Earlier I had posted a rant about Tyrone Willingham on the week of the ND/Washington game, a game in which the Irish thoroughly dominated and embarrassed the Huskies. The game was not necessarily an accurate barometer of how the Irish were progressing due to the sad state of the Huskie program. However, at that time, I thought that the young Irish team was making reasonably good progress. How wrong I was.
To back track briefly, I had thought, prior to the season, that the Irish would finish 7-5 on the season, with an outside shot at 8-4. My prediction was based on the fact that the Irish were coming off an historically bad season coupled with the extreme youth, especially on the offensive side of the ball. What I did not anticipate was that the Irish would regress after their 4-2 start. That’s the alarming part....instead of improving in the last 6 games of the season, they appeared to backtrack.
After a week of speculation, Notre Dame decided to bring Charlie Weis back for another year. On balance, it’s probably the right decision considering the need for stability in the program and considering how young the team was. In the past week or so, I’ve gone over the pros and cons of whether Weis should come back.
Here are the pros:
(1) He has done a fantastic job of recruiting. Under Weis, the Irish has enjoyed some of the best recruiting since the late 1980’s under Lou Holtz. The recruiting efforts by Bob Davie and Tyrone Willingham pale in comparison.
(2) The deck was stacked against Weis last year in terms of personnel, as noted in my earlier entry. This forced Weis to throw players into the fray before they were prepared. This year, the stars on the offense were either freshmen or sophomores. The QB, Jimmy Clausen, is a sophomore. Robert Hughes and Armando Allen, both RBs, are sophomores. The starting TE, Kyle Rudolph, is a freshman. Golden Tate, the speedy WR, is a sophomore and Michael Floyd, the other starting WR, is a freshmen. I don’t recall such a young outfit as this.
I think that it’s fair to see what Weis can do with this group and see if they can develop further. If this group had been all seniors and juniors, then I would be very disappointed.
(3) Weis is a great fit for ND. Being a graduate of the University (1978), he understands the values, culture and history of ND like very few coaches can. Despite a reputation for arrogance, he has represented the University quite well.
(4) HIs coaching ability was evident in the first two years at ND when he took the Irish to two consecutive BCS bowl games. I don’t think that he became a bad coach overnight. The appalling recruiting under Willingham greatly impacted the Irish and really showed up last year and to a lesser extent, this year. Remember, Brady Quinn did not blossom as a QB until his junior year, which was Weis’s first year. Clausen is only a sophomore and let’s see if he can explode next year as Quinn did in his junior year.
(5) More and more programs are discovering the virtue of stability and that includes ND. Starting with the fall of 2001, ND has gone through 4 head coaches (Davie, George O’Leary, Tyrone Willingham and Charlie Weis). That hardly augurs well for a program in terms of stability and especially in the area of recruiting. If ND were to fire Weis now, that would disrupt yet another promising recruiting class.
Okay here are the cons against retaining Weis:
(1) Offensive line: despite the youth of the skill position players, the offensive line are composed of veterans. One senior and 4 juniors make up the starting unit. By the end of the season, they should have played like a veteran unit and dominating opposing defenses. Yet, it has not worked out that way. ND has not had a great offensive line since 1993. It all starts with the offensive line. In terms of the running game, the offensive line has been lackluster under Weis and this has led to increasing the burden on the youthful skill position players and a certain amount of predictability to Weis’s offensive scheme.
While the hiring of John Latina, 4 years ago, was initially hailed by ND fans, it has become clear that he has not done the job. It was thought that, since he was a protege of one of the great offensive line coaches ( Joe Moore) in college football history, he might restore the reputation of ND offensive lines. When Joe Moore coached the offensive line during the Holtz years, every single offensive lineman, under his tutelage, went on to play in the NFL and that’s over a span of 8 years. That’s an incredible track record. Some coaches have the touch and others don’t. Joe Moore clearly did. It was hoped that some of the Joe Moore magic would rub off on John Latina and, judging from the track performance, it appears that has not happened.
Since ND has made the decision to retain Weis, he should replace Latina.
(2) Over reliance on clever.complex offensive schemes: That might work well in the NFL where the talent is pretty much evenly spread out and you can devote unlimited time for practices, meetings and film work. In contrast, NCAA rules dicate that players can only spend 20 hours per week in practice. This should be taken into account in deciding how complex an offensive scheme should be. More emphasis should be placed on fundamentals and developing toughness in players.
One of the shocking confessions by Weis last year was that his practices were not physical. He was taking the NFL approach (which encompasses a preseason, a 16 game regular season, plus the playoffs) in conserving his players’ energy and reducing the possibility of injuries. He needed to change his approach in light of the fact that he has more players (85 vs the 50 players on a typical pro squad) and the fact that the college season is shorter than the pro season. To be honest, I couldn’t believe it when I heard Weis’s confession that the Irish needed to be more physical in practices. When one hears stories about legendary ND coaches such as Leahy, Parseghian or Holtz, almost always you will hear about how “brutal” practices were.
I say more physicality and less reliance on complex offensive schemes, especially with regard to the offensive line.
(3) Player Development:
Some have questioned whether Charlie is doing well enough in this department. This area goes hand in hand with the offensive line situation. On the one hand, several Willingham recruits blossomed under Weis when he first arrived at ND....Quinn, Stovall and Samardzija. They had been underperformers under Willingham and then really blossomed with Charlie’s arrival.
On the other hand, there is some concern due to the fact that the Irish appeared to have regressed in the last half of this season instead of progressing. Is this indicative of whether Charlie is weak in the area of player development ? There is a fair amount of debate on the internet regarding this issue. To be honest, I’m not sure how I see this issue but think that we will have a better idea next year.
In summary, I think that bringing him back for another year is probably the best decision. There will be considerable pressure on Weis to produce next year for two basic reasons: (1) There will be no more Willingham players on the team; and (2) the 2009 team will be, on paper, the most talented team fielded since 1993. It’s fair to say that ND fans will expect a 10-2 season and a BCS bowl game win or it will be history for Weis.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Further Developments in Canadian Politics
In another quick development, the Liberal Party here has now chosen Michael Ignatieff to take over as the Liberal Party leader. This happened much sooner than had been anticipated for this was not supposed to happen until next May when the Liberal Party convention takes place. It had been anticipated that Stephane Dion would remain the leader of the Liberal Party until then. The game changed somewhat when PM Harper received permission to prorogue the Parliament.
It is evident that this change in leadership is an attempt by the Liberal Party to put forth a more appealing face than Stephane Dion to the Canadian public well before Parliament comes back into session next month.
Parliament will re-convene on January 27th at which time two things are expected to happen:
(1) an attempt by the Liberal/NDP/ Bloc Quebecois coalition to call for a no confidence vote in the hopes of toppling the Harper government;
(2) coupled with an attempt by PM Harper to offer an economic package designed to placate some members of the coalition in order to stave off a no confidence vote.
Going back to the Liberal party situation, there was negative reaction here in Canada to Stephane Dion heading the coalition and potentially becoming the next Prime Minister (albeit on an interim basis) in light of his disastrous performance in the most recent Federal election in October. It appears that the Liberal party is addressing this issue by getting Dion to step aside in favor of Michael Ignatieff.
There will be a fair amount of politicking and maneuvering between now and January 27th. Stay tuned for further developments.
It is evident that this change in leadership is an attempt by the Liberal Party to put forth a more appealing face than Stephane Dion to the Canadian public well before Parliament comes back into session next month.
Parliament will re-convene on January 27th at which time two things are expected to happen:
(1) an attempt by the Liberal/NDP/ Bloc Quebecois coalition to call for a no confidence vote in the hopes of toppling the Harper government;
(2) coupled with an attempt by PM Harper to offer an economic package designed to placate some members of the coalition in order to stave off a no confidence vote.
Going back to the Liberal party situation, there was negative reaction here in Canada to Stephane Dion heading the coalition and potentially becoming the next Prime Minister (albeit on an interim basis) in light of his disastrous performance in the most recent Federal election in October. It appears that the Liberal party is addressing this issue by getting Dion to step aside in favor of Michael Ignatieff.
There will be a fair amount of politicking and maneuvering between now and January 27th. Stay tuned for further developments.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Parliament Prorogued
Today was the day that the no confidence motion was scheduled to take place in the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa. However, Parliament has been “prorogued.” As it turns out PM Harper asked the Governor General of Canada (head of state of Canada and appointed by the Queen of England) for permission to prorogue the Parliament, which essentially means to adjourn it. He had three choices:
(1) face the no confidence vote; or
(2) ask the Governor General to dissolve the Parliament and call for new elections; or
(3) ask the Governor General to prorogue the Parliament.
Options 1 and 2 were not politically palatable to Harper. He would likely have lost under the first option and the Liberal/NDP coalition would have taken over as the majority government. Option 2 was not politically feasible as an election was just held on October 14th and Canada has had a number of federal elections in the past 4 years. So that left the third option and that was probably viewed by the Governor General as the least harmful option available.
So Parliament has been prorogued until January 27th. It appears that, at that time, two things will happen. One, there will be another no confidence scheduled by the Liberal/NDP/Bloc Quebecois coalition (assuming that it’s still together as of that time and that’s kind of iffy). The second thing is that the Conservatives will likely submit a budget that will attempt to address the major concern of the Liberal party members, i.e. a stimulus package to address the economy. The Conservatives hope to peel off enough votes to avoid a no confidence vote.
So there will be a fair bit of politicking between now and then. In the meantime, the stability of the Canadian Parliamentary system was called into question by an interesting article in the Economist. See this article:
Canadian Politics
(1) face the no confidence vote; or
(2) ask the Governor General to dissolve the Parliament and call for new elections; or
(3) ask the Governor General to prorogue the Parliament.
Options 1 and 2 were not politically palatable to Harper. He would likely have lost under the first option and the Liberal/NDP coalition would have taken over as the majority government. Option 2 was not politically feasible as an election was just held on October 14th and Canada has had a number of federal elections in the past 4 years. So that left the third option and that was probably viewed by the Governor General as the least harmful option available.
So Parliament has been prorogued until January 27th. It appears that, at that time, two things will happen. One, there will be another no confidence scheduled by the Liberal/NDP/Bloc Quebecois coalition (assuming that it’s still together as of that time and that’s kind of iffy). The second thing is that the Conservatives will likely submit a budget that will attempt to address the major concern of the Liberal party members, i.e. a stimulus package to address the economy. The Conservatives hope to peel off enough votes to avoid a no confidence vote.
So there will be a fair bit of politicking between now and then. In the meantime, the stability of the Canadian Parliamentary system was called into question by an interesting article in the Economist. See this article:
Canadian Politics
Thursday, December 4, 2008
More on Canadian Political Situation
In the last entry, I focused on Stephen Harper and why his minority government may not be viewed as a reliable partner by Washington. The focus of this post is on Stephane Dion.
(1) Stephane Dion is the leader of the Liberal Party and has shouldered much of the blame for the disastrous showing by the Liberals in the Oct 14th Federal elections. According to polls, Canadians rank Dion behind Harper and Jack Layton of the NDP. He is widely seen to be a weak and ineffective leader. Think of him as a Canadian version of Michael Dukakis. In the aftermath of the election, Dion agreed to step down as the leader of the Liberal party by next May, when they have their convention and will elect a new leader.
The Coalition agreed to by the Liberals, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois will put Dion in charge as the Prime Minister until next May, presumably when the Liberal Party elect a new leader and prime minister.
As some have pointed out, there are several problems with this scenario. First, Dion is widely disliked and the idea that “the loser becomes the winner” appears to be distasteful to a fair number of Canadians. Secondly, Dion will only (assuming that he abides by the agreement) be PM for a few months. This doesn’t exactly bode well for the stability of the coalition. Thirdly, assuming that the Liberal Party finds a new leader next May, Canadian voters may decide that they don’t like the idea that the new PM will largely have been unvetted by the electorate. In the most recent election, there were a series of debates among the leaders of the various political parties such as Harper for the Conservatives, Dion for the Liberals, Jack Layton for the NDP, Elizabeth May for the Green Party and Gilles Duceppe for Bloc Quebecois. Some voters may resent a new PM who has not been vetted by the electorate.
(2) The next problem for the Coalition (the term being used up here) is the sight of Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe being included. Layton is viewed as being to the left of the Liberal Party and the fact that his party is getting some cabinet seats in return for supporting Dion as PM is raising some hackles here. Secondly, while Gilles Duceppe and his party are not getting any seats in the proposed Cabinet, they are going to get some unspecified “respect” as part of the deal. A number of English speaking Canadians are not too keen on the notion of Duceppe having any role to play in the proposed government for the reason that his party has a long term goal of Quebec secession from Canada.
So this coalition is being met with a fair bit of skepticism here in Canada. Due to the make up of this coalition, I doubt that the political environment will be any more stable than a minority Conservative government. Dion will be PM only for a short period of time. Canadians may not be happy not having a say in who becomes the next PM.
The other factor is that, historically, these three parties have not always gotten along well, particularly in the case of relations between the NDP and the Liberal Party. While they are presenting a united front, it is doubtful whether this can last. Duceppe and his party are perceived to have interests that are different than the NDP and Liberal Party and will likely demand concessions from the other two parties favorable to Quebec as a price of remaining in power. Those concessions will likely be unacceptable to a majority of Canadians.
In light of the above, it’s very doubtful that the Coalition will be any more stable than a minority Conservative government.
Therefore, from Washington’s perspective, Canada’s reliability in terms of being a partner on the international stage will be dimmed until a clear majority party takes control. This may cause the Obama administration to look more to Europe for support in its foreign policy.
Lest this be misinterpreted, Canada is a very stable country with a sound economic and financial footing. Indeed, its’ banking system has been declared by Time Magazine to be the soundest in the world. Canada is blessed with great natural resources, including oil and is very attractive to immigrants. The political system, however, has become shaky and it remains to be seen if this is a short term or long term trend.
(1) Stephane Dion is the leader of the Liberal Party and has shouldered much of the blame for the disastrous showing by the Liberals in the Oct 14th Federal elections. According to polls, Canadians rank Dion behind Harper and Jack Layton of the NDP. He is widely seen to be a weak and ineffective leader. Think of him as a Canadian version of Michael Dukakis. In the aftermath of the election, Dion agreed to step down as the leader of the Liberal party by next May, when they have their convention and will elect a new leader.
The Coalition agreed to by the Liberals, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois will put Dion in charge as the Prime Minister until next May, presumably when the Liberal Party elect a new leader and prime minister.
As some have pointed out, there are several problems with this scenario. First, Dion is widely disliked and the idea that “the loser becomes the winner” appears to be distasteful to a fair number of Canadians. Secondly, Dion will only (assuming that he abides by the agreement) be PM for a few months. This doesn’t exactly bode well for the stability of the coalition. Thirdly, assuming that the Liberal Party finds a new leader next May, Canadian voters may decide that they don’t like the idea that the new PM will largely have been unvetted by the electorate. In the most recent election, there were a series of debates among the leaders of the various political parties such as Harper for the Conservatives, Dion for the Liberals, Jack Layton for the NDP, Elizabeth May for the Green Party and Gilles Duceppe for Bloc Quebecois. Some voters may resent a new PM who has not been vetted by the electorate.
(2) The next problem for the Coalition (the term being used up here) is the sight of Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe being included. Layton is viewed as being to the left of the Liberal Party and the fact that his party is getting some cabinet seats in return for supporting Dion as PM is raising some hackles here. Secondly, while Gilles Duceppe and his party are not getting any seats in the proposed Cabinet, they are going to get some unspecified “respect” as part of the deal. A number of English speaking Canadians are not too keen on the notion of Duceppe having any role to play in the proposed government for the reason that his party has a long term goal of Quebec secession from Canada.
So this coalition is being met with a fair bit of skepticism here in Canada. Due to the make up of this coalition, I doubt that the political environment will be any more stable than a minority Conservative government. Dion will be PM only for a short period of time. Canadians may not be happy not having a say in who becomes the next PM.
The other factor is that, historically, these three parties have not always gotten along well, particularly in the case of relations between the NDP and the Liberal Party. While they are presenting a united front, it is doubtful whether this can last. Duceppe and his party are perceived to have interests that are different than the NDP and Liberal Party and will likely demand concessions from the other two parties favorable to Quebec as a price of remaining in power. Those concessions will likely be unacceptable to a majority of Canadians.
In light of the above, it’s very doubtful that the Coalition will be any more stable than a minority Conservative government.
Therefore, from Washington’s perspective, Canada’s reliability in terms of being a partner on the international stage will be dimmed until a clear majority party takes control. This may cause the Obama administration to look more to Europe for support in its foreign policy.
Lest this be misinterpreted, Canada is a very stable country with a sound economic and financial footing. Indeed, its’ banking system has been declared by Time Magazine to be the soundest in the world. Canada is blessed with great natural resources, including oil and is very attractive to immigrants. The political system, however, has become shaky and it remains to be seen if this is a short term or long term trend.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Canadian Political Situation
An update on the Canadian political situation: a Coalition consisting of the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Quebecois Party have entered into a written deal where they agreed to serve together in a coalition government for the next couple of years. As a result, they are going to put forth a no confidence vote in Parliament next Monday. In effect, they are attempting to topple a minority Conservative government, headed by PM Stephen Harper.
There are a number of maneuvers available to PM Harper to avoid the no confidence vote. One is to “prorogue” the Parliament for a month with the permission of the Governor General of Canada. This is essentially equivalent to adjourning Parliament. With the holiday season coming on us, this may be the likeliest course action Harper will chose, assuming that the Governor General of Canada accedes to Harper’s request.
The other course of action would be for PM Harper to ask the Governor General of Canada to dissolve Parliament and call for new elections. In light of the fact that Canada has already had a number of Federal elections in the last few years, including one that just took place 7 weeks ago, this does not seem likely to happen.
All of this wrangling makes for quite interesting political theater, newspaper fodder, and water cooler talk. However, I think that this may possibly impact, at least in the short term, whether Washington wants to deal with Canada on NAFTA and on the issue of Afghanistan. I think that until a political party has a clear majority in the Canadian Parliament, Washington will be wary. When you consider personality and political factors, Washington, under an Obama administration, will be even more wary.
Let’s start with PM Stephen Harper.
(1) Currently, he is the head of a minority Conservative government. That fact alone may give one pause. On Oct 14th, when the recent Federal elections took place, the Conservative was seen to have strengthened their position by increasing the number of seats in Parliament but still falling short of a majority. Due to the fact that the opposition on the left end of the political spectrum appeared to be disorganized and at odds with one another, many assumed that Harper’s minority Conservative government was safe and could do pretty much what they wanted, as long as they were able to make deals with opposing MPs to pass legislation. That assumption was safe until last week when Harper and his Finance Minister released an economic plan that was viewed by many as very partisan. This had the effect of enraging and uniting the left end of the spectrum. Together, they would form a majority. Harper’s course of action with regard to the partisan economic plan has left many people scratching their heads. He’s only the head of a minority government during one of the worst financial crises since the 1930’s. What was he thinking ?
There are reports that members of the Conservative party are unhappy with Harper’s political misjudgment. It remains to be seen whether that unhappiness translates into action.
This is not the first time that Harper has shown bad political judgment. If he survives this current crisis, Washington may very well ask themselves “considering that he heads a minority government and his track record, what will be the next political misjudgment that might endanger his government ?”
(2) That leads to another political misjudgment by PM Harper. Earlier, he had, for political reasons (having to do with Quebec), appointed Maxime Bernier as the Foreign Minister for his government. By all accounts, Bernier was not qualified for this job and events would borne this out in the aftermath of the Julie Coulliard scandal. To put it mildly, Couillard is a buxom stunning looking woman that Bernier had fallen for. She also had ties to Hell’s Angels. While dating Couillard, Bernier evidently left sensitive documents dealing with NATO strategy in Afghanistan laying around in Couillard’s apartment. Of course, this was a serious breach of security as well as a stunning lack of judgment. Bernier was dumped from his job. Still, one has to go back to the roots of Harper’s decision to appoint Bernier to this job in the first place. Again, what was Harper thinking ?
As a result of this episode, Washington could say to themselves “Can we trust Harper’s judgment here ?” In light of his political misjudgment of last week and the Bernier affair, it’s hard to say.
(3) Then there’s Harper’s public pledge to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan by 2011. This runs contrary to Obama’s intention to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is deteriorating due to the incompetence and inattention of the Bush administration. The Mumbai terror attacks of last week adds more urgency to the situation. According to news reports, the Pakistanis may react to India’s post Mumbai moves by shifting troops from the Pakistan/Afghanistan border to the Pakistan/India border. If that happens, that will relieve the pressure/stress on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the hinterlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This will make Afghanistan more unstable.
So, Washington will probably conclude that they will need more troops to battle the Taliban and will need to turn to more countries for help. Can they count on Canada in light of Harper’s pledge ?
(4) As recited in the previous post, there was the leaked NAFTA memo by associates of Harper’s that attempted to embarrass Obama and probably contributed to his defeat in the Ohio Democratic primary.
Conclusion: If Stephen Harper survives the current political crisis, I would expect relations between the Obama administration and Harper’s government to be very cool, at arm’s length and with some mistrust mixed in. One cannot know if Harper will make another misjudgment that will endanger his minority government once again and therefore, it would make it difficult for Washington to work with an unreliable government.
However, things are not that much better with Stephane Dion as the head of a proposed Coalition government. More in the next post !
There are a number of maneuvers available to PM Harper to avoid the no confidence vote. One is to “prorogue” the Parliament for a month with the permission of the Governor General of Canada. This is essentially equivalent to adjourning Parliament. With the holiday season coming on us, this may be the likeliest course action Harper will chose, assuming that the Governor General of Canada accedes to Harper’s request.
The other course of action would be for PM Harper to ask the Governor General of Canada to dissolve Parliament and call for new elections. In light of the fact that Canada has already had a number of Federal elections in the last few years, including one that just took place 7 weeks ago, this does not seem likely to happen.
All of this wrangling makes for quite interesting political theater, newspaper fodder, and water cooler talk. However, I think that this may possibly impact, at least in the short term, whether Washington wants to deal with Canada on NAFTA and on the issue of Afghanistan. I think that until a political party has a clear majority in the Canadian Parliament, Washington will be wary. When you consider personality and political factors, Washington, under an Obama administration, will be even more wary.
Let’s start with PM Stephen Harper.
(1) Currently, he is the head of a minority Conservative government. That fact alone may give one pause. On Oct 14th, when the recent Federal elections took place, the Conservative was seen to have strengthened their position by increasing the number of seats in Parliament but still falling short of a majority. Due to the fact that the opposition on the left end of the political spectrum appeared to be disorganized and at odds with one another, many assumed that Harper’s minority Conservative government was safe and could do pretty much what they wanted, as long as they were able to make deals with opposing MPs to pass legislation. That assumption was safe until last week when Harper and his Finance Minister released an economic plan that was viewed by many as very partisan. This had the effect of enraging and uniting the left end of the spectrum. Together, they would form a majority. Harper’s course of action with regard to the partisan economic plan has left many people scratching their heads. He’s only the head of a minority government during one of the worst financial crises since the 1930’s. What was he thinking ?
There are reports that members of the Conservative party are unhappy with Harper’s political misjudgment. It remains to be seen whether that unhappiness translates into action.
This is not the first time that Harper has shown bad political judgment. If he survives this current crisis, Washington may very well ask themselves “considering that he heads a minority government and his track record, what will be the next political misjudgment that might endanger his government ?”
(2) That leads to another political misjudgment by PM Harper. Earlier, he had, for political reasons (having to do with Quebec), appointed Maxime Bernier as the Foreign Minister for his government. By all accounts, Bernier was not qualified for this job and events would borne this out in the aftermath of the Julie Coulliard scandal. To put it mildly, Couillard is a buxom stunning looking woman that Bernier had fallen for. She also had ties to Hell’s Angels. While dating Couillard, Bernier evidently left sensitive documents dealing with NATO strategy in Afghanistan laying around in Couillard’s apartment. Of course, this was a serious breach of security as well as a stunning lack of judgment. Bernier was dumped from his job. Still, one has to go back to the roots of Harper’s decision to appoint Bernier to this job in the first place. Again, what was Harper thinking ?
As a result of this episode, Washington could say to themselves “Can we trust Harper’s judgment here ?” In light of his political misjudgment of last week and the Bernier affair, it’s hard to say.
(3) Then there’s Harper’s public pledge to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan by 2011. This runs contrary to Obama’s intention to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is deteriorating due to the incompetence and inattention of the Bush administration. The Mumbai terror attacks of last week adds more urgency to the situation. According to news reports, the Pakistanis may react to India’s post Mumbai moves by shifting troops from the Pakistan/Afghanistan border to the Pakistan/India border. If that happens, that will relieve the pressure/stress on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the hinterlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This will make Afghanistan more unstable.
So, Washington will probably conclude that they will need more troops to battle the Taliban and will need to turn to more countries for help. Can they count on Canada in light of Harper’s pledge ?
(4) As recited in the previous post, there was the leaked NAFTA memo by associates of Harper’s that attempted to embarrass Obama and probably contributed to his defeat in the Ohio Democratic primary.
Conclusion: If Stephen Harper survives the current political crisis, I would expect relations between the Obama administration and Harper’s government to be very cool, at arm’s length and with some mistrust mixed in. One cannot know if Harper will make another misjudgment that will endanger his minority government once again and therefore, it would make it difficult for Washington to work with an unreliable government.
However, things are not that much better with Stephane Dion as the head of a proposed Coalition government. More in the next post !
Monday, December 1, 2008
An Extraordinary Turn of Events
The economic crisis and a failure to learn from the mistakes of others have resulted in an extraordinary turn of events up here since Thursday. As you may recall from an earlier post, elections were held in Canada on Oct 14th which resulted in a strengthened minority Conservative government, headed by Prime Minister Steven Harper. It appeared that the other parties such as the Liberal Party, New Democractic Party and Bloc Quebecois were too fractured to ever come together and form a majority coalition government. As long as they were divided, it appeared that Harper's Conservative party would control the agenda and hence his status as a Prime Minister appeared safe.....until last Thursday.
Let's backtrack for a second. One of President George W. Bush's mistakes (among many) was to govern as if he had a mandate, despite two extremely close elections in 2000 and 2004. That governing style led to significant losses in the Congressional elections of 2006 and a thumping at the polls this year.
It appears that Prime Minister Harper may not have learned from the mistakes of Bush. Last Thursday, he released an economic plan that essentially ruled out deficit spending into address the ongoing recession. In addition, he proposed to take away public financing of political parties. This was seen as an attempt by others to strangle other political parties financially and produced a backlash that now threatens to produce a different Prime Minister. In addition, the economic plan is deemed to be insufficient to address the current economic climate. Harper and his finance minister have backtracked over the weekend both on the issues of deficit spending and the public financing of political parties.
As a result of this, the various parties on the left end of the spectrum are trying to work out a deal to form a coalition government. There are doubts as to whether they can do that. For one thing, they will have to decide who will be the new Prime Minister. Will be Stephane Dion, who was lambasted for his electoral strategies in October ? Will it be somebody else ? That remains to be seen.
In any case, a no confidence vote in Parliament is scheduled for Monday December 8th. We will get a better idea of what will happen then.
What does this mean ? For one thing, Harper and his aides got involved in the Ohio Democratic primary when a memo was released in an attempt to embarrass Barack Obama on the issue of NAFTA. Hillary Clinton went on to win that primary on the NAFTA issue. It was believed that this was a clumsy attempt by Harper to influence the Democratic race in an attempt to derail Obama. The conventional wisdom is that a relationship between Obama and Harper might only be cool and cordial, due in part to the leaked NAFTA memo. A different Prime Minister might lead to warmer relations between the US and Canada. Who knows ?
The link below is an editorial from today's Toronto Star:
Harper
Let's backtrack for a second. One of President George W. Bush's mistakes (among many) was to govern as if he had a mandate, despite two extremely close elections in 2000 and 2004. That governing style led to significant losses in the Congressional elections of 2006 and a thumping at the polls this year.
It appears that Prime Minister Harper may not have learned from the mistakes of Bush. Last Thursday, he released an economic plan that essentially ruled out deficit spending into address the ongoing recession. In addition, he proposed to take away public financing of political parties. This was seen as an attempt by others to strangle other political parties financially and produced a backlash that now threatens to produce a different Prime Minister. In addition, the economic plan is deemed to be insufficient to address the current economic climate. Harper and his finance minister have backtracked over the weekend both on the issues of deficit spending and the public financing of political parties.
As a result of this, the various parties on the left end of the spectrum are trying to work out a deal to form a coalition government. There are doubts as to whether they can do that. For one thing, they will have to decide who will be the new Prime Minister. Will be Stephane Dion, who was lambasted for his electoral strategies in October ? Will it be somebody else ? That remains to be seen.
In any case, a no confidence vote in Parliament is scheduled for Monday December 8th. We will get a better idea of what will happen then.
What does this mean ? For one thing, Harper and his aides got involved in the Ohio Democratic primary when a memo was released in an attempt to embarrass Barack Obama on the issue of NAFTA. Hillary Clinton went on to win that primary on the NAFTA issue. It was believed that this was a clumsy attempt by Harper to influence the Democratic race in an attempt to derail Obama. The conventional wisdom is that a relationship between Obama and Harper might only be cool and cordial, due in part to the leaked NAFTA memo. A different Prime Minister might lead to warmer relations between the US and Canada. Who knows ?
The link below is an editorial from today's Toronto Star:
Harper
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
