Has Stephen Harper jumped the shark?

I mean, seriously, his comments on ethnicity in the House of Commons yesterday come completely out of right field, and are so completely lacking grounding in reality, that one is almost forced to consider if he needs medical attention.

If you haven’t been paying attention, there’s a mini-scandal brewing around lobbying and the PMO. Specifically, Harper’s deputy press secretary, Dimitri Soudas and a Quebec Conservative organizer, Leo Housakos.

A joint investigation by the Globe and Mail and Radio-Canada is alleging that a member of the Prime Minister's Office and a Conservative fundraiser directly interfered in a pair of political dossiers.

The report, which aired on the CBC's French-language service on Tuesday night, alleges PMO spokesman Dimitri Soudas intervened in favour of a Montreal real estate developer currently embroiled in a lawsuit with the federal government, and sat in on a meeting with representatives of an international military contractor looking to sell its wares.

There’s a lot of angles to this, of course, and the issue apparently dominated yesterday’s question period. No surprise there. What is surprising is this comment by Stephen Harper, in response to a BQ question. I’ll include both Q&A from Hansard for context, or lack thereof:

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot ignore this issue and plead ignorance regarding the representations made by Housakos, and he cannot claim that this individual was a complete stranger, since it is his government that appointed him to VIA Rail.

In this context, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he ever met with M. Housakos at 24 Sussex Drive, his official residence?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member mentioned the names of two individuals of Greek origin, namely one employee who works here in Ottawa, and another who is a Conservative Party supporter, in Montreal. The fact that there are two Montrealers of Greek origin does not mean there is a plot.

That accusation, as you can see, is completely out of right field. There was never any prior mention made by any opposition party as to the ethnic origin of anyone involved. I wanted to wait to comment on this until today because I wanted to check the Hansard, and indeed the first person to say “Greek” during QP yesterday was Harper.

There is absolutely no basis for Harper to “play the race card” here. And for him to try to use ethnicity to deflect from the possible ethical transgressions of one of his senior advisers is disgusting, and doesn’t befit a Prime Minister of Canada.

Continuing on through Hansard, Liberal Denis Coderre described Harper’s “racially-based comments” as “degrading” in a preamble before another question on the lobbying issue, a question Peter Van Loan took, ignoring the racial issue. A little later the BQ came back up though and addressed it more directly; Harper answered, and ignored.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in response to one of my questions, the Prime Minister suggested that we are asking questions about the influence peddling in his office, because the people involved are Greek. That is the same type of response we got from the Liberals to our questions about Alfonso Gagliano. Those are crass arguments.

Instead of using such arguments, could the Prime Minister simply answer my question? Did he ever meet with Leo Housakos at 24 Sussex?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference here. This company has not received any special favours or treatment. I do not understand the Bloc Québécois' complaint.

It wasn’t until after QP, during points of order, that the reprehensible comments of the PM were directly addressed by my MP, Liberal John Cannis, who is Greek himself:

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege predicated by the type of answers that the Prime Minister gave to some of the questions he was asked.

The Minister of Health is shaking his head, but when he faces the Greek Canadian community in the future, I will remind him.

I do not want to be interrupted. I have served five terms in this honourable House. I have had the honour and the privilege of representing my country Canada abroad and proudly see, as I look around this honourable chamber, the diversity that makes this great country of ours.

The Prime Minister in his response today put a black mark on the over half a million Greek Canadians who played even a small role in the development of this great country.

The Prime Minister insulted the entire Greek community. I want to get to the bottom of it. When answering questions that he was asked, why was it necessary for the Prime Minister and others to continually refer to these two people, Housakos and Soudas who works in his office, who supposedly acted improperly lobbying him, as Greek Canadians? I do not see how that ties together.

Mr. Speaker, we have all faced difficult issues, dealt with difficult problems, but never before in my tenure in the last five parliaments or before, have I ever experienced this.

I would ask the Prime Minister on behalf of over half a million Greek Canadians, some of whom even supported that party, to send them a card like he has done in the past and apologize. I demand that he stand in the House and apologize publicly to each and every Greek Canadian.

In closing, permit me if you will, Mr. Speaker, to say that this is a dark day for the Greek Canadian community and each and every Canadian of Greek origin. They came to do things differently as the Reform Party. They proved--

I guess Harper had left the chamber as it was Conservative house leader Peter Van Loan that replied to Cannis’ point of privilege. You may recall he was the guy that told us only Conservatives are real Canadians.

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there has been a characterization put on the Prime Minister's comments that is not at all in accord with the Prime Minister's intention nor with what he said. In fact, I believe the Prime Minister was defending the people of Greek origin from what seemed to be unremitting attacks from the opposition.

Leo Housakos, whose character was repeatedly attacked by members of all the opposition parties, is a very proud member of the Greek community whose service to the Greek community is second to none. He was director of the Montreal Hellenic Board of Trade, director of the Hellenic Academic Foundation, former director of Zoom Media, Hellas, Greece, and former executive vice-president of the Hellenic Congress of Quebec. This is someone of whom we are very proud. I believe that is the point the Prime Minister was making.

We should not be attacking these people. We should be taking pride in their origins, as we are, and be proud they have an opportunity to play a role in the mainstream of this country. It is not a crime for them to speak to people in the government. They should be allowed to participate in the mainstream of our country.

OK, is Peter Van Loan on crack? I mean, seriously. No one was attacking them for being Greek, or because they’re Greek. That’s ridiculous. When I attack Van Loan and Harper it’s not because they’re middle-aged white guys, it’s because they’re idiots.

As I said, no one raised ethnicity as an issue until Harper did. And then Van Loan goes further, suggesting somehow the opposition is questioning their right to participate in the mainstream of the country? First, bite me Peter. Second, where? Where exactly did that happen? Show me.

This is a transparent and pathetic attempt by Harper and Van Loan to divert attention from the real issue, and it’s not going to go away. And now Harper has another scandal to deal with. Hopefully he’ll do the right thing, and apologize.

And another thing…

Putting this whole thing aside, lets look again at the Conservative defence line for the influence scandal:

The government admits the meeting took place in August 2006.

But Harper pointed out that the government has not shifted its policy in the 18 months since and has continued its battle against the Montreal real-estate firm Rosdev.

"This is bizarre," Harper said in response to a question from the Bloc Quebecois.

"The Bloc is complaining that somebody - a company - didn't receive special treatment by this government."

Opposition parties called for an investigation by the federal ethics commissioner and the NDP said Soudas should be suspended in the meantime. The Bloc called the prime minister's answer unacceptable.

"What the prime minister's saying is, 'It didn't work, so that's okay,' " said Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe.

I think Duceppe has it exactly right here. It doesn’t matter that the intervention on the developers’ behalf failed. The issue is that the intervention never should have never happened in the first place. All the fact that it failed means is that Soudas probably doesn’t have a bright future as a lobbyist.

Anyway, now it’s all off to the Ethics Commissioner. But I remember when the Conservatives used to bray about the principle of Ministerial Responsibility. Does it not apply to Prime Ministers?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On "embracing the NDP approach" on Afghanistan

I really shouldn't, my main post on Afghanistan will come later, but reading this story this morning, blogged by Scott and Blogging Horse, I was compelled to make a brief comment.

