Emerson thinks he'd win???

Is the man really this delusional? I wonder what colour the sky is in David Emerson's world. I mean, yes he's obviously politically stupid but you don't become CEO of a multi-million dollar company without having some brains. His arrogance though is breathtaking. Culture of entitlement, thy name is David Emerson.

So David, you think you could win a by-election. OK then, put your ministerial limo where your mouth is and run in one! Or don't you have the gonads?

That sound you hear is me not holding my breath.

An an aside, from a media management and communications pov, since that is my background, why in the hell is he making these comments now? This thing is (was?) fading off the national radar screen. The storm, other than local protests, had passed. His line when asked should have been "I'm moving on and I'm focused on some files that are very important to my constituents and to Canada. With the Torino games over we're now focusing on Vancouver 2010..."

He really didn't need to open this can of worms back up at all. Unless he's trying to deflect attention from something else (dammit, what is Michael Fortier up to now?).

Can win despite backlash, Emerson says

Globe and Mail Update

Controversial International Trade Minister David Emerson said Monday he thinks he could still win an election as a Conservative despite the continuing furor over his decision to switch teams just weeks after January's election.

"I actually do think I could probably win an election as a Conservative,” Mr. Emerson said, appearing on CTV Newsnet. “The whole issue of whether a by-election or part of the next general election, of course, is a point of some debate."

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dollars for post-secondary education

It's nice to see the Premiers talking about the need for more funding for post secondary education (Premiers push PM for money to boost higher education) and hear that they will be driving this point home during their "entertaining" evening with Stephen Harper.

I just hope, however, that the Premiers are truly serious about boosting post secondary funding and aren't just using this issue as the latest window dressing for their annual extort more money from the feds fundraising drive.

Post secondary education is one of my pet issues so I'm glad to see it being addressed seriously. During the campaign I posted my evaluation of the parties' education platforms, and I talked about how cuts to federal/provincial transfers in the mid-1990s, along with ballooning health care budgets, forced provinces to slash post secondary funding to meet rising health care needs (and offer irresponsible tax cuts, hey Mike Harris!).

That's my concern here. If the feds transfer $X more for post secondary, will the provinces divert $X of their own contribution to post-secondary elsewhere, say to health care? If so, then this exercise would be proven to be just another provincial cash grab with post secondary only used as window dressing. I hope that's not the case.

In the education section of their policy platform, the Conservatives promised the following:

*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.

The Conservatives need to follow through on that promise. Increase post secondary funding, but do it through a dedicated post secondary education transfer and attach strings or extract promises from the provinces that their own funding levels for education will be maintained, so this truly does mean more funding for Canada's universities.

And then the provinces need to get off their duffs and do something about tuition fees.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper: The Entertainer

Had a chuckle when I read this media advisory from the Stephen Harper PMO. He's going to "entertain" the Premiers and Territorial leaders at 24 Sussex Drive. I hope his show is good, because that's one tough crowd. Even Sheila Martin's brownies couldn't win them over.

It should be interesting, beause when I think of Stephen entertainment isn't the first word that comes to mind. I do like Stephen's impressions however. His John McCallum is dead on, but you've got to aim higher that John frickin McCalum man!

I hope he doesn't show slides from his family's vacation last summer to Drumheller, Alberta, the "Dinosaur Capital of Canada" because family vacation slides just aren't entertaining, I don't care what you say. I think there's a piano at 24 Sussex, does Harper play? Maybe they'll have a sing-along. That could be fun, maybe Gordon Campbell could bring his guitar and play Taxman Glen, or Danny Williams could lead the gang in a drunken round of Barrett's Privateers.

Prime Minister Harper to entertain Premiers and Territorial Leaders

February 23, 2006
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will host an informal dinner for the Premiers and Territorial Leaders at 24 Sussex Drive, Friday, February 24 at 5:00 pm (EST). The Premiers and Territorial Leaders are also in Ottawa for activities related to the Council of the Federation. There will be a photo opportunity only of arrivals at the front steps of 24 Sussex Drive.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Prime Minister announces appointment a Royal Commission to investigate the state of hockey in Canada

Prime Minister announces appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the state of hockey in Canada

NEWS RELEASE

February 23, 2006

Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the appointment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the state of the sport of hockey in Canada, to be chaired by Conservative Senator David W. Angus

"The Hon. Mr. Angus played varsity hockey at Princeton University in the late 1950s, giving him a unique insight into the game," says Prime Minister Harper. "Plus, Frank Mahovlich and Ken Dryden are Liberals and they wouldn't cross the floor."

Following the disappointing performance of the Canadian men's hockey team at the Torino Olympic Games, the government feels it is obvious there is a deep rot in hockey in Canada that must be investigated by a Royal Commission. While it doesn't want to prejudge the work of the inquiry, the government feels that clearly this is somehow the fault of the Liberals, and former Prime Minister Paul Martin.

The commission is expected to call former Liberal sports ministers Dennis Coderre and Paul Devilliers, as well as David Here because he probably had something to do with this mess too.

"This commission will not rest until we find the Liberals responsible for this shameful performance," says Mr. Angus. "Wayne Gretzky won't be required to testify, his Uncle Al was a Conservative candidate so he's probably cool."

The commission has been allocated initial funding of $100 million, and is expected to hold hearings across the country and conduct research via corporate boxes at National Hockey League matches accross North America.

A sole-source contract for legal services to a Conservative-friendly law firm will be announced shortly.

Biography of Senator Angus: http://sen.parl.gc.ca/wdangus/biography/bio-e.htm

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A memo to Lawrence Martin

To: Lawrence Martin, columnist, The Globe and Mail
Cc: Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Canada
Re: Your column this morning

Mr. Martin,

Regarding your column this morning "A Conservative Pierre Trudeau is taking charge."

I knew (not really) Pierre Trudeau, I (didn't) work with Pierre Trudeau. Stephen Harper, sir, is no Pierre Trudeau.

P.S. Your ass-kissiness is obvious and nauseating.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Paul Martin lives on in cyberspace

He's (kind of) gone but he's not forgotten. I wonder how long it will take for them to re-register the domain? Will we get billgraham.ca, or maybe we can just forego the personality cult and revert to liberal.ca?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sometimes shoes are just shoes Ms. Kwan

Yesterday was budget day in British Columbia and Liberal finance Minister Carole Taylor, following the tradition of finance ministers wearing a new pair of shoes on budget day, wore "a snappy pair of $600 Guccis" from Holt Renfrew.

Who cares, right? Well, NDP finance critic Jenny Kwan seems to. Kwan seems to be making an issue of Taylor's footwear choice as some kind of grand symbol of the gap between rich and poor in BC, how Gordon Campbell is out of touch with the working people, workers of the world unite, yada yada. Said Ms. Kwan:

"That was her choice," NDP finance critic Jenny Kwan said of the tradition whereby the finance minister wears new shoes when presenting a budget. "But they're also a reflection in terms of the budget related to the shoes. While she can afford Gucci shoes, many British Columbians could not. And the budget should have reflected the government's acknowledgement of how average British Columbians' every-day lives have been hard hit by the government agenda over the last four years....

"I would have hoped the minister of finance might have chosen a pair of shoes that would be more practical for British Columbians, that were longer lasting into the future."

Aren't people always complaining that guys pay too much attention to what female politicians are wearing? This is just as silly. Sometimes shoes are just shoes. It's stupid crap like this that distracts from the real issues. So Jean Chretien took his cabinet from the swearing-in to their first meeting in a bus, or Stephen Harper rented minivans, this is photo-op crap that means nothing. What message would running shoes have sent? Flats? Sandals? For the record though, $600 for shoes, what's up with that? As long as she didn't expense them though, I don't care.

To be clear I don't like the Campbell Liberals, I find them far too conservative for my liking. I also liked the moxie Kwan and Joy McPhail showed as a two-person opposition for four years. But there's plenty to attack the BC Liberals about on their record without resorting to superficial crap like this that makes you look silly.

Taylor's shoes lack soul, Kwan charges
$600 Guccis send wrong signal, party says
Miro Cernetig, Vancouver Sun
Published: Wednesday, February 22, 2006

VICTORIA -- Finance Minister Carole Taylor's defence of her shoes she wore to Tuesday's budget -- a snappy pair of $600 Guccis -- won applause from the peanut gallery of special interests and financial analysts at the back of the briefing room.

But the New Democratic Party saw those Guccis, picked up at Holt Renfrew, as emblematic of a budget and minister out of touch with British Columbians not prospering quite as much in the economic current boom.

(more)

Finance minister faces questions over $600 'budget day shoes'
Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, February 21, 2006

VICTORIA -- Despite the stylish shoes, Carole Taylor portrayed herself as a cost conscious shopper in presenting her first full budget Tuesday as B.C.'s finance minister.
"I believe strongly in infrastructure investment,'' joked Taylor, former chairwoman of the CBC who was first elected to the legislature last May. "My shoes are amortized over 20 years.''

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cheney's got a gun

The parodies have been numerous but this one at Tooned In (via Salon) is particulaly amusing with new lyrics to the Aerosmith classic and animation a la Loony Toons. Cheney as Elmer Fudd? Hi-larious.

Enjoy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Court nominee to face fire? Not likely

Lots of newspaper headlines and TV reports last night and today about how Stephen Harper's nominee for the Supreme Court will be facing a grilling from an ad hoc, all party committee of Parliamentarians on Monday. The reality though? Not so much.

Where does the nominee stand on abortion? Same-sex marriage? The right to privacy? Sorry, but there's another piece of the U.S. model we're adopting: no litmus tests. Said Harper's Justice Minister, the Hon. Vic "has a record" Toews, on CBC's Politics broadcast yesterday:

"It would be inappropriate for a committee member to ask about how a judge would rule in future cases, for example, because that would prejudice litigants, either before the courts or litigants who may want to bring matters before the courts."

Fair enough Vic, so what could the nominee be asked about then…

"There are background questions that the committee members could ask..."

So nothing on issues that might come before the court. As a public service to the committee here's a few questions acceptable within the Conservative guidelines:

Would you describe yourself as goal-driven?

What do you expect to be doing in five years?

Why did you decide to seek a position in this company Supreme Court?

What kind of supervisor do you work best for? Provide examples.

Describe a situation where you found yourself dealing with someone who didn't like you. How did you handle it?

What is the biggest mistake you've made?

Valuable insight to be gained here for sure. I can see what Toews is saying to a point, but if blindingly relevant questions are out of bounds then why are we wasting our time?

The answer is this dog and pony show is a public relations exercise, nothing more. Combine the out of bounds questioning with the fact the committee has no veto, and won't even take a vote to make a recommendation, and this is even more obvious.

I don't know what the right system would be. I don't want an American-style politicization of the appointment system but this is an awful lot of power to be invested in the hands of the Prime Minister (you mean a Conservative one, don't you? -inner snark). But a toothless, meaningless committee hearing is just a waste of time.

It does, however, make people forget about David Emerson and Michael Fortier for a little while though so hey, nice work there.

UPDATE

Nice piece in Politics Watch on Toews' flip-floppery on the appointments process: Vic Toews then and now.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Brison is hitting the campaign trail

Unless I missed a memo Scott Brison hasn't declared himself a Liberal leadership candidate yet, but it looks like he'll be hitting the campaign trail in British Columbia Wednesday.

Sean Holman at Public Eye Online reports that B.C. Liberal power couple Mark Marrisen (Paul Martin's B.C. lieutenant/enforcer) and Christy Clark (former provincial deputy Premier) will be hosting a reception for Brison at their home Wednesday. The note makes clear the couple aren't endorsing Brison, and there will be more repceptions to come.

The leaked e-mail and more are here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Lapierre leaving, dare we dream?

It's only rumour at this point, meriting just one sentence in the requisite weekly Hill Times story today about Liberal leadership speculation (new name this week: Dominic LeBlanc). Still, I can hope, can't I?

Moreover, there are rumblings about whether or not Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Que.) will want to stick it out in this Parliament.

Maybe Jean and David Emerson could share a ride to the airport?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's about ideas, stupid

With apologies to James Carville, but this time it really is (I hope) going to be about ideas.

The chattering classes, the reactionaries on the right and even the nervous nellies within the Liberal Party (apologies to the other JC this time) have made much of the number of high profile names opting out of the Liberal leadership race. I, for one, couldn’t be happier.

As I’ve blogged in the past the Liberal Party is in need of renewal. We’ve lost our ideological compass. We won’t find it again overnight. What we need is a wide-open leadership race with a range of intelligent, competent, and impressive candidates bringing new and different ideas to the debating table.

The last thing we need is a coronation. And if Frank McKenna, and to a lesser degree John Manley or even Brian Tobin had run that could well have been what we’d be in for. With the Harper minority off to a shaky start the pressure would have been incredible to push aside the also-rans and get behind the frontrunner, get them in place quickly, slap together a few issues and bring down the government as soon as possible.

That would have been the worst possible thing for the Liberal Party. The world isn’t going to end in the next 18 months. Harper is limited in what he can do, and if he makes the mistake of thinking we’ll swallow anything to avoid an election leader or no leaderwe’ll make him pay dearly for his arrogance, or rather the Canadian people will.

But I’m excited. There is no frontrunner. No easy choice. No clear winner. But there are serious, credible people looking to run, people that will bring ideas and vision and passion to the debate. It's going to be fun, and I can't wait.

As I think Carville would say, it’s about ideas, stupid.

Excellent column Friday by Adam Radwanski in the National Post. He gets it.

For once: a battle of ideas
Adam Radwanski, National Post
Published: Friday, February 17, 2006

Those who haven't worked in politics tend to assume it's at its ugliest during election campaigns. They're wrong. By far the most vicious, hard-nosed, bare-knuckle politics happens during leadership campaigns.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The CRTC is getting uppity

The Conservatives have talked for years about reforming or doing away with the CRTC, and here's one place Stephen Harper and his Heritage Minister, Bev Oda, may want to start.

I certainly don't like what I see here. Basically, the CRTC is unilaterally funneling $625.7 million that should be refunded to Canadian telephone customers toward expansion of broadband Internet services to remote communities because the unelected poobahs of the CRTC think that's a better use of the money. The money came from a CRTC mandated overbilling of Canadians to facilitate greater competition in the industry.

Expanding broadband Internet access to rural communities is important, and as I recall it was one of Brian Tobin's pet projects as Industry Minister, but when did it become the CRTC's mandate to set innovation and infrastructure policy, not to mention allocate hundreds of millions in funding? If I'm not mistaken, that's still Parliament's job.

If the government wants to fund rural broadband Internet expansion it should include it in its next budget, and the telcos should write a cheque to their customers to refund the over billing. The CRTC falls under the Heritage Minister, who, I'm pretty sure, can overrule this decision.

So Bev, whadya say?

CRTC decision sparks outrage
No refunds for consumers overbilled by $652 million
By: Rosie Lombardi
IT World Canada (17 Feb 2006)

Consumer advocacy groups are outraged at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's (CRTC) decision, announced yesterday, to funnel $652.7 million resulting from deliberate overbillings of telephone customers to expansion of broadband services instead of refunding the money.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

"The charter helps only murderers, pedophiles and judges": Stockwell Day's senior advisor

Public Eye Online has the scoop on Scott Newark, the new senior policy advisor to Stockwell Day, Canada’s new Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. The Cons have been having a hard time finding senior staff, so he must be quite a catch.

When he was executive director of the Canadian Police Association in January 1998 he was quoted by Alberta Report in an essay entitled “The makings of a counter-revolution.” Here’s a few of his quotes, via Conservativeforum.org:

Anything effective in law enforcement will inevitably be forbidden under the Charter [the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]. As we always say, the charter helps only murderers, pedophiles and judges. This year the Supreme Court decreed, on the authority of the Charter, that the provinces must give their judges pay raises.

[Judicial activism and judge-made law] What we have now in Canada is a supposedly enlightened despotism--rule by people who think they know so much better than everybody else. Well, no thanks. I'm in favour of anything that brings [judges] back under the rule of law--public reviews of candidates, public petitions to force performance reviews of sitting judges, and Section 33 [the "notwithstanding clause"]--every time they do something crazy.

Here’s some more words of wisdom from Mr. Newark, who as also an Alberta crown attorney and held a senior security position in the Mike Harris government.

"The linkage between human rights violations and not selling arms is typically wrongheaded to begin with," stated Scott Newark, a Canadian security commentator. “Let's face it, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and the Sudan are no doubt nasty places but we really don't need to be that worried about what they might get up to with French fighter jets or German submarines.”

--Jan. 29, 2004, Newsmax.com

Sounds like just the guy to be providing policy advice to the Minister of Public Safety. I feel safer already.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stupid comment of the day award: Roy McGregor

In an article in USA Today yesterday on Wayne Gretzky and the betting scandal (which by the way has been getting major (sports) media play down in the States), veteran Globe and Mail columnist Roy McGregor offered this comment on the situation:

"This is the Danish cartoon of Canadian sports," said columnist Roy McGregor of The Globe and Mail.

Now McGregor is a respected veteran journalist and I don't know him but people I know and respect that do know him say he's a stand-up guy. And I have been out of the country for a few days, so is it possible I missed a massive uprising of irate hockey fans across the country taking to the streets in protest and burning down arenas?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I hope this post doesn't annoy you…

I'm safely back home in the true North strong and free. Breezed through customs last night so I guess my worries about the new regime not letting me back into the country were unfounded. Or maybe they've just been too busy abandoning campaign promises. It's one of the two.

Anyway, I was reading my gratis hotel copy of USA Today on the plane and came across this article that I found very interesting, and I think could have very interesting implications for the blogging world. Not us here in Canada yet, but still food for thought.

Cyberstalking law opens debate on what's annoying
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — It didn't get much publicity, but an anti-stalking bill passed by Congress recently makes it a federal crime to "annoy" someone over the Internet.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Watch the Left...

There’s been some talk about the relevance of the NDP today by some of the Progressive Bloggers and I wanted to expand on my thoughts a bit rather than trying to condense it into a comment.

Say what you will about Jack Layton but he's no dummy. Jack dreams of making the Liberals irrelevant and being the party of the centre to the left, opposing the Cons to the centre right. A two (national) party system.
The Liberals have shifted rightward in some respects in recent years and have been adrift on other issues for a variety of reasons. Nobody knows what we stand for anymore, and so people looking for a party that reflects their views and values are looking elsewhere.

The Cons are trying to make the Liberals irrelevant from the right by moving to the centre on policy, presenting themselves (before the election, anyway) as the Liberals minus the stuff you don't like. Jack has been playing a similar game from the left, striking a more fiscally cautious tone and moderating in some areas to appeal more to the centre (where most Canadians are), and presenting the NDP, not the Libs, as the party to keep the Cons honest.

While the Cons are in government the real danger long-term to the Liberals is from the NDP on the left. I think the Liberals need to move leftward on the policy front, and use this time of renewal to develop some real, substantive policies that our party and our caucus can get behind.

I think we need to do something a little radical on the policy front, poach something from the NDP and get behind it as a policy we will implement. Maybe it’s electoral reform. I was on the fence about the Single Transferable Vote (STV) referendum in B.C. last May, mainly because I think the proponents didn’t do a very good job of explaining it. But I think its time has come. Support for electoral reform is growing across Canada, and will only keep growing. Incidents like L’affaire Emerson and the rage it has generated only serve to fuel the desire for change.

The establishment, natural governing Liberal Party implementing a system that would make it far more difficult for it to form a majority government? Crazy, I know, but that’s what I meant by radical. I think we could do it though. After all, only Nixon could go to China.

And to close the circle, how would this help us fend off the NDP? They can promise electoral reform, but they’re not going to form a government. The Liberals can, and that may move much of their electoral reform-supporting vote over to us.

I’m not sure if electoral reform is THE issue, and frankly it’s not as simple as cherry picking an issue from the NDP. Before we can do anything we need to decide who we are as a party and what we want to be, and that goes deeper than individual issues. It’s about philosophy and outlook. The basics.

If Stephen Harper gets the ship of state back on track, and I don’t doubt for a second that he will, and manages to go from now to the next election casting himself as a competent, prudent, and not scarily Conservative manager, people will find it a lot easier to vote NDP in the next election and the stop Harper Liberal strategy of strategic voting (which shifted seats to the Libs from the NDP) won’t work anymore.

Strategic voting isn’t an electoral strategy. Neither is bad mouthing our opponents or questioning why they exist. We need to give people reasons TO VOTE Liberal, not just give people reasons NOT TO vote NDP or Conservative.

My point is this: don’t obsess with the Conservatives, for the real threat to the Liberal Party is the NDP.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Isn’t Florida supposed to be warm?

I flew down to Miami yesterday for a work-related conference (business process management software, terribly exciting stuff), so blogging will be less regular over the next few days. Unless I go clubbing with J-Lo or get shot by Jeb Bush, in which case I’ll post a full report.

It’s my first time in the Sunshine state and so far I have to say it’s frickin cold! I’m stuck actually attending the sessions instead of lounging by the pool, because they’re calling for a high of 13c today and a low of 4c.

Now, I know I shouldn’t complain, as I’m informed it’s currently snowing and –12 with the wind chill back in Toronto. But still, this is Florida! The chill was the lead story on the local newscasts last night and while they’re not calling out the army yet it is being treated like a calamity. They even devoted a segment to the proper use of space heaters.

I’m hoping it will warm-up before I head home but it’s not looking good, so I guess it’s lots of talk about solutions, synergies and scalability for me. The resort, at least, is very nice. I’ll be back in Toronto Wednesday night, assuming the Conservatives haven’t put me on a watch list and allow me back into the country.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Meet Bizarro Stephen

After the success of the Mr. Dithers moniker it has become clear one of the most important tasks an opposition party faces is coming-up with a suitable nickname for the Prime Minister. After this past week under PM Stephen Harper I think I may have it: Bizarro Stephen.

If you’re drawing a blank you must not be a Seinfeld fan. In one of the more memorable episodes of the show’s long run. Elaine meets a group of people that are the exact opposite of her usual group of friends. There’s a Bizarro Jerry, George, Kramer, and even a Newman (whom they actually like), all with mirror opposite personalities and behaviour, but remarkably similar physical appearance, mannerisms, and so on.

Here’s a snippet from the script, a conversation between Elaine and Jerry discussing her discovery.

"He's reliable. He's considerate. He's like your exact opposite."
"So he's Bizarro Jerry."
"Bizarro Jerry?"
"Yeah, like Bizarro Superman, Superman's exact opposite, who lives in the backwards Bizarro world. Up is down, down is up, he says hello when he leaves, goodbye when he arrives."
"Shouldn't he say badbye? Isn't that the opposite of goodbye?"
"No, it's still goodbye."
"Does he live underwater?"
"No."
"Is he black?"
"Look, just forget the whole thing.”

What better name could there be for our new PM after his first week on the job then Bizarro Stephen? The contrast between campaign-Stephen and PM-Stephen has been remarkable. The change has been well documented, from floor crossing and the Senate to lobbying and free votes but not free speech, so I needn’t belabour it here.

Instead, I’ll just ask “What’s the deal Stephen? Whaaaat’s the deal?”

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Another Con blogger bites the dust

First Monte left the blogsphere behind, which given his new ministerial responsibilities is probably a pretty good idea, although he will be missed. Now it seems his blogging comrade James Moore has also logged-off.

His final post was actually Wednesday but I just noticed it today and haven't heard it mentioned elsewhere. Here's his last entry:

February 8/2006
I'm afraid, like my friend Monte, this will be the final posting on my blog. I have always been of the view that if you cannot do something with all your intensity and commitment, don't do it. As a result, this blog is going to be a casualty of my new responsibilities and my prioritizing of my spare time. I have really enjoyed blogging, may return some point, but for now.... bonsoir.

Like Monte's decision, this is probably a good one for James too. Although he doesn't have ministerial responsibilities like Monte...scratch that....altough he doesn't have a ministerial title like Monte, as Parliamentary Secretary to an unappointed Quebec party bagman running the most patronage-prone ministry in government I suspect James is going to be mighty busy putting out brushfires in the House of Commons. While we won't have his blog entries, we will have lots of him on his feet in QP, so it's not all bad.

It's probably for the best though, because I don't know how he could have topped this pre-cabinet selection post:

February 5/2006
A few words seared into my brain that I've been saying for about 2 weeks now: "Mr. Harper will announce his cabinet on Monday. I have nothing more to say." Where is Superman when you need him to spin the globe a little faster so Monday arrives sooner?

Poor kid. Where is Superman indeed. Yes, where is Superman indeed.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hey Harper, get your hands out of my pocket!

I’m reminded of those ****** annoying hands in my pocket commercials right now because it was payday today, for the third time in this New Year.

Usually it's a happy day (I like to treat myself to a McDonald's breakfast buritto breakfast on paydays, yum) , but my joy was tempered when I remembered something from the campaign that had been drown-out amidst the din of beer and popcorn, promises of elected Senators and promises that you need to be elected to sit in a Stephen Harper cabinet: the Conservatives are going to raise our taxes!

But they’re going to cut the dreaded GST, you say, by a whole one per cent! And another one per cent if we behave and give them that majority they want! Quite true. But buried in the fine print was how they were going to pay for it: by canceling tax cuts made by the Liberal government. Or, to describe it more accurately, by raising personal income taxes.

I’ll allow Rick Bell, of all things a Calgary Sun columnist, to explain it:

In November of last year, before the election, the Liberals brought in a one percent reduction to the lowest tax rate. For the first $36,378 of our taxable income, the rate goes down from 16% to 15%. The Grits made the move retroactive to Jan. 1, 2005. By the year 2010, the next two tax rates on incomes higher up the food chain also go down a point.

In addition, the basic amount you can make before forking over anything to the feds is raised by $500 a year.

Harper has said he will allow the new rates for 2005 but will scrap them this year. Nixing the reduction means the 2005 rate of 15% will be-come the 2006 rate of 16% and the personal exemption before you pay taxes will go down $400.

That, dear friends, is a tax increase.

You bet it is Rick. This fiscal stuff can be dry though, which is why the media and politicians like to use examples to help people relate (Billy-Bob and Suzy-May have three children…). I don’t have a crack research staff at my disposal, so I’ll use myself as an example.

Since the beginning of the year, the Liberal tax cut has saved me $16.79 every paycheck (every two weeks). This being the third pay period, that’s an extra $50.37 in my pocket. And no, Scott Reid, I’m actually saving it. Over the course of the year that would be an extra $430 or so in my pocket. To me, that’s real money. Except the Harper Conservatives want to raise my taxes, and take that money away.

Now I’m not a tax lawyer or a mathematician, so correct me if I’m wrong, but here’s how I read this. The Liberals made the tax cut retroactive to 2005, but those with taxes deducted from their pay had it deducted at the higher rate. Therefore, nice refund this April for the overpayment. Score!

However, now that we're in 2006 our taxes are being deducted at the lower, Liberal rate. But Harper has said, while he’s letting the 2005 reduction stand (ain’t he a peach?) for 2006 it’s back to the higher rate. Therefore, when he pulls the trigger on that tax hike my paycheque will go down by $16.79.

Let’s say, being optimistic, he gets this passed April 15. At that point, my Liberal tax cut savings will be $117.53. That's nearly $120 cash in my pocket, if I haven't blown it on Cabarnet and Camembert yet. But I shouldn’t have been paying that lower rate for the past three-and-a-half months. So, if I read this right, Harper will be clawing back that $117.53 on my 2006 tax return, in addition to cutting my pay by $16.79 every two weeks from April 15th on.

Still, we'll have a one per cent lower GST though. Here’s a fun little challenge:

1. Save your receipts for two weeks, and add up how much you pay in GST.
2. Calculate how much you’d have saved with a one per cent lower GST.
3. Compare it to how much the tax deducted from your pay every two weeks has decreased. Which number is bigger?
   

And I’m on to you Michael Fortier! If you go out and buy a plasma screen TV this week to watch Question Period on be sure you divide the cost out over 12 months. No skewing the statistics, we’re looking for an average here. I’m willing to bet the average Canadian will be saving more on their income tax than they would with the GST cut.

Not to mention the fact a million and one economists will tell you income tax reductions are far more fair and desirable than consumption tax reductions. But don't just take my word for it.

"If you want tax cuts that are going to promote work, going to promote saving, help us invest more and raise living standards in the future, the GST is not the tax you would go after."

-- CD Howe Institute

And Jim Davies, an economics professor at the University of Western Ontario, puts it even more succintly. Here's how he described the Conservative plan.

"Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid."

-- Jim Davies, UWO

I could see three stupids, but when he pulls out the fourth you know he's serious. Why, even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (well known Liberal stooges, I know) thinks raising the income tax is a bad idea (shocking, I know). The CTF wants the lower income taxes AND the GST cut! Go big or go home, I guess. Sayeth the CTF:

The Conservatives say they plan to increase the lowest income tax rate from 15 per cent to 16 per cent. Such a change will incur the wrath of taxpayers and peg Mr. Harper as a tax hiker.

I’m not sure how we could afford to do both, although it would fit in with the conservative making government small enough to drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub mantra.

I do know one thing though, and that’s I don’t want to give Stephen Harper $430.

Stephen, keep your hands out of my pocket!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Says the ref: Turner a touchdown, Fortier a fumble. Says I: Turner for speaker!

Public relations firm Veritas Canada sends out a weekly e-mail called Touchdowns & Fumbles reviewing recent news events and judging how the principals performed from a communications and public relations perspective.

I’m sure they were expecting the political entries to lessen with the campaign over, but it would be impossible to overlook this week in political communications. They’ve chosen to dissect two events: Michael Fortier’s disdain for democracy and Garth Turner’s commitment to it.

Fortier is obvious but I don’t think I totally agree on Turner, in the sense I don’t see Stephen Harper bringing Turner into cabinet a la Chris Stockwell to shut him up. Maybe his colleagues will elect him speaker, as a (not so) silent protest (it's a secret ballot, right?). Or maybe the Liberals, NDP and BQ will. Hey, there’s an idea. Turner for speaker! Would that ever piss off Harper!

Anyway, here's what Veritas has to say. The full newsletter is available here.

FUMBLE:

Newly Appointed Fortier Says He Didn’t Want to Run for Office

Michael Fortier, the new Conservative government Public Works Minister, is an amazingly talented guy. I’ve met him. He’s brilliant. He has had a remarkable private sector career to show for it. But he may still have a few things to learn about communications in politics. As questions were raised about the Conservative Quebec organizer being suddenly appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Stephen Harper – remember, the Reform wing of the Conservative party long lobbied for an elected, democratic Senate – so that Fortier could sit in cabinet, the new minister’s comments to reporters didn’t help matters. "I didn't run in the election because I didn't want to run in the election," Fortier said. The essence of a parliamentary democracy in Canada is based on individuals being elected as Members of Parliament and the party electing the most members forming a government. Fortier didn’t pass that democratic test, because, as he admits, he didn’t want to take it. Had the Conservatives lost, Fortier would have continued his lucrative private sector law career. "I had a great career, five young kids, and so it wasn't the right situation for me to run when the election came around. That's just the simple truth," he said. But it does strike many as a tad opportunistic to say that since the Conservatives did form a government, Fortier found acceptable the personal sacrifice of joining cabinet so long as he didn’t need to go through the sometimes messy electoral process. There was better messaging for Fortier to stick to, namely that he planned to run in the next election or a by-election should one occur; and that during the election campaign all his time and energies were focused on the Conservative party breakthrough in Quebec. Later, he did admit: "It would be wise of me to start looking (for a constituency) soon.” But his initial comments were a Fumble.

TOUCHDOWN:

Garth Turner’s Vermin-Infested Dank Basement

Newly elected Halton Conservative MP Garth Turner most certainly wouldn’t receive a communications Touchdown from his own government or political party, but he gets one from us this week. Turner made some comments earlier this week about David Emerson, who was elected in Vancouver as a Liberal, but switched to the Conservatives to joined Harper’s cabinet. "Anybody who switches parties should go back to the people. To do otherwise is to place politicians above the people when, actually, it's the other way around," Turner said. Then, he commented in his online blog about a dressing down from several party officials and even Harper himself. "If you would like a course on how not to be popular in Ottawa, then take a seat... after today I'm expecting the Whip will be assigning me a renovated washroom somewhere in a forgotten corner of a vermin-infested dank basement in Ottawa. That should go well with my seat in the House of Commons that will be visible only during lunar eclipses." Keep in mind, Turner is strategically addressing his brand as an outspoken maverick, one honed over years as a newspaper columnist and TV and radio commentator. The Tories knew what they were getting when Turner became a candidate. In most governments there are mavericks who criticize their own regime. Some say they can even be useful to the government. Mike Harris had Chris Stockwell, and Brian Mulroney had Alan Redway. Sometimes these mavericks eventually become such a pain that they themselves are elevated to cabinet (as both Stockwell and Redway were). So in terms of his own brand and his own positioning in the new Ottawa, Turner scored a Touchdown.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservative candidate was ready to drop-out of election for Emerson

Maybe I should start reading those free commuter mags on my way into work in the morning, as it seems like they're doing some real journalism. The Vancouver edition of 24 Hours (via Dan Cook) has this piece this morning with a revelation I haven't seen elsewhere: the Conservative candidate running against David Emerson in Vancouver-Kingsway was ready to drop-out of the race even before the campaign began to let Emerson run under the Conservative banner.

This raises all kinds of questions. For one, when did the talks of Emerson jumping ship really begin? Was it during, or even before the campaign? Was his involvement in holding-up a softwood lumber deal part of his jumping to the Conservatives? Was he talking with the Conservatives before he accepted the money the Liberal riding association transferred to his campaign? I could go on further but I would be accused of veering into tinfoil hat territory, but as more revelations like this come to mind, maybe it wouldn't be too far out there after all.

Um David, you really need to have that press conference today, and maybe show-up this time. And since both you and the media are both right there in Ottawa, why not do it in person? The National Press Building right across the street from Parliament has a lovely theatre for just this sort of thing. Microphones, cameras, chairs, the whole nine yards. Or, for a more intimate setting, there's the Charles Lynch press theatre right in the basement of the Centre Block. I'd be happy to provide directions if needed, just let me know.

Tory had plan to assist Emerson

By IRWIN LOY, 24 HOURS

Vancouver Kingsway Conservative Kanman Wong says he had a backup plan to step aside for controversial new cabinet minister David Emerson - long before January's election.

"That was my plan. I heard lots of rumours that Mr. Emerson wasn't happy with the Liberal party long before the election," Wong said in an interview yesterday. "If one day Mr. Emerson prepared to cross the floor I was ready to step aside for him."

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's no big deal in the business world...

...um yeah, not so much. The Globe's business section today weighs into the Emerson affair with a piece on the differences between the political world and the business world. It's actually a very interesting read.

I'll have to blame the headline writers though for misleading and false headline though: "Switching teams: No big deal in business, but Emerson learns politics is different" because I knew one of the writers, Simon Tuck, when I was a technology reporter in Ottawa. He's a smart guy, so I know he'd remember this story, which after all wasn't that long ago. And it's only one of the more high profile, recent examples...

Microsoft wins first round of Google employee lawsuit

By: Matthew Broersma
Techworld.com (02 Aug 2005)

Microsoft has won the first round in its legal action against Google, with a restraining order that prevents a former Microsoft employee from engaging in competing work at the search company.

The ruling came from King County Superior Court in Seattle on Thursday and represents an initial, if small, win for Microsoft. The software company is suing to prevent Dr Kai-Fu Lee from taking work with Google that would compete with Microsoft's search engine strategy in China.

(more)

On an unrelated note, it's my birthday today and I don't know how Bourque knew but with a link to this post on his site last night I woke up to a smoking counter this morning. So merci Pierre, and bonjour to the nearly 1300+ Bourque.com readers who have visited my humble blog so far today. Really though, I was just linking to a post from Sean Hollman at Public Eye Online, it was his scoop.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

History lessons for separatists, part deux

Just getting around to watching today’s Politics broadcast and they had their weekly panel of party communications directors discussing, what else, L’Affraire Emerson.

No surprises (other than that William Stairs needs to do something about that 5 O’clock mustache shadow*), but my ears did perk-up and my lips curl into a smile when I heard this comment from the Bloc Quebecois representative, Claude St. Hilaire.

I think Mr. Emerson should do what Mrs. Copps (did). He should resign, and have the courage to run again and ask his people (if) they want him as a Tory or as a Liberal.

Hey, I don’t disagree with you Claude. However, you may want to educate to educate yourself on the history of the party you speak for…

The Bloc Québécois was started in 1990 as an informal coalition of Progressive Conservative and Liberal MPs from Quebec, who left their original parties around the time of the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord. The party was initially intended to be temporary and was given the goal of the promotion of sovereignty at the federal level. The party aimed to disband following a successful referendum on sovereignty. The term "temporary ad hoc rainbow coalition" is now used by the Liberal Party of Canada to refer to the group of MPs who founded the Bloc Québécois, primarily in reference to Jean Lapierre, who was once part of that group but has since renounced separatism and rejoined the Liberals under Paul Martin.

The initial coalition that led to the Bloc was led by Lucien Bouchard, who had been federal Minister of the Environment until he was fired by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (as pointed out in The Secret Mulroney Tapes). He was joined by several of his fellow Tories, such as Nic Leblanc, Louis Plamondon, Benoît Tremblay, Gilbert Chartrand and François Gérin, along with several Liberals, notably Gilles Rocheleau and Lapierre. The first Bloquiste candidate to be elected was Gilles Duceppe, then a union organizer, in a by-election for the Montreal riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie on August 13, 1990. He ran as an independent, since the Bloc had not been registered as a federal party yet.

History lessons for separtists, part un

* In fairness to William, I laughed hard at this line:

"The Liberals have been cherrypicking people for years and nobody is ever going to go to the NDP so they don't have to worry about this..."

Ouch, that's a wicked burn. Sweet!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A preview of day five of the one day Emerson story

Globe and Mail blogger Dan Cook reports the Hon. David "be nice to me please, I can't take a punch" Emerson will lower himself and speak to the unwashed media horde this afternoon, in time for the evening news and newspaper deadlines. It's a conference call though, so no weepy pictures for the cameras.

"International Trade Minister and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics David L. Emerson will be available for a conference call with representatives of the media at 4:30 p.m. today."

Any bets what most of the questions will be about?

In other news, at least one CPC MP has come out of his shell today and found his spine by speaking on the record about Emersongate (ok that doesn't work, I'll keep brainstorming) AND still say what he was saying mere weeks ago, and dammed if it isn't Garth Turner:

“I said during the campaign that I think anyone who crosses the floor ultimately should go back to the people for ratification and I stick by it,” Ontario Conservative Garth Turner told reporters in Ottawa.

I'm no fan of Garth Turner, but good on him for sticking to his principles. And I'm sure the fact he wasn't on this list, or even this one, has nothing to do with his frankness. Nothing at all.

Nor does her name being on one of those lists have anything at all to do with this:

Conservative Revenue Minister Carol Skelton, who in the last session introduced a motion to restrict the practice of party-switching, told reporters she does not plan to renew the call when the House resumes.

“That was last year,” she said. “We talked about it, and I decided not to proceed with it. It's one of those matters that is debatable.”

I can't add a thing to that. Bravo Carol.

UPDATE

Remember that Emerson media conference call scheduled for 4:30 pm est? Dan Cook dialed-in. Here's his report:

Update 4:52 p.m. EST: Still on hold.
Update 4:54 p.m. EST: Operator announces Minister Emerson has been caught in traffic; the conference call has been cancelled. Guess they don't have cell phones in limousines.

Oh well, maybe tomorrow. I don't think this story is going away...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Did Emerson and the PMO block a softwood deal?

Well, things just keep getting more and more interesting. The Toronto Star reports this morning that, in a nut shell, there was a deal to be had with the U.S. to settle the softwood dispute before the election but David Emerson and the Paul Martin PMO put it on hold for political reasons.

Wow. I don't know where to start with this. I'll proceed on the basis this report is true. If so, no one comes out of this looking good.

...Emerson was instrumental in delaying a breakthrough in the decades-old … the former Liberal industry minister worried that a pre-election announcement would damage Liberal prospects in key British Columbia ridings.

So, I guess the line that Emerson was an independent, non-partisan kind of a guy doesn't quite hold water, now does it?

They say the B.C. government and its powerful forestry industry only lost interest in the plan after meetings with Emerson.

Paging Gordon Campbell to the white courtesy phone, Gordon Campbell. Gordo, you got some 'splainnin to do.

...along with concerns in Paul Martin's office that a pre-election deal would stop the then-prime minister from using George W. Bush as a campaign punching bag, convinced Liberals to delay formal negotiations at least until after the January election.

Oh that's just freaking genius guys. Whose bright idea was this? Marrisen? Cunningham? Beaton? Yeah, let's put off settling a dispute that has cost thousands of jobs and devastated coastal B.C. so Martin could paint the Americans as bogeymen. Morons.

But for reasons Liberals now blame on Emerson, it stepped back from a deal that now falls into Stephen Harper's lap.

Emerson comes out of this looking like shit, and I'm far from letting him off the hook. But I am more pissed-off with Paul Martin, his PMO, and whomever else in the Vancouver MRO that went along with this asinine decision.

According to the sources, Emerson, a former top lumber executive, also warned that some companies could object to the higher stumpage fees.

This puts the conflict of interest allegations around his letter of recusal into a new light. He shouldn't have been involvd in this. One of those forest companies that could object? Canfor. The company Emerson was supposed to be recused from issues involving? Canfor. The company he's the former president and CEO of? Canfor. The company with a direct financial interest in the stumpage fee question? Canfor. The company Emerson still has financial links to, which is why he had recused himself? Canfor.

It's not clear if or when Conservatives learned about the advanced softwood talks. What is known is that the small circle of those aware of the backroom discussions expanded during the final campaign weeks…So less than 24 hours after the election, Emerson and Conservative campaign co-chairman John Reynolds were discussing the defection…

Wow, what a story. Emerson comes out of this with his credibility and integrity torn to shreds. Mr. Non-partisan held-up a settlement for a) political considerations, and because b) his old friends at Canfor might not like it. It's a file he publicly recused himself from. And when exactly did he start talking about moving to the Conservatives, and what role did his holding-up the deal play?

I also find it amazing/surprising the Liberals would leak this as some kind of smoking gun, because they come out of this looking like absolute idiots, buffoons and worse. As I said, they held up a vitally important trade deal to settle a dispute that has devastated coastal B.C., and also impacted Northern Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes so they could play the U.S. bogeyman card for votes in Ontario (Toronto).

As you can guess I'm a British Columbian, from an area economically impacted by this dispute, and this pisses me off big time. I want names. Who was involved? Are they still working in Ottawa? This is bullshit. Politics is politics, but when you're in government that's a trust with the people of Canada. They've betrayed that trust.

Emerson blocked deal on softwood: Liberals
Feb. 9, 2006. 04:52 AM
JAMES TRAVERS
NATIONAL AFFAIRS COLUMNIST

OTTAWA—Here's the plot of a real-life political thriller: David Emerson defected to the Conservatives this week carrying a multi-billion dollar softwood lumber deal that Liberals, for political reasons, didn't finalize before the federal election.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Emerson the softwood saviour? Yeah, not so much

From Politics Watch via Coyne. You know how Liberal traitor David Emerson joined the Conservative cabinet to solve the softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. and save Canada? Well, not so fast.

Turns out the former president and CEO of Canfor Corp., Canada's largest forestry companies, signed a public decleration of recusal in November 2004 with the ethics commissioner forbidding him from being involved in matters that directly involve Canfor. And Canfor is specifically named by the U.S.'s anti-dumping case at the heart of the dispute. So yeah, the softwood dispute involves Canfor.

"In order to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest situation from arising, I have undertaken, in the exercise of my duties and responsibilities to abstain from any participation in discussions or decision-making processes involving direct dealings with Canfor Corporation, its subsidiaries and affiliates."

- Emerson's letter

Maybe Harper could have found out about the letter if he'd returned the ethics commissioner's phone calls?

Well, so much for that idea Stephen. And no, we don't want him back in our caucus. Jack Layton, I'm looking at you....balance of power....whadya say?

Softwood may be too hot to handle for Emerson

by Romeo St. Martin
[PoliticsWatch Updated 5:00 p.m. February 8, 2006]

OTTAWA — Questions are being raised about whether David Emerson, the newly appointed Trade Minister will be able to work on the softwood lumber file, the most pressing file in his department.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hey, if it's good enough for Bushie...

Many Conservatives don't seem to see anything wrong with making a former lobbyist for the defence industry your defence minister.

Going from government to lobbying, das ist verbotten! But from lobbying to government? Alles gut. Warum nicht?

Sorry, back to English. I guess they figured it worked out so well for George W. Bush, so why not give it a try?

Courtesy Al Franken and his book Lying Liars...

In charge of

Name	Position	Previously lobbied for polluters of	In charge of
Mark Rey	Undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment	Forests	Forests
Bennett W. Raley	Interior Assistant Secretary for Water and Science	Water	Water
Rebecca Watson	Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management	Water	Water
Carmen Toohey	Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for Alaska	Alaska	Alaska
Patricia Lynn Scarlett	Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management and Budget	Government regulations	Everything

And that's just from the Department of the Interior! I must admit though, it's an elegant logic. Who would be better suited to write environmental law than a former paid shill for the big polluters? Or, who better to decide what size the warning labels should be on cigarette packages than a former tobacoo lobbyist?

Just don't go back to lobbying after you leave government though, beause that would be wrong. Unless you're John Reynolds, in which case go for it brother.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dammed meddlesome reporters!

When they're not asking why you're enticing opposition MPs across the floor with cabinet posts and/or appointing your organizers to the Senate and cabinet when you pledged not to do such things, oh, a few weeks ago, they're asking you why you're putting a former lobbyist in charge of the ministry he used to lobby.

This governing thing would be so much easier without the meddlesome press asking questions. Maybe that's why the Conservatives left them standing by the side of the road today as they went on a cabinet field trip to Meech Lake (hat tip Dan Cook).

There was one group of people not allowed to ask questions of ministers on Wednesday - the media. The few reporters who covered the meeting were forced to stand alongside the highway leading onto the property while ministerial sedans drove past.

-CP

That's one way to avoid troubling questions I guess. The other way is to pre-select the questioners and then leave, as Stephen Harper did in his first post-election press conference a few weeks ago.

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.

- The Hill Times

On a side note, that was quite the convoy of limos. I guess the minivan from Monday had to go back to Hertz.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why making a former defence lobbyist your defence minister is a bad idea

News today in the G&M that new Conservative defence mininister Gordon O'Connor, whose appointment is already under fire because he is a former lobbyist for the defence industry, will have as one of his first orders of business making a decison on a $4.6 billion purchase that could involve Airbus, one of his former clients.

The military is in the market for new transport planes, and they need these things yesterday. You may recall last fall, former Liberal defence minister Bill Graham and chief of defence staff General Rick Hillier proposed a fast-tracked procurement process to purchase Lockheed Martin's C130J aircraft, a modern version of the Hercules aircraft we currently fly.

That plan was derailed though by Conservative attacks this would circumvent a long, drawn-out procurement process, and that Airbus and its A400M plane, although it won't be ready to fly until 2008, should be given a chance to compete.

Who led those Conservative attacks? Why their defence critic of course, the former defence industry lobbyist with Hill and Knowlton, Gordon O'Connor. And it turns out that, guess what, Airbus was one of O'Connor's clients!

So O'Connor helped derail a proucrement plan favoured by the military that would have seen them get planes faster so his former client could be given a chance to compete. His scuttling of the plan successful, he'll now play a big role in designing the procurement process and selecting the winner as defence minister.

