I tried to keep an open mind going in. I have a good friend who is working hard to pass Proposition A — the $450 Million Public School Repair/Upgrade Bond. A lot of his work brings him into and around the San Francisco Public School system. He urged me to support Prop A., even invited me to work on, and donate to, the campaign.

But I just can’t. Not when our school system is so rife with waste, mismanagement, shenanigans, and cronyism. And I don’t see that changing any time soon, unless perhaps if we stop shoveling money into the dysfunctional system (and it’s worth noting that San Francisco passed a $300 Million School Repair and Upgrade bond just 3 years ago. Where does it stop?)

I said to my friend, “we have to stop feeding the beast.” And he tried his best, but he couldn’t bring me over to his point of view. And the School Bond is perhaps he most compelling item on the ballot. The other stuff is just economic poison or political grandstanding — or both, in many cases. Force all employers to provide paid sick leave (Prop. F)? Say Buh-bye to jobs for San Franciscans (ahhh.. who needs ‘em, anyway?) Or how about Prop. H, which would force all landlords to increase the current $1,000 per tenant “relocation charge” for Owner Move-In or repair evictions to $4,500 per tenant (up to $22,500 per unit)? And people wonder why apartments are being converted into condos at a breakneck clip and nobody wants to build apartments here. Great for the few tenants who receive these exorbitant, extorted payments, very very bad for everybody else (including any tenants who are looking for a new place to rent.)

And on and on it goes.

In a way, the horrible crop of ballot propsitions will make it very easy to vote on November 7th. Just mark “NO” next to every San Francisco measure. Simple!

Below are the San Francisco Taxpayers Union ballot arguments. The SF Taxpayers Union is a worthy organization dedicated to injecting some restraint and some much-needed economic sanity into our turbulent and often screwy economic and political climate, so go here to sign up for their updates and information. They boldly assert: “San Franciscans pay enough to live and work in San Francisco without having our pockets picked every Election Day.”

Indeed. Here’s the SF Taxpayers Union:

Taxpayers Beware!

There they go again! Here are some good reasons to vote against everything and save your money:

Prop A – Another School Bond . . . . No

$450 million with no guarantee how it will be spent? We know they spent part of the 2003 bond on schools that were later closed and that most of this one will be spent on a disabilities lawsuit settlement, Until responsible people come up with a long-range spending plan, there are better uses for property taxes.

Prop. B – Supervisors Stay Home . . . . No

Taxpayers deserve the opportunity to confront the people who take and spend their money. Make them go to work like everyone else.

Prop C. – Politicians Get a Big Raise . . . . No

The Sheriff gets $55,000 more and the Mayor gets $40,000 more if this passes, plus all of the trickle down raises to staffers whose salaries are tied to elected officials – labor costs will skyrocket. There are no incentives for performance – they can do a lousy job and still get a raise.

Prop D. – Privacy Protection . . . . No

It’s one thing for the city to be uncooperative with the Federal Government, but it’s quite another to force city contractors to do the same. Another attack on business.

Prop E. – Higher Parking Taxes . . . . No

This 25% parking tax increase and 35% valet parking increase is not even going to MUNI – it’s going into the General Fund for the Mayor and Supes to spend as they will. Driving a car is already too expensive – save your money for gas.

Prop F. – Mandatory Paid Time Off . . . . No

Forcing small businesses to provide benefits without regard to whether doing so will drive them, their customers, or the taxes they generate to other cities is foolish..

Prop G. – Anti Formula Retail . . . . No

This will require a Planning Commission hearing for every new formula retail store (like Starbucks), and enable the Supes to ban them outright in more commercial districts. Just another anti-business and anti-taxpayer move.

Prop H. – Renter Relocation Benefits . . . . No

Property owners would be forced to pay thousands of dollars to renters [up to $22,500 per unit] for temporary relocation, even if they are repairing/improving their buildings for the renters’ benefit!

Prop I. – Fun and Games at City Hall . . . . No

While we agree it would be fun to watch the Mayor try to answer questions from the Board of Supervisors every month nonsense such as this belongs in a comedy routine, not on a ballot.

Prop J. – Impeach Bush/Cheney . . . . No

The Board of Supervisors needs to stay out of national and international debates. Ballot clutter like this costs tens of thousands of dollars for each proposition, money better spent on police officers and gardeners.

Prop K. – Feel Good Housing Policy . . . . No

A policy debate that belongs in Board chambers, not on the ballot.

Here’s more Berman on the subject (but do check out his book.)

Also…we blogged about Berman and the meaning of Iraq at awhile back.

Personally, I am thrilled that Bush is finally articulating this.

(Side note: Goodman has dubbed the annual TV Press Tour “The Death March With Cocktails,” and his accounts are consistently enjoyable, if one cares about insider reports from the TV industry and rich-and-famous foolery and that sort of thing. You can follow The Death March With Cocktails here.)

And, for easy reference and background, here is an index of the entire pre-election Rathergate memo scandal.)
Below is the full transcript of Rather’s remarks. Rather had just been asked if he felt that he carried any “baggage” from his career in network journalism.

“Yes, I have baggage. I have the baggage of being a graduate of the journalism school out of the University of South Vietnam. I have baggage from the Civil Rights movement in Birmingham. I have baggage from Watergate and covering, as the White House and lead correspondent for CBS News, on the only President in history who resigned. I have baggage from Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded it. I have baggage from two interviews with Saddam Hussein. You bet your life I’ve got a lot of baggage. And make no mistake, I’m proud of it. Yes, I’m biased. I have a very strong bias toward independent journalism, italicized, underlined, put in bold caps. Some – I’m not here to argue all – some of the problems I have and have had with this question of, quote, bias, is misunderstanding what my bias is. I’m committed to independent journalism and, yes, fiercely independent when necessary. And a lot of the times it’s necessary. Not all, but some of what you describe as, quote, baggage, comes from people who have the following view, which they’re entitled to have. This, God bless it, is America, and you can have it. But their view is, to not just Dan Rather, but to a lot of people in journalism, “Listen, Mr. or Ms., you report the news the way I want it reported, or I’m going to make you pay a price. I’m going to hang a sign around your neck that says you were a bomb-throwing Bolshevik or something. And I’m going to mount a sizable and very effective smear campaign on you.”

Now, this doesn’t only happen to me. If you’ve seen “Good Night, and Good Luck,” you know what I’m talking about. And I should – I should be lucky enough to live to the day that I can walk in the same room with Ed Murrow, but I can’t, and nobody before or since him could. But there’s the model for things. If you’re determined to be independent, you’re going to take the heat. If you are determined to be fiercely independent when necessary and say, “No, sir” – or ma’am – “I’m not going to report the news the way you want it reported. I’m not going to be bullied or intimidated. I’m not going back up, back down, or back away to meet your partisan, political, or ideologic agenda. I’m going to play to my bias for independent news” – now, when you face the furnace, you have to take the heat, and some of the time, you’re going to get burned. And I’ve got plenty of scars. I’ve made my mistakes, and some of my wounds are self-inflicted.

But the one thing, if you check the record – and I invite you to check the record – you will not find me cowing to pressure. Now, sometimes that can lead to making mistakes. Sometimes – and I’ve had people tell me, “Dan, this is not healthy for your career.” Well, my answer to that is to hell with the career. I didn’t get into journalism as a careerist. I’m not going to go out of journalism as a careerist. So yes, I’m biased about doing independent journalism. And you bet I’m prejudiced. I’m prejudiced toward reporters – and America is filled with reporters – who want to do the right thing. Increasingly it’s difficult to do the right thing because of what I described before. You stand up and ask the tough question. You ask the toughest question you know how of the highest power you can find, and I guarantee you the second your backside hits the seat, there are going to be people coming after you. But you know, that goes with the territory. I wouldn’t have it any other way. That news, real news, news at its best, is a wake-up call, not a lullaby. And I’m not in the lullaby business.”

The following is more “food for thought” on the subjects addressed by Gore’s film:

Instapundit — “SO I GUESS KYOTO WORKED, THEN: “Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase.” (from the Telegraph, UK)

“UPDATE: Canada is abandoning Kyoto. Just when it was starting to work!”

On the “Inconvenient” Movie itself:

From _Slate_:

“…This raises the troubling fault of An Inconvenient Truth: its carelessness about moral argument. Gore says accumulation of greenhouse gases “is a moral issue, it is deeply unethical.” Wouldn’t deprivation also be unethical? Some fossil fuel use is maddening waste; most has raised living standards. The era of fossil energy must now give way to an era of clean energy. But the last century’s headlong consumption of oil, coal, and gas has raised living standards throughout the world; driven malnourishment to an all-time low, according to the latest U.N. estimates; doubled global life expectancy; pushed most rates of disease into decline; and made possible Gore’s airline seat and MacBook, which he doesn’t seem to find unethical. The former vice president clicks up a viewgraph showing the human population has grown more during his lifetime than in all previous history combined. He looks at the viewgraph with aversion, as if embarrassed by humanity’s proliferation. Population growth is a fantastic achievement—though one that engenders problems we must fix, including inequality and greenhouse gases. Gore wants to have it that the greener-than-thou crowd is saintly, while the producers of cars, power, food, fiber, roads, and roofs are appalling. That is, he posits a simplified good versus a simplified evil. Just like a movie!”

“The Moral Flaws of Al Gore’s _An Inconvenient Truth_”

Brief “Inconvenient” responses (video):

(60 second spot questioning the science behind Gore’s film):

“Glaciers”

“Captain Planet”

“If you don’t fly commercial, don’t talk to me about greenhouse gases or conservation.” (Instapundit, again)
A comprehensive and humorous look at “Inconvenient” that (among other things) questions the moral congruence of Gore promoting “Inconvenient” by flying all over the country in his private Gulfstream jet (which on a single one-way LA-DC trip burns as much fuel as a Hummer does in a year). Also looks at some of the recent Hollywood Celeb “Environmental Ads” featuring Cameron Diaz, Gwyneth Paltrow and others…

Video Here.

More writings:

A second look at Climate Change data in the WSJ.

Finally, here is Michael Crichton who posits that Environmentalism is our modern, western fundamentalist religion.

I don’t disagree. But I was left feeling like there was a great deal of GOOD news that Saracevic had ignored in his column. So I wrote him the following email:

“Thought provoking stuff today.

There is an upside to the higher gas prices, of course, part of which is simply that people will be driving less (as the Chronicle reported on Page One this week.) More carpooling and public tranist use will result. People will weigh fuel economy more heavily when considering their next vehicle purchase. Those are GOOD things, right?

Also, as gas prices rise, alternative energy sources become relatively more attractive. So, there’s another benefit: powerful stimulus to the development and use of (greener) alternatives.

There may be frustration in some quarters that market forces will accomplish what endless TV pieces, Op-Eds and Public Service Announcements so far have not been able to achieve — making a real, widespread change in American behavior. But let’s face it, many of us make a change when we feel some pinch of discomfort, not when it vaguely “seems like a good idea.”

Oh, and one other thing: the numbers you quoted in todays column about oil revenue seem huge. Heck, they ARE huge. But one needs some context to properly understand them. I’m not sure your readers got that context from your piece today (perhaps in a follow-up piece?)

I think the following speaks powerfully to the questiton of “oil profiteering”. (Via Instapundit):

‘ From 1986 to 2003, using 2004 dollars, the real national annual average price for gasoline, including taxes, generally has been below $2 per gallon,” noted the Federal Trade Commission in a 2005 report absolving the industry of collusion. “By contrast, between 1919 and 1985, real national annual average retail gasoline prices were above $2 per gallon more often than not.”

In other words, gasoline prices were lower than at anytime since 1919 for much of recent history. Some conspiracy! Maybe somebody should have been investigating consumers for “gouging” the oil companies.

And just who is the profiteer here? While the average profit on the sale of a gallon of gasoline is nine cents, the average state and federal tax on that same gallon of gasoline is about 45 cents (and 52 cents in Michigan). And if we must have an investigation, how about investigating the extent to which government regulations drive up prices and block new production?

Management guru Peter Drucker once remarked, with his usual drollery, that profit is “whatever government lets a company keep.” But most folks have a vastly inflated view of corporate profits. One regular survey of Americans found that the majority believes the average corporate profit is between 30 percent and 40 percent of sales, while the real figure is closer to 4 percent.

Washington should cool its carburetors. The pursuit of profit is one of the main engines of Western progress and prosperity. And as people in my neck of the woods are fast learning, it is only out of profit that we can afford to pay for a comfortable retirement. As profits in the steel, airline and auto industries erode or even vanish, so do pensions and health care benefits, not to mention jobs. ‘
I encourage you to read the entire thing here. ”

JASON ADDS: it is not just that higher prices make alternatives more attractive. Additionally, it actually makes them economically viable to explore. Not just greener energies, but also shale oil and other difficult [read: expensive] points of extraction and extraction methods for fossil fuels. Right now bio-diesel [that cool soybean/vegetable oil fuel] is still more costly than a gallon of gasoline. Supply and demand limited production.

Additionally, while record profits have been recorded for oil co’s recently, that is a gross number, rather than a percentage of revenue. As a percentage of revenue, profits have remained largely the same–at about 10% 9.4% recently [can't find source I read days ago]. When oil companies raise the cost of gasoline, it is because _their_ costs have increased. Article on basic economics of price controls [that far too many are ignorant on and of] here. If gov’t really wanted to do something about gas prices rather than just grandstanding, they would relax environmental regulations on building refineries and expanding that capacity, they would do away wth boutique additives and mixtures of same that require certain regions, states, and municipalities to sell specific mixtures — they would _standardize it_ or repeal it altogether and they would forget about enthanol [it is more expensive as an additive than MTBE], but again, environmental regulations and exposure to liability drove the oil co’s away from MTBE. AND the Senate would permit drilling in ANWR and our costal areas. Canada and Cuba are doing it anyway in areas we will not allow ourselves to.

If they were serious, they would have these items as a to-do list and educate the public after [probably and sadly] educating themselves about basic economics. A politician making decisions about economic policy is the equivalent of a professional wrestler making decisions for the NFL’s competition committee; they might watch the game, but they have no real idea about what is happening and how.

UPDATE JASON further adds: a great piece on perspective and profit here comparing Exxon [9.4%] profit to GE/NBC [60%!!] and adds a few others for good measure. My conclusion? PRICE GOUGING FOR ADVERTISING BY NBC. Let’s call for immediate investigations!

The Only Republican in San Francisco has some first hand details:

“I just got back and it went well. We had 70-80 people, among them a Danish journalism student from Berkeley, many flags, a hottie handing out Havarti and a complete absence of local media.”

Let’s hope we see more events like this. I found out about it too late to make it over there, but I’d love to get to the next one…

Interesting to see that T.O.R.I.S.F. poses the following question in the header area of his blog: “Imagine being an empirical, free-market thinker in a liberal town.”

Hmmmmmmmm… Gee, I wonder what that WOULD be like?

Personal to TORISF: let’s talk.

Hat tip: Little Green Footballs.

I don’t know about you, but seeing this picture makes me want to go out and by some Danish products.

People who do not live in the San Francisco area may be amazed that an elected official would actually say such a thing. People who live in San Francisco will not be amazed that an elected official would say such a thing.
Hat tip to SFSOS.

The transcript is below, or you can watch the video here. Oy.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: As we continue “Hannity & Colmes” from San Francisco tonight, the board of supervisors here overwhelmingly voted to reject a plan last year that would bring the historic World War II Iowa battleship right here to San Francisco harbor, as a museum and tourist center.

We’re now joined by one of the supervisors that voted against that plan, Gerardo Sandoval is with us.

Welcome to the show. You just said something to me as we were coming on the air. You don’t want a symbol of war in the harbor. Is what you said to me.

GERARDO SANDOVAL, MEMBER OF SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: That’s right.

HANNITY: I guess this is just a difference in philosophy. That symbol of war that beat back the forces of fascism in imperial Japan and Nazism, that’s really a symbol of peace. Why would you see it as a symbol of war when it defended liberty and freedom?

SANDOVAL: Well, it did do that. But also, it’s a warship and it’s got guns on it. It fires things. You know, you can’t deny what it is.

San Francisco is where we signed the United Nations charter, the original charter, created the United Nations. There are many, many ways to honor veterans and their sacrifice.

HANNITY: I understand that. But you don’t have liberty and freedom unless we win that war.

SANDOVAL: Absolutely.

HANNITY: So in that scene — well, then why would you dishonor the men that fought on that ship and preserved your freedom? To say what you want to say?

SANDOVAL: We don’t want to dishonor them.

HANNITY: Well, you are dishonoring them.

SANDOVAL: We just don’t want to put a 10-story gun on the waterfront where everybody is going to be looking at it every single day.

HANNITY: That gun gives you freedom. That gun ensures your liberty. That gun made this world a safer place.

SANDOVAL: But it could be a flag. It could be a statue. It could be many, many different things.

HANNITY: But is war against the Nazis a good thing? Is war against imperial Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor, is that a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Well, sometimes you have to resort to violence.

HANNITY: No, no, no. Is war — was war against the Nazis a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Absolutely.

HANNITY: Was war against imperial Japan a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Absolutely. We don’t have to put a bomb or a warship right on the waterfront. It’s going to be 10 stories tall. You know how tall that is? It’s half as big as some of the biggest buildings in San Francisco.

HANNITY: You know something? I guess this is just a philosophical difference. Because you know what? I define peace as the ability to defend ourselves. And you seem to look at that as ship as something negative, not something to be proud of. Not something that gave you a great gift. I don’t understand that mentality. Can you explain it to our audience?

SANDOVAL: Well, it’s also a fiscal issue not just a symbolic or philosophical.

HANNITY: Yes, hurt that’s not the reason. Because a lot of people say it’s about money. If I told you the money would be there tomorrow, you would still be against it, wouldn’t you?

SANDOVAL: We would still be against it. That’s right.

HANNITY: So it’s not about money, but you’re using it as an excuse.

SANDOVAL: No, no, no. But it’s a very real reason. In Oakland right across the bay here, where they brought in the USS — one of the wood…

HANNITY: Would you have the freedom to vote this way, had we not used that ship, that symbol of war as you call it, if we had not won that war? Would you have the ability to even make this vote without that ship?

SANDOVAL: Things would be very, very different. No doubt. But that does not mean we have to put a warship on our waterfront.

HANNITY: Warship? Why don’t you call it a peace ship? The peace ship gave you the liberty to be who you are today?

SANDOVAL: Why don’t we paint war symbols on all schools if that’s the way you feel? So we can honor their sacrifice.

HANNITY: I rarely agree with Dianne Feinstein. And she even says this is not the San Francisco that I know. This is — and I guess this is the mentality. Do you think America should unilaterally disarm? Should we give up our weaponry and our war — our tools of war?

SANDOVAL: You know, that’s a very complicated question. But I would say yes, we should. We should invest our money in our kids.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: This is Alan in New York. Should we not have military?

SANDOVAL: I don’t think we should have a military. Absolutely.

COLMES: We shouldn’t have a military? Wait a minute. Hold on. The United States should not have a military?

SANDOVAL: What good has it done for us in the last five years? That’s right. What good has it done us…

HANNITY: Good grief.

SANDOVAL: … in the last five years.

COLMES: Gerardo, wait a second.

SANDOVAL: We think about the billions that we’re spending in Iraq right now, if we spend it on schools. We should not…

COLMES: The United States should not have a military?

SANDOVAL: That’s correct.

COLMES: Are you kidding me?

SANDOVAL: The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape.

COLMES: You’ve got to be kidding me. We should have no military, we should have no ability to defend ourselves, we should have no armed forces in this country?

SANDOVAL: Well, we shouldn’t have a military that goes abroad and starts wars.

COLMES: You just said we shouldn’t have a military. I don’t want to give — I’m speaking out very forcefully to you, because I don’t want to give the impression that Democrats hate the military or don’t want a military. We may disagree with certain wars, like the ones fought now.

SANDOVAL: No, but you said should we give up.

COLMES: But to say that we shouldn’t have a military is absolutely absurd. It’s incredible. That’s a ridiculous fringe point of view.

HANNITY: That’s exactly what I was thinking, Alan. Welcome to San Francisco.

SANDOVAL: If you’re saying that we don’t have a right to defend ourselves that’s different from we shouldn’t have a military.

COLMES: What do you want to defend ourselves — what do you want to defend ourselves with?

SANDOVAL: Well, you got cops. It’s called the Coast Guard. There’s lots of things different.

COLMES: You want to send cops to defend our shores if we’re attacked? You want to send cops overseas if we’re attacked? Cops?

SANDOVAL: You want to send people abroad to start these wars.

COLMES: I don’t. Actually, Gerardo, you don’t know anything about what I stand for if you can say that. I’ve been one of the most outspoken people against this administration and the war in Iraq.

But that doesn’t mean we as Democrats hate the military or don’t want to defend this country. And I’m amaze you could get on national television and say we shouldn’t have a military in America?

SANDOVAL: Well, that’s the way I think a lot of people feel here in San Francisco.

HANNITY: I’ve got to tell you, this is a first. You made look Alan look like a hawk.

I’m going to tell you something. If America is attacked, you have no defenses. You have no liberty. You have no freedom. You can’t think in such a shallow way. You’ve got to tell me that this is a joke.

SANDOVAL: No, no. Not at all. I think that what you look at where you want America to go, I mean America has got hundreds of years, maybe thousands of years to go.

HANNITY: Without a military, there is no America. Without — it’s not a disagreement. It’s a fact.

SANDOVAL: We can imagine an America that someday will not have a military. It might take 1,000 years.

HANNITY: OK. And then when Iran bombs you…

SANDOVAL: But that’s what you’ve got to hope for.

HANNITY: Or when al Qaeda attacks you, what are you going to do?

UPDATE: If you’d like to let Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval know how you feel about his expressed viewpoint, here’s how to get in touch with him:

Gerardo Sandoval – Supervisor, District 11
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
(415) 554-6975 – voice
(415) 554-6979 – fax
Gerardo.Sandoval@sfgov.org

Personal website: http://www.gerardosandoval.org/

Official website: http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp?id=4643

San Francisco Democratic Party Central Committee:

(415) 626-1161
1390 Market Street, Suite 818,
San Francisco, CA 94102
email: info@sfdemocrats.org

website:  http://www.sfdemocrats.org

UPDATE: Able Dart over at the SF Wall is mad as hell. He’s calling for all San Francisco Democrats to stay the hell off of any and all Fox News shows. I respect Able and I usually agree with where he’s coming from. But personally, I’d like to see MORE SF Politicians on these national news shows for the basic reason that our local media does SUCH a poor job of really challenging these folks on some of the more outrageous foolery and ideology that passes for “public policy” in these parts. Able’s larger point seems to be that Fox News is “out to get the Democrats.” “Any Democrat worth their salt knows that Fox News – the bastard baby of Reagan era GOP operative Roger Ailes – is out to discredit the Democratic Party [...] is not an impartial organization…” says the Dart.

The obvious counterpoint is, of course, that other Mainstream Media outlets are hardly “impartial organizations,” either — despite all their high-sounding protestations to the contrary. I think it’s actually healthy for the US to have a national media outlet that owns its viewpoint. Now, if only the NY Times, and CBS and CNN et. al. would have the guts to do the same. Because, let’s get real: one is hard pressed to find even-handed coverage of the Republicans (or the Libertarians) on any of the (mesaurably lefty-biased) Mainstream Media outlets.

Furthermore, Fox does do good reporting in their straight news segments. They’ve scooped other providers from time to time. As for the opinion shows, whatever — they’re opinion shows. Again, I’m glad Fox is on the scene and basically owning that they’re coming from a point of view, if only as a counter-balance.

What’s more troubling, to me, is the transparently bogus pretense of “objectivity” foisted on us by other networks and news outlets.

All in all, I am ALL FOR SF politicos “outing” themselves and shooting themselves in the foot when faced with folks who hasn’t been ideologically browbeaten into accepting some of the silly lefty tropes that so many in this City just accept as “received wisdom.”

So I say: More SF Democrats on Fox! Please! And, bring on the GREENS!

Geez, did you know that the Canadian Liberal Party has been in power for about 70 of the last 90 years? That’s amazing! That means that, on average, for only TWO YEARS out of every DECADE since WORLD WAR I has it happened that somebody _other_ than the Liberal Party has ruled Canada. Or, taken sequentially, it’s akin to having the Liberals in charge in Canada from 1937 to the present day.

Talk about your total domination.

Well, anyway, the Conservatives (or “Tories”) are in charge now, at least for the time being.

And what does the Conservative Party of Canada stand for?

Ann Althouse cites the following:

“It is in the DNA of this Harper government to improve the relationship with Washington.”

Said Janice Stein, director of the Munk Center for International Studies at the University of Toronto, according to the NYT:

Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party defeated the long entrenched Liberal Party in Canadian elections on Monday. A Conservative victory is a striking turn in the country’s politics and is likely to improve Canada’s strained relations with the Bush administration….

Mr. Harper, 46, is a free-market economist who expressed strong support for Washington at the time of the American-led invasion of Iraq and shares the Bush administration’s skepticism of the Kyoto climate control protocol, which Canada has signed and ratified. His party was formed three years ago as a coalition of two conservative parties.

Such positions are in sharp contrast with those of [Liberal] Prime Minister [Paul] Martin, who rejected cooperation with President Bush’s missile defense program, ratcheted up criticism of American trade policies and caustically criticized Washington during the campaign for not supporting the Kyoto protocol.”

A commenter on this piece added:

…on the surface of things, this seems to reflect what has just happened
in Germany. On the strength of good showing and after piecing together a “grand
coalition,” the new leader of the German government is an advocate of strong
ties with the US, supported the invasion of Iraq, and believes in a more robust
market capitalism than her predecessor. Is this a trend?

Hopefully one that’s gaining momentum…

On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration’s arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. . . . After reassessing the administration’s nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege. Example: The accusation that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs overlooks years of global intelligence warnings that, by February 2003, had convinced even French President Jacques Chirac of “the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq.” We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year.

Seventeen days before the war, this page reluctantly urged the president to launch it. We said that every earnest tool of diplomacy with Iraq had failed to improve the world’s security, stop the butchery–or rationalize years of UN inaction. We contended that Saddam Hussein, not George W. Bush, had demanded this conflict.

Many people of patriotism and integrity disagreed with us and still do. But the totality of what we know now–what this matrix chronicles– affirms for us our verdict of March 2, 2003.

Read the entire, detailed piece.

Via Instapundit and Steve Antler.