Mediaboss Marketing

President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton at a Democratic National Committee event during his Senate impeachment trial in 1999(Str Old/Reuters)The partisanship didnt start with Trump.

Yesterday on MSNBC, Chris Hayes, repeating a talking point Ive heard dozens of times during impeachment theater, argued that the striking difference between the Clinton and Trump impeachments was not only the willingness of Clinton to show contrition, but the willingness of his supporters to acknowledge that the president had done something wrong.

Boy, it must be nice to live in an alternative reality where your allies are always selfless and chaste and your opponents are perpetually plagued by narrow-mindedness and reactionary partisanship.

In the real world, of course, Bill Clinton, with help from the entire Democratic party, kept earnestly lying to anyone who would listen the media, the American people, a grand jury until physical evidence compelled him to admit what he had done. His subsequent contrition, as impeachment picked up steam, was a matter of political survival. The notion that Trump engaged in bribery is debatable. The notion that Clinton perjured himself is not.

If it hadnt been for the Drudge Report bypassing the institutional media, in fact, Newsweek, still an influential magazine in 1998, would likely have sat on the Lewinsky story until after the Clinton presidency had ended. This was probably the first time that online alternative media exposed corrupt coverage, and it certainly wasnt the last.

Then again, even after Drudge reported on Monica Lewinskys semen-stained blue dress, Clinton still lied about his affair to the country, famously saying, I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. His wife, Hillary, who almost surely knew the truth, told Matt Lauer that a vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president was responsible for the charges. Sounds familiar.

If it hadnt been for Linda Tripp recording her calls, Lewinsky would doubtlessly have been smeared by the Clinton Janissaries like so many other women before her. These were the virtuous days before Donald Trump hit Washington, when the White House was running a nuts or sluts operation to protect the president, led by James Carville, who said that Clinton accuser Paula Jones was the kind of person you found if you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park.

Talk about projection.

It wasnt until Tripp had handed Lewinskys blue dress to investigator Ken Starr, who then concluded that the president had lied during sworn testimony, that Clinton finally admitted to the affair. And really, what else was Clinton going to do? Argue that it was acceptable to lie under oath and carry on sexual relationships with 23-year-old interns in the White House sometimes while your wife and daughter and world leaders mingled in the other rooms?

More significantly, what liberals such as Hayes ignore is that Clintons Starr-induced penitence was largely beside the point. Clinton wasnt impeached for acting like a dog; he was impeached for perjuring himself and obstructing justice on eleven very specific criminal actions in a sexual-harassment case.

And any perfunctory willingness by his allies to admit wrongdoing was quickly overwhelmed by a Democratic party rallying around the notion that Clinton had actually been the victim of Sexual McCarthyism, a vacuous term that would be repeated endlessly on television by his supporters. Alan Dershowitz, then a Clinton defender, wrote an entire book titled Sexual McCarthyism.

Worse, the entire country was soon plunged into an insufferably stupid debate over whether being fellated by an intern in the Oval Office should even be considered a sexual encounter. John Conyerss testimony defending Clintons perjury on these grounds on the House floor makes some of todays defenses of Trump sound like the Catiline Orations.

Then again, Democrats largely offered the same arguments then that the GOP does today. The Republican right wing in this country doesnt like it when we say coup dtat, said Representative Jos E. Serrano (D., N.Y.). So Ill make it easier for them. Golpe de estado. Thats Spanish for overthrowing a government.

Not all coups are accompanied by the sound of marching boots and rolling tanks, said Representative Nita M. Lowey (D., N.Y.).

I rise in strong opposition to this attempt at a bloodless coup dtat, this attempt to overturn two national elections, explained Representative Eliot L. Engel (D., N.Y.).

This partisan coup dtat will go down in infamy in the history of this nation, Representative Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) said. And on and on it went in the House.

In the end, there would not be a single patriotic Democratic senator who was brave enough stand up for the American justice system, for women, or for decency. Every single one of them chose partisan interests over their country and the cult of Bill Clinton over the Constitution. (Thats how its done, right?)

Now, just as its debatable whether Trumps Ukrainian call rises to the level of an impeachable offense, it was debatable whether Clintons actions warranted it (I tend to think not). Theres no debate, however, that Clinton had an affair with a subordinate in the White House and then lied about that affair under oath. His partisan allies did whatever they needed to save him, because the notion that rank partisanship was discovered in 2016 is nothing but revisionism.

