56

Would’st thou read riddles, and their explanation?


 

This week’s print edition of Maclean’s, already on sale in large Ontario cities and swiftly being carted to other points on the compass, features what is quickly becoming a house tradition: The Inside Story, a 36-page account of the recent election unpleasantness, under my signature. An expanded column, really an essay, by Andrew Coyne on the meaning of it all, caps our coverage. We will soon have excerpts from my piece, which we referred to in-house as the Thumper or the Opus, online. We will also soon tell readers all about the advantages of subscribing to the Maclean’s Digital Edition, which gives you electronic access to each issue of Maclean’s, in nifty full-screen page-turnable electronic format, as soon as each issue is published. I subscribed while we were living in Paris, and the issue you see above arrived in my emailbox about 20 minutes ago.

It’s a huge pleasure to be able to work on these big sprawling narratives whenever Canadian politics reaches a turning point. The best part is getting a chance to work in close collaboration with more than a dozen colleagues. I started my career at the Montreal Gazette, where when really big news broke, all hands were expected to pitch in and contribute reporting to a main writethrough. One harried reporter would be assigned to do the writing, while files came hurtling in from all over. The goal would be to make sense of this avalanche of data. The Gazette never did better work, while I was there, than in those big narratives cooked up hard on deadline. At Maclean’s, we are all trying to get better at it every time we get to bat. I would list the colleagues who contributed to this one, but really it’s most of the staff, and they’ll be hearing from me directly, and in the meantime we hope you’ll enjoy what we’ve come up with.


 
Filed under:

Would’st thou read riddles, and their explanation?

  1. Well – we’ve already had Batman and the Penguin in the last few days…Quack Quack…
    so I guess the Riddler had to be close behind…
    Riddle me this…what has unelected members – none of whom will be in my Cabinet…unless I stack them first?
    [Did I see fingers crossed behind his back when he made that statement?]

  2. “..Canadian politics reaches a turning point”

    Wasn’t last election – chronicled in “Right side up” and other sprawling narratives – the turning point? I mean the Tories took power from the Liberals in 2006, did they not?

  3. Glad someone is enthused about the election.

    I hope you folks cover in this issue the underlying grumpiness, and downright anger, of Canadians over this election. Judging from the letters to the editor to various newspapers over the last day or two, and the historically low voter turnout, it would appear that this voter anger is quite pervasive.

    Maybe it is finally time to consider mandatory voting and proportional representation, as they have in Australia.

  4. Anger is no excuse to abstain from performing one’s civic duty. Not happy about this election being called? Do what the rest of us do and take your anger out on your politician… at the voting booth.

    If I have to hear one more idiot whining about having to take 15 mins of their day to do what many around the world wish they had the right to do…

  5. I think everyone should have to at least show up to a polling station and decline their ballot. I think laziness masquerades as alienation or disillusionment for many.

    $100 fine for those who fail to attend.

  6. Gimme a break, making people vote at gunpoint is tyrannical. Voting is a right, not a privilege or a duty. If people choose to abstain, that’s no loss to those who do vote. Enough with the Civics 201 hypocrisy.

  7. Jack M

    I think voting is a civic duty and people should be forced to vote. However, I would give them a ‘none of these clowns are fit to govern’ option on the ballot because I don’t think you should have to vote for any party if you don’t want to.

  8. Jack, why can’t some things be both rights AND duties?

  9. A right is something you are owed by the crown, like the right of habeas corpus for instance. A duty is something you owe to the crown, like the duty of answering a court summons.

    Parliament represents the people – it is our institution (as opposed to the Privy Council or the judiciary). To allow the crown (=the law) to compel us to participate in choosing our own institution would be to make the selection of parliament subject to the crown. That is intolerable.

    The short answer is that people don’t have to vote if they don’t want to, so suck on that.

  10. No, I won’t “suck on that”. That’s a very legalistic way to understand rights and duties. There is an ideal about being a citizen that goes beyond simple rights like those in the Charter and simple duties that are created in legal rules. Participation in democratic society is more than just paying taxes and being “represented” by politicians. If you don’t feel like taking part in elections, fair enough, but it becomes immensely pretentious to think you can then spend the intervening years complaining about how it all turned out…

  11. And what if people still refuse to vote, Jack? Do you think they should be locked up?

  12. Emmett: “it becomes immensely pretentious to think you can then spend the intervening years complaining about how it all turned out…”

    Well, I agree. I just don’t think the way to deal with such hypocrisy is to put people in jail. That’s the totalitarian option.

  13. I think the system of voluntary voting works very well. People who feel too uninformed to vote, or who don’t care enough to vote, have an unfettered right to disenfranchise themselves. I can’t see the problem there. Relatively speaking, those of who do vote end up with more clout.

    – JV

  14. Robert, I said they should face a fine on the order of $100.

  15. I don’t think we should compel people to vote. We should compel them to go to a polling station, and advance poll, or request a mail-in, and then decline to vote.

    In other words, not voting should be attributed to something other than laziness.

  16. “proportional representation, as they have in Australia”

    The Australian lower house does not use any form of PR. I’d adopt the Australian model in a heartbeat: no PR for our Commons (single member STV) & PR for our Senate (multi-member STV).

    Single member STV does not prevent majorities. It just requires individual MPs to reach 50% through 2nd choices etc. That little change strikes at cynicism and strategic voting by allowing everyone to support their original choice AND oppose their worst choice.

    PR is ultimately about valuing majority coalitions over majority gov’ts whether through STV MMP (Netherlands), Party list MMP (European Parliament), or Mixed MMP (Germany).

    The very limited Canadian experience suggests we’d be happier with the Australian model than with PR. Ontario soundly rejected MMP. The BC proposal retained single member STV for rural ridings and got closer to adoption.

    A modest proposal for the next province that looks into PR. When you finish talking to the PR experts put that all aside and recommend single member STV. It is an incremental change that would sail through easily supported by PR proponents and opponents.

  17. How about disgust with the whole way society is organised? That applies to more than a few people. But by going into the voting booth they’d be giving their appui to it.

    When people think that the only way to legitimise their system is to hurt (/fine/jail/whatever) those who actively or passively disagree with it, we have passed a certain moral frontier.

  18. Michael: it’s my favourite alternative, too. I’ve been suggesting it since the right was fractured.

  19. Wow, that was easy, Paul. I didn’t know Maclean’s had digital subscriptions–which I’ve wanted for awhile now. I won’t read a printed magazine or newspaper if my life depends on it, but I’ll happily read them online.

    And, just like that, I now have my copy!

  20. Jack, it’s fairly simple. Even if people dislike the system, we expect them to obey laws, pay taxes, etc. I don’t think asking someone to show their face at a polling station or request and return a mail-in is particularly onerous.

  21. It’s not that it’s onerous, it’s that it’s coercive of support for the existing system of government. Every government collects taxes and requires that people obey the laws – that’s the nature of government – but to force people to support that system of government in particular is totalitarian. That’s what totalitarianism is.

  22. From CJunk;

    Warmists and MSM Retract Predictions

    In a surprising yet welcome move, most major North American and International news outlets today reported on the IPCC and Warmist admission that predictions of an ice-free arctic in 2008 were simply wrong. Furthermore, most MSM outlets quoted two studies that pointed to “winds” and “circulation”, not global warming, as the likely causes of arctic ice depletion. Most surprising of all, was NASA’s Dr. James Model Hansen, who told reporters, “I was wrong … just simply wrong … predicting an ice free 2008 was clearly hyperbole … and for that, I apologize.”

    Even Al Gore got into the act, and expressed regret at fanning the flames of sensationalism … while environmental groups around the world moved cautiously toward a more open view of the situation. Pepper Misty Leaf, of Arctic Ice Salvation stated, “We didn’t realize it was the wind … and now that wind dynamics are changing, we may see more … not less ice in the near future … polar bears will be happy!”

    David Suzuki even got into it when he told reporters that, “We knew it couldn’t all have been attributed to Global Warming … the models are, after all, only as good as the formulas and data that goes into them. The planet is a solar driven beast … and we need to look a lot closer at the the sun.”

    But the final word goes to the IPCC, which plans on revising its outlooks. “Someone, somewhere, is not telling the truth … either that, or we just don’t know as much about the climate as we thought,” said IPCC head, Rajendra Pachauri’s. He added, that since he believes in reincarnation, he intends on pursuing the matter even into another life.

  23. “Arctic sea ice now 28.7% higher than this date last year – still rallying
    15 10 2008

    10/14/2008 7,064,219 square kilometers

    10/14/2007 5,487,656 square kilometers

    A difference of: 1,576,563 square kilometers, now in fairness, 2008 was a leap year, so to avoid that criticism, the value of 6,857,188 square kilometers can be used which is the 10/13/08 value, for a difference of 1,369,532 sq km. Still not too shabby at 24.9 %. The one day gain between 10/13/08 and 10/14/08 of 3.8% is also quite impressive.”

  24. Well … well … well – Mr Al Gore the planet is in immediate peril and this is known factually as conclusive by every scientist in the world finally is coming around. Why does this not surprise me when everyone around you especially scientists start saying the same thing – they are invariably WRONG! after all folks during Columbuses time the whole academic community was saying oh my god you will fall of the edge of the world ‘ There the Dragons be!’ And even Suzuki – who I met a few years back at a conference and if I am not mistaken I mentioned why aren’t the sun and the oceans in the climate models ? How on earth can you model our climate without them – the stupidity of the intelligentsia never ceases to amaze me – I had one so called scientist tell me that they removed the oceans from the model because it skewed the results!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  25. Bruce, is that germane to the discussion we’re having here?

    Jack, you’re being sensationalist. If requiring someone to rip up a ballot rather than catch a rerun of Friends is totalitarian and forcing people to support a system they may not approve of (or pay a $100 fine), I can only wonder the kind of atrocity forcing people to complete an income tax return with a punishment for not doing so being as high as time in prison.

  26. Andrew, I just threw it out there to livin’ things up.

  27. There seems to be a perception that not voting equals not participating. I participate in every provincial and federal election where I am entitled to vote. I do not cast a vote in most elections though. The way I participate is a lot more involved that some people who do vote, I submit. I pay attention to the parties, the candidates and the respective platforms, ingest the information and the methods used by the parties and candidates to get their information out to the public and then determine if a vote for someone actually means anything to my life as a Canadian.

    Sorry to say that most times, the conclusion I reach is that until there is real electoral reform and a party that has a coherent, rational plan to change the economic philosophy of our country, a vote is nothing more than selecting if you want your potatoes boiled, baked or raw. Cosmetic differences but still the same nutritional value.

    If you force me to vote, there had better be then option for None of the Above Clowns.

  28. No compulsory voting scheme leaves out an option to say ‘none of the above’. How could it? You could just spoil the ballot. Declining your ballot rather than spoiling expresses your disastisfaction, rather than disinterest/laziness (not voting) or stupidity (spoiling the ballot).

  29. A right is a promise we make to others in the hopes that they reciprocate.

    If a society chooses to make it a requirement that you participate in the governance decisions, then that society has decided that you simply do not have the right to not vote. It’s no more totalitarian than society deciding you do not have the right to urinate on public property, or walk down the middle of the street stark naked.

    That said, I don’t agree with making voting mandatory either. I tend to think this last election alone demonstrates that we have too many people already who vote without really being informed. Make it so that people’s votes matter, and you’ll find people more interested and getting informed.

  30. The Canadian Press has some interesting inside stories on the election:

    http://thechronicleherald.ca/News/1084971.html

    I wonder if that’s just the tip of the iceberg of what is in this week’s Maclean’s. (Of which I might add am hoping has arrived at my place when I get home since I just recently moved.)

    The stuff about the Liberal ads going without Dion’s approval is not surprising for some reason. But the bit about Dion not talking to Michael Marzolini is. I thought he was at their caucus retreat in Winnipeg in the summer.

    I also think the Macleans webteam should open a thread for comments on the big story this week as I’m sure there will be lots of things to discuss.

  31. I didn’t vote. Didn’t want to give any party 175 bucks for bastard ads. I vote split with myself. NDP where I’m at school. Conservative back home, both really good mp’s, both won, voting not required.

  32. “In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

    A good example of a principle clearly violated is “Make sure forecasts are independent of politics.” Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

    Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/14/climate-panel-on-the-hot-seat/

  33. Bruce: stop spamming this thread.

  34. Public Service Announcement

    Attention commenters who choose to comment on this blog from a non-leftist world view, including challenging AGW theory:

    You WILL be treated with derision, considered or overtly labeled a troll, and potentially have the particular administrator of the blog close comments.

    This will apply regardless as to whether your comment lacks any form of invective, name calling or other objectionable behavior.

    Thank you,

    and have a nice evening.

  35. But you will be given the attention you deserve.

  36. Uh-oh, I unreservedly agree with Jack Mitchell. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be quiet; it does not include the obligation to speak. Ditto for voting. If you’re too lazy or too ill-informed or too dumb to make a choice, then by all means stay home. Please. And thank you for refraining from spoiling the democratic landscape with a lazy or ill-informed or dumb choice.

    That is all the more important since we have the absurd party financing rules based on the number of votes a party receives. Forcing people to vote increases the likelihood they’ll vote for someone, further stealing our taxes to fill a party coffers.

    I have spoiled a provincial ballot in the past, and I will likely personally continue to appear at every election possible, if only to confirm that no jackass has presented in my place to steal my vote.

    But to force everyone to show up, under penalty of law, makes a mockery of the very freedom we celebrate every election day.

  37. Good god people.

    Any compulsory voting scheme with have an equivalent to voting ‘Present’. You are all throwing up strawmen.

  38. Andrew, I’m not throwing up straw men, honest. I’m trying to be quite candid. I can’t speak for my comrade MYL, but IMO there is a very great danger in our society – in every society – of our being far too self-satisfied at the inherent rightness and finality of our existing political system. I don’t, myself, object to that system, but I do strongly object to the view that it is the only possibile legitimate arrangement – I’m talking about democracy itself here, not Senate reform. IMO, it is vital for democracy’s own vitality that there should be people who think it’s a fake and a con, that it should always have to defend itself, that it should NOT be turned into a sort of civic religion. Heresies, even if mistaken, are healthy: that’s the point of having an open society. Making freedom mandatory cancels freedom. If such a mandatory voting law is imposed, it will be my duty as a citizen to conscientiously object, refuse the fine, and go to jail. What part of you will be celebrating that, I ask? The freedom-loving part or the fascist part that lurks in every soul?

  39. “Making freedom mandatory cancels freedom.”

    Gibberish.

    No one would be compelled to vote. They would be compelled to show up at a polling station. It is impossible to compel someone to vote, as they could spoil their ballot.

    “If such a mandatory voting law is imposed, it will be my duty as a citizen to conscientiously object, refuse the fine, and go to jail.”

    They should just tack it on to your income tax assessment and let it accrue 9% interest. I would not support your imprisonment, as that would be a waste of funds. If you showed up to be taken into custody, put in a holding cell for 5 minutes, then released, I would be similarly satisfied. The anarchists would feel sufficiently rebellious, and no one would get away scot-free with sitting on their ass on election day.

    Would you be satisfied with a process where you could formally register your disapproval of the current process that involved approximately the same amount of effort as showing up to a polling station?

  40. “Would you be satisfied with a process where you could formally register your disapproval of the current process that involved approximately the same amount of effort as showing up to a polling station?”

    In practice, yes. But allow me to formally register my amazement now that you should think the only reason someone would not vote in this system is that they’re too lazy to do so. Your contempt for dissent is disgusting.

  41. Neither, may I add, politely, do I see a necessary parallel between refusing to pay taxes and refusing to vote. You’d have to be fairly far out there to see taxation as inherently tyrannical, given that every society ever known has required it (at least after the development of agriculture!). Moreover, no one to my knowledge is busy deifying taxation, whereas most of the Anglosphere went to war in Iraq in the name of a new democratic god. The issue behind mandatory voting is not whether society as such should exist (as it is with taxation) but whether current arrangements are so blatantly virtuous as to justify penalising those who fail to come to Church every Sunday. Count me a sceptic there, on principle.

  42. “In practice, yes. But allow me to formally register my amazement now that you should think the only reason someone would not vote in this system is that they’re too lazy to do so. Your contempt for dissent is disgusting.”

    I think you misread my position. I am satisfied with people refusing to cast their vote for any candidate. I’m not satisfied with people simply being too lazy. My solution? Give people with principled decision not to vote the option to do so that is more dignified than spoiling the ballot, while not allowing those too lazy to vote to hide behind some faux-hip cynicism.

    “whereas most of the Anglosphere went to war in Iraq in the name of a new democratic god.”

    Ummmm, no. That’s revisionism. The war was a pre-emptive strike against a regime thought to be willing and imminently able to use WMDs against the USA/West.

    “Count me a sceptic there, on principle.”

    I’d rather dissenters at least put in the effort to say “They all suck.” As it is, that 40% can be chalked up to lazy, ignorant, self-satisfied sheep.

  43. Look, I’m not denying there’s faux-hip cynicism out there & that it’s ridiculous, but you would necessarily pull in some sincerely, conscientiously cynical people in your dragnet.

    “that 40% can be chalked up to lazy, ignorant, self-satisfied sheep.”

    May I suggest that you’re extrapolating? There are a lot of people who genuinely don’t feel they are participants in the public sphere – not on principle, not as a pose, but genuinely. Call it the medieval peasant point of view, whatever. It’s a bit condescending to tell those people that they’re therefore not fulfilling a civic duty they don’t understand or care about. My guess is that accounts for at least 20%.

    Take those aboriginal Canadians who live on impoverished Reserves, for instance. You’re going to fine them for not feeling that “we are the government”?

    As to the Iraq War thing, I’m not being revisionistic at all. The Cheney lie about WMD went hand in hand with the Doug Feith “spreading democracy” madness. Doesn’t “they hate our freedoms” ring a bell? You can’t tell me you’ve forgotten the mood of 2002-2003 already – it was all about how “we” are so deliciously democratic and wonderful and “they” are a bunch of heathen scum who are either longing to be free or doing their best to destroy democracy because they are evil. I’ll never forget that mood, it said a lot about what democracy means (sadly enough) to a lot of people in the West.

    Incidentally, may I ask why you’re not in favour of monthly loyalty parades?

  44. Maybe I wasn’t clear. I know that that is an unfair characterisation of the some of that 40%, but as far as media, political parties, etc. are concerned, it might as well be true. People who don’t vote are ghosts as far as politicians are concerned. You might see them or hear them from time to time, but they can’t affect material change. It’s hard to fault parties for ignoring these people.

  45. “Incidentally, may I ask why you’re not in favour of monthly loyalty parades?”

    I’m fairly libertarian. I just expect that the minimum level of contribution to society is to at least show up at a polling station when one is eligible to vote.

    As far as not voting because the system is illegitimate or whatever. Wouldn’t paying taxes or obeying the laws of that system do more to legitimize it?

  46. I quite agree with you there. And I do wish we had a 99% voting rate – voluntary, bien sûr; I just think that 60% as opposed to 75% is a symptom rather than a cause of democratic dysfunction. Which you probably agree with too, I’m guessing.

  47. Sorry, I meant I agreed with the first of your two comments.

    “As far as not voting because the system is illegitimate or whatever. Wouldn’t paying taxes or obeying the laws of that system do more to legitimize it?”

    Speaking as the Devil’s advocate, since I do actually support democracy, I’d say that taxes and law are inherent in any system of government. If one supported the French Bourbons, for example, they would also tax their subjects and enforce laws. So a total anarchist might object to tax and law, but a pro-Bourbon monarchist would feel the source of our illegitimacy lay elsewhere.

    A rather absurd example, of course, but my point is that it would be morally wrong, in an open society, to compel the pro-Bourbon monarchist to go against his conscience and participate in democratic government.

  48. Bull. That same logic can be used for anybody who feels obeying any particular law is against their conscience. It’s bad logic.

    Why would it be any more “immoral” to require someone cast a vote than it is to require they wear clothes in public? After all, presumably the society that requires voting of its citizens has done so because it collectively finds the alternative to be repugnant.

    To be honest, the problem is that you’re assuming that your subjective morality is an objective reality. It’s not. “Morality” is relative. Each society has its own, and, in the end, no society is more correct than another because we can only judge each from our own vantage point. So they’re wrong according to us, but we’re equally wrong according to them.

    So when you’re arguing that something would be “morally wrong” all you’re really saying is “I don’t like it, and I don’t think a bunch of other people would either.” It’s a retreat to a belief statement, and as such non-debatable and non-productive.

  49. Relativistic legal theory and morality has been dead since WWII, despite the efforts of a pesky few to resurrect it. International human rights legislation is predicated on there being a natural law in the Neo-Thomistic sense. Now, there is certainly disagreement on what the natural law is, but everyone generally agrees that there is a basic level of respect, freedom and dignity that should be given to human beings.

    As for forcing people to vote, we allow objections to being drafted for war or serving on a jury, why in gods name would we compel voting? A low voter turnout isn’t a problem anyway, it just means that people don’t feel threatened or have any agenda that they want to support. If the issues of an election warrant it, or the public feels motivated, they will vote. It is hard for me to care that 20-somethings (my age) can’t get off their fat asses for 20 minutes to vote or know anything about the current state of the world other than the contents of US Magazine.

  50. Since the election was not wished by any Canadian citizen, I feel that the party responsible for calling the election and deliberately wasting over $300,000,000.00 of taxpayer money should now be forced to return those funds, out of his own pocket, to the people who were forced to waste their time voting in an election which changed NOTHING.

    I also believe that all Canadian voters are also due 1 hour’s pay for their wasted time, at the same hourly rate as that which is collected by those who called the unwanted, ridiculous, useless and unwarranted election.

    Perhaps this, and the suggestion above of a $100 fine for those who refuse to vote, will finally get a midocum of common sense back into Canadian politics, and–wonder of wonders–finally get the Canadian people to start to pay attention to the REAL ISSUES THAT MATTER for a change.

    If you’re worried about what this world has come to at this point, perhaps you should get up off your collective asses and do something before it gets even worse than YOU have already let it become through your own consistent, wilfull ignorance and inaction!

    PS: I’m willing to bet that most Canadians were more concerned with “the big game” or the latest (100% scripted) “reality show” than to even be bothered with investigating what we really need to pay attention to.

  51. I feel it is Canadians’ right to choose if they want to vote or not. Nobody should be “forced” to do anything. We just had a federal election and a provincial one as well, not too long ago… This one was called just because the politicians and Prime Minister in parliament couldn’t work together on issues and policies. This was an election nobody wanted and cost a lot of money to have…It further alienated Quebec and divided the country even more, and really accomplished nothing constructive…another minority government..

  52. T. Thwim: “Why would it be any more “immoral” to require someone cast a vote than it is to require they wear clothes in public?”

    A couple of reasons: clothes are not optional at the moment, so the law requiring them does not alter the status quo; wearing clothes is rather more important than voting.

    Moral arguments don’t cut much ice with you, eh? All your views are based on expediency? I have a hard time believing that.

    I don’t see how one can look back on the 20th century and not feel that when a society feels it has to compel obedience to the existing political system the results aren’t diastrous for that society. I reject political absolutism and if a liberal like you, Thwim, can’t see the difference between that and rejecting necessary laws then we are well on the way to democratic authoritarianism.

  53. Hey, a general question to those familiar with internal Liberal politics.

    I see with increasing regularity Paul Martin’s insiders Scott Reid (Sat G&M) and David Herle (CBC panels) prognosticating on what the Liberal Party needs to do to renew itself and prosper.

    Who are the Dion equivalents I can expect to see in the future offering similar sage advice after the next Liberal Leader is selected ?

  54. Mars—re- manditory voteing—I say no—the ones that do not vote- have no idea of what it’s all about–& don’t care– so why let them go–eenie—meeenie—minnee moo!– & plunk an x wherever it may fall!!!don’t u see- they have no knowledge of the party- plateform–policy principals–ideaology etc. etc.-they aren’t even-interested or- qualified to vote–I say- no I don’t want them to go to the ballet box & kill my vote!!! so there!!!!!!!
    As far as Dion is concerned–thank goodness he will be gone- couldn’t stand another day– of him–he just doesn’t have what it takes to be in the public eye! Next -Rae–Ignafieff–even young justin-he’s not ready—& Rae is a has been– socialist—wouldn’t want to have to listen to him either.. who!!!

Sign in to comment.