In Geneva, The U.N.’s Successor May Be Testing Its Wings

Imagine a better Washington. Imagine a conservative Republican administration working hand in glove with liberal congressional Democrats on a foreign-policy initiative designed to strengthen the United Nations while simultaneously increasing America’s clout there. Imagine both parties and both branches bringing this initiative to fruition smoothly and unfussily, during an election year. Say, this year. Say, right now.

I know I live under a rock, but I’m surprised this hasn’t recieved a little more attention.

In 1945, when the U.N. was born, most of the world was non-democratic, and so a “league of democracies” would have been a rump group. Today, however, more than 60 percent of the world’s countries are electoral democracies. Today it is absurd for Burma to vote as the moral and legal equivalent of Belgium; more absurd for Cuba and Zimbabwe to be members in good standing of the U.N. Human Rights Commission; and more absurd still for Libya to chair that commission, as it did last year.
To add injury to insult, democracies at the U.N. are disproportionately weak. The U.N. is dominated by a cluster of regional and ideological caucuses. African countries, for example, are pressured to vote together, with undemocratic governments often calling the shots and democracies going along to get along. Tyrants thus routinely exempt themselves from human-rights resolutions, while log-rolling ensures that condemnations of Israel sail through.
In 1996, a private group called the United Nations Association of the United States of America floated the idea of a caucus solely for democracies. With 120 or so nations (out of 191 U.N. members), such a caucus could serve as a powerful counterweight to the traditional caucuses.

The concept is being floated at a meeting of the UN Commission For Human Rights that began Monday in Geneva.
hat tip – Jack’s Newswatch

Just in case anyone was still trying to guess to state the blatantly obvious.

Murray Wood hosts an afternoon phone in show on Saskatoon’s talk radio station, 650 CKOM (980 CJME in Regina). Today, he had a few choice words for some of our least favorite Liberals. I had been planning to dedicate a few words to Sheila Copps… saved me a lot of typing, Murray Wood did…
I emailed him to see if the piece was available online (it isn’t), but he sent me the raw text.
Heh. Nothing like a good rant to finish off a lazy Monday afternoon.

The Way I See It
If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then self-righteous outrage is surely the final sanctuary for Liberal hacks and flacks facing their oh-so-deserved comeuppance.
I love the headline “Copps Cries Foul!!!” After losing the Liberal nomination in her Hamilton riding, the queen of the undeclared expense account suddenly wants a full accounting of the vote… and demands to know why some of her supporters were challenged.
Hey Sheila – here’s how the math breaks down; two plus two equals zero when it comes to you. That’s the number of positives you bring to any political party.
From the days of painfully shrill screeching on the opposition benches to her less than stellar time in cabinet, (remember free flags for all?) and unanswered questions about expense accounts, Sheila Copps has been a noisy, empty suit. No substance and not much style. Just sharp political claws and elbows.
Too bad for she doesn’t have better political instincts. Like a paunchy fighter who doesn’t know when to retire, Copps should have grabbed the patronage plum offered to her and ran. Of course, she could always run for the NDP.and aren’t the other parties all hoping she does?

And he was just getting started…

Continue reading →

Inspired by Drudge.
I swear to God, I did not “photoshop” this.

Via Drudge Report, the first post-nomination poll is out showing Kerry and Bush in a virtual dead heat.
The speculation is that Nader is the spoiler, bleeding off Democrat supporters.

Bush and the four-term Massachusetts senator, who emerged as the nominee Tuesday after a string of primary race wins over several rivals, have been running close or Kerry has been ahead in most recent polls that did not include Nader.
Since Nader entered the race Feb. 22, campaign strategists and political analysts have been trying to assess the impact of another presidential bid by the consumer activist whom Democrats blame for Al Gore’s loss in 2000.

Well, maybe. But if this proves to be a genuine signal that the enthusiasm for Kerry is already waning, it suspect it’s due to Edwards supporters moving to Bush. No doubt Nader may have skimmed off a few from Kerry’s left, but more likely he’d motivate the type who would refuse to commit to either Bush or a Kerry, the previously “undecided” who needs a third option to even want to vote.
Admittedly, I haven’t seen much of either on TV, and none of the debates. But it’s been my impression that hawkish Democrats were more comfortable with Edwards than with Kerry, and with Edwards out of the race, they can’t bring themselves to wobble over in his direction.
disclaimer: I reserve the right to be full of shit.

A poll result obtained under access to information reveals that the feds really don’t like to have these types of polls made public;
Globe and Mail

Ottawa – The federal government was told Western alienation had reached disturbing levels just after Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol, with almost a quarter of one Prairie province saying it wouldn’t care if they joined the United States
…
Twenty-three per cent of Saskatchewan residents said they would not be too concerned if their province joined the United States, more than in either Alberta or Quebec, where 19 per cent expressed that view.
The poll may help explain why Prime Minister Paul Martin has made Western concerns a key priority while moving cautiously on the Kyoto file. Although he criticized his predecessor for lacking an implementation plan, Mr. Martin himself has not introduced one.

No suprise there. That’s the price of political expediency. Kyoto sells in the greater metropolitan Toronto area. When east-west interests are in conflict, the west is politically expendible. But things get trickier when energy and resources are on the table.
Unlike Quebec, if the western provinces did choose sovereignty, we exit with the bulk of Canada’s energy resources. Screw with our energy based economy at your peril – Peter Lougheed demonstrated that during the National Energy Program crisis of the early 1980’s.

The sense of belonging to Canada among Westerners has dropped sharply in the past decade, the Ekos study notes.

No shit, Sherlock. And in typical fed fashion, the Liberal government commissioned a poll. As if the the Reform-Alliance near sweep of the west in the past two federal elections weren’t a clue.

Washington Post has a piece on the former Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean that is certain to deflate the idealism of the “grassroots” behind his campaign. It seems that when he urged his supporters to help him “take back your country”, he wasn’t quite sure he wanted it all that much.

The feuding and backbiting that plagued the Howard Dean campaign had turned utterly poisonous. Behind the facade of a successful political operation, senior officials plotted against each other, complained about the candidate and developed one searing doubt.
Dean, they concluded, did not really want to be president.
In different conversations and in different ways, according to several people who worked with him, Dean said at the peak of his popularity late last year that he never expected to rise so high, that he didn’t like the intense scrutiny, that he had just wanted to make a difference. “I don’t care about being president,” he said. Months earlier, as his candidacy was taking off, he told a colleague: “The problem is, I’m now afraid I might win.”

A lot of people were afraid you might win, Howard Dean. They had the right instincts, and to your credit, so did you.
The WaPo piece tells a story of a campaign of internal distrust. For example, The Al Gore endorsement was kept secret from Dean’s campaign manager, Joe Trippi.

It was, instead, a dysfunctional political family, filled with tales of blocking access to the candidate, neutralizing internal rivals, trying to penalize reporters deemed unfriendly. And some of its members just plain despised each other.

I wonder what the chick who sold her bike to give the money to your campaign is thinking right now – and how many disillusioned young “Deaniacs” may turn their backs on politics altogether. That would be the greater shame.

Maybe, we could get it right on this try, but if we did (and I say we did) it wasn’t with the help of people like Jane Fonda, and John Kerry. It wasn’t enough to slime people like Charlie and other veterans with accusations of wall to wall atrocities, it wasn’t enough to render further assistance to South Vietnam politically untouchable after 1972, when it came to taking responsibility for the people whom their actions drove into the refugee camps (or the re-education camps, or the killing fields), they were nowhere to be seen. They had moved on, leaving other people to sort out the wreckage and the misery. People, you can make bad decisions— god knows, I’ve made a few— but the people I respect take responsibility when the bad decision has bad consequences.

Go read it all.
via Instapundit

Well, nobody ever accused Al Queda of political sophistication…

“Bush, fortify your targets, tighten your defense, intensify your security measures,” the voice warned, “because the fighting Islamic community – which sent you New York and Washington battalions – has decided to send you one battalion after the other, carrying death and seeking heaven.”

Brought to you by

His problem;

I saw someone wearing an “Anyone But Bush 2004” sweatshirt today, with the Democratic Underground logo underneath.
As is usually the case in situations like that, I didn’t have a chance to say anything. Still, I’m sure I’ll see those shirts more as we get closer to November. Anybody have a good line to use in that situation?

Here’s mine.

Is John Kerry channelling Howard Dean?

John Kerry Challenges George W. Bush to Debate on War

Upon his arrival in Atlanta, Georgia on Saturday, John Kerry issued a statement and sent a letter to George W. Bush challenging him to a debate on the Vietnam era and the impact of their experiences on their approaches to presidential leadership. The challenge was issued in light of Bush campaign attacks on John Kerry’s service in Vietnam, and his commitment to the defense of our nation.

Kerry: “John Kerry went to Vietnam. John Kerry served with honor. John Kerry knows what it means to pick up a weapon and take a bullet for his country.”
Bush: “I respect that, Senator Kerry – and here’s what I’m going to do. I am going to sit right here and listen quietly while you tell the American people about your timetable for sending American forces back to Southeast Asia to win this war!
Kerry: “Don’t be absurd… Vietnam was over 30… er… I mean ….”
Bush: “Well I’m in if you are. Let’s go. Lemme talk to Rummy. I’ll put in a good word for you. What’ya need there, VietnamMan, a coupla divisions? Nimitz is ready and waiting off Hawaii….”
Heh.