a political issue as anyone else, but one certainly shouldn't expect them to admit it.
And as we've seen, some of the more deranged among the faithful don't take kindly to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)