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.
Colbert gives Paul Martin a Tip of the Hat
And who said Americans would be offended by the Liberal attack ads? Stephen Colbert thinks they're just great, and gave Paul Martin a "Tip of the Hat", and not a "Wag of the Finger", on The Colbert Report last night (note the 'T' is silent, it's French b**ch).
Said Stephen, after airing the Washington Times ad:
"Well done Mr. Martin. You've brought negative campaign tactics and electoral fear mongering to Canada. I take back everything I'd said about your ineffectual political process. Oh, sure, maybe a lot of folks here in the States will be grumbling about Paul Martin's obstensible anti-Americanism but I take a longer view. This is a step in the right direction. Canada has a lot to learn from us about running a democracy and we've got to be willing to play the bad guy here. So, to Canada I say nice job. Next time imply he has an illegitimate black child."
You can watch the video here, enjoy!
Manitoba Con MP threatens native group?
I haven't seen any media coverage of this yet, other than a brief mention on Canada AM of all places. But apparently, after the Manitoba Metis Federation endorsed the Liberals, they say Conservative MP Inky Mark sent them an e-mail warning the endorsement would "hurt (the) organization."
In a press release issued yesterday, MMF president David Chartrand quoted Mark as saying "taking sides will hurt you and your organization sooner or later."
Very distributing allegations, and I look forward to hearing what Mark has to say for himself, and what Stephen Harper has to say for him. And for those of you who say native groups shouldn't be endorsing political parties I seem to recall the Connies making quite a big deal about this endorsement from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
Here's the MMF release:
Conservative MP Threatens Metis Nation - CPC MP Inky Mark says: “taking sides will hurt you and your organization sooner or later”
Tuesday, January 17 2006
For Immediate Release
January 17, 2006
WINNIPEG – In a recent email to Manitoba Metis Federation President David Chartrand, Conservative MP for Dauphin-Swan River Inky Mark suggests that if a Conservative Party should form Government that the road ahead for the Metis People will be in jeopardy.
“Mr. Mark has indicated that our endorsement of the Liberal Platform will hurt our organization,” said President Chartrand. “That indicates a direct threat towards the MMF and the entire Metis Nation”.
A hump day media potpourri
Here's a few interesting stories that caught my eye as I read the news this morning:
- Globe and Mail: Harper: Don't fear
the reapera Conservative Majority
Nice play, and right out of Dubaya's playbook. The beginning of the blame
Perhaps Paul should focus correcting his own flawed pathetic inept campaign strategy before he goes offering advice to others.
Blogging Tories an arm of the Conservative apparatus?
According to a CanWest News story via Neale News two disaffected Conservatives have asked Elections Canada to investigate the Blogging Tories alleging that by attempting to sway the election in concert with the Conservative Party it was in violation of third-party spending limits.
Call for probe into Tory blogs
ALLAN WOODS CANWEST NEWS SERVICE
It seems unlikely this will go anywhere. Unless these bloggers are getting paid out of party coffers somehow, and I haven't heard that suggested, then I'd imagine free speech should prevail.
Frankly, the parties would be foolish not to encourage bloggers that share their views to band together, given the increasing role and influence bloggers seem to be gaining.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
More evidence of the religious right's Conservative influence
Today's Vancouver Sun has a piece on how the Conservative candidate in Richmond has evangelical Christian pastors organizing area churches for him, apparently even passing out flyers to the congregation. This kind of politicking from the pulpit is reprehensible.
Running against Liberal Raymond Chan is Conservative Darell Reid, a former president of Focus on the Family Canada. They're affiliated with James Dobson's highly influential U.S.-based Focus on the Family.
You may remember Dobson as the man that warned us watching SpongeBob SquarePants will make us gay and as the creator of the popular Justice Sunday series, which brought Rightist political and religious leaders together for televised masses to ask God to create more vacancies on the Supreme Court (smite the liberals?) and provide lots of good material for Jon Stewart.
Chan accuses rival of using churches
Richmond Liberal says evangelical pastors are handing out campaign flyers for Conservative Darrel Reid
Doug Ward, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, January 17, 2006Richmond Liberal candidate Raymond Chan says his Conservative rival, Darrel Reid, is using evangelical Christian pastors to gain support in the riding's large Chinese-Canadian congregations.
(more)
Monday, January 16, 2006
Dubaya's man in the PMO?
The Conservatives like to rail against lobbyists but that hasn't stopped them from having their fair share of lobbyists running their campaign, including one who worked on the George W. Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004.
No wonder the Bushies are delighted at the thought of a Harper government. Today's Hill Times has the story on Conservative deputy campaign manager Philippe Gervais, a senior consultant with The Capital Hill Group.
While he naturally downplayed the Dubaya connection in the interview, in his bio on the lobbying firm's Web site he lists his advance work for President Bush the Younger as one of his best political memories, and in a smiling photo is holding a copy of Time Magazine with Bush on the cover.
Apparently, he even came to be on a first name basis with the Bush family:
"(I) got to know both [Florida Governor] Jeb [Bush] and George."
And to know them is to love them, no doubt.
Battleground BC heats up
On the loony Left Coast, the strategery game is on.
BC is critical for all three parties. Forget pre-writ hopes of Liberal gains, they're fighting tooth and claw to hang-on to what they have. The NDP hoped to make balance of power gains here but now they're fighting to stem strategic votes bleeding to the Liberals and position themselves as the alternative instead. The Cons were forecast to loose ground in BC, but a rising tide raises all boats and they'll need gains here to reach majority territory.
The Liberals issued a press release Sunday (pasted below) touting the results of a surprising Ekos poll that positions them as the stop-Harper alternative, not the NDP. The Ekos numbers for BC are Liberal 40%, Conservative 34%, NDP 22%. The clear message? A vote for the NDP is a vote for Harper, so NDPers vote Liberal to stop Harper.
A Vancouver Sun article this morning shows the NDP are on the attack in BC as well, with new ads comparing Harper to BC Premier Gordon Campbell. It's an interesting strategy. They tarred the Fed Libs with the Gordo brush in 04 but he was a lot more unpopular then. They do seem to be developing specialized ads for targeted ridings though, including Vancouver Island North and Skeena-Bulkley Valley. Makes sense.
I think the Liberal polling data could resonate though, if played right (a big if). Ironically it's a play out of the NDP playbook. Late in the 2004 campaign the NDP commissioned a poll (with questionable methodologies, IMO) very late in the campaign showing them as the only alternative to Harper. It got lots of play in the community press on the Friday before e-day, too late for us to respond and attack it.
They (allegedly) reinforced that message over the weekend. I was working on the Liberal campaign in Prince Rupert, and flyers began showing-up in mailboxes and on car windshields touting the polling results, saying only the NDP could stop Harper. A phone number, coincidentally that of the local NDP campaign office, was included for those needing a ride to the polls. Missing was any NDP logo or authorization by the candidate's official agent. Naturally the NDP campaign denied any knowledge, although a car with hundreds of these flyers on the seats was observed parked outside their campaign office.
Anyway, the result was the anti-Harper vote went to the NDP and their candidate pulled-off a win over the Conservative incumbent. (Allegedly) Sneaky? You bet, but good politics. With the stakes as high as they are in BC, I wouldn't put anything past any of the parties this week. Should be fun.
Here's the Liberal release on the EKOS poll. On a side note, it's interesting that Ujal is fronting this and not BC's senior minister, David Emerson. From what I understand, Ujal isn't exactly Mr. Popularity with the NDP votes they're going after.
January 15, 2005
EKOS POLL SHOWS LIBERALS BEST OPTION TO STOP HARPER IN BC
VANCOUVER - On the heels of a SES Research poll Friday that had the Liberals 13 points ahead of the NDP in BC, and in a two-way race with the Conservatives, a new EKOS poll - with a larger sample size - shows the Liberals out front of the Conservatives and having a decisive 18 point lead over the NDP.
"Although we are not taking any results for granted, it is clear that British Columbians are not buying Stephen Harper's extreme policies," said Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal candidate in Vancouver South, and former NDP Premier. "British Columbians have seen the Conservatives in BC first hand. They have seen the radical views of their candidates. And they are know Jack Layton is not the way to stop them," said Dosanjh.
EKOS polled 303 British Columbians in a poll released this weekend by the Toronto Star. The numbers are as follows:
Liberal 40%
Conservative 34%
NDP 22%
EKOS breaks out the BC numbers with the Liberals at 46% in Vancouver - a 29% lead over the NDP. In the rest of BC, the Liberals stand at 38% with a 14 point lead over the NDP. The Tories trail in second in both areas.
Source: EKOS, 303 respondents polled January 10-12th, margin of error plus or minus 5.6%, 19 times out of 20.
"British Columbians want a government that can deliver results for BC and manage the economy, while protecting public health care and defending the Charter of Rights. Under Paul Martin, British Columbia has more clout in Ottawa than ever before. Both Stephen Harper and Jack Layton represent extremes on opposite ends of the spectrum," said Dosanjh.
Link to EKOS numbers:
http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/14Jan2006Background.pdf
Links to SES numbers: http://www.sesresearch.com/election/SES%20CPAC%20January%20Regional%2012%202006E.pdf
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Education budget anecdotes from The Hill
My last post on education got rather long but education issues still resonate with me, probably because of the chunk of cash that leaves my bank account every month for my student loan. I also reported on education issues on Parliament Hill for the campus paper while a Carleton student in the late 1990s.
As I wrote the post two stories from those cub reporter days came to mind:
It’s budget day 1999 (the year after the 1998 ‘Education Budget’) and I’m milling with a colleague in the foyer outside the Commons chamber as assorted MPs and interest group types come to scrum and spin. Suddenly a burly RCMP-type pushes past us, followed by Uncle Jean himself. My colleague shouts as he barrels by “Mr. Prime Minister, is today a good day for students?” He doesn’t stop of course, but before he barrels up the stairs to his office like a young man of 35, we both swear he heard him say quite clearly “No.”
We asked the same question a few minutes later to an immaculately coifed, although slightly ripe, HRDC Minister Pierre Pettigrew. His reply? “It’s been a good day for students for over a year now!” In retrospect I’ll forgive him, we didn’t know at the time he was busy boondoggling away ;). And I must say that although she was a lot taller, his successor smelled much nicer.
I think that was also the year I stepped quite hard on Greg Tomey’s foot during a scrum. He was pretty nice about it though.
Grading the parties on education
I've been meaning to write about education for a while. Somehow though, other events got in the way! It seems a little pointless to talk policy at this point but with all the platforms out, why not?
I think a lot of the problems with post secondary education can be traced back to two things: the rising cost of health care, and the deficit fighting Federal Government’s decision in the 1990s to both slash provincial transfers and no longer separate the health and education components. This left the provinces free to divert money from education to meet their every increasing health care costs. Provinces mainly dealt with this in one of two ways:
1) The NDP government in BC froze tuition. Sounds great, sign me up. But there’s a flip side. They also froze funding to universities, leaving them with no way to raise additional funds (other than hiking international student fees). The result? Crumbling and crowded infrastructure, and a leap to catch-up (by hiking tuition) when the freeze was lifted.
2) Then there’s the Ontario model, simply let tuition skyrocket because you’re not going to increase their funding yourself. The result? Crushing student debt and barriers to access.
I think another Fed mistake was when MinFin Martin removed the student loan program from the bankruptcy act. It’s simply unfair and can’t be justified. The student loan program is also a mess and needs major reform, and btw income contingent loans are not the answer. It just means higher interest loans for the poor, and makes universities feel less guilty about hiking tuition.
So when I examined the three party platforms I was hoping to find:
1) Student loan reform, including bringing it back under the bankruptcy act.
2) A dedicated education-funding component as part of the transfers to the provinces.
And apologies to Paul Wells, but I’ll be leaving out research and focusing on student issues.
Conservatives
• Invest $100 million per year in measures to improve support for postsecondary students, including the enhancement of the Canada Student Loans program.
Sounds great, but I’d like more details. As I said, income-contingent loans, which have been favored by the right, would be bad.
• Work with the provinces to increase family income thresholds for student loan eligibility.
This is good. Family income can often make it hard for a student to get a loan because it assumes the family can afford to help, when often they can’t.
• Exempt the first $10,000 of student scholarship or bursary income from taxation.
I don’t think any scholarships or bursaries should be taxable, but this is a move in the right direction anyway.
• Provide students or their parents with a federal tax credit on spending up to $500 per year on textbooks.
This was about all I’d heard from the Cons on education before, and it didn’t exactly wow me.
• In cooperation with the provinces, remove postsecondary education funding from the Canada Social Transfer and create an independent Canada Education and Training Transfer to ensure that there is dedicated funding for postsecondary education and training.
Now we’re talking! I’m actually surprised; I’d have thought the Cons would have stayed away from this, education being a provincial responsibility and all. This is good news, my only worry is how much $, and will this be used as a cover to lower funding? Still, I’ll be optimistic, because I’m glad they’re talking about it.
Grade: B Mainly the same tax cut fits all solution they peddle in every other area. Most students don’t have an income to tax, so it’s transferred to the parents. How many parents in turn cut their kids a cheque? The dedicated transfer is great news if it’s accompanied by increased funding. Would like more details in planned CSL reforms.
NDP
• A step at a time, as finances permit, restore the funding that was cut by Paul Martin to transfer payments for post-secondary education in the 1990s.
• Offer provinces and territories a binding commitment to stable, long-term funding in this area through a dedicated transfer, in return for an equally binding commitment to better access and lower tuition fees.
Again short on specifics, but good stuff. The cautious tone is unusual for the NDP, but not inappropriate. Like the Conservatives they promise a dedicated transfer, but they seem to go further by both implying they’ll raise funding back to 1990s levels and attach strings.
• Re-investing in a stable, long-term federal grant system to make education and training affordable in every year of study, including special grants for rural and Aboriginal youth to ensure students can finish the programs they begin.
Targeted grants are good. I like that.
• Overhauling the Canada Student Loans Program to create a comprehensive program designed to improve access and reduce the burden of student debt.
Again that sounds very nice, but how?
Grade: A- They hit most of the needed areas, but with a prudence unusual for the NDP. More details on CSL (loans, not the shipping line) reform might raise their grade.
Liberals
• Enhanced student financial assistance: The 50/50 Plan – If elected, a Liberal government will pay one-half of an undergraduate’s first year and graduating year tuition (to a maximum grant of $3,000 in any year).
This was the big announcement and I like it. It’s real and it’s meaningful, and it could really help improve access. There’s a big BUT though, which will come shortly.
• Expanded Canada Access Grants
Grants are good, why not.
• Comprehensive review of student assistance …review Canada’s system of student financial assistance… ensure that students from middle-income families and students with dependents do not face insuperable financial barriers. The review will examine a range of potential measures such as grants, loans, and ways to improve debt management, including reduced interest rates.
The third party to promise a review, a nice way of avoiding taking a position. I’m less accepting here because after so many years of government they should have reviewed this already.
Grade: C+ Shocking? I know, what with their splashy tuition promise. But here’s my concern. What’s to stop the universities from jacking-up tuition by the same amount? Those savings could be wiped-out pretty quick. Also, they failed to mention increased block funding and a dedicated education transfer. Beyond the flash, the substance is missing.
Overall, I was surprised at the common ground between the Conservative and NDP platforms. If we do end-up with a Conservative minority, I’m hopeful there’s ground for the two to work together on some of these issues, and maybe pull the Liberals and BQ along too.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Give these ads the boot
Was watching TV last night and I saw, once again, that NDP ad saying 'Liberals think they have your vote in the bag.' I don't they're stupid enough to think that at this point. OK, let me try that again. I hope they're not stupid enough to think that at this point.
Seriously though Dippers, that ad has been running for weeks. It’s time for a new one. The landscape has changed, and your strategy has to change with it. With a Conservative (majority?) government looming, you need to:
1) Stop your core vote from going to the Liberals to stop Harper.
2) Go after Liberal voters scared of Harper but no longer able to stomach the Liberals.
The ads you’re running aren’t going to do that. You seem to have lots of money; I’m seeing a fair bit of your ads. It’s time to cut some new ones Jack.
Go positive (wouldn’t that be a contrast to the other parties?). Only one party can stand up for your values, for the environment, for working Canadians, etc. Move to the centre a bit, leaving behind the socialist mantra about corporate tax cuts. The NDP could drop in the polls this week (see election 2004), or, if they play it right, they could make strong gains.
It’s going to be a long week, anything can still happen.
Just how many ridings is Jack Layton running in?
I was out and about in my riding of Scarborough-Centre today, and as I peered through the filthy windows of various TTC busses I kept an eye out for campaign signs to pass the time, and to see who is winning the all (not really) important sign war.
