A punditry-inspiring week

What a week. While being buried in my work life, I've seen about 50 blog-worthy topics pass me by. See here for a small sampling of the utter ridiculousness. I've commented on a few items that provoked some thoughts.

---

Quite a new low for the Liberals this week -- they're actually introducing a motion in the House of Commons blaming the NDP and Bloc for voting to defeat them in 2005. To quote Warren Kinsella: "Lord God Almighty, the Liberal Party of Canada needs help."

Mr. Dion and friends seem to be under the impression that their fellow parties are to blame for ending the long Liberal reign in Ottawa. Do they forget the voters who booted them out in the election that followed their defeat? Rather than pointing the finger for alleged wrongs committed by everyone else, can they not take some responsibility for the corruption and bad decisions that appeared endemic to their own party? Does the Liberal Party not look in the mirror and wonder if the source of their own troubles is staring right back at them?

It's more of the unspeakable arrogance we've seen before. Sounds like they're badly in need of some reflection time, of exactly the sort that comes with lounging in opposition for a long, long time.

---

Speaking of Kinsella, he's calling the US Presidential race for McCain in the wake of the seemingly endless Democratic nomination race. I wouldn't go so far as to call it yet, but he's right - I'm worried about the Democrats' chances. The added months of publicity, fundraising, and organizing time that the Republicans have while the Democrats scrap it up can't be underestimated. When the dust settles in the Democratic nomination and the winner emerges, expect the Republicans to be well-prepared, waiting with boats of money and a battalion of attack ads.

It's a damn shame.

---

A lot of people were shocked at the Alberta election results, particularly by the huge increase in Conservative seats at the expense of all three other parties that were represented in the Legislature. That came despite a whole lot of talk about voters being in a mood for change.

The result can be chalked up entirely to the Tory increase in Edmonton, which is the only part of the province where the opposition parties have a large concentration of seats. Tory increases in the opposition heartland, combined with slippage in parts of the province where it doesn't really make a difference (e.g., Calgary) equals a big increase in the majority.

At a glance, the overall popular vote didn't shift by a massive amount -- the Conservatives went up from 47% in 2004 to 53% in 2008, while the Liberals dropped three points to 26% and the NDP dropped one point to 9%. That's not a cataclysmic shift. For all the talk about the new Wildrose Alliance on the right, their 7% this time is below the 9% their 2004 counterpart earned. The Greens crept up from 3% to 5%, mostly as a result of two high-profile candidates who did well, but didn't come close to winning.

In Edmonton, though, the Tories soared from 31% to 43%, while the Liberals dropped from 41% to 33%. The NDP lost three points to land at 18%, which was enough to cost the two of their four seats, sadly including that of former leader Ray Martin. I wonder if Edmonton Liberal popularity in the Klein years was driven to some degree by Ralph Klein himself. The former Premier was a high-profile and not uncontroversial Calgarian, something that might not have entirely endeared him to voters in rival city Edmonton. Remove the Klein and see the Liberal balloon deflate, despite what most pundits agree was a better-run campaign by the party.

A big disappointment is that the voter turnout has dropped yet again, this time to a mere 41%. It's no coincidence that the lowest voter turnout in Canada happens to be in the province that's our closest thing to one-party state. There's not much point in voting when the outcome's pre-determined, so why bother? The Tories now have won a mandate based on 53% of 41% or about 22% of the electorate. How low does it have to get -- in Alberta or in any voting jurisdiction --before people start to question the government's very legitimacy? What then?

---

Ed Schreyer, Manitoba's resident loose cannon ex-Premier, sure had something to say recently. Can you blame him? Did the boosters of Waverley West not do any research on the technical requirements associated with installing geothermal energy before announcing the project? Sounds to me like "geothermal" was a nice-sounding term some folks decided to slap in their PowerPoint presentations when it came time to do the dirty job of selling sprawl. It's more than a little disappointing.

The Rise and Sprawl has a some good comments on the topic.

Photo: Downtown Edmonton. The city shifted quite dramatically toward the Alberta Conservatives this week.

The endorsement game

For some reason, I found the Friday Globe and Mail's list of celebrity endorsements received by each presidential nomination candidate to be extremely amusing.







For example, did you know that Bob Vila, the televised fix-it guy from 25 or more years ago, has endorsed Clinton? To borrow a pun from Sir John A. MacDonald, Vila might just be useful should a President Hillary Clinton need to put together a cabinet.

Chevy Chase has also lined up behind Clinton, as has trash TV king Jerry Springer, and musicians Madonna and Janet Jackson.

While Clinton boasts some impressive celebrity backing, if you're an American voter wanting some rock and roll at your political rallies, you'd be best advised to stay clear of her campaign, which is also endorsed by singers Barry Manilow and Barbara Streisand. Hopefully, they won't be singing during the rest of the primaries when Clinton's worker bees will need something a little more upbeat to keep the blood flowing. Anyone, quick, has Chuck D endorsed a candidate yet?

We all know that Oprah has endorsed Obama (potential O Magazine partner, perhaps?), but I had no idea that a huge cast of actors were also behind him. If the Obama campaign starts to run a little short of dough, maybe endorsers George Clooney, Matt Damon and Brad Pitt can crack into the Clinton campaign machine war chest safe (laser-protected, no doubt). Will Smith, Halle Berry, and Ben Affleck are also among the notable cast of Obama supporters.

The good lefty folks, including actors Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, consumer activist Ralph Nader and economist James K. Galbraith are endorsing Edwards, who can also count on Kevin Bacon, Harry Belafonte, and John Mellencamp to back him up. Now, if only Michael Moore would join them, they could all get together after the campaign and create a dramatic documentary (complete with accompanying musical score) on the scandalous cost of farm equipment for rural African-Americans.

Ted Nugent and Chuck Norris, gun-friendly men's men of yesterday, have both endorsed Huckabee. No surprise here that they didn't join feminist author Gloria Steinem in supporting Hillary Clinton.

Not to be outdone by Huckabee's scouring of 1978 for endorsements, Mitt Romney has recruited Donny and Marie Osmond and actor Rick Schroeder. Oh yeah, wait... I guess Ricky did eventually grow up and get that stint on NYPD Blue...

Never ones to miss a good war, Henry Kissinger and ex-Republican-in-Democratic-clothing Joe Lieberman both feel that war supporter and veteran John McCain is their candidate. Pat Sajak, meanwhile, is fully behind F_ED TH_MPS_N.

Adam Sandler begs to differ -- he's punch drunk love for Giuli. The 9/11-era Mayor of New York City also has Pat Robertson, Kelsey Grammer and Donald Trump behind him. No word yet on whether Trump plans to share any styling tips with Giuli.

Photo: Comedian and actor Adam Sandler, who is supporting Rudy Giuliani.

The more things change...

"Change" seems to be the popular word among American presidential nomination candidates and watchers alike, but I wonder how much change we're really going to see no matter what happens over the next ten or so months.

On the Republican side, we see an interesting cast of characters led by Guiliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. There's not much to say about -- to be blunt -- America's party of thugs and zealots: its record over the last eight years speaks louder than any of those seeking to be its standard bearer. Frankly, none of the leading candidates stand far enough removed from the party's legacy to count as much in way of "change."

On the Democratic side, we see Barack Obama chasing front-runner Hillary Clinton, with John Edwards in third place. The winner of this contest will likely inherent the mantle of a party that has the U.S. presidency firmly within its sights. While the U.S. is far overdue in selecting a bright, talented woman or an energetic, inspiring African-American to lead it, can we really expect a significant shift in policy?

Clinton is on record as being strongly and consistently behind the country's plundering of Iraq, at least until very recently when that position became a political liability, while Obama has already started to flash his cowboy-esque diplomacy skills in proposing to bomb Pakistan, a nuclear power. Of course, we can't blame these Democrats entirely as it seems that no aspiring U.S. leader gets taken seriously without promising to "get tough" by tapping the country's vast arsenal when needed.

If anything changes during their reign, it certainly won't be the U.S. war machine, which some estimate to account for $1.3 billion or 51% of the country's 2008 federal budget. As Jeffrey Simpson suggests in today's Globe, the "change" we're hearing all about is really about persona rather than policy.

Third-place candidate Edwards has probably been the most exciting proponent of policy change for some of the reasons mentioned here, but he looks to be too far behind either Clinton or Obama to have a chance of winning. The best we may be able to hope for is that he plays an important role in putting important policy issues on the agenda.

---

For those curious about my predictions, I'm not one of those who jumped on the "Obama will win" bandwagon last week, after Clinton lost in Iowa. I thought then that Clinton remained ahead of the pack with her well-funded superior organization and experience. No surprise, I'm still predicting a win for this second Clinton "comeback kid." Obama will be well-placed for a future run at the presidency and could even wind up on the Democratic ticket as candidate for Vice-President.

The Republican side is much more of a toss-up. My sense is that loose cannon-types Huckabee and McCain will eventually flounder and that Romney, despite his current struggles, will go on to win the nomination as the anyone-but-Guiliani candidate.

Photo: Democrats rally on "the Green" at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.