CTV.ca | McKenna won't run for Liberal leadership: CTV

CTV.ca | McKenna won't run for Liberal leadership: CTV

Now what?

Not that I was pinning my hopes on him, I just want the best names in the ring.

A.L.

Call it what you want... but we like our Canada just the way it is... good and LIBERAL!

Find the full Globe and Mail Story here.

In summary, this is head of the right wing nutjob group that penned that email in the last days of the campaign urging U.S. conservatives to unplug their telephones and decline interviews so they didn't scare Canadians about a Harper victory.

I dug a little deeper and ran a few Google searches for this guy and came up with the full text of his article on the "Accuracy in Media" website, which seems like a "Media Matters" clone for right wing nutjobs. Reading closely, it's pretty clear he does not understand Canadian politics and it even sounds like some of the Conservative Party's politicos don't understand how our system of government works either...

From Weyrich's article:

Some party operatives already are looking ahead to the Canadian elections in four years. Incumbents in Parliament have a tremendous advantage, my source said, and they could realize that advantage in four years. If they accomplish constructive goals they will be capable of building support.

OK so the first two sentences are not entirely true... it is highly likely that we will see another federal election in two years time and yes incumbents have an advantage, but because our system has 3 or 4 viable parties vying for seats, a slight change in voting intentions in a riding in favour of a challenger and the seat is won/lost. I don't buy that. Maybe in fortresses Alberta and Toronto but not so elsewhere and not enough to have the CPC count on all the seats they won this time around next time.

The third sentence is the most factual one in the whole article, if Harper's Conservatives accomplish constructive goals (not SSM reversal or Abortion debate) we could be in for another CPC government after the next election.

Back to the original article, there's plenty of inflamatory language in this guy's other stuff but the tidbits from the G&M article are likely enough for most of us:

A prominent U.S. right-wing commentator has welcomed the election victory of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, expressing hope that the prime-minister-designate will work to eradicate the "cultural Marxism" he says infests the neighbour to the north.

"Cultural Marxism" that's a new one.... But wait! There's more:

In an on-line commentary published on his website, Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, said that he hopes Mr. Harper will use the next four years to replace Liberal-named judges who back same-sex marriage and abortion with appointees who are more to his liking.

"As has been the case in the United States, cultural Marxism largely has been foisted upon Canada by the courts," Mr. Weyrich wrote, drawing a parallel with the right-wing analysis of what ails America. "If judges who respect the Constitution were to be appointed, they would confirm that such rights are not to be found in that document. Sound familiar?"

Here's my favourite:

"The people of Canada have become so liberal and hedonistic that the public ethic in the country immediately could not be reversed. But with leadership, it may well be possible to change the public ethic."

So, we as a nation are culturally unethical!?!? Very nice. You definitely took a page out of Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People didn't you?

Here's the linkage to Harper's Conservatives:

Last week, Mr. Weyrich declined to confirm that he wrote the e-mail and said he did not know Gerard Chipeur, the Calgary lawyer and Harper supporter who had asked Mr. Weyrich to get the no-interview message across to other U.S. conservatives.

But in this week's commentary, Mr. Weyrich recounted the story with some gloating. He explained how Mr. Chipeur had contacted him "out of concern for what the left-wing Canadian media could do to obtain from some unsuspecting United States conservative an off-the-charts quote which could be hung around Prime Minister-elect Stephen Harper's neck."

So Mr. Weyrich's ethical code goes something like this deny, evade and even lie until you get your way....

Makes me wonder whether this is one of the right wing groups Harper thinks is a "light and an inspiration to conservatives in Canada," hmm? What say you Mr. Harper?

Let's watch where this Gerard Chipeur character ends up.

My biggest concern with all of this is that some on Harper's side will seek to strengthen their cause by creating and enflaming a culture war in Canada not unlike the red vs. blue that is going on down here in the U.S.. I sure hope not.

Wedge issues are effective, and I know Martin tried to get his own wedge in their this time, so the Liberal's are not innocent in this regard.

So why do U.S. conservatives fear a liberal Canada so much? Could it be that they are worried that liberalism just might actually work? Might it be that they fear Canadian success catching on in the U.S.? Are we a bigger danger to their continuing culture wars, vote-rigging, culture of corruption and corporate raping-of-the-people ala Enron?

Probably!

A.L.

I am late to the game but they are really good

Here is the link to a quicktime video of the song by the Stars Your Ex-lover is Dead. Hat tip to my fellow UWO Mustang Paul Wells at Inkless Wells for this one.

Seems we are both late to the game on this one. It was making rounds on the net last month.

I am impressed and I think if the rest of their material is even half as good I have found a new band.

No kidding, I have pressed play 8 or 10 times on this one. It's great.

I will get back to the political blogging soon, just taking some time, testing the waters for a leadership bid, you know, stuff we Liberals do after an election loss.

A.L.

Martin steps down as Liberal leader.... and oh yeah, that guy Stephen is PM 22.

CBC News: Harper wins Tory minority government, Martin stepping down as leader

Martin stepped down as leader of the Liberal party tonight...

Comments from the CBC panel:

"Paul Martin at his best!" John Manley

"He did absolutely the best thing (for his party)... he's stepping down with grace." Ed Broadbent

Not much I can add to that....

He showed his best side tonight, when faced with supreme adversity he showed true integrity. He did what is best for the party....

Total numbers not in yet, but let the renewal begin!

A.L.

I know I am late, but here's my final predictions

CPC 135
Liberals 83
Bloc 57
NDP 33

A.L.

Get out and VOTE, today!

For all of our loyal Canadian readers..., yes even you EX-NDIP you cute little Tory troll you, get out today and excercise your democratic right as a citizen of our great country.

Mark an x beside the candidate and/or party of your choice.

All of my prognositcating and pontificating aside, I don't care who you vote for, just get out there and do it!

OK, I do care who you vote for.... JUST VOTE!

Regular readers will know that I already voted by mail for Jennifer Pollack the Liberal candidate trying to unseat Rob Anders of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party in Calgary West. It's a long shot, but hey when even the Calgary Herald starts ragging on a Conservative candidate giving him a D- for his service to his constituents perhaps some of the sheeple will wake up and turf him.

We can only hope right!?

A.L.

P.S. Maybe, just maybe I will post some live results. After all, I am blogging in the United States....

Absolutely despicable....

CBC News: Fake e-mail could mislead voters

Whoever is responsible for this, from whichever party, or whatever should be sent to prison.

In fact, they ought to be sent to prison and be forced to share a cell with Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay.

What could this bogus email do?

For one it could keep some voters home on Monday, obviously. Who would fall for it? Possibly first time voters, like new immigrants (tending to vote Liberal historically) or first time young voters (also tending Liberal). Or voters prone to confusion? Which could mean elderly voters? Who tend to be leaning Conservative in this election.

Could burn both ways. I can't speculate further than that.

A.L.

Etobicoke Liberal riding president throws support to Conservatives

TheStar.com - Etobicoke Liberal riding president throws support to Conservatives

Yikes!

That's gotta suck. This Philosopher King is having a real tough row.

A.L.

Harper should distance himself from his own candidates...

Harper has been harping on Buzz Hargrove's statements for what... two days now? I think he needs to look no further than his own candidate roster to find things he should really be worried about.

Mr. Harper was introduced at the news conference by David Sweet, the Tory candidate in Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale. Mr. Sweet is a former president of Promise Keepers Canada, an evangelical Christian organization that believes homosexuality is a sin.

In a November, 2001, edition of Christian Week magazine, he wrote: '[M]en are natural influencers, whether we like it or not. There's a particular reason why Jesus called men only. It's not that women aren't co-participators. It's because Jesus knew women would naturally follow.'

That'll really help you shore up the women's vote! Yeesh!

But wait! There's more....

Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Harper shared the stage with Harold Albrecht, the Conservative candidate in Kitchener-Conestoga, at a rally attended by about 800 enthusiastic supporters.

Mr. Albrecht is pastor and founder of the Pathway Community Church. In June of 2004, he wrote in a letter to a Kitchener newspaper: 'If one is truly committed to the marriage vows of fidelity, these same-sex marriages would succeed in wiping out an entire society in just one generation.'

When reporters tried to question Mr. Albrecht about his views after the rally, Conservative handlers blocked them from getting close. Mr. Albrecht was hustled into a kitchen where he stood alone as the news media were told he was too busy to speak with them.

"Screw you guys! I am taking my social intolerance and I'm going home... in fact I am going to stick my head in the sand and pretend you're not there!"

"But Mr. Albrecht, we can still actually see you..."

"No you can't!"

"Um, yes we really can!"

No hidden agenda my A$$!

The last quote I have from this article is really what I worry about, that no 0ne is paying attention to this.

Egale, a gay-rights organization, says it has examined the websites of 34 new Conservative candidates who are known to oppose same-sex marriage and found that only three posted their views about the issue. Mr. Albrecht and Mr. Sweet did not."

Oh, and one more for good measure! Here's uber-redneck Conservative MP Myron Thompson's recent thoughts....

Conservative incumbent Myron Thompson, running for his fifth term as MP in the House of Commons, has called for government that would represent “good Christian” values and make it a priority to stop abortion in Canada.

Before all the ReformaTory trolls accuse me of being anti-Christian again, I have this one thing to say and one question to ask.

I am a proud Christian, and my God doesn't tell me to be rude, inhumane or discriminatory toward other people. Further, our country says we all have a right to freedom of or from religion.

Other than your fallacious religious argument, what rational, thought-out reason is there for discriminating against Gays and Lesbians?

A.L.

Putting Patriotism Ahead of Partisanship...

He exemplifies what it means to serve our country.

I wrote about this a few days ago in my strategic voting comments within my posting on the Globe and Mail endorsement piece.

This is a perfect exemplification of what it means to be patriotic before one is partisan.

Well done!

Though, it doesn't necessarily mean the CPC candidate is going to win. Nonetheless it is a noble gesture.

UPDATE 10:15pm EST: I no longer have admiration for this Liberal candidate. Apparently my anointing was a little premature. Though he does redeem himself with this comment:

He went on to invite “all Liberal voters” to continue backing him — then added that, whatever they do, they should “support candidates with federalist convictions, keeping Canada's best interests at heart.”

A.L.

Latest SES Poll consistent with yesterday...

I have been going back to the SES website just about every hour.

Just now, I noticed that the "download the data" link was updated but the ticker had not yet been changed to reflect the new numbers.

Now they are showing CPC 37%, Liberals at 31%, NDP 17%, Bloc 11%, and Green at 5%.

Perhaps the Conservative "mo" has been halted...?

A.L.

SHOCKING! News round up

Okay, not really shocking... but again, the day job has kept me away from the blogosphere and I have not been on-top of the latest developments.

Here's a round-up of the interesting news (from my perspective) with commentary:

• Advanced polls have seen a significant uptick in voter turnout. Not sure who this helps. In the US last year, many in the punditocracy said high turnout was bad for the incumbent, but we all know how wrong that turned out to be.

• Stephen Harper said that some judges are activists and some are not. I don't think this is very good if we're trying to heal the deep feelings of Western Alienation.

Thanks alot pal, you've just sown a few more seeds that will (among other things) grow to become King Ralph's mantra when his government gets charged with violating the Canada Health Act.

