In Glenn we trust

By Charlie Gillis - Monday, November 8, 2010 at 9:20 AM - 65 Comments

Benjamin J. Myers/Corbis/ Mark Peterson/Redux

Jean Richardson was in her mid-30s when Walter Cronkite debuted on U.S. national television. The 84-year-old Connecticut woman has since watched a pantheon of “most trusted newscasters” cross her TV screen—names like Brokaw, Jennings and Rather among them. They were all fine, she says, if you didn’t mind the affected solemnity of television’s bygone age. But Glenn Beck? Now there’s a man she trusts. “I know he’s a good person, I know he’s honest and sincere,” she says. “I can tell in the first 30 seconds whether I like someone, and I picked it up from him right away.”

Richardson is tall, with an elegance undercut only by the bottle of Coors Light trembling in her hand. Tonight she is waiting in the corridor of the Mohegan Sun Arena, a 12,000-seat auditorium in central Connecticut where the man she trusts is due to appear in person, alongside his fellow Fox TV host Bill O’Reilly. Tickets were $80 and up, and the arena is located at the centre of a vast, native-owned casino complex, meaning Richardson and her son Scott had to navigate a sea of slot machines on their way to the show.

Continue…

Arlen Specter's defection and the big picture

By Jaime Weinman - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 at 5:11 PM - 11 Comments

The big news out of U.S. politics today is the announcement that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, elected to the U.S. Senate as a Republican in 1980, will leave the Republicans and run as a Democrat. Specter is doing this because it’s the only way for him to survive politically: he was almost certain to lose a primary challenge by a more conservative Republican. But his defection is further proof that the U.S. political system has changed. It used to be a wild, unpredictable system based more on regional interests than party affiliation. Now it’s something closer to, well, a system like ours.

For many years, the party a U.S. politician belonged to didn’t necessarily define how conservative or liberal his views were. Though the Democratic party was overall the more liberal party, it also included many conservative Democrats, plus what amounted to a sort of party-within-a-party in the form of the Southern “Dixiecrats.” The Republicans incorporated everything from hard-core right-wingers like Joe McCarthy to liberal Republicans from New England. Congressmen and Senators’ voting patterns couldn’t be predicted by checking party registration. And cross-party alliances were common; in the ‘60s, when Lyndon Johnson tried to pass Civil Rights legislation, he depended on a coalition of liberal Democrats and Republicans to pass it over the objections of the segregationist Southern Democrats.

As time went on, the parties started to become more ideologically consistent; Southern conservatives started to move from the Democrats to the Republicans, and New England started voting in more liberal Democrats to replace the old liberal Republicans. There were a few stragglers left, but they were wiped out in two big Congressional landslides: the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 by defeating nearly all the Democrats from conservative districts, and 12 years later the Democrats took back the House and Senate by beating Republicans from liberal areas (including all the remaining Republican Congressmen from New England). Today, even the most conservative Democrats are to the left of the average Republican, and while Specter was considered the most liberal Republican Senator, he was actually to the right of most Democrats: blogger Glenn Greenwald points out that “time and again during the Bush era, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues.” The U.S. now has a conservative party and a liberal party, with strict rules for membership.

That explains the fact, which TV pundits frequently bemoan, that there’s no more “bipartisanship” in the U.S. government. “Bipartisanship” was a relic from a time when politicians didn’t always vote along party lines, so they pushed bills through by making deals with other politicians who agreed with them. But now, politicians must vote with their party on just about everything; if they break on even one issue, as Specter did with the Republicans on the stimulus bill, then they’ll get taken down in the primaries. But more importantly, most politicians agree with their party on most issues; that’s why they got the nomination in the first place. The reason Obama’s stimulus package got almost unanimous support from Democrats and opposition from Republicans is that the Democrats agree with Obama and the Republicans don’t. In other words, the U.S. now has what amounts to a Parliamentary democracy, where each party votes along party lines. There’s nothing wrong with that, as Canada, Britain and many other countries can attest. Maybe the U.S. will get used to being more like Canada.

Taking Charge

By John Parisella - Friday, December 5, 2008 at 11:08 AM - 19 Comments

Both Canada and the United States have completed general elections this fall, but this is where the similarities end. The Harper government is currently embroiled in a political crisis which could culminate in a new election as early as this winter should the opposition vote against the proposed budget scheduled for January 27. The coalition may appear poised to become the next governement, but don’t bet on it. Should they show a willingness to compromise and adopt a policy of cohabitation with one or more of the opposition parties, the Harper Conservatives may yet survive. The decision by Governor General Michaelle Jean to prorogue the House should allow for cooler heads to prevail. Tories should extend the hand of cooperation and compromise and the Liberals should carefully reassess their current course which is perilous at best. All in all, with an economic crisis in the making, our political leaders have not taken charge—and Canadians are worried and disappointed.

Continue…

The Obama Revolution

By John Parisella - Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 6:20 PM - 23 Comments

‘Revolution’ may be too strong a word for many. After all, this election was about change and, every four or eight years, we hear about the necessity of it. Besides, Barack Obama has given every indication that he is a moderate, pragmatic and prudent politician. His cool temperament was on display both the night of his victory and two days later when, surrounded by his economic transition team, he displayed the very methodical approach to problem solving that is emerging as his managerial style. His appointment of Rahm Emmanuel, himself a smart and promising politician, is hardly the stuff of revolution. And yet, when you examine how Obama won and how he conducted himself,you know politics as practiced in the past 40 years is in for transformational change.

His elaborate and sophisticated use of the Internet, the power of the words he delivered in a truly inspirational tone, and the appeal to unity and the better nature of mankind is something that we have not seen since Bobby Kennedy spoke in Indianapolis the day Martin Luther King was killed. Back then, we expected politics to be a force for change and progress in the noble sense of the word. In those days, the rhetoric was uplifting and appealed to the idealism of the young. Aging baby boomers remain nostalgic about those heady days of transformational change. Continue…

A historic moment. An impossible challenge.

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 6:00 AM - 12 Comments

More than 100,000 euphoric people danced and wept in Chicago’s Grant Park on Tuesday night as a Democratic victory swept across the electoral map of the United States. It transformed Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, into the nation’s first African-American president-elect. Across the U.S., voters had waited in long lines, some for five hours or more, for the chance to have their say in the conclusion to the longest and most expensive presidential contest in history. Toddlers were lifted to touch voting screens on behalf of parents; Americans who had lived through racial segregation left the polls weeping, saying they had not thought they’d live to see the day.

Obama, the son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, was a mere state senator not yet elected to the United States Senate when he gave an electrifying speech, calling for national unity, at the 2004 Democratic convention. Then, in four short years, he went on to redefine what was possible in American politics. In a bitter and drawn-out primary contest, he bested a pillar of the Democratic establishment, Hillary Rodham Clinton, with his superior organization and unwavering message of change. He prevailed in an ugly presidential race against Arizona Senator John McCain, in which he was called a socialist and a secret Muslim, accused of palling around with terrorists, and saw the validity of his American citizenship baselessly challenged. Despite it all, he picked up states that eluded the Democrats in 2004, including Florida, Ohio and Virginia, in the process earning a national mandate for his presidency. Continue…

President-Elect Barack Obama

By John Parisella - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 11:29 PM - 17 Comments

Bobby Kennedy called it 40 years ago. At last, America can now hope for the more perfect union. This is history in the making and a great day for equality and humanity. Enjoy it.

Judgment Day At Last

By John Parisella - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 10:49 AM - 8 Comments

The rallies are over, the hoopla has ended, and the seemingly endless stream of opinion surveys has finally given way to voting day. An inordinately high number of voters have already cast their ballot in advanced polls. But it’s today that America will choose its 44th president. Last night, I attended the final rally of Barack Obama’s campaign in Virginia and was able to hear up close the powerful oratory of the Democratic contender. It was truly spectacular.

Senator McCain did a seven-state tour on the last day of the campaign to present his closing arguments–lower taxes, a strong foreign policy, and fiscal conservatism. He asked for one more mission on behalf of his country. It was touching, but not very convincing. Continue…

Megapundit: Unscrambling the egg, vexedly

By selley - Monday, November 3, 2008 at 4:09 PM - 9 Comments

WEEKEND ROUNDUP

Must-reads: Rex Murphy on the Martin memoirs; Haroon Siddiqui on Barack Obama; Gary Mason on Robert Dziekanski; Jeffrey Simpson on the Tories in Quebec; Chantal Hébert on Iggy’s chances; Robert Fulford on gambling; Randall Denley on frugality.

The fat lady, or the choir of angels?
Canadian pundits have apparently never heard of the jinx.

The Globe and Mail’s John Ibbitson attempts to explain the historical significance of Barack Obama, who isn’t just black, but potentially the first “northern liberal” president since John F. Kennedy. “His victory would acknowledge an ongoing reformation of the republic: the halting, inconstant but unmistakable breaking down of barriers; the political debut of a new generation; the transformation of whole regions of the nation,” Ibbitson argues. It would embarrass “those skeptics who believe [the United States] is a failing giant.” Heck, he’s already “re-enfranchised African Americans” and “convinced Latinos to submerge racial suspicions toward African Americans and join them in common cause,” and he hasn’t even won!

The Toronto Star’s Haroon Siddiqui recaps all the indignities Obama has faced from various Republicans determined to make his race and his purported Islamic faith defining issues among the rednecks. And he suggests it was Colin Powell’s powerful endorsement, during which he asked why a young Muslim shouldn’t (hypothetically) aspire to be President, that really highlighted the meaning of the campaign. “By just being who he is,” Siddiqui concludes, he “has put fellow Americans on an irreversible journey to national reconciliation.”

Continue…

A swing voter swings, or decides not to

By Paul Wells - Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 10:32 PM - 49 Comments

After a prolonged apostasy caused by his inability to take Sarah Palin seriously, David Frum is voting for McCain, and explains why. It would have been surprising if he hadn’t, but it’s a little surprising this way too.

What To Look For On Tuesday

By John Parisella - Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 3:19 PM - 9 Comments

Polls are still streaming out, but it is fair to assume that Obama is entering the last 48 hours of the campaign in the strongest position possible. People want change; the electorate is pessimistic and highly dissatisfied with the Republican policies of the past 8 years. With the economy in recession, Obama has a double digit lead over McCain in handling the economy.

We have all known for months that this election would be settled in some key battleground states. Most Republican-held battleground states are up for grabs and Obama is leading in nearly every one of them. As for the Democrat-held battleground states, McCain is trailing badly–and has been months–in several of them. Continue…

Joe The Plumber

By John Parisella - Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 3:06 PM - 2 Comments

We now know that Joe The Plumber is not a plumber, nor is he in the tax bracket that led him to challenge Barack Obama on tax policy. Yet, he is now campaigning with John McCain and is referred to at every campaign stop by the Republican ticket. It is possible that this election prop may have done more to tighten the race in key battleground states than any other line of attack. Lower taxes and limited government intervention are two basic tenets of conservatism in a center-right nation, and they have become the best closing arguments for McCain.

It makes one wonder why McCain chose to run a Rove-like campaign at a time when the country was looking for steady leadership. Personal attacks did more to turn off voters from McCain than Obama’s personal qualities or well-run campaign. Now, the Joe The Plumber prop, while tacky, is adding to the suspense of the campaign in key battleground states like Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Indiana just 48 hours from election day.

Eliminating the Bradley Effect

By John Parisella - Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 6:41 PM - 21 Comments

In recent weeks, a lot has been made about the so-called Bradley effect. There is some dispute about the real significance of it. However, most agree that only on election day will we see the true impact of the racial factor.

It is clear that any African-American candidate vying for the presidency had to be outstanding. He had to run a near-flawless campaign and advocate for policies that resonated with large segments of the population. The latest polls would indicate that Barack Obama fits that candidate’s profile.

Characterized as a post-racial candidate and running in an election where the economy seems to trump all the other issues, there are grounds for optimism among Obama supporters. But this election has been full of surprises. John McCain is finally making a case for his view of the world rather than making personal attacks. Will it be enough and is it not too late? Continue…

Megapundit: The meaning of Jim Prentice

By selley - Friday, October 31, 2008 at 2:35 PM - 7 Comments

Must-reads: Christie Blatchford on the David Frost trial; Colby Cosh on what to do with murderers; Richard Gwyn on the global economy; Dan Gardner on young jihadis; Lorne Gunter on Tasers; Susan Riley on the cabinet shuffle.

Brave new world?
With Stephen Harper’s cabinet successfully shuffled, it’s time to play cards.

The Globe and Mail‘s Jeffrey Simpson seems fairly pleased by Harper’s choices, calling Steven Fletcher’s promotion “heartwarming” and well-deserved, appreciating the redeployment of Peter Van Loan and John Baird to less partisan positions and suggesting if anyone can strengthen the Conservatives’ woeful climate change plan, it’s probably Jim Prentice. His one lament is that the cabinet “contains not a single multicultural Canadian, despite the impressive Conservative gains in some of those communities.” (This seems a tad unfair to Bev Oda, we have to say.)

The National Post‘s John Ivison likens the new dream team to “a Volvo—safe and reliable but not particularly sexy,” and designed to instil confidence in its owners (i.e., Canadians). He didn’t promote anyone “beyond their level of competence or experience,” in other words, and “prudence” was the guiding principle for the major portfolios that got shuffled. Ivison doesn’t quite buy the party spin on Prentice’s appointment, however—i.e., that “his reward for having done a good job in a difficult portfolio, is another difficult portfolio.” He’s “said to be unhappy with the move,” for one thing, and “reduce[ing] emissions without harming the energy industry” is less “difficult” than it is “impossible.” Ivison still believes Prentice’s leadership ambitions, or Harper’s perceptions thereof, played a role.

Continue…

Megapundit: Sticking it to the Ayatollah

By selley - Monday, October 27, 2008 at 2:35 PM - 29 Comments

WEEKEND ROUNDUP

Must-reads: Daphne Bramham on Nazanin Afshin-Jam; David Olive and Greg Weston on tough economic times; Scott Taylor, off to the Caucasus; Haroon Siddiqui on the Iacobucci inquiry; Dan Gardner on ending the oil addiction; Barbara Yaffe on Bloc Québécois fundraising.

About those election promises…
Prepare to be disappointed for your own good.

The Toronto Star‘s David Olive observes the “awkwardly choreographed dance” currently being performed by the prime minister and the provincial premiers on the matter of deficit financing, whether it’s necessary and who should be blamed for it if it is. “It’s not just that if a swimming pool somewhere has to be closed next year, the premiers want Ottawa to wear it,” he writes. “They also want Ottawa to speed up its spending on job-creating infrastructure projects for which the premiers and territorial leaders could claim some credit when the unemployed start pounding on the doors of legislatures from Charlottetown to Victoria.”

So long as deficits are short term and exist only when times demand them, The Globe and Mail‘s Jeffrey Simpson says there’s nothing inherently wrong with them. But as a habit, they’re a ruinous addiction that’s incredibly hard to break. Consult Hansard from the 1980s and you’ll find “Liberal and NDP MPs … predicting that any attempts at fiscal prudence would result in tens of thousands of people becoming unemployed, communities being crushed, grim fates awaiting millions of vulnerable people,” says Simpson. As such, it would behove the Tories to ditch as many useless, costly election promises as they can—he suggests the two-cent cut to the diesel excise tax and the $5,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers—before they’re forced to ditch the one about never running a deficit.

Continue…

Obama is well-tested

By John Parisella - Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 10:39 PM - 28 Comments

This blog has never hidden its preference for Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries and the belief he was qualified to be president. It has always been my conviction that his time was now or never. He would not get a second chance. He was up against an outstanding crop of candidates–with Hillary Clinton undoubtedly the most formidable. Back then, I argued Obama had to be tested and had to win on merit. Hillary certainly made him earn it and, in so doing, made the Illinois senator a far better candidate. She bested him in most of the debates but he became a smarter and stronger debater in the process. We observed this as he won all three debates against McCain according to post debate polls.

All along I believed that McCain was by far the best Republican challenger because of his appeal to independents and the fact that he was so different from Bush. The fact that McCain’s campaign has been less than spectacular should not take away from Obama’s carefully executed campaign strategy. Through it all–highs and lows, victories and setbacks–Obama has shown Continue…

The McCain-Palin campaign

By John Parisella - Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 10:28 PM - 10 Comments

With a few days left to go, polls overwhelmingly point to an Obama-Biden victory. While we may justifiably quote Yogi Berra about it “not being over until it’s over,” the current political context and the conduct of the McCain-Palin campaign go a long way to justify the optimism in the Obama camp.

It may still be too early for post-mortems, but the Republican campaign has been among the most erratic and inept I have seen. Much of the blame is directed at the unpopularity of the Bush administration and the failure of Republican policies. All this is true, but McCain cannot escape his fair share. His impetuous style, his tolerance of character attacks on his opponent, and his abysmal choice of a running mate have complicated an already challenging task. The sad irony is that, should McCain lose, he will look back on having not been the man so many have come to admire. He can defend the Palin choice all he wants, but Continue…

More from the strangest presidential campaign ever

By Paul Wells - Friday, October 24, 2008 at 11:43 PM - 30 Comments

Yes, Biden actually said this. And while of course nobody can predict these things, there’s a decent chance he’s right. I think this is a clean check from the McCain camp, and a reminder of the days, so distant now, when it seemed that Biden would be the problematic veep candidate:

Megapundit: Ottawa's accountant vs. Washington's poet

By selley - Friday, October 24, 2008 at 2:37 PM - 14 Comments

Must-reads: Colby Cosh on Obama’s geneaology; Dan Gardner takes on Margaret F***ing Atwood; Don Martin on Canadian asbestos; Rick Salutin on Stéphane Dion.

Get over it
Some pundits are turning their gaze to the future. Others can’t stop post-morteming the election.

The Calgary Herald‘s Don Martin understands just how impossible Canadian politicians feel it is to kill 700 jobs in a nation of 33 million people just to save a bunch of lives in the third world, but is baffled at “how Canada can argue that a commodity the government says is too dangerous to permit on domestic construction sites is okeedokee for a developing world where safety measures are far less stringent.” He speaks, naturally, of asbestos. And while he concedes a distinction must be drawn between “the old toxic fibre they’re extracting from office walls and the lower-health-risk asbestos they’re exporting as a cement additive,” he says scientists and doctors make a rather compelling case for caution. The least the government could do, he very reasonably suggests, is stop actively marketing the stuff and release the Health Canada-commissioned report on the subject that was delivered to them months ago. (The Post‘s editorial board and Terence Corcoran take the contrarian view on this.)

The Vancouver Sun‘s Barbara Yaffe speaks to Michael Byers, who had his academic cap handed to him in Vancouver Centre by Hedy Fry (and Lorne Mayencourt, for that matter), about what he learned from life on the campaign trail. Among other things, he tells her, “I now realize the demands of political debating, how difficult it is to perform at that level. As an armchair quarterback, it’s easy to criticize and focus on weaknesses.” Interestingly enough, that’s something we’ve felt like saying to Mr. Byers ourselves on a few occasions…

Continue…

Laughing on the inside

By Jaime Weinman - Friday, October 24, 2008 at 12:00 AM - 0 Comments

During the last U.S. election cycle, there was a lot of talk about whether viewers were getting their political knowledge from late-night comedy. The Pew Research Center, the respected U.S. polling firm, produced a poll in 2004 that said 21 per cent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 21 were getting their political information from comedy shows like The Daily Show With Jon Stewart and, back when Tina Fey was a regular cast member, Saturday Night Live. But this time around, it turns out that late-night comedy isn’t out to teach us about politics; it depends on us to know about politics. A Pew survey released this year showed that regular viewers of The Daily Show and its spinoff, The Colbert Report, tend to be more politically knowledgeable and aware than average. Asked to identify political figures like Condoleezza Rice and Gordon Brown, regular Daily Show viewers did better than people who watch NBC News, Larry King Live, or even ESPN. Meanwhile, Saturday Night Live, whose political comedy used to be limited to jokes about the way George H.W. Bush moved his hands while he talked, has become part of the world political conversation, especially but not only in the appearances of Tina Fey (now a guest star) as vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and sketches about other topics that only political junkies used to care about. TV comedy can no longer be satisfied with generic jokes about John McCain’s age (though there are still plenty of those). The writers have found themselves forced to adapt to a viewership that actually knows and cares about who Nancy Pelosi and Ben Bernanke are. Well, maybe not cares.

The traditional political joke was summed up by a 1994 episode of The Simpsons in which an electronically generated disc jockey was programmed to say: “Well, I see those clowns in Congress are at it again.” Political comedy, when delivered to a mainstream audience, needed to be as bland as possible, because TV and radio executives didn’t want to risk offending people or, worse, referring to things they didn’t know about. (A recent DVD collection of the ’60s show The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour is mostly devoted to episodes that were cut or censored by CBS for actually making war and election jokes that weren’t generic.) And so for the most part, politicians and political issues were reduced to the simplest things: Jean Chrétien talked funny, Gerald Ford fell down.

But today, these shows are operating on the assumption that their audiences are following politics as closely as they do sports or celebrities. In the same episode that featured a memorable parody of the Sarah Palin-Joe Biden vice-presidential debate, SNL did a sketch about the Wall Street bailout that was in some ways even better, and nothing like the normal SNL political skit: instead of reducing the issue to its simplest terms, the sketch focused on specific policy details that even a devoted news junkie might not know about. Two of the SNL regulars played Herb and Marion Sandler, the former owners of a savings and loan who sold out to the ill-fated Wachovia bank in 2006; the sketch portrayed them as culprits in the mortgage meltdown and included a caption identifying them as “People who should be shot.” (NBC later removed this caption at the urging of nervous lawyers.) The reference was so obscure that Lorne Michaels claimed he had no idea that his writers were making fun of real people: “I, in a state of complete ignorance, thought they were characters in the piece,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “I did not know they were real, up until somebody called me about it on Monday.”

Megapundit: The wrong side of the Rubicon

By selley - Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 2:39 PM - 1 Comment

Must-reads: Haroon Siddiqui on the Iacobucci inquiry; John Ibbitson, lost in Wyoming; Murray Campbell and John Ivison on Ontario’s deficit.

Please welcome Jim Prentice, Minister of Everything
So many portfolios, so few competent people to staff them.

The Toronto Star‘s James Travers advises the Prime Minister to worry less about Quebec in making his new Cabinet and worry more about “managing what’s happening in the United States”—i.e., the financial crisis and the impending challenges and opportunities of a Barack Obama presidency. Harper “needs broad foreign affairs shoulders to help carry the Atlas load of change and crises,” for example—that’s some classic Travers prose right there!—and those shoulders, he says, belong to Jim Prentice. He expects Lawrence Cannon to replace Prentice at Industry, David Emerson to be dispatched to Washington as ambassador “to explain to Washington Democrats why protectionism may be good short-term politics but a lousy way to advance the long-term interests of either country” (which strikes us as a fine idea) and Jim Flaherty to remain at finance, where he can “absorb the inevitable blame for hard times.” (We have no problem with that, either.)