NDP Leader Jack Layton made a personal appeal to the federal Liberals yesterday, urging them to accept his proposal to put an end to Canada's military combat mission in Afghanistan.

Layton spoke briefly to Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion outside the Commons to persuade him not to support Prime Minister Stephen Harper's efforts to extend the mission beyond its current deadline of 2009.

First, let me say I think it would be great if they could sit down and talk. I’d like to see more sitting down and talking amongst all the party leaders actually, and a little more cooperation between the opposition parties, in particular.

I just can’t help but recall, as I read about Jack asking the Liberals to come over to his way of thinking, and not accept a combat mission past 2009, to recall the events of last April.

The NDP favoured immediate withdrawal, a position shared by very few Canadians and no other political party. A motion of their’s to that effect was defeated easily. The Liberals proposed a motion that would call for the combat mission to end in 2009. And what happened?

A Liberal motion to end Canadian combat operations in southern Afghanistan by February 2009 was defeated in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

The NDP joined the Conservatives in defeating the motion, which lost by a close vote of 150-134.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said the vote was nothing more than a green light for an extension to the mission. The NDP wants the troops out immediately.

So, really, it’s nice to see the NDP finally coming around to the Liberal position, even if it is nearly a year too late. I can't help but wonder how the debate would have played-out over the past year if the NDP had sided with the Liberals to pass that motion.

More later.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Pamela Wallin on Afghanistan

Tuesday evening I attended an event at the University of Toronto, sponsored by the Canadian Journalism Foundation, where Pamela Wallin, a member of the famed Manley panel, spoke on...well, Afghanistan, of course.

I can’t say I agreed with her politics. Indeed, I disagreed with much of it, and the way she tried to frame the issues and the debate. But I also agreed with much if it, and nevertheless it was a very interesting presentation. It was informative to hear firsthand from one of the commission members and their impressions of their visit to Afghanistan, what led to them to some of their conclusions, and some anecdotes of her experiences there.

I took notes during the presentation and I’ve going to mainly share those now. I may have some editorial comments, but I’m going to save outlining my conclusions, and my own view on the future of the Afghan mission, for a later post.

For now, here’s some of her comments (mainly without my own thoughts, except where noted):

*She said this has been one of the most extraordinary experiences of her life.

*We are embarking on a conversation about the mission and the war in this country, and she would argue belatedly so.

*In making the point that even she and the supposed experts of the commission didn’t really know much, Wallin said that she hadn’t known that Afghans are the people, and Afghanis are the currency. They’d been getting it wrong (calling Afghanis the people) until, six weeks into their work, someone corrected them.

*She said there’s a lack of basic understanding, even in her social circle, of how we came to be in Afghanistan, so she went over the history, 9/11, Taliban and Bin Laden, etc. We asked to go to Kandahar, we were not forced to go to Kandahar and we did not go against our will, “despite all the stories to the contrary,” she said.

*The committee members told Harper his mandated goals won’t cut it, so he said fine, do what you want to do, and she says they never heard from Harper again, so she gives him credit for making it actually independent.

*She thinks appointing an ex-Liberal cabinet minister was “a brilliant thing to do” because if he’d appointed a Conservative head it would have been dismissed as a whitewash.

*During their visit to Afghanistan they travelled with heavy security. “We were prime targets....if the Taliban could have taken us out that would have been a real coup.”

*They met with NATO generals, the soldiers, woman’s groups, government officials, and opposition politicians. She said she found the government criticism very similar to Ottawa.

*As you fly over the vast mountain range of Afghanistan she said you come to understand why they’ve never found Osama Bin Laden…you couldn’t find him and 400 of his closest friends unless you’ve lived there all your lives.

*Different regions in Afghanistan have different circumstances, much like Canada. For women, while it’s much more restrictive in the urban areas, in the rural areas they’re farm wives and it’s not near as severe.

*Whenever the committee members talked to Afghans, when they found out they were Canadians, the first thing they’d say was we’re sorry your young men and women are dying for us, They shouldn’t be, we should be but we can’t do it ourselves yet so we need your help, but as soon as we can send you home and do it ourselves we will.

*We’re not a foreign occupying force, she said. This is a NATO and UN mission, the Afghans want us there, they don’t want the Taliban to come back.

*They want us to train them, and that’s a large part of what we’re doing there. But training is fighting, there’s no place to go shoot practice rounds. We train them while they fight with us, and them we start to move into the background as they take over.

*You can’t do the good things Canadians do without security, or you’d just have dead air workers. The military is there to provide the security so that aid can happen.

*She described one aid project where the purpose is to give war widows a chicken. It lays eggs and the kids have something to eat. She said these women are so amazing, if it lays one egg the kid has something to eat, if it lays two eggs she sells the second, and if it lays three she sets up a stand. Also important, she said, are micro loans for women to do things like setting up those stands, or little shops. They also help the woman gain respect in the family.

*There’s a moral imperative for us to be in Afghanistan, she said. We said we wanted to come and help these people, and we can’t leave when the going gets tough. “If you flinch every time there’s a body bag on the screen then you’re feeling the insecurities these countries have” that we won’t stick it out long term…”I think if we are who we say we are, and if we care about the women and the children and the next generation...then we do need to make this commitment.”

*The committee decided it was reasonable to ask for some help from our NATO allies, 1000 is a really small number when you think about it and our allies should be able to step up to the plate on that.

*Need to make sure aid dollars are working in tandem with military dollars…roads need to get paved so Afghans an get to market, and if a road is paved insurgents can’t plant an IED under it.

*We also need some of those European folks with choppers in their countries not doing anything to send them to Afghanistan.

* She’s been gratified by public response to report, says support for mission has increased, and the more informed people are of the mission the more supportive they become.

*She doesn’t understand how people can say they support the troops but are opposed to the mission, because the troops are the mission; they’re the ones taking girls to school. We as a country need to decide if we want to be participants on the world stage or just observers, because there aren’t many countries where there’s peace to be kept these days.

*We’re not going to make Afghanistan a western-style democracy overnight, but we can give them the ability to defend themselves. Human rights and womens’ commissions are nice, but there’s a time and a place.

(At this point it moved into Q&A, but let me pause for a moment because I can’t go on without saying a big WTF on that last point. There’s a time for human rights? Yeah, there is Pam, and it’s right now. We can’t impose our values, yes, but if we replace an evil regime with one that’s just really bad, what’s the frickin’ point? Also, I’m shocked that at an event sponsored by journalists, and her being a former journalist herself, she didn’t mention the Afghan journalist sentenced to death for not towing the government line. But on to the Q&A.)

*There was a question on the porous border with Pakistan. She says it’s a major issue and something needs to be dome about the borders. It’s not realistic to send a few battalions to patrol it, we don’t understand the terrain. The Pakistanis have made clear they don’t want foreign troops in their territory. The border is disputed, with overlapping claims. The Taliban can give a border official $10 to look the other way, and that’s a lot of money for the poor, we need to lift them up and pay them better so bribes aren’t attractive. Probably the best we can do for now is patrol on the Afghan side, and the only country with the manpower is the U.S. After the presidential elections she thinks they’ll be moving in much more resources, no matter who wins, because the Iraq surge is working and Afghanistan is seen as the good war. But it’s going to ne a long haul, and no one knows what will happen in the Pakistani elections. Perhaps other Arab countries could help.

*An Ottawa term is Three Ds: Defence, Diplomacy, Development. Its important Canadians hear more about the last two, and for that to happen we need to hear from the ambassadors and the aid workers. She says the PM has “embraced” this message and “taken it to heart.” She also said the way we do development in Afghanistan is hogtied by bureaucracy. While she supports the need for accountability for spending, subjected a program like chickens for war widows isn’t realistic…what’s the test, the eggs were good? We need to be more realistic in our approach, and adapt to the circumstanced when appropriate. She also said Canada needs to make its development statement more loudly. We need a signature project, something like a hospital, something to put the Canadian flag on, that literally and figuratively shows our effort. Afghans know we’re there, but when asked to point to something they can only point to the soldiers, because that’s what they see. It would be nice if they had something like a school or hospital to point to. We shouldn’t be afraid to wave our flag.

*She was asked if there’s 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, why should our presence hinge on just 1000 more. She said this would allow Canadian troops to be rotated within the Kandahar area. The committee wanted a number that was reasonable and achievable. “We’ve got some countries there with caveats as long as your arm…the Germans don’t go out after dark.”

*There’s chaos at the top in the ISAF structure, that’s why they want a UN 3^rd party representative, someone with the clout to go in and knock some heads. Everyone has their own training programs doing things in their own way, there’s no coordination.

*It’s hugely important to get more involvement from Arab countries, since this is in their backyard. Take the United Arab Emirates, they’re not going to send troops but they could help build infrastructure and help monetarily. “I think we have to guilt them a little bit on that score.”

*She was asked can we negotiate with the Taliban, could there ever be a cease fire so we could focus on development? She replied there are a wide spectrum of Taliban, from the fanatics to the guy that took $10 to feed his family. At the lower levels negotiation goes on every day and some former Taliban are even in the government. But it isn’t likely to be as clear-cut as two sides sitting down at a peace table.

*The Manley committee has laid out a path and a strategy that, while it won’t be easy, makes it possible for the two major parties (Liberals and Conservatives) to fund common ground. They’re not saying we should stay forever and at all costs. They’ve but some deadlines on this, and it we don’t get all our asks we should service we’re leaving. It wouldn’t be fleeing and running, but would be handing over the security to NATO, they’d have to figure it out and someone else would have to step up to the plate. But he thinks this is our best shot for making it happen. And she thinks Canadians will be there, willingly, for a long time to come.

My thoughts

I’m going to contain my thoughts to Wallin’s speech; as mentioned I’m going to leave my wider thoughts on the way forward in Afghanistan to a later post.

Her thoughts and impressions were interesting and illuminating, as I said, although I can’t agree with some of them. She’s much more of a hawk than I thought she’d be.

Responding to her thoughts, I don’t think we’re having the national conversation she said she thinks we’re finally having. It seems to me the debate is still more political than substantive amongst those paying attention, and the latest polls still show most Canadians favouring an end to the combat mission in 2009.

I agree with much of what she had to say about development, and the signature project thing sounds like a good idea. But I don’t see 1000 troops making much of a difference at all, it really seems to me like a token gesture to try to provide some cover for a combat mission extension, and since it seems like we knew those troops are coming anyway it was just setting-up cover to let Harper do what he wanted to do anyway.

I found her comments that you can’t say you support the troops unless you support the combat mission to be absolutely ridiculous, and an irresponsible and unnecessary polarization of the debate.

I agree with her about getting the Arab countries more involved, but why the heck couldn’t they send troops? Money is nice, but why couldn’t Egypt or Saudi Arabia send some soldiers over to help out?

And finally, the idea that Harper has “embraced” and “taken to heart” the Manley recommendations around more open communications and talking about the diplomacy and development is laughable, and I’m surprised she could deliver it with a straight face. There has been no evident change by this government on that front.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Afghanistan sentences journalist to death

I've not commented yet on the Manley report and follow-up, as I’m attending an event tonight where commission member Pamela Wallin will be discussing the report and her experience there, and I’d like to hear what she has to say before formulating my thoughts.

I have to tell you though, when I read about things like this it really makes me wonder what the heck we’re fighting for over there. As a journalist myself, I tend to be concerned about this kind of thing…

Afghanistan - Shock at death sentence passed on young journalist for blasphemy

MONTREAL, Jan. 23 /CNW Telbec/ - On the 22nd of January 2008, a court in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif passed the death sentence on a young journalist, Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, for alleged blasphemy. The trial was held behind closed doors and without any lawyer defending him. His brother, fellow journalist Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, told Reporters Without Borders: "I saw my brother leave the court. He was very anxious. All the family was, too."

"We are deeply shocked by this trial, carried out in haste and without any concern for the law or for free expression, which is protected by the constitution," Reporters Without Borders said. "Kambakhsh did not do anything to justify his being detained or being given this sentence. We appeal to President Hamid Karzai to intervene before it is too late."

At a news conference yesterday, Hafizullah Khaliqyar, the deputy provincial prosecutor in charge of the case, threatened to imprison all journalists who support Kambakhsh, adding that "Kambakhsh has confessed to the crime and must be punished."

Kambakhsh was supposedly arrested because of a controversial article commenting on verses in the Koran about women, although it has now been established that he was not the article's author. Rahimullah Samandar, the head of the Afghanistan Independent Journalists Association, said he was in fact arrested because of articles written by his brother, Ibrahimi, criticising the provincial authorities.

A reporter for the newspaper Jahan-e Naw ("The New World") and a journalism student at Balkh university, Kambakhsh, 23, was arrested on 27 October.

The U.S. State department, at least, has “expressed concern” about the case, as has the UN, the Germans and the French. I’ve not aware of any comment from the Canadian government. Neither is Bill Doskoch.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Yeah, yeah, when we see the budget

This is a great video from Stephane Dion's recent appearance on The Hour, nice to see Dion showing a more personal and playful side of himself.

I will await with amusement Conservative attacks that this video shows Dion is pro-video game violence, or wants to invade Greenland or something.

BTW, a link to the actual interview is here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Photo-shopping the pounds away

An amusing, er, little story out of Texas, where a Republican congressional candidate has been caught in some photo-shop shenanigans:

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A mailer from a congressional candidate's campaign contains a photo of his head attached to an image of a different body that makes him look thinner.

The photo is presented as a true image of Dean Hrbacek, a Republican former mayor of Sugar Land, Texas. In reality, it is a computerized composite of Hrbacek's face and someone else's slimmer figure, in suit and tie, from neck to knee.

If you’re reading, Stephen Harper, don’t go getting any ideas…

I found this quote from the piece amusing:

Republican political consultant Allen Blakemore of Houston, who has no client in the congressional race, said there's no law against the practice "other than the laws of gravity -- the negative effect on your polling numbers and popularity when you do such things."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Lorne Nystrom outs Jack: Its politics, not principle

I’ll go back to my regularly scheduled Conserva-bashing in short order, not to worry. But in the mean time I couldn’t resist highlighting these comments from former NDP MP Lorne Nystrom, as they validate some of the arguments I’ve been making for some time.

The argument? That the NDP doesn’t necessarily see an election as a moral imperative, they see it as an issue to bash the Liberals over. And their strategy isn’t about holding Harper to account; it’s about helping the Conservatives in painting Dion as weak.

Says Lorne:

Former New Democratic MP Lorne Nystrom, who is no longer directly involved with party strategy, said the NDP is clearly focused on keeping the Liberals on the defensive. Having asked swing Liberal voters in 2006 to "lend us your vote," Mr. Layton must prevent them from returning to their traditional patterns, he said.

Mr. Nystrom said that coming out early in favour of an election likely forces the Liberals to keep Parliament alive by abstaining on key confidence votes, making Stéphane Dion look like a weak leader.

I have no problem with the NDP strategy, except for the fact that I think it benefits the Harper Conservatives more than it benefits the NDP. Nevertheless, from a purely strategic point of view it’s a good strategy for Layton and company. And all is fair in love and war.

I just wish the NDP supporters would get off their moral high horses, painting themselves as the party that doesn’t play politics, the righteous defenders of all that is holy and right, and the puppy dogs and the kitty cats. Bollocks. The NDP plays politics like everyone else. Indeed, in my experience they play it even more. And that’s fine, just don’t try to pretend that you don’t, and that you’re better then that, is all I’m saying. It’s a tad nauseating.

Which brings me to these last interesting comments from Lorne:

Because the NDP and the Liberals regularly fight over the same voters, Mr. Nystrom said, the NDP likely senses the Liberals are in a position of weakness at the moment that is not necessarily visible in the national polling and may not last.

"It may be worse to go [to the polls] later," Mr. Nystrom said.

"If the economy gets worse and the election isn't held until fall and there's an anti-Conservative mood in the country, then usually what happens is people seek the largest alternative party, which is the Liberals. ... If you have an early election, it may be too soon for the Liberals and work to the NDP's advantage."

This is an interesting theory, and one I hadn’t considered before, but it makes sense. I’ve been saying that because of the parliamentary math and Liberal unwillingness to force an election the NDP have been able to beat the electoral war drums without consequence, safe in the knowledge that the Liberals are going to prop-up anyway. Which is true. But I’ve also been saying the NDP don’t really want an election, given their really crappy polling numbers, which as the article notes have often been below their turnout in the last election.

Lorne’s theory is also interesting, however. And it punches an even wider hole in the NDP’s supposedly viewing an election as a moral imperative. It’s not principle. It’s political calculation. They deride the Liberals for wanting to wait until the polls are better for them, when it would seem the NDP may want to go now is because they think the polls will get worse for them. It’s all just politics.

On weakness

All that said; in closing let me backtrack for a moment on the NDP strategy, namely keeping the Liberals on the defensive and making the Liberals look weak. You know what? We are on the defensive, and we do look weak.

I was advocating a pre-budget non-confidence vote. Even if the Conservatives wouldn’t have likely procedurally blocked it, it looks like the Liberals have ruled that out anyway. The next test is the budget, and we’re going to wait to see what’s in it before we decide.

Which is a fine position to take, in the sense that coming out against the budget before we’ve seen it is just crass politics (see above) and it’s better to keep the Cons on their toes. Whatever is in the budget though, I don’t see how we can possibly vote for it.

You could argue we should wait for the fall to build momentum from the hoped-for by-election victories, getting Bob Rae and Martha Hall-Findlay in the HoC and, as Lorne postulates, a weakening economy solidifying the anti-Con vote. That’s all well and good.

To get there, though, you’ve got to get past this budget, which would mean more of this abstention nonsense, and I don’t see how we can keep getting away with that. You can argue that no one outside the Ottawa bubble gives a crap about this stuff. Maybe you could convince me, I don’t know. While this may not be hurting us though, I think is stopping us from growing.

Strategically, while things may get better tactically for the Liberals, they could also get much worse. Harper isn’t going to keep shooting himself in the foot forever. As I’ve argued before, a Liberal minority is within reach. And, even if moral imperatives have no place in politics, I think getting Harper out of government sooner rather than later would be a good thing. Particularly if the economy is worsening.

An election on the budget is a tough road to take, particularly since it’s sure to be filled with electoral goodies. That’s why I’d wanted to go pre-budget. It’s still better than the alternative though. It’s time to bring this government down.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Totally unfair partisan cheapshot of the day

NDP Leader Jack Layton is advocating a federal election to replace Stephen Harper as prime minister, saying a change in political direction is urgently needed.

This is great news. First Green Party leader Elizabeth May endorses Stephane Dion for Prime Minister, and now the leader of the party at 13 per cent in the polls also agrees we need to elect a Liberal government. Thanks Jack!

*Don’t go crazy, leftie friends, I did say totally unfair cheapsot.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Unfair partisan cheapshot of the day

Quebecor World Inc., North America's second-largest publicly traded printer, sought protection from creditors in the U.S. and Canada after talks over a rescue deal failed.
…
Quebecor World, led by Chairman Brian Mulroney, a former prime minister of Canada, missed the Jan. 15 deadline and also failed to make a $19.5 million interest payment on its outstanding $400 million in senior notes.

Looks like ‘Lyin Brian is just as good at managing Quebecor’s finances as he was the nation’s.

BONUS Unfair partisan cheapshot:

At least now he’ll have more of time to testify under oath before a public inquiry about accepting envelopes stuffed with cash and what not.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dipper glass houses

Oh how quickly they forget...

(FWIW I still say go before the budget.)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Airport security is a farce

I travel a lot for work, always by air, so I've gotten use to the routines and indignities of modern air travel. Shoes off, jacket off, laptop out, coins and keys in the bin, no liquids, no tooth paste, no shaving cream, no nail clippers. I've got the routine down to a science, and can generally get through the checkpoint in a jiffy, unless I'm stuck behind a family of tourists.

That doesn't mean however that I don’t realize what a farce this whole system is, and how ridiculous it is I need to take off my shoes, or that I can't bring a bottle of Fresca onboard with me.

And this story on the CP ticker, although this wasn’t its intention, illustrates quite clearly that, when it comes to airport security, the government and security authorities are perpetuating a giant fraud:

Air travellers' losses are charities' gains
Bruce Cheadle, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - Gary McCarthy, the operations manager of a foodbank distribution centre in the nation's capital, surveys the latest detritus from the war on terror with a practiced eye.

A jar of peanut butter, shaving cream, sunscreens, tubes of toothpaste - even a mickey of rum - nestle among four large cardboard boxes packed with items confiscated from travellers at Ottawa's international airport.

"Most of it has been opened," McCarthy said at the bustling food bank warehouse, which sends food and other goods to 128 member agencies in the region.
(more)

Now, I don’t have a problem with helping out the charities, let me make that clear. But let’s look at this whole thing for a minute. The reason why we’re not allowed to take much of this stuff on the plane, such as liquids and gels, is that the authorities say it could be a bomb. It might be explosives. It’s a potential security risk.

So, it this stuff is a potential security risk, if its potentially explosive, shouldn’t it be treated as such? Shouldn’t the bomb squad dispose of this stuff? Shouldn’t it be treated like hazardous material and disposed of properly, and not tossed in garbage bins for charities to rummage through and distribute or resell?

I’m glad the airports and CATSA want to give charities a helping-hand. However, if my Fresca is safe enough to donate to the homeless, why the hell are they seizing it from me in the first place?

Rather than implementing moronic policies to make the public FEEL safer, I'd rather the authorities actually implement policies that will MAKE us safer.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A trip down Hercules procurement memory lane

Last week, Peter McKay took us on a trip down memory lane when he engaged in a spirited round of Liberal bashing to explain a delay in the delivery of the choppers (Sea King replacements) the previous Liberal government (finally) ordered for the military.

Now, regular readers know I’ve never been a defender of the poor record of past Liberal governments on defence spending -- frankly, that whole helicopter cancellation thing was pathetic -- and I'm not keen on the job Denis Coderre is doing for us as critic either...but also pathetic was MacKay’s over-reaching and unnecessary politicization last week. A manufacturer’s delay is a manufacturer’s delay, not a chance for grandstanding.

Since he likes trips down memory lane though, with his announcement last week of the C-130J Hercules contract I thought it might be interesting to take a more recent, and slightly more relevant, trip into the past.

You may not recall this, but the Liberals actually tried to buy these planes, these C-130Js, over two years ago. Yes, two years ago. Back in the fall of 2005. Then defence minister Bill Graham wanted to fast track the purchase, as the military needed these planes tout de suite. The money was allocated. The ball was rolling.

Feds announce $4.6-billion plan to buy new military transport planes
Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, November 22, 2005
OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government has announced that it will go ahead with a plan to buy about $4.6 billion worth of military transport aircraft.

And then along came Conservative defence critic (and former lobbyist) Gordon O’Connor. Not so fast, said O’Connor. There’s no rush. Let’s take our time. No more billion dollar boondoggles. And what about Airbus, he said (he used to lobby for Airbus). Let them bid too; you can’t rig this process to favour Lockheed.

The Conservative defence critic, retired general Gordon O'Connor, says he's concerned the government is rushing the process unnecessarily and has made the requirements "so precise only one solution's possible."

"They're basically saying that these are needed tomorrow morning for Afghanistan and that's not true."

“I don't think having a legitimate competition . . . would add much time to this process."

O’Connor and his old lobbyist buddies were able to kick up enough dirt that the government backed down, delaying the procurement until after the election.

A few months later the Conservatives form a minority, and one year after scuttling the initial attempted purchase, in November of 2006 they announce, surprise surprise, they’re going to go with the Herc after all:

The Conservative government has quietly named Lockheed Martin's C-130J aircraft as the winner of a $4.9-billion bid to replace the military's aging Hercules transport planes.

The U.S. aerospace giant was informed of the government's decision on Monday, although there has been no official government announcement about the selection of the C-130J for the project.

Despite the government secrecy, the choice of the C-130J as the military's new tactical transport aircraft doesn't come as a surprise to those in the aerospace industry. Although the Conservative government maintained that the competition was open to all bidders and fair, the project requirements automatically eliminated the European-built A400M aircraft, the main competition to the C-130J.

Hey, wait; isn’t that the same plane the Liberals wanted to buy one year earlier, you ask? And making sure the project requirements favoured the Herc; isn’t that what O’Connor accused the Liberals of doing, and didn’t he say that was bad? Yes to both questions.

And now, more than a year after the Conservatives selected the C-130J, and more than TWO years after they helped scuttle a Liberal attempt to buy the C-130J, they finally sign a contract to buy…the C-130J.

The air force's long-awaited purchase of the Super-Hercules cargo plane became a reality Wednesday as the Conservative government formally signed a contract with U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin.

The purchase of 17 C-130J planes is worth $1.4 billion, with delivery of the first aircraft in the winter of 2010.

So, in essence, we’ve come around full circle. If O’Connor and the Conservatives hadn’t of taken us on this two-year magical mystery tour, one wonders if the air force would be getting their planes ‘round about now, or, at least, some time before 2010? I wouldn’t be surprised.

It’s no wonder Peter McKay didn’t mention this little historical story…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dion and Pakistan: Where's the gaffe, pray tell?

I hadn't read the papers or watched the news much the past few days, so all I'd read about these supposedly controversial comments Stephane Dion made about Pakistan was mainly headlines on news sites and blogs.

Based on those headlines, you'd think he's proposed carpet bombing or something. D-Day Part Deux. When I heard yesterday that the Pakistani Embassy was getting into the game, I thought it was time for me to find out what the heck is going on here.

And the best way to do that is to go past the spin and look at what was originally said. Here’s Dion’s original comments, in the context of making a point about Taliban insurgents slipping across the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan to attack NATO forces, then slipping back to their safe havens:

"If [Pakistani leaders] are incapable of doing it themselves, it is something that we could envision with NATO forces — how to help Pakistan help us bring peace to Afghanistan," he said during a news conference in Quebec City Wednesday.

I just have missed where he talked about invading a nuclear state, as invasions usually come without the permission of the country you’re, well, invading. What Dion said is really quite logical. If Pakistan can’t control these insurgents themselves, these insurgents by the way that are killing Canadian soldiers, then NATO should explore ways of HELPing them. Makes sense to me. Not invading. Helping, in whatever way Pakistan wants/needs.

Last night Jason explored where things began to go off the rails; it would seem when the Conservatives decided to try to reframe Dion’s comments as plotting an invasion or something, a meme then picked up by the media and the blogger hordes. Once again, the Conservatives decide to distort reality and use Afghanistan as a political ping pong ball to score partisan points.

Every step of the way though, from a snap vote on a mission extension, from refusing to lower the flags, to banning the media from repatriation ceremonies and lying about it, to misleading the HoC on detainee abuse, to denying information to the public, to releasing confidential information that put the lives of Dion, Michael Ignatieff and the soldiers protecting them in danger, crass politics has been the game of the game for this government when it comes to Afghanistan.

And once the government egged the media into distorting Dion’s comments, they’re portraying his correction of their distortions as somehow “backing-down” from his original position.

But in an interview with the CBC's Peter Mansbridge Thursday night, Dion backed away from the suggestion that NATO forces be deployed to Pakistan, emphasizing instead a need for greater diplomatic effort.

"It was diplomatic intervention with an effort that must be more concerted between Canada and our NATO allies," Dion said.

"Part of what we are doing in the south of Afghanistan, in the province of Kandahar, is nullified by the fact that the insurgents, they cross the border. They ignore the border, and when we provide security in that area, they may come back any time from Pakistan."

He’s not backing away from anything, he’s nearly repeating and further discussing his original position. The Pakistan insurgent havens are a problem, if Pakistan can’t handle it on its own we should talk with them about how NATO can help.

Perhaps the government would do better to actually look at the issue Dion raised. And it’s not exactly a new issue; it has been raised by many, within Canada and out, within NATO and out. It’s an issue that directly concerns not only the success of the mission, but the safety of our troops. Is anyone denying this is a serious problem? I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I do know a problem when I see it.

And I do a political smear job when I see one too. This was no gaffe, and anyone that actually reads the original comments can see that clearly. Let's not let the Conservative spin machine divert attention from a serious discussion on the Afghan mission.

I'll leave the last word to Garth Turner, who I think puts it well:

For the record, the Liberals are not invading Pakistan.

I heard Dion has stabled his white stallion, sheathed his sabre and holstered his pearl-handled S&W. We won’t even send any soldiers. But, as government, we’d likely stop playing footsy with a pampered dictator who has enough troops to suppress his own millions of citizens, but not the balls enough to kick Taliban butt on his own borders, thus endangering Canadian troops.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Bizzaro news, Afghan trip edition

As much as Conservative apologists try to downplay an unacceptable breach of security by junior minister Helena Guergis, this story won’t be going away. At least not until she does.

In a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Dion said Guergis, the secretary of state for foreign affairs, put his security at risk by revealing details publicly of his itinerary in Afghanistan during a visit last weekend.

Information on such visits is usually blacked out to protect dignitaries, and the soldiers accompanying them, from attack by Taliban insurgents. But in an email to reporters on Saturday, Guergis discussed plans of Dion and deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to visit the Provincial Reconstruction Team before the two men revealed them.

It makes me wonder what the Conservatives would be saying if the situations were reversed. (Starts rubbing his chin and looking pensive) I can picture it now…picture it now….picture it now…

Opposition blasts ‘treasonous’ Liberal minister
Harper demands immediate dismissal, files RCMP complaint

By Bizarro News Staff

Opposition leader Stephen Harper held a press conference yesterday to demand the immediate dismissal of Liberal junior foreign affairs minister Joe Blow, saying Blow’s unauthorized disclosure of confidential information put Canadian lives in danger by revealing details publicly of his itinerary in Afghanistan during a visit last weekend.

Information on such visits is usually blacked out to protect dignitaries, and the soldiers accompanying them, from attack by Taliban insurgents. But in an email to reporters on Saturday, Blow discussed plans of Harper and deputy leader Peter McKay to visit the Provincial Reconstruction Team before the two men revealed them.

In the press conference, Harper accused the Liberal minister of intentionally endangering their lives, and the lives of the soldiers guarding them, saying the disclosure of their itinerary constituted a “treasonous offence designed to give aid and comfort” to the enemy and silence legitimate criticism or the government’s Afghan policy.

“Luckily for Blow treason is no longer punishable by death in Canada, although a referendum on that question will be held under a future Conservative government. And there's no statue of limitations on treason ,” said Harper. “Life in prison doesn’t seem like enough. Blow needs to be fired from cabinet immediately, and the RCMP must investigate this case forthwith.”

Harper also called for the appointment of a judicial inquiry to explore if Blow was acting alone, or as part of a Liberal conspiracy involving the Prime Minister, Bill Clinton and Osama Bin Laden.

“Blow isn’t smart enough to have cooked this up on his own, he had to have help,” said Harper. “We all know the PM keeps his ministers on a tight leash, and nothing is said publicly without permission of the PMO.”

Diluting the power of the PMO and promoting ministerial and MP independence will be a key priority of a future Conservative government, Harper added, promising he would be much more of a "hands off" PM.

OK, maybe the death penalty thing was a little over the top. You get the idea though. I have no doubt the Blogging Tories would be crying TREASON! from the highest rooftops…or the lowest basements…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why Linda Keen was right, even if the HoC overruled her

I had fun with my last post, but I did want to make one serious point about this whole nuclear business. Particularly, I wanted to address what seems to be one of the conservative talking points, which is that the all-party HoC decision to re-open Chalk River means Linda Keen was in the wrong.

Quite simply, that’s not what it means at all. As president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Keen was a bureaucrat and regulator whose job was…well, here’s what the Web site says:

The CNSC regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment, and to respect Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The CNSC’s mandate does not include regulating for economic objectives.

Her job was to regulate the safe use of nuclear energy in Canada. Chalk River was not up to standards, and had serious safety issues it wasn’t addressing. She had no choice but to take the action she did and order it shut down.

And it wasn’t within the scope of her job to consider economic issues related to the production of isotopes, or even health issues relating to their unavailability due to a reactor shutdown. She’s a regulator, she needs to enforce the rules. To weigh the risk of a meltdown vs. the need for medical isotopes is a political decision. For Keen to have waded into it would have been outside the scope of her job…you might have called it bureaucratic activism.

That balancing act was a political decision. Therefore, it should be made by politicians. And it was. The HoC met to consider the issue, heard from experts on both sides, and made the decision to overrule Keen and restart the reactor. That doesn’t mean Keen was wrong. It means the MPs decided to take the safety risk, deciding it was outweighed by the need for isotopes.

Only elected MPs could make that call, a bureaucrat/regulator could not. MPs who are accountable should their gamble fail.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Boo, headline writers, boo!

Since I’m sure there's lots of serious analysis of the Conservative sacking of Canada’s nuclear watchdog, Linda Keen, out there in blogland (to read why it's evil, click here or here...to read why its brilliant, click here) I thought I’d take a more lighthearted approach and look at how the nation’s headline writers are handling the big news.

After all, as a journalist let me assure you, this is a story sure to warm a headline writer’s cold, tiny heart. There are so many ways you could go, such as:

Cons go nuclear

Harper nukes watchdog

A Conservative meltdown

Nuclear scandal goes critical

Keen plots counterstrike

Analysis: Mutually assured destruction

And many more. I think you get the idea. A good headline writer might even work in a reference to Matthew Broderick’s War Games…Stephen, what is the primary goal? The excellent made for TV movie The Day After would also work for inspiration, although probably not until Thursday, so there's still time...how about The Chalk River Syndrome?

But that’s why I was disappointed, as I took a look around the various news sites, at the lack of creativity exhibited by the nation’s headline writers. Take, for example, the major dailies:

Globe and Mail: Head of nuclear watchdog fired
National Post: Ottawa fires nuclear watchdog

The broadcasters:

CBC: Nuclear safety watchdog head fired for 'lack of leadership': minister
CTV: Government fires head of nuclear safety commission (since changed)

The wire services:

CP: Government fires head of Nuclear Safety Commission over Chalk River shutdown
Bloomberg: Canada Fires Nuclear Safety Chief Amid Dispute With Minister
Reuters: Canada sacks nuclear watchdog over reactor closure

And just for fun, the Iranian press, no strangers to issues nuclear:

Press TV: Canada sacks nuclear watchdog head

Well, that was pretty boring, wasn’t it?

I’ll give partial credit to the good folks at Sun Media, who I was counting on to really nail this one. At the Sun it’s all about the headlines, after all. They gave it a crack, and came pretty close, I just think it reads a tad awkwardly:

CNews: Tories fire nuke watchdog boss

Hopefully they’ll get it write for the print edition tomorrow morning; I’m counting on you Toronto Sun.

Anyway, I think the CRTC needs to take stronger action against the concentration of media ownership in this country than they did the other day, otherwise this lame headline trend will only worsen.

I decided to award two honourable mentions for these headlines as, while they did show creativity, they were written before the Keen firing.

Toronto Star: Political behaviour goes nuclear
Edmonton Sun: Commons committee eyes nuclear exchange

See, you can do better nation's media outlets. Let's pick it up!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Can we try not to screw up Don Valley West too please?

Writing recently on the nomination brouhaha still simmering in the Saskatchewan riding of Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River, I put the events in the larger context of the poor handling of nominations by the Liberal Party of Canada across Canada. Unfortunately, warning signs are emerging another cock-up may be brewing in Don Valley West, if the party leadership doesn’t take quick and decisive action.

First, however, back to Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River for a moment. I’d written earlier that the LPC should have waived-off Orchard long ago if the riding was reserved for an appointment. It appears, however, that the LPC may have done just that. Maybe:

David Orchard knew full well that the federal Liberals wanted an aboriginal woman to run in a northern Saskatchewan byelection and shouldn't be surprised that one was handpicked to do so, MP Ralph Goodale suggested Wednesday.

The twice failed Tory leadership hopeful - and anyone else who expressed interest in running as a Liberal in the Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River riding for that matter - signed a paper warning that leader Stephane Dion may appoint a qualified woman candidate, such as Joan Beatty, Goodale said.

"Everyone was informed about the leaders prerogative to appoint a candidate and the leader might want to exercise that prerogative if the appropriate strong, female, northern-riding resident came forward," Goodale said in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press.

Goodale’s comments are predictably dismissed as “spin” by Orchard campaign manager Marjaleena Repo:

She said Orchard, who delivered key delegates to Dion during the Liberal leadership race, was told that the party was looking for an aboriginal woman to run. But when they couldn't find one, she said Dion encouraged Orchard to put his name forward.

I think there’s lots of spin going on here. Certainly Goodale’s revelations, if accurate, cast Orchard’s actions in another light. However, if Dion did give Orchard an eventual go-ahead…well, it’s all a mess and I think there’s plenty of blame to go around. I think Orchard is far from innocent, I think Goodale is far from innocent, and I think the campaign team is coming off like the Clampets.

Nevertheless, my original thesis stands: the LPC did a piss poor job of managing this and a number of other nominations, making avoidable foul-ups that give the party a black eye at times we should be gaining ground.

A repeat in Don Valley West?

Which brings us to the highly coveted (read: winnable) Toronto-area riding of Don Valley West, now held by the retiring John Godfrey. This same article points to potential nomination trouble ahead in this riding:

Meanwhile, some Liberals fear a similar controversy is brewing in the Toronto riding of Don Valley West, which will become vacant in July when Liberal MP John Godfrey retires.

Potential candidates were warned late last year that Dion intended to appoint a star candidate in the safe Liberal seat. But insiders say Dion's efforts to recruit David Pecault, chairman of the Toronto City Summit Alliance, failed and now a number of would-be candidates, tired of waiting, are starting to get organized.

Former MP Sarmite Bulte has filed nomination papers, constitutional expert Deborah Coyne, who ran for the Liberals against Jack Layton in the last election, is intending to file her papers shortly and up to a dozen more are said to be interested.

Insiders predict that Dion will eventually appoint a candidate in Don Valley West but will face a huge backlash if he waits until candidates have already sold thousands of memberships.

And the Hill Times adds another name to the mix:

Jonathan Mousley, former legislative assistant and senior policy adviser to former Liberal Cabinet minister David Collenette in the Jean Chrétien Cabinet, will run for the nomination in retiring Liberal MP John Godfrey's (Don Valley West, Ont.) riding. Mr. Godfrey won the riding in the last election with 53.3 per cent of the vote.

Remember Mark Warner, the nominated Conservative candidate for Toronto-Centre dumped by the CPC leadership? He may be in the mix too (story is from November):

Godfrey acknowledged yesterday that Warner's name has been bandied as his possible successor in Don Valley West, where he's been the MP since 1993. Before then, the riding was a Progressive Conservative one, and Godfrey thinks Warner could have appeal there.

Interesting to see Deborah Coyne, cousin of Andrew, back in the mix. She took on Jack Layton for the Liberals in the last election and had the Toronto-Danforth nomination again before deciding not to run there last month. While I like her as a candidate, I’m not keen on riding swircheroos and the optics of this, even if Don Valley West is her home riding, are iffy. So I’m of mixed feelings there. As for the potential return of Sam Bulte, another riding switchero from Parkdale-High Park where she lost her seat to the NDP in the last election, and Gerard Kennedy will run in the next one, I’m sure the digital copyright folks are already gearing-up.

Anyway, the point is with such an attractive riding in play the names are coming out of the woodwork and there is a lot of interest, high profile and otherwise. This is also exactly the sort of riding Dion has said he’d like to set aside for the appointment of qualified female candidates to meet his 1/3 female candidates goal.

With the rumours of a possible appointment and many names coming forward, Dion and the LPC need to learn from the mistakes of Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River, Outremont, Scarborough-Southwest and the other ridings where they’ve bungled the nomination process.

The party need to make clear immediately its plans for this riding. Will it be a completely open nomination process? If so, say so and let people organize. Will it be a semi-open nomination process with only female candidates (a la Vancouver-Quadra)? Or will this riding be reserved for appointment, in which case people should stop campaigning?

The uncertainly cannot be allowed to fester. To allow people to start organizing now, and then make an appointment later, is unacceptable. The decision needs to be made immediately, and it needs to be made public. This will prevent any confusion, or any attempts to sow confusion.

The LPC has the chance to defuse this bomb before it goes off. Let’s hope this time they decide to do so.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Maybe Lawrence Martin could write for A/The Daily Show

I thought I had tossed out Monday’s Globe, but while tidying my desk I found it again. That's good because I wanted to share a snippet from Lawrence Martin’s column.

It's naturally behind the subscriber firewall, but in essence he's saying Stephane Dion should firmly shut down the election speculation and make clear he won't force an election until this fall. I won't rehash his argument, suffice to say I disagree and I've already said why I think we should go this spring, before the budget.

What I wanted to share were the last two graphs from Martin's column, what we in journalism call the kicker, because I thought it was pretty hilarious:

"…Their leader has little chance of growth under such circumstances because, instead of serious debate. The politicians engage in gamesmanship and the media focus is limited to horse-race cosmetics.

Mr. Dion should simply issue a statement saying that barring some alarming development, he anticipates no election until the fall at the earliest. That would shut everybody up and give him the time he badly needs to repair the damage of year one.”

Umm, yeah. It's as simple as that.

Everybody who believes that Dion coming out and saying he won't force an election until the fall will result in everybody shutting-up and the media suddenly covering policy, let me know. I've got some lovely swampland in Florida to sell you.

Yeah, I can just see the headlines now…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You're doing a heckuva job, Lunny

From the ticker, as the kids like to call it, comes this today from the (for the time being) Prime Minister:

Mr. Harper, in New Brunswick for a funding announcement, says Mr. Lunn “acted beyond the call of duty” when he took action to deal with the shutdown of a 50-year-old research reactor that led to a critical, worldwide shortage of isotopes used in medical imaging.

Seems like mighty praise, but remember the context. All Harper expects is from his ministers is to shut-up and do as the PMO says, so he sets the duty bar pretty low.

Still, I think Stephen should have gone with his second choice for an expression of defiant defense for his embattled subordinate: “You’re doing a heckuva job, Lunny.”

Of course, that would have required bringing Lunn out of the Embarrassing Conservative Minister Relocation Program, where he’s currently engaged in a spirited euchre tournament with Gordon O’Connor, Tony Clement and Rona Ambrose, for an in person appearance with the PM.

And on a totally unrelated note, here’s a link to Briony Penn’s Web site.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Taxes, schadenfreude, Americans, resignations, selective memories and the Queen

*Can’t buy a majority: According to the good folks at Decima, over the holidays the Conservatives gained a seven point lead in the polls. All they had to do was not be in the HoC or committee facing daily attacks, not have the opposition in the news, have no news stories on Mulroney and Schreiber or Lunn’s nuclear bungling or Afghanistan, get everyone sleepy from copious amounts of turkey, and force-feed them fawning year-end media interviews. And get lots of free advertising from TSN.

Oh, and spend billions more dollars cutting the GST by one point. Can’t forget that. In spite of everything, I’m starting to feel bad for Stephen Harper. He picks the week after Christmas for his big announcement, when things are slow and the media A team is on holiday, guaranteeing compliant coverage from the B team. He gets wall-to-wall fawning coverage of his tax cut, and still he can’t even scratch into majority territory on a temporary post-announcement blip.

OK, I don’t really feel sorry for him. I think it’s pretty funny actually.

*Schadenfreude: From the same polling story:

The latest poll contains plenty of bad news for the NDP.
The party -- which won a historic Quebec byelection in September and hopes to take more seats in the province -- sagged to eight per cent in Quebec. The Green party had nine per cent in the province.
It was almost as bad for New Democrats in Ontario. In that province, Liberals held a 40-37 lead over the Tories, while the NDP was at 12 per cent and the Green party was at 10.

What was that again about an orange wave, Jack?

*Americans: I can’t bring myself to get too interested or excited about the ongoing U.S. presidential primaries. For what it’s worth, I’m pulling for Obama. He’ll have a tough fight against Clinton, but he has a shot. I have to laugh at some of the media coverage the past few weeks though, by both our press and the American press, particularly around the New Hampshire results. They seem to be trying to spin Obama’s close second place finish as a major defeat; I guess because he pulled-out a surprise win in Iowa he was expected to run the boards. Now they’re casting Clinton as the comeback kid, because she barely managed to hold a state she once had a much bigger lead in, not to mention a lot more organizational muscle. And then there’s the tear-gate nonsense. The primary process is a marathon, not a sprint. Wake me up in a month or two.

*Resignations: MP Brian Pallister is quitting politics and won’t run in the next election. I was about to do a post on how this is another rat fleeing a sinking Liberal ship, another sign Dion is not a leader, and another sign a Conservative (or NDP) wave is about to sweep the country. Then I remembered Pallister is a Conservative, so it must just be family reasons and not a sinister conspiracy.

*National Compost: The editors at the Post are all indignant and up in arms today (not too unusual really), demanding justice in a story so ridiculous it doesn’t bare a full summary, and so much of a non-story you probably haven’t heard of it unless you read the Post or are a Conservative die-hard (all five of you). To the Post editors though, since they are obviously so concerned about this, they might want to go back and talk to their newsroom colleagues that were around in the late nineties, when the Post’s “investigative journalists” worked hand in hand with the Canadian Alliance, trying to bring down the Chretien government with the bogus crap pile of accusations known as Shawinigate. Did Post reporters ever leak information to the Alliance, to be used in QP, so they could then write about it in the Post? Umm, does a bear shit in the woods?

The Post today says: Name the guilty reporter, and let the public see what penalty has been meted out.

Actually, come to think of if, in the Shawinigate case justice was served. Chretien won another majority, Stock Day faced open rebellion in his caucus, and no one still reads the National Post.

*God save the Wii: Ending on a positive note, I enjoyed this story:

God save the Queen: She's now playing Wii

By GamePro staff
GamePro (online)

SAN FRANCISCO (01/07/2008) - Queen Elizabeth II is reportedly enamored with Nintendo's Wii.

According to a tabloid source close to UK's The People, The Queen is showing signs of becoming a "Nintendo addict" after getting her aging hands on her grandson's newly gifted Wii.

"When she saw [Prince] William playing a game after lunch at Sandringham... she begged to join in," the unnamed contact alleges. "She played a simple ten-pin bowling game and by all accounts was a natural... William was in fits of laughter. He was enormously impressed at having such a cool gran."

Since 2001, Her Majesty has regularly upgraded her cell phone before deciding on a Blackberry which she uses today. She sends email (queen@england.gov maybe?), listens to an iPod, and has seemingly turned into one of these.

I just have one point of contention however, and it’s with Prince William. He thought his Gran was cool for playing the Wii? I’d say having her face on all the money was already pretty cool, but that’s just me.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On Orchard, Beatty and party organization

Having largely stayed-out of the blogsphere this morning I missed the news the Liberal Party has appointed former provincial NDP cabinet minister and aboriginal activist Joan Beatty as our by-election candidate in the Saskatchewan riding of Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River.

Certainly it’s good news for the party and for Stephane Dion that we were able to attract such a strong candidate, who I understand was also being wooed to run in that riding for the NDP. While this will be the toughest of the four by-election seats for the Liberals to hold (not that I think there will/should be by-elections), this will make it a very interesting race. As an aside, I was reading on a dipper blog the other day (can’t recall which) about how a past Liberal candidate in the Maratimes deciding not to run federally for the Libs again signaled doom and gloom for the party, and a coming orange wave. I wonder what greater message they’d read into Beatty’s decision to jump to the Libs?

But seriously, let’s address the criticisms that were widely raised today about the decision. First, on the appointment. While I myself prefer open nomination process driven by the local riding, I have little time for people calling appointments like this undemocratic. While I’d make an exception were the appointee unqualified/a party hack of no accomplishment, that’s clearly not the case here. So, as long as the LPC constitution gives the leader the discretionary right to appoint candidates, the leader exercising that right is just fine. The power of appointment was given to the leader democratically, and can be taken away democratically too, by amending the constitution. I don’t recall ever hearing of such a motion even being proposed, so such complaints have always rung hollow for me. Additionally, Dion campaigned on a promise to use appointments if necessary to run more female candidates. He’s fulfilling that promise, seems democratic to me.

Then there’s David Orchard, who was very interested in the seat. I’m not sure of his reaction to the appointment. I’m not a big Orchard fan, I’m a bit leery of the guy to be honest, but I hope he finds another riding and gets some support from the party because I don’t like the way he seems to have been treated here. It seems some in the party decided to try to put some distance between it and Mr. Orchard. If he was good enough to be a key part of Dion’s leadership win, he’s good enough to be a candidate now. I was at the victory party that night in Montreal, and I was surprised when, during his remarks to the crowd at the hotel, Dion brought Orchard up and signaled him out for his effort. While I think Beatty is right for this riding, I also think loyalty is very important in politics, and I think Orchard is owed better treatment.

What I really wanted to talk to though is a pattern that seems re-enforced by the party’s handling of the Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River nomination process. And that’s the emerging, and by now I think painfully obvious, pattern of sloppy and amateur management and organization by the campaign/electoral team.

This never should have gotten to the point of being controversial, and wouldn’t have were it not handled so sloppily. If they had an appointment in mind for this riding they should have waved off Orchard long ago, and let him focus his efforts elsewhere, making it clear from the outset. If he’d ignored such a wave-off that would have been his mistake, and his undoing. Instead things were allowed to fester, and degenerate into a public spectacle.

Sound familiar? It reminds me of the mess of a nomination process in Outremont that culminated with Jocelyn Coulon being parachuted in at the last minute. Now, I’m not predicting another Outremont. But Desnethé, Outremont, the whole March Garneau thing, the whole Justin Trudeau thing, the way Scarborough-Southwest was handled, and others paint a picture of a sloppy handling of nominations by the LPC.

And it speaks to a wider problem of avoidable communications and strategy mistakes and faux-pas that goes beyond just nominations. I don’t want to overstate the problem, as I do see positive developments in other areas, and clearly we’re not the only party to have nomination issues. It just seems like we’re being hurt repeatedly by entirely avoidable mistakes. That’s annoying, unfortunate, and left unchecked not good at all.

UPDATE: Thought I had this pic somewhere of Dion and Orchard at the victory party in Montreal, dug it out of my archives:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers