Why Canadians should be wary of a Democrat victory tonight

Today is election day in the United States. Both houses of Congress are up for grabs tonight and the Democrats may regain the majority in the House of Representatives for the first time since 1994 or they may shift the balance in the Senate for the first time since 2002. If wildly successful tonight, the Democrats could take both houses and render George W Bush a lame duck president.

Many observers have noted that these midterm elections represent a referendum on the President and particularly his administration’s policy in Iraq. American foreign policy has often drawn fire from allies and opponents whether it has taken an activist or an isolationist approach. The war in Iraq has become a particular headache for the uS administration and it becoming increasingly unpopular domestically. Even some Republican candidates are shying away from the President’s plan.

Canadians have never had any love lost for the 43rd president of the American republic. Prior to Bush’s fall in job approval ratings at home, only 15% of Canadians gave him a pass with a solid 85% disapproving of his presidency. The cover story that described this poll in Maclean’s was aptly captioned “Hope you lose, eh”. One assumes that the 15% of Canadians that approved of George W Bush prior to the worst post-invasion days in Iraq has only diminished since then.

Tonight, American voters may just pass harsh judgment on Bush’s presidency by taking away what his critics have described as his “rubber-stamp” Congress. Without the numbers in Congress, much of the president’s agenda will never be enacted and many of the initiatives of the executive branch will be stymied.

If they are successful in taking both houses of Congress, Democrats will act over the next two years on two major initiatives. First, they will do what they can to set the stage to promote their eventual nominee for President in 2008. On this track, they will do their best to differentiate their policies and path from the Bush administration, particularly on Iraq. Many speak of redeployment of personnel from Iraq into other regions, but the Democrats may bring a significant contingent of their armed forces home to emphasize security on the home front rather than in foreign lands. Canada needs international support in Afghanistan from its other allies and while many internationalists do not consider Iraq to be a legitimate theatre in the global war on terror, diminished leadership from the Americans will cause others to hesitate. Perhaps one of the greatest threats to the Afghan mission is the hesitant nature of our NATO allies. A significant withdrawal from the American-initiated military effort would only weaken the resolve of other nations in the fight. Democrats speak of a “global test” or an “international consensus” on foreign policy. While we may all like a voice, leading by committee is a contradiction in terms.

If Congress is working to hamper Bush’s agenda, significant bi-partisan initiatives will also be impeded. Perhaps the most significant issue between Canada and the US at the moment is the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). By 2007, everyone going between Canada and the US by air will require a passport. By 2008, this will include automobile traffic. The Canadian embassy in Washington has been working hard to lobby Congress to include flexibility in the bill. As $1B of trade, tourism and commerce passes between our two countries everyday, protectionist Democrats may see the WHTI as a convenient method to assuage their constituents in a variety of sectors from agriculture to industry. Many Americans do not currently possess a passport, therefore many will stay home to the detriment of Canadian business and workers.

Canadians will be watching the midterm elections closely tonight, however, we should consider what’s at stake.

CBC offers an interesting headline

Caught this earlier today as I was skimming the headlines (as many people do).

cbc-headline.jpg

It’s an interesting headline: “Blair says Saddam trial a reminder of his brutal regime”

What’s the subject of the sentence? Tony Blair.

What’s the direct object? “Saddam trial”

Who? Blair. What? Saddam trial. Whose brutal regime? his.

Many at the CBC might believe the the Anglo-American led war in Iraq was “brutal”, so whose “brutal regime” are they referring to here, that of “Blair” or that of “Saddam trial”?

So, as many people skim the headlines, what may register at an unconscious level?

“Blair… his brutal regime”

Garth proves the point of Ont. caucus

If you ever wanted a perfect example of why Garth Turner was booted from federal caucus, go no further than the post he made last night where he lists the Minister of Finance’s personal blackberry email address on his blog. Of course, MPs and Ministers of the Crown get countless emails a day from constituents, but each and every one doesn’t buzz their hip-mounted Blackberries. The direct (to the hip) email address of the Minister of Finance, is reserved, for the Prime Minister, other cabinet ministers, caucus members, his staff and his family (in that order). But Garth, in his wisdom, has decided that his personal grudge with his former colleagues is more important than keeping matters of national importance separate from those of partisan anger.

Now, don’t get me wrong, emails from constituents are important, and this correspondence and that from angry members of the Green Party go to the Minister’s staff for a good reason; Flaherty is one of the most important Ministers of the Crown and therefore receives virtual piles of email. Not to mention that he’s also on the tee-vee a lot and this also attracts a lot of attention on its own. It takes a couple of full-time staff members to sift through the important concerns of constituents, those of all taxpayers and even of angry Turnernistas. The integrity of Flaherty’s personal email address is more important than Garth. It’s the email address that connects to Flaherty’s phone that hypothetically wakes him up in the middle of the night to alert him of a emergency cabinet meeting to address a pending national crisis.

So, before you hit up Minister Flaherty’s personal Blackberry address to express the juvenile partisan contempt for his office that both you and Garth harbour (“MInistr jim, u suck”), consider that by doing so, you are putting Garth’s petty anger before, you know, important stuff that goes beyond just you or me (even as constituents). Did you lose money on income trusts this week? Email his office, that’s what its for. Are you upset that Flaherty and a unanimous Ontario caucus voted to remove Turner from caucus? Email Flaherty’s office, they’re staffed to handle such correspondence.

Staying on the topic of caucus, it is this kind of breach of trust which resulted in Turner’s removal from it.

Garth has advised you to email all of your concerns to his own “personal” email address: garth@garth.ca. However, you’d have much better luck buzzing his hip if you emailed his more personal @aol address which he has not posted. Garth even has his own special parliamentary email address (@parl.gc.ca), that he has also not revealed to the public.

I will not however, violate Garth’s trust by posting these (or even his personal cell phone number… (905) 330-####). Building relationships – even with Turner – are destroyed when you violate trust. I question how anyone (members of parliament, members of the press, even constituents) can trust Garth not to post their own personal information in the future. When Garth is fuming over his next beef, whose personal information is next? Don Newman? Elizabeth May? John Williamson? Bill Graham?