The Ruskies are coming! Conservative talking-points for stupid people

It's amusing to see the Conservatives attempt to spin the routine intercept of ageing Russian turbo-prop bombers by our young-by-comparison CF-18 jets as proof we need to drop $16 billion without tender or a needs analysis to buy F-35s. Because in fact, when you think about it, these intercepts prove a number of cheaper alternatives may do the job just fine.

The intercepts do show we need a fighter capability. That's not really in doubt though, at least not by anyone likely to be governing any time soon, so let's accept that as a given and move on.

First of all, the fact is these intercepts are routine, and have been ably met by our boys in blue with our current CF-18 force. If the Russians were flying circles around us, flying over Glace Bay with impunity while we were able to do nothing but shake our fists at them, maybe the Conservatives would have a point that we need super-expensive stealth fighters to stop them.

But no, the CF-18 did just fine, thanks. Now, we are going to have to replace them. They're approaching end-of-life in the medium term. The incidents the Conservatives trumpet though illustrate that, having met the threat with current-generation technology, any number of next-generation alternatives cheaper to the F-35 could easily meet this same threat: the revamped F/A-18 SuperHornet, for example (The US Navy is buying them). Or the Eurofighter Typhoon (being bought by the Royal Air Force). Or even the next generation of the F-15, the Silent Eagle, a plane purpose-built for this sort of air superiority mission. All would do this mission, and all would do it cheaper than the F-35.

Contrary to the Conservative talking-points, MacKay and company have actually underscored the Liberal position by creating this drama: the F-35 may well be over-qualified to meet our primary threats, we should do a proper competitive analysis to ensure we're finding the right plane to do the job, and we should put it to public tender to make sure we're getting it at the right price.

And by the by, something that hasn't gotten enough notice: the government hasn't signed a contract yet to buy the F-35s, and won't for a few years. Seems that dog and pony show a few weeks ago was just about getting MacKay's picture taken in a fake jet, and doing some PR for the Pentagon. Which means, the next government can put this thing to a proper tendering process without any penalties or problems.

P.S. I found this very amusing, in a death of my profession sort of way:

The TU-95 bomber, known as the Bear, is capable of carrying nuclear weapons and may have been loaded with warheads on this trip. One military analyst tells QMI Agency the Russians have been known to fly with nukes on board just to flex their muscle and prove to the world they are still a powerful country.

Yes, nukes! They might have had nukes! Build a bombshelter in the basement of your condo, Chad and Buffy! We have no information that they did have nukes, but we won't let that stop us from speculating baselessly, because that's what good journalism is all about.

Also, the Bear might have had a cargo of angry, rabid bears. Or cute, cuddly kittens. Or, NUKES! We. Just. Don't. Know.

Fox News North. We speculate, you decide.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More Greg Weston hackery

I could probably do a scathing blog post each time Sun Media columnist/Conservative propagandist Greg Weston does a column. That would get tiring though, so I’ll save my ire for when he really annoys me, like when he implied Ontarioins and women are twits.

Or when he so dishonestly distorts facts its laughable, like he did today in his latest anti-Dion screed. There’s much I could object too, but in the interests of brevity I’ll focus on this section:

Dion talks about the coming year as a "whole new ballgame," and his supporters promise his leadership will undergo an extreme makeover.

There is certainly no shortage of precedents for mid-term political rebirths -- Stockwell Day, Joe Clark, Preston Manning, John Turner, to name a few. But perhaps worth noting is that none ever went on to win a national election.

Yeah, and here’s two that did Gregory: Jean Chretien and your matinee idol, Stephen Harper. Do you really think just naming people that support your statement while ignoring the very obvious choices that don’t is going to convince anyone? That goes beyond intellectual dishonesty to just plain silliness, not to mention really sub-par propagandizing.

It would be like be saying "there have certainly been no shortage of Conservative/Alliance party leaders -- Kim Campbell, Peter McKay, Stockwell Day, to name a few. But perhaps worth noting is that none ever went on to win a national election."

Perhaps more worth noting is that you are a hack, Greg.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Women and Ontarioins are twits, says Sun columnist?

While blaming everyone else for your shortcomings and refusing to look inward is certainly not a problem unique to conservatives by any means, they do it so well, and with such disdain and hatred, that they really do deserve special recognition.

The phenomenon is typified by a recent Sun Media column by Greg Weston. It’s on the recent SES poll results, and our dear Greg is just plum confused.

As you may recall, on the best PM side it was very bad news for the Liberals. Harper is well out in front at 37 per cent, Layton 17 per cent, Dion 13 per cent. I may explore that embarrassing result at length later, when I have ready access to hard liquor. But also telling were the horserace numbers which show a virtual tie, at Cons 35 per cent, Libs 34 per cent, NDP 17 per cent.

An interesting dichotomy there, obviously, between those two sets of numbers. You can see why Gregory may be confused. What does Greg do when he’s confused? He lashes out wildly and incoherently. Take the headline of his column: True Grits or twits? Ontario loyal to federal Liberals, despite qualms about Dion.

From there Weston expands on his thesis, at best stretching the numbers to explain how everybody dislikes Dion. Really Greg, these numbers are bad enough without you fiddling with them. Then he goes on to dismiss the horserace numbers saying “as always” they’re not the real story (because they’re not positive for the Conservatives, that is). Anything that doesn’t fit the narrative gets ignore. These guys also ignored the Mulroney story until the very last minute.

Anyway, Weston does ask the right question, or at least raise the right issue. After dissecting the leadership numbers, he writes:

Yet, if an election were held today, the same poll of the same voters shows the Liberals led by Dion would be in a virtual dead heat with Harper's Tories.

Indeed, and that has to be maddening for the Conservatives. You’d think a seasoned political columnist and pundit might draw from their breadth of experience to examine that seeming disconnect. Why aren’t Harper’s popularity numbers translating into ballot support? Why, despite misgivings about Dion, are Liberals not shifting their support to the Cons, NDP or Greens? What do the Conservatives need to do to break though here?

That would be interesting political commentary, and, from a Conservative point of view, useful introspection.

Instead, Weston decides to lash-out. First target? Women, who are more likely to vote Liberal:

If it were up to Canadian women, the Liberals would form a minority government and Dion would be the next prime minister.

Go figure.

Yeah Greg, women, tell me about it. But did you ever consider, perhaps the problem isn’t with women, but that the Conservatives haven’t been speaking to issues of importance to women? Nah, that can’t be it. It’s the women’s fault.

The real hatred though, as it so often was with the old Reform crowd, is reserved for the women (and men) of Ontario:

But it is in Ontario that we find what we unscientifically call the fence-post syndrome -- as in the Liberals could be led by one and still get elected.

It doesn't seem to matter that only 18 out of the 1004 voters surveyed by SES thought Dion was a "good leader."

The SES-Sun Media survey shows that in a race to the ballot box, the Liberals would command 43% of the vote, a full 11 points ahead of Harper and the Conservatives.

Since Ontario has more than a third of all the seats in Parliament, the current level of Liberal support in the province would make it virtually impossible for Harper to come anywhere close to winning a majority.

Probably explains this decision, no? But anyway, back to Greg:

No wonder Western voters look east and throw up their hands in despair.

Yeah, you suck Ontario! Oh, wait, I live here now too. Actually, doesn’t Weston too? Maybe he’s a self-hating Ontarioin.

Now, if I was to make any kind of comment questioning why Albertans persist in electing anyone with a pulse as long as they’re conservative I’d be accused of some kind of racial bias. I mean, imagine, for a second, that, let’s say, the Toronto Star ran a headline implying Albertans are twits, Mein gott, the wacko outrage would make that silly Harper tells cities drop dead nonsense look like a tea party. But Ontario bashing, it seems, is perfectly acceptable.

And it’s wholly counterproductive to their cause. It’s like a toddler that didn’t get what it wants banging its fists and having a tantrum.

Again, Weston has identified the problem. Ontarians don’t like the Conservatives. Rather than having a tantrum though and blaming Ontario, wouldn’t it make more sense to consider why? It’s not because we’re evil. Could it, perhaps, be that we have serious issues with the Conservatives? Could it, perhaps, be Harper’s failure to address these issues that explains his poor showing here?

To be frank though, I’m perfectly happy for the Cons to keep blaming everyone but themselves for their inability to break into majority territory, to not have the support of women, and to be losing ground in Ontario. Because if they stopped lashing-out, they might actually solve the problem.

So carry on my conservative friends, forget I mentioned it...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Win Paul Jackson's money!

Yes, that's right readers, you (yes you!) can win Calgary Sun columnist Paul Jackson's money! Or, more specifically, his RRSP package. I'm not sure of its size but I'm sure it has lots of oil stocks and hey, free money!

All you have to do is answer this simple little question Paul posed in his column this morning:

Chretien stood for nothing at all, except Jean Chretien. If you can name one substantial achievement during his term, I'll hand over my RRSP package to you.

So, dear readers, there's the challenge. I'd take up Paul's challenge myself but I'm reasonably certain my Lotto 649 retirement plan is going to pay off big time, and so I'm going to share the wealth.

Can you name one substantial achievement during Chretien's term (note to Conservative friends, I don't think Paul will accept adscam as an answer here, needs to be positive, be serious if you really want Paul Jackson's money) or even more than one? If so, post it in the comments section and answer the skill testing question*. I'll forward a list to Paul and I'm sure a cheque will soon be in the mail to the lucky reader.

Here's a hint of one possible achievement to get you started: rhymes with valanced vudget.

*Skill testing question: 27+14-5/6=?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers