In defence of the attack ad

My friends the Green Party of Canada released an “attack ad” today that is generating a lot of buzz in political nerdom. It’s an attack ad on attack ads. Have a gander:

It’s a well-executed spot, and it’s an interesting strategy: speak to those turned off by the tone of politics as usual practiced by the usual suspects. I think it’s effective in speaking to those people, but I’m skeptical this is a burning (and vote-moving) issue for many people. People are more concerned about issues that impact them directly, like jobs and the economy, health care and education. There’s a “pox on all their houses” attitude on the level of debate and, while the Greens may hope to tap that (and such voters are certainly in their wheel-house), their positions on those other issues will be what moves people, or not.

It will get the Greens a little attention though as we move into a possible election and remind the chattering classes, at least, that they’re still around. I am amused, though, by the dichotomy of an attack ad that attacks attack ads. It reminded me of the 2006 Conservative ad, "They'll go negative", that warned the Liberals would (in the future) go negative but was, in fact, itself a negative ad. As well, people like to decry attack ads, but the fact remains they can also be pretty effective. So will an attack ad attacking attack ads be an effective attack ad? I don’t know know, but I love the Inception-like feeling of it all.

I would like, though, to raise my voice in lonely defence of the humble attack ad. Not all attack ads are created equal, and not all attack ads are bad. They do play a role in our political discourse, and a rote blanket condemnation of the medium is easy, but short-sighted.

Personal attack ads are definitely out of bounds in my view. We can all think of examples of personal attacks that crossed the line and were rightly condemned. However, issue-based attacks are completely within bounds, and play an important role in any healthy and vibrant democratic debate.

Our political system is built on government and opposition, on groups with opposing views arguing those differences and presenting choices to the people. Issue-based attack ads serve to highlight contrasts and distinctions between the positions and platforms of political parties. They help people understand their choices, and cast a ballot that reflects their views and beliefs.

In a busy world where people don’t pay as much attention to politics and policy as they should, attack ads are (unfortunately) one of the few ways people get their political information. Decry dishonest ads, decry personal attacks, decry short attention spans. But not all attack ads are created equal. And when it comes to highlighting differences on important issues, they’re an important and needed tool.

Maybe we need an attack ad attacking attack ads on attack ads? How would that be for meta mind-blowing…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Some advice for Elizabeth May

Regular readers may have been able to suss-out over time that I’m a Liberal supporter, but I like Green Party leader Elizabeth May – she’s good people – so with the news that she has apparently settled on Saanich-Gulf Islands as her riding of choice in the next election, I’m going to set aside my partisanship for a few minutes and offer her some advice.

First, she should pick a riding and stick with it. This hopping from riding to riding is madness. That was supposed to be the idea with Central Nova, but apparently she has concluded that’s a long(er) shot, so she’s trying another.

Frankly, I don’t think SGI is winnable for her either. If Conservative minister Gary Lunn wasn’t unseated last time, I think he’s pretty darned secure, barring calamity or major scandal. Look at the perfect storm the Liberals had in the riding last time – an unpopular minister, a popular Liberal candidate with strong green credentials in a very green-friendly riding (Briony Penn won't run again but is supporting Liberal nomination candidate Renee Hetherington), and no NDPer on the ballot after their candidate was forced to resign due to scandal. And still, despite lots of alleged shenanigans (phantom demon calling, questionable third-party advertising) Lunn got back in with a four per cent cushion, and 43 per cent of the vote.

None of the other parties are going to give an inch to May (I know the Liberals will be running hard), so she’s going to have a helluva road to climb to build on the 10.45 per cent the Greens got in the riding. More likely, she’ll contribute to vote-splitting, ensuring Lunn’s re-election by a more comfortable margin.

Still, May has to run somewhere. And SGI is probably as good a riding as any for her as any, being traditionally one of the strongest Green ridings in the country. It’s all relative, of course, but you need to start somewhere.

And, frankly, the last thing she should care about is vote-splitting. It really shouldn't give her pause. This brings me to my next, and most important piece of advice: May needs to decide is she wants to lead a serious political party or not.

If her goal is just to advance green issues whatever way she can and to get the Conservatives out of power, she should just join the Liberals. I hear Liberal Party president Alf Apps invited her to do just that, and she declined. That’s fine, she’s made her choice: now she needs to own it.

That means making clear that her mission is to elect Green Party of Canada candidates in all 308 ridings across the country, period. While she turned down Apps, she also reportedly said she’d like to be environment minister in a Liberal government. No, Ms. May. If that’s her goal, she should have run for the Liberals. These kind of mixed signals are demoralizing to her activists across the country, and don’t contribute to the Greens being seen as a serious party.

She needs to completely divorce herself from the idea of strategic voting. If she's running candidates everywhere she needs to support all of them, period. To do otherwise is unfair to them. In the last election, her mixed signals on this weren’t helpful. And the fact is, there is absolutely no scenario in which you can make a coherent strategic voting argument that ends with someone voting Green. The math just doesn’t work. So why go there? It doesn’t make sense.

So, my advice in a nutshell: pick a riding to put down roots in, avoid talk of strategic voting, who she’d like to be PM (unless its her) and what cabinet posts she’d like (except PM), and make clear she stands behind every Green candidate on the ballot and wants them all elected. If she's serious about building the Green Party, it’s the only way to go.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Election Post-Mortem, Part One: The Greens and the BQ

The Green Party


It's hard not to call this a successful campaign for the Green Party, at least on the surface. Granted, they didn't elect an MP, and they lost their kinda-sorta MP in Blair Wilson. But there were a lot of other victories for the Greens in this election.

They earned 6.8 per cent of the vote, up 2.3 per cent. They'll get a larger taxpayer subsidy. Elizabeth May participated in the televised leaders debates. They ran their first television ads. The Greens have arrived on the national political scene as a serious player, a fringe party no longer.

On the downside, they failed to elect an MP, despite their best-funded campaign ever, despite May's profile and performance in the debates, despite the Liberal non-aggression pact.

Moreover, I think the Greens have some soul-searching to do. The strategic voting yes, strategic voting no tap dance of May down the stretch was comical. And it seemed to speak to serious schisms within the party, with some candidates saying knock it off we want to win, and two candidates actually dropping-out to support Liberals.

The Greens need to ask themselves what want to be: are they a serious political party that stands for a range of policy options and wants to elect MPs to advance them, or do they want to merely fight the good fight, speak to those issues, and then allow or encourage their vote to melt away to more mainstream contenders?

Because I don't see how you can do both. And if the Greens are going to consolidate their gains and continue their growth, at some point they'll need to start acting like an actual political party that actually wants to elect people. For the Greens, strategic voting doesn't make sense. There's no riding where you can make the strategic argument to vote Green, and there never will be if they keep sending those mixed signals.

If your primary consideration is stopping Conservatives, join the party with the best chance of doing so. If you're concerned about vote-splitting on the left, then enter talks with the other parties about cooperation, or electoral reform. But if you're going to run candidates, you need to support all of them, not just some.

Leadership issues: I think Elizabeth May is offside with much of her party on these issues. Many of those that shared her views took the logical step of joining other parties and advancing the Green cause from within them. Many of those left stayed Green for a reason. If she's to stay as leader, they need to work these things out.

The Bloc Quebecois


This party has been written off more times than I can count. They were supposed to fade away after Dion and Chretien’s post-referendum initiatives and a Jean Charest provincial government contributed to a waning of support for sovereignty, but them sponsorship gave them a reprieve.

This election a surging Conservative Party was poised to decimate them, having spent two years and billions of dollars wooing Quebec nationalists, but two small missteps on culture and youth crime and a misread of the Quebecois gave the BQ new life. They also seemed to benefit more from the NDP's aggressive Quebec attack ads than the NDP did.

Much was made of a surging BQ in this election that would decimate the Conservatives in Quebec. That didn't materialize. The Quebec picture ended-up much the same as it was before the election, and actually down one seat from their 2006 result. However, the recovery of BQ support was enough to deny the Conservatives the majority the rest of the country voted them.

So once again a new lease on life for the BQ, but they still face questions about their continued reason for existence, and unless they can define themselves one wonders if Harper won't get it right in Quebec next time, and finally wipe them out. And praying for divine intervention once again doesn't seem like much of a strategy.

Since the BQ doesn't talk about sovereignty much anymore anyway, perhaps there is room for a Quebec-only nationalist party on the political scene. Reform was successful as a Western party, it was their desire to expand into Ontario (and challenge for government) that led to their struggles. How the BQ carry themselves in this parliament will be a test for them.

It seems to me though they're fighting over one (large) piece of the Quebec vote with the Conservatives and now the NDP, who both court that nationalist vote. The Conservatives can deliver things the BQ never will be able to. Unless they carve out a role of some sort, it's hard to see their future, particularly if the Liberals ever get their act together in Quebec.

Leadership issues: I can't see Gilles Duceppe being under pressure from within, but then I don't know that party. But it seems to me if he wants to keep the job, it's his. I just wonder how long he'll want it. What is there left for him to accomplish? At times, it just seems like he's going through the motions.

Tomorrow: Part Two: The NDP

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate

Nice to know that Greens watch The Simpsons too. From a CP story on Elizabeth May's whistle-stop tour:

It's a good thing for Green supporters, too, 40 of whom were waiting at the Saskatoon station for one of May's nocturnal rallies. They held signs that read: "I choo-choo choose Elizabeth May."

Go ahead. Throw your vote away!

PS. Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos last week.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Setting the record straight on Blair Wilson

When West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country MP Blair Wilson joined the Green Party after the Liberal Party repeatedly refused to accept him back due to ethical concerns and questions about his business history, Wilson and May set about downplaying the circumstances that led to his being asked to leave the Liberal caucus, and then now being allowed back.

They both stuck to the line that he had been “largely” cleared of “major” wrongdoing by Elections Canada (actually, he admitted to three violations of the Elections Act, which doesn’t generally divide rules between must-follow and follow if you feel like it), glossing over the fact that it was his legal and business history, and the fact that he didn’t disclose a lot of pertinent information (including 23 lawsuits) during the nomination process, that led to his parting from the Liberals.

Here’s what he said in a statement:

The party's provincial "Green Light Committee", which vets all candidates, had earlier rejected Mr. Wilson candidacy based on personal information that was inaccurate and untested. He was not given an opportunity to defend himself before the committee and there was no appeal process.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. In a letter to the North Shore News yesterday two members of that Green Light Committee, Dean Crawford and Martin MacLachlans, set the record straight on the process around the vetting of Wilson and his disqualification as a Liberal candidate:

Our searches revealed that Wilson, or companies of which he was an officer or director, had been involved in as many as 23 legal proceedings that he had not disclosed on his nomination forms or at any time afterward. Based on our review, we concluded that Wilson was required to disclose most, if not all, of these proceedings on the nomination forms he filed with the Liberal Party but had failed to do so.

…

By failing to disclose those proceedings, however, Wilson denied the green light committee the opportunity to thoroughly assess his suitability as a candidate. Instead, we learned of a number of these proceedings when the general public learned of them -- by reading the newspaper.

And Wilson’s claim that “He was not given an opportunity to defend himself before the committee” appears to be false as well:

We provided Wilson a draft of our report and initially requested a response within two days, but offered an extension of time to respond if he needed it. Wilson did take the extra time and had nearly three weeks to comment on the draft report. He ultimately did make submissions to us through his lawyer, Jay Straith, and those submissions were taken into account before we completed the report.

The whole column is really worth reading as it brings some needed facts to the Wilson saga and puts the whole affair into context.

Wilson’s lack of forthrightness on the circumstances of his departure from the Liberal Party actually seems appropriate, though, as it’s indicative of the behaviour that led to his being asked to leave to leave the party in the first place.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Blair Wilson: Not the standard-bearer the Greens would have hoped for

I've long held a soft-spot in my political heart for the Green Party, and so I'm pleased they at long last have their first MP, even if he wasn't elected under the Green banner. I also think that Elizabeth May should be in the leaders' debates, and this should help make that happen. It's really unfortunate, though, that their standard-bearer, the person who will go down in history as the first Green MP in Canada, had to be Blair Wilson.

It really should have been Elizabeth May. And she may well still end up being the first elected Green MP, as I think she's going to give Peter McKay a real run for his money in Central Nova.

This should really be a big day for the Green Party, and for all supporters of democracy in general. In some ways, it still is. But it's tainted by the person they've cast to fill this historic role.

The fact is, there's a reason why Blair Wilson was asked to leave the Liberal caucus, and there's a reason why his repeated pleas, both public and private, to re-join the Liberal caucus were firmly and soundly rejected. Blair Wilson is not MP material.

After a long investigation by Elections Canada the 24 allegations of campaign finance irregularities against him were reduced to three, which he acknowledged as violations as entered into a compliance agreement with Elections Canada.

He was asked to leave caucus, though, because he hid a laundry list of legal disputes from the party when he sought and accepted the Liberal nomination, and repeatedly refused to cooperate when word of the allegations began to come out.

The list of allegations unearthed in an investigative series by the Vancouver Province last fall, including failed business dealings, friends and investors and suppliers left holding the bag, lawsuits and more, reads like a soap opera:

Among the allegations against Wilson, The Province has learned:

- Wilson did not report campaign expenses to Elections Canada and paid for supplies off the books, in cash, a breach of the act.

- Wilson and his wife, Kelly, borrowed roughly $1.9 million from his in-laws to purchase six properties, and much remains unpaid despite the fact they have sold some homes.

- Wilson and his wife were subject to Social Services Tax Act liens on three properties and owe $2.1 million in bank mortgages.

- Wilson misled the media about the true extent of his business success, exaggerating the number of restaurants he founded and claiming to have sold an accountancy business his in-laws claim closed, among other discrepancies.

- Wilson lost hundreds of thousands of family investors' money in the stock market and yet billed them for management fees.

- Wilson's two restaurants, Mahoneys and Wilson's Steakhouse, closed. He was taken twice to the B.C. Employment Standards Tribunal for refusing to pay employees, was sued twice for failing to pay contractors, was twice compelled by the courts to pay GST owing, and was also taken to court by a supplier over $33,839 that was owed (this amount was later paid).

- Wilson bought extravagant gifts for a girlfriend in Poland while working for a restaurant chain called Pan Smak Pizza Inc.

And yes, if you're wondering, Blair is married. Perhaps his time in Poland will help him in his new role as the Green Party's immigration critic. A second article has even more on the business history of Blair Wilson, and the damage and losses he left in his wake.

All this history, which should have been disclosed to the party as a matter of course, was hidden by Wilson when he applied to be a candidate, and would likely had disqualified him from running had it been known. That's why he wasn't allowed to run for the Liberals again. He has consistently failed to demonstrate the ethics, honesty and integrity that should be expected of a Member of Parliament. If a person isn't going to be open and honest with the party, how can he be trusted to run under its banner?

Interestingly, it seems like it's those that know Blair Wilson best, those that have been close to him, that feel most strongly that he is unfit for public office.

Like former NHLer Tony Tanti, who lost the $50,000 he invested in a Wilson business:

Tanti, for one, says he can let his $50,000 loss go, but not his worries about Wilson's suitability for office.

"My concern about the whole thing, him getting into politics, [is] if he is doing that to so-called friends and everything else, what is he going to do when he's got [public] money in his hands?

"My $50,000 was a lot of money, but it's not going to change my lifestyle. But now he has public funds. That's my biggest concern."

And Wilson's own father-in-law, Bill Lougheed, who had to resort to legal action over unpaid loans to Wilson:

The Lougheeds claim Wilson misrepresented himself to voters in his riding, pretending to be a wealthy politician while he was secretly saddled with enormous debts. Wilson's defaulting, Lougheed feels, makes the MP "not fit for public office."

Lougheed feels the MP's "insatiable need for money" and the fact that he's "living beyond his means" has put his family in jeopardy.

And friends who themselves volunteered for Wilson's campaigns have told me some unsettling stories about the experience, and his suitability for office.

In announcing Wilson's move to the Greens, May claims to have investigated all this and to be satisfied with his explanations. I just hope that, in her desire to have this historic announcement, and to secure her place in the debates, she hasn't made decision she will one day come to regret.

Wilson likes being an MP. He likes the prestige, the perks, the attention. He has been pushing for months to get back into caucus, and as late as mid-August he was pushing the caucus to consider the matter when it meets next week in Winnipeg. To his credit, Stephane Dion bluntly told him it wasn't going to happen. Only then, with an election imminent, did Wilson make his move to the Greens.

Is getting their first MP and getting into the leaders' debate worth getting into bed with someone like Blair Wilson? I suppose time will tell. I just feel bad for my Green friends that this is how this historic day had to happen. Given the long-held commitment of the Green movement to democracy, honest and integrity, this can't be quite how they would have pictured this day.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Greens have an MP!

This is big, surprising news. According to the Globe and Mail, MP Blair Wilson, formerly of the Liberal Party, is about to become the Green Party's first member of parliament:

OTTAWA — The Green party is poised to announce it has its first federal member of Parliament - even before an anticipated fall election call.

Green party Leader Elizabeth May will introduce former Liberal MP Blair Wilson as a Green MP at a news conference this morning in Ottawa.

The Vancouver MP was turfed from the Liberal caucus after revelations of spending irregularities in his 2006 campaign.

He's been sitting as an Independent.

Let me say I agree with the reasons Wilson was expelled from the Liberal caucus, and I agree with the decision not to re-admit him.

That said, I think it's great that the Green Party finally has its first MP. It's just unfortunate that it's unlikely he'll ever have the chance to sit in the House of Commons under the Green banner, with an election call almost certain before the House returns.

Assuming he runs for re-election under the Green banner, this will make things a little more interesting in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, a riding the Conservatives were eying as a sure pick-up (it was John Reynold's old riding).

More importantly, this should make it impossible for Green Party leader Elizabeth May to be denied a spot in the televised leaders debates in the next campaign. I sincerely hope that Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe will now do the right thing and join Stephane Dion in calling for May to be allowed to participate in the debates.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What's the green game plan?

Steve writes approvingly of an apparent “unite the left” movement underway in the B.C. riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. Apparently some local Green Party activists would like to see the party not run a candidate there, bur rather unite behind the NDP or Liberal candidate to defeat a particularly useless Conservative, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn.

First of all, let me say I’d be pleased as punch to see Lunn out of a job. And the Liberals do have a great candidate for the left to unite behind in the riding in the form of a prominent former Green Party activist, Briony Penn. And the arguments made around vote splitting are certainly quite compelling.

But putting aside my partisanship for a moment and speaking more broadly, I have to wonder what the Green Party’s long term game plan is here. The initial May/Dion alliance, which I supported, was about two ridings. It was about getting Elizabeth May into the HoC.

It seems to have sparked discussion about vote splitting across the country though, and while as a Liberal I’m pleased when the discussion benefits my party, it has to be troubling for the Greens.

I don’t have the riding by riding vote totals, but Saanich-Gulf Islands has generally been considered one of the strongest Green ridings in the country, and in past elections has often been mentioned as a riding to watch for a possible Green breakthrough.

Given that, you have to wonder if they might not run a candidate in what may be one of their most winnable ridings, just where are they going to run candidates? And why even run anyone anywhere at all?

In a multi-party, first past the post electoral system votes are going to be split, it’s just the nature of the system. It happened for years with two parties on the right, Reform and Conservative. It will potentially be happening now on the Left with the NDP, Greens and Libs. It sucks, but without a merger or folding that's the way it is.

It may be realpolitik to step aside in contestable ridings like Saanich-Gulf Islands, but I’d wager it would also seem to neuter the effectiveness of the party. A catch-22 perhaps, but there you ago.

Whatever happens in this riding or others, it becomes increasingly obvious what the long term answer is: electoral reform.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You know you arrived when...

...national newspapers do silly features of dubious value on you, such as evaluations of your fitness routines.

Therefore Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May, you have arrived! Congratulations. Peter McKay had better demand equal billing for his walking his rented dog fitness plan or he's in trouble…

Damaged hip dictates a careful routine
Elizabeth May, Green Party of Canada leader

BENJAMIN LESZCZ
From Monday's Globe and Mail
June 25, 2007 at 8:56 AM EDT

My goal
"My right hip is painful from osteoarthritis, and I'm on the wait list for a replacement. My goal is to recover quickly from surgery and get back to the things I love."

My workout
Nearly everyday: 15-minute routine at home consisting of three exercises; pushes legs against the wall; balances on hands and knees and lifts right leg in the air; lies on back and straightens legs in the air (holds all three exercises for 30 seconds each, two to three sets of each).

Health club, weekly: 10 laps in the pool; some weights and a brief ride on the stationary bike.

Monthly massages.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Greens may not field candidate in St. Catherines

It's far from a done deal, but according to a story in the St. Catherines Standard there is a movement afoot amongst local Greens to not field a candidate in the next election, and instead endorse Liberal candidate and former MP Walt Lastewka (h/t Mark).

As the story indicates, Conservative Rick Dykstra beat Lastewka by 246 votes last election, while Green Party candidate Jim Fannon won 2305 votes, more than enough to swing the riding.

Fannon, who is now communications director for the riding association, says he'll present a motion at an upcoming riding motion declaring the riding won't field a candidate in the next campaign. And Fannon would like to see Greens support Lastewka.

“I think this is the kind of motion that will show this is not politics as usual, and that the Green party does do things differently,” Fannon said. “Canadians have recently elected two minority governments. They want parities working together, and that is what this is all about."

It's far from a done deal, and not everyone is supportive. The Green riding president, Sergio Panone, is unhappy with Fannon's idea and the Dion/May deal. Riding CEO Sarah Giovannone also wants to seek the Green nomination herself. She said though that she feels the decision on whether or not to run a Green candidate in St. Catherines should be made locally, not nationally.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers