My latest contribution over at The Tyee's Election Superblog:
*Refresh this post regularly for frequent updates throughout the evening convention program.
7:36 PM: Signing on from the back of the convention hall for the tribute to the Right Honourable Paul Martin. Sorry I'm a bit late signing-on, I leveraged my all access media pass to get up front with the TV types as the dignataties came in, got some great pics of Paul and some others, they'll get posted online when I get back to the hotel tonight. Saw John Turner with a good seat up front.
7:40 PM: O Canada is sung and we're underway, with Lucienne Robillard and Ralph Goodale as our masters of ceremony. Walking around the hall earlier it's clear that, while this is a tribute to Paul Martin tonight, the real goal is party unity. In addition to Martin signs left amongst the seats for the delegates there are also many Chretien signs, and I think I even saw a few Pearson signs too. The hall is packed, there's barely an empty seat and people are still tricking in. Those that were concerned about turnout have been proven wrong, it's standing room only and the crowd is pumped to give Paul a fond farewell, and to demonstrate we are a united party. It's a night to put the past behind us.
7:47 PM: OK, my bad, Lucienne and Ralph weren't the masters of ceremony. That's to be Mark Tewksbury. He was, what, a swimmer, right? Wikipedia......yes, he was indeed. And to a standing-o Mark comes out and declares...."I am a Liberal!" Mark is very enthusiastic to the delight of the young folks and the perhaps the befuddlement of some of the older folks in the room, but I say we need some enthusiasm and fun here. And I think he's winning them over. He's bringing the French too, bit of an accent but sounds good.
7:52 PM: He's working pretty close to his notes as he talks about Paul and his legacy. But first he introduces the singer, who I think before going into French, brings a little Italian. So now we're trilingual. Her name is Natalie Choquette. Mark's intro was in French but I think I caught the word "diva". Here's her site.
Oh boy, it's opera! What was that Kinsella likes to say about Starbucks vs. Tim Horton's? I need to keep my head up, was she trying to give Paul Martin a lap dance? Interesting. Anyway, what's the name of this musical piece. It's darned familiar, it's like one of those pieces that everyone has heard even if this ain't her thing.
And there's the highnote, yowzza. Kind of fun I guess, she gets a standing-o, she's quite the show-woman. More Italian than English from her so far though.
7:59 PM: It's not just music, she's doing a skit or something. Ordering dinner an an Italian restaurant or something. I recognize this piece too, very familiar. I like it actually, it's a nice piece. But now she's gargling the opera or something? And she ends by stuffing a bunch of spaghetti in her mouth, mmmkay.
I want Paul!! I want Paul!! Paul Anka that is.
8:04 PM: It's a testimonial video, with Robert Rubin paying tribute to Paul, a "good guy to have in a foxhole." Robert Rubin? Wikipedia....OK, he was Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary. Taming the deficit is clearly the theme here, at least for a bit, as Tweksbury talks-up just how bad things were and how important it was to get the fiscal house in order before he brings up three "distinguished businesspeople." I caught the name Wallace McCain (it may be healthier but baked french fries just don't taste the same), didn't catch the two others.
8:12 PM: This is Wallace McCain now paying tribute to Martin. He seems to be very happy with our pension system and the personal and corporate tax cuts, which got lukewarm applause from the crowd. Pension reform, yeahhhh! Improving the child tax benefit though, that got a little better response. As did Paul's continuing work to support entrepreneurship and job training for First Nations people.
Did he just say "Paul is firmly grounded by his baggage?" Holy freudian slip Batman!
I know, I'm sorry. :)
Wallace, by the way, is a billionaire and #335 on the Forbes World's Richest People list.
8:17 PM: Now the third businessperson is talking about Paul's drive to create the G-20, and he's talking about interest rates and inflation, and you could hear a needle drop everyone is so enthralled. Here's a line you'll never hear at an NDP convention:
"The anti-globalization militants..."
8:19 PM: Mark Tewksbury is a beaver, and he does the beaver call.
8:20 PM: OK, now we're talking. It's This Hour has 22 Minutes clips with Pail Martin. Funny anecdote: while covering the budget for the Charlatan in the late 1990s I stepped on Greg Toomey's foot in a scrum. Pretty hard too, he winced. Anyway, more This Hour clips now, funny stuff, and the crowd is waking-up.
Marge Delehanty: "If the Prime Minister's not doing it to his wife, he's probably doing it to the country..."
You want to take that one Sheila?
8:28 PM: Unidentified singer now, doing a fair bit of screaming. Ok, it's Linda something, she's a First Nations winger from the NorthWest Territories, and she's encouraging audience participation for her second song.
I hear the organizers wanted to get Celine to sing tonight, but Michael Ignatieff felt it would be an unfair conflict to have Stephane's sister centre stage. Also, I hear he also tried to get Montreal theaters to stop showing the movie Bobby during the convention, but Gerard and Rae intervened...darn you Iggy!!!
8:35 PM: Tina Keeper was proud to run as a Liberal under Paul Martin, and she speaks passionately for the Kelowna Accord. Marc Garneau, another of Paul's star candidate recruits, pays tribute to Paul's commitment to Canadian unity. Paul "couldn't imagine a Canada without Quebec."
8:40 PM: It seems Mark Tewksbury's parents live in Stephen Harper's riding in Calgary, and awhile back Mark says he asked his Mom if she'd be voting for Harper in the next election, and, after Mark remarked to the audience on how "redneck" Calgary is, he said she replied: "I would never vote for that redneck."
Ouch! Que Blogging Tory outrage in 5...4...3...2...1...
8:43 PM: Mark introduces a "true Canadian hero" to strong applause, Senator Romeo Dallaire. He talks about the crisis in the Sudan and the Darfur, and how Paul Martin, without much support from the usual suspects, said that Canada has to do something, to support the African Union, that Canada has a "responsibility to protect." A good speech by Romeo, and the crowd likes it too. Definitely more than the business stuff.
8:46 PM: Anwar Ibrahim in a testimonial, likes Paul and his concern for the poor countries. Paul is a friend, he says. A Prime Minister from a distant land that showed so much concern and sympathy...he wrote Anwar a letter that he really liked. Wikipedia....here his is.
OK, Kofi Anan I know. Well, not personally, but yeah. Kofi is paying tribute to Paul's commitment to global and African development. At work the other day my colleagues and I were talking about favourite UN secretary-general names. Kofi was second, but how can you not go with Butros Butros-Gali?
8:52 PM: More singing now. He wants to rock my gypsy soul. Next song is fun though, we got the sax going and now we're rockin!
9:10 PM: OK, that was Colin James. That was fun, I liked the second song.
And now Mark is ready to introduce the headline singer...she's a Cape Bretoner, which elicits a cheer...and it's...Natalie McMaster. She begins with a slow, traditional sounding violin piece that's very nice. Second piece is a bit faster and we've got the hand clapping happening now. Wooh now she's kicked it up a notch. Some fancy footwork now too, fun stuff.
I have to say though, two nights of music with a ton of Maritimes content and no Barret's Privateers? Come on convention organizers, let's get it together!
9:13 PM: Speaking of things and people you wouldn't see or hear at an NDP convention...James Wolfensohn. He talks about marrying fiscal responsibility with ideas, values and beliefs, and how Paul Martin was committed to seeing a world with equity and social justice.
9:17 PM: "Dignified. Graceful. Composed." That's how the voiceover lady described Paul's election night concession speech from January. She's exactly right, there were a lot of ups and downs but he did us proud that night.
Now we're focusing on the Kelowna Accord, and Paul's commitment got a thumbs-up from Phil Fontaine, and a strong applause from the audience. So did the Liberal child care plan that Paul and Ken Dryden championed and the Conservatives killed.
Paul on same sex marriage:
"We are a nation of minorities and you can't cherrypick rights. A right is a right."
Dammed right Paul!
9:23 PM: Voiceover lady: "Paul Martin came into office as juggernaut and quickly became...a jugger-not-so-much." Somebody owes Susan Delacourt a dollar, I think. When is she writing the sequel?
Back to balancing the budget now and elimnating the deficit. Paul on setting on the road to balancing the budget:
"And we will get there come hell or high water!"
Now that's the Paul Martin I knew and loved!
9:30 PM: The crowd erupts in prolonged thunderous applause and a standing ovation as Paul makes his way to the podium. Clapping and PAUL PAUL PAUL PAUL!! "We love you Mr. Martin!" One girl yells. Paul warns her to be careful, or she's going to get him into trouble. He looks good.
9:37 PM: "In 1993 Canada wanted change, and Jean Chretien delivered change. And I am proud to have served in his cabinet." I think it's time to bury old hatchets, and we should all be incredibly proud of the record of the Chretien government, and the pivotal role that Paul Martin played. They were a great team.
9:42 PM: Paul made his name as the budget balancer, but talk to those that have known him for years and you'll learn he's really a social Liberal. For him, balancing the budget and getting the fiscal house in order was the means to securing our social safety network, to building the foundation for being able to help the poorest among us. That's the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. What's more, we'll both agree on that, and we'll both think we're right and the other is wrong. That's what makes politics great.
9:45 PM: Talking about the Kelowna Accord now: "We set out to address the shame of Aboriginal poverty, and We're Not Finished!"
9:48 PM: Talking about minority rights, and how standing up for minority rights is standing up for all of us. And he mentions the Conservatives killing the Charter court challenge program:
"We are the party of the charter, and under a Liberal government your rights will never depend on the state of your pocketbook!"
He doesn't step that applause line, the crowd comes to their feet with more passion we've heard tonight. He's really going after the Conservatives now, getting off a good line on child care. It's time, Paul says, to send a message to the Conservatives:
"Progress and fairness may be delayed, but they will not be denied!"
9:53 PM: A touching, and funny, windup as Paul send out the thanks and talks about what he'll remember from his time in public life. He pays special tribute to our military members who have fought, and given their lives for Canada, and particularly to their families, whom he's had the honour of meeting across Canada.
9:58 PM: Paul says: "Some people say we tried to do too much. I would rather have tried to do to much then be guilty of caring too little." Strategy aside, it's hard to argue with that sentiment.
10:03 PM: It's some 33 minutes into his speech and Paul finally mentions his father for the first time. If I'd bet on the over/under at Vegas I'd have gotten killed!
10:06 PM: Before Paul's family joins him on stage he ends: "Now is the time to lead, not to withdraw. Now is the time...for Canada!" Yes!!
10:12 PM: In a fun moment, Paul's banner is raised to the rafters to join the banners of the past Liberal leaders, and the night comes to an end. Blogger is starting to act up so I'll leave the big picture thoughts and impressions until tomorrow, but it was a packed, standing room only crowd of united, enthusiastic Liberals here to say thank-you to Paul Martin. Ups and downs aside, it felt good.
Now it's back to the hotel to change and off to the parties. I hope to make stops at the Young Liberals party and Martha Hall Findlay's before ending up at Stephane's hospitality suite.
Tomorrow, the voting begins!
*The Liblogs press conference seemed to be a great success this afternoon, with a good turnout of print and TV journalists. Cherniak did a number of interviews and so did many of the other bloggers here. I had a good chat (I think) with a reporter from the Toronto Star, so we’ll see how that turns out in print tomorrow. Ken Rockburn from CPAC has also been up a few times; he’s going to pop by tomorrow night to join us as we blog the first ballot results. I think there’s a lot of education going on about what blogging is all about; it will be interesting to see how the coverage plays tomorrow.
*This afternoon was the constitutional plenary. The reform package passed but one member, one vote went down. It’s very disappointing. As I blogged earlier, I really think we need to go to OMOV. And I hope we come back to this soon. This isn’t over yet. I think a lot of people felt things were rushed, and they wanted more information. I recognize this is the process, but it seems a bit wrong to me that it’s delegates to a convention that are deciding whether or not to do away with delegated conventions. If you’re in the group of people that can afford to come, then you’re more likely to say keep it. We’re talking about a fundamental change to the ways the LPC works. After more debate and education, I think it would be good for ALL delegates to vote in a referendum on the issue.
*Ted and others today have been posting about the large group of Ignatieff supporters that greeted Iggy when he arrived at the convention centre this morning, and, more specifically, the CBC’s Susan Bonner calling it “the moment of the convention.” I have to disagree with Susan. All the camps have pre-arranged groups of supporters on hand as their candidates enter the hall. All are loud and boisterous. It makes for great b-roll for Susan and the other broadcast journalists, but it’s just theatre. The air war is over, the delegates are all here now and they’re a little too busy to watch TV. Howard Dean’s speech has been the moment so far, IMO.
*Gauntlet is right: Next leadership convention, camps should buy TWO-SIDED placards. Look at so many of the photos and TV coverage of white signs. You can get more bang for your buck.
*Another hour and it’s down to the hall for the evenings festivities, and the tribute to Paul Martin. Hope to be live-blogging the festivities again, but in the spirit of party unity I shall do my best to keep my snark in check. :)
A number of bloggers, and I’m guessing the media probably too, got an e-mail this morning from the NDP’s press secretary, Gaby Senay.:
It’s day two of the Liberal convention.
And let’s face it, under-attended plenary sessions and never-ending fourth ballot speculation don’t create that much good blog content.
That’s why the NDP’s got alternative Liberal Convention coverage underway!... We are serving up freshness daily!
OK, sounds interesting I thought, freshness daily, yum. So I went to check out the site, and the promised daily coverage from their official blogger, NDP MP Nathan Cullen (a great guy BTW from Skeena-Bulkley Valley, in Northern BC). Here’s the NDP’s blogging insights:
Opps! Anyway, what’s with these guys saying stupid stuff asking why none of the Liberal candidates have mentioned sponsorship in their platforms? Gee, I can’t possibly imagine why not. Newsflash NDP: the country has moved on. Next election Jack if you want to get anywhere you’re going to have to run ON something; just running against us ain’t gonna cut it anymore.
But good luck with that guys.
Recommend this Post on Progressive BloggersA whirlwind first day at the Liberal convention, but after a good six hours of solid sleep I’m back on the go, and trying to collect my thoughts on the convention so far.
I and many others thought last night’s official program went too long (wrapped-up just after 10pm) and particularly that the musical portions were overdone. Turns out there’s an explanation, Paul Wells reports that Howard Dean was running late and the singers were forced to fill. That would explain it.
It’s been a fun time so far, particularly hanging-out with lots of fun bloggers. And I’ve really been surprised at the number of people that have heard of this blog and claimed to be readers. Even if half of them are lying, still, it’s nice to hear, and thanks for reading.
The parties were a lot of fun last night, especially the Liblogs party. The group was a good mix of people from all the different leadership camps. I met many people and bloggers and I’m horrible with names so sorry to those I won’t be able to remember. But it was particularly good to meet Antonio of Fuddle Duddle fame, whom I’ve had some spirited debates with on our respective blogs; he’s a great guy in person.
I find that’s so often the case. The difference between the picture we get of a person from their online persona and how they actually are in person is often so different. And also the impressions we form about a person based on their writings. For example, the unmasked Calgary Grit, whom I also met last night, is much younger than I’d have pictured.
Stephane Dion and his wife Janine Krieber stopped by the Liblogs party, and I had a chance to chat with Janine for a bit. And I also got my photo taken with Stephane, who now joins the very short list of politicians I’ve gotten my picture taken with. The other? Ken Dryden, but I wasn’t really counting him as a politician at the time. :)
After the Liblogs party wound down I headed off with Ted Bets (Cerberus), Antonio and a bunch of other folks to hit the Iggynation party. Also had a good chat with the fellow behind Libnews.ca, whose frustration with how the tone of debate on the blogsphere during the campaign has degenerated I share. He hopes to be back with a new concept after the convention, and I look forward to reading it.
Big day today, the Liblogs press conference in an hour, constitutional reform plenary in the afternoon and the Paul Martin tribute in the evening. That should be…interesting. And, I trust, a party or two after that. Only had one drink last night, so I think I can have at least two tonight. :)
Hanging-out in the bloggers room with Miranda from A View from the Left and John from The John Lennard Experience.
The convention centre is a very colourful sight after dark.
Jean Lapierre, Anne McLellan and an unknown person chit chat in the CTV booth.
Dion and Ignatieff supporters go face to face in a chant contest. I have two possible jokey comments here and I couldn't choose so I'll post them both:
Don't know what that is hanging from the ceiling, put it looks pretty.
Business owners in Montreal spontaneously showing their support for Dion. Clearly this momentum...blah blah...unstoppable...yada yada....
Bill Graham's keynote from the veeeeery back of the hall.
Howard Dean addresses the delegates.
Myself with Stephane Dion and his wife Janine Krieber at the Liblogs shindig.*As long as the laptop battery and WiFi holds I'll be liveblogging the night's convention program, refresh this post throughout the evening for updates.
7:30 PM: Hello from the convention floor at the convention centre in Montreal. The hall is beginning to fill up for the night one festivities. The fun will include a thanks to Bill Graham for his yeoman's services as interim leader and, the event we've all been waiting for, the Howard Dean keynote.
A fun little piece of political theatre a little earlier, before I made my way down to the keynote hall. In the main lobby area, when their candidate came down the escalators, large, vocal, placard-totting groups of Ignatieff and Dion supporters cheered for their arrival. The usual manufactured for TV b-roll type of convention display.
But after their candidates left the scene, the Iggyans (is that right?) and the Dionistas engaged in a little cheering contest with one another for about twenty minutes. I got some good pics, will post them up tonight or in the morning. Was a nice little display, fun stuff.
Anyway, I'm sitting at the back but up front the seats are divided by leadership camp. It seems the Dionistas were overflowing into the largely empty Volpe area and were asked to move. Opps, guess there's just too many Dion supporters here. Sorry Joe! :)
7:45 PM: People are still filing in for the "Red Hot Liberal Convention" as the bilingual DJs called it, but still plenty of good seats here in the back. The Iggy and Rae people just made themselves heard, and hey, there's a Scott Brison sign too.
In fact, lots and lots of empty seats here the back as we open the program with O Canada. And now some young fellow going aaaaaaa a lot. Followed by some kind of rattling briefcase and weird sound effect show. Flip on CPAC, I have no idea guys.
7:50 PM: Now they've added maracas or something. And I think I see Michael Flatley and ZZ Top.
7:52 PM: OK, so they're students at risk or something, so anyway, good for them and nice show. I'm a cultural heathen anyway. But now on with the program.
8:06 PM: Long string of the usual welcome messages and boilerplate from a whole bunch of people, so I'm catching up on my blog reading. Reading Wells at the moment, Paul stopped by the blogger room this afternoon to say wassup. And there's Craig Oliver walking by. He looks a touch lost, I hope he finds his way.
8:09 PM: And now the singing of one Melanie Renault. They need to knock the volume here down just a notch or two, I think.
8:11 PM: Owwww! Esp. on the high notes. Seriously.
8:14 PM: Another song, nooo! I mean, she's a great singer. It's just the volume. OK, do I sound like I'm 68 or something? Anyway, just read Coyne's column. Not sure I agree, I haven't heard a lot of buzz about the nation here except theorizing on how it will move the votes. No one saying it's moving their votes though.
8:18 PM: OK, she's done and hey, who's that guy? Oh, it's Glen Pearson, our new Liberal MP from London-North Centre. He said he just sent Stephen Harper a message. He said the voters said it's time to take Kelowna back, take Kyoto back, take childcare back, to take our country back. Nice little speech from Glen.
Am I sensing a theme for the next election?: Taking the country back. I like it.
8:26 PM: New Brunswick Premier Sean Graham takes the stage. Gives thanks to both Paul Martin and Bill Graham, and elicits a standing-o for each. OK speech, bit I swear he almost lapsed into a Bob Dole-like timbre at one point there: we wiiiilll beee uniited.
8:30 PM: Long speech from Sean, and in both official languages too. I like the message though, he's likening his experience in New Brunswick in the last election now to our challenge today. There's no shortcuts to earning people's trust, he said, and that's exactly right. Trust is won for what we're for, and not what we're against. EXACTLY!
8:40 PM: Didn't catch his name but we've not got another band on stage, they were billed as some sort of maritime group. "Which was does the wind blow?" was their first song. Hopefully, it's blowing our way.
Now it's a second song en Francais, which translated as "Tear down these walls". In case you didn't get the symbolism he explained it for us. He's urging audience participation too. We're all to sing the chorus "wooooh oooooh ohhhhh ohhhhh ohhhh." And now the volume is back up again, ouch. Benefit of sitting on media row: don't need to go: wooooh oooooh ohhhhh ohhhhh ohhhh.
8:54 PM: OK, after a third song they're done and it's time for the Bill Graham tribute. They're showing a tribute video now...hey, he had dark hair! Don't you wish Bill was just a few years younger? He'd have a real shot at the leadership. A class act all the way.
9:01 PM: Bill's daughter Cathy and his son are up to do the intros and pay a touching tribute to their father. And son takes a little shot at Peter McKay. He also told a funny little story. I guess the son (sorry, I missed his name) is a journalist, and he says Bill used to start his speeches with a little anecdote:
"The only people hated more than politicians are journalists and I know because I have one for a son."
A more partisan speech from the son, not sure if it was quite appropriate but a standing-O because now, here's Bill.
9:05 PM: Bill starts by saying the smartest political speech he could give would be to stop right now. We'll give you one more though Bill.
Nice line from Bill here, as he talks about Stephen Harper and notes the 2.5 sword lengths away he sits from Steveo.
"It's two swords lengths away, and there's days where, if I had the sword..."
Bill moves on to Conservative flip-flops, and there's rich material there. Loud boos great the mention of the names "Emerson" and Fortier".
Referencing the London-North Centre byelection:
"And in that election the Conservatives came third and the NDP, my friends, came fourth. I wonder how Jack feels about that?...Not bad for a party that is leaderless...a fact my wife and kids often remind me of."
9:15 PM: Bill says let's not be afraid of our life in politics, but let's be proud of it. I like that message. Politicians and those in politics often get a bad rap, and while the motives of some may be impure the majority of people in all sides are all about making Canada better for all Canadians, and that's something to be proud of.
9:23 PM: Heartfelt closing words from Bill and a standing-O from the delegates in the hall, and leaves he with a piece of First Nations art. I'm not sure if he's retiring in the next election, but I hope he stays around.
And now more music from a Naomi Streamer before we get to the Deaner. While I appreciate the music to break-up the speeches I think a little less would have been better. It's getting a bit late, and I left the acetaminophens back in my room.
9:30 PM: Just remembered I had foam ear plugs in my bag. Ahhh, sweet relief! I swear, this is louder than the day I went to qualifying for the Montreal F1 Grand Prix.
9:35 PM: And with the video tribute now rolling it's time for the Deaner. He gave a voice to people that lost faith in their leaders, says the voiceover lady. I hear Howard was practicing his speech in the hall this afternoon and was trying, without much success, to bring the French. Will be interesting to see if he goes for the French tonight.
The opening video is still rolling. Very much a "The Howard Dean Story" that kinds of leaves the impression of Howard vs. the world. Holy schmaltz batman. Maybe it's because I'm not a huge Dean fan, and this kind of stuff is common in these kind of videos, but still, pass the rusty fork. On with the speach, please! Howard! Howard!
9:39 PM: Did Howard Dean start coloring his hair? Oh, no, that's Frank McKenna. Hey, does Frank color his hair? Inquiring minds want to know. Anyway, Frank is intro'ing Howard, but first he gives a wassup to:
"My Prime Minsiter forever, whom I was so proud to serve under, Paul Martin."
9:42 PM: Howard takes the stage with a standing-o from the audience. He starts by taking a humble shot at the glowing intro video:
"That's something my father would have enjoyed a lot of and my mother might have believed it."
He says though that the Democratic success in the last election was all about team effort and the cooperation of many, many people working together. And then he breaks out the French and just a few words in he's interrupted by thunderous applause from an appreciative audience, to which he throws back this line:
"Won't Fox news hate this!"
I thought he did pretty good with the French. Howard goes on to talk about the long friendship of the Canadian and the American people, listing examples of cooperation like the ice storm and Hurricane Katrina. Howard says "We're connected by more than shared values. We're connected by shared ideals."
9:50 PM: Getting down to brass tacks, Howard said there are two major lessons of success for progressive parties: the place of power, and how it's practiced. Power, he said grows from the grassroots up, not from the top down. And not just from the areas that have traditionally supported you.
"We should never cede a single state or a single province...never cede a single voter, not a single one!"
"Show up...everywhere. Knock on doors...everywhere. Work hard...everywhere. And do it every day."
9:55 PM: He says there were some in the Democratic Party saying the way back to success was to mimic the Republicans, whose values we don't share, and he said that would be wrong. The path to power is in your values, in articulating them, in standing up for what you believe in, in living them and standing by them.
10:00 PM: Howard wraps it up. I know I said I'm not a big Howard Dean fan, but I have to say I liked this speech. I liked the message. It's a common sense one, and it's a good one. I hope we take its lessons to heart in the months ahead
And now as the hall begins to empty I bid you adieu from Montreal. Off to the parties!
Came across this post this afternoon from blogger Devon Francis (Liberal Outsider), who, while he's a Kennedy supporter, I am supremely confident does not at all speak for Kennedy, or anyone else in his campaign:
Today at the convention Leadership candidates arrived to register. The day began with Bob Rae registering, with his supporters chanting "Bob Rae, Bob Rae." His crowd was a fairly good size. They were clad in the red t-shirts and carried the posters that depicted Rae in a rather not so flattering way.
The overall style, and not content, has been remarked as akin to the Nazi party material. Half red and halfblack and white, one cannot help feel the empire-ish sentiment it conveys. Further, the Rae campaign has been passing posters and cards advocating a Rae-volution. I must ask, is this a wise political move?
Tell me Devon, is it wise to compare the Bob Rae campaign to the Nazi Party? I mean, really, is that politically wise, or just plain wise at all?
Was a bit of a hassle finding the bloggers room, it’s a bit out of the way (keep the unwashed bloggers away from the normies!) but it’s very comfy. Good on Tait Simpson and the LPC for setting it up and inviting bloggers to come to town.
And naturally in the blogging room were, well, bloggers, such as Scott Tribe of Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Canada, Wayne Chu of Progressive Bloggers, Jason Cherniak, Miranda of A View from the Left, John Lenard of The John Lennard Experience and Laura of The Tyee.
After checking out my e-mail it was down to the already underway policy workshops. With the nation motion withdrawn I figured the best chance for drama was the fiscal imbalance motion so I hoofed it down to the economic policy workshop.
The room was half full but there were still 75 or so people that cared a bit about policy, not too bad. Dion and Ignatieff supporters were prominent in the room as well; Dion’s people wearing red shirts and Iggy’s peps sporting funky Iggy scarfs.
I missed the debate on the fiscal imbalance, if there was any debate. I was there, however, for the vote on prioritization. Iggy’s people all voted for it, none of Dion’s or, in my biased opinion, most of the others in the room did. It was enough, though, for the motion to be prioritized and it will be debated on the convention floor tomorrow.
This issue seems to be flying under the radar, but I don’t know. In a day everything passed here will be forgotten. The leader sets policy.
The real fun begins tonight with the convention opening, Howard Dean speech and then the parties, including THE party, the LibLogs soiree at Hotel Place D’Armes. Be there or be square.
4:15 am This is way to early to get out of bed, espicially when you only went to bed four hours earlier.
5:15 am Get a cab for the trip from Scarborough down to Union Station, I don't fancy taking a cab at this hour.
5:45 am I'm more used to flying where you need to arrive pretty early. For future reference though, one hour is waaay to early to get to the train station. Plus side, I'm first in line, so guaranteed window seat with a view of empty fields and the 401.
6:10 am Finally some other people arrive and I'm not the only one here any longer. Hard to tell who are Liberals (Harper is saving the scarlet L branding law until he has his majority) but I do see one fellow wearing a Bob Rae button, hopefully that's not a bad omen.
6:55 am We pull out of the TDot on time, a better omen. And a few minutes later, the VIA breakfast of champions for only $5. I haven't had Nerds in like nearly 20 years!
7:15 am We arrive at Guildwood. In Scarbough. Where I live. Why didn't I get on the freakin train here?
8:00 am An observation, prolonged periods of Treo typing really cramp up the fingers. Ouch.
9:20 am Pulling out of Kingston and the train has now filled up. I can read Liblogs on the train but can't login to blogger for some reason, the button just won't click. Also, I'm going to have to change my blog template because it is not at all readable on mobile devices.
10:05 am Just outside Brockville the train stops to split in two to expel those going to Ottawa. And good riddance, I say. They were slowing us down!
10:50 am A brief stop in Cornwall, our last before the Quebec border. I have my passport ready for customs and immigration, but no officials come on board. Maybe its like the EU, open borders? Hope they take dollars.
11:55 am Arrive in Montreal pretty much on time and none the worse for the ware. Let the fun begin.
Note: This post was written Monday morning, but for various reasons I’m just getting around to posting it now. I still think the thesis stands though. And after this I promise to try very, very hard to avoid posting on this nation stuff. :)
A few thoughts on the news Gerard Kennedy will be opposing the Harper Quebecois are a nation motion.
*I'm glad he's come to the decision that he has, but I have to wonder what took him so long to a position? I'd expect a leader/Prime Minister to come to a decision a little faster. After all, this issue didn't come out of the blue. But still, better late and right than quick and wrong.
*GK said: "I deplore that anyone would use this as a wedge issue for political gain." So do I, and I hope that NO ONE on either side of the issue does.
*This will undoubtedly give Gerard a boost in much of the country (not that he'd use it as a wedge issue for political gain, of course) but it raises serious problems for him in Quebec. He's going to find it difficult to get to 50 per cent plus one without some Quebec support, and if he does the prospect of a leader without even minimal support from Quebec is neither attractive nor desirable.
*That's where the What Now? question comes in. I agree this motion is a slippery slope. But a flat-out rejection, without some kind of alternative or at least the brushstrokes of one, is a dangerous idea. Gerard said:
"I respect the sense of identity shared by many Quebecers, reflecting a common culture, language, history and accomplishment and I will continue to promote that identity, rather than playing divisive political games with it."
That's nice sentiment, but sentiment alone isn't going to cut it. I want to know, both as a Liberal and as a Canadian, how is Gerard going to move us past this debate and what is he going do to address the concerns of those in Quebec then do view themselves as a nation?
*This leadership race isn't a one-issue campaign, and it shouldn't become one. I disagree with Stephane Dion on this motion; I would like to see him stand opposed to it. But I still support him for leader. Because my decision is based on more than one issue, and because I understand where he's coming from though. I was nearly there myself. I was back and forth on this issue before I decided to oppose it.
This motion isn't ideal. I think we both agree that we'd rather not be having the debate right now, and wouldn't were it not for the bold and decisive leadership of one Michael Ignatieff (thanks Iggy!). But now that we're here it can't simply be wished away.
Most agree that Quebecers/Quebecois form a sociological nation. We both think recognizing it will lead to demands for officialization. The counterpoint is that to vote against even informally recognizing what we all agree to be true is a slap in the face to the people of Quebec. Which is why it would be better not to have this on the agenda in the first place.
Stephane chose to vote yes and fight against the inevitable push for officialization with the same firmness and clarity he has fought the separatists with all his career. He's refusing to let the separatists own the term. Yes, he's saying, Quebec is a nation, and so are the First Nations, and the Acadians, and so on. It's a valid decision, consistent with his long record on the file. We just disagree on strategy.
Because, when you look at it, it's really not that different from the position I'd have rather he took, and that Gerard did. Both agree, I think, that there's some sort of sociological type of nation there. Both are against any kind of officialization of such a recognition. Stephane, since the genie has been uncorked, favours giving at least symbolic recognition of the fact we all agree on as a compromise to Quebecers, while Gerard opposes even that symbolic recognition because it will lead to demands for officialization, something they both oppose.
*Which brings me back to what now? Stephane took his position to offer a compromise for those in Quebec that feel strongly about the issue. Like most compromises it's less than ideal, but that's the nature of compromise, and we have to live in the world as it is.
Gerard has rejected that compromise. That's perfectly valid. I, and millions of Canadians, are very happy that at least someone on the political scene shares our view and that our voices will be represented.
But it iss now incumbent on Gerard to offer an alternative, beyond "I respect the identity…" And he's going to need to come out with something more substantive soon. That will be the true test of his leadership potential. I hope he can come through.
It’s laundry and packing tonight and then in the morning I head downtown to catch a very, very early morning Via train out of Union Station to Montreal and the Liberal leadership convention, arriving in town midday.
I’ll be setting up camp at the Travelodge and then heading over to the convention to wade into the policy goodness. If you’re concerned it will be anticlimactic with the Nation time bomb at least partially defused, fret not. I suspect the debate on the largely overlooked fiscal imbalance policy could prove interesting.
I’ve set up a landing page here where I’ll link my coverage from the convention for easy reference. I’ll have my laptop in tow so I can blog away, and I’ve also arranged through my day job to demo the new Palm Treo, so I’ll also be doing a little Treo-blogging when the WiFi is down or the notebook batteries die.
Looking forward to meeting lots of you in Montreal, please feel free to send me a note at jjedras (at) hotmail.com or ring or text me on the Treo at (416) 434 7823. And if you see me around the convention (that's my forced smiling face above) please say hi.
Bookmark this page for links to all my coverage of the Liberal Leadership convention in Montreal over the course of the week.
Convention Coverage:
Saturday
A Perfect Storm
LPC Day Four (evening) in pictures
On cloud nine
Me with the next Prime Minister of Canada!
DION!! DION!!
Comon
Jean! Jean! Jean!
PMs and leaders
Photos from the floor before ballot four
Forgive my profanity but hell yes!!
It's easy being green
Welcome Gerard!
Second ballot: That's what I'm talking about!
Bloggers on CTV
Big red bus chugs to Stephane!
Friday
LPC Day Three in photos
First round results are out...
Waiting on results...and pizza
Liveblogging from the floor: Night three and candidate speeches
Media, spin, noise and numbers
Embedded inside a flash mob
Numbers
It's winter in Montreal but it's spring in the LPC
"He's an elfin type..."
Thursday
LPC Day Two in photos
Tyee: The language police have invaded the convention
Live blogging from the floor: Night two's all about Paul
Thoughts on a busy afternoon
Me too! Me toooooo!
Waking up in Montreal
Wednesday
LPC Day One in photos
Live blogging from the floor -- night one
Day one and someone has already played the Nazi card
Imbalance moves to plenary
Chugging to Montreal
Tuesday
To Montreal in the morning
Pre-Convention Coverage:
All about Dion
My choice for leader: Stephane Dion
In conversation with Stephane Dion
An interview on the issues with Stephane Dion
Dion on electoral reform
Dion and La Belle Province
The Dion Letters
General coverage
Why I support (weighted) one member, one vote
Tyee: What happened to heath care?
Tyee: Recognizing imbalance the wrong move
Tyee: Ignore the jelly, vote for policy
Guest blogger: Pierre Trudeau
Iggy's not jiggy with it
I believe the children are our future
Ken Dryden's Yankee Burger-gate
Tie a Red Ribbon around that sagging Liberal tree...
Babies, bathwater and leaders
My coverage of the LPC(O) convention
Almost live blogging from the Liberal love-in at the King Ed
Reinterpreting Laurier for the 21st Century
This week as part of the package of renewal motions Liberal delegates will vote on adopting a weighted one member, one vote method of leadership selection. This would see us join every other party in the 21st Century and be a major step toward party renewal. I urge all delegates to support it.
For me, this is really an issue of the grassroots having a true say. I have a number of issues with the current system, but I'll start with ex-officios. It bothers be that this category gets automatic delegate status because they hold one of a mayrid or party offices, are an MP or past candidate, or a member of the Privy Council. I don't think they should be entitled to any special rights over and above any other party member. We should ALL be equal.
Even the leaders of the provincial "Liberal" parties are automatic ex-officio members of the LPC and therefore could claim ex-officio delegate status. Yes, even BC Premier Gordon Campbell. Anyone who follows BC politics know that Gordo is no Liberal, and neither is the BC Liberal Party. Something is wrong with that picture.
Then there are all the machinations that can happen with a delegated system. Rather than voting directly for your choice for leader you vote for a person supporting your choice and that person is pledged to vote for that candidate on the first ballot. But only on the first ballot. After that they're on their own and your views don't matter anymore.
On machinations, Steve at Far and Wide wrote this week about a theory postulated by one David Herele who, say what you will about him (and I have), knows a thing or two about leadership contests:
… Ignatieff or Rae may send some delegates to Kennedy to boost his support on the first ballot and keep Dion well back in fourth. The theory being, a weakened Dion would be less of a threat, as well as the added bonus of those delegates coming back on the second ballot to show artificial growth….
And there's also this section from a news story talking about the four former Dion supporters that crossed over to the Ignatieff camp:
…Coderre said some won't vote for Dion, even though they are committed to do so on the first ballot. "There's some people who won't even vote on the first ballot and just vote on the second."
Is this really respecting the will of these people that elected these people to support a candidate that they'll either skip the first ballot instead of voting for the person they pledged to vote for, or will vote for someone else all together as part of some grand political strategy?
It's nauseating, really, and it's the kind of old style politics that Canadians have come to abhor. This wouldn't happen with OMOV. You rank your choices on a preferential ballot and it's the voice of all the members that gets heard.
Now, the argument most often levied in favour of the delegated system is that conventions are so exciting, it's a good dose of earned media for the party. And that's true, this week is going to be fun. For those that are there. For those that can afford to raise $1000 for a delegate fee, $500 or more for a hotel and another $500+ for airfare.
So, it's an exciting weekend for those that can afford to drop $2000 to spend a week in Montreal in the winter (looking better than Vancouver right now though). That's leaves out a lot of average folks, and after their voices are heard on the first ballot (if they're lucky) they're silenced.
We can do something to make things more exciting but I'd rather have a slightly less exciting event that sees the will of the membership truly represented than a super exciting event only open to the wealthy, and their voices.
An argument presented against OMOV is that it would remove the incentive for candidates to campaign in every riding. With OMOV, the theory goes; it would be more profitable to concentrate on mass signups in major urban centres. With pure OMOV that would be true, but what we're talking about here is weighted OMOV.
Under such a system, each riding is assigned 100 points which are assigned to the candidate's totals based on the vote in that riding. Therefore each riding has an equal voice, and candidates must campaign and organize everywhere, just as they must now.
No system is perfect. But in terms of fairness, transparency and just basic affordability I feel it's time we do away with the delegated convention.
That said, i this is the last one I'm looking forward to partying like its 1968.
Recommend this Post on Progressive BloggersIn case you missed it the other day Akaash Maharaj, former LPC policy chair, and very nearly the LPC president in 2003, has endorsed Stephane Dion. Follows his letter explaining why:
--
Dear Colleagues,
I hope this note finds you well, and looking forward to the Liberal Party of Canada’s leadership convention in Montreal this week.
As you know, this is the first federal Liberal leadership election in more than a generation whose outcome is genuinely uncertain. As a result, whether we vote at the convention as direct attendees, guide our ridings’ delegates as grassroots Liberals, or shape the context of the election as informed Canadians, the choices we make this week will have a decisive impact on the future of Canada.
I am writing to let you know why I have chosen to support Stéphane Dion.
Throughout his decades of public service, Stéphane has consistently displayed political courage, loyalty to the national interest, and irreproachable personal integrity.
As author of the Clarity Act and as our party’s most unwavering proponent of the Kyoto Protocol, Stéphane has always displayed the courage of genuinely Liberal convictions. While others shrank from the debate, he lived the creed that government must stand prepared to do what is right not in spite of the difficulty, but precisely because of the difficulty.
During the arduous transition between the Chrétien and Martin leaderships, Stéphane was as steadfast a beacon for party unity as he has been for national unity. He understood that a principled political party must remain bound together through loyalty to a shared set of ideas and ideals, and must be more than just the vehicle for the ambitions of any one person.
Above all else, throughout his public and professional life, Stéphane has been recognised by friend and foe alike as a person of the highest ethical standing. For a party whose adversaries have so traduced us over scandals real and manufactured, we can only hope to re-earn the confidence of Canadians if we choose a leader whose entire record speaks to the nobility of public service.
Irrespective of the outcome of the leadership election, Stéphane will work towards an open and inclusive Liberal Party: one that will value the contributions of all leadership candidates and their teams, one that will draw Liberals together after the convention, and one that will present itself to Canadians as worthy and able to govern Canada.
Stéphane Dion is the Prime Minister Canada deserves and the leader the Liberal Party needs. I hope you will join me in making both a reality.
With best wishes,
Akaash
While some are trying to paint sharp contrasts between Kennedy and Dion over this nation thing, the fact is the divisions are smaller than you may think. Indeed, they, and probably nearly all of the other leadership candidates, are pretty much on the same page here. The only difference is a matter of strategy.
I opposed the HoC motion and Dion supported it, yet I still support Dion. Ontario MP Mark Holland supported the motion and Kennedy opposed it, yet Holland still supports Kennedy; in fact he’s Kennedy’s Ontario campaign chair. And indeed, all four of us are pretty much on the same page.
On Peter VanDusen’s show on CPAC tonight Holland explained why he can support this motion and still support Gerard, and how they aren’t really that far apart on the important points of the issue:
“I don’t think Gerard is wrong. Gerard has stated some concerns that I share. Gerard is concerned that this is going to be beyond something symbolic, that this is going to carry towards officialization and move toward constitutional recognition of Quebec as a nation, which is something that is unacceptable. What I share with Gerard is the belief we need to draw a firm line here at this point. That it is unacceptable to undermine federalism any further. That as a symbolic gesture, recognizing Quebec as a nation is a sociological sense, in a symbolic way, in a motion in the house, that is fine by me but Gerard is afraid of what comes after, as am I. That’s one of the things that we’re going to have to work on, and I think it’s going to be a big issue at this convention.”
All four of us agree, I think, that there's some sort of sociological type of nation there. We’re all against any kind of officialization of such a recognition. Stephane and Mark, since the genie has been uncorked (thanks Iggy!), favour giving at least symbolic recognition of the fact we all agree on as a compromise to Quebecers. Gerard and I oppose even that symbolic recognition because it will lead to demands for officialization, something all four of us oppose and will fight against.
So, besides that point of strategy (small sop and fight or stand firm and fight) everyone is on the same page until it comes to officialization, and even then as far as I know there is only one leadership candidate that favours that…although only at some future point in time, when the “winning conditions” are in place, yada yada.
So Harper triple-whipped this thing? Interesting. I could go through the archives and pull up a bunch of fun quotes from the Harper gang about how whipping is bad, freedom of blah blah, but who has time? They don’t get to hop on that high horse again though. Take a note.
Watching the vote. Looks like Garth Turner has his Dell out at his desk and is typing away. Live blogging perhaps, does the HoC have WiFi?
Final score, passes 266 to 16.
Don Newman reports six Conservatives hid in a closet rather than having to come down one way or another. Not one Conservative voted no. Given a choice between standing-up for their beliefs and their constituents and following orders from the PMO, they chose to follow orders. Reform Party, RIP. Good on Michael Chong anyway, although why didn’t he show up to vote NO after all that?
Garth Turner voted no, along with 15 Liberals. All the Dippers and BQ presented voted yes.
The Liberals to vote no were Joe Commuzi, Maria Minna, Diane Marleau, Joe Volpe, Raymond Chan, Jimmy K, Hedy Fry, Dan McTeague, Bill Matthews, Scott Sims, Don Bell, Ken Dryden, Paul Steckle, Andrew Telegdi and Navdeep Bains.
Agggh! On the CBC, Newman just threw it back to the anchor who intro’d a piece from The Hour on Gerard Kennedy, whom she just called the “only Liberal leadership candidate opposed to the motion.” Umm, was she watching her own channel like two seconds ago? I counted two other candidates that voted no, Ken Dryden and Joe Volpe. That would be three candidates. Indeed Don, was making just that point seconds before they threw back to her.
P.S. I trust his supporters are happy with the amount of press Gerard is getting now? :)
If you know, send an e-mail over to our friends in the NDP.
I’m on the NDP e-mail list and I regularly get fundraising pitches from their federal secretary, Eric Hebert-Daly, like the one where we were told that if we supported our troops we just had to send Jack Layton a cheque so he could bring them home from Afghanistan. I’m told they’re still there though, I guess Jack didn’t get enough to charter the Airbus.
Anyway, they sent out another e-mail today. This time they have an amusing little gimmick (don’t they always though? I loved the one where they pointed out that people identified as Liberal supporters actually were Liberal supporters, it was Pulizer worthy). They want to raise $13,500 by in a week to buy all the online advertising on globeandmail.com next Monday, the day people will be reading about the results of the Liberal leadership convention, so they can talk about how much the Liberals suck and the NDP rules.
Here’s a taste:
December 2nd, the Liberals will be choosing a new leader. They hope that with a fresh coat of paint, they'll be able to sell Canadians a rusty old car.
The Liberals are crossing their fingers - hoping voters don't look under the hood to see just how much damage 13 years of arrogance, inaction and corruption can cause.
When Canadians go online on Monday, they'll surely be hit by the Liberal spin. But thanks to you, they'll also get to check out the balding tires, the shot suspension, and the rusted out muffler.
OK, first of all, if there’s anyone in the House of Commons or in politics in Canada that resembles a used car salesman, it is sooooo Jack Layton. Second, the NDP is all about the smugness and arrogance. I guess they’re uniquely suited to judge Liberal arrogance then. After all, takes one to know one.
Anyway, having warned of the coming Liberal spin, now the NDP proceeds to make me extremely dizzy. Read all about it while I pop a gravol:
Let's not let voters forget who:
Sunday is supposed to be a day of rest, and what better way to rest then reading though lots of news stories about the Liberal leadership race?
And on a side note, went to see Bobby yesterday. It was pretty good. Not spectacular, but pretty good. I wonder if wannabe Democratic presidential candidates feel the need to compare themselves to Jack and Bobby?
Anyway, on to the news:
*Gerard Kennedy: For my Gerard Kennedy supporting friends that bemoan his supposed lack of media coverage, here’s an article that’s just on him. OK, it’s just a brief profile from Sun Media, but hey, it’s something. I link it though to highlight this passage:
Kennedy has met and spoken with all three of the other top-tier candidates in the race recently, but concedes that any meeting of the minds, so to speak, is most likely with Dion.
“I suppose you could say that if there were any understandings, it might happen there,” he said.
*Dion positions himself as potential kingmaker: I’d quibble with the headline but I know reporters don’t write headlines so I won’t hold it against the author of this interesting, and balanced, profile of Dion in the Montreal Gazette. Here’s an interesting passage:
But Dion's national campaign chairman, Don Boudria, said unlike Ignatieff, Dion arrives at the convention largely unblemished. Dion himself says it's good to be perennially underestimated.
"Exactly how many candidates look better today than three months ago?" Boudria asked. "There are not many in that group."
He said the people who are saying today he can't win Quebec are the same ones who were saying a few months ago that Dion would not get any delegates.
"We have gone from rags to riches, not in money but politically," Boudria said. "The guy has grown and grown by saying, in his Cartesian way, what he thinks about everything."
*Dion sees ‘English’ issue as asset: An interesting spin to put on it, to be sure. But I can see some sense to it. Because with all this spin from the other camps about how bad his English is, when people actually hear him they soon learn it’s not nearly as bad as they’ve been led to believe. Apparently he’s also working with a tutor to improve even further. Funny line here about the tutor:
"In debates, my professor told me, 'When you are agitating yourself too much, you speak too fast, and too high.' To the contrary, she told me, `Speak slow and low' not as much as (candidate) Ken Dryden, but try."
*Who to pick in Liberal race: The Star’s Haroon Siddiqui sizes-up the Liberal field and sees Dion as the best choice, followed by Rae. He likes Kennedy too, but seems to feel he might need a little more seasoning. And Iggy? After summing up why he doesn’t like him, making a few slightly unfair points I think (Haroon is a staunch leftie) he stingingly concludes: “One cannot think of a worse candidate for the Liberal leadership.” Ouch.
Dion is Captain Canada. As the author of the Clarity Act, he showed conviction and courage amid much abuse in his home province. Canadians owe him a deep gratitude for tethering the separatists to the rule of law, Canadian law. It is said that he is not popular in Quebec. Nor was Pierre Elliott Trudeau, at times.
It is said that Dion lacks charisma. So does Harper. And his English is better than the Prime Minister's French.
Once they get past their first-vote commitment to particular candidates, delegates to the Liberal convention should vote for Dion, and if he falls off the ballot, to switch to Rae, one of the most articulate politicians of our age, in either language.
*Sun endorses Dion: Yes, I know, they of the 250 reasons not to vote Liberal, the newspaper chain that makes a mockery of all the right wing whining about a supposedly Liberal media. But as Jason points out, when you’ve got the left (see Siddiqui above), the centre (the Globe yesterday) and now the right gives you the thumbs-up, you must be doing something right. Besides, the Sun sure are pithy writers.
On Iggy
Ignatieff is one of those academics who's "brilliant," but not smart. Plus, he only says what he thinks the audience wants to hear.
On Rae
Rae is the left's Joe Clark. When he has to make a big decision, he makes the wrong one. And usually, it's expensive.
On Kennedy
Gerard Kennedy was a good education minister for Dalton McGuinty in Ontario, if you believe in throwing money at problems to fix them. But with no federal experience and no seat in Parliament, we don't think he's ready. Maybe next time.
On Dion
Which brings us to Stephane Dion, our choice for leader because he was willing to fight for Canadian unity when it counted, despite the fact most of his academic peers in Quebec were separatists, who made his life hell. That took courage. While we think he's out to lunch in his support of the pie-in-the-sky Kyoto accord, we also think he's smart enough and tough enough to be a leader.
*Brison delegates weigh options: Interesting piece from the Halifax Chronicle Herald looking at where Brison and Dryden candidates from Atlantic Canada are likely to go when their candidates drop off. The short version: probably Rae and Dion, but very, very, very few to Ignatieff.
Kirk Cox, Ken Dryden’s Nova Scotia organizer, says it doesn’t look good for Mr. Ignatieff.
"I think the majority will go with Rae or Dion," he says. "I don’t hear a lot of them going to Ignatieff."
Mr. Rae has called Mr. Cox four times looking for his support. He regularly talks to Dryden delegates across the country, and they don’t want Mr. Ignatieff to win.
"I’ve yet to talk to one who will take their vote to him," he said
--
Off the record, several Liberals said Mr. Ignatieff may even have trouble holding all his Nova Scotia delegates after the first or second ballots.
"I’m hearing that a lot of people who signed up for Ignatieff are now second-guessing whether they should have signed up for him or not," said one Liberal who is considering Mr. Rae and Mr. Ignatieff. "He’s very intelligent but he doesn’t seem to be very politically savvy, and that worries people. That’s not what I’m saying. That’s what I’m hearing."
The Compromise Candidate?: The Star’s Sean Gordon pens an interesting profile piece on Stephane Dion that talks about the influence of his father and the maturing of his political philosophies and ideals. And there's a neato portrait.
Win by Dion seen as possible: Liberal strategist and pollster David Herle…yes, that David Herle…outlines how Dion could manage to win this thing next weekend. Basically, the longer he’s on the ballot the better his shot, because polls have consistently shown he has the most second choice support. I have to agree with that assessment. I’d add he also needs to surpass Gerard Kenendy in the ballot quickly, or the pressure will be for him to step aside.
Slinging mud: Apparently some blogger that doesn’t like Michael Ignatieff, and likes Bob Rae, has been outed for blogging from work. Apparently it’s a conspiracy though, because he works (worked?) for an ad firm that did some work for the Rae campaign designing buttons. The company said they knew nothing about what the guy blogged on his coffee break. Dido Bob's peps.
Says the Iggy campaign’s Brad Davis:
“The blogosphere is supposed to be an environment for grassroots Liberals to come together and discuss politics. We're very concerned to learn that Bob Rae has possibly hired a professional communications firm to pose as a grassroots supporter in a dirty smear campaign against Michael Ignatieff.”
Nice use of the word possibly since there’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that’s the case. Besides, no candidate would attempt to use the blogsphere for evil, now would they? Here’s Brad’s comments in a nutshell:
“I am shocked! Shocked I say to learn there’s gambling in this establishment!”
Me too. I remember when the Internet was just about the porn.
Catch of the day? Goldfish: Questions are raised about this supposed exodus from the Dion campaign of four really tip-top, super-duper, mucho important Quebec organizers to the Ignatieff camp we heard about the other day.
The Globe (scroll down) reports turns out two of them were just regular volunteers and one never even declared whom he was supporting. And the Post reports one of these supposed top organizers couldn’t even get himself elected as a delegate.
Still, Denis Coderre insists this is a sign that TrudeauMania IggyMania is breaking out in Quebec.
From Justin to Kelly Gerard: Justin Trudeau has come out and endorsed Gerard Kennedy. A big shot in the arm for the Kennedy camp, good for them. Justin had been wavering between Gerard and Stephane, saying Iggy doesn’t have the wisdom necessary to be Liberal leader and Rae doesn’t have the vision. No comment yet from Alf Apps.
Dear editor: Dion pens a letter to the editor of the Star on the recent nation goings on you may have heard about and why he's voting as he is.
In an editorial this morning the Globe and Mail sizes up the Liberal leadership field and endorses Stephane Dion.
You can read the full editorial here, but I’d like to share a few excerpts:
On Ignatieff and the nation
…barely more than a year after he arrived on the political scene, Mr. Ignatieff was right in the thick of things, helping to incite a divisive debate over whether Quebec is a "nation." He said he had little choice in the matter, that he was simply responding to a desire from some federalists in Quebec. That is an inadequate explanation. Leaders are expected to shape the agenda, not be prisoners of it.
His ruminations on "officializing" special recognition for Quebec did more than change the dynamic of the Liberal leadership race. Without the lifeline thrown by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Wednesday, they threatened to damage the Liberal Party and the country. While Mr. Ignatieff is an impressive individual, this is hardly the stuff of impressive leadership.
On Kennedy, the one for next time
He has infused the campaign with badly needed energy…However, it is difficult to overlook his struggle with the French language, and a sometimes superficial grasp of important issues. His woefully poor showing in Quebec is a serious, perhaps fatal, flaw. Still, this race has served him well. He is a man to watch, but not this time.
On Rae, whom they seem to really like
Because of Mr. Ignatieff's controversial musings on the nation debate, the Lebanon crisis and, allied with that, the allegation of a war crime, Mr. Rae's campaign was transformed. His deportment up to then had left some wondering whether a fire still burns in his belly, but Mr. Ignatieff's stumbles galvanized Mr. Rae. His experience leading a government, and his ability to answer a question without incident, suddenly became an asset…A Rae-Harper contest would provide stark choices and great political theatre.
On Stephane, and why he’s the man
He withstood the basest personal attacks, and, in battle, never flinched. In fact, he is arguably the most courageous Canadian politician of his generation.
What he lacks in charisma he makes up for in common sense. He possesses a remarkably clear-eyed view of the possibilities. That he has been the most lucid on the crucial unity file is unsurprising, but he has also presented a compelling vision of a 21st-century environmental economy. If a leader is going to exercise mastery over any files, those are among the most important.
But Mr. Dion has mastered more than that. Through the campaign, he has shown that he has mastered the art of politics. He has gained a love of the game, perhaps from watching the likes of Mr. Chrétien close up. While he has been burdened with an image as a stiff academic, he has added humour, passion and humility to his defining attributes of intelligence and principle.
There is no perfect choice for Liberal delegates, but Stéphane Dion comes the closest to deserving their support for leader
I have another post online over at The Tyee’s Election Central blog:
In my meandering stream of conscious opus the other day where I tried to figure out this nation thing, I was hung up on whether the original BQ motion referred to the geographic "Quebecers" or the sociological "Quebecois." It has been widely been reported as the former, but today it's confirmed that it is indeed the latter: both the BQ and Harper referred to the sociological Quebecois.
From the Globe:
He and his staff drafted a motion identical to the one to be put forward by the Bloc Québécois but for four critical words added on to the end, reading: “That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.”
The spin has been the Harper motion was different because it referred to the sociological Quebecois whereas the BQ wanted nation recognition for the wider geographic region of Quebec.
As I suspected, that's not true. The only thing Harper changed in the BQ motion was to tack on four little words: within a united Canada. Other then that, this is exactly the motion the BQ wanted, and now they're guaranteed to get it.
Clearly the BQ doesn't care if it's Quebecers or Quebecois. Let the federalists argue sociological vs. political definitions until their heads explode. All they care is this is official recognition, for the first time, they're some sort of nation. Harper's addition is meaningless. You can't ONLY be a nation within a united Canada. You're a nation or you aren't. We've said they are.
And now that we're recognizing next the demands will come. Don't meet them and there's your excuse for referendum III. Anyone who says they won't is hopelessly naïve and just plain ignorant of Canadian history.
Harper's four little words don't change anything. This is what the BQ wanted, and we're giving it to them. Bravo guys.
UPDATE: And it turns out the BQ is supporting the Harper motion (h/t A View from the Left). Just as I said, this motion is what the Duceppe wanted. The four little words change nothing, and Harper's supposedly brilliant masterstroke just hands the separatists a victory. Nice freakin work everyone.
UPDATE II: Olaf asked a question in the comments and I've decided to answer here, as I'm not an HTML person so putting links in the comments section is beyond my limited skills, and it's a touch long.
As I said earlier, the media have been confusing Quebecers and Quebecois here. Ironically, as a journalists they teach us to go to primary sources, so that's what I've done.
*Here's the PMO release on Harper's motion, including the text of the Harper motion, en Francais:
« Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation au sein d'un Canada uni. »
*As above, but in English:
"That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."
*Now here's the original BQ motion, from their press release two days earlier, en Francais:
« Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation. »
As you can see, when you compare the original BQ motion in French with the official Harper motion in French and the only difference is Harper has added the words "au sein d'un Canada uni"
Otherwise, this text in both motions is identical:
Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation
And as I showed this text is translated into English by the Prime Minister's Office as:
That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation.
Hey, Ms. May. Want to gain recognition as a national leader and help cement the view that the Greens are more than just a one issue party? Want to gain a truckload of respect and political support for yourself and your party across the political spectrum? Then get yourself to a microphone and camera in front of the national press corps right NOW and give voice to the millions of Canadians who are going crazy at the political elites of this country. Stand-up for the millions of Canadians for whom Canada is their nation. Period.
Please?
For those nations I've missed, I'm sorry. But rather then ponder why we're mired in this nation morass, I'd like to present to our political "leaders" the Top Ten issues that members of the Canadian nation are much more concerned about and would rather see the political elites concern themselves with:
10. Tax Policy and The Surplus: Tax cuts, yes, but sales tax or income tax? Income trusts? Income splitting? Debt reduction vs. investment in social infrastructure, what's the right balance? Let's have the debate.
9. Child Care and Early Learning: Two very different approaches from the Libs and Cons. Both recognize the issue, both have fundamentally different approaches. But we all recognize its importance, and the need to discuss, and more importantly, act.
8. Child Poverty: It's a national epidemic and it's a national shame. We need new ideas, and we need real action now.
7.Aboriginal Affairs: Speaking of nations, how about our First Nations? If the Cons are abandoning the Kelowna Accord, what are they going to do instead? What are our new ideas here too?
6.Foreign Policy and the Armed Forces: What role do we want Canada to play in the world? Is peacekeeping dead? Increase foreign aid? What about Darfur? Canadians are concerned, let's talk about it.
5. Afghanistan: Soldiers keep dying, support for the war is dropping, and we don’t seem to be meeting our objectives. Worth debating, no?
4. The Environment and Sustainable Development: Moving up the list of concerns for Canadians, the Conservatives are proposing legislation and a different approach, there needs to be a debate.
3. The Economy: As James Carville said, it's the economy, stupid! People are concerned about their jobs. Even in good times, they want to know how we're going to keep them going.
2. Health Care: Consistently ranked by Canadians as their number one issue of concern. Maybe we should listen to them?
And finally, the number one thing we'd rather talk about instead of the nation thing:
1. Root Canals. Would be much more enjoyable, don't you think?
The results for the first round of voting for the Canadian Blog Awards are in and I won't be moving on to the second round. I received a lot of support though, and I'd like to thank everyone that took the time to vote for me.
Here's how I fared:
Best New Blog: 7th with 86 votes, just missed the cutoff by 7 votes. Maybe next year?
Best Progressive Blog: 16th with 36 votes, 31 votes below the cutoff.
Best Blog: 57th with 28 votes, 73 votes below the cutoff.
I really appreciate all the support, it's heartening to know some people actually find some interest in my sometimes incoherent scribbling.
A lot of my favourite blogs didn't move on too, which was unfortunate. Indeed I don't recognize any of the top blog top five. I think that's a testament to the bench strength of the progressive blogging team, there's so many good blogs in the progressive sphere our vote split among them.
There are a few blogs still in the running that I'll be supporting in round two:
Best Conservative Blog: The Prairie Wranglers. Sure, Olaf is conservative but he's not dogmatic. We often disagree but we can have a real debate on facts, not rhetoric, and I've found that all too rare on the conservative side of the blogshpere.
Best Progressive Blog: Calgary Grit. What can I say about CG, he was an early pioneer whose example encouraged many, myself included, to give blogging a try. Consistently produces the most well reasoned, thoughtful and insightful commentary.
Best Group Blog: The Galloping Beaver. And not just because they were one of the first blogs to put me on their sidebar when I was first starting-out. They regularly produce a wide range of interesting and thoughtful posts.
Best Humour Blog: The Frog Lady. Who can forget the South Park caricatures? A very funny lady. Sure, so is Rick Mercer (funny, not a lady), but his blog was awol for months, and now it seems to be just the rant from his show each week.
Best Media Blog: Inkless Wells. Even with the jazz interludes, still great, regularly updated commentary that makes you think, and with the personal edge that separates blogging from columnizing.
I’ve been reading coverage, commentary and primary sources for much of the evening now and I keep going back and forth on whether or not I agree with Harper’s motion today.
First, let’s compare the motions. Here’s the original BQ motion:
Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation.
And here’s the Harper motion, at least in part, from the Star:
That this House recognize that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada. . .
Compounding my headache, there’s also the issue of Quebec vs. Quebecois. Some media have been reporting Harper as saying Quebec, but really he actually said Quebecois. The difference? Quebec/Quebecers is a political distinction/entity meaning citizens of and the province of Quebec. Quebecois, as I understand it, refers more specifically to francophone residents of Quebec. So, a sociological group rather than a political group. Oww, my head. An important distinction.
Now, originally I had read the BQ’s motion translated into English as Quebecers, rather than Quebecois. That makes the difference between the BQ motion and Harper’s motion appear bigger, and the Harper motion more attractive. At this point, I’m tempted to go with Harper’s motion, as it brings it clearly from the political sense to the sociological sense.
But reading the BQ motion in the original French it seems to me (an admitedly unilingual anglo) that it would be more appropriate to translate it as Quebecois. So, then, did the BQ intend it in the sociological or the political sense? Are the two motions really that different after all? If Quebecois is correct, then the only difference between the two is Harper tacked on a “within a united Canada.” That’s a great patriotic, feel good addition. But does it really change anything in the long run, strategically?
I don’t think so. Now my head is hurting even more, and I’m thinking Gilles Duceppe is playing a slightly slier game then I’d originally thought. If I was him while I’d bluster for the cameras I’d ignore that united Canada bit. The key thing for me (Gilles) is the recognition that the Quebecois form a nation.
Because I know I just emphasized the difference between sociological and political but after all we’re talking politics, not polysci. Whichever way the BQ intended it, their goal is accomplished. The Quebecois, and the Quebecois alone, have been recognized as a nation within Canada. We'll work out the details later.
The separatists have thrived on exploiting differences in words and terms like these to raise expectations in Quebec that will be dashed, fueling Quebecois anger and therefore support for separatism since the federal system just isn’t working.
So, we say we’re recognizing the Quebecois as a nation but only sociologically, don’t forget, and only within a united Canada.
OK, people in Quebec will now be asking, what does that mean? They’re not going to be satisfied with a mere recognition. They’re going to want something tangible. Does it go in the constitution, or does it confer new powers? The recognition, no matter how much we insist it is purely in the sociological sense, doesn’t meet expectations. It raises them. And if we don’t meet them, along comes the BQ and PQ saying See, we told you they don’t love us! And Gilles is smiling like a chesire cat, because we’ve played into his hands.
If we could keep this purely in the sociological sense I’d be cool with it. Because yes, I think in the purely sociological sense, as long as no special powers are conferred, of course the Quebecois are a sociological nation. But angels can’t dance on pinheads, and we can’t keep that genie in a bottle. And even if we could, I’d still have to ask, why are we singling-out the Quebecois Nation for special recognition? Why aren’t we also recognizing hundreds of First Nations, the Acadian Nation, the Newfoundland Nation, and so on? Are they less worthy of this purely symbolic, doesn’t infer any special powers recognition?
Yes, my head still hurts. So, I’ve decided I don’t like either motion, as they will both prove equally destructive. Ideally, we wouldn’t even be here. Ignatieff says we should thank him for bringing us here, I preferred last week when he was saying this was a grassroots thing he had nothing to do with. If he sticks with this new story he’s dropped lower than Joe Volpe on my candidate rankings. Well, maybe a tie with Volpe.
However, we are here, and we can’t wish it away. So, do we vote yes, even knowing the can of worms it will open and recognizing we’re playing into the BQ’s hands? Or do we vote no, knowing at this point the genie probably can’t be put back in the bottle anyway, and the distinction we’re making may not be widely appreciated? It’s a difficult question. Dammed headache.
Again, we’re letting the separatists outmaneuver us and dictate the terms of the debate, and that pisses me off. But, yes or no? I’ve literally been sitting here going back and forth in my head for half an hour now on that. As I see it, the choice is:
=Vote yes, and fight an aggressive but uphill battle to make it clear this is purely sociological and symbolic conferring no powers, and that we love all the other nations equally as well, giving the separatists the stick I mentioned earlier to beat us with, or
=Vote no, and say while we think the Quebecois people constitute a nation that’s not what this motion is about, this motion is about advancing the separatist agenda in stealth/trying to appease it, you’re not going to trick me into playing that game, I call BS
I have really been going back and forth but I have to say vote no. Despite his bluster this is still the motion the BQ wants, and we shouldn’t give it to them. Don’t play by their rules. Don’t let them define the agenda. Fight the good fight. Fight the fights that need fighting.
I vote no.
P.S. Yes, I know the Star is reporting that Stephane Dion is backing the Harper motion. I want to hear more from him on his reasoning. But at this point, I’m pretty disappointed. I think Warren’s list explains well why. What happen to the mashed potatoes?
Well, I’m still trying to digest today’s nation fireworks. OK, that’s a lie, I was watching the Canucks beat the Wings 4-
I saw in the paper today Gerard Kennedy and Stephane Dion are talking about supporting each other when the time comes, and I was pleased. I like Gerard, and at this point I'd rather see him as leader then Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff. So, I was glad to see our camps were talking cooperation. Too bad Gerard's bloggers didn't get the message, and are making me question that feeling.
Take a look across the blogshpere yesterday and today, here's a few headlines:
Liberal Life and Times: Dion copies Kennedy, AGAIN
Liberal Outsider: The 180 degrees of Stephane Dion and Afghanistan
Politics from a NB Perspective: Whoops! Dion campaign at it again?
What do these all have in common? They're all slagging Dion for alleged plagiarism or theft of policy and/or alleged flip-floppery, and on pretty sketchy grounds I might add, AND they're all proud Kennedyians. I don't know about you, but I'm not feeling the love
Inventing the wheel
One blogger says Dion copied his pension plan platform from a Senate report, another says he copied his position on the Afghanistan war from Kennedy. None of the allegations hold any water.
So, Dion called for a similar change in pension policy as a Senate report did (wonder if the senators came up with the idea, or was it suggested by witnesses?). To call that copying is like saying Harper copied his GST reduction idea from the 1993 Liberal Red Book. The pension system needs reform. We all know what needs to be done. He wants to do it.
Then there's Afghanistan. Let's look at the similarities in the Dion and Kennedy positions:
=Our current strategy isn't working, and NATO needs to reevaluate it: This would seem rather obvious, I think. It was obvious to Bob Rae too, when he expressed the same sentiments three weeks before Kennedy's Afghanistan platform. Did Gerard copy the idea that our strategy wasn't working from Bob?
=If we can't get the mission back on track, we should withdraw: Again, what's unique here? The Canadian Labour Congress called for withdrawal three months before Kennedy's Afghanistan platform, surely he didn't copy them, did he? The NDP called for withdrawl the next week, is Jack Layton copying Gerard too?
You'd think we'd be hearing: hey, that's great, we're glad you agree with us on this important issue facing our country. Instead it's: we thought of re-evaluating the mission and potential withdrawal first, you should come up with another idea. Don't copy us!
This is like two people at a restaurant, both ordering a club sandwich. Is the second person copying the first, or do they just like club sandwiches? You didn't invent the club sandwich; you just felt it was the best prescription for your hunger.
Just for fun I stopped by Gerard's Web site, looked through his policies and news releases, and did some Google searches. In less than an hour I found a number of ideas that were originally expressed by someone else, and weren't credited or footnoted. I'm not going to post them and pretend it's Watergate II. Why? Because, in addition to being lame, it doesn't matter. There's nothing wrong with it. You don't invent pension reform, or tax cuts, or re-evaluating your war strategy.
Anyway, lastly, another blogger, after implying Gerard has a copyright on any proposal to "withdraw from Afghanistan if it continues to be a failure" claims Stephane has somehow flip-flopped on the issue, using quotes from a slanted (oxy-moron alert) NDP Fact Check to burnish his argument.
Besides questioning the wisdom of using slanted NDP or Conservative talking points to attack a fellow Liberal, I'm hesitant to spend too much time on the merits of the argument, or lack thereof.
But for argument's sake, let's say he did change his mind. Is it wrong for someone's thinking to evolve, especially on something as critical as a war? And secondly, if someone changes their mind and now shares your view, why would you attack them for it? So, you state your case, make an argument, now I've changed your mind, I agree. Now you attack me for changing my mind? What's up with that? And what's your point: Hey, you agree with me now, so you suck?
Enough
I am just so tired of this kind of nonsense that this leadership race has degenerated to in the blogshpere. I picked these three examples because, in addition to being fairly egregious, they are also all from Kennedy supporters at a time when Gerard and Stephane are reaching out to each other. That makes it strategically lame in addition to plain 'ol ordinary lame.
Do they, or any of the bloggers that engage in this kind of nonsense, think they're helping their candidates? Kennedy wants to bring Dion delegates onboard should Dion fall off the ballot; do they think this kind of BS is going to help?
I have a headache. This is why so many people want absolutely nothing to do with the political process.
I really need to go shave and get ready for work, but I wanted to link to a great editorial in Halifax’s Chronicle Herald about how the whole nation thing is hijacking the leadership debate, rather than allowing the candidates to focus on “things that will really drive Canada’s social and economic policy,” like sustainable development.
It’s a message that Stephane Dion brought to the paper’s editorial board, and it seems they agreed. The editorial is well worth a read, but I wanted to share a few money quotes from Dion here (emphasis mine):
"People are all mixed up about this." Dion says. "It’s a very interesting discussion at a seminar of political science, but the moment you talk about putting that in the Constitution and you blame the other candidates for being afraid to raise the issue, then legitimate questions come: If you are a nation, what am I, mashed potato?"
--
"Now all of a sudden, the burden of proof is back on our shoulders. We need to deliver this mysterious constitutional change that will change Canada into a Federation of Nirvana through a magic word that everybody would agree upon. It will not work. Keep the burden of proof on the separatists."
--
I’d rather we be talking about sustainable development too, but if need be there’s no one I’d rather have taking on the separatists. That’s vintage Dion.
Unless Bob Rae drops-out of the race to support Joe Volpe (if it happens remember, you heard it here first) there are just four leadership candidate remaining in the field with a serious chance of taking this thing, which makes the interesting guessing game these days where will the other candidates go when they drop off the ballot.
Reading the tea leaves, or really, just the quotes, it seems like Scott Brison, while he says he’s considering all the frontrunners, may have his choices narrowed-down to Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion. Brison was in Winnipeg to speak to a local think tank, and here’s a passage from a story in today’s Winnipeg Free Press:
Brison's speech outlined many of the points he has raised in his campaign: about government's role in encouraging new environmental technologies and about blending environmental innovation and fiscal responsibility.
Asked if that matched the message of Quebec MP Stéphane Dion, Brison said he and Dion look at the same issues from different perspectives.
"I've come to the environmental challenge from an economic perspective and Stéphane has come to economic questions through the environmental lens," Brison said. "And I think that some of his ideas and some of my ideas can be synergistic."
"On the environmental side, I think both Michael (Ignatieff, the Liberal leadership front-runner) and Stéphane have put forth some clear thinking on environmental questions," Brison added. "I just believe absolutely that the greatest opportunity for Canada in the 21st century is to be the global leader in environmental technologies. I think this is good for business and great for the environment."
Interesting. Naturally I hope he’ll come over to Stephane, as I have a lot of respect for Scott Brison and particularly appreciate the attention he has brought to rural issues in this campaign. I think there may be a good chance of him coming to Dion too as I can’t see how Scott could walk back some of the comments he has made about Ignatieff, like these:
--
"These gaffes are damaging to a leadership campaign but they will be terminal to a national general election campaign.”
--
Brison said that in nine years in politics he hasn't made as many "retractions and clarifications" as Ignatieff has made in just nine months.
--
Brison compared Ignatieff to Stockwell Day, who jumped from provincial politics to become leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance without any experience at the federal level.
--
Brison took Ignatieff to task for other recent so-called gaffes, including telling the Star that Canadians "live and operate in a heartless world and you need leadership that understands that."
"When you see the world as being heartless, that helps someone justify ruthless acts," such as Qana, Brison said.
He also chided Ignatieff for saying that Canada's peacekeeping tradition "died" with the genocide in Rwanda.
Brison said that remark could only come from someone who's spent 30 years outside the country and fails to appreciate how important peacekeeping is to Canadians and to Liberals in particular, who view party icon Lester Pearson as the father of peacekeeping.
He also scoffed at Ignatieff's recent admission that he's not sure he's "up to the price you have to pay" to succeed in politics.
"If you go in to have heart surgery and the surgeon says, `I think I'm ready to do this but I've never done it before,' you're probably going to look for a surgeon who's done it before," Brison said.
I hesitate to write another Michael Ignatieff post again so soon, but this was just too amusing to pass up. And it's really not personal. I'll try to make fun of Gerard and Bob real soon. But in his television column in the Globe today, John Doyle writes on how ours has become a satire friendly culture, and he offers this passage:
This surge in satire is bad news for some people. Michael Ignatieff went to see Borat the other day and, like the pompous ass he often appears to be, took the time to tell a reporter that he found the film "amazingly awful" and "vulgar." This, we all note, is a movie that millions of Canadians think is hilarious. A man who cannot understand the appeal of Borat cannot understand Canada or the contemporary culture. Iggy's not jiggy with the times.
Interesting premise. Tad harsh. Grain of truth? I don't know. But I do ask – nay, demand -- that all the leadership candidates to immediately release statements on the Borat issue: did they see the movie? Do they think it's funny or not?
You have 24 hours. This message will self destruct.
P.S. I've seen Borat, and found it amusing. I can also see how it may not be everyone's cup of tea. If you've seen the trailers though you know what you're getting into.
So I wonder, did Iggy not know what he was getting when he decided to go see Borat? I mean, what was he expecting? Actual cultural learnings for make benefit the glorious nation of Kazakhstan?
P.P.S. How could no one have made the Iggy/Jiggy link before? It's genius.
P.P.P.S. In the interests of fairness, if the Ignatieff campaign wishes to clarify their candidate's remarks vis a vis Borat, his cultural learnings and his appeal to Canadians and contemporary culture, I'd be happy to publish said clarification.
Back in the summer, I urged the Liberal caucus to find its stones and start providing a passionate, forceful opposition. I’m pleased to say that this fall they’ve done exactly that. Their performance has improved markedly. They’ve really been taking it to the Harper Conservatives, and I think it has paid dividends. But they need to be careful not to overdo it.
There’s a line between forceful, passionate opposition and going overboard and becoming slightly cartoonish. Cross it and you look silly, people start not to listen to your legitimate points, and you let the government off the hook. Lately, I fear that line is being crossed from time to time.
Take yesterday’s QP, where the dominating topic was Harper’s manufactured dispute with China and his world debut as the first Canadian PM in history to have ever heard of human rights. Definitely lots of ground for strong opposition here, we should take it to the Cons on this issue.
I think Bill Graham was a bit over the top at times though. Like when he said Harper scored a “big fat zero” making headway on getting consular access for a jailed Canadian in China, that Harper is “dangerously driven by preconceptions, deceptions, self-delusions and arrogance” or when he called Harper “a laughingstock.”
Then there was the environmental conference in Africa, where John Godfrey and a BQ MP went over to shadow enviro minister Rona Ambrose and remind people she doesn’t speak for all, or even most, Canadians. A fine idea. Forceful opposition. But “openly mocking” Ambrose during press conferences, laughing out loud while quoting her policies, and calling her positions “idiotic” and “ridiculous” crosses the line and isn’t particularly useful.
I’m not saying any of the points raised in these two examples aren’t true. I think they are. It’s HOW you make the point. This kind of vitrol only serves to distract attention from the legitimate points of our arguments, letting the government off the hook, as the focus instead becomes the attacks themselves, and their tenor. People also tune-out, writing it off as politics as usual.
Draw attention to the issue. Make the point clearly and forcefully, without vitriol and name-calling, and then let the people decide. Particularly as the government begins to step it in more and more in the months ahead. It’s the oldest rule of politics: when your opponent is screwing-up, stay out of the way and let them.
Paul Wells continues to bitchslap Michael Ignatieff around over at Inkless Wells (does Paul maybe have a mancrush on the Iggster?), but I wanted to pull out this passage from a transcript of an interview Paul posted between Iggy and the CBC’s Evan Solomon where they talk about, what else, the nation question and all things constitutional.
For background and context they're discussing Ignatieff's Quebec ideas, his feelings on constitutional reform, and how sometimes the tough things need doing...or not, or just not right away.
I’d like to assure you in advance, any appearance that Iggy is comparing himself and his leadership stylings to Pierre Elliot Trudeau in this passage is purely in your imagination. And my imagination. And the imaginations of everyone else reading it. Or watching on TV.
--
Solomon: More generous than they were during the Meech Lake Accord?
Ignatieff: Never underestimate the Canadian people. Never underestimate their generosity. Never underestimate their openheartedness. Never underestimate their political courage. Remember one thing here. I was at the '68 convention where Trudeau was choosen as our leader. There wasn't a person in that room who if you'd asked them in '68 would have said that by 1982, we would have a repatriated Canadian Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The thing about politics is what seems completely impossible at one moment becomes possible later on, in conditions which we can't predict. And one of the reasons it becomes possible is we're a great people.
Solomon: Just out of interest, when he did repatriate the constitution, he did it without Quebec. In retrospect, you must think of that as a mistake.
Ignatieff: Trudeau is a huge figure in our national life and history. I'm in politics. I'm sitting here having this interview with you because of my love and respect for his legacy. But the legacy, we have to remember, is his courage, his imagination, his vision, his sense of what was - what was possible when most people thought it wasn't possible. And all I'm saying is let's not give up on ourselves. It's not about me, it's not about my leadership. It's about the country, having faith in ourselves, having a sense that we're not fixed forever in a moment of failure. We can create conditions of possibility, conditions of renewal for ourselves as a country which we can't see at any given moment, and that's what leadership is about.
--
For more examples on how the Ignatieff/Trudeau comparison thing is just a product of our fevered collective imaginations (are hallucinations a side-effect of IggyMania?), visit here, or here.
This week the delegates heading to Montreal will be getting a DVD from the Stephane Dion campaign with video clips of the candidate talking on a range of policy areas, and on a variety of topics. Not a delegate? Not to worry, it's all online too.
Some 31 videos are available on the Dion Web site, everything from regional messages for each Province and the North, to policy and philosophy clips on everything from Liberalism and child poverty to (naturally) sustainable development, to more personal clips on topics like why he entered politics and adopting a child.
So, more substance then you can shake a stick at, and stylish in that sweater, non? I invite you to take a look. Particularly if you still believe he has problems with English.
I get frustrated on that topic, I admit, because I just don't get it. He knows the language just fine. He's more than understandable. He just has an accent. Given that he's from Quebec, that's hardly surprising. You can hardly fairly knock someone for having an accent.
With the Liberal leadership convention less than two weeks away The Tyee has re-launched its Election Cental “superblog” and I’ve been invited to contribute.
Based in Vancouver, The Tyee is a Web-based news daily designed to provide an alternative media source in a British Columbia media market dominated by corporate conglomerates like CanWest Global. In addition to journalists like Rafe Mair and Will McMartin, bloggers like J. Kelly Nestruck and Jay Currie will also be contributing to Election Central in the lead-up to Montreal, so check it out.
My first contribution is online today:
Quite a first half for my British Columbia Lions. Montreal is lucky to still be in this thing and only be down 19-3 as they've just been completely dominated on offense and defense.
If the Lions had just had a little more luck in the red zone their lead could easily have been insurmountable. Paul McCallum has been on the money though, Saskatchewan fans have to be a little sad right now, watching this one from home.
What's with the Lions using three quarterbacks in the first half? Haven't seen that before. Anyway, it seems to be working, that Wally Buono is a cagey one.
Look for Montreal to come out strong in the second half though, they're a veteran team and this is still anybody's game. Just being down by 16 has to be a boost for them, they'll come out hungry.
Now it's Victoria's own Nelly Furtado in the half-time show. Looks chilly, little chance of wardrobe malfunctions today it seems. What's with this song though? Just play the like a bird one already and let's get back to football, please?
Update: End of the third quarter and it's 19-12 for BC, the Lions are really back on their heels. Maybe they're pissed off there was no Like a Bird too? As predicted, Montreal has come out with some fire and made this thing a football game again. The Lions need to smarten up a bit and get their heads back into the game. Does Dave Dickenson ever want this thing or what though? The veteran had his wheaties this morning, he's hungry.
Update two: Montreal first and goal, two consecutive stops by the BC defence AND a fumble recovery? Even if the fumble recovery is questionable, how freakin huge is that!! It's 25-12 BC, 3 minutes left. Go Lions Go!
Update three: Yeah baby!! Your final score BC 25, Montreal 14, and the British Columbia Lions are your 2006 Grey Cup Champions! Now, if my Canucks can only smarten-up all will be well in the sporting word...
I don’t often agree with the Toronto Star’s James Travers, and generally find him to be out to lunch most of the time. He’s mostly dining-out in his latest column with his blinding focus on Ignatieff and Rae but he was right on one count: in Montreal the candidate speeches are going to be huge.
Put aside his focus on the two supposed frontrunners and his thesis is sound. This race is still fluid. Support is soft. Candidates that drop-out will be unable to deliver their delegates to another candidate as they have in the past, and even the frontrunners may be unable to hold onto some supporters after the first ballot.
More then any leadership convention in the past, and perhaps for the first time ever, the speeches will be huge. It won’t just be a pep rally for each candidate and their supporters. Everyone will be listening to and scrutinizing each speech very closely. This will be the last chance to woo delegates that are very ready to be wooed and are wondering where to park their support on future ballots, and that pool is bigger than it has ever been before.
I’m reminded of the West Wing episode where Democratic presidential candidate Matthew Santos is being pressured to drop-out of the race in favour of empty-hat Bingo-Bob Russell. Santos is supposed to deliver a concession speech to the convention. Instead he delivers a rousing call to arms and democratic ideals delivers him the nomination.
For my guy Stephane Dion, I think the speeches are doubly important. He’s the long-shot with a real shot. Only one of Dion and Gerard Kennedy can emerge as the alternative to Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae, and they need to do it quickly in the balloting if they’re going to pass Rae and take on Ignatieff down the stretch. There’s a lot of people that are strongly against either Rae or Iggy, or that are soft in their support. Those people can be moved.
A killer speech could move them, and the stakes are huge. Flop and it’s over, kill and the payoff is huge. I hope the speechwriters are busy, because it could all come down to one speech. A speech of substance, of vision of honesty and emotion. I'm sure you know who I think is best able to deliver on that score. :)
May the best speech win. Should be fun.
A fun piece from Calgary Grit yesterday on great moments in prognostication, and how the leadership race looked very different just a few months ago.
In that spirit I’d like to link back to this post I wrote...the day after the election I might add:
Jan. 24, 2006: Why not Stephane Dion?: …The names often most mentioned, such as Frank McKenna, Belinda Stronach, John Manley, Martin Cauchon, Joe Volpe (shudder), Scott Brison, Michael Ignatieff, and so on, don't elicit much more than a yawn…I think Dion would be an intriguing choice, and he would be a candidate I could get behind. He certainly stands out from the current pack, of that there is no doubt…
I remember the reaction at the time. He’s a good guy, wouldn’t that be nice, but yeah, right. Never happen. No charisma. Bad English. Yada yada. (Pundits liked him from the start though) I had my doubts that he could play the political game myself, but he was a person with the qualities and the integrity I could respect, and feel good about supporting.
Now, nine months later, he’s fourth in delegate support just a few behind third, he’s second in ex-officio support, he’s statistically tied on electability with the top four, and in two weeks he has a real shot at becoming the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Who’d have thunk it?
Anything can still happen, but it should be exciting. For now, I'm going to get a Globe (hear there's a great piece on Dion), have some lunch and see the new Bond movie. Have a great weekend.
Before I head home for the evening, I wanted to briefly revisit the assertion by Hebert and others that Stephane Dion just can't win Quebec.
I will grant that Dion, although he polled a strong second in delegate selection, is not popular with a certain wing of the LPC(Q). You'll recall, neither was Jean Chretien, he of three consecutive majority governments. These are the folks behind the Martin/Lapierre Quebec strategy; I'll let the history books speak to that one.
When it comes to winning elections and building support in Quebec (which Chretien and Dion did in 2000, after the Clarity Act, and which those other guys, well, didn't) the more relevant question is who do Quebec VOTERS like? Particularly, those federalist-inclined people that might actually vote Liberal?
Well, there was an interesting Gandalf Group poll in September that offers some insights on this question.
Since we're talking Quebec, I'll pull-out the Quebec numbers (page 23 of the pdf). Likely voters in Quebec were asked how likely they'd be to vote Liberal with each of the candidates. Let's start with the negatives (certain not to vote Liberal). I'll just include the top four candidates, the others are in the pdf if you're interested.
Negatives
Gerard Kennedy: 39 per cent
Stephane Dion: 38 per cent
Bob Rae: 37 per cent
Michael Ignatieff: 33 per cent
So, slightly less negative on Iggy but statistically not a wide gap. Certainly, the assertion that Dion is radioactive to Quebec voters doesn't hold water.
Now, let's look at the positives. This is certain/more likely to vote Liberal with each candidate as leader.
Positives
Dion: 31 per cent
Rae: 26 per cent
Ignatieff: 19 per cent
Kennedy: 8 per cent
This puts Dion as the most popular of the leadership candidates among likely Quebec voters. Interesting, no? It's worth noting that in this same poll the LPC polled at 20 per cent in Quebec, meaning Dion was 11 per cent more popular than the party itself.
What about growth potential, you ask? Well, factor in Possible To Vote with the Certain and Likely numbers, and here's how they play out.
Potential voter pool
Dion: 51 per cent
Rae: 47 per cent
Ignatieff: 45 per cent
Kennedy: 36 per cent
Even by this measure, Dion attracts the widest possible pool of potential Liberal voters of any of the major candidates in Quebec. Now, we can debate potential performance elsewhere in the country, and I'm happy to have that debate. But when we're talking about Quebec, isn't it time to put these myths to rest, mes amis?
Some talk in the blogsphere this morning about Toronto Star columnist Chantal Hebert's piece this morning on electability and the Liberal leadership race. Ms. Hebert plays Santa, writing something that each of the frontrunners can extract to bolster their campaigns. Well, except Dion, she's just plain mean to my guy. :)
In the piece she dissects the weaknesses (mainly) and strengths (not as much) of each of Iggy, Rae, Kennedy and Dion with an eye toward electability. My read was that she pretty much thinks they all suck, or, at least, that they all have issues and none of them particularly stand-out.
If you're looking to put a bit more of a partisan spin on it though there's ammunition for you no matter whom you support.
For example, you could pull out the criticisms of the other three, gloss over the criticism of your own guy, and say that Hebert somehow concluded "Gerard was the most electable" or implied he'll win. You could focus on how he's "best in Western Canada, Ontario." Or, you could pull out just the criticism of Gerard and declare his growth-potential in Quebec "non-existent." Also, you could pull-out the criticism of Dion and use it to makes the case he lacks "the royal jelly."
The same could be done by pulling-out the criticisms of Kennedy, Ignatieff and Rae.
For fun, I've pulled-out the commentary on each candidate, positive and negative. I'll leave the interpretation to you, but be back with some editorial comment afterward.
--
Stephane Dion
Positive: Dion…would likely hang onto the Quebec seats the party currently has.
Negative: His Quebec prospects are severely limited by his track record on the post-referendum front (and because) there is simply not a lot of appetite out there for another Quebec prime minister. He is well on the way to becoming the Liberals' Preston Manning, a favourite with pundits but not with most voters.
Gerard Kennedy
Positive: Best placed to hang onto the Ontario base of the party. Also is likely to do well in the parts of Western Canada where the NDP is the main opposition to the Liberals. Would likely hang onto the Quebec seats the party currently has.
Negative: Shortcomings in French. Growth potential in Quebec is non-existent. Has failed to make an impression on the province. If he were chosen as leader over three fluently bilingual opponents, many Quebecers would see his victory as a sign that winning their province is not a priority for the Liberals.
Bob Rae
Positives: Potential to increase the party's support in Quebec…could realistically hope to recoup the federalist seats the party lost in the January election. New Democrat credentials play well with the progressive voters the party needs to become a force in Quebec again. Elsewhere in Canada, Rae could also attract a share of the NDP vote.
Negatives: Record as a failed premier could also lose the party support. With an economic downturn on the horizon, some Ontario voters would be bound to have second thoughts about going into another uncertain economic period with Rae at the helm.
Michael Ignatieff
Positives: Potential to increase the party's support in Quebec…could realistically hope to recoup the federalist seats the party lost in the January election. His support for the extension of the Afghan mission could win him votes on the right; his suggestion of a carbon tax on greenhouse gas emissions could attract votes on the left; his openness to the recognition of Quebec as a nation could open doors in francophone Quebec.
Negatives: All three could also lose the party support in crucial areas of the country. Taking calculated risks served Harper well in the last election but it is not always clear that Ignatieff's gambles always add up to sound strategy.
--
Taking all that, as I said there's lots for people in any camp to use to either bolster their guy or attack the candidate/s they perceive as their biggest threat/s. Realistically though, there's no ringing endorsement for anyone.
I'd say she was the least positive on Dion, and as a Dion koolaider I naturally feel that's like totally unfair. Well, I'd think it was unfair anyway. Honest. But before I address her negatives on Stephane, let me make-up for her lack of Dion positives in this column by offering this quote from a past Chantal column:
"If the Liberals are to move them past those episodes, they may have to look beyond Cauchon, perhaps to the brainy Stéphane Dion, to help them get there. If this is to be a Liberal year when talking heads matter more than political animals, a rare time when participating in the race could be as important as winning it, Dion would be a good fit for this campaign."
Maybe she liked Preston too. On the negatives side, Jason has already responded and I'd just add (just a sec, let me check my official Dion blogging campaign talking points) that there's nothing new here, the Quebec criticisms are the same we've heard for years, and all campaign. I've already outlined at length why I disagree. I'd also present Harper's cratering poll numbers in Quebec as further evidence the Martin/Lapierre strategy some in this race are trying to replicate is doomed to failure. As for the Manning comment, a look at both the delegate votes and the ex-officio endorsements puts lie to that assertion.
Anyway
As I commented over at Olaf's (a rather readable choice for Best Conservative Blog, btw...and speaking of the CBAs, did I mention I've been endorsed by Pierre Trudeau?) the worst hangover I ever had was in university from purplesaurusrex koolade and vodka. Man, was it delish, but it hurt like hell the next morning. I suspect many of us will have severe koolade hangovers Dec. 3.
But then we'll dust ourselves off, drink some hair of the dog, and once again focus our partisan sniping and spin where it belongs: The Harper Conservatives. And I very much look forward to that day. :)
I'm hesitant to wade into this whole nation resolution minefield, but I came across some interesting polling numbers on the whole thing yesterday that I thought I'd pass on.
Not sure if these have been discussed already or not. I found them on the Angus Reid Web site but the numbers are apparently from an SES phone survey conducted last week. The numbers, unsurprisingly, show that while the LPC(Q)'s nation resolution finds some support in Quebec, it's kryptonite to the party in the rest of Canada.
Here's the numbers:
If the Liberal Party of Canada adopted a motion to symbolically recognize Quebec as a nation, would you be more likely to vote Liberal, less likely to vote Liberal or would this have no impact on your likelihood to vote Liberal?
| | All | Quebec |
| More likely to vote Liberal | 16% | 40% |
| Less likely to vote Liberal | 40% | 12% |
| No impact on vote | 36% | 40% |
| Unsure | 8% | 8% |
The numbers just serve to affirm that this nation resolution is a bad idea. I agree that Quebec has concerns that need to be addressed, but we can't look at Quebec's concerns in isolation from the rest of Canada. That's the mistake that I think was made here. Other provinces have concerns too, and we need to find solutions and compromises that will find the support of all Canadians, otherwise this is a fruitless exercise that will sow division and discord rather that heal it.
There are no easier answers here. That's why sage veterans of Canada's constitutional wars (like Stephane Dion, for example) approach this with trepidation and have tried to warn off those that have advocated this road.
In the long run, it will take deftness, creativity and compromise to thread this needle.
In the short-term, we need a way out of this national resolution mess and soon, as the convention is less than two weeks away. I've advocated the 2050 approach, James Curran has another idea. It may not be as easy as killing it now. Expectations have been raised in Quebec and a flat rejection now will have a price.
Whatever we do, we need to do something. As the poll numbers show, this thing is radioactive and a very bad idea.
Recommend this Post on Progressive BloggersVia Dave Akin comes word of a new poll from SES, everyone’s favourite pollsters. While I don’t generally pay much attention to polls (polls for dancing, as I’ve said before) SES polls are generally worth a quick look.
Here’s the national numbers:
Conservatives 34 per cent (-2)
Liberals 32 per cent (+2)
NDP 16 per cent (-2)
BQ 13 per cent (+2)
Green Party 5 per cent (-)
(Margin of error +/- 3.3 per cent)
Looking at the regional numbers the Cons went up five per cent to 48 per cent in the West, mainly at the NDP’s expense, but across the rest of the country they’ve dropped. It was a Conservative freefall in Quebec, dropping from 26 per cent to 12 per cent, boosting the BQ to 50 per cent in Quebec (+8) and the Liberals to 25 per cent (+3).
Elsewhere the Liberals made strong gains in Atlantic Canada, gaining six points to 37 per cent, taken equally from the Cons and NDP. In Ontario the Liberals have an eight point lead on the Cons, 44 to 36.
In his commentary, SAS’s Nik Nanos notes the national movement is within the margin of error.
“SES’ polling has shown that when the Conservatives focus on their five priorities their numbers move up but that the focus on Afghanistan, pulling out of Kyoto and warm relations with George Bush has noticeably eroded Conservative support in Quebec.”
So?
So, what are we to take from these numbers? While, I’d say it’s a signal that Harper is vulnerable, and we still have a shot at this thing. I think it’s a signal that the new, tougher posture the Liberal caucus has taken since the summer recess is working. It also clearly points to the issues we need to keep the debate on in the months ahead, such as the environment and Afghanistan.
So, while these are encouraging figures, it’s also important that we keep working hard. The lesson to glean is we’re on the right track but we need to keep working hard as there is a long, long ways to go and it’s still anybody’s game.
We heard yesterday how Garth Turner has some issues with the Conservative Party of Canada hierarchy, and he's not the only one. And much of it seems to be coming back to Harper's backroom boys.
There's the guy that wanted to run against MP Rob Anders for the CPC nomination in Calgary-West. After all, Harper and co. promised that unlike those dastardly Liberals the Cons were all about open nominations. Well, turns out that really was a con. A nomination challenge wouldn't be permitted, no reason given, and the whole mess is before the courts with the CPC refusing to hand over documents that would be "embarrassing" for the party.
And the party is in court again with another former wannabe nomination candidate, Alan Riddell in Ottawa-South. It's a long story, so for background read this and this.
The latest this week is his filing an action in Ontario Superior Court to get back his CPC membership card. He's also seeking an injunction to stop any Conservative nomination meeting from happening in the riding, and apparently he has some of the riding executive on his side.
In a separate lawsuit he's also looking for the $50,000 payoff the party promised him for stepping aside in favour of sponsorship whistleblower Alan Cuttler.
And these three cases are far from the only examples of the supposedly open CPC nomination rules being bent or ignored by the party hierarchy. MPs like Nina Grewal, James Rajotte, Laurie Hawn and Mike Lake were also protected.
Now, I know the Liberals are far from saints here (Kingsway comes to mind) but threecourt cases and Turner-gate within mere months? And this, from a party that likes to preach about their grassroots commitment and high ethical standards?
As Dr. Phil would say, Don't spit in my face and tell me it's raining.
Hello my fellow Liberals, and others. First of all, I'd like to thank Jeff for contacting me with his weejee board and giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts on the current Liberal leadership race with you from beyond the grave.
Its swell up here, no bleeding hearts to be seen. They're down bleeding somewhere else and let them bleed, I say. Fuddle duddle, and so forth.
I wanted to talk to you today though about the Liberal leadership race. First of all, dude, why has this thing been dragging on so long? This race should have been way shorter. But that's not my main concern.
Here's my plea: enough with talking about me all the bloody time! I know I was the best PM and Liberal leader like, ever, but that was years ago. I've been dead for six freakin years!
Stop living in the past guys. Sure, it's a bit flattering, yeah. Which candidate is the most like me, who would I support were I not dead, why isn't there someone like me in the race, who's the next me, who would look best in a top-hat and tails or win a pirouette contest, yada yada, whatever.
When I ran for the leadership no one was asking who was the most like Mackenzie King (wasn't Bob Winters, I tell you what) now were they? It's tiring. Besides, truth be told, I never really liked most of you people anyway.
Who would I support*? Well, I know who, but just watch me not tell you. Why do you care? I'm dead, dude. Make up your own mind. Who cares which candidate newspaper pundits, columnist and bloggers think is the most like me?
Talk to the candidates, examine their platforms and make your own choices. And for god's sake, leave me out of it. The big guy has been getting on my back about the whole worshiping of false idols thing, and I really need his vote on the condo board to fend off Ghandi's complaint about my new Jacuzzi.
Sincerely,
Right Honourable Joseph Phillipe Pierre Yves Elliot Trudeau, PC, CC, CH, QC, MA, LLD, FRSC
* It's so totally Dion, he's like my twin brother. It's freaky.
P.S. Voting for the Canadian Blog Awards is now open and while the dead can't vote, you can. You can vote once a day, and BCer in Toronto is up for best new blog, best progressive blog and best blog. I, Pierre E. Trudeau, think he is the blogger most like me, in this nation or any nation, and I heartily encourage you to vote for him early and often.
Our beleaguered environment minister Rona Ambrose is getting a rough ride over in Kenya for her government's abandoning of the Kyoto Protocol and lay-away plan for climate change.
It addition to being complimented on her hair (which is just pathetic [the insult, not her hair]) and winning "fossil awards" from environmental groups, opposition MPs have traveled to the conference to remind her of how badly she sucks.
Here's a snippet from the Globe:
Liberal MP John Godfrey and Bloc Québécois MP Bernard Bigras openly mocked the minister, laughing out loud as they quoted her recent defence of the government's policies. Claude Béchard, Quebec's Environment Minister, was not as critical of Ms. Ambrose as the others were, but said he wants the minister to reverse herself this week and commit to the Kyoto Protocol.
Oh, the humanity. This drew some tut-tut ting from Ambrose spokesthingy Bob Klager, who called the comments "highly inappropriate." He went on:
"The minister invited them to come over here, so the fact that they're going out and doing that is only going to undermine Canada's position here," he said. "It's not helpful at all."
You might say what's not helpful is Conservative inflexibility and their joke of an environmental plan, but that's a story for another day. What I found interesting was the following passage in the piece:
Political observers called the press conference a precedent of sorts. Political science professor Jean-Herman Guay from the University of Sherbrooke said he can't recall an example where opposition MPs or provincial leaders were this "explicit" in their attacks on the government while abroad.
Unprecedented? Not quite. Let me provide an example, professor, and I don't need to go back far. Just over three years ago, here is then opposition leader Stephen Harper talking to U.S. television network Fox News (as reported by CTV):
In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking "for the silent majority" of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its "pacifist tradition," are most people opposed to the war, Harper said.
"Outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive," the Canadian Alliance leader says.
In a segment to be broadcast across the U.S. and in 41 countries Friday night and repeated on the weekend, Harper says Ottawa's position on the war is hypocritical.
"We have a government here that says Saddam Hussein is a war criminal and maintains diplomatic relations with him during the conflict," he said.
"We have a government that says they're not supportive of the conflict but it becomes more and more obvious that we have Canadian soldiers and sailors involved in the conflict."
He went on to say:
Harper told the House that Canada's position "diminishes only us,"
How's that for precedent?
Can you stand it? Just one more sleep until Garth Turner's big press conference! If I can manage to sleep at all that is! Oh, it's just so exciting! I'm just going to sit here all night and hit refresh on his blog! Wow me with your wisdom Garth!
P.S. Garth is on a CityPulse 24 panel with Kinsella, Art Eggleton and a few others I don't know discussing tonight's municipal election results. The anchor asked him what he was going to talk about in his press conference tomorrow (I know my workplace is shutting down to watch it live on tv). Here's the exchange:
Garth: Well Anne, I'm just going to talk a little bit about the process by which I had my can booted-out of the Conservative caucus. And I think it's really interesting how -- and this relates to what we're seeing tonight -- how people are being sort of excluded more from the political process instead of brought in. And one of the reasons we're seeing such low voter turnout now, and federally I think, is people same old, same old. Like it doesn't matter who we vote for. The guys are going to do the same sort of thing. So I want to talk a little about that tomorrow in the press conference in Ottawa, about internal party politics, and how we've got to change it. And guys like Kinsella and I, mad bloggers that we are, are trying to draw people into this process.
Anchor: Are you going to be walking over to another party tomorrow?
Garth: Not tomorrow.
Anchor: OK. Not tommorow? Dot dot dot.
Another panelist off screen: Stay tuned.
Garth: This is only chapter two.
Again, I ask. How ever will I sleep?
As pleased as I was to see the strong showing of the Democrats in last week's midterm elections, I don't thing it's necessarily a harbinger of things to come in Canada or indicative of any kind of North American shift in political attitudes.
First of all, and I know this isn't news, but we're different countries. But the issues are different too. While I do think the utility of the security/scare card is waning, that's not what got Harper his minority government. He ran on change, and benefited from a scandal-plagued incumbent. Much like the Dems in the midterms, actually. So, in that scenario the Democrats followed our Conservatives' example. When your opponents are self-destructing, shut-up and get the hell out of the way.
The trick with that is they need to be self-destructing for it to work.
Which brings me to a BCer exclusive. I've obtained a copy of the Democratic victory strategy that Howard Dean is going to share with Liberals at our convention in a few weeks. This is how they re-took the House and Senate after years in the woods.
Here it is:
Step One: Collect underpants
Step Two: ?
Step Three: Profit!
No, wait, that's the underwear gnomes from South Park. Here's the Dean plan:
Step One: Your opponents start a really unpopular war that you support at first and then back away from
Step Two: Your opponents get involved in shady illegal dealings with lobbyists
Step Three: Your opponents cover-up a sex scandal involving one of their members and under-aged boys
Step Four: For fear of jinxing things don't say or do anything at all
Step Five: Victory!
I look forward to hearing how we can apply this victory strategy to Canada. Frankly, I think we'd be better-off with the underpants idea.
Breaking news from Liberal Party HQ. The waiting is over: A theme has been selected for the leadership convention in Montreal.
The theme? Choices that Count.
Because if you're going to be making choices, why not make ones that count?
Says the LPC:
The theme reflects the wishes of delegates who will be making the important decisions over the course of the week regarding Party policy, leadership, and structural renewal.
“The theme is the product of the work of Québec-based Liberals, and reflects the historic, powerful choices that delegates will have to make throughout the Convention,” said Nancy Girard, Vice President (Québec) of the Party and member of the Party’s Convention Organizing Committee.
I definitely thing it's an improvement over the theme from our last leadership convention: The Last 10 Years Never Happened. I am disappointed though that my theme suggestion, Enchantment Under the Sea, didn't make the cut. Maybe it didn't translate well?
It's not just a Beatles song, but it's Stormin Norman Spector too. Last week was a busy work week, and with a touch of the cold I've gotten behind on my blogging, but I didn't want to let this story from last week slip by without comment.
Following the controversy over his calling Liberal MP Belinda Stronach a bitch on a radio show (background here and here) apparently Norman went back on CNKW in Vancouver last week to inform British Columbians that yep, Belinda is still a bitch.
Reports 24 Hours:
Spector re-appeared on CKNW 980's The Bill Good Show yesterday, arguing that according to the dictionary, the word 'bitch' was an appropriate term to describe Stronach's "treacherous crossing of the floor.
Spector's tough talk didn't fly with 24 hours' political columnist Bill Tieleman.
"You can use any word you like, but [when you use that language], you sound more like a gangster rapper than a political commentator," Tieleman fired back.
"I am using a precise word in the English language to characterize the treacherous behaviour that she has displayed. If the shoe fits, then she should wear it," Spector responded.
He noted Stronach shouldn't wait by the phone for an apology any time soon.
As I said earlier, what an asshole. According to Webster's, an asshole is: a stupid, incompetent, or detestable person. A precise dictionary term that seems to fit, I think.
I've had a few people ask me how they can get in touch with Norman, and/or the people that put him on tv, radio and in the newspaper. Well, ask and ye shall receive, eventually. If you've like to drop Norman a line to question his choice of language or thank him for his efforts in raising Canadian political discourse, here's his coordinates:
Norman's e-mail: nspector4@shaw.ca
And if you'd like to write some of the organizations that give him a pulpit to thank them for bringing us his fascinating political insights or ask they why someone that calls people bitches is their choice for expert political commentary, here's a few addresses:
CKNW Programming department
Web Form
CKNW's Bill Good
Web form
Globe and Mail, Patrick Martin, comment editor
pmartin@globeandmail.com
Vancouver Sun, Fazil Mihlar, editorial pages editor
fmihlar@png.canwest.com
Victoria Times Colonist, feedback
feedback@tc.canwest.com
CBC, Politics with Don Newman
Web form
CTV Newsnet, Mike Duffy Live
duffy@ctv.ca
Be nice now, and remember to watch your language.
So, Mr. Crazy himself, Howard Dean, will be the keynote speaker at the Liberal convention in Montreal in a few weeks. Interesting. Wouldn't have been my first choice if we were dipping into the Democratic talent pool, but whatever.
I wonder though, does it make me a bad Liberal because my initial reaction to this news was that this was the second American keynote speaker at a Liberal leadership convention in a row? :)
I know, I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist.
Although, wouldn't Howard be an exciting candidate in the next Liberal leadership race?
"And we're going to Ontario! And we're going to go to Newfoundland! And we're going to British Columbia! And then we're going to Ottawa to take back 24 Sussex Drive! Yeeaaahhhhh!"
Alright, carry on.
Coyne and others are encouraging people to sign the Dominion Institute's petition to give the last Canadian veteran of World War One a state funeral. I'm all for it, I've signed and I hope you will too.
But my first reaction when I heard of this push the other day, and I still feel it, is that this seems a touch creepy, no? I mean three veterans are still with us, and I'd imagine they don't want to leave any time soon. I know estate planning is important, but still, I'd rather not have people planning my funeral while I'm still around. Maybe it's just me.
Lest we forget
And maybe it's just me too, but are less people wearing poppies this year? I live in Scarborough, a very multicultural suburb of Toronto, so maybe that's part of it. I know Canada is all about multicultural diversity, and so am I, but I wonder if in our zeal for multiculturalism we're not doing a good enough job of teaching new Canadians about our traditions and our history.
I know that with a concerted push by the Legion and others in recent years the youth are coming back. More young people, and people of all ages, have been attending Remembrance Day ceremonies in recent years. When I lived in Ottawa I would attend the national ceremony and the crowd got bigger every year. Maybe we need a similar effort to engage new Canadians in Remembrance Day.
You know, I don't envy politicians and those in public life. Besides the countless rubber chicken dinners and having to deal with the unwashed media hordes (particularly those CBC hippies) staying within the ever shifting bounds of acceptable political discourse is becoming increasingly challenging.
Well, not really. It's only difficult if you're trying to follow Conservative rules of morality. Although really, those rules could be summed-up as: If we do it, its cool; but if you do it, cue the violins.
Take the events of recent weeks. Allegations of sexism have dominated the headlines. Peter McKay called ex-girlfriend Belinda Stronach a dog in the House of Commons and because he got dumped a few years ago and is still bitter they weren't 2getha4eva. Then, Conservative pundit Norman Spector jumped into the fray to defend McKay, calling Stronach a bitch.
It was made clear to us though by the Conservative apologists that neither of these incidents constituted sexism. Just regular political discourse, Conservative style, nothing to see here, they said.
I wonder if the folks at a group of Canadian environmental groups had these recent events in mind when they aimed this broadside at Rona Ambrose, our disappointing environment minister, in a daily newsletter issued at a UN environmental conference happening now in Kenya.
"The convention has seen some outstanding presidents and some ordinary ones. Canada's Rona Ambrose was neither,'' Canadian environmental groups wrote in the newsletter.
"She might have the best hair of any (conference of parties) president, but she will be remembered as the worst COP president in the history of the climate convention.''
"Since assuming the presidency, Rona found time away from her hairdresser to show up for about 24 hours in Bonn in May this year,'' the newsletter says.
"But not enough for the pre-COP 12 meeting in Geneva or the G8+5 meeting in Mexico, where she just sent staff to meet with the many ministers. We were however impressed with the hair. Good hair, some might say even exceptional hair.''
Frankly, I think these comments are rather stupid. First of all, I really don't think Rona's hair is all that. Maybe top 5 in the House of Commons, if she's lucky. And there's enough to find fault with vis a vis Rona's sorry performance in her portfolio without bringing her hair into it.
Now, given the Conservative responses to the dog and bitch incidents, you'd probably expect them to blow this off and not jump to the sexism barricades. After all, using their previous logic, this isn't sexism. After all, male politicians have hair, don't they? Don't they like their hair to look good too? Many male politicians obsessed over their hair and had to have it just so…Pierre Pettigrew, I'm looking at you!
Consistency be dammed though, Belinda may be a traitor but Rona is still one of ours, so it it's sexism. To the barricades!
Anyway, if you're following at home, here's how I score it:
Doggy-gate: Pathetic, but not sexist
Bitch-gate: Pathetic and sexist
Hair-gate: Pathetic and sexist
Conservatives: Wildly inconsistent
It's intent that's the determining factor, as well as common usage. Sure, some male politicians obsess about their hair too but they're not mocked for it. Can you see such a comment being made about Stephane Dion, for example? Of course not. Maybe his hair practices while environment minister should be a topic for Denise's next blog interview.
Really, though, until Conservative apologists back-away from their support of McKay and Spector any feigned outrage over this hair thing is just hollow, and pathetic.
I'm sorry. Just those two little words from Stephen Harper would go a long way to diffusing the political fallout from his income trust flip-flop. Instead, Harper remains smugly unapologetic and we get his un-elected minister, Michael Fortier, telling investors that lost half their life savings overnight to "take a valium." How Conservatives can still talk of Liberal arrogance with a straight face I'll never know.
I actually think the decision on income trusts, policy-wise, was the right move. It was a tough decision to make politically, but I give the government credit for making the right call based on policy, not politics.
It was also going against a major campaign promise, which makes it doubly difficult politically, and even tougher to put that aside and make the right call. I wish more governments would have the courage to do so though, when they realize a change is necessary and would be the best policy decision for their jurisdiction.
For example, when the BC Liberals were in opposition and about to break into government, and reduce the NDP to a scant two seats, Gordon Campbell campaigned on a major, across the board tax cut. When he got into office and cracked-open the books, he saw things weren't as rosy as the NDP had claimed and we really couldn't afford the tax cut. Instead of making that case and canceling/delaying the cut, he pushed ahead. And to pay for it, he raised the sales tax, increased MSP premiums, and jacked-up user fees across the board. Most people ended up further behind, and the province's economic turnaround was delayed, but at least Gordo could say he kept his promise. That's one of the reasons I stopped supporting the Campbell "Liberals."
It's also a lesson the Liberals learned, or I'm sure Sheila Copps did, around the GST cut promise. I think making unrealistic promises is a nature of prolonged periods spent in opposition, as was the case with the Campbell Liberals in BC, the Harris Tories in Ontario (another ill-advised tax cut), the Chretien Liberals with the GST, the McGuinty Liberals in Ontario with health premiums, and now the Harper Conservatives with income trusts.
Opposition is black and white while governing is shades of gray and compromises, so that's why I give Harper credit for not taking the politically-expedient way out.
That said, he could be handling the political fall-out a helluva lot better. That he will take a political and electoral hit is undeniable, but he's making the hit bigger than it need be.
In the last election he made a clear and unequivocal promise that income trusts would not be cut. He saw a political opening with the Liberals "dithering" on the matter, and the Scott Brison Blackberry story. It was a chance to buy votes and many voters bought in, voting Conservative based on that promise.
With the assurance that a Conservative government wouldn't touch income trusts, investors, many of them seniors or people nearing retirement, went ahead and invested much of their life savings, their retirement funds, into income trusts. With a stroke of a pen, they lost much of their life savings. These aren't business moguls, these are average Canadians. Don't they at least deserve an apology?
While the Conservative campaign promise was naive, I don't think it was dishonest. They could well have felt they could have kept it. And I don’t deny they were forced to act with the continuing momentum toward income trusts, although to industry observers that trend has been clear for some time.
While he made the right call, Harper is digging himself a hole with his messaging. Any respect he might have gained by making a tough but right call is being negated by his arrogant response to the thousands of investors that took it up the you know where. We Canadians are a forgiving lot though.
I'm sorry. Those two little words would go a long way, Stephen.
Is it just me, or is it getting very political in here? Why I do declare, I believe I'm having an attack of the vapors! And Jim Prentice is too, apparently.
You may recall back in August I broke news of a secret memo to Conservative insiders from Prime Minister Stephen Harper detailing a list of issues the PM had decided were just too political to discuss at the moment. He was prompted to write by the World Aids Conference, that he decided was just too political to discuss.
Well, now it seems we can add the Caledonia standoff to that list. Our Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs cancelled a scheduled meeting with his Ontario counterpart recently complaining of "political grandstanding." Putting the pot and kettle nature of that aside for a moment, I agree land claim disputes can get rather political, so I can see why Jim would want to wait until it is settled and over before he gets involved.
Here's today's question:
Mr. Speaker, considering we're all politicians in this chamber it's rather odd to observe this strange aversion members of the government side seem to have to politics.
Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister refused to attend the World Aids Conference here in Toronto, and prevented his ministers from making any substantive announcements or commitments, because the atmosphere was too political.
Now, the Minister of Indian and North Affairs has cancelled a meeting with his Ontario counterpart aimed to look at ways of solving the Caledonia standoff, because the minister complained of alleged "political grandstanding."
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Prime Minister, could he inform the House of any other important issues that he and his ministers feel are just "too political" for his government to deal with right now?
Reading some of the continuing kerfuffle over Norman Spector's kicking sand in Belinda Stronach's face and pulling her hair the other day, I was again reminded of one of Norman's comments in the interview that I thought, frankly, more disturbing then his calling Belinda a bitch.
You may recall, our Norman said that the reason this whole McKay dog business has continued to be a story, when he felt it shouldn't be, was because:
"… half the press gallery now are women. And women find this very offensive."
Silly me, I thought a big reason why it was a story was because McKay was heard making the comment on audio tape and then lied about it to the Canadian people AND to Parliament.
I was intrigued though, because during my stint as a Parliament Hill reporter around 1999/2000 the men still had the ladies quite outnumbered. Had women finally cracked the ink-stained gallery glass window, as Norman opined?
Well, it was easy enough to find out even without being an investigative journalist, or ex-tobacco lobbyist. The Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery publishes a list of its members on its Web site. I printed out the list and counted the males and the females. There were a few names that could have gone either way so I left them as questions but the number is statistically insignificant.
So, what's the verdict? Well, it would seem that math skills aren't Norman's strong suit either. Nearly two-thirds of the gallery members, as of October 2006, are men.
Full Members
245 Males, 64 per cent
129 Females, 34 per cent
10 unsure
Total members: 384
So, the PPG is still a very male group, it would seem. Even if we give all of those 10 unsure to the female side, that's still just 36 per cent of the membership. Where I come from, that's not half. I've included a chart, because I know some people are visual learners:
Then I thought, maybe the honourary members would tilt the balance. Not so much, there are 16 male and 5 female on the honourary list, which brings the male per centage a few points higher.
The closest women come to gender parity is on the gallery executive, which has five male and four female members. Still, though, not quite half.
So much for the whole female media conspiracy idea. Any more wacky theories to share with us Norman?
