Warren Kinsella blogged during the campaign on his theory that the Conservatives ran a campaign for the Tim Hortons-crowd, while the Liberals appealed to the Starbucks swilling elite.
Said Warren:
"It was about us (the people at hockey rinks, holding cups from Tim's or Coffee Time) versus the elites (the ones who have never been on public transit, and who read the Sunday Times at Starbucks). "
Now I don't drink coffee, and think paying $5 for a cup is stupid. But I think Warren was right, to a point. The Conservatives played to the everyman with easy to digest, palatable sounding policies. The Liberals, well...their messaging was a trainwreck, and while their policies were often good they weren't as easy to break-down. That's where Scott Reid fell to pieces, discussing certain beverages and food stuffs as he tried to explain why the Liberal day care plan was better. Stephen Harper had the easyto digest soundbite for his "plan": "There are thousands of day care specialists in Canada today. They're called Mom and Dad."
His plan wasn't better, but his messaging was. The irony, of course, is that some of the Liberal policies were actually more beneficial for the Timmy's crowd, while, for example, the Conservative tax cuts were significantly more beneficial to the Starbucks crowd.
But enough seriousness. This was meant to be a post in jest, because it trurns out that the Conservative leadership actually are part of that infamous Starbucks-swilling elite. Scandal! Warren himself discovered this picture of PM-designate Harper enjoying the bourgeois beverage:
And now, in the G&M, I see Conservative cabinet hopeful James Moore, while also preaching the gospel according to Tim Horton, actually worships at the altar of the Starbuckian one as well:
Now there's a man that loves his coffee! And how many more Conservative MPs are closet Starbucks drinkers? Canadians want to know! They could at least drink Second Cup, a proudly Canadian company. Myself, I'll stick with Canada Dry Ginger Ale. A working man's ale. The champagne of ginger ales. Owned by a UK company. Ah, crap.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Starbucks swilling Conservatives
A half-million dollar Conservative boondoggle in the making
Much has been blogged in recent days about newly elected Conservative MP Brian Pallister mulling a return to provincial politics so I’ll skip right to my question. Who is going to pick-up the $500,000+ tab for the unnecessary by-election if he does?
Pallister said on election night that a return to provincial politics was the furthest thing from his mind:
“I can’t even begin to consider a provincial option right now,” a jubilant Pallister said from his election headquarters in Portage last night. “Tonight I’m just celebrating 10 years of hard work.”
Now that the jubilation of victory has faded however, he already has his eye on another job. Just days later, Pallister told Stephen Harper not to consider him for the federal cabinet as he was considering going after the top job in Manitoba.
In a written statement to Global News, Pallister says the following:
“...I will be returning to Manitoba and consulting with Manitobans as to whether they wish me to enter the race for the Provincial PC leadership.
Following these consultations I will announce my intentions.”
This job opening in Manitoba didn’t just materialize overnight. Can anyone seriously contend Pallister hasn’t been thinking about jumping-ship for some time now? The question is if he knew he would likely be resigning to run provincially why did he still run federally instead of stepping-aside for someone who actually wanted the job?
Stephen “accountability if necessary but not necessarily accountability” Harper doesn’t have any trouble with Pallister’s willingness to ask the voters of his riding for a job as their representative in Ottawa for up to five years one day and then consider quitting the next, triggering an expensive by-election.
“I appreciate Brian's contributions in the House and to the Conservative party," Harper said Saturday in a statement. He has been an important part of our success. I understand the difficult decision he is undertaking and we will support whatever choice he makes.”
Pallister won his seat quite handily with nearly 70 per cent of the vote so it’s likely the Conservatives would hold the riding in any by-election, and the Canadian taxpayers may well be getting their first (of no doubt many) Conservative hosings. The best official estimate I can find on the cost of a by-election is $500,000 and that was in 2001. No doubt inflation has carried the cost higher since then.
So I ask Mr. Pallister, Mr. Harper and their fellow Conservatives who ran on a platform of returning integrity, accountability and trust to Ottawa: Why should the people of Canada be on the hook for that $500,000+ by-election tab?
Monday, January 30, 2006
Oy vey! Former Conservative campaign manager complains of Jewish media conspiracy
It looks like Gordon Stamp has some competition for the dumbest Conservative campaign manager of 2004 award.
I really don’t know what to say about this story in the Richmond News, so I’ll just let it speak for itself. It concerns comments made by Robbie Robertson, the former campaign manager for Richmond Conservative candidate Darrel Reid (I blogged on him here). Mr. Robertson opined to a local newspaper about why he felt Conservative Christian candidates were unfairly targeted by media company CanWest Global.
Local Tories doing damage control
By Eve Edmonds
It even tried to revoke Robbie Robertson's membership - before learning he didn't have one.
"I can confirm he's not a member. I don't know if he ever was," said riding association president Gary Cross.
Robertson, Conservative candidate Darrel Reid's former campaign manager, caused a stir earlier this week when he referred to a liberal bias in the Jewish-owned CanWest media empire.
The George W. Bush School of Media Relations
It appears our PM-in-waiting Stephen Harper may be the proud holder of a mail-order degree from this prestigious institution. This very interesting lede in The Hill Times caught my eye this morning. Unfortunately all I can read is the tease, as a subscription is required to access the full article. It does sound familiar though, doesn't it? If you're keeping track at home, our soon to be PM who ran on an accountability platform is so far not accountable to:
- The Ethics Commissioner.
- Media that hasn't been pre-screened.
HEARD ON THE HILL
By Mike De Souza
Wanting in... The west may finally be in the Canadian government, but some aren't impressed. After about 30 minutes of taking questions from reporters who were pre-selected by Conservative handlers last Thursday afternoon, Prime Minister-Designate Stephen Harper walked away, with a number of frustrated Parliamentary scribes still trying to get some answers. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Dion the pundit darling
If the next Liberal leader was going to be selected by newspaper columnists Stephane Dion would be looking like a frontrunner. Unfortunately, newspaper columnists tend not to be Liberal Party members, and therefore don't have a vote.
But if the pundit class has any influence on the masses (and that's debatable) then it could prove telling. I do think pundits have some influence with political party members, particularly the ones who would be active volunters on a leadership campaign. Dion, who is said to be mulling-over entering the race, has been encouraged to throw his chapeau in the ring by the likes of Paul Wells, Andrew Coyne, Colby Cosh and even, in a roundabout way, Rex Murphy.
And you can now add Toronto Star columnist Chantal Hebert to the list. In an excellent column today that echoes a lot of what I feel about the Chretien vs. Martin and Lapierre approaches to Quebec and the utter failure of the latter, Hebert wonders if Dion may not be the tonic to cure what ails the Liberals in Quebec. As I blogged last week, she also sees sees Quebec as the place the next government will be decided.
Chantal Hebert
"If the Liberals are to move them past those episodes, they may have to look beyond Cauchon, perhaps to the brainy Stéphane Dion, to help them get there. If this is to be a Liberal year when talking heads matter more than political animals, a rare time when participating in the race could be as important as winning it, Dion would be a good fit for this campaign."
Paul Wells
"Many will protest that Dion is unpopular in Quebec. These will include prominent former supporters of Paul Martin, who was polling lower in Quebec than Don Cherry by the time he was done. Many will protest that Dion is awkward and geeky. Excellent point; we've just come through a campaign that proved only matinée idols win, after all. Some will protest that Coyne and Cosh aren't Liberals and they don't know what's good for Liberals. Hands up, everyone who thinks the Liberals have spent the past three years showing they know what's good for Liberals."
Andrew Coyne
"There are a number of interesting names being tossed about, any one of whom would potentially make a fine leader, and it should be interesting to see how they stand up under the rigours of the campaign. But I certainly want him to run."
Colby Cosh
"He is Stephane Dion, and--why, look! He's a bilingual Quebecker! I wouldn't dream of proposing him as a leading candidate for the Liberal succession, but editors and columnists might find it unexpectedly rewarding if they decided to, say, take him 20% as seriously as Michael bleedin' Ignatieff."
Rex Murphy
"Stéphane Dion, the most underutilized talent in the Liberal Party, was superb on election night, as he almost always is. The Liberals should do a lot more than they appear to do to hold on to Stéphane Dion."
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Harper's piecemeal Senate reform plan is bad for B.C.
This has been a pet issue of mine of years, and it's something that I haven't heard talked about much in the media*. But, the fact is, while B.C. has been the backbone of the Reform/Alliance during its rise to power, and reforming the Senate has long been one of that party's rallying cries, their current Senate reform plan would screw B.C. for generations.
It is a fact that B.C. (and increasingly Alberta) is vastly underrepresented in the Red Chamber. Under the constitution, for the purposes of the Senate, the country is divided into four regions with each being allotted 24 senators. Newfoundland, joining confederation later, is separately allotted 6 senators. The breakdown, and that province’s percentage of Canada’s 2001 population, follows:
Ontario: 24 seats (38.0%)
Quebec: 24 seats (24.1%)
Maritime region
Nova Scotia: 10 seats (3.0%)
New Brunswick: 10 seats (2.4%)
PEI: 4 seats (.5%)
West Region
Manitoba: 6 seats (3.7%)
Saskatchewan: 6 seats (3.2%)
Alberta: 6 seats (9.9%)
B.C.: 6 seats (13.0 %)
Not in a region
Newfoundland & Labrador: 6 seats (1.7%)
(Each territory gets one seat each)
While the Senate should have regional balance to counter the representation by population model of the HoC the current regional breakdown is based on an 1867-era Canada that no longer exists. It will be difficult to do (ask Mulroney), but I think B.C. needs to be its own region and the Maritimes and Newfoundland need to send some of their seats to the West and B.C. Lop a few off Ontario and Quebec too so it stays even. Or just give each province the same number of senators.
Now, the only way to redistribute Senate seats is by a constitutional amendment, and no one in their right mind wants to re-open that can of worms. What a Conservative government can do though, and plans to do, is to begin electing senators to fill vacancies as they happen.
Let’s put aside the fact that would create two classes of senators (elected and non-elected). Let’s also put aside the fact that elected senators would actually want to do something, creating the need for a massive rethink of the roles the HoC, the Senate, and the executive play in our political system.
My biggest concern is that unilaterally electing senators would remove the motivation for the real Senate reform that is needed, and is only possible through constitutional amendment. Namely, a redistribution of seats. Therefore, the unbalanced status quo is entrenched and B.C. will be underrepresented in perpetuity. And with elected senators making the Senate more relevant and powerful, that’s doubly bad.
If we’re going to make the senate elected let’s make it equal and effective as well (Triple E). Prime Minister Harper either needs to go all the way on senate reform, or maintain the status quo. Elected senators may play well in Alberta, but on it’s own it’s bad for the West.
I’m personally undecided on Senate reform. I say either scrap it or make it useful, and since they have that nice plush chamber at the East end of the Centre Block, we may as well keep them around. What they should be given to do I don’t know yet.
But these are the kinds of policy debates the Liberal Party needs to have in the coming year. We need to decide what we stand for and then stand-up for it, but that’s another post.
Related reading
The Hill Times: Senate elections could be a prelude to new constitutional talks: experts
* The exception is Norman Spector. It’s one of the few issues we agree on.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Harper picking a fake fight with the U.S.= Smart politics
I've been watching the media coverage yesterday and today of Stephen Harper's Captain Canada routine over Arctic sovereignty and while it rang false immediately, I think I've finally got it completely figured out.
The final piece actually came into place today over a finger-licking good KFC lunch, reading the Mop & Pail's fact check on the issue. Read its the last three paragraphs and you'll see what I mean.
I think it likely began with President Bush's congratulatory call to Harper, which probably went something like this:
GWB: Hey way to go Harpie! I'm smiling, eh! Ha Ha Ha. But why the minority, H-Dog?
SH: Well sir, it was looking good for us. Canadians really do want change. I think however they still had some---
GWB: Those nasty Liberal ads sayin' u was my crony freaked them, huh?
SH: I'm afraid so sir. I think we're going to have to walk a delicate line—
GWB: When you comin' down to the ranchero H-dog?
SH: Actually sir, I think it would be helpful it we could do something that would let me show my independence, show that I'm my own man, but not something that would upset you too much of course.
GWB: I think I see what you're sayin' dog. Talk to my man Wilkie Wilkerson and work something out.
So, here's how it went down. Ambassador Wilkins, who has managed to keep quiet since the early days of the campaign, suddenly opines on one of Harper's pet issues, saying the U.S. does not recognize Canada's Arctic claim. Nothing new, but a red blue flag for Harper since it was one of his campaign issues.
And the timing is perfect for Harper to lay the smack down on Wilkins during his inaugural press conference as PM-in-waiting. When the media don’t bring up Wilkins' comments during the Q&A Harper brings it up himself:
"We believe we have the mandate for those from the Canadian people and we hope to have it as well from the House of Commons, but it is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador from the United States."
It sounds eerily similar to Paul Martin's comments when Wilkins rebuked Liberal environmental policy in December, doesn't it?
Why it's a win for Harper: Two reasons. The first, on day one he gets to show he's not Dubaya's man or a lackey of the U.S., but a strong defender of Canada. Second, it increases support for his Arctic sovereignty policy. Armed icebreakers at the North Pole sounds a bit loony, but standing up to the U.S.? Now we're talking. Remember, most Canadians are leery of the Bush Administration. So, if it pisses off Bush it can't be that bad an idea, right?
Why it's a win for the U.S.: At first I thought the win was just helping out their buddy H-Dog, and maybe a quid pro pro down the road. But the G&M fact check put the final piece in place. The U.S. wants to negotiate here; their primary concern is security. They just want the area secured. They'll do it if we won't, but if we do it that's even better as I hear their military is stretched a bit thin these days. So, by increasing support for Harper's Arctic sovereignty policy the long-term security goals of the U.S. are advanced.
So, there you go. It's a win for everyone. And smart politics.
And not to worry. Dubaya is still smiling, eh?
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Vindicated Dosanjh ponders lawsuit
Now that he has been completely cleared of wrongdoing in the Grewal secret recordings scandal by the Federal Ethics Commissioner there is a report this morning Ujjal Dosanjh is considering launching a lawsuit over the matter.
A piece in the Vancouver edition of 24 Hours says Dosanjh is examining all of his options to respond to the "orchestrated attack on (his) integrity and reputation", including those "of a legal nature." Dosanjh said senior Conservatives, including some in Stephen Harper's office, acted "inappropriately."
That's an understatement. I say go for it Ujjal! It's the only way the right-wing smear machine will learn.
By Irwin Loy, 24 Hours
Now, the Vancouver South MP is hinting he may take legal action against the Conservatives.
"I will be examining all my options in light of this orchestrated attack on my integrity and reputation," Dosanjh said in an interview yesterday, adding that some of his options "may be of a legal nature."
Harper dithers on ethics, accountability
He hasn't even taken office yet and already Stephen Harper is proving his much ballyhooed accountability and ethical government reform package to be a joke.
Buried in yesterday's release of a report by the federal Ethics Commissioner into the Grewal affair, a report that by the way that completely absolved Ujal Dosanjh of any wrong-doing and tore Gurmant Grewal to shreds, was the news that Stephen Harper couldn't be bothered to cooperate with the investigation.
The Globe reports this morning that "Mr. Harper's office told Mr. Shapiro he could not find time in his schedule to answer his questions between August and November of last year."
That's four months! Now, I know he's a busy guy, but could he not find some time in FOUR MONTHS to meet with the Federal Ethics Commissioner? It might be interesting to look at Harper's schedule over those four months to see what he felt was more important than cooperating fully with an investigation by this officer of Parliament.
As the Globe points out "it is an MP's duty to co-operate with an inquiry by the commissioner." Apparently Stephen Harper doesn't agree. One has to wonder is he just to lazy to back-up his tough talk on accountability, or did he not want to directly answer questions about his own role in the sorted taping affair. Did he have something to hide?
Harper sent his former communications director, lobbyist Geoff Norquay, to meet with Bernard Shapiro instead. Memo to Stephen Harper: you can't outsource accountability.
Leadership parting shots
I'm going to move on from the leadership talk shortly to focus on other things, namely policy and beginning the opposition to Stephen Harper (he's already providing much ammunition) but I just wanted to make a few parting leadership shots.
I'm not ready to endorse anyone at this point; it's far too early for that. I've talked about Stephane Dion recently because he has a lot of the qualities I'd like to see in a leader, but I'm not sold on him yet. I hope he will run though, and I'm glad the idea is being taken seriously. I hope there will be a large field of capable, intelligent, competent candidates. For the good of the party we need a real, vigorous race.
As I've said elsewhere, I think we need someone outside the list of usual suspects, someone who when you first hear their name you are doubtful but the more you think about it, the more it makes sense. The Liberal Party has a major rebuilding job to do, and a lot of soul-searching, and I'm going to be leery of any candidate that appears to be the consensus, whiz-bang, home run candidate.
What we need is substance over style. Isn't it time we had a debate about ideas in this country?
When it comes to ideas Bowie's Call has a good start on a list we should be debating. I particularly like his point about making MPs support the civil marriage act. I'm not quite ready to say vote for this or you're out of caucus but I'm close, and I think we do need LEADERSHIP on this and other issues, not buck-passing and equivocation.
Nottawa also has some wise advice for would-be leadership candidates, and Akkash Maharaj has some thoughts worth considering on Liberal Party renewal.
The very essence of leadership is that you have to have vision. You can't blow an uncertain trumpet.
~ Theodore M. Hesburgh
The Dion Letters
With discussion of Stephane Dion as a possible Liberal leadership candidate seeming to explode across the blogsphere Wednesday I thought it would be interesting to take a look at some of his writings over the years to get more of a sense of the man.
The portrait that emerges is one of a man who combines passion with reason and substance, one who welcomes the cut and thrust of debate and won't stand for intellectual dishonesty.
During his nearly eight years as Jean Chretien's Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, Dion was quite the prolific letter writer. The most well known were his vigorous back and forth with Bernard Landy and Lucien Bouchard passionately and unapologetically making a strong case for Canada and giving no quarter to separtist lies, deceit and half-truths. There were also some very interesting points on the mythical fiscal imbalance, a topic I'll no doubt tackle in more depth as Stephen Harper takes-on his new job as headwaiter to the provinces.
The full list of his open letters while Minister are online here, but I've linked to a few of the ones that stood-out to me below. You might want to get them off the web site before it's purged by the incoming administration.
- August 11, 1997: Letter to Premier Lucien Bouchard concerning his position on a unilateral declaration of independence
The letter that started it all. Paul Wells recently briefly touched on its impetus in this column (scroll down to the second to last paragraph). Finally, the federalist camp stopped pussyfooting around with the separtists and combined passion with much needed logic and a dose of the facts.
- November 19, 1997: Letter to Mr. Jacques Brassard in response to his Ministerial statement on the territorial integrity of Quebec
At last the previously verbotten question is brought into the sovereignty debate: If Canada is divisible, is not Quebec? When Gilles Duceppe answered this question with an emphatic Non during the recent Montreal debates and none of the leaders on stage challenged him I wanted to scream.
- August 25, 1998: Letter to Premier Lucien Bouchard on the need to respect the Supreme Court's decision in its entirety
Dion reminds Bouchard he can't pick the parts of the Supreme Court decision on the legality of a unilateral secession he likes and ignore the parts he doesn't. Hmm, just paying attention to the parts of a report you like and ignoring the parts you don't, sound familiar at all?
Before it was called the fiscal imbalance the debate was over equalization, and here Dion soundly smacks this load of crap down. I wish someone on the national scene during this campaign had the moxie to do the same.
- April 6, 2001: Some reflections on the concept of Nation
Tackling the issue of is Quebec a nation, what does nation mean, and what does that mean for Quebec within Canada.
- October 11, 2002: An artificial consensus
A few years later they're calling it the fiscal imbalance, and Dion eloquently and methodically explains why it's simply hooey.
Once again cutting the myth of the fiscal imbalance to shreds.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Why not Stephane Dion?
I've been mulling over the leadership question for some time, obviously more closely recently, and as I look over the list of usual suspects I can't say there are any I can get excited about at this point.
The names often most mentioned, such as Frank McKenna, Belinda Stronach, John Manley, Martin Cauchon, Joe Volpe (shudder), Scott Brison, Michael Ignatieff, and so on, don't elicit much more than a yawn. Other than Ignatieff (will someone PLEASE explain why this guy is considered a serious candidate?), they’re the usual crop of politicians that I can’t see inspiring anyone.
David Emerson has some potential, but I fear he’d have the BC Martinite gang pulling the strings. One thing I can say at this point is whatever candidate the Martinite koolade drinkers flock to, Herle and Reid et al., is the candidate I will run away from. Any candidate should consider them kryptonite.
But let’s consider some of the factors we need in a new leader. If we keep the alternating rule, which I don’t necessarily consider a must, then it’s a francophone’s turn. Where will a potential Conservative majority likely be won? Quebec. We have a major rebuilding job to do there if we are to challenge the Conservatives as the voice of federalism in the province. We also need someone that can heal the party, someone respected by both the Chretien and Martin wings of the party. I think if we can regain Quebec, we'll stabalize and potentially reclaim ground in Ontario.
So when I think about it, I wonder, why not Stephane Dion? He’s 50 years old, was a cabinet minister under both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, is respected by both camps for his intelligence and class, and has been untainted by scandal. He’s a straight shooter, and smart as a whip.
He’s probably best known for his time as Chretien’s Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, where he was a big part of “Plan B” and the Clarity Act to fight the Quebec separatists. I think the Clarity Act was one of Chretien’s biggest legacies (screw-you Jean Lapierre), and Dion was a big part of it. His letter exchange with Bernard Landry was also classic. Wouldn’t he a more attractive federalist champion than Stephen Harper?
On the flip side, I just don’t know if Dion has the drive, that royal jelly, to make the transition from lieutenant to leader and to inspire the country from coast to coast. But then again, Martin seemed to have the jelly oozing out of his ears, didn’t he? Also, could Dion raise money in Toronto and Vancouver?
I think Dion would be an intriguing choice, and he would be a candidate I could get behind. He certainly stands out from the current pack, of that there is no doubt.
UPDATE! This morning Paul Wells reports on growing pockets of support for Dion to throw his hat into the leadership race. Even more exciting, he links to a Le Devoir report this morning that Dion actually IS considering a run. Here's hoping he does.
Bush offers giddy congratulations for Harper win
Ok, so I lied. I tourqed the headline. The comments from Bush press thingy Scott McClellan were purely formulaic. He probably was giddy though. Might have even choked on a pretzel.
Canadians will be watching this relationship closely though. Will Stephen's first foreign visit be to the U.S., and how soon will it be? Will he get to have a sleepover at the ranch and maybe make smores with Dubaya? Will Dubaya come up to O-Town?
It should be interesting though. If Harper can get a quick win on one of the major trade irritants with the U.S. it would be major wind in his sails. The question, though is what would he have to give up in return...BMD maybe? That would never get through the HoC.
I'd advise PM Stephen to keep it cool and loosey goosey. The last thing he needs is a When Irish Eyes are Smiling-type moment. They would look so adorable in matching cowboy outfits though, wouldn't they? Why, it would look like a scene from Brokeback Mountain!
In all seriousness though I think PM Harper will soon find out that solving Canada/U.S. relations is not going to be as easy as just minding your Ps and Qs and being nicer to them. PM Martin came into office with much the same attitude, looking to be an "agent of change" from the Chretien/Parish/Drucos years. Worked out well, didn't it?WASHINGTON (CP) - The White House congratulated Stephen Harper on Tuesday for his Conservative party's election win in Canada. "We look forward to strengthening our relations and working with the new government," said Scott McClellan, spokesman for President George W. Bush. U.S. Republicans have been quietly hoping for a Conservative win after years of increasingly tense ties under the Liberals. Analysts say, however, that the White House has moderate expectations of just how much Harper can do as he grapples with a minority government. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Merci Paul, and now the work begins
Back to blogging after a long but satisfyingly non-partisan day yesterday as a poll clerk for Elections Canada. Turnout was fairly steady all day, although a bit low after a strong advance turnout. Still, it was great to see lots of young people and new Canadians voting for the first time, and it felt good to be part of the democratic process.
After we finished our count and assorted paperwork it was home to see the results. Overall, I'm happy. The Conservatives were held to a minority, and a smaller one than the Liberals had before, so this can't be interpreted as a mandate for major change. All the parties are going to have to work together to find common ground, and that can only be good for Canada.
I think Canadians have put PM-designate Stephen Harper on a short leash; they're giving him a chance to show he's not as scary as Liberal commercials would have you believe. For myself, I wish him well and congratulate him on a hard-fought, well-run campaign.
I was a little surprised at the strong Liberal showing. I think it sends the message "we're pissed at you but we don't hate you, so get your act together." When I saw that we had cleared 100 seats I was concerned The Board would convince Paul Martin to stay on. As I watched his speech, praying for a resignation, I began to sense it was coming by his comments and the look on Sheila's face, and I let out a cheer when he made it official that I usually reserve for Canuck goals.
I lost my patience with the Martinites long ago, and Paul himself more recently, but I was pleased to see he is ending his political career in a classy way. I'll write more on his legacy and the civil war later, but I think this was the right way to cap to put on a political career that, while more recently has had its downs, had quite a few ups as well.
Now the leadership race begins, but that's a discussion that can begin tomorrow.
Ridings of interest to me, mainly BC
I was happy to see my old MP, Conservative John Duncan, go down in Vancouver Island North in a squeaker at the hands of the NDP's Catherine Bell. John was a do-nothing MP and will not be missed, and while I'd rather see a Liberal in there the odds of that happening any time soon are, to say the least, slim, so I wish Catherine well.
The Liberals actually did very well in BC, although I still hope the LPCBC crowd is swept-out along with the rest of the arrogant Martinites. With nine MPs though (up one) it's a very good showing for Team BC, coming a close second in a number of other races.
I predicted Victoria as a loss long ago, but I was really happy to see Keith Martin hold in Esquimalt. I had the pleasure of meeting Keith awhile back and he's a hard worker and a class act. Blair Wilson has been working like a dog since he almost knocked-off John Reynolds in 2004, so it was great to see him take West Vancouver-yada yada, as it was to see Don Bell hold North Vancouver.
Hedy Fry was running against Svend Robinson and had a strong victory. It's nice to see Gurmant Grewal's riding fall into the Liberal column and I was hopeful that Brenda Locke could knock off Nina, but it seems she ran a strong campaign that fell just short.
Outside of BC quick hits
Thumbs up
Michael Ignatieff wins (he's not a future leader, but it pisses-off the player haters)
Belinda Stronach wins (proved the pundits wrong)
Scott Brison wins (just because the Connies hate him so)
Pierre Pettigrew lost (he won't be missed)
Andy Scott wins (another classy guy that always manages to pull out a win)
Thumbs down
Jean Lapierre wins (take Paul's hint and leave, and be quiet in the mean time)
Olivia Chow wins (not that I like Tony Ianno, but I don't care for her either for some reason)
Garth Turner wins (the guy just seems like a dick)So-con Liberals win (if we had to loose seats, I wish it could have been theirs) Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Experts agree Conservative tax plan favours the rich
Everyone that will benefit more under the Conservative tax plan take a step foward. If you aren't rich not so fast!
The evidence is mounting that the CPC's tax proposals offer little or no benefit to the poor and middle class, but will represent a bonanza to those who least need the help: wealthy Canadians. But hey, that whole trickle-down thing worked-out great in the 1980s, right Gipper?
CTV has a story today on a couple of recent reports from independant analysts that but the boots to the Conservative spin (Tory tax plan ultimately favours well-off: experts). It makes clear most of the benefit from the Conservative tax cuts will go to the well-heeled and not a lot will trickle down to poor Canadians.
A recent report (PDF) from the Caledon Institute of Social Policy concluded that the $1200/year would inflate the income of poor families and trigger clawbacks of other income-based benefits, leaving them not much better, or even worse, off than they were before.
The greatest benefit of the CPC "child care plan", the report concluded, goes to one-income families with above average incomes. Says the report:
The Conservatives’ plan for a “Choice in Child Care Allowance” is seriously flawed. Because the new program will trigger reductions in federal and provincial/territorial income-tested benefits and increases in income taxes, most families will end up with less – for modest-income families in the $30,000-$40,000 range, much less - than the gross $1,200 annual payment for every child under 6. The Child Care Allowance also will favour one-earner couples over single parents and two-earner families. The proposed scheme is really a child benefit, not a child care program. Caledon contends that it would be better to invest in further increases to the existing Canada Child Tax Benefit, a modern and effective social program that suffers from none of the failings of the proposed Choice in Child Care Allowance
George W. Bush played the same game in 2000 by continually saying low income Americans would "by far" be the greatest beneficiaries of his tax plan, when in fact the opposite was true. I'd encourage anyone interested to read a great book by Al Franken, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. The Canadian Right is playing the same games as their American mentors.
Harper fumbles the ball
From public relations firm Veritas Canada, it's their weekly round-up of PR touchdowns and fumbles. After a good performance the week before, this week Veritas calls a fumble for Stephen Harper's recent performance on the campaign trail.
Both Veritas execs agreed Harper made a mistake by getting off his own message and playing into the Liberals' hands with his musing on the courts, Senate and public service. I agree with most of what they say, and I'm sure Stephen and his advisers do too.
In the interests of full disclosure, they also rightly award a fumble over Buzz Hargrove's foolishness. Was Hargrove a Layton mole? The shadow knows. The shadow knows.
The full report can be viewed here.
Harper Strays From Script
Regular TD&F readers may recall that I awarded a recent Touchdown to Conservative leader Stephen Harper for the tone of his campaign. But this week, something happened that reflects an important lesson in communications. I have seen this with Veritas’ corporate clients, where a new company will effectively communicate its key messages, gain public profile, and then see its competitors set “traps” for it. These traps are easy to fall into; it’s tempting to respond to them, particularly when they are unfair or misleading. But responding to a trap does something else: it takes you off your key message track. It gets you talking about something your opponent wants you to talk about. That’s what happened to Harper this week and resulted in today’s Fumble. As Liberals set the trap of alleging that the Conservatives have a secret social conservative agenda, Harper stepped into it. He commented to the effect that with the Senate and Supreme Court stacked with Liberals, he’d be limited in what he could achieve. Which resulted in this from the Globe and Mail: “Liberal Leader Paul Martin accused the Conservative Leader yesterday of planning to stack the Supreme Court with politicized judges who would allow for a social-conservative agenda drawn from the "extreme right" in the United States.” It fell under the main front page headline: “Harper’s lead takes a hit; With Tory leader straying from script, poll shows support for his party waning.” Globe Ottawa Bureau Chief Brian Laghi even penned an analysis piece headlined: “Has he squandered his shot at majority?” Remember, it’s your choice what your message is. Don’t let someone else define your message, or trap you into letting them define it for you.
Harper Slips Off Message
The dying days of any election campaign are always among the most dangerous from a communications perspective. The party leaders are tired, campaign workers are tired, candidates are tired, and all are now used to living in close contact with the media. Put it all together and it’s an ideal environment for less than ideal things to get said and reported. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper made his first real communications mis-step of the campaign this week, by getting a little too relaxed and being a little too forthcoming with comments about the Supreme Court, the Senate, and the federal bureaucracy being stacked with Liberal appointees and sympathizers. Viewed under any other circumstance, what Harper said would really be neither shocking nor alarming. But the fact that he said it during an election campaign – and especially LATE in a campaign, when reporters who have long since bored of actual policy announcements and platform commitments will pounce on any off-message nugget as if it’s some kind of grand revelation – is the problem. Harper’s comments made irresistible headline fodder, and gave the struggling Liberals one more bit of ammunition for their scare campaign. When he was Premier of Ontario, Bill Davis used to say that “bland works.” When you’re under the kind of media scrutiny that Harper is dealing with right now, bland is your best friend. Stay the course, stay on message, and leave the musings for another day.
Buzz Bombs Martin's Day
Paul Martin hit a pothole of his own this week, freshly dug into the road by his new best friend, Canadian Auto Workers Union President Buzz Hargrove. Hargrove, who earlier in the campaign shocked everyone by endorsing Martin’s Liberals over Jack Layton’s NDP, was back at the PM’s side again this week, cautioning voters in la belle province to “stop Stephen Harper in any way they can.” “Even if it means voting for the separatists?” he was asked by reporters. “Anything to stop Harper,” Hargrove replied. “Even if that means voting for the separatists?” they asked again. “Stop Harper,” Hargrove said. He went on to suggest that Harper actually had a separatist agenda, comments which are an obvious Fumble, and ones from which Martin had to later distance himself and declare – with visible discomfort – that Stephen Harper is, indeed, a federalist. But I want to focus on the aforementioned exchange with reporters, as it illustrates a fundamental communications lesson for all, even if your communications work has nothing to do with politics. If in the course of their question, a reporter suggests something which is either factually incorrect or something with which you otherwise disagree, then say so in the clearest possible terms. Don’t just leave it hanging out there when you answer the question – otherwise, you risk having it reported as fact, since you had the opportunity to challenge the notion but didn’t. That’s what started Hargrove’s problems: he was portrayed, as one of Paul Martin’s most prominent backers, as encouraging people to vote for the Bloc Quebecois. Given Hargrove’s decades of experience in dealing with reporters, I suspect he was trying to be too cute by half – not disagreeing with the notion, but not coming right out and saying it – and it came back to bite him (and his choice for PM).
More evidence of the media's Liberal bias
Only 218 reasons not to vote Liberal? I guess the fax from the CPC war room to the Toronto Sun got truncated, so I'll add a few of my own to round it up to 225.
219. Who says women should have the right to choose?
220. All these gay marriages are creeping people out.
221. Unemployment is just too low.
222. Eight straight balaned budgets? Yawn, let's run up the credit cards again!
223. I'd rather see tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, and not the middle class and the poor. I'm sure the benefits will trickle down.
224. If we just kiss Dubaya's ass a bit, I'm sure he'll take care of this softwood thing. Right?
225. We can get in on the ground floor of Operation Iranian Freedom. Opps, I've said too much.
International media election round-up
On this election eve eve, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at what the international media is writing about Canada's election. Well, the English-speaking international media anyway.
LOS ANGELES TIMES (US): That's politics, eh?
In an editorial, the Times sees Canada as wanting a change in parties, not directon, and seems to be rooting for a Conservative Minority.
WASHINGTON POST (US): Anti-U.S. Tack Backfires on Canada's Liberals
The intrepid Post reporter talks to people attending a Harper rally, and he's surprised to learn they don't like the Liberals.
WASHINGTON TIMES (US): Conservative leader vows to end anti-US rhetoric
The Liberal Party's favourite US newspaper talks to John Reynolds, who promises to mend fences with the US. He sounds a little like like Paul Martin, 2003 edition.
THE OBSERVER (UK): Right's poll victory set to redraw map of Canada
They send their reporter to Quebec, and he seems to conclude a Conservative win will lead to Quebec independance. Maybe he's been talking to Buzz Hargrove.
THE TIMES (UK): Great Conservative comeback offers comfort to Tories
The headline doesn't match the article here as the columnist concludes a Conservative win Monday mean so much Conservatism is in, but more that the Liberals have been in power too long.
PRENSA LATINA (CUBA): Canadian Conservatives in the lead
It's really just a basic newser but I include it because 1) it's Cuba, and 2) I was preplexed/amused by the werid comment at the end about the WTO and the IMF. Viva la revolution!
HINDUSTAN TIMES (INDIA): Poll hopeful Dhalla urges foreign credential reognotion
They speak with Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla about her local campaign and touch briefly on an issue of importance to the many Indians immigrating to Canada, the recognition of foreign credentials.
NEW KERALA (INDIA): Canada to outlaw LTTE if Conservatives win
Like many Indian newspapers, they're interested in Peter McKay's (see, he's not dead!) promise a Conservative government will outlaw the Tamil Tigers.
And lastly, while this article has nothing to do with the election and is four years old, it's so funny I just had to share it. It's from the "funny news" section of Pravda, formerly the official organ of the Soviet Communist Party, and it has something to do with books discussing same sex relationships being allowed in Ontario schools. Here's my favourite line:
The passage of the above decision was welcomed by the jeers of approval from the attendees, mainly gays and Lesbians. Liona Laird, a teacher of the 6th form, Lesbian, said she upheld the initiative by their gay and Lesbian colleagues, since, in her view, the children’s education would be incomplete without knowledge in the field.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Battered Media Syndrome
This corner has been watching the courting of the media by the Conservative Party during this campaign, from Stephen's visits to the back of the plane to his TV friendly photo-ops and convenient morning policy announcements.
It appears the honeymoon is over though. The coverage by and large remains very positive, but we don't know what happens behind closed doors. The signs are troubling though. I feel the evidence is mounting though and can no longer be ignored: Canada’s fifth estate (lower case, not the CBC show) is suffering from Battered Media Syndrome.
You say Stephen still loves you Media, that we don’t know him like you do. But then why does he treat you so bad? Do you really think you can change him?
He doesn’t even have time for you anymore! Why yesterday, according to CTV, he had his spokesperson tell you he was too busy to talk to you until after the election. His spokesperson! He couldn’t pick up the phone and call you himself? Maybe send flowers or something?
His spokeswoman Carolyn Stewart Olsen, told reporters the Tory leader no longer has time for formal question-and-answer periods after he brushed aside questions from reporters.
That same CTV story (hat tip Bond Papers) recounts an incident yesterday where a female reporter from Quebec TV network TVA was manhandled when she had the gall to ask a question of the local Conservative candidate, John Carmichael. And it's not the first time they've gotten rough with reporters.
One reporter was grabbed by Conservative security as she tried to ask a question of John Carmichael, the Tory candidate for Toronto's Don Valley West riding, CP reported.
"Don't you hold me, is that clear?" Lina Dib yelled.
Not surprisingly, both these tidbits were buried near the bottom of the story. I wonder if the media is in this too deep to see the irony that the top of the story had Harper accusing the Liberals of evading questions? I fear so.
Even the uber Liberal Toronto Star is suffering from the syndrome. They buried (hat tip Dan Report) this very relevant nugget, which included a Conservative candidate again thumbing his nose at the media:
Tory candidate Carl DeFaria was bundled into an elevator before reporters could question him about Liberal allegations his campaign materials included a leaflet saying "Liberals are planning to legalize crack houses."
It also says the Liberals wish to promote same-sex marriage in kindergarten, lower the age of consent to 12, and ensure that "prostitution will now be considered a legal job description. Do you want you and your child faced with these choices?"
A copy of the leaflet, provided to the Star by the Liberal campaign, also says the Liberals have "taken the Bible out of the school system," and encourages people to "vote against the Liberal plan and vote PC."
This, and so many other examples of kookery by Conservative candidates get buried, yet (undeniably stupid) blog postings by a provincial Liberal executive get front-page treatment for days? Oh media, it will be ok, I promise. We'll get you to a safe place.
Stories have abounded in recent days about Conservative candidates refusing to talk to the media, and Harper himself even ditched the media the other day to hang-out with one of his friends (the reclusive Cheryl Gallant). Did Stephen not think about how that would make the media feel? All the media’s friends are laughing at it behind its back!
My friends, I think it’s time we stage an intervention for the media, and we need to do it quickly. We’ve seen what can happen if Battered Media Syndrome is left unchecked. Just take a look at the White House Press Corps for the past five years, and, well, nearly every major media outlet in the U.S.
I’m not saying it will be easy. The media way not want to leave at first, but together we can help the media break this cycle of abuse.
Good night, and good luck.
Jed Bartlet for Prime Minister!
Since it's now the weekend before the election, and with all the debate there has been around issues like same sex marriage and abortion, I thought I'd share this little rant by Martin Sheen's character President Jed Bartlet from the second season of The West Wing.
Bartlett is speaking to a reception for talk radio hosts in the White House when he spots a radio psychologist, Dr. Jenna Jacobs, and decides to ask her a few questions about the views she espouses on her show. The rant is based on a real-life letter sent to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, found here. Bartlett's rant was arhived here.
Anyone else miss Aaron Sorkin?
BARTLET: It’s a good idea to be reminded of the awesome impact, the awesome impact… I’m sorry. You’re Dr. Jenna Jacobs, right?
JACOBS: (obviously pleased to be recognized): Yes, sir!
BARTLET: It’s good to have you here.
JACOBS: Thank you!
BARTLET: … the awesome impact of the airwaves, and how that translates into the furthering of our national discussions, but obviously also how it can … how it can … Forgive me, Dr. Jacobs. Are you an M.D.?
JACOBS: A Ph.D.
BARTLET: A Ph.D.
JACOBS: Yes, sir.
BARTLET: In psychology?
JACOBS: No, sir.
BARTLET: Theology?
JACOBS: No.
BARTLET: Social work?
JACOBS: I have a Ph.D. in English Literature.
BARTLET: I’m asking ‘cause on your show people call in for advice – and you go by the name Dr. Jacobs on your show – and I didn’t know if maybe your listeners were confused by that and assumed you had advanced training in psychology, theology or health care.
JACOBS: I don’t believe they are confused, no, sir.
BARTLET: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an “abomination!”
JACOBS: I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
BARTLET: Yes it does. Leviticus!
JACOBS: 18:22.
BARTLET: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I wanted to sell my youngest daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown Sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?
(Bartlet only waits a second for a response, then plunges on.)
BARTLET: While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGary, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Or is it okay to call the police?
(Bartlet barely pauses to take a breath.)
BARTLET: Here’s one that’s really important, because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?
(The camera pushes in on the president.)
One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building when the president stands, nobody sits.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Today’s WØRD Is: Abortion
First, I’d like to send a shout-out to the boys in the Liberal war room. Wassup dudes?
I put a counter on my site last week to get an idea of just how many people are actually reading my semi-coherent ramblings and it has been interesting to see who is stopping-by and where they’re coming from (much thanks to Liblogs and Progressive Bloggers.)
For example, this morning someone from PaulMartin.ca spent 63 minutes visiting this humble blog. The war roomers must have some time on their hands these days. They found me via a Google search. It seems I’m the number one hit when you search on ‘ “Roxanne James” abortion’. Wonder if they read the post(s) where I called them morons too?
Anyway, that brings me to today’s WØRD: abortion. Or, the Liberal word of the day anyway, as it was all abortion all the time from their campaign today. And (while I still think they’re still morons), I say why not? 
1) Actually, Stephen started if off last night. After tucking his traveling press pack off to bed (that’s going to piss them off), he dashed out to the safe house where he’s been hiding Cheryl Gallant since summer 2004 for a grip and grin with the outspoken anti-abortion activist. Despite trying to ditch the press though, the local Eganville Leader did snap a pic for today’s paper. That gave the Liberals a chance to dust off some choice Gallant quotes, such as:
“We saw that young American have his head literally cut off in front of the cameras, but what's happening down there is absolutely no different!” (Cheryl Gallant, comparing the beheading of an American to an abortion clinic, CBC Television, May 13, 2004)
2) And while we’re talking about Cheryl Gallant’s greatest hits, why not Jason Kenny too? They’ve even got audio for some of these, fun!
"Mr. Harper says if a Private Members' Bill were to come forward and were to pass on a free-vote basis that of course he would accept the will of Parliament.”
"Paul Martin actually said, this was very little covered, that he, as Prime Minister in this Parliamentary democracy would disregard the will of Parliament as expressed in the adoption of a law through a Private Members' Bill on abortion," Mr. Kenney said. (listen)
"A democracy which allows, which alienates those inalienable rights, which violates the inviolable dignity of the human person, which denies fundamental rights, like the right to life, is in a certain sense, no longer a democracy," he added. (listen)
3) Martin carried on his theme in his stump speech today (Reuters has the story), making much of the rapidly expanding list of socially-Conservative candidates in hiding and tying it to the abortion question.
"What's going to happen after the election? Are these social conservatives going to stay in hiding ... (or) are they going to come out and start expressing their views, advancing their causes?" Martin said at a rally in Atlantic Canada.
4) The Liberals summed it all up in a release that made some good points. They note how closely Stephen has been parsing his words on the topic (we had this debate on Chernaik’s site awhile back) and they point out the fundamental contradiction in his argument.
The Conservative platform states on page 31: “A Conservative Government will not initiate or support any legislation to regulate abortion.”
This allows Mr. Harper to claim that he and his Cabinet will not push the abortion issue.
But here is the loop-hole for anti-abortion MPs, candidates and groups: on page 44, the platform states that “A Conservative government will make all votes in Parliament, except the budget and the main estimates, ‘free votes’ for ordinary Members of Parliament.”
This means that the Conservative caucus is explicitly permitted to introduce whatever legislation it wishes.
Mr. Harper has said he would not whip his Cabinet on “moral issues”.
So there you have it: Abortions for none, and miniature American Canadian flags for all!
Sarcasm aside, I think this is an issue that should be talked about. Given that Conservative Party President Don Plett has assured party members there would be a bill on abortion from the backbenches if they form government it seems to me two very relevant questions need to be asked:
1) Will Harper allow this bill to get to the floor, and if he does will he or will he not whip his cabinet to vote against it?
2) How would Harper, and every other candidate (for all parties) vote on such a bill?
Lastly, I saw a Liberal television ad (in the same style as the other attack ads) on the abortion issue on TV tonight, although I don’t see it on their Web site yet (correct me if I’m wrong).
Daily Show covers Canada's Indecision 2006
Jon Stewart and the gang at The Daily Show dedicated most of the first segment of their show last night to the Canadian election, covering everything from attack ads to the debates, and of course much mocking of people speaking french.
And Jon posed an interesting question. Were Harper and Rex from Desperate Housewives seperated at birth?
It was funny stuff, as always. You can watch the video here.
On another note, during my Google Pictures search for Harper pics I came across this graphic below. I don't speak french so I don't know what the heck it is, but is that disturbing and amusing or what?
Bablefish translates it as: Stephen Harper. And if you could do everything like George W. Bush during four years? Steph all-powerful.
Update: Thank-you to Denise who translates the poster as: "Stephen Harper, and it can be just like having Bush for four years" and "Stephen Harper, all powerful."
She also sends along this amusing graphic in the same theme. I'm sure Stephen would prefer a good Alberta vodka though, n'est pas?
NDP: Tories won't eat your children
Because I know you were wondering, weren't you? That was one of the choice quotes from the Charlatan's coverage of a recent Ottawa-Centre all-candidates debate at my alma matter, Cartoon U.
Sayeth the article: (NDP candidate Paul) Dewar said there is an unjustifiable “fear that Tories will eat your children,” which propels voters into the waiting clutches of the Liberals.
I'm glad that Paul has set the record straight. The Marijuana Party candidate sounds like a character too, but is that a surprise? Anyway, here's the article:
Written by Kimberly Shearon
Canada's political parties "ignoring" Internet issues
An interesting article at ITWorldCanada.com this morning, that seems even more relevant given all the fuss around the Blogging Tories the other day.
Apperantly the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) sent out a survey recently to the political parties to get their views on assorted Internet-related issues and the responses weren't exactly overwhelming. There's a lot of important issues here that aren't being discussed, from privacy and lawfull access to spam and spyware.
The full CIPPIC release is here, and here's the news story:
IT World Canada (20 Jan 2006)
A well-known public advocacy group has faulted Canada's major political parties for disregarding key Internet issues in their election campaigns.
Matters of concern involving the Internet and individual privacy, free speech, and consumer rights have been largely ignored by all four main campaigns in the upcoming federal election, charged the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC).Thursday, January 19, 2006
PCWorld.ca looks at political parties and the Web
This press release electronically crossed my desk this afternoon. I have to disagree with them on Feschuk, I think he's hilarious.
Election 2006: Forget the best platform, who has the best blog, website?
TORONTO, Jan. 19 /CNW/ - From BlackBerries to websites, the
federal election campaign has become a digitized affair. But,
which Canadian political parties are really up-to-date with the
times? PC world.ca, Canada's premier source for trusted tech
advice, has the scoop on which parties are the trend setters and
which are still stuck on brick phones and pagers. In recognition
of these brave attempts to use technology to help Canadians select
a new government, PCworld.ca is introducing the PCworld.ca Federal
Election Digital Awards, highlighting the most impressive features
and puzzling gaffes from each party's website.
"The election touches everyone, and so does technology. So it
seemed fitting we look at how tech-savvy the political parties are,"
said Jim Ducharme, Editor of PCworld.ca. "The infrastructure behind
the parties gives the lowdown on who is really up-to-date with the
times."
Activist judges guarding government daycare institutions
Stephen Harper warned Canadians yesterday about the scourge of activist judges plaguing Canada.
Now, it won't surprise you to learn I don't often agree with Stephen. In fact, it's very rare. But in this case I do. I've had it with activist judges.
Just yesterday, after work, I was walking from my apartment in suburban Scarborough to the local No Frills to pick up a few groceries. And guess who were hanging-out outside the store? A gang of activist judges.
They were in their black robes and throwback powdered wigs, banging their gavels menacingly at me as I walked by. One even threatened to "hold me in contempt" and " bust a gavel on my ass" as I walked by. I've had it! Why can't I walk the streets safely without being accosted by activist judges?
I hear these activist judges are now even acting as guards at the government daycare institutions springing up in the Canadian wilderness, where the children snatched from the hands of their God-fearing parents are sent to be raised by the state and indoctrinated into the ways of Liberalism.
So I say Stephen, you go girlfriend! Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Inky Mark responds to Metis: Don't bite the hand that feeds you
Following-up to my post this morning about Manitoba Conservative MP Inky Mark's "threatening" letter to the Manitoba Metis Federation for their endorsement of the Liberal platform, CBC Manitoba posted a Web piece on the affair this afternoon, and got Mr. Mark's reation to the MMF's response to his e-mail.
Here's a quote from Inky: "I was just stating a reality. I mean, everyone knows the old phrase, 'don't bite the hand that feeds you.'"
Well thank-you Inky, that clarifies things nicely. Well done.
Mark gave the CBC the text of his original e-mail to the MMF, and if that is the actual text it would be possible to make the case the MMF was reading to much into it and spin acordingly. But how do you spin "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"?
When dealing with our First Nations, and their compliated, strained and troubled relationship with the Federal government, is "don't bite the hand that feeds you" really the message the party that could be forming the next government wants to send?
Still waiting for your take on this, Stephen Harper and Jim Prentice.