Webster's dictionary defines a conflict of interest as "a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust."

But surely O'Connor will recuse himself, right? Well, he wasn't talking yesterday. But here's what he said Monday:

"I will not recuse myself from anything. I do not have any links to any company whatsoever."

Sure, if you don't count BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Airbus, and the 24 other defence contractors he was a registered lobbyist for...

New Defence Minister lobbied for Airbus
O'Connor pushed Ottawa to buy A400M but denies any conflict of interest

CAMPBELL CLARK
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Canada's new Defence Minister, Gordon O'Connor, was involved in lobbying the armed forces to buy military transport planes that are now at the centre of the hottest military-supply controversy in Ottawa -- one that he will have to settle.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper's (d)evolving principles

I think I'll just let this transcript speak for itself, as on its own it illustrates clearly enough Stephen Harper's hypocrisy, and Jason Kenney's weak-ass attempt at spin is just too funny.

This comes from Tuesday's afternoon broooaaaadcaaaast of Politics with Don Newman on CBC Newsworld. The video is on the web site, and this portion begins at about 28:15. First they show a clip from a formal, sit-down interview Harper did on Radio Canada on Jan. 12 (yes, 2006). Following the clip, Newman goes to Kenney for reaction.

Stephen Harper, in a TV interview with a Radio Canada reporter, January 12, 2006
(translated from French)

Interviewer: Mario Dumont, who is giving you his support today, he would make a good Minister. If you take power and do not have many MPs what do you think?

Harper: I appreciate Mr. Dumont's support. Mr. Dumont has many positive ideas for Quebec and I think that Mr. Dumont would like to avoid another referendum and would like to respect Quebec's autonomy in the Canadian Federation. I cannot, frankly, I cannot name any ministers during an election campaign, but I say you need to be elected to the Parliament of Canada to become a minister.

Interviewer: Well, if you get a minority government (with) not many MPs from Quebec, what would you do at that point?

Harper: I have the intention of having winning candidates in Quebec because personally, I think this is quite realistic.

End of clip and back comes Newman as poor Kenney looks like a dear caught in the headlights.

Newman: Well it was realistic. He had 10 from Quebec but he still put Michael Fortier into the cabinet and into the Senate, so he changed his mind obviously.

Kenney: Well, he said he's not going to name people during the, the election and he didn't--

Newman: Well he said that, and then he said but you have to be elected to be in the cabinet.

Kenney: And, uh, he's made the commitment, as has Mr. Fortier, that he ah will uh run in the--at the next available opportunity. Umm he will be accountable in the Senate. We will still have Senate elections. Uhhh and this is a way that the second largest city in Canada can be represented in the Government of Canada. Umm it's a big, complex country geographically. We've always known that. Mr. Harper is demonstrating he understands---remember when Belinda Stronach left? She said he didn't understand the complexity of Canada, and with these decisions it's clear that he does.

P.S. Keep watching the video past this segment. I don't know how to explain it, but it's one of the most bizzre things I've seen. You'll know what I mean.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

James Moore gets to kiss his sister….again and again!

News this afternoon that MP James Moore (CON-Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam-Not Near Enough to Vancouver), who on Monday saw his cabinet post go to Liberal turncoat David Emerson, has been ‘consoled’ by his Dear Leader with the post of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

You know, Michael Fortier, the (appointed but only temporarily, we promise) Senator from Montreal. The guy who can’t answer questions in question period because he’s not a member of the House of Commons, but will no doubt face rigorous questioning in the QP in “the other place.”

Since Fortier isn’t an MP, that means Moore will get to take all the questions in the HoC directed at the Public Works ministry, which, as the ministry responsible for billions of dollars in government procurement, usually gets a few. (Wassup, Scotty Brison?) And with a Public Works Minister who was/is his Prime Minister’s Quebec organizer, there may be a few more questions, because that worked out great last time, didn’t it?

So here’s the bottomline for James Moore, and why it’s exactly like kissing his sister:

YES to the daily savaging for 45 minutes a day during question period, coast to coast on live tv that comes with being a Minister
NO to the higher salary, title, bigger office, limousine and driver, staff, and all other perks that come with being a Minister.

So basically, all the bad and none of the good. Dude, what did you do or say to Stephen Harper to piss him off so much?

May you should reconsider not running for the Liberal leadership James. Remember, there’s always a welcome mat with lots of warm, comfy fur waiting for you on the Liberal side…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reynolds to feed at the lobbyist trough

Lobbying reform was a big issue for the Conservatives in this campaign. I wouldn't go as far as they've proposed (five years is too long), but I do think reforms are needed. Candidate Stephen Harper was all about lobbying reform. PM Stephen Harper? Not so much.

To refresh your memory, here what the CPC's was campaigning on just over TWO weeks ago:

Toughen the lobbyists registration act

Under the Liberals, lobbying government – often by friends and associates of Paul Martin and other Liberal ministers – has become a multi-million dollar industry. Senior Liberals move freely back and forth between elected and non-elected government posts and the world of lobbying.
Liberal lobbyists have accepted success or contingency fee arrangements where they don’t get paid unless they deliver the policy change their clients want.

The plan:

A Conservative government will:
• Extend to five years the period during which former ministers, ministerial staffers, and senior public servants cannot lobby government.
• Ban success or contingency fee arrangements.
• Require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists.
• Make the Registrar of Lobbyists an independent Officer of Parliament.
• Give the Registrar of Lobbyists the mandate and resources to investigate violations.
• Extend to ten years the period during which violations can be investigated and prosecuted.

Two recent occurrences illustrate to a tee the fact that all the CPC's bluster about lobbying reform and new ethical standards was just that: bluster.

Yesterday, Public Eye Online reported that John Reynolds, the veteran Conservative/Reform/Alliance/ and then Conservative again MP that did not seek re-election, chaired the recent Conservative election campaign and offered the warm mat of comfy fur to turncoat David Emerson, will be joining Vancouver law firm Clark Willson LLP as a lobbyist!

Earlier, one of our astute readers reported federal Conservative godfather John Reynolds (who is not a lawyer) would be "joining Lyall Knott" - a well-known provincial Liberal fundraiser - at Clark Wilson LLP. A senior Tory operative couldn't immediately verify that report. But he did say Mr. Reynolds has received job offers from a number of Vancouver law firms. In a brief interview with Public Eye, Mr. Knott declined to comment on whether he would be working with Mr. Reynolds, saying "Why don't you talk to John?" The company's more notable clients include Concert Properties Ltd., HMY Airlines Inc., HSBC Bank plc, Methanex Corp. and Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment Corp.

Wow, the five years flew by just like that. It seems like only a few weeks since the last election. Oh wait, it was just a few weeks ago! Yes, the law isn't in place yet, but I guess expecting Conservatives to abide by the spirit of their proposed reforms and practice what they preach is too much to ask, eh John?

I think John explained it well though today on CPAC (via Calgary Grit):

Campaigns are campaigns."

And that Culture of Entitlement moment brings me to exhibit two. Lost in the din yesterday around Harper's breaking a couple of other principles by bribing a floor crosser with a cabinet post and appointing a crony to the Senate and cabinet was the appointment of Gordon O'Connor as his Minister of National Defence.

A retired brigadier general certainly seems like a fine choice for the position, and as a former air force brat let me say I like the idea of having someone with military experience in the post. There is a big problem though. For seven years as a senior associate with lobbying and public relations giant Hill and Knowlton he lobbied the federal government on behalf of the defence industry. He was a defence industry lobbyist! This history is well known, although he does pussyfoot around it on in the biography on his Web site:

He then went on to become a Senior Associate at Hill & Knowlton Canada, one of the largest public affairs firms in the world. Acting in a consultative capacity, Gordon helped private sector firms pursue business opportunities with the federal government

Or, in other words, he lobbied the Minister of National Defence and senior generals to buy the plane, tank, jeep, or gun his client was selling. And now he IS the Minister of National Defence. Hello conflict of interest, how are you? Very good, thanks. This is exactly the kind of thing the CPC's lobbying reform package is supposedly about changing: "move(ing) freely back and forth between elected and non-elected government posts and the world of lobbying."

I have great respect for Mr. O'Connor's military service, and great respect for our military, as regular readers of my little blog know. That's why, while I'm not surprised Harper would make the appointment, I'm astounded that O'Connor would accept it.

The military teaches its officers about leadership and integrity, about doing the right thing even when it's difficult, and about leading by example. He knows this is wrong. He has to. O'Connor should have said, "I'm honoured that you would ask me to serve, Mr. Prime Minister, and I want to be of service to you in any way I can. But I really feel that in the interests of transparency and integrity I could better serve you, my party and my country in another portfolio."

Even if Harper didn't know better, Mr. O'Connor, you should have.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Elmhirst on Emerson

FYI, letter to LPC(BC) members from president Jamie Elmhirst on David Emerson's defection:

Dear Fellow Liberals:

Yesterday was a difficult and disappointing day for Liberals in BC. David Emerson’s decision to cross the floor and join the Harper government is a loss to our party and a shock and disappointment to all of us on a personal level. David served British Columbia well as the Minister of Industry and co-Senior Minister for BC with Jack Austin. I am sure he will continue to do so in his new capacity.

That won’t come as any real solace to the hundreds of people who gave money and – much more importantly – their time to help re-elect him as a Liberal in Vancouver-Kingsway. It won’t come as much of a solace to the 82% of his constituents who voted for a party other than the Conservatives just last month. It’s those folks that I feel the worst for. I know staff who worked for David and who feel very hurt by his decision. My heart goes out to them.

But the Liberal Party of Canada is bigger and more enduring than any one member. We will continue to attract superb people to run for us, just as we did in this last election. As a big tent party of centre, we must continue to reach out to talented British Columbians to join with us and work with us. Our future success lies in having the confidence to reach out and attract the very best people we can to join the party, volunteer in the party and run for the party.

By accepting David Emerson into his Cabinet and by appointing Michael Fortier to both the Senate and Cabinet, Stephen Harper proved himself a hypocrite yesterday. Stephen Harper condemned those who were uncomfortable with his extreme right-wing views and crossed the floor. He promised that Senators would be elected, not appointed. He proved yesterday that he isn’t a man of his word. He should insist that a by-election be held to give voice to the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway. However, that won’t happen unless the public demands it. I hope they do.

Stephen Harper’s honeymoon came to a crashing halt yesterday and I believe that David Emerson – a man who I admired – will come to regret his decision in the weeks and months ahead.

If you wish to contact David Emerson and express your views about his decision, his constituency office number is 604-775-6263 and his email address is emersd@parl.gc.ca.

Sincerely,

Jamie Elmhirst, President
Liberal Party of Canada (BC)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Toronto Senator Mike Harris?

If David Emerson was bribed across the floor to represent Vancouver and Michael Fortier elevated from the Conservative war room to the Senate to represent Montreal because having representation from Canada's second and third largest cities was so important to Stephen Harper, then what about Canada's largest city: Toronto?

It's laughable this is even being used as an excuse for the violation of two Conservative principles. After all, just last week we were hearing how thus urban/rural divide thing was a myth, and hey, there are Cons in Surrey, New Westminster, Port Moody and so on, and that's practically Vancouver, right?? So they said then.

But if you're going to use it as a justification now, what about Toronto? I guess none of the Toronto Liberal MPs could be bribed with a cabinet post to cross. To lapse into fantasyland for a second, how delicious would it have been if Olivia Chow had spurned Jack Layton and crossed the floor to the Harper cabinet? It would have been 10x better than Peter McKay and Belinda Stronach. Principles be dammed, that would have been sweet!

But back to reality, what about Toronto indeed? The Globe's John Ibbitson has an interesting piece this morning where he asks the question: why not Senator Mike Harris?

The other city that abjured the Conservatives was Toronto. So why is Senator Mike Harris not in the cabinet? There's a vacancy, and Mr. Harris might enjoy the show. If Toronto really mattered, Mr. Harper would have found a way to get the city represented. The flak wouldn't have been any worse than that over Mr. Fortier and Mr. Emerson.

After all, if ever there was a man suited to the country club atmosphere of the Senate its Duffer Mike, and it would be old home week for him around the cabinet table.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

At least dogs are loyal

What else can I add about the David Emerson affair that hasn't been said? Still, I'll add my two cents before moving on to other things.

I have no problem with people crossing the floor per se. It is an established part of our Parliamentary system. While candidates run for parties and people may vote more for the party than the person, the fact remains under our system the person is elected, not the party. That's something that could change if we ever go to one of the proportional ballot/single transferable vote models being discussed. Hell, that option may begin to gain more favour now.

What’s different with Emerson is he crossed less than two weeks after bring elected. If he supposedly had issues with the Liberals (he didn’t, that’s nonsense) he shouldn’t have ran for re-election under their banner. I do understand that he did think his Martin PMO imposed ministerial staffers were useless dicks though (you know who you are boys). For what it's worth, so do I. I'm still a Liberal though.

I do have a problem with him going straight into cabinet. He should have sat on the backbenches for a period of time. That is that Scott Brison did, and Keith Martin sat as an independent and ran for re-election before being appointed a parliamentary secretary. What about Belinda Stronach, you say? It pissed me off that she went straight into cabinet too. Crossing the floor, fine, but she should not have come straight into cabinet. I wasn’t blogging then so you’ll have to take my word for it, but I said it was wrong then and I say it’s wrong now.

While I think going straight into cabinet is wrong, it does happen and it is permitted under our Parliamentary system. And crossing the floor less than two weeks after being elected is dishonest and low, but again there is ample precedent. I would get over it, as would most Canadians…

…were it not for the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party here. They ran against this very thing just two weeks ago. Harper said he wouldn’t let floor crossers into his cabinet. The CPC went ape-shit when Stronach crossed over. He ran on a platform of accountability, integrity and doing things differently and he proved it to be a bald faced lie his first minutes on the job. Why is this different from Stronach? You told Canadians you would never do this sort of thing, that's why!

That accountability package, doing things differently, ethical government, that was a major part of his election victory. That was his key differentiator with the voters. He told them “I’m not scary anymore. I’ll give you the same policies as the Liberals, but without the unethical behaviour. So throw the bums out and vote for honest government.”

How many seats would the Conservatives have won if Canadians knew the following about Stephen Harper:

1) He dodged questioning by the ethics commissioner.
2) He would lure a Liberal across the floor with a cabinet post.
3) He would appoint his campaign co-chair to the Senate and give him an important cabinet post.
4) He would ignore the spirit of his lobbying reform package by appointing a former defence industry lobbyist as his Minister of National Defence.

The CPC perpetrated a fraud upon the people of Canada. I suspect if all this was known before e-day we may have seen the swearing-in of another minority Liberal cabinet today under Paul Martin. You know, when I think of it that way thanks for being so dishonest Stephen, we needed a time-out. And with the way you’re going so far, it won’t last too long.

While many Conservatives are trying to spin the unspinnable, a great many of the Blogging Tories are rightily outraged too and are taking Harper to task, much to their credit. I’m glad Cons like Political Staples and Wonder Woman, both of whom I met at the recent Toronto Blogstravaganza and found to be intelligent and reasonable, along with quite a few others, have the principles and the courage of their convictions to recognize improper behaviour, even when it happens within their own party. Truth to power is the cornerstone of democracy, and it’s something all parties have been lacking to some degree in recent times.

Many are now calling for Emerson to resign and seek re-election. Decision time Stephen. You should take the mulligan, because this isn’t the kind of thing people forget. Trust me, we won’t let them.

As an aside, I think apointing his crony to the Senate and O'Connor as defence minister is even worse than the Emerson affair, and I've heard of another development on the lobbying front that puts further lie to Harper's promise to do things differently.

But more on that tomorrow. There's a Canucks game on. Priorities, you know.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

PR: Emerson's riding president responds

February 6, 2006

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Caprice Barbour, Founding President of the Vancouver-Kingsway Liberal Riding Association, responded to David Emerson’s abdication from the Liberal Party and his rebirth as a Conservative Minister with shock and disgust.

“This is exactly 2 weeks since the good people of Vancouver-Kingsway re-elected Emerson as Liberal MP knowing full well that the Conservatives were likely going to form government and electing a Liberal MP anyway. The Conservative candidate was a very distant third which indicates to me that the voters and taxpayers who pay Emerson’s salary did not want a Conservative representing them. This riding has elected only Liberals since its current inception in 1996. The people of Vancouver Kingsway voted for the party and not the man. In the entire history of the Riding (1952 to 1987 and then from 1996 to present day), there have been 16 elections and the one and only time that a conservative was elected was in 1958. We are not a conservative riding.

If Mr Emerson disagrees with me, I would ask him to do the honourable thing and resign his seat and seek re-election as a Conservative. I expect that the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway would show him the door. If Emerson has any ethics then he would be honest to the people that he promised to serve as a Liberal.

This doesn’t seem to be a case of a MP not agreeing with a party’s direction or philosophy; this seems to me to be blatant ambition. He spent money raised by Liberals to run as a Liberal candidate and he should refund the party. I am truly repulsed by Emerson’s actions today.

Given the Press Release issued this morning by Prime Minister Harper today on regaining the trust of Canadians, I find it difficult to understand why one of Mr. Harper’s first acts in Office is to accept the betrayal of the people of Vancouver Kingsway by appointing Mr. Emerson to cabinet.

-30-

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Flowers for James Moore

In lieu of the cabinet spot that went to David Emerson, flowers for James Moore can be sent to:

2603 St. John's Street
Port Moody, BC V3H-2B5

or

500 Justice Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A-0A6

Starbucks gift certificates would also be appreciated.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Mining the (recent) archives: Conservatives on floor crossing

Much more to say later (need to work) on today's shocking news former Liberal David Emerson has gone turncoat and joined Stephan Harper's cabinet, but here's what I was able to easily find in about five minutes on how Conservatives feel about such activities. There's a lot more. Will they be as indignant about Emerson's warm, comfy fur?

Monte Solberg's blog, May 17, 2005 (on Belinda's crossing)

…Shakespeare so wants to be alive so that he can write about this. Its the story of a woman who cares so much about Canada that she is willing to sacrifice all kinds of personal relationships and her principles just so she can get to Cabinet…

...They care about her insights on skills training. Sure it will help to have her vote on the budget, but really it's her ideas they want. I bet those senior bureaucrats are salivating at the idea of doing a little "blue skying" with B. on the foreign credentials thing….

...Good luck girl with those Liberals. If you can't trust them, who can you trust?

CBC Video: Harper on Belinda's defection

CBC News story, Harper blames MP's defection on 'ambition', May 17, 2005

"There's no grand principle involved in this decision, just ambition," Harper said.…

...But he said it is Stronach who will now have problems – when she faces the voters in her riding of Newmarket-Aurora.

"This will ultimately negatively affect Belinda Stronach's chances of being re-elected," he said.

…
New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord: This is just another action, another moment, that breeds cynicism of electors."
…
Ontario Conservative Leader John Tory: "I can confirm for you that I will no longer be campaigning for Miss Stronach."
…
Ontario Conservative Bob Runciman: "She sort of defined herself as something of a dipstick, an attractive one, but still a dipstick, with what she's done here today. She is, at the end of the day, going to paint herself as something of a joke."

Small Dead Animals, May 17, 2005, Stronach Splits

Belinda Stronach has crossed the floor to the Liberals, with a new cabinet post her bonus.

Well, we always knew she was a Liberal - they were just hagging over the price.

I wonder if she realizes how many new Western separatists she just created today with her comments about Conservatives not understanding the "complexity" of the country? That the party must "grow in Quebec" before it's a national party? I wonder if she understands that her defection speech will be interpreted as another slap by a self-serving and politically ambitious Ontario power broker at western aspirations to finally have an equal voice in Canada?

Probably not. The woman is that stupid.

CanWest News, December 17, 2005, Peter McKay Forges on

..."You know, crossing the floor, leaving the party at a critical juncture, I could never do that. I could never live with myself," he (McKay) says. "It's just not in my nature to bail."

..."I think I'll go home and walk my dog," he said at the time. "At least dogs are loyal."

House of Commons debates, on Bill C-251, a private members bill dealing with floor crossing, November 21, 2005

Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): …When a member who is elected as a Liberal decides that the Liberal ways just do not cut it and decides to, say, join the Conservative Party, this bill would prevent that member from doing that…

...I think one of the things that got me elected in 1993 was the stand of our party and me personally, that a member of Parliament has as a first obligation to represent the constituents who elected him or her.…

...It is important for us to remember, whether we are Conservatives, Liberals or NDP, that our strength and our legitimization comes from the support of our constituents, which is why I propose that the bill would be improved if there were a clause in it that said that a member who leaves a party may sit as an independent and perhaps not trigger a byelection as long as he or she remains independent and does not align with another party, which would be opposite I believe the element of saying to the people that this person was elected under this banner and if he or she changes the banner then the constituents have the final say on it...

(Later, when a Liberal MP is trying to speak to the bill he gets interrupted by hecklers)

Mr. Charlie Angus: What does it cost to buy people to get them to cross the floor?
Mr. David Christopherson: What did Belinda cost?
Mr. Charlie Angus: And was given a big payoff.
Mr. Pat Martin: She took your spot in cabinet.
Mr. David Christopherson: That was going to be your spot.
Mr. Dave Batters: She only crossed to become a cabinet minister.

...

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of a bill that I believe would restore some accountability around this place.…

...When members of the House crosses the floor, I believe they break a contract, not with their political party but with their constituents. When a member of Parliament is elected to this place, he or she is elected with a party label, having made a commitment to serve with party's label attached to his or her name. Members of the public make their voting decision based on that commitment. Therefore, a contract is formed between the constituent and the member of Parliament.

As was the case for the member for Newmarket—Aurora, when a member crosses the floor, in particular to receive an inducement and be placed into cabnibet and be given a promotion and a raise, that is an example of a broken contract with the constituents with whom that person was elected to represent. For example, in this case, the constituency elected a Conservative and it got a Liberal. That contract was broken with the constituents in Newmarket—Aurora. I want to take this logic further.

I have a private member's bill of my own before the House which would further tighten the bond between the constituents and the member of Parliament. It would allow constituents to fire a member of Parliament if that member of Parliament broke his or her word, lied, cheated or stole. It would be conducted through a petition system and would require that 50% of eligible voters sign the petition, in exchange for which the member of Parliament would have to resign his or her seat and the riding would reopen for a byelection. It would be a very difficult process. We have 87,000 eligible voters in my constituency. That would mean one would need roughly 44,000 signatures on that petition, meaning the individual would have to have engaged in a massive violation of trust. But still, that resource should be there. Why? Because everyone else in the country has to be accountable for the job they do for their employer.

All my constituents go to work in the morning and if they lie, cheat or steal, they are fired. For elected officials, it is four years. In what other field could an employee lie, cheat or steal and then be fired only four or five years later? Why should we in the House of Commons, the House of the common people, live above the basic norms and rules that other employees live up to in their work? We should not. We should live by the same guidelines as everyone else.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Britain stands-up to U.S. on global abortion gag rule, challenges Canada to do the same

Britain is standing-up to the U.S. to ensure the availability of safe abortion services in the developing world and is calling on Canada to show moral leadership and follow-suit. This will be an early test for Stephen Harper's new government, and one that will provide some insight into what path he will follow in the coming months.

One of President George W. Bush's first acts back in 2001 was to re-institute the global gag rule. In short, the policy requires that any foreign organizations applying for U.S. aid must agree not to counsel or provide any information to their patients on abortion, except to advise against it, and not to provide abortions. If they do, their funding is pulled.

According to the World Health Organization 19 million women have unsafe abortions annually, and last year nearly 70,000 died from sepsis and hemorrhage. It's clear that if women don't have access to a safe abortion, they will turn elsewhere, and with often-tragic consequences.

That's why Britain has announced 3 million pounds over two years for groups that offer safe abortions and family planning. And it is calling on other countries, including Canada, to follow its lead.

Here's the question the Parliamentary Press Gallery should ask of Mr. Harper and the appropriate minister today:

"Mr. Prime Minister, alarmed by the death of nearly 70,000 women annually in unsafe abotions, the British government is defying the U.S. and its global gag rule by announcing funding for organizations in developing countries that counsel and provide abortion and family planning services, and is are calling on Canada by name to follow their lead. Will you answer Britain's call and match this funding?

The ball is in your court, Mr. Prime Minister.

Britain defies U.S. with world abortion funding
Mon Feb 6, 2006 1:10 PM GMT
By Katherine Baldwin

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain announced funding on Monday for safe abortion services in the developing world and urged other countries to join it, in defiance of Washington. London will give 3 million pounds ($5.3 million) over two years to support groups that offer safe abortions and family planning, replacing U.S. aid that has been withdrawn because of Washington's anti-abortion stance.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tomorrow's news today

Actually, Tuesday’s news today. Monday will be all about the new Conservative cabinet, but I'm predicting we'll start to see this story Tuesday as they move into their new offices. I'm guessing it will first be reported by the ever reliable, never Conservative friendly, Bourque News.

EXCLUSIVE!!! MUST CREDIT BOURQUE!!!

LOUSY LIBERAL LOUTS LOOT, LAY WASTE TO LAVGEVIN BLOCKS!!!

Your humble scribe has learned that when Conservative staffers began moving into their new offices Monday they found the outgoing Liberals had left a trail of destruction. From ministerial offices to the Prime Minister’s Office suite in the historic Langevin Block incoming staffers found computer keyboards missing their H keys, obscene graffiti sprawled on walls, garbage strewn about and desk drawers emptied of their contents and dumped on the floor. “It was like a war zone, it seemed like a hurricane had gone through,” said one staffer. Another staffer ran out of her new office in tears after finding pro-gay paraphernalia pasted to the walls. “It was two guys holding hands as they got married, I can see why she felt ill,” said a staffer that witnessed the scene. No response yet from the lousy looting Liberals on their wave of destruction though Canada’s historic Parliamentary precints, but one source who has witnessed the destruction first hand pegs the damage in the high thousands. "Oh, the humanity!" he said.

*Except, of course, the story will be complete crap. It will be a page right out of the Karl Rove playbook. And the media will lap it up. Today, people still believe outgoing Clinton staff laid waste to the White House, even though the story has been thoroughly debunked.

Stay tuned to find out who wins the Stanley Cup and the Miss USA tournament. :)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why would Martin lie about Dingwall?

Much ado on the blogsphere this weekend (particularly over at Blogging Tories) about David Dingwall and his entitlements. As usual though, the Cons have the story wrong and ignore their own hypocrisy on the issue.

This Globe story has the background and the latest on an arbitrator ruling Dingwall was fired and is entitled to $417, 780 in compensation. Dingwall was forced-out of his job as head of the Royal Canadian Mint over Conservative allegations of expense account improprieties. After an independent audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers he was completely cleared of any wrongdoing. That’s important to remember. Yes, he acted like an arrogant dick (I’m entitled to my entitlements), but he didn’t break any rules. I don’t recall hearing any apologies from the Conservatives, but maybe I just didn’t buy a paper that day.

Anyway, while I find it odd that it would take an arbitrator to decide if the government fired the guy or if he quit, Jason Chernaik has an explanation that sounds plausible to me (in the comments):

Bill Graham said something very interesting. He suggested that Dingwall resigned, but then claimed in arbitration to have been fired. That is why I suspect that he claimed "constructive dismissal", which is a legal idea that you can be fired without really being fired.

The Conservatives and their blogging army are now claiming Paul Martin lied when he told the HoC back in the day that Dingwall had resigned. The comment above shows why that accusation is factually inaccurate. Martin told what he knew to be the truth at the time, Dingwall seems to have later modified his story. My question is why would Martin lie and say Dingwall had quit if he had actually fired him? What’s motivation for telling that lie? What does it gain him?

Would it not have been better for Martin, if he actually had fired Dingwall, to say “yeah, I canned his ass and I don’t condone his behaviour, next question?” It kills the story. So why on God’s green Earth would he fire Dingwall but then lie to the HoC and say he resigned? Loyalty to a Chretien loyalist? Puhhleazzze. To quote SNL’s parody of Johnny Cochrane: It does not make sense!

Fact check: The Conservatives wanted him fired. On the basis of tourqued allegations of wrongdoing that have been proven to be false, false allegations they have never apologized for leveling. The government had to agree with the arbitrator’s ruling because if Dingwall has sued they’d have lost, and the taxpayers would have been on the hook for more then he’s getting in his legally entitled severance. I’d rather he not get a dime, but the law is the law.

So I say to Stephen Harper: If you’re not just blowing smoke and going for cheap political points here but really believe there has been a wrong committed, then Monday morning after your swearing-in put a stop-payment on Dingwall’s cheque and invite him to sue you. Otherwise, quit wasting our time!

And Blogging Tories, why no comments on this story, hmm? I guess he feels entitled to his entitlements too.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Akin on Con cabinet: Stock and Monte are out

I've recently discovered CTV/Globe and Mail reporter David Akin's blog (Dave Akin's On the Hill) and he has had some interesting posts over the weekend on what his sources are telling him about the make-up of Stephen Harper's cabinet.

Here's some of the highlights of his post this morning:

• Only two ministers from BC, and Stockwell Day will not be one of them. James Moore is one, and the other will be either Jay Hill or Betty Hinton.
• No Monte Solberg either, it seems Steve-o wasn't impressed with his costing hiccup around their platform release.
• Rob Nicholson in finance.
• House leader Jason Kenney.
• No Stephen Fletcher or Gordon O'Connor.
• Diane Ablonczy goes into the fire at HRDC.

My thoughts

If Harper is going with merit over loyalty it makes sense to keep Stock out, but to those with more knowledge of internal CPC politics I ask does Harper have enough capital to anger the so-con wing of the party by not giving Day a cabinet post?

Also, only two Ministers from B.C. but (according to Akin) 5 from Alberta (incl. Harper)? That's going to piss off what has been the CPC's biggest base of support going back to the Reform days. And remember, the Liberals had 5 ministers from B.C (six with Sen. Jack Austin). Yes, Harper's cabinet will be smaller, but he needs to tread carefully.

Why is Monte left holding the bag for the costing thing? It sounded like a staffing foul-up to me and I'd be willing to bet the staff were from the leader's office. I like Monte, he has been a tenacious and effective Finance critic and he deserves a spot in cabinet.

Makes sense for O'Connor not to be in (numbers and lobbyist), he'd be a good chair of the defence committee though. Maybe it's a numbers thing, but I'd hoped to see Fletcher in. And Ablonczy to HRDC, that will be interesting. She was quite righteous and indignant as HRDC critic, now we'll see if she can do any better.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Mr. Murphy is not amused

Further to the news that Tim Murphy won't be joining Bill Graham's OLO afterall, the Toronto's Star Political blog has comments from Murphy himself on the affair, and one gets the feeling he is not amused:

Tim Murphy, chief of staff to departing Prime Minister Paul Martin, is NOT staying on to work in the office of interim leader Bill Graham. Yes, it is true that Murphy and Graham go a long way back, with Murphy running Graham's campaign in 1988 in the then-riding of Rosedale in Toronto. And it is true that Murphy will be remaining around Ottawa so that his daughter can finish her school year.

But as for the allegations whipping through the blogosphere about Murphy staying on, the man himself has dismissed them as fictional. Actually he didn't use the word "fictional," but this is a family newspaper. Here is a more tempered version of how Murphy describes the rumours.

"It is symptomatic of this over-heated town. It was never true and a story made up on a political website now requires an official denial."

Boo freakin-hoo Tim. I think thou doth protest etc. As such luminaries as TDH Strategies and lesser lights such as myself have observed these denials are crap. The houls of "what are you, freakin idiots!" from across the party made them change their minds.

Myself, I'm off to the ACC myself for the Maple Laughs/Devils game. One of the technology companies I cover in my day job has invited me to take in the game from their box, so I'm off to schmooze with their PR people and scarf down appetizers. As a Canucks fan and a Westerner (at heart) it's my duty to hate the Leafs, so I'll also be talking the pulse of the crowd around me to see if I can cheer for the Devils without getting mugged. Much fun!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ignatieff live @ the U of T

What better way for a single guy in Toronto to spend a Friday night then attend a discussion entitled What is peacebuilding? at the University of Toronto.

Ok, I know, that’s pretty sad. But the advertised headliners were Lloyd Axworthy and Michael Ignatieff, and I wanted to see what all the Ignatieff fuss was about live and in person. Plus, Lloyd and Michael aren’t exactly on the same page on some of these issues, so there was the promise of (tame, academic-style) fireworks.

Alas, Lloyd couldn’t make it. Apparently he’s preparing for an election observer mission to Peru and had to deal with some kind of academic emergency (he’s the president of the University of Winnipeg). So, disappointingly, there was no Axworthy/Ignatieff battle of the nerds.

In Axworthy’s place was Heidi Hulan, a senior member of Canada’s mission to the United Nations involved in a project to build a UN peacebuilding-related body to tie together related functions within the organization. I don’t really follow these issues and don’t know the background; I’ll just say that from her (rather dry, frankly) talk everything I’ve heard about the UN bureaucracy seems to be true.

I was really there to see Ignatieff. I suspect many others were too, as Hart Hall was standing room only and many people (myself included, long day) left before the Q&A and after Ignatieff’s speech.

He seems like a good speaker. It was a familiar environment for a university professor though, a group of mainly students on a university campus. He made very clear at the top he only spoke for himself, and not the Liberal Party. He also spoke briefly in French about national unity; I think just to show he could speak French. He sounded fluent but he spoke slowly, though possibly just so his mainly Anglophone audience could understand.

As to the content, only a few passing references to Iraq and nothing controversial. A few notes I jotted-down:

· Canada must behave with humility to other countries on peacebuilding, don’t pretend we have all the answers.
· Canadians should be proud of the society we’ve built, but not take it for granted and be ever vigilant, lest it be lost.
· Much on Afghanistan and the need for Canada’s troops there to focus more on nation building than on counter terrorism.
· Property law is key to nation building. (Reminded me of Harper’s debate statement)
· Canada must have the combat capacity to provide human security on peacebuilding missions. (A call for more military spending?)
· Peacebuilding must be a partnership with the host country, a contract with a set exit strategy.
· The Afghanistan Framework Agreement is the right model.
· The capacity must be built for a multilateral approach to peacebuilding, it can't be left to coalitions of the willing.
· Government should develop the capacity to second willing civilian professionals overseas to participate in peacebuilding activities.
· We should pressure our leaders to support peacebuilding missions to countries where our national security interests aren’t at stake (such as Hati), but recognize national security interests (Afghanistan, Iraq) will still usually trump them.

I’m not overly familiar with Ignatieff’s past work (other than that he supported the invasion of Iraq) but much of what he said tonight I can agree with. He’s obviously well-spoken and intelligent. I just can’t picture him as a Prime Minister though. Maybe next time, after he has some more experience in the HoC. Besides, he needs to put some distance between himself and Iraq. I look forward to seeing him perform in the HoC though. He seems an obvious choice for foreign affairs critic.

As an aside, the people behind me as I walked to the subway really didn’t like Ignatieff, or Hulan either for some reason. As I listened (they were quite loud) I couldn’t really get why they didn’t like them, besides the fact they were paid good salaries. There was much profanity however. And this was a middle-aged couple. I think they were kooks, but I also think Ignatieff is a very polarizing figure. That’s another reason why I think some time should go by before he goes for the gold.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Update: No Murphy in Graham's OLO after all

Updating my earlier post about an apparent role for Paul Martin's former chief of staff Tim Murphy in interim leader Bill Graham's office, Politics Watch (hat-tip to Dan) is "exclusively reporting" that their earlier "exclusive report" was wrong, and Murphy won't be working in the Graham OLO after all.

It was all a misunderstanding, say their sources. On the record, Graham's new chief of staff says Murphy isn't and was never going to be on the team.

As someone with a little political experience and a lot of communications experience allow me to translate for you. Murphy was going to be there, but they realized in the light of day just how stupid a move that would be, so they changed their minds. The right decision, just took a little longer than it should have.

Updatearoney

The Toronto Star's Political blog has comments from Murphy himself on the affair. One gets the feeling he is not amused. Boo freakin-hoo Tim. I think thou doth protest etc.

Tim Murphy, chief of staff to departing Prime Minister Paul Martin, is NOT staying on to work in the office of interim leader Bill Graham. Yes, it is true that Murphy and Graham go a long way back, with Murphy running Graham's campaign in 1988 in the then-riding of Rosedale in Toronto. And it is true that Murphy will be remaining around Ottawa so that his daughter can finish her school year.

But as for the allegations whipping through the blogosphere about Murphy staying on, the man himself has dismissed them as fictional. Actually he didn't use the word "fictional," but this is a family newspaper. Here is a more tempered version of how Murphy describes the rumours.

"It is symptomatic of this over-heated town. It was never true and a story made up on a political website now requires an official denial."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Green Party disbands contentious riding association

The Green Party of Canada has moved to deregister its Delta-Richmond East riding association, which was involved in complaints of alleged election violations by Green Party leader Jim Harris and a nomination controversy. Something seems fishy here.

From the Canada Gazette:

Vol. 140, No. 5 — February 4, 2006

PARLIAMENT

CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

CANADA ELECTIONS ACT

Deregistration of a registered electoral district association

As a result of a request made by the Green Party of Canada in accordance with subsection 403.2(2) of the Canada Elections Act, the "Delta—Richmond East Green Party EDA" association is deregistered, effective on February 8, 2006.

January 24, 2006

JEAN-PIERRE KINGSLEY Chief Electoral Officer

I don’t really follow Green Party internal politics that closely, so I’ll point you to this article here which details the complaints made against Harris, including one filed by a Dana Miller. A former member of the party’s shadow cabinet, Miller was the Green candidate for Delta-Richmond East in 2004.

She hoped to be the candidate again in 2006, but as this article from December explains she was apparently muscled-out in favour of Jean-Phillipe Laflamme, an Air Transat flight attendant. The party leadership claimed she wasn’t a party member and was organizing for another party, accusations she denied. Laflamme was appointed as the candidate by the party brass, not the local Green Party members.

Here’s the part of the article I find interesting, and that seems fishy to me when taken in conjunction with the Canada Gazette posting above:

Miller is also questioning how Laflamme has been appointed as the candidate for the riding. She said she tried to organize a nomination meeting but the roughly two dozen members of the party in Delta-Richmond East were sent an e-mail by party brass informing them that she was not eligible because she was not a party member and that the electoral district association was de-registered.

It appears now however that the electoral district association was actually not de-registered. In fact, according to Elections Canada it won’t be deregistered until Feb. 8. So why did the Green Party leadership tell its members that it was, and not let them choose a candidate themselves?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reinterpreting Laurier for the 21st Century

Like many Liberals, I suspect, I'm currently reading Stephen Clarkson's The Big Red Machine and looking for clues on where it all went wrong.

I'm still back in the Trudeau era and it's been a very interesting read so far. But I do want to share one quote that I think we Liberals should consider during what should be a period of introspection, soul-searching and renewal for our party.

"It is not enough to have good principles; we must have organization also. Principles without organization may lose, but organization without principles may often win."

--Wilfrid Laurier, 1893

I think the end of that quote describes what has been the state of the Liberal Party for far too long, and what ails us today. We've become Laurier on acid.

And I'm not talking just the past three years, or the past 13. It goes back much further, and goes much deeper than that. We have become so consumed with organization that we've forgotten our principles, and what we're supposed to stand for.

The old quote goes "The best thing about being a Liberal is you don't always have to be one." It has fueled much of the party's success over the 20^th century. The Liberals became Canada's natural governing party by stealing the best ideas from the left and the right.

But that Laurier philosophy is also what leads to policy making by pollsters and back of a napkin policy shifts (cough…nowwithstanding clause). It's what sees a leader promise a role for Quebec in international cultural affairs in one election, and then condemn his opponent for doing the same thing 18 months later.

Yes, organization is important, and you can't win elections without it. As an aside, I don't think we had organization either in this campaign. But my point is you DO need principles too. Now, more than ever. Who are we? What do we believe in? What does it mean to be a Liberal?

To flip Laurier around it's not enough to have good organization; you need to have good principles too. As we begin to attempt a rebuild of the big red machine in the coming months I hope we keep that in mind.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The more things change...

Politics Watch is reporting tonight that Tim Murphy, the Chief of Staff to Paul Martin, will be staying-on in interim Liberal leader Bill Graham's office in an unknown capacity.

Intrepid reporter and former Charlahack (before my time though) Romeo St. Martin has the scoop in a nice piece of reporting. Apparently this was announced during a chiefs of staff meeting on the hill yesterday, and was met with "some bewilderment and eye rolling" by those assembled. As it was by myself.

I don't want to delve too deeply into this. I was going to let this whole Paul staying on as leader but Bill doing the job thing go by without comment. And I don't think all the Martinites need to be purged, far from it. But the optics of this news stink, and it's just silly. But then again, I've long since stopped being surprised by their lack of political judgment.

I will though highlight this quote from Graham (who I think is a fantastic choice for interim leader, btw) describing his instructions from Martin:

"He's made it very clear to me I'm going to be in charge," Graham said.

No comment. Except to say news like this begins to make me favour a quicker leadership convention.

And read the whole article. I love the bit about Scott Reid and champagne. Insanity.

Murphy staying on

by Romeo St. Martin
[PoliticsWatch Updated 5:05 p.m. February 2, 2006]

OTTAWA EXCLUSIVE -- Tim Murphy, the chief of staff to Prime Minister Paul Martin, will be part of Liberal opposition leader Bill Graham's office, PoliticsWatch has learned.

Murphy's appointment was made during a meeting of chiefs of staff on Parliament Hill Wednesday.

It is not clear exactly in what capacity he will serve the new leader of the opposition, but one source said he will be "playing a role."

(more)

UPDATE!

Politics Watch (hat-tip to Dan) is "exclusively reporting" that their earlier "exclusive report" was wrong, and Murphy won't be working in the Graham OLO. It was all a misunderstanding, say their sources. On the record, Graham's new Chief of Staff say Murphy isn't and was never going to be on the team.

As someone with a little political experience and a lot of communications experience allow me to translate for you. Murphy was going to be there, but they realized in the light of day just how stupid a move that would be, so they changed their minds. The right decision, just took a little longer than it should have.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dion and La Belle Province

As I've blogged previously I think Quebec will be critical to the Liberals and the Conservatives in the next election, and I think Stephane Dion could be the man to turn things around there. So does Chantal Hebert, and she puts it far more eloquently then I ever could. But since the view has also put forward that Dion is Typhoid Mary in Quebec, I wanted to expand on my thoughts on the topic as well, and talk a little policy.

I won't claim to be a Quebec expert, not by a long shot. During my five years in Ottawa I crossed the river to Hull (now Gatineau I'm told) four times: twice to the Museum of Civilization, once to an Olympiques game and once on a late night trek to procure spirits at a dépanneur. I also visited Montreal three times, for games by the Canadiens, Expos and Allouettes.

I have followed unity issues from afar though, like most Canadians. The Liberal Party has had two very different approaches to separatism and Quebec post-1995, and unsurprisingly, the schism comes back to the Jean Chretien/ Paul Martin rivalry. Chretien and Dion brought-in the Clarity Act, made a reference to the Supreme Court and were clear in spelling-out the real consequences of separation. When Martin took over he had dreams of wiping-out the BQ, and with BQ co-founder Jean Lapierre as his Quebec lieutenant they repudiated the Chretien approach and the Clarity Act, going to the Brian Mulroney, soft nationalist, appeasement route. Obviously sponsorship skews the results, but I think it clearly wasn't working.

So that's the historical snapshot as I see it. What about today? Clearly the Conservatives aren't going anywhere in Quebec, and the BQ, even if reduced, will always be a player. There are now two federalist voices in Quebec, and that's a good thing for Canada.

The Conservatives benefited from sponsorship to be sure, but they also took the Mulroney soft nationalist approach. More so however, they played the appeasement card by buying into the fiscal imbalance myth. If they fail to deliver on it I think their potential for growth in Quebec is stunted. Quebecers are expecting results, and he's about to learn the provinces are insatiable in their demands for federal cash.

The Conservatives will remain however the provincial rights, soft-nationalist voice. I think they'll sap more votes from the BQ than from the Liberals. That's why I think the Liberals need to forcefully mark their territory as a strong, passionate defender of federalism, a strong Federal government, and a strong Canada. We need to return to the Chretien/Dion approach to federalism, and who better to lead that approach than Dion?

You say he's not popular in Quebec. They said that about Chretien too. But not popular with who? Not popular with the separatist intelligentsia elite, and they're not going to vote Liberal anyway. He took his riding with 59.8 per cent of the vote, so some people seem to like him. With the BQ and the Cons on the decentralization side, and with sponsorship (hopefully) now moving behind us, I think there is a large base of support to be gained for the Liberals as that strong voice for federalism.

The fundamental question we as Liberals need to ask ourselves and the debate we need to have is this: which approach do we favour? And I hope it doesn't become bogged-down in leftover leadership rivalres, because national unity is too important for such nonesense.

Vive le Canada!

P.S. I came accross this CBC Sunday transcript of an interview Dion did during the campaign on unity and The Clarity Act. He's obviously trying hard not to call Jean Lapierre a dumbass.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Will SSM be the next Conservative boondoggle?

As I watch the operetta shaping-up around the same sex marriage issue the question I have for Stephen Harper is this: why should the taxpayers of Canada spend potentially millions of dollars so you can appease the socially-conservative wing of the Conservative Party of Canada?

I have the feeling Stephen doesn’t really give a tinker’s damm if gay people can get married or not. Maybe he’d rather call it something else (I don’t think separate but equal has worked in the past) but it’s clearly not a priority for him. A sizeable portion of his party and caucus do care however, and he needed to toss them a bone so they wouldn’t spout their mouth off during the recent election campaign (I’m looking at you Cheryll Gallant!). The bone: a free vote on SSM.

Clearly, Stephen is hoping the vote fails and this issue dies so he can go back to handing out tax-cuts masquerading as social policy. But let’s follow this thing through to its logical conclusion. What if it does pass? The Globe and Mail has crunched the numbers and it looks tight. If it does pass, you can expect the Supreme Court to almost certainly overturn it, restoring the current status quo. And Harper has all but sworn on the bible that he won’t use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the court on the issue.

And that’s where the maddening, and expensive, futility of this comic opera is exposed. The only way SSM can be overturned long-term is by using the NWC, which Harper has promised he won’t do. Ipso facto, SSM is here to stay. So what in the hell are you doing then Stephen?

Let’s start the tab rolling. Anti-SSM groups are calling on Harper to delay the vote and have the government study the issue (until they can twist enough arms to get the vote to pass I’m sure). That’s study at taxpayer expense of course. Then the ball gets rolling in the House of Commons. There will be caucus researchers doing research and staffers writing speeches for all the parties for the many hours of debate in committee and in the HoC, all at taxpayer expense. Maybe the committee will even decide to go across the country and hold hearings. Again, more tax dollars spent. SSM is repealed, and off to the courts we go. The lawyers will get richer, the taxpayers poorer. Finally, the Supreme Court (surprise, surprise!) says no, that ain’t legal. Harper says ‘ah crap, OK then,’ and we’re back to square one.

Millions of taxpayer dollars wasted, not to mention valuable Parliamentary time that could have been spent debating trivial things like, say, Canada’s role in the world, Darfur, softwood, law and order, do Liberals really eat babies for sustenance…all so Stephen Harper can say to his so-con friends “see guys, I tried. But damm those activist judges!”

Seems a little expensive a price to pay to me. But I guess that’s the price of the new, Conservative-style accountability, isn't it Stephen?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers