Author and screenwriter Bret Easton Ellis suggested in a tweet on Feb. 21 that it’s tough to know for sure which Hollywood figures are throwing their support to frontrunner Trump. The American Psycho author said he was “shocked” that most of his companions at a recent dinner said they would vote for the billionaire — though they “would never admit it publicly.”
From his annual live question and answer press conference via the Russian Times:
“He is a very flamboyant man, very talented, no doubt about that… He is the absolute leader of the presidential race, as we see it today. He says that he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level of relations with Russia. How can we not welcome that? Of course we welcome it,” Putin said during his traditional end-of-year Q&A session with journalists.
Maybe the next Commander In Chief will start holding live question and answer press conferences too.
Maclean’s Jaime Weinman draws our attention to a most interesting piece of non-satire. It would appear that National Review Online‘s Terence P. Jeffrey is worried that Rick Santorum is a sleeper agent for teh gays:
A profoundly instructive moment on this point occurred in Saturday night’s debate when Josh McElveen of WMUR-TV asked whether it ought to be legal for same-sex couples to adopt children.
The correct answer to this is: No. It was, is, and always will be wrong for any government to hand over in an adoption the custody of a child to a homosexual couple. A government that does so violates the God-given right of the child to be raised by a mother and father…
Yet when McElveen put his question to Rick Santorum, Santorum failed to give a coherent answer. Santorum seemed to say — although his exact meaning was unclear — that although he wanted a constitutional amendment to define “marriage” as the union of one man and one woman, the question of same-sex adoptions was up to state governments to decide…
If a homophobe can’t count on Rick Santorum to Protect The Children from show tunes and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy re-runs, then who can he count on?
Ever the model of level-headedness, NRO‘s Andy McCarthy counters:
… and Terence Jeffrey is wrong. Adoption, like marriage, is not a matter the Constitution commits to federal government control. It is, like the vast run of day-to-day issues, a matter to be determined by the states. There is nothing conservative about imposing federal government mandates on matters the Constitution gives the federal government no say over.
If Mr. Jeffrey wants a federal adoption standard imposed, then he should be arguing for a constitutional amendment banning adoptions by gay couples…
I guess a refuation based on constitutional technicalities is better than no refutation at all. ‘Twould have been nice, though, had someone at NRO objected to the substance (such as it was) of Mr. Jeffrey’s (vapid) blog post.
Perhaps, just perhaps, offering orphans a loving and stable home is a better option than shuffling them through the system, one’s prejudices aside.
If you live in the Toronto area, Warren Kinsella may be coming to a riding near you.
Kinsella recently reaffirmed his intent to run for Parliament on behalf of the Liberal Party in the next federal election.
Readers of The Politic know that Kinsella is our dear friend. Two years ago, he launched our continuing Meet the Players series with a tour de force interview.
All of us will follow Kinsella’s campaign with great interest. And one/some/many of us actually hope he wins.
I generally don’t try to declare winners or losers of political debates (well, not winners – I’ll regularly call out the losers). I know that my metric for judging these things will be different than many people’s, and I know that the leaders aren’t necessarily looking to “win”, they’re looking to advance some sort of campaign strategy. Nonetheless, a few days removed from the English debate, if I have to call a winner (which, I guess, I don’t), I’m giving it to the Prime Minister.
Each leader got some good points in. Each leader had a chunk taken out once or twice (or, occasionally, just looked silly). I wouldn’t say that Harper got in the best shots. but I think he emerged from the debate in the best spot.
Much has been written, including by our friend Richard, suggesting Stephen Harper “won” the debate because he came off as the most Prime Ministerial (is that even a word?). While I agree with that, I think the calm demeanour he wore brought more than just an air of Prime Ministerialship.
The other three leaders spent much time attacking Mr. Harper. Of course, they did. He’s the Prime Minister, he’s in the lead, they need to take him down. But through all of the attacks, Mr. Haprer stayed calm and stayed on point. This coolness had the effect of slightly diminishing the other three. They attacked and attacked, and the got nothing out of him. They made him look like the big dog, all the while appearing as chihuahuas.
A while back, my friend Max Fawcett suggested that there is a lack of stars in our political ranks. In many ways, the three opposition leaders lived down to that observation. Don’t get me wrong, I have a decent level of respect for them, and I think they all did fairly well in the debate, but through this dynamic of three wanna be Davids trying with all their might to take down Goliath – and failing – they undermined their own stature. If one of them – specifically, Mr. Ignatieff – had been able to attack Mr. Harper, score some points and then build off of that to advance their vision (and, no, raising the corporate tax rate is not a vision), they would have come off much better.
Still, this was no great win for Mr. Harper. It wasn’t a real win at all; it was just survival. He was fine, but he wasn’t spectacular. He protected his ground, but I can’t say he advanced very much. But, since he’s the Prime Minister, and since he’s in the lead, he wins any such stalemate.