Sun Media’s Greg Weston expects few fireworks in the Cabinet shuffle. He has Prentice staying at Industry “to deal with the growing upheaval in the manufacturing sector, including the possible demise of the auto industry as we know it,” and he thinks Cannon would be ideal for Foreign Affairs except that “he will likely be Harper’s lieutenant for Quebec,” which is “a full-time job in itself.” That leaves… holy Hannah, Stockwell Day? Oh, come on!

Continue…

Powell's Decision

By John Parisella - Monday, October 20, 2008 at 10:05 AM - 13 Comments

The decision by former Secretary of State Colin Powell to endorse Barack Obama surprised more by the logic of his choice than by the actual selection. Clearly, it was a severe indictment of John McCain’s judgement and temperament. His references to the Palin nomination and McCain’s performance over the last few weeks during the financial crisis seemed in line with the views of many observers, including noted conservative columnists.

This is not good news to the McCain camp, despite the obvious counterspin. Though McCain can count on the support of other former Republican secretaries of state, Powell’s endorsement is significant and comes at a bad time for McCain.

A Clear Victory For Obama

By John Parisella - Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 10:03 AM - 7 Comments

Unlike debates conducted entirely on radio, televised debates reveal more than just policies and issues. They provide insight into temperament. Body language becomes an important ingredient as it often shows true sentiments and the capacity to deal with controversy or adversity by the participants.

If John McCain was undoubtedly competitive on content, he clearly lost — and lost badly — when it comes to body language and tone. Throughout the debate, the Republican seemed on the verge of losing his temper at any moment. Obama, by contrast, appeared cool and collected. He was reassuring even if he lacked some passion.

McCain needed a game changer. He needed to show stature and best his opponent on content. He had to counteract the perception that he is erratic and temperamental. He failed to do so. It was not a bad performance on substance, but he failed on style and was unable to undo some of the negative perceptions that have arisen in this campaign.

Obama had a solid, though not spectacular, performance as he has had throughout the three debates. McCain, on the other hand, has been uneven throughout the three debates. Obama did not hurt himself in this debate while McCain failed to improve his situation in the campaign. As a result, Obama wins.

The curse of Palin

By John Parisella - Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 5:48 PM - 7 Comments

Lyndon B. Johnson is widely thought to have been the only vice-presidential candidate in recent history to have made a significant difference in the election of a president. This year, a lot of emphasis has been placed on the vice-presidential nominees, in large part because the primary season featured many high-profile candidates. The relative inexperience of Barack Obama and the love/hate relationship John McCain entertains with his own party have also placed greater emphasis on their running mates

There’s no doubt McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin has energized the Republican base: the large attendance at McCain/Palin rallies is often attributed to the presence of the Alaska governor. Republicans also like to tout maverick nature of their ticket and how they will bring their brand of change to Washington. However, Palin’s interviews with mainstream media outlets have been an embarrassment and have raised doubts about McCain himself. Parallels are often made with the selection of Dan Quayle, who was arguably the most mediocre choice as running mate since the end of WWII. Another common reference point is Thomas Eagleton, who was badly vetted and had to withdraw from the ticket of Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern in 1972. Continue…

Bring on the next election!

By Paul Wells - Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 5:27 PM - 19 Comments

I’ll be over here tonight, (small-) group liveblogging the Obama-McCain debate with a few colleagues, starting at 9.

As for the last election, I’ll be on the back half of The Agenda on TVO tonight as part of their panel. And starting tomorrow on newsstands across this wonderful, wonderful country, we’ll have a lot for you to read about what just happened. More on that tomorrow.