Or, even worse, you've laid the groundwork for the ideological war that portends to erupt once you have your 'free vote' on reversing the Same Sex Marriage law. As we all know, and most lawyers I've spoken to, and all the constitutional scholars referenced in the newspapers say, a vote to reverse the SSM law would prompt a SCOC challenge which would most likely bring us back to the status quo we have right now.

What is to be gained from this dangerous gamble? Not much, except the Conservatives would have the devoted admiration and support of all the Christo-fascists and all the rest who support the discriminatory definition of 'traditional marriage'. What would be lost? Well, a few million dollars for a start. Precious SCOC court time, not to mention the time and resources of a number of federal ministries. All for what? So you could try to turn back the clock of human rights and attempt to force your definition of morality and religious marriage onto the rest of us. Who will the Christo-fascists blame then? Well, you already told them who... the activist judges.

Consequently, a lawyer-friend who is much smarter than I once told me this:

"What is the definition of an activist judge?"

"I dunno," said I.

"A judge who doesn't do what you want," answered he.

Seems right to me. It is a disgusting label foisted by the person who is supposedly not into spin.

• Harper also said, don't worry about giving us a majority, there are checks and balances in place after 12 years of Liberal governments.

Again, setting the stage and pre-labeling the scapegoats so that when things don't work out the way you promised you've got excuses.... FAST FORWARD 4 YEARS...

"Mired in budget deficits and dogged by a crippled, gutted federal government of his party's doing, Harper blames stubborn Liberal Senate and Liberal judiciary for his troubles...."

• Last comment on SSM (at least for this post) it looks like many gay and lesbian couples really do fear a Harper victory. They are rushing to get to the altar, or courthouse, or wherever before scary-Stephen(TM) takes over.
  

That kind of news does not play well for the CPC in Ontario.

• The Blogging Tories got a little heat through a bogus complaint to Elections Canada through an allegedly 'digruntled' party member.

Makes me wonder when Liblogs will get its' notice from Jean-Pierre Kingsley.... I may wholeheartedly disagree with their mantra of scandal, "Lieberals", "Libranos", etc. but they have a right to blog, and no one should be trying to take that away from them. Unless of course they have a legal tie to the CPC. But, that I do not believe.

• Polling has become wildly divergent with the most recent poll from SES showing the Conservatives' lead cut to 5% nationally, CPC 37%, Lib 32%, NDP 18%, BQ 10%, and the Greens at 4%. And the same day a Strategic Counsel poll shows an 18% lead for the Cons, CPC 42%, Lib 24%, NDP 17%, BQ 12%, and Green 5%. Both of these were 3 day rolling, tracking polls and it is worth noting that they had different sample sizes. SES used a sample of 1200 Canadians and Strategic Counsel (Allan Gregg's outfit) used 1500 (25% more than SES). The margins of error are not that different though at +/- 3.1% for SES and +/- 2.5% for Gregg.

I am not sure what to make of that huge discrepancy. Each of the polls are not even within eachother's margin of error.

Warren Kinsella had some thoughts on the polling in his Jan. 17 post, but I can't say he convinced me. His other stuff today though is very good.

I say watch the polls and take them with a grain of salt, get out there and vote, strategically if you can or for the party of your choice if you can't (after all it's worth $1.75 a year!) like I did. Grab a beer, pop some corn, and settle in to watch Mansbridge, Robertson, or the drones on CPAC call the returns.

As Liberal-4-Life said... "Help me Ontario-Kenobi, you're my only hope..."

Classic lines are always welcome... well done my friend.

A.L.

P.S. My latest obsession, the Fraggle Rock Season One DVD set I got for my birthday... I love those Fraggles!

UPDATE: Hat tip to Paul Wells... Ekos has just shown the CPC lead cut to 7% at 35% CPC and 29% Liberals.

Marriage 'Defenders'!?!... see for yourself

The Full article found here.

Now, thanks to an entrepreneurial organization formed by ex-Liberal MP Pat O'Brien, ex-CA MP Grant Hill, and you guessed it... ex-Progressive Conservative MP Elsie Wayne, we can see which candidates (in all parties I presume) would vote to overturn same-sex marriage.

See for yourself at the Vote Marriage Canada website.

I for one will be 'voting for marriage' (the current definition of it that is) as this organization's homepage suggests, by voting against the incumbent Conservative Party MP for Calgary West Rob Anders ... in fact I already have voted, by mail.

If you don't already abhor what this organization stands for, take a gander at this page where you'll find this little inclusive gem of a talking point:

5. Lifestyle Validation Endangers Young People
If society commits itself to validating homosexual relationships, teenagers will be increasingly encouraged to welcome any homosexual inclinations they may have themselves. As they pass through the sexual ambivalence that is a common phase in heterosexual development, they will be encouraged not to supress their “bisexuality.”

If you read further you will see that this site is littered with dubious out-dated statistics and references to many obscure, hardly main-stream news outlets.

This group does not pass the sniff test, that's for sure.

A.L.

God Bless Elsie Wayne!

Here she goes again!

But this time she broke the law.

"About 70 people attended the meeting at the Lions Senior Citizens Centre to hear the former Conservative MP, who also serves as the Atlantic co-chair of Vote Marriage Canada, a group fighting same-sex marriage.

"God does not endorse that and we do not," Wayne told the group. "But we do not hate people. You have to straighten people out. We don't go around hating people."

You tell us Elsie, straighten us out... I'm sure you would really like to straighten some folks out, wouldn't you?

Here is more good stuff:

Same-sex marriage opponent Elsie Wayne spoke to a group of Baptist ministers and parishioners in a Moncton community centre that also holds an advance polling station in a gathering that broke federal election rules.

Funny thing is, she won't be held responsible:

Doiron says a formal complaint would have to be lodged before the Commissioner of Elections would investigate. But he says Elections Canada can't disclose whether that's happened. He says if a complaint is upheld, those running the centre could face a fine or jail time, or both (emphasis added).

Keep talking old lady.... If nothing else, it gives the blogosphere much to write about.

A.L.

Globe and Mail endorsement of the Conservatives

See here for yourself. Can we now stop the bullsh*t about an overall liberal bias at the Globe?

Far from a ringing endorsement. In fact, it praises the 12 years of Liberal rule as being good for Canada.

The 3 points mentioned in favour of the C's are:

1: Liberal party too long in power, now lacks coherent vision for the country.

2: There is a culture of entitlement, and the PMO still has too much power.

3: Change for change sake.

Of the three I think the 3rd is the weakest, and I can't help but agree with #1 wholeheartedly. Point 2 is murky for me (and why wouldn't it be?) I agree with the second part, the PMO most definitely has too much power in our system and this must change, and fast. The first part however I have trouble with. I absolutely disagree with anyone who claims that the entire Liberal party is corrupt. To be sure, there were corrupt individuals in the party. But the entire party corrupt? Sorry, I don't think so.

Perhaps, now that everyone and their dog thinks Harper will win this, this will now force/allow the progressive-minded folks out there to really think about how they cast their ballot.

I think it's clear. Vote for the candidate you think has the best chance to deny the Conservatives the seat. A minority Harper government is undoubtedly better for Canada than a majority.

One caveat to the above ballot advice. If you are in Quebec vote for the federalist with the best chance. I think that goes without saying. I believe it is incumbent on all of us to be patriotic before we are partisan.

That is all, carry on.

A.L.

Evidence of a 'Hidden Agenda'... er, well... not really what we hoped for....

Here is the link for the full article from ctv.ca.

Turns out the Tories did not include (hid) some of their platform (also called their agenda) from the Conference Board economist they hired to 'audit' their costing analysis.

Seems like the left out a few of their big-ticket items, namely:

-"Redressing the fiscal imbalance" between the provinces and Ottawa.

-Their healthcare guarantee.

Now, I don't know about you, but those seem like pretty big, expensive things to leave out of the platform you send on to be 'audited' by an independent economist.

Heck, the GST alone on those items is probably a million or so dollars! "But wait!" Says Tory finance critic and rumoured Finance Minister in waiting Monte Solberg, "We have already stated that we will be cutting the GST by 1% as soon as we take office. So, the savings in the GST on those big-ticket items alone will pay for the re-decoration and update of 24 Sussex. So, in fact, we will be saving Canadians money! Yeah that's it!"

What you missed in Mr. Solberg's comments (exclusive to lastcanadianexit.blogspot.com by the way) was his waving of his voodoo economics chakra sitck (a webcam would have been handy just now).

Back to reality here.

This is really an issue. Without a full disclosure of their platform promises and the associated price-tags, it is clear that the Harper team has not been truly forthcoming.

Why would they do such a thing? What could they gain by not including these numbers in their 'audited' platform?

Simple.

They wish to put their best, balanced-budget foot forward when campaigning, and think that a campaign platform that shows deficit spending would be an achilles heel.

And, they saw Ernie Eves do it in Ontario. People bought those numbers (not enough to win the election), that is at least until McGuinty's crew got in and discovered the Torys' massive fudgit-budget.

It is the same smoke and mirrors, voodoo economics BS us liberals and Canadians by and large grew tired of long ago.

The best lines of the article are these:

The Conservative party promoted that conclusion last week as evidence its election platform had been "independently verified" by the Conference Board, an Ottawa-based think-tank.

But Darby says the version of the platform he was given to vet didn't include a Conservative party health-care guarantee which states patients will be transported to another jurisdiction if they can't get timely care at home.

It also omitted a Tory platform promise to redress the so-called "fiscal imbalance" between Ottawa and the provinces.

Darby wouldn't comment on whether the timely health-care guarantee would bear a significant cost.

"Talk to Harper," he said. "It is not in the platform I received from them."

And this...

Darby said he does not believe that either the health-care guarantee or the promise of fiscal rebalancing were serious commitments from the Conservatives.

"Those are two items that are not in what I was presented to analyze," he said. "I don't think, frankly, that those are in the platform, they're just under discussion.

"Those items were not costed, which leads me to believe that they're something that they're having under consideration that they're not committed to."

But Conservative finance critic Monte Solberg said both items are serious commitments.

When reached for comment, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, maintained there is no hidden agenda, "There is no hidden agenda here, we've been very forthright. We have costed every promise, and it has been independently audited. Oh, and God Bless America, er... I mean Canada."

** All MP's quoted in blog (other than in the CTV.ca article) have been impersonated... poorly. **

A. L.

Buzzards are circling over a still-warm body....

Full article found here.

This background, behind the scenes organizing has been going on for a long time.

It was mentioned in a G&M article, just a few weeks ago if I am recalling correctly.

John Manley, Frank McKenna, Michael Ignatieff, and even Bob Rae are rumoured to be kicking the tires. No women so far, but who knows, perhaps Belinda's leadership bid is only a few months away?

So who cares really?

Well, this type of article (which comes from noise within the Liberal party) could do two things:

#1: Cement the idea that the Liberals are going to lose to Harper in this election.

#2: Tell the Canadian public that if you like the Liberals, but you are through with Paul Martin, don't worry 'cause we're though with him too!

#1 is good or bad depending on where you sit.

Good if you are a CPC supporter and you delight in seeing your opponents squirm. Also good if you are a Liberal and you think the more talk of a Harper win, and the musings of a Harper majority the greater possibility that the soft CPC, social moderate support will come home where it belongs. Which would be bad for the CPC supporters.

#2 is a little more far-fetched, but it could call a few of the 'disgruntled' home.

I've said it before and I will continue to say it, a little time in the political penalty box could do us some good. Some time to reflect, renew, and create a bold strong vision for Canada.

Besides, we get to let the CPC and all the Reformatories see what it's like to be sniped at daily from across the aisle.

Oh, I almost forgot the other bonuses to having Harper as PM... we get to give the finger to the environmentalists, we get beer and popcorn money instead of a child-care solution, religious doctrine for marriage law, and missiles.

I CAN'T WAIT!!

A.L.

What a Harper cabinet will look like...

Thank the good Lord Rob Anders is nowhere to be found in this list.

This commentary is a lot more dry than Rick Mercer's on the same subject.

I think (hope), the more a Harper government looks like a reality, and the more the media gives airtime to this possibility... the greater the possibility he/they will be kept to a minority.

Here's hoping!

A.L.

Good Move!

CTV.ca | Harper dumps B.C. candidate facing charges


This is a great move. Unfortunately (for the Liberals) it has the effect of solidifying Harper's image as someone who is tough on shenanigans and even alleged illegal activity.

It says to the people who think corruption is the issue in this election that Harper deals with it better than Martin does.

I will point out that this is not analagous to asking Ralph Goodale to resign. Goodale has not been charged with anything related to the RCMP investigation of the Income Trust announcement, and neither has anyone connected with the Liberal Party or the current Liberal government.

So, it's not the same type of situation.

That said, for those not concerned with nuance, facts and subtelty it says Harper will deal with undesirables swiftly and decisively.

It's good politics.

UPDATE:

The fact that I have a day job, often puts me behind in the news cycle... but hey it pays the bills. I failed to notice this, wherein we find that Conservative Party Campaign Chair John Reynolds said late yesterday or earlier today that the party stands behind Zeisman....

Derek Zeisman will remain the Tory candidate in the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior, said party campaign chairman John Reynolds, who described the charges as "administrative" in nature.

Administrative indeed! Is that code for "he will be parliamentary secretary to Rob Anders"? Where you stand (behind Zeisman) says alot about who you are....

So it looks like Reynolds, Harper, and the CPC war-room figured out pretty quickly that this was not a good albatross to have around.

A.L.

Conservatives fire back but they are forgetting something....

Here is the article on CTV.ca. It seems the Conservatives and dare I say it, their "conservative-biased" media friends have forgotten one important thing when they compare the "Soldiers with Guns" ad with the "Chretien mouth" ad... One aired on national television and the other didn't.

That said, if it was not intended to air on TV, then why the heck was it on the website.

Seems my party has the reverse of the problem the Reformatories had a few weeks ago.

The Libs put them on their website before they aired them, even owning up to ads that they are not even going to air.

Sheesh!

Cross your fingers that this gamble works, it could mean the difference between a Harper minority and a Harper majority.

Please, please, please people... keep them in check!

A.pprehensive L.iberal

Platform of the Liberal Party

Leaked to the Western Standard.

Link.

Rick Mercer's stab at the proposed Harper Cabinet

Funny and chilling at the same time.

Take a look.

Wow! Even Mr. Kinsella thinks the Liberal ads will work.

Check here for the thoughts of the reigning guru of political strategy and political advertising regarding the newest Liberal ads.

I for one hope he's right that they'll peel off some Conservative support.

I shudder when I think about a Harper majority.

A.L.

Our team goes negative....

Calgary Grit has posted about the Liberal Party's new batch of negative/attack ads.

I have not had a chance to watch them myself, but I had to get it on the blog to be fair, lest some of my detractors accuse me of being overly-biased.... I say overly-biased because if you have read this blog, after a few postings you'll know I am a Liberal supporter and blog in a manner consistent with that, so what did you expect when you came here?

Anyhow. There you have it, the Liberals have gone negative too. They've joined the CPC in the negative ad business.

A.L.

As I said before, it is the battle for the undecideds.

TheStar.com - Fence-sitters favour Liberals: Poll:

As I posted before, this has become a battle for the undecideds.

This article shows some promise for the Liberal party, and for all of us as these undecideds might just save us from a Harper majority.

"To sharpen the focus on the uncommitted voters who will likely determine the outcome of the election, Decima broke out the truly undecided and leaning voters from a survey of 4,804 voters outside Quebec, conducted Dec. 29-31.

From that larger survey, which has a margin of error of 1.4 percentage points 19 times out of 20, Decima found 20 per cent were committed to voting Liberal, 20 per cent for the Conservatives and 10 per cent for the New Democratic Party.

It found 47 per cent were uncommitted, including 14.2 per cent who were truly undecided and another 32.4 per cent who said they may yet change their vote, although they were leaning to one of the parties.

In analyzing that 47 per cent, Decima, which is working with Carleton University's School of Journalism and Communications, found two distinct groups: 12 per cent who were torn between the Conservatives and Liberals and 14 per cent who were torn between the Liberals and the NDP.

'They are actively considering both options and they will probably be the groups that most determine the outcome,' Anderson said.

As I said before I am not completely hostile to a Conservative minority kept in check by many Liberals and the left-leaning NDP and Bloc.

If this polling analysis by Decima is accurate (I hope it is) the undecideds, who are mostly women, are more likely to lean toward the Liberal Party.

Both groups share a below-average preoccupation with the sponsorship scandal, a weaker desire for change and the conviction that the eight-week campaign didn't really start until the new year.

The latter point could prove damaging for Harper, who unveiled most of his party's major platform planks prior to the Christmas holidays. Martin has saved his major announcements for the new year, although so far they have been overshadowed by renewed focus on alleged government ethical lapses.

I have spoken to a friend in Ontario twice in the past year, right around the May shenanigans in the House, and just a few days ago, and each time he's confirmed this with me... the Sponsorship Scandal is really a non-issue with him.

Those torn between the Liberals and NDP were more likely to be female, aged 35-54 and members of a visible minority. They tended to think the Liberals were the best choice to govern and that Martin was the best choice for prime minister. However, they also tended to think the NDP had the best approach to issues they care about most.

This is good:

At the time of the survey, they were leaning 52 to 36 per cent toward the Liberals.

They were three times more likely to be motivated by fear of a Conservative government than a desire for change. Fully 86 per cent agreed there were good reasons to keep the Liberals in government despite the sponsorship scandal and 78 per cent (30 points above average) said their vote would turn on social issues.

By contrast, only 13 per cent said their vote would hinge on economic issues (11 points below average) and nine per cent on issues of integrity (18 points below average).

More motivated by fear of Harper's gang eh? Read further, it gets better...

As for the specific issues that would be critical in determining their final choice, voters in this group were more likely to say health care, the environment, Harper's personality, same-sex marriage (empahsis added), national unity and a desire to avoid a right-wing government.

Could that 1st day announcement come back to bite him in the ass?

A little silver lining for Harper...

Voters torn between the Liberals and Conservatives tended to be female, under 35 or over 55 years of age, and more likely to be on the right of the political spectrum. At the time of the survey, they were leaning equally towards the two parties.

This, however, suggests that these undecideds will not split evenly between the Liberals and Tories.

Nevertheless, this group tended to think the Liberals were best to govern and Martin the best choice for prime minister. However, the Conservatives had a slight edge as the party thought to have the best approach on the issues these voters care about most (48 per cent for the Tories versus 42 per cent for the Liberals).

Still, 60 per cent agreed there were good reasons for keeping the Liberals in office despite the sponsorship scandal.

Uh, oh... better look for a new policiette to sell.

The economy was the primary motivating factor for this group. Thirty-eight per cent said economic issues would drive their vote (15 points above average). By contrast, 35 per cent cited social issues (13 points below average) and 26 per cent cited integrity (one point below average).

Man, it's too bad for the Liberals that they've so poorly managed the economy... oh wait they haven't.....

Harper is attempting to capitalize on the mood for change in the general populace.

But Anderson said the analysis of uncommitted voters suggests he has to be careful not to advocate anything that is deemed too radical a change on the economic front, for fear of alienating those torn between the Liberals and Conservatives, or on the social front, for fear of alienating those torn between the Liberals and NDP.

'If he appears to be advocating too radical a change agenda, he's going to make them anxious.'"

Hence, the current Tory strategy of "Agenda hiding, and candidate muzzling."

Anyhow, it will take a while to see how tonight's debates had an effect on the horse-race, if any, but this article gives the Board a few more days before they'll have to fall on their swords.

All that said, Calgary Grit has posted about some astonishing poll results in favor of the CPC.... Watch the news tomorrow.

A.L.

Live Debate Blogging

Watching the live coverage sent to CSPAN down here in the US by CPAC.

8:03pm PM the PM starts out on the attack. I thought these were opening statements.

8:05pm Mr. Harper goes out 3/4 positive and 1/4 negative.

8:08pm Other two leaders.... look at me... look at me. I am playing in the game too.

8:14pm Martin handled the Canada Steamships Line questions well and while he spoke too quickly for most people to catch it, he asserts that "statements of fact" during debates may not in fact be... facts.

8:17pm Attacks on Harper by Duceppe on the leadership donations... no transparency... Layton jumps on the bandwagon.

8:19pm WOW! Constitutional/Charter amendment to remove Federal government's ability to use the Notwithstanding Clause for Charter rights. I am assuming Provinces will still have it?

8:29pm Electoral reform.... let's get on it!

8:30pm A walking Democratic Deffee-sit... Bwahahahahah.... Good one Gilles!

8:32pm Jack Layton... feign concern just long enough so as to make people think it's genuine, but not too long... gotta get the policy in.

8:34pm Slight slip up by Mr. Martin, almost had two "The fact is..." statements in a row... caught himself.

8:48pm PM just couldn't resist the values debate, and it looks like he did surprisingly well with it. My question is which one of these party leaders has been to a swingers club?

8:55pm Tax-cut battle... mine's bigger than yours!

9:02pm Just over half-way through this thing and we're talking about farmers.... They're all getting tired, they're speaking slower... even Martin. He's flapping slower too.

9:16pm Moderator goes back to Paul, but didn't really want to.

9:23pm I was struck by how everyone looks, the make-up room should all get high marks.

9:24pm "Here we are at the final section of the debate.... and I am going to lead off with the SSM issue, but... giving Harper a chance to sweat and reflect on the pounding of his heart in his ears... turn it on Duceppe... Harper relaxes... for now.

9:28pm Layton tries his own Hail-Mary.... Pitching to Quebec voters offering the winning conditions for Canada.

9:34pm Not sure Martin's attacks on Duceppe will play well. Others disagree with me though.

9:40pm Harper dodges the MAJORITY question, must have read Kinsella's blog. Says "we're not naive" twice.

9:43pm Layton answers the question and swipes at all three parties... I think he scores some points here.

9:46pm Layton brings up results, second time he's done this. I will say it again, I think he is finding some resonance here.

9:50pm Last question of the evening, corrruption.....

9:52pm Mr. Duceppe is having a tough time speaking... is he gonna keel over?

9:54pm Closing statements, starting with Paul Martin... better than his opening, trying to set out the "values" debate. Next is Harper... repeating all his policiettes, closes with his campaign slogans. Layton... there is a 3rd option! It is not a choice between corruption and conservatism... good one! Duceppe takes aim at both the Liberals and the Conservatives, pinning Options Canada on the Conservatives as well... He's worried about the CPC.

And now, we're done.

A.L.

Another pundit capturing my thoughts....

TheStar.com - Political animal can't hide neo-con spots, Linda McQuaig argues:

I grew up delivering the Toronto Star door-to-door in my neighbourhood. That could explain why I like many (but not all) of the paper's columnists.

Linda McQuaig captures my thoughts exactly....

The Ted Byfield comment is almost chilling:

Is Harper showing a willingness to compromise?

Not likely.

As fellow right-wing Albertan Ted Byfield once noted in an interview with the Walrus magazine: 'I don't think (Harper) knows how to compromise. It's not in his genes. The issue now is: How do we fool the world into thinking we're moving left when we're not?'

Again, this is why it is crucial the Liberals pick it up a notch and try to salvage this campaign!

Canada cannot afford (in both senses of the word) a Harper majority.

See below for the full text of the column or find it here also.

A.L.

Political animal can't hide neo-con spots, Linda McQuaig argues
Jan. 8, 2006. 01:00 AM

In January 2001, Stephen Harper and five others published an open letter in the National Post urging Alberta to beef up its fight with Ottawa by building a 'firewall' around itself and take greater control over its own affairs.

Complaining that tax revenues from Alberta were subsidizing other Canadians, the 'firewall letter' sounded downright hostile to the rest of the country.

Its attitude is typical of a group of right wingers, centred around U.S-born academic Tom Flanagan of the University of Calgary. This 'Calgary school,' with which Harper is very closely allied, peddles a Canadian version of Paul Wolfowitz-style neo-conservatism, and it likes the idea of using oil-rich Alberta as a right-wing battering ram against the more socially democratic vision of Canada that prevails in much of the rest of the country.

Certainly, the authors of the 'firewall letter' don't sound much concerned about fostering national unity — presumably something we'd expect in a prime minister.

If the 'firewall letter' had been published during this campaign, Harper would almost certainly be heading for a crushing defeat, instead of perhaps poised to become prime minister.

I bet most Canadians don't know about the letter, or have forgotten what's in it. After all, people don't have time to go looking up what Harper wrote years ago.

The media have time, but little interest. Instead, the media treat the campaign as a horse race, fixating on polls, offering voters little more than their own reflection in the mirror.

So, despite the 'firewall letter,' the Conservative campaign has largely gotten away with spinning Harper as a strong defender of Canada and Canadian sovereignty — and independent of Washington.

Carefully out of sight is Harper's attack on Ottawa two years ago for not joining the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Harper even stirred the waters of anti-Canadian feeling south of the border by denouncing Ottawa's decision in an interview with U.S. TV channel Fox News, and also in The Wall Street Journal.

No wonder Harper was recently lauded in the Washington Times as 'pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative ... the most pro-American leader in the western world.'

Also gone from sight is Harper's suggestion three years ago that Canada was becoming a 'second-tier socialistic country.' Now, according to Harper, this is a 'great country.'

Is Harper showing a willingness to compromise?

Not likely.

As fellow right-wing Albertan Ted Byfield once noted in an interview with the Walrus magazine: 'I don't think (Harper) knows how to compromise. It's not in his genes. The issue now is: How do we fool the world into thinking we're moving left when we're not?'

No problem.

With a co-operative media, Harper has managed to render largely invisible his links to a cabal of right wingers determined to transform Canada in the way their American counterparts transformed the U.S. — despite widespread Canadian revulsion for George W. Bush's America.

But, enough of that. Back at the horse race; it's neck and neck ...

False headline in the Martin red face Tory ad?

I just finished watching the Flames lose in overtime, and I am disappointed.

But, during the game I had the displeasure of being subjected to the Tory's red-faced Martin ad a zillion or so times.

Here is what I am interested in, at the end of the commercial they roll a list of headline clips all embarassing to the Liberals accompanied by the date each headline ran. The last headline reads "What did he know?: A decade of patronage and cronyism." but the ad fades to white before the headline rolls up high enough to read the source and the date for that headline.

I google searched the headline... no luck. I checked the globeandmail.com and again no luck. I checked the National Post and canada.com and again no luck.

Can anyone run a better/meta search for this headline to find the source material?

I'd like to see if it exists.

Anyone?

A.L.

Just to belabour the point for all our Conservative readers

Your ads ARE negative...

Even the Globe and Mail thinks so.... in fact everyone thinks so.

A. L.

Hidden Agenda? More like a 'Quiet Agenda'....

Was alerted by a watchful blogger to this article at cbc.ca. Hat-tip to Capitalist Pig vs. Socialist Swine.

Harper may have softened his media persona, and they may be offering nice baubles and trinkets of social spending to every special interest group they can sink their fangs into, but they cannot shake the right-wing loony nut-jobs from their ranks.... Or maybe they really don't want to?!?!

From the article:

Abortion and a traditional definition of marriage weren't mentioned, but social conservative groups that consider those to be important issues say they're satisfied with the direction the party is taking in its effort to form the next government.

"They have to talk this way to get elected," said Link Byfield, chairman of the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy. "I think a lot of conservatives honestly agree with that."

Hermina Dykxhoorn, president of the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, says no mainstream party is talking about the issues she considers most important, such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

But she says she's willing not to talk about those issues during the election if it means electing a Conservative government.

"We need to be able to win the hearts and minds of the majority of individuals. So I think we could go ahead and do a lot of things that would not be attractive to most people, and we would not change governments," she said. "We can't have every issue.

"Everyone knows that this is political and we will not be able to have every demand that we would individually have met. I'm happy to see they're doing what they are doing."

Dykxhoorn says no matter who forms the government after Jan. 23, her group will be pushing for movement on the issues that matter most to them.

Can't you just hear Harper (in your best Montgomery Burns voice) laughing.... "Exxxccellent... now to fool Canadians into thinking I am moderate... it is all going according to plan...."

This is my favourite, and possibly the most telling line of the story:

"We need to be able to win the hearts and minds of the majority of individuals. So I think we could go ahead and do a lot of things that would not be attractive to most people, and we would not change governments," she said. "We can't have every issue.

Seems like she steps on her tongue a bit there, but to me her intent is clear as day. Act moderate, keep the true thoughts zipped up and the skeletons in the closet... then we'll start the social regression!

This is one of the reasons why I can't fathom voting for Harper's Conservatives....

McKay's Conservatives...? Possibly.

Clark's Conservatives (second edition)... Sure.

But not Wacko Nut-job Harper's Conservatives. No Way.

Don't get me wrong, I am disappointed with Mr. Martin's iteration of the Liberal party. If there were any other way to vote against the Conservatives I would consider it, but I have no choice.

This is where the real Harper hangs his hat.

A. L.

It is official! PMPM is in the political fight of his life!

Hot out of my email inbox!

While this is still a statistical tie, I suspect the mainstream media will hype it up for what it is, the fiirst Tory lead of this campaign. And rightly so.

As I stated in an earlier post, this is the battle for the undecideds, and it will be won or lost on voter turn-out, which in Canada means weather as Calgary Grit continues to posit. After all this survey says 17% are undecided and voting day is January 23rd, IN CANADA!

Content of the email:

“CPAC-SES tracking shows the Conservatives ahead of the Liberals for the first time in the campaign. Stephen Harper is also statistically tied with Paul Martin as the party leader Canadians think would make the best Prime Minister. The three point Tory lead is on the cusp of the margin of accuracy among decided voters. Tracking completed Tuesday night has the Conservatives at 36%, the Liberals at 33%, the NDP at 15%, the BQ at 13% and the Green Party at 4% nationally.”– Nik Nanos, President, SES Research

Polling December 29 to 30, 2005 and January 3, 2006 (Random Telephone Survey of 1,200 Canadians, MoE ± 2.9%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Our tracking polls allow for a daily barometer on the activities of the respective campaigns. Longitudinal tracking charts on all measures can be found at the SES website at www.sesresearch.com.

All values in parenthesis are changes from our first day of tracking on December 1, 2005.

Canada Decided Voters (Tracking ended January 3, 2006)

CP 36% (+7)
LIB 33% (-4)
NDP 15% (NC)
BQ 13% (-1)
GP 4 (-1)

*17% of Canadians were undecided (+1)

In Quebec

BQ 52% (+2)
LIB 27% (-3)
CP 12% (+3)
NDP 6% (NC)
GP 3% (-3)

*20% of Quebecers were undecided (+9)

In Ontario

CP 39% (+6)
LIB 38% (-4)
NDP 16% (-2)
GP 7% (+2)

*15% of Ontarians were undecided (-5)

Outside Quebec

CP 43% (+6)
LIB 34% (-5)
NDP 17% (-2)
GP 5% (+1)

*16% of Canadians outside Quebec were undecided (-1)

Best PM

Martin 26% (-3)
Harper 25% (+4)
Unsure 18% (+1)
Layton 12% (-2)
None 10% (-2)
Duceppe 7% (+1)
Harris 2% (NC)



Leadership Index [Daily composite of the Leaders’ Trust, Competence and Vision]*

Martin 68 (-8)
Harper 65 (+2)
Layton 47 (+8)
Duceppe 26 (NC)
Harris 6 (-3)

* Change for this measure is from yesterday’s composite score.

Backed in a corner.... Let's see what happens.

Better go fire up that vaunted "Liberal Election Machine" that PET mused about in his Memoirs.

A. pprehensive Liberal.

CTV has posted an article on their website about the Con's attack ads...

Read here you'll see.

Not bad.

A.L.

Is there still doubt? Dan Cook called the CPC negative ads "real"

If there is still doubt out there on the veritas of the CPC's negative ads... Dan Cook has called them 'real' in his blog on the Globe and Mail website.

Take that doubting connies!

You thought we in the Liberal blogosphere had made these up Dan Rather-style (alleged).

Cream on the top of the sundae.... the Conservative Party's website now has the ad online.

A.L.

Truth cannot hide!

Found it.....

Liberal 4 Life captured it from the TSN broadcast, or at least his site has a copy captured from the TSN broadcast....

You need realplayer to watch it.

Enjoy.

A.L.

Black Helicopters and the Catcher in the Rye

Aliens abducted me....

The link from the previous post that contained the negative CPC ad is now not working....

I am investigating.

A.L.

A doozy of a negative Conservative ad.... Negative is almost an understatement!

Apparently this Conservative Ad ran on TSN today at approximately 4:30pm eastern (hat-tip to Jason Cherniak's CTV Election blog.

To call it a negative attack ad could be the understatement of the year! Of course, it is only January 2nd!

Anyhow... if this is a true ad, they will have beat the Liberals to the negative-airwaves. After claiming that the Liberals were the ones who would be going negative....

Curiously, the ad above is not on the list of ads on the Conservative Party website. How come?

Could it be they are not proud of it? Could it be considered legally slanderous? I am not a lawyer so I can't make that call but it sure is a mean-spirited attack ad. It is almost as if Karl Rove had something to do with it.

Now, all that said, I did not view the ad on the TSN broadcast myself. I have only watched it online so I cannot attest to the fact that it did in fact appear on broadcast TV.

There are some industrious and technologically advanced folks out there who really dislike Harper, so I am not completely ruling out the possibility this is a farce.

If it is not, and a major media outlet picks it up... this could erase much of the Tory poll-gains of the past few days.

Watch for updates.....

A.L.