Stephen Best

M. Dancer, do you really think that of all the brilliant women in the Republican Party that Sarah Palin is the best choice for Vice President? It is such a bizarre notion that we're probably going to find out later on today that John McCain's campaign is just have a joke with us. And clearly I would be a better choice than McCain because I wouldn't have picked Sarah Palin as my running mate. I'd have chosen someone who could be President if anything happened to me--you know, someone like Joe Biden. As for considerable experience, are you serious? A former city councilor with 2 years experience as a governor of a small (population-wise) state with a BA in journalism. You can't be serious. This has to be a joke. Or failing that, true to form, John's fallen for another beautiful woman--a former beauty queen. It'll be interesting to see how Cindy responds. John isn't just old, he's senile.

In his first major decision, John McCain has shown he is not competent to be the President of the United States. Of all the people he could have named to be one heart beat away the oldest Presidential nominee in American history, and a man who has had cancer, he names perhaps the least experienced Republican available to him. Can you imagine Sarah Palin who was once named Miss Congeniality in a beauty pageant as Commander-in-Chief, confronting Putin, Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea. Does McCain really think Palin is qualified to be President? Does Palin think she's qualified to President? Where's McCain's argument now about Obama's putative lack of experience? I can hardly wait for the Biden / Palin vice presidential nominee debates. I can hardly wait to hear the conservatives on this forum defend this truly awful, incompetent, politically expedient decision by John McCain.

FYI--The following arrived in my "In" box this morning: Nanos National Tracking: Liberals 35%, Conservatives 33% - Canadians still don't embrace Dion (or Harper, or Layton, or May, or Duceppe--comment by Stephen Best) Nik on the Numbers The latest Nanos poll shows that the Liberals and Conservatives are gripped in a deadlock (LP 35%, CP 33%, NDP 17%, BQ 8%, GP 7%). Of note, in the province of Quebec, support for the Bloc has decreased significantly by nine points in the last quarter, with the NDP picking up most of that support. On the best Prime Minister front, Stephen Harper still enjoys a significant advantage over Stephane Dion. A potential election poses risks for both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Prime Minister Harper seems ready to risk his mandate while his party is tied with the Liberals. Liberal leader Stephane Dion has not been embraced by Canadians. Visit Nik on the Numbers and join our national political conversation and post your comments on this poll. The detailed tables with the regional sub-tabs and methodology are posted on our new polling portal website at: http://www.nanosresearch.com. You can also register to receive automatic polling updates at the Nanos polling portal. Methodology Polling between August 20th and August 27th, 2008. (Random Telephone Survey of 1,000 Canadians, 18 years of age and older). A survey of 1,000 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed Voters Only - First Choice) The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed in May 2008. Committed Voters - Canada (N=846, MoE ± 3.4%, 19 times out of 20) Liberal Party 35% (+1) Conservative Party 33% (NC) NDP 17% (+2) BQ 8% (-3) Green Party 7% (-1) (*Note: Undecided 16%) Committed Voters - Quebec (N=214, MoE ± 6.8%, 19 times out of 20) BQ 31% (-9) Conservative Party 25% (+2) Liberal Party 24% (+2) NDP 13% (+8) Green Party 7% (-2) (*Note: Undecided 14%) Best PM Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Read and Rotate] Canada (N=1,000, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20) Stephen Harper 36% (+2) Jack Layton 17% (+1) Stephane Dion 15% (NC) Gilles Duceppe 5% (-2) Elizabeth May 4% (-3) None/ Unsure 23% (NC) Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest "Nanos Poll." Cheers, Nik Nanos, CMRP President & CEO ________________________________________ email: [email protected] web: http://www.nanosresearch.com

The fact is, Wild Bill, "rage and resentment among a large and growing segment of the population, perhaps even a majority" doesn't matter unless those people are willing to organize and take overt action. That's my point. Public policy is not decided by public opinion or even what is the right thing to do. Public policy is decided by interest groups acquiring and applying power. That fact has been the political norm for all of human history. You may wish people and politics were different. You may wish for some Utopian view of democracy. But your wishes will never come true. If you have an issue or cause you think ought to be reflected in public policy then you have to actively fight for it. There is no other course open to you. If you fail to take active measures to fight so your cause prevails, what you think or how outraged you are is merely inconsequential background noise. And don't tell me that people aren't capable of fighting for the world they want. If you're not actively engaged in campaigns to have the issues of importance to you reflected in public policy, it's because you choose not to. And if you choose not to, why should anyone who is engaged care one whit about your concerns or opinions--you're a bystander who doesn't matter.

Harper not only allowed the gag laws to stand (when he could have repealed) he further restricted the electoral rights of ordinary citizens to campaign in elections. He tightened the gag laws. The notion that Chretien should be punished at the expense of the democratic rights of the rest of us is perverse. And lastly, I don't cry. What am saying is that Harper, who claimed he was as a better, more ethical person than any Liberal, is more hypocritical than those he criticized. Now if there are some--perhaps you Moonbox--who have no standards to which they'll hold the legislators whom they fawn over and worship, that's their democratic right. Don't include me among them. As I say, Harper's public policies are decided based on how they serve Harper, not Canada nor the Canadian people. There is no principle, person, or ideal he will not profess, betray, or destroy in order to placate his personal ambitions, whatever they may be. In that, as a Canadian politician, he is unique. Do politicians, in general, take into account their self-interest when they make decisions? Yes. To the extent that they will permit their self-interest to override all other considerations? Very rarely. Harper is the rare exception, and he's a dangerous one because he has no ethical principles beyond the petulant, spoiled brat, infantile "Goodness is what's good for Stephen."

Fundamental to representative democracy is interest groups competing--and using what ever leverage they cab create-- to elect the government that reflects their views. Indeed, public policy is decided by competition between interest groups and nothing else. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how politics, in fact, works. You may have a view about how you think politics ought to be, but by failing to act in a way that recognizes what politics, in fact, is your cherished issues (if you have any) no matter how compelling or necessary are doomed to failure. It was unions using the leverage you decry to elect pro-worker legislators that gave us fairer wages and safer work places. It was civil rights groups that used leverage to elect representatives who would reduce discrimination. Do I need to enumerate other issues addressed by interest groups--self-serving and altruistic--using their leverage to elect representatives beholden to their causes? And, yes, big tobacco is one of them. Welcome to democracy, M. Dancer, where even the bad guys get to participate. For those engaged in trying to improve the world we live in, failure--as you exhibit--to grasp the reality of politics, rather than a naive notion of how it ought to be, is the single most significant reason that greater progressive has not been made. Do you truly believe that democracy is enhanced by preventing environmental groups from working in elections to elect governments that would implement sound environmental laws? If you do, you have no understanding of how the electoral system works and how its perversions have impeded Canada implementing environmental laws that would, in fact, protect the environment. The paucity of what people like you actually know about politics--in general and particular--never ceases to truly amaze me. The tragedy of that is that politics decides or influences almost everything in our lives. Because you don't understand politics, you've given a great level of control over your life to people who do, and some of them do not have your best interests at heart. But I can tell you this, they are glad you're a naive political fool, because, as a consequence, you don't matter in their campaigns to force public policy that will serve their interests.

Perhaps you don't hold fundamental democratic principles and Charter rights in high esteem, but I do. And, as I've just been involved in a legal action which forced the Ontario government to bring its electoral law in accordance with the Charter, you can be damn sure that my 'carping' and 'harping' will continue. As I and others fight to defend those rights, you can either use them or lose them. Your choice, M. Dancer. You are aware that if we abandon those rights, what looms is fascism or worse. Is that what you want? Because that is the end result of your views, lack of political involvement, and deference to authority and autocratic political leaders like Harper.

He wouldn't, because he does not, in fact, have the principles he professed to have when he raised hundreds of thousand dollars from trusting NCC supporters to fight the gag law. He duped NCC supporters into believing he was a man of ethics and integrity who believes in fundamental democratic principles. He, in fact, does not. Harper only believes in what is good for him personally. He is, truly, the most hypocritical, self-serving politician I have ever met. I dread what he would do with a majority government.

Legislatures around the world are filled with people who, before they were elected, never served in the military or other government function. Are you suggesting that only soldiers and government bureaucrats are qualified to run for office? Perhaps you could clarify.

Wilber, perhaps you might refrain from reading more into my posts than what is, in fact, contained in them.

You may not be off the mark. Conservative thinking (the oxymoron is not intentional) is, arguably, a form of psychosis as research has shown. See Researchers help define what makes a political conservative.

In practice it does. First, in Canada the more votes a party gets the greater its public funding. So if you're a voter and you know a particular candidate is going to win, you're still better off casting a vote for your preferred candidate because it will give your party of choice increased monies. Why do you think Jim Harris, the previous leader of the Green Party, was so obsessed with running a full slate of candidates even though it was unlikely that even one Green Party candidate would get elected? Second, no matter who wins, he or she is always cognizant of the magnitude of the win. If a candidate's margin of victory is reduced because of an increased Green Party vote, for example, it generally follows that the winning candidate--no matter how inevitable their win--will take it into account in their policy decisions their constituent's interest in "green" issues. The more votes a particular policy option can shift, the more those who are elected will give it credence. Third, electoral districts are fluid. As time goes by, political interests shift and local demographics shifts. Consequently, not infrequently, inevitable candidates get complacent and lose to a more intrepid opponent. Votes matter. As do well-run campaigns.

For the record, Wild Bill, the first political campaign I ran was for the International Fund for Animal Welfare during the 1974 federal election. It was a campaign about the Canadian seal hunt entitled "Where does candidate stand on the killing of baby seals? Demand an answer." The last campaign I was involved in was for new federal party, the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada which I co-founded and am the Chief Agent, and that was/is in the current by-election in Guelph. I have run or been involved in political campaigns, as I mentioned, around the world. I know something about politics. I was one of the founders of Environment Voters. With all due respect, there are very few people who know more about the machinations and practice of politics than me.

Actually, Wild Bill, every vote counts, even in EDs where the winner is a foregone conclusion. As for the bulk of your post, I can't make head nor tail of the point you're trying to make. Maybe you could unmix your inconsistent tropes, imagery, and insults, and make your case with some simplicity and logical rigour. You know, make it a little more "academic" so that it, in fact, makes sense. Assuming there's some sense to be made.

Let me introduce myself, Stephen Best. Now you know who I am, and that I'm not a "16 year old kid in his pyjamas in his Mom's basement making all this stuff up." And you are? Not a 16 year old in pajamas, I hope.

Of course the corollary to your view is that if you're in an electoral district where one candidate or another will inevitably win--and that applies to the majority of EDs--there's no point in voting at all. What's the point of voting in Calgary West, for example, because you know Stephen Harper will win? So, would you suggest that everyone who isn't in a swing/marginal ED stay home on election day?

You could vote for the candidate in your electoral district--regardless of party--who you think might make the best Member of Parliament. Or are you locked into a Harper/Dion mindset?

Isn't this forum for offering up personal opinions? Or did I miss something in the rules? Even if your observation about Chretien is correct, it doesn't excuse Harper's reprehensible conduct. As for the GST, is that the only promise you can reference? What about income trusts? What about making Parliament more open and accountable and transparent? What about empowering MPs? What about enhancing the committee system? Harper promises all and all broken. And that's just a partial list. You have a very selective memory.

I've been directly involved in politics since the early 1970s. I've been involved in election campaigns in Canada, the United States, Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Community. I've never met a politician as hypocritical and self-serving as Harper. Most politicians have core principles that they will not compromise. Harper has none. Was Harper's betrayal of every principle he ever claimed he had and sold to trusting supporters and colleagues a shock to me? Yes! Why? Because I'd never met a politician--and I've met and worked with many--who would betray every principle for nothing more important than personal ambition. I've seen politicians betray principles and promises for a higher cause, but not for a lower one, until Harper. And lastly, the notion that the Liberals have no principles is just plain wrong. And because you know it, your assertion makes you look very foolish, indeed, and puts doubts about any claim you might make.

For cause. I was involved as an intervenor when the National Citizens Coalition and Stephen Harper challenged the election gag laws which Harper decried as undemocratic. With full-throated cry, he and the NCC raised millions of dollars from unsuspecting donors to the NCC to pay Harper's legal costs. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the gag laws. When Harper became Prime Minister, did he strike down the gag laws and allow third parties to campaign freely in elections, which he could have done? No! He made the gag laws even more stringent, stifling even more democratic debate when it matters most during an election. The National Citizens Coalition which footed Harper's legal bills was outraged, and rightly so. Harper betrayed the NCC, and it's many thousands of supporters who trusted Harper. As I say, Harper's only interested in his own ambitions. When he was in opposition or the president of an interest group he wanted democracy and open government because it served his personal ambitions. But as Prime Minister he wants everyone gagged, again because it serves his personal ambitions. That's why the gag laws have not been repealed. That's why access to information legislation has been stalled. That's why the Conservatives are undermining the committee process. As I say, I've experienced Stephen Harper's hypocrisy and venality first hand. To understand Harper, all you need to know is that everything he does is calculated to serve his personal ambitions, and he will betray anything, anybody, and any value if necessary to have his way. You trust him at your peril.

To understand why Harper's calling an election, you have to understand Harper. Harper's only interest is in himself. As the record shows, he has no principle he will not discard, no promise he will not break, no colleague he will not betray to advance his personal ambitions and indulge his conceits. Harper likes being PM. So why the election when he knows a Conservative minority is likely once again? Because by depleting the Opposition parties' campaign funds when it seems he'll at least not lose, he gets to be PM for another year to 18 months without being concerned about the Opposition taking away his job. As I say, to understand Harper, you have to understand that he cares about only one thing, himself. And if servicing his whims and ambitions means bad policy that harms Canada and Canadians, too bad.

Why do I care? Because John McCain, as Bush has done, will implement policies that will adversely affect not only the US but also the rest of world. That's why I care. Excuse me for giving a shit about the world my grandkids will grow up in.

Obama was a "C" student? My understanding he graduated near the top of his class, unlike McCain who was at the bottom of his. What evidence do you have that Obama was a C student?

Did you miss my point? Let me be blunt. Even I, with my limited qualifications and significant deficiencies, would be a better President that McCain. That's how unqualified is John McCain. McCain, from his personal life, to his military career, to his Congressional stint has demonstrated that he is incompetent, unethical, and uninformed. I would be a better President than would John McCain. I suspect that even you would make a better President than McCain.

Could you be more naive?