Sunday News

In February, I found myself bobbing around the Caribbean for a week with about 70 supporters of the National Citizens Coalition and half a dozen other talking heads.

One of the other chattering types was my National Post colleague, David Frum. Over post-dinner drinks one evening, David and a clutch of guests started talking about airlines. Much to the guests' chagrin, David gave a very spirited defence of Air Canada, claiming it was either the finest or one of the finest airlines in the world.

Only in Canada (or at least among a gaggle of Canadians cruising a tropical sea) could a discussion of which carrier provided the most legroom in economy class or the best buy-on-board treats or the most on-time departures become a symbol for a broader political debate.

To this day, conservatives -- especially Western conservatives -- dislike Air Canada. Our enmity comes from the way the former state airline was forced on us in the bad old days of airline regulation. You say you want to fly to Ottawa, Mr. Hick. Well, you'll do it when we tell you and pay what we tell you. And you'll fly through Toronto both ways, even though there's no special need to. And when you get home, you'll pay added income tax to subsidize keeping our head office in Montreal to encourage Quebecers to vote Liberal.

All of this was compounded, too, by the way the shelter of regulation bred sneering indifference for customers among Air Canada's staff. The eye-rolling sigh of the ticket agent at an extra-heavy bag. The perceptible harrumph of the gate agent when posed a simple question. The tongue-click of the flight attendant asked for a drink refill.

We were giddy, then, when we got the chance to fly WestJet instead. Not only was it a point of regional pride, there were leather seats, cheap fares and the flight attendants were like the cool-kid waiters at your favourite hip-casual restaurant. They liked the fact you were on board. You weren't an impediment to them enjoying their day.

And they joked about having to play a recording in French of every announcement they made live in English. (Yeah! Rage against the bilingual machine!)

But come closer now. This is just between you and me: David was right. Air Canada is a pretty good airline.

Having had to make several cross-continent junkets this year on American air carriers, Air Canada looks like limousine service by comparison. U. S. airlines offer buses with wings. They leave late, a lot. They manage to turn a four-hour flight into a 12-hour ordeal by routing you from Edmonton to Las Vegas, Las Vegas to Charlotte, Charlotte to Atlanta or Charleston or Fort Lauderdale. And there's no food on board, not even for purchase and not even if they make you so late there's no chance for even a fast food dinner before your connecting flight.

Meanwhile, on a recent 10-hour, transatlantic flight with my family, Air Canada had an exceptional service crew, fantastic seat-back entertainment choices, a couple of decent meals and even ice cream midflight.

I am still a dedicated WestJet customer, but I would fly Air Canada without hesitation.

Still, that's not why I want Air Canada to survive. As a consumer, I want the competition so prices are kept in check. In fact, there is nothing that says that competition has to be Air Canada. Some successor airline or airlines would do. Open Skies -- a policy in which any airline, Canadian or foreign, could fly all-Canadian routes -- would suffice, too.

Heck, I don't even trust wonderful, funky, casual-Fridays-seven-days-a-week WestJet to stay lean and innovative in the absence of other choices for passengers' dollars.

As a taxpayer, I don't like Air Canada, or WestJet or any other airline enough to bail them out and keep them in the skies. Making you and me give billions to air carriers through our taxes so we can save a couple hundred dollars on our next ticket to Montreal makes no sense.

Still, if there are going to be other options for my flying dollars, I think Frum is right: Air Canada is a good one. And I never expected to say that.

National Post

Nate Silver has an exhaustive and exhausting post on how Republicans could win the White House while losing further slices of the Latino vote. It's doable, but extremely hard. They have to hope for a double-dip recession and a divisive appeal to white voters. That's the kind of short-term idea that leads to long-term defeat (i.e. Karl Rove might love it). I didn't realize this:

In 2008, the Latino vote made the difference in

the outcome of three states: New Mexico, where about 2 in 5 voters

identify as Hispanic, as well as -- somewhat surprisingly -- Indiana

and North Carolina -- where Obama lost nonhispanic voters by a tiny

margin and was put over the top by Hispanic votes. It probably also

made the difference, believe it or not, in the 2nd Congressional

District of Nebraska -- Omaha actually has a decent-sized Hispanic

minority -- although the exit polls aren't detailed enough to let us

know for sure.

Nate's bottom line:

This is the sort of electoral future the GOP might

have to contemplate if they start losing the Hispanic vote by margins

of 3:1, 4:1 or more. Giving up on New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado is a

feasible, and perhaps even wise, strategy. But if they don't thread the

needle just perfectly, and they make it difficult for themselves to win

back Florida, while putting Arizona and perhaps even Texas increasingly

into play, their task will become nearly impossible.

"I am Rahm Emanuel, so people say that a lot."

-- White House chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, quoted by the Reliable Source, to a woman who asked him if anyone ever tells him he looks like Rahm Emanuel.

Appearing on MSNBC, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) says he's backing Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) in a possible U.S. Senate primary next year.

Said Rendell: "I'm a great admirer of Joe Sestak and worked hard to get him elected and re-elected. And I'm going to work hard to get him re-elected when he runs for Congress next year. Not for the Senate. Joe should not run for the Senate in the Democratic primary. He would get killed."

When asked what would happen if Sestak went forward with a challenge, Rendell said, "We will lose a terrific Congressman. Joe Sestak runs against Arlen Specter, he is out of the Congress after just two short terms. We will lose a terrific Congressman and when he loses to Arlen, he fades into political obscurity."