Newman vs. Duffy, and a room full of zombies, on the Liberal Party of Canada

Last weekend I watched season 14 of South Park, and in a run of super hero episodes they introduced a character called Captain Hindsight. Basically, he flies in at a time of crisis and tells them what they should have done to avoid it, once it’s already obvious. For some inexplicable reason this character came to mind as I listen to Peter C. Newman speak last night.

Newman’s latest tome, which you may have seen some media coverage of, posits the death of the Liberal Party of Canada after Newman shadowed former leader Michael Ignatieff for much of his tenure. Newman took part in a discussion Tuesday evening at the Toronto Reference Library, with TVO’s Steve Paikin moderating and Liberal strategist/author John Duffy providing a Liberal counterpoint to Newman’s pronouncement of death.

Newman’s thesis actually benefits greatly from hindsight, as he began this book-writing exercise believing Ignatieff was coming home to Canada on the wings of angels and would be welcomed with open arms by grateful Canadians, a triumphant road to Sussex drive he would chronicle in his latest book. When reality turned out somewhat different, he reversed his thesis and pronounced the party’s rot deep and lengthy and obvious and its future undoubtedly dead. He apparently does nothing half-way, this guy.

If I had asked a question last night, it would have been why were you so wrong with your initial thesis, and if you got that so wrong, what makes you think you’re right now? But while the truth likely lays somewhere between those two extremes, moderate positions don’t sell books.

Iggy-bash 2011

Anyway, the discussion began focused on Ignatieff and I thought it was a rather unfair and unfortunate gang-up, with even people in the crowd snickering as both Newman and Duffy took shots at the former leader. Was Igg’s elitist Harvard out of the country background simply unrecoverable for political Igg, Newman was asked? No doubt, he replied. Of course, the fact Peter thought the exact opposite going into the project is left unsaid.

I found Newman’s rant against intellectuals and the establishment refreshing, as no one represents the anti-intellectual, anti-establishment Canadian better than Peter C. Newman. Amusing that as he ranted against current Liberal elites he expressed longing for the Liberal elites of the 60s, but of course they weren’t elitists but good guys all. Maybe his issue shouldn’t be with elitists, but with incompetent elitists.

Newman says he has “discovered” the Liberal Party actually had tons of money ($23 million, to be precise) that it could have used to fight the Ignatieff-defining attack ads. Maybe it’s stashed behind the drywalls at Metcalfe, but I’m confused. Given that the time frame he referenced is “when the election started” maybe he’s confusing some fictional slush fund with the money saved to, you know, run the election campaign. Anyway, he also wants to get rid of the LPC’s provincial and territorial associations and has no time for the commissions either, seeing them all as money drains and power fiefdoms.

Other Igg observations from Newman: all of his leadership he only talked to Liberals (if only all those people were Liberals, Peter), he never caught on to the dark side of politics (like giving Peter access to write a book?) and he absolves Ian Davey for Ignatieff’s downfall and blames Peter Donolo. I have no desire to wade into such inside baseball mud-slinging, so I’ll just say there’s blame for everyone and leave it at that.

Before we move away from Ignatieff, let me just say I found the snark and derision around the analysis of his tenure at this event, and not just from Newman, to be unfair and inaccurate. I was never a true-believer myself, not like I was with Stephane Dion who I supported in 2005. I supported Michael in 2008 because he was the best candidate on offer. But whatever his decisions and despite how it turned out, he was a good and honest man who came into politics with the best of intentions. One incident is illustrative for me. During his tenure he was being pressured by party strategists to flip-flop and stand in opposition to the Afghanistan mission, because they had polling that showed such a reversal would poll well with key segments of Canadians. He refused; he genuinely believed staying in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people may not be popular or politically expedient, but it was the morally correct thing to do. And while these strategists would later savage him for it, whether or not I agree with his decision I find it hard to faulta leader for putting conviction ahead of opportunism.

The Liberal decline and fall

Moving past Ignatieff’s tenure to the longer Liberal decline, I found Newman’s analysis interesting since he apparently didn’t see a decline until a few months ago. In fact, many of his comments and observations led me to place even less confidence in his thesis.

For example, he pined for the Liberal“glory days” of the 1960s and seemed to view the decline as a more recent phenomenon, perhaps to 2000 or so. If you look only superficially at election results, sure. But the previous results were masked by any number of factors, such as a divided-right. Duffy was right in saying a more accurate analysis would trace back to those glory days Newman fondly remembers, when Trudeau lost the West and power became more and more centralized with group of smartie-pants elitists (the ones Peter likes), allowing a deep rot to set in.

As another example, Newman also declared Liberal infighting began with Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. I think I literally laughed out loud at that one. Has he never heard of John Turner, who Chretien battled with mightily, setting the stage for the next generation as the former Turnerites became Martinites bent on revenge? I think you can actually trace it all back to Wilfrid Laurier not tipping 15 per cent at a tavern in 1888. A newish phenomenon it’s not.

I started agreeing with Duffy now more than I did during the Ignatieff analysis (when he pointed-out several times he sat that period out and was a Rae man in 2005). He said Liberals have lost touch with their core constituency by constantly swerving for flavour of the month policy and not standing for anything consistently. The LPC, said Duffy, became to be seen not as a movement but as a vehicle for electing people that you could slap any coat of paint on you wanted.

I wholeheartedly agree. People can tell when you’re faking it and don’t really have any core beliefs, and sincerity is hard to fake. The first part of our rebuilding must be figuring out who we are, what we believe in and what we want to do. Until we do that, all the fancy primaries in the world aren't going to interest Canadians.

Paikin piped-in with a quote from Trudeau-era elite Ray Hard (who was apparently in the crowd) blaming all Liberal woes on the “Earnscliffe boys” (aka Paul Martin supporters). I think this quote was demonstrative in a way that Paikin, and certainly not Heard, may not have intended. Such infighting and finger-pointing, Ray, is the real problem.

But back to baffling arguments from Newman, he told us the reason Liberals can’t raise any money is because people expect pork like ambassadorships for their donation and LPC has none to dispense anymore. Apparently no one told Peter that corporate donations were banned years ago, personal donations capped at just over $1000, and most Conservative donations are around $20. Are all those $20 donors expecting Senate appointments, Peter?

Paikin asked the room if Dalton McGuinty, the most electorally successful Liberal in the country at the moment (and a compelling counter-point to the zombie party hypothesis) could save the federal party as leader. The room was un-enthused. This shouldn’t be taken as a lack of love for Dalton. I think he’d do a great job, and while there’s no earthly reason why he’s want to run but if he did, I may well support him, the fact is no leader is going to save the Liberal Party. The LPC will be saved by its members, or it won’t be. It’s that simple. No messiahs.

The future

Newman has to sell books, but while he had some prescient observations I found his thesis to have more holes than Swiss cheese and his analysis superficial and often farcically wrong. Are the Liberals a dead party walking? Maybe. But we’re not dead yet, and any obituaries are rather premature. The next chapter won’t be written by Newman, but by the party itself, based on the decisions we as members and supporters make in these next few years. Only time will tell.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Bubble-boy Stephen Harper chickens out of his own debate challenge

If you thought that Stephen Harper's move Wednesday to challenge Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to debate mano-a-mano was an odd play by the Conservatives, it will soon make a little more sense. After the news that the shadowy "broadcast consortium" has ruled-out a head to head bout which I mentioned earlier, now the truth seems to be coming out: it was all a Conservative fake, and Harper is too chicken to really take on Ignatieff solo.

Paul Wells has the scoop, via Twitter (and Wherry):

Liberals wanted SH-MI debate in addition to 4-leader. Conservatives proposed replacing 4-leader with 2-leader debate. Libs declined.

CTV's Robert Fife also tweets the Conservative backd0wn:

Robert Fife
Tory campaign insiders say Harper won't take up Ignatieff challenge of separate one on one TV debate. #elxn41 #cdnpoli

The Conservative strategy is now abundantly clear: they never wanted Ignatieff to accept the challenge and were determined to put blocks in place to make sure he didn't. Realistically, any debate had to be in addition to the full leader's debate; not in replacement of it. It makes no sense and it's fundamentally undemocratic to exclude the other parties from having any debates. 

There's no way the Conservatives ever seriously expected the Liberals to agree to jettison the major parties debate; their offer simply wasn't genuine. Harper doesn't really want to get into a one-on-one debate with Ignatieff; it's just too much risk for someone running a bubble-boy campaign. If we had three debates, one in each language for the major parties and a bilingual Harper/Ignatieff tilt, it's too much risk for the bubble campaign. Angry Steve may make an untimely appearance.

Here's a statement from Ignatieff on the issue:

“I look forward to debating the federal party leaders on April 12 and 14. I am disappointed, however, by the broadcasters’ consortium’s decision to exclude Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from the debate. The Liberal Party of Canada advocated for her inclusion in negotiations with the consortium.

“Now that the broadcasters’ consortium has chosen their dates for the multi-party debate, I reiterate my challenge to Mr. Harper: I am ready and willing to debate him one-on-one – any time, any place.

“Mr. Harper expressed his desire to debate me as the leader of the only party that can replace him in government. All that remains is to agree upon a time and place – and many respected potential hosts have offered to assist.

“A one-on-one debate with Mr. Harper should not replace multi-party leaders’ debates. A real debate is needed, however, on the different visions of leadership between the only two people with a real opportunity to become prime minister of this country at the end of this election.”

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Who cares what the "broadcast consortium" says?

Following up on my post Wednesday about Stephen Harper challenging Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to a one-on-one debate, and Ignatieff telling him he'll debate Harper "any time, any place" the secret cabal of media executives known as the shadowy "media consortium" met and decided no no, that just won't do:

Canada’s broadcasters have ruled out a face-off between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff and will exclude the Green Party from the upcoming official election debates.

The decision to carry debates involving only the leaders of the four main parties in Parliament follows a public battle between the Conservative and Liberal leaders, but also controversial backroom dealings between the country’s major television stations and four biggest political parties. After hours of private and public discussions on Wednesday, the consortium of broadcasters announced a late-night agreement by issuing an ultimatum to the representatives of the four parties, a source involved in the discussions said.

Yeah, I'm sorry but frankly, I could give a flying crap what the "broadcast consortium" has to say about it, and I know where they can stick their supposed "veto." A bunch of backroom media execs don't get to decide this. There are only two parties in this election with a chance of forming a government, and only two leaders that could become Prime Minister. Canadians deserve the chance to see Ignatieff and Harper go one on one and decide who has the best vision and the best plan for Canada.

Book a studio, put up two podiums and plug-in a sound board. I guarantee it will end up on TV, no matter what the "consortium" has to say about it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Moving past the coalition on day one

It's only day one of this election campaign but we're well into year five of the permanent campaign, which perhaps is why while Michael Ignatieff's Liberals released a statement ruling-out a coalition after the next election before Stephen Harper even made it to Rideau Hall this morning to pull the plug on this Parliament and officially begin the 41st general election in Canada's history, it still felt like an overdue move.

Still, getting it out of the way on day one had to be done. It had become a media pre-occupation the last few day. Here's a snippet of the statement, which I think is about a clear as we could hope for under the circumstances:

Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government.

(snip)

We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties. In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function.

We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois.

Seems pretty dammed clear to me. No to a coalition. The party gets that gets the most seats gets to form the government. If the Liberals are called on to form a minority government, they'll govern just like past Liberal governments have done, and just like the last Conservative government has done (but slightly less arrogantly, I trust): seeking support from the other parties in the house on a case-by-case basis.

Let's pause briefly on policy and democracy. It's a shame Ignatieff has to explicitly rule out a coalition. They are a perfectly legitimate constitutional option, and I'm glad the statement makes that point. The Conservatives have deliberately confused and misled to such a point that the well is poisoned and it's a shame, because our democracy suffers as a result of the ignorance they stoke for their narrow political ends. They erode trust in our democratic institutions, and we all suffer for that.

And really, what could be more symbolic for the attitude of this Harper Government? A coalition is about cooperation, about different groups working together for a common goal. And the Conservatives have made cooperation a dirty word. Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

As for the politics, I think this settles the issue for most people, at least those who would be open to considering us in the first place. The media interest will fade out and the pack will move on. I hear they actually gave Harper a rough time on this at his five-question presser this morning.

The Conservatives, of course, will still keep harping (sorry) on this theme. Even if the media won't amplify it, their speeches and ad buys and their surrogates will keep spreading the secret evil voodoo coalition boogedy-boo. But I'm doubtful how effective running around calling Ignatieff a liar will be.

There is a certain irony though. A few elections back Harper knew the abortion question would be a big barrier to him breaking-through. The Liberals warned of a hidden agenda. On day one of the campaign, Harper came out and addressed it: I will do nothing on (edited: same sex marriage) . It settled the question, and let him move on to other issues. Now, Ignatieff has ruled-out a coalition on day one, and it's Harper warning people of a Liberal hidden agenda.

If Harper wants to keep reversing roles, I hear Stornaway is pretty nice... :)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives attack Michael Ignatieff’s late father and grandfather

At this point we’ve nearly become immune to the personal attacks that regularly spew forth from the teenaged frat boys running the Conservative war room and the prime minister’s office. Perhaps that’s why they felt compelled to lower their attacks to a disgusting new level recently by attacking the dead relatives of their opponents.

It started on Friday afternoon, when the Liberals released a positive web video where Ignatieff talks about his family, and specifically his father, and how their immigrant experience shaped his outlook and political philosophy.

Pretty boilerplate stuff, but good to do: people want to get a sense of who their leaders are, where they come from and what they’re about. It goes to building trust in their ability to make decisions and lead based on their values and background.

For the Conservatives, though, this was an opportunity to attack not just Ignatieff, but his late father and grandfather. Just hours after the release of the video the teenagers at CPC HQ had an attack up on their web site and distributed to the press, and it was a bizarre one.

Basically, they seem to believe there are different categories of immigrants, and that Ignatieff’s family don’t count as real immigrants or something. Yes, the government that has made reaching out to new Canadians a cornerstone of their political strategy now believes apparently that some classes of immigrants are “more Canadian” than others. How else to take their "child of immigrants?" banner than to conclude they're saying he's not really the child of immigrants, or at least not ones that count?

Their poorly researched attack basically boils down to this: they believe Ignatieff lied or exaggerated about the finances of his family when they immigrated to Canada, claiming a false poverty to make his story more sympathetic. The Conservatives then go on at length to try to paint the immigrating Ignatieffs as some kind of elitist Richie riches weren’t “typical immigrants” and go on to attack his family history at length.

First of all, their supporting evidence for exaggeration is dubious at best and more likely outright distortion. Fleeing the Russian revolution, Ignatieff’s ancestors first landed in England. They did bring some wealth with them to England, and all the examples in the Conservative hit piece actually refer to this. They apparently lost most or all in England, and when Ignatieff’s father immigrated to Canada has a teenager, he was indeed of little to no means, as Ignatieff said. The Conservatives are trying to obfuscate and distort the record. As Ed Broadbent rightly said, they lie.

But moreover, this is a completely asinine attack for the Conservatives to make, going after someone’s family, their deceased ancestors, I mean, is this is what politics has come to, doing opposition research on the families, living and dead, of your political opponents? What's next, a time machine to gather dirt on someone's unborn great-great grandchildren? Bob Rae's descendants side with Alpha Centuri in the great space wars of 2245!

Sadly, this is part of a pattern for the Conservatives and their supporters. They’ve launched hit pieces on Ignatieff’s grandfather. Cabinet ministers (the guy responsible for ethnic outreach, ironically) openly mock his wife’s name as funny-sounding. They mocked Stephane Dion because his wife didn’t take his name. And their blog trolls regularly spread innuendo about Ignatieff’s family life.

I really wonder how they’re able to morally justify such behaviour. How do they go home for dinner with their family, and explain to their kids how they spent their day? I mean, we’re all people. Yes, we disagree on a menu of policy issues, and I relish frank and fulsome debate on those issues. But I don’t hate those that disagree with me. From many Conservatives, though, it seems to be different. They don’t just disagree with their opponents, they hate them, and once you pass that point you can justify any revulsion in service of some supposed greater good.

Oh, they try to lamely justify it. He made his family fair game by talking about them in the video, they say. Oh really? Well, Stephen Harper has used his wife and children in Conservative advertising regularly. And while Conservative logic would allow it, I’m sorry but that does not mean opposition parties are free to start digging into his children’s lives. Some things are off limits, period, and that really shouldn’t have to be explained.

Even on purely political grounds, this seems like a pretty stupid move for the Harperites. The #cdnpoli stream exploded Friday night in revulsion at the Con attack; Canadians know when the line is crossed, and they don’t support this style of politics. And implicit in the Con attack is the message that some immigrants count more than others. How do they now go to campaign in immigrant communities having sent such a message? How do people who came to Canada under the immigrant investor class, a category the government is promoting which requires a set wealth level, respond to the Conservatives telling them they’re not real immigrants, that they don’t count? Yes, bring your money to Canada and invest, but we think you're elitist jerks, is that the message we're sending?

Lastly, let’s remember just who the Conservatives are attacking here as not a real immigrant. In fact, George Ignatieff’s biography reads like the kind of success story every immigrant would aspire to. At least Heritage Canada seems to think so, even if the Haperites disagree.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Videos: More about Michael

I'm hearing positive reviews from non-partisans who have seen the new Liberal ads in the field, particularly the one where Michael Ignatieff talks about the economy.

These two videos won't be on TV, but they do put Ignatieff out there talking about himself and his vision for Canada. This is the kind of thing we need to keep doing if Ignatieff is going to have a chance of finally connected with Canadians.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Breaking the pattern. Or not.

Another poll out there showing an unfavourable situation for the Liberal Party, and for Michael Ignatieff, generating the usual reaction on all sides. Other recent polls have been equally unfavourable, others slightly less so. Still, some undeniable patterns have emerged, and they’re worth considering briefly.

What the polls, particularly the leadership figures, show largely is the power of multi-million dollar ad buys. Advertising can work, particularly when the buy is massive and you’re the only ones doing the talking. Thanks to their massive fundraising advantage over the other parties, but particularly the Liberals who, years later, still haven’t adjusted to the no longer new fundraising regime, the Conservatives enjoy the ability to negatively define their opponents with an advertising blitz, knowing their opponents don’t have the ability to effectively counter-punch.

Leadership numbers can be over-hyped, but they shouldn’t be dismissed. They’re not everything – the NDP likes to trumpet Jack Layton’s high leadership numbers, but they’re not giving much air to NDP support numbers: Jack raises the brand, but only so far. Leadership numbers can be a drag on party support numbers though, and we’re definitely seeing that. We may elect 308 MPs but in Canadian politics, leaders matter.

Now, we can bemoan the situation. We can call for intra-election spending caps. Campaign finance reform. We can release attack ads attacking attack ads. It does nothing to change the reality: the ad advantage this fundraising gap enables allows the Conservatives to go into any election campaign with a built-in advantage, and forces their opponents to always have to play from behind. And whining ain’t gonna change anything. People are tuned-out from politics, they are influenced by ads, and that’s that. (Though we should really figure out how to raise money one of these days)

We saw the pattern before with Stephane Dion, and we’re seeing it again with Michael Ignatieff. Going into an election handicapped is a burden, but it’s not an insurmountable one. Between elections, the Conservative money advantage is formidable. But the spending caps of the campaign period are a leveler and more people tune in to see what’s what, if only briefly.

So while they tune in with a pre-conceived negative notion of the opposition leader that needs to be overcome, one of two things will happen. Either what they see from the leader will reinforce the negative preconceptions forged by advertising, or it will shatter their preconceptions and lead to a re-evaluation by voters.

It can go either way. With Dion, while he improved as the campaign went on, his poor skills as a retail politician on the trail played into the negative narrative the Conservatives had planted with their pre-writ ads, and the perception was cemented in the minds of Canadians. When the next campaign begins, it will be up to Michael Ignatieff what story is written. Lowered expectations are great, and the public’s expectations of him couldn’t be much lower, but they’re only great if you can beat them.

It can go either way. But it’s important to emphasize it CAN go either way. So I don’t worry that much about every poll, although of course I am disappointed we’re not doing better. But I think we’re doing the right things on the opposition front, we’re making the right moves on the policy front, and we’re doing the right things on the organizational front. And I believe Michael Igntieff will prove to be a formidable campaigner, and he’ll surprise some people.

Once we’re into a campaign, we’ll either break the pattern, or we won’t. Until then, talk is cheap.

Well, for the governing party, at least.

(Photo source)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jim Flaherty muses about increasing taxes

As part of the Conservative government's plan to try to convince Canadians that we should spend money we don't have to give big corporations tax breaks, instead of investing in ordinary Canadians, finance minister Jim Flaherty had a press conference this morning.

Postmedia journalist Andrew Mayeda was there, and he shares this excerpt from Flaherty's response to a question if the Conservative government would ever consider a tax increase down the road. I've boldedthe relevant portion.

"Our plan actually is to continue to reduce taxes over time in Canada. We've reduced business taxes significantly, and our plan continues in that regard. We've reduced the federal consumption tax, the GST, as we promised we would ... We've done some tax reductions on personal income taxes. Quite frankly, we'd like to do more over time, so that's the direction we want to go. What we're seeing in the economy is moderate growth. It's not dramatic, but it is steady. And we expect that to continue over the medium term. You know, given what we've all been through around the world in the last few years, I would never presume to say 'never' in terms of a very substantial economic shock where we'd have to have one. And there are risks in the world, with respect to Europe, with respect to relative weakness in the U.S. economy, with respect to some global imbalances that I'm sure we'll be talking about at the world economic forum (in Davos, Switzerland) the next few days. That's not the expectation. The expectation is that we'll have continued moderate economic growth and continued tax reductions over time."

Now, let me say first that, as a realistic and reasonable person, I think this is a perfectly acceptable and realistic answer. We don't know what the future may hold. Making definitive statements on hypotheticals is a fool's game. You can tell someone what you know they want to hear, but it wouldn't be honest. It's entirely possible that a scenario could arise where, to maintain programs, a tax increase may need to be considered.

So I think Flaherty's answer, which I'd sum up as "we're not planning to and we don't want to, but I won't say never ever," is the correct one.

But here's the thing. A few years ago Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was asked a similar sort of hypothetical. In short, the question was if the sky is falling and you had a massive deficit, would you maybe consider a tax increase? His answer, like Flaherty's, was that that wouldn't be his first choice, it's not his plan, but he wouldn't rule anything out.

And the Conservatives have been dining out on that answer ever since. In their most recent round of attack ads, once focused entirely on taxes, centred around a quote form Ignatieff that he won't take a tax increase "off the table."

So would it now be fair to see ads on how Jim Flaherty is going to raise your taxes, or is the sauce not as good for the goose as it is for the gander?

I look forward to the creative and entertaining rationalizations on how the Ignatieff and Flaherty situations are completely different. Don't disappoint me, friends.

UPDATE: In the interest of fairness, I should say that Mayeda reports Flaherty's office is crying, surprise surprise, that he was "misinterpeted." Reports Mayeda:

In an email, a spokesman for Flaherty said the minister meant that he would never rule out another big economic shock. I suppose it depends on how you interpret the word "one," which I took to stand for "tax hike." But fair enough.

Mark me down as unconvinced. The question was about ruling out a tax increase. Flaherty posited the hypothetical of another economic shock, and said he wouldn't rule it out. Look at the main line here again:

You know, given what we've all been through around the world in the last few years, I would never presume to say 'never' in terms of a very substantial economic shock where we'd have to have one.

Now, it seems pretty clear to me that by "have one" Flaherty means a tax increase. But he now wants us to believe one means economic shock.

Tell me, which sentence makes more sense?

A) I would never presume to say 'never' in terms of a very substantial economic shock where we'd have to have an economic shock.

B) I would never presume to say 'never' in terms of a very substantial economic shock where we'd have to have a tax increase.

Yeah, I'm not buying Jim. You had a moment of honesty. Own it. Don't piss on my trouser and tell me it's raising.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals need to stay focused

It’s a widely held, and pretty accurate, theory that every Liberal believes themselves to be a communications expert, and are overly focused on the air war to the near virtual exclusion of where elections are primarily fought (and won): on the ground, face to face and door to door.

I think the Conservatives had many motivations and goals when they released their personally-negative attacks ads yesterday. I don’t know if setting the cat among the Liberal pigeons was one of them, but it may well have been and I’m sure they wouldn’t object if that’s one of the results.

I’m seeing many Liberals frantically demanding the party “forcefully respond” to the Conservative attack ads. And I’m reading many media pundits and other assorted “experts” counseling it is “critical” that the Liberals respond to the Conservative attack ads, or the sky will fall and what not.

Respond how? These experts have no ideas or suggestions. But the Liberals had better respond, er, um, somehow! Or else bad stuff, etc.

Of course, these are the same experts that routinely chide the Liberals for being too focused on the air war and not, oh, let’s say, touring 20 target ridings across Canada and recruiting an impressive roster of star candidates.

Which, incidentally, is exactly what the Liberals have quietly been doing. After a summer spent on the road, Michael Ignatieff followed it up with a series of “Open Mike” town halls in the fall. And right now, he’s on a whirlwind tour of 20 target ridings across the country.

At the same time, the Liberals are quietly recruiting an impressive roster of so-called star candidates (I dislike the term, but whatchya gonna do?), as Steve noted on the weekend. New Liberal candidates (or nomination contestants) include former Military Police Complaints Commission chair Peter Tinsley, and former McGuinty cabinet ministers Peter Fonseca and Marie Bountrogianni, to name but three.

We’ve seen a more confident and comfortable Ignatieff getting a very positive reaction on the ground, as people see he’s not the caricticure of Conservative ads. We’ve seen positive reaction to focused Liberal policy announcements on pensions, health and home care, and education, to name but a few. And we’ve seen the Liberals begin to articulate a clear choice between themselves and the Conservatives (fighter jets and prisons vs. health care, education and pensions) and begin to set a ballot question (are you better off after five years of the Conservatives?).

It all adds up to the Liberals doing the hard work on the ground that they need to do if they’re going to have success in a future election campaign. Will it pay off right away in poll movement? Probably not. I wouldn’t expect to see much poll movement before the campaign; this is laying the ground work you need to have future success, and be in a position to capitalize with opportunity presents or opponents mistep. As long as we’re within striking distance going into the campaign, I’m happy. We need to be patient.

And that’s my non-expert advice for Liberals here: stay patient. We’re on the right track, and the work we’re doing will pay dividends in the long run if we stay focused. Let’s keep executing on our strategy, and not get distracted by reacting to Conservative ads and going on defence.

If someone has some ideas for the critical “forceful reaction” that is being called for, I’m all ears. But I’m not sure our own negative ads are called for right now, nor would our own positive ads necessarily be effective (although I could be convinced).

I still maintain, though, that the best way to counter the negative caricature of Ignatieff that the Conservatives portray in their ads is for him to keep going out there, meet Canadians, and prove that caricature wrong. Surpass their lowered expectations, provide a credible alternative, and we'll do well.

And in the mean time, keep skating...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Everybody needs to pause, take a deep breath, and relax

Sometimes the partisanship really does get ridiculous. I’d say it’s a product of perpetual minorities, but I’m reasonably certain that the partisanship has always been pretty ridiculous and any memories of a golden era of peace and love are illusory.

Some of the worst partisanship revolves around the most trivial of events, like music. And everyone, from partisans of all stripes to the press gallery, is guilty of overdoing it. I bring this up, of course, because of Stephen Harper’s “rock concert” last night at the Conservative Christmas party on Ottawa. It was somewhat bemusing to watch it unfold on Twitter last night, and then read the flurry of coverage this morning.

It’s all rather over the top. Conservatives say it’s a master-stroke that shows Harper’s regular guy awesomeness. Some of my Liberal friends are all in a lather, calling it a cynically-staged photo-op by a guy who can’t sing. And the media are all in a tizzy giving it wide coverage and, of course, asking how this all impacts the horse race and election timing. (Because everything is about election timing to our media friends.)

The worst is this so-called “senior Ignatieff official” who, if they do really exist and hold a senior position, should be moved to a job that involves neither talking to the media or communications strategy of any kind, because these have got to be some of the stupidest comments I’ve read in years:

“Not even one song in French,” a senior Ignatieff official told The Globe and Mail on Thursday morning. “One week after Quebec’s artistic elite (over 100 songwriters and singers) came to Parliament Hill on C-32. It shows that he is clueless about Quebec culture.”

Dude. Senior whoever the hell you are. Seriously, you need to get a life. Do yourself a favour and get out of Ottawa, because you seem completely clueless about what people really give a shit about.

And as passionately as the partisans of varying stripes hold their positions on Harper’s rock show, they all probably had the exactly opposite reaction when Bob Rae, for example, did his piano man thing earlier this year. Liberals lapped it up, great show and all that. I posted the video, and I still get comments months later on it from Conservatives saying he’s a crappy performer who should stick to his day job. Their hostility was fierce.

Or when Michael Ignatieff danced for Much Music – un-priministerial and not a leader, the Conservatives huffed.

The problem with blind partisanship is that it blinds everyone’s judgment, and leads to a tendency to blow things out of proportion on both sides. My side’s goals are just, so anything we do in their pursuit is peachy, and the other guys are evil, so anything they do is wrong. And as David Akin pointed-out, it forces politicians to act like robotic automatons to avoid the inevitable attacks.

It's a war room mentality, and it's the same no matter who is running it. Everything is an opportunity to attack, to oppose, to advance the agenda. I know applying the "if you don't have anything nice to say" rule to politics would be ridiculous, but knowing when to hold your powder is important.

People need to just breathe. So Harper played some songs at a Conservative Christmas party, and the room of party loyalists loved it. Good for him. It has no deeper meaning. Was it a coincidence the media were there? Probably not. (I'd have not invited the media, but make sure someone got it with a Flip camera and let social media take it viral, myself.) Were they hoping for positive coverage? Probably. But who cares. Everyone is hoping for positive coverage.

They had a fun night, and that’s all it is.

The Conservatives shouldn’t pretend its step one to a majority.

The Liberals should focus more on having more fun nights of their own.

And the media should leave trivialities to lighter-side briefs or too much information segments and spend more of their time reporting on issues more substantive than Christmas parties or Caribana dances.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Lamoureux and Ignatieff chat with 2100 Winnipegers

The tele-townhall last night with Winnipeg-North Liberal candidate Kevin Lamoureux and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was for the residents of Winnipeg-North, but I got a chance to listen-in on the questions and answers. And as I’ve said before, it’s always informative to see the questions regular Canadians ask when they have the opportunity to question politicians without the media filter.

And this tele-townhall format is pretty cool. It’s been all the rage lately. They were a big part of the successful Rob Ford mayoral campaign in Toronto, and other municipal campaigns used them too. The Liberal candidate for Vaughan, Tony Genco, had one recently with over 8700 participants. How it works is an automated call goes to residents in the geographic area, and they’re invited to participate. If they accept, they’re put into the live townhall, and get the opportunity to ask a question and listen to the questions and answers of others.

Lamoureux’s tele-townhall Wednesday with Ignatieff for Winnipeg-North residents was a definite success, with many diverse questions during the one-hour session and more people waiting on the line that there wasn’t time to get to. Over 2100 people listened-in on the townhall, and I counted at least 16 questions asked and answered.

(I might add that while Lamoureux and Genco are reaching-out to thousands of Canadians, their respective Conservative opponents are in hiding and skipping all candidates meetings.)

The topics were diverse. Crime was probably the top issue, but there were also a couple of questions on education, the economy and deficit reduction. Some questions were pointed and some of the answers weren’t always what the questioners wanted to hear, but it was a very civil and social exchange. This kind of tool is going to be big in the next election.

Crime

Questioners wanted to know about specific measures to combat crime.

Lamoureux said crime is definitely the number one issue at the door. People have the right to feel safe in their homes but sadly we have too much crime and measure must be taken. He noted he was the only local politician who petitioned against the closure of the local community police office when it was closed, and he said we need to get more people and police involved at the community level. He was disappointed Stephen Harper’s promise to put more police officers on the street doesn’t seem to have included Winnipeg, and said we can’t just talk tough on crime, we need to get tough on the causes of crime.

Another questioner asked about tougher punishment for crime.

Ignatieff said we need to be tough on crime, and he has never hesitated to support tougher sentencing, recognizing the terrible shootings and other incidents Winnipeg-North has had to go through. We need to be tough on gun crime, but also tough on defending the gun registry which the Conservatives want to gut but the police say is needed to fight crime. We also need to make sure youth feel safe, finish school, and get more training and education after high school and stay on the right path so we don’t lose our youth to gangs and drugs. We need more police resources, the gun registry and tough sentances, but we also need to commit as a community to keeping those kids on track and if we can do that, we can crack this crime problem.

A questioner was very much opposed to the gun registry and the money spent on it, feeling it should be scrapped and the money utilized elsewhere.

Ignatieff agreed the registry cost too much to set up and money was wasted, but added now it is very inexpensive to maintain and every police chief he has talked to across the country says they need it to keep communities safe. He’s with the cops on this one, not the Conservatives. He agrees on the point about consequences and sentencing, but said we also need to build a community where we stand up for and help each other.

Lamoureux added the registry’s implementation was a disaster and a case study in what not to do, but what he is telling people at the door is that police forces across the country, including Winnipeg’s, are accessing it thousands of times daily, it’s inexpensive to maintain, and police say it’s an important tool they want to keep.

A questioner asked about working with church groups in fighting crime.

Lamoureux said he’s been a part of the kids club at his local church for many years, and it’s a wonderful way to get young people doing positive things. He encourages faith-based and other groups to get involved, because the more groups we can get involved taking responsibility for our communities, the better off we’ll be.

On another question about crime coming in from other neighbourhoods, Lamoureux said he’s a big advocate of community policing. We need to identify where the high-risk offenders, particularly youth, are and build a relationship between them and the police. It’s a small percentage of people committing a large percentage of the crimes, and we need to get targeted. He also mentioned championing ankle bracelets as an MLA.

Education

The first question of the evening was actually on making post-secondary education more affordable.

Lamoureux said we have to make sure post secondary education is affordable. If we as a society believe in the benefits of education we need to be prepared to put resources into it. We want to make it affordable so if you have the ability you can get the education.

Ignatieff added the next Liberal platform will have a specific, costed commitment to enhanced assistance for post secondary. You get the grades, you get to go. We need to take any barriers off the table, particularly for aboriginal Canadians. The platform proposal won’t get all the way, but it will be a “heckuva big jolt” to make it more affordable.

Economy

The economy was the topic of several questions. On reducing the deficit while revitalizing Winnipeg, Ignatieff said the Liberals set a target to reduce the deficit in the 1990s and achieved it, and it will do it again. He’ll start by cancelling the corporate tax giveaway to large businesses because we’re not talking small businesses we’re talking about big businesses that don’t need another tax cut. He also wants to revisit the $16 billion untendered stealth fighter purchase, saying by putting it to competitive tender we can get a better deal and save money. What we don’t want to do, he said, is cut spending that benefits Winnipeg North residents. He want to safeguard education and community services and work with the provinces to protect public health care. He’s worried the Conservatives will reduce the deficit on the backs of the average people of Winnipeg, and said the Liberals have a better plan.

Asked what a Liberal government would do differently to stimulate the economy, Ignatieff said the government’s focus on physical infrastructure was good but it politicized the program by diverting funding to Conservative ridings, which was wrong. He came back to education again, calling it a key way of stimulating the economy both short and long term. He doesn’t have 27 priorities, just a couple, and one of them is education. We can’t create the jobs of tomorrow unless we ensure Aboriginal Canadians get more education, that new Canadians get language training, and that we train people for the jobs of tomorrow. We also need tax incentives so companies can invest in new plant and manchinery to become more productive, and to get the economy more green we need a green retrofit tax credit for families.

A student of social work asked about helping the poor. Lamoureux said this is a very real issue and there’s no single way to tackle it. One is making access to food a basic right. Also crucial is affordable housing. There’s a huge demand for affordable housing and we need to be more creative coming up with ideas that will work and enable people to participating in housing projects. He mentioned he used to see a lot more co-op activity, something that could be revisited.

Fighter Jets

A questioner asked why the Liberals aren’t supporting the F-35 purchase. Ignatieff said his problem is there was no competitive bid, and no national discussion on what we need to replace the CF-18. We need to replace them to protect our sovereignty, and we also need to make sure we guarantee jobs for our aerospace industry. The way to do that is have a competitive tender, which will get better value for money, and allow us to demand a better deal for our aerospace industry. With the Conservative mishandling of the F-35 we’re missing out on the opportunity to get value for money and protect jobs.

Lamoueux added the aerospace industry is an important industry in Winnipeg, and we need to make sure it’s protected for the long-term. The way to do that is a competitive bid.

Seniors and pensions

A questioner asked about improving retirement security for pensioners. Ignatieff noted a Liberal government oversaw the re-financing of the CPP in the 1990s, but 75 per cent of Canadians in the private sector have nothing but the CPP, and it won’t provide them with the income security they need. The Liberals want to set up a supplementary CPP that someone in the private sector could put money into. It would be managed by the CPP, who have a solid track record and low management costs. If we don’t encourage people to save more, he said we’ll have a real problem. The Conservatives have done absolutely nothing about improving retirement security for Canadians.

Lamoureux added seniors have a right to enjoy their retirement yeas. Too often he talks to seniors who can’t afford a meal out once a month with their grandchildren. We need to get more money into senior’s pockets, because they deserve better.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael Ignatieff on his vision for Canada

When I have a chance I'll be back with some thoughts on last night's Open mike event in North York with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. I also have some F-35 related thoughts to share. But for now, I wanted to share this video that just went live on the Liberal Web site. In it, Ignatieff gets a little more personal than he has in the past about why he's in politics, what's driving him and what he wants to accomplish. I think it's pretty good.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A tale of two fainters

As I read this passage from Aaron Wherry's essay on Michael Ignatieff's travels in the Toronto-area today with the Liberal Express...

About a half hour into an event in a courtyard in downtown Oakville, a middle-aged woman fainted. A doctor in the crowd stepped forward to attend and an ambulance called. She was out for a minute, then opened her eyes. Michael Ignatieff who had been shaking hands and posing for pictures, came over to check on the woman, holding her hand for a bit, then comforting her husband. The paramedics put a brace around her neck, then lifted her onto a backboard and carried her away.

...I couldn't help but be reminded of this video...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ignatieff can learn from Chretien's history

I'm in Denver this week covering a conference so I won't have too much time for blogging, unless it's about Avnet's solution plans or how Oracle is trying to win over Sun's channel partners. Not what you come here to read though, I don't think. Before I left though, I filed a dispatch for the folks at The Mark.

It's part of a feature examining historical precedents for Canadian political comebacks that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff can (and should) learn from. My contribution looked at Jean Chretien's early days as opposition leader, which had some interesting parallels to Ignatieff's challenges today, and some interesting lessons that can be applied to the current situation. The bottomline:

Don’t try to be something or someone you’re not because the voters can spot a phony, and if you’re uncomfortable with yourself, they will be uncomfortable with you too. The ones that brought you to the leadership aren’t always the ones who can take you to the next step. Organization matters. It takes a strong team. If you don’t stand for something, you stand for nothing. Oh, and tell the nervous nellies to shut it.

Read the whole thing over at The Mark.

And be sure to check out the other historical precedents explored in the feature.

Dan Arnold looks at Stephen Harper's comeback circa 2005.

Rob Silver tackles Chretien a few years later.

Lanny Cardow looks at Robert Borden.

And Michael Valpy looks at Pierre Trudeau's comeback against Joe Clark.

(Step one for Michael: Find Snow. Step two: Walk in it. Step three: Run against Joe Clark.)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's "Where's Waldo?" with Justin Trudeau

Can you spot Justin Trudeau in this photo of Jean Chretien and Michael Ignatieff?

Or in this one?

How about this one?

Picture him with a toque and glasses and you'd swear it was Where's Waldo. His ability to get into the centre of a Chretien/Iggy sandwich is quite impressive.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More about Michael

Interesting story the other day, again from the Toronto Star's Susan Delacourt, that talks a little about Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and his family life. An excerpt:

On Thursday, during a question-and-answer session in Ajax, Ignatieff was asked about the role of mediation in divorce law. Not everyone in the audience noticed, but his answer strayed into his own experience.

Ignatieff, whose marriage breakdown was the subject of headlines in British tabloids, said: “Sometimes, things go badly wrong in families. And it can be excruciatingly painful. . . . When the family begins to break apart, and they do, life is under pressure. Life is tough sometimes.”

In the Star interview a day later, he said it’s important to discuss the Canadian family in clear-eyed, “unsentimental” terms.

“What I’ll say about that is that it’s no secret, never concealed, that I lived a very painful divorce. And I’ve been through it. And you want to do right by your kids and it’s more important than anything in the world that the people you love don’t get hurt. And all I can say is that I lived through it,” he said.

“That answer was something I care about, because I care a lot about families. But . . . families break up. Marriages break down. It’s extremely important that we have institutions that help people find the way towards reconciliation, doing what’s right for the kids, not having the lawyer screw it up, because they can. . . . I’m 100 per cent in favour (of mediation).”

As the Star story says, Ignatieff's political opponents (we can all guess who) are routinely trying to use his family history against him, sending negative e-mails alleging all kinds of nastiness to reporters and bloggers who, by and large, have ignored them. I used to get just disgustingly nasty e-mails about the Dion family, and about Bill Graham before him. Seems to be a long-standing tactic for some people. (And why they'd think I, as a Liberal blogger, would publish them I don't know.)

But you know, the fact is most Canadian families are imperfect. My parents divorced when I was in junior high school. Nearly as many of my friends came from broken families as did not. Life is hard, and people aren't perfect. I think those that seek to exploit the lack of perfection of others should remember that we're a country of imperfect people, doing the best we can. That's all we can ask of each other, and I think most Canadians agree.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Auditioning to renovate 24 Sussex

The new ballot question: who would you trust to do unskilled manual labour during the construction of your home?

Michael Ignatieff volunteering with Habitat for Humanity today in Cobourg.

Stephen Harper needing a few tries and help from an expert to work an nail gun on some guy's wall while promoting a tax credit.

* The answer is trust neither. Always use a certified contractor, and get at least three references.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ignatieff makes it personal on the arts

Yesterday, I wrote about the need for Michael Ignatieff to start letting Canadians know who he is, what he's about and why he's here.

Today, we see a very good example of what I was getting at, in Susan Delacourt's story on Ignatieff's position on supporting the arts:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he has a personal stake in supporting artists in Canada, as well as the CBC.

“It’s personal. People think I spent my life up there in the ivory tower,” Ignatieff told about 100 Liberals gathered on Wednesday in Kingston for lunch with the leader.

“I actually spent 20 years as a freelance writer and journalist. I wrote screenplays. I wrote a couple of films. I lived by my wits. The writing life is a world of six-month contracts, Ignatieff explained, “and that’s the reality of life for many in the arts community in Canada.

“For 20 years I lived six months at a time. No safety net. No pension. No coverage. That’s the life of an artist, he said. I lived the insecurities of it, I lived the thrill of it. The thrill of being your own master. I lived the thrill of reaching an audience with no help from anyone except for what was coming out of my pen. I understand this world. I understand its risks; I understand its perils.”

I like these comments. He could have just said I think the arts are important because art uplifts, art inspires, art brightens, and so on. And that would have been fine, and all true. But by tying it back to his personal narrative he also made clear why this is personal for him, why this is an issue that he wants to address, and gave us a little more of a sense of who he is, and how his experiences shape his policy and beliefs.

Hope to see more of this.

Photo: Sue Humphrey

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Just who is this Michael Ignatieff fellow?

Every once in a blue moon, when hell has frozen over or a bus transmission has malfunctioned, I find myself actually agreeing with something that L. Ian MacDonald has written. One of those two things must have happened, because this is one of those times.

I agree with his comments on Stephen Harper’s own bungle-filled 2005 boonies tour (how short some people's memories are). And while I wouldn’t say what he says here matters just to women, I do agree with the sentiment here about Michael Ignatieff:

It's highly unusual for a Liberal leader to suffer from a gender gap. But it's no mystery, either -women won't vote for a man who doesn't talk about his children. Ignatieff recently attended the graduation of his daughter, Sophie, from university in Scotland, and that should have been the only story of his trip. Instead, the headline was out of his meeting with British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, whether they discussed Britain's new coalition government, and its possible application to Canada. Just when Ignatieff had fended off the merger story, his side trip to London allowed it to pop up again.

I don’t think L put it well with the Clegg/grad thing but he is on to something. If Canadians are going to trust him, if they’re going to be open to hearing about his policy ideas and believing he can implement them, then they need to have a sense of who Michael Ignatieff is, why he’s here, and what makes him tick.

Right now, they don’t. They know he’s tall, wonkish, lived overseas and has bushy eyebrows. He seems a little academic, a little aloof. People don’t need to like a leader to support them. But they do need to have a sense of their values, to trust that they’ll try to do the right thing. They need to respect them. We’re not there yet, as any number of polls will show you.

There’s no reason though that we can’t be. Remember, when he came on the scene, and for years to follow, Stephen Harper wasn’t exactly Mr. Personality. I still don’t think he is, but I’m obviously biased. He did, however, make a concerted effort to soften his image, and it has paid him dividends.

It’s a fine line in politics to talk about family and your personal life, and to put them forward into the public sphere. There needs to be a careful balance. But with every photo-op – sending his kids off to school, taking Ben to a hockey game, or Rachel to a concert – Harper has been carefully softening his image, and destroying the cartoon caricature of himself. He’s no monster, sure he’s a bit nerdy but he’s a loving parent, just like us. That’s an important and powerful subliminal message.

Which brings is back to Michael. I remember a meet the candidates session during the aborted second leadership race, the one at an LPC(O) conference in Mississauga with all the drama in the hallways. Inside the session though, in response to a question about skills training, Ignatieff talked about how his son had enrolled in a trades program and it was really helping him find his way, and it brought home for him the importance of encouraging such programs. It was a little thing, but it gave me a better sense of what this guy was about and what drove him, and it personalized him as well.

I’m not saying bring the kids on the campaign trail. But I am saying that, if he’s going to be successful, Michael needs to start talking about his personal narrative. Tell us why you spent so many years overseas. Tell us what you learned, how it changed you. How did reporting on the former Yugoslavia, or the Kurdish peoples of Northern Iraq, influence your views on foreign policy and Canada’s role in the world? What drove you to come back and get into politics, what change do you want to see, what do you want to accomplish? And why is this important to you?

Before he kicked-off the bus tour yesterday, Ignatieff did an AM hit on CBC Newsworld. I don’t recall the question, but at one point he told the anchor “this isn’t about me.” And he’s right, in a sense. It’s about Canada, it’s about the future, and our vision for it. But he’s also wrong, in a sense, because Canadians won’t trust a stranger with their future.

So whether it’s his wife and children or his personal narrative, it’s time to give Canadians a sense of just who this Michael Ignatieff fellow is. I know we have a seemingly impossible to-do list already this summer, but that needs to be near the top.

Photo : Richard McGuire

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I love the smell of hypocritical outrage in the morning. Smells like sulphur

My colleagues at the National Post are all upset because Michael Ignatieff said something mean or not nice about Stephen Harper or something. And I must say, I wholeheartedly share their outrage.

Ignatieff making this personal attack on the Conservative leader clearly shows that he's just in it for himself. He's just visiting. He's out of touch because he lived in England and taught at Harvard. He isn't a real Canadian. He wants to raise taxes on everyone and everything. He's an ivory tower elitist. And he didn't even cry when Goose died in Top Gun -- that's just not human.

We can't allow this unprecedented un-positivity from the Liberal leader go un-checked. Why, if we don't nip this in the bud now, who knows where it could lead. Attack ads outside of an election campaign? Web sites dedicated to made-up personal smears? Turning over our own web site to negative smears and photo-shopped images of our opponent instead of talking about positive isues and policy?

My friends, I don't want to travel that road.

Please, won't someone think of the children!

BTW, the usual media suspects are entirely missing the point of Ignatieff's sulfur comments, as usual. In fact, with the clever allusion to scripture, the comments were a coded message designed to woo Christian voters.

And fans of the periodic table of the elements. Next week, he links Harper to barium.

So, watch for that.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers