Uncle Sam

Saturday November 2, 2019

By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday November 2, 2019

Impeach Trump. Then Move On.

Is it possible that more than 20 Republican senators will vote to convict Donald Trump of articles of impeachment? When you hang around Washington you get the sense that it could happen.

September 27, 2019

The evidence against Trump is overwhelming. This Ukraine quid pro quo wasn’t just a single reckless phone call. It was a multiprong several-month campaign to use the levers of American power to destroy a political rival.

Republican legislators are being bludgeoned with this truth in testimony after testimony. They know in their hearts that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses. It’s evident in the way they stare glumly at their desks during hearings; the way they flee reporters seeking comment; the way they slag the White House off the record. It’ll be hard for them to vote to acquit if they can’t even come up with a non-ludicrous rationale.

And yet when you get outside Washington it’s hard to imagine more than one or two G.O.P. senators voting to convict.

In the first place, Democrats have not won widespread public support. Nancy Pelosi always said impeachment works only if there’s a bipartisan groundswell, and so far there is not. Trump’s job approval numbers have been largely unaffected by the impeachment inquiry. Support for impeachment breaks down on conventional pro-Trump/anti-Trump lines. Roughly 90 percent of Republican voters oppose it. Republican senators will never vote to convict in the face of that.

August 23, 2018

Second, Democrats have not won over the most important voters — moderates in swing states. A New York Times/Siena College survey of voters in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin found that just 43 percent want to impeach and remove Trump from office, while 53 percent do not. Pushing impeachment makes Democrats vulnerable in precisely the states they cannot afford to lose in 2020.

Third, there is little prospect these numbers will turn around, even after a series of high-profile hearings.

I’ve been traveling pretty constantly since this impeachment thing got going. I’ve been to a bunch of blue states and a bunch of red states (including Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah). In coastal blue states, impeachment comes up in conversation all the time. In red states, it never comes up; ask people in red states if they’ve been talking about it with their friends, they shrug and reply no, not really. 

Prof. Paul Sracic of Youngstown State University in Ohio told Ken Stern from Vanity Fair that when he asked his class of 80 students if they’d heard any conversation about impeachment, only two said they had. When he asked if impeachment interested them, all 80 said it did not.

Fourth, it’s a lot harder to do impeachment in an age of cynicism, exhaustion and distrust. During Watergate, voters trusted federal institutions and granted the impeachment process a measure of legitimacy. Today’s voters do not share that trust and will not regard an intra-Washington process as legitimate.

Many Americans don’t care about impeachment because they take it as a given that this is the kind of corruption that politicians of all stripes have been doing all along. Many don’t care because it looks like the same partisan warfare that’s been going on forever, just with a different name.

Fifth, it’s harder to do impeachment when politics is seen as an existential war for the future of the country. Many Republicans know Trump is guilty, but they can’t afford to hand power to Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

March 31, 2017

Progressives, let me ask you a question: If Trump-style Republicans were trying to impeach a President Biden, Warren or Sanders, and there was evidence of guilt, would you vote to convict? Answer honestly.

I get that Democrats feel they have to proceed with impeachment to protect the Constitution and the rule of law. But there is little chance they will come close to ousting the president. So I hope they set a Thanksgiving deadline. Play the impeachment card through November, have the House vote and then move on to other things. The Senate can quickly dispose of the matter and Democratic candidates can make their best pitches for denying Trump re-election.

Elizabeth Bruenig of The Washington Post put her finger on something important in a recent essay on Trump’s evangelical voters: the assumption of decline. Many Trump voters take it as a matter of course that for the rest of their lives things are going to get worse for them — economically, spiritually, politically and culturally. They are not the only voters who think this way. Many young voters in their OK Boomer T-shirts feel exactly the same, except about climate change, employment prospects and debt.

This sense of elite negligence in the face of national decline is the core issue right now. Impeachment is a distraction from that. As quickly as possible, it’s time to move on. (David Brooks, NYTimes)  

 

Saturday October 5, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday October 5, 2019

Trudeau and Scheer demonstrate their hypocrisy

For those of you hoping to have a policy filled debate and deep examination of the issues, think again. So far any policy announcements, however many, have been drowned out by character flaws, amidst accusations of hypocrisy and being liars all around.

September 20, 2019

The most infamous case is that Justin Trudeau, as an adult man nearing his 30s, put on ‘brownface’ during a 2001 costume party in Vancouver; Trudeau came to the party dressed as Aladdin. The Liberal leader had to issue a clear and unequivocal apology and Liberal candidates were left scrambling to justify the previous behaviour of their ‘virtue signalling’ leader who for years criticised political opponents for catering to racists or even being racist themselves.

All this speaks to a level of hypocrisy that has been muted about Trudeau until now. He goes around preaching multiculturalism and understanding, yet demonstrated a complete lack of it with the brownface / blackface stunts. Trudeau also carries himself as a ‘champion of the environment’, yet it was revealed this week that he has been travelling for the campaign using two planes: one for him and media, and the other for equipment, signage and flags to various events.

May 2, 2019

“You’re the only leader using two planes on the campaign trail: one for you and the media, and the other for your costumes and your canoe,” Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer quipped at him.

But it’s not like Scheer himself has been immune to questions about his character, having billed himself as an insurance broker prior to entering politics. The Globe and Mail revealed that he was never licensed to sell insurance in his native Saskatchewan. Scheer was eventually forced to backtrack and explain that he was simply ‘on his way to getting accredited’ being a broker while working in a broker’s office, but left that job after a few months to embark on a political career.

March 19, 2016

Another issue that popped up for Scheer was that he had dual citizenship from his father, who was American. There’s actually nothing wrong with having dual citizenship; I wouldn’t be surprised if a future election featured all party leaders having dual citizenship of some kind since we’re a country of immigrants. What stands out here is the hypocrisy, as Conservatives previously criticized former Liberal leader Stephane Dion and NDP leader Tom Mulcair for also having dual citizenship.

Scheer himself even raised the issue on a blog post about former governor general Michaelle Jean, who held dual citizenship with Canada and France.

August 17, 2005

The irony of his second question about Jean is striking to say the least.

“Nobody asked,” was Scheer’s response when he was asked why he didn’t bring up his dual citizenship before, and now says he renounced it when he became Tory leader and that ‘paperwork is being processed’ before the election was called. But your political instincts must be lacking if you didn’t think that was a major issue that should have been addressed if you wanted to become prime minister.

October 2, 2019

Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer: the two men who are still the only viable choices to end up winning the election on October 21 and becoming the leader of this country. Unfortunately Jagmeet Singh, who has actually handled himself rather well during the campaign thus far, is still mired in third place and the best the NDP can hope for is influence in a minority government situation.

But at the end of the day, let’s accept the fact that both the two main party leaders are very flawed individuals with their own problems. They both applied different standards to themselves when it came to past behaviour. (insauga.com) 

 

Saturday February 2, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday February 2, 2019

No victory for U.S. as it leaves Afghanistan

The long and pointless Afghan War may finally be coming to an end. If so, this will be a relief for the U.S. and its coalition allies operating there. It certainly won’t be a victory.

June 21, 2013

The broad strokes of a deal in principle between the United States and Taliban insurgents were released this week. They are not likely to bring much solace to the families of soldiers — including Canadians — who fought and died in the 17-year-old conflict.

There is no mention of ensuring that girls can go to school, which at one point was given by Canada’s government as the rationale for this war.

There is no mention of defeating the “scumbags” as Canada’s then top general Rick Hillier described the Taliban. Indeed, it seems likely that the Taliban will be guaranteed a major political role in the country.

There is no mention of bringing democracy and development to Afghanistan — another of the Canadian government’s ostensible reasons for the war.

 

March 11, 2009

The essence of the deal, as described to the New York Times by chief U.S. negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad, is simple and familiar.

The Taliban will ensure that terrorists don’t use Afghanistan as a base to attack the West. The Americans, along with the 38 allied nations still operating there, will withdraw their troops.

Ironically, the agreement in principle bears a marked resemblance to the offer that Afghanistan’s then Taliban government made to the U.S. in 2001 after the 9/11 terror attacks.

Don’t invade, the Taliban said then. And in return we will expel terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to a third country. (Continued: Toronto Star) 

 

Saturday August 18, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday August 18, 2018

Donald Trump suggests U.S. deliberately freezing out Canada in NAFTA talks

U.S. President Donald Trump is suggesting the United States has deliberately left Canada on the NAFTA sidelines as negotiations between Washington and Mexico have heated up in recent weeks.

July 27, 2018

During a televised cabinet meeting today, the U.S. president said his administration isn’t negotiating with Canada right now, before adding that its tariffs are too high and barriers too strong.

Officials from each country have insisted there’s nothing unusual about the one-on-one discussions on the three-country deal because it’s allowing the U.S. and Mexico sort tough bilateral issues, such as their differences on autos.

But some observers have argued Ottawa has been frozen out of the critical NAFTA negotiations and could eventually be forced into accepting a deal reached between its continental partners.

For four straight weeks, U.S. trade czar Robert Lighthizer and Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo have held bilateral NAFTA talks while Canada has been absent from the bargaining table.

During the cabinet meeting, Lighthizer told the room he’s hopeful for a NAFTA breakthrough with Mexico in the coming days – but Trump said he’s in no rush to make a deal unless it’s the right one. (Source: Global News) 

 

SaveSave

Wednesday July 25, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday July 25, 2018

Does Canada Have a Gun Control Problem?

July 18, 2012

In the aftermath of the deadly mass shooting in Toronto that left two bystanders and the shooter dead and 12 others injured, a right-wing blogger has questioned whether Canada’s gun control laws actually work.

 
“I thought they had gun control in Canada,” Laura Loomer, tweeted. “What happened?” she asked.
 
That tweet was one of dozens of others posing the same question, with many branding the shooting as evidence that gun control laws do not work. 
 
But others have been quick to point out that the number of shootings should speak for itself. 
 
“This is the first mass shooting in our country in almost two years,” one Canadian tweeted. “How many has the USA had just this year? Gun control DOES work, obviously. Just not 100 percent of the time.”
 
The past year has seen a spate of mass shootings across the U.S., with a total of 154 taking place since June 28 alone, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which defines a mass shooting as any that results in four or more individuals shot or killed in the same general time frame or location. 
 
Sunday’s mass shooting in Toronto was the first in Canada since an attack on a mosque in Quebec City on January 29, 2017, which saw a single gunman kill six people and wound 18 others. 
 
Before that, Canada had not had a mass shooting since January 22, 2016, when a 17-year-old student shot and killed two people at a residence in La Loche, Saskatchewan, before continuing his rampage at La Loche Community School, killing a teacher and an assistant, and wounding several others.
 
A firearm is nearly seven times less likely to be used in a homicide in Canada than in the U.S., according to Statistics Canada. (More Stats: Newsweek) 
 

SaveSave