This has got to be the ultimate low in politics -- who goes out of their way to influence a spouse to break personally and professionally with their better half?
I know it's Christmas-time with the dangling of sugar-plum-fairies but this is beyond a bridge-too-far. They will pay dearly politically for this. You read it here first.
Sunday 29 December 2019
Sunday 22 December 2019
It's R-O-N-A Or ANOTHER Government Bust.
2019 marks the year where I detached myself from the Liberal Party, just as I did from the Conservative Party some ten years earlier.
Those of you that I've had the honour of having as readers, over many blogs, know no matter which party I supported, I never wanted anything from them. Got talked into applying twice for G-I-C appointments but didn't want them.
You're also aware I wouldn't pull punches and continually spoke my mind -- frankly, never giving a damn what Harper, Trudeau, or anyone else, thought of my opinions. Not being God, or some enormously talented strategist, I also didn't care who or how many people chose not to read my views.
So here goes on the CPC leadership race: you know the April convention has been pushed back to deal with a somewhat unexpected leadership race. FULL DISCLOSURE: I pushed like hell to get rid of Scheer, Trudeau and Harper in opposite order.
Now, here's why its got to be Ambrose for the CPC. They better hold every seat and supporter they have in the West. Ambrose does that. They must maintain control of the party with the current membership. Ambrose guarantees that. They need a modernised-makeover with a reasonably 2020ish outlook on the world and Ambrose brings that. (Only CPC leader to march in a Pride Parade.) They have no choice but to broaden their voting base in Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and to a lesser extent Quebec, and Ambrose is uniquely qualified to accomplish that.
Remember, they have to do what Trudeau did and turn personal popularity into a winning majority brand. Only Ambrose is capable of pulling that off in the next election.
As a result, Ambrose has to put her personal non-ambitions, private-sector creature comforts and achievements aside, in favour of heeding her country's call. She must do what's best for Canada, more particularly, tackling incredibly serious Western alienation.
Most importantly, Ambrose is the only logical choice for cross-pollination, bringing in moderates who previously supported other parties. As a result, I think Ambrose feels the weight of history and national obligation and I expect her to get in within a month or so.
Other names are being bandied about: MacKay, Rempel Garner, O'Toole, Poilievre, Bergen, Deltell and Chong. All of them have paid their dues and earned spurs. I've got an opinion on each of them but suffice it to say that the preachy (like their outgoing party leader) need not apply cause that's a political death-wish in 2020 Canada. Sentient Conservatives know it. Just look what continuous virtue-signalling did for Trudeau and his party's brand...
Those of you that I've had the honour of having as readers, over many blogs, know no matter which party I supported, I never wanted anything from them. Got talked into applying twice for G-I-C appointments but didn't want them.
You're also aware I wouldn't pull punches and continually spoke my mind -- frankly, never giving a damn what Harper, Trudeau, or anyone else, thought of my opinions. Not being God, or some enormously talented strategist, I also didn't care who or how many people chose not to read my views.
So here goes on the CPC leadership race: you know the April convention has been pushed back to deal with a somewhat unexpected leadership race. FULL DISCLOSURE: I pushed like hell to get rid of Scheer, Trudeau and Harper in opposite order.
Now, here's why its got to be Ambrose for the CPC. They better hold every seat and supporter they have in the West. Ambrose does that. They must maintain control of the party with the current membership. Ambrose guarantees that. They need a modernised-makeover with a reasonably 2020ish outlook on the world and Ambrose brings that. (Only CPC leader to march in a Pride Parade.) They have no choice but to broaden their voting base in Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and to a lesser extent Quebec, and Ambrose is uniquely qualified to accomplish that.
Remember, they have to do what Trudeau did and turn personal popularity into a winning majority brand. Only Ambrose is capable of pulling that off in the next election.
As a result, Ambrose has to put her personal non-ambitions, private-sector creature comforts and achievements aside, in favour of heeding her country's call. She must do what's best for Canada, more particularly, tackling incredibly serious Western alienation.
Most importantly, Ambrose is the only logical choice for cross-pollination, bringing in moderates who previously supported other parties. As a result, I think Ambrose feels the weight of history and national obligation and I expect her to get in within a month or so.
Other names are being bandied about: MacKay, Rempel Garner, O'Toole, Poilievre, Bergen, Deltell and Chong. All of them have paid their dues and earned spurs. I've got an opinion on each of them but suffice it to say that the preachy (like their outgoing party leader) need not apply cause that's a political death-wish in 2020 Canada. Sentient Conservatives know it. Just look what continuous virtue-signalling did for Trudeau and his party's brand...
Wednesday 18 December 2019
Impeachment: A Bipartisan Shit-Show.
Donald John Trump, President of the United States, has been impeached. I have no argument with the end result -- but as for the rest...mother of God, what a train wreck.
Let's start with the beginning: Mueller said it was not for him as special counsel to determine if Trump was guilty of a crime -- he also said that he could not exonerate him either. Mueller basically said that it was for the legislative branch to make that determination. Here's why that's both right and wrong: first off, how could anyone realistically expect a Justice Department official to go against the heavyweights in the Department, Trump appointees, who were not in favour of Mueller making a determination. But he should have done so, at least as a recommendation to Congress.
The other huge thing wrong is that impeachment is in no way a legal process, you know, the proper forum for making a criminal determination. That forum is the courts. So, impeachment is entirely and only political, unless...and that's what's missing. Remember that Clinton's impeachment was pillared by the president's perjury in the Paula Jones deposition. That was the solid anchor for the political process in the House. No such luck here. That's why Democrats were foolish not to solidify the political with an Obstruction of Justice Article, stemming from Mueller's report.
Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress are soft-ball articles. They are sufficient to impeach but not credible enough to bring along partisans and voters of the other party, or even the public at large. That's the Democrats' Achilles heel. How that could swing in 2020 is anyone's guess. As Clara Peller famously said, where's the [criminal] beef?
Now to the strategic errors: this process has moved far too expeditiously. Democrats were wrong not to fight for Administration witnesses. Impeachment should not have been managed to run out the clock by Christmas. What a mistake. Trump's legitimate claims of Executive Privilege remain legitimate until punted by the courts -- which they surely would have been, based on an avalanche of case law. Recalcitrant witnesses should have been held in contempt of Congress. Again, forget the political and election calendar. Run the damned thing as solidly as possible, to bring over independents based on as strong a political and legal case (via the courts) as possible.
But what about sending over the Articles to the Senate? This is incredibly dangerous ground for Democrats. They need to be expeditious about this -- to do otherwise would amount to interfering with due process and would play into Republican hands. In short, perceived illegitimate delay loses the Democrats votes in 2020.
Another factor that's a pox on both parties is their blatant partisan demeanour and their evident insincerity and bad faith. Funny eh, how all Republicans said A during the Clinton impeachment and now say B -- and surprise, surprise, most Democrats say A now but said B during Clinton...fucking politicians, with absolutely no credibility nor consistency. What assholes.
At least a precious few had the balls to break ranks -- to think for themselves and not vote as party trained seals.
Like I said, one hell of a bipartisan shit-show. Last time, the country swung in Clinton's direction after he was impeached -- all bets are off for 2020 and who gains big from Trump's impeachment. Maybe it's Trump and maybe it's not, if polls hold steady, which they may not.
That's what is truly wrong with American politicians. No matter which party they represent, almost all of them are no better than the iconic Lindsay Graham...
Let's start with the beginning: Mueller said it was not for him as special counsel to determine if Trump was guilty of a crime -- he also said that he could not exonerate him either. Mueller basically said that it was for the legislative branch to make that determination. Here's why that's both right and wrong: first off, how could anyone realistically expect a Justice Department official to go against the heavyweights in the Department, Trump appointees, who were not in favour of Mueller making a determination. But he should have done so, at least as a recommendation to Congress.
The other huge thing wrong is that impeachment is in no way a legal process, you know, the proper forum for making a criminal determination. That forum is the courts. So, impeachment is entirely and only political, unless...and that's what's missing. Remember that Clinton's impeachment was pillared by the president's perjury in the Paula Jones deposition. That was the solid anchor for the political process in the House. No such luck here. That's why Democrats were foolish not to solidify the political with an Obstruction of Justice Article, stemming from Mueller's report.
Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress are soft-ball articles. They are sufficient to impeach but not credible enough to bring along partisans and voters of the other party, or even the public at large. That's the Democrats' Achilles heel. How that could swing in 2020 is anyone's guess. As Clara Peller famously said, where's the [criminal] beef?
Now to the strategic errors: this process has moved far too expeditiously. Democrats were wrong not to fight for Administration witnesses. Impeachment should not have been managed to run out the clock by Christmas. What a mistake. Trump's legitimate claims of Executive Privilege remain legitimate until punted by the courts -- which they surely would have been, based on an avalanche of case law. Recalcitrant witnesses should have been held in contempt of Congress. Again, forget the political and election calendar. Run the damned thing as solidly as possible, to bring over independents based on as strong a political and legal case (via the courts) as possible.
But what about sending over the Articles to the Senate? This is incredibly dangerous ground for Democrats. They need to be expeditious about this -- to do otherwise would amount to interfering with due process and would play into Republican hands. In short, perceived illegitimate delay loses the Democrats votes in 2020.
Another factor that's a pox on both parties is their blatant partisan demeanour and their evident insincerity and bad faith. Funny eh, how all Republicans said A during the Clinton impeachment and now say B -- and surprise, surprise, most Democrats say A now but said B during Clinton...fucking politicians, with absolutely no credibility nor consistency. What assholes.
At least a precious few had the balls to break ranks -- to think for themselves and not vote as party trained seals.
Like I said, one hell of a bipartisan shit-show. Last time, the country swung in Clinton's direction after he was impeached -- all bets are off for 2020 and who gains big from Trump's impeachment. Maybe it's Trump and maybe it's not, if polls hold steady, which they may not.
That's what is truly wrong with American politicians. No matter which party they represent, almost all of them are no better than the iconic Lindsay Graham...
Chrystia Coronation?TM
Ah, that minority dilemma. No surprise it would give rise to Silly Season, especially in the all-insular NCR.
Ottawa is positively abuzz with the alleged Chrystia grooming -- you know, the so-called Making of a Prime Minister.
Of course, all of the above is patently ridiculous. No party, much less the Liberals, will go for that -- look what Justin brought them for Christmas...
We may have a rather preoccupied Prime Minister but Trudeau isn't about to decamp to parts unknown.
Just more of Silly Season along the Rideau. How about adopting Pablo's mindset: you know, trying, really trying, to keep this government credible and afloat. Rodriguez sure is earning every penny these days! Nice.
Ottawa is positively abuzz with the alleged Chrystia grooming -- you know, the so-called Making of a Prime Minister.
Of course, all of the above is patently ridiculous. No party, much less the Liberals, will go for that -- look what Justin brought them for Christmas...
We may have a rather preoccupied Prime Minister but Trudeau isn't about to decamp to parts unknown.
Just more of Silly Season along the Rideau. How about adopting Pablo's mindset: you know, trying, really trying, to keep this government credible and afloat. Rodriguez sure is earning every penny these days! Nice.
Saturday 14 December 2019
Why Impeachment Is Always A Dud.
This post is on why impeachment is a dud, politically. It's also about why impeachment shouldn't be a dud but alas, will always be.
Impeachment is a dud because it isn't about conduct that the House deems impeachable. Rather, it's about the court of public opinion -- and conduct they do, or do not, consider impeachable.
Was the House correct in impeaching Clinton? Absolutely, as it relates to generally accepted norms of presidential conduct. Will the House be on target when it impeaches Trump? Without a doubt.
But none of that ultimately matters as impeachment conviction in the Senate lies with the votes of Senators, who will take their cues from party and public opinion. Remember that Trump said in jest that he could shoot someone...etc.
The American people didn't consider Lewinsky impeachable. Ditto today, as it relates to the two impeachment articles. So, in the final analysis, the voting public gets to be the jury and non-executioner.
Thus, Impeachment becomes a political dud and foregone conclusion. But in the best of all worlds, it shouldn't be, ever. If convicted at trial, a president should go, period. However, our world has never been and will never BE anything close to that shining-city-on-a-hill-reality.
Impeachment is a dud because it isn't about conduct that the House deems impeachable. Rather, it's about the court of public opinion -- and conduct they do, or do not, consider impeachable.
Was the House correct in impeaching Clinton? Absolutely, as it relates to generally accepted norms of presidential conduct. Will the House be on target when it impeaches Trump? Without a doubt.
But none of that ultimately matters as impeachment conviction in the Senate lies with the votes of Senators, who will take their cues from party and public opinion. Remember that Trump said in jest that he could shoot someone...etc.
The American people didn't consider Lewinsky impeachable. Ditto today, as it relates to the two impeachment articles. So, in the final analysis, the voting public gets to be the jury and non-executioner.
Thus, Impeachment becomes a political dud and foregone conclusion. But in the best of all worlds, it shouldn't be, ever. If convicted at trial, a president should go, period. However, our world has never been and will never BE anything close to that shining-city-on-a-hill-reality.
Wednesday 11 December 2019
The UK Votes Tomorrow: BOJO Is In For A Shock.
Do I think BOJO is the next May? Absolutely. No big majority this time either. In fact, a thundering rebuke majority-wise for Johnson.
Yes, he gets in -- with a majority -- but also having reaped the chaos that Remainers will have dealt him at the ballot box.
The night will be all about Remainers having ditched the Conservative Party and voted strategically.
That's BOJO's greatest nightmare and it's likely to put one hell of a monkey wrench into the BREXIT works.
Quick Boris, the antacids! He'll need 'em.
Yes, he gets in -- with a majority -- but also having reaped the chaos that Remainers will have dealt him at the ballot box.
The night will be all about Remainers having ditched the Conservative Party and voted strategically.
That's BOJO's greatest nightmare and it's likely to put one hell of a monkey wrench into the BREXIT works.
Quick Boris, the antacids! He'll need 'em.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)