Read more:
Liberals Rewrite the History of the Clinton Impeachment - National Review

None of the six candidates vying for the leadership of the Ontario Liberal party is going to like what Im about to write. And I get that. The hopefuls and their teams have been traveling all over this huge province, signing up new members, raising money, and evangelizing for why they think theyre the best person to lead the party forward.

But if we learned anything in the lead-up to the 2018 election, its that you dont need to have your leader in place years before the campaign begins. The reality is, at the beginning of 2018, Doug Ford hoped to be Torontos next mayor. Three months later he was the leader of the Ontario PC Party. And three months after that, he was Ontarios 26th premier. Thats a spectacularly short runway.

Now admittedly, the circumstances were unusual. The Liberals were coming to the end of a 15-year reign and Kathleen Wynne was the least popular premier in the country.

Still, Fords meteoric rise got me wondering whether all the smart people in the political back-rooms overestimate the importance of having a new leader in place well before the next election. Leadership hopeful Steven Del Duca often reminds Liberal partisans that the next leader will have only 26 months to raise money, sign up new candidates, and figure out policy before the June 2022 election.

Get Current Affairs & Documentaries email updates in your inbox every morning.

Again, no disrespect to any of those making the herculean effort to run for Liberal leader, but consider this: if you were anxious to see the end of the Ford government, would it make sense to hold off on an official leadership convention for another year? Or maybe even two years?

I ask the question because I wonder who else might have jumped into the race, had they not been forced to decide by November 2019.

What if the runway for that decision had been extended? Heres what I think might have happened. I think some Liberal members of Parliament, whose careers werent taking off in the way they hoped, or who just wanted a shot at potentially being premier of Ontario, would have joined the race. That list might have included Adam Vaughan, Karina Gould, Mark Holland, Yvan Baker, and who knows, maybe even Chrystia Freeland. Her hectic travel schedule might have become less appealing, six or seven years in.

Dont forget that, after two years of this minority parliament, the federal pensions of some of those MPs would kick in. I feel doubly convinced that this would impact decision making cant blame someone for seeking some financial security before considering a new job.

I also wonder whether some municipal leaders might have taken a fresh look at the contest. For example, Mississauga mayor (and former Liberal MP) Bonnie Crombie would have been ill-advised to consider a run for Ontario leader less than a year into her second term. That would have looked ungrateful. But three years into a second term? The unofficial conventions of politics say thats okay.

Similarly, Barrie mayor Jeff Lehman just won his third term last year with more than 90 per cent of the vote. Again, running for a new job within a year would not have looked good. But more than a decade after winning for the first time? That would have been fine.

And who knows who might have joined the race from outside politics. Venture capitalist Anthony Lacavera, chair of Globalive and founder of WIND Mobile (now Freedom Mobile), was said to be considering a run. Ultimately, he begged off. Maybe the extra time would have nudged him into the race.

The point is, the Liberals are a decimated force these days, with only five MPPs at Queens Park. But theyve still got a well-known and decent brand in much of Ontario. The province clearly wanted to send the party to the penalty box, but not necessarily to Siberia forever. Despite the NDP being the official opposition, many observers still consider the Liberals the bigger threat to the Ford governments re-election. A more exciting, more vigorously-contested, more attention-grabbing Liberal leadership race with higher profile candidates might have done the party immeasurable good, even if the new leader had less time to get his or her ducks in line before the next election.

One thing we learned in the lead-up to the last election: a party thats competitive in the polls should have no trouble attracting candidates to run. If the Liberals and Tories were neck-and-neck with less than a year to go before election day, my hunch is, a new leader would have little problem raising money and attracting good people. As for policy? Ford ran on a practically policy-free agenda last time, having jettisoned his predecessors Peoples Guarantee, the one-time official PC Party platform. Ford proved it could be done.

To date, six candidates have worked their butts off through the current leadership process, and they deserve credit. But at the same time, too many Liberals have told me the current field leaves them with a bit of lunch bag letdown.

It didnt have to be this way. Instead, the Liberals could have tossed conventional wisdom out the window they just werent prepared to do that.

The Tories did it 20 months ago and, despite numerous organizational problems, they were rewarded by the electorate. This might just be another one of those examples of the old rule book making less and less sense these days.

Visit link:
Should the Ontario Liberals have waited to choose a new leader? - TVO

For almost three years now, we Albertans have put all our respect eggs in one basket the Trans Mountain Pipeline.

We have seen Trans Mountain as the ultimate symbol of whether the federal Liberal government respects our contributions to Confederation or places us behind their obsession with climate change and carbon emissions.

Its time to add a second basket.

By the end of February, the federal cabinet has to decide if it will approve the Teck Frontier oilsands project near (but not in) Wood Buffalo National Park north of Fort McMurray.

The project should be a slam dunk for the feds, if for no other reason than it will generate about $12 billion in taxes for Ottawa over its 41-year lifespan.

And Ottawa desperately needs new revenue sources.

The federal deficit this year is already going to be at least $8 billion higher than forecast in last Marchs budget $28 billion instead of $20 billion. And thats before any of the $57 billion in new spending promised by Justin Trudeau and his party during this falls election campaign.

Just to cover the Liberals higher-than-expected commitment to civil servant pensions would require the revenues from two new pipelines plus another Frontier-sized oilsands project.

Therefore, the fiscal case for Frontier is obvious from the feds point of view.

But the economic case is obvious, too.

Construction of Frontier would generate 7,000 jobs in Alberta and upwards of 1,000 more in other provinces. Long-term operation of the new mine would create 2,500 permanent jobs not only in oilsands extraction, but also in state-of-the-art cogeneration facilities that turn waste heat into electricity, world-class waste disposal, fish habitat protection, river water treatment, bridges, roads, an airfield and a workers camp.

According to the joint federal-provincial assessment committee that examined the Frontier application, the project would also add more than $12 billion a year to Albertas GDP and nearly $8 billion in family incomes in the province.

The Alberta government would receive nearly $1.4 billion a year in new revenues to help balance the budget or build new schools and hospitals. And municipalities in the area would receive hundreds of millions a year in property taxes.

It has been widely reported that the JRP (the joint federal-provincial review panel) said the project should go ahead despite the environmental harm it would do and the disruption it would cause First Nations. What the JRP actually said was that the national benefits outweigh the potential harm Frontier MIGHT cause.

Teck Resources, the mines developer, has signed benefit-sharing agreements with all 14 First Nations and Metis communities in the area, and has even scheduled land reclamation to ensure resident buffalo herds always have sufficient grazing land.

Frontier couldnt cross more Ts or dot more Is.

Yet already the Trudeau cabinet is getting squiffy.

The new Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson (the North Vancouver MP who Westerners were assured understood their frustrations because he was born in Saskatoon), has said hes wrestling with how to approve Frontier and still remain true to the Liberals emissions commitments to the United Nations. (And dont forget their commitments to Greta Thunberg!)

Understand that failure to build Frontier will not prevent a single gram of emissions from entering the atmosphere.

Worldwide oil demand will continue to grow until at least 2050. If oil-consuming countries dont get oil from us, theyll get it from somewhere else.

And since the JRP estimates Frontier will produce fewer emissions per barrel than at least half of the convention oil wells in North America, oil provided to international markets from other countries is likely to raise emissions.

But perhaps most importantly, if the Trudeau government says no to Frontier, that will add greatly to support for Alberta independence.

Here is the original post:
GUNTER: If the federal Liberals respect Alberta, they'll approve Teck Frontier - Edmonton Sun

OTTAWA The Liberal government has likely painted itself into a corner on carbon taxes, particularly after Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said he was wrestling with the approval of a major oilsands mine.

Ottawa has declined to commit to major carbon tax increases after 2022, despite Liberal claims that the levy will play a key role in meeting their climate targets. The Liberal government has committed to meeting its 2030 Paris agreements as well as a more recent pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Wilkinson on Wednesday signalled that the 2050 target could weigh heavily on his decision to either approve or reject Teck Resources $20.6-billion oilsands mine in Alberta, saying it was not clear the project would fit into the Liberals environmental goals.

That is something that we will have to be discussing and wrestling with as we make a decision one way or the other, Wilkinson told reporters in Calgary on Wednesday.

The stakes are very, very high

The Frontier project north of Fort McMurray would mark the most significant new investment in the Alberta oilpatch in years. It is expected to generate $70 billion in tax revenue for the federal, provincial and local governments, create 7,000 construction jobs and 2,500 permanent jobs.

It would also generate about 4.1 million megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year over its 40-year lifespan. A federal-provincial review this summer found that the project would be in the public interest, while also laying out a number of environmental damages that would come from the mine.

Wilkinson will make a final decision before the end of February on whether to approve the project.

But killing it would be a major blow, said Alberta Environment Minister Jason Nixon.

It would send a signal to investors that Alberta is not open for business and the federal government is going to go out of their way to stop projects. The stakes are very, very high, he told the Edmonton Journal.

Wilkinsons dilemma over the approval seems to underscore the challenge facing Prime Minster Justin Trudeau as he continues to claim that the Liberals can accommodate environmental concerns while also grow the economy. The environment minister will have to account for new sources of greenhouse gas emissions like Frontier, even as his office has declined to raise its carbon tax over the $50 per tonne threshold.

A report by the Parliamentary Budget Office, meanwhile, estimates that Ottawa would have to introduce various carbon levies of a combined $102 per tonne by 2030 in order to meet its environmental goals. By its own projections, the Liberal government is currently set to fall well short of meeting its Paris targets.

Various environmental policies under Trudeau have been met with intense criticism by some voters, particularly those in oil-rich Western provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan. Critics of the policies argue that carbon emissions reduction should come entirely through technology, rather than taxes placed on households.

Wilkinson has said his office would conduct an early review of the carbon tax in 2020 and a second review in 2022, where it will consider further increases above the $50 threshold. Trudeau recently laid out directions in his mandate letter for Wilkinson, which included strengthening existing environmental policies while seeking to exceed Canadas 2030 targets.

A spokesperson for Wilkinson said Ottawa would close the gap on its emissions reduction shortfalls by planting two billion trees, subsidizing electric vehicles, retrofitting homes, and subsidizing clean technologies through a separate $5-billion fund.

Environmental groups broadly agree that Ottawa needs to raise its carbon tax well beyond $50 per tonne, and that it should be more open about the pace of that increase in order to give families and businesses time to plan for the additional costs.

What we need to see is transparency and consistency in how this is applied, said Josha MacNab, director of policy at the Pembina Institute, an environmental group.

What weve heard from business and industry consistently is that changing the rules of the game, rolling back policy, introducing new policy, not being clear about whats happening its not helpful.

Industry groups, meanwhile, have long claimed that Ottawa could continue to approve emissions-intensive projects like oilsands facilities, while achieving emissions reductions through other measures.

Oilsands producers have managed to make strides in reducing emissions in the past 20 years, largely through technological investments that they claim will continue to drive down greenhouse gas emissions and costs.

What we need to see is transparency and consistency

The Frontier project has been called one of the last major oilsands mines that will be built in northern Alberta, largely because producers are increasingly using steam-driven production methods as a way to target deeper-lying bitumen formations.

A November report by Canadas Ecofiscal Commission found that carbon taxes would have to reach as high as $210 per tonne by 2030 in order to meet the countrys targets, a move that it said might prove politically challenging. The increase would raise costs of gas by roughly 40 cents per litre, the report estimated.

The report said that the alternative to rising carbon taxes could be achieved through regulations, which it said was an even more costly option. People both opposed and supportive of carbon taxes have warmed to the more expensive regulatory option, as it is often hidden from sight and less likely to raise a political fight.

Under the Harper government, Canada agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Trudeau promised in September to implement legally binding policies that would bring Canada to net-zero emissions by 2050 if re-elected.

Read the original post:
Liberals in dilemma over carbon taxes, greenhouse gas emissions and a $20B mine in Alberta - National Post

OTTAWA The federal government has signed the first of what it hopes will be 13 funding agreements for a new rent supplement for low-income households.

The announcement todayon the $1.4-billion joint funding deal with Ontario will help the province roll out the Canada Housing Benefit next spring.

The benefit willgo tofamilies who are already on, or eligible to join,wait lists for social housing units, as well as those already living in community housing.

The Trudeau Liberals plan to sign similar deals with each province and territory, tailored to each jurisdictions needs, which is one reason why negotiations on the deals have taken as long as they have.

Theportable housing benefit is budgetedto cost$4 billion over 10 years, but the plan requires provinces and territories to pick up half the costs.

Federal spending plans peg the average subsidy at $3,000 a year, but Parliaments spending watchdog has warned the amountfalls short of helping the most financially stretched households, and could create pressure to increase rents in subsidized housing.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 19, 2019.

The Canadian Press

Go here to see the original:
Ontario signs on to housing help from the federal Liberal government - CityNews Calgary