For hardcore social conservatives like me, I have always been a bit wary of John McCain. To me, while he may be a fiscal conservative, his social conservative stances leave a lot to be desired. And whether you agree with me or not, ask yourself this – would you want to have a leader follow his or her convictions consistently, not waffling on issues or staying on the fence, even if you may not agree with his/her positions. For me, I have great respect for some liberals with whom I vociferously disagree, but admire the fact that they hold to their positions consistently, despite the environment in which they find themselves or the political climate in general. McCain, to me, is not one of those people, although I will grant that he is a very sincere person, but given a choice between him and Obama, it’s a pretty clear choice – Obama is full of empty promises and while this may not be that well reported in the national press (ie. CNN is decidedly biased towards anything Obama), there are lots of discussion forums where disgruntled citizens of Illinois have candidly stated that he has nothing relatively nothing for them, since he has had his eyes on being the presidential nominee rather than focus on the job at hand. That’s why I like guys like Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, who was on McCain’s shortlist to be VP, but expressed that he was elected to be governor of Louisiana and that’s what he’s going to focus on. Saying no to a VP spot may not necessarily be the wisest move long-term, from a political perspective, but I admire Jindal’s dedication to this constituents.
So McCain’s choice of VP would have been very important to alleviate the fears and concerns of social conservatives. For all the Obama-maniacs who seem to let the fanfare and the hype drive their thinking rather than logic and common sense, they would dismiss social conservatives as having any relevance. But let’s face it, groups like Focus on the Family have a lot of sway to American conservative voters. Groups like the NRA have contributed decisively to the success (or lack thereof) of a particular candidate. It is not popular to be a conservative these days, so most people don’t go around confessing their conservative views. Liberals have suggested that McCain's rally later today (introducing his running mate, among other things) will not draw many people. I suspect that there will be much more than the 15,000 that are expected to attend. Conservatives tend to come out when it counts and not the flashy spectacles that liberals are famous for.
So it absolutely delights me that John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his 2008 Vice-Presidential running mate earlier today. Now, the comments from liberals and democrats have already started to pour in. They think that McCain chose her because she is a woman. They think McCain chose her to appease Hillary supporters. Of course, if you think with her emotions rather than with your brain, you will come to this conclusion. But while I think that having a female on a ticket may show that McCain is sensitive to the fact that women are just as integral to the ballot box as men are, I think that the real reason that he chose her is because she is the truest conservative of all of the potential candidates vetted for the VP spot (with the exception of Mike Huckabee, who would be a great choice, but has been known to put his foot in his mouth at the wrong time). That balances out McCain’s clearly noticeable weakness with socially conservative voters. I think it's pretty insulting to Palin to suggest that she was chosen JUST because she is a woman.
Now, the other argument coming from the democratic camp is the lack of experience card. Sure, McCain railed against Obama for his lack of experience, but I think we're not talking about the same thing here. Obama is running for President. Palin is running for Vice-President. With the exception of Dick Cheney, many of the vice-presidents have had more or less a hands-off approach on a daily basis, working behind the scenes instead. This gives a great opportunity to learn the job behind the scenes. The presidency, however, is no place to learn on the job, since you are constantly in view and mistakes are magnified. Now, I know the other argument that comes from this and it is a valid one - given McCain's age (70-something), what if he croaks or is incapacited - will Palin be able to fill the role of Comamnder-in-Chief? Maybe. Maybe not. But they also said that she was too young to be a mayor at 32, too young and inexperienced to run as a state governor against a multi-term incumbent and yet she still won. Remember, Palin does have political experience in leadership in different capacities for the past 10 years or so - which is more than I can say for community activist - turned senator - Obama. I think that McCain chose wisely due to her staunch and unwavering conservative record and beliefs. She is an evangelical born again Christian, is decisively pro-life, and is a lifetime member of the NRA. Whether you agree with her or not, there's no way in hell you can mistake her as a liberal (unlike Tom Ridge, and Joe Lieberman, some other candidates in the running). Tim Pawlenty would have been a great choice too, but Palin's positions on issues is strongly known.
All that being said, she has a tough road ahead, especially in how she will prepare to debate the veteran Joe Biden (who by the way, I will concede was a decent choice by Obama, much better than Hillary Clinton). Will Biden eat her alive on foreign relations issues? Possibly. She can't come up with 30+ years of experience in a month or two - but in seeing her on interviews and such, she is a very articulate politician and has bucked the odds, so I certainly wouldn't discount that she can hold her own.
Having such a strong conservative on the ticket instantly strengthens McCain's viability. It should be very interesting in the days and months ahead. While you will never hear this on CNN, independent polling nationally in the U.S. actually puts McCain ahead of Obama right now. CNN and other liberal establishments put Obama slightly ahead, but if you look at the actual state-by-state totals and how they are made up, you can see that CNN is finding opportunities to inflate some numbers. Even the CNN number have shown a decreasing trend in support for Obama since the primaries ended, and it's gone down even more since he did not make Hillary his running mate (I think this will come back to haunt Obama, even though I think that Biden was and is the better choice).
While I've already sent McCain's campaign several contributions, I'll scrape up some more cash in the days ahead to show my approval for this most excellent pick.
McCain/Palin '08!!!!!
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Man, Do I Dislike Hillary Clinton
So, the big contest on Tuesday is over, with Hillary Clinton seemingly bouncing back, even though Barack Obama is still leading in pledged delegates and overall delegates. In looking over the exit polls, I gotta tell ya - the Hispanic vote is killing Obama - look at Texas alone - most whites voted for Clinton, most blacks voted for Obama. And with a sizeable Hispanic population, latinos (and latinas) voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. This is really what contributed to Clinton winning California. I'm not sure why Hispanics don't seem to like Obama (or why they seem to like Clinton so much - could be their infatuation with Bill previously). I originally thought that the voting patterns would be more or less split among white/black racial lines, but in looking at predominantly "white" states (Iowa, Utah, Idaho, etc.) backing Obama, I don't think there's much credence in arguing that race is a component - at least not for the historical black/white relationship.
Still, in watching Obama and Clinton over the past few months, I have definitely come to one conclusion and one conclusion only: Hillary Clinton is really annoying. Her whiny, fake, bitchy voice, especially during debates, makes fingernails on a chalkboard sound like a classical masterpiece. Her dirty tactics, especially as of late, in how she has really been making personal attacks on Obama's experience and character, show the shallow, selfish, egotistical human being that she is. And of course, after winning the Ohio primary and barely winning Texas, she remarks that Ohio has decided that she is the better candidate, so therefore she should be on the ballot, should there be a "super ticket" where Clinton and Obama will be campaigning together against John McCain, who handily won the Republican nomination by capturing more than the needed delegates to be the presumptive nominee in November.
It's interesting that Clinton is now thinking about a super ticket with Obama, but with her being the presidential candidate and Obama being a VP. Not only do I believe this to be highly unlikely (since Clinton has bashed Obama recently, so why Obama would want to team up with her is anyone's guess, as well as Bill Clinton being the unofficial VP if Hillary wins), but I think that it will be destructive to Obama's political future. As a guy who stands for change and have campaigned on the same platform, accepting a partnership with Hillary is like the allies accepting trade with axis countries during World War II times. Not to mention, it is highly pretentious for Hillary to even suggest this, considering that Obama still retains a fairly decent lead in delegates. Right now, she is positioning herself to consider forming an alliance with Obama, since doing otherwise will fracture the party before the party convention in Denver (in August, I believe). I can sort of see why she would consider such an option, since McCain is ready to start planning and if the Democrats continue to slosh it out to see who would come up victorious in August, that only gives them a few months before the general election to prepare. I personally think that Hillary will entertain having Obama on the ticket, as long as she is on top. I seriously doubt that, Obama, on the other hand, would even consider having Hillary on the ticket. Her ego is too big anyway, but moreover, she is way too polarizing of a figure to be on a "change" ticket. Obama's best choice would probably be John Edwards. Of course, she will spin it in a way to show that by winning a big state like Ohio (where in certain parts, economic times are tough and Hillary has capitalized on it, not to mention the recent negative ads against Obama), she can win the general election. What she won't emphasize is that Obama is won more states and more diverse states - it's as if she thinks that the only states that should count are the ones that she has won.
Which leads me to discuss her latest stupid suggestion - that the stripped delegates for Florida and Michigan should count. You may know that the DNC stripped both States of their delegates after both states broke party rules and pushed up their primary dates. Of course, almost all of the candidates, including Obama, respected the DNC rules and did not campaign in these states (Obama's name was not even on the Michigan ballot). The primary voting was in Hillary's favour. But the DNC rightfully stood on principle and rejected the results, not counting them. But now Clinton is appealing to the states and the DNC to reconsider, and is making some pretty weak arguments suggesting that by ignoring the results (which were flawed to begin with) would be to silence a voice in two big states. Of course, Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, has stood firm, indicating that why should the states that observed and followed party rules be penalized in allowing rogue primary states' results to count? Besides, since most candidates did not campaign there, I can't see why they would even recognize the results. This is just another desperation attempt by a desperate woman to put her own ambition over what is for the best of her party and country. I am not fond of Obama, but I dislike Hillary much more. I hope she loses badly to Obama and goes back to scheming with husband Bill on ways to ruin the U.S.
Now, a word on John McCain. I've said this before and I'll say it again - I'm not crazy about him. Commentators have remarked on how he is not really a true conservative, and I tend to agree. I'm surprised that Bush has recently endorsed, him, seeing as how he has disagreed with Bush on many policy items. Then again, the Republicans are likely showing a clear contrast between them (who are showing a uniting type of mindset) and the Democrats, who are still embroiled in in-fighting in trying to determine who the party's nominee will be. I personally would have loved to see Mike Huckabee win, but I think after Super Tuesday, it was a foregone conclusion that he would have a real uphill battle to even come close to McCain (Mitt Romney likely realized this earlier and dropped out at that point). But to Huckabee's credit, he stayed in, stayed principled, and showed a humourous and personal side, which is nice to see in politicians. I will be forever proud to wear my "Mike Huckabee in '08" t-shirt that I bought. Huckabee's future is a bright one, I believe, as this experience has exposed him to many new fans and supporters. Of course, Huckabee is probably way too right wing for the American public to bear, whereas McCain is clearly a centrist, and therein lies his appeal to right of center democrats and left of center conservatives. I am not sure how effective McCain will be, but at age 70, I doubt that there's a whole lot left in the tank for a full two terms. His pick of a running mate will be that much more important, and I believe he will pick a younger guy (or gal) to run with him. Possibly Bobby Jindal, very recently minted Governor of Louisiana (who would have thought that a 36-year-old Indian dude would become governor of a deep south state) - Jindal is a really staunch conservative, pro-life, pro-guns (for a visible minority to have an A+ and A rating from the NRA and Gun Owners of America, is pretty damn impressive), and is intelligent and articulate (born in Louisiana, he even has the natural southern drawl). I would love to see Huckabee as VP, but I'm not sure that will happen. But I think McCain needs to select a proven full-credentials conservative, likely someone who appeals to evangelicals, in order to ensure that he does not alienate this large voting block. Condoleeza Rice would be a good choice, especially given the fact that his opponent will be Obama or Clinton.
Still, in watching Obama and Clinton over the past few months, I have definitely come to one conclusion and one conclusion only: Hillary Clinton is really annoying. Her whiny, fake, bitchy voice, especially during debates, makes fingernails on a chalkboard sound like a classical masterpiece. Her dirty tactics, especially as of late, in how she has really been making personal attacks on Obama's experience and character, show the shallow, selfish, egotistical human being that she is. And of course, after winning the Ohio primary and barely winning Texas, she remarks that Ohio has decided that she is the better candidate, so therefore she should be on the ballot, should there be a "super ticket" where Clinton and Obama will be campaigning together against John McCain, who handily won the Republican nomination by capturing more than the needed delegates to be the presumptive nominee in November.
It's interesting that Clinton is now thinking about a super ticket with Obama, but with her being the presidential candidate and Obama being a VP. Not only do I believe this to be highly unlikely (since Clinton has bashed Obama recently, so why Obama would want to team up with her is anyone's guess, as well as Bill Clinton being the unofficial VP if Hillary wins), but I think that it will be destructive to Obama's political future. As a guy who stands for change and have campaigned on the same platform, accepting a partnership with Hillary is like the allies accepting trade with axis countries during World War II times. Not to mention, it is highly pretentious for Hillary to even suggest this, considering that Obama still retains a fairly decent lead in delegates. Right now, she is positioning herself to consider forming an alliance with Obama, since doing otherwise will fracture the party before the party convention in Denver (in August, I believe). I can sort of see why she would consider such an option, since McCain is ready to start planning and if the Democrats continue to slosh it out to see who would come up victorious in August, that only gives them a few months before the general election to prepare. I personally think that Hillary will entertain having Obama on the ticket, as long as she is on top. I seriously doubt that, Obama, on the other hand, would even consider having Hillary on the ticket. Her ego is too big anyway, but moreover, she is way too polarizing of a figure to be on a "change" ticket. Obama's best choice would probably be John Edwards. Of course, she will spin it in a way to show that by winning a big state like Ohio (where in certain parts, economic times are tough and Hillary has capitalized on it, not to mention the recent negative ads against Obama), she can win the general election. What she won't emphasize is that Obama is won more states and more diverse states - it's as if she thinks that the only states that should count are the ones that she has won.
Which leads me to discuss her latest stupid suggestion - that the stripped delegates for Florida and Michigan should count. You may know that the DNC stripped both States of their delegates after both states broke party rules and pushed up their primary dates. Of course, almost all of the candidates, including Obama, respected the DNC rules and did not campaign in these states (Obama's name was not even on the Michigan ballot). The primary voting was in Hillary's favour. But the DNC rightfully stood on principle and rejected the results, not counting them. But now Clinton is appealing to the states and the DNC to reconsider, and is making some pretty weak arguments suggesting that by ignoring the results (which were flawed to begin with) would be to silence a voice in two big states. Of course, Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, has stood firm, indicating that why should the states that observed and followed party rules be penalized in allowing rogue primary states' results to count? Besides, since most candidates did not campaign there, I can't see why they would even recognize the results. This is just another desperation attempt by a desperate woman to put her own ambition over what is for the best of her party and country. I am not fond of Obama, but I dislike Hillary much more. I hope she loses badly to Obama and goes back to scheming with husband Bill on ways to ruin the U.S.
Now, a word on John McCain. I've said this before and I'll say it again - I'm not crazy about him. Commentators have remarked on how he is not really a true conservative, and I tend to agree. I'm surprised that Bush has recently endorsed, him, seeing as how he has disagreed with Bush on many policy items. Then again, the Republicans are likely showing a clear contrast between them (who are showing a uniting type of mindset) and the Democrats, who are still embroiled in in-fighting in trying to determine who the party's nominee will be. I personally would have loved to see Mike Huckabee win, but I think after Super Tuesday, it was a foregone conclusion that he would have a real uphill battle to even come close to McCain (Mitt Romney likely realized this earlier and dropped out at that point). But to Huckabee's credit, he stayed in, stayed principled, and showed a humourous and personal side, which is nice to see in politicians. I will be forever proud to wear my "Mike Huckabee in '08" t-shirt that I bought. Huckabee's future is a bright one, I believe, as this experience has exposed him to many new fans and supporters. Of course, Huckabee is probably way too right wing for the American public to bear, whereas McCain is clearly a centrist, and therein lies his appeal to right of center democrats and left of center conservatives. I am not sure how effective McCain will be, but at age 70, I doubt that there's a whole lot left in the tank for a full two terms. His pick of a running mate will be that much more important, and I believe he will pick a younger guy (or gal) to run with him. Possibly Bobby Jindal, very recently minted Governor of Louisiana (who would have thought that a 36-year-old Indian dude would become governor of a deep south state) - Jindal is a really staunch conservative, pro-life, pro-guns (for a visible minority to have an A+ and A rating from the NRA and Gun Owners of America, is pretty damn impressive), and is intelligent and articulate (born in Louisiana, he even has the natural southern drawl). I would love to see Huckabee as VP, but I'm not sure that will happen. But I think McCain needs to select a proven full-credentials conservative, likely someone who appeals to evangelicals, in order to ensure that he does not alienate this large voting block. Condoleeza Rice would be a good choice, especially given the fact that his opponent will be Obama or Clinton.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Digesting Super Tuesday in the U.S. and Beyond
Well, what a week - aside from the New York Giants beating my at-the-time undefeated New England Patriots, this week had lots of excitement from the U.S. political front with Super Tuesday results. I wasn't feeling well that evening, so unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to follow the web results as they flowed in. Though I got up in the middle of the night to grab a Pepto-Bismol and quickly glanced at the results.
Not really terribly surprised at the end results. Clinton won the big states of California and New York, and still maintains a slim lead over Obama, who to my surprised, won more States than Clinton, and even more surprising, won several predominantly "white" states. Now, after his Iowa caucus win, in a state that is something like 97% white, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But he pulled off wins in other states which I don't think are chok-full-of minorities (Idaho and Utah, for example). In analyzing exit poll information, I think Clinton is surviving based on the Latino vote from the big states (now, why the Latino vote seems to be overwhelmingly in Clinton's favour is another topic for another time - I can't tell you why right now). Now, that being said, I equally acknowledge that Obama is winning semi-big states like Georgia and South Carolina based on the extremely high percentage of black voters supporting him (we're talking 80-90%). However, the fact that Obama can win white states should make Clinton leery. Personally, while I am not a Democratic supporter (actually, I can't even vote in the U.S. election, as I don't live there, even though I give money towards the Huckabee campaign, the Brownback campaign, and many years ago, the Bush/Cheney ticket), I would prefer to see Obama win over Hillary - and that, despite the fact that I have one of the books that Hillary wrote signed by her, that I continue to use as an investment vehicle. Clinton recently revealed that she gave 5 million bucks of her own money towards her campaign - if she's running out of cash in your war chest, this is the wrong time. There are a few primaries today and several more on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes.
Enough on Democrats. On the Repulicans side, John McCain came out the clear winner, winning the big States and several other ones. Romney won a few, but could not compete. And in a growing movement against McCain, conservatives have (rightfully) gathered around Huckabee to provide him some "upset" wins over Romney for the conservative wing. Now, to my surprise, Romney dropped out a couple of days ago. Yes, he was trailing McCain badly, but was ahead of Huckabee. But I think he knew that he'd be taken to task on his flip-flopping positions over the years (ie. claiming to be pro-guns though he joined the NRA only in 2006). McCain is and would beat him hands down. But don't discount Huckabee though - I know conservatives (myself included) are not happy with McCain - he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but his moderate positions are likely helping him get support from voters in generally liberal states like New York and California. The deep southern states more or less supported Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans these days are social conservatives, so I think that as much as I'd like to see Huckabee win, it will likely be McCain. And if it was between McCain and Clinton, I think McCain would win. Between Obama and McCain? Not sure about that one - Obama is actually similar to McCain in terms of reaching across party lines. Obama's wife Michelle would be a great first lady - she has the poise and confidence and does not look as "fake" as McCain's wife Cindy. But between McCain and Obama...not sure who I'd pick. Probably would still go with McCain since he's never pretended to be anything other than a moderate, so at least he's honest (unlike Romney). Obama has some positions I am not comfortable with (ie. gay unions, etc.), and he is way too focussed on Iraq.
I see that for whatever reason, Mike Gravel of the Democrats is still officially in the running. Why, I don't know - he neither has any delegates or superdelegates supporting him. He's won nothing - he isn't even being invited to debates. At least Ron Paul (who is not doing great, but I'm glad is still running) has not dropped out yet, but I would think that will change pretty soon. But as mentioned previously, Paul is a rabidly pro-homeschooler, and I am rabidly anti-homeschooling. Not to mention Paul also focusses too much on Iraq (which, like it or not, does not have an easy solution - sure, you can say pull out now, but consider all the logistical, geo-political, and local issues that will cause in Iraq).
OK, let's stop talking about the U.S. On the Canadian side, I recently became a bit disillusioned with my conservative federal government (who I support financially and of which I am a member) - they decided it was a good idea to send a Chinese New Year card to anyone who has an Asian sounding last name (or who indicated their ethnic status on their last census form, but that is unlikely). I am of Asian background and am ethnically Chinese, though I celebrate Chinese New Year as a general family get together for food and such, and not much more. I would think that I'd receive one of these cards from Prime Minister Harper and family. But nooo...my wife, who is not Asian, gets the Happy Chinese New Year card and I get zippo. This adds additional insult to injury to me, as last year, my wife and I took this wacky online "How Asian Are You?" test. She scored 78% Asian, while I scored 46%. Ah, what can you do...
Not really terribly surprised at the end results. Clinton won the big states of California and New York, and still maintains a slim lead over Obama, who to my surprised, won more States than Clinton, and even more surprising, won several predominantly "white" states. Now, after his Iowa caucus win, in a state that is something like 97% white, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But he pulled off wins in other states which I don't think are chok-full-of minorities (Idaho and Utah, for example). In analyzing exit poll information, I think Clinton is surviving based on the Latino vote from the big states (now, why the Latino vote seems to be overwhelmingly in Clinton's favour is another topic for another time - I can't tell you why right now). Now, that being said, I equally acknowledge that Obama is winning semi-big states like Georgia and South Carolina based on the extremely high percentage of black voters supporting him (we're talking 80-90%). However, the fact that Obama can win white states should make Clinton leery. Personally, while I am not a Democratic supporter (actually, I can't even vote in the U.S. election, as I don't live there, even though I give money towards the Huckabee campaign, the Brownback campaign, and many years ago, the Bush/Cheney ticket), I would prefer to see Obama win over Hillary - and that, despite the fact that I have one of the books that Hillary wrote signed by her, that I continue to use as an investment vehicle. Clinton recently revealed that she gave 5 million bucks of her own money towards her campaign - if she's running out of cash in your war chest, this is the wrong time. There are a few primaries today and several more on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes.
Enough on Democrats. On the Repulicans side, John McCain came out the clear winner, winning the big States and several other ones. Romney won a few, but could not compete. And in a growing movement against McCain, conservatives have (rightfully) gathered around Huckabee to provide him some "upset" wins over Romney for the conservative wing. Now, to my surprise, Romney dropped out a couple of days ago. Yes, he was trailing McCain badly, but was ahead of Huckabee. But I think he knew that he'd be taken to task on his flip-flopping positions over the years (ie. claiming to be pro-guns though he joined the NRA only in 2006). McCain is and would beat him hands down. But don't discount Huckabee though - I know conservatives (myself included) are not happy with McCain - he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but his moderate positions are likely helping him get support from voters in generally liberal states like New York and California. The deep southern states more or less supported Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans these days are social conservatives, so I think that as much as I'd like to see Huckabee win, it will likely be McCain. And if it was between McCain and Clinton, I think McCain would win. Between Obama and McCain? Not sure about that one - Obama is actually similar to McCain in terms of reaching across party lines. Obama's wife Michelle would be a great first lady - she has the poise and confidence and does not look as "fake" as McCain's wife Cindy. But between McCain and Obama...not sure who I'd pick. Probably would still go with McCain since he's never pretended to be anything other than a moderate, so at least he's honest (unlike Romney). Obama has some positions I am not comfortable with (ie. gay unions, etc.), and he is way too focussed on Iraq.
I see that for whatever reason, Mike Gravel of the Democrats is still officially in the running. Why, I don't know - he neither has any delegates or superdelegates supporting him. He's won nothing - he isn't even being invited to debates. At least Ron Paul (who is not doing great, but I'm glad is still running) has not dropped out yet, but I would think that will change pretty soon. But as mentioned previously, Paul is a rabidly pro-homeschooler, and I am rabidly anti-homeschooling. Not to mention Paul also focusses too much on Iraq (which, like it or not, does not have an easy solution - sure, you can say pull out now, but consider all the logistical, geo-political, and local issues that will cause in Iraq).
OK, let's stop talking about the U.S. On the Canadian side, I recently became a bit disillusioned with my conservative federal government (who I support financially and of which I am a member) - they decided it was a good idea to send a Chinese New Year card to anyone who has an Asian sounding last name (or who indicated their ethnic status on their last census form, but that is unlikely). I am of Asian background and am ethnically Chinese, though I celebrate Chinese New Year as a general family get together for food and such, and not much more. I would think that I'd receive one of these cards from Prime Minister Harper and family. But nooo...my wife, who is not Asian, gets the Happy Chinese New Year card and I get zippo. This adds additional insult to injury to me, as last year, my wife and I took this wacky online "How Asian Are You?" test. She scored 78% Asian, while I scored 46%. Ah, what can you do...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)