Skip to main content

stop me if you've heard this one before...

i'm beginning to think that the liberal party of canada is taking competitiveness to a new extreme. just when they finally had their chief opponents caught in a bit of a scandal, they manage to do one better. the conservatives dumped a candidate who's up on smuggling charges earlier this week, but now the liberals have dumped a candidate of their own, because he tried to interfere in the election by offering his new democratic opponent a job if he would quit the race and support the liberals. it's like they were afraid that the tories had taken the spotlight off them with their scandal and felt compelled to regain their title as the campaign's leading arse-heads.

sometimes, when a party is down, it seems like they really can't do anything to get back up. everything they try just makes it worse. the conservative party in 1993 was like that, culminating in their boneheaded attempt to convince canadians that, regardless of policies, they shouldn't vote for the liberals because their leader's face was partially paralysed (how i wish i was making that up). now you have the liberals, whose chief reason for wanting to ban handguns is probably because it might stop them from shooting themselves in the foot. every day, something seems to surface that makes you wonder exactly how they've managed to run the government at a surplus. next thing you know, you'll be hearing about them running pointless, negative ads with highly dubious information... oh, wait... they did.

how in the world did they think that wouldn't come back to haunt them?

this all strikes me as more funny than sad, only because i still believe that neither one of them is going to be handed absolute power by the electorate (i.e., a majority government). so at least when one of them is given the driver's seat, someone else is going to be holding the map.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …