Oh Pat Martin, you so crazy

Another day, loads more interesting revelations in the Cadman affair. It’s not looking good for the Harper Conservatives, to say the least.

Will this be a scandal that breaks outside of political geekdom into real Canada? The jury is still out, I think, but the potential is there. Today at work two colleagues with no interest in politics brought it up with me unprompted, and both were disgusted. And as Scott mentions a high-profile, U.S. blogger has picked-up on the story as well.

So, interesting times. I’ll try to put together a detailed recap of the day’s events tonight, as there is work to be done. In the mean time though, you can get the latest from Kady here and here, plus Steve.

Also, while the Conservatives are falsely chastising the Liberals for smearing a deceased Chuck Cadman (while they smear his widow), The Wingnuterer has a selection of comments from the folks at Small Dead Animals about Chuck Cadman right after he passed away from his battle with cancer. It’s a must-read post, and it’s disturbing. This comment is pretty representative:

Good riddance. Too bad you couldn't collect on the graft the Libs promised you in exchange for your vote, eh Chucky? Hahhhhhh.
Posted by: Sean at July 9, 2005 10:25 PM

Disgusting. As I said, more tonight. But before I go, as pissed-off as I am with the Liberal Party these days, I wanted to share reason #234 why I’ll probably never join the NDP: the wonder that is Pat Martin.

UPDATE: For the actual audio of Harper's interview with the reporter, where he confirms an offer was made to Chuck with his knowledge on behalf of the party, click to this story and scroll down for the audio.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Cadman affair continues, more information and more questions

The shocking allegations last night that the Conservative Party allegedly tried to bribe an MP dying of cancer with a $1 million insurance policy have reverberated like a shockwave around the media and the political blogsphere today. Well, at least the progressive half.

The issue dominated question period today, some of Stephane Dion's questioning is online here:



Michael Ignatieff also asked a very good question:




Kady has a pretty good recap of the story to date, and the back and forth. The Globe also has an updated piece tonight.

The Conservatives start by saying Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley met with Cadman the day of the infamous confidence vote to offer him "campaign assistance" should he run for them. This seems lacking in credibility to me. Cadman was in very poor health at this point, was he really going to run again?

Another part of the Conservative line has been that there was no offer of anything (except campaign assistance I suppose, their line is 'evolving') but they were just making Chuck aware of the benefits of being a Conservative MP. Here's where I have problems with that line. Chuck had not that long before been an MP in whatever they were calling the party at the time, so wouldn't be be aware of the privleges of caucus membership?

Then there is the surfacing of a CTV interview with Chuck Cadman on the day of the infamous confidence vote. Radwanski has a partial transcript:

Duffy: Chuck, earlier tonight Craig Oliver reported on our network special that the Conservatives were prepared do offer you an unopposed nomination if you would vote with them, and also help with campaign funding and so on. Was that offer actually made?

Cadman: Well there was some talk about that. As far as the unopposed nomination, you know, the discussions did come up. The talk did come up, yeah.

Duffy: So they were making an offer to you, and in the end you refused?

Cadman: Yes. Well, that was the only offer on anything that I had from anybody. So there was no offers on the table up till that point about anything from any party.

That interview was a big part of the Conservative defence in QP today, and it does raise some key questions. The Conservatives say why don't you take Chuck's word for it, there was no bribe or anything, he denied it himself so let's move on already.

Now that I've read at least this partial transcript, it seems like his comments are open to multiple interpatations. Is he saying the unopposed nomination was the only offer made? Maybe. Or was the unopposed nomination possibly party of a package offer, and he's saying that offer, whatever offer they made to him, was the only offer he recieved. I don't know. And he's unfortunently unable to offer clarification.

Garth Turner tonight also makes a relevant point:

The Harper administration replied to question after question in the Commons on Thursday with one simple defence: Mr. Cadman gave an interview the night of the vote to CTV, in which, the Conservatives say, he denied being offered any deal.

“End of story,” says government spokesguy James Moore, himself a BC MP.

Not exactly true. For those who have since heard Mr. Cadman’s exact, and carefully chosen words, he says he “received no offers from any other party.” He was not asked about a financial incentive to vote with the Conservatives. He was not asked about a bribe or an insurance policy. His clip was shortened by Moore to just “received no offers.”

Duffy tonight reportedly tried to play down the allegations:

Mike Duffy: “Can I share something with you, which I haven’t shared publicly until now? … And that is in private conversations with me, Chuck Cadman told me, that there was no way he was going to vote against the Martin government, because he was concerned of the potential impact it might have on the insurance settlement for his wife Dona. In other words: if he died while a sitting MP, Chuck told me, ‘that would double or virtually double the payout to his widow’ and he didn’t ‘dare take a risk forcing an election’, even if he was confident of being elected, for fear of some legal hassle involving an insurance payout …”

Steve makes a good point in his comments section:

I'm going to throw this in here, because it could prove to be a key point. Duffy was trying to tone down the story, offering up a conversation he had with Cadman, wherein he said he didn't want to vote against the budget, for fear he would lose his seat in an election and the insurance he had as an MP because of it. Duffy said Cadman was concerned that he would die and his wife would suffer.

What nobody has picked up, Duffy actually connects some dots here. If Cadman was concerned about his insurance as an MP, then it what better way to allay his fears in voting with the Cons, than to offer him assurance on that score. Insurance was on Cadman's mind, according to Duffy, which puts the offer into complete context.

Exactly, Duffy's comments lend credence to Dona Cadman's story, that a life insurance policy was offered. If he votes with the CPC the house falls and he loses his life insurance through the HoC. Harper has been quoted as saying the meeting was to remove any financial disencentive to his voting with the CPC. A private insurance policy to replace his HoC one would have done that. It's the only theory that makes sense. An uncontested nomination or help with lawn signs makes no sense, there's no way he was going to run again.

Back to the old Cadman clip. Let's accept he was saying an uncontested nomination was the only thing on offer. How do we square that with the allegations by his wife, Conservative candidate Dona Cadman? That gets difficult. I can only speculate. Maybe he tells his wife things he doesn't tell the national media. Maybe he didn't want to spend the last few months of his life at the centre of a political circus. Or maybe, for some unknown reason, he lied to his wife. Seems unlikely.

The only other possibility would seem to be that Dona Cadman is lying. That's the only conclusion left to us if we're to believe the Conservative story here. Stephen Harper is saying Chuck Cadman's widow is making it all up, it would seem. What possible motivation would she have for making up a story that the party she wants to represent in the House of Commons tried to bribe her dying husband? It boggles the mind.

And if this is really what the Conservtives would have us believe, why is she still a candidate for their party? Are they going to withdraw her nomination? Will she then run as an independant and beat them? Wouldn't that be ironic.

Dona Cadman, for her part, is sticking to her story. She talked to CTV today, Steve has a transcript.

It also appears there were two meetings two days apart, one in Ottawa and one in Surrey. The Conservatives only discuss the one in Ottawa with Flanagan and Finley, we don't know who represented the party at the meeting in Surrey, and the Conservatives haven't acknwledged it. It appears they're treading a very careful line there. Why?

It seems the deeper I get into this, the more questions I have and the more confused I get. Speaking of questions, Radwanski has some:

*As a Conservative candidate (er, for now), what possible motive could there be for Dona Cadman to make any of this up?

*That being said, if a straight-shooter like Cadman was furious about being approached with a bribe, why wouldn't he come forward himself with the story?

*How does it make any sense, as per the PMO's account, that there was any serious discussion of covering Cadman's campaign costs for the election that would have ensued from his helping to bring down the government? Suffering from advanced cancer, it was an effort for him even to get to Ottawa for the vote. Was he really considering running again?

*What kind of insurance company is prepared to give a million-dollar policy to a man who's dying of cancer?

*If you're a Liberal Leader who apparently had to be talked out of forcing an election over an inoffensive budget, what will you be thinking if this story has any legs?

All good questions. I'd also like to know who represented the party at that meeting in Surrey, what exactly was put on the table, and what exactly was discussed. And if Dona Cadman's allegations are true, why is she still running for them? If there really is nothing to this, I have to say the Conservatives aren't doing a very good job of ending this.

I really think it's going to take a thurough investigation with supoena power to get to the bottom of this mess. It appears the ethics committee is going to get into it, and given the seriousnesses of possible attempted inducement of an MP's vote, the RCMP should also look closely into this.

For now, it's very hard to make sense of.

For still more reading, see Mound of Sound, Accidental Deliberations, Dave, Scott Ross, Garth Turner, KNB, Jason, All Politics is Local, Dan, Justin, Mark.

UPDATE: There's an audio recording where Harper seems to confirm an offer some sort of offer was made to Cadman, and the Star has some historical perspective on Conservatives, candidates and monatery offers.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Some more budget thoughts two days later

In the comments of my post-budget post I said things were getting entertaining, in a train-wreck kind of a way. And the past day-and-a-half or so in Liberal caucus land certainly haven’t let me down.

First Wednesday morning we were greeted by this headline:

'We'll find a way to not defeat the government': Dion

While it’s positively Obama-esque, isn’t it? Can we find a way not to defeat the government? Yes we can! Inspiring stuff.

We also had some interesting revelations yesterday from Jane Taber’s beloved anonymous sources:

Stéphane Dion followed the script developed by his senior caucus leadership as he announced yesterday that there wasn't enough in the Harper budget to justify an election.

She goes on to write Dion apparently wanted to go but the majority of the senior advisors were strongly against it. Of note, she reports Michael Ignatieff wanted to go, so my apologies for assuming he was in the dove camp. I won’t belabour the point so I’ll just say again, if Dion wanted to go he should have gone, damm the torpedoes, particularly with Michael on board. Leaders lead.

Also interesting was this revelation:

But he was shot down, most significantly by national campaign co-chair David Smith, a veteran organizer and senator from Ontario. Mr. Smith said simply that the party wasn't ready to mount a national campaign, one insider said.

If this is true then we’re in even more trouble then I’d thought. How could we not be ready? We’re two years into a minority government, we should have been ready to go if need be for, well, dammed near two years! Particularly given that Dion was supposed to have already ordered the party to an election footing. Was that order ignored?

The implications of that are extremely troubling. Either way, I think that Gordon Ashworth, Mark Marissen and Nancy Girard have some serious explaining to do.

Today, the silly season continues in Liberal land as caucus debates just what form our surrender will take:

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is privately recommending that some of his MPs vote against the budget while most stay out of the House of Commons completely to ensure the minority Conservative government survives, sources say.

In previous key confidence votes, Liberal MPs have sat in their seats and abstained.

"Every Liberal in the chamber will be voting against the budget," Mr. Dion told his caucus yesterday, according to an insider.

Liberals are still debating their tactics, however, as there are divisions over which MPs would vote and which would stay away. These same divisions led the caucus to choose mass abstentions in the past as the least objectionable option for avoiding an election.

Privately? Heh. Anyway, very important and serious debates, to be sure. Do I shoot myself in the head or swallow the cyanide capsule … is this what it has come to? We’re not going to vote the dammed thing down, arguing over whether we should vote yes or abstain or vote no but keep enough people away so it passes, it’s asinine. Do they really think anyone outside of Ottawa gives a shit?

The decision has been made not to bring down the government. I think it’s a stupid decision, but c’est la vie. But just move the heck on already, this is idiotic.

Speaking of idiotic:

Some Liberal MPs are becoming increasingly demoralized over abstaining on important votes and allowing the government to stay in power.

The latest strategy allows MPs to save some face and show opposition to the budget. But yesterday, one insider said that MPs are lobbying the Liberal Whip to be among those allowed to vote against the budget so that their constituents won't criticize them for not taking a position.

Are you serious? Here’s how you can avoid being criticized for not taking a position. Grow a pair and actually TAKE A POSITION you chicken-shits! Pleading with the leader not to go to an election and then lobbying to be able to cast a token symbolic no vote so your constituents won’t make fun of you?!

Here’s an idea. No one who argued in caucus against voting down the budget can show-up to cast one of the token votes. The doves can stay in their offices and calculate their pensions. I’m sure Jane Taber can provide us with a list.

In other budget news

A few non-the Liberals are stupid budget-related thoughts now. I think it’s worth noting that it seems pretty obvious that, despite, all his tough talk of late and making everything a confidence motion, Stephen Harper didn’t really want an election either.

At least not on this budget. If he had wanted the government to fall we would have seen a much different budget, one even Bob Rae couldn’t have agreed to support. Instead we get this bland collection of half-measures designed to be just appealing enough to give weak-kneed Liberals an out.

Any why would he want an election right now? The polls show he might have lost, and at best would have gotten another minority. Better for him to appear hawkish and watch the Liberals implode. He gains Liberal votes on the right, the NDP on the left, and everyone’s happy.

Speaking of Stephen, I found myself nodding and agreeing with these comments from Garth Turner:

Liberal MP Garth Turner said yesterday that he would have liked the Prime Minister to be nicer to the Liberals in light of recent events.

"I thought that the Prime Minister's taunts [yesterday] were uncalled for and I think he's, you know, being provocative," Mr. Turner said. "It's unfortunate after he's had such a level of co-operation from the Liberals.

"So I think it was, you know, unfortunate, sad, a measure of the guy and he's certainly putting his stick in our eye."

I don’t think Garth really expects Harper to be nice to us. I think he better than most knows what a dick Harper is. Turner has a good point though, in that Harper’s poking with a stick here is curious.

There’s an old maxim of politics that, when your opponent is self-destructing, just stay out of the way. The Liberals are doing a good enough job of imploding all on their own, Harper’s help isn’t needed. By taking a few cheap shots he’s not going to gain any more than he already was; indeed, he only reinforces his own negatives.

I guess he just can’t help himself.

Anyway, looks like this Cadman thing may push the budget into the background for a little while anyway. And then there’s the Mulroney inquiry, the Dimitri Soudas investigation, the John Baird revelations, an appointment binge … at least its obvious why the Cons don’t want an election. The Libs, that’s another story.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Conservative allegedly tried to buy Chuck Cadman off

Holy shit! I mean, if this is true, this is amazing:

The widow of former B.C. MP Chuck Cadman says two Conservative Party officials offered her husband a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his vote to bring down the Liberal government in May of 2005.

If these allegations aren't true the Conservatives will be calling his widow Dona Cadman, their own Conservative candidate in Surrey-North, a liar:

Dona Cadman, who is now running for the Conservatives in the Vancouver-area riding of Surrey North, was not in the office at the time. But she says her husband was furious when he returned to their apartment. "Chuck was really insulted," she said in a telephone interview with The Globe Wednesday. "He was quite mad about it, thinking they could bribe him with that."

Stephen Harper, of course, is running away and professing to have seen nothing, know nothing. As if some random party hacks would have cooked this up on their own?

Sandra Buckler, a spokeswoman for Mr. Harper, said Wednesday that her boss never directed any party official to make any kind of financial arrangement with Mr. Cadman.

Of course not. Stephen Harper always seems to manage not to get his hands dirty. It's always someone else's fault. He did't do anything. Liberals bad!

If proven, these allegations are damning. And given the modus operandi of the Conservative/Alliance party, it's not hard to believe. They've bought-off people before, even if some of them have had to go to court to get the deals upheld. Harper denied there was a deal with Alan Riddell until the party finally admited it in court.

I don't know the legalities of this, I'll leave that to the lawyers. But allegedly offering monatery consideration in exchange for the vote of a Member of Parliament? Clearly this needs to be investigated.

And whatever the legalities, morally its just plain repugnant. Going to a dying man and allegedly offering him a $1 million insurance policy in exchange for his vote? It's beyond repugnant. It's goulish.

Just when you think you've seen it all. If anyone in the Conservative Party of Canada actually believed their rhetoric about cleaning up politics, they have to be looking in the mirror tonight.

*Steve, Dan, Robert and Garth also have thoughts.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Deborah Coyne quits the race

From Facebook:

Andrew Escobar sent a message to the members of Deborah Coyne for the Liberal nomination of Don Valley West .

--------------------
Subject: A Message from Deborah Coyne

Dear friends,

Since entering the race for the Liberal nomination in Don Valley West, I have visited hundreds of people in all areas of this great riding. Don Valley West reflects so much of what makes Canada great. Our growing diversity, our huge pool of human talent from all over the globe: surely these are our greatest strengths as a nation and they are best defended by a Liberal MP.

It is crucial that Don Valley West return a Liberal to Ottawa in the next federal election.

With this in mind, I have decided that my campaign has run its course. I have withdrawn my candidacy and have decided that Rob Oliphant is the right person to win the next election, serve the diverse communities of Don Valley West, and build on the work of John Godfrey as a distinguished Member of Parliament.

Thank you for your support,

Deborah Coyne
--------------------

I have no idea what the situation on the ground was in DVW. Maybe she was way behind in sign-ups, who knows. Still, I can't help but note the timing.

Speaking of timing, I'm reminded of this story from just two weeks ago:

One of the five contenders, constitutional expert Deborah Coyne, alleges that up to 500 newly signed-up members - including the father of Liberal party pollster Michael Marzolini - were not asked to pay the requisite fee. She intends to challenge their right to vote at the nomination meeting.

She says she has found most of the members were signed up by campaign representatives for Rob Oliphant, a United Church minister who is considered the front-runner in the contest. She said she also found some members were signed up by supporters of former Liberal MP Sarmite Bulte, another contender in the race.

The tactic is "bringing the party into disrepute," Coyne said.

"I am drawing a line in the sand, finally, and saying 'This is it' . . . This is a great party and I am sad to see my party coming down to this in a great riding like Don Valley West."

I guess they worked it out.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

If not now, when? For the love of god, when?

So, as everyone by now knows, Stephane Dion has said, while this budget is "a mile wide and an inch deep" he's going to have the Liberals support it anyway, and let this government see another day. Or, at this rate, however many more days there are to the fixed election date in 2009.

Is it possible to be flabbergasted, and not be surprised, at the same time? Because that's my reaction. As much as I ridicule the NDP for deciding to vote against it before they've seen it, it seems clear the Liberals decided to vote for the budget before they'd even seen it. They were clearly signaling their intentions last week with the ridiculous "if it's not TOO bad for the economy" comment from Dion. So I'm not surprised, and yet, still, it boggles the imagination that, again, we're backing down and propping-up this government that doesn't deserve to be in power.

I could attempt to tow the party line and say there's nothing in this budget to get excited about, no big deal, let's just move on. And it is a rather bland, inoffensive document. It is, indeed, a mile wide and an inch deep. It has some positives and says some nice things, though it doesn't go near far enough in the right areas and goes too far in others.

I don't believe in that excuse, however. Because at this point in the life of this government we don't need a reason to bring it down. It needs to give us a reason to support it. And it has failed at doing that.

Canadians don't want an election, say the apologists. I'm not aware that they ever have. It's like going to the dentist: you'd rather not, but you don't want cavities so you go. There's nothing in here we could go to the people on, they continue. It's been my experience that two days into an election no one remembers how it was precipitated.

You want issues to go on though? How about squandering record surpluses with reckless spending over two years that has left us dangerously close to deficit? How about ignoring economic challenges in Ontario and Quebec? How about a billion-dollar softwood sellout? How about firing any bureaucrat or nuclear regulator that disagrees with the government? How about abandoning any action on decreasing wait times? How about taking no substantive action on the environment? How about abandoning the Kelowna Accord? How about doing nothing meaningful on childcare? And a million other reasons why this government, whose agenda is supported by only a minority of Canadians, should not be allowed to continue. How about hijacking the wheat board? It goes on and on and on...

There are plenty of good reasons to force an election. It seems however the Liberal Party is more interested in looking for reasons to not force one. My advice to Stephane Dion yesterday stands. This was an opportunity for leadership, and he surrendered. Why? I don't know, but it's a huge mistake, and I don't see how it recovers from it.

As for the majority of caucus that apparently was pushing him to lower our swords, what's their motivation? I don't know. Maybe Bob Rae's supporters thought Bob would be better positioned for his next leadership run if Bob was in caucus, and Michael Ignatieff's people wanted more time to get ready too, and pay off debts. Who knows. But its becoming abundantly clear that, whatever the agendas are, it has nothing do with what's best for the Liberal Party or, more importantly, what' s best for the people of Canada.

This is a caucus divided, and the only way Dion was ever going to force it to come together was to force them into an election. A common enemy, fighting for survival and what not. Now that's not going to happen, and the bullshit is only going to continue.

From this day forward, I'm going to find it very difficult to not laugh whenever the Liberals say something bad about the Harper government. I broke my no Mike Duffy rule tonight for 10 minutes, because it was budget day after all, and caught the end of his coverage. Liberal Steve MacKinnon was on a strategists panel, saying what he didn't like about the budget. And I said to myself who cares Steve, we're not opposing it.

How in the hell can we pretend any longer to have any credibility as the official opposition? Any time an MP or party official takes issue with something negative the government does, I'm just going to think yeah, but you still propped them up, so who gives a crap what you think. If you really cared, we wouldn't be here.

Two years ago I had such high hopes for my party. And again, I've come full circle. I blame Stephane Dion for not showing leadership and bringing the party together. I blame the party establishment and the caucus, for never moving past the leadership race and refusing to work with the leader we elected. There's lots of blame to go around.

And to those that say let's replace the leader, I say with who exactly? Soon the siren call will begin for another white knight, another savior to return the Liberal Party to glory. If only Iggy, if only Bob, if only Frank MacKenna or Justin Trudeau or Mr. Dressup, then everything would be peacky-keen.

It's bullshit. Stephane Dion failed to fix the problem, that's correct. But he didn't create the problem. We did, and papering it with a new leader won't change a thing.

The problem is, we rushed into a leadership race after the election defeat without ever really acknowledging the deep rot that has set into the Liberal Party, let alone doing anything to fix it. We created this rot, this sickness through years of Chretien/Martin civil war, preceded by years of Turner/Chretien civil war, going back who knows how many generations. A rot worsened by years of majority government with noses bellied-up to the trough, by self-important organizers that put winning and position before policy and what's right, by a deep sense of entitlement, by a bloated party machine dependent on big corporate donations.

Unless we ever get serious about reforming this party and returning (or, since they've never really had it, giving) power to the grassroots then it's hard to really care where we go from here. Dion will stay an indecisive yet willing captive to a divided caucus running its own multiple agendas until enough of those factions decide their interests warrant an election. We'll then finally have an election that, at this rate, we'll lose. We'll pin it all on the leader, he'll probably fall on his sword, and we'll have a leadership race. We'll look for the most messiah-like, crown them, the Conservatives will begin their predictable attack ads and the cycle will begin all over again. Remember, you read it here first.

As for me, I don't know. I'll keep commenting from afar, very afar, but I've lost my energy, and more importantly I've lost my passion. Right now baseball season can't start soon enough.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dear Liberals: It's time to lead

A Google search tells me it was Thomas Paine that gave us the expression "lead, follow, or get out of the way." I didn’t know that. I first heard it as a young air cadet; it made sense to me then and it still makes sense now. In the hours before the budget, it's a decision the Liberal Party needs to make as well.

We’ve been doing some following, and we certainly have been developing an affinity for getting the heck out of the way. But now, it’s time to lead.

I don’t know what will be in the budget; we’ll have to wait a few hours for that. I’ll still be working, so I’ll have to wait a little longer still. Barring major surprise, however, the Liberal Party will need to vote it down. No holding our nose if it’s “not too bad for the economy” which, frankly, is a ridiculous notion. If it doesn’t take the necessary steps to deal with the economic situation, and address the priorities of Canadians, we need to vote no.

And we need to come out with our position firmly, clearly and loudly. We can’t have a repeat what we saw after the throne speech, where Stephane Dion took the night off to think about it and sent out Michael Ignatieff to the cameras. Dion needs to be front and centre, and he needs to stand firm. Clearly state our objections, preview our proposed amendments, and make clear if the amendments aren’t accepted we won’t be voting yes. If that means an election, so be it.

For Dion particularly, it’s time to lead. What happened to the forceful debater I supported in Montreal? What happened to the Stephane Dion that stared down the separatists, who made his position clear and defended what he knew to be right against all comers? I liked that guy, anyone seen him?

Now, he has been in a tough spot, trying to play conciliator amongst a fractious caucus. Remember, he won the leadership with little support from caucus and the party leadership. By and large it was grassroots Liberals that put him into the OLO. It seems clear from the rampant media leaks that he still hasn’t won over much of the caucus, and the aristocracy. He needs to shoulder his share of the blame for that; so do they.

It doesn’t matter at this point though. It’s time for Stephane Dion to remember who gave him this job in the first place, and to remember why we gave it to him. Ignore the caucus factions looking to position leadership successors, the nervous nellies afraid of their own shadows and losing their cushy jobs, and yes ignore the hawks hungry for election blood.

Instead, ask yourself if this budget is really the one Canadians need, and if this Conservative deserves to continue to govern. If the answer is no, then it’s to the hustings we go. It’s the only consideration that should matter.

Enough is enough. It’s time to lead. Otherwise, just what the hell are we doing anyways?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Call off the hyperbole police

A friend pointed me towards a very strange story in the Toronto Star today, about a women allegedly threatening to kill a senior aide to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty:

The charge follows an incident on Sept. 30, when Vir sent a packet of mix for making gulab jamun, an Indian sweet, to McGuinty to express her "love and affection," dropping it off to staff member Monica Masciantonio.

The same night, she emailed McGuinty, asking whether Masciantonio had given him the mix.

"I said, `If she didn't give it to you, I'll kill her.' It's just slang," Vir said. "I use this term all the time with my husband and my kids. In Hindi, it's, `Mein tumarhi jaan nikal dungi.'"

Seems like a figure of speech to me, and not a serious threat. However:

…on Nov. 20, after the election, half a dozen police officers showed up at her door. They confiscated her laptop, cellphone, camera and papers, and hauled her to jail on a charge of conveying a death threat. There she spent a frantic six hours until her husband bailed her out. "I was so upset I couldn't stop crying. I kept asking, `What wrong did I do?'"

There has to be something more to this than meets the eye, as with the facts as presented in the article this doesn’t really make sense. Unless there is something we’re missing, I’d hope saner heads could prevail and McGuinty could step in here and help settle this.

It’s a cautionary tale though, perhaps, to think carefully before you click send on that e-mail to a public official.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Say it ain't so, Jack!

This sounds to me like Jack Layton's NDP might actually decide to support the Conservative budget. What, the righteous and mighty NDP prop-up the forces of evil like they are some kind of Liberals or something? Sounds crazy, I know, and yet:

NDP Leader Jack Layton is making his support for this week's federal budget conditional on it meeting the concerns of Canadian families and dropping large corporate tax cuts.

"We should be making investments in health, education and infrastructure, where the working families of this country are most concerned," Layton said this weekend during a visit to Quebec.

Layton also called for more money for infrastructure and said the Conservative government should stop subsidizing large oil companies and banks.

So does that mean, if Harper meets their demands, Layton and the NDP will vote for the budget? I thought Layton had already made clear he was voting against the budget though, sight-unseen.

The NDP has already stated it will vote against the budget.

Yep, that's what I thought. And also Sunday, Jack told CTV:

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has abandoned "any pretence of progressive opposition" by musing he might support the looming Conservative budget, says NDP Leader Jack Layton.

Fighting words. But wait, what was that Jack also said Sunday in Quebec?

NDP Leader Jack Layton is making his support for this week's federal budget conditional on it meeting the concerns of Canadian families and dropping large corporate tax cuts.

Yeah, that's what I thought he'd said. That kind of sounds to me like Jack musing he might support the looming Conservative budget. Has Layton abandoned any pretense of progressive opposition too?

Or does he actually have no intention of supporting the budget, and instead will vote against it even if it has everything he demands, out of "principle" or something? Lend me your votes indeed.

All that said, it's still slightly more coherent than what's coming out of the Liberal caucus these days. Tomorrow will be interesting.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why won't the PMO let Conservative candidates talk?

This nugget buried in a CP story about the by-election race in Vancouver-Quadra is certaintly interesting, although wholly unsurprising:

Conservative candidate Deborah Meredith isn't in Ottawa yet but she's already refusing requests for interviews.

Her campaign manager, Dan Tidball, said Meredith wanted to "focus'' on the local media "and you're the national media.''

He said her decision to not be interviewed was arrived at after a discussion among "people above me.''

Since he's the campaign manager, someone "above" him would have to be the party powers that be back in Ottawa. Why does the CPC want to hide Deborah Meredith from the national media?

Of course, this isn't new by-election procedure for the Conservatives. In the London North-Centre byelection, Conservative candidate Dianne Haskett also refused to talk to the Canadian Press:

A request by The Canadian Press for an interview with Haskett, as part of a riding profile, was rebuffed earlier this week after her campaign sought the request in writing.

"Unfortunately, since this has been a Liberal riding for over 18 years we are working hard door-knocking next week and will not be available for an interview," was the response from Ryan Sparrow, who until recently was the director of communications for Environment Minister Rona Ambrose.

And Sparrow, not uncoincidentally I'm sure, is now the main spokesperson for the CPC. Small world.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Nanos: The Tums of polling

For Liberals SES, or Nanos Research as it's now known, spells relief.

After a scare earlier in the week with a nasty poll The Strategic Counsel showed a big Conservative lead, new numbers from Nanos, everyone's favourite pollsters, confirm the earlier Decima nunbers and cast doubt on The Strategic Counsel poll. It's still a statistical dead heat.

Canada (N=878, MoE ± 3.3%, 19 times out of 20)
Liberal Party 34% (+1)
Conservative Party 34% (+3)
NDP 14% (-5)
BQ 10% (NC)
Green Party 8% (NC)



And the analysis from Nanos:

Our latest tracking shows the Conservatives and the Liberals continue to be gripped in a deadlock. Support for the NDP has dropped 5 points nationally in the past 16 days while the Conservatives are up 3 points (within the Margin of Accuracy).

In order to understand what was driving the vote every committed voter was asked why they had a particular vote preference.

Conservatives were more likely to be driven by policies and job performance, the Liberals by a belief they were the best option and party policies/platform and the NDP by policies/platform and a belief they care for the average/working person.

Support for the Bloc was based on their standing up for Quebec/French and the belief they are the best choice. Green Party support was driven by their environmental credentials and policies/platform.

The drop for the NDP is interesting. I'd thought they might have benefited from the Liberals/Conservative detente on Afghanistan leaving them as the sole remaining strident anti-war voice. Perhaps the comprimise is going over better then I'd thought and the NDP is looking marganalized a bit, but that's all speculation on my part.

Interesting but no surpise are the answers to what's driving the voter preference numbers. The Cons think they're doing an awesome job, Liberls believe only they can do it, the NDP think they're all about the working person. Sounds about right.

On to the regional numbers:


Again reaffirming what we've seen in most earlier polls. A strenghtened Liberal lead in the Atlantic provinces and Ontario. In Quebec the BQ remains well ahead, with the Liberals and Cons in a dead-heat. And the Cons well ahead in the West, but those numbers are tough to read with Alberta included.The NDP at 15 there is shocking, as is their decline in all regions with the expception of Quebec, where they actually gained a point.

Also interesting to note is the decline in undecideds, from 16 to 12 per cent. It seems people are firming up there choices with the possibility of a forthcoming election and, while there's no clear favourite, their choice is solidifying around the Liberals and the Conservatives.

We'll see what the powers that be and the LPC caucus do with these numbers as we go into budget week. While these numbers do cast doubt on the earlier poll that showed a big Conservative lead, I'll still reiterate what I said then: if we don't smarten up that poll will be a taste of our future.

So, while everyone in Liberal land will breath a huge sigh of relief with these Nanos numbers, our job remains the same. Perhaps these numbers will stiffen some resolves. One can hope.

UPDATE: Steve and Scott weigh-in on the poll, as do Warren and Sun's Greg Weston with some interesting points.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What would Keith Davey do?

Interesting column in the Winnipeg Free Press this week (h/t Sean) that makes some good points about today's Liberal Party:

On page 101, he repeats the refrain: "(F)aced with the alternative of voting for a real Tory or a carbon-copy Tory, the real Tory will vote for the real thing every time. Right-wing liberalism is a recipe for political disaster."

Davey didn't want his party confused in the public's mind with the more centrist Progressive Conservatives. Imagine his distress over any Liberal conflation with today's harder-right Republican-Conservatives.

Yet today's Liberal caucus has repudiated virtually all Davey's maxims. It is restive and dismissive of a leader it refused to support for the leadership. Its front bench is tilted to the right, particularly on foreign and fiscal policy. And it is a journalist's cornucopia of internal bickering, backbiting and damaging leaks.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A few quick Friday hits

*On this whole calling for a probe into Marc Patone’s appointment by the Conservatives as a CRTC. While it is smelly that he was (briefly) a Conservative candidate, and I’m certainly open to any chance to take shots at the Harper government, I’m not sure I’m supportive of the big fuss being made here. His Conservative ties aside, I’d argue he’s qualified. Critics are saying he doesn’t have the management experience. True, but he was a broadcast reporter on the ground for 27 years. Frankly, I think we’ve got lots of media management experience at the CRTC. Maybe it’s the journalist in me talking, but I think it’s a good thing to have one CRTC commissioner that has some boots on the ground, actual newsroom experience. That said, the appointments process does need fixing, and if the heritage committee wants to talk to him that’s fine.

*By all accounts, it sounds like Kristy Duncan is a fine candidate to succeed Roy Cullen in Etobicoke North. And I’m glad to see the party didn’t dilly-dally, but made the appointment immediately after Cullen made his retirement official. It eliminated any potential questions, and gets the news of the new candidate in the same news cycle, helping to damper the another Liberal leaving spin. One concern though: it looks like the local riding association wasn’t informed before the announcement. They should have been. Hopefully this won’t lead to any ruffled feathers and mar what seems like a solid appointment.

*The knock on the Liberals is that they always campaign from the left and govern from the right. Well, I’d say centre, but anyway, Lawrence Martin says it looks like the Conservatives do much the same: govern from the centre-right (or at least pretend to) but run from the right.

*IP points the way to an interesting article from The Guardian about the similarities between the Santos Campaign on The West Wing, and the Barrack Obama campaign, and how indeed Santos was actually modeled after Obama. Art imitating life, life imitating art. Hopefully the parallels don’t go too much further though. WW producers originally had Santos losing to Arnie Vinick; it wasn’t until the death of John Spencer, who played Santos’ VP candidate, Leo McGarry, that producers decided to give Santos the win. And hopefully no nuclear power plants in Arizona will melt down or anything.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On election need and paying fiscal heed

*Why do we need an election sooner, rather than later? I think the president of the Liberal Party, Senator Marie Poulin, puts it well in a recent e-mail to the party faithful:

Many Canadians are worried. After two years in power, Canada’s “new” government has let Canadians down.

The Conservatives have failed to be a world-leader in climate change negotiations. They have failed on social programs, such as healthcare, childcare and the Kelowna Accord. But perhaps most frighteningly of all, with the threatening economic slowdown, it appears they have failed to maintain the hard-earned fiscal security engineered by the Liberals.

It is time to stand up to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives – and there is a tangible way for us to do that right now.

Vote down the budget and force an election? Well, Senator Poulin was actually making a fundraising pitch for the four by-election candidates. I think the argument works for an election too though. Because I'm one of those worried Canadians.

*Speaking of putting things well, the Globe does just that today in an editorial about the recent Conservative attempt to re-write history on the economy. It’s behind a firewall, but here’s a taste:

Which party took a country that was drowning in debt and instituted tough, painful savings to lift the federal accounts back into surplus, where they have remained for more than a decade? That would be the Liberals.

And which party, by failing to heed the warning signs of an economic slowdown and by both cutting the GST and spending as if there were no tomorrow, set the country up for a lean budget on Feb. 26 that could, if the Conservatives don't watch their step, tip Canada back into deficit spending? That would be the Conservatives.

Politics is politics, but really, don't the Tories look in the mirror once in a while?

The answer, Globe editors, is no they don't. They really should though.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Who are the Liberals?

There are two polls out today. One shows a big Conservative lead, the other a statistical tie. Two guesses which one we'll be hearing the most about today, and the first one doesn't count.

I'm not going to bother disecting the polls. I suspect the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. I think however that Peter Donolo, the former communications aide to Jean Chretien and the spokesperson for the company with the Cons way ahead poll, makes a good point here:

Mr. Donolo said the Liberals may be having difficulty marking out their territory, given that they are forced to sometimes criticize the government and at other times prop it up.

“They are unable to define themselves strongly or convincingly, because of the need to constantly bob and weave to avoid an election,” he said.

I agree. I think it's getting harder to accept the argument that no one outside of Ottawa pays attention to abstentions and what not. It is beginning to resonate south of the Queensway. And I'm sure the NDP already has TV ads cut to remind everyone in the next election campaign.

It's also pretty unclear to many right now just what the Liberals stand for these days. When the powers that be decide what we stand for, hopefully they'll let me know. Send me a memo or something.

In the mean time, while as I said I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of these two polls, I think I know which way it's probably trending, and it's not in the way I'd like.

Does that mean I'm backing off my call for an election on the budget? Hells no. If we're going to reverse the trend we need to toughen-up, start defining outselves, start hitting back at Harper, and bring this government down.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Politics and Web 2.0

While the headline of the article was “leaders court bloggers” the article actually had very little to do with blogging, but was more about things like Facebook and YouTube are impacting the political process in Canada.

That said, it was still an interesting read, and I think pollster Nik Nanos has it essentially correct:

"Social-marketing campaigns are kind of like nuclear weapons: other folks have them, so you have to have them," says Nik Nanos, a political strategist with Toronto-based Nanos Research.

"You need bloggers, you need people posting video, you need people participating in comments, you need people mobilizing on Facebook. Because if you don't, you're basically ceding the online political dialogue to your enemies."

While a federal election won't be won or lost on the Internet, Nanos predicts it will be the primary battleground for campaigners' "black ops" missions.

While it is an evolving situation, at the moment I think the ability for social marketing and Web 2.0 to influence political debate is limited, although it is growing.

There is strong fundraising potential on the Web, for example, with the ability to raise money in small amounts with targeted, quick-response, issue-based campaigns. This is more evolved in the U.S., but could be potentially more important in Canada given our strict donation limits.

And then there’s what Nanos calls the black ops missions, the dirt. Bloggers aren’t journalists, and while they must be careful not to run afoul of libel laws, they aren’t bound by the same journalistic standards as the mainstream media and they’re less likely to fact check. Therefore, for the party war room it’s easier to get a blogger to bite on a potentially borderline negative story the media wasn’t interested in.

Here again, though, I’d point out that blogdom needs the MSM to be relevant. If the negative piece remains in blogland its impact remains small, when it gets picked up by the MSM its mission accomplished. If the operatives can create enough noise in blogland then the MSM may not be able to ignore it. By breaking it in the blogs first too, it can also give the MSM cover, allowing them to cover the news rather than breaking it.

Where blogs do have more potential to make an impact on their own is when someone screws-up, such as the Mike Klander incident in the last campaign. I think Warren Kinsella is off track here though:

… in the coming campaign, the Liberals and/or the NDP will likely make use of the offensive "Blogging Tory"/Conservative bloggers statements in their advertising - Shaidle calling Muslim children "parasites," McMillan's anti-native and anti-black garbage, and so on…

I naturally see other bloggers obviously reminding us of such incidents, and perhaps parties trying to push such lines in their earned media but I can’t see parties trying to tie blogger comments to politicians in paid advertising. There would need to be a strong connection, more than just a photo. The Klander thing took off because he held a somewhat senior party position. If it’s just a blogger in their basement that self-identifies as a supporter of party X I don’t see it working.

Off topic for a moment, but I laughed when I read this about Harper’s Facebook profile:

Harper's page has disabled the wall option altogether, leaving few options for people who want to provide feedback.

Speaks volumes to the interest Stephen Harper et al. place in what people think.

Anyway, there is a lot happening in Web land. In Ontario the Liberals were very active on the video front, and the Conservatives were active too. In Alberta, the Liberals there have been showing a lot of creativity with things like Edspedia.ca. What impact will such initiatives have, though? They may mobilize the base perhaps. There’s greater potential for social media to influence younger voters I’d think; and getting them out to vote has always been a challenge, so if young voters are mobilized it's definitely worth it.

Back to the headline of the article though, Leaders court bloggers. I don’t think they are, which is perhaps why the article didn’t really go there. At least not so much on the progressive side, on the Conservative side I think it’s another story. But since I’ve just spent 600+ words largely arguing against the relevancy of bloggers, do I think they should be courted?

I do. Because while blogland’s influence is minimal today it is growing, and the potential is there. Because younger voters are harder to get, and they’re more tuned-in to blogging and social networking. And because in an increasingly fragmented communications marketplace, you need to utilize every avenue you can to get your message out.

Blogdom’s potential will only be realized though if the blogsphere matures somewhat; examples like those Warren gave above only hurt the credibility of blogdom as something that should be courted. If such vitrol is the norm, and is accepted, why would anyone take bloggers seriously?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Therefore Stephane Dion made Mike Huckabee!

Fresh off Hillary Clinton accusing Barrack Obama of plagiarism for borrowing lines (with permission it seems) from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, it appears Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee may be borrowing lines from Liberal leader Stephane Dion (h/t Braeden).

Said Huckabee at a rally in Wisconsin yesterday:

“Folks, the reason I’m staying in this race is because I’m working for the next generation, not the next election,” Huckabee told supporters Monday at a rally in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. “I may be killing my political career, but I know this - if we don’t start thinking in terms of solving some of America’s problems, we’re killing all of your careers.”

Dion from a speech last March, and in many other speeches:

For the sake of our economic future, it’s time to get back on course. As Prime Minister, I would govern for the next generation, not just for the next election. For a healthy planet, for social justice, for a strong economy, and for good jobs – for ourselves, our children, and the next generation.

Therefore, I think it’s clear, that due to the transitive property of Huckabee, Stephane Dion MADE Mike Huckabee! I just hope he doesn’t now get his ass kicked by Conan O’Brien, Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why?

I’m already on the record with why I think we need to bring down the government over the budget, so I won’t rehash those arguments. But I will discuss another reason I’m annoyed with these comments from Stephane Dion over the weekend “hinting” the Liberals may let the budget pass and the government stand:

During a stop in Quebec City yesterday, he acknowledged he won't get what he wants in the budget and appeared to lower the bar for what he'd accept, saying he might let it pass if it's "not too harmful" for the economy.

"It won't be a Liberal budget. Unfortunately, the ideas I have put forward won't be in the budget," Mr. Dion said of the looming fiscal plan.

"But we also have to respect the decision of the voters in 2006," he said, referring to the Conservative victory in the last federal election.

"Therefore, if it's a budget that appears to us as being acceptable or at least not too harmful for the Canadian economy, we could let it pass and avoid $350-million in [taxpayer] expenses for an election," the Liberal Leader said.

Putting aside my desire for an election, even if what Dion is saying here is what he honestly believes, why is he saying it now? What’s the strategic benefit of showing weakness, and a willingness to settle for less, at this juncture?

If he is considering letting the budget pass, why not keep talking tough now anyways, say this is what we want, here’s our demands, this is what is needed for our support. If you want to later settle for less and declare victory, wait until we actually see the budget.

Showing weakness now only confirms to Harper we’re desperate to avoid an election. If Harper really wants a vote, he’ll do what he was going to do anyway. And if he wants to avoid a vote, he’s less likely to give in a little on our budget demands. We’ve caved already and shown desperation, so why would he?

So, while you could argue the timing of Dion’s comments is designed to temper the election drumbeat and soften the ground in preparation for a Liberal climb-down in the budget, I’d argue it’d bad strategy because showing weakness will only embolden Harper, and make any Liberal climb-down an even bigger fall.

Of course, we can get out of this hole if we just find our balls and vote the dammed thing down.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The secret to good health and long life

I think it'd be safe to describe myself as somewhat of a political junkie. Heck, with the hours spent blogging about the stuff it be hard to claim otherwise.

As I read blogging coverage of Jim Prentice's appearance on CTV's Question Period today though, where the Harper minister (biggest spending budgets in Canadian history) tried to laughably paint the Liberals (eight straight balanced budgets), I'm reminded again of where I've decided to draw the line with my political interest.

I don't watch these sorts of shows anymore. Haven't for about a year now. No Question Period. No Mike Duffy Live. And no Politics with Don Newman either, I have to say.

And I've never felt better. Those shows are bad for you. Raises the blood pressure. Angries up the blood. Partisan hacks and talking heads spewing their talking points. Media "pundits" trying to sound important and informed. All flash, all intrigue, no substance. No debate of policy. No debate at all really. Rarely a challenging word from the hosts.

I used to tune into Newman's broadcast regularly, but it's all theater. A theater of the absurd, really. And it's all waste of energy, as no one is watching that doesn't already have their mind made up. I even mute the TV when Duffy comes on for his daily hit during the 6pm news on CFTO. He's aggravating. The only time these shows matter is when someone screws-up...beer and popcorn. Otherwise...

So as much of a political junkie as I am, as interested as I am in strategy and election timing and move and counter-move, I draw the line at watching these shows. I'll count on my fellow bloggers to let me know when something of interest occurs, but I won't be tunning in. And I'd advise them to take their Duffy, Oliver and Taber in small doses.

I went to see Cloverfield instead. Enjoyed it. I was concerned with the references to it being shot in a Blair Witch Project style, because that movie sucked, but it worked well here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A few questions for Bob Rae and the other nervous nellies

I flew down to Orlando yesterday, where it's sunny and warm, for a conference. While I won't get to Disneyland, and most of my time will be spent in the hotel confernce centre, I am hoping to get to the pool a little later.

First though, having got on the Interwebs I'm catching up on the news from the Great Frozen North. And it doesn't seem like much has changed since I left:

Former leadership rival Bob Rae urged Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion yesterday to wait until spring to pull the plug on the minority Harper government rather than forcing an early election over the Tory budget.

"He made a good case," one MP from Southern Ontario said. "He said we shouldn't let Harper choose the date."

Mr. Rae's views were echoed by many MPs and senators at the closed-door national caucus, who warned the leader to wait and buy time by not defeating the Harper minority government any time soon.

When I read the headline I was ready to lay into Bob Rae for blathering on in public instead of picking up a frickin' phone and calling Stephane Dion. Reading on though, it's clear his comments were leaked from a close-door caucus meeting, and he didn't give an interview to the paper. So, we don't know which MP has been breaking caucus confidentiality and leaking to the Globe's resident gossip columnist. Someone from Southern Ontario, it would seem.

Anyway, leakers aside, going on to read Bob's argument, it seems he doesn't want an election until at least after the March 17th byelections. And don't let Harper dictate the timing, others say, the economy is going to worsen and that's why Harper wants to go now, and is making everything a confidence motion, so let's wait.

Umm, how do you propose we wait Bob? I mean, everything else you and the caucus nervous nellies are saying makes sense. I'd love to get those by-elections done first too, get some momentum from hopefully having Bob and some other new Liberal MPs in the house. I'd love to wait until the economy has worsened. I'd love to wait until the Liberals are at 100 per cent in the polls, and Stephane Dion is more popular than The Beatles.

There's a few roadblacks in the way though, besides Stephane's lack of musical ability. First one: the budget. The first votes are going to be in a few weeks, well before the byelections. What does Bob propose we do on the budget. Does he want us to vote in favour of what's going to be a minimalist budget that does nothing to address the worsening economic situation, and prop-up this government that stands for everything we don't? Or would Bob rather we prop-up this government by abstaining, and look the laughing-stocks again?

Neither option is particularly attractive. At a time when we're moving-up in the polls, and are starting to get some traction, either option would be a huge setback that would cause many people to write off the Liberal Party all together. Jack Layton would have kittens.

There's talk the BQ and the Cons are trying to work a deal for the BQ's support on the budget, which means it would pass no matter what we do. I don't care. A Liberal no-vote or abstention in that scenario would still have the same harmful effect, and would still be completely unacceptable.

And even if we somehow miraciously got past the budget, maybe the Cons decide to cancel it or something and just use last year's again, the week after is the Afghanistan vote. I'd like to write more about the Liberal amendment when I have the time, but long-story short I think all this conciliatory talk from both sides is predicated on there not actually being a vote on this thing. The Liberal motion moves toward the hawkish side somewhat to try to keep the caucus together, while Harper is playing nice to appear to Canadians like he's reasonable and moderating. Harper wants to get a majority and do what he wants on the issue, togetherness be dammed, and a Liberal government would pull back some of the concessions. An actual vote on this thing is not in our interests. That's another reason we need to vote no on the budget.

So, while I like Bob's theory, it's the practice I have some issues with. If he has some brilliant plan for getting us past the budget vote without looking like complete tools, I'd love to hear it. Maybe the leaker forgot to tell Jane Taber that part.

Nervous nellies, buck up. Find your cojones. The election train is moving out of the station. Get on board or get out of the way. We cannot prop-up this government any more.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

This is too funny, and nice strategy too

I’ve been lamenting lately the LPC’s lack of communications acumen. Well, to give them credit, I think they came up with a great way to expose Stephen Harper’s posturing and chest thumping when it comes to that ridiculous and unconstitutional force the Senate to pass the crime bill motion, which came to a vote today:

The Liberals have walked out of the Commons en masse rather than vote on a government motion demanding that the Senate to pass an omnibus crime bill by March 1.

In their absence, the motion passed easily, 172-27.

Stephane Dion led his caucus out of the chamber before the vote began.

The government said it considered the vote a matter of confidence, meaning its defeat would have toppled the government and triggered an election.

The Liberals have dismissed the vote as a political stunt, pointing out that the Commons has no say in how the Senate conducts its business.

If they’d just voted yes it’s a minor story quickly forgotten. If they'd abstained but stayed in their seats, dido. But now all the coverage will centre on the walkout, and the coverage will have to explain why they walked out: because it was a meaningless motion of no force and effect that had nothing to do with fighting crime and everything to do with political posturing by the Harper Conservaitives.

Bravo.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Run on our economic records? Okey dokey

Despite all the posturing around the crime legislation, Afghanistan counter proposals, and Stephen Harper threatening to make his morning Egg McMuffin a matter of confidence, it is looking increasingly likely that the budget will the election trigger.

The Liberals would rather go on the budget for any number of reasons, and it appears its dido for the Conservative “brain trust”:

In a memo addressed to MPs, strategists and senior campaign volunteers, the Conservative brain trust urged high-ranking Tories yesterday to begin the pre-election fight by talking up Ottawa's performance in paying down the debt, preserving jobs and cutting taxes.

If they want to make the economy the ballot box issue, that’s fine with me. I’ll put our economic record and our economic policies up against there’s any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Now, that’s not to say it will be easy. Far from it. The Cons will have their spin out there, filled with misinformation, obfuscation, and outright falsehoods. Here’s a taste of their likely line:

"In the next election, Canadians will have a clear choice," says the memo, circulated by the party's research bureau. "They can choose the lack of priorities, reckless spending and higher taxes of the Stéphane Dion Liberals..."

"... or they can continue to move forward with lower taxes, balanced budgets and lower debt thanks to the strong leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government."

Of course, that’s a load of bullshit. They’re making that all up. It will be our job to expose their line for the odious crap pile that it is, while at the same time getting our message out.

It is actually the Liberal Party that is the party of fiscal prudence. We inherited a massive deficit from Brian Mulroney (remember him?) and turned it to surplus, turning in a string of eight consecutive balanced budgets. More than $60 billion in debt repayment. When the budget was balanced we returned to Canadians the largest broad-based tax cuts in Canadian history, while at the same time reinvesting in the knowledge economy and in social programs. The balanced approach Canadians favour, not the tax cut cure all the Conservatives push. And a massive job boom. More than three million new jobs from 1997 to 2005.

We have a strong record on the economy, and we need to emphasize it and run on it. Not doing so was one of the (many) major mistakes the Martin team made.

We can contrast our record with that of the Conservatives. A GST cut that only benefits the wealthy. An income tax increase to pay for it. An unnecessary complication of the tax code. The income trust flip-flop; that will be a big one. The billion-dollar softwood sellout, that will be big in B.C., Northern Ontario and Quebec. Cuts to the Status of Women, plus literacy programs and other programs important to Canadians. Contracts for their friends. Politics with the Wheat Board. And, for all their talk of fiscal prudence, two of the highest spending budgets ever, far more then the Liberals spent.

Of course, it won’t be enough to just highlight our record, and highlight the weaknesses of theirs. Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about the economy, and we need to present a detailed, comprehensive, and balanced plan for dealing with the coming downturn, unlike the half-baked Conservative measures.

This won’t be an easy fight. A lot will depend on how good a job we do our communicating our message, and getting our message out. Frankly, we haven’t been doing a stellar job on that front of late.

But if we communicate our message well, I think the economy is a great issue for us to run on, and one that could definitely break out way. An election on the economy? Bring it on, Steve.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Van Loan admits Conservative fixed election-date legislation meaningless

A rare moment of clarity from Conservative House Leader and smearer-in-chief Peter (only Conservatives are real Canadians) Van Loan, who admitted that the Conservatives’ much ballyhooed fixed-election date legislation is a farce, and not worth the paper it was printed on:

But Mr. Van Loan has said the law does not prevent the prime minister from asking the Governor General to pull the plug.

"There is nothing in the law that takes away the Crown's traditional and usual prerogatives on this matter," he told reporters last week.

One wonders what the point of the whole exercise was then. This law will prevent a government from choosing the time of its own demise…unless it wants to choose the time of its own demise, in which case there’s nothing in the law preventing that, so just go to town. Maybe it’s only meant to bind Liberal governments?

Anyway, the Van Loan comment came in the context of a larger story, about Conservative confidence landmine #296, the unconstitutional force the Senate to pass the crime bill motion. Apperantly, reports CanWest, Harper will go to the Governor-General, even if the HoC passes his little motion, if the Senate still doesn’t pass his crime bill by his own arbitrary deadline.

If the Commons passes the motion and the Senate does not comply, the prime minister could ask Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to dissolve Parliament, said a Harper spokeswoman.

"It's a confidence motion, so that's still an option," said Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, the prime minister's press secretary.

This is an issue because Harper’s original motion, as previously discussed, would have no binding impact on the Senate. Even if passed, the Senate could just say bite me Steve, and there’d be nothing he could do about it.

So now, The Automaton is saying even if his confidence motion passes, if the Senate doesn’t play ball he’ll go to the GG anyway. Yeah, sorry Steve, that won’t work. And you don’t need much more than high school social studies to figure out why.

When you go to the GG and ask her to dissolve Parliament, it’s because you’ve lost the confidence of the House of Commons. But in his scenario, he wouldn’t have lost the confidence of the HoC. The confidence motion, calling on the Senate to pass the crime bill, would have been passed by the HoC.

So I don’t see how, under that scenario, the GG could possibly grant an election. Any constitutional experts out there have any idea? It seems likely she’d say no, you haven’t proven you’ve lost the confidence of the HOUSE, go and prove it before you come and bother me again during tea time.

Not only does Van Loan’s threat make a mockery of his government’s own fixed election date legislation, it also flies in the face of his own leader’s call in 2004 for clear confidence motions with limited scope.

The Automaton is starting to look more and more like The Cry Baby, stomping his feet and huffing and puffing when he doesn’t get what he wants.

Thinking about it, this is probably all about posturing and positioning. It seems likely now the Liberals will bring the government down on the budget. The budget will be tabled in the HoC Feb. 26th, we learned today. Will the first budget confidence vote, on the BQ amendment, be that week, before March 1st? I don't recall how the schedule usually works.

But it could be Harper would rather fall on the a crime question then on the budget, and that could be why Van Loan is talking all this unconstitutional smack today, they might want to bring themselves down on the crime question before the budget can come to a vote.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Training IS combat

As the debate around the future of the Afghan mission heats-up, I've been reading from my previously mentioned media friends how the Conservatives’ proposed motion extending the mission is designed to give Stephane Dion and the Liberals an out. I don't buy it.

There is enough in the wording for Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion to bend from his implacable position that combat operations must cease by February 2009, while still not losing face -- or more importantly, to not appear to be a weak, indecisive leader.

The Conservative motion calls for an extension of Canada's military commitment to Afghanistan to the end of 2011, under certain conditions. It calls for a gradual drawing down of combat and aspires to more emphasis on training.

While all of this appears to fall short of Dion's core position -- stop shooting at the Taliban exactly one year from now -- there is enough in the wording for Dion to hang his political hat on.

No, there’s really not. The fact is, training can’t be spun as not combat, because training IS combat. Manley commission member Pamela Wallin said as much during a recent speech at the University of Toronto (paraphrased form my notes):

*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.

And she’s right. Training is combat. It’s not like there’s a big training gound where we take the Afghan troops and play war games with practice rounds, with pretend Taliban as the enemies. There’s just real combat, on the job training if you will. With real live bullets and everything.

Training is combat. A change in wording isn’t going to change that essential fact, or satisfy the Liberal demand that combat operations cease in 2009. I think the Conservatives worded their motion to make it seem closer to the Liberal position, and to try to make us appear inflexible if we say no. But there is no real desire for comprise on Stephen Harper’s part, that has been painfully obvious for two years.

Indeed, take a look at the Conservative motion, the full text of which is available here. I’m going to skip over all the whereas lines as, essentially, they’re meaningless padding. It’s only the BIRT which counts:

therefore, the House supports the continuation of Canada’s current responsibility for security in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to the end of 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, but with increasing emphasis on training the Afghan National Security Forces expeditiously to take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole so that, as the Afghan National Security Forces gain capability, Canada’s combat role should be commensurately reduced, on condition that:

(a) Canada secure a partner that will provide a battle group of approximately 1000 to arrive and be operational no later than February 2009, to expand International Security Assistance Force’s security coverage in Kandahar;

(b) to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009.

There are only a few specifics in here: if we get 1000 more troops, some choppers and UAVs we stay until 2011. The training line is a throwaway, and would have no force and effect. There is nothing on aid. Nothing on reconstruction. Nothing on the bureaucratic mess that is hampering our efforts there. Nothing on milestones or goals for progress.

Nothing of substance beyond extending the mission two years, if we get the choppers and the 1000 troops. Indeed, for all the Conservative rallying around the Manley report, the fact is they’re embracing only a very small portion of the report’s recommendations.

The rest, I suppose, we’re just supposed to take Harper’s word for. Give us a blank check, they say, for two more years. And don’t worry, we’ll look at that redevelopment stuff too, trust us. Well I’m sorry, but I don’t trust them even a little bit.

This is certainly not a motion that the Liberals can support. It’s not enough though to just say no. We need to provide an amendment, our own alternative motion that, while showing a degree of flexibility, puts forward our alternative, a balanced view with the specifics and goals and milestones the Conservative motion lacks.

There was word over the weekend the Liberals do have an amendment in the works:

The Liberal amendments fix the Canadian combat end date at February 2009; extend the military mission by two years for training and security duties; allow any military operation except "search and destroy" missions against the Taliban; and would give NATO notice immediately that Canadian troops will withdraw in 2011. They contain proposals for development and diplomacy.

If this is indeed what the Liberal plan is going to be, and I don’t think this is official yet, then I don’t like it. It reads as very similar to the Conservative motion in all but nuance. I’ll be interested to read the proposals for development and diplomacy, but on the military side I’d argue this amounts to an endorsement of the Conservative position.

Call it whatever you want, but the fact is, training IS combat. You can’t say we’re ending combat, and only doing training, security, and any military operation except “search and destroy.” Combat by any other name is still combat.

The only scenario under which I’d be willing to accept the above scenario would be if we were rotated out of Kandahar. If this were taking place in a quieter province, then training could actually be training, not combat. But even if rotation were likely, it’s not indicated that is even part of this possible Liberal proposal.

If this is the amendment they come forward with, I’ll be disappointed. We have maintained all along combat must end in 2009. We must actually stick to that bottomline, not just pretend to.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Vote in the Liblogs video contest

Voting is on now in the Liblogs video contest. The creators of the winning video get $250 and there’s a number of good, creative videos, so be sure to go to the page, watch them, and vote for your favourite.

There’s actually two $250 prizes. One video will be chosen by voters online. The other video will be chosen by an expert panel including Senator Jerry Grafstein, Warren Kinsella, John Duffy and Ian Davey.

The following submitted videos were my three favourites, in no particular order:

Canadian liberalism



This was one of just a handful of submitted videos with a positive message; a positive message was a plus for me. It was simple, had a nice soundtrack, and I liked how it used regular people and conveyed a simple message in an understated way. Could have been a touch shorter, but overall very good.

Integrity



A short video, which is good. And again a simple idea and a simple message. Amusing soundtrack. Not a lot of bells and whistles, just a simple and clear message to communicate, doing more with less. I liked the red strikeouts.

Stephen Harper: Death toll



Nice use of archival footage with John Diefenbaker arguing against the death penalty, interspersed with a picture of Stephen Harper and powerful text. The tolling bells also work very well. My only note would be to perhaps not have the Vote Liberal tag on the end, it might have worked better to just leave the message as is.

Don't forget to vote!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A new nickname for Stephen Harper: The Automaton

The Economist magazine has a new nickname for Stephen Harper: The Automaton. Seems appropriate to me. And these are, after all, the same folks that gave us Mr. Dithers so who knows, maybe the nickname will catch on.

The automaton goes on and on

Jan 24th 2008 | OTTAWA
From The Economist print edition

In two years in office Stephen Harper has earned respect but not love. Yet Canadians show no sign of tiring of bloodless politics



But Mr Harper has been unable to do much more than survive. Respected for his competence, he has all the charisma of an automaton. “I thought that people needed time to get used to Mr Harper,” says Roger Gibbins of the Canada West Foundation, an Alberta-based think-tank. “But it's turned out that to know Harper is not to love him.”
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On crime bill-fought elections, and who's really tough on crime

We're not going to have an election on the Conservatives' written on the back of a napkin pass the crime bill motion. The scenario though makes me wish the LPC had some money for polling. Because I think this would be an interesting question to put to a sample group:

“As you know, the Conservative government is threatening to call an election if the Senate does not quickly pass its anti-crime legislation.

If you knew the Liberal Party offered to immediately pass more than half this legislation in October 2006, and again in March 2007, and was refused by the Conservative government both times, would this make you:

a) more likely to vote Conservative in the next election?
b) less likely to vote Conservative in the next election?
c) not change your voting intention?”

Is it still called push-polling if its true?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On interesting statistics

We really shouldn’t worry too much about bad polls or take too much glee in positive ones. We should note them though, particularly when Nik Nanos (formerly SES) is involved. And so I note these new numbers from Nik:

Liberals: 33 percent (-1)
Conservatives: 31 per cent (-4)
NDP: 19 per cent (+2)
BQ: 10 per cent (+1)
Greens: 8 per cent (+2)


Nice to see the Libs pull ahead, although within the margin of error so it’s pretty much a tie. It’s in line with what we’ve seen from recent pollsters too. And BTW, kudos to the NDP, who haven’t been this high since the fall of 2006.

What I find interesting though is to contrast party numbers like these with party leadership numbers like these, released last week by Nanos:


When you consider the Libs are up two/tied with the Cons despite Harper’s massive advantage on leadership, it kind of makes you wonder where the poll numbers would go if Stephane Dion ever gets it in gear. From recent reports, including a successful Tout le Monde appearance, he may be on his way…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On motions, unconstitutional and speculation, wild and unlikely

Reading the news and blog reaction tonight on a rather interesting motion the Conservatives say they plan to introduce, a few amusing thoughts come to mind. But first, the motion:

The Harper government will introduce an unusual confidence motion as early as Monday demanding that the Senate pass the Conservative's crime bill by March 1.

The motion, which puts the Opposition Liberals in an awkward and potentially embarrassing situation, could trigger an election if it fails in the House of Commons.

An unusual confidence motion, yes indeed, as the Globe notes:

Since the House has already passed the bill, and by law has no power to compel the Senate to do anything, the gesture was baldly political.

Quite possibly making the whole motion unconstitutional, out of order, and so on and so forth. Which raises the question, how should the opposition parties respond?

Should they ask the speaker for a ruling? That’s one option, and if ruled out of order, would leave the Conservatives to have to fall back to one of the 306 other confidence motions they have in the works.

The opposition could also opt to let the motion go ahead, and just abstain to demonstrate what a politically-motivated farce it is. The motion would pass and…nothing would happen, since constitutionally the House of Commons can’t direct the Senate where the bathroom is. Heck, you can’t even say the word “Senate” in the House of Commons. You need to call it “the other place.”

It’s the third possibility that I find amusing to wildly speculate about. Let’s say the opposition decide to let the motion go forward, and they decide to vote it down, saying this motion is unconstitutional and we’re voting it down, but we don’t accept that a hair-brained, unconstitutional motion is a legitimate confidence motion.

I’m reminded of these comments by Stephen Harper on motions of confidence when he was the opposition leader. It’s with the CBC’s Evan Solomon. This was a time when Harper worried the Liberals would try to engineer a snap election, and he was fighting to have confidence motions defined as narrowly as possible. I believe something like “Paul Martin can’t just call anything he wants a confidence motion” was once said.

Solomon: So why did you write that letter to the Governor-General with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton saying in the event of a confidence vote situation do not call a snap election - are we to assume that therefore you're working to form a coalition?

Harper: There seems to be an attitude in the Liberal government - that they can go in, be deliberately defeated and call an election - that's not how our constitutional system works. The government has a minority - it has an obligation to demonstrate to Canadians that it can govern. That it can form a majority in the House of Commons. If it can't form a majority, we look at other options, we don't just concede to the government's request to make it dysfunctional. I know for a fact that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton and the people who work for them want this Parliament to work and I know if is in all of our interests to work. The government has got to face the fact it has a minority, it has to work with other people.

Alrighty then, so back to our near future hypothetical scenario. Harper’s alleged confidence motion fails. He goes to the GG and asks her to dissolve parliament and call an election. She could say sure, you got it Steve. Or might she say to her advisers hey, this motion he came in to see me on looks rather wonky. Should I tell him to go back and try it again? Or, maybe should I call in the leader of the opposition and consult him? After all, that’s what Harper asked for back in 2004.

So she calls in Stephane Dion, and she says, Harper says he has lost the confidence of the house, would you like to give it a try? Sure, he says, I’ll give it a shot. So he puts together a cabinet, Iggy as DPM and maybe DND, and let’s say he goes even further and makes Bob Rae minister of foreign affairs, and puts Gerard Kennedy and Martha-Hall Findlay in cabinet too. Why not? They’re already running in by-elections, the precedent is sound, and we could just say Michael Fortier… David Emerson will ask for a job, but we’ll politely decline.

So, Dion gets sworn in as Prime Minister, maybe has a Throne Speech all about Liberal priorities, maybe not, but anyway he tests the house, promptly loses, and then we get an election campaign with Dion campaigning as Prime Minister, a la Arthur Meighan.

Or, let’s say between now and this Senate motion Dion gets together with Layton and Duceppe and they work out a deal. We vote down this motion, and if Harper insists its confidence we call shenanigans and insist she consult the opposition. Either a coalition or Liberal minority is formed, and the BQ, Libs and NDP agree to pass some pre-agreed to legislation. Like, say, a real economic aid package. Or maybe they find common agreement on Afghanistan, pass a motion and pull the troops out of combat. Then, after they’ve passed their common legislation, the government falls and all three can campaign on its accomplishments and fight it out, having actually gotten something done for Canadians.

Do I think any of this could ever actually happen? Not really. Not a chance. But it is fun to speculate, isn’t it? And as long as this government is going to behave wildly, I'm going to wildly speculate.

Anyway, seems one way or another we’ll be in an election mighty soon. I'd guess on the budget. But then again, we’ve said that before too, haven't we? Time will tell.

Let’s just try to get it done before baseball season starts, I plan on seeing a lot of Jays games this year.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ignore the esablishment and the media, listen to Canadians

Remember back, during the lead-up to Gulf War II and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when Canada was trying to decide whether or not to participate in the U.S. ‘coalition of the willing’?

The drumbeat to go to war was blaring strong. Then opposition leader Stephen Harper led the way. And he was backed whole-heartedly and full-throatedly by the Canadian media establishment. All over the airwaves, and all over the newspaper editorial pages, we were told we had to go to war, we had no choice, and we had to get those weapons of mass destruction, yada yada. There was hardly a dissenting voice in the establishment chorus.

Judging by the media coverage, you’d have thought the whole nation was clamoring for vengeance. And the media was certainly shocked when Prime Minister Jean Chretien made one of the best decisions of his career, and decided to keep Canada out of Iraq.

The media brayed and Stephen Harper went on Fox News to make excuses for Canadians. And Canadians? We applauded a leader that had listened to us, and not the editorial writers and intelligentsia. Chretien knew that despite what the media wanted, Canadians wanted no part of this war. I was never more proud of Chretien than I was then, and I was far from alone.

That lesson of listening to the people, and not the media establishment, is an important one. And it’s one we should remember as we gear-up for a highly politicized debate on the future of the Afghan mission, and the inevitable stay the course, don’t cut and run rhetoric that is sure to follow.

Remember where Canadians actually are on these issues. While polling is an inexact science, these numbers Kady O’Malley pulled-out from an Ipsos-Reid survey on the Manley report should be noted:

On Canada's mission to Afghanistan, in 2009 when our military mission is supposed to finish, which of the following would you be most likely to support? The government should either...

Bring all of our troops home: 37%

Extend our current role and mission as required: 14%

Keep troops there but have them do something like train Afghani soldiers or police officers: 45%

Don't know/Refused: 4%

As you can see, 45 per cent support the Liberal position. A position that has been steady and unwavering since Dion became leader, BTW, despite the Conservative and pundit spin. Just 14 per cent favour an open-ended combat mission, the Conservative position.

As the Conservative and media spin machine gears-up, just remember that two-thirds of Canadians don’t support the recommendations of the Manley report. They're the ones we should be listening to, not the media or Stephen Harper.

Canadians are proud of our military members, and the important work they've done. But they also believe we've done our duty, and it's time for another country to step up to the plate. They're willing to accept a training/rebuilding role, but otherwise they say bring them home.

We’re on firmer ground here then many seem to think. Let's not forget that. I wouldn't want to fight an election on this one if I was Stephen Harper.

UPDATE: With similar thoughts are Jason Cherniak and Warren Kinsella. Warren outlines the possible Liberal election pitch well:

“Hi, I’m Stéphane, and I think we have more than done our bit in Afghanistan, and we think it’s time for other countries to step up to the front line, and if you elect me, we will push for that. But if you want to be over there forever, with no end date, by all means vote for the other guy. Oh, and the economy. The other guys have no economic plan for the tough times ahead, none at all, and we do,” etc

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Romney a big spender

We talk a lot about money in politics, and certainly fundraising and spending was much discussed during the last Liberal leadership race. The news below however just shows again how in the U.S. they’re in a whole other ballpark. Or at least Mitt Romney is:

The former Massachusetts governor has spent $1.16 million per delegate, a rate that would cost him $1.33 billion to win the nomination.

Of course, those are American dollars…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why isn't Harper standing-up for a Canadian soldier?

I don't know how this story has flown under the radar for so long, but it really shouldn't. Last week, the report of a Canadian military inquiry investigating the death of a Canadian peacekeeper, Major Paeta Hess-Von Kruedener, during the summer 2006 Israel/Lebanon war, was released:

In a report released Friday, the board of inquiry into the death of Major Paeta Hess-Von Kruedener said it found no evidence that anyone from the United Nations or Canadian Forces should shoulder any of the blame - that the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) as a whole is responsible.

More on the incident itself:

The 43-year-old soldier from Kingston, Ont., and three other peacekeepers under UN command died in the bombing on the night of July 25. Fighting between Israeli and Hezbollah forces had broken out earlier in the month and the UN post, located about 10 kilometres from the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian borders, was right in the thick of it.

That’s disturbing enough. But more disturbing is the lack of cooperation from the Israeli military with the investigation, and the apparent unwillingness of the Harper government to press them on it:

The report notes that the IDF did not fully co-operate with the Canadian inquiry and denied access to documents and people involved in the event. It suggests that if the board had the access it requested, it might have been able to assign blame to an individual within the IDF.

The board also couldn't resolve the unanswered question of why Israeli air force jets continued their attacks despite warnings that UN personnel were in the area.

I’m not going to buy into the theory floated by some, including the widow and Kofi Annan, that the UN outpost was deliberately target. That’s hard to believe. I don’t think the IDF had any nefarious intent, but clearly there was a breakdown of communications, and it had deadly consequences.

The report found no failure of communication on the UN side and said the IDF "has failed to explain why the attack was not halted."

According to the board's evidence, there was enough time for the information to get to the appropriate IDF authorities and "had the IDF side of the liaison network been functioning effectively, the incident could have been prevented."

This matter has not been resolved satisfactorily. Stephen Harper needs to telephone the Israeli Prime Minister immediately, and demand full cooperation from the IDF so the truth in this matter can be known. Major Hess-Von Kruedener deserves that much.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Do the rules not apply to Helena Guergis?

One of the many stories that has fallen under the radar over the past few weeks, given all cavalcade of embarrassing news the Conservatives have been facing, is the case of Conservative junior minister Helena Guergis.

She released information to the press that potentially endangered the safety of Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, as well as the soldiers protecting them during their visit to Afghanistan:

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.

The response from the Conservative ranks, and Guergis herself, has of course been nothing but righteous indignation. I just came across this passage from a CP story (via On the Hill) that exposes yet another Conservative double standard. The story, from last May, is about the secrecy that surrounded a visit by Stephen Harper to Afghanistan:

"Only upon leaving Europe were the journalists informed of the final destination. They were warned in a briefing by security officials that they risked arrest and prosecution under the National Defence Act and the Official Secrets Act if they did one of two things: mention the prime minister's itinerary during the next layover, or describe the location of that layover to anyone. Reporters were told they could wind up in handcuffs for breaking the rules."

Sounds pretty harsh, and pretty clear. Does Harper not think his ministers should at least be held to the same standard he would hold the media? Is there some exemption to the National Defence Act and the Official Secrets Act for politicking Conservative ministers?

I hope the appropriate authorities are investigating. If not, the appropriate parliamentary committee should get on the case.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservative aide writes questions for the media

Given the recent efforts by the Conservatives to resurrect the non-scandal around a CBC reporter sharing questions for Brian Mulroney with a Liberal MP, this news unearthed yesterday by Sean Holman is noteworthy:

A federal Conservative political aide sent members of the Chinese media a list of questions for Raymond Chan just before the Liberal parliamentarian was scheduled to hold a press conference. Mr. Chan called the Friday afternoon press conference to "set the record straight" concerning accusations he "did not contribute" to a motion calling on the Japanese government to "formally apologize" and compensate "women who were coerced into military sexual slavery during the Second World War." But, four hours before that conference, former Fairchild Radio AM 1470 producer and host Ronald Leung - the special assistant to British Columbia political minister Stockwell Day - sent an email to "five or six" of his friends in the Chinese media, telling them "I think the public should know the role of (sic) Raymond Chan played in the Comfort Women motion issue."
(more)

This is totally a different ball of wax from what the Conservatives were up in arms about, of course. They’ll be why to explain why, I’m sure. Still, just to be safe though we should probably get the ethics committee on the case. Can’t be too careful.

Seriously though, do I think this Con staffer did anything wrong? Not really. But I also don’t think Krista Erickson did anything wrong either by sharing her questions with an MP. I just find this amusing; given the righteous indignation the Cons have treated us to over this sort of thing. Live by the sword, and what not.

Actually, I think the bigger story here is that this Conservative staffer actually seems to have a bit of a clue about media relations, and is on somewhat friendly terms with some of them. I just hope he ran his e-mail by the PMO first and got approval from Sandra, or Dimitri, or whomever is holding down the fort these days.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What to do on Afghanistan

That’s the question anyway, I have no idea if I’ll be able to answer it. I’ve been mulling over my thoughts on the matter for awhile now, and I’m not sure I’m any closer to figuring it out.

Putting aside all politics, which is pretty well impossible to do, and putting aside a number of other considerations too, which is also impossible, in a perfect world I think we should stay. I believe the international community needs to be in Afghanistan, and that includes Canada.

It was the right decision to go in, the former Taliban regime harboured the Al Quaeda terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks. And we can’t just leave once the Taliban were overthrown, we need to help bring peace and stability to the country, and help ensure they can keep it that way themselves. While I want the focus to be rebuilding and aid, I recognize that’s impossible without the pacification of the Taliban, so I recognize continued combat operations are and will continue to be necessary.

So, in a perfect world, I’d say for sure, Canada should stay over there, and our military should keep doing its important work. However, as we all know, it’s not a perfect world. Here are some of my concerns:

*For one, just logistically, the fact is Canada is a small country, with a small military. I worry about how long we can keep cycling through troops before they start to get fatigued and burnt-out. I haven’t heard that concern addressed by the Manley panel.

*I also think it’s time for some of the other members of the NATO alliance to step up to the plate, if this truly is an alliance. And I don’t mean a token 1000 troops, that’s not going to make a major difference in Kandahar, and it certainly won’t take much burden off of our troops, or allow us to move them elsewhere. Canada stepped-up and asked for Kandahar, we wanted the tough assignment. It wasn’t government dithering, that’s a myth. The government and the military knew this was a tough assignment, and that someone had to do it. And we have. But we didn’t sign-up for an indefinite deployment in the toughest part of the country. At the very least, we should be rotating through with the other countries that are there. I’m looking at you Germany, the guys that won’t let your soldiers out after dark.

*Lately I’ve been more and more worried about just what in the heck kind of government we’re working to support in Afghanistan anyway. Last week during her speech, Pamela Wallin said we can’t impose our culture and value on the Afghans. And I agree, to a point. But covering the ass of a governor accused of torture? Standing by while a journalist is unfairly sentenced to death? You start to wonder just how different the new boss is from the old boss. Yes, we can’t impose our values. But we also can’t aid and abet torture and murder. We can’t be co-conspirators. Just leave and yes, it’s likely to get worse. But if we’re going to stay, we need to find a middle ground between imposing our values and aiding and abetting.

*I’d feel a lot better about staying if I felt we were making real progress, and had a real strategy in place. Some of the problems were identified by the Manley group, like better coordination between the countries in the mission, the need for a UN 3^rd party rep to smack some heads, and getting smarter about aid. But it’s not enough to identify the problems, actions needs to be taken. Moreover, I’d feel better about staying if we weren’t ignoring a major strategic problem: the porous Pakistani border. Pakistan provides a safe haven for the Taliban continue to cause havoc in Afghanistan and hamper the needed aid and reconstruction work. The Pakistani government has proven unable or unwilling (probably both) to do anything about it. And even if their government wanted our help, accepting it would be politically impossible for them. So, with this issue unaddressed, Pakistan becomes more and more like the Laos to our Vietnam. And there doesn’t seem to be any serious desire to address this elephant in the room. Probably about the best we can do at the moment is more heavily patrol the border region but that would take a lot of troops, which would mean the U.S., and they’re busy a little further west at the moment.

Politics

The domestic politics around this issue haven’t exactly risen to the occasion, nor provided anything resembling leadership or a way forward. The NDP seems to want an immediate withdrawal, transitioning to some kind of UN-led non-military mission. That’s not going to work;more emphasis on aid, yes, but there can’t be aid without stability. The Conservatives want an open-ended mission with no exit strategy, that’s not acceptable to me either. Their constant politicization of the war, the simplistic rhetoric and demoniztion of dissent, and their unwillingness to address strategic concerns is also unacceptable, and in my opinion has done more to hamper support for the mission than the casualty count has. And then there are my Liberals, trying to thread the needle of a caucus with strong views on both sides.

This is really a time for statesmen, but we haven’t seen much examples of statesmanship in Ottawa lately. The Liberals seems to be the swing votes at the moment and for now both sides are playing nice. The NDP wants the Liberals to adopt their position, I’m not sure if there’s any room for compromise on their end, I haven’t seen any indications anyway. And Harper has dialed down the rhetoric a tad too, and is set to meet with Dion today. How far the Cons may be willing to move is questionable too. And I don’t doubt any movement by the Liberals will quickly be exploited by both sides for political gain, no matter how nice they make.

Before I dispense with politics, let me say this. Whatever course the Liberals decide to make, we need to get behind it as a team. No freelancing, no public dissent, but one clear, united message communicated to the press and to Canadians. Leave any disagreements in the caucus room.

What compromise?

I don’t know what a potential compromise might look like. On one hand, it might be easy to say, sure, let’s extend the combat mission two more years, to 2011, as long as we get more allied support, and logistical and strategic issues are addressed. And benchmarks and targets established. I feel though like that’s as good as an indefinite extension, and wouldn’t truly be a real end date. Didn’t we think two years ago, when we extended to 2009, that that would be it? Are we going to keep doing this every two years?

I think it’s time for us to end our combat mission in Kandahar, and for another NATO or UN country to rotate in. We’ve fulfilled our commitment in the hot spot. This was never meant to be an open-ended deployment. If we’re not going to bring our troops home, as a compromise I’d support rotating them to a quieter part of the country, where they could focus more on reconstruction. But I won’t support an open-ended continued combat role in Kandahar, and I have no faith in any kind of exit date/strategy the Conservatives might propose.

And support for any continued Canadian presence should be contingent on a stronger and more organized aid effort, action to address the Pakistan border issue, a humane and fair detainee policy open to parliamentary overview, more transparent and open communication by the government and the military with parliamentarians and with Canadians, action to address the opium poppy issue, and effort to instill more democratic ideals among the Afghan people and government.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's not fair! You think it's easy to go to the bank!

It's not fair has been one of the Conervatives' favourite lines for mocking Stephane Dion and the Liberals. Which helps to add another layer of irony to this lead from a CP story last week:

A lawyer for Brian Mulroney says it would be unfair to explore allegations about large sums of cash being stored at 24 Sussex when he was prime minister.

It’s not fair! I mean, do you think it’s easy to get to the bank! And besides, it’s not like they had debit cards back then. And Mila did need some walking-around money.

But I agree, allegations of large sums of cash being stored at the Prime Minister's residence, 24 Sussex? Yawn, no biggie. Move along, nothing to see here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Where's your Liberal media bias now?

It's just nice to see not all Conservatives hate the CBC:

Indian Affairs and Northern Development Minister Chuck Strahl has hired a new communications aide in his ministerial political office.

Josée Bellemare, former CBC Radio reporter, started her new job as press secretary to Minister Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon, B.C.) who also is the federal interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians, on Friday, Jan. 25.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cons digging themselves a hole

With the parliamentary ethics committee too busy investigating things embarrassing to the Conservatives, CPC MP Dean Del Mastro is trying desperately to get more mileage out of this ridiculous CBC question gate non-scandal.

In brief, the Cons were upset a CBC reporter shared some questions she had for Brian Mulroney with Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez. Since Mulroney wasn’t returning the CBC’s calls, and since Rodriguez agreed they were pretty important questions, he put them to Mulroney during his not under oath testimony before the ethics committee.

This sent the Cons into conniptions, and they managed to get their pound of flesh when the CBC apologized, and re-assigned the reporter in question. You’d think they’d quite while they’re ahead.

But that’s not enough for our Dean though:

The governing Conservatives want to haul Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez before the House Ethics Committee to apologize and to "admit that he lied" when he asked planted questions sent from a CBC reporter in the sensational Mulroney-Schreiber House Ethics Committee probe and they also want to hear from CTV NewsNet´s Mike Duffy host of Mike Duffy Live on the same issue.

After the CBC admitted that its reporter, Krista Erickson, provided questions to Mr. Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Que.) when he questioned former prime minister Brian Mulroney in December, Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Ont.) introduced a motion at the committee last week to call Mr. Rodriguez as a witness in order for him to "admit that he lied."

Myself, I’d like Stephen Harper to apologize for calling Liberals Taliban sympathizers, linking a Liberal MP to terrorism, insinuating ethnicity had something to do questioning on the Dimitri Soudas affair, and a long list of far more serious transgressions than sharing questions. But that's just me.

I’m reminded though of what the Conservatives warned when the opposition first called for an inquiry into the recent Mulroney allegations, a call the Cons initially resisted. Harper warned the Liberals should be careful, because if they insisted on going down that road, lots of bad stuff they’d done in a similar vein could be dragged out.

Perhaps Mr. Del Mastro should heed his leader’s own advice. The fact is, the media sharing questions and research with opposition MPs, and vice versa, is common and standard practice on the hill, and has been forever. By all parties. But don’t take my word for it:

Ottawa Sun columnist Greg Weston, who was on Mike Duffy Live when Mr. Duffy received the message, said if the Conservatives want to call Mr. Rodriguez, they should also call "every single Conservative MP who sat in opposition" because they did the same thing. "This is a daily thing," Mr. Weston said. "This is the most trumped up, ridiculous pandering to the Conservative core who believe that the CBC is part of the enemy and now it´s been proven we´re part of the enemy too. Well, as you always know, if there are two lists, I want to be on the black one."

So sure Dean, let’s investigate the sharing of information between opposition and the media. Let’s call all every National Post reporter that wrote about Shawinigate. Let’s call all the former Canadian Alliance MPs they worked hand it hand with on that, and umpteen other stories, over the years in a futile anti-Liberal vendetta. Why not, I’ll be fun.

Or maybe we can just have a laugh at this transparent and pathetic attempt to divert attention from the serious work the committee is doing. Former Mulroney chief of staff Norman Spector is due to testify this week. Rumour has it he’ll have some interesting information to share. It must be, if Warren is mentioning him without referencing him as a former tobacco lobbyist.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Margaret Atwood, Jim Balsillie, and other interesting political contributors

I thought it'd be interesting to take a look through the Elections Canada database for donations to political parties in the last quarter of 2007, and see what names popped-out.

To refresh everyone on the overall numbers, the results for the fourth quarter of 2007 were as follows:

Conservatives
44,324 contributors for $4,892,921.63
Liberals
13,618 contributors for $1,944,946.11
NDP
15,698 contributors for $1,424,524.23
Green
3390 contributors for $414,274.84
Bloc
3,888 contributors for $336,384.00

Continued gradual improvement for the Liberals. Sure, we still lag way, way, way behind the Conservatives. But we also don't have the CBC to pick on, so it's a tad more challenging. Still, while it's a work in progress, there is progress.

That's another story though. As I said I was more interested in talking a gander at some of the names donating to the various parties. I kept my browsing to donations of $500 and above, because otherwise I'd be scrolling forever and I don't have that kind of patience. Here's a few names from each party that jumped-out:

Liberals

Naturally, as a Liberal a few more names here were recognizable to me, such as:

Gordon Ashworth, the LPC's National Campaign Director.


This name was a surprise, author Margaret Atwood.


As was Research in Motion founder Jim Balsillie.


Raymond Chretien is a our former ambassador to the U.S., and is Jean Chretien's newphew.


Former Liberal MP and minister Anne McLellan.


Former Liberal MP and minister Pierre Pettigrew.


I believe this Gordon Wilson of Powell River, BC must be the same Gordon Wilson that was a leader of the BC Liberal Party, then former the Progressive Democratic Alliance, and then became a BC NDP cabinet minister. Interesting.


Among current parliamentarians, I noticed MP Navdeep Bains ($500), Senator Larry Campbell ($500), Senator Jerry Grafstein ($1000), Albina Guarnieri ($1000 to Michael Ignatieff's campaign), and Senator Serge Joyal ($500).

Less names naturally popped-out at me from the other parties' donor lists, but here's a few that did.

Conservative Party

You'll remember Jim Dinning as the entertaining but failed wannabe successor to Ralph Klien as leader of the Alberta PCs. (Off topic, but go to his Web site and you're told "You have reached this page accidentally12a.". I guess so Jim, I guess so.)


Tim Powers is a lobbyist and regular Conservative commentator on the pundit circuit.


John Reynolds is a lobbyist, Conservative insider, former Conservative MP and election campaign co-chair. Yvonne is his spouse.


Don Mazankowski was a Mulroney-era cabinet minister. Lorraine is his spouse.


NDP

Marion Dewar was a long-time mayor of Ottawa and was briefly an NDP MP.


Howard Hampton, of course, is the current leader of the Ontario NDP.


Green Party

It's author Margaret Atwood once again, this time donating to the Greens. I double checked, and she didn't donate to the NDP, at least not this quarter.


And media pioneer and CityTV founder Moses Znaimer was another interesting Green contributor.

And being an anglophone from the west, while I skimmed the BQ contributors list I can say I recognized any.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ignatieff shows, Conservative legions AWOL

When it was announced a few weeks ago that Liberal deputy leader Michael Ignatieff would be giving a speech at the University of Alberta, in that most Conservative of provinces, you may recall it was noted at the time that CPC officials sent out a call to the party loyalists: pack the meeting, and hold this dastardly Liberal to account!

Like this call to arms from the party's national policy director:

In an e-mail sent to the presidents of 14 Conservative riding associations in Alberta, Vitor (Victor) Marciano says the lecture was arranged by Anne McLellan, the former deputy leader of the Liberals who is now a distinguished scholar in residence at the same institute.

"We need a skeptical, questioning audience for this hypocrite - especially after his recent performance in Afghanistan," wrote Mr. Marciano, referring to the trip Mr. Ignatieff took this month to the war-wracked country with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

"Hopefully many of you can make it out to this lunch time session. Please circulate."

And a party spokesperson at CPC head office in Ottawa:

Ryan Sparrow, a spokesman for the Conservative Party, said there is nothing untoward about a member urging other Conservatives to ask hard questions of Liberals.

"Canadians should be questioning Mr. Ignatieff's and Stéphane Dion's constant flip-flopping on key issues such as Afghanistan," he said.

Well, Ignatieff's speech was Friday. And what happened? Did the Conservative army heed the call to arms, did the keyboard legions leave their basements, give up their lunch-hours for leader and county, and pepper Ignatieff with questions on his “hypocritical” ways?

Yeah, apparently not so much:

There had been some curiosity about whether local members of the federal Conservative Party would show up to question Ignatieff about his "flip-flops" on Canada's mission in Afghanistan. An Alberta Tory had sent an e-mail to riding presidents asking that Conservatives attend the lunchtime session to provide "a skeptical, questioning audience for this hypocrite."

No such inflammatory exchange developed during the event, even though Ignatieff touched on Afghanistan at several points in the speech and the subsequent question-and-answer session.

Quite the mobilization of forces there, Mr. Marciano.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Chrétien backs Dion on Central Nova/May alliance

I knew that Jean Chrétien have a speech last week in Nova Scotia, but I'd missed these comments about the decision not to run a candidate against Green Party leader Elizabeth May in Central Nova:

Chrétien, who delivered the annual Allan J. MacEachen lecture in politics at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, was asked what he thought about Dion's strategy not to field a candidate against Green party Leader Elizabeth May.

He said the rules permit Dion to take that approach.

"It's part of your responsibility; you're the leader, too. If you sit back and everyone tells you what to do, what the hell to be the leader for?" Chrétien said, to laughter from the audience.

"You should have a few ideas of your own. So, if you have the power, you use that."

Ah, Jean. Hearing from Chrétien reminds me of just how boring the political discourse has become in this country. We could use a little Chretien-style smackdown on the nervous nellies these days, me thinks.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What do deputy press secretaries do?

Having never been one, I can’t really say for sure. If I had to guess, I’d say being a deputy press secretary would probably involve talking to the media, responding to media requests, maybe doing the odd briefing, helping craft the government’s communications strategy, monitoring coverage, stuff like that.

Apparently, though, I have it all wrong:

The Globe and Mail and Radio-Canada revealed this week that the PMO's deputy press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, intervened in 2006 in a long-standing legal dispute between real estate firm Rosdev Group and the government.

Mr. Soudas raised the possibility of dropping the litigation and going to mediation with the Rosdev Group during a meeting with senior officials at Public Works. Mr. Soudas was echoing a call from his friend and Conservative fundraiser Leo Housakos, who had made the same proposition to Public Works a few months earlier.

In addition, it was revealed that Mr. Soudas and Mr. Housakos attended an informal meeting last year with officials from a military company that was interested in selling hardware to National Defence.

Intervening in legal disputes, arranging meetings between developers and bureaucrats with party fundraisers, is this really the job of a deputy press secretary?

During Question Period, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that Mr. Soudas simply "did his job."

And here I thought his job had something to do with communicating with the press. My bad. But given this government’s relationship with the media, it really does explain a lot, doesn't it?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Funny line of the day: Don Martin

National Post columnist Don Martin, commenting on the Harper government's recent communications cock-ups and the troubles of flacks Sandra Buckler and Dimitri Soudas, whose jobs are unlikely to be in jeopardy despite recent performance:

To get fired by this government, you have to do your job defending nuclear plant safety against the PMO's wishes.

Heh. Sounds about right.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers