The Cosmopolitan Blog

I have lived in Canada for nearly five years now, and in that time, I’ve seen THREE general elections. This is great, because it shows that the will of the people is alive and well (as opposed to other countries where too many elections is a symbol of instability). Why? Because the structure of the Canadian Government is simple, and it works. If, for some reason, it starts looking like it doesn’t work, then the people can question it, and another election is called.

Since i’ve been writing about American politics for so long, i figured, for those who read my blog, that i would force upon you a quick lesson on Canadian politics.

• 2 main parties: Conservatives and Liberals
• The leader of the winning party becomes Prime Minister (head of the Canadian government)
• There is no President, the official head of the country is the Queen of England, but She has no official power
• Anyone who wants to form a party can do so (for example, in Montreal there is the New Rhinoceros Party, a federal joke party that promised “not to keep any of its promises if elected”)

As a voter, you are part of an electoral region in your province (province = state for US readers), each region is small, never more than 10,000 people). You vote for any party available in your regions, and therefore for that party’s representative. The winner of each region (the one with the most votes) gets a seat in the House of Commons.

It’s that simple. You vote. The winning representative of your small area gets to go the Parliament and represent you. It’s as close to a “government of the people for the people” as one gets.

Since there are 308 regions in Canada, if a single party wins over 165 of them, they have a majority. If they win with less seats, they have a minority government, which means that the party with the second highest number of votes has a huge say in government, which, generally is seen as a good thing for Canadians: the leading party can’t enforce strong party bills and compromise is required. This is what happened today.

In 2006, Harper, the leader of the Conservatives, became the head of a minority government. A month ago, the liberals (the 2nd largest party) claimed “a loss of confidence” in the government (a way to keep the leading party on it’s toes) and called for general election. Today, Canadians voted well: they ensured that the minority government remained. 1 disappointment though: lowest turnout at the polling stations in Canadian History, only 59%, anything under 60% is considered poor turnout. Still, congrats Canada, you make it seem simple, and it should be.

Some perspective on the current race to the White House: this is a game. it’s called politics. There are winners, and there are losers. But no, the winner will not be the candidate who becomes POTUS and the looser the one who doesn’t. That’s where we’ve all got it wrong if we think that’s what happens. The winners and the losers have already been decided.

Obama and McCain and play a game. We suffer the consequences.

Are the candidates evil because they play this game? No, they have to play the game. Politics and government leadership, in any country, works this way. Let’s not over simplify this matter by thinking that all you need to do is have honor and be a good guy, and people will realize that and vote for you. It’s simple maths and economics:

If you don’t have money, you can’t fund a campaign. If you can’t fund a campaign, you won’t get noticed. if you don’t get noticed, no one votes for you. If no one votes for you, you don’t become president. So how do you get money? You go around and promise stuff to people.

They then give you their money. But you need to promise so many people so much stuff that some stuff conflicts with the other stuff you promised. And sometimes you promise stuff with more emphasis to bigger companies because they give you more money, so that you can continue appearing places in order to promise more stuff to more people. Are you GETTING how this works now???

My point? My point is this: everytime we make the argument that one candidate is better than the other, than one candidate is being more truthful than the other, that one candidate wants to fight for the average-Joe more than the other, it’s bull. They all play the same game, and use different tactics to convince you that they don’t. McCain, Obama, same game. So why do I support Obama over McCain? Because Obama sold his lies to me more convincingly than McCain.

That’s why you and I, if we decided to start campaigning and did all we could to remain squeacky clean, if we promised to run a campaign where we would only ever promise something if we had PROOF that we could deliver, well then, you and I could NEVER get anywhere.

I just re-read this post. The fact that i’ve never come closer to sounding like Lou Dobbs scares the living crap out of me.

Part 2 of my effort at fairness, looking at the serious criticism of Obama’s campaign (and of Obama himself).

Issue 2: The ACORN Issue

Arguably, this is a more serious issue than the Ayers issue, I think that was acknowledged by all parties.

1. CLAIM: ACORN has created fake voter registrations by using fake names: for example names of people who are actually deceased, even the name Jimmy Johns, the name of a restaurant where no actual Jimmy Johns worked at, they even created fake registrations for the entire Dallas Cowboys football team. Since Obama is linked to this firm in some way, and since 1+1=3, Obama is rigging the election.
2. FACTS:
   • ACORN has been under investigation for over four years
   • ACORN has created over 5,000 fake voter registrations in at least 6 states and continued to do so until a few days ago when it became a national issue
   • Obama’s campaign used ACORN’s services (it was actually a subsidiary, but fine, let’s simplify) during the primary campaign to register voters at a fee of $800,000.
   • ACORN endorsed Obama for president
3. CONCLUSIONS:
   • Obama used the services of a firm under investigation: YES
   • Should he have? NO
   • Would it have affected the outcome of the primaries NO the number of registrations was a few thousand, Obama won by much more
   • Does it make a difference that ACORN endorsed him? NOT REMOTELY, do you know how many companies endorse each candidate, 1/2 the time without the candidates even knowing it?
   • Will this affect this election? NO, since a. they’ve been caught, b. all registrations (fake or non) coming from them have been pulled, c. this was not actual votes, it was registrations for new voters to be able to vote

COSMOCHICK’S RANT:

While I think this is a more serious issue than Ayers, because Obama’s campaign is to blame for having hired a firm under investigation, the consequences of his actions are, well, non-consequential. Again, this is a political tactic. McCain is trying to put doubts in voters minds by lining up a bunch of things that will make you question his judgment. What McCain doesn’t tell you is that he’s done just as bad, that it’s all part of the game of politics, and that even HE (McCain) doesn’t think this are big deal issues, he’s just grabbing at straws.

However, if you feel that your trust in Obama has gone because a guy who bombed the Pentagon organized a meeting to launch Obama’s campaign, and because he used the services of a firm under investigation, then you have the right to feel that way. That means McCain’s argument was persuasive. And i can’t fault you for this.

What I will say though, is don’t imagine ANYTHING here is black or white (and I’m not talking about the candidates’ skin colors). If you think there’s doubt to be cast on Obama’s campaign practices, then you should know there are is just as much to be cast on McCain? Why? Am i saying this because I’m bitter? No. I’m as calm as i can be when i tell you: it’s the name of the game, politics. You do what you can do to get ahead. You say what you can say.You promise what you need to promise. And if you think McCain is any better, because he seems nice, because he seems approachable, because he could be your next door neighbor, because you can relate to him, because he doesn’t flash a Harvard education around… then think again. He might very well be all of these things, but he’s not become a presidential nominee by being a nice guy, trust me.

And you know what? In 2000 and 2004, we elected and re-elected a guy that seemed nice and approachable. Look where that got us. *sigh* I feel a new post topic coming on whether a POTUS should be just like us… Stay tuned.

In a recent post, I promised that I would try to be fair, and not be the typical opinionated blogger. If i can post about McCain, then i can post about Obama, yes? I’ve spent enough posts expressing my dislike for the former, so here’s me acknowledging the faults of the latter. So you have serious issues with Barack Obama? OK, let’s address them.

Issue 1: Bill Ayers.

1. CLAIM: Supposedly, Obama and Ayers are friends. Ayers is the guy who bombed a bunch of public buildings, so is guilty of national terrorism. Therefore, since 1+1=3, Obama is also a terrorist.
2. FACTS:
   • Obama met Ayers at a general meeting on school reforms for their neighborhood.
   • Then, some years later, Ayers hosted a “coffee” meeting in the neighborhood for Obama’s democratic race kickoff.
3. CONCLUSIONS:
   • Does this mean that Obama and Ayers know each other casually? YES… and we all know that a politician controls every person he meets casually
   • Was it dishonest for Barack to spin it as “he’s just someone in the neighborhood”? YES
   • Is it a good excuse to say that Obama was only 10 when Ayers bombed The Pentagon? NO, I too believe that once a terrorist, always a terrorist, and I definitely think that someone who blew up anything is a national terrorist.
   • Does this mean that Obama and Ayers stay up nights discussing Ayers’ proudest moment when he blew up the Pentagon? NO
   • Does this automatically make Obama a terrorist? NO, this is simply a political tactic called “guilt by association”

COSMOCHICK’S RANT:

Guilt by association is simply a political tactic, believe me my Republican friends, I’m really not trying to con you when i say this. Does McCain believe that Obama is a terrorist? NO, of course not. He simply wants the general public to hear the soudbite (Barack, Ayers, terrorist), because he KNOWS that it’s all it takes for the general public to then blow it out of proportion and run leaps and bounds with it. Especially when you put it in the mind of you’re average Middle American who then combines it with another soundbite he’s heard (Barack, Hussein, Muslim), and now he becomes a Muslim terrorist.
See how easy this is? Oh, and just in case you’re a tad smarter than the average Joe-6-pack and you don’t believe that this makes Obama a terrorist, then for you smart person, all McCain wants to do is put doubt in your mind as to Obama’s honesty and transparency throughout his campaign.
I’ll say it again, guilt by association is a VERY dicy game to play. You want to take all those skeletons and bring them out of their closets? Really?? REALLY?? Seriously, please think long and hard about this before answering. If you want to bring the skeletons out of Barack’s closet, and there will be some, maybe even lots, then let’s take a look at McCain’s closet too, yes? And then it’s just a questions of who’s list is longer, that’s all, no one comes out pretty in this one.

Next Issue: ACORN.

Oh, yeah, McCain’s halted campaign really was a heroic move!

• Wed: big announcement, campaign on hold “until we agree on a bailout plan”, oh, and let’s cancel the debate…
• Thurs: McCain is in DC, not in the bailout plan committee, nor bringing any useful info to the meeting with Bush
• Fri: still no bailout plan, but McCain’s campaign back on, and debate back on too…

If this isn’t proof of how erratic this man is, then I don’t know what it. Just like Sarah Palin as choice of VP, he had met her ONCE before.

On a separate note: did you know that a Senator who’s been in a lengthy stay in hospital due to a brain hemorrhage, has still managed to put in more Senate votes than McCain???? Ok, granted, Obama is no3 on the most missed Senate votes after McCain and brain-hemorrhage-guy, but still… Anyway, thanks to Stonecipher for the info!

Yeah, yeah, i know, i said i’d stop ranting about McCain. I will. In fact, I want to address Obama’s faults too, and I will, in my next post. In fact, one of the comments on Stonecipher’s post states that everything us pro-Obama folk say is always assuming “…Guilty until proven innocent. If that’s the attitude you want to take towards politicians, fine, so long as you bring the same skepticism to bear on both candidates.”… totally agreed.