It seems to be pretty much a dead-heat between Liberal (in name only) incumbent John Cannis and his (even more socially) Conservative challenger, Roxanne James. Their signs were plentiful, from lawn signs to the big ones, but I’d have to say Roxanne (now I’ve got that Police song stuck in my head) held a slight edge. Third place? Trailing far behind, Jack Layton.
Must be kind of a punch in the gut to their local candidate, Dorothy Laxton. Didn’t see a single sign with her name on it during my travels. Five though trumpeted Jack Layton and his Toronto team. What’s up with that?
I must say that John’s signs were like a trip down Liberal memory lane though, he must have saved all his signs since 1993. There’s the old L logo signs, the il-fated Team Martin with his fading face signs, and the newer incarnations as well. It was fun.
Makes me think how cool it would be to build a political history museum in Ottawa…think the grant could be pushed through by Friday?
My old BC riding has been held by its Conservative incumbent since 1993, but it seems every election he’s running under a new party banner so new signs every year. My vote for the next new name? The Canadian Conservatively Conservative Party. Fits in with their attempt to appear more moderate. And CCCP, what a great acronym! Now where have I heard that before though?
Thursday, January 12, 2006
So long, and thanks for all the fish*
That's it. I've had it. Stick a fork in me, I'm done. You can officially call me a Liberal in Exile®. Wake me when it's over, will you?
The last bit of respect I had for the current regime ended after seeing Paul Martin's comments on CTV this morning. Now, I accepted long ago that The Board et al were politically stupid, but I still had some remaining moral respect for Paul Martin. But that evaporated after watching him lamely trying to defend that military ad on national television.
What a load of bullshit that was. You can't spin your way out of that ad, and it's pathetic that he even tried. There's only one message to take from that ad: Be scared Canadians, soldiers with guns could come and kill you. And what genius sent the Prime Minister out to do it? I don't know where to start. So I won't. Except to say the flunky is supposed to take the bullet, not the leader, dumbass(es).
Martin needed to apologize for a grave error in judgment by one of his flunkies and then get back on the attack. Instead, he picked up the crap and rubbed it all over himself. And worse, he lent his support to that disgusting ad that is disrespectful and demeaning to our military.
Stephen Harper made this mistake in 2004, by refusing to denounce the press release headline "Paul Martin supports child pornography." If he had, it's a one-day story on an inside page. Instead he owns it, and comes off as arrogant, spiteful and mean, gives voice to the nagging doubts of many Canadians (Ontarioins), and his Conservative minority becomes a Liberal minority. He's learned his lesson this time around.
But screw the politics of this. I had hope that even if the geniuses running the campaign couldn't, Martin would see that ad was just morally wrong. He doesn't, so I'm done with him. Add one ballot to the spoiled column.
*I have never been the recipient of any fish kickbacks, or fish in brown envelopes, either farmed or wild. OK, some salmon once, but it wasn't taxpayer salmon. Honest.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
How to loose friends and piss people off, or John Duffy is an idiot
There are days when you don't know whether to laugh or cry. I had one of those days yesterday evening as I watched Duffy and Co.'s pre debate coverage on Newsnet, before I said screw it and decided to catch-up on the backlog of sitcoms and Law and Order episodes on my PVR instead.
Communications 101
I'll get to the content of the military ad in a minute, first I want to talk about the fallout. I missed the JD/MD intimidation exchange (watching South Park by that point), but what I saw up until then from John Duffy was asinine. He was flailing pathetically like a wounded gazelle, and MD and the party hacks, well, hacked him to pieces. The ad was never aired so it's not a real ad, it was posted accidentally, waa waa.
Shut up, John! The fact is you geniuses had a meeting, came up with the concept, approved it, shot it and produced it. This wasn't some kid in the war room writing a press release saying Paul Martin supports child porn and hitting send on the e-mail. This is a television ad; some idiot(s) at a much higher level thought this was a good idea.
I actually met John Duffy once and he didn't seem like a total moron. It was in Vancouver, before the Liberal leadership debate a few years ago. I went to dinner with a group of Young Liberal execs/Youth for Martin types (same thing really) and Duffy came by to pump-up the troops. I think he had a chicken ceaser salad and a beer, no popcorn though.
Although Duffy seemed alright, I think it was at that dinner I began to grow disillusioned with the clique surrounding Martin. They're young but they know it all, they've had life handed to them and they expect it should always be so. You might say a culture of entitlement. But anyway, I've digressed.
BS excuses don't matter John. As I've said I work in the media, and I've dabbled in communications. From a communications POV you had two choices: own it, or apologize. Here were your choices:
1) We're going to run the ad because it's accurate, what's wrong about it? He did say he wants to put soldiers into cities. And don't soldiers have guns? No, we're not saying he's planning a coup, you're an idiot!
2) The ad has been pulled and never should have been made. Sometimes in the heat of an election…loose our judgment, … I (or Scott Reid or David Herle, someone big, they'll all be out of work soon anyway) OK'd this ad and that was obviously a mistake. I (or whomever) have resigned….apologize…utmost respect for the work and professionalism of our solders…and so on.
Pulling it without apologizing is bonecrushingly stupid. You tacitly admit you screwed-up but won't admit it. It's like standing on an anthill, stripping naked and smothering yourself in honey.
And trying to threaten the media? Speaking as a journalist, kiss my ass John!
The Ad itself
I grew up as a military brat. My father served in the Air Force so I lived on bases across Canada and in Germany. I was also an Air Cadet in my teens, so I know the military, I respect the military and I care deeply about military issues. Liberal policies around military issues have long been a sore point for me.
I've watched this ad a number of times now. The first time or two I thought well that's a little much, but they're just making fun of Harper's policy. I thought his doling out army divisions (or whatever, I was an Air Force brat) to different communities as political plums was stupid.
But as I watched it more and more I began to feel this goes way the hell over the top. I think the coup talk being read into it is BS, let me say that. That's a figment of a fevered right-wing imagination. But the ad is trying to paint a picture of a police state, Canadian soldiers accidentally firing off their clip into a crowd at Portage and Main. That's (I'm running out of words for stupid) insane, insulting to our soldiers, and, well, it's just stupid.
Someone (big) needs to take the fall and be fired, not asked to resign (West Wingers think Toby and the shuttle leak) but fired, and the PM needs to apologize. NOW. If the Liberals want to salvage this election they need to end this and move on, or this will be the next two weeks.
But beyond that, it needs to happen because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO. Paul Martin got credit with me, and with a lot of people, when he called the Gomery Commission and took sponsorship on. Politically stupid, yes, but the right thing morally to do. You said that was how you were going to operate, doing the right thing.
Well Paul, it's time to step up and prove it. We're waiting.
Recommend this Post on Progressive BloggersVote Conservative or Die!
Hat-tip to Blog Boy for catching this gem over at the Conservative youth blog, or c-blog as they call it. It's c-rrific. They're not talking about military coups, rather, they're warning Canadians if you don't vote Conservative, you'll be killed. The piece ran with this graphic, and here's the text of the post:
P. Diddy may have coined this phrase during the last American Presidential Election in a failed attempt to herd young citizens to vote; but here in Canada, as we watch the plague of gun violence proliferate in our streets, it has a much deeper meaning.
I am speaking of course to the rapid increase of fatal gun violence in key urban centres such as Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary, and the inaction of Paul Martin and his government to properly address the issue.
With the swath of damage widening by the day, the time for idle talk is over; we need a new federal leader who believes in policies that proactively address the root causes of gun violence, rather than an old leader who proffers shallow and reactionary band-aid solutions. So VOTE Conservative!
So there you have it, only voting Conservative can save you from becoming a bullet-riddled corpose! As Blog Boy put it:
Hmm. I'm no C-hipster, but it seems to me that what these crazy-kid C-bloggers are telling Canadians, on the official Web site of the Conservative Party of Canada, is that if you do not vote for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives then YOU ARE GOING TO DIE! That's C-cold, man. That's C-cold. Now, for those of you who are complete idiots do I really think the Conservatives are saying vote for us or you'll die? Of frickin course not. No more than I think the Liberals were accusing Harper of plotting a military coup in that now infamous ad. But I'll have more to say on that clusterf*** later. I'm just saying you can read that message into this blog post much more easily. C-ya later.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Go negative or go home
Just stumbled on the new Liberal nuclear attack ads via Paul Wells and all I can say is HOLY CRAP! They've obviously seen the polls and relaized the only chance left for The Board is to scare the crap put of Canadians
There are a whole series of ads, all going hard after Stephen Harper. They hit all your favourite attack lines, including his love for George W. Bush and Mikey Harris, and how he hates the Maratimes. They're so scare-mongery it's campy, I burst a gut through most of them. I espically love the (probably not intended to be) humourous taglines ending each one.
The best one? No doubt, it's:
We're not allowed to make stuff up."
My verdict? Two thumbs up, the feel scared thrill ride of the year! This is going to be fun, I can't wait to see the next Conservative ads in response.
My only regret? The Board didn't go with my "Stephen Harper, why is he silent on baby eating? Does he support the eating of babies?" ad pitch. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
More majority madness
OK, so I like alliteration. But the 'M' word showed up again today as the banner headline in the Toronto Star. And with the latest poll results, why not?
The question is have Canadians warmed to Harper enough to give him a majority or will all the M talk and rising polls send them holding their nose back to the Liberals, along with the soft NDP vote? The next week will be telling.
I don't want to get too much into the debate performances last night. Overall, I thought Harper tried to play the safe frontrunner too much, and the fake smiles got creepy. Martin, fighting for his life and David Herle's, needed to come out strong and he did, for the most part. Layton lapsed back into his Smiling Jack routine, and Duceppe had some good lines, but has his English gotten worse?
As for the big news of the night, the hail mary, desperation gambit notwithstanding clause go bye promise by Martin. It got the headlines, but will it move the polls? I'm not sure I like the idea of killing it. I don't like the idea of using it, but it's nice to know its there. I've heard two theories of how this could be done and there seems to be some confusion on how the Liberals plan to do it: a simple act of Parliament that could easily be overturned by another act of Parliament (a la Mike Harris balanced budget legislation), or a constitutional amendment and all that entails.
It's laughable though that all these Con bloggers are after Martin for wanting to re-open the constitution. I agree it's a bad idea, but their man minutes later (and out of his ass too, haven't heard this policy announcement from him before) that he would add property-rights to the constitution. Yes, life, liberty, and the pursuit of a cottage in the Laurentians!
Monday, January 09, 2006
Quebec, circa 1867
Gilles Duceppe: No, Quebec is not divisible, because we came into confederation as a whole, so that is how we must leave under our federal system.
I aggree Gilles, and here are Quebec's borders circa 1867. I say give Rupert's Land to Newfoundland, those guys deserve a break!
Newest Liberal attack ad: Fathers, lock-up your daughters...and your wives!
According to "an exclusive national poll" done for Sun Media Canadians think Stephen Harper is the dreamiest, and Paul Martin is an old fuddy duddy. I can see the next Liberal television ads now.
But first, the poll. And I love how the Sun touts its exclusivity. Yes, what a fine news organization, really tackling the issues, they are. Anyway, when they asked Canadians whom they found the most physically attractive, the results were:
Harper: 19.9 per cent (I told him to smile more, now it’s paying off)
Layton: 18.8 per cent (mustaches are back in?)
Gilles Duceppe: 8.6 per cent (I thought the ladies would have dug the accent)
Paul Martin: 8.4 per cent (with those baby blues?)
That’s quite a gap, and quite an opportunity for the Liberals. I’m envisioning a quick, 15-second spot that will run in heavy rotation during hockey games, wrestling matches, anything with a heavily male audience.
The Lothario
Picture of a smiling, folksy Harper, eyes twinkling, shaking hands with a comely young lass on the BBQ circuit.
Cut to headline from the Toronto Sun:
Harper cutest: Poll result
Voiceover: Canadian women agree Stephen Harper is the most attractive national party leader.
More pictures of Harper pressing the flesh with attractive young ladies, including various ethnicities.
Voiceover: And Paul Martin?
Picture of a tired, haggered looking Paul Martin, splotcy faced, from one of last year’s campaign signs that was out in the sun too long.
Voiceover: The ladies agree, he’s a dog. I mean, he could be their Grandpa. That’s gross!
Back to a toothy-grinning Harper, photoshopped onto the lawn of 24-Sussex.. Omnious music.
Voiceover: And they say power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. Doesn’t your wife find him hot enough already?
Liberal logo, splash screen and Paul Martin doing something spastic with his hands.
Voiceover: On January 23rd, vote for Paul Martin’s Liberals. And sleep easy.
Why not talk Conservative majority?
As political hacks, flacks, junkies and what have you I think we sometimes get so caught-up in the horserace we can't see the forest for the trees.
I had this thought as I read through the Harper majority musing posts and comments across the blogsphere. There has been lots of talk about the amplified and misleading headlines, polling, his need to not show arrogance and show on. I think most agree it's not politically wise for Stephen to even say words starting with M. I'd imagine his handlers are now ensuring any upcoming military-related events don't involve anyone holding the rank of Major.
But let’s step back a second from the conventional wisdom and ask why is any majority talk is verboten for Mr. Harper? Because even he knows Canadians aren’t ready to trust him and the Conservatives yet with a five-year mandate. A tethered minority? Sure, he can’t screw things up too bad, they figure. But a majority? They start freaking out. And not the cool, 60s style freak out.
I have to wonder what does that say about the Conservative Party, and about Stephen Harper? The goal of any political party, and certainly the Official Opposition, is to form a majority government. That’s a natural. Newsflash: he'd like to win! Yet despite a nationwide hunger for change, despite the long list of Liberal Party sins, both real and imagined, the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition cannot publicly say the word majority in an election campaign that has him rising in the polls.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Let's talk Conservative majority
Electoral ground zero GTA woke up to two newspaper headlines that must have made the Rosedale crowd choke on their biscotti, both saying Stephen Harper has visions of a majority government dancing in his head.
Toronto Star: Harper muses on possibility of majority win
Toronto Sun (can’t call them Liberal toadies: Harper hints at Liberal majority
As you read the articles you can almost see Harper’s eyes bulge as he realizes what he’s doing and starts to quickly backtrack. Even (perhaps now former?) Harper BFF Warren Kinsella went bug-eyed when he saw the headlines. This isn't the message they wanted to send.
I hope he’ll keep musing though, loudly, and I hope all Conservatives will too. Let us know who is heading your transition team. How often is Mulroney calling? Let’s start looking at fabric swatches for 24 Sussex (I hear it hasn’t been redone in years and Aline’s taste was just horrible) and finally turn Stornaway into a bingo palace like Preston wanted.
Four more years! Let’s start speculating on cabinet choices too. I dream of seeing Stockwell Day in Foreign Affairs, and I hope Jason “gay people can marry anyone as long as they’re a different sex” Kenney gets a seat right up front too.
Gangs targeting gun owners' homes, police warn
The usual Conservative response to any gun control initiative, and the proposed Liberal hand gun ban, is to say you’re only persecuting law-abiding citizens; they’re not the criminals. And I don’t think they are criminals, but their guns can easily fall into the hands of criminals. That’s the problem, and why they need to be banned.
There was more evidence to bolster that case in the Toronto Star this morning : Street gangs zero in on gun owners. Here’s an excerpt:
Gang members are actively gathering intelligence on legitimate gun collectors who have been targeted in recent years, leading police to warn owners to be careful about who they confide in about their weapons.
No amount of security is going to stop determined thieves from breaking into gun safes, says Inspector Dave McLeod, head of the Toronto police's urban organized crime squad. "We know they are gathering intelligence on gun owners, but we don't yet know exactly how they are doing it," McLeod said.
The article points out guns reported stolen by a Toronto gun collector have already been used by criminals in the recent spent of gun violence plaguing the city. That’s scary, and exactly why we need to get rid of handguns. I lived in rural B.C. and I have no problems with the long rifles used for hunting and what not. But you don’t shoot a deer with a magnum.
I don’t buy the other popular Conservative gun control counterpoint: criminals don’t follow the law, so a hand gun ban is useless. This article shows that argument is false, the handguns of law abiding citizens are one of the places criminals get their guns, and if the border is tightened to cut back the flow from the U.S. they’ll look to this source even more.
But there’s an even more obvious reason why it’s a stupid counterpoint: criminals don’t follow any law, that’s why we call them criminals! By that logic, why do we have any laws at all then?
Anyway, to quote Chris Rock “You know what you need? We need some Bullet control!”
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Christian rightist wants Harper to re-open abortion debate
Could it be that as the Conservatives move up in the polls some of their more extreme supporters, able to almost taste power, are starting to shake-off the muzzle?
I was reading a column in the Toronto Sun today with moderate interest; it was the usual call for Harper to quit his (obviously false) move to the centre and re-embrace family values. But as I got to the end my eyes bulged...the columnist wants Harper to re-open the abortion debate!
This isn't some nobody writing this. The writer is Michael Coren, a regular Sun columnist and host of a daily, national prime time TV show on CTS (a Christian television network) that, as he says, "features some of the most exciting and important national and international voices discussing politics, entertainment, sports, and social and moral issues." So all in all, a fellow of some influence and national standing on The Right.
His argument starts off normally enough (for The Right). Harper is obsessed with appeasing the "social engineers" that cannot be appeased, his muzzling and move to the centre to win votes "is startlingly odd and irrational", the leftie "zealots" that want to allow same sex marriage should be stopped, yada yada. Nothing we haven't heard before.
But then, towards the end, Coren drops the bomb and tells Harper how he can wrap-up the election now; especially, for some reason, the ethnic vote. How you ask? Attack the Liberals on abortion! An excerpt:
If it is seen to be merely about medical choice, then it is of limited importance and should be of little concern to most voters. But if it is, as I believe, about life and death, it is of central significance to the 50% of Canadians who are opposed to abortion.
Many of them, by the way, are ethnic voters in urban ridings who routinely vote Liberal but might vote Conservative if the party made more noise about moral issues and exposed the opposition for what it is and says.
I say again, the HALF of Canadians who object to abortion. I also guarantee that many people reading this column question my numbers or simply refuse to believe them. The reason is that most of Canada's media are vehemently socially liberal.
Now he should move on to solidify this base with a pronounced defence of marriage, family, children, life and community. Not only because it is good politics but because it is plain good.
So there you have it: abortions for none, miniature Canadian flags for everyone! I have to wonder how many Conservatives share Coren's views, and how many of them will be in the next Conservative caucus, and potentially cabinet.
Where there’s smoke there’s…Conservative spinners making faulty allegations?
Stephen Harper got front page media play with this stunt Tuesday, posing beside a briefcase containing $132,000 and holding-up an empty file folder, demonstrating the lack of value he said the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs got from a consulting contract it let. It was all to underline his commitment to end government-polling contracts going to those infamous ‘Liberal insiders.’
To quote the release still up on the Conservative Web site:
This practice has continued under the Martin government. In February 2005, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs hired a consultant for $132,000 and specified in the contract that “presentations shall be oral with supporting material provided to aid comprehension but not retained by the department.”
It made for nice TV. The only problem with this well-staged photo-op? Turns out it was completely wrong, as the CBC National news outlined quite scathingly in one of their recent Reality Checks.
For starters, it seems this wasn’t even a polling and public opinion contract, but was to look into human resources practices at the department. And as for the lack of paperwork the Conservatives claim was generated? Turns out pages and pages of it was released via access to information back in the Fall. Opps!
Indian Affairs Minister Andy Scott has come out swinging on this. A raft of (already publically available) related documents which debunk the baseless Tory claim (which was reported as fact by the media) have been posted on the Liberal Web site. Andy also gets off a good line in a letter to Harper inviting him to retract these baseless allegations:
“I have taken the liberty to enclose a copy of the material that was released last fall under the Access to Information Act. May I suggest that you put it in your empty file folder.”
As the kids like to say, that’s a wicked burn. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a retraction though Andy. It will be interesting to see if the media does the right thing and gives this thorough debunking the same breathless coverage they gave Harper’s false photo-op. But again, no breath holding advisable on that front.
Political Cyber Wars
In my day job I’m a technology writer and while I don’t usually like to link to the competition, Sarah Lysecki at ITBusiness.ca has an interesting piece today about some political-related technology shenanigans:
NDP asks cybersquatter to stop using phony URLs to redirect traffic
Apparently this guy was creating bogus public sector URLs, like winnipegpolice.ca, and linking them to the NDP Web site. The dippers weren’t too pleased with this and so he’s now directing his bank of bogus URLs to his own anti-Stephen Harper Web site.
Much has been made (and over made, IMHO) on the new role blogs are playing in the campaign. This is another interesting example of how technology is changing the political process, and creating new battlegrounds for the partisans and hacks.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Average Canadian or Liberal? Part Deux
Last month the NDP ran a popular game on their Web site and in their e-newsletters, inviting people to watch the Liberal Party's television commercials and answer the question “Average Canadian, or Liberal insider?” The craze swept the nation, replacing Trivial Pursuit and Parchessi as the game of choice as family and friends gathered together over the holiday season.
(BTW here’s a hint, if it says Liberal next to their name, they might be a Liberal insider. As it does next to Adrienne's name. As an aside I know Adrienne, and I think she's an above-average Canadian. So is her dad.)
Well, it’s baaaaacckkk! In today’s NDP e-newsletter, they invite Canadians to participate in find the Liberal insider, part two!
The Liberals’ first TV ad featured images of everyday people rhyming off reasons why they’d vote Liberal. But those “average Canadian” turned out to be Liberal insiders, staffers and relatives! With even more of these ads airing now, we’re inviting Canadians to join us in playing Round 2 of “Average Canadian or Liberal Insider?”
Play with your friends today! For convenience sake I’ve linked to the latest Liberal ads, shown below. Can YOU spot the Liberal insider masquerading as an average Canadian? Be sure to contact Jack Layton if you know the answer.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
EXCLUSIVE! The missing Gomery terms of reference!
Stephen Harper complained today that Paul Martin excluded polling from the Gomery Commission’s terms of reference: CBC: Tories vow to clean up government polling.
It turns out he had really intended to have Gomery look into government polling, but the paper with that amendment to the bill got lost somewhere between the PMO and the House chamber (faulty paperclip, probably from a Liberal-friendly stationary). My sources in Ottawa have obtained that document, and as a public service I reproduce it here in full.
Appendix B, Gomery Commission Terms of Reference, Part Two
Ten additional areas of investigation having nothing to do with sponsorship at all.
10. Could you look at government polling, especially by my good buddies at Earnscliffe?
9. How much softwood would a woodchuck would chuck, if the Americans weren’t hitting it with punishing illegal duties?
8. Why in the heck did I ever made Jean Lappiere myQuebec lieutenant?
7. Besides pepper, what else does Jean Chretien put on his plate?
6. If we build it, will they come? And what is it? Is it bigger than a breadbox?
5. Who really, really, really killed Kennedy, JonBenet Ramsey and kidnaped the Lindbergh baby? (There’s a bonus if you can pin it on a Chretienite.)
4. Will Warren Kinsella and I ever be able to kiss and make up? I miss our long walks in the Gatineau hills.
3. Why can’t Stephen Harper smile without looking creepy? I mean, what’s up with that?
2. What’s the deal with Jack Layton’s mustache, and has he declared the income from his side job as The Video Professor?
1. And finally, investigate yourself. I’m sure you’ll do something crazy, like spout off to the media mid-inquiry and/or hire a former Brian Mulroney chief of staff as lead counsel, so have a look at that too.
Another Kinsella fib, or just a screw-up?
From Chretien-Liberal Warren Kinsella's blog this morning:
Chuckles: along with a lot of ham-fisted fake TV spots floating around the web, and outed by the sharp-eyed Coyne (I suspect the culprits are the idle fingers of certain war roomers, bored over the holidays)...
Would Warren mean this "fake" TV spot now posted on the CPC Web site?
I also love how it is immediately preceded in the Conservative video lineup by this ad:
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Monday, January 02, 2006
Why not talk Conservative majority?
As political hacks, flacks, junkies and what have you I think we sometimes get so caught-up in the horserace we can't see the forest for the trees.
I had this thought as I read through the Harper majority musing posts and comments across the blogsphere. There has been lots of talk about the amplified and misleading headlines, polling, his need to not show arrogance and show on. I think most agree it's not politically adventurous for Stephen to even say words starting with M. I'd imagine his handlers are now ensuring any upcoming military-related events don't involve anyone holding the rank of Major.
But let’s step back a second from the conventional wisdom and ask why is any majority talk is verboten for Mr. Harper? Because even he knows Canadians aren’t ready to trust him and the Conservatives yet with a five-year mandate. A tethered minority? Sure, he can’t screw things up too bad, they figure. But a majority? They start freaking out. And not the cool, 60s style freak out.
I have to wonder what does that say about the Conservative Party, and about Stephen Harper? The goal of any political party, and certainly the Official Opposition, is to form a majority government. That’s a natural. Newsflash: he'd like to win! Yet despite a nationwide hunger for change, despite the long list of Liberal Party sins, both real and imagined, the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition cannot publicly say the word majority in an election campaign that has him rising in the polls.
Common sense stupidity
Some much has been written this evening in the blogsphere about the new Conservative attack ad that there isn’t much for me to add, except to try to make the point so many Conservatives seem to be missing. This isn’t about going negative, it’s about hypocrisy!
There’s nothing wrong with so-called negative ads that call parties and governments on their records (when done accurately, and this piece is accurate [the ad is right, the Liberals aren’t corrupt J]). When a negative ad goes out of bounds is when it gets personal, like the Conservative ads making fun of Jean Chretien’s facial paralysis in 1993. Attacking the record is fair game, which is why the Liberals shouldn’t let Stephen Harper escape his (firewall around Alberta, Canada a second-tier socialist country, and so on), and attacking the Liberals on theirs is perfectly in bounds.
What galls me about this ad is that it comes mere days after the Conservatives tried to seize the high ground with a negative ad lambasting the Liberals for probably launching a negative campaign at some point in the future, they themselves launch a pure negative ad first! Hypocrisy much? It’s moronic. A reference to cake and the consumption thereof comes to mind.
Prediction: Now, to this criticism my Conservative friends will say “so what, the Liberanos are the devil, gomery-gate, ad scam, golf balls, shawinigate, hrdc, three zillion dollars, gst, conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription, it’s time for a change, stand up for Canada, honk honk.”
Oh, what fun! As I’m writing this, the now infamous ad aired on Sportsnet Pacific (on a side note, come on Canucks, you’re freakin killing me!). Having seen it on TV it’s not as amateurish as it appeared in the clip I saw online. I actually kind of like it, it’s catchy. I’m looking forward to the techno remix. I’ll take the train to Ottawa to be there with DJ Snazzy Stephen Harper plays Zaphod’s. If only to get a shwarma (chicken garlic) at Maroush's afterward.
Edited to add: And why go negative now? I’m not a Political Genius like the boys the war rooms, so could someone please explain the Conservative strategy here to me? The polls show you’re taking the lead and trending higher, with the income trust stuff making 905 Ontario think twice. The MSM are doing your job for you. Why dirty yourselves with a negative ad and risk a backlash, instead of sticking to the policy highroad and letting the media hammer the Liberals on corruption and scandal? I won’t make a Cherniakian-like prediction, but I think this will sway the polls somewhat, and not positively for the CPC.
P.S. Goalie wanted. Apply to Dave Nonis, General Manager, Vancouver Canucks.
I’ve had an epiphany!
At long last our fractured nation can begin to heal, and we can put this fractious same-sex marriage debate behind us. I’ve finally figured it out. No one has explained to Jason Kenny and Stephen Harper that allowing same-sex marriage doesn’t mean they’d have to marry each-other! (Although I think they’d make a very cute couple). Now I understand why the Conservatives have been so upset about this issue, they all thought they’d be legally required to marry dudes. Well, don’t worry guys; the man on man love is purely optional. Let the healing begin.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
