FREAK OF THE WEEK: Stephen “I really love Fox News” Harper

If Sarah Palin is the Queen of Freakville, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the King. Yes, once again the FredBlog shines its freaklight on the head honcho of the Great White North.

As you recall, Palin once made headlines for not being able to name newspapers she supposedly reads. While Harper can indeed name Canada’s news outlets, last week he publicly admitted that he doesn’t watch Canadian news. Instead, he watches American networks.

This is what the Conservative told a Toronto business audience: “I watched the last several elections in the United States very closely. I tend to watch mainly American news because I don’t like to watch Canadian news and hear what … everybody else is saying about me. So my hobby is to watch politics elsewhere.”

No surprise Harper watches the American networks. He has appeared on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, among others. And no one would fault Harper for watching networks like CNN – most Canadians do.

But shouldn’t the Prime Minister of Canada be following the news IN CANADA!?!?

Then again, this isn’t the first time Harper has leered lovingly at the United States, instead of paying attention to his own backyard. He blindly followed the policies of George W. Bush, has praised the Republican Party as something the Canadian Conservatives should emulate, and once told a U.S. think tank that Canada “is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term.”

Given his disdain for his own country, it’s no wonder he chooses Fox News over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Jack Layton, leader of the far-left New Democratic Party, said it best when he told the Toronto Star, “Perhaps if [Harper] watched Canadian news more often, he would understand the negative impact of his policies on Canadian families. And if he actually likes Fox News better than Canadian news, then Canadians ought to be concerned.”

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Alaska Gov.-for-not-that-much-longer Sarah Palin

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight once again on Sarah Palin, this time for her rambling press conference during which she announced that she will not only refrain from running for re-election, but will leave office by the end of the month.

First, let’s look at the timing of the press conference – Friday afternoon on July 3 (late afternoon on the East Coast). Not only is Friday afternoon the usual dumping ground for releasing information you don’t want people paying attention to, but this was the day before the July 4 holiday – and a day that many people had off anyway.

So it would seem that Palin wanted to leave office without anyone noticing. What, did she think no one would wonder what happened once she left? Was she planning on just disappearing like South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford?

Speaking of Sanford, did Palin take press conference tips from him? Just like Sanford’s public freakiness when he admitted to his Argentinean love affair, Palin’s speech was – as described by CBS News – “rambling and sometimes confusing.” (Just like Palin herself.)

We the listening and viewing public had to hear about the history of Alaska, a long list of her administration’s “accomplishments,” her time since being tapped by John McCain as his running mate and a metaphor about fishing before we ever heard Palin say the words, “I will not seek re-election as governor.” (There was also a basketball analogy, but that came later, as did her final line quoting General MacArthur. She’s so folksy, ya know? You betcha!)

In deciding to step down on July 26, Palin said she did not want to be a “lame duck.” She said, “I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks, ... travel around the state, to the Lower 48, overseas on international trade, as so many politicians do. And then I thought, that's what's wrong. Many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and milk it. I'm not putting Alaska through that. I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!”

I’ll leave it up to Alaskans to decide whether or not it’s a good thing Palin is leaving early, but this lame duck stuff makes no sense. Using her logic, George W. Bush should have left office as soon as he was elected to a second term because he was a lame duck. Ronald Reagan should have resigned as well. Actually, yes, we all would have been better off if they left office early, but does Palin really think Reagan and Dubya were inefficient and ineffective just because they served out their second terms as lame ducks?

Palin, per usual, makes so little sense that she might as well be speaking in tongues. For months, she has sounded like she is making it up as she goes along.

For those who are left scratching your head, Palin said, “All I can ask is that you trust me with this decision.” Oh, like you asked McCain to trust that you would be an intelligent running mate?

EXTREME RIGHT-WING FREAKINESS

For those who are unaware of the Rev. Fred Phelps and his Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, just check out their most prominent website, www.godhatesfags.com. These people are truly sick.

Phelps and his clan began making headlines in 1998, when they picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay University of Wyoming student who was murdered. Their pickets spread from there, targeting almost anyone and anything that does not spread their message of hate – including such “pro-gay liberals” as Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham as well as the funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq. (Why the military? Because, as they would put it, God hates America, because America loves fags.)

The church’s latest freakiness is its plan to picket the public memorial service for Michael Jackson slated for Tuesday, July 7, at the Staples Center in L.A.

Here’s the announcement from the church’s website: “Michael 'Wacko Jacko' Jackson is in hell! [Westboro Baptist Church] will be there to remind you to stop worshiping the dead. We will be there to tell you to Thank God for the death of this filthy, adulterous, idolatrous, gender-confused, nationality-confused, unthankful brute beast. We will be there to remind you that God Killed Wacko Jacko. There is a God, and a Day of Judgment. For you to wallow and murmur against God for his righteous Judgments is sin and will cause YOU to join Michael in hell."

To call them freaks is too kind.

Obama the marriage-equality hypocrite

Many gay and lesbian Americans feel double-crossed by President Barack Obama – and rightly so. After all, it was Obama’s clear stance against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that led many to side with him over Democratic primary rival Hillary Clinton.

Let’s travel back to the summer of 2007, a time when no one was expecting the battle royale to come between Clinton and Obama. In fact, Clinton was all but assumed to be the next president.

Logo, the gay cable network, held a gay-focused presidential primary debate along with the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay civil rights organization. Inevitably, the issue of marriage for same-sex couples came up.

While both Obama and Clinton agreed on separate-but-equal civil unions over full marriage equality, they differed on DOMA. That legislation, infamously signed into the law under dark of night by then-President Bill Clinton, does two critical things:

1.   It says the federal government does not have to recognize a legally wed same-sex couple, even if they are legally wed in their home state.

2.   It says that other states don’t have to recognize a couple legally wed in their home state. (This is clearly unconstitutional because of the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause, which means – among other things – that if a straight couple elopes to Vegas, when they go home to Idaho, their Nevada marriage must be recognized.)

At the Logo debate, Clinton – ever the pragmatist – said that as president, she would advocate repealing part of DOMA, but not the portion dealing with full faith and credit. She explained that it would not be politically feasible to repeal DOMA fully over the next presidential term.

Obama, however, went all in. He not only called for the full repeal of DOMA, but also noted that this has been his position since he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006.

After that exchange, many LGBT Americans took a second look at the race – and while many still sided with Clinton, more and more jumped to Obama.

DOMA, therefore, was a decisive issue for a large number of gays and lesbians looking at the presidential race.

It’s no wonder so many are angry with Obama right now.

Not only is he dragging his heels on high-priority LGBT issues such as repealing DOMA and the military’s anti-gay “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (which he promised to overturn), but his administration’s recent defense of DOMA is nothing but despicable.

In a brief submitted in the case of Smelt v. U.S. challenging the constitutionality of DOMA and California’s anti-gay Proposition 8, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is a “cautious policy of federal neutrality.” What!?!?! During the campaign, Obama called DOMA “abhorrent.”

As pointed out by the New York Times in a June 16 editorial, this “neutrality” argument is “an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits – such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns – that heterosexual married couples receive.”

Then there’s the brief’s comparison of same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia. As the Times put it, “The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the ‘traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.’ In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s ‘full faith and credit’ clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.”

And to top it all off, the brief argues that DOMA does not discriminate against gays; it merely limits federal benefits to those in opposite-sex marriages. So the Obama administration is saying that a gay man isn’t being discriminated by DOMA because he could go off and marry a woman to get the benefits!

This is twisted and shows ignorance and the kind of wedge-issue politics that Obama spoke out so strongly against during the campaign.

Then after all this odious offense, Obama has the nerve to throw crumbs in the form of partner benefits for federal employees only.

This is hypocrisy and anti-gay demagoguery worthy of George W. Bush. Is this really the change we can believe in that a majority of Americans voted for?

FREAK OF THE WEEK: 

Republican Jewish Coalition leader Matthew Brooks

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a man who, when it comes to Middle East peace, lives in a parallel universe where playing fair is considered unfair.

Truth be told, there was much freakiness reacting to President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech this past week, in which he tried to strike the right balance between power and contrition.

But no one’s freakiness was more succinct than that of Matthew Brooks. In response to the speech, Brooks issued a statement that included this oxymoronic gem:

“President Barack Obama, in his major speech in Cairo this morning, struck a balanced tone with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that's what was wrong with this speech.

“American policy should not be balanced – it should side with those who fight terror, not those who either engage in it or are too weak to prevent it.”

Where to begin with how wrongheaded this is?

Firstly, a balanced tone is EXACTLY what is needed right now. If the U.S. – and other Western democracies – want peace in the Middle East, they must play fair. They cannot be seen as always siding with Israel, especially when Israel breaks the rules.

In fact, just this week we learned that the Dubya Administration was saying one thing to Israel in public about settlements in the West Bank, but privately sending a message allowing Israel to continue expanding those settlements. If the goal is peace, such one-sided duplicity cannot continue.

Secondly, Brooks paints both sides with very broad brushes. He implies that all Israelis are peace-seeking freedom lovers, and all Palestinians are terror-toting evildoers. That’s as helpful as the rest of the world hating all Americans because they disagreed with the policies of George W. Bush. Many Americans disagreed vehemently with Bush and his brethren, and the same can be said for Middle East residents and their respective leaders.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for one, will not endorse the so-called “two-state solution” backed, in writing, by previous Israeli governments. And yet many Israelis have no problem with a solution that creates a peaceful Palestinian state alongside Israel. (Officials in Netanyahu’s government also voiced their concern this week that Obama will no longer allow Bush’s two-faced duplicity, but that’s a whole other issue.)

As for Palestinians, characterizing all of them as terrorists – or too weak to fight terrorism – is counterproductive. Americans didn’t like being called evil by those around the world who disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, so why would average Palestinians tolerate it?

And if there are those who want to fight terrorism, but are too weak to do so, let’s help them – not insult them.

The truth is that people like Brooks aren’t interested in peace in the Middle East. They are only interested in what they believe to be biblical prophecy, which disregards current political boundaries, secularism, 21^st century multiculturalism and the goal of global cooperation.

People like Brooks are stuck in the past – sometimes an ancient past – that will not lead to harmony in the Middle East. Obama, to his credit, is advocating a peaceful vision for the future.

Obama: Move along, nothing to see here

Once upon a time, President Barack Obama promised open government and

 transparency. He pledged to overturn the pattern of cover-ups and secret undisclosed locations that plagued the Bush administration. He promised the American people that he would end that paternalistic Bush-Cheney sense of, in the words of South Park’s Officer Barbrady, “Move along. Nothing to see here.”

There was a time when Obama promised to get to the bottom of all the prisoner abuse that occurred at the hands of U.S. soldiers. After all, such abuse is counterproductive in the fight against terror. Not only that, but what kind of moral high ground can the U.S. have when it allows such activity as what happened in Abu Ghraib to occur?

There was a time when Obama slammed the Bush-Cheney administration for its “a few bad apples” defense.

How quickly all that got thrown out the proverbial window.

More photos of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers were supposed to be released by the end of the month, a move that was dictated by a court order. And initially, the Obama administration said it would not challenge the courts on this.

But Obama has changed his mind and will now ignore the court order, citing national security. Haven’t we heard this before – over the past 8 years?

He now reportedly says that releasing the photos is “of no benefit” and may inflame anti-American sentiment around the world. But he’s just plain wrong.

Releasing the photos would prove that the U.S. is a nation based upon the rules of democracy, transparency and open government. It would show that the U.S. is a nation that takes the rule of law seriously and does not tolerate abuse and torture.

The U.S., if it wants to win the so-called war on terror, must be a beacon for the rest of the world to follow, not an example of how to cover up wrongdoing in the shadows.

As the ACLU put it, Obama’s flip-flop “makes a mockery of President Obama’s promise of transparency and accountability.”

When Obama starts agreeing with Dick Cheney on issues of national security, you know we are in trouble.

No, that’s not “tea-bagging”

Question: When is tea-bagging not tea-bagging? Answer: When the phrase is used by conservatives to show just how out of touch they are.

April 15 is Tax Day in the U.S. And while no one is really happy about paying taxes, some conservatives are really teed off. So teed off are they that they held Boston Tea Party-type protests all over the country. The Boston Tea Party of 1773, if you recall, occurred when the American colonists threw British tea into Boston Harbor to protest what they considered to be unfair taxation.

But these modern day Tea Partiers, who say they are angry about all the corporate bailouts, don’t seem to have access to loose tea the way they did back in ye olden times. So they have resorted to the next best thing – tea bags.

And what did they call their act of tea-based protesting? Tea-bagging.

Yes, tea-bagging!

Obviously, some public-relations mastermind behind this new movement never thought to check the Internet to see what “tea-bagging” really means. I won’t describe it here, but have a ball – or two – by checking out the definition at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tea-Bag.

Now some of the “tea-baggers” are angry that the protests have been referred to as “tea-bagging” by the media. Well, then why did these brainiancs call it “tea-bagging” to begin with?

Why is there a Twitter page called, “TeaBagObama”? Why have there been cries to “Teabag the White House” and “Teabag Congress”? Why is there a blog called “Teabag Obama,” which includes a post called “Teabagus Maximus,” which offers “proper teabagging instructions" (http://teabagobama.blogspot.com/2009/03/teabagus-maximus_21.html). And, seriously, the post includes the line, “Here's a great method to get around the assholes.” And when tea-bagging, that could be important!

I have no problem with people protesting what they view as unfair taxation. But at least be consistent.

These same people should have been protesting all the money George W. Bush flushed away, from corporate bailouts to a failed war. After all, one big stimulus package is not that much different from another big stimulus package, especially when it comes to tea-bagging.

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Miss Universe Dayana Mendoza

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Miss Universe Dayana Mendoza, who seems to think that a place where people are tortured and held prisoner without being charged with a crime is a greeeeeaaaaat place to take a vacation.

Caitlin Upton, the 2007 Miss Teen USA contestant from South Carolina, made headlines for her rambling speech about “the Iraq,” maps, and “U.S. Americans.” (If you don’t remember, check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww to jog your memory.)

Well, good news, Ms. Upton. You are no longer the dumbest beauty queen ever. THAT title now goes to the reigning Miss Universe, Dayana Mendoza of Venezuela.

I guess she never got the memo – or the thousands of news reports – that the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has become an international embarrassment, a place where human rights were thrown out the window by the George W. Bush administration, where prisoners are allegedly routinely tortured, and where “enemy combatants” are held for years without being told why. In fact, things there got so bad that President Barack Obama has said he will shut down Guantanamo by the end of the year.

Enter Miss Universe for her version of spring break. According to published reports, Mendoza wrote on her blog last week that the prison there is a “relaxing, beautiful place” to visit. She called her trip an “incredible experience. … It was a loooot of fun!” (That’s five Os, if you’re counting.)

Here’s what else she had to say: “We visited the detainees’ camps and we saw the jails, where they shower, how they recreate themselves with movies, classes of art, books. It was very interesting. I didn’t want to leave, it was a such a relaxing place, so calm and beautiful.”

Great. Guantanamo Bay as tourist attraction before it’s even closed down.

And she didn’t want to leave? It was relaxing and calm? I wonder if those who have been sleep deprived, beaten, locked up indefinitely and tricked into thinking they are drowning find it “relaxing” and “calm.”

“We also met the military dogs,” she wrote, “and they did a very nice demonstration of their skills.” After all, going to Guantanamo is just like watching the dolphins at Sea World, isn’t it?

Makes me wonder if she thinks water boarding is a good way to ride the waves and enjoy the surf. Maybe someone should give her some lessons, and then she could see just how fuuuuun Guantanamo Bay really is.

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Gary Goodyear, Canada’s science and technology minister

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Gary Goodyear, who can’t seem to decide whether or not he believes in evolution.

Here’s how it all started. Goodyear, who is not a blimp but a parliamentary minister, gave an interview with the national Globe and Mail newspaper. The interview was supposed to be about the federal government’s budget cuts targeting scientific research.

But then he put his foot in it when he refused to tell the newspaper’s reporter if he believes in evolution.

“I am a Christian,” is how he responded, “and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate.”

Now, he wasn’t asked about his religion. No, as the minister responsible for science, he was asked about his views on science. He is the one who put this in a religious context.

Having geared the interview toward religion, the Globe and Mail then asked Goodyear if he is a creationist. Then he really had something to say – if you can understand him.

Here’s his quote: “I do believe that just because you can’t see it under a microscope doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It could mean we don’t have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I’m not fussy on this business that we already know everything. … I think we need to recognize that we don’t know.”

So is he referring to his faith? Goodyear would only say that the interview was going off topic.

Frankly, if he thinks we don’t have a powerful enough microscope to see what we can’t see, maybe the government should be putting funds into building said microscope, rather than cutting funding for research!

And I’m so glad he’s not “fussy” about “this business.” I hate it when a government official is “fussy” about the issues he’s in charge of. Don’t you?

After that mess, Goodyear was in full damage control. So he went on television the next day to say that he does indeed believe in evolution, at least as he defines it.

And how does he define evolution? "We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to … walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment.”

So evolution is not really about apes developing over a very long time into human beings, but about your feet getting used to walking in high heels. Thanks for the science lesson, Mr. Goodyear.

This is the man responsible for the federal government’s science strategy? And this comes at the same time U.S. President Barack Obama finally reversed George W. Bush’s draconian funding ban on stem-cell research.

Americans, however, shouldn’t get too smug. Remember, ALL of the Republicans who ran for president in 2008 do not believe in evolution.

Of course, Canada’s ruling Conservatives are doing what all good conservatives do – blaming the media. In a closed-door meeting, the party – led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper – was reportedly trying to figure out how to handle media “traps” targeting “Christian” politicians. (Oh, that darn liberal media.)

Instead of blaming the media, maybe the Conservatives should admit the truth – that Goodyear is a bonehead who shouldn’t be deciding the government’s policy on science.

Then again, maybe Goodyear proves that evolution didn’t happen. After all, HE certainly hasn’t evolved.

FREAK OF THE WEEK: George W. Bush

If you thought he was gone, think again. This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on former U.S. President George “Dubya” Bush, whose malapropisms are following him on his post-presidential lecture circuit.

Not only that, they follow him across the border.

Last week, Dubya gave his first post-presidential speech in Calgary, Alberta, Canada – no surprise since the province of Alberta is basically the Texas of Canada. And it was there that he reportedly revealed his plan to write a book about the “12 toughest decisions I had to make” as president. (Decisions which, I presume, included, “What country should I invade next?”)

But he also said this about his book: “I’m going to put people in my place, so when the history of this administration is written at least there’s an authoritarian voice saying exactly what happened.”

Read that quote again. He said “authoritarian”! I can only assume he meant to say “authoritative,” meaning, “having the sanction or weight of authority.”

But he said “authoritarian,” meaning, “of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.”

Then again, given how he became and subsequently acted as president, maybe he didn’t really make a mistake.

Stephen Harper shows his nasty, but true, colors

Stephen Harper, Canada’s Conservative prime minister, ate up all the attention he received when President Barack Obama came to visit him in Ottawa last month. And this was on the heels of Harper’s middle-of-the-road, bipartisan budget to deal with the economic crisis. So has Harper finally realized the errors of his past ways and turned over a new political leaf? Not a chance.

Harper talks a good game in public and in front of the media, but behind closed doors, he is as rabid a conservative as ever.

Last week, he gave a fundraising speech at the Manning Institute for Democracy, a misnomer if I’ve ever heard one. The speech was closed to the press – thank you, Mr. Accountability – so it took a few days for the substance of his speech to finally make its way out.

According to the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/article/603283), Harper showed his true colors during that speech. Most notably, he dissed Obama, the most popular politician in the world, for being too liberal.

He dissed the Canadian Senate, judiciary, and federal bureaucracy for being full of “ Liberal insiders and ideologues.” And what are you, Mr. Harper, but a Conservative insider and ideologue?

He dissed Wall Street for being too “unconservative.” (If only Wall Street had been more conservative!)

He dissed Canada’s public broadcaster for being too liberal. (If only the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were more conservative!)

He dissed Parliament, in which he is the head of government, and name-called the opposition parties as “a toxic coalition brew.” (By the way, there is no official coalition among opposition parties. In fact, the Liberals voted WITH the Conservatives on the budget.)

Then he made the most bizarre statement of all. In comparing conservatism to liberalism, he said, “Unlike various forms of liberalism, conservatism is a value system, not an ideology. … I like to summarize my idea of conservatism in the three Fs – freedom, family and faith.”

George W. Bush anyone?

Harper loves to showcase himself as a blue-sweater wearing, kitten holding, Tim Horton’s drinking everyman. But once again, he proves that he is nothing but a right-wing ideologue and partisan whose “compassionate conservative” rhetoric – like Dubya - is not to be believed.

Misoverestimating Obama

As I write this, I’m watching Barack and Michelle Obama dance at another inaugural ball. But frankly, I don’t care about the pomp and circumstance of this historic inauguration day. I don’t care about what dress Michelle is wearing. And I don’t care about which marching bands took part in the parade.

What I care about is the day after, the day now-President Obama begins the hard task of fixing all that the George W. Bush administration broke over the last 8 years.

Obama told us we have to have hope, and I hope he can live up to the hype. But I also fear that people’s expectations have been set so high that he cannot possibly meet them. To turn a phrase first used by Bush, I’m afraid we may be misoverestimating Obama.

Obama talks of change – and certainly, being America’s first African-American president brings change. But there is much that will not change. For example, like Bush, he easily laces politics with religion. In fact, Obama has talked of continuing Dubya’s faith-based initiatives. He even cited scripture in his inauguration speech.

Obama talks about dealing with the wars, and many are expecting him to keep his promise of withdrawing troops from Iraq in just over a year. Is that even possible without Iraq falling apart? And I continue to be surprised at how many people don’t know that Obama pledged to INCREASE the troop presence in Afghanistan.

Much has been made of Obama being the fulfillment of Martin Luther King’s “dream.” But aside from racial equality, King preached an anti-war message of peace. Increased fighting in Afghanistan will not be a fulfillment of that part of King’s dream.

In his inauguration speech, Obama talked of America’s “God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.” Setting aside his statement that such a promise comes from God and not the laws of the land, if he really believes that all are equal, why does he still support inequality when it comes to marriage rights for same-sex couples? Too many gay and lesbian Americans have been too easily pacified by Obama’s glowing oratory, without really pushing Obama on this issue. Yes, Obama supports “civil unions,” and that is presidential progress, to be sure. But real change would be having a president who really means “that all are equal.” As the U.S. Supreme Court once ruled about racial segregation, “separate but equal” is not really equal. (The Los Angeles Times gets it right in its editorial, “Obama’s gay-marriage waffle,” at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-ed-warren21-2009jan21,0,1786860.story.)

The new Obama administration has a full plate – war, recession, and a damaged international reputation, just to name a few menu items. And Obama will need all the help that he can get. Right now, the best thing we can do is to stop deifying Obama, recognize that he is a vast improvement over Bush but still far from perfect, and set realistic expectations for president #44. If we don’t cool our collective jets, we will only end up even more disappointed and disillusioned than we were before.

All Liberals must have a say in new leader

Wounded Liberal leader Stéphane Dion must go ASAP. And the Liberal leadership race must be expedited. However, that increased speed in picking a new leader should not come at the expense of democracy. All members of the Liberal Party have a say in who the new leader will be.

Certainly, a new Liberal leader must be in place by the time Parliament reconvenes on Jan. 26. But that leader should not simply be installed by the federal Liberal caucus, which plans to meet behind closed doors on Dec. 10.

Not surprisingly, leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff has not spoken out against this closed-door strategy. Most likely, that’s because he has the majority support of fellow MPs – as well as the 58 Liberal senators – and would likely be named the new leader without any input from the grassroots. (Technically, he would be named “interim leader” by the party’s national executive, with the leadership convention still slated for May. But the convention delegate vote, which would choose a “permanent leader,” would become a mere formality.)

Also unsurprisingly, Ignatieff’s competitor, Bob Rae, favours a more open competition that would consult Liberals from coast to coast to coast through phone and email balloting.

While both Rae and Ignatieff would personally benefit from the system they and their supporters are advocating, Rae’s position is the one that is in line with open democracy, party revitalization, and grassroots involvement.

As Rae and others have pointed out, if the choice of party leader is left up to Liberal MPs, only 77 ridings will be represented in the decision-making process. This caucus-only solution leaves Liberals from 231 ridings – those that do not have a Liberal MP – in the dark and out in the hallway while the decision is made. Most troubling of all is that the areas of the country that need the most Liberal rebuilding – namely Quebec and the West – will be the areas least involved in the process.

Just as Rae was right when he walked out of a Mississauga leadership debate last month that was closed to the media, Rae is right again about what is needed in this selection process. Whatever the party decides to do, the process of picking the next leader must be democratic, open, inclusive, and transparent.

Rae and others have said that the party needs a contest, not a coronation. That’s true, because coronations don’t work. The Republican Party in 2000 coronated George W. Bush as its leader – and we see how well that turned out. And just this year, it was supposed to be a coronation for Hillary Clinton, but when that turned into a real contest, the people had something else in mind.

In Canada, as in the U.S., parties must listen to the people.